Aliens

[clontaago]

Ill bring my bible tomorrow!!!

 

[Matabele]

The billions-of-years timescale estimated by modern scientific theories cannot be harmonized with the literal interpretation of the Bible by resorting to the misguided notion of a day-age.

And therein lies the flaw in his argument. He has not understood context or literary purpose.

 

[Dan]

Or are you forcing an understanding and hiding from developing proof?

 

[Matabele]

The developing proof is that that early genesis account was written on cunieform tablets. It's not as though the author had a telescope to check the revelation!

I'm in the school of thought that doesn't take an awful lot of the OT literally. Do a google search on NT Wright and you will find some interesting theories. The majority of the evangelical world consider this bloke a screaming heretic.

 

[Dan]

either way champ they are still just pretty stories

 

[fLIP]

Its so much clearer now.

Genesis is just like the Davinci Code.

 

[Narcissus]

either way champ they are still just pretty stories

Thanks for the revelation Daniel... this is what we've been saying all along. Just because we believe that there is a 'grain of truth' to the story is beside the point. Or do you think it's a big deal that George Orwell wasn't REALLY trying to warn us about talking, walking animals in Animal Farm, as well?

It's this petty bull**** that hinders the discussion. One group saying "most of us don't believe in Creationism as told by Genesis" and the other group saying "yes, you do, and if you don't you're not a real Catholic". It's the same discussion that's been had before and for me, at least, it's offensive that some would believe that they have a deeper understanding of someone else's faith than that person themselves (as well as all of those up the chain).

There's a reason these things show up as different threads and that is because they all have different questions. For some reason some people continue to boil it back down to the Creationism thing and then it ends up us "no we don't, yes you do" again. Instead, why can't we answer the questions that are brought up specific to the thread?

That's the reason I'm trying my hardest to keep out of this... most of my questions have remained unanswered. In one thread you seem to confuse radiation with 'dust and chemicals'. In the same thread you charge that if I don't believe in (classical?) Creationism then I'm not a Christian. In another thread you point at a group of Rednecks in the same location and call it a 'sample group', don't tell us why your 'sample group' is a 'sample group' without meeting a lot of the requirements of the definition and then tell us not to try and use your 'logic' against you when you don't even define your 'logic'. "Hey, look at those scientists over there that all say global warming is not real! Thank God for that sample group, I was really worried there for a minute...".

How about you try and better define what it is you're saying and show us that you know what it is you're talking about, as opposed to just ignoring us when we call you out on what is some really basic stuff (mathematics, statistics, chemistry...). It would be great for you to actually educate us instead of continuing to turn back and say "but you believe in Creationism" even though we have told you time and again that you're wrong even about that!

That's it. I know I said it before but unless you can start to answer our questions when we ask for you to clarify yourself, then I'm not interested in the monologue...

 

[Matabele]

either way champ they are still just pretty stories

What Narc said.

Perhaps you are gaining a greater understanding of Dawkins' flawed presupposition. One he's made a lot of money out of mind you.

 

[Matabele]

Its so much clearer now.

Genesis is just like the Davinci Code.

If that's the level of thought you're going to apply to the subject, that's the last time I'll humour you with an intelligent response.

Pretty amazing bloke to have his 12 closest mates and hundreds of associates get martyred to cover for the fact he was shacked up with a hooker!

 

[Dan]

[quote author=Dan]
either way champ they are still just pretty stories

Thanks for the revelation Daniel... this is what we've been saying all along. Just because we believe that there is a 'grain of truth' to the story is beside the point. Or do you think it's a big deal that George Orwell wasn't REALLY trying to warn us about talking, walking animals in Animal Farm, as well?

It's this petty bull**** that hinders the discussion. One group saying "most of us don't believe in Creationism as told by Genesis" and the other group saying "yes, you do, and if you don't you're not a real Catholic". It's the same discussion that's been had before and for me, at least, it's offensive that some would believe that they have a deeper understanding of someone else's faith than that person themselves (as well as all of those up the chain).

There's a reason these things show up as different threads and that is because they all have different questions. For some reason some people continue to boil it back down to the Creationism thing and then it ends up us "no we don't, yes you do" again. Instead, why can't we answer the questions that are brought up specific to the thread?

That's the reason I'm trying my hardest to keep out of this... most of my questions have remained unanswered. In one thread you seem to confuse radiation with 'dust and chemicals'. In the same thread you charge that if I don't believe in (classical?) Creationism then I'm not a Christian. In another thread you point at a group of Rednecks in the same location and call it a 'sample group', don't tell us why your 'sample group' is a 'sample group' without meeting a lot of the requirements of the definition and then tell us not to try and use your 'logic' against you when you don't even define your 'logic'. "Hey, look at those scientists over there that all say global warming is not real! Thank God for that sample group, I was really worried there for a minute...".

How about you try and better define what it is you're saying and show us that you know what it is you're talking about, as opposed to just ignoring us when we call you out on what is some really basic stuff (mathematics, statistics, chemistry...). It would be great for you to actually educate us instead of continuing to turn back and say "but you believe in Creationism" even though we have told you time and again that you're wrong even about that!

That's it. I know I said it before but unless you can start to answer our questions when we ask for you to clarify yourself, then I'm not interested in the monologue...

[/quote]

I think you are forcing someone elses arguments on me. I havent said int his thread that anyone believes in Creationism, and you have also misinterpereted what I meant by "Either way they are all pretty stories"

Apply a larger biblical meaning to that and a root meaning rather than applying it singularly to the subject matter you wish to

 

[Utility Player]

Have aliens visited this planet ? Well duh, dont the names E.T & Alf mean anything to you lot, geeze.

 

[Dan]

not to mention Widget the World Watcher for the younger generations

 

[Narcissus]

I think you are forcing someone elses arguments on me. I havent said int his thread that anyone believes in Creationism, and you have also misinterpereted what I meant by \"Either way they are all pretty stories\"

And where did I say that you said that in this thread? This is what I said:

That's the reason I'm trying my hardest to keep out of this... most of my questions have remained unanswered. In one thread you seem to confuse radiation with 'dust and chemicals'. In the same thread you charge that if I don't believe in (classical?) Creationism then I'm not a Christian.

"In the same thread" is in reference to the same thread as the radiation question. For what it's worth, the exact post I'm referring to is at http://www.silvertails.net/addins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?165602 .

Apply a larger biblical meaning to that and a root meaning rather than applying it singularly to the subject matter you wish to

I'll be honest Dan: for me, that sentence doesn't parse too well. Are you saying that as far as you're concerned, the Bible is either all a story or none of it is? Is that the same for all books, or is the Bible 'special' in that it can't be 'based on fact' and contain analogies and allegories?

 

[Guest]

Aliens have landed in Sydney and the evidence is at Parra stadium every time parra play a home game.

 

[Dan]

[quote author=Dan]
I think you are forcing someone elses arguments on me. I havent said int his thread that anyone believes in Creationism, and you have also misinterpereted what I meant by \"Either way they are all pretty stories\"

And where did I say that you said that in this thread? This is what I said:

That's the reason I'm trying my hardest to keep out of this... most of my questions have remained unanswered. In one thread you seem to confuse radiation with 'dust and chemicals'. In the same thread you charge that if I don't believe in (classical?) Creationism then I'm not a Christian.

"In the same thread" is in reference to the same thread as the radiation question. For what it's worth, the exact post I'm referring to is at http://www.silvertails.net/addins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?165602 .

Apply a larger biblical meaning to that and a root meaning rather than applying it singularly to the subject matter you wish to

I'll be honest Dan: for me, that sentence doesn't parse too well. Are you saying that as far as you're concerned, the Bible is either all a story or none of it is? Is that the same for all books, or is the Bible 'special' in that it can't be 'based on fact' and contain analogies and allegories?


[/quote]

No i am saying IMO

 

[Canteen Worker]

I love it how people who don't study the Bible are experts on the Bible.

Tookeys post on aliens at Parra -

 

[Matabele]

What does Dan base his opinion on?

 

[Narcissus]

No i am saying IMO

OK, so seeing as I have a few comments in that quoted post, I will assume that when you say this you are referring to:

\"I'll be honest Dan: for me, that sentence doesn't parse too well. Are you saying that as far as you're concerned, the Bible is either all a story or none of it is? Is that the same for all books, or is the Bible 'special' in that it can't be 'based on fact' and contain analogies and allegories?\"

Am I right in that assumption?

If not, what are you referring to? If so, how is "i am saying IMO" different to "as far as you're concerned"? Aren't we saying the same thing? If not, take an extra minute and tell me (in parsable English) what it is you are saying.

If we are saying the same thing, then I will re-ask my question (this failure to answer basic questions... where have I seen this before?):
Why, in your opinion, must the Bible be one or the other? What separates this book from any other in this regard? Do you require all books to be fact or fiction (without analogies or allegories) and if not, WHY IS THE BIBLE DIFFERENT? See, I'm not asking you IF you think it is. I'm asking you WHY you think it is.

Why is it that the Bible is NOT allowed to have stories that simplify things to help with understanding?

Again, if I've misunderstood what you meant with your entire reply of "No i am saying IMO" (when quoting a number of my statements) then I apologise... feel free to correct me.

 

[earl]

I cant comment on god cause i havnt seen him , but I have certainly seen something that I think the U.S government wish they could say it was theirs. iIt was in the Blue Mountains and it was farken weird.
That is all I will say.Even if this thread was a Gee up.

 

[Narcissus]

earl: I'd love to get back on topic Any more details?

After this thread dies out, maybe I should start a 'do you believe in ghosts' thread!