Supporting Trump, now a religion?

[Underhill]

I'm not going through that mess again (not sure what you did there but the whole thing shows up as a quote.).

But you are completely wrong about science and life.

How Did Multicellular Life Evolve? - Astrobiology Magazine

How Did Life Begin? — NOVA | PBS

I don't expect you to read these articles with anything approaching rationality as your beliefs don't allow it. But you are unequivocally wrong on that point.

 

[omega2xx]

Garment means 'an item of clothing'. Wow, you are full of it.

And you are ignorant of what kind of a garment is is and what it symbolizes.

 

[omega2xx]

I'm not going through that mess again (not sure what you did there but the whole thing shows up as a quote.).

But you are completely wrong about science and life.

How Did Multicellular Life Evolve? - Astrobiology Magazine

How Did Life Begin? — NOVA | PBS

I don't expect you to read these articles with anything approaching rationality as your beliefs don't allow it. But you are unequivocally wrong on that point.

I'm not going through that mess again (not sure what you did there but the whole thing shows up as a quote.).

But you are completely wrong about science and life.

How Did Multicellular Life Evolve? - Astrobiology Magazine

How Did Life Begin? — NOVA | PBS

I don't expect you to read these articles with anything approaching rationality as your beliefs don't allow it. But you are unequivocally wrong on that point.

Since I have a habit of misusing the quote function, I assume this is addressed to me.

Since you didn't expect me to read your links, it would have been simple for you to cut and paste the evidence they offered and you would be the evo hero by proving me wrong. The FACT that you didn't speaks volumes.

Since you not only said I am wrong, but unequivocally wrong, I have broken my rule to prove you are not only wrong, you are unequivocally wrong. by reading your links.

Thee was not one piece of verifiable, scientific evidence in either article. The only truthful thing was that one of them said "we don't know how life began."

Now I have done what you presented for me to do. Now is you chance to show everyone that I am unequivocally wrong by cutting and posting the evidence your links provided.

I predict you will not do that. Prove me wrong or admit they presented no evidence. That would be the honest thing to do. Not doing so will PROVE I am unequivocally right.

 

[Underhill]

And you are ignorant of what kind of a garment is is and what it symbolizes.

Listen bucko. A garment is a piece of clothing. Now if you want to get into symbolism, all of that is open to interpretation. I am talking about what the book actually says. And the first one in the bible to make a sacrifice was not Adam and Eve.

 

[omega2xx]

Listen bucko. A garment is a piece of clothing.

DUUH. There are many different kinds of clothing and there are about 4 or 5 words that "garment" can mean. To understand the passage it is necessary to understand what type of garment God provided for them.

Now if you want to get into symbolism, all of that is open to interpretation.

Right. Now what is the best way to interpret it correctly?

I am talking about what the book actually says.

To understand what it MEANS, you need to know what kind of garment is being mentioned.

[/QUOTE]And the first one in the bible to make a sacrifice was not Adam and Eve.[/QUOTE]

I didn't say they were. They did not make a sacrifice that we know of.

 

[Underhill]

Since I have a habit of misusing the quote function, I assume this is addressed to me.

Since you didn't expect me to read your links, it would have been simple for you to cut and paste the evidence they offered and you would be the evo hero by proving me wrong. The FACT that you didn't speaks volumes.

Since you not only said I am wrong, but unequivocally wrong, I have broken my rule to prove you are not only wrong, you are unequivocally wrong. by reading your links.

Thee was not one piece of verifiable, scientific evidence in either article. The only truthful thing was that one of them said "we don't know how life began."

They are called hypothesis. You need a basic primer on how science works. First you determine the problem, then you come up with a hypothesis based upon what you see in front of you. You then test those hypothesis. After much testing, if the evidence seems to back up your hypothesis, it is elevated to a theory. After rigorous testing and confirmation from multiple sources the theory can turn into a law.

There is no evidence of origins. I never claimed otherwise. They are all hypothesis for the moment. They are working on recreating it in a lab and if they do, it could become a theory.

Creation myth might be called a hypothesis. Although even that is a stretch. It isn't based upon the facts in front of us. It is based upon an old book where someone just made up a story.

But that has nothing to do with your claim. You claimed science says non life cannot become life. There is nothing in science that says that. I gave examples that included dozens of scientist hypothesis on how life began. Obviously the scientific community does not think it impossible.

Now I have done what you presented for me to do. Now is you chance to show everyone that I am unequivocally wrong by cutting and posting the evidence your links provided.

Quote for me exactly where I claimed there was evidence about origins. I said you were unequivocally wrong about your claim that science dictates that life cannot come from non life.

I predict you will not do that. Prove me wrong or admit they presented no evidence. That would be the honest thing to do. Not doing so will PROVE I am unequivocally right.

It takes balls to question my honesty while blatantly misrepresenting what I said. If you care at all about what is right, you would apologize.

 

[metis]

Telling the truth and or disagreeing with their theology is not anti-Catholic, unless what I accuse them of is not true.

That's fine, I know from long experience conservative Christianity and creationism will be the most attacked position on any forum that religion is a topic.

Bring it on. If I can't defend my positions, I don't need o be here.

My "issue" with you on this thread is not that you were not telling the truth on dealing with the many wrongdoings committed by the CC over it almost 2000 year history, but that you went overboard on this while neglecting to mention anything about the fact that many Protestant groups had been doing the exact same thing. If I want to return the "favor", which could be easily done, I could have ranted and raved about Calvin and the denominations that emerge from him-- but I haven't and won't.

IMO, it is unethical to rant & rave against someone else's religion or denomination by pointing out only bad things and never good things because all that is is "destructive criticism"-- only meant to hurt another person's faith-- not mine since I'm neither Catholic nor Christian. I do not attack Christians or pile coals on them nor creationists, but that doesn't mean that I agree with them on a number of issues. "Disagreeing" is fine, imo, but just piling hot coals and not saying anything positive is not fine.

So, now you have finally admitted that Protestants also made a great many wrongdoings as well, so since my main concern here has been to seek a balance that reflects reality and a basic understanding, I'm now satisfied where we're at.

 

[Revoltingest]

Listen bucko. A garment is a piece of clothing. Now if you want to get into symbolism, all of that is open to interpretation. I am talking about what the book actually says. And the first one in the bible to make a sacrifice was not Adam and Eve.

Clearly, you know nothing of religion.
Words work in mysterious ways, never meaning what you think they do.
Does the martyr get 57 virgins or 57 raisins in Heaven?
Depends upon how one reads it.
Pinning down a specific meaning is like nailing snot to a wall.

Apologies for the simile.
It just popped into me head, & had to come out.

 

[Underhill]

DUUH. There are many different kinds of clothing and there are about 4 or 5 words that "garment" can mean. To understand the passage it is necessary to understand what type of garment God provided for them.

So, where does it say what god provided? You surmised that from the word garment? That is quite a leap.

Even this christian website that discusses the subject, says it is mostly conjecture.

Why did God make garments of skin for Adam and Eve when they had already made clothing for themselves?

Right. Now what is the best way to interpret it correctly?

First, you would look at the original text. See if it shed any light on it. If it doesn't, then you don't. You take it at face value. That is what I was taught in church, bible school and at a christian college. But what would I know.

Genesis 3:21 Hebrew Text Analysis

To understand what it MEANS, you need to know what kind of garment is being mentioned.

You really don't. But feel free to keep making stuff up.

I didn't say they were. They did not make a sacrifice that we know of.

Forgiveness requires a sacrifice. You claim god made the sacrifice. Okay. But the book does not say that.

It says he made them a coat.

 

[Underhill]

Clearly, you know nothing of religion.
Words work in mysterious ways, never meaning what you think they do.
Does the martyr get 57 virgins or 57 raisins in Heaven?
Depends upon how one reads it.
Pinning down a specific meaning is like nailing snot to a wall.

Apologies for the simile.
It just popped into me head, & had to come out.

I understand. But it is a bit more cut and dry than that. The earliest manuscripts of Genesis are written in Hebrew which is pretty specific. Our english is much less so.

 

[omega2xx]

My "issue" with you on this thread is not that you were not telling the truth on dealing with the many wrongdoings committed by the CC over it almost 2000 year history, but that you went overboard on this while neglecting to mention anything about the fact that many Protestant groups had been doing the exact same thing. If I want to return the "favor", which could be easily done, I could have ranted and raved about Calvin and the denominations that emerge from him-- but I haven't and won't.

It may not have been in a post to you but I did mention that some of the reformers did some unchristian things. If you want to rant on what anyone did, including Calvin, just make sure it is right, and if it was unChrisisn, I will join you in condemning it. I don't try to defend anyone who does what is unChristian including myself.

IMO, it is unethical to rant & rave against someone else's religion or denomination by pointing out only bad things and never good things because all that is is "destructive criticism"-- only meant to hurt another person's faith-- not mine since I'm neither Catholic nor Christian.

First of all you labeling my pointing out some of the errors of the CC as rant and raving is hyperbole. Second the misconduct of a denomination should be mentioned. If the sexual abuse of children by priest was mentioned earlier, it would have been stopped earlier.

I do not attack Christians or pile coals on them nor creationists, but that doesn't mean that I agree with them on a number of issues. "Disagreeing" is fine, imo, but just piling hot coals and not saying anything positive is not fine.

IMO, you are ranting and raving and piling on hot coals about what I have done. Take some Biblical advice and get the log out of your own eye before you try to get the splinter out of mine.

So, now you have finally admitted that Protestants also made a great many wrongdoings as well,

Not "finally," I did it from the very beginning. If you missed it, don't blame me.

so since my main concern here has been to seek a balance that reflects reality and a basic understanding, I'm now satisfied where we're at.

Wonderful. Now the next time you want to rant and rave and pour hot coals, get the facts first.

 

[Revoltingest]

I understand. But it is a bit more cut and dry than that. The earliest manuscripts of Genesis are written in Hebrew which is pretty specific. Our english is much less so.

And the Koran is still in its original Arabic, yet interpretations are as diverse
as a Bernie Sanders Christmaskwanzahanukasaturnaliasolstice party.

 

[Underhill]

And the Koran is still in its original Arabic, yet interpretations are as diverse
as a Bernie Sanders Christmaskwanzahanukasaturnaliasolstice party.

I always come away feeling like I'm arguing over which color shoes papa smurf wears to the christmas party.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

I have read more links over the years than you have posted.

Reading a link from a religious thug, or worse, from a deliberate liar like Behe, isn't studying the issue-- is it?

It's just an echo-chamber-- you feed your own delusions and continue to puff yourself up as if you had "knowledge". Bragging about feeding your own ego isn't helping your case.

You have demonstrated already, multiple times, that you are simply AFRAID--

--- your faith is weak. Your knowledge is utterly lacking: you don't even understand your own bible!

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

It is if you understand the Bible. They told exactly what happened and if it was not a confession, God would not have made them a garment to cover their nakedness. The word for "garment' means a robe that reaches to the ground, indicating they were completly covered, completely forgiven.



Actually he wasn't. God making Adam and Eve garments of skin, indicate an animal sacrifice and since it was for their confession, it was the first good sacrifice.

What a bloody and barbaric godling you worship-- it [your god] cannot be "happy" unless things are brutally murdered first?

That's pretty sick, bub.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

I'm not going through that mess again (not sure what you did there but the whole thing shows up as a quote.).

But you are completely wrong about science and life.

How Did Multicellular Life Evolve? - Astrobiology Magazine

How Did Life Begin? — NOVA | PBS

I don't expect you to read these articles with anything approaching rationality as your beliefs don't allow it. But you are unequivocally wrong on that point.

He won't read them at all-- his faith is so weak, he can only ever click on EchoChamber links that feed into his own delusional worldview.

 

[omega2xx]

So, where does it say what god provided? You surmised that from the word garment? That is quite a leap.

It is a leap to say God furnished a garment when the text says "garment" The leap is say I surmised it.

Even this christian website that discusses the subject, says it is mostly conjecture.

I will bet you A dollar to a doughnut hole that is a very liberal site. They reject everything except their own interpretations, which are almost always wrong.

Why did God make garments of skin for Adam and Eve when they had already made clothing for themselves?

Let me help you out here. Do use a web-site that doesn't understand "they were naked.,"

First, you would look at the original text. See if it shed any light on it. If it doesn't, then you don't. You take it at face value. That is what I was taught in church, bible school and at a christian college. But what would I know.

First, we no longer have any original text. Second, what is obviously figurative s being literal. I will bet you another dollar to a doughnut hole, you went to a liberal Christian college.


Genesis 3:21 Hebrew Text Analysis

You really don't. But feel free to keep making stuff up.

Feel free to understand what is written about a 10th graded reading comprehension level.

Forgiveness requires a sacrifice. You claim god made the sacrifice. Okay. But the book does not say that.

Only in the OT. Now all we need to do is confess. A garment of SKIN, implies a blood sacrifice. you know like the one Jesus made to cover our sins.

It says he made them a coat.

Only the KJ says coat and the KJ is not a very good translation. The word is garment and it means a tunic or as long, shirt like garment

 

[omega2xx]

They are called hypothesis.

Hypothesis Are not evidence bu definition.

You need a basic primer on how science works. First you determine the problem, then you come up with a hypothesis based upon what you see in front of you. You then test those hypothesis. After much testing, if the evidence seems to back up your hypothesis, it is elevated to a theory. After rigorous testing and confirmation from multiple sources the theory can turn into a law.

You need a basic primer on what constitutes evidence.

There is no evidence of origins. I never claimed otherwise. They are all hypothesis for the moment. They are working on recreating it in a lab and if they do, it could become a theory.

I haven't said you did.

Creation myth might be called a hypothesis. Although even that is a stretch. It isn't based upon the facts in front of us. It is based upon an old book where someone just made up a story. [/QUOTE]

It is based on the scientific FACT that nothing can't be the source of something.

But that has nothing to do with your claim. You claimed science says non life cannot become life. There is nothing in science that says that. I gave examples that included dozens of scientist hypothesis on how life began. Obviously the scientific community does not think it impossible.

That is not the opinion of all scientists and if I can find it again, i will give you the site. Common sense tell us that non-life can't be the source of life. That is a no-brainer.

Quote for me exactly where I claimed there was evidence about origins. I said you were unequivocally wrong about your claim that science dictates that life cannot come from non life.

You maybe right, When I have time I will go back and reread it.

It takes balls to question my honesty while blatantly misrepresenting what I said. If you care at all about what is right, you would apologize.

When I reread your post, if I did, I will apologize.

 

[Underhill]

It is a leap to say God furnished a garment when the text says "garment" The leap is say I surmised it.

No, the leap is to make a claim that you know what kind of garment it was.

I will bet you A dollar to a doughnut hole that is a very liberal site. They reject everything except their own interpretations, which are almost always wrong.

They offer multiple interpretations while pointing out that most of it is based in speculation.

 

[Underhill]

Hypothesis Are not evidence bu definition.

Did you even read what I wrote?

You need a basic primer on what constitutes evidence.

I never provided any. I never said there was any. What does evidence have to do with a discussion about how life came into being?

I haven't said you did.

Right.

It is based on the scientific FACT that nothing can't be the source of something.

Which is not what you said. At all.

A bit of honesty would be appreciated.

That is not the opinion of all scientists and if I can find it again, i will give you the site. Common sense tell us that non-life can't be the source of life. That is a no-brainer.

Except it isn't. Common sense is evidence of nothing. In fact there is a name for it. It's called the common sense fallacy. Just because a bunch of people believe something does not make it true. It was common sense that the earth was flat and that the earth was the center of the universe.

But you are right, many people with no brain do fall for common sense fallacies.