The Holy Church of Charles Darwin. - by Apostolus
Convict on 26/4/2006 at 12:58
Quote Posted by st.patrick
Given that the difference in time is 3-4 generations for the Bible and some 25 generations for Koran, I'd say that both sources can't be considered as plausible and/or reliable.
As I've said before, this is a matter of trust, not evidence.
Whaa? IIRC Paul's letters are dated around 60ish AD etc. We have a fragment of Mattew's gospel from 125AD - from Egypt I think.
Or are you from a remote pygmy tribe where generations = 5-10 years? :confused:
SD on 26/4/2006 at 13:29
Quote Posted by Convict
Wait a minute StD - the Koran was written about 600 years later so on what basis are they stating that someone else was crucified in place of Jesus? On the other hand the Bible, written much closer to the event, is claiming witnesses identifying Jesus as being crucified. Purely from a historical and scientific perspective, the Bible would seem to be a far more plausible explanation.
Being written more recently after the events they are alleged to illustrate is not the same thing as being more accurate. You could use that perverse logic to support all kinds of crazy theories, such as saying the Bible is a better explanation than Origin Of Species of how life came to be on the planet (oh wait, you guys
do do that already, don't you?)
As to where they get the Muslims get their belief, I feel I must clarify that I got it a
bit wrong. What the Qu'ran says is that the death of Jesus on the cross was an illusion performed by God to foil his enemies.
However, the particular belief that a double died on the cross sprung up almost immediately after the crucifixion is supposed to have occurred.
Scots Taffer on 26/4/2006 at 14:01
Quote Posted by st.patrick
omg TEH FUNNEH
Who exactly, may I ask, would you include in "those crazy darkies"?
I feel this is a question that deserves to be taken seriously.
Any takers?
TheGreatGodPan on 26/4/2006 at 22:21
Quote Posted by Gingerbread Man
They don't worship Haile Selassie any more than Christians worship Jesus.
I worship Jesus and thought that was the norm for Christians.
Nicker: I don't really understand how I've upset you, but I would prefer if what happens in that thread stay in that thread.
Regarding "darkies": the Bible was written by semitic Jews from the Middle East. The Koran was written by semitic Arabs from the Middle East. After spending a good while in less sunny Europe a lot of Jews lost some swarthiness, but back then I don't think there was a big difference in skin tone. I don't think I'd consider the Arabs to be "darkies" either. They're generaly considered a subset of caucasians, and I don't think I'd be able to pick out (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdullah_bin_Abdulaziz_al-Saud) King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia from a crowd of white americans if he had a shave and was wearing normal clothes. Then again I have shitty eyesight and I'm horribly unobservant.
SD on 26/4/2006 at 22:40
Quote Posted by TheGreatGodPan
normal clothes
lol western attitudes
Scots Taffer on 26/4/2006 at 23:36
Jesus Christ I hate all the people in this thread.
Gingerbread Man on 27/4/2006 at 00:00
Quote Posted by TheGreatGodPan
I worship Jesus and thought that was the norm for Christians.
I think you missed my point. That or you haven't read all the bits in the gospel of John that attribute sentiments like "Don't worship me, you asshats... the only person worth worshipping is God"
Now, there's some hair-splitting to be sure -- the idea of Jesus-as-God is pretty integral to the Christian philosophy, but then you're stepping into matters of Trinity and whatnot, and I've never really understood the fine points of that area of things. I've even heard theologians explain it very carefully, but I still don't understand.
But my point is that Christians worship Jesus in as much as Jesus is a manifestation of God -- God Incarnate, as it were (this is where my vocabulary as regards the Triune God concept fails). And that is precisely how Rastas view Haile Selassie. They do not worship him, they worship God. They just happen to think (as Christians do with Jesus) that Haile Selassie is the living God incarnate.
Nicker on 27/4/2006 at 02:29
Quote Posted by TheGreatGodPan
Nicker: I don't really understand how I've upset you, but I would prefer if what happens in that thread stay in that thread.
Upset? Moi? Not at all – you have merely attracted my attention.
People in this forum remember our conduct from thread to thread and often make relevant (or even irrelevant) comment on it. Chiding, ribbing and even derision may result. I don’t believe that qualifies as abusive cross posting (or whatever it is called). Skin thickeners are normally prescribed.
Since the topic of this thread now overlaps 'that thread' somewhat and since GBM made comment in ‘that thread’ about your posting style in ‘that thread’ and then engaged in a nascent exchange with you in this thread which had the potential to grow into a rambling sound-bite extravaganza similar to ‘that thread’, it seemed opportune offer a tongue-in-cheek reminder to him in this thread of his own observations in ‘that thread’.
It’s called a joke (or joek for the net savy, a group I am, sadly, not included in). The absence of a smiley :D or a [joek] tag or even of humour does not disqualify it from this classification (IMHO).
If, on the other hand, if I had blurted out (in this thread) “If you can’t see how the church’s systematic torture and murder of scientists, during the middle ages, caused technological and cultural “arrested development” in Europe and delayed the industrial revolution, then you are seriously delusional.” – THAT would have been an abusive cross post. But I would never do that. Never, never, never… Nope. Not me. Uh uh.
scumble on 27/4/2006 at 15:42
Quote Posted by Gingerbread Man
But my point is that Christians worship Jesus in as much as Jesus is a manifestation of God -- God Incarnate, as it were (this is where my vocabulary as regards the Triune God concept fails). And that is precisely how Rastas view Haile Selassie. They do not worship him, they worship God. They just happen to think (as Christians do with Jesus) that Haile Selassie is the living God incarnate.
Father, Son, Holy Spirit? It seems like it's just there to take account of these three terms coming up in the Bible frequently in reference to the influence of God. People like that Swinburne guy have produced reams of stuff about how the Trinity can be one and three things at the same time, but it gets needlessly complicated if you ask me. I don't see why it has to be three things to be honest, if it's just a couple of ways humans have allegedly experienced God - why stuff the entity into three boxes?
