Granite on the Bible

[kmoney]

Nope. I apologize.

No need to apologize. It's not my thread. I was just curious if I was missing something.....

 

[Nineveh]

Olympus does not look inhabitable. Perhaps it was just a symbol to the Greeks?

I guess you will have to search out that answer on your own. The picture was enough to convince me it's a real place and the Greeks knew it was there.

So far, I have seen no evidence for a global flood, and this supports my idea. Your idea rest on the assumption that there was a global flood, which I do not accept, yet.

So far, I have seen no evidence for long ages in the earth, and this supports my idea. Your idea rest on the assumption that the earth is far older than 10,000 years, which I do not accept.

Only for somone who's elevator doesn't go to the top floor.

Pardon? There are four rivers named in Eden. Where did the other two go?

Perhaps your not seeing the logic here. My view of history is supported by the fact that Ur, Euphrates, Tigris, and the original land of the Hebrews are found near each other.

Those two rivers are between Mt Ararat and Ur, which is on the other side of Nineveh and Babylon.

Your model rest squarely on your unBiblical assumption that the Noah's and his family named two rivers with the same name as the place where his ancestor came from. You are claiming that the Euphrates and Tigris spoken of in Genesis are not the in the same place currently. You see my ideas are based on sound reasoning. Yours are based on wild and unBiblical assumption.

What I see are your assumptions leading you to believe what is spoken of as a world wide catastrophic flood as a mere local one, and the earth reveals long ages instead of a catastophic flood.

 

[noguru]

I guess you will have to search out that answer on your own. The picture was enough to convince me it's a real place and the Greeks knew it was there.



So far, I have seen no evidence for long ages in the earth, and this supports my idea. Your idea rest on the assumption that the earth is far older than 10,000 years, which I do not accept.



Pardon? There are four rivers named in Eden. Where did the other two go?



Those two rivers are between Mt Ararat and Ur, which is on the other side of Nineveh and Babylon.



What I see are your assumptions leading you to believe what is spoken of as a world wide catastrophic flood as a mere local one, and the earth reveals long ages instead of a catastophic flood.

OK your right. Will you be able to sleep well tonight? I certainly hope so.

Good night.
"May the four winds blow you safely home."

 

[One Eyed Jack]

So far, I have seen no evidence for a global flood, and this supports my idea. Your idea rest on the assumption that there was a global flood, which I do not accept, yet.

How do you think all those dead things got buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the world?

 

[Johnny]

How do you think all those dead things got buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the world?

How do you think the water went about organizing them so nicely for us?

 

[One Eyed Jack]

How do you think the water went about organizing them so nicely for us?

Through the use of a logical construct that doesn't really exist. In other words, we're the ones who sorted them -- not the water.

 

[noguru]

Through the use of a logical construct that doesn't really exist. In other words, we're the ones who sorted them -- not the water.

Brilliant conclusion!

I'm impressed. :dizzy:

 

[Granite]

How do you think all those dead things got buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the world?

Multiple catastrophes over time.

 

[koban]

Brilliant conclusion!

I'm impressed. :dizzy:

Here - try this :doh: - that ought to fix those pesky eyes.


For particularly pernicious cases, sometimes you have to resort to :bang:

 

[stunrut]

I believe that The Constitution, read and ammended with morals in mind, would change a great many things about our nation today. While many people work toward this a great many more use The Constitution to twist it's words to suit their needs.

 

[noguru]

I believe that The Constitution, read and ammended with morals in mind, would change a great many things about our nation today. While many people work toward this a great many more use The Constitution to twist it's words to suit their needs.

Part of the problem is that when you codify morals they can be misused. Legal professionals refer to this as the spirit of the law as opposed to the letter of the law. It is a very difficult philosphical area to negotiate.

A good example is the first amendment and the recent occurrence in Toledo, Ohio. This amendment guarantees the freedom of speech. But was it meant to protect the rights of neo-nazis who want to use it to incite riots in poor ethnic neighborhoods, where many people are not well educated and feel disenfranchised?

 

[Granite]

Part of the problem is that when you codify morals they can be misused. Legal professionals refer to this as the spirit of the law as opposed to the letter of the law. It is a very difficult philosphical area to negotiate.

A good example is the first amendment and the recent occurrence in Toledo, Ohio. This amendment guarantees the freedom of speech. But was it meant to protect the rights of neo-nazis who want to use it to incite riots in poor ethnic neighborhoods, where many people are not well educated and feel disenfranchised?

Nothing in the Constitution prohibits offensive behavior or rotgut stupidity.

 

[noguru]

Nothing in the Constitution prohibits offensive behavior or rotgut stupidity.

I agree. How would you go about legislating a prohibition on offensive behavior and "rotgut" stupidity?

How do you qualify offensive behavior?

Wouldn't outlawing stupidity put most of us in jail.?

 

[Granite]

I agree. How would you go about legislating a prohibition on offensive behavior and "rotgut" stupidity?

How do you qualify offensive behavior?

Wouldn't outlawing stupidity put most of us in jail.?

Exactly. So as distasteful and provocative as a neo-Nazi march may be, I would oppose an attempt to prevent them from marching.

 

[koban]

If they're purposely being provocative, why protect them from the response they're trying to provoke?

Isn't that enabling stupidity?

Extreme stupidity tends to be self-eliminating unless it's protected.

 

[Granite]

If they're purposely being provocative, why protect them from the response they're trying to provoke?

Isn't that enabling stupidity?

Extreme stupidity tends to be self-eliminating unless it's protected.

It may be seen as enabling stupidity, but frankly, stupidity is not illegal and shouldn't be. By that litmus test I'd like to see those freakish little Shriners cars outlawed at circuses and I'd love to see Hannity and Colmes ripped off the air. Stupidity is truly in the eye of the beholder.

 

[koban]

Yeah but the Shriners aren't standing in the tiger's cage poking them with sticks and squirting lemon juice in their eyes.

Not interested in making stupidity illegal, just let natural selection take it's course and weed out the idiots.

 

[Zakath]

...Not interested in making stupidity illegal, just let natural selection take it's course and weed out the idiots.

Sounds like a pretty "libertarian" viewpoint to me.

I like it! :thumb:

 

[On Fire]

Is everyone enjoying their labels?

 

[koban]

I took a hot bath last night and mine fell off. :think: