Dinosaurs on the Ark: How It Was Possible

[dee-u]

Welcome back Niya!

[Shaggy Hiker]

Is he a dinosaur on this ark, or is that in the wrong thread?

[TysonLPrice]

To me it is one thing if people want to live in "LaLa" land and fantasize their ancestors romped with dinosaurs. Go ahead and have all the lunacy based themed parks you want. But when you push that stuff on other people adversely affecting their lives I have to push back.

"Alabama Supreme Court rules frozen embryos are children, imperiling IVF:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...-children-ivf/

The Alabama case focused on whether a patient who mistakenly dropped and destroyed other couples frozen embryos could be held liable in a wrongful-death lawsuit. The court ruled the patient could, writing that it had long held that unborn children are children and that that was also true for frozen embryos, affording the fertilized eggs the same protection as babies under the Wrongful Death of a Minor Act.

One of the justices that ruled in favor of, basically a clump of cells that you need a microscope to see, is quoted as saying:

"Human life cannot be wrongfully destroyed without incurring the wrath of a holy God, who views the destruction of His image as an affront to Himself, Parker wrote. Even before birth, all human beings bear the image of God, and their lives cannot be destroyed without effacing his glory".

People that believe dinosaurs and humans walked together should not be allowed to make decisions like that for the rest of us. They want to punish people that don't subscribe to their personal view of life. Their not happy thinking we will burn and suffer throughout eternity, they want us to suffer here too...

[wes4dbt]

"Human life cannot be wrongfully destroyed without incurring the wrath of a holy God, who views the destruction of His image as an affront to Himself, Parker wrote. Even before birth, all human beings bear the image of God, and their lives cannot be destroyed without effacing his glory".

That's disturbing. I guess Alabama doesn't believe in the separation of the church and state.

But this,

But when you push that stuff on other people adversely affecting their lives I have to push back.

Is common place. We're a country of laws. They usually affect some group of people adversely.

[TysonLPrice]

"Is common place. We're a country of laws. They usually affect some group of people adversely.

There is a difference between stopping drilling and saving the spotted owl and interfering with others choices on IVF. These are people with delusional beliefs, absolutely nothing based on facts, affecting people that don't don't acknowledge their "reality".

I would "push back" on people that want to change international shipping because the world is flat also.

[Eduardo-]

I saw an ad for a park in Kentucky that was centered around Noah's Ark. I was curious if it had dinosaurs on board so I visited the web site. The Ark did have dinosaurs and there is a very logical reason...

https://answersingenesis.org/dinosau...-how-possible/

"It makes sense to think that God would have sent to Noah juveniles (or sub-adults) dinosaurs or smaller varieties within the same kind. Consider the following advantages to bringing juveniles or smaller versions of a creature: they take up less space, they eat less, they create less waste, they are often more docile and easier to manage, they are generally less susceptible to injury, and they would have more time to reproduce after the flood."

And:

"The average dinosaur is about the size of a bison, and the estimated number of dinosaur kinds (of which only a pair of each was brought) may have been about 85—-meaning a maximum of 170 dinosaurs were taken aboard the ark. Therefore, the ark had adequate space for every kind of dinosaur, particularly if God sent sub-adults to Noah."

You just have to have common sense. Ark Park is now on my bucket list.

If you read the Bible you can clearly see that there is no dinosaurs in the Bible. There never were.

Man (the current man) has been on Earth for about 6,000 years. That is the count from Adam to the present day (the age of every generation is there and some people did the count).

According to science, dinosaurs lived like 65 millions years ago. A difference of many, many folds with the man.

So, what the explanation?

The answer is that there was an indeterminate amount of time between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2, because Genesis 1:2 starts "but the earth became..." in Hebrew.

This is called "gap creationism"

You can read more: https://custance.org/Library/WFANDV/index.html

Just think a little bit: how can God have created something in a state that was a mess? That's not how God does things. That's not how He behaves.

Gen 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep...

No, God does not do the things like that.

Deuteronomy 32:4: He is the Rock, his work is perfect...

I can, if is anyone interested, explain with a lot more of detail this subject.

[wes4dbt]

There is a difference between stopping drilling and saving the spotted owl and interfering with others choices on IVF. These are people with delusional beliefs, absolutely nothing based on facts, affecting people that don't don't acknowledge their "reality".

I would "push back" on people that want to change international shipping because the world is flat also.

There usually is a difference in the reason or the how it adversely affects people. That doesn't make it less "common place". A group of people thinking a law is based on a delusion isn't rare. Just ask the people that don't believe in climate change, masks, vaccines, transgenders .......

Which was the whole point of that comment, not whether your right or wrong to be outraged. If you feel the need to push back against something, do it. Not good for your blood pressure to keep things bottled up. lol

[FunkyDexter]

I don't have a problem with people of religion making decisions that become enacted as law. I don't have a problem with people of religion basing those decisions on the moral code they derive from that religion - all legislators follow their own moral code regardless of where they derive it from. I do have a problem if they make those decisions without regard for the secular or religious rights of those who do not follow the same religion. In that context scientific consensus must trump religious assertion because it's the closest thing we have to a universally accepted standard in the modern world.

With that framing I think this decision, like so many others around the pro-choice/life debate, comes down to whether scientific consensus supports their religious position. In this case, would scientific consensus regard a frozen embryo as a human being (I would say no) or even as a life (this is getting far more woolly but I would still say no as the simple act of doing nothing would result in the embryo defrosting and dying). From the religious point of view, the sin in this scenario would be the extraction and freezing of the embryo in the first place. In fact, I think this sounds like a particularly egregious example of misapplication of the intention of a legal framework but the article's behind a paywall so there may be some nuance I'm missing.

As an aside, it's this framework that means that, while I'm pro-choice, I do have sympathy for the pro-life position when it comes to abortion. Science doesn't really have a consensus on what "a life" is. It doesn't even have a consensus on what "life" is beyond the 5 characteristics of life we all got taught in basic biology and which we know are utterly inadequate as a definition. It does have a consensus on what "a human life" is (clue: it doesn't include embryos and zygotes any more than it does sperm or an egg, it starts at birth) but that begs the question of what a law is designed to protect. There's nothing to say that a law cannot or should not be designed to protect a "potential human life" though I would want that law to be phrased as such to be honest about it's intent.

[TysonLPrice]

Using the Bible as a scientific textual body is like using a comic book to prove people can fly...

[FunkyDexter]

I don't think anyone is doing that though. Well, some people are but they're in the minority and usually not acting in good faith - this particular legislator may fall into that category, I don't know. For the purpose of discussion I'll assume he is.

Having faith is not the same as following science and I don't think most religious people regard it as such. In fact, most of the religious people I've talked to regard faith as requiring an absence of proof whereas science seeks it's presence. In many ways they're opposites but that does not invalidate either one. This is what I was saying upthread about them occupying different problem spaces. Religion doesn't attempt to explain why gravity works any more than science tries to explain what it means to find happiness in your peer group.

There are other important differences. Most notable to this discussion would be a moral framework. Science doesn't have one, religion does (n.b. this is not to say that a particular religions moral framework is just or that religion is a prerequisite of a moral framework). For that reason, is doesn't surprise or offend me that a religious legislator would lean on their religion when attempting to reach a moral position for new legislation. I'm not offended when an irreligious legislator leans on their own moral framework, regardless of it's source. In both cases I would be offended if they arrived at a position that I found to be deeply immoral - it would speak to a failure in their moral framework.

I'm also offended if the position a legislator arrives at is contradictory to accepted scientific consensus without that contradiction being made clear and examined. The particular case you cited is an example of this because it is predicated on a human embryo being a human child, which it is not. I honestly don't care much whether that position was informed by a Christian belief, a Humanist belief or just what someone's conscience told them in the moment.

This is why, while I'm pro-choice, I'm open to discussion on whether late term or even mid and early term abortions should be legal. I do not feel, however, that these can be categorised, as pro-lifers so often do, as "murder". We have a definition for murder and an abortion, even a single day before birth, does not meet that definition without the need to undermine it's predicates, which is what the legislator you cited is trying to do. If we want those things to be illegal we should draft legislation that specifically makes them illegal and we should be honest in the language we use to do so. I may not agree with that legislation but, as long as it's arrived at honestly and democratically, I will accept it. I may campaign to reverse it but that's part of the democratic process. I recognise they are positions that can be arrived at in good faith by well meaning people whether I agree with them or not.

I will say, I am fundamentally against banning abortion in cases of incest, rape, risk of serious and/or life threatening disability or risk of death or permanent injury to the mother. I'm against those things because I find them to be morally evil within the terms of my own moral framework and I think they speak to a failure in the moral framework of the proposer which I alluded to earlier.

[TysonLPrice]

FunkyDexter...well put. It wasn't a legislator that used all the quotes from the Bible to justify the decision but one of three of the Justices. I mention that because to me it makes it even more egregious. There should be separation of separation of state and church and he is apparently disregarding that over his religion.

I get your point, "Religion doesn't attempt to explain why gravity works any more than science tries to explain what it means to find happiness in your peer group", but religion does try to explain gravity, God created it, and there are scientific studies of peer group interaction. I'm not missing your point but religion makes up answers and science would say "I don't know".

And I can see it is a matter of degree. I'm referring to the fundamentalists that truly believe dinosaurs and people lived together and a flood destroyed the entire world except for what was on the Ark. Another side is the sense of community, belonging, and attempts at understanding the meaning of life that play in.

Regarding the latter, I choose not to believe things other people made up thousands of years ago in an age of relative ignorance, compared to the knowledge available now. I say I just don't know.

[Shaggy Hiker]

When it comes to religion, just as with all other things, there are different levels of understanding among all the practitioners. Some have shallow, simplistic, understanding while others have deeper understanding. Most people do not want to dedicate enough of their lives to looking into all the nuances of their set of beliefs, and therefore take a few simple rules of thumb and live with them. They may or may not know that the rules of thumb are incorrect, but they likely do realize that there is more to the story than just what they know. I, for example, have only a cursory understanding of the centrarchids. I know just enough to know that sunfish are a mess, but I don't know how messy they are. Still, I would say that sunfish are a mess while a person with a more thorough understanding might say they are not, and a person with a lesser understanding might call them all bluegill and be done with it.

Religion is not free of those different levels of understanding, either. Therefore, I'm a bit reluctant to poke fun at those who don't know their religion all that well, but I do have a real problem with people who take that shallow understanding and try to enforce it on others. A lack of understanding of centrarchids has very little impact on how a person lives their life, but religion tends to engender far more controversy and drives people to bludgeon one another more often.

[TysonLPrice]

Shaggy Hiker:

Good points. I have a hostility towards organized religion that I might have to explore within myself

[wes4dbt]

I'd say level of understanding certainly applies to me on the laws about separation of church and state. My level is low.

But if the law is anything like what it sounds then this Justice seems to be openly ignoring it. Which as I said earlier, that's disturbing.

It's not all that surprising since we've never really had a separation of church and state. I believe in some states you still have to swear to god that you'll tell the truth when testifying in court.

I have a hostility towards organized religion that I might have to explore within myself

Me too but I've had to learn hide it. For the sake of harmony with my family. Maybe the fact it seems always our responsibility to keep the peace that adds to my hostility. It's always perfectly acceptable for someone to say "praise God for suchandsuch" but never acceptable to point out the fallacies.

Religion doesn't attempt to explain why gravity works any more than science tries to explain what it means to find happiness in your peer group

I got to agree with Ty on this, both ends of that comparison is wrong. You really need to step up your comparison game. lol

[TysonLPrice]

It's always perfectly acceptable for someone to say "praise God for suchandsuch" but never acceptable to point out the fallacies.

That leads into another one of my pet peeves because politicians say that all the time. In my opinion the US was NOT founded as a Christian nation as so many Christians like to say. They like to add "In God We Trust" is printed on the money even that that occurred long after the founding. Or throwing out "Under God" in the pledge of allegiance. That was added in 1954.

The founders deliberately tried to keep an organized religion out of the founding.

[Shaggy Hiker]

There has always been an ebb and flow of religious beliefs in this country, and for particular states within the country.

[wes4dbt]

Most notable to this discussion would be a moral framework. Science doesn't have one, religion does (n.b. this is not to say that a particular religions moral framework is just or that religion is a prerequisite of a moral framework). For that reason, is doesn't surprise or offend me that a religious legislator would lean on their religion when attempting to reach a moral position for new legislation.

I'm bored so I'll comment on this.

There is the 10 Commandments and that sounds all well and good. But the Bible also has a lot of killing. There's a loooong history of killing in the name of God. So go figure.

I don't find religion to be very inclusive. It's more, "my way or the highway". Not a very attractive moral guideline. It would be interesting to see how the actual morals of Christians compares to Atheists. I'm sure there's probably been a study but I'm not bored enough to go searching for it. Then again, what's moral and what's not??? I think there are a lot of people willing to overlook Christian actual deeds because of this perceived moral compass.

[TysonLPrice]

I asked ChatGPT

User
Why do intelligent people believe in god...I subscribe to this :

It's essential to recognize that intelligence is a complex and multifaceted trait that encompasses various cognitive abilities, including reasoning, problem-solving, and emotional intelligence. Belief in God is influenced by a wide range of factors beyond intellectual capacity alone. People of all levels of intelligence can hold religious beliefs, just as they can hold a variety of philosophical, political, or cultural beliefs.

This is ChatGPT:

The belief in a higher power, such as a god or gods, is not inherently linked to one's level of intelligence. People of varying levels of intelligence can hold religious beliefs for a multitude of reasons, including cultural upbringing, personal experiences, emotional needs, philosophical convictions, and a desire for meaning or purpose in life.

Here are a few reasons why intelligent individuals might believe in God:

Personal experiences: Many people cite personal experiences that they interpret as evidence of a divine presence or intervention. These experiences might include feelings of transcendence, answered prayers, or moments of profound insight or inspiration.

Cultural and familial influences: Upbringing and cultural background play a significant role in shaping religious beliefs. Intelligent individuals, like anyone else, may adhere to the religious beliefs of their family or community due to social and cultural pressures.

Philosophical considerations: Some intelligent individuals arrive at belief in God through philosophical reasoning. They might find persuasive arguments for the existence of God in philosophical works or through personal contemplation about the nature of reality, morality, or existence itself.

Desire for meaning and purpose: Belief in God can provide a framework for understanding the purpose and meaning of life. Intelligent individuals, like anyone else, may find comfort and direction in religious teachings about morality, the afterlife, and humanity's place in the universe.

Emotional and psychological factors: Belief in God can offer solace, hope, and a sense of belonging, particularly during difficult times. Intelligent individuals may turn to religion for emotional support, community, and guidance in navigating life's challenges.

It's essential to recognize that intelligence is a complex and multifaceted trait that encompasses various cognitive abilities, including reasoning, problem-solving, and emotional intelligence. Belief in God is influenced by a wide range of factors beyond intellectual capacity alone. People of all levels of intelligence can hold religious beliefs, just as they can hold a variety of philosophical, political, or cultural beliefs.

[FunkyDexter]

We're getting into nuance rather than substance here and I agree with your main thrust but:-

religion does try to explain gravity, God created it

I disagree. I think some (a very small some in my opinion... but I'm less than sure about that, ymmv) religious people do but the Christian religion itself does not. I'm open to being proved wrong because I haven't checked but I'm reasonably sure the word Gravity never appears in the bible.

I do agree that there is a subset of Christians who want to portray it as a science and feel they can explain everything in it's terms. I honestly think they do themselves and their religion a disservice in this but I also understand the urge. If people tell you you're an idiot for believing in magic sky ghosts who's existence cannot be proven enough times it can be tempting to engage on your critic's terms, but that's a mistake. What they should be doing is pointing out that the magic sky ghost is a source of ineffable strength and comfort and to prove it's existence would undermine it's ability to do that. Religion does not need to meet scientific standards to achieve the purpose that most people hold it for and it would actually be a contradiction for it to do so.

But instead of that Fundamentalists (I think I'm using that word correctly but not sure - we don't really have Fundamentalists over here) allow themselves to be drawn into arguing religion as a science, which just ends up making them look silly.

I have a hostility towards organized religion

Me too

Yeah, I get it. I think this may be a difference between the American and the European experience. It feels like you guys have a lot more folks proselytizing at you and condemning you when you don't agree and, under the same circumstances, I'd probably end up feeling the same. I've got a big contrarian bent and there's nothing more likely to make me despise something than repeatedly telling me I should adore it. In the end, though, it's my own humanist beliefs that make me tolerant of peoples religious beliefs, even when I disagree with them.

I don't find religion to be very inclusive

Here I disagree but I think we may be disagreeing on semantics rather than substance. When I refer to "Religion" I'm referring to the basic teaching of that religion. I think what you're referring to is the subset of practitioners who take those teaching and twist them to justify doing awful things. In that case I'm 100% with you. But the overwhelming theme of the Bible, particularly the New Testament, is one of compassion for other. It certainly does contain some unpleasant sections but I think you have to cherry pick pretty heavily to conclude that those sections are its message. I think that's true of pretty much every religion's primary text. Hell, even the Church of Satan sis actually mostly about being nice to each other - they're still idiots though. Sadly there are both practitioners and deriders who are willing to engage in that cherry picking but I don't feel they are acting in good faith.

I've read more about the case Wes cited as it's appeared on more sources and I think the Legislator in question is indeed one of those bad faith cherry pickers. I don't believe for a second that he started out with the belief that accidentally dropping a tray of frozen embryos genuinely represented an unlawful killing. I think he started out with an Anti Abortion stance and wanted to justify that in terms of the Bible. Since the bible never mentions abortion (it does mention causing miscarriage through violence but you need to be pretty creative with your interpretation to equate the two) that required him to redefine embryo's as children (aside: this actually contradicts the bible which is pretty explicit that life begins at birth with the "breath of life") so that abortion could be defined as murder. Once you've done that he cannot escape that frozen embryos must also be defined as children because to do so would undermine his prior position. So now we reach a conclusion that a mentally ill person could end up getting sentenced to death for tripping over his own shoe laces. Woot! Pro Life y'all! That is not a position arrived at by a good faith reading of the Bible. That is a position arrived at by starting with a conclusion and working backwards to justify that conclusion. The fact that he's willing to twist his own religious text whenever it's inconvenient to that process really just makes it even more egregious.

[TysonLPrice]

I think gravity is covered in the Bible:

Colossians 1:16
For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities all things were created through him and for him.

John 1:3
All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Gravity may not be mentioned specifically, just like abortion was never mentioned in the constitution but was a right for awhile, but if you ask a fundamentalist you would find God created EVERYTHING out of darkness.

Also, It was not a legislator in question but a justice on the Alabama Supreme Court that made all the Bible quotes and was part of the decision. That is much more egregious then a legislator to me.

[sapator]

How about other religions like Islam? What are your observation on the subject vs Christianity?

[wes4dbt]

How about other religions like Islam? What are your observation on the subject vs Christianity?

Birds of a feather. It's not the Religion that's the problem, it's how people use it.

[wes4dbt]

FD,

Yeah, I get it. I think this may be a difference between the American and the European experience. It feels like you guys have a lot more folks proselytizing at you and condemning you when you don't agree and, under the same circumstances, I'd probably end up feeling the same. I've got a big contrarian bent and there's nothing more likely to make me despise something than repeatedly telling me I should adore it. In the end, though, it's my own humanist beliefs that make me tolerant of peoples religious beliefs, even when I disagree with them.

It's not so much dealing with people pushing their religion(definitely annoying), it's more about the use of religion to take advantage of people or to justify harming people. Also I think it really bothers me to see people lied to or brainwashed.

I don't find religion to be very inclusive

Here I disagree but I think we may be disagreeing on semantics rather than substance. When I refer to "Religion" I'm referring to the basic teaching of that religion. I think what you're referring to is the subset of practitioners who take those teaching and twist them to justify doing awful things. In that case I'm 100% with you. But the overwhelming theme of the Bible, particularly the New Testament, is one of compassion for other. It certainly does contain some unpleasant sections but I think you have to cherry pick pretty heavily to conclude that those sections are its message. I think that's true of pretty much every religion's primary text. Hell, even the Church of Satan sis actually mostly about being nice to each other - they're still idiots though. Sadly there are both practitioners and deriders who are willing to engage in that cherry picking but I don't feel they are acting in good faith.

The Bible isn't what's not inclusive, it's how it's taught and how it's practiced. Of course the bad actors is a subset but it's a significant subset. Really the actual bad actors is probably a small subset but they're able to convince a large subset that their interpretation is the only correct way to live. All other ways of living are wrong.

Does the good out weigh the bad, probably. But my feeling is that good religious works are done by good people and would be good people even if there was no religion involved.

Edit: btw - Ty was the one who posted the article. I don't want to take credit for something he did. It's clear he's not religious so that evil guy scares me. lol

[TysonLPrice]

How about other religions like Islam? What are your observation on the subject vs Christianity?

That's a fair question and I do think it applies to any groups "abusing" religion in the way I have been saying. But, my focus is on Christianity. I was raised as a strict fundamentalist. I wasn't even allowed to go into a store on Sunday, so I know that religion and what I'm talking about fairly well.

Maybe that is the reason I'm emotional about it...I was so disappointed when I found out the God I was taught about, and believed in, was a fairy tale

[TysonLPrice]

Wes4dbt: "It's clear he's not religious so that evil guy scares me. lol"

We already mentioned you don't need religion to be good. I picked evil on my own

[Shaggy Hiker]

I'm a backsliding Unitarian, myself. Heck, I was raised as a backsliding Unitarian. We'd talk about getting together and burning a question mark, but just didn't care enough, so instead we'd have a rummage sale.

[wes4dbt]

I'm a backsliding Unitarian, myself. Heck, I was raised as a backsliding Unitarian. We'd talk about getting together and burning a question mark, but just didn't care enough, so instead we'd have a rummage sale.

I was baptized Catholic but that was about all. Don't remember ever attending a Catholic church. Don't really know what my dad believed, never went to church, but always made us say grace before dinner. Maybe he thought that would make up for a day of swearing, drinking and violence. My mom was a true believer and later in life was very involved in her church. But she was one of those people that was naturally good and kind.

I stopped trying religion in my early twenties. Though I could have definitely used some guidance in my 20's, 30's 40's. lol

[sapator]

I think it's for a new subject but.
Orthodox is a Greek word mean true grace, glory , Catholic also Greek means total, everything . There are fights in between the religions and I won't go on what the Catholic Pope church did to Orthodox countries but it was not good.
I've said it before, I believe whatever binds us (meaning Greek and any other Orthodox Christians) makes us "Stronger" in terms of keeping a country together. That is why our Prime traitor is hitting the church so hard and legislating anti Christian garbage.
On the account of not caring. I mean what do you have to lose actually? If you are getting to a certain age it's either something out there or nothing. Which is preferred?
And I'm not implying that some people are old in here and are going to die....Wait!...

On the account of other religions. Islam. That is much more radical and strict. For what I've viewed and listened so I might be wrong but, there are deviations , some are more liberal but in the majority, can you go to an Islamic country and kiss in public? Can you expose your WOKE agenda in public? You will die or go to prison. You are out of luck trying to play smarty out there and other stuff you might know. Islam preaching that everyone must be turned or die. Also there is a plan on the move to push as many Muslims in Europe so Christianity would be destroyed. It's a good plain, it's working fine as most of the leaders are pawn or stupid NWOeers.
There are other religions , Buddhism, Hinduism, I don't know nothing about.

In general people needed to believe. Whether it was Greek or Roman gods or Jesus or Allah . There issue here is what you choose to believe. If you believe in nothing it's fine , if you believe in something then it's fine to. Believe in nothing gives you the benefit of doing everything good or evil and only bind by human laws and you get no afterlife check. Believe in something it's first bind by by religion laws and then human laws and then you get an afterlife check. Just don't go imposing to other people what to do. I hate that.

[TysonLPrice]

Part of being Christian is surrendering yourself to God. For a bit you surrender all your cares and feel embraced by a higher power. Like falling into the arms of a loving mother or father and surrendering. It is the surrendering that is the downside to me. You become a sheep and Jesus is your Shepard. Or on the flip side, a warrior for God. How intense that is and how long it lasts seems to vary among people.

[sapator]

Well there are other religions.
In some you can kill infidels, rape, have 30 woman in marriage. The only downside is not drinking alcohol and eating pork meat.

[TysonLPrice]

Well there are other religions.
In some you can kill infidels, rape, have 30 woman in marriage. The only downside is not drinking alcohol and eating pork meat.

For Catholics it goes from God, to the Pope, to he masses. For a while there God had some problem with fish, then I guess he/she had second thoughts and told the Pope, who let us know, that it is OK to eat fish now.

[sapator]

Saying that.
Without religion I'm not sure if we ever had metal so I'm glad.

Also pope and masses makes me think of this one:

Attachment 190550

[techgnome]

For Catholics it goes from God, to the Pope, to he masses. For a while there God had some problem with fish, then I guess he/she had second thoughts and told the Pope, who let us know, that it is OK to eat fish now.

It wasn't fish that had a problem... or maybe it was... But if you're referring to the whole not eating meat during Lent, it had to do with some religious leaders at the time, saw an opportunity to boost their sales ... after all many were fishermen, or related to one. So they cooked up an idea to ban the eating of meet during lent, but somehow fish was OK to eat because it wasn't meat meat... (ie not bovine or porcine) and so that became "law" for centuries... there is zero religious reasons for it.


Similar thing with being Kosher ... there is zero religious reasons behind it. It's a carry over from a time gone by when cross contamination was a real issue. In this age, with refrigeration it's not an issue any more. But some people still adhere to it.

-tg

[sapator]

Also if you are bound to what a spiritual leader will say then you are bound to the picture above, being a sheep.
You have to find your own path and not the imposed rules. Read the bible the apostles writings etc and don't became Tarantino on "They Live".

[Shaggy Hiker]

I read that as "bovine or porcupine", and thought it to be oddly specific...until I re-read it.

[wes4dbt]

This explains everything,

[TysonLPrice]

It wasn't fish that had a problem... or maybe it was... But if you're referring to the whole not eating meat during Lent, it had to do with some religious leaders at the time, saw an opportunity to boost their sales ... after all many were fishermen, or related to one. So they cooked up an idea to ban the eating of meet during lent, but somehow fish was OK to eat because it wasn't meat meat... (ie not bovine or porcine) and so that became "law" for centuries... there is zero religious reasons for it.


Similar thing with being Kosher ... there is zero religious reasons behind it. It's a carry over from a time gone by when cross contamination was a real issue. In this age, with refrigeration it's not an issue any more. But some people still adhere to it.

-tg

I was trying to be cute with "For Catholics it goes from God, to the Pope, to he masses". He is a direct "chosen" link to God. A quiet secret is at the moment is there are technically two popes. Just like the fish, rules are made to be broken.

[TysonLPrice]

I was thinking of this post for some odd reason and I thought where do the believers think all the water went after it covered the world? Are there any believers here that can explain it?

For the "believers" here is the truth:

https://answersingenesis.org/the-flo...floodwater-go/

[sapator]

If you are a "believer" you are not bound by the world of physics but by the world of God, so God got the water back and you can jump around screaming as much as you want.
On another note we know that middle Greece was a big lake in older times and now in it's place there is a big plan so for anyone interested how this happen let me know also as I haven't looked it up. What I recall was because of a big earthquake but not sure.

[TysonLPrice]

If you are a "believer" you are not bound by the world of physics but by the world of God

Well, actually they are bound by the world of physics no matter what they believe. Let them try jumping off a tall building and see if their belief saves them.