Schools out Forever

[MickinEngland]

People wonder why the Old Testament was so harsh. The answer is that God has never changed, but the way he had to package himself to get his message across HAS changed, he had to talk in harsh primitive OT terms to earlier harsh primitive peoples in their own "language" like a strict headteacher to get their attention.
"The law brought us to Christ like a schoolmaster,but now through Christ we are not under that schoolmaster" (Gal 3:22-25)
(Likewise, when Ryker in Star Trek joined Klingon vessel Pagh on an exchange visit as 1st Officer he had to punch and throw stroppy Klingon 2nd Officer Klag across the bridge to get the attention and respect of him and the rest of the crew )
When God felt the time was right to package himself in a softer way to more advanced peoples, he gave us Jesus who came not to abolish the OT wholesale, but to show us how to apply its rules with enlightened goodnatured commonsense.
Jesus said - "It was said 'eye for eye,tooth for tooth' but I say turn the other cheek" (Matt 5:38/39)
And people quickly realised - "The covenant of Jesus is superior to the old one" (Heb 8:6-13)
Remember, Jesus saves, not the OT ;)
Right Spock?
Right Mick..
--------------------------------------

[Ichneumonwasp]

Cool.

So the slaughter of all those Canaanites was just a marketing ploy. Got it.

[KingMerv00]

People wonder why the Old Testament was so harsh. The answer is that God has never changed, but the way he had to package himself to get his message across HAS changed, he had to talk in harsh primitive OT terms to earlier harsh primitive peoples in their own "language" like a strict headteacher to get their attention.
"The law brought us to Christ like a schoolmaster,but now through Christ we are not under that schoolmaster" (Gal 3:22-25)
(Likewise, when Ryker in Star Trek joined Klingon vessel Pagh on an exchange visit as 1st Officer he had to punch and throw stroppy Klingon 2nd Officer Klag across the bridge to get the attention and respect of him and the rest of the crew )
When God felt the time was right to package himself in a softer way to more advanced peoples, he gave us Jesus who came not to abolish the OT wholesale, but to show us how to apply its rules with enlightened goodnatured commonsense.
Jesus said - "It was said 'eye for eye,tooth for tooth' but I say turn the other cheek" (Matt 5:38/39)
And people quickly realised - "The covenant of Jesus is superior to the old one" (Heb 8:6-13)
Remember, Jesus saves, not the OT ;)
Right Spock?
Right Mick..
--------------------------------------


Why do you think ancient peoples were so stupid? Surely the superior Jesus covenant would have made sense in the time of Moses too?

[JonnyFive]

Why would God have to "package" himself at all? As far as I know, the standard Christian claim is that God is, at the very least, powerful enough to create the world and influence humanity (but only in the Bible).

So why didn't God simply reveal everything in such a way as to make everything perfectly clear. Why did God's revelation at the time involve wanton slaughter? Why has God's revelation never involved simply saying "hi" to everyone in a direct and obvious way?

As the KingMerv said: Wouldn't the Jesus covenant be just as good to the people in the time of Moses?

Do you believe that something intrinsic about human nature changed between the time Moses supposedly existed and the time Jesus supposedly existed? If so, please explain why and be prepared to provide evidence of this.

[KingMerv00]

As the KingMerv said: Wouldn't the Jesus covenant be just as good to the people in the time of Moses?

Do you believe that something intrinsic about human nature changed between the time Moses supposedly existed and the time Jesus supposedly existed? If so, please explain why and be prepared to provide evidence of this.

It is actually worse than that. The "Old covenant" of vengence and anger was given up the day Jesus was born for the "New covenant" or grace and forgivness.

Humanity changed....quickly.

[JonnyFive]

It is actually worse than that. The "Old covenant" of vengence and anger was given up the day Jesus was born for the "New covenant" or grace and forgivness.

Humanity changed....quickly.

Yes, I should have made that point clearer when I wrote it.

Although I suppose God could have decided that we had crossed a certain threshold and were now ready for the new covenant of reduced vegence and anger (as you still go to Hell for not believing). The change was a gradual process, but God takes time to make up his mind about us. Or something.

[Ducky]

You have it all wrong! Clint Eastwood is GOD! ONLY CLINT CAN SAVE AS HTE ACTOR, DIRECTOR AND HOLY PRODUCER!


REPENT AND BE SAVED!

[JonnyFive]

You have it all wrong! Clint Eastwood is GOD! ONLY CLINT CAN SAVE AS HTE ACTOR, DIRECTOR AND HOLY PRODUCER!


REPENT AND BE SAVED!

That's just what I was thinking.

[fuelair]

What a load.

[Ducky]

What a load.

Why do you choose eternal damnation to watch only television? Do you not love Clint and all his glory?

REPENT AND BE SAVED!

[MickinEngland]

Why do you think ancient peoples were so stupid? Surely the superior Jesus covenant would have made sense in the time of Moses too?


Nah mate, the further back you go towards neanderthals, the more primitive people were, or don't you believe in evolution?
Hell, even if Jesus had been sent to the Apaches as recently as 150 years ago he'd have been scalped inside 5 minutes..
And as for the 'superior covenant of Jesus', its even being rejected nowadays by people, just look around.. ;)

[Tricky]

People wonder why the Old Testament was so harsh. <snip>

More spam (http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=151765&start=0&sid=d29d5c408d1de9cbf128daa227fc48a6)

You really think you are a great writer, don't you Mick?

[Raphael]

Mick...are we your New Year's "Save Their Souls" resolution?
If so, you're going to be breaking your resolution early if you don't come up with some better material!

[Spindrift]

Nah mate, the further back you go towards neanderthals, the more primitive people were, or don't you believe in evolution?
Hell, even if Jesus had been sent to the Apaches as recently as 150 years ago he'd have been scalped inside 5 minutes..
And as for the 'superior covenant of Jesus', its even being rejected nowadays by people, just look around.. ;)

Evolution is not the same as cultural development.

Aristotle, Ptolemy, Archimedes, Euripides, Sophocles, et al were "primitive" people?

Why would the Apaches scalp Jesus? Was he going to steal their land?

[MickinEngland]

Why would the Apaches scalp Jesus? Was he going to steal their land?


They used to scalp anybody who even set foot on their land :)
JESUS - "I've come to save you"
GERONIMO - "You speak with forked tongue kemo-sabay! Quick grab him!"

Racism, while not against the rules, is offensive. Please desist.

[Spindrift]

They used to scalp anybody who even set foot on their land :)
JESUS - "I've come to save you"
GERONIMO - "You speak with forked tongue kemo-sabay! Quick grab him!"

And your proof of this blatantly racist statement?

How typically Christian of you.

Please cite or apologize.

[Ducky]

They used to scalp anybody who even set foot on their land :)
JESUS - "I've come to save you"
GERONIMO - "You speak with forked tongue kemo-sabay! Quick grab him!"

I think that blatantly offensive and racist statement deserves your apology to any and all who might be offended by it.

[Raphael]

:troll

[Cosmo]

They used to scalp anybody who even set foot on their land :)
JESUS - "I've come to save you"
GERONIMO - "You speak with forked tongue kemo-sabay! Quick grab him!"

You bore me. Go away.

[Zep]

Genesis, Ch1919:30 And Lot went up out of Zoar, and dwelt in the mountain, and his two daughters with him; for he feared to dwell in Zoar: and he dwelt in a cave, he and his two daughters.
19:31 And the firstborn said unto the younger, Our father is old, and there is not a man in the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth:
19:32 Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.
19:33 And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.
19:34 And it came to pass on the morrow, that the firstborn said unto the younger, Behold, I lay yesternight with my father: let us make him drink wine this night also; and go thou in, and lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father. The Seduction of Lot
19:35 And they made their father drink wine that night also: and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.
19:36 [B]Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father.Great stuff from the OT, Mick. Think God ordains this?

[TriangleMan]

Wow, it's almost like what would happen if coberst found God . . . only more annoying.

[Foster Zygote]

They used to scalp anybody who even set foot on their land :)
JESUS - "I've come to save you"
GERONIMO - "You speak with forked tongue kemo-sabay! Quick grab him!"

Congratulations! That's among the most ignorant things I've ever read on this forum. I see your knowledge of North American history is as thin as your knowledge of Biblical history.

[JonnyFive]

Nah mate, the further back you go towards neanderthals, the more primitive people were, or don't you believe in evolution?
Hell, even if Jesus had been sent to the Apaches as recently as 150 years ago he'd have been scalped inside 5 minutes..
And as for the 'superior covenant of Jesus', its even being rejected nowadays by people, just look around.. ;)

Yes... I'm sure they would've scalped him. I'm glad your knowledge of history is so extensive. [/sarcasm]

You do, of course, realize that neanderthals were not the same species as we are? Even if you want to compare early human civilization, the development of our society has little to do with our internal development or mental condition. Our current knowledge is built upon the foundations set down by millions of our ancestors. Without that foundation, we'd be trying to work out fire and hunting and all that.

We have time for philosophy and what not because we don't have to struggle to survive against the harsh world we live in.

But that doesn't mean ancient people had inferior brains and couldn't have figured out the message of Jesus.

Besides, why didn't God just give them better brains?

[/serious]

Repent and know the holy writ of the Dirty Harry quintilogy!

Ye unsaved serve only Sondra Locke and her manservants the orangutans!

[l0rca]

They used to scalp anybody who even set foot on their land :)
JESUS - "I've come to save you"
GERONIMO - "You speak with forked tongue kemo-sabay! Quick grab him!"

My ancestors worshiped the natural as the supernatural, and accepted far less actions as miracles than Jesus portrayed. They were very open-minded, but slaughtered, and had their land stolen by the English, Spanish, and later Americans. Growing up in my culture, I've always had a sort of identity crisis with how I am supposed to be an American, while my parents and their parents were judged harshly and still to this day are the but of ignorant jokes and mocking voices such as yours.

Have you ever met one of our kind? You come here speaking of wisdom, but all I see is a human insult, a filth who mistakenly knows a language, a snake, a troller, a child-like arguer, and above all, a creature that knows no reason.

You are racist, ignorant, biased, poor in knowledge, and chiefly, you are stupid. You are children's book stupid. You are stupid collapsed upon stupid. You are the sort of stain and hindrence on our race that would cause a war without proof. You are the sort of stupid that infects other senses with stupidity. And you probably smell. You probably watch too much television, read very little, and most likely took almost all of your quotes from websites, instead of reading them from your own book, a book I would wage is dusty. I've met homeless people who are more intelligent than you are.

You are worse than a blatent racist, because you package it up in a feign of wit and pseudo-intelligence. I'm insulted to be on the same planet as you.

If I was Christian, I would pray you do not copulate.

[hgc]

They used to scalp anybody who even set foot on their land :)
JESUS - "I've come to save you"
GERONIMO - "You speak with forked tongue kemo-sabay! Quick grab him!"
That's good. You got a ching-chong routine for the chinks too?

[Z]

They used to scalp anybody who even set foot on their land :)
JESUS - "I've come to save you"
GERONIMO - "You speak with forked tongue kemo-sabay! Quick grab him!"

Being Apache-descended, I find this post blatantly racist and offensive. Of course, I expect nothing less from a Christian.

[KingMerv00]

Being Apache-descended, I find this post blatantly racist and offensive. Of course, I expect nothing less from a Christian.

One word: smallpox

[Tricky]

They used to scalp anybody who even set foot on their land :)
JESUS - "I've come to save you"
GERONIMO - "You speak with forked tongue kemo-sabay! Quick grab him!"

Besides being blatantly racist, as noted by others, it is also stupid.

Jesus didn't "set foot" on anyone's land. He was born and raised there. Even if your offensive caricature of native Americans were correct do you think Hollywood-style Apaches would scalp a fellow Apache for preaching to them? No, I'm thinking that Hollywood Apaches would call him "Medicine Man".

(Apologies to Zaay and others if continuation of this line of reasoning is offensive.)

[MickinEngland]

Besides being blatantly racist, as noted by others, it is also stupid.


Ha ha ha didn't you Texans pinch Texas off the Indians and the Mexicans?
Give it back and publicly apologise to them.. :)

[MickinEngland]

Being Apache-descended, I find this post blatantly racist and offensive. Of course, I expect nothing less from a Christian.

Ah yes,Geronimo, Cochise, Victorio..all saintly and above reproach .. ;)

[Tormac]

They used to scalp anybody who even set foot on their land :)
JESUS - "I've come to save you"
GERONIMO - "You speak with forked tongue kemo-sabay! Quick grab him!"


Are you accusing Jesus of lying to Geronimo Mick?

I though always telling the truth was part of the “perfect” Jesus thing, but if Jesus went around telling lies to Native Americans, my understanding of Christianity must be a little confused (not to mention my understanding of American history). Still I can understand Geronimo being angry at someone claiming to be the Son of God, and then catching this so called divinity lying.

[Spindrift]

Ah yes,Geronimo, Cochise, Victorio..all saintly and above reproach .. ;)

When compared to the bloody history of Christianity and all that it "justified", they most certainly are saintly.

So, stop the racist comments and go back to quoting your book of fictional tales.

[Ryokan]

Ah yes,Geronimo, Cochise, Victorio..all saintly and above reproach .. ;)

"I have adopted the Christian religion. I believe that the church has helped me much during the short time I have been a member. I am not ashamed to be a Christian, and I am glad to know that the President of the United States is a Christian, for without the help of the Almighty I do not think he could rightly judge in ruling so many people. I have advised all of my people who are not Christians, to study that religion, because it seems to me the best religion in enabling one to live right."

You know who said that? Yup. Geronimo.

[Ducky]

"I have adopted the Christian religion. I believe that the church has helped me much during the short time I have been a member. I am not ashamed to be a Christian, and I am glad to know that the President of the United States is a Christian, for without the help of the Almighty I do not think he could rightly judge in ruling so many people. I have advised all of my people who are not Christians, to study that religion, because it seems to me the best religion in enabling one to live right."

You know who said that? Yup. Geronimo.

:dl:

I believe this is what is referred to by the kids as being "WTFPWNED!"

Care to respond to that mick?

[JonnyFive]

You know who said that? Yup. Geronimo.

Oh, but I thought he was just a heathen ig'nant in'jun. Also, I believe those with sloping foreheads are destined to a life of servitude. I also believe leeches and arsenic are excellent cures for all diseases!

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by MickinEngland
They used to scalp anybody who even set foot on their land
JESUS - "I've come to save you"
GERONIMO - "You speak with forked tongue kemo-sabay! Quick grab him!"
And your proof of this blatantly racist statement?

How typically Christian of you.

Please cite or apologize.

May I assist?: (http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/1998/scalping.html)

Scalping, of course, predated the mid-eighteenth century. Historical records, archaeology, and other sciences strongly indicate the practice originated among certain Native American tribes.

Innovative Europeans simply used the practice to their benefit:

While Europeans did not originate scalping, they did encourage its spread through the establishment of bounties.

Finally "the taking of land" wasn't necessarily the issue (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10384a.htm):

As part of the plunder the raiders carried off the manuscript Abenaki dictionary (preserved at Harvard and published in 1833), to which Father Rasle had devoted thirty years of labour, and which ranks as one of the greatest monuments of our Aboriginal languages. Earlier in the year the mission village and fine church on the Penobscot, placed under Father Lauverjat, had been destroyed by another party, following which event Massachusetts had summoned the Indians to deliver up every priest among them and had set a price on Rasle's head. Although repeatedly urged to seek safety in Canada, he refused to desert his flock. At last the blow fell. On 23 August 1724, the New England men with a party of Mohawk Indians surprised Norridgewock while most of the warriors were away, killed several or the defenders, and plundered and burned the church and village. The devoted missionary, now old and crippled, was shot down at the foot of the cross, scalped, his skull crushed and his body almost hacked in pieces. A monument to his memory was erected on the spot in 1833, the year in which the greater monument, his Abenaki dictionary, was published.

Here's a missionary who was instrumental in saving the remnants of the aboriginal language, killed by those whom he tried to serve.

Human evil doesn't isolate itself, and it crosses racial boundaries quite well.

[Huntster]

"I have adopted the Christian religion. I believe that the church has helped me much during the short time I have been a member. I am not ashamed to be a Christian, and I am glad to know that the President of the United States is a Christian, for without the help of the Almighty I do not think he could rightly judge in ruling so many people. I have advised all of my people who are not Christians, to study that religion, because it seems to me the best religion in enabling one to live right."

You know who said that? Yup. Geronimo.

Geronimo was a man of the spirit long before he became Christian.

That made him different from a whole bunch of folks on this particular thread.

[KingMerv00]

Nah mate, the further back you go towards neanderthals, the more primitive people were, or don't you believe in evolution?


Oh I believe in evolution but all of the people since the invention of writing were "fully evolved". They were almost certainly indistinguishable from the average Joe today in mental capacity.

You are just ignorant of ancient people. Glue was invented 6000 years ago for cripes sake. Don't even get me started on bricks, ploughs and wine.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by MickinEngland
Nah mate, the further back you go towards neanderthals, the more primitive people were, or don't you believe in evolution?
Oh I believe in evolution but all of the people since the invention of writing were "fully evolved".

And what evidence do you have of that?

Hell, we've evolved intellectually and scientifically in just the past couple of centuries in leaps and bounds.

They were almost certainly indistinguishable from the average Joe today in mental capacity.

"Mental capacity" and intellectual evolution are two very different things. Not to mention spiritual/religious evolution, and even physical evolution. The mixing of races in the U.S., for example, when compared to the relatively pure racial culture of Japan, or the physical breeding of large African slaves during the North American slave industry of the past few centuries can be considered.

You are just ignorant of ancient people. Glue was invented 6000 years ago for cripes sake. Don't even get me started on bricks, ploughs and wine.

And guided missiles were invented just a few years ago.

That's evolution.

[KingMerv00]

And what evidence do you have of that?

I don't want to turn this thread into an evolutionary debate but the evidence for evolution in general supports me.

Hell, we've evolved intellectually and scientifically in just the past couple of centuries in leaps and bounds.

I am referring solely to biological evolution. Mick claimed that people get dumber as you go back into history. He implied that people around Moses' time were "less evolved" and therefore dumber.

"Mental capacity" and intellectual evolution are two very different things. Not to mention spiritual/religious evolution, and even physical evolution. The mixing of races in the U.S., for example, when compared to the relatively pure racial culture of Japan, or the physical breeding of large African slaves during the North American slave industry of the past few centuries can be considered.

I gathered from Mick's posts that his thinks people were not evolved enough to understand Jesus' message. I'm not sure what that has to do with spiritual/religous evolution.

And guided missiles were invented just a few years ago.

That's evolution.

But not biological evolution.

[Spindrift]

May I assist?: (http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/1998/scalping.html)

Innovative Europeans simply used the practice to their benefit:

Finally "the taking of land" wasn't necessarily the issue (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10384a.htm):

Here's a missionary who was instrumental in saving the remnants of the aboriginal language, killed by those whom he tried to serve.

Human evil doesn't isolate itself, and it crosses racial boundaries quite well.

No one has posited that the Native American didn't scalp people. Nor that missionaries weren't victims of attacks.

What Mick said was: They used to scalp anybody who even set foot on their land :)

And that is far from the truth.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
And what evidence do you have of that?

I don't want to turn this thread into an evolutionary debate but the evidence for evolution in general supports me.

"I win because I say the evidence supports me. I don't need to produce any because I say so."

Quote:
Hell, we've evolved intellectually and scientifically in just the past couple of centuries in leaps and bounds.

I am referring solely to biological evolution. Mick claimed that people get dumber as you go back into history.

And evolution is not a solely physical phenomenon. We evolve in many ways, including intellectually.

He implied that people around Moses' time were "less evolved" and therefore dumber.

They were less evolved intellectually as well as spiritually. Christ Himself stated that He brought something different from Mosaic Law.

Quote:
"Mental capacity" and intellectual evolution are two very different things. Not to mention spiritual/religious evolution, and even physical evolution. The mixing of races in the U.S., for example, when compared to the relatively pure racial culture of Japan, or the physical breeding of large African slaves during the North American slave industry of the past few centuries can be considered.

I gathered from Mick's posts that his thinks people were not evolved enough to understand Jesus' message. I'm not sure what that has to do with spiritual/religous evolution.

Christ Himself clearly stated that (http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/matthew/matthew19.htm):

They said to him, "Then why did Moses command that the man give the woman a bill of divorce and dismiss (her)?" He said to them, "Because of the hardness of your hearts Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries another commits adultery."

Quote:
And guided missiles were invented just a few years ago.

That's evolution.

But not biological evolution.

Evolution isn't restricted to "monkeys turning into men", regardless how much so many people want it to be so.

[KingMerv00]

"I win because I say the evidence supports me. I don't need to produce any because I say so."

I just don't want to get into a derail. It is that simple.

Besides, Mick agreed (tacitly) that evolution was true. HE claimed that people were dumber back then. The burden is on him to show that people who were capable of complex tasks like the invention of bricks and wine were incapable of understand Jesus' simple message.

And evolution is not a solely physical phenomenon. We evolve in many ways, including intellectually.

They were less evolved intellectually as well as spiritually. Christ Himself stated that He brought something different from Mosaic Law.

Evolution isn't restricted to "monkeys turning into men", regardless how much so many people want it to be so.

For the purposes of this agrument only biological evolution applies.

[MickinEngland]

So, stop the racist comments and go back to quoting your book of fictional tales.


Hey, Native Americans believe in a "Great Spirit in the Sky" don't they, are you saying they're wrong too?

[MickinEngland]

I just don't want to get into a derail. It is that simple.

Besides, Mick agreed (tacitly) that evolution was true. HE claimed that people were dumber back then. The burden is on him to show that people who were capable of complex tasks like the invention of bricks and wine were incapable of understand Jesus' simple message.


Ha ha ha, even NOW in these so-called 'enlightened' times many people are incapable of understanding Jesus's message, let alone in the primitive past, so in that sense prople are no more spiritually evolved now than they were then.. ;)

CAVEMAN - "Ugh, fire from sky!!"
JESUS - "No chum, its simply a natural static discharge between clouds and the ground"
CAVEMAN (crawling under bed in fear) - "No! gods are angry, me afraid!"

[Zygar]

Ha ha ha, even NOW in these so-called 'enlightened' times many people are incapable of understanding Jesus's message, let alone in the primitive past, so in that sense prople are no more spiritually evolved now than they were then.. ;)

CAVEMAN - "Ugh, fire from sky!!"
JESUS - "No chum, its simply a natural static discharge between clouds and the ground"
CAVEMAN (crawling under bed in fear) - "No! gods are angry, me afraid!"

Since when did Jesus tell people about scientific phenomenon?

[slingblade]

Hey, Native Americans believe in a "Great Spirit in the Sky" don't they, are you saying they're wrong too?

There are over 500 different Nations of American Indians extant today.

They do not have a homogeneous belief system, and never have had.
Most of them will tell you their Nation never had a religion until Europeans came. Most Nations interwove what we consider religion or spirituality into their lives so fully, it had no separate name or concept.

Mitakuye Oyasin. This is Lakota. It means "all my relations."

You are related to everything, and to everyone. There is no god at the center of the universe. There is only the great web of being, in which you are but one strand, connected to all the other strands. But this is but one way of perceiving the universe, from one single aspect of the Na-Da-Lakota Nations.

Do not speak from your armchair of that which you do not know.

[KingMerv00]

Ha ha ha, even NOW in these so-called 'enlightened' times many people are incapable of understanding Jesus's message, let alone in the primitive past, so in that sense prople are no more spiritually evolved now than they were then.. ;)

CAVEMAN - "Ugh, fire from sky!!"
JESUS - "No chum, its simply a natural static discharge between clouds and the ground"
CAVEMAN (crawling under bed in fear) - "No! gods are angry, me afraid!"

So you are retracting your claim about biological evolution then?

[Z]

One word: smallpox


Thank you.

[grayman]

Hey, Native Americans believe in a "Great Spirit in the Sky" don't they, are you saying they're wrong too?

Do you get your information on North American indigenous people from Hollywood?

I bet my Abnaki great-grandmother would find you offensive as well were she alive today.

[KingMerv00]

Thank you.

Oops...hope I didn't offend. I just meant to say that smallpox is one more thing you could expect from a Christian.

[Mashuna]

And guided missiles were invented just a few years ago.

That's evolution.

No, that's an invention.

[Mojo]

Evolution isn't restricted to "monkeys turning into men", regardless how much so many people want it to be so.Because it makes a handy strawman? ;)

[Z]

Oops...hope I didn't offend. I just meant to say that smallpox is one more thing you could expect from a Christian.
No, no, just agreeing wholeheartedly.

[bruto]

I think the original post makes an excellent point. It quite clearly concedes that the so called truth of the Bible is not immutable and absolute, that the content of the Old Testament, tailored as it was for a bunch of warring nomads, had already become obsolete by the time Jesus walked about addressing the more urbane citizens of colonial Rome. It seems reasonable to conclude that, since we have correspondingly come a long way since then, the stuff of the New Testament must be put through the same critical seive now as the stuff of the Old was then.

I think you made your point very well, even if you didn't mean to make it.

[Huntster]

....Mick agreed (tacitly) that evolution was true. HE claimed that people were dumber back then. The burden is on him to show that people who were capable of complex tasks like the invention of bricks and wine were incapable of understand Jesus' simple message.

You've got to be kidding!

People today (during the "Age of Knowledge") appear incapable of understanding Jesus' simple message.

Quote:
And evolution is not a solely physical phenomenon. We evolve in many ways, including intellectually.

They were less evolved intellectually as well as spiritually. Christ Himself stated that He brought something different from Mosaic Law.

Evolution isn't restricted to "monkeys turning into men", regardless how much so many people want it to be so.

For the purposes of this agrument only biological evolution applies.

Biologically, "physical" evolution among humans has coincided with intellectual and spiritual evolution.

As a comparison, the "physical" evolution of the Earth and universe evolves seperately (unless we interfere or influence it).

[Huntster]

Hey, Native Americans believe in a "Great Spirit in the Sky" don't they, are you saying they're wrong too?

It depends on the tribe/era. But, overall, they "believe" in many spirits.

It's a simple matter to consolidate them all into one God.

And that doesn't make them wrong.

It's an easy conversion.

[Huntster]

Since when did Jesus tell people about scientific phenomenon?

Source: (http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/matthew/matthew16.htm)

The Pharisees and Sadducees came and, to test him, asked him to show them a sign from heaven. He said to them in reply, "(In the evening you say, 'Tomorrow will be fair, for the sky is red'; and, in the morning, 'Today will be stormy, for the sky is red and threatening.' You know how to judge the appearance of the sky, but you cannot judge the signs of the times.) An evil and unfaithful generation seeks a sign, but no sign will be given it except the sign of Jonah." Then he left them and went away.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by zaayrdragon
Being Apache-descended, I find this post blatantly racist and offensive. Of course, I expect nothing less from a Christian.
One word: smallpox

What's that supposed to mean?

That the Spanish intended to introduce smallpox as a biological weapon?

This is for sure:

Smallpox has been used as an ideological weapon against people of European descent in this country for the past few years.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
And guided missiles were invented just a few years ago.
That's evolution.

No, that's an invention.

An invention which came in a process of evolution.

Thankfully, we didn't go directly from arrows carved from yew to guided missiles.

We've recently made a huge, evolutionary leap from combustibles to fissionable.

I hope we can survive the evolutionary acceleration..........................

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
Evolution isn't restricted to "monkeys turning into men", regardless how much so many people want it to be so.
Because it makes a handy strawman? ;)

Strawmen are easily defeated.

The Wicked Witch of the West taught me that a mere match terrifies them...............

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by KingMerv00
Oops...hope I didn't offend. I just meant to say that smallpox is one more thing you could expect from a Christian.
No, no, just agreeing wholeheartedly.

I'm Christian, and I don't think I'm a smallpox threat.

[Achán hiNidráne]

It is actually worse than that. The "Old covenant" of vengence and anger was given up the day Jesus was born for the "New covenant" or grace and forgivness.

Humanity changed....quickly.

The trouble is, it didn't. Even 2000 years after Jesus allegedly walked the earth, his followers would still dredge up the OT as a means of justifying their bigotry. OK, so we now ostracize homosexuals and deny them their rights instead of stoning them to death. That's a big improvement. :rolleyes:

[KingMerv00]

You've got to be kidding!

People today (during the "Age of Knowledge") appear incapable of understanding Jesus' simple message.

No need to yell at me. It was HIS argument not mine. HE claimed that the inability to understand Jesus was do to the physcial structure of their brains.

Biologically, "physical" evolution among humans has coincided with intellectual and spiritual evolution.

As a comparison, the "physical" evolution of the Earth and universe evolves seperately (unless we interfere or influence it).

OK. Only biological evolution has anything to do with his claim.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by KingMerv00
It is actually worse than that. The "Old covenant" of vengence and anger was given up the day Jesus was born for the "New covenant" or grace and forgivness.

Humanity changed....quickly.
The trouble is, it didn't. Even 2000 years after Jesus allegedly walked the earth, his followers would still dredge up the OT as a means of justifying their bigotry.

Some do.

Every orchard has rotten fruit.

The Roman Catholic Church? Today?

OK, so we ostracize homosexuals and deny them their rights instead of stoning them to death. That's a big improvement. :rolleyes:

Yeah, it is.

Don't blow it. Let's "evolve" further.

[KingMerv00]

What's that supposed to mean?

That the Spanish intended to introduce smallpox as a biological weapon?

Not that I know of. I haven't found any evidence to support those "infected blanket" legends.

This is for sure:

Smallpox has been used as an ideological weapon against people of European descent in this country for the past few years.

Probably.

[KingMerv00]

I'm Christian, and I don't think I'm a smallpox threat.

Joke.

[Achán hiNidráne]

Some do.

Every orchard has rotten fruit.

The Roman Catholic Church? Today?

Well, I haven't heard his eminence, Pope Hitlerjugend I, proclaim that same-sex marriage is cool with Catholics yet. Even in the extremely unlikely event that he does, there is still a whole lot of "rotten" that the RCC and the rest of Christianity has to answer for. (e.g. anti-birth control, anti-abortion, anti-sex ed, Creationism, etc..)

Yeah, it is.Yeah, tell that to the gays and lesbians.

"Hey! You homos should count your lucky stars that you're only being treated like crap rather than being put to death as my religion demands."

Huntster, you really make me want to f--king puke.

[l0rca]

Hey Merv, I'm from Philly too.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
Some do.

Every orchard has rotten fruit.

The Roman Catholic Church? Today?

Well, I haven't heard his eminence, Pope Hitlerjugend I, proclaim that same-sex marriage is cool with Catholics yet.

You're not likely to hear it, either.

Even in the extremely unlikely event that he does, there is still a whole lot of "rotten" that the RCC and the rest of Christianity has to answer for. (e.g. anti-birth control, anti-abortion, anti-sex ed, Creationism, etc..)

Here's a clue:

Christianity doesn't have to answer squat to you, especially regarding anti-birth control, anti-abortion, anti-sex ed, and/or Creationism.

Opposition or differences regarding those issues require no "answering to", at least to the likes of you.

Quote:
Yeah, it is.

Yeah, tell that to the gays and lesbians.

I've done it.

Run a search on this forum.

"Hey! You homos should count your lucky stars that you're only being treated like crap rather than being put to death as my religion demands."

Show us all where Christianity "demands" that "homos" must be put to death.

Do it. Don't think I'll let this attack stand. You'll do it, or I'll bring this back forever.

Huntster, you really make me want to f--king puke.

Then puke, fool.

When finished, back up your garbage.

[H3LL]

Show us all where Christianity "demands" that "homos" must be put to death.


The two passages in the Leviticus holiness code (Lev. 18:22 and 20:13) clearly condemn (and demand the death penalty for) acts of sexual intercourse between two males (apparently anal intercourse).


by Theodore W. Jennings
Dr. Jennings is assistant professor of theology at Chicago Theological Seminary.

Or

“You [masculine] shall not lie-with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.” The second (Lev. 20:13) adds the penalty: “If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them.”




Whatever the rationale for their formulation, however, the texts leave no room for maneuvering. Persons committing homosexual acts are to be executed. The meaning is clear: anyone who wishes to base his or her beliefs on the witness of the Old Testament must be completely consistent and demand the death penalty for everyone who performs homosexual acts.


by Walter Wink
Walter Wink is professor at Auburn Theological Seminary, New York City.

Or is it just christians and not christianity?

On the September 4, 1998 Armstrong Williams talk show, Colorado talk-radio personality Bob Enyard called for the death penalty for gays and adulterers. Last year, a Christian radio talk-show host in Costa Mesa, California said, "Lesbian love, sodomy are viewed by God as being detestable and abominable. Civil magistrates are to put people to death who practice these things."

Aren't christianity and the bible closely linked?

Am I missing something?


.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
Show us all where Christianity "demands" that "homos" must be put to death.

Quote:
The two passages in the Leviticus holiness code (Lev. 18:22 and 20:13) clearly condemn (and demand the death penalty for) acts of sexual intercourse between two males (apparently anal intercourse).

Leviticus was written well over 1,000 years before Christianity was born.

Or


“You [masculine] shall not lie-with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.” The second (Lev. 20:13) adds the penalty: “If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them.”

Whatever the rationale for their formulation, however, the texts leave no room for maneuvering. Persons committing homosexual acts are to be executed. The meaning is clear: anyone who wishes to base his or her beliefs on the witness of the Old Testament must be completely consistent and demand the death penalty for everyone who performs homosexual acts.

by Walter Wink
Walter Wink is professor at Auburn Theological Seminary, New York City.



I'm a Christian. My beliefs are based on the New Testament.

Or is it just christians and not christianity?

Quote:
On the September 4, 1998 Armstrong Williams talk show, Colorado talk-radio personality Bob Enyard called for the death penalty for gays and adulterers. Last year, a Christian radio talk-show host in Costa Mesa, California said, "Lesbian love, sodomy are viewed by God as being detestable and abominable. Civil magistrates are to put people to death who practice these things."

That was a Christian, not Christianity.

Aren't christianity and the bible closely linked?

Yup.

Am I missing something?

You're not missing something. You're missing a whole bunch.

[Mojo]

Strawmen are easily defeated. That's why creationists like using strawmen such as the "evolution is monkeys turning into men" one that you mentioned earlier. The whole point of a strawman argument is that it can be more easily defeated than the actual proposition being argued against.

[pipelineaudio]

Incrdible, on a skeptic's forum no less

one side shows savage noblery

the other side props the belief of noble savages

both so completely full of crap you all should be ashamed of yourselves

[Orangutan]

CAVEMAN - "Ugh, fire from sky!!"
JESUS - "No chum, its simply a natural static discharge between clouds and the ground"
CAVEMAN (crawling under bed in fear) - "No! gods are angry, me afraid!"

http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g200/faxxanadu/geico-cavemen2.jpg

Edit For those outside the US that don't get this ref:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVVSmnnqfvc

[Tricky]

I'm a Christian. My beliefs are based on the New Testament.
You seem to be implying that Christians do not have beliefs based on the Old Testament. Either that or you are playing the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.

But that aside, are your beliefs based on all of the New Testament, or just parts of it? You seem to be not missing, but deliberately skipping a whole bunch.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
I'm a Christian. My beliefs are based on the New Testament.
You seem to be implying that Christians do not have beliefs based on the Old Testament.

Is that what I'm implying, or is that what you want to hear?

But that aside, are your beliefs based on all of the New Testament, or just parts of it? You seem to be not missing, but deliberately skipping a whole bunch.

What am I "skipping"?

[Tricky]

Originally Posted by Huntster
I'm a Christian. My beliefs are based on the New Testament.
You seem to be implying that Christians do not have beliefs based on the Old Testament.

Is that what I'm implying, or is that what you want to hear? LOL. "I'm a Christian" followed immediately by "My beliefs are based on the New Testament" with "New" in bold? Come on, Huntster. Don't play stupid with me.

Besides, I don't have a preference for what I hear from you. You said it quite clearly. Have the balls to stick by it.

What am I "skipping".
How about Revelations? How many of your beliefs are based on that acid-trip?

[KingMerv00]

Hey Merv, I'm from Philly too.

This thread isn't going anywhere. I don't think I can derail it. I'm in Center City, you?

[joobz]

This thread isn't going anywhere. I don't think I can derail it. I'm in Center City, you?
I left Philly 6 months ago. What a fun town.

Do me a favor, Go to Monk's Tavern or Eulogy and order a weyerbacher. They should be available there.

[Foster Zygote]

I left Philly 6 months ago. What a fun town.

Do me a favor, Go to Monk's Tavern or Eulogy and order a weyerbacher. They should be available there.

...Then carefully pack it and mail it overnight express to Joobz in Kentucky.

[Z]

I have to kind of defend Huntster here. Properly speaking, the basis for Christian belief should be the New Testament; not the Ten Commandments, nor any part of the OT. The OT is in their Bible as historical reference; to tell stirring allegories about Moses, Creation, and the like.

Some sects even publish NT-only Bibles now.

So if you're going to attack a particular Christian moral, use the right book please.

[slingblade]

I have to kind of defend Huntster here. Properly speaking, the basis for Christian belief should be the New Testament; not the Ten Commandments, nor any part of the OT. The OT is in their Bible as historical reference; to tell stirring allegories about Moses, Creation, and the like.

Some sects even publish NT-only Bibles now.

So if you're going to attack a particular Christian moral, use the right book please.

Erm.....we will, when they will. ;)

Sorry, but what you're arguing doesn't hold true for all Christians. In fact, I've come to discover that there's very little which does hold true for all Christians (which is why No True Scotsman is a fallacy).

The whole thing, old and new, is packaged as The Holy Bible. You are quite right that many Xtians don't highly regard the OT, and that many don't see it as being part of the "real" or pertinent Bible.

Others do. Including many Fundies. Many of them will tell you that if it's between those covers, God intends for you to know it and follow it. And they will happily cherry-pick (sorry, Tricky, but there it is) what they need out of the OT whenever it meets a need. If you are a literal-minded soul, as I tend to be, this can confuse you pretty quickly.

As a kid, I wondered why I had to listen to sermons about Onan, but always had bacon and eggs on Sunday, before church.

"Why are we eating pork?"

"Because we're not Jewish."

"But the Bible says not to!"

"That's just for the Jewish people."

"So...we don't have to do what the OT says?"

"Of course we do! Except for the Jewish parts."

"Was Onan Jewish?"

"Who?"

"The guy who 'spilled his see--'"

"Never you mind! I know who you mean now. Yes, he was Jewish. Hebrew. And his story shows us why...erm....'self-abuse' is sinful and fobidden by God."

"So we can't masturbate, but we can have bacon, and this is okay with God?"

"It's complicated."

"I guess so. [thoughtful pause] You know, Onan wasn't mastur--"

"SELF-ABUSE!"

"Sorry, abusing himself. The actual term for what he did is coitus interruptus. You do know there was a women there with him, too, right?"

"Whatever. The sin was that he wasted his, er, seed, by spilling it on the ground, and God doesn't want that."

"Okay. But I'm a girl. I have no seed to spill. So it must be okay for me to--"

"Not in MY HOUSE you won't, young lady!"


It is disingenous to say that more than half of a book is to be disregarded, but it will still remain between the same covers. As long as the Bible consists of the OT and NT, it's all fair game for me.

[boojum]

I have to kind of defend Huntster here. Properly speaking, the basis for Christian belief should be the New Testament; not the Ten Commandments, nor any part of the OT. The OT is in their Bible as historical reference; to tell stirring allegories about Moses, Creation, and the like.

Some sects even publish NT-only Bibles now.

So if you're going to attack a particular Christian moral, use the right book please.

I don't entirely agree with this position. Jesus himself says (Mat 5:17): "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill." So this seems to me to be a fairly strong endorsement of the Old Testament by the New Testament.

As another example, consider 2 Peter 2:7-8: "And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked: (For that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds.)" (Which, by the way, really irritates me. Remember that "righteous" Lot was perfectly willing to surrender his daughters to be raped in order to protect God's messanger angels. The bastard.)

At the same time that it endorses the Old Testament, the New Testament claims to be a "new covenant"; which does somewhat imply at least a partial repudiation of the Old Testament.

If Christians really mean to depreciate the Old Testament, they should do so a more fully in the New Testament.

[Ichneumonwasp]

"Okay. But I'm a girl. I have no seed to spill. So it must be okay for me to--"


Any video?

Just asking.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
I'm a Christian. My beliefs are based on the New Testament.

You seem to be implying that Christians do not have beliefs based on the Old Testament.

Is that what I'm implying, or is that what you want to hear?

LOL. "I'm a Christian" followed immediately by "My beliefs are based on the New Testament" with "New" in bold? Come on, Huntster. Don't play stupid with me.

What's stupid about that?

Besides, I don't have a preference for what I hear from you. You said it quite clearly. Have the balls to stick by it.

I do.

Christ came to establish the "New Covenant".

Originally Posted by Huntster
What am I "skipping".

How about Revelations? How many of your beliefs are based on that acid-trip?

Not many.

Dreams aren't for me to interpret. I'll leave that to the clergy.

[Tricky]

What's stupid about that?

I do.

Christ came to establish the "New Covenant".
Then what I said about your beliefs coming from the New Testement is what you actually meant, not just "what (I) want to hear". Sheesh, Huntster. You are slipperier than an eel in vaseline.

Not many.

Dreams aren't for me to interpret. I'll leave that to the clergy. So you are skipping whole parts. Letting others interpret it for you means you are skipping it.

If you have a test on a chapter of a book and you copy your answers off of someone elses paper because you skipped that chapter, then it's not your work, ya know?

[Huntster]

....It is disingenous to say that more than half of a book is to be disregarded, but it will still remain between the same covers.

Is it disingenuous to declare that I will not allow the collection of books in the Old Testament to be used as an ideological weapon to attack my beliefs?

As long as the Bible consists of the OT and NT, it's all fair game for me.

Feel free to play your game.

Just don't be upset if some of us refuse to play with you.

[Huntster]

...Jesus himself says (Mat 5:17): "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill." So this seems to me to be a fairly strong endorsement of the Old Testament by the New Testament....

His very arrival and ministery was the fulfillment of the prophesies of the Old Testament, and not an abolishment.

Further, even though He didn't abolish the Ten Commandments, He consolidated them: (http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/matthew/matthew22.htm)

"You shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the greatest and the first commandment. The second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. The whole law and the prophets depend on these two commandments."

At the same time that it endorses the Old Testament, the New Testament claims to be a "new covenant"; which does somewhat imply at least a partial repudiation of the Old Testament.

It is the fulfillment. The new Lamb of God had arrived. It was the beginning of the new Passover. The blood of this Lamb would protect His people from spiritual death, just like the blood of lambs had protected the Hebrews from the Angel of Death that took the firstborn of Egypt.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
What's stupid about that?

I do.

Christ came to establish the "New Covenant".

Then what I said about your beliefs coming from the New Testement is what you actually meant, not just "what (I) want to hear". Sheesh, Huntster. You are slipperier than an eel in vaseline.

I'm not slipping here. You must be trying to gain too much speed before gaining traction.

Originally Posted by Huntster
Not many.

Dreams aren't for me to interpret. I'll leave that to the clergy.

So you are skipping whole parts. Letting others interpret it for you means you are skipping it.

Revelations holds little for me to use. While the warnings to the seven churches are good to know, the interpretation of John's dream can be a snare. Behold how many people use it to "predict" the "end of the world."

I'm not going there. The end of my world will come when this tired old body gives up. I don't need to focus on Armageddon, the four horsemen, or lots of other visions in Revelations.

Since so many in the past have fallen victim to attempting to interpret Revelations, I think I'll leave it alone. No need to jump into the pit I've seen so many others fall into.

If you have a test on a chapter of a book and you copy your answers off of someone elses paper because you skipped that chapter, then it's not your work, ya know?

This isn't a test. It's a lesson. And I like teamwork, especially when the folks on my team are pros. I'll listen and weigh their outlooks.

[slingblade]

Any video?

Just asking.

Just one. And I'm hoping we never, ever misplace it....:jaw-dropp

[H3LL]

I'm a Christian. My beliefs are based on the New Testament.

You are either a liar or a compulsive bible-cherry-picker to fit whatever you happen to think.

The 10 commandments (whichever you pick) are not in the New Testament.

In the New Testament, Abraham is referred to 68 times, the ancient Israelites are mentioned 73 times, Jacob 26 times, Issac 20 times, Elijah 29 times, Isiah 22 times, Noah 8 times, King David is mentioned 58 times. The name Mary is mentioned 54 times in the New Testament. The name Moses appears 80 times!

Also, Jesus said "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I come not to destroy, but to fulfil." Matthew 5:17. Therefore, Jesus came to fulfil Old Testament Law.

"Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." Matthew 5:18. The Old testament laws are binding on everyone, forever.

"If you believe Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. But since you do not believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say?" John 5:45. This says it all. You have no belief in Jesus.

So, your beliefs are based on the New Testament?

Would that be the bits that don't contain reference to Jesus, commandments, law, Abraham, Israelites, Jacob, Isaac, Isiah, Noah, King David, Mary or Moses?

There's not a lot left.

.

[Zep]

Faith = belief without (or even despite) evidence.

Add blinding arrogance (and I do mean "blinding"), and you get Huntster. He's not unique, mind...

[H3LL]

Faith = belief without (or even despite) evidence.

Add blinding arrogance (and I do mean "blinding"), and you get Huntster. He's not unique, mind...

Faith = belief?

Belief in what?
Faith in what?

Huntster has eliminated over 90% of the bible, Old and New testament.

It should be assumed that he never got as far as John 1:1, because he sure as heck can't have read it.

I would accuse him of being like his God of the bible as a heartless monster, full of pride, and devoid of conscience or mercy, but can't as he doesn't believe in most of it.

Huntster = Atheist for 90% of the bible and all other religions. :D



.

[l0rca]

This thread isn't going anywhere. I don't think I can derail it. I'm in Center City, you?

If I'd have known, I would have had a drink with you for the hell of it.

I was in northern Port Richmond, then closer to Roosevelt Mall. I went to center city often.

Being in the Navy, live in Spain now.

[l0rca]

I have to kind of defend Huntster here. Properly speaking, the basis for Christian belief should be the New Testament; not the Ten Commandments, nor any part of the OT. The OT is in their Bible as historical reference; to tell stirring allegories about Moses, Creation, and the like.

Some sects even publish NT-only Bibles now.

So if you're going to attack a particular Christian moral, use the right book please.

While Christianity now does tend to plug for this, I think it's a dodge of most of the history their faith is founded on. It's picking and choosing from an idea that's founded in the concrete of a lot of other beliefs, and it's exactly why religon can't be prooved wrong. They refit their ideas to keep them fresh, without any justification for ignoring the large amounts of collateral faith included.

It would be like me resurrecting Zeus, and claiming all the ancient myth was true, just metaphorical, then creating a book of his modernly-applicable quotes and claiming it was the true intention of Zeus for me to do so.

[bruto]

While Christianity now does tend to plug for this, I think it's a dodge of most of the history their faith is founded on. It's picking and choosing from an idea that's founded in the concrete of a lot of other beliefs, and it's exactly why religon can't be prooved wrong. They refit their ideas to keep them fresh, without any justification for ignoring the large amounts of collateral faith included.

It would be like me resurrecting Zeus, and claiming all the ancient myth was true, just metaphorical, then creating a book of his modernly-applicable quotes and claiming it was the true intention of Zeus for me to do so.

REsurrecting Zeus seems a poor analogy with a religion whose evolution has been continuous. Granted, it has not evolved nearly enough, in many people's opinion, but you create a no-win situation for the Huntsters of the world by suggesting that they must either be fundamentalists and take the whole bible as it comes, or chuck it all. The RC church dumped that idea sometime around the time of Saint Augustine. Isn't refitting your ideas to keep them fresh a strength rather than a weakness?

There are plenty of things you can criticize the Catholic church for, and a few additional targets pinned to Huntster's shirt. It seems odd to pick one of the areas where he and his sect have moved away at least a little bit from the anti-rational fundie nonsense that deservedly draws fire here.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
I'm a Christian. My beliefs are based on the New Testament.

You are either a liar or a compulsive bible-cherry-picker to fit whatever you happen to think.

The 10 commandments (whichever you pick) are not in the New Testament.

Thanks for that revelation, Sherlock.

Where did I write that the Ten Commandments were introduced in the New Testament?

In the New Testament, Abraham is referred to 68 times, the ancient Israelites are mentioned 73 times, Jacob 26 times, Issac 20 times, Elijah 29 times, Isiah 22 times, Noah 8 times, King David is mentioned 58 times. The name Mary is mentioned 54 times in the New Testament. The name Moses appears 80 times!

How impressive. Your investigative skill surpase even what Arthur Conan wrote of you.

How did you count all that up so quickly?

....So, your beliefs are based on the New Testament?

Okay. I'd better be careful with my words here, so I don't end up in a childish literal game with you..........

"Based"? Since the New Testament is "based" on the Old (obviously), then "based" maybe isn't the best word for the fulcrum of your silly game.

How about if I edit to state that the "FOCUS" of my belief is the New Testament?

Still want to play the game?

[Huntster]

Faith = belief without (or even despite) evidence.

Correct. In the lack of evidence/proof, one must utilize "faith" if one accepts.

Add blinding arrogance (and I do mean "blinding"), and you get Huntster.

My arrogance isn't blind. I try to focus it properly.

He's not unique, mind...

Nope. There are lots of Huntsters around.

[Huntster]

...I would accuse him of being like his God of the bible...

Thanks!

....as a heartless monster.....

That's your opinion.

I think it's more retalitory, just, and it should be expected.

However, God is likely to be way more forgiving............

....full of pride, and devoid of conscience or mercy, but can't as he doesn't believe in most of it....

I'm not perfect.

Clearly, neither are you.

Huntster = Atheist for 90% of the bible and all other religions.

Funny!

How about:

Huntster = Skeptical regarding some parts of all religions, a believer in Heaven and Hell, and real skeptical regarding H3LL

[slingblade]

Granted, it has not evolved nearly enough, in many people's opinion, but you create a no-win situation for the Huntsters of the world by suggesting that they must either be fundamentalists and take the whole bible as it comes, or chuck it all.

What else would you suggest mere mortals do with the holy utterances of the supreme being?

If the God who created you and everything else spoke, don't you think it would be a good idea to note eveything he says, and then do/not do all of it?

It's just more proof, for me, that all gods are imaginary and created in our image, rather than the reverse. This god has the potential to be nasty, as all those old, old stories prove, but he really wants us to be his friends and worship him for the nice guy he usually is, according to the new stories.

He seems a lot more equitable these days (one assumes he's mellowed), and so he lovingly gives us this choice. It's not exactly Sophie's choice, but it is a wonky one. I'd call it more a "parental choice." All who are parents at least know this choice, even if they've never uttered it or acted on it:

"[Do your chores, stop hitting your sister, finish your homework, etc] or I will beat you til you can't sit down!"

This is not really a choice being offered, and the parents know it. The kids had better know it, too. The parent intends you to do what you are told. Period. It is not a "loving choice offered by a loving god, who only wants the best for us." It is a threat. There is no idea of free will here; the notion of punishment negates free will. I don't intend for you to choose the beating; I intend for you to clean your damn room, you lazy little snot.

But proper parents are infinitely more merciful. We eventually lift the punishment. My son once stole a piece of candy. 23 years later, I am not still punishing him for it. In fact, there is nothing my children did for which they are still being punished by me. God sends you to hell forever, and your punishment serves no lesson. It's nothing more than eternal abuse.

Anyway, what makes you think we, as mere mortals, can presume to choose what we will observe and obey, and what we won't? Providing God is real, that is.


The RC church dumped that idea sometime around the time of Saint Augustine. Isn't refitting your ideas to keep them fresh a strength rather than a weakness?

These are the pronouncements of a supreme being. They are sacred. Who are we to tamper with them? The very notion that you might have permission to change the immutable word of the High God is arrogance in the extreme. If God wants his word changed, he will do the job himself, thanks.

(Unless, of course, humans just made it all up. In that case, we're free to do as we like with those pronouncements, because there really isn't anything out there that will punish us for it, or even care.)

There are plenty of things you can criticize the Catholic church for, and a few additional targets pinned to Huntster's shirt. It seems odd to pick one of the areas where he and his sect have moved away at least a little bit from the anti-rational fundie nonsense that deservedly draws fire here.

I don't disagree with what you say, but only with the notion that God allows people to pick and choose what they'll stick with and what they won't of his Bible. Again, it is simply more evidence for me that the whole idea of religion is a fundamentally flawed human notion that has seriously outlived its time.

[bruto]

What else would you suggest mere mortals do with the holy utterances of the supreme being?

If the God who created you and everything else spoke, don't you think it would be a good idea to note eveything he says, and then do/not do all of it?

It's just more proof, for me, that all gods are imaginary and created in our image, rather than the reverse. This god has the potential to be nasty, as all those old, old stories prove, but he really wants us to be his friends and worship him for the nice guy he usually is, according to the new stories.

He seems a lot more equitable these days (one assumes he's mellowed), and so he lovingly gives us this choice. It's not exactly Sophie's choice, but it is a wonky one. I'd call it more a "parental choice." All who are parents at least know this choice, even if they've never uttered it or acted on it:

"[Do your chores, stop hitting your sister, finish your homework, etc] or I will beat you til you can't sit down!"

This is not really a choice being offered, and the parents know it. The kids had better know it, too. The parent intends you to do what you are told. Period. It is not a "loving choice offered by a loving god, who only wants the best for us." It is a threat. There is no idea of free will here; the notion of punishment negates free will. I don't intend for you to choose the beating; I intend for you to clean your damn room, you lazy little snot.

But proper parents are infinitely more merciful. We eventually lift the punishment. My son once stole a piece of candy. 23 years later, I am not still punishing him for it. In fact, there is nothing my children did for which they are still being punished by me. God sends you to hell forever, and your punishment serves no lesson. It's nothing more than eternal abuse.

Anyway, what makes you think we, as mere mortals, can presume to choose what we will observe and obey, and what we won't? Providing God is real, that is.




These are the pronouncements of a supreme being. They are sacred. Who are we to tamper with them? The very notion that you might have permission to change the immutable word of the High God is arrogance in the extreme. If God wants his word changed, he will do the job himself, thanks.

(Unless, of course, humans just made it all up. In that case, we're free to do as we like with those pronouncements, because there really isn't anything out there that will punish us for it, or even care.)



I don't disagree with what you say, but only with the notion that God allows people to pick and choose what they'll stick with and what they won't of his Bible. Again, it is simply more evidence for me that the whole idea of religion is a fundamentally flawed human notion that has seriously outlived its time.

But your approach is based on the assumption that the bible can be regarded only as the immutable and literal word of God, devoid of metaphor, or as nothing at all; and if that is not the policy of Huntster's church, then the argument misses. You have to remember too that in the RC faith, the Church itself is a holy being, and the Pope an authorized agent of both the Church and God himself. He does have the right to adjust things as he sees fit, being considered infallible in matters of faith.

If it's all made up, fine. I tend to agree. So be it, but it seems odd that people whose main argument is that there is no god at all and the entire bible is a crock of s**t are disputing how someone like Huntster interprets it.

[l0rca]

Bruto:


These are the pronouncements of a supreme being. They are sacred. Who are we to tamper with them? The very notion that you might have permission to change the immutable word of the High God is arrogance in the extreme. If God wants his word changed, he will do the job himself, thanks.

^ This is roughly what I meant in my argument, so I wont restate it needlessly. If you've got a specific problem with that quote, I'll argue you from there.

[slingblade]

If it's all made up, fine. I tend to agree. So be it, but it seems odd that people whose main argument is that there is no god at all and the entire bible is a crock of s**t are disputing how someone like Huntster interprets it.

I don't necessarily dispute how he or anyone might interpret it, but that he or anyone does interpret it.

When I engage someone in an Interpretive War, I am attempting to prove my claims about the bible (it's made up, it's controlling, it promotes abuse, etc.) by getting them to look at the conundrums the book raises both within itself, and within and among those who use it.

If they say "God is Loving," I can show them several passages in which God is anything but. If they say he is merciful, ibid. If they say he loves all his children equally, I cn show places where equal = male.

If they claim that X passage doesn't really mean what most people think it means, I challenge how they could possibly "know" that, and usually can show them another place in the bible which confirms the original meaning they dispute.

It's either the holy word of a supreme living god, or it's not. That's a dichotomy, but not a false one.

I know people have messed with it, altered it, added and subtacted. God promised to punish them for it.


and.....?

[slingblade]

^ This is roughly what I meant in my argument, so I wont restate it needlessly. If you've got a specific problem with that quote, I'll argue you from there.

If I made a post that echoed what you said, why would I have a problem?
I think it's called agreement. We can't argue agreement. And which quote do you mean? My own quote? That you just quoted? I'm cornfused.

[l0rca]

I edited the post to make it clearer.

[slingblade]

And I apparently quoted your edited post, so it isn't clearer to me. Sorry.

[l0rca]

I'm arguing Bruto on the same thing, in the context of the part of your post I quoted. Against you, he never answered that specific quote. If you look earlier on this page, you'll see that what I'm quoting here from you is in answer of what he said to me.

[bruto]

Slingblade and lorca, I understand what you're saying, but what I'm saying is simply that your assumption that there is only one approach to the bible - i.e. that it's the sacred immutable word of god and not subject to interpretation - is itself an interpretation, which is not shared by all Christians.

As Slingblade put it: If God wants his word changed, he will do the job himself, thanks.

But that's circular. If you don't actually believe that the Bible is the direct and immutable word of God, then why shouldn't you interpret it, try to make it fit better to what you want to believe. It's all made up anyway, why not make it up to be a little more useful. If the cherries are there, why not pick them?

And if you're a Catholic, you might say that it is God doing the work anyway, through the Pope and the Church itself, who act, according to Catholic doctrine, with divine authority. I'm not trying to defend that interpretation, or the RC Church, nor to assert the Church's assumed divine authority, of course, but if Huntster is a Catholic, he has no need to defend biblical fundamentalism, nor really any need to defend himself against charges that he ought to be a fundamentalist when he's not.

I happen to think Huntster's religion is a bunch of hooey, and most of his opinions bunk, but I think it's a little odd to see atheists declaring what is required to be a proper Christian.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by bruto
If it's all made up, fine. I tend to agree. So be it, but it seems odd that people whose main argument is that there is no god at all and the entire bible is a crock of s**t are disputing how someone like Huntster interprets it.

I don't necessarily dispute how he or anyone might interpret it, but that he or anyone does interpret it.

When I engage someone in an Interpretive War, I am attempting to prove my claims about the bible (it's made up, it's controlling, it promotes abuse, etc.) by getting them to look at the conundrums the book raises both within itself, and within and among those who use it.

"War"?

My, my!

If they say "God is Loving," I can show them several passages in which God is anything but.

That's fine.

I get the love, you get the.................other.

If they say he is merciful, ibid. If they say he loves all his children equally, I cn show places where equal = male.

Oh, even the gender thing?

If they claim that X passage doesn't really mean what most people think it means, I challenge how they could possibly "know" that, and usually can show them another place in the bible which confirms the original meaning they dispute.

Who says your "interpretation" is the correct one, if the Bible is so "contradictive"?

It's either the holy word of a supreme living god, or it's not.

The books of the Bible are the words of men inspired by God (at least that is what is believed by many, me included).

I know people have messed with it, altered it, added and subtacted. God promised to punish them for it.

You're messing with it right now.

So?

[l0rca]

But that's circular. If you don't actually believe that the Bible is the direct and immutable word of God, then why shouldn't you interpret it, try to make it fit better to what you want to believe. It's all made up anyway, why not make it up to be a little more useful. If the cherries are there, why not pick them?

The problem with this remains the same problem with my Zeus analogy. Christians may have moved more and more degrees away from their older beliefs, but this is not because of any new revelations of god or spirit; they're all based on social pressure. Their beliefs, these days, are taken far out of context of its history, and what the idea originally was. The changes are so significant, that the very character and nature of their god has changed. It used to be a physical, interacting part of their world. Now Catholicism, on some fronts, has retreated all the way back to the transcendental, and everything is considered metaphor. The idea of their god has gone from something that could be commonly seen to a vague feeling based on the last recessions of the mind that science has yet to mull. Now, the justifiable reasons for a god's existence in any religious context is no more justifiable than anything I deign to imagine.

That they can do this doesn't make it right. I'm not arguing about their motivation. I am arguing it's wrong, and obviously wrong, and I think they should be called on their postmodern translations of the bible more often. The idea of interpreting texts in multiple ways didn't exist back then. They're superimposing our knowledge of literature. It's a cheap trick. Language itself wasn't even understood in the past. And what is their justification for this? A divine hand involved? That's just as laughable a ploy as saying I have a feeling that Zeus always had the intention I should revise the myths.

[bruto]

The problem with this remains the same problem with my Zeus analogy. Christians may have moved more and more degrees away from their older beliefs, but this is not because of any new revelations of god or spirit; they're all based on social pressure. Their beliefs, these days, are taken far out of context of its history, and what the idea originally was. The changes are so significant, that the very character and nature of their god has changed. It used to be a physical, interacting part of their world. Now Catholicism, on some fronts, has retreated all the way back to the transcendental, and everything is considered metaphor. The idea of their god has gone from something that could be commonly seen to a vague feeling based on the last recessions of the mind that science has yet to mull. Now, the justifiable reasons for a god's existence in any religious context is no more justifiable than anything I deign to imagine.

What if they claim that it's due to new revelations? Who are we to say? And what of it? Are you speaking as an atheist or a religious purist? Why should you or anyone else be the authority on whether a religious sect for which you have no use and for which you show utter disdain uses its history and its scriptures properly?

That they can do this doesn't make it right. I'm not arguing about their motivation. I am arguing it's wrong, and obviously wrong, and I think they should be called on their postmodern translations of the bible more often. The idea of interpreting texts in multiple ways didn't exist back then. They're superimposing our knowledge of literature. It's a cheap trick. Language itself wasn't even understood in the past. And what is their justification for this? A divine hand involved? That's just as laughable a ploy as saying I have a feeling that Zeus always had the intention I should revise the didn't exist back then. They're superimposing our knowledge of literature. It's a cheap trick. Language itself wasn't even understood in the past. And what is their justification for this? A divine hand involved? That's just as laughable a ploy as saying I have a feeling that Zeus always had the intention I should revise the myths.

Back when? Are you sure? Haven't scholars and theologians, scribes, pharisees, priests and whatnot been interpreting and interpolating since the start? Isn't that a part of what Jesus was doing? Even then there seems to have been room for disagreement. What makes you think that the translations that are commonly used by other sects are not just as dependent on the knowledge of literature and the ethos of their times as any other translations? Do you really think, for example, that the King James version is not a product of its time and of the religious biases of the translators? Why shouldn't scholars re-translate and reinterpret as language and understanding change?

Why is the idea of a divine hand involved in reinterpretation any crazier than the idea of a divine hand involved in anything else? If you did believe in the God of the bible, and did indeed believe the bible is the word of God, then you'd pretty much have to believe that he could and would manipulate things, including, as we see in the New Testament, reinterpreting the old.

If you actually believed in Zeus, and believed that you were in communion with Zeus, why couldn't Zeus change his stories to fit circumstances? Why would that be more preposterous than the stories to begin with?

I just don't see how you can reconcile your basic contention that religion itself is wrong at its core with an argument that a particular religious sect is going about in the wrong way!

"A pedant is a man who studies a vacuum through instruments that allow him to draw cross-sections of the details." (John Ciardi)

[l0rca]

I just don't see how you can reconcile your basic contention that religion itself is wrong at its core with an argument that a particular religious sect is going about in the wrong way!


I'm not saying that in the least. My contentions here are more technical problems I've thought of.


Back when? Are you sure? Haven't scholars and theologians, scribes, pharisees, priests and whatnot been interpreting and interpolating since the start? Isn't that a part of what Jesus was doing? Even then there seems to have been room for disagreement. What makes you think that the translations that are commonly used by other sects are not just as dependent on the knowledge of literature and the ethos of their times as any other translations? Do you really think, for example, that the King James version is not a product of its time and of the religious biases of the translators? Why shouldn't scholars re-translate and reinterpret as language and understanding change?

I'm not talking about the minor translation problems, and I'm leaving out a lot of the more irrational and concrete sects of Christianity, such as the Mormons, Evangelists, and Creationists. I'm talking about how people interpret parts of the bible into metaphor; very large parts, such as the entire description of the beginning of man and time, as according to the bible, as well as passages about the earth being flat. These things were considered divine inspiration and god's account to us how the world began. But they were not revised because someone came along and considered they must be metaphor; they were revised because they were proven wrong.

But because of you, I do see I am reconciling this the wrong way. While they may think of it as one more translation to the many they've been doing all along, I think this is hiding the difference of philosophizing on the context and translation, and between claiming proven-wrong parts of the bible are metaphorical based on nothing contextual or translated, but only that they're simply wrong.

Jesus did speak in many parables, and I could see the division between "body and blood" being literal and metaphorical, but there's no hint in Genesis that the writer was being anything but direct and detailing.


Why is the idea of a divine hand involved in reinterpretation any crazier than the idea of a divine hand involved in anything else? If you did believe in the God of the bible, and did indeed believe the bible is the word of God, then you'd pretty much have to believe that he could and would manipulate things, including, as we see in the New Testament, reinterpreting the old.

If you actually believed in Zeus, and believed that you were in communion with Zeus, why couldn't Zeus change his stories to fit circumstances? Why would that be more preposterous than the stories to begin with?

I'm glad you're also using my Zeus metaphor, and appropriately as well.

I think they're crossing the line of good rationale with claims that their ideas are inspired. Any claim of spiritual inspiration means nothing outside of oneself. I think other Christians are foolish to believe the Holy See, or whoever says, that their new rationalizing of very old texts should be trusted because they've been newly inspired.

Actually, that last part about their justification isn't my experience with Catholics. Instead, what their rationalizing tends to be is much worse: "We know God is All Powerful, so there's no way his book is wrong. Therefore, it has to be metaphor."

I would equate that in my metaphor in an obvious way. Being even more jaded and blindly convictionate about my mythical faith, I know Zeus must have all along been inspiring his writers in metaphor.

What I find a big drop off and gap in reasoning about all of this inspiration crap is, if Genesis was inspired as metaphor -- it was at one point taught by the writers. They would have made this distinction. Instead, we have no indication at all that Jews in the past took these works as anything but as serious and literal as every other religion took their beliefs at that time. Further, parts of the bible are actually largely similar, and possibly adopted from older religions, like Zoroastrianism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroastrianism#Relation_to_other_religions_and_cul tures

[H3LL]

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/318045602cb3cf8b6.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=2682)

Huntster's entered the zone.

.

[Tricky]

The books of the Bible are the words of men inspired by God (at least that is what is believed by many, me included).
What does "inspired by God" mean to you? How can you tell if a man's words are acually inspired by God or if they are just listening to the voices in their head and assume it is God? How do men's words acquire the official "Inspired By God™" logo?

You know the answer. Men decide what is "inspired by God", either by committee (e.g. the RCC) or individually.

[bruto]

I'm not saying that in the least. My contentions here are more technical problems I've thought of.



I'm not talking about the minor translation problems, and I'm leaving out a lot of the more irrational and concrete sects of Christianity, such as the Mormons, Evangelists, and Creationists. I'm talking about how people interpret parts of the bible into metaphor; very large parts, such as the entire description of the beginning of man and time, as according to the bible, as well as passages about the earth being flat. These things were considered divine inspiration and god's account to us how the world began. But they were not revised because someone came along and considered they must be metaphor; they were revised because they were proven wrong.

But because of you, I do see I am reconciling this the wrong way. While they may think of it as one more translation to the many they've been doing all along, I think this is hiding the difference of philosophizing on the context and translation, and between claiming proven-wrong parts of the bible are metaphorical based on nothing contextual or translated, but only that they're simply wrong.

Jesus did speak in many parables, and I could see the division between "body and blood" being literal and metaphorical, but there's no hint in Genesis that the writer was being anything but direct and detailing.



I'm glad you're also using my Zeus metaphor, and appropriately as well.

I think they're crossing the line of good rationale with claims that their ideas are inspired. Any claim of spiritual inspiration means nothing outside of oneself. I think other Christians are foolish to believe the Holy See, or whoever says, that their new rationalizing of very old texts should be trusted because they've been newly inspired.

Actually, that last part about their justification isn't my experience with Catholics. Instead, what their rationalizing tends to be is much worse: "We know God is All Powerful, so there's no way his book is wrong. Therefore, it has to be metaphor."

I would equate that in my metaphor in an obvious way. Being even more jaded and blindly convictionate about my mythical faith, I know Zeus must have all along been inspiring his writers in metaphor.

What I find a big drop off and gap in reasoning about all of this inspiration crap is, if Genesis was inspired as metaphor -- it was at one point taught by the writers. They would have made this distinction. Instead, we have no indication at all that Jews in the past took these works as anything but as serious and literal as every other religion took their beliefs at that time. Further, parts of the bible are actually largely similar, and possibly adopted from older religions, like Zoroastrianism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroastrianism#Relation_to_other_religions_and_cul tures


I do take your point on the difference between reinterpreting a metaphor and declaring a metaphor when the literal text is proven irretrievably wrong. True enough, and hard to reconcile. Religions tend to do this, conveniently correcting course when social pressures require (think of the handy re-revelations the Mormons got when they needed to disavow polygamy and slavery). But if you concede that religions really are a human, social construct, rather than the true word of a real God, what else would they do?

I still say that if you start from the point of view that it's all made up, and there's no God anyway, and the whole deal is irrational from the start, criticizing individual instances of irrationality is a bit pedantic or compulsive, sort of like murdering your enemy and cussing out the corpse, or proofreading a text just before you shred it.

[l0rca]

I still say that if you start from the point of view that it's all made up, and there's no God anyway, and the whole deal is irrational from the start, criticizing individual instances of irrationality is a bit pedantic or compulsive, sort of like murdering your enemy and cussing out the corpse, or proofreading a text just before you shred it.

I think the overall pedantic and compulsive thing I'm doing is still, every now and then, considering any point a Christian makes on their faith. I could better be making my time in other more philosophical and scientific threads.

I don't like the metaphor here so much, because I don't equate my arguments against Christianity with ideas so much as people, unless we're discussing their epistemology and their rationalism. These people are not dead, nor their religion defeated in anything but the scientific/philosophical sense. Arguments about these things will continue indefinitely. Any valid point against them might be a weapon one could use. Perhaps in my posting here I've armed another skeptic with a good tool.

But you're right: I don't need to disprove them any more, and this dead horse we are beating here, drinking wine and discussing over, has started to form an ungodly smell for many of us. When those rare moments come when the faithful aren't nipping our socks, we should find fresher topics.

[H3LL]

Huntster = Skeptical regarding some parts of all religions, a believer in Heaven and Hell.....

I'm certain heaven and hell get a mention in the Old Testament.

I'm a Christian.

Apart from the belief in some parts of other religions you're not sceptical about.

My beliefs are based on the New Testament.

So not a believer in christ and therefore not a christian...See John 1:1, 5:45.



So which of your quotes are lies?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/318045602cb3cf8b6.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=2682)

[Huntster]

....Men decide what is "inspired by God", either by committee (e.g. the RCC) or individually.

Yup.

I call it "peer review."

[Huntster]

....So which of your quotes are lies?

I can see you're an Ossai clone. I'm done with you until you grow up.

Go to H3LL.

(BTW, neat little ermine. The price of fur is up, you know, but that's the summer phase. During trapping season they're all white.)

[H3LL]

During trapping season they're all white.

You can't even get that right.

.

[l0rca]

Hell, are you a girl?

Are you hot?

[H3LL]

Hell, are you a girl?

Me?

No.

Are you hot?

I'm pleasantly warm and comfortable at the moment, thank you.

.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
During trapping season they're all white.
You can't even get that right.

Been there. Done that.

[l0rca]

Been there. Done that.

I'm not actually wanting specifically to point you out, Hunter, but the two of you both need to argue much better to make any of the rest of us approve of what's going on in this context. I see nothing worth agreeing with here on you.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
Been there. Done that.
I'm not actually wanting specifically to point you out, Hunter, but the two of you both need to argue much better to make any of the rest of us approve of what's going on in this context. I see nothing worth agreeing with here on you.

That's very wise. There is nothing worth agreeing with in my exchange with H3LL. It is tit-for-tat silliness, and I hope it ends soon.

My last post was to point out to H3LL that ermines turn white for the winter. I've seen them, trapped them, and even shared a small trapper's cabin with one during a dark rainstorm. I know ermines quite well.

H3LL claimed that:

Originally Posted by Huntster
During trapping season they're all white.

You can't even get that right.

He/she is incorrect.

Period.

[Wheezebucket]

Man, those things are cute.

[Huntster]

Man, those things are cute.

Sure are.

I had one scurrying around me as I tried to sleep in a busted down, litter-filled log cabin. I had to stick my head out of my sleeping bag, shine a flashlight on the little bugger (no further than 4' from my face), and while I spoke to him, he just sat up and stared at me.

I told him:

"You can scurry around hunting mice all night if you'd like, but don't try to get in this bag with me."

Then I rolled over and went to sleep.

No problems...............

Then, there was the night of the Ghost of the Ermine.................

Long story.............

[qayak]

My last post was to point out to H3LL that ermines turn white for the winter. I've seen them, trapped them, and even shared a small trapper's cabin with one during a dark rainstorm. I know ermines quite well.

He/she is incorrect.

Not necessarily and actually, your statement above is incorrect.

Ermines are always white. Originally, people thought weasels and ermines were different animals. In the summer they were called weasels but in the winter, when their coat turned white, they were called ermines. So, technically, ermines are only white.

However, if H3LL lives in the southern end of the weasels range, they never turn white. Even in winter.

[Roadtoad]

Geez, the things I miss...

Mick, just a thought: If you're going to declare yourself a racist, you might find more playmates over on Stormfront. We don't do that here.

I'm not very appreciative of smug punks with low opinions of people whose primary difference is skin color. Go away, and maybe go hang out with Kurious Kathy for awhile

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
My last post was to point out to H3LL that ermines turn white for the winter. I've seen them, trapped them, and even shared a small trapper's cabin with one during a dark rainstorm. I know ermines quite well.

He/she is incorrect.

Not necessarily and actually, your statement above is incorrect.

Ermines are always white. Originally, people thought weasels and ermines were different animals. In the summer they were called weasels but in the winter, when their coat turned white, they were called ermines. So, technically, ermines are only white.

I suppose you know more than ADFG biologists? (http://www.adfg.state.ak.us/pubs/notebook/furbear/weasels.php):

There are two species of weasels in Alaska: the short-tailed weasel or ermine (Mustela erminea) and the least weasel (Mustela rixosa)......

....General description: In summer, both weasels are medium to dark brown above, with yellowish white underparts. Both species turn white in winter.....

[qayak]

There are two species of weasels in Alaska

I guess Alaska is the Southern most reach of weaseldom. :dl:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel

Weasels vary in length from 15 to 35 centimeters (6 to 14 inches), and usually have a light brown upper coat, white belly and black fur at the tip of the tail; in many species, populations living at high latitudes moult to a white coat with black fur at the tip of the tail in winter.

Also see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoat

[Huntster]

Quote:
There are two species of weasels in Alaska

I guess Alaska is the Southern most reach of weaseldom.

You'd guess wrong.

Quote:
Weasels vary in length from 15 to 35 centimeters (6 to 14 inches), and usually have a light brown upper coat, white belly and black fur at the tip of the tail; in many species, populations living at high latitudes moult to a white coat with black fur at the tip of the tail in winter.

So, with that, tell us if I was wrong, like H3LL clearly stated:

Originally Posted by Huntster
During trapping season they're all white.
You can't even get that right.

[qayak]

So, with that, tell us if I was wrong, like H3LL clearly stated:

You stated that the weasels turn white during trapping season (winter). If H3LL lives in the Southern region, the weasels there will not turn white in the winter.

So, in the North you are correct. In the South you are incorrect. It is just a matter of perspective.

[Huntster]

....It is just a matter of perspective.

Obviously.

And perhaps that perspective is more ideological than geographic.........

[bruto]

Jeezum Crow, guys!

All Huntster said was that the critters turn white in the winter. And it appears that you can call them by more than one name, and perhaps the names vary according to region. What Vermonters call a panther isn't a panther in South America, but it isn't an error. And perhaps the word "all" in his original statement...BTW, neat little ermine. The price of fur is up, you know, but that's the summer phase. During trapping season they're all white could be taken more than one way, but can't we assume that he meant that the ones in his region turn all white, and not that all of them everywhere on earth turn white, and get on with it? After all, if that's all you can find to throw at Huntster, you're not trying very hard!

[Huntster]

....After all, if that's all you can find to throw at Huntster, you're not trying very hard!

I think that's the best some of them can do.

Let's review:

H3LL posts a pic of a weasel with no qualifying words. I will assume (is that unreasonable?) that he/she was attempting to indicate that I am like a weasel.

I turn it aside for the sake of fun. I kinda like the little critters. They're cute (Wheezebucket seemed to think so, too). I even included a photo of my brother with one as he slept during a Kodiak Island deer hunt (funny story about that one.........)

Then comes the attack by detail. It's completely irrelevant, silly, stupid, and their basis is erroneous, but qayak in particular simply can't stand the possibility that I might be correct. The derail intensifies.

Utterly fascinating! Social psychology is amazing. Here's someone who claims to be so intelligent that he stands above those who accept religious faith (who he claims are downright stupid), so one who knows something about ermines must be proven incorrect at all costs!

That's some kind of superior intellect, all right.

How very impressive..................

[RandFan]

I think that's the best some of them can do.

Let's review:

H3LL posts a pic of a weasel with no qualifying words. I will assume (is that unreasonable?) that he/she was attempting to indicate that I am like a weasel.

I turn it aside for the sake of fun. I kinda like the little critters. They're cute (Wheezebucket seemed to think so, too). I even included a photo of my brother with one as he slept during a Kodiak Island deer hunt (funny story about that one.........)

Then comes the attack by detail. It's completely irrelevant, silly, stupid, and their basis is erroneous, but qayak in particular simply can't stand the possibility that I might be correct. The derail intensifies.

Utterly fascinating! Social psychology is amazing. Here's someone who claims to be so intelligent that he stands above those who accept religious faith (who he claims are downright stupid), so one who knows something about ermines must be proven incorrect at all costs!

That's some kind of superior intellect, all right.

How very impressive..................I'm on your side on this one Huntster. It would be nice if you didn't also act in the manner you describe. Your last response to me didn't contain a single argument. It was nothing but personal attack. Perhaps you need to remove a beam in your eye.

[Huntster]

....It would be nice if you didn't also act in the manner you describe....

Yeah, I bet you'd like that.

You folks beat on Kathy mercilessly. Each time she turns her cheek you folks never miss a stroke.

Your last response to me didn't contain a single argument. It was nothing but personal attack. Perhaps you need to remove a beam in your eye.

That issue mirrors this one. It went from substance to a game over Columbus, a flat/spherical planet, evidence vrs. proof, etc, ad nauseum. Anything to try to twist the debate into a "Huntster's wrong" game, at any cost, including losing sight of the debate.

I've got the beam out of my eye, and I've carved it into a club.......

[Roadtoad]

So we start out with a fundie post on this thread, and now we're arguing about what is or is not a weasel/ermine.

God, I love this board!!!

[qayak]

And perhaps that perspective is more ideological than geographic.........

Southern weasels have a different ideology than Northern weasels? :D

[qayak]

It's completely irrelevant, silly, stupid, and their basis is erroneous, but qayak in particular simply can't stand the possibility that I might be correct.

If I was worried about showing you to be wrong, I would engage you a lot more often on this forum. I was more interested in the fact that you both could be correct.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
And perhaps that perspective is more ideological than geographic.........
Southern weasels have a different ideology than Northern weasels? :D

That depends on if you are personifying weasels.

If so, then Hell yeah.

I prefer northern weasels any day.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
It's completely irrelevant, silly, stupid, and their basis is erroneous, but qayak in particular simply can't stand the possibility that I might be correct.
If I was worried about showing you to be wrong, I would engage you a lot more often on this forum. I was more interested in the fact that you both could be correct.

Do us all a favor:

Don't "engage me a lot more often on this forum."