Creating a Religion

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: nemo

I am glad you are well versed in the bible, that should help when I have questions.

So you hang around pool halls eh?

For the sake of continuity, I propose that we use the King James Version as a reference point, unless you prefer a different translation. This should reduce the number of 'kill vs. murder' misquotes or symantics battles.

Does this mean you are not going to pull the "original texts say" stuff? OK then. The ole KJV is no better or worse than the others. And most quotes I have saved are from it. Let me know if I accidently post some other version as I go along. Some are from old files.

 

I would also guess by your specific choice that the whole "I don't mean the biblical Creation" stuff was all just hookum?

My "in there somewhere" comment was a bit facetious - honestly not knowing where the ten commandments are and participating in this conversation would have revealed a level of stupidity that only my wife can attest to at the moment.

Well the bible does tell us to keep the women ignorant and ask the man if they need to know anything.

I have no problem doing my own research, but would appreciate a point of reference for your comments about baby smashing,

 

"Happy shall he be that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones" (Psalm 137:9)

 

It gets even more twisted when the biblical god says he is going to get his creation to it there own children

 

Jeremiah 19:9 And I will cause them to eat the flesh of their sons and the flesh of their daughters, and they shall eat every one the flesh of his friend in the siege and straitness, wherewith their enemies, and they that seek their lives, shall straiten them.

 

The book is scary!

wife killing,

Compared to eating your own kids, I guess this is a simple one!

 

Leviticus 21:9 And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire.

and the Koran.

The Cow

 

# [2.109] Many of the followers of the Book wish that they could turn you back into unbelievers after your faith, out of envy from themselves, (even) after the truth has become manifest to them; but pardon and forgive, so that Allah should bring about His command; surely Allah has power over all things.

# [2.191] And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers.

 

Note: In the Koran, Christians are referred to as "the followers of the Book". This is a direct order from the Koran to kill Christians "wherever you find them"

I noticed that you asked me if I was a Christian, as opposed to some other religion.

You exhibited identifyable traits of one. It was an easy guess.

Personally, I take issue with the practices of a number of formal religions (including some branches / denominations of Christianity)

Yes more of the noticable traits, particularly of specific types. Rejection of the others as "false followers".

- do you have a particular interest / dislike for Christianity that I should know about?

I have an interest in everything. As to Christinaity, I just post what I know about it and let it lay where it falls.

[IrishEyes]

You don't have to play the divider card.

 

If that's what you assumed I was doing, you were mistaken. Contrary to your opinion, not all Christians are looking to divide and conquer the world. Some of us would just like to peacefully coexist with the rest of you hell-bound heathens until the Rapture! (PLEASE know that I was smiling when I typed that, as I intend it as a tension breaking joke!!)

[IrishEyes]

Yes it is a common problem. We spend much time here trying to get it straightened out. Irsih refuses to accept the difference. She considers it nit picking to try to get people to usnderstand the difference and use appropriate termonology. I'm glad your on our side.

 

You're nothing if not predictable, FreeT.

 

I do not REFUSE to ACCEPT the difference. I have simply stated, repeatedly, that you and a few others waste an enormous amount of time correcting people on this particular topic, when you could be actually responding to the parts of their posts that were intended for response. Why waste time nit-picking terminology with people that are either not going to understand or not care about the difference in the words or phrases, ESPECIALLY when YOU already know what they mean even though they misuse words? It's like you type just to read your own responses or something. (ok, like we don't all do THAT, right?)

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: IrishEyes

Yes it is a common problem. We spend much time here trying to get it straightened out. Irsih refuses to accept the difference. She considers it nit picking to try to get people to usnderstand the difference and use appropriate termonology. I'm glad your on our side.

You're nothing if not predictable, FreeT.

There is a method to my madness yes. And that is part of my reply to the rest of your post.

Why waste time nit-picking terminology with people that are either not going to understand or not care about the difference in the words or phrases, ESPECIALLY when YOU already know what they mean even though they misuse words?

HISTORY, that is why. I know from history, repetition, over and over, time after time, that if I do not correct it in the beginning they are going to try and use it as a wedge later. If you allow errors in the very core issues in the beginning of the discussion, then it can never be straightened out later. "But you said earlier..."

 

It becomes easy to recognize which source a parrot is repeating once you catch a few key words or phrases. Just as I was able to predict nemo's Christianity from an obvious statement they made.

 

It is useless to try to discuss advancd areas of a topic when the other person doesn;t even understand what the discussion is about. And if they are "not going to understand" it anyway. We might as well identify it in front and offer the chance for them to learn from it. Rather than allow a continuation of the parrotted lies.

 

Am I getting predictable to you Irish?

 

Yes because we keep having the same type visitor that requires the same basic education over and over and over. To you it's repeats. To them it may be the first time they have had that level of education in it. Does a 3rd grade teacher change their curriculum every year because they already taught it to the last years class?

 

With nemo, we had the relatively unique situation in his already knowing such things. In fact he made a positive effort to stop the same error from coming from us. He obviously has a similar history of having to correct the mistake in front.

[IrishEyes]

FreeT,

I understand and appreciate your frustration, and I hope that you can understand and appreciate mine. I do not have a problem with teaching people, or with correcting their mistakes. My problem arises when correcting the misuse of a term (usually evolution for abiogenesis), takes up so much time, energy, and space, that the real point of the thread becomes lost. That seems to happen very often. Perhaps we could agree to 'compromise' on this one? Maybe you and Unc could come up with a post that could be inserted whenever someone misuses abiogenesis/evolution. You could simply post what the differences are, inform them of the correct terms, and then move on. Instead of bogging down the entire thread, just correct the mistake and then let it drop. I just don't see the point in beating a dead horse every time someone misuses a term.

 

I actually look forward to seeing you and Unc correct people on proper terminology, but I think it goes a bit far when pages are wasted on terms instead of the meat of the thread.

[Uncle Martin]

Irish,

I do NOT want to argue this point again,...however,....I must say that the only time I've noticed origin of life and evolution turning into a thread killer is when you come along and say it is alright to use the two terms interchangeably. The good folks we are correcting don't seem to mind a dose of truth. As I said, I don't wish to go "there" again with you,....but you may benefit from some introspection on this point. And I mean no disrespect or insulting connotations, this is simply how I see things.

 

You are of course encouraged to show me if I'm mistaken.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: IrishEyes

FreeT,

 

I understand and appreciate your frustration, and I hope that you can understand and appreciate mine. I do not have a problem with teaching people, or with correcting their mistakes.

Ya unless it involves correcting their mistakes about your god myth! We KNOW nothing can EVER be posted that can correct THAT mistake!

 

Believers ALWAYS draw lines. They have no choice.

My problem arises when correcting the misuse of a term (usually evolution for abiogenesis), takes up so much time, energy, and space, that the real point of the thread becomes lost.

There can be no "real point of the thread" if the termonology/ basic premise is wrong. Discussing why Evolution is wrong because it can not explain where the first cell came from, is just showing ignorance.

That seems to happen very often.

Yes, almost every time a new Creationist drops in. They bring their ignorance with them. We then have to spend our initial efforts in educating them before discussion can begin.

 

But once they see how little they atcually KNOW, how much they have to LEARN and ACCEPT before they can even enter the discussion FACTUALLY, they leave lest they are forced to change their stance after being faced with these FACTS.

Perhaps we could agree to 'compromise' on this one?

Such as allow what ever fallacies any poster wishes to spew around? Oh ya, that ought to help promote SCIENTIFIC discussions!

 

Allowing any and all nonsense uncritically would turn this into a Christian/ Creationist/ ID site instead of a Science site.

Maybe you and Unc could come up with a post that could be inserted whenever someone misuses abiogenesis/evolution.

Perhaps something like:

Get an education before wasting our time here!

I thought part of our being here was to be that source of education.

You could simply post what the differences are, inform them of the correct terms, and then move on.

If you check the Evolution thread catagory you will find thread after thread of exactly this. But each new Christian visitor starts the need over again. If they had been willing to accept a simple education of these facts, they would not be here supporting their anti-scientific nonsense in the first place.

Instead of bogging down the entire thread, just correct the mistake and then let it drop. I just don't see the point in beating a dead horse every time someone misuses a term.

Such as "Intellegent Design"? or "Creation Science"? We try to correct these "mistake(s)" all the time. Even after educating them, they don't "let it drop" except by leaving. How many have, after we educate them to proper termonology and science, acknowledge their errors? The only ones "beating a dead horse" are the Creationists.

I actually look forward to seeing you and Unc correct people on proper terminology, but I think it goes a bit far when pages are wasted on terms instead of the meat of the thread.

Ah but if the general pop would be educated enough for this to be possible. But as long as Creationists are out there trying to push their antiquated superstition into factual science fields we will all keep wasting our time and resources fighting this intentional promotion of ignorance.

[IrishEyes]

Unc said:

Irish,

I do NOT want to argue this point again,...however,....I must say that the only time I've noticed origin of life and evolution turning into a thread killer is when you come along and say it is alright to use the two terms interchangeably. The good folks we are correcting don't seem to mind a dose of truth. As I said, I don't wish to go "there" again with you,....but you may benefit from some introspection on this point. And I mean no disrespect or insulting connotations, this is simply how I see things.

 

You are of course encouraged to show me if I'm mistaken.

 

Thanks, Unc. I've thought about your post for a bit before responding, and I've tried not to get your reply mixed up with FreeT's, so that I can respond to the one that I feel has the most to offer me. As you are the one I'm addressing, I'll let you decide which response helped me most...

 

I've read through the "creator" thread quite often the past week, trying to find where it started to go wrong. I think we've all learned a few things from that thread, and from things that have come about as a direct result of that thread. In looking back on it and similar threads, I can see your point, from your perspective.

 

Personally, it bothers me when the terms are used interchangeably. I actually have no problem with you, or anyone else, using constructive criticism, or any other form of 'gentle education', to help someone see the difference between the two terms, if it really makes a difference to the thread, or to the point of discussion. If someone makes a statement that indicates they are basing their thought process on abiogenesis, yet they call it evolution, PLEASE correct them.

 

I guess what I really have a problem with is the way it is done in this forum. Instead of asking the person if they know of or understand the difference, or if they realize they are misusing a scientific term, they are attacked right off the bat. Certain people in this forum regularly take two or three words from a 100 or more word post and spend literally days (or extended or multiple posts) showing why this word or phrase is incorrect, usually leading them to conclude and state categorically that the entire post should be ignored. This exact thing happened in the "Creator" thread. Someone made an off-the-cuff remark that consisted of no more than 5 words, and those 5? words became the subject of multiple posts, but those 5? words were not even the main part of that person's post! I am only suggesting that you save your arguments for when it is actually an argument. Or start by asking the person to clarify, or define how they are using the terms. If they can not define the terms to your satisfaction, an 'education' is not only called for, but practically required.

[nemo]

Hello all,

 

I apologize for my absence. Unfortunately, my chosen profession doesn't allow for much notice before requiring travel or extended hours. I've read the posts on this thread since I've been gone – you've been busy.

 

 

 

HUP and Abiogenesis vs. Ardor and Faith

 

Perhaps my confusion originates with English comprehension; HUP and Abiogenesis are built upon probability – not certainty. Correct?

 

 

My understanding of HUP is that it has been an extremely useful foundation for many areas of science, but that if you cannot accurately measure the location of an electron 100% of the time – you must eventually have faith that it will be where you expect it to be. Abiogenesis proposes a number of exciting possibilities with regard to chemical interaction and the potential for creating truly unique life forms in a controlled environment; however, there are points at which I have questions about the mathematics and geography. You state that simple forms of life do in fact live near smokers on the ocean floor – I agree completely; simple forms of life exist all over this planet. You insist that abiogenesis could or did happen at these locations, but that it's not any more, and that I should have faith in your assumptions that something unknown broke this chain of events that must have happened the way you describe it. Perhaps you could describe the line between probability and faith in an expected result to me?

[nemo]

Bifurcation

 

 

First – nice word; it beats the hell out of the 'crotch theory', 'logical chromosome theory' or 'flip-a-coin theory'. As far as I know, with regard to the origin of life on this planet, there are only two theories. Ok, I'm ignorant – please educate me. Not that I need you to actually state the thousands of alternative theories you've referenced, but a starting point for additional research would be appreciated.

[nemo]

My Opinion

 

It is just YOU stating YOUR opinion...

Not much gets by you, does it? The phrase “I would think...” would lead me to believe this is my opinion as well. Thankfully, after only a brief argument with the other voices in my head, this was confirmed – this was indeed my opinion. You have now passed third grade grammar; I'll buy you a cookie when I get the time.

[Uncle Martin]

IrishEyes,

Well said,...and I agree. I for one will make an effort to be more patient. Thanks for taking the time to consider what could have easily been misinterpreted. Although the terminology discourse has been less than ideal,...it has turned out to be educational,...for me,... and everyone else I hope.

[nemo]

Esprit de corps

 

 

“I'm glad you're on our side.” Are we in Junior High now? Is the state championship on the line again? Do I have to take HomeEc again? Can I leave a note for myself to avoid whatsername after that party at Will's house during Senior year? Do we have to be on 'sides', or can we just ask questions and look for answers?

[nemo]

Barrier Voltages

 

Perhaps you can show us the biblical math for determining barrier voltages?

Nope, as you might recall from a previous post, I've already said I'm not a double-E. I hereby admit your superiority in the categories of Voltage, Amperes and any other energy that will make a housecat breakdance. Additionally, during my study of scripture, I failed to notice any description of the process for changing the plugs and hoses on my 1980 F100 – I suspect this could be part of a plot by all Christians and anyone else who does not use the word “hookum” to subvert the existence of Ford Motor Company. Dang lying Christians...

[nemo]

Selected Verses

 

 

 

Psalm 137

 

This Psalm discusses the plight of Israelites held captive. The “he” in verse 9 refers to God visiting the actions of the Babylonians upon themselves. This is part of the “Vengeance is Mine, sayeth the Lord” theme you might notice elsewhere in the Bible.

 

 

 

Jeremiah and Leviticus

 

Both of the verses you quote deal with the wrath of God for those who break His commandments. The folks in your selection from Jeremiah chose to wander through the Commandments and break them like campaign promises in the holiest place they could find – the temple. The woman in your quote from Leviticus was apparently working on a promising career as a mattress test pilot – not bad if your RIO is your spouse; decidedly incorrect if you're the neighborhood amusement park. Something that should probably be noted when reading the Old Testament – It's called God's Law, not God's Suggestion. People expect to be punished for double-parking, but not for committing murder, sleeping around or worshiping idols in the temple. Nice. Your selections also help to underscore the importance of Jesus to Christians. The release from Mosaic Law to Messianic Law is the fundamental difference between Christianity and Judaism.

 

 

 

Your quotes are certainly interesting, and definitely follow the “if it bleeds, it leads” mentality that serves our contemporary news media well, but they have a hard time standing on their own when you read more than the verse you quote. Please don't take this as a sign that I want you to stop quoting scripture, though – I'm actually enjoying your Bible study.

[nemo]

The Koran

 

I'll have to get back to you on this one – it's been far too long since I read any of the Koran to quote from memory, and I don't have one at hand.

 

 

 

Identifiable Traits of Christianity

 

Thank you.

 

 

 

Things that scare FT

 

This book is scary!

I would think Isaiah and Revelation would fall into that category for you, but I suppose the idea of negative consequences for specific actions (similar to modern law) are unsettling for some people, regardless of the source.

[nemo]

My knowledge of pool halls

 

 

1.She is not single – regardless of what she tells you.

 

2.The loud ones have brothers nearby

 

3.Little people carry weapons

 

4.If you've never seen him before, keep your money in your pocket