Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

A companion to the Homestar Runner Wiki
It is currently Mon Sep 18, 2023 7:12 am

All times are UTC




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 486 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ... 17  Next

Does the Bible contradict itself?
Yes. 30%  30%  [ 15 ]
No. 26%  26%  [ 13 ]
Only if you take it literally. 44%  44%  [ 22 ]
Total votes : 50
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jul 10, 2006 7:27 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2004 4:06 am
Posts: 95
Location: a vortex of sin and degredation
interesting theory, but it completely goes against what the Bible says, don't it?

_________________
if you could choose your ancestors, and grow just like a weed
pick a stud to congeal your blood and get your earlobes free


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jul 10, 2006 7:53 am 
fossilise_apostle wrote:
interesting theory, but it completely goes against what the Bible says, don't it?

In that area, during that time, I doubt they would have alot of trade or contact with other lands(Prehaps non at all), All the land he would have known about was his own, and maybe a few towns close by.
So to him, the entire world was flooded.
Plus, I don't particularly believe everything in the Bible/Torah is true.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jul 10, 2006 4:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 1:00 am
Posts: 3849
Location: Best Coast
fossilise_apostle wrote:
So, according to your theory, Kiwi birds lived in Turkey before every one went NZ in between 800-1300 AD, despite the fact that there is no fossil trail of Kiwi birds leading back that way.
Yeah, you can't count on the fossile record to be that complete, especially in soft-bodied birds. Fossiles are very rare everywhere, and they're usually of hard-shelled creatures and fish and stuff.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jul 11, 2006 3:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2004 4:06 am
Posts: 95
Location: a vortex of sin and degredation
ed 'lim' smilde wrote:
fossilise_apostle wrote:
So, according to your theory, Kiwi birds lived in Turkey before every one went NZ in between 800-1300 AD, despite the fact that there is no fossil trail of Kiwi birds leading back that way.
Yeah, you can't count on the fossile record to be that complete, especially in soft-bodied birds. Fossiles are very rare everywhere, and they're usually of hard-shelled creatures and fish and stuff.


yeah, tens of thousands of years ago, but these fossils would be fairly recent, and according to what you are all saying, there would be 800-1700 years worth.

_________________
if you could choose your ancestors, and grow just like a weed
pick a stud to congeal your blood and get your earlobes free


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jul 11, 2006 6:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 1:00 am
Posts: 3849
Location: Best Coast
800 - 1700 years' worth isn't a whole lot if you think of the millions (lol, billionz) of years the earth has had - we certainly don't have fossiles of every animal from every millenium since the beginning of time (especially birds).

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 12:48 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2004 4:06 am
Posts: 95
Location: a vortex of sin and degredation
yes but it was such a brief time ago that there should be a neat little trail leading down to polynesia.

_________________
if you could choose your ancestors, and grow just like a weed
pick a stud to congeal your blood and get your earlobes free


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 12:54 am 
Offline
Pizza Pizza
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2004 4:05 pm
Posts: 10451
Location: probably the penalty box
I'm a little confused on your timeline. Where are you getting 800-1700 years? The Flood was several thousand years ago. According to wikipedia, radiocarbon dating of relics places humans in Australia about at 20,000 BC. 800-1700 years seems a bit short.

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 1:05 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2006 11:17 pm
Posts: 1670
Location: Texas, U.S.A.
I would have to agree with Alberto: I believe that the story of Noah's Ark, if there is an actual event it was based on, is more of a parable than a documentation of history to be taken literally. Beyond the infamous Kiwi argument, there is a whole host of issues surrounding the idea of how one man from one area of the earth could have built a single shipped, manned by a crew of only 8 people, that travelled the globe at least twice to obtain every last species of creature on the planet, with the room and means to care for them all and prevent the carnivorous ones from eating the other creatures. In fact, to quote the Wiki page:

Wiki wrote:
Capacity and logistics: The Ark had a gross volume of about 1.5 million cubic feet (40,000 m³), a displacement a little less than half that of the Titanic at about 22,000 tons, and total floor space of around 100,000 square feet (9,300 m²). The question of whether it could have carried two (or more) specimens of the various species (including those now extinct), plus food and fresh water, is a matter of much debate, even bitter dispute, between literalists and their opponents. While some literalists hold that the Ark could have held all known species, a more common position today is that the Ark contained "kinds" rather than species—for instance, a male and female of the cat "kind" rather than representatives of tigers, lions, cougars, etc. The many associated questions include whether eight humans could have cared for the animals while also sailing the Ark, how the special dietary needs of some of the more exotic animals could have been catered for, questions of lighting, ventilation, and temperature control, hibernation, the survival and germination of seeds, the position of freshwater and saltwater fish, the question of what the animals would have eaten immediately after leaving the Ark, and how they could have travelled to their present habitats. The numerous literalist websites, while agreeing that none of these problems is insurmountable, give varying answers on how to resolve them.


So the best conclusion is to not take this part of the Bible literally, but rather figuratively. I wouldn't think that the author would be so concerned about whether the story was feasibly possible so much as the lesson the reader was supposed to gain from it ("Trust in God" or some such thing).

_________________
The meaning of life is 'bucket.'

FOR PONY!!!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 1:52 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2004 4:06 am
Posts: 95
Location: a vortex of sin and degredation
StrongRad wrote:
I'm a little confused on your timeline. Where are you getting 800-1700 years? The Flood was several thousand years ago. According to wikipedia, radiocarbon dating of relics places humans in Australia about at 20,000 BC. 800-1700 years seems a bit short.


Australia? I'm talking about New Zealand, which was populated in between 800-1300 AD.

_________________
if you could choose your ancestors, and grow just like a weed
pick a stud to congeal your blood and get your earlobes free


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 1:55 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2004 4:06 am
Posts: 95
Location: a vortex of sin and degredation
Ok, second question:

When is Jesus coming back? After he died, Christians expected him back within their lifetime yet 2,000 later we're still waiting. Is he stuck in traffic?

_________________
if you could choose your ancestors, and grow just like a weed
pick a stud to congeal your blood and get your earlobes free


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 2:00 am 
Offline
Pizza Pizza
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2004 4:05 pm
Posts: 10451
Location: probably the penalty box
fossilise_apostle wrote:
StrongRad wrote:
I'm a little confused on your timeline. Where are you getting 800-1700 years? The Flood was several thousand years ago. According to wikipedia, radiocarbon dating of relics places humans in Australia about at 20,000 BC. 800-1700 years seems a bit short.


Australia? I'm talking about New Zealand, which was populated in between 800-1300 AD.

Australia and New Zealand are close enough together that, it's not unbelievable that people from Australia could make their way there, granted, it wasn't settled permanently until something like 1400 AD or so. (well, ok, so wikipedia says 13th-15th century AD).

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 2:03 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 1:33 am
Posts: 14288
Location: Wouldn't you like to know?
Fossile, you didn't need to double post. You could have just edited your post. Please remember that.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 2:30 am 
Offline
Pizza Pizza
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2004 4:05 pm
Posts: 10451
Location: probably the penalty box
fossilise_apostle wrote:
Ok, second question:

When is Jesus coming back? After he died, Christians expected him back within their lifetime yet 2,000 later we're still waiting. Is he stuck in traffic?

Nobody knows when Jesus is coming back.
His Dad created the entire universe, He can come back whenever He wants.

The Christians living when He died DID expect Him to come back during their lifetime, but He never told them when He was coming back, just that He would be back. In John 14:3 He said He was going to Heaven to prepare a place for the believers and that He would be back.

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jul 15, 2006 3:06 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2006 6:45 pm
Posts: 5441
Location: living in the sunling, loving in the moonlight, having a wonderful time.
Popping into the Kiwibird discussion real quick: I would like to offer another possible solution to the quandry.

Okay, here we go, just hear me out before you say anything: in the days before the flood, there was Pangea. The world was a bit different in those days anyway, as there was a rather thick canopy of sorts of water vapor that surrounded the world, causing a global climate that was roughly tropical or sub-tropical worldwide, which in summary was warmer, more humid, and relatively constant throughout. Many species were a bit (or a lot) different, as lifespans were longer, animals grew to larger sizes, and there was little to none UV radiation (water vapor in large amounts is a good UV shield).

Anyway, the flood happens, covers the world, and begins to set in motion a more dynamic Earth. With the canopy gone (it contributed to the flood), the climate was not stable and became more diverse. After the water drained sufficently and people and animals spead themselves out, then the continents began or continue (as it probably started with the flood: waters from the Earth, and such) to move and separate. Different species by that point were in different portions of the world as the splits occured, and thus became more and more isolated as lakes and rivers turned into channels and oceans. Now, exactly why as to certain varieties being specifically located in one place or another is beyond me, but it is probably due to the sudden changes (or degeneration) of the various habitats that individual species lived in that could have led to something comparable to the kiwi living in only one place on earth.

Alright, that's my belief, as well as my studied opinion.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jul 15, 2006 3:33 am 
Offline
Pizza Pizza
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2004 4:05 pm
Posts: 10451
Location: probably the penalty box
Capt. Ido Nos wrote:
there was little to none UV radiation (water vapor in large amounts is a good UV shield).
That's not quite correct... Water vapor IS quite absorptive in the "far UV" and "mid UV" ranges, but at around 3 microns (the "near UV" spectrum) water vapor is as transparent to UV as it is to green light. The near UV (called UVA in most medical literature) is the most dangerous to life (according to About.com, for what that's worth). UVB (mid UV) is not as big a threat (according to the same about.com). It's mostly absorbed, anyway..

Still, an increase in water vapor does translate into an decrease of UV. It's not highly absorptive, though, otherwise, you could not get a sunburn on a cloudy day.

Your theory does make sense, though.

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jul 15, 2006 3:44 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2004 4:11 am
Posts: 18942
Location: Sitting in an English garden, waiting for the sun
In the New Testament, it is mentioned that there was a disciple "whom Jesus loved." In what context, exactly, did Jesus love this disciple? Did He love this man the closest out of all of his disciples, as in philia, or was it more agape than philia? Couldn't have been eros, could it?

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jul 15, 2006 4:27 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2006 9:59 pm
Posts: 47
Location: The Moooooooon!
I don't get this particular verse:

Luke 14:26: If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

So does that mean we should hate all relatives and hate ourselves?

_________________
I say potater, you zader tater-morts.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jul 15, 2006 4:29 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2004 3:10 am
Posts: 14278
Location: Behind Blue Eyes
IantheGecko wrote:
In the New Testament, it is mentioned that there was a disciple "whom Jesus loved." In what context, exactly, did Jesus love this disciple? Did He love this man the closest out of all of his disciples, as in philia, or was it more agape than philia? Couldn't have been eros, could it?
Who says the disciple was a man? Remember there were only 12 Apostles, but he had several thousand disciples, many of whom were women.

UZ wrote:
So does that mean we should hate all relatives and hate ourselves?
No, it means anyone who hates their own family cannot be a disciple.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jul 15, 2006 4:35 am 
Offline
Pizza Pizza
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2004 4:05 pm
Posts: 10451
Location: probably the penalty box
UZ wrote:
I don't get this particular verse:

Luke 14:26: If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

So does that mean we should hate all relatives and hate ourselves?


Hate, in this context, means something similar to "to love less than me". The New Living Translation makes this more clear:

Luke 14:26, NLT wrote:
"If you want to be my follower you must love me more than your own father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters--yes, more than your own life. Otherwise, you cannot be my disciple."

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jul 15, 2006 4:46 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2004 4:11 am
Posts: 18942
Location: Sitting in an English garden, waiting for the sun
Gravy:
John 13:22-24 wrote:
His disciples stared at one another, at a loss to know which of them he meant. One of them, the disciple whom Jesus loved, was reclining next to him. Simon Peter motioned to this disciple and said, "Ask him which one he means."

This was at the Last Supper.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jul 15, 2006 4:54 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2004 3:10 am
Posts: 14278
Location: Behind Blue Eyes
IantheGecko wrote:
Gravy:
John 13:22-24 wrote:
His disciples stared at one another, at a loss to know which of them he meant. One of them, the disciple whom Jesus loved, was reclining next to him. Simon Peter motioned to this disciple and said, "Ask him which one he means."

This was at the Last Supper.
You should have specified that to begin with.

As for the text, John and Thomas were sitting next to Jesus at the Last Supper. In DaVinci's painting, John is seen reclining at the Last Supper.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jul 15, 2006 5:13 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 18, 2004 12:25 am
Posts: 1045
Location: The Sandwich Islands. (Quite, quite.)
John 13:22-24 wrote:
His disciples stared at one another, at a loss to know which of them he meant. One of them, the disciple whom Jesus loved, was reclining next to him. Simon Peter motioned to this disciple and said, "Ask him which one he means."


Here's what I have in the Bible I've got lying around--

Quote:
When Jesus had thus said, he was troubled in spirit, and testified, and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me. Then the disciples looked one on another, doubting of whom he spake. Now there was leaning on Jesus' bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved. Simon Peter therefore beckoned to him, that he should ask who it should be of whom he spake. He then lying on Jesus' breast saith unto him, Lord, who is it?


I've never really come across this before. At first I thought that it just was saying that Jesus loved all his disciples, but it really seems like this was a disciple that he favored. It wouldn't be unusual for them to be reclining, as it was Passover, and you recline at Passover, but lying on each other?

It's pretty interesting.

_________________
-Kate


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jul 15, 2006 5:16 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2004 4:11 am
Posts: 18942
Location: Sitting in an English garden, waiting for the sun
Some people have taken that verse to mean that Jesus was gay. I doubt that.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jul 15, 2006 5:17 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 12:33 am
Posts: 1661
Location: About 260 miles northeast of Stu's backyard.
John referred to himself as "the disciple Jesus loved" instead of his name a a lot. In fact, if I remember correctly, the entire Gospel of John.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jul 15, 2006 5:18 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 18, 2004 12:25 am
Posts: 1045
Location: The Sandwich Islands. (Quite, quite.)
lahimatoa wrote:
John referred to himself as "the disciple Jesus loved" instead of his name a a lot. In fact, if I remember correctly, the entire Gospel of John.


Hmmm, sounds like he had a bit of an ego problem.

_________________
-Kate


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jul 15, 2006 5:26 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 12:33 am
Posts: 1661
Location: About 260 miles northeast of Stu's backyard.
I actually heard it explained that it was a way to deflect attention from himself and focus more on Jesus.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jul 16, 2006 6:06 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 10, 2004 5:21 pm
Posts: 15581
Location: Hey! I'm looking for some kind of trangly thing!
Not only that, but I think John was also making a statement about what a disciple is: someone whom Jesus loves. In other words, discipleship is first and foremost being loved by Jesus, being a recipient of his mercy and grace. Then and only then can a disciple truly follow.

_________________
ImageImage


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jul 16, 2006 3:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2005 7:37 pm
Posts: 2455
Location: oh god how did this get here I am not good with computer
If we're all God's children, then what makes Jesus so special?

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jul 16, 2006 6:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 10, 2004 5:21 pm
Posts: 15581
Location: Hey! I'm looking for some kind of trangly thing!
Council of Nicea wrote:
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of his Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father by whom all things were made; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary, and was made man, and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate. He suffered and was buried, and the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of the Father. And he will come again with glory to judge both the living and the dead, whose kingdom will have no end.

I think that pretty much sums it up.

Oh, and notice the emphasis on "only-begotten". Jesus' relationship to the Father is of a much more profound and divine nature than ours. In fact, our relationship with the Father is only on account of Jesus anyway. Through him, we are adopted as children, whereas Jesus is the only-begotten Son.

_________________
ImageImage


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jul 26, 2006 8:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2005 5:11 pm
Posts: 2713
1. I think god rested on the seventh day or so, but why would a god need to rest?

2. There are hundereds of religions out there, how are you supposed to know which religion is the true one, or if the true religion even exists?

3. If god loves everybody and wants everybody to go to heaven and be happy, why aren't you simply born in heaven? And if it's because you are allowed to choose/be trialed, why can't god just calculate the outcome and be done with it?


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 486 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ... 17  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group