Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Da Boss wrote:
Stuff like this makes me think the Catholic Church was right for discouraging people from reading the Bible

Bingo

scarletsquig wrote:The odds of the correct sequence of amino acids necessary for life to form at random (as a result of a non-alive universe bashing rocks together) is so small as to be effectively impossible.

A common misconception unfortunately. Trillions of reactions occur every second in even a small volume of fluid. Simple components form which link to form more complex forms etc... once you get to a certain complexity you have self assembling mechanisms and essentially life is inevitable.

There's a certain elegance to the laws of physics that implies design, too..

Elegance yes, design no.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Im cathloc and I do too.
There are some good life lessons though if you get past the stoning of non-virgins

And here's an exhault.

On topic - I grew-up/currently live in a very catholic town, and I've never anything like that. I sincerely hope he's not serious in those beliefs....

 Wyrmalla wrote:
Someone slaps you for questioning them, whilst they've spouted nonsensical crap that's disproved the human race at large. Even despite the second part, slap the idiot back, and/or remove them from the gene pool so they can't sprout such twaddle to the next generation (preferably whilst wielding a dinosaur bone).

The chance that this sequence of events occurred as described is incredibly small.

I'd lay the odds of there even being a grain of truth in this bs at 20:1.

Odd, really, since dinosaurs are in the book of Job. Usually the "strange" fundamental belief is that Dinosaurs survived the deluge of Genesis Seven and cohabitated with humanity for several generations before dying out.

- J

xruslanx wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:

xruslanx wrote:

 the shrouded lord wrote:

I need to read this "bible". The thing is, no offence to Catholics, but I would probably end up giggling for a week.

Ever read the gospel of John?

I'll give you bonus internet points if you can tell me what even the first four lines mean.

I have actually, not that I'm interested in internet points from you, but the beginning four lines of the talks about Jesus and lays down the idea of his divinity. The 3 previous Gospels in the New Testament talk about how Jesus was the Son of God, but focus on the aspect of Jesus as a man. The Gospel of John says that Jesus is a divine being first and a man second. He was always with God from the beginning. It also sets up the idea of the Trinity...

Also the Gospel of John is far more poetic than the three previous gospels, so you have to take that into account as well...

That's a gross over-simplification. I don't think you do understand the gospel of John if you only have what you were told as a child about it. So, no internets for you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question

 whitedragon wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question

I should have stipulated "read and understood". Simply reading something doesn't mean you understand it, otherwise I'd be a theoretical physicist

 Seaward wrote:

 Wyrmalla wrote:
Someone slaps you for questioning them, whilst they've spouted nonsensical crap that's disproved the human race at large. Even despite the second part, slap the idiot back, and/or remove them from the gene pool so they can't sprout such twaddle to the next generation (preferably whilst wielding a dinosaur bone).

The chance that this sequence of events occurred as described is incredibly small.

I'd lay the odds of there even being a grain of truth in this bs at 20:1.

I believe the slapper is a woman. I'm pretty sure there's a lot more to it.

 the shrouded lord wrote:

so, I must ask, do any of you caths share this mind set?

I was raised catholic. No, I was not taught that Dinosaurs didn't exist.

I was taught dinosaurs taste like chicken.

 Frazzled wrote:
I was taught dinosaurs taste like chicken.

Especially if they're from Texas. Everything not beef tastes like chicken there.

 scarletsquig wrote:
Higher power = definite yes.

The odds of the correct sequence of amino acids necessary for life to form at random (as a result of a non-alive universe bashing rocks together) is so small as to be effectively impossible.

A million monkeys on a million typewriters on hundreds of thousands of millions of stars for billions of years...

I think the OP was either trolled by his friend or was trolling US. Either way, it worked.

~Tim?

 Frazzled wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

 Wyrmalla wrote:
Someone slaps you for questioning them, whilst they've spouted nonsensical crap that's disproved the human race at large. Even despite the second part, slap the idiot back, and/or remove them from the gene pool so they can't sprout such twaddle to the next generation (preferably whilst wielding a dinosaur bone).

The chance that this sequence of events occurred as described is incredibly small.

I'd lay the odds of there even being a grain of truth in this bs at 20:1.

I believe the slapper is a woman. I'm pretty sure there's a lot more to it.

Agreed, and I kinda wonder a little about the OP's intent here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Some_Call_Me_Tim? wrote:
I think the OP was either trolled by his friend or was trolling US. Either way, it worked.

If so, it's a pretty terrible troll considering the poor command of the facts.

 gorgon wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Some_Call_Me_Tim? wrote:
I think the OP was either trolled by his friend or was trolling US. Either way, it worked.

If so, it's a pretty terrible troll considering the poor command of the facts.

Oh, I dunno. I know some atheists who would actually jump on this as further evidence all religious people are backwards anti-science morons that need to be sent to labor camps and shouldn't be allowed to breed. Kinda like Christians who jump on the fact that Stalin was an atheist and use it as proof that all atheists are evil haters that want international communism and labor camps for Christians.

Some people are just crazy like that.

~Tim?

Well that explains it. If trollhunter taught us anything, its that trolls are attracted to Christians. Clearly she was fighting of the attack of a TROLL!!! nomnomnom

I friggin' LOVE Trollhunter! It's just brilliant.

~Tim?

Is it really that good a movie? I keep seeing it show up on Netflix and I go "maybe....nah".

xruslanx wrote:

 whitedragon wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question

I should have stipulated "read and understood". Simply reading something doesn't mean you understand it, otherwise I'd be a theoretical physicist

I did understand your question and I understand the first four lines of the Gospel according to John. The Word is a metaphor for Jesus, I think being able to make that connection would imply that I understand the the first four lines.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Im cathloc and I do too.
There are some good life lessons though if you get past the stoning of non-virgins

I think there are still plenty of good life lessons even if you don't get past the stoning of non-virgins

Thought this was going to be about feathered vs non-feathered dinosaurs.

Can not describe my disappointment.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Is it really that good a movie? I keep seeing it show up on Netflix and I go "maybe....nah".

Its not big budget, so factor that in, but yea its really good.

And Fraz, meant to ask: why do you say you were told dinos tasted like chicken? I figured you could just walk outside as a boy and take down a full grown brontosaurus with nothing but a hunting dagger made of flint before cooking it up on the family fire pit.

 the shrouded lord wrote:
I have a friend,a very very catholic friend, who, recently revealed to our "group" that, due to them not being mentioned in the bible book, doesn't. Believe. In DINOSAURS! you heard right.
*smashes head on school desk multiple times ( I did this when she/he told us)*
so, I must ask, do any of you caths share this mind set?

I'm very very Catholic. I don't need to believe in dinosaurs because there is physical, empirical evidence of their existence, ergo, my belief is irrelevant when faced with direct evidence. The Church doesn't advocate the disbelief in dinosaurs, nor does it teach that the Earth is only 6,000 years old either. Your friend is on his own in this regard.

Cell phones aren't in the Bible but I'm using mine right now. Dinosaurs aren't in the Bible but their bones are in the local museum. We can all have opinions, but when they are simply flat out wrong, sure, headdesk is appropriate.

I opened the door once for whom I assumed was my mother... before me stood two Jehovah's - ugh I'm not religious in the slightest.

Funniest thing in our entire conversation was when one them was getting frustrated with me and said: "why don't you try to have an open mind". I informed them of their irony and I thanked them for coming by (closes door).

I've also had some pretty amusing convos with mormon missionaries on the bus since their church was a few stops away from mine. They always have a very polite way of telling you that you are going to hell, but if you can manage to change the subject they are actually pretty nice (and 50% of the time they are pretty normal people).

 streamdragon wrote:
Thought this was going to be about feathered vs non-feathered dinosaurs.

Can not describe my disappointment.

I had the exact same thought process.

And I'll agree with Frazz, Trollhunter was a total surprise. I loved it!

 timetowaste85 wrote:
And Fraz, meant to ask: why do you say you were told dinos tasted like chicken? I figured you could just walk outside as a boy and take down a full grown brontosaurus with nothing but a hunting dagger made of flint before cooking it up on the family fire pit.

mmm yes thrilling tales of yesteryear, when we weren't top of the food chain yet.

As mamma Frazzled used to say:
"Remember Noog. You no bright. You run when giant bid comes to eat you. To them you taste like chicken. But you no have to be fastest in tribe, just faster then person next to you. Make lots of slow friends."

 Alfndrate wrote:

xruslanx wrote:

 whitedragon wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question

I should have stipulated "read and understood". Simply reading something doesn't mean you understand it, otherwise I'd be a theoretical physicist

I did understand your question and I understand the first four lines of the Gospel according to John. The Word is a metaphor for Jesus, I think being able to make that connection would imply that I understand the the first four lines.

okay, i'll try and break down what rhe first four lines actually mean for you.

Firstly, and most importantly, these lines simply cannot be understood in english. The word that's commonly translated as 'word' is actually the greek word'logos'. This is a word that has a huge weight of meaning in classical greece, with extensive reflections and arguments about its meaning.

At its most basic level, logos was one of two aspects of the mind, the other being pathos. Pathos referred to emotions that affected oneself without you actually being aware of them -eoughly analagous to the modern notion of the self-conscious. By contrast, the logos referred to thoughts and feelings that one was immediately experiencing, the distinction between the two being of great importance when evaluating drama (what the audience is directly looking at, as well as what the overall theme or tone of the play is) and philosophy - the logos being the logical forms of argument in particular was studied in an effort to gain an understanding into the nature of truth, and into how the truth is manifested.

So when you read 'in the begining, was the logos', it means a lot more than 'jesus is a metaphor for the word'. It first states an absolute - that the logos is the beginning of the universe.

Then it equates that truth to god - 'and the logos was with god'. This is a phenominal statement - the logos of the greeks, whose contribution to human understanding is unparelled, is said to be alongside god at the beginning. This of course being the judeo-christian god...yet enthused with greek philosophy. At a stroke, God goes from being a smiting diety of jewish goatherders, into the god of logic, the god of thought and experience.

Finally it combines the two entirely - 'and the logos was god'. This combines utterly the idea of thought, and the idea of god. I could extrapolate on that endlessly, but you get the idea.

Certainly imo the gospel of john provides a more compelling and believable explanation of human existance than anything in the modern age...ymmv

Since this thread is about religion I'm going to shamelessly plug my thread.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/524739.page

FYI: Everything in the old Testament which was 'before Moses' was basically a transcription of what God *told* Moses. Most of the early Bible is based on the Torah, and those sections were Moses's transcription of God telling him a story of how the world was, how he made man and how crappy man has been for the past 6000 years.

So let's say God told Moses about dinosaurs, and evolution and science and how everything was really cool and how he set the whole thing up. Moses was a sheep herder for the most part. When he is telling stories about Dinosaurs and cavemen and evolution, Moses has no frame of reference. He can't understand. BAM, we get a awkward literal story based upon the limits of the human brain at the time of dictation. As far as we know Moses was told exactly how old dinosaurs were and how Evolution worked and Moses was like 'Too many Zeroes... lets say a long time ago... like 6000... and evolution? yeah, that is too hard to explain... he 'made them.' No wonder he aged 20 years after meeting with god!

And almost no sects of Judaism take the Torah literally... So I don't see how any Bible translations of the old testament can be taken literally since it is all based off the Torah. Now some Christianity groups are super literal about the New testament, because that is a day in the life of Jesus, but that shouldn't apply to the old testament.

xruslanx wrote:
okay, i'll try and break down what rhe first four lines actually mean for you.

You cannot describe what a religious text means to me, you can only describe to me what it means for you, but cannot ascribe those same meanings to my view.

At a stroke, God goes from being a smiting diety of jewish goatherders, into the god of logic, the god of thought and experience.

Well, I hope that, for Mary's sake, it took God a few more strokes than one... I mean he did get laid between the old and new Testaments... that's enough to calm the temperaments of most people...

Your explanation, while long and correct, does not mean that the Word/Logos is not the Christ (Jesus) whether literally or metaphorically. John's inclusion of this idea that the Word (Jesus, the literal word of god, Logos, insert divinity here) was to draw a parallel between Jesus of Nazareth and God as soon as possible. In the previous three gospels, it was looked at that Jesus was a man ("son of", "of Nazareth", etc...) first. As the 'life of Jeus' is told through those gospels, his divinity and ministry is revealed. The Gospel of John starts with the following lines:

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome[a] it.

6 There was a man sent from God whose name was John. 7 He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all might believe. 8 He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light.

9 The true light that gives light to everyone was coming into the world. 10 He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. 11 He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12 Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— 13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.

14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

bolded is my emphasis

I don't disagree with your assessment that the Logos is an extremely important word to these passages, but you're also forgetting that the Word was with God (separate) and was also God (together). This relates to the Christian ideology that God is made up of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Then John talks about how the Word became flesh and dwelled among us. This is that link that the Word is Jesus. The Word is God, The Word is Flesh, Jesus is of God and is God and is Flesh.

All that passage does is set up the idea of Jesus's divinity from the beginning.

But much like how I said that you cannot ascribe the meaning of a religious text to me, I cannot do the same to you. At the end of the day, the Bible is a collection of stories about how to be a good person.