Christians of T-Nation

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
165

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
rainjack wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
First- every post you make here is a big temper tantrum. Every single one. Not that I care, but you, of all people should not be trying to call me out for reactionary posts, because you’re the motherfucking poster boy for it.

I won’t deny that I rant. But simply reading my first post in this thread makes your statement untrue. Read some of the investing shit, that makes your statement untrue.

I’m better at posting rants than you, but not all of my posts are hate-filled rants.

You know what you said is an gross overstatement.

But don’t worry - I don’t need an apology from you.

No, it isn’t. And good, because you will not get one.[/quote]

You’re right. You are just flat lying. I was trying to be nice, but when it comes down to it, you are a liar.

166

[quote]rainjack wrote:
pookie wrote:
It’s nice to see all the Christians getting along so well.

Is there a rule saying we have to?

Is there a rule saying we can’t argue?

[/quote]

Is Irish a Christian?

167

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
rainjack wrote:
pookie wrote:
It’s nice to see all the Christians getting along so well.

Is there a rule saying we have to?

Is there a rule saying we can’t argue?

Is Irish a Christian? [/quote]

Don’t know. Don’t care. He IS a liar. That much I do know.

168

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

No, I hate people who believe their religion is any more right than anyone else’s. It’s the cause of many of the world’s wars, and millions upon millions of lost lives based on who’s imaginary friend is more real. The idea is [b]insane[/b

[/quote]

My God can kick your God’s ass any day of the week.

169

[quote]Renton wrote:
RSGZ wrote:
Yo Momma wrote:
Who actually wrote the Bible, anyway? I know that it is the basis for Christian beliefs, and it does make a nice story, full of ancient creation mythology and folk tales, and is said to be the “inspired” word of God.

But isn’t all great literature the inspired word of God? So why choose to believe a collection of writings of unknown date and authorship, translated into English from supposed copies of supposed originals on ancient parchment that are unfortunately lost? Sounds kinda tricky to me.

Exactly.

It was written by ancient men, sexist ones obviously if you sit and read some of those stories.

HAHA! That’s where you are wrong mate.

It was not written by ancient men at all but by me and a few drunk script writers from London one weekend whilst we were smashed on coke and alcohol. We thought it would be a laugh to send it back in time (with the home made time machine we had knocked up on the Friday night) just to see what happened.

What a bloody mistake, but then we were totally wankered.

Sorry.[/quote]

Dammit, Renton!!!

I gotta admit that “virgin birth” shit was brilliant, wankered or not. And I loved the walking on water, now that’s a coke dream mixed with tequila.

170

Science ISN’T faith and represents only inalterable truth?? Then please explain the fact that despite 150 years of macroevolutionary theory there has yet to be found ONE legitimate intermediate species in the fossil record? Why have we never witnessed a mutation in DNA that resulted in the ADDITION of information, as the theory’s cornerstone requires? Science is obligated to base its conclusions on the facts, not the reverse. Darwinian evolution has never produced the most basic facts to back up the theory. And that, my friend, is faith.

171

So the textbook says a virgin birth is scientifically impossible…
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081010/ap_on_sc/sci_shark_mystery;_ylt=AhGdZSNhE7oZP6b08jDm.UVvieAA

172

[quote]Jpmpac1 wrote:
So the textbook says a virgin birth is scientifically impossible…
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081010/ap_on_sc/sci_shark_mystery;_ylt=AhGdZSNhE7oZP6b08jDm.UVvieAA[/quote]

Well, there are species that can reproduce asexually. I can hardly imagine what kind of human would be created that has all the chromosomes come from the mother.

And even if it were possible for humans to reproduce asexually does that automatically imply it’s God’s child?

173

…are sharks divine?

http://www.practicalfishkeeping.co.uk/pfk/pages/item.php?news=1302

174

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
Every belief (or conviction, or conclusion, or what have you) is founded upon a kind of faith. Scientists call them axioms.

How does science fall into the realm of faith?

Axiom is not faith. It is a precise analytic statement of truth. [/quote]

An axiom is an assumption; it is provisionally accepted without any genuine evidence.

[quote] If science is based on faith then it has no foundation to base any of its claims – known as hypotheses*. We know this cannot be true because our livelihood relies upon that which the foundations of science has built. I do not require faith to turn on my laptop – just an electrical outlet with a flowing current.
[/quote]

AND>…

If what you mean by “real knowledge” is piercing the heart of the cosmos and elucidating the heart and matter of the whole thing for all of time - then, yeah, we probably cannot have any real knowledge. We are epistemologically circumscribed. (Perhaps, by the way, God is that which is not epistemologically circumscribed?)

We can, however, discover and elucidate truths that are useful and provisionally true. Whether any “truth claim” can be fully proven, however, is a very complex one, as you know.

That’s exactly what an axiom is. Axioms cannot be demonstrated or proven to be true. That’s why they are axioms. Like it or not, that’s how it is.

I just spent the weekend in the White Mountains with a very prominent theoretical physicist from Harvard. He said - and I am quoting fairly directly - that “no current theory of the physical world is permanent; every theory we current hold as sacred will be radically adjusted or swept entirely away; no future theory will fully explain reality.”

In other words, I responded, "so mystery is an irreducible aspect of the universe? "

His answer, “that’s a pretty safe bet.”

175

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

And the celtic cross predates Christianity’s arrival in Ireland.

[/quote]

I doubt this very much. Evidence?

176

You missed all three points. On a strictly scientific basis: why have we never observed (for example) a finch evolve into another kind of bird?

Why is the fossil record conspicuously missing intermediate species?

Since a virgin birth of some kind is obviously possible, it denounces the notion that it’s not. In addition, the shark birth researchers emphasize that deletion of genetic information REDUCES the chances of survival in the wild. You have to admit, it’s very problematic to adhere to the Darwinian model in light of these facts.

Thus, if you insist on doing so, you’re running on faith. Respectfully submitted…

177

Yes, Katzenjammer, from a scientific perspective, I agree 100%…very well said.

178

[quote]Jpmpac1 wrote:
Darwinian evolution has never produced the most basic facts to back up the theory. And that, my friend, is faith.[/quote]

And yet it seems to be more factual than the Bible or the Qur’an.

It may not be right, but I highly doubt something as brilliantly complex as the earth was created in 7 days.

179

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:

And the celtic cross predates Christianity’s arrival in Ireland.

I doubt this very much. Evidence?[/quote]

This wasn’t my claim, it was that of FI.

180

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:

And the celtic cross predates Christianity’s arrival in Ireland.

I doubt this very much. Evidence?

This wasn’t my claim, it was that of FI. [/quote]

Sorry PR, quoted wrong - I’ll fix it.

181

[quote]Makavali wrote:
Jpmpac1 wrote:
Darwinian evolution has never produced the most basic facts to back up the theory. And that, my friend, is faith.

And yet it seems to be more factual than the Bible or the Qur’an.

It may not be right, but I highly doubt something as brilliantly complex as the earth was created in 7 days.[/quote]

I agree.
http://www.opc.org/OS/html/V9/1c.html

182

The creation history is figuratively presented as an ordinary week…

That’s more like it.

183

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Makavali wrote:
Jpmpac1 wrote:
Darwinian evolution has never produced the most basic facts to back up the theory. And that, my friend, is faith.

And yet it seems to be more factual than the Bible or the Qur’an.

It may not be right, but I highly doubt something as brilliantly complex as the earth was created in 7 days.

I agree.

Who really believes anything like this ^^. I’m sure they exist. Personally, I’ve never met a single theologian or priest who does.

Here’s a very small sampling of the wide variety of views of the subject within the Church: What the Early Church Believed: Creation and Genesis | Catholic Answers

184

[quote]Makavali wrote:
The creation history is figuratively presented as an ordinary week…

That’s more like it.[/quote]

For the record, I think there was a historical Adam. I agree with all of the claims in that paper. I’ve yet to read a better exegete on the subject, and Lee Iron’s Hebrew is superb.