| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/10/2007 11:10:07 PM · #1151 |
|
|
|
12/10/2007 11:11:05 PM · #1152 |
Here's mine... somewhere around the middle ground apparently.
Message edited by author 2007-12-10 23:12:28. |
|
|
|
12/11/2007 01:24:32 AM · #1153 |
|
|
|
12/11/2007 01:31:17 AM · #1154 |
Mine just to the left of the Dalai Lama. Hmmm.
|
|
|
|
12/11/2007 01:32:18 AM · #1155 |
|
|
|
12/11/2007 01:37:49 AM · #1156 |
Could some SC member edit the title and add 'not work-safe' in it. So that we could have some pictures and the thread might get more audience.
Thanks for listening. :-D |
|
|
|
12/11/2007 09:13:07 AM · #1157 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by Flash:
You do give me hope though. Anyone who was a porochial student for years, considered seminary, and now thinks they are an atheist, well, you are really just like a million other former Catholics that chose to not participate anymore, until one day when you re-discover a need for it. |
Don't hold your breath. Urrghh.. this really P's me off. Way to trivialize my particular life's journey. :-/ |
I do think that you mis understood my post. It was very much intended as a bit of "inside" humor, a station that I thought we had reached together. The key point was contained in the words "until one day when you re-discover a need for it" with the key word being "need". It was not intended as a trivialization. I think I have a pretty good grasp of your journey, and especially your present station. I also know, first hand, that stations can change from what they were to what they are. Thus, your possible future "re-discovery". Of course I agree that you may never re-discover your faith and if that is the case, then you will have made a conscious decision - purposely. Please accept my apology for the transgression.
To Mathew;
I am aware of the relationship between Catholics and Lutherns and aditionally of the "protesting" Catholics, aka Protestants. I posted such in one of these threads.
|
|
|
|
12/11/2007 09:25:27 AM · #1158 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
Originally posted by Flash:
Hopw many baptized and confirmed catholics have ever read the entire New Testament, studied it intensely, etc? ...I have similar criticisms of Jehovah's Witnesses ... I'll say a few words for you... Even if you become a Luthern. ;-) |
It is so bizarre that you adopt such an uncompromising stance against other adherents of the same religion.
Are you aware that protestantism as a whole has its roots in Martin Luther's 95 theses (as in Lutheran)?
Are you aware that protestantism is a lightly reformed version of catholicism?
Are you aware that JWs are themselves reacting against the vagaries of mainstream christianity, looking for even greater truth in an ever closer reading of the bible than the one that you choose?
I suspect that the issues relate to racial and social prejudice, rather than genuine religious difference. |
Regarding the JW's, they come to my house regularly. They want to save me from Catholicism. They get invited in. We pull our reference material and have spent hours in discourse. I have researched them a fair amount and am aware of the arguments against their "beliefs". I ahve most of their books in my library including their version of The Bible and their book of Reasoning, plus the blue one, red one, etc.
During my "search" a few years back, I spent some time studying/worshiping with them, as well as Baptists, Lutherns, Church of Christ, and even non-denominationals. I have been to study groups that ate milk and others that were dining on the finest delicacies, meaning those that were babes and those that could write scholarly thesis. Thus my particular insight for my commentary.
|
|
|
|
12/11/2007 09:44:35 AM · #1159 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Regarding the JW's, they come to my house regularly. They want to save me from Catholicism. They get invited in. We pull our reference material and have spent hours in discourse. I have researched them a fair amount and am aware of the arguments against their "beliefs". I ahve most of their books in my library including their version of The Bible and their book of Reasoning, plus the blue one, red one, etc. |
And here I thought I was the only one doing that :-) I have discussed religion for hours with Witnesses and Mormon missionaries...
R.
|
|
|
|
12/11/2007 09:57:59 AM · #1160 |
Originally posted by Flash:
I do think that you mis understood my post ... It was not intended as a trivialization. I think I have a pretty good grasp of your journey, and especially your present station. I also know, first hand, that stations can change from what they were to what they are. |
Alrighty then... wouldn't be the first time I failed completely to take someone's point.. :-P But of course, I also know first hand about stations changing. And one rarely goes back along the track. Or something. |
|
|
|
12/11/2007 10:00:54 AM · #1161 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Flash:
Regarding the JW's, they come to my house regularly. They want to save me from Catholicism. They get invited in. We pull our reference material and have spent hours in discourse. I have researched them a fair amount and am aware of the arguments against their "beliefs". I ahve most of their books in my library including their version of The Bible and their book of Reasoning, plus the blue one, red one, etc. |
And here I thought I was the only one doing that :-) I have discussed religion for hours with Witnesses and Mormon missionaries...
R. |
When I was laid up after getting hit by a car in the eighties, they came to the house and I invited them in several times. Got Dad Witness to admit that most of his beliefs hinged on false logic, particularly question begging, and he actually said in my kitchen, "If I'm doing that, it seems I have some serious thinking to do," then got him to realize how offensive the line "all other religions aside from ours come directly from Satan." |
|
|
|
12/11/2007 10:01:16 AM · #1162 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by Flash:
I do think that you mis understood my post ... It was not intended as a trivialization. I think I have a pretty good grasp of your journey, and especially your present station. I also know, first hand, that stations can change from what they were to what they are. |
Alrighty then... wouldn't be the first time I failed completely to take someone's point.. :-P But of course, I also know first hand about stations changing. And one rarely goes back along the track. Or something. |
Like Frost?
But knowing how way leads on to way,
I doubted if I should ever come back..
R.
|
|
|
|
12/11/2007 11:09:37 AM · #1163 |
|
|
|
12/11/2007 11:09:41 AM · #1164 |
New evolution discoveries
"Most anthropologists agree that humans first evolved in Africa and then spread to other areas,..."
Don't most Biblical scholars believe that the Garden of Eden was in Africa? - yes.
It is coincidences like these that pique my interest into the possibilities that some day, logical explainations will be known on what was literal and what was figurative. Kind of like how King Arthur may have been a literal personage, even though most discount the tales as legend/myth.
edit to add: The BBC's version is: "there has not been much flow" between different regions since modern humans left Africa to colonise the rest of the world.
Regardless, 2 different sources write that "man's" origin is from a contenint that Biblical scholars claim was also man's origin.
Message edited by author 2007-12-11 11:15:13.
|
|
|
|
12/11/2007 11:22:12 AM · #1165 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Don't most Biblical scholars believe that the Garden of Eden was in Africa? - yes. |
Those "scholars" you speak of would be creationists, if they believe in the literal existence of such a garden. As such, they are not scholars outside of possibly knowing chapter and verse the entire text of one book, and so their placement of this mythical environment in Africa is after the fact, probably to conveniently correlate with actual scientific discoveries on the origin of humankind. |
|
|
|
12/11/2007 11:23:20 AM · #1166 |
Originally posted by Flash:
2 different sources write that "man's" origin is from a contenint that Biblical scholars claim was also man's origin. |
Um... you're talking about ancient stories passed down / written in that same area. Where else would they say life originated... Bermuda? :-/ |
|
|
|
12/11/2007 11:35:19 AM · #1167 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by Flash:
Don't most Biblical scholars believe that the Garden of Eden was in Africa? - yes. |
Those "scholars" you speak of would be creationists, if they believe in the literal existence of such a garden. As such, they are not scholars outside of possibly knowing chapter and verse the entire text of one book, and so their placement of this mythical environment in Africa is after the fact, probably to conveniently correlate with actual scientific discoveries on the origin of humankind. |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Um... you're talking about ancient stories passed down / written in that same area. Where else would they say life originated... Bermuda? :-/ |
No, no. Again I fully understand I may not recollect exactly accurately, but my take is that scientific scholars when evaluating the earth's history, evaluating the most likely locations for atmosphere to occur (as described in Genisis), etc, concluded that a region of Africa had a high likely hood of being the location of the Garden of Eden, IF one ever existed. If this is true (regarding the location IF it existed), then the fact that both secular and non-secular reference the same area, adds another element for believers.
|
|
|
|
12/11/2007 11:43:05 AM · #1168 |
Originally posted by Flash:
...scientific scholars...concluded that a region of Africa had a high likely hood of being the location of the Garden of Eden... |
I don't think that's true at all. I don't think any scientist, outside of the pseudo-scientific cadre of "intelligent design" pushers, thinks this garden was located anywhere. |
|
|
|
12/11/2007 12:19:38 PM · #1169 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by Flash:
...scientific scholars...concluded that a region of Africa had a high likely hood of being the location of the Garden of Eden... |
I don't think that's true at all. I don't think any scientist, outside of the pseudo-scientific cadre of "intelligent design" pushers, thinks this garden was located anywhere. |
I will try and locate it, but I'm certain that earth models have been calculated going back millienia and recreating the climates, contintent locations, etc. I am also pretty certain that in Africa, a location was described as the most likely candidate, meaning the climate was most representative to that which was described in Genesis. It ceratinly is possible I might have this confused with an illustration from some Biblical theory series, however my recollection is that secular scientists did these earth models (not to show where the Garden of Eden existed, but for earth history reasons), and the Bible folks took this model and identified the Garden of Eden as being in Africa.
|
|
|
|
12/11/2007 12:43:45 PM · #1170 |
Originally posted by Flash:
...secular scientists did these earth models...and the Bible folks took this model and identified the Garden of Eden as being in Africa. |
Boom. That's exactly what I previously said:
"...their placement of this mythical environment in Africa is after the fact, probably to conveniently correlate with actual scientific discoveries on the origin of humankind." |
|
|
|
12/11/2007 12:57:58 PM · #1171 |
Originally posted by Flash:
I am also pretty certain that in Africa, a location was described as the most likely candidate, meaning the climate was most representative to that which was described in Genesis. |
I'll bet you an 8x10 print that you could find a tract of land with similar characteristics almost anywhere on the same latitude, such as South/Central America, Asia, etc. |
|
|
|
12/11/2007 01:01:16 PM · #1172 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Flash:
I am also pretty certain that in Africa, a location was described as the most likely candidate, meaning the climate was most representative to that which was described in Genesis. |
I'll bet you an 8x10 print that you could find a tract of land with similar characteristics almost anywhere on the same latitude, such as South/Central America, Asia, etc. |
Not at the time of the origin of the earth, when there was most likely a single major landmass. At that time, South America and Africa were contiguous, were they not?
R.
|
|
|
|
12/11/2007 01:05:24 PM · #1173 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Not at the time of the origin of the earth, when there was most likely a single major landmass. At that time, South America and Africa were contiguous, were they not?
R. |
Meaning the location could as well be in what we now call South America as what we call Africa -- the choice is arbitrary and, in this case, apparently not unbiased.
There being some location 4000 years ago which matches the description means nothing much to me anyway, by 4000 years ago there were many civilizations recording events and deeds more impressive than describing a jungle with a snake ... |
|
|
|
12/11/2007 01:11:34 PM · #1174 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Not at the time of the origin of the earth, when there was most likely a single major landmass. At that time, South America and Africa were contiguous, were they not?
R. |
Meaning the location could as well be in what we now call South America as what we call Africa -- the choice is arbitrary and, in this case, apparently not unbiased.
There being some location 4000 years ago which matches the description means nothing much to me anyway, by 4000 years ago there were many civilizations recording events and deeds more impressive than describing a jungle with a snake ... |
Yah, except that there IS ample evidence suggesting Africa as the cradle of mankind. No such evidence has ever come to light in South America.
R.
|
|
|
|
12/11/2007 01:34:18 PM · #1175 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Yah, except that there IS ample evidence suggesting Africa as the cradle of mankind. No such evidence has ever come to light in South America.
R. |
But that evidence is from a few million years ago, not 4004 BCE ...
Oh, and "Lucy" doesn't look a bit like that painting on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel either ...
Message edited by author 2007-12-11 13:35:50. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/15/2025 05:17:50 AM EDT.
