Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Priests and their obsession with Status and Wealth
-
25-04-2020 10:19am#1
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
PukkaStukka wrote: »In fact, if you work out an hourly rate of pay from his hours worked against his earning, he's paid below the minimum wage and is working way in excess of the working time directives.
He could always pack it in and get a proper job (and maybe even a ride
) In Cavan there was a great fire / Judge McCarthy was sent to inquire / It would be a shame / If the nuns were to blame / So it had to be caused by a wire.
0 -
-
-
If they consider then they should read the bible a bit more. Islam is way closer to Christianism than Catholicism is.
I don't see how you could reasonably make that argument. Whatever characteristic you use to compare Islam with Christianity vs. Catholicism with Christianity, its difficult to see how Islam could be more closely aligned with Christianity than Catholicism. The conception of God, soteriology, the Islamic concept of Sunnah, just to name a few all make Islam markedly different from any Christian sect.
Yes, there are differences between Catholicism and other Christian denominations but since there are over 33000 different denominations of Christianity, pointing out that any one of them is not like the others seems a bit redundant.one world order wrote: »It's why the world is so messed up. Sin entered the world when Adam and Eve were deceived by the devil and creation has fallen ever since. It's important because we exist in this world in the physical and spiritual. When we die the soul leaves this world and the sin we've committed can only be washed away by a saviour. The alternative is not to adhere to God, people decide their own morality and society becomes more broken as people choose more sinful lives rather than humbly living godly lives.
Well, no. I know that this is something that Christians believe but the original story makes no mention of the devil. Its just a talking snake. Talking animals were a thing in the OT, just look at Balaam's talking donkey in Numbers 22.
At the time when Genesis was being compiled/edited/redacted there wasn't really a conception of Satan being the singular malevolent force that Christians believe in. The character of Satan had darkened somewhat from his earlier appearances in places like Job and Numbers but the real development of this malevolent angel wouldn't take place until long after Genesis was written, so the idea that the writers of Genesis are referring to Satan is ridiculous.
Plus, its worth pointing out that since you've already acknowledged that you're in the Atheist forum, most of the readers here are unlikely to be convinced by stories from the bible that are borrowed from older myths.SouthWesterly wrote: »Absolutely, let's bring back slavery and child labour. After all, it was Christians who campaigned for their abolition.
Indeed, it was Christians who campaigned for the abolition of slavery, however equally it was other Christians who vigorously defended slavery on Biblical grounds.
For example, in 1823 Frederick Dalcho an Episcopal pastor from South Carolina wrote a long treatise titled: "Practical Considerations Founded on the Scriptures, Relative to the Slave Population of South Carolina by a South-Carolinian"
where he explained that slavery was not only condoned by the Bible (in passages like Exodus) but also mandated by Biblical prophecy:
"The prophecy of Noah, was to be fulfilled, not in the individuals named, but nationally in their descendants. Canaan's whole race was under the malediction."
Thus Dalcho explained that while Jews and Christians descended from Noah's sons Shem and Japheth, Africans (the descendants of Canaan) were descended from Ham and thus destined for "servitude and subjection".
Similarly, in 1820 during the debates over the statehood of Missouri, a long treatise with many biblical citations appeared in the Richmond Enquirer (15 Feb 1820) regarding the morality of slavery. It concluded with 5 take away points:- That the volume of sacred writings commonly called the bible, comprehend-ing the old and new Testaments, contains the unerring decisions of the word of God.
- That these decisions are of equal authority in both testaments, and that this authority is the essential veracity of God, who is truth itself.
- That since there can be no prescription against the authority of God, what ever is declared in any part of the holy bible to be lawful or illicit, must be essentially so in its own nature, however repugnant such declaration may be to the current opinions of men during any period of time.
- That as the supreme lawgiver and judge of man, God is infinitely just and wise in all decisions, and is essentially irresponsible for the reasons of his conduct in the moral government of the world—so it is culpably audacious in us to question the rectitude of any of those decisions—merely because we do not apprehend the inscrutable principles of such wisdom and justice.
- That if one, or more decisions of the written word of God, sanction the rectitude of any human acquisitions, for instance, the acquisition of a servant by inheritance or purchase, whoever believes that the written word of God is verity itself, must consequently believe in the absolute rectitude of slave-holding.
*By other groups here I'm referring to Mormons. Early Mormons like Joseph Smith and Brigham Young justified slavery by reference to the curse of Ham but while references to the curse of Ham largely waned in mainstream Christianity after abolitionism, it remained an important idea in Mormonism into the 20th century. The ban on African-Americans serving as priests only ended in 1978.SouthWesterly wrote: »And as for murder, theft, adultery, lying. Sure they were Judeo/Christian concepts and were deemed to be wrong by followers of a fable.
If you really think that prohibitions on murder, adultery, theft, lying etc. were Judeo-Christian concepts, then you really weren't paying attention in history class.
Take this, for example:
This is the stele of Hammurabi, an extant copy of the code of Hammurabi a Babylonian law code dating to 1754 BCE. For reference that's 804 years before Genesis was completed. The code includes laws governing trade, slander, divorce etc. We didn't need Christianity or Judaism to come along to teach us that murder was wrong. People already knew that.
Even from the Bible it is apparent that laws and commandments concerning moral behaviour didn't originate with the commandments. In Exodus 2:11-15 Moses kills an Egyptian and hides the body, knowing what would happen if he didn't. When the crime is discovered he flees to Midian in fear. If you really needed God to spell out that murder is wrong then how did Moses know to hide the body?one world order wrote: »Slavery and child labour was never encouraged. Another false lie created.
No, as I've pointed out above, slavery was defended loudly, vociferously and in great detail by southern Christians in the United States in the period before abolitionism. There is an excellent summary of these defenses in the Journal of Religious Thought:
The religious defense of American slavery before 1830one world order wrote: »Genetics can't prove there wasn't one man and woman created from the beginning.
Actually, it can. And does. First of all humans weren't created. We evolved from pre-existing species. Second, the problem of minimum viable population is a well studied concept in biology. There is a certain minimum population, below which a species will die out. This is because there needs to be sufficient members of a species such that harmful mutations have an escape valve and won't build up within a species. Although there is still some debate over the precise number that would be required for humans, the average minimum population for vertebrate species is roughly 4000.
Minimum viable population size: A meta-analysis of 30 years of published estimates
With specific regard to humans, its likely that the original population of humans was no bigger than about 26000. The genetic evidence for the human population 1.2 million years ago was somewhere between 18500 and 26000. So, not 2 people.
And just to recap on a point I made above, its not just our observation of population data that tells us there never was an Adam an Eve (or single breeding pair), its that there are fundamental genetic reasons why a population that small could not be sustained.one world order wrote: »No proof to say 7 day creation didn't happen.
Before we get into talking about the formation of the earth (and the Universe for that matter), its worth talking about the burden of proof.
Just in case you've never studied formal logic or been on a jury or however else you might have missed this, let me explain. The burden of proof for any positive claim lies with the person making the claim. So, in this case, anybody making claims to there being a seven day creation needs to prove that this really is the case, its not encumbent on the skeptic to disprove the claim. A claim isn't considered true until its disproven. In fact, the world works the other way around. We don't let drug companies market drugs until they have been proven to work. This might help to explain things further:
Getting back to the Earth, we know that the universe is approximately 13.7 billion years old and that the Earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old. So unless you stretch the meaning of "day" to the point of ridicule, then yes we can say that 7 day creation didn't happen.
Besides which, we know that Genesis isn't a historical account. Its a syncretic retelling of earlier creation myths, in particular the Enuma Elish. We can piece together the pieces of earlier myths that are found in Genesis (the perfect garden, Adam's rib etc.) such that there's not really much room left for a real history to be behind any of it.
Indeed, there is evidence of flooding in southern Iraq, in what was once the city of Shuruppak. But it was, of course a local flood, not a global one. And it is yet another example of a story that Jewish writers just borrowed from an earlier civilisation. The story of this local flood had been told by all the cultures in that region for thousands of years before Genesis was written. The epic of Gilgamesh (in its present form) dates back to around the 18th century BCE (or around 1300 years before Genesis) and tells the story of Utnapishtim (or Ziusudra or Atrahasis). As you can see below, it bears remarkable similarities to the story found in Genesis:one world order wrote: »There is evidence flooding in Iraq and other Sumerian cities.
"Like the apsu you shall roof it" Gilgamesh XI,31
"Make a roof for the ark" Genesis 6:16
"pitch I poured into the inside" Gilgamesh XI,66
"cover it inside and out with pitch" Genesis 6:14
"into the ship all my family and relatives" Gilgamesh XI,84
"Go into the ark, you and all your household" Genesis 7:1
"I entered the ship and closed the door" Gilgamesh XI,93
"And they that entered...and the Lord shut him in" Genesis 7:16
"All mankind was turned to clay" Gilgamesh XI,133
"And all flesh died...and every man" Genesis 7:21
"I opened the window" Gilgamesh XI,135
"Noah opened the window of the ark" Genesis 8:6
"On Mount Nisir the boat grounded" Gilgamesh XI,140
"the ark came to rest upon the mountains" Genesis 8:4
"The dove went out and returned" Gilgamesh XI,147
"sent forth the dove and the dove came back to him" Genesis 8:10-11
"When a seventh day arrived" Gilgamesh XI,145
"He waited another seven days" Genesis 8:10
"I sent forth a raven" Gilgamesh XI,152
"Noah... sent forth a raven" Genesis 8:7
Yes, there was a local flood in the region. But this one fact doesn't in any way lend credence towards the story told in the Bible. Just because there's a New York doesn't mean that there's a Spiderman.one world order wrote: »The old cities of Sodam and Gomorrah exist today covered in white sulphur which cannot be found anywhere else and shows old temples that melted inwards.
OK, first things first. What they found at the site where they think Sodom and Gomorrah existed (note the use of the word think here, not know) is white monoclinic sulphur, a different crystalline form of sulphur than the more typical yellow orthorhombic sulphur. If you think that white sulphur can't be found anywhere else then perhaps you should pay a visit to White Sulphur Springs in Montana. Or the one in West Virginia. Monoclinic sulphur is formed from orthorhombic sulphur when the latter is exposed to temperatures in excess of 94.5 degrees. So it shows up a lot in places like hot springs.
The formation of the white sulphur in the Lisan formation is explained through natural geologic processes but the details are too long-winded to discuss in detail here. However, it does not provide any evidence for a fire and brimstone rain outlined in the Bible.one world order wrote: »Bible also says earth hangs on nothing.
Yes, and it also speaks about the Earth being flat (e.g. Isaiah 40:22). You see if you're going to talk about all the science that the Bible gets right, then you're also going to have to deal with all the science that the bible gets wrong, like that bats are birds and whales are fish and that you can show striped patterns to pregnant cattle to get striped offspring.one world order wrote: »Sounds like you think humans and animals evolved from nothing. DNA shows high intelligence creator used detailed instructions in a module determining the development, functioning and reproduction of all organisms.
No, humans evolved from earlier species just like other animals. If you're talking about life itself, then we don't really know how life got started. Its not that we're completely clueless about it, in fact we have several different hypotheses about possible origins for life, but barring the invention of time travel, we can't go back and figure out which one is the correct one.
We have a perfectly competent naturalistic mechanism for explaining the origin of life. We don't need to suggest the existence of a god to balance the equation, as it were. But if you are going to suggest a god to get the ball rolling, then you should have a good reason for doing so, and it should be better than because we don't know or because you can't think of something better.one world order wrote: »Bible mentions dragons. After the flood alot of these would not exist. The word dinosaur was created when the first one was found and they have the same description as that of dragons.
Once again, just like the serpent in the garden of Eden, Christians try to connect dots that aren't there. While Satan is described as being like a dragon throughout Revelation, the only thing that comes close to being a dragon in the Old Testament is Leviathan, first mentioned in Job. Once you set aside his obviously fictional characteristics, the creature depicted as Leviathan more closely resembles a Nile crocodile.
Second, what about the standard depiction of dragons would mean that they died out in the flood. Shouldn't they be able to fly above the flood waters just like the birds.
Finally, no, the first dinosaur fossil found doesn't have the same description as a a dragon. The earliest dinosaur fossil to be discovered was Megalosaurus by William Buckland in the 1820s, but it wouldn't be until Richard Owen in the 1840s that they were given the name dinosaur. And they didn't think that they were dragons but rather large monitor lizards.
Its hard to see this:
as being remotely like a dragon (the lack of wings for a start). Besides the earliest depictions of dragons were as giant sea serpents and not land creatures.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KayBys8gaJYAdvertisement