What Is The Christian View On The Dinosaur?

[Arbitran]

This is the same question repackaged in new rhetoric. I've already answered it. How can you possibly not understand my answer? I will add love and forgiveness to what else you're pretending deaf to.

And you wouldn't have learned love and forgiveness without Narnia? Where, precisely, in the Chronicles of Narnia were you taught these virtues, incidentally?

[Yamato]

And you wouldn't have learned love and forgiveness without Narnia? Where, precisely, in the Chronicles of Narnia were you taught these virtues, incidentally?

Very good! I might not have learned love and forgiveness without Christianity. Can you now acknowledge what you just stumbled into or is pooping on it a full time job?

Precisely, why? What does such precision matter to you for? Again, the "exact text" is neither relevant nor known. Attempting or implying to deny that the stories convey these and other virtues is the same old hat.

[Yamato]

Odd. I don't claim to be an expert on mathematics, but I do know enough to say that infinity cannot be reached, or exceeded, given it is not technically an integer, as I've said. As for Narnia, what would you like to know? I've read the entire series a number of times.

No, there are plenty of numbers that aren't integers that can be reached or exceeded. There are even an infinite number of values between two integers.

As for Narnia what would I like to know? I'd like to know the parts that teach love and forgiveness. Can you at least handle that much?

[Arbitran]

Very good! I might not have learned love and forgiveness without Christianity. Can you now acknowledge what you just stumbled into or is pooping on it a full time job?

Precisely, why? What does such precision matter to you for? Again, the "exact text" is neither relevant nor known. Attempting or implying to deny that the stories convey these and other virtues is the same old hat.

I feel sorry if you had to learn love and forgiveness from Christianity. The rest of us can do it on our own.

[Arbitran]

No, there are plenty of numbers that aren't integers that can be reached or exceeded. There are even an infinite number of values between two integers.

As for Narnia what would I like to know? I'd like to know the parts that teach love and forgiveness. Can you at least handle that much?

That's precisely my point: where in Narnia do you think these virtues are taught? (this is an immense digression, by the way)

[GoldenWolf]

I feel sorry if you had to learn love and forgiveness from Christianity.

You mean bad love and unforgivness right?

[Cradle of Fish]

There are places science can't go. Science doesn't ask: Why peace? Why kindness? Why forgiveness? Why love? Why redemption? Why responsibility? Why morality?

That's religion's job! Suit it up! Unless...unless we expect the government to do all of that for us. *shudders*

Atheists seem to believe morality is created out of thin air the way Keynesians think money is. Sometimes their explanation is that they were lucky enough to have good parents. Oh I love that one. How convenient! Sorry, killing off God and trusting in the nature of man sounds like a bad idea. To be fair, I won't let the theists have any 6,000 year old dinosaurs either.

There is an alternative to religion in that respect and it's called philosophy.

[Yamato]

I feel sorry if you had to learn love and forgiveness from Christianity. The rest of us can do it on our own.

Yeah, your "One must weigh the pros and cons of following the Golden Rule" moral code that you were born with is a thing of wonder, truly. If you'll sacrifice your morality for your diet, you're the reason religion exists. The truth is, the only thing you could repeat about your own morality gets sold up the river at the first sign of trouble. What "exact text" is that from? Sorry, but your flaky is no better than their disciplined.

[Yamato]

That's precisely my point: where in Narnia do you think these virtues are taught? (this is an immense digression, by the way)

You'll never run out of digressions, that's clear. If you start a new topic about Narnia I will be all over it.

[Yamato]

There is an alternative to religion in that respect and it's called philosophy.

It's an overlap, not an alternative. Philosophy isn't inherently moral. You wind up with Leo Strauss teaching Machiavelli and a gangpile of zionist neocons starting preemptive wars on people half the world away who have never attacked us. Bueller?

[Beckys_Mom]

If you start a new topic about Narnia I will be all over it.

I thought for a while this topic was about Narnia...it's been so long since anyone has mentioned dinosaurs..the topic itself soon will be Jurassic lol

[Yamato]

I thought for a while this topic was about Narnia...it's been so long since anyone has mentioned dinosaurs..the topic itself soon will be Jurassic lol

Actually T-Rex was God.

Sorry about that, South Americans! Giganotosaurus is merely a contender.

[Beckys_Mom]

Actually T-Rex was God.

The angry, flesh eating, blood spilling, power hungry mad creature of the old testament......It all adds up lol

[Arbitran]

Yeah, your "One must weigh the pros and cons of following the Golden Rule" moral code that you were born with is a thing of wonder, truly. If you'll sacrifice your morality for your diet, you're the reason religion exists. The truth is, the only thing you could repeat about your own morality gets sold up the river at the first sign of trouble. What "exact text" is that from? Sorry, but your flaky is no better than their disciplined.

You seem to think that morality is objective. It isn't. I don't want to kill, but if I don't kill from time to time, I'll starve. Is that really so hard to understand?

[Yamato]

You seem to think that morality is objective. It isn't. I don't want to kill, but if I don't kill from time to time, I'll starve. Is that really so hard to understand?

You seem to think that morality is objective. It isn't.

Morality is subjective therefore it needs objectives. Civilizations always have an objective sense of morality, and I think if you think about that long enough you'll agree with me. The question becomes how best to maintain that objective sense and whether to have standards that you can be compared with to others. Having no baseline and starting from whatever you subjectively want is a great way to lose your freedom or your life if you live under those pesky things called laws that actually can injure you and actually can force you to behave. So the question further becomes how to protect individual liberty without violating the individual liberty of others.

I don't want to kill, but if I don't kill from time to time, I'll starve. Is that really so hard to understand?

I can understand your rhetoric but I can't condone it. Factually it's not even true. If you want to maintain a top tier diet you're not going to have to kill anything. If you climb Michi's Ladder with me and follow a P90X-like diet that will improve your health dramatically and get in the best shape of your life, you're not going to be eating meat. You'll be eating apples, artichokes, amaranth, arugula and asparagus if you like the letter A. But let's presume we're still in the Dark Ages and will individually and subjectively starve to death without killing something. Are you prepared to slaughter it with your bare hands and dress its carcass yourself? Or do your morals tell you that it's wrong to kill, unless you're hungry, and someone else does it for you? That you even took the bait and tried to play this off as morality at all is noteworthy because once you start making exceptions you welcome the tsunami of everyone else's exceptions and the moral dies on the vine.

"One must weigh the pros and cons of following the Golden Rule" is rhetorical nonsense that could mean anything we want it to. That's not a moral code, it's a moral evasion.

[Arbitran]

You seem to think that morality is objective. It isn't.

Morality is subjective therefore it needs objectives. Civilizations always have an objective sense of morality, and I think if you think about that long enough you'll agree with me. The question becomes how best to maintain that objective sense and whether to have standards that you can be compared with to others. Having no baseline and starting from whatever you subjectively want is a great way to lose your freedom or your life if you live under those pesky things called laws that actually can injure you and actually can force you to behave. So the question further becomes how to protect individual liberty without violating the individual liberty of others.

I don't want to kill, but if I don't kill from time to time, I'll starve. Is that really so hard to understand?

I can understand your rhetoric but I can't condone it. Factually it's not even true. If you want to maintain a top tier diet you're not going to have to kill anything. If you climb Michi's Ladder with me and follow a P90X-like diet that will improve your health dramatically and get in the best shape of your life, you're not going to be eating meat. You'll be eating apples, artichokes, amaranth, arugula and asparagus if you like the letter A. But let's presume we're still in the Dark Ages and will individually and subjectively starve to death without killing something. Are you prepared to slaughter it with your bare hands and dress its carcass yourself? Or do your morals tell you that it's wrong to kill, unless you're hungry, and someone else does it for you? That you even took the bait and tried to play this off as morality at all is noteworthy because once you start making exceptions you welcome the tsunami of everyone else's exceptions and the moral dies on the vine.

"One must weigh the pros and cons of following the Golden Rule" is rhetorical nonsense that could mean anything we want it to. That's not a moral code, it's a moral evasion.

Ah, so you're one of those... I don't think I have much more to contribute here. I'm not going to change your head at all; that much is clear.

[NavyDoc]

I read page one of this thread and then skipped to page 42. Fascinating how threads evolve over time, isn't it?

[Beckys_Mom]

I read page one of this thread and then skipped to page 42. Fascinating how threads evolve over time, isn't it?

Yup...it went from - Christian view of the dinosaur to the Chronicles of Narnia !! ...I wonder what it will have evolved to nest? Perhaps they will discuss Snow White and the 7 dwarfs?.... Or Who's the best Superhero of all time.. you'll never know what may come of this thread... lol

Its a shame it has derailed like that..The OP started was a lovely guy.. he died some time ago..and I personally would have loved to seen his thread do so well in his memory.

[NavyDoc]

I'm sorry to hear the OP has passed on. Sometimes one forgets just how old a thread is.

[Yamato]

Alas, there's only so much that can be said about the Christian view of the dinosaur ladies and gentlemen. Has the question not been definitively answered yet to warrant further discussion? Once we have the answer, where do we go from there?

All the discussion here IS in memory of the OP if we want it to be. The Christian view of prayer is to pray for the dead also.

[garret324]

I heard that the bible says that the earth was ruled by titans before their was people and then god sent down his angel's (the nephlims i believe) to rid the earth of these monsters so that the we could survive???

[synchronomy]

I read page one of this thread and then skipped to page 42. Fascinating how threads evolve over time, isn't it?

LOL...I just did exactly the same.

I had to scroll back up to see what the topic was.

[+joc]

I'm just wondering why this thread isn't closed.

[Ninhursag]

It's An Old Topic .. Maybe We Can Restart It .. You Know, For Those Of Us Who Weren't Here When It Was Originally Started :p

Anyway Good Question, I've Often Wondered About The Same Thing ..

[Queen Nefertari]

You won't get a debate with christians or bible historians.

They will avoid this thread like the plague.

I can prove you wrong. Not all christians are dull minded so stop putting us all in one lump sum. I can't stand it when people do that