|
||||||
| FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
Topic Review (Newest First)
|
| Aug 17th, 2003 05:21 PM | |
| kahljorn | I'm talking out of my ass too. That's how I operate, though. By ass. |
| Aug 17th, 2003 05:19 PM | |
| imported_Wicked Steve | That's a better explanation than any I've heard so far..I feel slightly more enlightened now. Thanks. |
| Aug 17th, 2003 05:16 PM | |
| kahljorn |
I honestly doubt they would have understood either way, if people could actually understand God I wonder at the miracles of the Crusade and other forms of suffering. The original point I was attempting to make, in fact, was that whoever God told could have misentrepted his word. Perception, you see. Though, maybe they saw it through his eyes, the days and nights. And if I remember correctly God didnt even create the days and nights till like the fourth day or something, so the days can't have anything to do with earthly values. |
| Aug 17th, 2003 05:07 PM | |
| imported_Wicked Steve |
Forgive me for not catching on, and I'm not trying to argue, but the first half of your post didn't sound like it had anything to do with what we were talking about. The second half I get. But. I was thinking God would either cater to the people's level of thinking and tell them exactly what happened in terms they would understand or not bother to tell them at all. He would have known how long they thought a day was, so even if a "day" is a longer time to him, he wouldn't call a million years a day when talking to humans because they wouldn't understand. |
| Aug 17th, 2003 05:06 PM | |
| kahljorn | The word Hubris is like a trend here. |
| Aug 17th, 2003 05:04 PM | |
| CaptainBubba |
I declare this thread over.  Vibe: Maybe if it wasn't for their utter hubris, I could carry on a normal conversation with either of them. :/ |
| Aug 17th, 2003 04:56 PM | |
| kahljorn |
"what does their perception have to do with what God told them about creation" The same way what I told you was dismissed, obviously. And yes, they didn't have knowledge of Hydrogen or dust. I don't think the Feather duster was invented till like 900 ad. Of course, you didnt understand that it was changed from ancient knowledge to modern knowledge, not only by removing the six days but by inserting crappy scientific leverage that obviously made little regard. Right? RIGHT? Right. Again, why would God tell them he created everything in six days if it really took him a very long time? Maybe God stays awake for a smillion years at a time, then goes to sleep. Days on earth are related to the sun, but God doesnt live on Earth(he's everywhere, maybe a day to him is a turn of the universe or something). His perception of days and time are different, just like someone who lives on mars would have different length days. Maybe it's just divided like that for orderly functions, I mean really. Do you want a history of creation to memorize? 100001091828037100108334718038417830 bc, First star created. Remember that, I expect you to know that whole number by heart when you are quized, also the molecular density and structure of the star. Have a good day, don't forget to read page 98716838111737719371938041 chapter 87 of your Creation History Computer Harddrive. |
| Aug 17th, 2003 04:43 PM | |
| imported_Wicked Steve |
This goes back to what I said about modern vs. ancient knowledge. They didn't know anything about the universe or hydrogen atoms or anything. They knew Heaven, Earth, and nothing else - stars were just lights from Heaven, and Earth was the only place God was really concerned with (as far as they knew). What makes the people who talked to God schizophrenic, and furthermore, what does their perception have to do with what God told them about creation (obviously, they couldn't have been around to see it for themselves)? Again, why would God tell them he created everything in six days if it really took him a very long time? Did he want them to feel Earth was more special than it really was? Did he think they wouldn't be able to comprehend billions of years? Finally, who wants to sit around and go, "and this is the lineage of [Adam/Noah/David/whover]?" Same boredom factor, to me. |
| Aug 17th, 2003 04:32 PM | |
| kahljorn |
Except back then all the schitzophrenic people talked to God, and therefore God told them how it was. The only "Faults" in this aspect is Perception, which could account for "Six days". Besides, who the fuck wants to sit around and go, "In the first one thousand years God created a speck of dust in the Alpha quadrant, this marked the begining of the universe as we know it!" "In the 3,000th year God made the first hydrogen atom, this was the begining of a fabulous star!" "THEN IN 5,000 ANOTHER SPEC OF DUST WAS FORMED AND IT BECAME FRIENDS WITH THE FIRST AND THEY MADE A SMALL CLUMP OF DUST THE APROXIMATE SIZE OF A HAIR FOLICLE AND THEY HAD CHILDREN AND LIVED HAPPILY EVER AFTER" |
| Aug 17th, 2003 02:09 PM | |
| imported_Wicked Steve | The issue I have with biblical apologists is that they so rarely seem to take into account the time when the Bible was written. I hear people equating the big bang with "In the beginning, God created Heaven and Earth," and that six days was a metaphor for several billions of years...but these are relatively new ideas. Thousands of years ago, when the Bible was written and compiled, who had any idea about the big bang theory, or the age of the universe? Doesn't it seem far, far more likely that they literally believed what they said, and were too busy recording what they thought was the truth than to deal in symbolism and analogy, especially given that, for many centuries, most people were uneducated and wouldn't understand that sort of thing? If they thought creation really took a long, long time, why wouldn't they just write that it did? Or were they trying to make all-powerful God seem even more powerful by making him work faster? |
| Aug 17th, 2003 01:46 PM | |
| Vibecrewangel |
Bible If you want a to learn more about the bible and what it means, go back through some of Italian Sterotypes posts. He not only can quote and reference the bible, but historical facts that support it as well. But even more importantly he understand and believes the meanings behind the words. When he speakes of his faith you have to understand that it is as deep and real as if you were feeling the most potent emotion. And if you happen to decide to ask him some questions, be careful not to step on his faith. His answers are not the typical "because the bible said so" answers and his faith is not lip service. This goes for Ror too. Just try to remember when you ask questions to really listen to the answers and look for the meaning lke you did with me towards the end. You will learn a heck of a lot if you do. |
| Aug 16th, 2003 02:11 AM | |
| CaptainBubba |
Ya I get it. Its a very interesting point.  Though I feel most would dismiss it as a misenterpretation of their religion/lack of religion/whatever and state that their belifs are correct and only theirs. (I do see the fallacy in this reasoning, but I doubt most would, at least initially). |
| Aug 16th, 2003 01:47 AM | |
| kahljorn | I'm an amethyst I think, I was going to change my middle name to my birthstone just cause it's better. My first name was going to be some other crazy concoction. |
| Aug 16th, 2003 01:46 AM | |
| Vibecrewangel |
LOL That's my birthstone |
| Aug 16th, 2003 01:37 AM | |
| kahljorn | Buddha was sober though, and he wore expensive rings. I only wear shiney rings. His ruby ring wearing puts him in a different class. |
| Aug 16th, 2003 01:36 AM | |
| Vibecrewangel |
Yeah That is all Buddha was too. But I get ya.
|
| Aug 16th, 2003 01:33 AM | |
| kahljorn | I don't like stupid people understanding me anyway. They will twist it and fuck it up when they try to sound smart with their friends. I just say I'm a Philosophist. |
| Aug 16th, 2003 01:32 AM | |
| Vibecrewangel |
LOL Hey Kahl...you do realize that that is what Buddhism is right. Knowing stuff and understanding said stuff generally without being taught. knowledge without learning.......but hey I understand not wanting the title. I have started claiming it so that people will listen. People like classifications.....easier to understand. |
| Aug 16th, 2003 01:21 AM | |
| Vibecrewangel |
So So Bubba....do you see why I went the way I did? Letting you go over the 20 or so different ways I said the same thing? In the end you found the one way that that made sense to you. |
| Aug 16th, 2003 01:19 AM | |
| kahljorn | I'm not actually buddhist, I just know stuff. Stuff that's buddhist. |
| Aug 16th, 2003 01:16 AM | |
| Vibecrewangel |
LOL Yeah if I remember correctly that was how our argument started......now that I get you I find it funny as hell. And I've learned a lot from you. So take that you Buddhist Bastard. |
| Aug 16th, 2003 01:16 AM | |
| kahljorn | I think every culture kind of had a little strife. You see, in order to learn and grow, there's always little fights(they are key pro quo existence insert other per se quoting latin words to sound smart ad hhominem. Basically confliction and interaction is necessity to any form of existence, see, for example, quantam mechanics). So every Culture might have had three different dickheads with somewhat similar or even completely different ideas on creation, and a few things could have happened: People could have accepted the happier more joyful one that brings their hearts peace, or the more powerful that allows them to feel like super beings. The king could've decreed, or the others lost faith or just fell to the victor in some other manner. So basically, all the bullshit going on now a-days with the arguments and the not knowing what's going on is just a result of the "Melting Pot" scenario and communication on the rise. We should find the new truth soon. It's science! WEIRD SCIENCE. |
| Aug 16th, 2003 01:11 AM | |
| kahljorn |
I like to cuss alot when I try to sound smart, it throws people off because I replace words like Joyful, serene, serendipity and all those smart words I like to use with masticate and fuck. That fucking wedding had lots of fucking cake I had to masticate myself because the fuckers wouldn't fucking give me anymore cake. But what I really mean is, that was such a wonderful wedding, it had lots of deliscious cake, I had to watch my apetite because there wasn't too much cake (those cocksucking bastard motherfuckers with not getting enough cake) |
| Aug 16th, 2003 01:10 AM | |
| Vibecrewangel |
HA Those are the ones who have gotten caught up in the words but in many cases have lost the meaning. My goal is to get people back to the point where the meaning is what is important. |
| Aug 16th, 2003 01:07 AM | |
| Vibecrewangel |
LMAO Kahl...you spew such beautiful peacful Buddhist ideas with such vehemence I often have to laugh.......you are also a big part of my irony-to-learning cycle. |
| This thread has more than 25 replies. Click here to review the whole thread. | |
