So Bill Nye is going to debate Ken Ham...

[Gravekeeper]

Sorry, I wasn't trying to gang up you or anything. I was just laying out the facts of the matter so you could both move on to something else. >.>

Like I said before, you're essentially both right depending on the angle. So arguing about it any further is a bit pointless.

[siead_lietrathua]

no worries.

on topic: kinda loving the youtube commentaries coming up on the debate now.
one of my faves, from Jacyln Glenn https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Khy57BH1JWM summs it up well.
"radiometric dating says the earth is older than 6000 years"
"but there's a book, and the book says god dun it"
"trees have more than 6000 annual rings"
"but there's a book that says..."
"ice layers show hundreds of thousands of diffrent winter/summer cycles"
"but there's a book"
and so on and so on.
eventually it's basically "science" "magic!" "science" "magic!"

which, is pretty accurate.

i think the only thing that actually made me cringe was that Ham refused to even hypothetically discuss that there could be something out there that could ever change his mind on the 6000 year thing. and when bill got asked the same question, he was like "sure, ONE FOSSIL in the wrong place"

[Gravekeeper]

Honestly, this is the best summary I've seen.

[Andara Bledin]

That pretty much sums it up in a nutshell.

One is a scientist and the other is a zealot.

[Rageaholic]

i mean, you can swat off any controversial subject with whether or not a particular sect teaches it. the sects may not teach slavery anymore, but it's still in the bible, and can still be talked about as a horrible thing in the bible.

edit: if this is just boiling down to "well we can't say bad things about the bible because everyone interperets it diffrerent" then i'm skipping outta this thread. but not before sharing more Bill Nye Face.

It seems like a lot of people here, whether religious or not, agrees that fundamentalists like Ken Ham are wrong (at least that's the impression I get). I mean, I haven't seen anyone step in this thread and say they agree with Ham, even if they don't agree with Bill Nye either.

But yeah, while I'm glad people can think for themselves and are not literalists, I don't understand the defensiveness when fundamentalist views are criticized.

[Panacea]

i said some catholics. the experice of catholics that i know and speak to have told me they are taught it.

The point Kheldarson was trying to make (and GK as well) is that it is not the official position of the Roman Catholic Church. That being said, if some Catholics really do believe in literal interpretations of the Bible, they are in error and should refer to the Cathechism of the Catholic Church for clarification and correction, and then their priest or director of faith formation if they don't understand what they've read.

That being said, I've had friends in the Catholic Church all my life and none of them believed in Bible literalism. The topic was often discussed when we talked about religion, and the priest who led my RCIA (Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults) class was emphatic on that point: the Church does not believe in Bible literalism, the Bible is NOT a science text book, and the Church does not take official positions on the validity of science.

going back through the thread, i didn't start making any assertions about catholics period until you brought it up. christianity was being used as the term until you began your assertions that catholics are different.

I can't remember where in the thread that came up, so I'm not speaking to any individual here so much as to make this broad point: Christianity has changed and evolved so much in 2000 years that when you discuss the differences between Catholics and Protestants, you really are talking about two different things.

After Martin Luther nailed his 95 theses on the door of that church, he and other early Protestant thinkers such as John Calvin wanted to put as much difference between themselves and Catholic thinking that they junked about 1500 years or so of Church writing and philosophy: people like St. Augustine and Origen who both clearly wrote that the Bible should not be taken literally. They promoted the idea of Sola Scriptura: only scripture. If it wasn't in the Bible, it wasn't truth. This simple idea, which started out as a reaction against abuses by the RCC, is the foundation of all fundamentalist ideology. It's the foundation of what Ham thinks; and why he thinks the way he does.

and the first thing i said about catholocism is "(sidenote, my secondary is catholic, and they DO do the whole hell-fear thing from what he's told me)" and beyond that, the only stuff i said about catholosism in specific is that i've had catholics tell me they do teach hellfire. so, you're arguing that the personal experience i was told by someone has to be wrong because it's diffrent than yours?

I do think it's important to remember that there is a difference between the official position of the RCC, and what an individual believer may actually believe. What these catholics have told you is not official church doctrine, therefore you must be care about applying it broadly to all Catholics. I'm a Catholic, and while I certainly do believe in hell, I don't necessarily take that as a literal interpretation and I also acknowledge that I don't know if anyone (other than Satan) is actually in there.

When I converted to the Catholic Church, I learned that a lot of "cradle Catholics" hold onto ideas that are not officially part of the RCC teachings (the Catechism of the RCC). In some cases its because they learned their faith based on pre-Vatican II ideas. In others, they really didn't learn their faith at all as children and do everything by rote; what they actually believe becomes an amalgam of what their friends generally believe with some exceptions. There were a couple of cradle Catholics in my RCIA class who hadn't been in the church for decades and went through RCIA with me who were surprised to learn what the RCC really believes.

we can talk about the bible without having to get into this sect argument. it's all the same book. and whether or not people are taking it literally, if it's in the book it's up for discussion. even if hell is a metephor, it's still described, in that book, as a place of burning. so we can still say that hell, from the context of that book, is a sadist's wet dream.

Many people get a lot of their ideas about Hell from Dante's Inferno. Problem is, the Inferno is poetry. It's not based on anything actually in the Bible. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people, including some pastors, who talk about Hell as if the ideas in the Inferno were scriptural and they're not.

And the Bible is not all the same book. There are actually several different versions of the Bible. Protestants use a different version than Catholics. The differences is primarily in the Old Testament. Martin Luther did his own translation of the Bible to replace the Church standby (the Latin Vulgate Bible), and he reinterpreted some passages. He also excluded several books of the Old Testament (such as the Book of Wisdom).

The Eastern Orthodox churchs also have a different version of the Bible; they never used the Latin Vulgate version. The differences primarily affect the New Testament, with not all churchs in their faith accepting certain books of the New Testament, such as the Book of Revelation (source of modern Protestant evangelical ideas about the End Times and end of the World).

Then it's also important to remember some Christian sects, such as Jehovah Witnesses, deny the divinity of Jesus (they reject the Holy Trinity). That's a pretty profound difference, to the point that other Christians won't acknowledge that these sects are Christian. A JW or Mormon who decides to convert to Catholicism is considered a catechumen, and undergoes baptism again whereas a Baptist converting to Catholicism would not (Baptists believe in the Trinity, so only one baptism is accepted).

It seems like a lot of people here, whether religious or not, agrees that fundamentalists like Ken Ham are wrong (at least that's the impression I get). I mean, I haven't seen anyone step in this thread and say they agree with Ham, even if they don't agree with Bill Nye either.

But yeah, while I'm glad people can think for themselves and are not literalists, I don't understand the defensiveness when fundamentalist views are criticized.

Ken Ham is an absolute nut. The idea that early man frolicked with dinosaurs is simply preposterous and not supported by either the Bible OR science. He is literally rewriting what the Bible has to say in order to explain the findings of science and it simply does not work.

The defensiveness of the fundies is simple; it's their way of shutting down any conversation. They adopt this persecution complex so they don't have to actually defend their views.

[Nyoibo]

But yeah, while I'm glad people can think for themselves and are not literalists, I don't understand the defensiveness when fundamentalist views are criticized.

Because for many of them those views are their reality, if they had to face the idea that their reality might be wrong it would pretty much destroy their happy little world.

[siead_lietrathua]

The point Kheldarson was trying to make (and GK as well) is that it is not the official position of the Roman Catholic Church. That being said, if some Catholics really do believe in literal interpretations of the Bible, they are in error and should refer to the Cathechism of the Catholic Church for clarification and correction, and then their priest or director of faith formation if they don't understand what they've read.

i'm sorry, but to me that just sounds like "no true scotsman". if someone self-identifies as catholic, or tells me they are raised catholic, then i will take their word on it. religion is something we can only self-identify as.

I do think it's important to remember that there is a difference between the official position of the RCC, and what an individual believer may actually believe. What these catholics have told you is not official church doctrine, therefore you must be care about applying it broadly to all Catholics.

i never did. i only ever said the catholics i know said they were taught it, so that obviously some catholics ARE taught it.

but, for giggles, i went and looked it up on the catholic.com site. here's the link. http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-hell-there-is and while it does say that "The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God," it also mentions eternal fire several time, and lists a pile of quotes involving eternal fire. this page also admonished the religions that try to say there is no hell, so it's something very much in catholic doctrine. i also went and looked up this reformation vatacin 2 thing. it only happened in the mid 1960s? when the partner i mentioned is well into his 40's, and most of my social group is 30 and up, it's more than a little possible they were raised in an environment full of priests still teaching the old ways. and when you're dealing with childhood indoctrination, that shit sticks in your brain, even if someone comes along later and says "oh, we changed our minds, forget about the fire crap"
and, again, if we're arguing that they were taught wrong, so they aren't reallly catholics, well that's just the damn scotsman all over again.

and ya know what, take the fire out of hell for all it matters. if it's really only seperation from god, which will be the worst torture imaginable, worse than any physical pain.... then god is STILL a douchebag that makes people suffer for an unnatural length of time because they didn't love him and obey him like an abusive parent. (emphasized since this is really the only important part)

And the Bible is not all the same book. There are actually several different versions of the Bible. Protestants use a different version than Catholics. The differences is primarily in the Old Testament....

i'm gonna cut that quote here, because hell isn't even in the old testement. in judeism there's no heaven or hell. i can't remember how to spell it off the top of my head what their afterlife is, but i think it's sheol? and, again, even in the catholic versions hell is a place of eternal fire. that site i linked above has some quotes on it from the catholic bible version.

Then it's also important to remember some Christian sects, such as Jehovah Witnesses, deny the divinity of Jesus (they reject the Holy Trinity).

can't blame them. god did say to hold no other gods before him, and with people praying to christ or the saints before god directly, it is more of a multi-diety system. it's also a big part of the reason why some jews and islamics view christians as heretics for breaking the first commandment.

Ken Ham is an absolute nut. The idea that early man frolicked with dinosaurs is simply preposterous and not supported by either the Bible OR science. He is literally rewriting what the Bible has to say in order to explain the findings of science and it simply does not work.

i've never noticed him rewrite anything. he simply finds the quotes that fits his faith, like any other sect. behemoth does sound like a dinosaur, and if god made all animals on day 6, then he would have had to made the dinos then too. if god took one of each "kind" then it totally does make sense he might have taken the tiny dinosaurs and, to anyone not understanding the basics of evolution, have those turn into all the types of lizards we have today.
his arguments make perfect sense to anyone without a basic understanding of how evolution really works, or that have been indoctrined since childhood to always belive the man behind the pulpit.

[Rageaholic]

and ya know what, take the fire out of hell for all it matters. if it's really only seperation from god, which will be the worst torture imaginable, worse than any physical pain.... then god is STILL a douchebag that makes people suffer for an unnatural length of time because they didn't love him and obey him like an abusive parent. (emphasized since this is really the only important part)

I agree with this, but if it came down to this, I would prefer that more people just teach that hell is seperation from god. At least that won't mentally scar children like the Dante's Inferno stuff likely does.

[Gravekeeper]

i'm sorry, but to me that just sounds like "no true scotsman". if someone self-identifies as catholic, or tells me they are raised catholic, then i will take their word on it. religion is something we can only self-identify as.

It isn't no true scotsman. If anyone has a direct authority, its the Catholics. Seeing as they have their own bloody city state and supposed direct infallible appointment by God. Heck, its pretty much the only religion on Earth that has had a direct head of state so to speak ( and has had one for centuries ) and who even has official positions.

Burning eternal hellfire and damnation in the context of America seems to be more of a cultural thing which I assume the Puritans started up ( People so uptight, the English kicked them out. ). Much as I rarely admit it, I was raised Catholic as well and it was never a thing with Church up here.

As for religion being something we can only self identify as, yeah, wow, no. The whole idea behind organized religion is the organized part. Try self identifying as a Muslim or Jew and see how far it gets you. You can self identify as Christian all you want because it has so many different competing flavours and is largely based on wide spread proselytizing and conversion. Not so with the other two. Judaism especially.

but, for giggles, i went and looked it up on the catholic.com site. here's the link.

What I quoted before was directly from the Vatican's website. Catholic Answers is a bunch of American evangelical apologists out of California, none of their publications are endorsed or official in any way shape or form. In fact they have actually run afoul of the Vatican and other Catholic groups a couple of times. ( Also, apparently, afoul of the IRS. )

They literally specialize in training people to argue with atheists and pro-lifers. A quick glance around their site should have given you all the warning bells you needed.

i also went and looked up this reformation vatacin 2 thing. it only happened in the mid 1960s? when the partner i mentioned is well into his 40's, and most of my social group is 30 and up, it's more than a little possible they were raised in an environment full of priests still teaching the old ways.

Try 1908. >.>

then god is STILL a douchebag that makes people suffer for an unnatural length of time because they didn't love him and obey him like an abusive parent.[/B] (emphasized since this is really the only important part)

Again, in Catholic doctrine the separation from God is completely self inflicted and is not caused by disloyalty to God.

i'm gonna cut that quote here, because hell isn't even in the old testement. in judeism there's no heaven or hell. i can't remember how to spell it off the top of my head what their afterlife is, but i think it's sheol? and, again, even in the catholic versions hell is a place of eternal fire. that site i linked above has some quotes on it from the catholic bible version.

We just talked about Judaism's version: Gehenna. Sheol is also a place in Judaism, though its not quite as unpleasant and is more analogous to Limbo. Remember the order of development here. Christianity is based on Judaism and draws a lot of the basics from it. The idea of Christian Hell evolved from Gehenna and Sheol.

Yes, originally Judaism did not have a concept of Hell but they gained one some odd 300 years before Jesus was born thanks to the Greeks. So if you want to blame someone, blame the Greeks.

God did say to hold no other gods before him, and with people praying to christ or the saints before god directly, it is more of a multi-diety system. it's also a big part of the reason why some jews and islamics view christians as heretics for breaking the first commandment.

The commandments are not a part of Islamic faith. While they do have commandments in the Quran and they have a similar no Gods before Allah thing approach, they are a different beast than the 10 Commandments.

Also you have a pretty major citation needed there. You cant just keep using "some" to justify statements. Because some will always technically be true if you can find at least one example even if its contrary to the whole.

i've never noticed him rewrite anything. he simply finds the quotes that fits his faith, like any other sect. behemoth does sound like a dinosaur, and if god made all animals on day 6, then he would have had to made the dinos then too.

Hell of a stretch. There is only one behemoth for starters, and its less than 25 feet tall if it can bask in the shade of the lotus trees. Not a big ass dinosaur by any means. Let alone dinosaurs. Never mind that its only mentioned in Job and Revelations.

This is the same group that claims fossil dating is a trick by Satan though. -.-

[siead_lietrathua]

Much as I rarely admit it, I was raised Catholic as well and it was never a thing with Church up here.

huh. i'm also from canada, though on the other coast. maybe it does vary priest by priest and region by region.

What I quoted before was directly from the Vatican's website. Catholic Answers is a bunch of American evangelical apologists out of California, none of their publications are endorsed or official in any way shape or form.

good to know. and also kinda makes some sense, since Secondary is from that area of the states.
however, it took me a bit to find the right document on the vatacin site, since it's a bit of a bitch to navigate, but on this article: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_cs...sm/p123a12.htm
in the part about hell (#4) it has the exact same quote i put up before, as well as some eternal fire jesus quotes.
"The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, "eternal fire."617 The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs."

Try 1908. >.>

huh, i musta read the wrong wiki. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Vatican_Council

Again, in Catholic doctrine the separation from God is completely self inflicted and is not caused by disloyalty to God.

this makes no sense to me. how can hell be self-inflicted if it's a punishment for not accepting (or, being disloyal to) god. if you go to hell for unrepentant breaking the commandments, how is that not punishing disloyalty?

a god that loves unconditionally wouldn't even have a place of hell.

This is the same group that claims fossil dating is a trick by Satan though. -.-

that's one thing that always makes me laugh. they give satan this huge volume of tricky powers, not realizing that they are just making their god weaker (or malicious) for not dealing with satan.

[Kheldarson]

this makes no sense to me. how can hell be self-inflicted if it's a punishment for not accepting (or, being disloyal to) god. if you go to hell for unrepentant breaking the commandments, how is that not punishing disloyalty?

a god that loves unconditionally wouldn't even have a place of hell.

Because it's a consequence, not a punishment. Hell comes out of the choices we make, not from what God does.

Example: We're told as children not to touch stove tops or we'll get burned. We do anyway and get burned. Is the burning a punishment? No, it's a natural consequence of touching a hot stove. It's punishment if our parents decide to hit us or ground us on top of the burning.

Further example: there's a person you know of who seems like a nice guy, but you never introduce yourself or otherwise talk to him. He's getting ready to throw a pretty awesome party, and everybody he knows is invited. You still don't introduce yourself or go get to know him. Is not getting an invite a consequence or punishment?

[siead_lietrathua]

not the best of examples. burning yourself on a stove is a consequence, sure. but it's in no way equated to religion.
now if a parent said "don't bug your sister, or i'll put your hand on a hot stove for an hour". and then does it when the kid bugs their sister, that would be more accurate. it would also be sadistic child abuse.

as to the guy throwing a party... what if the guy doesn't seem like a good dude? what if the guy seems like a jealous, vengeful jerk that beats his kid, and his party seems like a place full of people that cater to this child beater? not going to the party would not be a punishment in that case. but, having the party-thrower set your house on fire while you're locked inside... well that is.

look, i've said it before, and i'll say it again. like it or not, hell is described in the bible as a place of fire, by christ himself. so denying the fire part as a punishment is nonsensical. and saying we can't say that hell is a horrible fucking place because some sects may ignore the fire part is crapola.
if we can say the bible is fucking horrible on it's opinions of slavery and misogyny, then why can't we say it's horrible on it's depictions of hell? at what level is this bar of non-bitching start?
(and yes, i went and checked the catholic bible version. it's in there too)

[TheHuckster]

Because it's a consequence, not a punishment. Hell comes out of the choices we make, not from what God does.

Example: We're told as children not to touch stove tops or we'll get burned. We do anyway and get burned. Is the burning a punishment? No, it's a natural consequence of touching a hot stove. It's punishment if our parents decide to hit us or ground us on top of the burning.

Further example: there's a person you know of who seems like a nice guy, but you never introduce yourself or otherwise talk to him. He's getting ready to throw a pretty awesome party, and everybody he knows is invited. You still don't introduce yourself or go get to know him. Is not getting an invite a consequence or punishment?

I should add that, at least from what has been taught to me in the RCC, God has no desire to see souls in hell. He wants as many people to share in his kingdom as possible, to the point that he sacrificed his own son to do so. That's one of the fundamental beliefs Christians have, and sadly that notion seems lost on some zealots who portray God as some spiteful and "abusive parent" as had been mentioned here.

[siead_lietrathua]

I should add that, at least from what has been taught to me in the RCC, God has no desire to see souls in hell. He wants as many people to share in his kingdom as possible, to the point that he sacrificed his own son to do so. That's one of the fundamental beliefs Christians have, and sadly that notion seems lost on some zealots who portray God as some spiteful and "abusive parent" as had been mentioned here.

sorry but that's such... nonsense to me. if god reallly loved people he woulda just been like "ok, know what, sin is irrelivant! i don't care what ya'll do, i love you enough to forgive you anyway. and you know that satan douche? i'ma just blink him outta existance and we never gotta worry about his crap again."

that a benevolent god requires human sacrifice of himself to appease himself to prevent himself from hurting things he loves by putting them in a hell he designed for the sins they perform, that wouldn't exist if he didn't make sins, and tempting them to sin from a devil he created......

*brain breaks*

hubs's comment form the couch "if god wants everyone in heaven, just open the doors. i don't gotta be omnipotent to figure this out"