First, I am by no means a young earth creationist or whatever they're called and I believe the earth has been here a lot longer than 6k years. That said, with my admitedly limited knowledge, I'm not too sure about the accuracy of dating methods. It seems the farther back we go in time, the longer a particular species was around. Some species of dinos were around millions of years, some of their ancestors, even longer. A LOT of species seem to have come and gone in a few thousand years each since then. Wouldn't survival of the fittest tend to make species that were capable of surviving for longer, not shorter, periods of time?
IP: Logged
01:11 AM
DRH Member
Posts: 2683 From: Onalaska, WI, USA Registered: Dec 1999
Well, I guess I was correct. same arguments with diferent twists and turns. Just recapped the entire thread, and I think that just for the hell of it, when I find something to the effect, I will start a thread called "religious battlefield" just to see how far the thread gets. This could be a good experiment, if i could find other threads to start, and see how far they get, and track where threads bend. this has to be one of the biggest twists I have seen in a while. We went from a childrens movie,(BTW has anyone seen it? reviews? kids still want to see it)all the way to formation of religious belifes. It's amazing how interpitation and, as I call it, the "Lemming effect," can draw a conversation so far off topic. Sorry, just observing out loud, thought it was neat. later, Myke
BTW the best threads are the ones that evolve on their own in a stream of consciencness sorta way - I started one a while back 'the earth sucks' It was a one line pun about gravity
and it went on for weeks and turned into a deep discussion of physics.
You cant plan these threads - they happen.
IP: Logged
03:51 PM
DRH Member
Posts: 2683 From: Onalaska, WI, USA Registered: Dec 1999
Long threads, and sometimes short ones, start taking on the same characteristics as a normal conversation with several people involved. Most conversations take several twists and turns and all of a sudden you are talking about something that has NOTHING to do with what you were talking about just minutes before.
IP: Logged
04:25 PM
JSocha Member
Posts: 3522 From: Felton, MN, USA Registered: Apr 2001
Originally posted by Mach10: ...we can only realistically go back about 50k years...
Out of the "millions of years" often quoted, that's a LOT more than 5% lee-way. And what makes you CERTAIN that the "50K years" is REALLY 50K years? Science bases the scale on consistent conditions, and there's MUCH more info supporting an ever-changing atmosphere on this planet, than a consistent one. (Ice age, anyone? How about ferns at the poles?) So science's "assumptions" are bound to be WAY off...
quote
We DO have empirical evidence to support that C-14 DOES work that far back...
And, who is the 50,000 year old dude telling you that you're right? Rings of trees? What if trees didn't always produce 1 ring a year? What if they produced 10, due to different seasons/conditions than we have now? No empiracle evidence can go beyond recorded history, and that's a fact.
quote
Now, we DO have hard data that says that the world is AT MINIMUM 50,000 years old, based on the fact that we can clearly look back that far with absolute certainty...
absolute certainty? Like that the Earth is flat? And that it's the cneter of the universe? And that gazing at entrails or egg yolks can tell you the future? These were all 100% accepted "scientific" methods/beliefs at one time or another...
quote
I can say with reasonable certainty that this dinosaur bone is 4.5 million years old...
How?! Based on what, exactly? Carbon dating? Again, what if the Earth's conditions have been in the past significantly different than now?
quote
The problem with using a manuscript vs. a measuring device? 1 SINGLE ERROR renders the entire document invalid...
Uh, OK...tell that to Congress. The Constitution STILL states that a slave is 1/3 of a man.
quote
the bible says that "THIS HAPPENED AT THIS TIME" So if it's even a year off, then it throws everything out the window...
See above. And who's to say it IS off? What if out measurements are wrong? We didn't even have a properly-working CANENDAR until within the last 150 years!
quote
Now, There isn't any "control" for both arguments, I will concede...
OK
quote
But Science has the upper hand...
That is simply bias, and I'll ignore it in this discussion. No different than my saying "the Bible has the upper hand, because it was written by the Guy who Created everything; so He'd know. You won't accept mine, so I cannot in good faith accept yours.
quote
MANY MANY different BUT CONSISTANT techniques give us the information. The Bible is hardly empirical...
A little bias here again, BUT...Again, if climate/etc were different, your methods would give consistently wrong data, due to the assumption science makes about global consistency.
quote
Were YOU there when it was written, and did YOU supervise each one of it's translations/copying?...
Originally posted by Return of Fiero: .... Just recapped the entire thread, and I think that just for the hell of it, when I find something to the effect, I will start a thread called "religious battlefield" just to see how far the thread gets..... Myke
You wouldn't, would you??
IP: Logged
08:41 PM
Mattyman Member
Posts: 584 From: Jeannette, Pa Registered: Sep 2001
Every year the moon moves away from the Earth 1 inch from the gravitational pull and stuff. If the Earth is supposidly the billions of years they think it is that means that umm, how can I explain it, the moon would be rubbing up against the surface of the earth. It would even be closer than that which means that it couldnt happen(its impossible). Its figured out with the distance between them, the billions of years they say and also how far the moon moves from the earth and how fast. It just doesn't fit together that the earth is billions of years old.
the moon is not a natural sattelite, it's too big... so obviously we "acquired" it sometime in the past... no one said it's been here as long as the earth has.
Originally posted by DaRkLoRD: the moon is not a natural sattelite, it's too big... so obviously we "acquired" it sometime in the past... no one said it's been here as long as the earth has.
AGE OF MOON SAME AS EARTH 4.6 BILLION YEARS BOTH
DON'T KNOW WHERE MATTYMAN GOT THAT NUMBER BUT PROVES WHAT???? NOTHING IS FOREVER AND YOU DON'T KNOW WHERE IT STARTED FROM OR IF RATES CHANGE OVER TIME AND THE MOON IS FALLING NOT LEAVING BUT DON'T WORRY IT WILL TAKE AWILE YET.
------------------ Question wonder and be wierd
[This message has been edited by ray b (edited 11-30-2001).]
IP: Logged
11:13 PM
avengador1 Member
Posts: 35467 From: Orlando, Florida Registered: Oct 2001
I hope I don't open another can of worms. I believe that everyone has the right to believe what they want to believe, proof or no proof. Isn't that why it is called faith. I don't believe in putting others down because of their religion. I believe that we all pray to the same deity wether he be called budha, krisna, jehova, allah, or whatever. This was this powers way of communicating to the diffenrent people it encountered at different times(we don't know if god is male or female and it would be presumptuos of us to assign a gender to a supreme being that has no need for gender). I don't believe in taking religion to extremes, but for some people this seems to work. Look at the amish for example. How they shun "all" technology. They still don't live like cavemen. The bottom line is to each his own. This world would be a lot better place if we could all just get along. As to Harry Potter I took my ten year old son to see it. He has all the books and has read them about four times each. He knows it's only fantasy and it gets him to read(his reading level is several classes ahead). How many books can claim the same thing? The movie was pretty good, not the best I've seen, but entertaining. My son said it followed the book very closely. Aren't we allowed to fantasize and dream. If we couldn't man would not be where he is now. He would still be picking berries and scratching his rear end, living in a cave.
First of all, I would like to appologize. My Anthro teacher cuffed me one for saying 4.5 million year old Dino-bone... Try 450 Million... My bad :D 4.5Million years is the date commonly associated with Australopithicus Afarensis... Lucy :)
But I digress:
quote
Out of the "millions of years" often quoted, that's a LOT more than 5% lee-way. And what makes you CERTAIN that the "50K years" is REALLY 50K years? Science bases the scale on consistent conditions, and there's MUCH more info supporting an ever-changing atmosphere on this planet, than a consistent one. (Ice age, anyone? How about ferns at the poles?) So science's "assumptions" are bound to be WAY off...
Not sure I understand... 50k is more than 5% of 4.5 million? Forgive me if I misunderstand :) While ever-changing evironment dynamics are a part of our earth, it isn't THAT variable. But I'm not talking about atmospheric changes. In the case of C-14 dating, the uptake is variable based on conditions OUTSIDE the earth's atmosphere... It's cosmic rays that make C nice and heavy, and unstable. Besides, like I said, we get all sorts of OTHER dating tools. One, which I haven't mentioned in detail is U-T dating... Based on a set level of Uranium uptake that redeposits on tooth enamel, and bone structures. While not as precise as C-14 (gives dates within 10s of years, not single years, due to slow metabolic rate of calcious structures.) it's only limitation is that you need to find some teeth, or bone mass dense enough. BUT, the important part is that it almost always corraborates with the resulting C-14 dates.
Doesn't matter which way you twist things... There *IS* organic matter which is MILLIONS of years old.. Not just thousands. Sure, we can be off a few hundred thousand, but the point is that they are STILL millions of years old. Exact BFP dates are irrelevant. Who cares what day this creature died? It died MILLIONS of years ago...
Now, science doesn't base ANYTHING on the assumption that everything is constant. Far from it (and I'm sorry if I made it seem so). Science bases theories on the assumption that things DO change, and that they change in reasonably consistant ways. For example, the earth RARELY just decides to rotate S-N 60º... It DOES happen though. It's called axial wobble. :)
But certain things remain constant (in the scope of the desired data). The earth was STILL orbiting the sun (and being bombarded with radiation), The Atmosphere STILL contained certain gasses (although the exact composition changes based on climates/ecology), and gravity STILL affects things.
However, I do accept the possibility that there is a being that can and probably DID change that. But why the hell would He go about depositing Dinosaur bones? God wouldn't deliberately try to move us OFF the path? Or maybe the "path" was laid out to a PRIMITIVE culture with no way of understanding the true nature of things? We aren't doing anyone any favors by remaining stupid.
Iceage: Yes, LOTS of them. Doesn't change a thing, except for kilometers-thick ice-ridges and desert climate Ferns: Continental drift. It's been MEASURED. Axial wobble. The earth HAS changed poles.
How do I know this? I don't. But we find EVIDENCE. Your particular route flaunts it's LACK of evidence....
No, NOT just rings of TREES... Rings of SPECIFIC trees, ones that *DO* Create ONE ring per year... Well, ok... Not per YEAR... Per growing Cycle... To get 10 rings, you'd need to have a "winter" every 3 weeks... Uh, No. The trees would DIE... It's possible to have a growing season that spans years, yes. In that case, you'd have 1 ring for 10 years... That WOULD skew things... BUT IN THE OTHER DIRECTION :)
Ok, fine. What about recorded history that predates anything relevant to your culture's roots? We've got Mesopotamian records up the wazu from well beyond 4000BC... If only we could figure out what the hell they mean, other than shopping lists :D You don't need to be a state-level society to record stuff. Currently, I'm studying cultures that have been around for 15k years... Again, if the bible is WRONG about 6000 years, why not anything else?
Yes, Absolutely certain. Just like the Pancake world. But when someone PROVES otherwise (i.e., DOESN'T fall off the edge) then I'll believe different... What's your point? :) SHOW me that the crap that I've held in my hands was NOT in fact 15k years old. Well, according to 4 independant dating techniques... Give or take a hundred years :o
My bad... 450million, minimum :) Carbon dating, Stratigraphic dating, U-T dating, K-dating... Take your pick. C-14 is the ONLY one that is affected in ANY way by the atmostphere... The only way you can change U-T dates is by moving to a different planet, or giving the poor beast a chunk of Thorium or Uranium for breakfast...
Constituition? Uh, WHOLE different animal. You don't use a constituition to date anything, or record what's going on. I was talking in terms of using a manuscript as a HISTORICAL reference. If part of it is obviously fiction, how can you expect to use the rest? The slave = 1/3 human wasn't FICTION, it was an opinion which was entered into the law-books. It didn't have any supporting evidence other than people didn't like slaves.
Fair enough... Assume our calender's are wrong, and that we've been running 2 weeks short for the past 3k years... What does that mean? We're 3.4% off... What's your point? I STILL say that the world is older than 6k years... Give or take 3.4%
No, it's not a bias. You are pulling from ONE source, I am getting it from MULTIPLE sources... I have more evidence. You are using the means as evidence for the end... Not a good argument :D
Again, Science makes NO assumptions to consistancy. Our means don't give WRONG data, they give inprecise data. To put it in a metaphor, the bible throws one dart, and declares that where it lands is the bulls-eye. Science looks at the target, and throws hundreds of darts. They all land at around the same part. Science looks back and says, "Well, we aren't sure that we've hit the bullseye, but every one of our darts scores, and they are in the same place. :)
Last point: lol... Fair enough... He WAS supposed to have written it, right? But take in consideration that this same manuscript has been tossed around for thousands of years. It WAS responsible for the Inquisition. and act that YOU have decried as :bs:... Ok, so who wrote the book that said it was OK? Who cut it out later, and who's made sure that no-one's been fncking with it since?
Keep 'em coming, Triad :D
Matty: *OR* a huge fncking meteor hit the planet in it's early stages, and that big chunk has been drifting away since?
*OR* it's ALWAYS been there, but took a direct hit from a behemoth asteroid... Plenty of craters to substantiate that. What if one hit it, knocked it loose, and it's been drifting since?
*OR* When the earth was a large dust-ball, and the moon was formed from it (for whatever reason) and it has been moving away from the planet due to solar gravitation? If you know anything about gravitational pull, you'll know that it is an exponential vector. 1000 years ago, it may have only been moving 1/2" away per year?
There's LOTS of explanations. However, not much proof... We don't have that technology YET. But there are PLENTY of viable explanations :)
This is GREAT folks! Hop in! Join the fray! Just NO NAME-CALLING! :D
TIDE CAUSES DRAG ON EARTH AND SLOWS SPIN OF EARTH, THAT AND OTHER FACTORS ALLSO SLOW DOWN THE MOON SPEED IN ORBIT. AND AFTER A VERY LONG TIME MOON AND EARTH WILL FALL TOGETTER IN TO EACH OTHER AS A RESULT OF THIS DRAG. THINGS FALL DOWN NOT UP TOWARDS NOT AWAY!!!
------------------ Question wonder and be wierd
IP: Logged
01:05 AM
DRH Member
Posts: 2683 From: Onalaska, WI, USA Registered: Dec 1999
What if God was really an alien civilization with a Genesis device similar to the one on Star Trek 3(?). If this device, using science we can only dream about not magic, forced the evolution of the earth in a condensed time (4.5 billion = 7 days maybe ), wouldn't the resulting evidence make it appear it took 4.5 billion years?
Just something to think about...
Personally I don't think the Bible is meant to be taken this literally. Ray b is close when he says fairy tales, but I believe fables would be more accurate. A lot of it (maybe all of it) is telling a fictional story but it's using that story to reveal an underlying truth.
IP: Logged
02:05 AM
PFF
System Bot
frontal lobe Member
Posts: 9042 From: brookfield,wisconsin Registered: Dec 1999
Luke 3 contains Jesus' genealogy through Mary. You just have to go back a little further to Luke 2 to see it's talking about Mary.
When you the see "the son" in italics, it means the translators added the words to make it more readable in English.
In Jesus case in Luke 3:23 it talks about Jesus, which was of Heli. Heli was Mary's father, Jesus' grandfather. His great grandfather was MatthaT, not the Matthan of Joseph's genealogy.
Joseph and Mary weren't first cousins. They had common ancestors from Adam to king David, and the genealogies are identical to that point. But then Joseph comes from David and Bathsheba (Solomon's parents) and the cursed line (Jeconiah). Mary comes from David and I can't remember which of his other wives, through Solomon's half-brother Nathan.
If people have any interest in this kind of thing, Matthew was Jewish and wrote about Jesus as the King. So the genealogy is from Joseph and the progression back to his kingly line.
Luke was a gentile. He focuses on Jesus' being a man. So the genealogy is Mary's (his human form from Mary, his God form from his virgin birth by the Holy Spirit).
Again, I'm not trying to make anyone believe it, I'm just relaying what it says.
To avengador, this is not a flame. You bring up a good point. You can have faith, proof or no proof. I just wanted to point out that the "no proof" faith is blind faith. There is plenty of proof what the Bible says is true, verifiable by science and secular history, so doesn't require the blind kind of faith. Just a clarification because that is what some people mistakenly think.
Finally, I just wanted to thank all of you who have participated in the thread for not jumping down my throat or flaming me. I appreciate that we have been able to just discuss this as friends, which is how I consider you all.
Thanks.
IP: Logged
02:11 AM
Cheever3000 Member
Posts: 12398 From: The Man from Tallahassee Registered: Aug 2001
Originally posted by DRH: A lot of it (maybe all of it) is telling a fictional story but it's using that story to reveal an underlying truth.
The history of the Jews and the life of Christ and the early Church is a "fictional story"???
What's so hard to accept about the Bible? People go after all kinds of stranger things, some changing what they believe from week to week, but won't try enough faith to just believe it's what it says it is.
And what's so bad about what it says? The hope we can have, the inner peace, victory over circumstances, a constant companion who supplies all you need, a protector who is able to do virtually anything, promise of happiness in the next life. That sounds pretty good to me. And if it's all wrong? Then the end will be the same anyway. If it's right, then I'll be glad I didn't miss it.
But what is so hard about it, and so wrong about it to many people, is that it points out our imperfections, the darkness within us, the need we have to be rescued by admitting our inability to rescue ourselves, to have complete faith and dependence on someone else. We don't like to hear that. We don't want to believe there's something wrong with us, that we can't pull ourselves up by our own bootstraps and fix it without help.
We all want a logical explanation for things, but it ain't happening. You gotta have faith in something. The world we see is not all there is, most people believe that much. I believe what we don't see is more real than what we do see. If you agree with that, then throw logic out the window, cause it won't help you figure out all the immense Truth that is beyond us. Grab some faith and hold onto it. And the Bible points out the best place, IMO, to put our faith. Even more than that, many of us come to a point of believing it's the ONLY place that satisfies our purpose. We get hated by people who won't tolerate such "arrogance", but you do what you gotta do and I'll do what I gotta do. After all, the Jews for example have always been a small percentage of the world's population, and the rest of the populace hated them for saying they were God's people. So it's to be expected.
By this, I'm not meaning to say "this is what you must believe or [whatever]", I'm just asking: what's so hard, so bad, about trying a belief in the literal teachings of the Bible? I've found it to be, well, not just good, but everything. My reactions to what goes on in life are so much different than if I didn't see it from this viewpoint. Nobody is given all the answers to all the questions, but we can have satisfaction that it's going to be alright. And that's enough for me.
BUT MODERN JEWS TRACE WHO IS A JEW BY THE BIRTH MOTHER IF MOM IS A JEW CHILD IS JEWISH DAD DOESNOT MATTER FUNNIE GENTILE DOES IT BY JEWISH WAY AND JEW USED THE DADS HISTORY IN BIBLE. I STILL READ JOSEPH SON OF HELI OR JOSEPH'S FATHER WAS HELI IN ALL 5 VERSIONS I HAVE AND NO FOOT NOTES ON THIS ABOUT THAT LUKE 3-23
------------------ Question wonder and be wierd
IP: Logged
02:53 AM
Cheever3000 Member
Posts: 12398 From: The Man from Tallahassee Registered: Aug 2001
Originally posted by Cheever3000: [QUOTE]Originally posted by ray b: [b]BUT MODERN JEWS TRACE WHO IS A JEW BY THE BIRTH MOTHER IF MOM IS A JEW CHILD IS JEWISH DAD DOESNOT MATTER
I could be wrong, but I thought if either parent was a Jew, then the child is a Jew.
[/B][/QUOTE]
LAW OF RETURN TO GET IN TO HOLYLAND AS A RETURNING JEW YOUR MOM MUST BE A JEW JEWISH DAD IS NOT A AUTOMATIC PASS UNDER LAW OF RETURN MOM IS. NO i AM NOT A JEW BUT FEMALE FAMILY MEMBER MARRIED A JEW AND KIDS ARE NOT "LAW OF RETURN" COVERED WAS SAID BY THEM.
IP: Logged
03:44 AM
Mach10 Member
Posts: 7375 From: Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada Registered: Jan 2001
Originally posted by Cheever3000: [QUOTE]Originally posted by ray b: [b]BUT MODERN JEWS TRACE WHO IS A JEW BY THE BIRTH MOTHER IF MOM IS A JEW CHILD IS JEWISH DAD DOESNOT MATTER
I could be wrong, but I thought if either parent was a Jew, then the child is a Jew.
[/B][/QUOTE]
No, I think Ray's right... Though I couldn't tell you where I heard that. I'll ask some Jewish friends next time I see 'em... I know a few Orthodox Jews
Cheever: There is PLENTY in the bible that is verifiable by AT LEAST Historical records. At the VERY worst, the archaeological record proves the existance of ALL the cities at Jesus' times, and that the rulers truly existed. Historical records also jibe with the Bible. Not *ALL* of it (at the worst) was just pulled out of air.
Now, the only part that falters slightly is the creation myths, and some of the old-testaments... Firstly, WAY too over-simplified. Secondly, Timespan is far too short. But other than that, it makes perfect sense. I'll never argue that the bible is a steaming pile of . My argument lies SOLELY in the fact that a good portion of the old testament should --given what we know-- probably be taken metaphorically. Yes, God created the earth. Concievably in 7 God-Days. He created all life. Possibly out of clay. *OR* he did all that by manipulating atoms and molecules... Which do you think would have been easier (and more likely to be passed on PROPERLY)? A detailed atom-by-atom description of the DNA molecule? Or a MASSIVE simplification that a stone-age tribe would be able to a) understand and b) pass on easily?
My personal view is that God didn't trust us with the exact information about how stuff works. So, he over-simplified to protect us. He knew that in time we'd figure it out for ourselves, but that in the mean time, we'd need guidance from an all-powerful being. But you can't have an all-powerful being that DIDN'T at least have a hand in creating the earth. So, he wrote Genesis to instil the appropriate sense of Awe, and to give people an understanding (no matter how primitive) of the world around them.
At THIS point in time, knowledge is the path to enlightenment. How are we POSSIBLY bettering ourselves by IGNORING the world around us? There is MUCH to be learned from the past. Why dismiss it as being impossible? If God is in EVERYTHING, then how are we doing wrong by trying to FIND him?
Cheever, Some of the bible is written in obvious parables. As was pointed out, some of it has verifiable facts. My point was that instead of getting caught up in whether or not something really happened I think people should worry more about the point of a particular story.
Just because the grasshopper and the ant never had a conversation doesn't mean it's not a good idea to be prepared for lean times... Nor does it mean the author of the story is not who it's claimed to be.
Originally posted by Mach10: ...It [the Bible] WAS responsible for the Inquisition. and act that YOU have decried as ... Ok, so who wrote the book that said it was OK? Who cut it out later, and who's made sure that no-one's been fncking with it since?...
Um, how was the Bible responsible for the Inquisitions? Or the Crusades? Or the Civic War? Or the price of Beans in China?
NO ONE said it was OK. Certainly not God.
PEOPLE did the aforementioned acts, and they were in direct conflict with the Bible. The Bible says "do not kill" and "love your enemies" and "forgive as you have been forgiven". Now, it also says "Go into all the world and make disciples of all men...", NEVER does it say "Waste your enemies and crush the world into submission of Me". That's simply laughable. No one found a passage saying "Hold the Inquisitions" or "Fight the Cursades", then removed it later when thry realised what bone-head moves they were.
I've been careful not to slander science, you could do the same with the Bible. I realise you disagree with it, and that's fine, just try to remain professional...
Originally posted by ray b: TIDE CAUSES DRAG ON EARTH AND SLOWS SPIN OF EARTH, THAT AND OTHER FACTORS ALLSO SLOW DOWN THE MOON SPEED IN ORBIT. AND AFTER A VERY LONG TIME MOON AND EARTH WILL FALL TOGETTER IN TO EACH OTHER AS A RESULT OF THIS DRAG. THINGS FALL DOWN NOT UP TOWARDS NOT AWAY!!!
Reminds me of the time Jane & I went to McDonald Observatory in SW Texas. They had a special program going about the sun & said it would die out in about 5 billion(don't quote me on that, it's been a long time) years. She's been worried about it ever since, wanting to know what WE are going to do about it. Like finding another solar system to move to. I'm afraid to tell her about the moon's impending collision with the earth.
IP: Logged
12:03 PM
PFF
System Bot
JSocha Member
Posts: 3522 From: Felton, MN, USA Registered: Apr 2001
Originally posted by TRiAD: Um, how was the Bible responsible for the Inquisitions? Or the Crusades? Or the Civic War? Or the price of Beans in China?
NO ONE said it was OK. Certainly not God.
PEOPLE did the aforementioned acts, and they were in direct conflict with the Bible. The Bible says "do not kill" and "love your enemies" and "forgive as you have been forgiven". Now, it also says "Go into all the world and make disciples of all men...", NEVER does it say "Waste your enemies and crush the world into submission of Me". That's simply laughable. No one found a passage saying "Hold the Inquisitions" or "Fight the Cursades", then removed it later when thry realised what bone-head moves they were.
I've been careful not to slander science, you could do the same with the Bible. I realise you disagree with it, and that's fine, just try to remain professional...
My bad... Wrong wording... What I meant was that the Bible as indirectly responsible for all that ill $|-|!T that happened in the middle ages. Like it or not, it was ALL done in Jesus' name
Whether or not God/Jesus condones it is irrelevant. The fact is that Christianity had a FEILD day with those ones... The same can be said for the (slightly) more modern Salem Witch Trials.
The counterpoint to this is that main text that presided over the events was the Malleus Malefacorum However, if you've read it, you'll know that it is stuffed with Bible quotes taken (more or less) WAY out of context...
Originally posted by Mach10: ...My bad... Wrong wording... What I meant was that the Bible as indirectly responsible for all that ill $|-|!T that happened in the middle ages. Like it or not, it was ALL done in Jesus' name Whether or not God/Jesus condones it is irrelevant.
So...if I start a "Mach10" cult and go out killing all the red-headed male babies I find, and do it in your name, that makes you somehow responsible? ...You can do better than that...
Originally posted by TRiAD: So...if I start a "Mach10" cult and go out killing all the red-headed male babies I find, and do it in your name, that makes you somehow responsible? ...You can do better than that...
Pretty much... Especially if you said that *I* had coerced you into doing it...
Again, like it or lump it, there were a LOT of christians doing some pretty nasty things in the Lord's name. I don't condone it, don't like it, but there it is. SOMETHING managaed to convince hundreds of thousands to people to run around making cartwheels from human bodies, and to burn midwives and herbologists...
IP: Logged
02:57 PM
Mach10 Member
Posts: 7375 From: Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada Registered: Jan 2001
Originally posted by TRiAD: What it comes down to is this; man has been given free will. (no, not Free Willy)
No one is responsible for man's actions except himself.
Yep But it's neat how mob-mentality easily erases that. Take a group of people, find the LOWEST IQ of the people there, and divide by people present. That's the intelligence of the group
I saw a program on the tube that said the Salem witch trials may have been due to a form of food poisoning that would have caused people to both have seizures and to hallucinate.
The people of that time had no frame of referece by which to understand what was happening to them, except to blame it on witchcraft.
I also heard the people in the middle ages used lead dishes and goblets - many of them may have sufferred from lead poisiong, which basically makes you stupid and unable to think clearly. This could be the reason behind the inquisioin and the crusades - the rulers were all brain damaged!
In either case, religion would have nothing to do with what happened - It was simply the frame of reference in which they lived. When you are going insane, hallucinating and haveing sezures it doesnt matter if you are religious or scientific or what. Try explaining to a person with alzhimers that they have a mental problem - they dont believe you - they think you are trying to trick them and they become angry and violent.
IP: Logged
03:15 PM
Mach10 Member
Posts: 7375 From: Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada Registered: Jan 2001
Originally posted by Ken Wittlief: I saw a program on the tube that said the Salem witch trials may have been due to a form of food poisoning that would have caused people to both have seizures and to hallucinate.
The people of that time had no frame of referece by which to understand what was happening to them, except to blame it on witchcraft.
I also heard the people in the middle ages used lead dishes and goblets - many of them may have sufferred from lead poisiong, which basically makes you stupid and unable to think clearly. This could be the reason behind the inquisioin and the crusades - the rulers were all brain damaged!
In either case, religion would have nothing to do with what happened - It was simply the frame of reference in which they lived. When you are going insane, hallucinating and haveing sezures it doesnt matter if you are religious or scientific or what. Try explaining to a person with alzhimers that they have a mental problem - they dont believe you - they think you are trying to trick them and they become angry and violent.
I had to do the Salem trials for a term paper... While the food-poisoning WAS a possibility, going over land-documents suggests that the "witches" were simply occupying space that was desired for farming. I.E., people were calling "witch" after the "witch" refused to sell out their land. There's more evidence to promote a political side of things, rather than a pharmaceutical base. HOWEVER, the point stands. Religion had very little to do with it, other than providing the Excuse. My question is, Given all the rest that is in the Bible, why doesn't it protect itself (and it's followers) from this sort of thing?
Originally posted by Mach10: ...My question is, Given all the rest that is in the Bible, why doesn't it protect itself (and it's followers) from this sort of thing?
That reminds me, what were we talking about?
. My argument lies SOLELY in the fact that a good portion of the old testament should --given what we know-- probably be taken metaphorically. Yes, God created the earth. Concievably in 7 God-Days. He created all life. Possibly out of clay. *OR* he did all that by manipulating atoms and molecules... Which do you think would have been easier (and more likely to be passed on PROPERLY)? A detailed atom-by-atom description of the DNA molecule? Or a MASSIVE simplification that a stone-age tribe would be able to a) understand and b) pass on easily?
...You can do better than that...
