Well, after having taken a couple of years to learn to read it in the original, learn about the culture of the writers, reading what 2000 years of Christian theological thought on it was, etc… My conclusion was that it, and everything else in the book, was useless bullshit, and rejected the Catholicism I had been raised in.
Good enough answer for you?
Demonstrating, once again, that you cherry pick what your read and fail to read. If you failed to “notice” the statements indicating that the RCC opposed accusations of witchcraft, then your clearly failed to read the article.
That puts you into the same category as reef shark, in terms of objective analysis or reading comprehension. (It is one reason I generally avoid feuds between competing fundies–atheist or religious.)
Given your clear misunderstanding of scientific terms such as “falsification,” hurling accusations that a poster is behaving as a third-grader is both out of line for this forum and an indication that you might be out of your depth. A lot of posters dislike how their beliefs are characterized by their opponents; it steps over the line from disagreement to insult when one chooses language that insults the poster rather than the opinion.
[ /Moderating ]
You do realize that the word for greater light and lesser light is the same, don’t you? Your 1:3 point (whatever it is) is irrevelant. The root is 'owr for both, with ma being masculine. In any case they both refer to light and can be used the same way.
In short, you are completely reaching, so unless you wish to concede,we can remain on Genesis and it’s hilarious inaccuracy of the moon generating light. I see that you’ve also dropped the absurdity of plants living without the Sun, so we shall count that as a concession.
Maybe you should quote that part I missed, cause from what I gather the author admitted that Catholics killed witches, but tries to say they just didn’t kill as many witches as most people think. So my guess is she’s probably Catholic. Just like you.
I understand, it always sucks to be on the side of the religious. BTW, did you hear the one about the priest and the rabbi walking together in the park?
Really? You missed the mountain of evidence that the church opposed belief in witchcraft and the punishment of witchcraft outside the few areas where witch hysteria was a secular phenomenon that infected the local clerics?
Cherry picking at its finest.
It really sucks to be stuck in a fundy mindset, however, I have not found a cure for that world view, so I can offer you no help. Opposition to religion can come from many legitimate sources, but when it is simply driven by the binary belief system of a fundy, it fails to illuminate reality.
Right I don’t see any claims in there that Catholics opposed the punishment of witchcraft. More things like this:
And again this comes from what is apparently the best article you, as a Catholic, could cherry pick from from another Catholic sympathizer.
Tell us some more about reality. Does prayer do anything? Why do you people oppose condoms in AIDS infested Africa?
Proving that you read only what you choose to see.
Your pathetic attempt to ignore the evidence based on ad hominem attacks are duly noted. (I have no idea what Jenny Gibbons’s religious beliefs may be, but she is respected among neo-pagans for her scholarship.)
You seem to have provided sufficient evidence of your own biased spin on history. I’ll let the other posters decide for themselves whether you are providing anything more than fundy sniping.
I read and quoted directly from your source. I’m sorry it said what I said it said.
I’m sorry for calling you a Catholic. I didn’t think you would consider that pejorative. But maybe as much as you guys have been in the news the last few years I should have known better. You can always renounce your faith though. FWIW Jenny sounds as Catholic as you do.
Have you ever heard that saying about the pot and the kettle?
You got that wrong, it’s you liberal Christians that are doing all the fundy sniping. I’m just saying you’re doing so from a glass house.
No. Is it possible for you to phrase your paragraph without resorting to the convenience of crude obscenities? Or is that hard-wired into your mentality? If it is, don’t bother to continue. I wouldn’t want to be around you lest you decide to settle your differences with a deadly weapon: You might just have the same crude attitude toward your state’s criminal code.
You do realize I was comparing the sun light to the source of the light used in Genesis 1:3 the whole time, right? You gave the definitions yourself:
-Open up Gesenius’s Lexicon help if you need to
Now see the definition for ‘greater light’ in verse 16:
It is not simply feminine vs. masculine, there is an inherent difference in the meaning of the word, especially given the context.
Now let me repeat myself for the third time for you: plants can live without light (sun, sunlight, light) for 24 hours, even though there was light provided from verse 3, meaning you are simply wasting my time here.
There you have it, you can concede now graciously.
There is no question in my mind that I misunderstood the word “falsification” as the respondent used it. This person probably should have avoided the term and not assumed that another person would know its specialized meaning, given the controversial, highly-debated subject matter. I am not trying to evade blame but in this forum I am sensitive to harsh accusations, which I had perceived (incorrectly) here. I now know I was mistaken.
This may sound like a stupid question, but I would like to know (please quote) which “language that insults the poster” you are referring to, so I can know exactly what I wrote that got someone’s nose out of joint. Or at least give me the post number, please.
This only merits a Pitworthy response, but you’re not worth it.
I already alluded to the insult, but if you need it explicitly cited, it was this:
Comparing a poster directly to a three-year-old and then posting metaphorical chest-beating and threats of violence is out of line.
A lot of discussions are rather volatile and nothing in the rules of this forum require that such discussions follow Robert’s Rules of Order or Emily Post’s instructions regarding polite discourse. The line gets crossed when one poster makes the insults directly personal.
I really think that for your own peace of mind you should probably recuse yourself from any such discussions if you are going to feel the need to engage in this personal insults or to refer to such simple expressions as “bullshit” as “crude obscenities.”
[ /Moderating ]
I am not askign about the formation of oil. I am observing that oil complanies hire geologists who use an old-earth model to find where to drill for oil. As you are a Flood believer, I would think that a practical application of non-Flood geology in a religiously neutral situation might help you begin to examine the weaknesses of Flood geology.
In Genesis 1:3 the word is " 'owr", in 1:16, both words used for ‘light’ (ie, greater light and lesser light) are “ma’owr”.
There is no differentiation between the two other than ‘greater’ and ‘lesser’, the LIGHT is the same.
Pointing to 1:3 is simply irrelevant.
I don’t need to really.
The same word for the Greater light is used for the Lesser light. The difference between the two lights is ‘greater’ and ‘lesser’, not that one reflects light and one produces light. You seem to be arguing a distinction without a difference.
The Bible considers both of them lights, as in, producing lights, but we know this is incorrect - or rather, those of us that accept science do. Since you accept scripture, you obviously have to believe that the Moon produces light.
Prove this please. Let’s remember that it’s not just static life that Genesis refers to, it’s “And the earth brought forth grass, [and] herb yielding seed after his kind”.
Which is rather fast, but regardless. You have to show that without heat, the sun, water, etc a plant could stay alive for 24 hours. Please show how this is possible without the heat from the Sun:
Gen 1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry [land] appear: and it was so.
Gen 1:1o And God called the dry [land] Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that [it was] good.
How is there any ‘seas’? There’s no heat! It should be blocks of ice. The ‘water’ in the cells of the plants would expand and destroy the plant - it would not enable the plant to grow (as 1:11 indicates) or bring forth seed.
Your position is invalid and your defense has failed.
So there was enough light from verse 3 to make the Sun irrelevant. Where is this light now? Further, why was the Sun created? In fact, when the Sun was created, why didn’t this instantly kill everything on the planet?
Another attempted defense (a magical light from verse 3) has yet with more failure.
No concession necessary - your position is absurd, as has been repeatedly shown. All you can do is put forth handwaving guesses (you have not backed any of your positions with any sort of empirical evidence to show that it’s possible). In fact, your position indicates that you haven’t thought critically about the issue.
Wow, you’re not even reading the cites, you’re just spitting talking points back.
I’m not even going to bother quoting from the cite to show you that you’re wrong, I’m going to let you go read it for yourself. I’ll give you a hint though, you’re totally wrong, but not for the reason you might think.
And your cite is laughable. It’s crammed full of bias, cherry picked quotes, logical errors, and outright bs. Which is exactly what you’d expect from any creationist source. It quotes the bible as a factual source, in an attempt to refute the idea of deism. Saying ‘he got his ideas from deism and other sources we don’t like so Darwin is wrong’ is an ad hominem argument, and does nothing to disprove any of his actual work.
I find the amount of quotes to be interesting. It is almost as if they believe Science is conducted by quoting “authorized texts” instead of by checking the ideas in those texts against the real world.
No it isn’t. The point this started with was your assertion that the bible is an authority because of
And this has been shown to be false. The bible is full of inaccuracies, contradictions, and just plain baloney.
There is no evolution vs creationism debate. It’s over. Evolution won a long time ago. All creationism has now is the same old tired talking points that have been long debunked. There’s a reason creationism has to try and force itself on students by trying to get it voted into schools, it’s because it isn’t science, it’s religion. It has no scientific validity, has produced nothing scientific, etc. If you’re going to cite creation.com as a source, you may as well cite conservapedia, or uncyclopedia for that matter. They both have about the same veracity.
I think this is obvious at this point. He fired off two responses (one to me and then one to you) in about five minutes. There were a handful of cites for him to read (including his own). His responses to me have been almost incoherent and definitely irrelevant.
He’s not actually trying to convince anyone here that he’s right.