By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
N.B. In my opinion, it's not what's "wrong" with Christianity, but rather what's wrong with certain dismissive analyses of Christianity.
Everything that's "wrong" with Christianity is not about Christ and his teaching, but is about matters tangential to his teaching.
First and foremost, the Old Testament. Eliminate all of it and all of the hate-filled attacks on the thousands of sometimes imaginary and sometimes at least partly imaginary, and this would be a quieter place, and a quieter message board.
Second, eliminate all of the mythical elements like angels singing on high, and three wise men, and immaculate conception, and virgin birth, etc, etc, etc.
Third, eliminate all of the happy horsesh!t that goes on within the formalized churches -- especially the Catholic Church -- everything from fanciful non-Biblical embellishments and sometimes exceedingly silly rules and dogma, to long-past historical peccadilloes and worse, long-past political, economic, and military outrages.
Fourth, eliminate all of the excesses in wealth, ostentatious wealth, and pseudo regal trappings.
Fifth, do not be put off by Christ's speaking of Heaven and Hell, and the Father, but remember that these are images fully understood by his unsophisticated audience as images of one kind or another, and are not granite-hard reality.
Not one of the things I describe above has anything significant to do with either Christ or his teachings. When you ignore or eliminate all of those things, you will have the freedom to get to the heart of his teaching.
Although you can be richly rewarded by searching through the New Testament, reading all of the red typeface (which is a standard indication of the words of Christ), you really need go no further than the Sermon on the Mount, where, in essence, he gives an explication of The Ten Commandments, which alone give anyone who wants it a guide to a moral life.
The "pixies and fairies" so beloved of those who wish to denigrate either the Bible, religion itself, or just Christianity, were put in there as a means of explaining astoundingly complex concepts to people who were completely ill-equipped to understand them without these "teaching aids."
Anyone who is, or pretends to be, intelligent and well-read, should know to move immediately beyond these images and get to the heart of the teaching.
I not only admit, but trumpet aloud, the fact that it is far too easy to be dismissive based on tangentials, and difficult to get past them to the meaning, and moreover sometimes difficult beyond some persons' intellectual capacity.
In my opinion, it's better simply to not get involved in these discussions than to try to fight against the closed mind, and especially the mind that is closed because of non-essential and inconsequential side issues.
The answer to your question is too many! Remember the terrorist attacks in London, and the savage murder of one of our brave soldiers? Then there are others who have been victim to honour killings, and there are more. Just open your eyes and not wait for the answers to fall in to your lap!
And where is the evidence of the big bang? You are evidence of the BIg Bang. Without the big bang you would not exist. You are made out of particles found within the depths of space. It's just a shame you just wish to communicate from Uranus though.
These two links took me approximately 7 seconds from typing and searching to locate. If you really wanted an answer - I suspect you would have done this already though right?!
Ah... a great first post... and totally legit too right! First post on a thread already populated by people using other identities to try and make their point appear more valid.
I also see what you did there... your username. I've spent enough time in Australia and New Zealand to realise your slang name means Dishonest and Unreliable. Like your bookshelf analogy - after you plant one vertically on the wall to "prove your credentials".
All that links shows is that the scientific method works. Peer review has cast doubts on the initial findings of BICEP2 more data from more sources will ultimately prove or disprove the findings of that experiment.
It in no way shows that there is no evidence for the big bang.
If man evolved from monkeys why do we still have monkeys?
What I like about that post is you have turned defensive. Good.
Stay like that and don't try to bully and intimidate posters with your multiple IDs and you won't hear a peep from me, because frankly I don't give a shit about you.
Oh and if you want me to stop calling you psychoboy I would advise you to settle on a single posting ID; that would save me from the necesity of using the shorthand, don't you see?
I have cross reference two of your replies and gives an interesting slant on things.
"You see yourself as the noble lone crusading knight, fighting the evils of the world, and just like in the days of old the majority of the wrongs you combat are by the large all creations of your tiny and twisted little mind."
If you cross reference that with the above post, it appears that you are acting as the saviour of the people I'm attempting to "bully".
Then you add in an ultimatum that gives you an out. Fact is that ultimatum has been rejected. I guess that's why the anger came. I wonder what your next move is. I guess it boils down to how far you are willing to go.
All that links shows is that the scientific method works. Peer review has cast doubts on the initial findings of BICEP2 more data from more sources will ultimately prove or disprove the findings of that experiment.
It in no way shows that there is no evidence for the big bang.
'Resulting in a substantial decline of confidence in their result'
Until time travel becomes possible, then it will never become fact.
These people clearly were not on Rivals if they thing asking questions is trolling. There has been an elevation in trollike behaviour in the last few pages, which merely serves to illustrate what trolling looks like compared to inquisitive questioning.
'Resulting in a substantial decline of confidence in their result'
Until time travel becomes possible, then it will never become fact.
Did you actually read the article or are you just quote mining?
The decline in confidence is due to peer review finding issues in the initial findings that may be giving be a false result. When more data becomes available specifically from the Planck satellite and the other similar terrestrial based experiment (the name escapes) then we'll be able to say with more confidence whether the BICEP2 findings were accurate or not. That's how science works.
We don't need to travel in time we can see the Cosmic Microwave Background, we can see early galaxies 12-13 billion light years away. We can directly observe what happened in the past. It is not guessing.
If man evolved from monkeys why do we still have monkeys?
Did you actually read the article or are you just quote mining?
The decline in confidence is due to peer review finding issues in the initial findings that may be giving be a false result. When more data becomes available specifically from the Planck satellite and the other similar terrestrial based experiment (the name escapes) then we'll be able to say with more confidence whether the BICEP2 findings were accurate or not. That's how science works.
We don't need to travel in time we can see the Cosmic Microwave Background, we can see early galaxies 12-13 billion light years away. We can directly observe what happened in the past. It is not guessing.
How many of the people who stand behind the scientific theories we uphold as fact can actually do the maths required? Or do we have an entire community taking it on FAITH that these guys are right? Now that would be funny.
How many of the people who stand behind the scientific theories we uphold as fact can actually do the maths required? Or do we have an entire community taking it on FAITH that these guys are right? Now that would be funny.
I'm sorry I didn't realise that you need an advanced degree in pure mathematics in order to accept the scientific consensus.
You are currently using the internet do you understand all the maths, algorithms, codes, languages, technology etc. that are necessary for it to work?
If man evolved from monkeys why do we still have monkeys?
This is you! And did you bother reading your so-called evidence against the Big Bang?
Guffaw away - you're looking more of a clown with each post you make.
[Post edited 9 Aug 2014 13:14]
And we're Swaaaaanseeeea Ciiiityyyy! Swaaaansseeeaaa Ciiiityyy F C!
We're not necessarily the greatest team in football, the world has ever seen (but we're possibly the most honest and resilient).
- On behalf of The Campaign For Realistic Crowd Chanting
How many of the people who stand behind the scientific theories we uphold as fact can actually do the maths required? Or do we have an entire community taking it on FAITH that these guys are right? Now that would be funny.
You don't have to - that's why we have scientists and mathematicians, cosmologists, theorists and researchers who all read eachothers work and pick flaws in them. If there is a flaw - it's re-done or research continues.
Accept it or not - the scientific community is based on finding answers, and then finding flaws in research in order to ensure the outcome is as accurate as can possibly be.
But I suspect you're not here to understand. You're using a computer that is the by-product of science. Did that arise as a result of faith, or from scientific discovery and progress? You figure it out!
And we're Swaaaaanseeeea Ciiiityyyy! Swaaaansseeeaaa Ciiiityyy F C!
We're not necessarily the greatest team in football, the world has ever seen (but we're possibly the most honest and resilient).
- On behalf of The Campaign For Realistic Crowd Chanting
I have cross reference two of your replies and gives an interesting slant on things.
"You see yourself as the noble lone crusading knight, fighting the evils of the world, and just like in the days of old the majority of the wrongs you combat are by the large all creations of your tiny and twisted little mind."
If you cross reference that with the above post, it appears that you are acting as the saviour of the people I'm attempting to "bully".
Then you add in an ultimatum that gives you an out. Fact is that ultimatum has been rejected. I guess that's why the anger came. I wonder what your next move is. I guess it boils down to how far you are willing to go.
So you have been cross-referencing, analysing, thinking of things you should have said earlier, dreaming up exciting new positing IDs, dispensing down arrows from you battery of IDs, and no doubt much more; obsessive little nutcase, aren't you psychoboy?
So you have been cross-referencing, analysing, thinking of things you should have said earlier, dreaming up exciting new positing IDs, dispensing down arrows from you battery of IDs, and no doubt much more; obsessive little nutcase, aren't you psychoboy?
The only difference being you need google to do it. Its a little rich to talk of obsession when you joined this thread for the simple aim of attacking one particular poster, and even said as such. You started with the psychoanalysis. You don't like it when someone responds in kind. So you are now crying about down arrows when you were dispensing down arrows to Davillin with positive alacrity. You are a bit special. If I'm an obsessive nutcase(your words), and I am behaving like you, then you are an obsessive nutcase . Its good when you can embrace that.
I don't need to understand the internet to use it. In order to fully accept someones theory one would need to understand it.
[Post edited 9 Aug 2014 15:21]
So because the theory behind the internet is applied in such a way that it is able to be used quite simply without any prior knowledge of computer science, maths, engineering etc. you are willing to accept that the various theories and components that allow the internet to work are proven and factual, yes?
If man evolved from monkeys why do we still have monkeys?
So because the theory behind the internet is applied in such a way that it is able to be used quite simply without any prior knowledge of computer science, maths, engineering etc. you are willing to accept that the various theories and components that allow the internet to work are proven and factual, yes?
Yes but you can make many things sound plausible. The fact is the internet works. Its easy to explain how something works when we built it. Not so easy with theories especially theories about things we cant fully explain.
Yes but you can make many things sound plausible. The fact is the internet works. Its easy to explain how something works when we built it. Not so easy with theories especially theories about things we cant fully explain.
[Post edited 9 Aug 2014 15:35]
And you can make stuff sound bullsh1t too! You're doing a great job of that!
You appear to be confusing ACTUAL theory, with myth again.
A theory the led to the internet didn't just come about. It was the by-product of previous technologies such as the phone line and computer that allowed this, with the idea being near-instant (or at least quicker) communication between persons globally.
Even the most basic of man made items you take for granted are the by-products of human discovery and design.
I should not need to tell you that GOD did not design my microwave, nor my PS4, nor my power-shower. Nor did a GOD design my clothes or even the pen I write with. Mankind created these out of a need for improvement - our basic natural need to discover.
And because you cannot explain a theory - it doesn't mean it is someway miraculous, or created by a god!!! There are people who can explain theories and have the understanding to do so. You can't even comprehend the difference between a myth and fact! Delusional!
And we're Swaaaaanseeeea Ciiiityyyy! Swaaaansseeeaaa Ciiiityyy F C!
We're not necessarily the greatest team in football, the world has ever seen (but we're possibly the most honest and resilient).
- On behalf of The Campaign For Realistic Crowd Chanting
Yes but you can make many things sound plausible. The fact is the internet works. Its easy to explain how something works when we built it. Not so easy with theories especially theories about things we cant fully explain.
[Post edited 9 Aug 2014 15:35]
Feel free to test the 'theory' of gravity when you next leave the house, by instead using a window on the top floor.
Note: this is a less effective test if you live in a bungalow.
Yes but you can make many things sound plausible. The fact is the internet works. Its easy to explain how something works when we built it. Not so easy with theories especially theories about things we cant fully explain.
[Post edited 9 Aug 2014 15:35]
Okay let me give an example.
GPS works, it consists of many underlying theories, science and maths in order for it to work but it indisputably works.
When GPS was first being trialled it didn't work it's positioning was out by quite a large margin. The reason? Nobody accounted for one of those theories 'we can't fully explain.' Until General Relativity calculations were applied to the atomic clocks on the satellites it was impossible to give an accurate position.
So GPS works, GPS only works because General Relativity works, if General Relativity has a proven application then it is fair to extrapolate that the wider implications of the theory are correct, yes?
[Post edited 9 Aug 2014 16:00]
If man evolved from monkeys why do we still have monkeys?
GPS works, it consists of many underlying theories, science and maths in order for it to work but it indisputably works.
When GPS was first being trialled it didn't work it's positioning was out by quite a large margin. The reason? Nobody accounted for one of those theories 'we can't fully explain.' Until General Relativity calculations were applied to the atomic clocks on the satellites it was impossible to give an accurate position.
So GPS works, GPS only works because General Relativity works, if General Relativity has a proven application then it is fair to extrapolate that the wider implications of the theory are correct, yes?
[Post edited 9 Aug 2014 16:00]
Yet ANOTHER discovery made by man, and NOT as a result of faith?!?
Well, this isn't going CJack's and Drizzle's way now is it?!!
The thing people have to realise (anyone with a brain, eyes and ears will pick up on this!), is that if we were to all sit around waiting for faith to help us out - humanity would probably be extinct.
Think of it this way - you see a person who needs to be hooked up to a life support machine immediately. What's his best chance of survival - science or prayer? And how many people have recovered as a result of prayer compared to science?
[Post edited 9 Aug 2014 16:07]
And we're Swaaaaanseeeea Ciiiityyyy! Swaaaansseeeaaa Ciiiityyy F C!
We're not necessarily the greatest team in football, the world has ever seen (but we're possibly the most honest and resilient).
- On behalf of The Campaign For Realistic Crowd Chanting
Yet ANOTHER discovery made by man, and NOT as a result of faith?!?
Well, this isn't going CJack's and Drizzle's way now is it?!!
The thing people have to realise (anyone with a brain, eyes and ears will pick up on this!), is that if we were to all sit around waiting for faith to help us out - humanity would probably be extinct.
Think of it this way - you see a person who needs to be hooked up to a life support machine immediately. What's his best chance of survival - science or prayer? And how many people have recovered as a result of prayer compared to science?
[Post edited 9 Aug 2014 16:07]
Part of the problem is that many people fail to realise the difference between theory as it is understood in its everyday usage and theory as a clearly defined scientific term.
If man evolved from monkeys why do we still have monkeys?
GPS works, it consists of many underlying theories, science and maths in order for it to work but it indisputably works.
When GPS was first being trialled it didn't work it's positioning was out by quite a large margin. The reason? Nobody accounted for one of those theories 'we can't fully explain.' Until General Relativity calculations were applied to the atomic clocks on the satellites it was impossible to give an accurate position.
So GPS works, GPS only works because General Relativity works, if General Relativity has a proven application then it is fair to extrapolate that the wider implications of the theory are correct, yes?
[Post edited 9 Aug 2014 16:00]
Well we are veering off point here. I have an understanding of maths up to a certain level. Things I don't understand are explained to me by people who understand it better than I do. I take it on faith that their assumptions are correct. I wouldn't know if they weren't. So I choose to accept their assumptions.
Well we are veering off point here. I have an understanding of maths up to a certain level. Things I don't understand are explained to me by people who understand it better than I do. I take it on faith that their assumptions are correct. I wouldn't know if they weren't. So I choose to accept their assumptions.
[Post edited 9 Aug 2014 16:13]
Is it faith or trust?
it's not necessarily faith but trust that you believe what you are being told by your friends and family.
What has god done to be so trusted otherwise?
As mentioned earlier - there is no conforming element of trust within the science community. Every discovery is scrutinised and dissected to find flaws. It is only when the scientific community are satisfied the research and discovery are correct, then it is accepted.
And you can't trust the heavily self-scruitinised science, but think totally flawed religion (that provides absolutely no answers) is an answer?
[Post edited 9 Aug 2014 16:31]
And we're Swaaaaanseeeea Ciiiityyyy! Swaaaansseeeaaa Ciiiityyy F C!
We're not necessarily the greatest team in football, the world has ever seen (but we're possibly the most honest and resilient).
- On behalf of The Campaign For Realistic Crowd Chanting
Well we are veering off point here. I have an understanding of maths up to a certain level. Things I don't understand are explained to me by people who understand it better than I do. I take it on faith that their assumptions are correct. I wouldn't know if they weren't. So I choose to accept their assumptions.
[Post edited 9 Aug 2014 16:13]
I'd say more a tacit acceptance of fact rather than faith.
If man evolved from monkeys why do we still have monkeys?
I'd say more a tacit acceptance of fact rather than faith.
Well that's subjective.You can only accept fact that you yourself know to be a fact. If someone else is telling you that it is a fact then that requires faith to accept that. My point is that, in differing degrees, everyone has take another human beings word for it.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
