**THE** Official political / flamewar thread. Feel free to shove it all in here. Also the 'Everyone vs @Polygeekery Show' (@Polygeekery almost goes full @Lucas, you never go full @Lucas).



  • Continuing the discussion from The Evil Ideas thread:

    @Polygeekery said:

    Among other things, the several hundred Levitical laws do not apply to Christians.

    @Polygeekery said:

    So did Jesus lie? Is the bible lying? Or, are just interpreting it how you wish?

    FYI, in case anyone wanted to know.

    The modern Christian religions believe that Jesus removed the penalty from sin, and that these laws were there to demonstrate the cost of sin.
    The second point, that this was a covenant between God and the Jews, and that the entire law doesn't apply to every culture group. The Jews were set apart as a people for God's purposes, and that salvation doesn't encompass the old covenant.
    There's also that Paul rebuked his followers for requiring Gentiles (non-Jews) to follow the law.
    And there's that part where God tells Peter that God can choose what is unclean for people to eat.

    Take what you will from that, but I'm merely here to post why the modern Christians believe that parts of the law were situational.


  • kills Dumbledore

    Are we really doing another religion flame war?

    sigh

    :popcorn:



  • Not at all. I don't want to spark a debate, I've just seen this question asked multiple times in and out of this forum, and I felt it would be helpful to just answer it.



  • @xaade said:

    FYI, in case anyone wanted to know.

    Nobody did.

    HTH, HAND, etc.


  • Grade A Premium Asshole

    @xaade said:

    I felt it would be helpful to just answer it.

    Your answer is not congruent with what it says in the bible:

    Matthew 5:18-19

    For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.



  • You really ought to include verse 17 as well. It adds some context and completely changes everything. Specifically, it helps define the "till all be fulfilled" part.


  • Grade A Premium Asshole

    Interpret it however you wish. I really don't care. If you dig shellfish and sodomy, just say so. :stuck_out_tongue:



  • @Polygeekery said:

    shellfish and sodomy

    Now that's my kind of date.



  • @Polygeekery said:

    I really don't care.

    Why don't I believe that statement?



  • Any couple verses pulled out of context can justify just about anything you want, which is why there are so many kooky denominations and cults out there. The big question is how does it read within the context of its chapter, or better yet book. It makes a huge difference with many issues.


  • Grade A Premium Asshole

    @boomzilla said:

    Why don't I believe that statement?

    Because you are a cranky old bastard? ;)

    The question as to whether the Abrahamic religions are bullshit or not is sufficiently settled for me by the fact that it is only about 6,000-7,000 years old. We have archaelogical evidence that goes back way farther than that, with absolutely no reference to anything even vaguely Jewish. It has not been around since the beginning of time, it was made up at some point by ancient, superstitious men to make sense of their world and for some fucking reason it stuck. Why? I have no freaking clue. But some people today still believe that rabbit's feet and 4-leaf clovers bring good luck.

    It is all just another page in the book of batshit crazy religious bullshit to me.



  • @Polygeekery said:

    Because you are a cranky old bastard?

    And it's at least the second time you've posted that verse.

    @Polygeekery said:

    The question as to whether the Abrahamic religions are bullshit or not is sufficiently settled for me by the fact that it is only about 6,000-7,000 years old.

    Well, that seems an odd thing to find convincing, but I'll take you at your word.

    @Polygeekery said:

    It is all just another page in the book of batshit crazy religious bullshit to me.

    I certainly do not dispute that. Just quit protesting so much, eh?


  • Grade A Premium Asshole

    @boomzilla said:

    I certainly do not dispute that. Just quit protesting so much, eh?

    Hey, I had let it go. I was drug back in to this kicking and screaming. They made me do it.



  • @Polygeekery said:

    They made me do it.

    Mmmmmhmmmm...


  • Grade A Premium Asshole

    You are just perpetuating rape culture. Can you not see how oppressed I am as a white, upper-middle class, heterosexual, male, business owner?


  • area_deu

    :heavy_plus_sign: :fried_shrimp: :love_hotel:


  • Grade A Premium Asshole

    Why is there a "love hotel" emoji? Why is that a thing?



  • @Polygeekery said:

    Why is there a "love hotel" emoji? Why is that a thing?

    You answered your own question, I think:

    @Polygeekery said:

    perpetuating rape culture



  • @Polygeekery said:

    For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

    17 I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

    Everything being accomplished, being what? What he came to do... fulfill.

    Law and Prophet.

    Meaning he came to fulfill the requirements of the law and prophet.

    Until... until.... meaning, whichever comes first.

    Another way of saying, none of this changes until I fulfill my mission or the earth passes away.

    Given that prophecy said he was fulfill his mission, and that fact that prophecy depicts him as the sacrifice for the fulfillment of law and the abolishment of the guilt of sin.

    "My burden, yolk, is light." Yolk being the disciplinary requirements for being my disciple.

    Meaning that, if you follow the heart of the law, the burden is decreased. Being the "greatest commandment" that he gave, which is to love God and others.

    The interpretation that the literal strict adherence to the law is just that, an interpretation.

    Peter and Paul disagreed on this topic.

    Of course, there will no doubt be grievances that we make that we are not aware of. That's kind of the point of the old testament sacrifices and the new testament grace.

    God cannot be in the presence of sin, but he was no doubt more concerned with outright, purposeful, sin against Himself.

    And besides, the verse doesn't say that the consequences is damnation. It says the consequences is the level of glory one receives in Heaven.

    Even Paul admitted that one could be better for staying unmarried so that they could dedicate to service, but this isn't held against anyone if they choose to marry.


  • Grade A Premium Asshole

    And none of that changes the fact that the Abrahamic religions are less than 7K years old, so the point is moo.

    (Where's @JazzyJosh for another flag? ;) )



  • @Polygeekery said:

    Why is there a "love hotel" emoji? Why is that a thing?

    A love hotel is a place where people can pay money to rent a room and gain privacy for a short period of time. A place to have sex, typically with discrete ways to enter and exit. Used by prostitutes, lovers, or people committing adultery (sex outside of marriage). Despite its official meaning, this emoji is more frequently used as a hospital given the large "H" displayed on the side of the building. An "H" is commonly used on maps and street signs to mark the location of a hospital. When used as a hospital, generally used to convey a positive emotion, such as a loved one getting well enough to leave the hospital or the birth of a child.



  • And secular humanism is only a few hundred years old. Scientific discovery, even younger, when you consider its exponential growth.


  • Grade A Premium Asshole

    @xaade said:

    Scientific discovery, even younger, when you consider its exponential growth.

    That point is moo also as science is falsifiable.

    If I am going to follow a religion, I choose LastThursdayism.



  • Ok ok, falsifiable.

    But, you have to realize that whatever you build your basis for morality, it will end up being non-falsifiable. Because with some faith in some belief system, whether you believe in some morality construct that is just TRUE(tm), the reality is that without a source of morality, it is not morality.

    Without something that dictates morality, there is no morality. There is just a set of guidelines that is mutually beneficial. Morality implies guilt and innocence, good and evil, etc. It cannot exist in a world of mathematical fact.

    So if you argue that belief in a God is foolishness, then you admit that a belief in morality itself is foolishness. That there is only that which is utility to society.


  • BINNED

    ...must...resist...posting...need...sleep...



  • @Polygeekery said:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omphalos_hypothesis

    What does that matter.

    Whether God created things with a History that was "faked" in order to create a functional universe, or created a universe that had a history leading up to man, it is one and the same.

    Physics can still apply with time flowing in reverse, somewhat. So, if God created a world fully functional with it's state in a configuration that implied a greater history, then that information is just as true and reality itself.

    So, it's kind of a moot point.

    WE need time, not God.




  • Grade A Premium Asshole

    @xaade said:

    So if you argue that belief in a God is foolishness, then you admit that a belief in morality itself is foolishness. That there is only that which is utility to society.

    Strawman? Circular logic? Confirmation bias? Something else?

    I can't decide. All I know is that you are wrong.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @PJH said:

    typically with discrete ways to enter and exit

    As opposed to continuous ones, I guess.



  • @xaade said:

    So if you argue that belief in a God is foolishness, then you admit that a belief in morality itself is foolishness. That there is only that which is utility to society.

    I think morality's stupid.
    Morality is for stupid people.



  • @Polygeekery said:

    That point is moo

    I've got a beef with this statement.



  • We've already been over this in the vimmorality thread. Morality is a tool. It doesn't need to be true, only useful.



  • @Polygeekery said:

    And none of that changes the fact that the Abrahamic religions are less than 7K years old, so the point is moo.

    Personally, I find it fascinating when studying history how all civilization appears to start between 6k - 8k years ago, and anything before then seems to be a lot of speculation and conjecture based on sparse evidence.


  • Grade A Premium Asshole

    Please tell me you are just trying to troll me?



  • TIL 12 is between 6 and 8



  • @Polygeekery said:

    congruent cromulent

    HTH, WYWH, TTTH, TTFN, IOU, ETC



  • @xaade said:

    Without something that dictates morality, there is no morality.

    :turtle:



  • The Starlight Problem states that if the universe was only 6,000 years old — as Biblical literalism and Young Earth Creationism state — then there would not be sufficient time for distant starlight to reach Earth. We can see light from stars more (way more) than 6,000 light years away, therefore the universe cannot be a mere 6,000 years old.
    The furthest objects visible, quasars, have been detected 13 billion light years away. After allowing for the metric expansion of space, this puts the lower limit of the age of the universe at near 13 billion years.
    Numerous attempts to solve this problem - including some hand-waving about whether such a problem even exists - have been attempted by creationists. Some are bizarre, some outright absurd, and none are taken seriously by the scientific community. However, they are all united by a desperate need to shoehorn an absurdly young age for the universe into a reality that says otherwise.



  • @FrostCat said:

    As opposed to continuous ones, I guess.

    I would think having a no revolving door policy would be bad for business.



  • @xaade said:

    Omphalos hypothesis

    The Omphalos hypothesis is the argument that God created the world recently (in the last ten thousand years, in keeping with Flood geology), but complete with signs of great age.

    Point meet counterpoint

    BTW, I'm not making a point, just introductions.



  • @IngenieurLogiciel said:

    Point meet counterpoint

    BTW, I'm not making a point, just introductions.

    To solve the starlight problem, some creationists have proposed a change in the speed of light; this proposition became known as c-decay. The idea was first systematically advanced by creationist Barry Setterfield in his 1981 book The Velocity of Light and the Age of the Universe. Setterfield claimed that, at the date of creation, light traveled millions of times faster than it does today and has been decaying precipitously ever since (until it stopped at its present value coincidentally with the ability to detect small changes). This idea is fundamentally absurd and since its inception has been universally derided by scientists. The idea was supported into the late eighties by creationists whose claims became more and more bizarre in attempts to prop up their failing model, until it finally collapsed under the weight of the evidence against it. In 1988, the theory was given up by the major creationist organization Institute for Creation Research, which, in an attempt to distance themselves from the scientific debacle that c-decay had become, became vocal critics of it.

    A change in the speed of light would quite literally end the world as we know it. The speed of light is not an arbitrary speed with no effect on outside systems, but is in fact a component in one of the most fundamental equations in the universe, the equation for matter: E = mc2 where E is energy, m is mass, and c is the speed of light in a vacuum. This means that any increase of the speed of light would in turn increase the amount of energy released by the reactions of matter. Because the Sun, or indeed any star, relies on the reactions of matter, most notably nuclear fusion, a change in the speed of light would alter its energy output; if light were traveling as fast as some creationists demand, then the energy output of the Sun could be expected to increase over 800,000,000 times.

    Filed under: no, really, there's more...



  • Ok? From a simple logical perspective, and setting aside its non-falsifiability and apparent absurdity, the Omphalos hypothesis does not suffer from The Starlight Problem specifically because it claims all pre-history is faked to be consistent with the scientific rules/laws of the universe. The universe was created at some time t (i.e. ~6000 years ago) after its apparent start to make it look old.

    I don't really know what to make of your quotes without context.



  • (Would some emphasis mine help?)

    See the main article on this topic: Omphalos hypothesis
    The Omphalos hypothesis or argument provides an unscientific and unfalsifiable explanation for the starlight problem. The argument relies on the logically weak argument goddidit by claiming that the starlight we see is not natural but was in fact created in transit by god.
    Many creationists have rejected this explanation on theological grounds because it implies a deliberately deceitful god.
    But if you accept the hypothesis, it opens a big can of worms. One could proceed to reject the 9,900 years of time given by dendrochronology by saying extra tree-rings, over and above 4,004 BCE, were not natural but were in fact created in situ by god.
    The most logical only possible explanation is as follows: Since god is a supernatural being, he could perfectly well have created photons with positions and velocities which are consistent with having been traveling from distant stars for many billions of years. This non-testable explanation could be used to escape any of the evidence against Young Earth Creationism, as there is no way to tell if the universe was brought into existence 6,000 years ago in a state consistent with a much older age or if the universe is in fact as old as science shows it to be.
    However, if this were the case, then scientists would still have to treat the universe as though it were ancient and so the actual date of creation is irrelevant. For some creationists, the possibility of god being deliberately deceptive is uncomfortable. (For example, did human-observed supernovae ever actually occur?) This solution also raises the problem of deciding when god created the apparently old universe - was it 6,000 years ago, or last Thursday? Moreover, many young-earth creationists also believe in the imminent destruction of the universe, which raises the question of whether stars farther away than 10,000 or so light-years ever actually existed to begin with. A further problem is implied by the geometry of spheres: what is the speed of light when its position and direction result in motion that is bringing it neither further from the Earth nor closer to it (the instant at which its path is tangent to a sphere defined by it and Earth)?



  • Just because some claim is unscientific and unfalsifiable, does not mean it is logically invalid or even unsound. It usually means that it belongs to the domain of metaphysics and can only be evaluated by its consistency with observable, falsifiable claims, and its consistency with other metaphysical claims in the same worldview.

    Nonetheless, a person would have to come to some very difficult conclusions if they took the position of the Omphalos hypothesis, some of which you've emphasized above. Though I am not convinced that it is impossible for someone to come to terms with said conclusions in a logically consistent manner.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @ben_lubar said:

    TIL 12 is between 6 and 8

    Dude you're in the wrong thread, it's that way :arrow_upper_right: :twisted_rightwards_arrows: :arrow_heading_down: :arrow_heading_up: :repeat:


  • Grade A Premium Asshole

    Just as fair warning, if someone honestly starts arguing from a young-earth creationist viewpoint...I may go "full @Lucas".


  • kills Dumbledore

    I don't know why they call it young Earth Creationism, I mean 6000 years is pretty old. Obviously, it's as old as anything can be, by definition (apart from God, obvs)



  • @Polygeekery said:

    Please tell me you are just trying to troll me?

    Actually no. This will probably blow some minds, but I was once an atheist but now take the Bible literally, including the Young Earth view though I don't think it's necessarily 6,000 years (maybe 10 - 15k, but certainly not billions). And a lot of that had to do with studying science. I was pretty big into cosmology and origins and realized a lot of scientists were virtually making stuff up. Lots of "Maybe this" and "perhaps this" and lots of hypotheses of the week which get overturned at an alarming rate. I was also alarmed at how hostile and bitter these guys were to religion. Too many of them were driven by a hatred of religion, not a love of science.

    Then I stumbled into the Answers in Genesis group which is a bunch of scientists who have real, hard data combined with some very logical hypotheses supporting a Young Earth, and I found that if you had an open mind, what they had made way more sense than anything I'd ever encountered in the secular world. There are obviously still some major questions, but the two big things they've managed to figure out are that radioactive decay is much slower today than it used to be which explains many of the (even secular) inconsistencies with radioisotope dating methods, and that the geological record and fossil record make much more sense within the context of a worldwide flood.

    Combine that with an apparent aura of protection I had over most of my early life (don't want to go into too much detail but I had an abusive father and let's just say things SHOULD have been much worse but weren't), and things like motorcycle crashes I had no business walking away from unscathed, and an incident where I was standing alone in the back of a pickup truck that drove under a lower power line which would have hit me in the head and killed me except somebody shoved me over just before we got there....to me the answers to life's big questions are pretty obvious.


  • kills Dumbledore

    @mott555 said:

    radioactive decay is much slower today than it used to be

    Got a source for that? Because it sounds like the easiest way to "prove" it is with some extreme motivated reasoning

    @mott555 said:

    the geological record and fossil record make much more sense within the context of a worldwide flood.

    more sense than what? Continental drift and plate tectonics?



  • What I don't get is why they didn't just stay consistent.

    If everything in the universe was built ready-to-serve, then wouldn't light be positioned in the universe as it had been traveling.

    In other words, the speed of light isn't an issue, because what they are proposing is that the creation of the universe was basically a snapshot, with all the variables in place, and then set in motion.

    However, that doesn't even begin to agree with Genesis.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.