Stupid Wonders of the World
-
With the title of the post I thought it was going to be about you. :-D
I can imagine the sinking feeling one would have after ordering my book, only to find a laughably ridiculous theory with demented logic once the book arrives - Mark McCutcheon
-
You wish... Atheism is a self-defining word: Without God. Materialism is the extent of the modern atheist's metaphysical beliefs. That is to say...They believe in a lack of metaphysics. So theists deal both in the physical world (i.e. its material attributes) and the metaphysical world (i.e. its unseen spiritual attributes), whereas atheists deal only in the former. The fact that you believe theism creates a more simplified worldview (when it actually adds a very significant layer of complexity) tells me you have a poor understanding of both atheism and theism.
Red Stateler wrote:
atheism is basically the adoption of science as religion.
Yep, see my sig. Praise Science! :rolleyes: Without scientific exploration, who knows what superstitious nonsense we'd still be attributing to rain, lightning, volcanoes, stars, etc.
Whenever an appliance, gadget, or other kind of technology you own breaks or stops performing, pray to Science for it to be saved (fixed). If it doesn't change, don't worry... just keep praying. Science works in mysterious ways! - Someone on the Internet
-
I think the word you're looking for is faery. That particular story which conatains no fairies was written by someone who understood the truth of the resurrection. He specifically avoided allegory and that is one reason why he did not write that Gandalf was resurrected, merely that he was sent back, which you have conveniently interpreted.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
He specifically avoided allegory and that is one reason why he did not write that Gandalf was resurrected, merely that he was sent back, which you have conveniently interpreted.
In both cases something akin to a soul went to another (holy/blessed) place. In both cases that soul/spirit was returned to the body to reanimate it. The difference between the stories is less than a 4-thou feeler gauge.
-
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
He specifically avoided allegory and that is one reason why he did not write that Gandalf was resurrected, merely that he was sent back, which you have conveniently interpreted.
In both cases something akin to a soul went to another (holy/blessed) place. In both cases that soul/spirit was returned to the body to reanimate it. The difference between the stories is less than a 4-thou feeler gauge.
Which clearly demonstrates that in common with Kyle you have little or no knowledge of the biblical resurrection account.
Steve_Harris wrote:
In both cases something akin to a soul went to another (holy/blessed) place.
You forget or perhaps never understood that Jesus did not spend 3 days in heaven but rather in hell before the ressurection.
Steve_Harris wrote:
In both cases that soul/spirit was returned to the body to reanimate it.
Jesus returned not with a reanimated body but with a resurrection body. A new body made out of or at least resembling the state of the old one but capable of existing in both earthly and heavenly planes. A truly immortal body which cannot die like that which we will all recieve whatever our final destination.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
Which clearly demonstrates that in common with Kyle you have little or no knowledge of the biblical resurrection account.
Steve_Harris wrote:
In both cases something akin to a soul went to another (holy/blessed) place.
You forget or perhaps never understood that Jesus did not spend 3 days in heaven but rather in hell before the ressurection.
Steve_Harris wrote:
In both cases that soul/spirit was returned to the body to reanimate it.
Jesus returned not with a reanimated body but with a resurrection body. A new body made out of or at least resembling the state of the old one but capable of existing in both earthly and heavenly planes. A truly immortal body which cannot die like that which we will all recieve whatever our final destination.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Which clearly demonstrates that in common with Kyle you have little or no knowledge of the biblical resurrection account.
I take great offence at being lumped in with Kyle under any circumstances! X|
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
You forget or perhaps never understood that Jesus did not spend 3 days in heaven but rather in hell before the ressurection.
Not so. I copy-and-paste: "The New Testament Greek word that is used for hell is "Hades," which also refers to “the place of the dead.” Other Scriptures in the New Testament indicate that Sheol / Hades is a temporary place, where souls are kept as they await the final resurrection and judgment. Revelation 20:11-15 gives a clear distinction between the two. Hell (the lake of fire) is the permanent and final place of judgment for the lost. Hades is a temporary place. So, no, Jesus did not go to “Hell” because “Hell” is a future realm, only put into effect after the Great White Throne Judgment (Revelation 20:11-15)." Also: "After His death, the soul of Jesus, still united to the divinity, descended into the realm of the dead, which the Creed calls "hell", in the old English usage. It does not mean at all the hell of the damned." Also: "Some believe that while Jesus' body was in the tomb, His spirit was in hell. Scripture does not support that position when it is taken in context and we look at the meaning of the word "hell." In the Old Testament, the place of the dead or the place of departed souls was called "Sheol." It was to this place that all souls of the dead went to await resurrection. " Need I go on? OK, maybe it wasn't exactly heaven but in both stories the 'souls' went elsewhere and returned to their original bodies which came back to life. Neither body was the same as before and both had additional "abilities".
-
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Which clearly demonstrates that in common with Kyle you have little or no knowledge of the biblical resurrection account.
I take great offence at being lumped in with Kyle under any circumstances! X|
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
You forget or perhaps never understood that Jesus did not spend 3 days in heaven but rather in hell before the ressurection.
Not so. I copy-and-paste: "The New Testament Greek word that is used for hell is "Hades," which also refers to “the place of the dead.” Other Scriptures in the New Testament indicate that Sheol / Hades is a temporary place, where souls are kept as they await the final resurrection and judgment. Revelation 20:11-15 gives a clear distinction between the two. Hell (the lake of fire) is the permanent and final place of judgment for the lost. Hades is a temporary place. So, no, Jesus did not go to “Hell” because “Hell” is a future realm, only put into effect after the Great White Throne Judgment (Revelation 20:11-15)." Also: "After His death, the soul of Jesus, still united to the divinity, descended into the realm of the dead, which the Creed calls "hell", in the old English usage. It does not mean at all the hell of the damned." Also: "Some believe that while Jesus' body was in the tomb, His spirit was in hell. Scripture does not support that position when it is taken in context and we look at the meaning of the word "hell." In the Old Testament, the place of the dead or the place of departed souls was called "Sheol." It was to this place that all souls of the dead went to await resurrection. " Need I go on? OK, maybe it wasn't exactly heaven but in both stories the 'souls' went elsewhere and returned to their original bodies which came back to life. Neither body was the same as before and both had additional "abilities".
Steve_Harris wrote:
I take great offence at being lumped in with Kyle under any circumstances!
My apologies. Your theological points are interesting. I agree with your Hades/Hell distinction to a point although I have always considered Sheol a Jewish cultural idea rather than a genuinely biblical concept.
Steve_Harris wrote:
After His death, the soul of Jesus, still united to the divinity
This is where we disagree. Separation from the father is a key aspect of Jesus becoming sin for us. The essense of Hell is separation from God and therefore I would say the creed got the usage right which is or rather should be no different then than now. Where I think we can agree is that Kyle's petty attempt to belittle the resurection by comparing it with a clearly derived idea in the mere book of the 20th Century fails in every respect. The central event of history bears no such comparison and Professor Tolkien would certainly not have stood for one.:)
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
Now Red's comment was funny but how would you feel if code-frog's story is true. Do you have kids?
God Bless, Jason
Paul Conrad wrote:
Chuck Norris keeps the hamsters going whenever Chris is gone on vacation. Just stares them down and they keep the servers going
jason_lakewhitney wrote:
Do you have kids?
Now that's about the most terrifying thought i've heard in a while... :rolleyes:
----
Yes, but can you blame them for doing so if that's the only legal way they can hire programmers they want at the rate they can afford?
-- Nish on sketchy hiring practices
-
You wish... Atheism is a self-defining word: Without God. Materialism is the extent of the modern atheist's metaphysical beliefs. That is to say...They believe in a lack of metaphysics. So theists deal both in the physical world (i.e. its material attributes) and the metaphysical world (i.e. its unseen spiritual attributes), whereas atheists deal only in the former. The fact that you believe theism creates a more simplified worldview (when it actually adds a very significant layer of complexity) tells me you have a poor understanding of both atheism and theism.
Al Beback wrote:
Yep, see my sig. Praise Science!
Hey, even Southpark agrees with me on this!
Al Beback wrote:
Without scientific exploration, who knows what superstitious nonsense we'd still be attributing to rain, lightning, volcanoes, stars, etc.
This is an example of what I'm talking about. As an atheist, you think that you have sole access to science. You have adopted it as your own...and made it extension of your belief system. Your sentence implies that scientific inquiry is incompatible with theism. Thus you believe that science and religion are in competition. In other words, science is a religious philosophy to atheists.
-
I'm just imagening you bickering if some french tower would have made it :rolleyes:
We are a big screwed up dysfunctional psychotic happy family - some more screwed up, others more happy, but everybody's psychotic joint venture definition of CP
My first real C# project | Linkify!|FoldWithUs! | sighistpeterchen wrote:
I'm just imagening you bickering if some french tower would have made it
It'd certainly be better than a poured concrete statue!
-
Yeah, that's the soapbox seven alright.
I can imagine the sinking feeling one would have after ordering my book, only to find a laughably ridiculous theory with demented logic once the book arrives - Mark McCutcheon
-
Yeah, that's the soapbox seven alright.
I can imagine the sinking feeling one would have after ordering my book, only to find a laughably ridiculous theory with demented logic once the book arrives - Mark McCutcheon
What about Kyle?
-
What about Kyle?
I don't know, ask Tim.
I can imagine the sinking feeling one would have after ordering my book, only to find a laughably ridiculous theory with demented logic once the book arrives - Mark McCutcheon
-
peterchen wrote:
I'm just imagening you bickering if some french tower would have made it
It'd certainly be better than a poured concrete statue!
The sky must be falling - I agree with you ;)
We are a big screwed up dysfunctional psychotic happy family - some more screwed up, others more happy, but everybody's psychotic joint venture definition of CP
My first real C# project | Linkify!|FoldWithUs! | sighist -
Voters chose the Great Wall of China; India's Taj Mahal; the centuries-old pink
ruins of Petra in Jordan; the Colosseum in Rome; the statue of Christ overlooking Rio
de Janeiro; the Incan ruins of Machu Picchu in Peru; and the ancient Mayan city of
Chichen Itza in Mexico.Apparently a 105-foot, 100-year-old concrete statue is a greater wonder than the 455-foot, 4,500-year-old Great Pyramid of Giza. How absolutely absurd.