quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard if you have any questions you'd like to ask a semi-learned every-day parishioner; ask away...

do you think metallica's 'creeping death' does an adequate portrayal of the killing of egypt's firstborn sons?

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN do you think metallica's 'creeping death' does an adequate portrayal of the killing of egypt's firstborn sons?

hmmm... not particularly, as it portrays the "creeping death" in an anthropomorphic way... like a creature acting on instructions with an independent malice and wrath. The "creeping death" was probably a massive escape of carbon monoxide secondary to the opening of a vent from the eruption of a volcano in the Mediterranean. Carbon monoxide fits well as the creeping death as the Egyptian custom at the time was for the parents and eldest son to sleep on the ground floor, the parents in an elevated bed and the eldest son on the floor (other children would sleep in the loft.... the Hebrew custom at the time was for animals to be kept on the ground floor and humans to sleep in the loft... this would explain why only the first born Egyptian sons were killed. Interestingly... the volcano theory can explain all of the "plagues" assuming that they actually happened (which is by no means certain). Anyway... I think the portrayal of the "creeping death" as an sentient thing that seems to take pleasure in the killing of Bas' ancestors doesn't fit with either the story in Exodus or any plausible explanation of what this "creeping death" was (again; assuming it happened).

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by RickyM you're just a shit version of Moral Hazard. At least he knows what he's talking about.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN lol, i love it when moral feels the need to lay the smack down

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard hmmm... not particularly, as it portrays the "creeping death" in an anthropomorphic way... like a creature acting on instructions with an independent malice and wrath. The "creeping death" was probably a massive escape of carbon monoxide secondary to the opening of a vent from the eruption of a volcano in the Mediterranean. Carbon monoxide fits well as the creeping death as the Egyptian custom at the time was for the parents and eldest son to sleep on the ground floor, the parents in an elevated bed and the eldest son on the floor (other children would sleep in the loft.... the Hebrew custom at the time was for animals to be kept on the ground floor and humans to sleep in the loft... this would explain why only the first born Egyptian sons were killed. Interestingly... the volcano theory can explain all of the "plagues" assuming that they actually happened (which is by no means certain). Anyway... I think the portrayal of the "creeping death" as an sentient thing that seems to take pleasure in the killing of Bas' ancestors doesn't fit with either the story in Exodus or any plausible explanation of what this "creeping death" was (again; assuming it happened).

pffft. shows what you know. we have plenty of evidence for the plagues. hell, there's even photographs!

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN pffft. shows what you know. we have plenty of evidence for the plagues. hell, there's even photographs!

Thats the big flood, not the plague.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On OOKA-OOKA ME NACHOS ME PRESS KEYS ON COMPUTER GOOD

quote:

Originally posted by nchs09 Thats the big flood, not the plague.

Moses = Charlton Heston /= Noah

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by RickyM you're just a shit version of Moral Hazard. At least he knows what he's talking about.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN lol, i love it when moral feels the need to lay the smack down

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN pffft. shows what you know. we have plenty of evidence for the plagues. hell, there's even photographs!

im reading a book on quantum physics and the nature of reality right now called "Wholeness And The Implicate Order" by David Bohm, and in the first chapter he discusses the tendency of belief in a theory to actually affect the outcome of a situation based on that theory. He believes no theory can ever be completely true and that the goal of both science is to constantly move to a better theory as current theories fail to explain things that we become aware of through older theories.

One of the things he talks about is how in ancient times, people thought that plagues were inevitable and caused by gods. As such it never entered into their minds that maybe they were just dirty mother******s. But as soon as they realized they were dirty mother******s, sewage systems, etc began to reduce the effects and frequency of plagues.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard Have you ever tried actually asking a priest rather then a parishioner?

I never met with a parishoner. The Polish mass doesn't have that many people working in it - only the Priest really and a few kids. The priest in fact was a good friend of the family, so I asked him questions all the time. He answered some, sometimes... most of the time though, he would kind of brush it off. I liked him cause at least he answered some but then he was banished and we never saw him again. The priest that replaced him was a douche.

quote:

Originally posted by nefardec He believes no theory can ever be completely true and that the goal of both science is to constantly move to a better theory as current theories fail to explain things that we become aware of through older theories.

yeah, i don't buy this kind of reasoning. we might be always limited by our experience and understanding but that doesn't mean we'll always be groping in the dark for true and proper theoretical explanation.

indeed, his "theory" is incompletely true by its own definition, so rather pointless imo.

___________________

I believe in Advaita Vedanta (Non-Duality).

I'd just like to first mention that any topic discussing "God" is inherently flawed unless first defining what "God" is in the presented context. God means anything from a bearded father-figure in the sky to the collective energetic mass of existence, depending on who you talk to.

Regarding Dawkins: What atheists don't seem to realize is that they adhere to the same fundamental belief system as the most devout christian. Atheism is fundamentalist dogma, and should be recognized as such. Anything Richard Dawkins has to say should be disregarded as the ramblings of an insane mind. Only the madman is absolutely sure.

quote:

Originally posted by meriter What atheists don't seem to realize is that they adhere to the same fundamental belief system as the most devout christian. Atheism is fundamentalist dogma, and should be recognized as such. Anything Richard Dawkins has to say should be disregarded as the ramblings of an insane mind. Only the madman is absolutely sure.

brimming over with wrongability (which you would know had you bothered to read this thread).

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Atheism simply constitutes a "disbelief" in the notion of God. Nothing about atheism states with any certainty that "there is definately no God", rather, to be in atheist is merely to say: "given everything I have experienced, I have experienced nothing that would positively indicate the existence of any deity". Thus there is no faith in this position anymore than there is faith in most other negative, ontological/metaphysical statements. Scepticism (or lack of faith) is the opposite of faith. For me to say "that chair does not exist" is to make a negative ontological claim, and marks a position of scepticism rather than a position of faith. You may argue that it requires faith to deny the existence of that chair, but then I'd argue how? Such a negative ontological claim requires the denial of faith in our senses, not faith in anything specific. To deny the existence of that chair - or of that God - requires the exact opposite of faith, namely scepticism. The point of all this is merely to show that it requires no faith (or no faith in any particular piece of knowledge) to become an atheist, and thus the position of agnosticism - insofar as agnosticism is the rejection of possibility of knowledge with such regards to such things - is not really all that different from atheism. As I say, no atheist claims to "know", or have "faith in" the fact that God doesn't exist, because it takes no knowledge or faith to make a negative ontological claim. In fact, we're all born atheists: it's the default position. From this perspective then, we can see how atheism and agnosticism are really the same thing: both make negative-ontological claims, both deny the existence of a God.

so there.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN brimming over with wrongability (which you would know had you bothered to read this thread). so there.

That is the definition of Agnosticism, not Atheism.