Peanut Gallery 2012

I couldn't find an un-closed Peanut Gallery topic that wasn't Great Debate specific...Quoting from Message 636, pertaining to topic Why would God write a book of lies and why would you worship such a being?: Yes and no. On one hand, we have those who think "god wrote lies into the Bible" and therefore stopped being (or never were) 'christians'. On the other, we have those who think "god wrote lies into the Bible" but are still 'christians'.Now, it is important to understand what "god wrote lies into the Bible" and 'christians' is specifically referring to. We can gather that from the author of the OP.Despite the quality of those definitions, arguments can still be made with them.I think the author of the OP is correct, that if "god wrote lies into the Bible" then you shouldn't be a 'christian' (according to their definitions).Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Added subtitle. Since this isn't a topic specific peanut gallery, that should help connect things to the main topic.

Peanut gallery - Wikipedia

quote:

---

In recent times, the term {Peanut Gallery} has taken on new meanings with the advent of social networks and online chat rooms. "Peanut gallery" may also refer to a social network audience that passively observes a syndicated web feed or chat room.

---

Its a place to talk about what people have posted in a thread without having to comment within that thread and stear it off topic.For example, in Message 16 you wrote:

quote:

---

I will just make it a point to not respond to anything Theodoric posts.

---

You're right, that Theo guy isn't even worth reading. Sure, and if you based your religious beliefs on a flawless Bible, then when flaws in the Bible are found, those religious beliefs should change. I agree with the OP that he shouldn't be the type of christian he is if he thinks that a flaw in the Bible means God is lying and therefore he cannot trust it.

I think there are chistians, particularly the born again / saved by faith alone ones, who's entire faith is built up on a flawless Bible. And when those people come to realize that the Bible does contain flaws*, then I agree with foreveryoung that there's no reason that they should uphold that particular brand of faith. I don't think they necessarily need to drop christianity altogether, and that's what his topic could get into: How christians maintain what they do in light of the errors that are in the Bible.*typically, rather than allowing their house of cards to come crashing down, they insist that whatever it is isn't actually a flaw

Someone with a strict upbringing might have been sheltered from any expositing of the flaws in the Bible. When they finally find the real world, they might be in a position like that.There's even shit like this out there:HugeDomains.com

quote:

---

"Now You Can Protect Your Children Online When They Surf The Internet While Enhancing Their Relationship With God By Downloading The Noah's Internet Kid Safe Browser! "

---

And doncha fucking hate it when people capitalize every word. Me too. Consider yourself lucky.I'm with Bill Hicks: "Gimme the satanic parents down the street, you know, the ones with the good albums."

From Message 163That's this bad boy: From wiki:

quote:

---

Guernica is a painting by Pablo Picasso. It was created in response to the bombing of Guernica, {snip}. The Spanish Republican government commissioned Picasso to create a large mural for the Spanish display at the Paris International Exposition at the 1937 World's Fair in Paris.

​

Guernica shows the tragedies of war and the suffering it inflicts upon individuals, particularly innocent civilians. This work has gained a monumental status, becoming a perpetual reminder of the tragedies of war, an anti-war symbol, and an embodiment of peace.

---

So that's the example. On to the point: Let me stop you there. First off; the second to last sentence is a fragment. I assume you're emphasizing the lack of knowledge of those information conveyors.Secondly, the rationality of the expectations of the information conveyed in myths and legends isn't really something we're gonna come to a conclusion on. It’s too faceted and approached with too much preconception. This is where you go wrong. You still haven't told me how to distinguish between this being CD and it not.Regarding Guernica specifically; it is certainly capable of conveying a lot of emotion. And it represents an entire event on a 2D stain, if you will.
The point is: I don’t think you’ve got his argument adequately portrayed. It’s as if you think he’s saying more than he is. What is it about his position that necessitates that societies couldn’t use spiritual and symbolic language to convey concepts and ideas?
And back to my still unanswered question:How do you know that these examples really are CD You can point out behaviors that are consistent with CD all day long, but you can't ascribe CD to those behaviors through the medium we're dealing with (i.e. a forum).

I don't think so. Thou is better articulated.What your noticing, I think, is the fact that they're both old dudes.

From Message 208: Then it isn't capable of being proven wrong.From Message 210: We know what planets are and we know what it is to be flat. We don't have anything regarding what it is to be supernatural. We can't be nearly as confident about supernatural beings as we can about flat planets.If we're just going to use what people have imagined about supernatural beings, then we're only ever going to be dealing with imagination. There's no progress to make. The conjecture that they're all imagined becomes tautological. Supernatural beings become defined as coming from the imagination.

Thou seems smarter. You can't really fake being smart. And I don't think ICANT was playing dumb...

If SB's don't exist then there's no way to detect them. But its worse than that: we don't even know what we're looking for. What makes it a being and what makes it supernatural? Of course they don't know what they're talking about. If they did, then it'd just be a common fact as opposed to something they're taking on faith.That they're making up specifics about the SB's does show that their concepts of them stem from their imagination. But without a way to even test for any of the properties we'd expect if they did exist, we can't get to a conclusion that none of them exist. The definition emerges when you only consider the imagined instances of SB's for your determination of whether or not they exist outside the imagination. Its tautological. I wouldn't say that I've detected them. I've just had experiences that convinced me they exist.

From Message 54Where the fuck do you come up with these words from?

I've been speaking English for over 30 years and have never seen or heard those words before.

Do you use a Thesaurus, or something, or are those words just a part of your normal vocabulary? When's the last time you used either of those words?

Ah, ok. I meant, like, ever, but that's cool. Thanks man.Here's a funny picture:

FRom Message 85: I haven't read that article. But I can see that a biological basis for a behavior would eliminate the evil associated with it. In what way? Murder to prevent futher evil could be understood as non-evil. Moral slavery is not an impossiblity.