Science Fiction And The Bible

Topic's posts

Posts in total: 54

--> @MayaWilson @Willows
Lol. I think the moron's compulsion has become obsessed with me.

Hey willows, if you prove more stupid than hari, that will be an accomplishment! But let's see shall we? How stupid are you, you mental basket case?
--> @zedvictor4

And I expect that every other religion could make exactly the same claims.

I suppose they could. It's strange how there doesn't seem to be any evidence though.

Sounds like a whole lotta speculating going on.



Most scientific or pseudo scientific or non-scientific compilations and presentations of thought data, draw upon previous compilations and presentations of thought data. It is simply the nature of the evolution of knowledge.

So you cannot dismiss or accept information just because it might or might not fit with the desired Christian model.
The term most leaves room for at least one exception.


And it's easy to forget that there was a whole world of unconnected data out there,


Did you forget this at some point?


long before the Christian god concept and creation hypothesis got up and running.
Like what? I'd love to see your time lines as to when exactly the Christian god concept and creation hypothesis came about, and what preceded it.


Which explains why the Christian model has never been globally accepted as the basis of creation.

There's also not a global agreement as to who discovered America? Shall we say no one? Is the discovery of America just a myth?



In short, the Christian bible is a whole load of repackaged and redesigned information with a few new ideas thrown in as well. Some of which will be pertinent to current levels of understanding and a lot of which is undoubtedly archaic mythology.
I'm still very much waiting for examples of repackaged and redesigned information. But now you've perked my curiosity more. What are some of the bible's new ideas?

And of course, how the scholars of the time were labelled or labelled themselves or were manipulated was relative to social circumstance and social pressure.
In other words, thank you very much we will accept your ideas and take them and refer to them as Christian.

What we refer to today as plagiarism.


Plagiarism is illegal, so we would need some evidence which has not been provided yet.

Is The bible, The original King james version ?

But thats that's what ya think about hey?

--> @ethang5
Lol. I think the moron's compulsion has become obsessed with me.

Hey willows, if you prove more stupid than hari, that will be an accomplishment! But let's see shall we? How stupid are you, you mental basket case?

Do you really want to know who that sock puppet belongs to?
--> @Monte_Carlo

Do you really want to know who that sock puppet belongs to?
Not really.

Profile is banned
Banned from:
03.26.2020 02:37AM
Banned until:
08.12.2047 02:37AM
Ban reason:
Alt of Willows

--> @RoderickSpode @zedvictor4
Gen 1:2 - And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.


In a recent news release from the University of Colorado Boulder, researchers claimed to have found evidence suggesting the earth was once a “water world.” They were working in the Panorama district in Northwestern Australia’s outback and had been on the hunt for exposed “ancient” oceanic crust. An outcrop of supposedly 3.2-billion-year-old oceanic crust occurs in this area and was the focus of the research.

Modern seawater has an isotope ratio of 18O to 16O, which generally has slightly more 16O, and it is presumed that this is due to continental clay-rich soils being able to take up more 18O from the oceans. When they collected, examined, and performed analyses from the Panorama district’s outcrop’s rock samples, they discovered that the 18O isotope ratio was a tiny bit higher in 18O. The researchers concluded that this small swing in isotopic ratios was due to the absence of continents. In other words, they believed that this study showed the earth of 3.2 billion years ago was completely covered by water.

I feel another laughing point of the skeptic about to drown. Oops!
--> @ethang5
3.2 billion years ago was about 3.2 billion years before mankind came up with the Christian god concept.

The evolutionary development of our planet would have been how it occurred....No god required.
--> @ethang5
Nonetheless:
At least you're not one of these U.S. Christian fundamentalists who think that the beardy guy threw it all together 6000 years ago.
Credit where credit's due as they say.

And:
With reference to the truism.... I cannot prove that there was no external influence in the development of the sphere. (neither can you prove otherwise). Though an external influence would not require the human necessity for pointy buildings and all that singing, dancing and preaching on Sunday mornings, or whenever you might indulge.

And come to think of it....Where is the boundary that denotes external, in terms of both Time and Space.
--> @RoderickSpode
Most:
Well, given the nature of how human based data was and is accumulated, I would have to agree with you and say that "most" was being somewhat generous.

And the Christ tale is supposedly based on events that occurred approximately 2000 years ago... And prior to that was the gathering of data from other civilisations such as the Egyptians, Greek and Roman etc.... Which in one example came together as the Christian creation hypothesis

To be quite frank, it's quite silly to try and ignore the fact that a lot went on prior to and separate from Christianity.

And the who discovered America argument is completely irrelevant. and also very silly.

And "new" was just reasonably respecting  ongoing scholarly and scientific understanding and progress.

And plagiarism might be illegal by today's standards, but I'm pretty sure that it wasn't back in the day.
--> @RoderickSpode @zedvictor4
3.2 billion years ago was about 3.2 billion years before mankind came up with the Christian god concept.
And yet, 6,000+ years ago, the bible already knew what science is just now discovering.

...darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

The evolutionary development of our planet would have been how it occurred....No god required.
The topic is that God knew, not that godidit jasper. Stay focused.

So while you try to run away from the verses showing that the bible knew what science is only just now discovering, the verses remain.

Here are a few facts on which the bible confirms science....

*The Earth has more than enough water to cover every peak.
*The first plants did not have chlorophyll and did not need sunlight.
*The early Earth was covered in water.
*It did not rain on Earth for a long time after the atmosphere developed.
*There was only one continent when land first formed.
*Life first formed in the oceans.
*There is huge amounts of water inside the Earth.

Can the people advancing the claim that Christianity "borrowed" these ideas, show any of these ideas in pre-biblical stories?

When science discovers, for example, that the Earth has water in the mantle, do these people call that plagiarism? Is the fact that plants first grew without sunlight plagiarism when science says so? The bible said it first.

I bet you jasper thinks its plagiarism ONLY in the case of the bible. Go figure.
--> @ethang5
Looks like you nailed it!


3.2 billion years ago was about 3.2 billion years before mankind came up with the Christian god concept.

Nothing about the new scientific discovery of course.

--> @zedvictor4
3.2 billion years ago was about 3.2 billion years before mankind came up with the Christian god concept.

How is that even remotely relevant Mr. Conditioned thinker? God exists independent of mans concepts. As man comes to exist in creation man attempts to express that which he observes. Man receives insights on the inner conscious planes according to that which man is able to operate in. 

The evolutionary development of our planet would have been how it occurred....

Read the underlined....intelligent processes that are occurring.

No god required.

Lol yes, because only a genius would assume that processes can occur all by themselves. Production takes place without any intelligent agent involved. Now that's a miracle, I didn't know you were into that kind of thing...




--> @zedvictor4
 
With reference to the truism.... I cannot prove that there was no external influence in the development of the sphere. (neither can you prove otherwise). Though an external influence would not require the human necessity for pointy buildings and all that singing, dancing and preaching on Sunday mornings, or whenever you might indulge.
What is your issue with pointy buildings, singing, and dancing?

Are you appalled by European castles? Are you against night clubs?
--> @zedvictor4
Most:
Well, given the nature of how human based data was and is accumulated, I would have to agree with you and say that "most" was being somewhat generous. 

I don't think it was being generous at all. I would say it's a lot more plausible than saying every single god concept was copied from another ancient civ.

Is this what you're implying?


And the Christ tale is supposedly based on events that occurred approximately 2000 years ago... And prior to that was the gathering of data from other civilisations such as the Egyptians, Greek and Roman etc.... Which in one example came together as the Christian creation hypothesis.

But as I stated, the topic of the thread is about the bible in it's entirety. So part of the general practice of gathering of data was done by ancient Israelites.


To be quite frank, it's quite silly to try and ignore the fact that a lot went on prior to and separate from Christianity.
I'm not ignoring anything. You are stating an absolute fact. The bible itself speaks of preceding events that lead into the development of the Christian religion. And...refers to, in both old and new testament, other god concepts and religions.


And the who discovered America argument is completely irrelevant. and also very silly.
Well then, I may have misunderstood you. (And welcome to the club by the way.)

My impression was that you were referring to other religions of the world not accepting the biblical creation account. Was that what you were referring to, or something else?


And plagiarism might be illegal by today's standards, but I'm pretty sure that it wasn't back in the day.
It's the implication in conjunction with today's standards. The implication itself should follow up with ample evidence. Wouldn't you agree?
--> @EtrnlVw
A god might exist independent of man's concepts....You cannot prove otherwise....You simply assume that you are correct.
--> @RoderickSpode
Hey. Churches, castles etc. are fantastic architecture and a testament to the skill of the stonemason.

And no one suggested that there was anything wrong with a bit of singing and dancing....As you well know, Mr out of context.


--> @zedvictor4
Hey. Churches, castles etc. are fantastic architecture and a testament to the skill of the stonemason.

And no one suggested that there was anything wrong with a bit of singing and dancing....As you well know, Mr out of context.
I think that's a bit obvious for me to be out of context.

I'm guessing you're implying that if there is an external influence in our existence, the external influence would not take any notice of Christians congregating in a building, singing and dancing.

It's obviously not pointy buildings, singing, and dancing you have a problem with. It's the idea of Christians doing it in gatherings.

Is this about right (assuming there would be some re-wording of my statement)?
--> @zedvictor4
A god might exist independent of man's concepts....

Yes, God is an objective Reality, but it is the nature of God that eludes the immediate physical sense perception (once you grasp what I'm saying here we can move forward). Glad to see you may be open-minded about it though. Now all we need to do is get you to be open to discussing content rather than just talking over people with your personal opinions.

You cannot prove otherwise....

How many times do we need to have this talk? I already admitted I cannot prove God to YOU, but God is certainly proven to myself. And I explained that in your topic. So what I can do, is articulate the truth about God and how spirituality operates. 

You simply assume that you are correct.

I don't assume anything, you keep asserting that but there are reasons and evidence for my beliefs. I don't need assumptions. You won't talk or debate about these reasons and evidence but they are there.

--> @EtrnlVw @zedvictor4
Zed is terrified of finding out you are right Etrnl.

Hey Z-man, Etrnl is saying, even if you feel he is wrong and you are right, what harm is there in exploring concepts? Is this not a discussion board?

If your response is the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and repeating "there is no God", why are you here at all?
--> @RoderickSpode
UFOs (in the purest sense) are no longer science fiction.

They were never "science fiction" in the first place. UFO's have always been just objects in the sky that are  "unidentified". People have been witnessing them for millennia. They are also depicted in many medieval works of art;  Crivelli (the Annunciation) & De Gelder's (Baptism of Christ) work leaps to mind. 

That said, there are interesting passages in the scriptures that speak of some kind of craft acceding and descending to and from the sky which were certainly identified by the ancients. Indeed they  described these craft in the best terms that they could i.e. "a chariot".

Compare that description to the plains Indians of the North American calling the steam train the "iron horse" then we can begin to get an better understanding of what the ancients may have been trying to describe.

I know what a TV is but I cannot explain how pictures  can be broken down into invisible waves and transported from one place to another while remaining in the same place.

Were these ancient craft "chariots" of the gods? Were the gods simply intelligent beings from another place " up there"? The circumstantial evidence for both being possible , to my mind,  piles up year after year.

But don't expect a delusional theist to agree with any of these theories/possibilities. Because like I have said many times before, there is no cure for blinkered and ignorant stupidity.
--> @Stephen
I understand what you're saying. I just hope you understand that on an internet forum it can be difficult to post in such a way that everyone will always understand what you're saying. However being that I just told you I understand what you're saying, maybe you never have this problem.

I knew my statement might cause a problem, but I decided to post what I wanted to say, let it ride, and explain it later if needed.

One of the problems with the term unidentified flaying objects ("flaying" is how Terry Jones would pronounce it), is that I don't think there's a clear cut definition. For instance, if someone sees a light  hovering in the sky, if we consider light an object, it might be an unidentified object in the sense that they don't know what it is. However, they do know it's a light. So in that sense, it's not unidentified. They just don't know where the light is originating from. If a prankster spray paints a seagull green, and it's still able to fly, an observer might wonder what it is. Since they've never seen a green bird of that size and shape, it's an unidentified flying object. But, they may know that it's a flying animal, or know it's a bird.


What I meant by saying it's not science fiction anymore, is that now we have some degree of disclosure. And what I meant by in the purest sense, I'm referring to 2 extremes. One extreme is the idea that the government is entertaining aliens at military bases, aliens are capturing humans for experiments, and even peeking through people's windows. The other extreme is confessions from pilots seeing objects making seemingly impossible maneuvers. And to even more of an extreme, an organization that is just trying to find out if there's even intelligent life out there.



I like the concept of alternate deminsions, its very helpful to know that when we have feelings and thoughts that arent ours, that we know a spirit is trying to influence us. And as God said, he clothes the heavens in darkness by his discretion.
--> @Melcharaz
 when we have feelings and thoughts that arent ours,

Eh?
I believe all the thoughts I have are my thoughts as are all my feelings. But from where they come from is at times  puzzling


 he clothes the heavens in darkness by his discretion.

Well at the moment, the sky is bright and not cloaked in darkness and I doubt this has anything to do with anyone's "discretion". No, this has to do with the rotation of the earth .
--> @Melcharaz
Lol!

Ol' Steve has a little problem understanding figures of speech Melcharaz. Use simple English and you'll be fine with him.
Im not compromising the bible for a fool. But basically, spirits affect our thoughts and God made universe dark for a reason.