Freethought & Rationalism Archive

pz · 12-04-2002, 03:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Doubting Didymus:

Doubting Didymus · 12-04-2002, 03:30 PM

Lpetrich (left) and Ed (right) engaged in furious academic debate.

pz · 12-04-2002, 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Doubting Didymus:

Lpetrich (left) and Ed (right) engaged in furious academic debate.

Is this anything like that scene with the two dogs eating pasta in "Lady and the Tramp"?

Doubting Didymus · 12-04-2002, 03:39 PM

Quote:

Is this anything like that scene with the two dogs eating pasta in "Lady and the Tramp"?

Lpetrich and Ed's 'secret' romance is no secret. It was announced in the infidel headline thread a while ago. It's a star-crossed love. He's an educated atheist from a stern and noble family, He's a rough-and-ready creationist willing to go to great 'length' to further the cause of God's 'Coming' Kingdom(tm). Can this love transcend the paltry barriers of science, religion and ideology?

Of course it can.

Duvenoy · 12-04-2002, 04:05 PM

Thanks DD! That's as good a chuckle as I've had in quite a while.

doov

Ed · 12-05-2002, 08:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by lpetrich:

lp: ... However, Moses is yet another heroic founder figure, and heroic founder figures tend to attract mythology to them.
Ed:
True but careful study of the evidence can help strip away the myth.

lp: Ed, what do you consider mythical about the Bible's account of Moses?

Nothing. I was referring to the other figures.

Quote:

Ed:
Also the documentary hypothesis places too much emphasis on source analysis rather than the archaeological data.

lp: WHAT archeological data? There is not a shred of it for the existence of Moses.

I am referring to the archaeological evidence that points to the ancient character of the Torah and its closeness to the time period of Moses.

Quote:

Ed:
They also come to the analysis with evolutionary presuppositions regarding the development of religion.

lp: The Documentary Hypothesis features NO such presupposition -- it is based on analysis of the text.

It claims that the more complex doctrines were not developed until later and therefore claiming that any verses talking about more complex doctrines in earlier times are anachronisms, but this has no basis in fact.

Quote:

Ed:
When in fact there is evidence that religion started out monotheistic and became polytheistic rather than vice versa.

lp: WHAT evidence? I've never seen ANY such evidence -- all the older religions have lots of deities.

Read the German anthropologist's Wilhelm Schmidt's book, "The Origin and Growth of Religion:Facts and Theories". To give short summary of a huge opus, he found that in almost all traditional contexts, in Africa, America, Australia, Asia, or Europe, there was a belief in a God located in the sky (or on a high mountain) and almost always referred to with masculine language. This God creates the world and provides standards of behavior. Particularly in later cultures, he stands apart from the routine worship of gods and spirits, and there are many other interesting characteristics that seem to point back to a time when there was worship of only this one God.

Quote:

LP:
(on discrepancies between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2)
Ed:
Be my guest.

lp: G1: humanity created after everything else
G2: first man, then animals, then first woman

No, Gen. 1 gives the order of events, Gen. 2 is a telescoping in on the content of those events. Gen. 2 does not tell us when God created the animals. It just tells us he brought the animals which he had previously created to Adam to be named. The focus on Chap. 2 is on the naming of the animals not their creation. Gen. 1 is an outline of events, Gen. 2 gives the details.

Quote:

lp: G1: creation by God's command
G2: creation by God's forming and animating pre-existing material

G1: orderly, step-by-step creation
G2: fix-as-you-go creation

See above.

Quote:

lp: G1: God seems very happy with what he has done
G2: God seems very exasperated

Where is he exasperated?

Quote:

lp: G1: God called Elohim
G2: God called YHWH Elohim

[/i]

As stated above each chapter has a different purpose. Elohim is a term used to refer to God as Creator of the universe. YHWH Elohim is God's personal name and is used when he makes covenants and communicates with man on a more personal level. So it is used in Chapter 2 where it telescopes in on God's personal relationship with man. See also Gen. 15:1 and Exodus 6:3.

Doubting Didymus · 12-05-2002, 09:11 PM

Hmmm. Gotta love those discussions of first cause.

For CRYING OUT LOUD. DECIDE ON A SINGLE TOPIC ALREADY.

So far:
Bacteria genomes,

Time scale on biblical genealogies,

Probability of fossilisation,

Freedom as it relates to god (!),

Pasteurs experiments

Out of place fossils

Junk DNA

Noah's flood,

I do not want to go on! That was only the first five pages! Grow a topic people, or you get another carrott!

lpetrich · 12-05-2002, 09:18 PM

First, that "infidel headline" (Freethought Humor, Jokes, Etc.):

Lpetrich and Ed come out of the closet and reveal their homosexual marriage.

Lpetrich: I thought I was incurably heterosexual, but Ed showed me otherwise.

Ed: Our relationship is just like that of David and Jonathan in the Bible.

The stuff below is more suited for a thread in Biblical Criticism & Archaeology, it must be said.

Quote:

lp: Ed, what do you consider mythical about the Bible's account of Moses?
Ed:
Nothing. I was referring to the other figures.

So one could go back in a time machine and watch Moses call down the Ten Plagues of Egypt and part the Red Sea?

Quote:

I am referring to the archaeological evidence that points to the ancient character of the Torah and its closeness to the time period of Moses.

Whatever "evidence" that is supposed to be.

Quote:

lp: The Documentary Hypothesis features NO such presupposition -- it is based on analysis of the text.
Ed:
It claims that the more complex doctrines were not developed until later and therefore claiming that any verses talking about more complex doctrines in earlier times are anachronisms, but this has no basis in fact.

When, in fact, it proposes no such thing.

Quote:

Ed:
Read the German anthropologist's Wilhelm Schmidt's book, "The Origin and Growth of Religion:Facts and Theories". (supposed universal belief in a single male deity...)

Seems like he has been doing some creative interpretation and projecting the Xian God onto a lot of different belief systems -- a lot of mythologies state no such thing.

Quote:

lp:
G1: humanity created after everything else
G2: first man, then animals, then first woman
Ed:
No, Gen. 1 gives the order of events, Gen. 2 is a telescoping in on the content of those events. ...

Except that the way it's presented in the Bible is a very clumsy way of doing that. If that sort of thing appeared outside of the Bible, Ed would quickly say "Of course those are two creation stories!"

[ December 05, 2002: Message edited by: lpetrich ]

Ed · 12-09-2002, 06:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ps418:


Fact-free, armchair pseudo-psychoanalysis is no substitute for an examination of the evidence. This claim for instance is laughably wrong, and demonstrates a profound ignorance on your part of the religious beliefs of early geologists. Adam Sedgewick and Roderick Murchison, for instance, rejected the Christian God? Who are YOU to imply, against all evidence, that these men rejected the Christian God? Get a clue!

I know because I know human nature as a human myself. But I never said that all early geologists rejected the Christian God. Some Christians thought that the flood was local in nature.

Quote:

ps: Ed, I notice that every time in this thread when you have been called upon to defend one of your outlandish 'flood geology' claims (e.g. flood sorting as an explanation of the stratigraphic distribution of fossil taxa), you have simply dropped the claim.

No, I just said that I was not qualified to go into great detail because I am not a geologist or a hydrologist.

Quote:

ps: Do you want to seriously examine the evidence for and against flood geology, or not? If you do, then let's start another thread and give the issue a proper and thorough treatment. After all, if geologists are rejecting 'flood geology' for the reasons you claim, then the weakness of their case should be easy to demonstrate. On the other hand, if I can show you that flood geology is hopelessly flawed as an explanation for the geologic record, then you will be freed of a false belief.

Patrick

See above.

Living Dead Chipmunk · 12-09-2002, 07:56 PM

Has this thread been going CONTINUOUSLY since Fed 20th of this year??

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-04-2002, 03:30 PM	#612
Doubting Didymus Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: East Coast. Australia. Posts: 5,455	Lpetrich (left) and Ed (right) engaged in furious academic debate.

12-04-2002, 04:05 PM	#615
Duvenoy Veteran Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Just another hick from the sticks. Posts: 1,108	Thanks DD! That's as good a chuckle as I've had in quite a while. doov

12-05-2002, 09:11 PM	#617
Doubting Didymus Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: East Coast. Australia. Posts: 5,455	Hmmm. Gotta love those discussions of first cause. For CRYING OUT LOUD. DECIDE ON A SINGLE TOPIC ALREADY. So far: Bacteria genomes, Time scale on biblical genealogies, Probability of fossilisation, Freedom as it relates to god (!), Pasteurs experiments Out of place fossils Junk DNA Noah's flood, I do not want to go on! That was only the first five pages! Grow a topic people, or you get another carrott!

12-09-2002, 07:56 PM	#620
Living Dead Chipmunk Regular Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: South Carolina Posts: 312	Has this thread been going CONTINUOUSLY since Fed 20th of this year??

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.