Wow, this is one for the books!!!

HKRockChick · No More Peas! Joined: 25 Nov 2003 Posts: 1513

news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051...an_science

Wow!

:sensational

ans · Joined: 15 Feb 2005 Posts: 441

Good read. How about this one!

www.postfun.com/pfp/sex/l...bible.html

Yikes!

:bigeyes

bitwhys · Joined: 19 Nov 2004 Posts: 649

good read, thanks.

btw...

Catholic Church no longer swears by truth of the Bible

Quote:
The Catholic bishops of England, Wales and Scotland are warning their five million worshippers, as well as any others drawn to the study of scripture, that they should not expect “total accuracy” from the Bible.

“We should not expect to find in Scripture full scientific accuracy or complete historical precision,” they say in The Gift of Scripture

I'm amazed the sky hasn't fallen.

ans · Joined: 15 Feb 2005 Posts: 441

Well, I'll tell you right off I can't dance worth a red piss, but I'll try:

Nah, you're both wrong, even tho you think otherwise. Period. But it depends. I'll try to explain. My definition of 'wrong' might be different from your definition of 'wrong', as mine is is based on a set of morals and yours is based on the societal norm. Mine is absolute and yours is relative. So even though you're wrong, you're not aware of it. See?

:ft

Galmin · The King has spoken! Joined: 30 Dec 2001 Posts: 1711

No Ans.

You see there's a difference between the 'being wrong' impulse and the act of 'being wrong'.

ans · Joined: 15 Feb 2005 Posts: 441

Galmin, you still don't get it. An impulse can also be an act if the act is in the 'act of being'. I'm sorry I can't make it any clearer, but if you understood you'd understand

bitwhys · Joined: 19 Nov 2004 Posts: 649

My definition of 'understanding' might be different from your definition of 'understanding', as mine is is based on reality set of morals and yours is based on Pavlovian conditioning.

ans · Joined: 15 Feb 2005 Posts: 441

BITWHYS: "My definition of 'understanding' might be different from your definition of 'understanding', as mine is is based on reality set of morals and yours is based on Pavlovian conditioning."

Bitwhys, you're on the right track. Absolute understanding can't exist outside an absolute framework. In a relative framework understanding is relative, and relative understanding is responsible for the condition the world is in today. Everybody understands things differently, in other words everybody's 'doing their own thing'. (Read in the Old Testament about the 'Tower of Babel' and you'll understand how the world got into this mess in the first place.) That clarified, there are different conditions of conditioning. For example, in Biblical times there was a different set of social conditions than there are today. My idea of conditioning, based as it is on an absolute morality, differs from a condition of conditioning based upon what's 'normal' in today's society. So you're conditioned in a morally relative way, as opposed to a 'morally absolute' way. See?

bitwhys · Joined: 19 Nov 2004 Posts: 649

Quote:
Read in the Old Testament about the 'Tower of Babel' and you'll understand how the world got into this mess in the first place

ohh

good rant. I'll try get back to it later, but bad example. everyone "doing their own thing" was Y*w*h's idea in that one.

bitwhys · Joined: 19 Nov 2004 Posts: 649

Quote:
I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken.

- Oliver Cromwell

pretty damn astute for a professional insurgent. :laugh

HKRockChick · No More Peas! Joined: 25 Nov 2003 Posts: 1513

oooo this thread is tooo funny. LMAO!!!!

:aua

BW, I'm amazed at the catholic church - it is showing some wisdom at last. Wow!

Ans, interesting read about King James... so in his case would you say he had desire, but he also had A desire, which he acted upon, or did he get kidnapped first?? Shall we ever know? I mean if one can change the bible for political reasons is there anything else sacrosanct????

:popcorn

Rev9Volts · Joined: 10 Jul 2003 Posts: 1327

the bible was "cannonised" by a bunch of catholic bishops about 350 years after jesus died. they decided which books would end up in it. and of course those little boy fekers had pure intentions.

RonOnGuitar · Joined: 08 Jan 2003 Posts: 1916

While I realize that this is nothing more than a "proxy thread" attempting to mock DT and his faith, it also vividly illustrates the pure emotionalism and lack of any intellectual honesty on which all such attempts are based. Interesting.

By way of examples -

In another thread, when this statement was made:

"the King James version is markedly different from, say, the Jerusalem Bible."

I posed the question "how are they markedly different"?

I assumed the poster actually knew what he was taking about, but it turned out that I had inadvertently "called a bluff".

The "answer" was "well, I dunno...errr...somebody told me so" and having painted himself into a corner, it was demanded that I search Google to prove his point and bail him out of trouble. A bizarrely funny copout indeed. But it just doesn't cut it logically or intellectually.

Likewise, later in the same thread, when DT asked Debbie to make a clear statement, Debbie demurred and demanded that DT go on a Google wild goose chase instead.

The total inability to clearly state - much less expound on - one's thoughts is a very sloppy mindset to depend on; and one which I suggest does not, and will not, serve you very well.

Nor is mockery a valid substitute for intellectual honesty. In fact it practically screams "I lack the intellect and logic to answer any challenging question, I desperately need an out!!!". It's the same when you weave something from thin air and having been called on it to demand, "Well, I have no real answer or good excuse - you'll have to Google me out of my embarrassment! Such a demand instead only compounds your embarrassment.

So I'd suggest you would benefit a great deal from racheting up your level of logic and honing what intellectual capabilities you may posses. It really does make things much more interesting. Best wishes in those endeavours.

(And, no, Debbie, I wasn't picking on you, lol. That non-exchange with DT just provided an example.)

HKRockChick · No More Peas! Joined: 25 Nov 2003 Posts: 1513

nice try, Ron.

cuts no ice.

:wgrin

HKRockChick · No More Peas! Joined: 25 Nov 2003 Posts: 1513

BTW, Ron, dyu know what a wild goose chase means? It means a search that ends in finding nothing. Like the search for WMDs in Iraq that resulted in bush co eating crow hahahahaha

On the other hand, doing a google search for them eating crow, or humble pie or being wrong on iraq, or admitting they found nothing, or no WMDs will yield plenty. A recent case is just happening, where its all going to be dug up again - scooter libby... oh do please watch the news?

:popcorn

and have the guts to post refuting/rebuttal arguments in the appropriate threads, if you dare...

Edited by: HKRockChick at: 11/5/05 11:21