OT of OT: Rating Fyron -- no longer possible

spoon · #1 March 5th, 2003, 07:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mephisto:
But then again the Bible does not say that the actual number of quakes will raise but just that there will be more quakes. Just more perceived or real is not stated and up to the reader.

You forgot to add that Chewbacca is a wookie that lives on Endor.

Aloofi · #2 March 5th, 2003, 08:09 PM

Hell, somebody rated me 1 star again!

I bet it was someone in the Moon thread. Everytime I say something politically incorrect I get a bad rating.
Lol, I think I understand now what Fyron was feeling when he started this thread........

I want 5 stars!
*runs crying into the night*

Ragnarok · #3 March 5th, 2003, 09:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by jimbob:
Hmmm.. without going and finding a bible (I'm at work, and don't think it's likely that one is lying about anywhere) I need to harken back to my memory. I think the bible implies that there will be an increase in war, rumors of war, earthquakes, some other bad stuff, etc. Could it be that our advanced communications technology simply increases the amount of reportage on such events? And so the bible could be accurate, in that the average Joe will perceive that there are more wars, earthquakes, etc. as an artifact of our technology rather than know that there is or isn't such an increase.

i.e. who would have known in NY that a 7.0 tremor went off in New Deli in the early 1800s? But today, everyone in the western world finds out when a tremor 6.0 goes of in Ebbi A'boud Afganistan within about 1 hour!!

Exactly.

I just never could put that into words.

tbontob · #4 March 5th, 2003, 09:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by spoon:

quote:
Originally posted by Mephisto:
But then again the Bible does not say that the actual number of quakes will raise but just that there will be more quakes. Just more perceived or real is not stated and up to the reader.

You forgot to add that Chewbacca is a wookie that lives on Endor.

About this Bible stuff.

I don't know why they included Revelation in the Bible.

IIRC, it was written by John the Divine, a century or two after Jesus's death.

Now John the Divine is not the disciple John.

It just seems to be tacked on at the end of the Bible and seems out of place and out of sync with the rest of the Bible.

Maybe it was included to put the fear of the Lord into "us" Christians.

Now, before I get dunning Messages from Fyron et al, these are just my thoughts and are only presented to encourage a open-minded discussion.

Fyron · #5 March 5th, 2003, 10:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ragnarok:

quote:
Originally posted by jimbob:
Hmmm.. without going and finding a bible (I'm at work, and don't think it's likely that one is lying about anywhere) I need to harken back to my memory. I think the bible implies that there will be an increase in war, rumors of war, earthquakes, some other bad stuff, etc. Could it be that our advanced communications technology simply increases the amount of reportage on such events? And so the bible could be accurate, in that the average Joe will perceive that there are more wars, earthquakes, etc. as an artifact of our technology rather than know that there is or isn't such an increase.

i.e. who would have known in NY that a 7.0 tremor went off in New Deli in the early 1800s? But today, everyone in the western world finds out when a tremor 6.0 goes of in Ebbi A'boud Afganistan within about 1 hour!!

Exactly. I just never could put that into words.

That is nowhere near what you said though Rags.

That argument supposes that the claims of the Bible are based off of superstition, ignorance and false belief (about the earthquakes and other disasters). This does not seem like a good basis for such claims to me.

[ March 05, 2003, 20:42: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Aloofi · #6 March 5th, 2003, 10:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by tbontob:
I don't know why they included Revelation in the Bible.

Yeah, and I don't know why they took only 4 of the 40 gospels existing when in 325 C.E. in Nicea they made what we know today as the New Testament.
Maybe to save paper?

Fyron · #7 March 5th, 2003, 10:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Aloofi:

quote:
Originally posted by tbontob:
I don't know why they included Revelation in the Bible.

Yeah, and I don't know why they took only 4 of the 40 gospels existing when in 325 C.E. in Nicea they made what we know today as the New Testament.
Maybe to save paper?

Because they wanted to get a very specific message across, and so chose only those that relayed that message.