Recent Forum Topics › Forums › The Public House › Trump and our faith-based fantasy world.
- This topic has 49 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 3 months ago by Billy_T.
-
AuthorPosts
-
July 22, 2016 at 4:32 pm #49139bnwBlocked
It’s interesting that the number of scientists that identify as atheists varies depending on their discipline. The highest number of believers are in the social sciences whereas the fewest are in biology and physics. This makes sense to me because they are the two sciences that’s findings are constantly contradicting religious dogma.
Sure seems like the biological sciences are knocking at the door of parthenogenesis which will affirm the Immaculate Conception.
The upside to being a Rams fan is heartbreak.
Sprinkles are for winners.
July 22, 2016 at 4:48 pm #49140bnwBlockedI live in the South, and I’m surrounded by people on the rightward side of the political spectrum, along with a great many religious fundamentalists.
Really? Then you live there with your pie hole shut. This is your outlet.
I speak my mind with my neighbors on occasion, but I don’t make a habit of it. It’s too depressing to hear the nonsense they believe about our politics and the world. A lot of otherwise very nice people, with views that just don’t have any connection to reality.
That is very closed minded. They have their reality. You simply reject it. Perhaps all they need is proper exposure and direction? I suggest you find your soap box at a busy intersection or food court and read some of the screeds you post here. Could be many budding Billyists in the making.
The upside to being a Rams fan is heartbreak.
Sprinkles are for winners.
July 22, 2016 at 5:40 pm #49144Billy_TParticipantI live in the South, and I’m surrounded by people on the rightward side of the political spectrum, along with a great many religious fundamentalists.
Really? Then you live there with your pie hole shut. This is your outlet.
I speak my mind with my neighbors on occasion, but I don’t make a habit of it. It’s too depressing to hear the nonsense they believe about our politics and the world. A lot of otherwise very nice people, with views that just don’t have any connection to reality.
That is very closed minded. They have their reality. You simply reject it. Perhaps all they need is proper exposure and direction? I suggest you find your soap box at a busy intersection or food court and read some of the screeds you post here. Could be many budding Billyists in the making.
Yes, they are closed minded about these things. I’m glad we agree about something.
;>)
July 22, 2016 at 5:46 pm #49145bnwBlockedI live in the South, and I’m surrounded by people on the rightward side of the political spectrum, along with a great many religious fundamentalists.
Really? Then you live there with your pie hole shut. This is your outlet.
I speak my mind with my neighbors on occasion, but I don’t make a habit of it. It’s too depressing to hear the nonsense they believe about our politics and the world. A lot of otherwise very nice people, with views that just don’t have any connection to reality.
That is very closed minded. They have their reality. You simply reject it. Perhaps all they need is proper exposure and direction? I suggest you find your soap box at a busy intersection or food court and read some of the screeds you post here. Could be many budding Billyists in the making.
Yes, they are closed minded about these things. I’m glad we agree about something.
;>)
I see what you did there and I reject your reality!
The upside to being a Rams fan is heartbreak.
Sprinkles are for winners.
July 22, 2016 at 6:35 pm #49149nittany ramModeratorIt’s interesting that the number of scientists that identify as atheists varies depending on their discipline. The highest number of believers are in the social sciences whereas the fewest are in biology and physics. This makes sense to me because they are the two sciences that’s findings are constantly contradicting religious dogma.
Sure seems like the biological sciences are knocking at the door of parthenogenesis which will affirm the Immaculate Conception.
Parthenogenesis happens all the time. It occurs in all sorts of invertebrates and even some vertebrates like varanid lizards. But unless Jesus was a rotifer or Komodo dragon then parthenogenesis wouldn’t explain the virgin birth. Besides, organisms that employ the XX, XY chromosome system (as humans do) and undergo parthenogenesis can only produce a clone of the mother because no Y chromosome is present. That means Jesus had to be a woman.
July 22, 2016 at 7:26 pm #49150wvParticipantBut unless Jesus was a rotifer or Komodo dragon then parthenogenesis wouldn’t explain the virgin birth. Besides, organisms that employ the XX, XY chromosome system (as humans do) and undergo parthenogenesis can only produce a clone of the mother because no Y chromosome is present. That means Jesus had to be a woman.
————————
I think Jesus was a bowler.
w
vJuly 22, 2016 at 7:42 pm #49152Billy_TParticipantIt’s interesting that the number of scientists that identify as atheists varies depending on their discipline. The highest number of believers are in the social sciences whereas the fewest are in biology and physics. This makes sense to me because they are the two sciences that’s findings are constantly contradicting religious dogma.
Sure seems like the biological sciences are knocking at the door of parthenogenesis which will affirm the Immaculate Conception.
Parthenogenesis happens all the time. It occurs in all sorts of invertebrates and even some vertebrates like varanid lizards. But unless Jesus was a rotifer or Komodo dragon then parthenogenesis wouldn’t explain the virgin birth. Besides, organisms that employ the XX, XY chromosome system (as humans do) and undergo parthenogenesis can only produce a clone of the mother because no Y chromosome is present. That means Jesus had to be a woman.
“The Virgin Birth” is a translation error. We know it’s impossible from a biological point of view — at least for humans. It was a mistranslation of Hebrew scripture (Isaiah), which used “almah” (young woman) not “bethulah” (virgin). The Septuagint mistranslates “young woman” into the Greek “parthenos” (virgin).
In order to claim divine parentage for Jesus, the gospel of Matthew posits the fulfillment of a prophecy which was never about a “virgin birth” in the first place. As in, the entire thing is built on an error of translation.
- This reply was modified 8 years, 3 months ago by Billy_T.
July 22, 2016 at 7:55 pm #49154Billy_TParticipantIt also shows how important Greek myths were to the theology of early Christianity. The Greek gods, especially Zeus, were always impregnating mortal girls, thus producing demi-gods — like Heracles, Perseus and Achilles.
The dead and resurrected messiah also draws on Greek and earlier myths going back to at least the Egyptians. Deities being torn apart and brought back to life again, like Osiris and Dionysus. This appears to be a reflection of actual human sacrificial practices of ritual slaughtering of kings — to protect a tribe, a kingdom or produce a better harvest, etc. etc. Eventually, they got wise, and no longer allowed themselves to actually be killed, but were instead, symbolically sacrificed and then reborn from under the skirts of priestesses, usually.
We find echoes of this in myths and thousands of years later, like the Arthurian myth of the Fisher King, the Holy Grail, the Waste land and so forth. The king being tied directly to the earth. His failing health or loss of limb meaning meaning the tribe or kingdom was in grave danger of collapse. In that story, the king’s being pierced by a spear is a euphemism for castration . . . which was perhaps the ultimate in connections between king and country.
From Ritual to Romance, by Jessie L Weston, was one of the great early books studying this. T.S. Eliot drew heavily from it for his great poem, the Wasteland.
- This reply was modified 8 years, 3 months ago by Billy_T.
July 22, 2016 at 7:57 pm #49155bnwBlockedIt’s interesting that the number of scientists that identify as atheists varies depending on their discipline. The highest number of believers are in the social sciences whereas the fewest are in biology and physics. This makes sense to me because they are the two sciences that’s findings are constantly contradicting religious dogma.
Sure seems like the biological sciences are knocking at the door of parthenogenesis which will affirm the Immaculate Conception.
Parthenogenesis happens all the time.
But not in mammals. At least not that we know of, yet. Getting there though. When it happens it will affirm the Bible.
The upside to being a Rams fan is heartbreak.
Sprinkles are for winners.
July 22, 2016 at 8:17 pm #49159nittany ramModeratorIt’s interesting that the number of scientists that identify as atheists varies depending on their discipline. The highest number of believers are in the social sciences whereas the fewest are in biology and physics. This makes sense to me because they are the two sciences that’s findings are constantly contradicting religious dogma.
Sure seems like the biological sciences are knocking at the door of parthenogenesis which will affirm the Immaculate Conception.
Parthenogenesis happens all the time.
But not in mammals. At least not that we know of, yet. Getting there though. When it happens it will affirm the Bible.
If it happens in mammals it can only result in a female clone. Even if it could result in a male it wouldn’t prove the virgin birth story from the bible just as the existence of modern submarines doesn’t prove that Jules Verne’s 20,000 Leagues Bemeath the Sea actually happened. It would only mean that mammalian offspring can be conceived asexually, today…not necessarily 2000 years ago.
July 22, 2016 at 8:24 pm #49161bnwBlocked- This reply was modified 8 years, 3 months ago by bnw.
The upside to being a Rams fan is heartbreak.
Sprinkles are for winners.
July 22, 2016 at 8:26 pm #49163Billy_TParticipantIf it happens in mammals it can only result in a female clone. Even if it could result in a male it wouldn’t prove the virgin birth story from the bible just as the existence of modern submarines doesn’t prove that Jules Verne’s 20,000 Leagues Beneath the Sea actually happened. It would only mean that mammalian offspring can be conceived asexually, today…not necessarily 2000 years ago.
Speaking of Verne’s book. Again, as resident scienzy guy, can you correct me here if I’m wrong? Isn’t a league roughly 3.4 miles? And isn’t the deepest part of the ocean the Mariana Trench? That’s at least what Wikipedia says. And it’s supposedly in the neighborhood of less than 7 miles to the bottom.
Um, so, well . . . 20,000 leagues?
Haven’t read the book since I was a kid, so I am probably missing all the context for the title. But, as well as Verne did on other predictions, I think he blew the depths of the oceans thing.
July 22, 2016 at 8:28 pm #49164Billy_TParticipantJuly 22, 2016 at 8:34 pm #49165bnwBlockedbnw,
That’s the wisest most awesome post yet from you!!
;>)
Why thank you. It was my best effort at minimalism.
You said you live in the South. What state? I guessed Asheville, NC because I’m pretty sure you could find a niche there. Or are you misrepresenting DE or MD as the South?
The upside to being a Rams fan is heartbreak.
Sprinkles are for winners.
July 22, 2016 at 8:38 pm #49166nittany ramModeratorIf it happens in mammals it can only result in a female clone. Even if it could result in a male it wouldn’t prove the virgin birth story from the bible just as the existence of modern submarines doesn’t prove that Jules Verne’s 20,000 Leagues Beneath the Sea actually happened. It would only mean that mammalian offspring can be conceived asexually, today…not necessarily 2000 years ago.
Speaking of Verne’s book. Again, as resident scienzy guy, can you correct me here if I’m wrong? Isn’t a league roughly 3.4 miles? And isn’t the deepest part of the ocean the Mariana Trench? That’s at least what Wikipedia says. And it’s supposedly in the neighborhood of less than 7 miles to the bottom.
Um, so, well . . . 20,000 leagues?
Haven’t read the book since I was a kid, so I am probably missing all the context for the title. But, as well as Verne did on other predictions, I think he blew the depths of the oceans thing.
I used to wonder the same thing but maybe the 20000 leagues doesn’t refer to the depth but the distance travelled under the sea? When I was a preteen Jules Verne was my favorite author, btw.
July 22, 2016 at 8:45 pm #49167Billy_TParticipantI used to wonder the same thing but maybe the 20000 leagues doesn’t refer to the depth but the distance travelled under the sea? When I was a preteen Jules Verne was my favorite author, btw.
That makes more sense. Didn’t think of distance traveled horizontally, so to speak. So, using Wiki again, that’s bit more than three trips around the circumference of the earth.
I liked Verne a lot, too. Thought the Disney movie was cool as well. And then the ride at Disneyworld. Man, that was a long, long time ago.
July 22, 2016 at 9:08 pm #49171znModeratorUm, so, well . . . 20,000 leagues?
I used to wonder the same thing but maybe the 20000 leagues doesn’t refer to the depth but the distance travelled under the sea
From the wiki:
==
French: Vingt mille lieues sous les mers: Tour du monde sous-marin, literally Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Seas: An Underwater Tour of the World
The title refers to the distance traveled while under the sea and not to a depth, as 20,000 leagues is over six times the diameter, and nearly three times the circumference of the Earth. The greatest depth mentioned in the book is four leagues. (The book uses metric leagues, which are four kilometres each.) A literal translation of the French title would end in the plural “seas”, thus implying the “seven seas” through which the characters of the novel travel; however, the early English translations of the title used “sea”, meaning the ocean in general.
==
July 22, 2016 at 9:47 pm #49173nittany ramModeratorJuly 22, 2016 at 10:04 pm #49174Billy_TParticipantJuly 22, 2016 at 10:10 pm #49175Billy_TParticipantbnw,
That’s the wisest most awesome post yet from you!!
;>)
Why thank you. It was my best effort at minimalism.
You said you live in the South. What state? I guessed Asheville, NC because I’m pretty sure you could find a niche there. Or are you misrepresenting DE or MD as the South?
I’ve lived in NC before, in the Western mountains, but north of Asheville. Currently live in Virginia.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.