blueblood Posted September 5, 2012 Report Share Posted September 5, 2012 As long as we have people making crazy claims of 6000 year old earths and dinosaurs that walked among people, then we are going to have some intellectual beat-downs! I saw the tooth fairy yesterday. She gave me a quarter. This is true and you can't prove that it is not. So then we have some people are equal, some more equal than others. Outstanding. So only ideas you guys agree with should be expressed and to he'll with everyone else's. My point stands yet again. Why can't you guys let people express themselves? Why do they need to be brow-beaten? That's the slippery slope to what happened in Stalinist Russia Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted September 5, 2012 Report Share Posted September 5, 2012 No, the nonsense is brow beating Betsy because she believes in something and has an opinion. That is cowardly horse shit period end of sentence. She does not brow beat you for not believing, show some respect. Why should I? This is a discussion forum. Her 'opinion' is nonsense. Why should I just say that it's fine in this forum? They have every right to be in government and represent their constituents. If atheists don't like it, they can get people elected to advance their agenda. Politics is a bloodsport. Well, no, they don't have every right. We have a Constitution for a reason. Still, good public policy should have a sound basis. If you may remember, I'm not a big fan of populism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted September 5, 2012 Author Report Share Posted September 5, 2012 (edited) LOL the irony!! You keep claiming that we can't prove He doesn't exist.... Prove to me that God did not tell GW Bush to invade Iraq. Well you're talking two different things here. Yes it's true you can't prove He doesn't exist. But what's that got to do with the logic? Someone may think - and actually believe - that God is telling him to do atrocious things (like the guy who beheaded a Greyhound passenger (?) - but of course you've got to think about it. You just don't accept it as fact, that just because someone claims God told him to kill his mother, that therefore it was God who told him to do it. Do you believe easily? You don't use your better judgement? Followers of Christ would not readily believe such claims - especially when the result is contradictory to the teachings of Christ. How many times did He warn us some will use His name? If it's a contradiction to the teachings, more likely it is Satan talking - posing as God. Edited September 5, 2012 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted September 5, 2012 Report Share Posted September 5, 2012 So then we have some people are equal, some more equal than others. Outstanding. So only ideas you guys agree with should be expressed and to he'll with everyone else's. That the earth is billions of years old is not an opinion.... If you don't agree with that, then you are rather stupid. Why can't you guys let people express themselves? Why do they need to be brow-beaten? That's the slippery slope to what happened in Stalinist Russia It's an internet forum where people come to have lively debates. Some people are intellectually dishonest and have "opinions" that are contrary to facts. These people don't fare so well and, perhaps in the opinion of some, are brow beaten. However, some would say that their ideas/opinions are simply refuted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted September 5, 2012 Author Report Share Posted September 5, 2012 (edited) _Squid, on 05 September 2012 - 03:17 PM, said:Prove to me that God did not tell GW Bush to invade Iraq. Is your information about Bush, accurate? Or are you putting words in his mouth? Where does it say that George Bush said, "God told him to invade Iraq?" Cite. Edited September 5, 2012 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted September 5, 2012 Report Share Posted September 5, 2012 If it's a contradiction to the teachings, more likely it is Satan talking - posing as God. What if other gods that existed before the Christian god said in their holy books that any future god is false? Shouldn't we believe them, since they came first? Prove to me that your god is the only god... he certainly wasn't the first! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted September 5, 2012 Report Share Posted September 5, 2012 Why should I? This is a discussion forum. Her 'opinion' is nonsense. Why should I just say that it's fine in this forum? Well, no, they don't have every right. We have a Constitution for a reason. Still, good public policy should have a sound basis. If you may remember, I'm not a big fan of populism. It's credibility, if you want to be known as tolerant, let's see it. Right now, your just as intolerant as some of the others you get into exchanges with. I disagree with a lot of people, but they don't get a brow beating like people here are giving Betsy. It's classless and gutless. Who cares what she believes in? At the end of the day populism runs things. If people want change change comes, constitutions can be changed. Where does it say in the constitution that religious people can't hold office, last I checked anyone can hold office, and that means they get to advance their ideas no matter how dumb some people think they are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted September 5, 2012 Report Share Posted September 5, 2012 Is your information about Bush, accurate? Or are you putting words in his mouth? Where does it say that George Bush said, "God told him to invade Iraq?" Cite. It may have been a translation error, similar to many in the bible, from Arabic to English... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted September 5, 2012 Author Report Share Posted September 5, 2012 (edited) Why are you believing these people? Do you believe everything that you are told? Why not the Geneva Bible? This is their argument for this particular translation? THAT'S IT??? Didn't God tell someone??? Shouldn't He let someone know which bible to read??? This is hilarious! Can you tell us how the other translations have been disproved as God's word then??? LOL Well, why shouldn't I believe the scholars? Besides, I have confidence in it - it had shown me on numerous occasions that the Holy Spirit works in it. Like I said, It "talks!" Of course, you'd pooh-pooh this faith-part since you are a non-believer, which is understandable. But there are things that you - as a non-believer - will not understand. But just because you don't understand something, does not necessarily mean that it can't be true. Edited September 5, 2012 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted September 5, 2012 Report Share Posted September 5, 2012 It's credibility, if you want to be known as tolerant, let's see it. Right now, your just as intolerant as some of the others you get into exchanges with. I disagree with a lot of people, but they don't get a brow beating like people here are giving Betsy. It's classless and gutless. Who cares what she believes in? I care. I care because betsy makes it a point to care how others conduct their lives based on her beliefs. The brow beating with betsy doesn't only go one way anyway, so, I don't feel bad. At the end of the day populism runs things. If people want change change comes, constitutions can be changed. To a point. Populism hasn't really been a huge driving force in Commonwealth countries the way it has in the US, and to me, that's a good thing. Where does it say in the constitution that religious people can't hold office, last I checked anyone can hold office, and that means they get to advance their ideas no matter how dumb some people think they are. It says that they can't force religious ideas upon others. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted September 5, 2012 Report Share Posted September 5, 2012 Well, why shouldn't I believe the scholars? Because their reasoning is "no one has proven that KJV is not God's word" Where is it proven that the other versions of the bible are not god's word? This seems to be what they claim... Besides, I have confidence in it - it had shown me on numerous occasions that the Holy Spirit works in it. Like I said, It "talks!" Of course, you'd pooh-pooh this faith-part since you are a non-believer, which is understandable.But there are things that you - as a non-believer - will not understand. But just because you don't understand something, does not necessarily mean that it can't be true. Yes, I know... you have "faith". Prove Zeus is not real please..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted September 5, 2012 Report Share Posted September 5, 2012 :Militant atheists What's a militant atheist anyway? I don't believe in Odin, Thor, Shiva, or Zeus just the same as you. Take it one further and all of a sudden you're militant? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted September 5, 2012 Report Share Posted September 5, 2012 Yet they seemed quite happy to murder religious people and drive religion underground. Had it been despite atheism, wouldn't they not have driven religion underground and just killed people at random? They did it for political reasons, as has already been mentioned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted September 5, 2012 Report Share Posted September 5, 2012 Yes it's true you can't prove He doesn't exist. But what's that got to do with the logic? Uh...everything? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted September 5, 2012 Report Share Posted September 5, 2012 Well, why shouldn't I believe the scholars? Besides, I have confidence in it - it had shown me on numerous occasions that the Holy Spirit works in it. Like I said, It "talks!" Of course, you'd pooh-pooh this faith-part since you are a non-believer, which is understandable. But there are things that you - as a non-believer - will not understand. But just because you don't understand something, does not necessarily mean that it can't be true. This is called "confirmation bias." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted September 5, 2012 Report Share Posted September 5, 2012 It's credibility, if you want to be known as tolerant, let's see it. Right now, your just as intolerant as some of the others you get into exchanges with. Why should he tolerate ignorance? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melanie_ Posted September 6, 2012 Report Share Posted September 6, 2012 No, the nonsense is brow beating Betsy because she believes in something and has an opinion. That is cowardly horse shit period end of sentence. She does not brow beat you for not believing, show some respect. They have every right to be in government and represent their constituents. If atheists don't like it, they can get people elected to advance their agenda. Politics is a bloodsport. No one is brow beating Betsy. She starts thread after thread on the topic of Christianity, and people respond. This is a discussion forum, the point is to exchange views and ideas, and she is fully aware that many regular posters here do not believe in her religion. I do agree that everyone has a right to be in government, but the government has to represent all citizens, not just the majority. Some great thinker somewhere once said, "Democracy has to be something more than two wolves and a sheep sitting down to decide what's for dinner". It can't simply be that the majority wins - no one can be oppressed on the basis of the majority deciding to do so. That is my biggest concern with having religion influence politics... the religious right would take away individual rights (same sex marriage and the right to terminate a pregnancy being the most divisive) based on superstition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted September 6, 2012 Report Share Posted September 6, 2012 According to science, the universe is expanding, or "stretching out." There are at least 11 passages in the Bible written by five different authors that talked about God "stretching out the heavens," and all were made in the context of creation. http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=18914&st=90 Oh as to the "stretching" thing: seeing as how they were a bunch of primitive dirt-scrabblers, the people who wrote the early Bible didn't have a sophisticated view of the universe. They thought the sky was a giant piece of cloth-like material called the "firmament" which covered the earth like a dome and from which stars were affixed. So, when these translated passages talk about god "stretching" the heavens, they mean he's spreading it out like a blanket over the earth: they sure as hell aren't talking about the movement of matter and atoms across space. translation of "Firmament" The word "firmament" is used to translate raqia, or raqiya` ( רקיע), a word used in Biblical Hebrew. The connotation of firmness conveyed by the Vulgate's firmamentum is consistent with that of stereoma, the Greek word used in the Septuagint, an earlier translation. The notion of solidity is advanced explicitly in several biblical passages.[4]The original word raqia is derived from the root raqa ( רקע), meaning "to beat or spread out", e.g., the process of making a dish by hammering thin a lump of metal.[3][5] Raqa adopted the meaning "to make firm or solid" in Syriac, a major dialect of Aramaic (the vernacular of Jesus) and close cognate of Hebrew.[3] The firmament was imagined to be solid, and the word the ancients used to describe this "stretching" is the word they used to describe beating a lump of metal to a dish shape. But... (and this part is particularly applicable to Betsy...) Conservatives and fundamentalists tend to favor translations that allow scripture to be harmonized with scientific knowledge, for example "expanse".[6] This translation is used by the New International Version and by the English Standard Version. The New Revised Standard Version uses "dome", as in the Celestial dome. In short, when the old translation stops working for them, they just pick a new translation that works better. -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted September 6, 2012 Author Report Share Posted September 6, 2012 It may have been a translation error, similar to many in the bible, from Arabic to English... In other words, you made it up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted September 6, 2012 Author Report Share Posted September 6, 2012 (edited) translation of "Firmament" The firmament was imagined to be solid, and the word the ancients used to describe this "stretching" is the word they used to describe beating a lump of metal to a dish shape. But... (and this part is particularly applicable to Betsy...) In short, when the old translation stops working for them, they just pick a new translation that works better. -k Kimmy, don't fall in with Blackdog! He's out to lunch with his rebutt. You're both missing the point! We're not arguing whether the word "stretches or "stretching" was not the right translation for the word! Actually, your argument only helps my point that the Bible is really the Word of God! Because.... Whether it is or it is not the right translation....the fact of the matter is that the word, "stretches" or "stretching," still ended up appearing in the Bible! 11 times! In the right context! How is that??? Edited September 6, 2012 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted September 6, 2012 Author Report Share Posted September 6, 2012 (edited) Kimmy, don't fall in with Blackdog! He's out to lunch with his rebutt. You're both missing the point! We're not arguing whether the word "stretches or "stretching" was not the right translation for the word! Actually, your argument only helps my point that the Bible is really the Word of God! Because.... Whether it is or it is not the right translation....the fact of the matter is that the word, "stretches" or "stretching," still ended up appearing in the Bible! 11 times! In the right context! How is that??? The Publisher/Editor - which is the Creator/Designer - perhaps did some "editing?" Perhaps He said, "Hey, that translation doesn't quite explain what I want to describe. Here - use this word to describe it!" Edited September 6, 2012 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted September 6, 2012 Author Report Share Posted September 6, 2012 Black Dog, on 05 September 2012 - 01:50 PM, said: Oh as to the "stretching" thing: seeing as how they were a bunch of primitive dirt-scrabblers, the people who wrote the early Bible didn't have a sophisticated view of the universe. They thought the sky was a giant piece of cloth-like material called the "firmament" which covered the earth like a dome and from which stars were affixed. So, when these translated passages talk about god "stretching" the heavens, they mean he's spreading it out like a blanket over the earth: they sure as hell aren't talking about the movement of matter and atoms across space. Exactly! Voila! Isn't it amazing that the simplest explanation of some "unsophisticated primitive dirt-scrabblers" who lived thousands of years ago - without any sophisticated instruments to use - are proven exactly correct in their description of stretching by modern science, who only found out the truth about it not too long ago? Oh boy, thanks for helping me BD. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted September 6, 2012 Report Share Posted September 6, 2012 Kimmy, don't fall in with Blackdog! He's out to lunch with his rebutt. You're both missing the point! We're not arguing whether the word "stretches or "stretching" was not the right translation for the word! Actually, your argument only helps my point that the Bible is really the Word of God! Because.... Whether it is or it is not the right translation....the fact of the matter is that the word, "stretches" or "stretching," still ended up appearing in the Bible! 11 times! In the right context! How is that??? If an incorrect or inaccurate term is used repeatedly, that doesn't make it any less incorrect or inaccurate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted September 6, 2012 Report Share Posted September 6, 2012 Exactly! Voila! Isn't it amazing that the simplest explanation of some "unsophisticated primitive dirt-scrabblers" who lived thousands of years ago - without any sophisticated instruments to use - are proven exactly correct in their description of stretching by modern science, who only found out the truth about it not too long ago? Oh boy, thanks for helping me BD. I'm sorry: which part of these primitive's cosmology is correct, again? The part where the sky is made of a solid material? Or the part where the earth it covers is a flat disc suspended on water? Now, I've looked a bit at this and it seems there's an issue here over the translation of "raqia." Biblical apologists claim the original Hebrew word translates as "expanse". However, in the KJV, it's changed to "firmament". So betsy, you're in a bit of a pickle here: on the one hand, the original Hebrew version of the story could, if one squints hard enough, support your notion that these primitive desert nomads were given a snapshot of a actual cosmological phenomenon. On the other hand, the version of the Bible that you say is your go-to for God's honest truth uses a word that describes a completely different view of the universe. How do you resolve this clear contradiction? Actually, no need to answer as I already know: you'll just ignore it. Oh and one last thing: do you have any idea as to why the universe is expanding? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted September 6, 2012 Report Share Posted September 6, 2012 The Editor - which is the Creator/Designer - perhaps did some "editing?" Perhaps He said, "hey, that translated doesn't quite explain what I want to desctibe. Here - use this word to translate it!" So how were the other bible translations disproved to be the word of God? And you haven't proven to me that Zeus is not real.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.