The Mainstream Media and Drinking: How did they agree on this particular lie???

[wal]

The fact that blended whiskey exists demonstrates the non-existence of god.

Single distilleries still produce a blend correct? Or do you mean single barrel whiskey? Enlighten me. I am a dumb ass when it comes to this stuff.

Any way you are a blend right? Scot and Irish I bet. A fine mixture. I don't reckon your mom and dad questioned the existence of God when you popped out.

[HeavyMetal]

Sure blame the scientist.

Learn astronomy and geology from the bible. Psalm 104:5 "the Lord set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved."

All the answers are there.

Galileo was a hack, as was his predecessor Copernicus.

Excuse me while I go burn a fatted calf, a pleasing scent unto the lord.

Are you seriously still missing the point that these men were deeply religious and that didn't prevent their scientific inquiry and discoveries?

[George Christiansen]

The larger point is that religion is slowing down human progress. A world without religion does not pretend to know the answers. If we acknowledge what we do not know, we will become more intellectually driven to find the answers.

This is simply false on so many levels. There are plenty of people religious or otherwise who are content with their presuppositions and decide to be close minded just as there are people from all sorts of views who are able hold their presuppositions with a bit of humility and even some who's presuppositions drive them to curiosity. If you cannot see this then you either have a huge case of confirmation bias protecting your own presuppositions or you need to get out a hell of a lot more.

Wal represents a personality type more than anything else. That personality will latch onto all sorts of belief systems; religious or otherwise.

[George Christiansen]

How does this cryptic description of the end times in Revelation compare with the relatively straightforward account of creation in Genesis? Is that open to interpretation too?

Wal's fundie views are a thankfully those of a small minority, but unfortunately they are a quite loud minority. The vast majority of Christians around the world believe that the contents of Revelation spoke to a very specific group of people about things that would/did happen in their lifetime (before 100AD) and not as some secret code that will warn us all that Hitler......I mean Stalin.....I mean Obama.....is the anti-Christ. That same majority is also quite comfortable taking the creation account in Genesis 1 & 2 as something that is not trying to be a science textbook or literal history.

So, yes, for nonfundies, both are open to quite a bit of interpretation.

Its not cryptic, but requires patience and some effort, basically, it says Christ will return to this earth and set up a 1000 year rule on this present earth, but before this there will be 3 sets of 7 judgments culminating with the return of Christ. Yes there are different interpretations, but the basics are not in question.

Among the six members of the one true church that meet in your living room for Wednesday night bible study?

[Sean Herbison]

Its not cryptic, but requires patience and some effort
...
The Bible is not difficult to understand

Wal, I'm Christian too. Lutheran, to be more specific. I believe the Bible, but I can't agree with you here. If the Bible was not difficult to understand, we would not have so many disagreements about it. It requires a lot of knowledge to understand, and this includes historical and sociological knowledge of the time period over which is was written and compiled.

Even people who understood the setting and had the background knowledge disagreed about parts. Look at Luther and Calvin. Both of them believed the Bible alone was the basis for religion, but they had different ideas about salvation.

Revelation in particular is difficult to discern, and requires a whole lot of cultural context just for that one book.

Anyhow, I generally refrain from debating religion online. Very little gets accomplished and people more often get angry than educated. In person, I'm more than happy to discuss it, but it's usually counterproductive over online forums.

[Mark Rippetoe]

Rev 13:16 And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:
Rev 13:17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.
Rev 13:18 Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.

The actual mechanism is not as important as the intent and that being once the mark has been taken there is no turning back.

Ah.

Whether it means 7 X 24hrs or 7 years is not the point, the point is He created.

Ah.

Rev 6 is a descriptor of 4 conditions that will exist prior to Christ's return, False peace, conquest, war, famine, pestilence and death. Colors are not without significance.

What about colored horses?

This is a can of worms. This is speculation on my behalf, but I just find it curious that the description of Babylon appears to indicate a city that presently exists.

How about New York City?

Mark your a very patient man. Are we done?

Probably not, wal.

[John Watson]

Are you seriously still missing the point that these men were deeply religious and that didn't prevent their scientific inquiry and discoveries?

I think you're missing the point that religion tried to squash scientific inquiry, because religion has all the answers and truth outlined in that silly book.

Now if you'll excuse me I need to go stone my neighbor for sweeping his sidewalk on the Sabbath.

[bugbomb]

An excellent rule of thumb is that if you think the Bible is easy to understand, you do not understand it.

[HeavyMetal]

I think you're missing the point that religion tried to squash scientific inquiry, because religion has all the answers and truth outlined in that silly book.

Now if you'll excuse me I need to go stone my neighbor for sweeping his sidewalk on the Sabbath.

That's a ridiculous assertion, and is demonstrably untrue. Here's a good list to start with: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ric-scientists

Any claims to the contrary can now be considered pure bigotry in the face of the facts.

[quikky]

This is simply false on so many levels. There are plenty of people religious or otherwise who are content with their presuppositions and decide to be close minded just as there are people from all sorts of views who are able hold their presuppositions with a bit of humility and even some who's presuppositions drive them to curiosity. If you cannot see this then you either have a huge case of confirmation bias protecting your own presuppositions or you need to get out a hell of a lot more.

Are you seriously suggesting people honestly believing they know the unknown has no effect on intellectual development on a societal level?

Consider this example using two extremes:

Society A is 100% composed of true followers of Christianity.
Society B is 100% composed of non-believers.

Which society is more likely to research and discover the origin of life?

Also consider that society has largely been driven by religion for millennia, and only in recent history started, at least partially, be driven by science. Which period of time produced greater intellectual knowledge, curiosity, understanding, and overall advancement? Look around the world today, see any patterns between various countries in terms of societal development and depth of commitment to religion?