Ken Ham's Opening Day at the Ark. #FAIL only 4000 show up. (suicide, celebrities)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Hi Jeffbase40. I thought I asked my question in a respectful manner, but you didn't respond to it. What I was wondering, is, if you would change your mind on issues if facts are presented to you, or would facts not matter if they challenge your firmly felt belief?
I think most rational people would feel challenged if the facts they are given contradict their long held beliefs on a subject, but at some point, a rational person would have to look at those facts, and adapt their belief, if the facts do not back up their belief.
I think the worst thing to do is to try and justify the belief in face of facts. That just leads to false beliefs, don't you think? How do you feel about this?
What is the big deal? You guys do know that the rainbow was the symbol of the covenant, right? Why WOULDN'T a Christian venue use a biblical symbol? Peace
It's not the use of the symbol, it's the idea that Ham is somehow 'reclaiming' a symbol that was never stolen in the first place.
Personally, I think that God would be pleased that after two thousand years, His rainbow is still being used to represent tolerance, understanding and kindness. I mean, He sacrificed His son for those principles, didn't He?
What civilizations? The earliest writings we have come from, nope not South America, nope not China, nope not Australia, but from the cradle of civilization, Mesopotamia. And wow, that just happens to be the exact region that the Genesis account is centered around. What are the odds of that, huh?
At any rate, I am not going to get sucked into another proving Noah debate. That topic has been beat to death and it's a waste of time and energy. As for Rafius, I guess I need to make another PSA that as I stated months ago, I will never respond to his posts ever again. That level of garbage mockery only produces rotten fruit.
Okay, then I will leave it at this.... Don't worry about all the civilizations that were around at the time of the supposed flood. Just leave them out, okay? What about the fact that there is no proof of such a thing? Did the kangaroos hop from Mt. Ararat to Australia, picking up their bones along the way? God teleport them there? What about the fact that the whole of archaeology and geology, and a bunch of other "ology's" can find no proof of it?
You can continue to bask in the ignorance of believing in a literal ark if you want to Jeff, that's your call. The rest of us will move on to things based in reality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
Sorry but saying it after the fact just to prove me wrong doesn't count. If you had praised Christians before I made my statement, I would have respected it a bit more. In fact your statement was nothing more than a thinly disguised criticism of Christians.
Saying what after the fact, Jeff? That there are Christians I respect? Why would it matter when I said it? There are many Christians and believers of other religions I respect. You know why? Because they treat others with respect, unlike you and your fundamentalist brethren, who treat others like garbage.
Point is, Jeff, I have no problem at all with Christians. None. Zip. Zero. Zilch. I have a problem with those who act like you. Those who think they are better than everyone else. Those who think they should be able to legislate the lives of others based off of their ancient religion. In other words, fundamentalists, NOT Christians.
It's not the use of the symbol, it's the idea that Ham is somehow 'reclaiming' a symbol that was never stolen in the first place.
Personally, I think that God would be pleased that after two thousand years, His rainbow is still being used to represent tolerance, understanding and kindness. I mean, He sacrificed His son for those principles, didn't He?
No, according to the story, he sacrificed his son to provide a loophole for the rules he made. Substitutional redemption is never honorable.
It's not the use of the symbol, it's the idea that Ham is somehow 'reclaiming' a symbol that was never stolen in the first place.
Personally, I think that God would be pleased that after two thousand years, His rainbow is still being used to represent tolerance, understanding and kindness. I mean, He sacrificed His son for those principles, didn't He?
Again, so WHAT? It's a rainbow. Should we be upset because My Little Pony used a rainbow on their toys? I don't care if they plaster one on every one of their behinds with a tattoo, it's not going to change what G-D intended for it to mean. I just think it's an absurd thing to get worked up over. Got rainbow? Peace
Just wondering. Do facts change your mind or not? My perception is that facts are facts, no matter where they come from. Of course I will be more skeptical if they are laid out in somebodies blog post, as oppose to say, the New England Journal of Medicine, but provable facts should impact your perception.
Even if they came from atheists.
IMO, there are not many things that can be called 100% fact. A fact should never alter and should always be true. To not accept it is to deny reality. You could say it's a fact that if you stub your toe against the door frame, it will really hurt. Not always true. I could have nerve damage in the toe and it doesn't hurt.
Now if someone like an atheist tells me that it is a fact that Christian fundamentalism is dying based on subjective evidence then I won't accept that claim at face value.
IMO, there are not many things that can be called 100% fact. A fact should never alter and should always be true. To not accept it is to deny reality. You could say it's a fact that if you stub your toe against the door frame, it will really hurt. Not always true. I could have nerve damage in the toe and it doesn't hurt.
Now if someone like an atheist tells me that it is a fact that Christian fundamentalism is dying based on subjective evidence then I won't accept that claim at face value.
In other words, no, facts won't change your mind. At least you are honest.... about this one thing.
IMO, there are not many things that can be called 100% fact. A fact should never alter and should always be true. To not accept it is to deny reality. You could say it's a fact that if you stub your toe against the door frame, it will really hurt. Not always true. I could have nerve damage in the toe and it doesn't hurt.
Now if someone like an atheist tells me that it is a fact that Christian fundamentalism is dying based on subjective evidence then I won't accept that claim at face value.
Particularly since the term, "Christian fundamentalism" is subject to review in itself. No one can decide what a Christian IS, for one thing, even though the Word is plain on the defining factor, yet millions call themselves Christian, have poll takers convinced they are, yet they never acquiesced to the defining factor in the first place. So the whole premise is flawed from the GET GO, that the poll takers can ACCURATELY define ANYTHING. Peace
Saying what after the fact, Jeff? That there are Christians I respect? Why would it matter when I said it? There are many Christians and believers of other religions I respect. You know why? Because they treat others with respect, unlike you and your fundamentalist brethren, who treat others like garbage.
Point is, Jeff, I have no problem at all with Christians. None. Zip. Zero. Zilch. I have a problem with those who act like you. Those who think they are better than everyone else. Those who think they should be able to legislate the lives of others based off of their ancient religion. In other words, fundamentalists, NOT Christians.
Bingo.
Although you refuse to accept or acknowledge it, Jeff, very few of us have any problem with Christianity or Christians. What offends us is your conduct. To be quite honest, I find a lot of your behavior boorish, ignorant, and disrespectful, but I know that you are not your religion.
Sixteen years ago, a handful of men following what they thought was a religious edict caused the single worst peacetime attack in US history. Three thousand people lost their lives, because of unquestioning obedience to misinterpreted religious dogma.
That is what we're angry about: the mindset that causes someone to denigrate another because they don't Believe. The self-indulgent attitude that makes someone think that, because they don't believe, you can treat them like dirt. The utter lack of respect for the sanctity of human life, because hey -- hate is 'okay' if it's holy, right?
Frankly, if a religion requires that I discard common decency in order to obey its edicts, I want no part of it. That's not what Jesus taught, it's not what God wanted, and it's not an attitude I will ever embrace.
So, yes, Jeff. We dislike what fundamentalism represents, because we've seen first-hand the damage it's done, and we have no desire whatsoever to see it again.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why WOULDN'T a Christian venue use a biblical symbol? Peace
Peace