A Question for S.T.Ranger
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 4 Votes - 2 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-06-2012, 10:27 AM
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
(16-06-2012 09:49 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(16-06-2012 09:47 AM)S.T. Ranger Wrote:  Hello Chas, ran across something that I found both fascinating as well as...extremely boring, lol. A little tedious, perhaps, but you may give it a read: junk DNA.

GTY
Sorry to say, that is junk science.

As I said, submitted for your consideration.

Now, explain why it is junk science.

Remember, your the teacher here.


(16-06-2012 10:06 AM)Vosur Wrote:  
(16-06-2012 09:47 AM)S.T. Ranger Wrote:  Hello Chas, ran across something that I found both fascinating as well as...extremely boring, lol. A little tedious, perhaps, but you may give it a read: junk DNA.

GTY
You can't be serious. You're using a site called "godandscience" that says "Evidence for God" on it's banner to backup your belief? Why don't you use unbiased sources to validate what you believe in?

Did you read the article?

Whether it is biased or not has nothing to do with it. Consider: why would I expect material submitted by an atheist to be any more unbiased because it does not say "Proving there is no God" at the top?

You have submitted at least one source that you have no clue as to it's validity or not, and expected this to be concrete evidence that there are unknown tribes running around that you can use as an example for the possibility that there is someone that does not have a concept of Jesus Christ, or, depending upon the question asked, that it might be possible that because they have not had missionary influence...have no concept of God.

And you are going to ridicule me for submitting an article for someone to critique?

Since you find it so funny, do me a favor: read the article and let me know why because it comes from someone that does not reject God...it not worth examining? Not being a wise-guy, simply trying to nail down how it is that you have come to your conclusions, and...what you base those conclusions on. If it a matter of "the guy I believe is smarter than the guy you believe," guess what...I am not a part of the equation. That which I believe does not rely on scientists that are Christians, it does not rely on preachers, and it does not rely on my need to fit into a community, so I can like myself better.

(16-06-2012 10:12 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  Fucking ST with the link to the "evidence for god" page... Big Grin

Got me laughing. That guy... quantum mechanics only applies to humans.

[Image: 6a8c3bddd93208235864b7c4a4af7045.wix_mp]

You see how easily you prove your own beliefs?

GTY
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-06-2012, 10:36 AM
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
(16-06-2012 10:27 AM)S.T. Ranger Wrote:  
(16-06-2012 09:49 AM)Chas Wrote:  Sorry to say, that is junk science.

As I said, submitted for your consideration.

Now, explain why it is junk science.

Remember, your the teacher here.


(16-06-2012 10:06 AM)Vosur Wrote:  You can't be serious. You're using a site called "godandscience" that says "Evidence for God" on it's banner to backup your belief? Why don't you use unbiased sources to validate what you believe in?

Did you read the article?

Whether it is biased or not has nothing to do with it. Consider: why would I expect material submitted by an atheist to be any more unbiased because it does not say "Proving there is no God" at the top?

You have submitted at least one source that you have no clue as to it's validity or not, and expected this to be concrete evidence that there are unknown tribes running around that you can use as an example for the possibility that there is someone that does not have a concept of Jesus Christ, or, depending upon the question asked, that it might be possible that because they have not had missionary influence...have no concept of God.

And you are going to ridicule me for submitting an article for someone to critique?

Since you find it so funny, do me a favor: read the article and let me know why because it comes from someone that does not reject God...it not worth examining? Not being a wise-guy, simply trying to nail down how it is that you have come to your conclusions, and...what you base those conclusions on. If it a matter of "the guy I believe is smarter than the guy you believe," guess what...I am not a part of the equation. That which I believe does not rely on scientists that are Christians, it does not rely on preachers, and it does not rely on my need to fit into a community, so I can like myself better.

(16-06-2012 10:12 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  Fucking ST with the link to the "evidence for god" page... Big Grin

Got me laughing. That guy... quantum mechanics only applies to humans.

[Image: 6a8c3bddd93208235864b7c4a4af7045.wix_mp]

You see how easily you prove your own beliefs?

GTY
S.T. I was making fun of you in the sentence about bashing your bible..... let me say this in all caps so that you might be able to fucking understand.

YOU ARE FULL OF SHIT. You have absolutely nothing verifiable, besides circular logic and fallacies. You say that that you have information. but that information is the most bullshit TRANSLATION of the bible ever.

if you think this is an insult; it is.

[Image: tumblr_ltcjh1RoaU1qafrh6.gif]

[Image: 0013382F-E507-48AE-906B-53008666631C-757...cc3639.jpg]
Credit goes to UndercoverAtheist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Atothetheist's post
16-06-2012, 10:37 AM
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
(16-06-2012 10:27 AM)S.T. Ranger Wrote:  You see how easily you prove your own beliefs?

GTY

Dood. You're being a wall again. Big Grin

[Image: 220px-GwynethPaltrowByAndreaRaffin2011.jpg]

That's what I believe in. Everything else is hypothesis. I mean, where is your objection? Guy makes a statement like quantum mechanics only applies to humans, guy ain't got no sense. But in the same light, someone who hates Gwyneth, ain't gonna communicate with me. The difference being - in a self-righteous point of view - is that I don't feel that I know "the truth."

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-06-2012, 10:40 AM
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
(16-06-2012 10:14 AM)Atothetheist Wrote:  
(16-06-2012 10:06 AM)Vosur Wrote:  You can't be serious. You're using a site called "godandscience" that says "Evidence for God" on it's banner to backup your belief? Why don't you use unbiased sources to validate what you believe in?
not only that, but use unbiased resources as well. it's like saying you can prove Dragons by Eragon, and then citing a site that Only has Eragon as a source. Complete bullshit.

Could you try, please, to comprehend what is in the post?

As far as the KJV is concerned, if you cannot understand what I have said, then...go, and learn what this meaneth.

lol

And while you are at it, if you do actually contribute to the conversation, try very hard to find only scientist that belong to that mythical group that is neutral on the subject of God.

Big Grin

(16-06-2012 10:21 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  
(15-06-2012 07:50 PM)S.T. Ranger Wrote:  Have to get going, but will just say that the traditional role of the (OT) prophet was to "speak to man for God."

And that's what I do. I use the format "Gwyneth Paltrow is god," because once you get past the words, the message is love. Wink

I once had this girl tell me, you can't be an atheist! and I was like. Sure I can. Can we agree the god is love? Then we don't need to say nuttin' else. Big Grin

I mean, it's that dang Gwynnies, why I keep flapping my gums. She gets in my head and makes me all silly/happy and stuff, and I just gotta share my exuberance or my head will explode. Girl is god like that - if I meet her, exploding head. If I don't meet her, exploding head. You know, just a matter of time, and..

[Image: head-exploding.jpg]

Blammo! God ain't nice to his prophets, I tell you whut. Wink

Honestly, just can't see the fascination, but, to each his own, I suppose.

And concerning the Prophets, I would say eternal life as opposed to eternal separation is a pretty good exchange for the temporary tribulation that many of them went through.

(16-06-2012 10:21 AM)Atothetheist Wrote:  
(16-06-2012 10:14 AM)S.T. Ranger Wrote:  Yeah...ain't it great? Wink


And you know this...how?

I am amazed at how this particular issue has such significance to many here. You are just one of several that have commented on it.

Okay, let me explain my "preferred choice a little: while those that understand that translations are just that, translations, and that the serious student does not stop at a translation, but seeks to understand the intent of God's word as it was originally given, which is only possible by an examination of the original languages as well as many other factors...it is not an issue. And to say this one is the best, or worse...this one is the only one, flies in the face of what those men that brought us these translations believed. If those men were consulted, they would admit that even the product of their own work is not complete, or the best, and, they would if they honest, be able to point to passages and say, "We could improve on this."

That is why the work still goes on.

Now, understand this: when you are dealing with people that do say this translation or that is the only one...what translation do you suppose they are going to want to compare scripture from? Will they accept the assertion, "You are an idiot for using that translation?"

I can tell you from experience, they will not. So, what do you do? Will you have aworking familiarlity with that translation? You will if you are dealing with people that believe that the KJV is THE divinely inspired translation which takes precedence even over that which is found in the original languages. Meaning, if there is a discrepancy between the current (or for some it is the 1611, there are different groups even in this debate) form of the KJV, the KJV is right, and the original has been divinely improved.

And while we can very easily teach from the KJV and interpret not only the scripture but the King's english as well, for those that are used to the vernacular of the KJV, there is a difficulty that arises in the mind, similar to someone from an older generation listening to teenagers and not being able to understand.

Much could be said on this topic, but, suffice it to say that I find it easier to just work out of the KJV, and do what anyone would do, address the text and try to place the content and intent in a manner that is understandable.

I happen to like the King's english, but this does not interfere with efforts to understand God's word which I hope would convey the intent of a particular passage correctly. And usually, the difficulties that the KJV present have no bearing in a way that the intent of God's word is altered or gives rise or justification for conclusions that would seem to make God's word contradictory, at least, not concerning primary doctrinal issues. There are certain passages and verses that could stand a more critical look, but, the fact is, those that are looking only for contradictions and excuses to reject God are usually the only ones that focus their attention exclusively in this manner. This is, even using the KJV, usually a fairly simple problem to deal with, if the antagonist is honest and willing to look at the context.

Lastly, because the KJV is such a popular translation, and controversy surrounding translations has helped to keep people from utilizing another translation, I believe that there are many people out there that have for the most part been exposed to the KJV, rather than another translation. So it only makes sense to use the translation that has for some been the very translation which led them to be confused in the first place...

Right?

GTY
so... God improved his " infallible" word... By using the King James bible..... Sources please. I can't take your bullshit seriously, without the incentive to know you are actually trying to spout off verifiable fact.

Really...read the post without your own bias. Take a deep breath, and say to yourself, "I can do this, I can do this. I can set aside my hatred for all things Christian long enough to read this and see what it says. I will not simply mount an attack because well, that is all I know how to do as far as Christians go."

Okay, being facetious, but, really. You make comments and it should be pretty obvious that you did not understand what I said. And while this will be obvious to the objective observer, it apparently does not change normal procedure which is...just rant and rave and insult, and maybe they will go away.

I will be leaving before too much longer, so, try to get 'em in while you can.

Smile
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-06-2012, 10:50 AM
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
Most rational thought Jesus ever had:

[Image: 018-Jesus-last-thought.jpg]

You're thoughts on this, S.T?

[Image: 0013382F-E507-48AE-906B-53008666631C-757...cc3639.jpg]
Credit goes to UndercoverAtheist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Atothetheist's post
16-06-2012, 10:50 AM
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
(16-06-2012 10:36 AM)Atothetheist Wrote:  
(16-06-2012 10:27 AM)S.T. Ranger Wrote:  As I said, submitted for your consideration.

Now, explain why it is junk science.

Remember, your the teacher here.



Did you read the article?

Whether it is biased or not has nothing to do with it. Consider: why would I expect material submitted by an atheist to be any more unbiased because it does not say "Proving there is no God" at the top?

You have submitted at least one source that you have no clue as to it's validity or not, and expected this to be concrete evidence that there are unknown tribes running around that you can use as an example for the possibility that there is someone that does not have a concept of Jesus Christ, or, depending upon the question asked, that it might be possible that because they have not had missionary influence...have no concept of God.

And you are going to ridicule me for submitting an article for someone to critique?

Since you find it so funny, do me a favor: read the article and let me know why because it comes from someone that does not reject God...it not worth examining? Not being a wise-guy, simply trying to nail down how it is that you have come to your conclusions, and...what you base those conclusions on. If it a matter of "the guy I believe is smarter than the guy you believe," guess what...I am not a part of the equation. That which I believe does not rely on scientists that are Christians, it does not rely on preachers, and it does not rely on my need to fit into a community, so I can like myself better.


You see how easily you prove your own beliefs?

GTY
S.T. I was making fun of you in the sentence about bashing your bible..... let me say this in all caps so that you might be able to fucking understand.

YOU ARE FULL OF SHIT. You have absolutely nothing verifiable, besides circular logic and fallacies. You say that that you have information. but that information is the most bullshit TRANSLATION of the bible ever.

if you think this is an insult; it is.

[Image: tumblr_ltcjh1RoaU1qafrh6.gif]

I see it for what it is: someone that has an incredible lack of self-control and a severe inability to comprehend.

Your inability to interpret a fairly simple post stated in words that most can understand, with no confusing concepts associated, gives insight to your riotous display of why you consider the KJV to be the "worst translation ever (see how easy it is to describe something using normal words? Wink ).

Now try to relax a little and consider something: The KJV was for quite a while the only available resource for a good many people. Now, shall we say that those that only had a KJV could not come to understand that which was in it? For that matter, when the Vulgate was the readily available translation (though it was suppressed if you ask me), were the ones that could actually read it the only ones that had access to the promises of God contained therein?

There is really more to this than simply the translations themselves. The efforts of the translators through the ages, while we might call into question the motivations of some, were in large part due to a sincere reverance for God's word and the desire to see the common man (someone like me) be able to read God's word and instead of being told what to believe, allow that man to...think for himself.

ad fontes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-06-2012, 10:53 AM
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
(16-06-2012 10:50 AM)Atothetheist Wrote:  Most rational thought Jesus ever had:

[Image: 018-Jesus-last-thought.jpg]

You're thoughts on this, S.T?

That's easy enough: considerare principium.

Wink
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-06-2012, 11:15 AM
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
(16-06-2012 10:37 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  
(16-06-2012 10:27 AM)S.T. Ranger Wrote:  You see how easily you prove your own beliefs?

GTY

Dood. You're being a wall again. Big Grin

Fer sure.

Though, if I had my druthers, I would prefer to think that while I am being a wall, there is in fact a door available.

*now, if I could just reveal the light the Door might be seen*

(16-06-2012 10:37 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  That's what I believe in.

Gwyneth?

Well, we all have our higher powers, whether it is admitted or not.

(16-06-2012 10:37 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  Everything else is hypothesis.

Not everything.

Just as pain is not hypothetical when someone tells you they are in it, it is real, though you don't experience it.

(16-06-2012 10:37 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  I mean, where is your objection?

What have I objected to?

I simply point to the earlier twaddle we were talking about. Now you tell me you are the king of rhetoric?

(16-06-2012 10:37 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  Guy makes a statement like quantum mechanics only applies to humans, guy ain't got no sense.

I did not really comment on this. But if you don't mind, how about dropping the cutesy and explaining what your intent in the statement was. I would sincerely be interested in that.

Can't hide that intelligence forever, house. It will betray you sooner or later, and be exposed.

(16-06-2012 10:37 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  But in the same light, someone who hates Gwyneth, ain't gonna communicate with me.

Do we wax rhetorical again? Where are these people that won't communicate with you because you have a fascination for an actress?

Gosh, that's a new concept.

(16-06-2012 10:37 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  The difference being - in a self-righteous point of view - is that I don't feel that I know "the truth."

In point of fact, that is not what you have projected. If I ridicule you for your belief, I might as well say, "I have the truth...you don't."

I have said that I can understand why some people embrace the things they do, and try, though I am not always successful, not to let that control how I deal with them. In theological debate, one of the first things to understand before making broad conclusions about a group is to first deal with them on an individual basis, then, determine the basis for their professed beliefs, then, if dialogue is possible from a perspective of critical analysis, look at those issues which are distinct that place this person in the group/s.

Like I said, I try to do that, and sometimes my sense of humor gets in the way, but hey, some of this stuff is as hilarious to me as it is to you...lol. And while we may disagree, we cannot extract the one element that will usually determine outcome of social interaction...us.

lol

You are a unique individual, house, and I wish you would share what I believe could be an amazing perspective, but honestly...

...Gwyneth Paltrow?

Just yanking your chain, there, fella.

Okay, I am waisting my irrationality here...anything more to contribute before I go?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes S.T. Ranger's post
16-06-2012, 12:17 PM
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
(16-06-2012 10:40 AM)S.T. Ranger Wrote:  Honestly, just can't see the fascination, but, to each his own, I suppose.

Sinner! KP duty for you! Big Grin

Nah. I get a lot of that. I consider it is the physical act of having drawn her image for thousands upon thousand of hours has made me the fool I am. Became an integral part of prophethood due to the fact that god is beyond understanding.

My Gwynnie thing is beyond understanding, but the love of it rather than the madness is what communicates.

(16-06-2012 10:40 AM)S.T. Ranger Wrote:  And concerning the Prophets, I would say eternal life as opposed to eternal separation is a pretty good exchange for the temporary tribulation that many of them went through.

"Eternal life" is a contradiction in terms. Prophets got the same deal I got - my Gwynnies - thinking I need more, ain't thinking. Less with the Gwynnies, obviously. Big Grin

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-06-2012, 12:21 PM
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
(16-06-2012 11:15 AM)S.T. Ranger Wrote:  Not everything.

Just as pain is not hypothetical when someone tells you they are in it, it is real, though you don't experience it.

Experienced the pain of death and have five stents to prove it. Morphine didn't help, but an image of my Gwynnies in my brain did. So when I say everything else is hypothesis, what I mean is... Dodgy

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: