Christian Doctrine
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-12-2016, 06:16 PM
RE: Christian Doctrine
Wow... I just re-read that and caught his reference to "waters above = water and ice".

That's a reference to this claim, called the "Canopy Theory" or "Ice Canopy" or "Vapor Canopy", the ice version of which is mainly pushed by Kent Hovind. (The earlier version, called the "Vapor Canopy", was proposed by Henry Morris, one of the major founders of the modern Creationist movement.)

It's the most ludicrous idea that ever came from Creationists, in a long list of problematic ideas. The really short answer to that idea is that it requires one to ignore angular momentum, Boyle's Law, and a host of other basic ideas in physics, or it literally parboils everyone on the earth to death--right down to bacteria--when it falls.

But don't take my word for it (or even a scientific organization's).... let the Creationists themselves tell you why it's bunk:

Currently, the pitfalls of the canopy model have grown to such an extent that most researchers have abandoned the model. For example, if a canopy existed and collapsed at the time of the Flood to supply the rainfall, the latent heat of condensation would have boiled the atmosphere!

https://answersingenesis.org/environment...opy-model/

And yet Hovind (and many like him) are still selling DVDs of this "theory". You may not realize you're lying, Bz, but when you quote people who are clearly willing to Lie For Jesus™, you're complicit.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
20-12-2016, 06:52 PM
RE: Christian Doctrine
I don't know, Deesse23, you seem upset. You should go lay down.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-12-2016, 07:07 PM
RE: Christian Doctrine
(19-12-2016 01:57 PM)jennybee Wrote:  
(19-12-2016 01:25 PM)Shai Hulud Wrote:  I'd be interested in that as well. Popcorn Personally, I've always held to the thought that while Satan can tempt, he can't force (e.g. the poetry of the book of Job where he stands in his role as an accuser/advocate). He's not the cause of all evil, he's just as much a prisoner in Hell as anyone else, despite the romanticization done by my own Church during the Middle Ages and by Milton in Paradise Lost with the oft quoted line of how it's better to rule in Hell than to serve in Heaven. Something something Free Will, something something Presdestination something something hundreds of years of European religious wars shaping Catholic and Protestant thought.

Satan can't do anything without God's permission. And also despite Satan's temptings, we have the ability to rid ourselves of him.

James 4:7
Submit therefore to God Resist the devil and he will flee from you.

Ephesians 6:11-13
Put on the full armor of God, so that you will be able to stand firm against the schemes of the devil. For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places. Therefore, take up the full armor of God, so that you will be able to resist in the evil day, and having done everything, to stand firm.

1 Peter 5:8-9
Be of sober spirit, be on the alert Your adversary, the devil, prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour. But resist him, firm in your faith, knowing that the same experiences of suffering are being accomplished by your brethren who are in the world.

Psalm 103:19
The Lord has established his throne in the heavens, and his kingdom rules over all.

*Just doing a literary analysis, relax people Wink

Don't worry Jennybee, I don't think anyone thinks you're going back to our side of the Force. Tongue But we do have cookies, "Death Cookies" according to Jack Chick.

(20-12-2016 12:34 PM)morondog Wrote:  Hmm. A Muslim believes in the Quran - ever read it? I gave it a shot but it was a bit boring.
I don't recommend it Blytz, he's not kidding, it's insomnia killing material. Also wtf is up with the obsession with the The Naqat Allah in the story of the Prophet Salih? (She Camel of God.) it sticks out partially due to the fact that it's not plagiarized from the Hebrew or Christian scriptures, unlike a non-insignificant amount that seems to be, or at least heavily modified. /did not read the whole book

(20-12-2016 02:20 PM)Bzltyr Wrote:  we should find God in nature.
Agreed.

(20-12-2016 06:16 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  called the "Canopy Theory" or "Ice Canopy" or "Vapor Canopy", the ice version of which is mainly pushed by Kent Hovind.

*twitch* I remember sitting there in a Baptist church at age 11 listening to Hovind pontificate on that crap.

Need to think of a witty signature.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Shai Hulud's post
20-12-2016, 07:24 PM (This post was last modified: 20-12-2016 07:28 PM by unfogged.)
RE: Christian Doctrine
(20-12-2016 04:51 PM)Bzltyr Wrote:  Appeared to them like a roof. Waters above=water vapor. Waters above=water and ice.

"In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened. And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights."

Seems pretty clear to me that the 'waters above' were not just water vapor but part of the source of Noah's flood.

(20-12-2016 03:15 PM)Bzltyr Wrote:  This kind of crap just highlights how unreasonable you are and how badly you want me to look foolish.

I don't have to do anything to make you look foolish. You are doing a superb job on your own.

Quote:In later posts I noticed the mistake of just using Gen 1 for Gen 1:1. That is what I will use from now on. Sorry I confused you.

I did not see a later post correcting it but may have missed it. I was taking what you wrote using the plain meaning of the text. I realize that you normally expect people to try to interpret things to make them match reality but that's not how effective communication happens.

It really doesn't matter though since saying that chapter 1 OR verse 1 is about the heavens and genesis 2 is about eden overlooks the fact that verse 1 treats earth equally with the heavesn and the chapter spends more time on the earth.

Your claim that "genesis 1" (chapter or verse) is about the heavens is dishonest.

Quote:I could easily weasel out of everything by just leaving. I am still here and not weaseling.

Sure looks that way to me.

(20-12-2016 05:00 PM)Bzltyr Wrote:  How about predictive value of Gen chapter 1.

The Bible says the plants came first.
So does the fossil record.

The bible says plants came before sea life. If you're making up a story about when things got created it isn't surprising at all that they'd get a few things right even by chance. Beyond that, it doesn't take much for people herding cattle and sheep to figure out that grass and trees had to be around before animals that eat them. There's nothing "predictive" about it at all.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-12-2016, 07:27 PM
RE: Christian Doctrine
(20-12-2016 12:34 PM)Bzltyr Wrote:  …that from the going forth of the command to restore and build Jerusalem until Messiah the Prince, there shall be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublesome times. (Daniel 9:25)

That happened 2000 years ago.

My response to Daniel 9

I was going to write this whole thing on the Christian mistranslations of Daniel, but you took some more delicious bait, so I’ll leave you with the following brief summary and a link a reliable Jewish source on the subject.

Christians mistranslate Daniel (and the rest of the bible), and this section is no exception to the rule.

This passage is not about the messiah. Two “anointed ones” are mentioned here, but neither of them is the messiah. The first anointed one is a room –a literal and physical room in a building- and the second anointed one is a prince who sins so terribly that he is cut off, which means that his life is forfeit and his soul is cut off from the world of souls. His soul exists no more. May I remind you that this is a Jewish book written to Jewish people, so the terms and phrases used in this book assume a Jewish audience who understands what the term “cut off” means, just as an American may understand the term “cut off” to mean when another driver switches lanes immediately in front of them, causing them to have to slam the breaks or switch lanes very quickly to avoid an accident. Know thy audience, and in this case, thy audience are Jewish people who understand colloquial Hebrew.

Next, Daniel doesn’t list the start date of the prophecies. Christians estimate the date based on historians best guess. They don't know though. They chose one of four potential starting dates listed in the bible because one in particular gets them the closest their goal. The date they chose was 444 BCE and counting up 69 weeks of years gets us to the year 39 AD, except Jesus was said to have been murdered in the year 32 AD. How can we make this calculation match up with the goal year of 32 AD? Simple! Just shave 4 ¼ days off each year. Now you’ve got an end date of 32 AD, and never mind that you changed the length of a year from 364 1/4 days to 360 days.

We don’t even count to 69 weeks by saying “sixty two and seven” when what we mean to say is 69. Who does that? These are two separate time periods, each resulting in a different goal. One of the goals involves the anointment of a room and the other goal involves the destruction of a terrible, horrible sinner who has managed to earn a very rare punishment of being cut off and having his soul destroyed.

And the Christians wonder why the Jews won’t accept their interpretations. Facepalm

Learn a little more about Daniel 9 from an actual Hebrew scholar who actually knows what they’re talking about.

Spoiler Alert: My coverage of the Talmudic passage that you provided will be more of the same, as I detail how Christians have no clue how to read Jewish texts. They don’t understand the culture, they don’t understand the mindset of Jewish people who wrote these books, they forget that these texts were written to a Jewish audience, not an uneducated Gentile audience… and they don’t even know how to read the Hebrew or Aramaic in the first place.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Aliza's post
20-12-2016, 07:30 PM
RE: Christian Doctrine
(20-12-2016 06:52 PM)Bzltyr Wrote:  I don't know, Deesse23, you seem upset. You should go lay down.

And you should stop lying, asshole.

Quite ironic, thats the fist time you admitted you dont know. The irony really bites.

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-12-2016, 07:34 PM
RE: Christian Doctrine
(20-12-2016 05:06 PM)Bzltyr Wrote:  "Any universe that expands on average throughout its history must have a beginning where a causal agent outside space and time creates space time matter and energy.

space-time theorem of Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin

Exactly how has anybody tested this conjecture? It "must"? There are numerous conjectures including oscillating universes and multiverses as well as simply a universe from nothing. Postulating a "causal agent outside space and time" has got to be one of the biggest violations of Occam's Razor ever devised. We have zero evidence for "outside space and time", let alone any agent, especially if that agent is intelligent.

Only somebody trying to backfill a pre-existing belief could accept a statement like that.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like unfogged's post
20-12-2016, 07:38 PM
RE: Christian Doctrine
RocketSurgeon76, I apologize about this:
Appeared to them like a roof. Waters above=water vapor. Waters above=water and ice.


I made a typo in my post. I meant waters below=water and ice.
I am not a proponent of Hovind. I have read his stuff and it does not work for me.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-12-2016, 07:41 PM
RE: Christian Doctrine
morondog Wrote:  Hmm. A Muslim believes in the Quran - ever read it? I gave it a shot but it was a bit boring.

Shai Hulud wrote: I don't recommend it Blytz, he's not kidding, it's insomnia killing material. Also wtf is up with the obsession with the The Naqat Allah in the story of the Prophet Salih? (She Camel of God.) it sticks out partially due to the fact that it's not plagiarized from the Hebrew or Christian scriptures, unlike a non-insignificant amount that seems to be, or at least heavily modified. /did not read the whole book

I have read a good portion and it is not a page turner.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-12-2016, 07:42 PM
RE: Christian Doctrine
(20-12-2016 06:52 PM)Bzltyr Wrote:  I don't know, Deesse23, you seem upset. You should go lay down.

Watcha expect? Some people get offended when they are lied to repeatedly.

The threats don't help either.

Help for the living. Hope for the dead. ~ R.G. Ingersoll

Freedom offers opportunity. Opportunity confers responsibility. Responsibility to use the freedom we enjoy wisely, honestly and humanely. ~ Noam Chomsky
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Fatbaldhobbit's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: