Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Aardwolf on June 01, 2010, 10:30:14 pm
-
Ok, this is an argument that's been brought up so many places elsewhere, but has always been off-topic. So I'm gonna give it its own dedicated topic.
Basically, the argument usually goes something like this:
The events described in the Bible directly conflict with scientific evidence!
Only fundies interpret the Bible as literal truth!
...and from there it usually devolves into name-calling and accusations of hypocrisy.
So my question is this: if theists1 don't agree on the Bible2 as being literally true, what do they agree on? That the Bible2 is good? That Jesus3 was a nice guy and a good role model? That even though the theists1 can't agree what God4 wants of humanity, and can't agree on what God4 has done or is capable of doing, that God4 exists, and is (optionally) benevolent?
Pardon my cynicism, but that seems downright silly.
1Christians or other theists, if there are other religions which do basically the same thing
2Bible or other applicable sacred texts
3Jesus or another applicable prophet or major religious figure
4God or other applicable deities
-
do we HAVE to do this?
-
do we HAVE to do this?
Yes. It would be off-topic anywhere else.
Edit: but if you want to not be a part of the discussion, I reckon that would be acceptable.
-
If it keeps it to this thread and doesn't jack eight or ten more, then yes.
Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if every theist had a differing interpretation of some kind. Because, let's face it, the Bible (or other sacred texts), true or not, are literature. Literature cannot be exactly defined except by its authors, and even then people will disagree on what the author intended.
That said, I think that many (if not most) Christians would agree that the Bible is "The Good Book," that God exists in some form or another, and that he is arguably benevolent (at least, since Christ).
You'd be hard pressed to get any decently large group of Christians to agree on anything but that.
-
Hmmm... basically, my point is, believe in whatever you want, and let others believe in whatever they want, as long as no rights are violated. You can think whatever you want, I'm not going to judge you, and maybe you're right. But that doesn't gives you the right to prejudge, discriminate or harass others based on their beliefs.
Seriously, are the concepts of tolerance and respect so hard to understand? And I'm asking that to everyone. Yes, even to people of my own religion.
Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if every theist had a differing interpretation of some kind. Because, let's face it, the Bible (or other sacred texts), true or not, are literature. Literature cannot be exactly defined except by its authors, and even then people will disagree on what the author intended.
That said, I think that many (if not most) Christians would agree that the Bible is "The Good Book," that God exists in some form or another, and that he is arguably benevolent (at least, since Christ).
You'd be hard pressed to get any decently large group of Christians to agree on anything but that.
Good one. :yes:
-
Religions are more alike than different, but they vary so much there's no point in believing in any of them. Chances are, if there is one correct religion, NOBODY has it and we're all ****ed.
-
I'm getting so damn tired of footnotes in forum posts.
-
Ok, this is an argument that's been brought up so many places elsewhere, but has always been off-topic. So I'm gonna give it its own dedicated topic.
Basically, the argument usually goes something like this:
The events described in the Bible directly conflict with scientific evidence!
Only fundies interpret the Bible as literal truth!
...and from there it usually devolves into name-calling and accusations of hypocrisy.
So my question is this: if theists1 don't agree on the Bible2 as being literally true, what do they agree on? That the Bible2 is good? That Jesus3 was a nice guy and a good role model? That even though the theists1 can't agree what God4 wants of humanity, and can't agree on what God4 has done or is capable of doing, that God4 exists, and is (optionally) benevolent?
Pardon my cynicism, but that seems downright silly.
1Christians or other theists, if there are other religions which do basically the same thing
2Bible or other applicable sacred texts
3Jesus or another applicable prophet or major religious figure
4God or other applicable deities
Could we ditch the footnotes, please? They render the post less comprehensible by destroying reader's trance.
-
Religions are more alike than different,
Yes, religions have a lot in common. Some people theorize they could even be the same truth revealed in different ways or in different parts. Some religions even share the same god, but interpret him in different ways.
but they vary so much there's no point in believing in any of them. Chances are, if there is one correct religion, NOBODY has it and we're all ****ed.
Bear in mind that, if I want to do something that you think is pointless, it's my decision. I believe smoking is pointless, but I don't go around insulting people who smoke and trying to outlaw it. What's more, the most important and beloved person in my life, a woman who I sincerely and profoundly admire, smokes. And, in an incredible coincidence, she's an atheist too.
-
I think we need to respect other people's decisions about their own personal beliefs.
It's only when those beliefs lead them to restrict the freedoms of others that they open themselves to criticism. And that's not a generalization anybody can make about all Christians.
-
I think we need to respect other people's decisions about their own personal beliefs.
It's only when those beliefs lead them to restrict the freedoms of others that they open themselves for criticisms. And that's not a generalization anybody can make about all Christians.
Do we need to say anything else? ;)
-
but they vary so much there's no point in believing in any of them. Chances are, if there is one correct religion, NOBODY has it and we're all ****ed.
Bear in mind that, if I want to do something that you think is pointless, it's my decision. I believe smoking is pointless, but I don't go around insulting people who smoke and trying to outlaw it. What's more, the most important and beloved person in my life, a woman who I sincerely and profoundly admire, smokes. And, in an incredible coincidence, she's an atheist too.
I've already said I believe pointless **** that doesn't make any sense. What pisses me off is when people claim their beliefs make sense.
Also, smoking is a good analogy for most religious people. Being around them just might kill you.
-
But how can you claim it's even the same God, without abstracting the concept of God so much that it becomes intangible and impotent?
@General Battuta: but I got the idea from you! :p
-
That said, I think that many (if not most) Christians would agree that the Bible is "The Good Book," that God exists in some form or another, and that he is arguably benevolent (at least, since Christ).
I wonder how many atheists would call God an asshole.
I would, certainly.
-
Don't feed him. He's just a troll felling frustrated that this post is evolving in a civilized way so far.
I'll answer your posts tomorrow. It's late in the night and I have to wake up early in the morning.
Have a nice day. :)
-
Actually you only need to read the book of Job to be pretty certain he is. We are talking about the deity who allowed Satan to do all kinds of horrific things to Job just to win a bet and then makes up the death of his children by letting him have prettier ones.
Seriously? :rolleyes:
If a doctor killed your kid and then said "Don't worry, I let him die cause I knew I could genetically engineer a better one for you" wouldn't you consider him a arsehole?
-
Y yes, i believe we've all been in breeding non stop since day 6.
-
Actually you only need to read the book of Job to be pretty certain he is. We are talking about the deity who allowed Satan to do all kinds of horrific things to Job just to win a bet and then makes up the death of his children by letting him have prettier ones.
Seriously? :rolleyes:
If a doctor killed your kid and then said "Don't worry, I let him die cause I knew I could genetically engineer a better one for you" wouldn't you consider him a arsehole?
Completely unrelated. iamzack has said worse things so far. But jumping inside a thread and insulting/provocating just for the sake of it is trolling, and you know it.
You have expressed the same opinion, but yours wasn't a deliberate provocation, but a respectable opinion. You can see the difference yourself, don't make me explain it.
Seriously though, I have to go to sleep. :p
-
Seriously though, I have to go to sleep. :p
SO DO IT ALREADY.
-
r. But jumping inside a thread and insulting/provocating just for the sake of it is trolling, and you know it.
You have expressed the same opinion, but yours wasn't a deliberate provocation, but a respectable opinion.
Ah, so calling god a bastard is cool, but asshole is total troll bait.
Well, good to know.
Also, insulting? Yeah, no, that's not the same as being provocative, and you know.
-
Also, smoking is a good analogy for most religious people. Being around them just might kill you.
Even though you're as harsh as always :p , I sincerely thank you for using "most" this time. This admits the possibility that not every person in this world who has a religion has to be a negative influence. That being said, you're right when you affirm most people who have a religion (or an extremist ideology, dare I add) are always trying to push their interpretation of life on others. But trust me, I know that they are annoying, and I abhor such people as much as you do.
Seriously though, I have to go to sleep. :p
SO DO IT ALREADY.
I'm really puzzled at your attitude. :confused:
-
I meant literally kill you. Religious people are forever flying planes into buildings, shooting doctors, making it legal for doctors to deny you truthful medical advice, blowing themselves up, blowing other people up... :P
-
I meant literally kill you. Religious people are forever flying planes into buildings, shooting doctors, making it legal for doctors to deny you truthful medical advice, blowing themselves up, blowing other people up... :P
You can't make that generalization about all religious people without statistics comparing them to non-religious people.
-
Well, let me know when an atheist beats a kid to death for looking too gay and I'll reconsider my opinions.
-
I meant literally kill you. Religious people are forever flying planes into buildings, shooting doctors, making it legal for doctors to deny you truthful medical advice, blowing themselves up, blowing other people up... :P
Zack, I don't know who you're hanging around, but these assumptions you're pulling out of the air are a complete load of crap. Most of my friends have been religious of some sort (even of a different faith than mine), and never, EVER, have they or I done or considered such heinous acts ever approaching such terrible orders of magnitude - or even at all.
That said, please consider what you're writing here more carefully next time.
-
Seriously. Take the raging hate-on for religion somewhere else.
Does everyone here agree that any belief, taken too far, is a bad thing? Why is it, then, that relgion is frequently (at least by iamzack) taken to be the epitome of bad because of a few people who take it too far?
-
One valid point she does have is that religious ideologies taken too far have produced a great deal of the suffering we see in the historical record. Religious regimes tend to be enduring, tyrannical, and highly visible, and worse yet, religion tends to be confounded with a lot of other highly conservative elements in a government (medieval Christianity, for example.)
But there are also many examples of non-religious ideologies that go too far. Nationalism, for instance, is nominally secular even if it's sometimes tied to religion.
-
I meant literally kill you. Religious people are forever flying planes into buildings, shooting doctors, making it legal for doctors to deny you truthful medical advice, blowing themselves up, blowing other people up... :P
Zack, I don't know who you're hanging around, but these assumptions you're pulling out of the air are a complete load of crap. Most of my friends have been religious of some sort (even of a different faith than mine), and never, EVER, have they or I done or considered such heinous acts ever approaching such terrible orders of magnitude - or even at all.
That said, please consider what you're writing here more carefully next time.
All beagles are dogs, but not all dogs are beagles.
-
I meant literally kill you. Religious people are forever flying planes into buildings, shooting doctors, making it legal for doctors to deny you truthful medical advice, blowing themselves up, blowing other people up... :P
Well, let me know when an atheist beats a kid to death for looking too gay and I'll reconsider my opinions.
Damn! I thought we were making progress here. Seriously iamzack, do you really believe I'm going to kill someone just because they look (or are) gay or something? if you do, then maybe this discussion is pointless now.
One valid point she does have is that religious ideologies taken too far have produced a great deal of the suffering we see in the historical record. Religious regimes tend to be enduring, tyrannical, and highly visible, and worse yet, religion tends to be confounded with a lot of other highly conservative elements in a government (medieval Christianity, for example.)
But there are also many examples of non-religious ideologies that go too far. Nationalism, for instance, is nominally secular even if it's sometimes tied to religion.
Exactly. :yes:
-
Mostly I'm saying that if someone has strong religious beliefs, I am going to always be cautious. You never know who is going to be criminally insane, but if somebody drowns five kids in a bathtub, you can bet god told them to do it.
-
Mostly I'm saying that if someone has strong religious beliefs, I am going to always be cautious. You never know who is going to be criminally insane, but if somebody drowns five kids in a bathtub, you can bet god told them to do it.
You can also bet that it's linked to some kind of mental disorder as well. That's not religion.
-
Mostly I'm saying that if someone has strong religious beliefs, I am going to always be cautious. You never know who is going to be criminally insane, but if somebody drowns five kids in a bathtub, you can bet god told them to do it.
You've got a directionality problem there. For all you know religion is just an excuse or expression of a mental disorder.
I can understand caution towards religious people given that so many prominent religious figures condemn the lifestyles of, and tacitly endorse harm of, a great many people. But ultimately, treating all religious people as dangerous nutjobs is the same kind of thinking that leads all gay men to be treated as child molesters.
-
You never know who is going to be criminally insane, but if somebody drowns five kids in a bathtub, you can bet god told them to do it.
No, you won't get it yet. Well, at least I tried.
Anyway, I wish you well.
-
Mostly I'm saying that if someone has strong religious beliefs, I am going to always be cautious. You never know who is going to be criminally insane, but if somebody drowns five kids in a bathtub, you can bet god told them to do it.
You've got a directionality problem there. For all you know religion is just an excuse or expression of a mental disorder.
I can understand caution towards religious people given that so many prominent religious figures condemn the lifestyles of, and tacitly endorse harm of, a great many people. But ultimately, treating all religious people as dangerous nutjobs is the same kind of thinking that leads all gay men to be treated as child molesters.
Aren't most child molesters straight? Anyway, I'd be more apt to compare my regard for religious people to my regard for men's rights activists. Sure, they're not all rapists, but their ideology is crazy, and it's best to just avoid them.
-
Aren't most child molesters straight?
That's the whole point. It's a fautly stereotype. And you seem to be all in favor of keeping a stereotype remarkably similar to that standing.
-
Gay men don't subscribe to an ideology, they are just sexually attracted to other men.
Religious people willingly suspend reason to believe in weird contradictory myths.
It's the difference between just being white or actually joining the KKK.
-
*sigh*
I think this is pointless. But it is sad to see you engaging in the same kind of rampant, overgeneralized stereotyping that your stereotypical religious person deploys against gay people.
-
Religious people willingly suspend reason to believe in weird contradictory myths.
It's the difference between just being white or actually joining the KKK.
And you willingly suspend reason to believe in weird contradictory stereotypes.
It's the difference between just being ignorant or actually being a hatemonger.
-
Aren't most child molesters straight?
Assuming you're referring to pedophilia (how many times is this going to be brought up?), no. In point of fact, asexual characteristics are sought after, so (theoretically, of course) no gender preference should exist.
--
Religious people willingly suspend reason to believe in weird contradictory myths.
It's the difference between just being white or actually joining the KKK.
And you willingly suspend reason to believe in weird contradictory stereotypes.
It's the difference between just being ignorant or actually being a hatemonger.
+5
-
*sigh*
I think this is pointless. But it is sad to see you engaging in the same kind of rampant, overgeneralized stereotyping that your stereotypical religious person deploys against gay people.
Go find me a reasonable religious person and I promise I'll change my opinion.
-
*sigh*
I think this is pointless. But it is sad to see you engaging in the same kind of rampant, overgeneralized stereotyping that your stereotypical religious person deploys against gay people.
Go find me a reasonable religious person and I promise I'll change my opinion.
Present! Been here the whole time, too.
-
So you recognize your beliefs as totally irrational and nonsensical?
-
*sigh*
I think this is pointless. But it is sad to see you engaging in the same kind of rampant, overgeneralized stereotyping that your stereotypical religious person deploys against gay people.
Go find me a reasonable religious person and I promise I'll change my opinion.
My friend Deanna is a devout Christian, incredibly sweet, and devoted to social justice. She believes that her beliefs only apply to her personally and that everybody needs to reach their own conclusions.
So you recognize your beliefs as totally irrational and nonsensical?
They're just not supported by evidence.
Religions are sets of (mostly) internally self-consistent fantasies that supply a narrative to human existence. They proscribe behavior with real-world consequences, and if a religious person believes that obeying their creed will lead them to behave as a better person, then it is rational for them to do so.
-
Okay, that passes. In that case, I will still shun all religious people until I know their beliefs well enough to determine that they are safe to interact with. That's instead of just shunning them forever and pretending they don't exist. :)
-
I have yet to see an actual literalist. Try to confront one you suspect, and ask them about shellfish. The bible condemns eating shellfish as "an abomination" on par with homosexuality. Or ask him about mixed fabrics clothes. Again, bible says it's not allowed. No, the only Christians so far are cafeteria Christians - No death and doom ideology for me, I'll move over here to the "love your neighbor" line, ignoring the very next passage and just taking what I like.
There is no such thing as a literalist, because they would not be able to function in today's society.
-
Okay, that passes. In that case, I will still shun all religious people until I know their beliefs well enough to determine that they are safe to interact with. That's instead of just shunning them forever and pretending they don't exist. :)
Replace "religious people" with "black people" (or any other ethnicity/orientation), and it's still hugely generalizing (and mildly insulting).
I have yet to see an actual literalist. Try to confront one you suspect, and ask them about shellfish. The bible condemns eating shellfish as "an abomination" on par with homosexuality. Or ask him about mixed fabrics clothes. Again, bible says it's not allowed. No, the only Christians so far are cafeteria Christians - No death and doom ideology for me, I'll move over here to the "love your neighbor" line, ignoring the very next passage and just taking what I like.
There is no such thing as a literalist, because they would not be able to function in today's society.
What goes into a man's mouth does not make him 'unclean,' but what comes out of his mouth, that is what makes him 'unclean.'
The same applies for much of what you are referring.
-
Black people are born black. Nobody is born Christian, Jewish, Scientologist, etc. That's something you're indoctrinated with. Religious people need sympathy and support groups, not special considerations.
-
*sigh*
I think this is pointless. But it is sad to see you engaging in the same kind of rampant, overgeneralized stereotyping that your stereotypical religious person deploys against gay people.
Go find me a reasonable religious person and I promise I'll change my opinion.
Hi Zack! ;)
Okay, that passes. In that case, I will still shun all religious people until I know their beliefs well enough to determine that they are safe to interact with. That's instead of just shunning them forever and pretending they don't exist. :)
Replace "religious people" with "black people" (or any other ethnicity/orientation), and it's still hugely generalizing (and mildly insulting).
One step at a time please.
-
Black people are born black. Nobody is born Christian, Jewish, Scientologist, etc. That's something you're indoctrinated with. Religious people need sympathy and support groups, not special considerations.
They still don't have much choice. We're special because our parents sucked at indoctrination.
-
My church was ****ing excellent at indoctrination. I was just lucky enough to have friends outside of church that could unbrainwash me.
-
My church was ****ing excellent at indoctrination. I was just lucky enough to have friends outside of church that could unbrainwash me.
And what is better about your life now? I can almost guarantee you, whatever you say is not mutually exclusive with faith.
-
I generally don't mind religious peeple as long as they don't get all *****y about everything.
-
I have premarital and gay sex whenever I want without feeling guilty. Oh, and I can dance and do drugs and sleep in on Sundays. AND I don't spend all my time moaning to the invisible sky daddy about not being worthy of forgiveness please forgive me blah blah blaaaahhhhh.
My whole life is mutually exclusive with all the faiths I've ever heard of. :P
-
I just like being good without needing a supernatural threat to keep me in line.
-
and sleep in on Sundays.
That's it. I'm an atheist now. :lol:
-
I have premarital and gay sex whenever I want without feeling guilty.
Fair point on that one.
Oh, and I can dance and do drugs and sleep in on Sundays.
Nowhere I've read says you can't do the first two. And my church has evening services. Or Saturday services, if you don't have anything better to do.
AND I don't spend all my time moaning to the invisible sky daddy about not being worthy of forgiveness please forgive me blah blah blaaaahhhhh.
This, then, is how you should pray:
Our Father in heaven,
hallowed be your name,
your kingdom come,
your will be done,
on earth as in heaven.
Give us today our daily bread.
Forgive us our sins
as we forgive those who sin against us.
Save us from the time of trial
and deliver us from evil.
For the kingdom, the power, and the glory are yours
now and for ever. Amen.
Sorry, where's all the moaning about not being worthy of forgiveness?
My whole life is mutually exclusive with all the faiths I've ever heard of. :P
Less so than you might think.
-
What goes into a man's mouth does not make him 'unclean,' but what comes out of his mouth, that is what makes him 'unclean.'
The same applies for much of what you are referring.
Elaborate, I'm a bit confused here.
-
It's not what you eat or what you wear that makes a person unclean, it's what they say and how they act.
-
This, then, is how you should pray:
Our Father in heaven,
hallowed be your name,
your kingdom come,
your will be done,
on earth as in heaven.
Give us today our daily bread.
Forgive us our sins
as we forgive those who sin against us.
Save us from the time of trial
and deliver us from evil.
For the kingdom, the power, and the glory are yours
now and for ever. Amen.
Sorry, where's all the moaning about not being worthy of forgiveness?
Who even says the lord's prayer outside of a group chant in a service? Besides even the lord's prayer is all GIMME GIMME GIMME. bread, forgiveness, salvation. **** it, I'll pay my own way, thanks.
Oh, and I can dance and do drugs and sleep in on Sundays.
Nowhere I've read says you can't do the first two. And my church has evening services. Or Saturday services, if you don't have anything better to do.
Depends on your particular brand of faith. Almost all of them are against having fun in some way, usually drugs and sex, sometimes dancing, especially where I live. My point about Sundays is that I can think of dozens of better things to do with my time than be preached at about my transgressions.
You know what? My new goal in life is to gay**** on the altar of each type of major religion. Starting with Baptists.
It's not what you eat or what you wear that makes a person unclean, it's what they say and how they act.
And who they **** and when and where and how. :P
-
Depends on your particular brand of faith.
I guess it must. I've never had any problem with it. Nor, in fact, have I had any problems being preached to about my transgressions. Our Pastor takes great care to give sermons about bettering oneself, not damning everyone for sinning.
For reference, I go to a Southern Baptist church in Kansas. Then again, we're more likely to be partying than be shouting damnation to this group or another.
-
Isn't it really Midwest Baptist if it's in Kansas?
-
I dunno. The church is called "Lansing First Southern Baptist Church." I think it has to do with the church association we're in. Not 100% sure on that.
-
You know what? My new goal in life is to gay**** on the altar of each type of major religion. Starting with Baptists.
Obvious troll is obvious.
Old meme is old.
-
I might actually start with Lutherans, because their church is closer to my house.
-
You know what? My new goal in life is to gay**** on the altar of each type of major religion. Starting with Baptists.
Admirable.
-
:wtf:
Congratulations. You've succeded in filling another thread with epic failsauce.
-
I have yet to see an actual literalist. Try to confront one you suspect, and ask them about shellfish. The bible condemns eating shellfish as "an abomination" on par with homosexuality. Or ask him about mixed fabrics clothes. Again, bible says it's not allowed.
And Christians believe those rules no longer apply to them due to Jesus' sacrifice.
Sorry, but you're going to have to try harder if you want to claim that there is no such thing as someone who believes the bible is literally true. Especially as pretty much everyone on HLP who has ever argued against evolution is (or at least was) one.
-
Dunno where you could find anyone that believes ALL of the bible is literally true... and has actually read all the rules. What's the point of joining a club if you only believe in a tiny section of the mission statement?
-
And Christians believe those rules no longer apply to them due to Jesus' sacrifice.
They believe that the ones regarding themselves--dietary restrictions and behavioral restrictions--don't apply. When it comes to homosexuality and adultery in others though...all of a sudden the Old Book is good enough for them.
-
Dunno where you could find anyone that believes ALL of the bible is literally true... and has actually read all the rules. What's the point of joining a club if you only believe in a tiny section of the mission statement?
Seriously, do I have to answer that? Why do people join a political party if they aren't going to agree with absolutely all the opinions of a political leader? Would you prefer that I believed everything that the bible and the pope said by word and acted like a fundamentalist or something? Note that the world isn't black or white, yes or no. There are a lot of grey shades, and a lot of uncertainties.
And Christians believe those rules no longer apply to them due to Jesus' sacrifice.
They believe that the ones regarding themselves--dietary restrictions and behavioral restrictions--don't apply. When it comes to homosexuality and adultery in others though...all of a sudden the Old Book is good enough for them.
I'll leave the answer to General Battuta. He seems to be a lot better than myself at making people understand generalizations based on hatred and stereotypes just don't hold in real life.
-
Seriously, who the heck is 'they'?
I know plenty of Christians who are all for gay rights and sexual equality.
-
Dunno where you could find anyone that believes ALL of the bible is literally true... and has actually read all the rules. What's the point of joining a club if you only believe in a tiny section of the mission statement?
Seriously, do I have to answer that? Why do people join a political party if they aren't going to agree with absolutely all the opinions of a political leader?
Because they are morons. You picked a bad analogy.
Seriously, who the heck is 'they'?
I know plenty of Christians who are all for gay rights and sexual equality.
Most of them definitely aren't.
-
Seriously, who the heck is 'they'?
I know plenty of Christians who are all for gay rights and sexual equality.
And I know plenty of airmen who are completely anti-DADT. Doesn't matter though, since the military leadership has to change the policy, not a bunch of soldiers with differing opinions.
Just because there's a bunch of Christians that are open to gay rights and sexual equality, doesn't mean it's still not a part of most Church doctrines that homosexuality is wrong.
-
Seriously, who the heck is 'they'?
I know plenty of Christians who are all for gay rights and sexual equality.
Most of them definitely aren't.
Cite statistics.
The heuristics you're using here are, again, disturbingly similar to those that drive sexism and racism.
Just because there's a bunch of Christians that are open to gay rights and sexual equality, doesn't mean it's still not a part of most Church doctrines that homosexuality is wrong.
Perhaps so, but that's not necessarily grounds for judging an individual Christian.
There are many Americans who are against various destructive US policies.
-
Because they are morons. You picked a bad analogy.
Good. Now I know that people who join a political party are supposed to agree with everything a political leader says, even if such political leader contradicts himself.
:rolleyes:
Just because there's a bunch of Christians that are open to gay rights and sexual equality, doesn't mean it's still not a part of most Church doctrines that homosexuality is wrong.
Granted. But that's not what you said originally.
-
Seriously, who the heck is 'they'?
I know plenty of Christians who are all for gay rights and sexual equality.
Most of them definitely aren't.
Cite statistics.
The heuristics you're using here are, again, disturbingly similar to those that drive sexism and racism.
If a majority of christians supported gay rights and sexual equality, we'd have gay rights and sexual equality in christian majority countries.
this is the quickest thing i could find on google: http://www.gallup.com/poll/128291/americans-opposition-gay-marriage-eases-slightly.aspx
-
Fallacious. Even if this assertion were true, tarring every Christian with the same brush without finding out their individual beliefs is stereotyping on the same order as declaring all Black people to be less successful or more prone to criminal activity.
-
81% of Americans who claim no religious affiliation favor legal same-sex marriage. That compares to 48% support among Catholics and 33% among Protestants (including those who identify as Christian but do not specify a particular Christian denomination).
I'm afraid I don't understand how judging people based on the ideology they subscribe to is the same as judging them based on their skin color. Saying I shouldn't assume Christians are against gay rights is like saying I shouldn't assume they believe Jesus was the son of a deity who really lived and was really born of a virgin. Sure, they don't ALL believe it, but it's in their book.
-
Fallacious. Even if this assertion were true, tarring every Christian with the same brush without finding out their individual beliefs is stereotyping on the same order as declaring all Black people to be less successful or more prone to criminal activity.
[Poes Law]
And kee' 'em 'way fro' mah Kay Eff Sea!
[/Poes Law]
In my personal experience, there's two basic types of Christians: Aggressive ones(A), who are going to convert you to their personal blend of the Revealed Word whether you like it or not, and Nice ones(B), who were paying attention to that whole "other cheek" thing, and who mostly do food-pantry related outreach. Type As can be pretty homophobic at times. Type B's are generally nice enough and can make for very good company. In my personal circle of acquaintances, there's perhaps a 55%-45% ratio of Type B to Type A Christians. In my personal circle of friends(an important distinction), there's a few type Bs, and that guy Chad[name changed, cause it's none of your damn business].
On the other hand, in the media, I think I saw a type B once. Not sure.
-
81% of Americans who claim no religious affiliation favor legal same-sex marriage. That compares to 48% support among Catholics and 33% among Protestants (including those who identify as Christian but do not specify a particular Christian denomination).
I'm afraid I don't understand how judging people based on the ideology they subscribe to is the same as judging them based on their skin color. Saying I shouldn't assume Christians are against gay rights is like saying I shouldn't assume they believe Jesus was the son of a deity who really lived and was really born of a virgin. Sure, they don't ALL believe it, but it's in their book.
lol I dunno
I still think you've got to take it on a case-by-case basis.
-
I'm open to the idea that a religious person I meet just might maybe possibly be cool. I won't hold my breath. I've only known one decent religious person ever, and even she tried to convert me multiple times.
-
I promise I won't even try to convert you.
-
Being ragetastic and mocking religious beliefs usually works that way :D
-
If a majority of christians supported gay rights and sexual equality, we'd have gay rights and sexual equality in christian majority countries.
That doesn't takes into account other factors and exaggerates the influence of religion on legislation. Religions aren't the only conservative institutions in the world, you know.
Ultimately:
Same-sex marriage currently is legal in Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Canada, South Africa, Norway, Sweden and Portugal.
Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage#Country-wide_recognition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage#Country-wide_recognition)
Spain: (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/sp.html)
Roman Catholic 94%, other 6%
Belgium: (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/be.html)
Roman Catholic 75%, other (includes Protestant) 25%
Canada: (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ca.html)
Roman Catholic 42.6%, Protestant 23.3% (including United Church 9.5%, Anglican 6.8%, Baptist 2.4%, Lutheran 2%), other Christian 4.4%, Muslim 1.9%, other and unspecified 11.8%, none 16% (2001 census)
Sweden: (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/sw.html)
Lutheran 87%, other (includes Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Baptist, Muslim, Jewish, and Buddhist) 13%
Norway: (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/no.html)
Church of Norway 85.7%, Pentecostal 1%, Roman Catholic 1%, other Christian 2.4%, Muslim 1.8%, other 8.1% (2004)
Portugal: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portugal#Religion)
Portuguese society is Roman Catholic. 84.5% of the population are Roman Catholic and 2.2% being other Christian faiths.
I'm open to the idea that a religious person I meet just might maybe possibly be cool. I won't hold my breath. I've only known one decent religious person ever, and even she tried to convert me multiple times.
Hmmm... maybe I haven't been clear enough: I don't care if you're going to hell or not. No, really, I don't care. So I'm not going to try to convert you because I don't care.
-
To be fair, I usually assume atheists are angry 16 year old self-proclaimed nihilists who refuse to accept others' positive views on the world. When I see an atheist, all I see is somebody who hates life and everything in it, and will go to great lengths to try to make me feel stupid for not sharing their own ridiculous beliefs that enjoying myself is stupid.
But I do judge on a case-by-case basis if I'd like to interact with you.
-
To be fair, I usually assume atheists are angry 16 year old self-proclaimed nihilists who refuse to accept others' positive views on the world. When I see an atheist, all I see is somebody who hates life and everything in it, and will go to great lengths to try to make me feel stupid for not sharing their own ridiculous beliefs that enjoying myself is stupid.
But I do judge on a case-by-case basis if I'd like to interact with you.
Being atheist isn't inherently negative. For a lot of atheists, the notion that the human race can handle itself without some kind of paternalistic care is a very positive one. And the idea that the universe is a mindless, mechanistic natural wonder is awe-inspiring.
-
To be fair, I usually assume atheists are angry 16 year old self-proclaimed nihilists who refuse to accept others' positive views on the world. When I see an atheist, all I see is somebody who hates life and everything in it, and will go to great lengths to try to make me feel stupid for not sharing their own ridiculous beliefs that enjoying myself is stupid.
But I do judge on a case-by-case basis if I'd like to interact with you.
I'm not an atheist, so that's irrelevant. Also I'm a hedonist, so I don't get why you're implying I don't enjoy life. :P
*snip*
Six countries out of how many Christian majority countries?
-
I'm not an atheist, so that's irrelevant. Also I'm a hedonist, so I don't get why you're implying I don't enjoy life. :P
Just making sweeping generalizations. :)
-
About atheists being angry 16 year olds? Yeah, I make the same one all the time.
-
Maybe the notion of negativity in atheists comes more from the stress involved in "coming out" to particularly religious family or friends, and the fear of being shunned.
-
To be fair, I usually assume atheists are angry 16 year old self-proclaimed nihilists who refuse to accept others' positive views on the world. When I see an atheist, all I see is somebody who hates life and everything in it, and will go to great lengths to try to make me feel stupid for not sharing their own ridiculous beliefs that enjoying myself is stupid.
But I do judge on a case-by-case basis if I'd like to interact with you.
That's a baseless generalization.
And I find it a bit offensive, dare I add.
-
*snip*
Six countries out of how many Christian majority countries?
And only two non-Christian majority country. That's why he linked the stats. According to that, there are more Christian majority countries that allow same-sexmarraige than non-Christian majority countries. He was proving thatIf a majority of christians supported gay rights and sexual equality, we'd have gay rights and sexual equality in christian majority countries.
We do.
-
Six countries out of how many Christian majority countries?
Notice that none of those countries had a large evangelical minority. Coincidence?
To be fair, I usually assume atheists are angry 16 year old self-proclaimed nihilists who refuse to accept others' positive views on the world. When I see an atheist, all I see is somebody who hates life and everything in it, and will go to great lengths to try to make me feel stupid for not sharing their own ridiculous beliefs that enjoying myself is stupid.
But I do judge on a case-by-case basis if I'd like to interact with you.
And I usually assume religious people are uneducated fear mongers trying to impose their fantastical BS on everyone else. But I do judge on a case-by-case basis if I'd like to interact with you.
How do you think it feels for a 10 year old to be told they are "going to go to hell" because they dont share your rediculous beliefs?
Take this:
(http://www.atheistbus.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/out-campaign-a.jpg)
That's a baseless generalization.
And I find it a bit offensive, dare I add.
I don't know where he is from, but in America discrimination against atheists is par for the course.
-
seven (I think S. Africa is Christian majority, actually) out of all these purple countries:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/46/Christian_world_map.png/800px-Christian_world_map.png)
The majority of Christians do not support gay rights.
And to put the one nonreligious country that allows gay marriage into context... there's only like ten countries in the world that even have a nonreligious majority.
If a majority of christians supported gay rights and sexual equality, we'd have gay rights and sexual equality in A MAJORITY OF christian majority countries.
fixt, ok? now the claim i made makes sense.
-
*snip*
Six countries out of how many Christian majority countries?
And only two non-Christian majority country. That's why he linked the stats. According to that, there are more Christian majority countries that allow same-sexmarraige than non-Christian majority countries. He was proving thatIf a majority of christians supported gay rights and sexual equality, we'd have gay rights and sexual equality in christian majority countries.
We do.
To be fair, maybe South Africa also has a Christian majority*. I checked, but there were a lot of religions and I felt too lazy to calculate. :p
My own country, Argentina (Roman Catholic majority, by a wide margin), is about to approve gay marriage. The bill has already passed the Chamber of Deputies with a comfortable margin, it's probably going to pass the Senate too, and president Cristina Kirchner is definitely not going to veto it, so as far as I care, it's quite probably a law already.
Besides, Christianity is only 33% of the population worldwide, not enough to justify the lack of gay marriage in almost every country in the world.
If a majority of christians supported gay rights and sexual equality, we'd have gay rights and sexual equality in A MAJORITY OF christian majority countries.
fixt, ok? now the claim i made makes sense.
Thank you.
*: Checked iamzack's post, and yes, South Africa actually has a Christian majority.
-
Besides, Christianity is only 33% of the population worldwide, not enough to justify the lack of gay marriage in almost every country in the world.
Islam makes up another 21% of the population. We already know how that majority feels about sexual equality.
-
How do you think it feels for a 10 year old to be told they are "going to go to hell" because they dont share your rediculous beliefs?
Well, if you are like me, first you were scared, then you felt guilty, maybe a little sad, or frustrated. Maybe now you ask to yourself if they really had to be so cruel.
When I was around 8, my mother, a nice, intelligent, adorable person, told me exactly the same when I complained about having to go to church. Because, lets face it, it's boring as hell, especially for a child. :lol:
These persons aren't trying to hurt you. In fact, they care about you and are trying to help you. The problem is, they are wrong. At least in Roman Catholicism, fullfilling a ritual is useless if it's void of any content. If you don't know why you are doing something and actually wish to do it, you can do all the rituals, and you're still going to hell. You have to live with faith inside, do with faith in your life, and do all the rituals. That's why I gave up long ago :p . Scaring childs is useless... no, it's actually counterproductive, because you associate negative feelings with something that's supposed to make you feel good.
So yes, I know how it feels. And I know they hurt you back then. And if someone from my religion did that, I apologize on their behalf.
I know it's hard, but do try to forget it, because it's ultimately hurting you, not them.
-
For the record; I don't actually think negatively of atheists (or any religion/lack of).
From what I've read in the last few pages of this thread, people seem to be grossly overgeneralizing religion in general. Crap generalizations work both ways. I was merely returning the favor.
-
For the record; I don't actually think negatively of atheists (or any religion/lack of).
From what I've read in the last few pages of this thread, people seem to be grossly overgeneralizing religion in general. Crap generalizations work both ways. I was merely returning the favor.
I concur with this sentiment.
-
For the record; I don't actually think negatively of atheists (or any religion/lack of).
Ok. ;)
From what I've read in the last few pages of this thread, people seem to be grossly overgeneralizing religion in general. Crap generalizations work both ways. I was merely returning the favor.
Don't do it. While I feel as irritated as you do with such generalizations, returning the favor is only going to make things worse.
They don't act that way because they intend to offend you, they probably just feel threatened and are acting out of a supposed need to defend themselves. You don't know what they have passed, or the motives behind their behaviour.
-
They don't act that way because they intend to offend you, they probably just feel threatened and are acting out of a supposed need to defend themselves. You don't know what they have passed, or the motives behind their behaviour.
The second sentence here indicates that you probably shouldn't have written the first.
But don't worry, I'm just trolling.
-
They don't act that way because they intend to offend you, they probably just feel threatened and are acting out of a supposed need to defend themselves. You don't know what they have passed, or the motives behind their behaviour.
The second sentence here indicates that you probably shouldn't have written the first.
I fail to see the contradiction, but maybe I redacted it wrong. Let me explain it: It's possible (note that I say possible, I'm not saying I know it for sure) that they act in the way they do because, as atheists, they have received a considerable amount of violence or discrimination from society, which in turn put them on a defensive mood. This is just speculation, based on my own personal experience in the other side of the fence, being a catholic frequently prejudged because of being so.
What I do affirm is that whatever happened to them, they weren't just born being atheists and acting the way they do, just like I wasn't born being catholic and acting the way I do. Our behaviour and ideologies are influenced by our memories and the things we have lived through, amongst other things, at least in my experience.
But don't worry, I'm just trolling.
I see you're offended. Let me put this clear: It was (and is) my opinion that your comment, either deliberately or not, was trolling. First of all, I'm not necessarily right. My word isn't the absolute truth, because I'm just another person. No more, no less. Second, I'm not saying that each and every one of those 203 posts were trolling (because, I assume you would have been banned long ago if that was the case). I'm not even saying a single one of those posts was trolling, apart from the one in the first page of this thread. You have to admit your intervention wasn't very tactful, as much as I have to admit I was unnecessarily blunt. In fact, I'm usually blunt even when trying to avoid it and sometimes without even realizing it. If I offended you in any way, I want you to know that it wasn't intentional, and I apologize.
-
It's not trolling if it isn't deliberate.
Also, FYI iamzack's a chick, not a dude.
-
It's not trolling if it isn't deliberate.
And it seemed deliberate to me.
Besides, I really don't understand why he cares so much about the opinion of some random stranger that's probably oceans away and that never spoke to him before. It's not like anybody ever listens to me around here anyway.
Also, FYI iamzack's a chick, not a dude.
Yes, I know that. Where did I said she was a man? It was probably a typo. :nervous:
-
:bump:
I learned something interesting!
Lead-up (skip this part if bored): I had just come up with this great idea, and was telling someone about it, and apparently Thomas Jefferson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson) beat me to it.
TL; DR version: My idea was basically that people should get out the scissors and cut out all the parts of the Bible they don't believe are literally true. Apparently, Thomas Jefferson already had that idea. Now that I'm writing this up, I've also gone and looked up the details; here's the Wikipedia article about Thomas Jefferson and Religion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson_and_religion).
So Yeah (conclusion): Let's see some scissors moving! Or text editors, seeing as we've got the technology for it.
-
This seems to be an idea that might have some merit to it. I don't know about cutting out part that one doesn't think are literally true, as they still have lessons in them, but the idea isn't a bad one.
Personally, I tend to ignore everything New Testament that didn't come from Jesus himself.
-
The Bible edited by River Tam
-
Okay, that passes. In that case, I will still shun all religious people until I know their beliefs well enough to determine that they are safe to interact with. That's instead of just shunning them forever and pretending they don't exist. :)
You are not being rational.
-
It's zack. That's expected.
-
I didn't say it was rational. I treat religious people like I treat strangers. I'm sure most of them don't have bombs strapped to their chests, but it's not worth it to me to find out.
-
I didn't say it was rational. I treat religious people like I treat strangers. I'm sure most of them don't have bombs strapped to their chests, but it's not worth it to me to find out.
You must be mighty weird to strangers, then. Since, y'know, everyone is a stranger at first.
-
That's an understatement.
-
people just need to filter out the folk tales. there are lots of these at the start of the old testament. many of which were most likely passed word of mouth generation to generation until someone who knew how to write (moses) wrote them down. while it may be a 4000+ year old theory of everything, and taking it as literal can be a very detrimental thing. then again they are full of allegorical tales, some of which are actually useful. it makes little since just to rip them out of the book. it seems it would make more since to shoot all the people who think they are facts in the ****ing head.
then you got the new testament which starts out as a bunch of low life jesus fanbois tell everyone how "cool" he is. i kinda look at that in the same light as the manson family, a mere cult of personality. many of the people who wrote the new testament where total quacks. depictions of john the baptist or whoever the **** that cricket eating mother ****er was that wrote revelation, was obviously insane. this in itself doesnt bother me. what bothers me is that the disciples that had the capacity for reason had their books conveniently removed from the canonization of the bible. you want a god damned source, watch all those bible documentaries on the ****ing history channel.
-
For the Old Testament, some of it may be made up of Jewish mythos/legends probably similar to Robin Hood/King Arthur or something.
For the Newer one, I think there are already too many evidences that it's almost impossible to disprove the existence of Christ. Also, Jesus preached an ideology contradicting that of the Jews, but would be more acceptable to modern us, there's nothing wrong with that.
-
my arguments were not about the existence of christ. historical records are everywhere about that. my questions revolved around the intentions of christ and the nature relationship between him and his his followers. my second argument is that some hundreds of years later why some of the disciples' books were canonized, and some left out. cult of personality is a good answer to the first, and the second, because the books seemed contradictory to the others, and those involved in canonization were trying to engineer a convincing religion (i have always considered this a means to preserve the collapsing roman empire) and couldnt have any books contrary to the existing canon.
-
Wow, I've never seen this side of Nuke before.
-
Sorry but considering how many "Jesuses" .... "Jesii?" there were before Jesus (Horus, Attis, Bacchus, Dionysus, Mithra, Krishna, Dumuzu, Zarathustra, Hercules, Buddha, Lao Zi, Karna (though he has more in common with Moses), Hell even Alexander the Great to a degree) You can't call him a historical fact :p Not based on accounts from the bible.
Most of the above were from virgin births on the 25th of december born in a manger, or cave almost all had been 'fortold' and quite a few had celestial events coinciding with their birth.
Of these, Jesus was the last.
Edit;
Half of them were crucified, buried and then resurrected 3 days later too btw.
The "Original" on this list, if there is truly an original for this, would probably be Dumuzu.
-
you left out charles manson
im sure each and every one of them were real people. real people who through their actions and ideas created a cult of personality around them. they were killed for being asshats in the eyes of the norm, and subsequently deified by their followers. it is a very common pattern. very similar to what happened to my favorite hippie.
-
There's quite a few more examples after Christ.... I left all of those out :p
-
since you posted before i finished my edit (i tend to go back and backup my asshat remarks with a reasoning behind it, some time after i post them), i will simply add that the existence of the religions, ledgends, and stories is enough evidence to show these people existed. it is entirely possible that they could have been faked, but why? whats the point? its more likely that the people did exist, and left it to their followers to embellish the story and jump to unlikely conclusions (things like immaculate conception, zombification, and that they are children of some deity).
-
I don't see the point of this thread. Is it really necessary to provoke people into arguments that are never going to end no matter what anybody says or what proof you show them. If a religious person believes that a supernatural power created the Earth and the universe only a few thousand years ago they are going to believe that for their entire lives. The person that believes in evolution and scientific research will say that the layers of the Earth and radiometric dating or whatever the technology is called proves that the Earth and the universe are millions of years old. A religious person will just respond back saying that the evidence you have is false and the technology that you used to find it is bogus and that the Bible is fact blah blah blah.
These sorts of arguments will go on and on and generalizations are created and people will complain about the generalization and so on and so forth. I say you should live with the beliefs that you have and love and let others believe what they believe.
I disagree with anti gay laws and abortion laws because of the separation of church and state. The only reason I see for these laws to come into being is because of a religious group trying to force itself onto other people and trying to get people to live by their rules and standards. The government has bigger and more important things to worry about and the USA at least is supposed to have freedom of speech, religion and all that. These anti-gay marriage laws are unconstitutional and should be repealed on the grounds that you are stomping on peoples freedom to make their own decisions and live their own lives. Religions should display their own beliefs, spread their message and preach all they want, but please for the sake of peace and love keep it out of our laws.
And to you non religious people (me included) stop trying to convince religious people that there is no god and that the Earth is millions of years old and there is scientific proof for this and that. Do not press your beliefs onto other people either. Let them believe what they want and do not complain when they do not listen to you. People are perfectly happy with their beliefs and if they are happy and they teach good lessons and there aren't genocidal killings and sacrifices life is good and there is no need to change anything. Keep the knowledge you gained with research to yourselves and make the best use out of it as you can. There is a lot you can learn from these studies and they should continue. I just want to get across the same message. DO NOT TRY TO FORCE OTHERS TO BELIEVE WHAT YOU BELIEVE.
This topic is only good for bringing out the worst in people and causing the never ending debate. Lets leave things well enough alone shall we?
Sorry for the long post... just want people to understand that the world will be a better place if people were more understanding of other peoples religions or beliefs. ;)
-
now your bringing politics into it and ruining the discussion. go vote or something and get out of the thread. i really dont care who is right or wrong and the earth can ****ing burn as far as i care.
-
now your bringing politics into it and ruining the discussion. go vote or something and get out of the thread.
:(
-
I watched a couple of videos featuring an Italian lecturer (I guess) claiming that the Bible is literally true. Using the original Bible, he came out with interesting stuff about the genesis of Eve: he claimed "rib" is a wrong translation of "half".
In poor words, God took half of Adam's cromosomes (X) and doubled them to create Eve, ergo the XX cromosomes females have.
-
I watched a couple of videos featuring an Italian lecturer (I guess) claiming that the Bible is literally true. Using the original Bible, he came out with interesting stuff about the genesis of Eve: he claimed "rib" is a wrong translation of "half".
In poor words, God took half of Adam's cromosomes (X) and doubled them to create Eve, ergo the XX cromosomes females have.
Did he say this all happened in six days?
-
I still have to watch that part. I have to admit, however, that the guy came out with interesting stuff.
EDIT: Here's (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ft8L6ydIUTg) the video about Adam's rib. The title means "Adam's rib: a wrong translation which has made the Bible look like a fable."
EDIT2: That linguist talks about a lot of things. At the beginning of that video, for example, he says that the Bible mentioned the great ocean Panthalassa and the continent Pangaea. Not with these names, of course.
-
That's the fun thing about the bible. You can cry "bad translation!" or "bad interpretation!" and make it mean whatever you want! I believe the bible is from space. That's my belief, and like Redstreblo said, it's wrong to outspokenly disagree with someone's belief!
-
I watched a couple of videos featuring an Italian lecturer (I guess) claiming that the Bible is literally true. Using the original Bible, he came out with interesting stuff about the genesis of Eve: he claimed "rib" is a wrong translation of "half".
In poor words, God took half of Adam's cromosomes (X) and doubled them to create Eve, ergo the XX cromosomes females have.
It's a funny story but it's kind of ****ed up by the fact that all human beings start out biologically female in the womb.
-
Just watch, in a few years, Adam is a mistranslation of Suzie.
-
I watched a couple of videos featuring an Italian lecturer (I guess) claiming that the Bible is literally true. Using the original Bible, he came out with interesting stuff about the genesis of Eve: he claimed "rib" is a wrong translation of "half".
In poor words, God took half of Adam's cromosomes (X) and doubled them to create Eve, ergo the XX cromosomes females have.
It's a funny story but it's kind of ****ed up by the fact that all human beings start out biologically female in the womb.
All vertebrate embryos are inherently female anyway. It takes an extra chromosome at the right developmental stage to create a male... Jurassic Park simply denies them that.
-
No nookie for dinos. :(
And Redstreblo, need I remind you, religious beliefs and an understanding of the proper geological age of the Earth are hardly mutually-exclusive tenets.
-
All vertebrate embryos are inherently female anyway. It takes an extra chromosome at the right developmental stage to create a male... Jurassic Park simply denies them that.
Certain amphibians and fish can change their sex well in their adult life.
This plays an important factor in Jurassic Park, actually. Perhaps you should re-read it...
-
All vertebrate embryos are inherently female anyway. It takes an extra chromosome at the right developmental stage to create a male... Jurassic Park simply denies them that.
Certain amphibians and fish can change their sex well in their adult life.
This plays an important factor in Jurassic Park, actually. Perhaps you should re-read it...
Dude, he was directly quoting a character from the book. :D
-
The old man, right?
-
Dude, he was directly quoting a character from the book. :D
I blame the Finnish translation of the book... :sigh:
[EDIT]: I find it ironic that problems caused by different translation would arise in this topic of all. :lol:
-
The old man, right?
Dr. Wu actually.
Certain amphibians and fish can change their sex well in their adult life.
Now, some West African frogs have been known to spontaneously change sex from male to female in a single-sex environment. Malcolm was right...life found a way!
/jurassicparknerd
-
Remember Nemo? The funny fish? He can change sex.
That's the fun thing about the bible. You can cry "bad translation!" or "bad interpretation!" and make it mean whatever you want! I believe the bible is from space. That's my belief, and like Redstreblo said, it's wrong to outspokenly disagree with someone's belief!
That's exactly what I would say but the original Bible seems to be a bit more accurate and built on better fundaments. It's expectable, though.
-
Same-sex marriage currently is legal in Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Canada, South Africa, Norway, Sweden and Portugal.
And, since yesterday:
Same-sex marriage currently is legal in Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Canada, South Africa, Norway, Sweden, Portugal, Iceland and Argentina.
Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage#Country-wide_recognition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage#Country-wide_recognition)
:D
-
Yeah, too bad Americans hate freedom.
-
Just watch, in a few years, Adam is a mistranslation of Suzie.
And little did they know, all along, it was actually Adam and Steve!
-
Ada and Eve ^^