Godless Apostate

[Fuzz]

There are 3 identified impact sites in Alberta. I made a quick google map for you guys, here:
https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?m...Rg&usp=sharing

You can download the KML if you want and put it in Google Earth as well. The data is from here:
http://www.ags.gov.ab.ca/publication...s/MAP_600.html

[Fuzz]

Just watching the podcast, at 1:45 they talk about the Big Rock erratic, and say it must have been transported by icebergs becuase glaciers would have ground it down. Not sure I buy that. I would think an erratic could fall off a mountain cliff and be transported on the top of a glacier with very little erosion. They use words like "must have" with such certainty...

[Textcritic]

I wasn't sure where to put this, but I will be speaking at an event hosted at Trinity Western University in Langley, BC titled "Re-imagining the scriptural past in the Dead Sea Scrolls," on Tues 23 Feb @ 1900. The theme of the event will focus on how writers in early Judaism understood and used traditions from their past and recorded in their scriptures to reflect on and explain their own current circumstances.

https://www.facebook.com/events/1707394972837283/

If you happen to be in the area and are interested, this is open to the public and free of charge.

[Pointman]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

*sigh*

God give you strength!

Originally Posted by Textcritic

This is precisely the kind of thinking that I am constantly correcting in my religious studies courses. Just last week I reminded my students that modern Western conceptions about "religion" that are perfectly caricatured by your assertion are myopic, and in fact impede our ability to honestly assess religious phenomena and behaviour holistically, and to formulate positive and effective responses.

It is neither western nor modern and is based on the Bible itself. If you can correct it somehow, I am open for it, but you have not done it yet. Our world was intended to be horrible. That was the whole point of kicking humans out of Eden. Eden was intended to be worndeful and the place where we live now was designed to be bad. Our human lives were supposed to be full of suffering. Our women were supposed to deliver in pain. However, if we follow certain rules, laid out in Bible, the God would reward us for accepting us into paradise. Otherwise he would send us to hell. It is, to the best of my knowledge, fundamentals of Bible.

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I would agree that based on this tremendously narrow definition of religion, it would appear irrelevant. Quite to the contrary, while there are numerous and vocal proponents of some of what you have presented within various sects of Christianity and Islam, these should not stand as globally representative of "religion" in the modern world. I suspect that for just as many—if not more religious people, their practice and expression of religion amounts to considerably more than this, and is actually integral to their own orientation to life.

I actually agree with this. Since humans figure out to enjoy life, rather than afterlife, the religion had to adapt. Now people expect/hope God to help them here on earth. People pray for things like passing exams, connecting passes in football (see "Hail Mary pass"), or winning bets on horseraces. Which is fundamentally out of sync with the original intent and purpose of religion, but very much in line with what religion is now.

The best example is the classic example of getting in the storm at 10,000 ft on the airplane. Nowadays passengers pray to stay alive. Which is contrary to anything that religion is about. They should have prayed for leaving this horrible world and going to paradise.

[Matata]

Hey Textcritic, thanks for the education, are you able to comment on some of the more compelling (or "wooing") arguments presented by Hancock and Carlson?:

1. The concept that the Egyptians and Sumerians were at their technological peak at the start of their cultures and and how they became less technologically sophisticated with the passage of time (ie - The pyramids made by early Egyptians were larger and more geometrically precise than the later pyramids). This technological decline is often cited as an indication that technology was gifted to the Egyptians by a third party and the Egyptians were unequipped to maintain this level of technology. They also claim the Egyptians own historical record confirms this.

2. What do you think of people claiming water erosion on the sphinx proves it predates Egyptian culture?

3. Do you have an opinion on Gobekli Tepe? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6bekli_Tepe ) They often site the age (built in 10,000 BC) and sophistication of the temple as being so anomalous to the current model of the development of civilization, that it calls our whole concept of human history into question.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Pointman

God give you strength!



It is neither western nor modern and is based on the Bible itself. If you can correct it somehow, I am open for it, but you have not done it yet. Our world was intended to be horrible. That was the whole point of kicking humans out of Eden. Eden was intended to be worndeful and the place where we live now was designed to be bad. Our human lives were supposed to be full of suffering. Our women were supposed to deliver in pain. However, if we follow certain rules, laid out in Bible, the God would reward us for accepting us into paradise. Otherwise he would send us to hell. It is, to the best of my knowledge, fundamentals of Bible.

Yeah but as has been said the Bible is full of contradictions. Jesus says, "Hallowed be your name. Your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven", to me says that this life on earth can be heaven. I believe it depends on how I see it. If I can see the perfection it's great, beating any experience brought on by this world.

I'm not defending religion here as mostly I think it's become perverted over time with it's concentration on sin making it a power trip but there is the odd bit of good stuff from religious texts and some people maybe do get a good experience from religion.

Now people expect/hope God to help them here on earth. People pray for things like passing exams, connecting passes in football (see "Hail Mary pass"), or winning bets on horseraces. Which is fundamentally out of sync with the original intent and purpose of religion, but very much in line with what religion is now.

Yeah, I agree. Here Jesus addresses that.

But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking. 8Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Pointman

God give you strength!



It is neither western nor modern and is based on the Bible itself. If you can correct it somehow, I am open for it, but you have not done it yet.

Yeah, a very heavily culturally conditioned and flat reading of the Bible that is most certainly Western. You have caricatured "religion" from your rather dismissive appraisal of one religion—specifically, a particular expression of Christianity, which is by no means the lone representative, nor even the dominant one.

Our world was intended to be horrible.

Not according to Gen 1:1–2:4 in which the cosmos is described as eminently purposeful and functional. And not according to Gen 2:5–14 in which the ideal world was a paradise.

That was the whole point of kicking humans out of Eden. Eden was intended to be worndeful and the place where we live now was designed to be bad. Our human lives were supposed to be full of suffering. Our women were supposed to deliver in pain.

So, you realise that this is an etiological tale, right? One told by an ancient group of people as an explanation for why life was so difficult. In ancient Israelite religion, there was no thought or belief that anyone could ever actually return to Eden. This was simply a story that sought to explain the present difficult state of living, and to contrast it with an ideal.

However, if we follow certain rules, laid out in Bible, the God would reward us for accepting us into paradise. Otherwise he would send us to hell. It is, to the best of my knowledge, fundamentals of Bible.

These are absolutely not the "fundamentals" of the Bible. These are tangential doctrines which emerged from a lot of parable, allegory, and metaphor. The "fundamentals" of the Bible, I would say are that the human condition is bleak, and the pursuit of justice and righteousness in accordance with God's intention for mankind's benefit is good. That the forces of evil which manifest in empiricism, excess, and the oppression of the weak are often overwhelming, and that we are incapable individually to defeat them. That the Kingdom of God is a grass-roots movement by which the ideal world can and will emerge in accordance with the promotion of justice and righteousness.

I could see how you would arrive at different conclusions by such a literal reading of several of the texts within the Bible, and for failure to consider its historical and cultural context. But it does seem strange to me why you would insist on such a literal reading of much of this literature that is myth, allegory, and metaphor.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Yeah, a very heavily culturally conditioned and flat reading of the Bible that is most certainly Western. You have caricatured "religion" from your rather dismissive appraisal of one religion—specifically, a particular expression of Christianity, which is by no means the lone representative, nor even the dominant one.


Not according to Gen 1:1–2:4 in which the cosmos is described as eminently purposeful and functional. And not according to Gen 2:5–14 in which the ideal world was a paradise.


So, you realise that this is an etiological tale, right? One told by an ancient group of people as an explanation for why life was so difficult. In ancient Israelite religion, there was no thought or belief that anyone could ever actually return to Eden. This was simply a story that sought to explain the present difficult state of living, and to contrast it with an ideal.


These are absolutely not the "fundamentals" of the Bible. These are tangential doctrines which emerged from a lot of parable, allegory, and metaphor. The "fundamentals" of the Bible, I would say are that the human condition is bleak, and the pursuit of justice and righteousness in accordance with God's intention for mankind's benefit is good. That the forces of evil which manifest in empiricism, excess, and the oppression of the weak are often overwhelming, and that we are incapable individually to defeat them. That the Kingdom of God is a grass-roots movement by which the ideal world can and will emerge in accordance with the promotion of justice and righteousness.

I could see how you would arrive at different conclusions by such a literal reading of several of the texts within the Bible, and for failure to consider its historical and cultural context. But it does seem strange to me why you would insist on such a literal reading of much of this literature that is myth, allegory, and metaphor.

I take a different view. Sure we should strive for the ideal world but I don't think that is what Jesus and other such prophets are basing their teachings on. I don't believe his main teaching is about changing the physical world, he's trying to change our perception.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

I take a different view. Sure we should strive for the ideal world but I don't think that is what Jesus and other such prophets are basing their teachings on. I don't believe his main teaching is about changing the physical world, he's trying to change our perception.

How does that work? When I examine the ethic of Jesus, I see mandates for an unavoidably active change in behaviour to bring about a desired goal:

Originally Posted by Matt 7:21–23

"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?' And then will I declare to them, 'I wnever knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.'"

Or maybe the "change of perception" is a resetting of values and priorities? Even then, I think it is clear that Jesus' vision was predicated on a tangible social and cultural change.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

How does that work? When I examine the ethic of Jesus, I see mandates for an unavoidably active change in behaviour to bring about a desired goal:



Or maybe the "change of perception" is a resetting of values and priorities? Even then, I think it is clear that Jesus' vision was predicated on a tangible social and cultural change.

Yes a personal change of perception resulted in my resetting of values and priorities. Personally I was pretty messed up. What I do could be called a form of meditation where I enter my inner world. From my experiences it seems to have much in common with what Jesus and other prophets tell about.

And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: 21Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

When I've brought this up religious people I've met don't want to interpret it as I do so that kind of ends the conversation. To me it's black and white though.

[T@T]

Jesus was/is a fictional character, it's a delusion to think otherwise.

There are zero writings from an eyewitness, all we have on this dude is biased descriptions of his life events from non-witnesses 100's of years later.

Jesus is the biggest con job in history...worth $billions

[Regulator75]

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Yeah, a very heavily culturally conditioned and flat reading of the Bible that is most certainly Western. You have caricatured "religion" from your rather dismissive appraisal of one religion—specifically, a particular expression of Christianity, which is by no means the lone representative, nor even the dominant one.





Not according to Gen 1:1–2:4 in which the cosmos is described as eminently purposeful and functional. And not according to Gen 2:5–14 in which the ideal world was a paradise.





So, you realise that this is an etiological tale, right? One told by an ancient group of people as an explanation for why life was so difficult. In ancient Israelite religion, there was no thought or belief that anyone could ever actually return to Eden. This was simply a story that sought to explain the present difficult state of living, and to contrast it with an ideal.





These are absolutely not the "fundamentals" of the Bible. These are tangential doctrines which emerged from a lot of parable, allegory, and metaphor. The "fundamentals" of the Bible, I would say are that the human condition is bleak, and the pursuit of justice and righteousness in accordance with God's intention for mankind's benefit is good. That the forces of evil which manifest in empiricism, excess, and the oppression of the weak are often overwhelming, and that we are incapable individually to defeat them. That the Kingdom of God is a grass-roots movement by which the ideal world can and will emerge in accordance with the promotion of justice and righteousness.



I could see how you would arrive at different conclusions by such a literal reading of several of the texts within the Bible, and for failure to consider its historical and cultural context. But it does seem strange to me why you would insist on such a literal reading of much of this literature that is myth, allegory, and metaphor.

You make the Kingdom of God sound like a trade union. :-)

Seriously, though, if we take the bible as myth, allegory and metaphor intended to help us live in this bleak place - with no actual original sin, flood, or wrath of God - religion looks very much like an earthly, human endeavour and creation. Is an actual God even required in this reading?

[Street Pharmacist]

[Thor]

Oh those Russians (Boney M voice)

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-35715325

A man on trial in southern Russia faces a possible one-year prison sentence for having written "there is no God" during an internet exchange.
Viktor Krasnov was reported to police by two young men who objected to his language in the dispute, on the Russian social network VKontakte in 2014.
He was charged in Stavropol for having "insulted the feelings of worshippers".
Such "insults" were outlawed in 2013 after the ##### Riot case, in which two punk performers were jailed.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

And yet we have a lot of people who seem to think we should have similar paws here about not being able to say offensive things. Well, that's what comes of that.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

And yet we have a lot of people who seem to think we should have similar paws here about not being able to say offensive things. Well, that's what comes of that.

Unintentionally funny post.

[cracher]

Do we not have a blasphemy law here? I remember something coming across fb relatively recently about repealing section 296 or something like that.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Jesus, I hope not.

[cracher]

Not that I understand what it says, but... half way down the page.

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/a...e-69.html#h-89