100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: bill nye booed in texas, wacky waco baptists | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Hey not the end of the world, but would be nice if you had added the word "some". In the spirit of fairness and all. : ) Thanks, You are correct, my apologies. Some atheists. There are plenty of atheists who are thinking, rational people and not reactionaries who view the world as a battle against the good thinking people (atheists) vs the unthinking barbarians (religious). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I hadn't read this post till now....and I need to comment on this... "How often have Christians killed people for expressing unpopular ideas?" Ever hear of the Spanish Inquistion? Salem witch hunts? How about Ireland, or 100 other countries? Religion has killed more people than a combination of most everything else! Shotgun argumentation... Okay... Yes, I have heard of the Spanish Inquisition. That happened over 500 years ago. I guess I should have been more specific and asked for a recent example. Salem witch hunts. If you look at the actual history, you will discover that the legal authorities imprisoned, tortured and executed "witches", while Christians (such as minister Cotton Mather) called for the "witches" to be freed. It wasn't until the governors own wife was accused of being a witch that the arrests were finally stopped. The Salem witch trials were an example of out of control government, not religious extremism. The Irish issues were more about loyalists vs separatists. The only thing that made it religious is that Catholics were mostly separatists, so the loyalists targeted Catholics in an attempt to destroy the separatists power base. Democide (murder by a person's own Government) has killed more people than the crusades, the Salem witch trials, the Spanish inquisition and every war in recorded history combined. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's not the truth, it is what he perceives as the truth. As I pointed out in my first post, the word "light" doesn't mean a direct source of light. Bill Nye thought he was making an important point about inaccuracies in the Bible, he was really just making a jackass out of himself. your entitled to your opinion... as for me, i'll take the word of a scientist over a fanatic any day of the week... so i gather you feel that every christian believes the same as you on this? you also have to remember, just because you interpret the bible your way, others interpret their way... You are confused, I didn't offer an opinion. Not all Christians believe the same way as I do, only the factually correct ones do. There are lots of interpretations of the Bible, that doesn't change the fact that there is a correct interpretation and many incorrect interpretations. Reasonable people can disagree on interpretations, but I don't believe it would be reasonable to consider my interpretation of this piece of the Bible incorrect. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's not the truth, it is what he perceives as the truth. As I pointed out in my first post, the word "light" doesn't mean a direct source of light. Bill Nye thought he was making an important point about inaccuracies in the Bible, he was really just making a jackass out of himself. your entitled to your opinion... as for me, i'll take the word of a scientist over a fanatic any day of the week... so i gather you feel that every christian believes the same as you on this? you also have to remember, just because you interpret the bible your way, others interpret their way... You are confused, I didn't offer an opinion. Not all Christians believe the same way as I do, only the factually correct ones do. There are lots of interpretations of the Bible, that doesn't change the fact that there is a correct interpretation and many incorrect interpretations. Reasonable people can disagree on interpretations, but I don't believe it would be reasonable to consider my interpretation of this piece of the Bible incorrect. So, why do you feel your interpretation is correct, while other interpretations are incorrect? It's still your opinion. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I hadn't read this post till now....and I need to comment on this... "How often have Christians killed people for expressing unpopular ideas?" Ever hear of the Spanish Inquistion? Salem witch hunts? How about Ireland, or 100 other countries? Religion has killed more people than a combination of most everything else! Shotgun argumentation... Okay... Yes, I have heard of the Spanish Inquisition. That happened over 500 years ago. I guess I should have been more specific and asked for a recent example. Salem witch hunts. If you look at the actual history, you will discover that the legal authorities imprisoned, tortured and executed "witches", while Christians (such as minister Cotton Mather) called for the "witches" to be freed. It wasn't until the governors own wife was accused of being a witch that the arrests were finally stopped. The Salem witch trials were an example of out of control government, not religious extremism. The Irish issues were more about loyalists vs separatists. The only thing that made it religious is that Catholics were mostly separatists, so the loyalists targeted Catholics in an attempt to destroy the separatists power base. Democide (murder by a person's own Government) has killed more people than the crusades, the Salem witch trials, the Spanish inquisition and every war in recorded history combined. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Muschristews seem to forget about their Gods genocidal acts for some reason it's almost as if they believe their deity never did it even though it's in their scripture.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So, why do you feel your interpretation is correct, while other interpretations are incorrect? It's still your opinion. Have you followed the conversation at all? Here's my "interpretation": Any serious student of the Bible knows that ma'owr (light) means simply "light" and doesn't indicate if the object is the source or if the light is reflected. Notice that in Proverbs 15:30 "The light of the eyes rejoiceth the heart: [and] a good report maketh the bones fat", "light" is used to talk about a twinkle in a person's eyes. Sorry, but that's not an interpretation, those are facts. An interpretation is "an explanation of the meaning of another's artistic or creative work". I'm not explaining the meaning, I'm simply explaining the definition of the original Hebrew word used for "light". I'm not telling you how to interpret Genesis 1:16, I'm simply pointing out that "light" doesn't mean a direct source, it can mean reflected light. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So, why do you feel your interpretation is correct, while other interpretations are incorrect? It's still your opinion. Have you followed the conversation at all? Here's my "interpretation": Any serious student of the Bible knows that ma'owr (light) means simply "light" and doesn't indicate if the object is the source or if the light is reflected. Notice that in Proverbs 15:30 "The light of the eyes rejoiceth the heart: [and] a good report maketh the bones fat", "light" is used to talk about a twinkle in a person's eyes. Sorry, but that's not an interpretation, those are facts. An interpretation is "an explanation of the meaning of another's artistic or creative work". I'm not explaining the meaning, I'm simply explaining the definition of the original Hebrew word used for "light". I'm not telling you how to interpret Genesis 1:16, I'm simply pointing out that "light" doesn't mean a direct source, it can mean reflected light. Ok, so you've given the definition of a word. Thanks. How does that make your interpretation of the bible the correct one over other interpretations? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
you forgot to add God flooded the earth and wiped it clean minus Noah and his gang.That genocidal hitler wanna be. The number of people killed wasn't recorded and I did write "recorded history" and technically, if God killed those people, you can't argue that those actions were immoral. Once you accept the premise that God exists, you can't question any of His actions. If God exists and did cause the flood, your morality and intellect would be so inferior to His, that to question His actions is a logical fallacy. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Spidercmb
on
Wed 05/02/12 12:21 PM
|
|
Ok, so you've given the definition of a word. Thanks. How does that make your interpretation of the bible the correct one over other interpretations? Oh, you mean in general? Because I go back to the original text, read the definitions of the individual words, look at the root words, look at the context and come to a conclusion that way. If I can't come to a conclusion then it remains a "?" in my head until I find the correct interpretation. I've been told in these forums that the definition of the original word doesn't matter, all that matters is the translated word. 
I've seen scriptures taken out of context to render them meaningless, but yet the worst possible meaning was ascribed to those verses. I've also seen a case of self deprecating bravado taken as a serious statement of fact. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Muschristews seem to forget about their Gods genocidal acts for some reason it's almost as if they believe their deity never did it even though it's in their scripture. I was talking about recorded history. Unfortunately, those death tolls weren't recorded. If they were, they wouldn't be admissible to a discussion of man's inhumanity to man, because they are the actions of a perfect God. Even if they were admitted, it's hard to imagine the number would come close to the estimated 262 million people killed by governments in the 20th century. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Muschristews seem to forget about their Gods genocidal acts for some reason it's almost as if they believe their deity never did it even though it's in their scripture. I was talking about recorded history. Unfortunately, those death tolls weren't recorded. If they were, they wouldn't be admissible to a discussion of man's inhumanity to man, because they are the actions of a perfect God. Even if they were admitted, it's hard to imagine the number would come close to the estimated 262 million people killed by governments in the 20th century. a perfect god? can you tell me what the rainbow symbolized again? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bill Nye - "the booed off stage guy"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Muschristews seem to forget about their Gods genocidal acts for some reason it's almost as if they believe their deity never did it even though it's in their scripture. I was talking about recorded history. Unfortunately, those death tolls weren't recorded. If they were, they wouldn't be admissible to a discussion of man's inhumanity to man, because they are the actions of a perfect God. Even if they were admitted, it's hard to imagine the number would come close to the estimated 262 million people killed by governments in the 20th century. a perfect god? can you tell me what the rainbow symbolized again? Let me explain this again: Even if you think something God did was horrible, you can't question the morality of God. Once you accept the premise that the God described in the Bible exists, you can't then question the actions of God. If you don't accept that God is perfect, then what intellectual grounds do you have to believe that the great flood happened? You can't remain intellectually honest and only accept the parts of the Bible that make your point. The argument you are wanting to make is "God flooded the world, so that makes Him evil." You can't make that argument and remain intellectual honest, because it requires that you ignore the parts of the Bible that say that God is without flaw and without sin. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Muschristews seem to forget about their Gods genocidal acts for some reason it's almost as if they believe their deity never did it even though it's in their scripture. I was talking about recorded history. Unfortunately, those death tolls weren't recorded. If they were, they wouldn't be admissible to a discussion of man's inhumanity to man, because they are the actions of a perfect God. Even if they were admitted, it's hard to imagine the number would come close to the estimated 262 million people killed by governments in the 20th century. a perfect god? can you tell me what the rainbow symbolized again? Let me explain this again: Even if you think something God did was horrible, you can't question the morality of God. Once you accept the premise that the God described in the Bible exists, you can't then question the actions of God. If you don't accept that God is perfect, then what intellectual grounds do you have to believe that the great flood happened? You can't remain intellectually honest and only accept the parts of the Bible that make your point. The argument you are wanting to make is "God flooded the world, so that makes Him evil." You can't make that argument and remain intellectual honest, because it requires that you ignore the parts of the Bible that say that God is without flaw and without sin. the point i was making is that god (if there is one) is not perfect... if he was, then there would have never been a need for the new testament... he even admitted to one of his mistakes by using the rainbow as a symbol to never kill off the world again... but since there is no god, and it never happened, this whole argument is pointless... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reporter of Bill Nye, Moonbat story speaks The real story is a bit different from what is presented in the OP. Nobody booed Bill Nye. The woman didn't yell "We believe in God", she whispered it to the guy she was sitting next to as an explanation for why she was leaving, who happened to be the author of the original article. The article is six years old and wasn't taken down, it was moved to the news paper's online archives, because it's hardly news now. Personally, I think the offense wasn't that people didn't believe that the moon was a reflector, the offense was that at a science lecture for adults and children, a beloved entertainer suggested that the Bible was wrong. Any serious student of the Bible knows that ma'owr (light) means simply "light" and doesn't indicate if the object is the source or if the light is reflected. Notice that in Proverbs 15:30 "The light of the eyes rejoiceth the heart: [and] a good report maketh the bones fat", "light" is used to talk about a twinkle in a person's eyes. I know that atheists love to work themselves into a lather about how violent and ignorant Christians are, but it's just delusions to reassure them of their intellectual superiority to believers. A superiority that only exists in their own desperate minds. I was going to bring up the same thing about the meaning of 'light', wow this is two times in twenty four hours we have agreed,,lol |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reporter of Bill Nye, Moonbat story speaks The real story is a bit different from what is presented in the OP. Nobody booed Bill Nye. The woman didn't yell "We believe in God", she whispered it to the guy she was sitting next to as an explanation for why she was leaving, who happened to be the author of the original article. The article is six years old and wasn't taken down, it was moved to the news paper's online archives, because it's hardly news now. Personally, I think the offense wasn't that people didn't believe that the moon was a reflector, the offense was that at a science lecture for adults and children, a beloved entertainer suggested that the Bible was wrong. Any serious student of the Bible knows that ma'owr (light) means simply "light" and doesn't indicate if the object is the source or if the light is reflected. Notice that in Proverbs 15:30 "The light of the eyes rejoiceth the heart: [and] a good report maketh the bones fat", "light" is used to talk about a twinkle in a person's eyes. I know that atheists love to work themselves into a lather about how violent and ignorant Christians are, but it's just delusions to reassure them of their intellectual superiority to believers. A superiority that only exists in their own desperate minds. I was going to bring up the same thing about the meaning of 'light', wow this is two times in twenty four hours we have agreed,,lol to each his own... the book that bill was referring to was genesis, not proverbs... so, here is more bible thumping and not even talking about the same books, or even the same thing... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reporter of Bill Nye, Moonbat story speaks The real story is a bit different from what is presented in the OP. Nobody booed Bill Nye. The woman didn't yell "We believe in God", she whispered it to the guy she was sitting next to as an explanation for why she was leaving, who happened to be the author of the original article. The article is six years old and wasn't taken down, it was moved to the news paper's online archives, because it's hardly news now. Personally, I think the offense wasn't that people didn't believe that the moon was a reflector, the offense was that at a science lecture for adults and children, a beloved entertainer suggested that the Bible was wrong. Any serious student of the Bible knows that ma'owr (light) means simply "light" and doesn't indicate if the object is the source or if the light is reflected. Notice that in Proverbs 15:30 "The light of the eyes rejoiceth the heart: [and] a good report maketh the bones fat", "light" is used to talk about a twinkle in a person's eyes. I know that atheists love to work themselves into a lather about how violent and ignorant Christians are, but it's just delusions to reassure them of their intellectual superiority to believers. A superiority that only exists in their own desperate minds. I was going to bring up the same thing about the meaning of 'light', wow this is two times in twenty four hours we have agreed,,lol to each his own... the book that bill was referring to was genesis, not proverbs... so, here is more bible thumping and not even talking about the same books, or even the same thing... and genesis says 'let there be light',,,it doesnt specify if the light source is direct or reflextion,,,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Spidercmb
on
Thu 05/03/12 05:32 PM
|
|
the point i was making is that god (if there is one) is not perfect... if he was, then there would have never been a need for the new testament... he even admitted to one of his mistakes by using the rainbow as a symbol to never kill off the world again... but since there is no god, and it never happened, this whole argument is pointless... God didn't admit to a mistake, God promised to never flood the world again. Please try to be honest and do your research if you want to debate a subject with someone, you shouldn't just make things up. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
to each his own... the book that bill was referring to was genesis, not proverbs... so, here is more bible thumping and not even talking about the same books, or even the same thing... Let's read what I wrote again: Any serious student of the Bible knows that ma'owr (light) means simply "light" and doesn't indicate if the object is the source or if the light is reflected. Notice that in Proverbs 15:30 "The light of the eyes rejoiceth the heart: [and] a good report maketh the bones fat", "light" is used to talk about a twinkle in a person's eyes. I was showing how the word ma'owr (light) doesn't have to mean a direct source of light. I used Proverbs 15:30 as an example of the usage when ma'owr doesn't mean a direct source of light. If Bill Nye had done serious exegesis on Genesis 1:16, he would have found that what he presented as a problem with the Bible wasn't actually an issue. |
|
|
|
|
