Conquer Club

warmonger1981 wrote:[youtube]9mXvjK4c33w[/youtub

I watched that really, really hoping it was a hip-hop version of Statler Brothers "Do you remember these?" but updated to the 90s. Somebody needs to record that song.

DoomYoshi wrote:"Remember that" Martin Luther was dead 20 years before Galileo was born.

You're right. Luther's arguments were with Copernicus himself, whom he called a "fool", not the later Galileo.
I'll throw in the fact that John Calvin was expressing similar geocentric demands calling those who believed the earth moved "possessed by the devil."

So basically science is relative to our understandings. Sounds like an argument for God not against. Just because you don't understand God does not mean that there is no God. Just like that understanding science. Just because you don't understand it does that mean it does not exist. It sounds like an initiate into Freemasonry. If you are not able to understand you are not given an answer. Eyes for those to see and ears for those to hear.

warmonger1981 wrote:So basically science is relative to our understandings. Sounds like an argument for God not against. Just because you don't understand God does not mean that there is no God. Just like that understanding science. Just because you don't understand it does that mean it does not exist. It sounds like an initiate into Freemasonry. If you are not able to understand you are not given an answer. Eyes for those to see and ears for those to hear.

I really don't see belief in God as opposed to belief in science. It's opposed only when people put faith above reason. Take the KJV literalists, for example, or the Christian Scientists who eschew modern medicine like blood transfusion.

Always reminds me of the joke about the drowning man. A man is drowning. A lifeguard comes out, but the man says, "no, God will save me". A boat reaches him and offers help, but again, the man says "God will save me". A helicopter arrives to pull him out, and again the man refuses there help- "God will save me, I have faith".

The man drowns, and at St Peter's gate he demands to know why God didn't save him. "What do you mean?" says St Peter "We sent a lifeguard, a boat, and a helicopter..."

It's just a joke, obviously. but it does have a point.

This post was made by Symmetry who is currently on your ignore list. Display this post.

Imagine for a moment that the existence of the universe is itself sufficient evidence of god(s).
What additional evidence makes that the Christian god?

God calls all people. He's wants you. There is nothing he finds more interesting then you. He is very...repetitive...as his focus is always building a relationship with you.

If you want to find Him I would suggest silence. Quiet room with no distractions. If you are more bold Adoration.

warmonger1981 wrote:This post was made by Symmetry who is currently on your ignore list. Display this post.

Careful war, don't make me quote sym ...

On the other hand, I was going to quote him anyway ...

Symmetry wrote:I really don't see belief in God as opposed to belief in science. It's opposed only when people put faith above reason. Take the KJV literalists, for example, or the Christian Scientists who eschew modern medicine like blood transfusion.

The key should always be "faith" and "reason" together. (That having been said one can have incorrect faith and incorrect reason. The early arguments of Paul to the well educated Greeks sounded like a lot of nonsense to him, not because it was a violation of science but because it was a violation of the natural order of nature. They thought there was nothing good to come out of a crucifixion, just as many probably think there is no potential good to come out of the character assassination that the Democrats did to Kavanaugh. But this is a side issue as it really doesn't have to do with facts derived from the scientific method.)

Speaking of side issues, the Christian Scientists is a very interesting one. You have to look at it through Jewish origins and into Christian understandings. In the Torah, "blood" was associated with "life." This can be seen in various stories such as when Able's blood symbolically "cried" to God. The Torah doesn't come from a sushi culture so all food is effectively "dead." The division of life and death is an important theme in the Torah because Egypt was really big on the death thing. So let's refocus on the notion that blood is life. A blood transfer is effectively living blood to living blood, life to life, as opposed to taking blood, making blood pudding and eating it. It is a Christian ideal presented by Jesus himself that to "lay down his life for another" is a high and noble thing. So giving ones life (blood) to another (living blood still living in another) would be a perfect example of charity; not something to be avoided. And if giving is so noble, receiving is also noble.

Back to the original point. There are a lot of things in science we can only blindly speculate on because we cannot observe them directly (what goes on inside the event horizon of a black hole, and what might exist outside of the n dimensional space time we live in). The "logical" conclusion is to state that some things cannot be known. Indeed, this is a basic principle of quantum mechanics in that some things are an unknown set of probabilities until something interacts and "observes" that state. Using a purely scientific approach should yield to agnosticism in all cases where we really can't prove one thing or the other. Under such conditions there is nothing wrong with making a choice as long as it isn't mistaken for scientific fact. "Weak" atheism becomes a valid choice as well as assuming a deity because of faith.

jonesthecurl wrote:What additional evidence makes that the Christian god?

Well let's start off with the notion that the "Christian" god is derived from the god of the Torah. I would recommend your reading "The Rational Bible: Exodus" by Dennis Prager (Amazon link here) to get a better understanding of such an argument. (P.S. Genesis is coming out next year. I've already pre-ordered by copy.)

jonesthecurl wrote:Imagine for a moment that the existence of the universe is itself sufficient evidence of god(s).
What additional evidence makes that the Christian god?

The proof is in the pudding, not the cup. Natural Theology (proving God from the universe) doesn't work except to already committed theists. As C.S. Lewis wrote "I believe in Christianity as I believe the Sun has risen. Not because I see it, but because by it, I see everything else."

The Christian God isn't merely creator of the universe. That's a small aspect of what he did a long time ago. If creation was the great act, there would be no reason to obey the will of God. However, the Christian God is one that acts through history and in people's lives. I know the history evidence is disputed, which leaves us with one line of proof - people's lives. Jesus Christ transforms peoples lives.

So I would argue that faith in God doesn't come from the universe. It comes as a gift from God and through the Bible.

tzor wrote:

warmonger1981 wrote:This post was made by Symmetry who is currently on your ignore list. Display this post.

Careful war, don't make me quote sym ...

On the other hand, I was going to quote him anyway ...

Symmetry wrote:I really don't see belief in God as opposed to belief in science. It's opposed only when people put faith above reason. Take the KJV literalists, for example, or the Christian Scientists who eschew modern medicine like blood transfusion.

The key should always be "faith" and "reason" together. (That having been said one can have incorrect faith and incorrect reason. The early arguments of Paul to the well educated Greeks sounded like a lot of nonsense to him, not because it was a violation of science but because it was a violation of the natural order of nature. They thought there was nothing good to come out of a crucifixion, just as many probably think there is no potential good to come out of the character assassination that the Democrats did to Kavanaugh. But this is a side issue as it really doesn't have to do with facts derived from the scientific method.)

Speaking of side issues, the Christian Scientists is a very interesting one. You have to look at it through Jewish origins and into Christian understandings. In the Torah, "blood" was associated with "life." This can be seen in various stories such as when Able's blood symbolically "cried" to God. The Torah doesn't come from a sushi culture so all food is effectively "dead." The division of life and death is an important theme in the Torah because Egypt was really big on the death thing. So let's refocus on the notion that blood is life. A blood transfer is effectively living blood to living blood, life to life, as opposed to taking blood, making blood pudding and eating it. It is a Christian ideal presented by Jesus himself that to "lay down his life for another" is a high and noble thing. So giving ones life (blood) to another (living blood still living in another) would be a perfect example of charity; not something to be avoided. And if giving is so noble, receiving is also noble.

Back to the original point. There are a lot of things in science we can only blindly speculate on because we cannot observe them directly (what goes on inside the event horizon of a black hole, and what might exist outside of the n dimensional space time we live in). The "logical" conclusion is to state that some things cannot be known. Indeed, this is a basic principle of quantum mechanics in that some things are an unknown set of probabilities until something interacts and "observes" that state. Using a purely scientific approach should yield to agnosticism in all cases where we really can't prove one thing or the other. Under such conditions there is nothing wrong with making a choice as long as it isn't mistaken for scientific fact. "Weak" atheism becomes a valid choice as well as assuming a deity because of faith.

Well that was a strange post, for all kinda reasons. The equating of Kavanaugh to Christ; the black pudding comparison to blood transfusion; not even sure what you meant by "sushi culture"... I think you threw black holes and quantum mechanics in towards the end.

Weird all round.

I wish people on both sides would give it a break with Kavanaugh. He isn't an evil person, but he isn't a saint/matyr either. The theatrics of all this is just a big distraction. He was righteously indignant during his time before the senate, and that is not a noble position to take imo. The system is doing what it should, even if it's disgusting to some people. If it's bad for the country than both sides need to look in the mirror a bit.

Symmetry wrote:Well that was a strange post, for all kinda reasons. The equating of Kavanaugh to Christ; the black pudding comparison to blood transfusion; not even sure what you meant by "sushi culture"... I think you threw black holes and quantum mechanics in towards the end.

Sushi culture, you eat your prey while it is still mostly alive. Fresh sushi is literally you get the fist off of the line, cut it up and eat it on the spot.
Raw oysters comes to mind as well, they are still living when you eat them.

Everything else is eating dead cells.

tzor wrote:

DoomYoshi wrote:"Remember that" Martin Luther was dead 20 years before Galileo was born.

You're right. Luther's arguments were with Copernicus himself, whom he called a "fool", not the later Galileo.
I'll throw in the fact that John Calvin was expressing similar geocentric demands calling those who believed the earth moved "possessed by the devil."

What the heck, I'm bored, let's scrap.

There is a long distance between calling someone a fool and wanting them burned alive at the stake. Can you find proof of your earlier statement or are you in full retreat mode?

Also, while Calvin did believe in geocentric solar system (like most people at the time), he, along with Origen, came up with the doctrine of accommodation which explains how scripture could be misinterpreted. Since both of those men were declared heretics by the harlot of the 8th hill, I'm not sure you are allowed to use that particular doctrine. How then do you explain why Joshua X says the sun stopped moving?

It's pretty rich to slam a guy whose ideas led to the creation of the Royal Society as anti-scientific. Calvin specifically said people should study both astronomy and medicine so they could see the wise hand of God in creation. Even Newton gave a shout out to Calvin who inspired him to view the universe as a "theater of the glory of God".

DoomYoshi wrote:There is a long distance between calling someone a fool and wanting them burned alive at the stake. Can you find proof of your earlier statement or are you in full retreat mode?

No, I'm not in retreat. I'm just back peddling until one of my wide receivers becomes open so I can throw the Hail Mary pass.

Here is one source, Catholic American Thinker

As an interesting side note, both Luther and Calvin publicly condemned Galileo outright as a heretic, and would have had him burned at the stake if they could have gotten their hands on him.

Yes I know it's a grand interception but you did ask for proof of the earlier statement. I don'r think that was the web page I saw several years ago but it was something similar that I can't search for at the moment.

Once again with the Galileo. He was three months old when John Calvin died. I didn't think John Calvin was in the burning babies business. Luther's condemnation of Copernicus came at a dinner party and Calvin's came from a sermon on second corinthians. Both were "off-hand" comments, not defended propositions and certainly not key ideas for either man (moreso for Luther, but definitely not for Calvin).

It's that type of cherry picking minute comments from a couple voluminous church fathers that I expect from Catholics.

What is ultimately totally idiotic about your argument is that Luther never said to burn anyone at the stake (Calvin was a bit more strict, and did order Servetus burnt). There's a pretty good saying for understanding the first century of the Reformation on the mainland "Protestants burn libraries, Catholics burn people". This wasn't true in England, or in New England, but it's a pretty decent rule of thumb.

Here are some fun quotes about Martin Luther. You get bonus points if you can guess who said them.

I think that Martin Luther’s intentions were not mistaken; he was a reformer. Perhaps some of his methods were not right, although at that time, if you read Pastor’s history, for example – Pastor was a German Lutheran who experienced a conversion when he studied the facts of that period; he became a Catholic – we see that the Church was not exactly a model to emulate. There was corruption and worldliness in the Church; there was attachment to money and power. That was the basis of his protest. He was also intelligent, and he went ahead, justifying his reasons for it.

Nowadays, Lutherans and Catholics, and all Protestants, are in agreement on the doctrine of justification: on this very important point he was not mistaken. He offered a “remedy” for the Church, and then this remedy rigidified in a state of affairs, a discipline, a way of believing, a way of acting, a mode of liturgy. But there was not only Luther: there was Zwingli, there was Calvin … And behind them? The princes, “cuius regio eius religio”. We have to place ourselves in the context of the times. It is a history that is not easy to understand, not easy …

Then things moved on. Today, the dialogue is very good and I believe that the document on justification is one of the richest ecumenical documents, one of the richest and most profound. Right? There are divisions but they also depend on the churches

To be just means simply to be with Christ and in Christ. And this suffices. Other observances are no longer necessary.

That is why Luther’s expression “sola fide” is true if faith is not opposed to charity, to love. Faith is to look at Christ, to entrust oneself to Christ, to be united to Christ, to be conformed to Christ, to his life. And the form, the life of Christ, is love; hence, to believe is to be conformed to Christ and to enter into his love. That is why, in the Letter to the Galatians, St. Paul develops above all his doctrine on justification; he speaks of faith that operates through charity.

tzor wrote:

Symmetry wrote:Well that was a strange post, for all kinda reasons. The equating of Kavanaugh to Christ; the black pudding comparison to blood transfusion; not even sure what you meant by "sushi culture"... I think you threw black holes and quantum mechanics in towards the end.

Sushi culture, you eat your prey while it is still mostly alive. Fresh sushi is literally you get the fist off of the line, cut it up and eat it on the spot.
Raw oysters comes to mind as well, they are still living when you eat them.

Everything else is eating dead cells.

Nope- sushi is basically (very basically, mind you), specially prepared rice plus something else, usually raw seafood, but not live. Fisting a fish off a line is probably a weird sex dream that you had.

Symmetry wrote:Nope- sushi is basically (very basically, mind you), specially prepared rice plus something else, usually raw seafood, but not live. Fisting a fish off a line is probably a weird sex dream that you had.

In the "vulgar" American tongue sashimi is often called sushi. (Even Wikipedia points this out.) Sushi itself stands for the special rice and comes from the term "sour tasting." Technically the term itself is a lazy ass term as the variety of ways you can combine the ingredients (mostly seafood) each have their own names.

Never the less, since the requirement is fresh and nothing is as fresh as right on the boat, here is an example from Japan of fresh sashimi from the boat ...



And here are some Armenians

Those look delicious, but, sorry, still sashimi, and not "sushi culture", and not really your previous definition either.

What the everloving f*ck is going on in here.

Neoteny wrote:What the everloving f*ck is going on in here.

Tbh, I'm confused too. Looks like some weird backtracking on Tzor's part. No idea what he was trying to say in the first place with his terrible example.

Neoteny wrote:What the everloving f*ck is going on in here.

Apparently raw fish is a metaphor for god.

Something about Greek anagrams, I believe. Or something like that.

I know everyone was sitting around waiting for the answers. Person A is Pope Francis the current; and person B is Pope Benedict XVI.

Symmetry wrote:

warmonger1981 wrote:So basically science is relative to our understandings. Sounds like an argument for God not against. Just because you don't understand God does not mean that there is no God. Just like that understanding science. Just because you don't understand it does that mean it does not exist. It sounds like an initiate into Freemasonry. If you are not able to understand you are not given an answer. Eyes for those to see and ears for those to hear.

I really don't see belief in God as opposed to belief in science. It's opposed only when people put faith above reason. Take the KJV literalists, for example, or the Christian Scientists who eschew modern medicine like blood transfusion.

Always reminds me of the joke about the drowning man. A man is drowning. A lifeguard comes out, but the man says, "no, God will save me". A boat reaches him and offers help, but again, the man says "God will save me". A helicopter arrives to pull him out, and again the man refuses there help- "God will save me, I have faith".

The man drowns, and at St Peter's gate he demands to know why God didn't save him. "What do you mean?" says St Peter "We sent a lifeguard, a boat, and a helicopter..."

It's just a joke, obviously. but it does have a point.

KJV literalists?

Do tell how they fit in with the Christian Scientists.