Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 58

Thread: Pope's latest

  1. #1
    basics's Avatar Vicarius Provinciae
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Scotland, UK.
    Posts
    11,280

    Default Pope's latest

    I see that this Pope has come out to say that the church, Roman Catholic, has got it wrong concerning the birth time of Jesus Christ. What kept them? One only had to see the date of the death of Herod and count back to the investigated time of Messias advent to arrive at that conclusion.

    That king had all his experts working along with the knowledge that the three visitors brought to realise that Jesus was anything up to two years of age making His birth at around 6BC. Therefore when He died and rose again that would place Him very much in the forty years old bracket, a very Biblical number, one that I personally have held for most of my conversion time fortified by the forty days from his death to Pentecost if I am not mistaken.

    Therefore when the wise men actually saw Him he wasn't a babe in a manger, rather a toddler dodging around His parents as toddlers do. So all the nonsense built up upon nativity scenes are just that, untruths which leave children with the wrong impressions altogether. It paints a false picture of the seriousness surrounding what was one of the world's most important events, why? Because it has turned the event into an idol in the minds of those that celebrate Christmas.

    To children what is given them is what they will believe actually took place when in fact it never did and religion feeds on it whether Romish or anything else in the Christian system. I don't find it offensive to give presents as these men were written to have done, but place it in the right setting by telling children the truth from start to finish. That way the link between the wise men and their gifts correspond to the gifts St Nicholas, Santa Claus, emulated when he did the same for children in his time.

    So, what do you guys think?

  2. #2
    Sir Adrian's Avatar the Imperishable
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Nehekhara
    Posts
    17,363

    Default Re: Pope's latest

    Errm no, if his birthdate is wrong then the year of his resurrection is also wrong. Dyonisios Exiguus (the guy who calculated Christ's year of birth) used Christ's age to determine the year of his crucifixion. So everything you said in paragraphs 3 and 4 is erroneous.

    This is hardly "the latest". This error has been known for years by most Christian denominations, and its largely irrelevant. Aside from perhaps adding 2 to 6 years to our calendar it changes nothing. Even if He was 40, 50, 100 His teachings, deeds and sacrifice remain unchanged, and that is what Christianity is based on, not his material form.
    Last edited by Sir Adrian; November 25, 2012 at 05:14 PM.
    Under the patronage of Pie the Inkster Click here to find a hidden gem on the forum!


  3. #3
    Nietzsche's Avatar Too Human
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,878

    Default Re: Pope's latest

    Basics,

    While I appreciate your devotion to unearthing these bits of our anthropological past, I must say that nativity scenes are not the source of modern idolatry.

    The gospels do not specify the age of Jesus at the time of the Magi visitation. So, modern believers should not be faulted for any possible error in translation or practice.

    Finally, much of the nativity was described by the Church in order to present the story in a human and delicate way. A babe in a manger is a more touching and delicate scene than a toddler running about getting his feet dirty with animal filth. Birth, is a remarkable and anxious human event. When you marry that notion to a virgin birth and the potential terror/honor of bearing God's child, I'm sure the power of the nativity scene will make sense.

    The later Saints of the Church did much to embellish the Nativity. Wasn't it Assisi that added the animals? What we have is a legendary story told over the course of 2000 years where detail has been added or removed based on culture, aesthetic, or human imagination. Take it for what it is, a metaphorical presentation of a paradigm shifting historical event.
    To be governed is to be watched, inspected, directed, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, and commanded, by creatures who have neither the right, wisdom, nor virtue to do so. To be governed is to be at every operation, at every transaction noted, registered, taxed, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, admonished, reformed, corrected, and punished. It is, under pretext of public utility, and in the name of the general interest, to be placed under contribution, drilled, fleeced, exploited, monopolized, extorted, and robbed; then, at the slightest resistance, to be repressed, fined, vilified, harassed, abused, disarmed, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, and betrayed; and to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, derided, outraged, and dishonored. -Pierre-Joseph Proudhon

  4. #4
    Aeneas Veneratio's Avatar Protector Domesticus
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Copenhagen (Denmark)
    Posts
    4,703

    Default Re: Pope's latest

    Old news, but then again the Catholic Church is known for its very slow pace... OP, your take on Christmas is wrong. Christ's birth is believed to have been around spring, the reason the early Christians chose the 24th/25th was to ease conversion to Christianity for the pagans in and outside of the Roman Empire by using one of their tradtions - like the perception of your god being a old man with beard was taken from Norse Mythology (Odin) and Greek/Roman Mythology (Zeus/Jupiter).
    Last edited by Aeneas Veneratio; November 26, 2012 at 04:40 PM.
    R2TW stance: Ceterum autem censeo res publica delendam esse

  5. #5

    Default Re: Pope's latest

    Quote Originally Posted by Aeneas Veneratio View Post
    Old news, but then again the Catholic Church is known for its very slow pace... OP, your take on Christmas is wrong. Christ's birth is believed to have been around spring, the reason the early Christians chose the 24th/25th was to ease conversion to Christianity for the pagans in and outside of the Roman Empire by using one of their tradtions - like the perception of your god being a old man with beard was taken from Norse Mythology (Odin) and Greek/Roman Mythology (Zeus/Jupiter).

    If you are trying to speak in favour of using (the old) 6 BC as the new 0 BC, don't count on my vote. I don't want to have another 2012 with that conspiracy, end of the World crap.
    Aeneas, you don't need to slam Basics Christianity. I also am a Christian and the "old man w/a beard" motif is putting every Christian in the "ignorant" category as if Christians don't know this or something.

    State a fact without using a wide paintbrush called "stereotyping."

    Later,
    hellas1

  6. #6
    basics's Avatar Vicarius Provinciae
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Scotland, UK.
    Posts
    11,280

    Default Re: Pope's latest

    " Errm no, if his birthdate is wrong then the year of his resurrection is also wrong. Dyonisios Exiguus (the guy who calculated Christ's year of birth) used Christ's age to determine the year of his crucifixion. So everything you said in paragraphs 3 and 4 is erroneous."

    Sir Adrian,

    Yet it is recorded by Josephus when He was executed if memory serves me correct so that doesn't change thus bringing His age up to the Biblical number 40. Now this may not be importan to you but for the discerning mind it is important in the overall context and flow of Scripture, why? Well, when the wrath of God fell on man with the flood, that wrath lasted forty days until the old world's population was all gone. The forty days between the crucifixion and the feast of the firstfruits, Him being that in evidential form has direct corrolation with that event simply because Pentecost brought into the open what was a mystery previously. It brought the need for rebirth which was always there, out into the open by the Gospel delivered by the disciples. He was/is the firstfruit of new life.

    " This is hardly "the latest". This error has been known for years by most Christian denominations, and its largely irrelevant. Aside from perhaps adding 2 to 6 years to our calendar it changes nothing. Even if He was 40, 50, 100 His teachings, deeds and sacrifice remain unchanged, and that is what Christianity is based on, not his material form."

    But my friend we are not talking about so-called Christian denominations. What we are talking about is the church of the living God which was never and will never be denominationalised. We are talking about The Way, The Truth and The Life, built by grace upon rebirth consolidated by the Comforter who can but only lead into all truth. So, I ask you, is that irrelevant? Of course the crucifixion and resurrection are the most important and relevant things but rebirth is not built on lies so that believers can continue to lie.

  7. #7
    Sir Adrian's Avatar the Imperishable
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Nehekhara
    Posts
    17,363

    Default Re: Pope's latest

    The fistfruit of life, while an interesting metaphor, it does not explain why Christ's age matters even in the slightest.
    It is not a lie, it is a miscalculation made by a simple scholar hailing from the former province of Dacia 500 years after the crucifixion. If anything it is a miracle that the error is only 2-6 years.
    Have you never made a mistake in your entire life? Didn't Christ say "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone"

    Quote Originally Posted by Aeneas Veneratio View Post
    If you are trying to speak in favour of using (the old) 6 BC as the new 0 BC, don't count on my vote. I don't want to have another 2012 with that conspiracy, end of the World crap.
    Far from it. If 0 AD were to move 6 years back we'd be in 2018, not 2006, because that would mean that 6 years from the BC period would not move to the AD period.
    Last edited by Sir Adrian; November 26, 2012 at 10:47 AM.
    Under the patronage of Pie the Inkster Click here to find a hidden gem on the forum!


  8. #8

    Default Re: Pope's latest

    Quote Originally Posted by basics View Post
    I see that this Pope has come out to say that the church, Roman Catholic, has got it wrong concerning the birth time of Jesus Christ. What kept them? One only had to see the date of the death of Herod and count back to the investigated time of Messias advent to arrive at that conclusion.

    That king had all his experts working along with the knowledge that the three visitors brought to realise that Jesus was anything up to two years of age making His birth at around 6BC. Therefore when He died and rose again that would place Him very much in the forty years old bracket, a very Biblical number, one that I personally have held for most of my conversion time fortified by the forty days from his death to Pentecost if I am not mistaken.

    Therefore when the wise men actually saw Him he wasn't a babe in a manger, rather a toddler dodging around His parents as toddlers do. So all the nonsense built up upon nativity scenes are just that, untruths which leave children with the wrong impressions altogether. It paints a false picture of the seriousness surrounding what was one of the world's most important events, why? Because it has turned the event into an idol in the minds of those that celebrate Christmas.

    To children what is given them is what they will believe actually took place when in fact it never did and religion feeds on it whether Romish or anything else in the Christian system. I don't find it offensive to give presents as these men were written to have done, but place it in the right setting by telling children the truth from start to finish. That way the link between the wise men and their gifts correspond to the gifts St Nicholas, Santa Claus, emulated when he did the same for children in his time.

    So, what do you guys think?
    I'm an atheist and I celebrate Christmas. I hate to break it to you but in spite of the name it isn't and never was a (solely)Christian holiday. It existed in various forms long before Christianity and will continue to exist if there is ever an after-Christianity. Many of the Christmas traditions celebrated by Christian households worldwide are formerly pagan in nature. Considering the number of gods who were supposedly virgin births, born in caves/prisons/in the middle of a herd of goats/, and who died then resurrected(as did a large number of the fertility gods worldwide) it wouldn't be surprising to learn that the manger scene is based on the birth legends of one, or multiple, other gods' mythos.

    Christmas should be celebrated for what it is, a fun sometimes touching sometimes friendlier season of the year and a wonderful tradition. Changing something to fit the narrow view of some or even all the 'born-again' would be tragic.
    Last edited by Ciabhán; November 26, 2012 at 05:37 PM.

  9. #9
    Aeneas Veneratio's Avatar Protector Domesticus
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Copenhagen (Denmark)
    Posts
    4,703

    Default Re: Pope's latest

    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Adrian View Post

    Far from it. If 0 AD were to move 6 years back we'd be in 2018, not 2006, because that would mean that 6 years from the BC period would not move to the AD period.
    Oops, only defence I have is, it was a bit late, when I wrote that I wrote BC, but my mind was saying AD...

    Changing the year would make counting one's birth year and age more complicated though (IE you are used to having year X as your birth year, but now it's year Y).
    Last edited by Aeneas Veneratio; November 26, 2012 at 04:44 PM.
    R2TW stance: Ceterum autem censeo res publica delendam esse

  10. #10
    basics's Avatar Vicarius Provinciae
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Scotland, UK.
    Posts
    11,280

    Default Re: Pope's latest

    " What we have is a legendary story told over the course of 2000 years where detail has been added or removed based on culture, aesthetic, or human imagination. Take it for what it is, a metaphorical presentation of a paradigm shifting historical event. "

    Nietzsche,

    That in part is my point. That if we take what is not written and make it as it was written then we diminish God's word adding lustre to what the unbeliever sees as a fairy story. Notice I am not trying to rewrite the Bible, just tell it as it is because it is the truth upon which it is built. Add to that that it has been incorporated into the pagan worship of Rome for Rome's sake then we leave the truth to establish further the fairy tale as unbelievers see it.

    The thing one must ask in the light of history, was God pleased by all this? The short answer is no because it didn't take long for Rome to fall for its apostasy. What was once the glory of the Emperors became the glory of the Bishops turning Rome into history. The Vatican became Rome wherever a Roman stepped and the apostasy got stronger until the Reformation. Today we still celebrate that untruth as though it was truth and that is wrong. Oh, and we're all guilty of it.

    " The fistfruit of life, while an interesting metaphor, it does not explain why Christ's age matters even in the slightest."

    Sir Adrian,

    It matters because from Genesis 1 to Revelation 22:21 timing is important, why? Because in figure or otherwise everything points to Jesus Christ and is specifically meant to. It is why Scripture carries the weight of the Spirit in and by what is written. For sure God doesn't give an immediate date but He certainly leaves enough clues for the discerning mind which by definition I mean the born again. Since they are the fruit of the Spirit it beholds the same that they should be aware of what is true and what is not so that the Gospel they proclaim is built purely on truth.


    " I'm an atheist and I celebrate Christmas. I hate to break it to you but in spite of the name it isn't and never was a (solely)Christian holiday. It existed in various forms long before Christianity and will continue to exist if there is ever an after-Christianity. Many of the Christmas traditions celebrated by Christian households worldwide are formerly pagan in nature. Considering the number of gods who were supposedly virgin births, born in caves/prisons/in the middle of a herd of goats/, and who died then resurrected(as did a large number of the fertility gods worldwide) it wouldn't be surprising to learn that the manger scene is based on the birth legends of one, or multiple, other gods' mythos."

    Ciabhan,

    There I must disagree if only because your other religions never came into being until after the flood out of which came the Gospel that was given to Adam and Eve in the garden and brought forth by Noah into the new world. So, what these religions transpired to was built on what God prophecied and which they took to be in their terms the " seed " upon which their beliefs were about. But that " seed " was/is Jesus Christ and no other simply because of the number of prophetic anouncements made and fulfilled in Him ever since.

    " Christmas should be celebrated for what it is, a fun sometimes touching sometimes friendlier season of the year and a wonderful tradition. Changing something to fit the narrow view of some or even all the 'born-again' would be tragic. "

    In general terms that would be OK if it turned people to Jesus Christ and kept them there, but frankly it doesn't happen like that. The reason people are born again is to separate them from the condemned, so that in Christ the first commandment becomes a reality for them. It is a narrow view because God made it that way as did the Son when He said the way is so narrow that few ever get through.

    Therefore, since Christmas Day has nothing to do with the birth of Christ why do we celebrate it?

  11. #11
    Himster's Avatar Praeses
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Dublin, The Peoples Republic of Ireland
    Posts
    9,838

    Default Re: Pope's latest

    Quote Originally Posted by basics View Post
    There I must disagree if only because your other religions never came into being until after the flood out of which came the Gospel that was given to Adam and Eve in the garden and brought forth by Noah into the new world.
    That simply isn't true. According to biblical literalists the flood occurred 2340 BC. The Pagan Pyramids were built before 2600 BC. Not only is the flood physically impossible with absolutely no evidence to support it, but so is the claim that no "other" religions existed before the 2340 BC, infact it's demonstrably false.

    Therefore, since Christmas Day has nothing to do with the birth of Christ why do we celebrate it?
    Because it's fun.
    The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are so certain of themselves, but wiser people are full of doubts.
    -Betrand Russell

  12. #12
    God-Emperor of Mankind's Avatar Apperently I protect
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Malmö, Sweden
    Posts
    21,640

    Default Re: Pope's latest

    Quote Originally Posted by basics View Post
    Therefore, since Christmas Day has nothing to do with the birth of Christ why do we celebrate it?
    Depends on these "we" are.
    In Sweden we celebrate Jul which is a pagan holiday to celebrate winter solstice and we do that on christmas eve, not on christmas day.
    As mentioned before, only reason the birth of Jesus was tacked on to it was to butt in on the pagan celebtrations.

    As for other religions after the flood, neolythic people in Europe, Africa and more would disagree with that.

  13. #13

    Default Re: Pope's latest

    Quote Originally Posted by basics View Post
    Ciabhan,

    There I must disagree if only because your other religions never came into being until after the flood out of which came the Gospel that was given to Adam and Eve in the garden and brought forth by Noah into the new world. So, what these religions transpired to was built on what God prophecied and which they took to be in their terms the " seed " upon which their beliefs were about. But that " seed " was/is Jesus Christ and no other simply because of the number of prophetic anouncements made and fulfilled in Him ever since.
    Completely ignoring all evidence to the contrary doesn't exactly make your argument solid. As others have pointed out we have evidence for the existence of antidiluvian(assuming of course that the date one can determine from Bible evidence is correct) pagan religions. We actually have NO evidence for a flood of biblical proportions. I'll stick with the evidence not the Middle Eastern fairy tales.

    In general terms that would be OK if it turned people to Jesus Christ and kept them there, but frankly it doesn't happen like that. The reason people are born again is to separate them from the condemned, so that in Christ the first commandment becomes a reality for them. It is a narrow view because God made it that way as did the Son when He said the way is so narrow that few ever get through.

    Therefore, since Christmas Day has nothing to do with the birth of Christ why do we celebrate it?
    Generally makes people happier/brings friends and families together. That's enough for me.

    Christmas Day(other than the relatively recent renaming to fit it into Christianity) DOESN'T have anything to do with the birth of your Christ. It's at the wrong time of year. It does have everything to do with the winter solstice. Something worth celebrating as it meant the end of lengthening nights and colder temperatures and foreshadowed spring. People's fear of starving to death was lessened.

    The winter holiday, whatever you call it, was a celebration of having made it through the lean times once again so at the most basic level it's a pure celebration of life.

  14. #14
    Sir Adrian's Avatar the Imperishable
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Nehekhara
    Posts
    17,363

    Default Re: Pope's latest

    Quote Originally Posted by Ciabhán View Post
    We actually have NO evidence for a flood of biblical proportions. I'll stick with the evidence not the Middle Eastern fairy tales.
    Wrong. There is plenty of evidence of a great flood in the area around the Black Sea and North-Eastern Mediterranean, going as far south as modern day Iraq. Just because you are unaware of it doesn't mean it does not or did not exist.
    Fun fact: Almost every ancient culture, whether thy were native American or Eurasian, had a myth about a Great Flood happening, and every myth mentions the exact same time-frame. Care to explain that mister "Middle-eastern Myths"?


    Quote Originally Posted by Aeneas Veneratio View Post
    Oops, only defence I have is, it was a bit late, when I wrote that I wrote BC, but my mind was saying AD...

    Everyone makes mistakes, don't fret. I agree it would be very confusing


    @Basics: I read a lot of big words that didn't say anything. The bottom line is that in the context of His teachings and deeds Christs age or the exact date when He was born is not important.
    Last edited by Sir Adrian; November 28, 2012 at 04:29 AM.
    Under the patronage of Pie the Inkster Click here to find a hidden gem on the forum!


  15. #15
    basics's Avatar Vicarius Provinciae
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Scotland, UK.
    Posts
    11,280

    Default Re: Pope's latest

    " That simply isn't true. According to biblical literalists the flood occurred 2340 BC. The Pagan Pyramids were built before 2600 BC. Not only is the flood physically impossible with absolutely no evidence to support it, but so is the claim that no "other" religions existed before the 2340 BC, infact it's demonstrably false."

    Dear Old Himster,

    Let's begin with the flood because it is the start of the new world as we know it, all preceeding being lost with the exception of what God Himself commanded Moses to write regarding it. But, for starters, in the beginning the world was covered by water there being no land. To what depth we are not told but we are told that land was not visible as it was under water. When God brought up land obviously the displacement was refilled by water alongside a certain quantity being raised into the sky or heaven. As there was no mention of mountains the size that we have now it can be assumed reasonably that these would be large hills because they too were under water until raised. Indeed it is mentioned that the water covered everything to the depth of 22/25 feet during the flood.

    So, where did it come from? From the sky and from under the land plus deep wells within the earth's structure because that is what Scripture tells us. So, when you say it is impossible, God had Moses write the opposite and had the water to prove it. Add to that plate distortion and breakup plus volcanic activity alongside the movement that had to be when all this was happening and geologically we can see today the results, not forgetting that Mt St Helens showed us how fast and how powerful total movement can be in the case of the flood. And as the water resided canyons were carved out as the water rushed back under the earth just like the plug being pulled in a sink full of water.

    As for the pyramids, dating can only be like dating anything else. It is not an exact science yet people accept that it is because some person of noteriety has said so. The problem that literists of the Bible have when working on dates is that they work on the assumption that kingly lineage never changes when in fact, especially in the Bible, it does quite dramatically because the Jews wiped out record of kings that were cursed causing huge problems for these literalists. The prime example is getting Jesus birth time wrong.

  16. #16

    Default Re: Pope's latest

    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Adrian View Post
    Wrong. There is plenty of evidence of a great flood in the area around the Black Sea and North-Eastern Mediterranean, going as far south as modern day Iraq. Just because you are unaware of it doesn't mean it does not or did not exist.
    Fun fact: Almost every ancient culture, whether thy were native American or Eurasian, had a myth about a Great Flood happening, and every myth mentions the exact same time-frame. Care to explain that mister "Middle-eastern Myths"?
    No.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_myth
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Greek_flood_myths

    We are speaking of dozens of mythological floods that supposedly ended the world ten times over over a period of several thousand years. The Greeks also mixed some world ends by fire into that time frame. Since we have only some place where they is evidence of a great flood there a) wasn't necessarily floods in each of these instances reported, b) these different civilizations talk about a big time frame in which their flood myth occured and c) those floods were localized in most instances.


    Let's begin with the flood because it is the start of the new world as we know it, all preceeding being lost with the exception of what God Himself commanded Moses to write regarding it. But, for starters, in the beginning the world was covered by water there being no land. To what depth we are not told but we are told that land was not visible as it was under water. When God brought up land obviously the displacement was refilled by water alongside a certain quantity being raised into the sky or heaven. As there was no mention of mountains the size that we have now it can be assumed reasonably that these would be large hills because they too were under water until raised. Indeed it is mentioned that the water covered everything to the depth of 22/25 feet during the flood.

    So, where did it come from? From the sky and from under the land plus deep wells within the earth's structure because that is what Scripture tells us. So, when you say it is impossible, God had Moses write the opposite and had the water to prove it. Add to that plate distortion and breakup plus volcanic activity alongside the movement that had to be when all this was happening and geologically we can see today the results, not forgetting that Mt St Helens showed us how fast and how powerful total movement can be in the case of the flood. And as the water resided canyons were carved out as the water rushed back under the earth just like the plug being pulled in a sink full of water.


    As for the pyramids, dating can only be like dating anything else. It is not an exact science yet people accept that it is because some person of noteriety has said so. The problem that literists of the Bible have when working on dates is that they work on the assumption that kingly lineage never changes when in fact, especially in the Bible, it does quite dramatically because the Jews wiped out record of kings that were cursed causing huge problems for these literalists. The prime example is getting Jesus birth time wrong.
    Please go, seek help...
    Last edited by Mangalore; November 28, 2012 at 06:04 AM.
    "Sebaceans once had a god called Djancaz-Bru. Six worlds prayed to her. They built her temples, conquered planets. And yet one day she rose up and destroyed all six worlds. And when the last warrior was dying, he said, 'We gave you everything, why did you destroy us?' And she looked down upon him and she whispered, 'Because I can.' "
    Mangalore Design

  17. #17
    Himster's Avatar Praeses
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Dublin, The Peoples Republic of Ireland
    Posts
    9,838

    Default Re: Pope's latest

    Quote Originally Posted by basics View Post
    Let's begin with the flood because it is the start of the new world as we know it, all preceeding being lost with the exception of what God Himself commanded Moses to write regarding it. But, for starters, in the beginning the world was covered by water there being no land. To what depth we are not told but we are told that land was not visible as it was under water. When God brought up land obviously the displacement was refilled by water alongside a certain quantity being raised into the sky or heaven. As there was no mention of mountains the size that we have now it can be assumed reasonably that these would be large hills because they too were under water until raised. Indeed it is mentioned that the water covered everything to the depth of 22/25 feet during the flood.
    There are literally tons of artifacts and settlements that still exist from before the alleged flood and have no drastic water damage. Newgrange, the pyramids, bronze-age Damascus (9,000 BC), even Jerusalem was founded before the flood and was not damaged by it, Athens, Argos, Luxor (aka Thebes)........... hundreds more. The entire world existed unchanged by "the flood". It could never have happened, it's undeniably a fairy-tale: it was probably a devastating local flood that was exaggerated for a dramatic literary effect.

    So, where did it come from? From the sky and from under the land plus deep wells within the earth's structure because that is what Scripture tells us. So, when you say it is impossible, God had Moses write the opposite and had the water to prove it.
    That water doesn't exist, it never existed, it could not have ever existed: if it did exist the moon would have destroyed the earth due to the increase of mass and gravitational pull. There is not enough room in the earth's crust to contain that quantity of water.

    Add to that plate distortion and breakup plus volcanic activity alongside the movement that had to be when all this was happening and geologically we can see today the results, not forgetting that Mt St Helens showed us how fast and how powerful total movement can be in the case of the flood. And as the water resided canyons were carved out as the water rushed back under the earth just like the plug being pulled in a sink full of water.
    For the water that carved the grand-canyon in the time-scale you claim it would have to have travelled faster than the speed of sound and it would have travelled in a perfect straight line due to the laws of thermodynamics. In reality this is not the case.

    With Mount St-Helens we see a localized flood in an area with porous volcanic rock. What happened is exactly as predicted by geologists. Show me a geologist who believes in a young earth and I'll show you a geologist who is ridiculed by his peers.

    As for the pyramids, dating can only be like dating anything else. It is not an exact science yet people accept that it is because some person of notoriety has said so.
    It is an exact science it's called archaeometry, also known as archaeological sciences, in this case it is corroborated by mineral deposits, carbon dating, written accounts, third party observations and their written accounts, dated grafitti..........and much more: all combined and all examined thoroughly over hundreds of years by thousands of experts. Everything concerned agrees and points undeniably to the same period. There isn't just one expert who claimed this date, there have been thousands of experts over hundreds of years trying to prove and disprove this date. You disagree with thousands of experts and thousands of universities and schools with hundreds of thousands of highly qualified professors and teachers? Good luck with that.
    The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are so certain of themselves, but wiser people are full of doubts.
    -Betrand Russell

  18. #18
    Aeneas Veneratio's Avatar Protector Domesticus
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Copenhagen (Denmark)
    Posts
    4,703

    Default Re: Pope's latest

    Quote Originally Posted by basics View Post
    "Let's begin with the flood because it is the start of the new world as we know it, all preceeding being lost with the exception of what God Himself commanded Moses to write regarding it. But, for starters, in the beginning the world was covered by water there being no land. To what depth we are not told but we are told that land was not visible as it was under water. When God brought up land obviously the displacement was refilled by water alongside a certain quantity being raised into the sky or heaven. As there was no mention of mountains the size that we have now it can be assumed reasonably that these would be large hills because they too were under water until raised. Indeed it is mentioned that the water covered everything to the depth of 22/25 feet during the flood.
    The World has been covered in water, but that was prior to the Dinosaurs and prior to the land masses being formed. There was no "land" under the water, since the land masses came later due to volcano activity. Besides the flood fairy tale doesn't take into account incest and that to avoid incest you would need more than 2/7 people.

    Go read this before you post again... (all of it!)
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Earth
    Last edited by Aeneas Veneratio; November 28, 2012 at 08:45 AM.
    R2TW stance: Ceterum autem censeo res publica delendam esse

  19. #19
    basics's Avatar Vicarius Provinciae
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Scotland, UK.
    Posts
    11,280

    Default Re: Pope's latest

    " With Mount St-Helens we see a localized flood in an area with porous volcanic rock. What happened is exactly as predicted by geologists. Show me a geologist who believes in a young earth and I'll show you a geologist who is ridiculed by his peers."

    Himster,

    You and I both know that anyone who differs from the evolution question is ridiculed so geologists would be no different were they to have a Biblical model as well as any other scientist having the same. And no, geologists never expected what happened the way it did at Mt St Helens and any who say they did are telling porkies.

    But let's look at the water connection for a moment. You say that there is not enough to cover the earth based on what? That since the flood we have mountains over 20,000 feet high and that as far as it goes is quite correct. The thing is that in the flood times these mountains couldn't have existed because it is written that in the first hours of creation there was no land visible because it was covered in water. Indeed the Bible says that what was considered mountains was covered to a depth of 22/25 feet and that when the waters stopped.

    On the BBC an expert said that the earth is one giant sponge, another that science cannot figure out where all the water came from so let's assume they are correct and in one day all that is under the earth or surface plus all that is in the sky suddenly rose up or fell in one swoop of course it wouldn't reach 20,000 feet but there is every chance that what did transpire would kill all life on the planet, even what remained at these higher levels especially if it remained that way for a year.

    I would have thought that the recent events where thousands have been killed in what you call localised flooding would be enough to show how fragile this planet actually is, enough perhaps to make you think again about Noah's flood, especially because there are thousands of stories about it that are washed away as only being localised when you or any other have no knowledge that they were. I say that what appears to be localisation is because at certain places only would there have been raging waters caused by volcanic, plate movement and waters returning to the deep such as at the Grand Canyon.

    Therefore the land in some places would remain more or less the same but in other places catastrophic results would ensue and that is what is seen by geologists all across the planet. It also accounts for the layers of dead caught up in the sediment, yes even in the high places due to the rising up of mountains owing to pressures unseen or heard of before. Look I've got to go take the dog for his morning doings but I will come back to you as this is a very interesting debate.

  20. #20
    Himster's Avatar Praeses
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Dublin, The Peoples Republic of Ireland
    Posts
    9,838

    Default Re: Pope's latest

    Quote Originally Posted by basics View Post
    You and I both know that anyone who differs from the evolution question is ridiculed
    If they would man up and get their publications peer reviewed they would be treated differently. As it stands they're seen as snipers and liars: peddlers of snake-oil and pseudo-science.

    so geologists would be no different were they to have a Biblical model as well as any other scientist having the same. And no, geologists never expected what happened the way it did at Mt St Helens and any who say they did are telling porkies.
    Mt St Helens obeyed the geological principles that require evolution. The biblical model was objectively debunked 150 years ago conclusively. Under the creationist model plate-tectonic movements don't exist, therefore Mt St Helens doesn't exist if you're a creationist.

    But let's look at the water connection for a moment. You say that there is not enough to cover the earth based on what?
    Based on the mass of the earth, the quantity of water that has been verified by on ground observation and scans from orbit.

    That since the flood we have mountains over 20,000 feet high and that as far as it goes is quite correct. The thing is that in the flood times these mountains couldn't have existed because it is written that in the first hours of creation there was no land visible because it was covered in water. Indeed the Bible says that what was considered mountains was covered to a depth of 22/25 feet and that when the waters stopped.
    We know how high mount Everest was 4600 years ago by measuring the speed at which it is rising and work backwards with a precision of half a millimeter, so no, your bizarre interpretation of the bible is demonstrably false again. Meaning that if the flood did happen the water would have had to rise at least over 20,000 feet.

    On the BBC an expert said that the earth is one giant sponge, another that science cannot figure out where all the water came from so let's assume they are correct and in one day all that is under the earth or surface plus all that is in the sky suddenly rose up or fell in one swoop of course it wouldn't reach 20,000 feet but there is every chance that what did transpire would kill all life on the planet, even what remained at these higher levels especially if it remained that way for a year.
    Of course it would kill everything. There would be no survival chance for fresh water fish, but there is fresh water fish, so again your interpretation is false. Also there are trees in Sweden that are over 9000 years old (verified by counting the rings and carbon dating). Water can only exist in the crust, any closer to the core and it turns to gas and shoots out cracks in the crust. Water makes up 0.02% of the earth's mass, this is the maximum limit due to the depth of the crust. To cover all the earth as it was 2600 years ago it would have to be almost 5%. This simply isn't possible even with magic and hocus pocus because this increase to the mass of the earth would change our gravitational force, at best we would be killed quickly by the moon (completely obliterating the planet) and at worst we would be flung at the sun and roasted alive over the course of a week.

    I would have thought that the recent events where thousands have been killed in what you call localised flooding would be enough to show how fragile this planet actually is, enough perhaps to make you think again about Noah's flood, especially because there are thousands of stories about it that are washed away as only being localised when you or any other have no knowledge that they were. I say that what appears to be localisation is because at certain places only would there have been raging waters caused by volcanic, plate movement and waters returning to the deep such as at the Grand Canyon.
    Seriously?
    If they weren't localized then who wrote the stories? You claim everything was killed except for Noah's family and yet you expect us to believe that there are other written sources about this devastating global flood? Do you not see the lack of logic there?

    We have absolutely no evidence of a global flood, ever. Every flood that has ever left a mark has been localized.

    Therefore the land in some places would remain more or less the same but in other places catastrophic results would ensue and that is what is seen by geologists all across the planet. It also accounts for the layers of dead caught up in the sediment, yes even in the high places due to the rising up of mountains owing to pressures unseen or heard of before. Look I've got to go take the dog for his morning doings but I will come back to you as this is a very interesting debate.
    The problem with mountains raising faster than is physically possible is the tectonic plates: You can't make an omelette without breaking eggs. Meaning when mountains are formed by two plates crashing together the opposite ends are pulling apart and letting out magma and forming volcanoes: this can only be done slowly: if this was done at speed (which is impossible BTW) the resultant magma would not have time to cool, the earth would be consumed in fire and smoke, the devastation of the flood would pale in comparison.
    The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are so certain of themselves, but wiser people are full of doubts.
    -Betrand Russell

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •