Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

The Origin of Life/Evolution?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

    Originally posted by Will Galen View Post
    You are mistaken. The Bible shows the angels shouting in applause as God was creating the earth. So they obviously had to have been created before the earth. (Job the 38th chapter)
    I'm sorry, science hasn't determined when the Angels were created....the bible is obviously way ahead of us on mythical creatures.

    In what order were the dragons and unicorns created?
    Last edited by Kstat; 05-15-2013, 07:40 PM.

    It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

    Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
    Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
    NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

    Comment


    • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

      Originally posted by Kstat View Post

      By the way, it also says the earth was created before anything else, which is laughable.
      Originally posted by Will Galen View Post
      You are mistaken. The Bible shows the angels shouting in applause as God was creating the earth. So they obviously had to have been created before the earth. (Job the 38th chapter)
      Originally posted by Kstat View Post
      I'm sorry, science hasn't determined when the Angels were created....the bible is obviously way ahead of us on mythical creatures.

      In what order were the dragons and unicorns created?
      Ahem, you said the Bible said the earth was created before anything else.

      I objected and showed that the Bible actually shows the angels were created before the earth.

      Since the subject was what the Bible says about creation, science doesn't enter into it. Whether the Angels are mythical or not doesn't alter the fact the Bible shows they were created before the earth.

      Please check your facts from now on.

      Comment


      • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

        Originally posted by Kstat View Post
        Oh come on now....what are the odds Moses could have gotten so many things wrong? What are the odds, like 82373611 to 1? He must have been getting his misinformation from somewhere...
        Ah Kstat . . . for your information Moses didn't write all those things.

        Comment


        • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

          Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
          So you are telling me that...


          [1] the Earth really is flat,


          [2] the earth really is at the center of the universe,


          [3] the sky (firmament) forms a "roof" over the world,


          [4] everything in the universe has existed for something like 6-10,000 years,


          [5] bats are birds.


          [6] Unicorns are real,


          [7] dragons (fiery serpents) are real,


          [8] giants were real,


          [9] rabbits chew their cud and are thus unclean,


          [10] All of the animals boarded the ark “in the selfsame day” (Genesis 7:13-14). Since there were several million species involved, they must have boarded at a rate of at least 100 animals per second! onto that 450 foot long boat!,


          [11] birds and whales appeared before reptiles and insects,


          [12] flowering plants appeared before any animals (plants thrived even before the sun existed!),


          [13] Adam personally named several million species (that must have taken awhile, even just for the 500,000 species of beetles!),


          [14] you can rid your house of leprosy by sacrificing a certain bird and dripping its blood on your house,


          [15] you can easily tell if a woman is an adultress: The priest should take holy water in a vessel, take dust from the floor, and put it into the vessel - And that is the bitter water ‘And after cursing it, give it to the woman And if the woman has committed adultery, after she drinks it, the curse will enter her body, the stomach will swell, the thigh will rot, and she shall be cursed by the people. If the woman has not committed adultery, she will remain clean and she will bear the seed,


          [16] and the Earth was formed before the Sun, but depending entirely on what part you chose to believe: The Bible says in Genesis Ch. No. 1 Verses No. 3 and 5,…‘Light was created on the first day.’ Genesis, Ch., 1 Verses, 14 to 19… ‘The cause of light - stars and the sun, etc. was created on the fourth day’. How can the cause of light be created on the 4th day - later than the light which came into existence on the first day?


          What I said was the Bible is not a science textbook, however it’s simple narrative is always scientifically correct. You then gave me a list of items that you apparently believe prove the Bible narrative false. I’ve numbered your list for convenience, so it will be easier to talk about.

          I’ve been interested in the Bible and what it says since I was about 5 years old. (I’m 69) Along the way I’ve collected over 20 hard copies of various English translations of the Bible, along with Bible dictionary’s, concordances, interlinear translations, maps, indexes, etc. So I know a lot about what the Bible says and about what it doesn’t say.

          Nowadays the Internet makes information on a given subject easier to find, but that’s a two edged sword. You have to know your subject to be able to separate the truth from the flack. Most people don’t know what the Bible says so they have no idea if what someone, or some site says about the Bible is true or not, yet they repeat it.

          Your’s is a typical Internet list.

          [1] the Earth really is flat.
          Strong’s exhaustive concordance of the Bible shows the word flat appearing in the King James Bible exactly 4 times. None of those 4 scriptures say the earth is flat.


          Having answered a similar list of questions about the Bible, I believe you are referring to Revelation 7:1. Which says, “After this I saw four angels standing upon the four corners of the earth, holding tight the four winds of the earth, that no wind might blow upon the earth or upon the sea or upon any tree.


          Their understanding was that if the earth had four corners it would have to be flat. However, I heard that phrase growing up and all it means is the whole earth. Goggling it brings up several sites that confirm what I’ve just related.


          http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/...s+of+the+earth
          The four corners of the earth/world. Every part of the world. Example; Wedding guests arrived from the four corners of the world.


          [2] the earth really is at the center of the universe.
          I have no idea what you are talking about. I'll need to know the chapter and verse where it says this.


          [3] the sky (firmament) forms a "roof" over the world.
          This one I believe I've researched before but I don't remember what scripture was being referenced, so I need chapter and verse again.


          [4] everything in the universe has existed for something like 6-10,000 years
          How is the Bible scientifically wrong about this when nowhere does the Bible even mention the age of the universe? This is the belief of certain religions that believe the days of creation were all 24 hours long, however the Bible actually shows the days, or creative periods, were much longer.


          [5] bats are birds.
          This is one I recently looked into. The Bible books of Leviticus and Deuteronomy both give lists of clean and unclean things the Israelites could eat, or were prohibited from eating.

          The King James translation of the Bible at Leviticus 11:13-19 says, “ And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray, 14 And the vulture, and the kite after his kind; 15 Every raven after his kind; 16 And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind, 17 And the little owl, and the cormorant, and the great owl, 18 And the swan, and the pelican, and the gier eagle, 19 And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.

          Other Bible translations instead of using the word fowls use the word birds. The (CJB) Bible says this at verse 13, “The following creatures of the air are to be detestable for you — they are not to be eaten, they are a detestable thing: the eagle, the vulture, the osprey . . . “ It too lists the bat last.

          The Voice translation of the Bible says at verse 13, Also among the creatures of the air, there are some you should detest as well. Do not eat the eagle, the bearded vulture, or the black vulture, . . .etc. It too lists the bat last.

          The New World translation of the Bible says at verse 13, “And these are what you will loath among the flying creatures . . .” It then goes on to list the same birds as the other Bibles as well as listing the bat last.

          What does the original Hebrew language say? Well I went to an internet site that has a Hebrew interlinear translation. http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineI...brew_Index.htm

          An interlinear translation of the Bible gives the original text of the Bible, the Hebrew word, and in this case the English word.

          The Hebrew says this, “and all these you-shall-abominate from the flyer not they-shall-be-eaten”

          Notice the original text uses the word flyer. Meaning flying creatures, not necessarily birds/fowls.

          So instead of the Bible listing bats as birds the Bible is actually listing flying creatures that are not to be eaten.


          [6] Unicorns are real.
          Nine times the Scriptures refer to an animal by the Hebrew term reʼem. Translators were uncertain as to what animal was meant.

          Most scholars believe the image of the unicorn was derived from hearsay European accounts of the rhinoceros.” (The World Book Encyclopedia) Thus the King James, Douay, and other Bible translations translated re’em as unicorn.

          The New Encyclopædia Britannica explains: “Certain poetical passages of the Old Testament refer to a strong and splendid horned animal called reʼem. This word is translated ‘unicorn’ or ‘rhinoceros’ in many versions, but modern translations prefer ‘wild ox’, which is the correct meaning of the Hebrew reʼem.”

          So the original language scriptures of the Bible don’t say there are unicorns. It’s apparently just some Bible translators that guessed this was the hearsay animal and guessed wrong. One early Bible translator when not knowing what animal the word re’em referred to just didn’t translate the word, leaving it saying re’em. That’s way better than guessing.


          I’ll comment on the rest later.

          Comment


          • The bible is not a science textbook and should be ignored...unless there's something in there that makes sense, and then it's coming straight from god.

            The bible is always scientifically correct....unless it isn't, and then we stretch excuses from here to the moon.

            This is what we call "rainmaking."

            It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

            Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
            Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
            NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

            Comment


            • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

              According to the Bible, the proper punishment for a rapist is to 1) require him to marry the girl that he raped, and 2) require him to make a payment in silver to her father.

              Both of these punishments only apply if she was a virgin. Presumably if she were not a virgin at the time of the rape then a much lesser penalty would apply.

              Does that seem right? Is that what you want to happen in the Cleveland rapist-kidnapper case?

              Personally, while I think the Bible has some wonderful stories and good moral messages, I am not blinded to the fact that it is a collection of tales written by at least partially flawed men who got a lot of the details very very wrong, scientific and otherwise. That doesn't make them bad people, bad writers, or make the entire collection worthless, it merely shows that the writers were flawed, like all humans that ever lived have been.
              Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 05-16-2013, 09:28 AM.
              The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

              Comment


              • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                I've had similar conversations before. When God kills innocent people/children, it's okay because it was God's will. Apparently.

                Comment


                • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                  Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                  The bible is not a science textbook and should be ignored...unless there's something in there that makes sense, and then it's coming straight from god.
                  The bible is always scientifically correct....unless it isn't, and then we stretch excuses from here to the moon.
                  This is what we call "rainmaking."
                  Where did you get your definition of rainmaking?

                  That aside, you've made your opinion quite clear, that the Bible should be ignored, it doesn't make sense, etc.

                  However, I've given evidence that it does make sense when it's narrative is presented correctly. For example, how many people reading this thread knew the creation account only makes sense when it's known the writer Moses was writing the account from the position of an observer on the surface of the earth?

                  However, instead of admitting what I've presented has any validly, you keep repeating your refrain the Bible should be ignored.

                  My question is why should people ignore the Bible just because others that don't read it, and thus don't understand it, berate it?

                  I have read it and I do read it, and I very much believe it! I’ve read most of the disparaging things said about the Bible and I still believe it. Why? Because I actually research what is being said.

                  Why is the Bible so universally panned nowadays? Several reasons, one being that instead of reading the Bible and seeing what it says for themselves people often go to the Internet to check things out. However, does the Internet give a balanced view of anything?

                  Site’s that disparage the Bible give lists like the one presented in this thread, but do they remove things from their lists when proven not true? I’ll give you an example. One guy didn’t believe the Bible’s account because the Israelites carried an ark across a river. He thought the Bible account was talking about Noah's Ark, not knowing that what was actually carried was the Ark of the covenant, a small chest containing the ten commandments. If they would actually remove such nonsense, their list of complaints would quickly diminish.

                  How about religious sites on the Internet? Good luck with that! Wikipedia says there are over 41,000 Christian denominations. The Bible shows Christ Jesus started (1) one. The only way you can make your way though that mess is to know what the Bible actually says. So again it comes down to actually reading the Bible. Then when you come to something you don’t understand you need to research the subject.

                  You might reply, why read the Bible, who cares how we got here, we’re here?

                  I could give many reasons, but the Bible says God is willing to give everlasting life to those who put faith in him. You show that faith by reading what the Bible says to do and then apply it in your life.

                  There’s more, but one of the basics is just being caring/nice/good to other people.
                  Is that hard to do?

                  Comment


                  • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                    Originally posted by Will Galen View Post
                    Where did you get your definition of rainmaking?

                    That aside, you've made your opinion quite clear, that the Bible should be ignored, it doesn't make sense, etc.

                    However, I've given evidence that it does make sense when it's narrative is presented correctly. For example, how many people reading this thread knew the creation account only makes sense when it's known the writer Moses was writing the account from the position of an observer on the surface of the earth?

                    However, instead of admitting what I've presented has any validly, you keep repeating your refrain the Bible should be ignored.

                    My question is why should people ignore the Bible just because others that don't read it, and thus don't understand it, berate it?

                    I have read it and I do read it, and I very much believe it! I’ve read most of the disparaging things said about the Bible and I still believe it. Why? Because I actually research what is being said.

                    Why is the Bible so universally panned nowadays? Several reasons, one being that instead of reading the Bible and seeing what it says for themselves people often go to the Internet to check things out. However, does the Internet give a balanced view of anything?

                    Site’s that disparage the Bible give lists like the one presented in this thread, but do they remove things from their lists when proven not true? I’ll give you an example. One guy didn’t believe the Bible’s account because the Israelites carried an ark across a river. He thought the Bible account was talking about Noah's Ark, not knowing that what was actually carried was the Ark of the covenant, a small chest containing the ten commandments. If they would actually remove such nonsense, their list of complaints would quickly diminish.

                    How about religious sites on the Internet? Good luck with that! Wikipedia says there are over 41,000 Christian denominations. The Bible shows Christ Jesus started (1) one. The only way you can make your way though that mess is to know what the Bible actually says. So again it comes down to actually reading the Bible. Then when you come to something you don’t understand you need to research the subject.

                    You might reply, why read the Bible, who cares how we got here, we’re here?

                    I could give many reasons, but the Bible says God is willing to give everlasting life to those who put faith in him. You show that faith by reading what the Bible says to do and then apply it in your life.

                    There’s more, but one of the basics is just being caring/nice/good to other people.
                    Is that hard to do?

                    It is impossible to argue with a religious or a sports fanatic. The Bible is written so that it can be interpreted in many ways. Much of what it says was based on earlier religions. Yes, this book is accurate all right. Would you rather believe in scientific facts or that a man was the son of God, died and rose from the dead in three days. Yeah, like that really happened. There is more violence and sexual depravity in the Bible than any other book I know. If it were written today, people would want to ban children from reading it. How about Lot being seduced by his daughters after his wife was turned to a pillar of salt. Why don't any of these things happen any more? There is no science in the Bible and just about everything is wrong. But you can bend the ambiguous writing to say about anything you want.

                    Comment


                    • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                      I have certainly never said that the Bible should be ignored or that it doesn't make any sense. I think it has many fine examples on how to live a good life.

                      I am absolutely saying that every word and every statement within it should not be taken as scientific fact.

                      It should be recognized as at least a partially flawed recounting of history and life as they knew it, that was written by many men, people who felt they were divinely inspired but that had limited educations by modern standards and were subject to views that reflected the prejudices of the day. These prejudices included, among many other things for many of the authors, an attitude that women were inherently inferior beings, that slavery was not an inherently evil institution, and that one should accept legends and superstition, without question, as the best means of explaining the natural world rather than to apply what we now call the scientific method.

                      The belief in an infallible Bible that someone can interpret with 100% precision has long been justified to condemn or "reign in" the musings of Copernicus, Gallileo, da Vinci, Newton, and others. It's been used to justify slavery, to keep women from voting, to keep blacks from marrying whites, to keep gays from marrying, and so on. The infallible word interpreted with 100% precision then seems to be interpreted completely differently at some point, when people come to grips with the prejudices of their society.
                      Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 05-16-2013, 02:28 PM.
                      The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

                      Comment


                      • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                        Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                        I've had similar conversations before. When God kills innocent people/children, it's okay because it was God's will. Apparently.
                        God promised to give Abraham’s seed, the land “from the river of Egypt to . . . the river Euphrates.”

                        While the Israelites were in Egypt other peoples moved into this promised land. People that served other God's and sacrificed their own children. Rather than have the Israelites get contaminated he had the interlopers destroyed.

                        One thing we have to remember about this, it's the creator of people doing the judging of people. And he didn't destroy those who changed there ways and joined the Israelites. (See the account of Rahab in the Bible at Joshua, chapters 2-6)

                        And he didn't destroy those that moved to other lands. Since God holds people directly responsible for their children, those people’s children died because they didn’t see fit to move. Consequently they were responsible for their children’s death, not God.

                        Another point. Before the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed Abraham asked a question of God that deals pretty much with our subject matter. It sounds pretty much like what Hicks would ask.

                        Genesis 18, 25-33 says, "It is unthinkable of you that you are acting in this manner to put to death the righteous man with the wicked one so that it has to occur with the righteous man as it does with the wicked! It is unthinkable of you. Is the Judge of all the earth not going to do what is right?”

                        26 Then Jehovah said: “If I shall find in Sodom fifty righteous men in the midst of the city I will pardon the whole place on their account.” 27 But Abraham went on to answer and say: “Please, here I have taken upon myself to speak to Jehovah, whereas I am dust and ashes. 28 Suppose the fifty righteous should be lacking five. Will you for the five bring the whole city to ruin?” To this he said: “I shall not bring it to ruin if I find there forty-five."

                        29 But yet again he spoke further to him and said: “Suppose forty are found there.” In turn he said: “I shall not do it on account of the forty.” 30 But he continued: “May Jehovah, please, not grow hot with anger, but let me go on speaking: Suppose thirty are found there.” In turn he said: “I shall not do it if I find thirty there.” 31 But he continued on: “Please, here I have taken upon myself to speak to Jehovah: Suppose twenty are found there.” In turn he said: “I shall not bring it to ruin on account of the twenty.” 32Finally he said: “May Jehovah, please, not grow hot with anger, but let me speak just this once: Suppose ten are found there.” In turn he said: “I shall not bring it to ruin on account of the ten.” 33 Then Jehovah went his way when he had finished speaking to Abraham, and Abraham returned to his place.



                        So what happened? God had 4 people brought out of Sodom before it was destroyed. God doesn't destroy good people along with bad.

                        Comment


                        • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                          Originally posted by Will Galen View Post
                          God promised to give Abraham’s seed, the land “from the river of Egypt to . . . the river Euphrates.”

                          While the Israelites were in Egypt other peoples moved into this promised land. People that served other God's and sacrificed their own children. Rather than have the Israelites get contaminated he had the interlopers destroyed.

                          One thing we have to remember about this, it's the creator of people doing the judging of people. And he didn't destroy those who changed there ways and joined the Israelites. (See the account of Rahab in the Bible at Joshua, chapters 2-6)

                          And he didn't destroy those that moved to other lands. Since God holds people directly responsible for their children, those people’s children died because they didn’t see fit to move. Consequently they were responsible for their children’s death, not God.

                          Another point. Before the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed Abraham asked a question of God that deals pretty much with our subject matter. It sounds pretty much like what Hicks would ask.

                          Genesis 18, 25-33 says, "It is unthinkable of you that you are acting in this manner to put to death the righteous man with the wicked one so that it has to occur with the righteous man as it does with the wicked! It is unthinkable of you. Is the Judge of all the earth not going to do what is right?”

                          26 Then Jehovah said: “If I shall find in Sodom fifty righteous men in the midst of the city I will pardon the whole place on their account.” 27 But Abraham went on to answer and say: “Please, here I have taken upon myself to speak to Jehovah, whereas I am dust and ashes. 28 Suppose the fifty righteous should be lacking five. Will you for the five bring the whole city to ruin?” To this he said: “I shall not bring it to ruin if I find there forty-five."

                          29 But yet again he spoke further to him and said: “Suppose forty are found there.” In turn he said: “I shall not do it on account of the forty.” 30 But he continued: “May Jehovah, please, not grow hot with anger, but let me go on speaking: Suppose thirty are found there.” In turn he said: “I shall not do it if I find thirty there.” 31 But he continued on: “Please, here I have taken upon myself to speak to Jehovah: Suppose twenty are found there.” In turn he said: “I shall not bring it to ruin on account of the twenty.” 32Finally he said: “May Jehovah, please, not grow hot with anger, but let me speak just this once: Suppose ten are found there.” In turn he said: “I shall not bring it to ruin on account of the ten.” 33 Then Jehovah went his way when he had finished speaking to Abraham, and Abraham returned to his place.



                          So what happened? God had 4 people brought out of Sodom before it was destroyed. God doesn't destroy good people along with bad.
                          Good people? Do you mean Lot's daughters who seduced their father? What was good about that? Do you really believe Lot's wife was turned into a pillar of salt? When do you come to the conclusion that this is all a big fairy tale?

                          Comment


                          • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                            When do you accept the story of a fish developing legs and becoming a man (yeah I left out alot of steps)....when do you accept that as a fairy tale? When do you accept that it is not a scientific fact but it too is a creation myth?
                            Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by indygeezer View Post
                              When do you accept the story of a fish developing legs and becoming a man (yeah I left out alot of steps)....when do you accept that as a fairy tale? When do you accept that it is not a scientific fact but it too is a creation myth?
                              When facts back up one story and not the other.

                              It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                              Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                              Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                              NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                              Comment


                              • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                                Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                                When facts back up one story and not the other.
                                "Facts" are transitory. You have your set of "facts" you believe in we have ours.
                                Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X