Molok wrote:Slightly off topic but the writing style for these articles reminds me of Darrick.
I don't see the similarities. The overuse of bold and italics is really annoying, though, and there's a weird condescending tone to all of it. Well, I guess those are sort of Darrick-like.
Bible literalists make me laugh. I suppose it's because they appear to want to be taken seriously, and if there's any group that's most difficult with, it's them. In their quest to not be laughed at for their beliefs, they make me laugh at them.
Nothing quite screams "I have nothing valuable to say" like admitting you think the Bible represents actual history.
God belief is for people who don't want to live life on the universe's terms.
This has to be my favorite article by far. Most people would think proving a young earth is a hard enough task. This guy isn't content to rest on his laurels though, he has to prove that dragons existed too!
Oh, dear. This is what I mean by hyperliteral. Apparently, some people do not understand metaphor.
Metaphor, context of biblical passages, wild speculation is a poor substitute for actual research, these are a few of the things some people can be ignorant of. But, even so, I have to give credit to these people for their creativity. I'm pretty sure a dinosaur igniting methane gas by clicking its teeth, or the idea that dinosaurs became extinct due to over hunting by men is something I couldn't have thought up if I had tried.
Molok wrote:Slightly off topic but the writing style for these articles reminds me of Darrick.
I don't see the similarities. The overuse of bold and italics is really annoying, though, and there's a weird condescending tone to all of it. Well, I guess those are sort of Darrick-like.
That and the whole website reads like one of those infomercials on television. Every other sentence has to end with an exclamation mark.
Some Schmo wrote:Bible literalists make me laugh. I suppose it's because they appear to want to be taken seriously, and if there's any group that's most difficult with, it's them. In their quest to not be laughed at for their beliefs, they make me laugh at them.
Ok schmo, who is harder for you to take seriously: Bible Literalists, or Cryptozoologists?
Some Schmo wrote: Nothing quite screams "I have nothing valuable to say" like admitting you think the Bible represents actual history.
(Nothing valuable to say)
Silly Ceeboo... I already know you don't expect anyone to take you seriously. You weren't the kind of person I was talking about.
Bible literalists with a clear sense of humor (about everything, including their beliefs) are a completely different animal (and pretty rare, I imagine).
God belief is for people who don't want to live life on the universe's terms.
just me wrote:That doesn't mean that time existed. Time is a measurement that we use on Earth. Many believe that eternity, where God is, is outside of space and time.
We must be thinking of time differently then. If there is a before light, even something explicitly happened before light, then we know something was measured in time.
I don't get the outside of space and time thing...
Love ya tons, Stem
I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
stemelbow wrote:I don't get the outside of space and time thing...
Ironically, as far as both science and religion go, both space and time are seen as relative.
What is the literal interpretation of the term 'eternal'? Does it mean "with out end or beginning", which would include a measurement of time, in this case an infinite measurement, or does it mean out side of time entirely where time does not take place?
"Any over-ritualized religion since the dawn of time can make its priests say yes, we know, it is rotten, and hard luck, but just do as we say, keep at the ritual, stick it out, give us your money and you'll end up with the angels in heaven for evermore."