As has been pointed out, by this point in excavating our 10th-grade textbook for home-schoolers, World History and Cultures In Christian Perspective, we all know that the correct answer will always be "Jesus." Nonetheless, we will press on, because it's still a laugh to find out just how many problems with reality these guys have. As you may recall,
<blockquote>And it&rsquo;s only the King James version that translates gnosis as &ldquo;science&rdquo; here; almost all other Bibles, and even the KJV in 28 other instances of gnosis, translate it as &ldquo;knowledge.&rdquo;</blockquote>
I find it interesting that a bunch of people who are so insistent that the Bible is the unerring word of God, kept perfect through 2000 years (during most of which time it was copied by hand) by divine inspiration, are also absolute fetishists for the KJV, with all its dubious and sometimes obviously wrong translations.
<blockquote>Your Doktor Zoom was raised Catholic, so sin was, of course, everywhere. But we seldom heard that entire professional fields were founded on heresy.</blockquote>
Well, we all know the entire Catholic church is now heresy, according to these nuts. I wonder if this viewpoint has anything to do with Pope Leo XIII&#039;s relative embrace of science?
<blockquote>True science follows God&rsquo;s command to &ldquo;subdue the earth and have dominion over it&rdquo; (Gen. 1:27-28), rather than trying to subdue mankind with false philosophies.</blockquote>
The duty to subdue mankind falls to... true religion ?
Well, the nutters at AIG have <a href="http:\/\/www.answersingenesis.org\/articles\/nab\/does-starlight-prove" target="_blank">an article</a> on this. If you can find a straight answer there, you&#039;re a better <strike>man</strike> cephalopod than I am. The seem to both reject and accept the idea that God created the light already on its way. (This is an updating of Gosse&#039;s omphalos hypothesis, which explained why Adam and Eve had navels.) They also talk about the possibility that light used to travel much faster. This was apparently very popular amongst creationists a while back, but got <a href="http:\/\/www.talkorigins.org\/faqs\/c-decay.html" target="_blank">thoroughly trashed</a>.
Oh dear. I don&#039;t know if I can type this all the way through ... that link leads to AN ACCURATE QUOTE ON CONSERVAPEDIA. (Lies down for five minutes.) Laurence Tribe really did write an article in the Harvard Law Review in which he drags general relativity and quantum mechanics into the law, including a discussion of abortion law. He does say he&#039;s only using physics as a metaphor. I don&#039;t see it as a useful or even comprehensible one, but I have no legal training. The lesson I take away from this is that it&#039;s not just the wingnuts who have trouble with relativity. I suppose I should be grateful for being reminded.
<i>&quot;...but were really &ldquo;science falsely so called&rdquo; (1 Tim. 6:20).&quot;</i>
The Timothy 6:20 passage they cite is often translated more like &quot;Turn away from godless chatter and the opposing ideas of what is falsely called knowledge&quot;. That seems to be the only biblical passage the wingers actually embrace. Meanwhile direct instructions from Jesus to help the poor, etc are routinely ignored.
&quot;10 Comments - No Views.&quot; Sounds about right!
Welcome back! I came over for some Sunday morning snark and was - again - FORBIDDEN! Wow. Sounds risque - like an adults only Dance of the Seven Veils (&quot;Call me at number six&quot; - Bob Hope).
I dunno. I&#039;m a little dubious about a God that had to have his brain replaced several times.
No, but if you cool &#039;em way down, you can get &#039;em all into the same state. I think it&#039;s Utah.
Another night with her long, hard friend Levi helping her...
FIFY
<a href="https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch\?v=N--a2OuPLok," target="_blank">Basic street magic</a>, really.
Benghazi!!!!
<blockquote>And it&rsquo;s only the King James version that translates gnosis as &ldquo;science&rdquo; here; almost all other Bibles, and even the KJV in 28 other instances of gnosis, translate it as &ldquo;knowledge.&rdquo;</blockquote>
I find it interesting that a bunch of people who are so insistent that the Bible is the unerring word of God, kept perfect through 2000 years (during most of which time it was copied by hand) by divine inspiration, are also absolute fetishists for the KJV, with all its dubious and sometimes obviously wrong translations.
<blockquote>Your Doktor Zoom was raised Catholic, so sin was, of course, everywhere. But we seldom heard that entire professional fields were founded on heresy.</blockquote>
Well, we all know the entire Catholic church is now heresy, according to these nuts. I wonder if this viewpoint has anything to do with Pope Leo XIII&#039;s relative embrace of science?
<blockquote>True science follows God&rsquo;s command to &ldquo;subdue the earth and have dominion over it&rdquo; (Gen. 1:27-28), rather than trying to subdue mankind with false philosophies.</blockquote>
The duty to subdue mankind falls to... true religion ?
Well, the nutters at AIG have <a href="http:\/\/www.answersingenesis.org\/articles\/nab\/does-starlight-prove" target="_blank">an article</a> on this. If you can find a straight answer there, you&#039;re a better <strike>man</strike> cephalopod than I am. The seem to both reject and accept the idea that God created the light already on its way. (This is an updating of Gosse&#039;s omphalos hypothesis, which explained why Adam and Eve had navels.) They also talk about the possibility that light used to travel much faster. This was apparently very popular amongst creationists a while back, but got <a href="http:\/\/www.talkorigins.org\/faqs\/c-decay.html" target="_blank">thoroughly trashed</a>.
Oh dear. I don&#039;t know if I can type this all the way through ... that link leads to AN ACCURATE QUOTE ON CONSERVAPEDIA. (Lies down for five minutes.) Laurence Tribe really did write an article in the Harvard Law Review in which he drags general relativity and quantum mechanics into the law, including a discussion of abortion law. He does say he&#039;s only using physics as a metaphor. I don&#039;t see it as a useful or even comprehensible one, but I have no legal training. The lesson I take away from this is that it&#039;s not just the wingnuts who have trouble with relativity. I suppose I should be grateful for being reminded.
Does the book consider demonic possession as an alternative to mental illness?
<i>&quot;...but were really &ldquo;science falsely so called&rdquo; (1 Tim. 6:20).&quot;</i>
The Timothy 6:20 passage they cite is often translated more like &quot;Turn away from godless chatter and the opposing ideas of what is falsely called knowledge&quot;. That seems to be the only biblical passage the wingers actually embrace. Meanwhile direct instructions from Jesus to help the poor, etc are routinely ignored.
Even Jesus is doing the head-tilted-to-one-side pose.
I know of 2 Tim&#039;s in this area, they are both alcoholics.
It never ceases to amaze me how elusive and un-obvious Absolute Truth is.
Nothing like telling the mentally ill to just listen to the voice of God in their head.
&quot;10 Comments - No Views.&quot; Sounds about right!
Welcome back! I came over for some Sunday morning snark and was - again - FORBIDDEN! Wow. Sounds risque - like an adults only Dance of the Seven Veils (&quot;Call me at number six&quot; - Bob Hope).
I felt left out...