Was there any HOMOSEXUAL Dinosaurs

Question:

I don’t like crossposting. The answer to your post is in alt.religion.christian. If you don’t want to read that group, why are you posting to it in the first place? Kjetil J

Response:

I don’t like crossposting. The answer to your post is in alt.religion.christian. If you don’t want to read that group, why are you posting to it in the first place?

1. I didn’t write the initial post in this thread 2. the initial poster crossposted it. 3. I reply to crossposts and rarely change group headers. Timothy Sutter wrote… Ok, let’s deal with each debate separately. First, I oppose the idea that this is a common rendering of creation. If it was, I would have heard it before. I have never read any official statements of faith in any christian or semi-christian group stating among other things that there was life on the moon and mars as well as ‘a million billion planets’. they aren’t as imaginative as I am. My point exactly. If the story hinges on your creativity it is not a ‘common rendering of the Genesis creation story’, is it?

NO, not your point. my imaginative thinking *allows* me to see the inferrence. I did not invent the things upon which the inferrence is based. it is *not* my "creativity" but my imaginitive insight. and imaginitive insight is an invaluable necessity in any logical endeavor. but God did not create darkness. The various authors of the Bible state repeatedly that God has created all things. Nothing exists that was not created by God. God even states himself (through the author of course) that he created darkness/evil.

absolutely not true. as I showed you, already, "you were perfect in all your creation until iniquity was *found* in you" God did *not* create the iniquity that was Found in this creation. God did not create the darkness, God found it. You’ll have to convince me that this darkness came from God. Logical deduction. If God created all things and nothing ever existed without his creating, he must also have created darkness. (Not to mention that he states this himself through th author)

"iniquity was *found* in you" you’re going to have a hurdle to jump from gen 1:1 to gen 1:2 No I dont. They are two different stories not intended to be read chronologically.

this does not take away from my statement that the darkness was not *in the beginning* I see your point but disagree. It is an accepted fact between biblical scholars that this "gap" is there because the author stiched together two stories. It is not chronologichally (or even factually) intended. it’s that way for a reason. I will not dip into a "corrupt" text theory. this would only serve to destroy the bible’s presumed authority. Congratulations you missed the point entirely. The text is not corrupt. Wether you believe in it or not, the text can not be corrupt because it is just a text. The corruption enters the picture when we here in Western culture ascribe our ideals and values to a time-period of over 1500 years. Several passages and chapters in the bible show an acceptance for slavery. This does not mean that slavery is correct or even suggested as acceptable in the bible, just an acceptance that that was the situation when the text was written. Don’t ascribe your idioms and values to the bible.

no *you* claimed that the genesis account was "stitched together from several stories" *you* said, "Pauline epistles were forged" this is an allusion to a corrupted textual format. now you are hand waving. In doing so, you make the text corrupt all by yourself.

*you* said, "stitched together from several sources" *you* said, "Pauline epistles were forged" *you* made the allusion to a corrupted text. you are making an attempt to step back from that statement. *these* statements speak of a corrupted text. Sure it does. That is, however, not my problem with the statement. I criticized the statement because: 1) Where is the evidence that the Earth was ‘restored’ or renewed in any way? yes, if it is rendered "the earth *became* void" then the act becomes one of restoration. You haven’t provided nearly enough proof that this is the correct interpretation.

but yet you agree that gen 1:1 to gen 1:2 has a time anomaly. and John says, "God is light and in him there is no darkness at all." and we see "darkness" in gen 1:2. and "iniquity" was *found* in something that was created. it doesn’t take "creative" logic to make the inferrence. perhaps "insightful" logic. but that is the cornerstone of many logical enterprises. and not just "this earth" but the entire material universe. That’s a stretch at best. Prove this.

it’s not a far stretch. it falls out as a consequence of my inferrence. Ephesians 6:12 For we are not fighting against human beings but against the wicked spiritual forces in the heavenly world, the rulers, authorities, and cosmic powers of this dark age. see, the bible implies that the darkness brought into the universe was brought by "evil spirits" It does nothing of the sort. It states that someone is fighting against something in a dark age. It says nothing about who brought about the dark age.

"wicked spiritual forces" means nothing? another translation has "evil spirits in heavenly places" and that’s why it’s a big book. not every detail is explained in a single sentence. I already showed verses that apply to the advent of this "darkness" The use of language in the post reminds me of the White-suited pastor(TM) selling audio tapes on some christian radio station. It is apocalyptic, doesn’t really say anything and does nothing in indicating evidence. more non-sequitur. your impression of me or the bible has no bearing on this matter. Then why do you insist that your impression does? Are you some sort of cosmological authority perhaps?

my impression of me? I certainly gave no "impression" of the bible. I simply read it in a comprehensive manner and came to a conclusion based on several key statements. my opinion of the bible has nothing to do with what i wrote. it is a perfectly reasonable inferrence. the "question" aksed for an explanation of dinosaurs pre-Adam. I supplied one. You did not. You supplied a hypothesis without offering evidence.

I gave an answer. I subsequently provided a subtext. Without knowing this and other things about the time, we would have to (by scientific process) throw out these Pauline letters on that fact alone. irrelevant No it isn’t. Without proper knowledge about the history of a text, you are incapable of discerning the intended information from it.

nope, I can make inferrence and draw conclusion based on the text alone. knowing Paul’s shoesize adds nil to the understanding of Paul. oh, and claiming "forgery" is definitely claiming a corrupt text, and not some corrupt "infusion of western ideals" so, stick to one side of your mouth, please. try not to say, "corrupted text" and then glaze over it with "corrupted reading" so, here’s you from above; "The text is not corrupt." so, you retract Pauline forgeries? and Mosaic piecework purloining of "other sources"? if so, you’ll find nothing in my rendering that involved any infusion of "corrupted western ideals" just a set of biblical statements that enabled inferrence. I provided an explanation. You provided a hypothesis. Not an explanation.

snore. The bible interpreted by modern man without knowledge about the author is a book seemingly full of fairy-tales and often direct contradictions. Psalms 18:25-26 With the loyal thou dost show thyself loyal; with the blameless man thou dost show thyself blameless; with the pure thou dost show thyself pure; and with the crooked thou dost show thyself perverse. you can read that any way you’d like. Oh the hint was obvious, thankyou. Now who’s doing the name-calling?

paranoia on your part, or you think the bible called you perverse. but the way *I* read it is like this; the opinion you have of the God of the bible says more about *you* that it does about the God of the Bible. yeah, I know, you, personally, are just discreditting the bible. and not necessarily the God of the bible. but, maybe some day, you’ll come to realize exactly where the so-called contradiction lies. I have. The contradiction lies with fanatics searching for verses to support their agenda. There is nothing wrong with the texts, just the so-called christians who are twisting them to support something they do not. I am not discrediting the bible, nor God, just close-minded fanatics.

ok, so now, we definitely have retraction of the corrupted text claim. you said, some of Paul’s letters were forgeries, and Moses "stitched together" various sources in genesis. this is no longer your stance? and *I* "twisted" nothing. I aaid it appears that gen 1:2 does not follow directly from gen 1:1, (which you agree) and then made a statement about the appearance of "darkness" and coupled that with, "you were perfect in all your creation until iniquity was found in you" along with references to various Sons of God which were not equivalent to sons of men. and drew the inferrence that "the darkness" was a consequence of the iniquity of Satan. which is quite reasonable and not twisted at all. I don’t appreciate your comments on my religious life. You know nothing about it. It is exactly that sort of assumptions that messes up your arguments.

huh? my comments? show me? you mean the Psalmist? as i said, you read that any way you like. you said "some people see th ebible as a book of fairy tales and contradiction" and I gave you the Psalmist. I don’t recall whether you said *you* see the bible that way. but you did make claims that the bible was a corrupt text. (yes you did) – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – "abusenet" is tired and boring. what a pitiful waste of a nice piece of tech. Not at all. usenet

Response:

Timothy Sutter wrote… Timothy Sutter wrote… it’s one of the common renderings of the genesis creation story. Oh is it now? yes, it is. there’s a bit of lead in. <Snip verses Ok, let’s deal with each debate separately. First, I oppose the idea that this is a common rendering of creation. If it was, I would have heard it before. I have never read any official statements of faith in any christian or semi-christian group stating among other things that there was life on the moon and mars as well as ‘a million billion planets’.

they aren’t as imaginative as I am. but God did not create darkness. and the Angelic rebellion brought death into the universe. "the darkness of the Pit." and I said the gen 1:1 gen 1:2 gap theory is common. not *my* "life abounded" embellishments. *but* if the universe was created *before* the Angelic rebellion, and the Angelic rebellion brought Death into the universe then it is *not* a far stretch to INFER that "life abounded" *before* the Angelic rebellion, and as such, being prevalent on an untold number of planets. It’s a moot point anyway and calls for some definitions before we continue. Now on to the interesting part.

1 John 1:5 Now the message that we have heard from his Son and announce is this: God is light, and there is no darkness at all in him. 2 Corinthians 4:6 The God who said, "Out of darkness the light shall shine!" is the same God who made his light shine in our hearts, to bring us the knowledge of God’s glory shining in the face of Christ. 2 Corinthians 4:4 They do not believe, because their minds have been kept in the dark by the evil god of this world. He keeps them from seeing the light shining on them, the light that comes from the Good News about the glory of Christ, who is the exact likeness of God. gen 1:2 says "darkness was on the face of the deep" You’ll have to convince me that this darkness came from God. seems that the darkness came from the "evil god of this world." I see a definite space between "created the heavens and the earth" and "now the earth _was_ void and darkness was over the face of the deep" you’ll have to convince me that it isn’t "now the earth *became* void…" they’re both forms of "to be" if you read it strictly your way; in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, now *as yet* the earth did not exist, and darkness….. meaning, the first sentence speaks of the act of creation, followed by a back tracking to *before* the creation event. which by modern cosmological theory would be a must, seeing that heavy elements that the earth and earthlike "planets" are made of did not exist in the first second of "creation" meaning, the theory goes that there was an eruption or burst of a plasma that was both matter and energy, well neither, but some stuff called loosely a "plasma" where E = mc

Filed under: Political Activism

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

TrackBack URL | RSS feed for comments on this post.

Activism Change

Learn, read, react :: Activism