Escape to the Movies: Paul

Swaki

New member
Apr 15, 2009
2,013
0
0
SpiderJerusalem said:
And yet there is just as little proof denying the existence of God as there is proving the existence of one.

The degree that someone loves their beliefs has absolutely nothing to do with whether they are true or not. None.
Well to be fair science has proven that most of the stuff various religions say their god(s) did has a logical explanation that has nothing to do with gods of any type, the reason you cant prove that there is no such thing as a god is because according to most religious texts only a selective few during a short window of opportunity around the time they where written got to see them/it/him/her or that you can only meet them when you are dead.

The reason why you cant prove the lack of gods is not that science is wrong but rather that religious texts made sure that the only way you could prove them wrong is by rising from the grave, and no one is going to listen to zombie.

pneuma08 said:
The problem with ID and such discussions is that ID is more a philosophy than a science, even though it's often billed as scientific. The other problem being that scientific arguments usually aren't very convincing.
Do you mean the "science" in ID or all science in general?
 

Squigie

New member
Nov 20, 2009
39
0
0
Tyrany42 said:
Cliff_m85 said:
Tyrany42 said:
Cliff_m85 said:
Tyrany42 said:
Cliff_m85 said:
Jetsetneo said:
hurricanejbb said:
Just an aside, my aunt is religious and she doesn't consider the idea of alien life blasphemous. Rather, she believes that if extraterrestrial life were discovered, it would be further proof of God's majesty. I know this is pretty irrelevant to the topic, but I just felt I should bring up that I don't think all religious people would react to aliens the way Kristen Whig's character does.
Very much so, I'm not a catholic, but even the pope has had some reconciliation with the idea of other intelligent life.

Aliens are 'far' from the 'nail-in-the-coffin' of religon in general that Militant atheists want it to be. Much like evolution in general. Religion tends to roll with the punches, always have, always will, whether its Christianity, Buddhism, Judaism, Islam, or Scientology.
Woah woah woah. Roll with the punches as in "fight if for a multitude of decades before realizing they lost the battle and readjusting their belief with apologetics and claiming that there was evidence for it in the Bible/Quran/Torah/Etc the whole time"?

Are we forgetting that the Catholic Church imprisoned Galileo? Let's not pretend that religion is absolutely all for scientific discoveries.
You do realize that was a few hundred years ago, right? And that large organizations change over time? Does America still allow slavery, too?
Yes, I do. But it shows the span of time it takes for the Church to get with the program. It just recently accepted Evolution. It took hundreds of years for them to accept that we aren't the center of the universe. It comes late to the party, but stands outside said party screaming "LIAR" for the first four hours before finally coming into the house.
Change hardly ever comes quickly, especially change of beliefs. This applies to everyone, not just close-minded religious leaders. In fact, you could call it a sort of evolution. You might as well rip on humanity for taking so long to walk upright and to stop flinging poo.
No, change hardly does come quickly. However having to wait for the 2000s for the Catholic Church to admit that there MIGHT be some truth to Evolution is not feasible. That's not "change hardly ever comes quickly", it's "change is fought against violently by religious institutions until they finally concede because their numbers are dwindling". We're talking about hundreds of years going by before they admit that evolution has some truth to it, duder. And they get their knowledge from a supposed higher source?
I suppose I wouldn't know how Catholics think, as I'm not Catholic myself, but I'm just saying, what if someone came up to you and said your whole exsistance was a lie, that everything you thought was real is an illusion, and they presented some barely feasible evidence that what they're saying is true. Don't pretend that you won't be in denial and don't be quick to scoff at people who have a hard time letting go of beliefs they have held for centuries.
Well, I was Catholic, and I can tell you there is a difference between what the Church actually teaches and believes and when official proclamations against past wrongs are (finally) made. For instance, in theology class at my Catholic high school (class of 2000) the priest teaching the class explained, in detail, why they reject a literalistic interpretation of scripture (numerous unavoidable contradictions both within the text and with known historical and scientific facts). Among those rejected beliefs were geocentrism and creationism.

The Roman Catholic Church is (extremely) slow to accept and acknowledge change, but they do put a great deal of thought and effort into why they believe what they do.
 

Squigie

New member
Nov 20, 2009
39
0
0
Swaki said:
SpiderJerusalem said:
And yet there is just as little proof denying the existence of God as there is proving the existence of one.

The degree that someone loves their beliefs has absolutely nothing to do with whether they are true or not. None.
Well to be fair science has proven that most of the stuff various religions say their god(s) did has a logical explanation that has nothing to do with gods of any type, the reason you cant prove that there is no such thing as a god is because according to most religious texts only a selective few during a short window of opportunity around the time they where written got to see them/it/him/her or that you can only meet them when you are dead.

The reason why you cant prove the lack of gods is not that science is wrong but rather that religious texts made sure that the only way you could prove them wrong is by rising from the grave, and no one is going to listen to zombie.
This is true. Unfortunately the more ardently religious are too often unwilling to acknowledge the nature of their mythology. Bob talked about that a bit in relation to C.S. Lewis before in Intermission [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/moviebob/8418-MovieBob-You-Dont-Know-Jack] and Escape to the Movies [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/escape-to-the-movies/2532-The-Chronicles-of-Narnia-Voyage-of-the-Dawn-Treader].
 

hermes

New member
Mar 2, 2009
3,865
0
0
Geo Da Sponge said:
2. Thanks for spoiling the bird joke for me.
Seriously? That joke is on every trailer.
Speaking of which, the trailers of that movie didn't make me laugh at all... I will take it as a rental.
 

walsfeo

New member
Feb 17, 2010
314
0
0
honestdiscussioner said:
Jason Momoa as Conan? In case any of you didn't catch it, that's the guy that played Ronan in Stargate: Atlantis. I know Bob is a bit skeptical, but Jason was a total badass on Atlantis. I for one am actually looking forward to this now even more.
I don't know that I have an opinion about how good the Conan movie will be, but Momoa can play the brooding warrior better than Arnold ever did. Besides, I see nothing in that picture that specifically contradicted R.E. Howard's description. I have high hopes but mediocre expectations.
 

Andy of Comix Inc

New member
Apr 2, 2010
2,234
0
0
Does anyone know if Seth Rogen also did mocap for the Paul character, or did he just do the voice?

Anyway. I love Pegg and Frost too much to pass this one up. Consider this a ticket sold, Bob.
 

Burck

New member
Aug 9, 2009
308
0
0
Just saw the movie, my verdict:

See it.

Hilarious, some silliness (but not stupidity, like Bob said, so you may smirk, but you won't roll your eyes), and the plot is satisfactory.
But really, watch for the laughs.
I can't recall how many permutations of swears I heard over the course of that movie.
 

Cliff_m85

New member
Feb 6, 2009
2,581
0
0
Tyrany42 said:
Cliff_m85 said:
Tyrany42 said:
Cliff_m85 said:
Tyrany42 said:
Cliff_m85 said:
Jetsetneo said:
hurricanejbb said:
Just an aside, my aunt is religious and she doesn't consider the idea of alien life blasphemous. Rather, she believes that if extraterrestrial life were discovered, it would be further proof of God's majesty. I know this is pretty irrelevant to the topic, but I just felt I should bring up that I don't think all religious people would react to aliens the way Kristen Whig's character does.
Very much so, I'm not a catholic, but even the pope has had some reconciliation with the idea of other intelligent life.

Aliens are 'far' from the 'nail-in-the-coffin' of religon in general that Militant atheists want it to be. Much like evolution in general. Religion tends to roll with the punches, always have, always will, whether its Christianity, Buddhism, Judaism, Islam, or Scientology.
Woah woah woah. Roll with the punches as in "fight if for a multitude of decades before realizing they lost the battle and readjusting their belief with apologetics and claiming that there was evidence for it in the Bible/Quran/Torah/Etc the whole time"?

Are we forgetting that the Catholic Church imprisoned Galileo? Let's not pretend that religion is absolutely all for scientific discoveries.
You do realize that was a few hundred years ago, right? And that large organizations change over time? Does America still allow slavery, too?
Yes, I do. But it shows the span of time it takes for the Church to get with the program. It just recently accepted Evolution. It took hundreds of years for them to accept that we aren't the center of the universe. It comes late to the party, but stands outside said party screaming "LIAR" for the first four hours before finally coming into the house.
Change hardly ever comes quickly, especially change of beliefs. This applies to everyone, not just close-minded religious leaders. In fact, you could call it a sort of evolution. You might as well rip on humanity for taking so long to walk upright and to stop flinging poo.
No, change hardly does come quickly. However having to wait for the 2000s for the Catholic Church to admit that there MIGHT be some truth to Evolution is not feasible. That's not "change hardly ever comes quickly", it's "change is fought against violently by religious institutions until they finally concede because their numbers are dwindling". We're talking about hundreds of years going by before they admit that evolution has some truth to it, duder. And they get their knowledge from a supposed higher source?
I suppose I wouldn't know how Catholics think, as I'm not Catholic myself, but I'm just saying, what if someone came up to you and said your whole exsistance was a lie, that everything you thought was real is an illusion, and they presented some barely feasible evidence that what they're saying is true. Don't pretend that you won't be in denial and don't be quick to scoff at people who have a hard time letting go of beliefs they have held for centuries.
That analogy would work if Evolution only had "barely feasible evidence". If they had enough evidence that everything I thought was an illusion, I'd have to accept that.
 

Tyrany42

New member
Aug 5, 2010
17
0
0
Squigie said:
Tyrany42 said:
Cliff_m85 said:
Tyrany42 said:
Cliff_m85 said:
Tyrany42 said:
Cliff_m85 said:
Jetsetneo said:
hurricanejbb said:
Just an aside, my aunt is religious and she doesn't consider the idea of alien life blasphemous. Rather, she believes that if extraterrestrial life were discovered, it would be further proof of God's majesty. I know this is pretty irrelevant to the topic, but I just felt I should bring up that I don't think all religious people would react to aliens the way Kristen Whig's character does.
Very much so, I'm not a catholic, but even the pope has had some reconciliation with the idea of other intelligent life.

Aliens are 'far' from the 'nail-in-the-coffin' of religon in general that Militant atheists want it to be. Much like evolution in general. Religion tends to roll with the punches, always have, always will, whether its Christianity, Buddhism, Judaism, Islam, or Scientology.
Woah woah woah. Roll with the punches as in "fight if for a multitude of decades before realizing they lost the battle and readjusting their belief with apologetics and claiming that there was evidence for it in the Bible/Quran/Torah/Etc the whole time"?

Are we forgetting that the Catholic Church imprisoned Galileo? Let's not pretend that religion is absolutely all for scientific discoveries.
You do realize that was a few hundred years ago, right? And that large organizations change over time? Does America still allow slavery, too?
Yes, I do. But it shows the span of time it takes for the Church to get with the program. It just recently accepted Evolution. It took hundreds of years for them to accept that we aren't the center of the universe. It comes late to the party, but stands outside said party screaming "LIAR" for the first four hours before finally coming into the house.
Change hardly ever comes quickly, especially change of beliefs. This applies to everyone, not just close-minded religious leaders. In fact, you could call it a sort of evolution. You might as well rip on humanity for taking so long to walk upright and to stop flinging poo.
No, change hardly does come quickly. However having to wait for the 2000s for the Catholic Church to admit that there MIGHT be some truth to Evolution is not feasible. That's not "change hardly ever comes quickly", it's "change is fought against violently by religious institutions until they finally concede because their numbers are dwindling". We're talking about hundreds of years going by before they admit that evolution has some truth to it, duder. And they get their knowledge from a supposed higher source?
I suppose I wouldn't know how Catholics think, as I'm not Catholic myself, but I'm just saying, what if someone came up to you and said your whole exsistance was a lie, that everything you thought was real is an illusion, and they presented some barely feasible evidence that what they're saying is true. Don't pretend that you won't be in denial and don't be quick to scoff at people who have a hard time letting go of beliefs they have held for centuries.
Well, I was Catholic, and I can tell you there is a difference between what the Church actually teaches and believes and when official proclamations against past wrongs are (finally) made. For instance, in theology class at my Catholic high school (class of 2000) the priest teaching the class explained, in detail, why they reject a literalistic interpretation of scripture (numerous unavoidable contradictions both within the text and with known historical and scientific facts). Among those rejected beliefs were geocentrism and creationism.

The Roman Catholic Church is (extremely) slow to accept and acknowledge change, but they do put a great deal of thought and effort into why they believe what they do.
Interesting...I went to a Christian school that wasn't any specific denomination, and we were taught how much of the Bible could be open to interpretation. Taking every single passage literally would be kind of foolish, seeing as how the writers are from a society that is millions of years old and that the Bible was translated and re-translated several times. For instance, it says that God created the world in 7 days, but since the Bible also says God is beyond time, how do we know that it wasn't actually billions of years in which God manipulated things to evolve accordingly? Sounds stupid, I know, but I thought it was fascinating. You know, I come across a LOT of you people on the internet...lapsed Catholics, I mean, if you don't mind me asking, what is it that Catholics teach that makes you turn away so angrily?
 

Dr Killpatient

New member
Jun 18, 2008
29
0
0
Tyrany42 said:
Squigie said:
Tyrany42 said:
Cliff_m85 said:
Tyrany42 said:
Cliff_m85 said:
Tyrany42 said:
Cliff_m85 said:
Jetsetneo said:
hurricanejbb said:
Just an aside, my aunt is religious and she doesn't consider the idea of alien life blasphemous. Rather, she believes that if extraterrestrial life were discovered, it would be further proof of God's majesty. I know this is pretty irrelevant to the topic, but I just felt I should bring up that I don't think all religious people would react to aliens the way Kristen Whig's character does.
Very much so, I'm not a catholic, but even the pope has had some reconciliation with the idea of other intelligent life.

Aliens are 'far' from the 'nail-in-the-coffin' of religon in general that Militant atheists want it to be. Much like evolution in general. Religion tends to roll with the punches, always have, always will, whether its Christianity, Buddhism, Judaism, Islam, or Scientology.
Woah woah woah. Roll with the punches as in "fight if for a multitude of decades before realizing they lost the battle and readjusting their belief with apologetics and claiming that there was evidence for it in the Bible/Quran/Torah/Etc the whole time"?

Are we forgetting that the Catholic Church imprisoned Galileo? Let's not pretend that religion is absolutely all for scientific discoveries.
You do realize that was a few hundred years ago, right? And that large organizations change over time? Does America still allow slavery, too?
Yes, I do. But it shows the span of time it takes for the Church to get with the program. It just recently accepted Evolution. It took hundreds of years for them to accept that we aren't the center of the universe. It comes late to the party, but stands outside said party screaming "LIAR" for the first four hours before finally coming into the house.
Change hardly ever comes quickly, especially change of beliefs. This applies to everyone, not just close-minded religious leaders. In fact, you could call it a sort of evolution. You might as well rip on humanity for taking so long to walk upright and to stop flinging poo.
No, change hardly does come quickly. However having to wait for the 2000s for the Catholic Church to admit that there MIGHT be some truth to Evolution is not feasible. That's not "change hardly ever comes quickly", it's "change is fought against violently by religious institutions until they finally concede because their numbers are dwindling". We're talking about hundreds of years going by before they admit that evolution has some truth to it, duder. And they get their knowledge from a supposed higher source?
I suppose I wouldn't know how Catholics think, as I'm not Catholic myself, but I'm just saying, what if someone came up to you and said your whole exsistance was a lie, that everything you thought was real is an illusion, and they presented some barely feasible evidence that what they're saying is true. Don't pretend that you won't be in denial and don't be quick to scoff at people who have a hard time letting go of beliefs they have held for centuries.
Well, I was Catholic, and I can tell you there is a difference between what the Church actually teaches and believes and when official proclamations against past wrongs are (finally) made. For instance, in theology class at my Catholic high school (class of 2000) the priest teaching the class explained, in detail, why they reject a literalistic interpretation of scripture (numerous unavoidable contradictions both within the text and with known historical and scientific facts). Among those rejected beliefs were geocentrism and creationism.

The Roman Catholic Church is (extremely) slow to accept and acknowledge change, but they do put a great deal of thought and effort into why they believe what they do.
Interesting...I went to a Christian school that wasn't any specific denomination, and we were taught how much of the Bible could be open to interpretation. Taking every single passage literally would be kind of foolish, seeing as how the writers are from a society that is millions of years old and that the Bible was translated and re-translated several times. For instance, it says that God created the world in 7 days, but since the Bible also says God is beyond time, how do we know that it wasn't actually billions of years in which God manipulated things to evolve accordingly? Sounds stupid, I know, but I thought it was fascinating. You know, I come across a LOT of you people on the internet...lapsed Catholics, I mean, if you don't mind me asking, what is it that Catholics teach that makes you turn away so angrily?
I don't want to add to this religion vs science debate, since it's pointless (those who like to believe in fairytales, will do so regardless). But I need to point out few problems.

Saying (and teaching) that Bible is open to interpretation is creating single-handedly a whole new bag of issues - for example where does the interpretation come from, who is responsible for it, and how will we know that it is what god meant? The same thing is happening in Islam - there are people who will tell you that Islam is a "peaceful religion" and then there are people who blow themselves up in a crowded marketplace, because some cleric told them to.

For example, how would you interpret the stoning of disobedient children (Deuteronomy 21:18-21)? Or how about selling your daughter as a slave (Exodus 21:7-10) or burning her to please god (Judges 11:29-40)? Or that women need to give birth in order to get to Heaven (1 Timothy 2:15)? I guess some religious people would run to their priest to ask what those things mean, but most would bury their heads in the sand. Hey, if you don't know about it, it doesn't exist (like evolution), right? Besides the Bible is filled with examples where god or Jesus tells someone to do something and they go and do it, not sit on their behind and try to interpret it (Abraham comes to mind).

And I had an impression that Bible was supposed to be the word of god (Deuteronomy 18:17-19) - so, if it was written long time ago and then translated again and again (as you put it) it shouldn't really factor into things at all. Which creates another question - if it was written by a Stone Age man to Stone Age men, then why believe in it at all? This is where religious and non-religious people will come to a T-junction - religious people (even if they understand that it is a book of prehistoric fables and tall tales) will believe in it regardless, while atheists will realize that if the Bible was a story of Red Riding Hood (Jesus was sort of a child led astray, Devil was the wolf, and god was the hunter) people wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

Just FYI, god created the world in 6 days (tsk-tsk, and YOU went to Christian school).

walsfeo said:
honestdiscussioner said:
Jason Momoa as Conan? In case any of you didn't catch it, that's the guy that played Ronan in Stargate: Atlantis. I know Bob is a bit skeptical, but Jason was a total badass on Atlantis. I for one am actually looking forward to this now even more.
I don't know that I have an opinion about how good the Conan movie will be, but Momoa can play the brooding warrior better than Arnold ever did. Besides, I see nothing in that picture that specifically contradicted R.E. Howard's description. I have high hopes but mediocre expectations.
The new Conan will suck, not because of Jason Momoa, but because it's being directed by Marcus "Pathfinder" Nispel and was written by some hacks. Arnold couldn't even speak right and Milius managed to get the best out of him thanks to Oliver Stone's script.
 

Ritter315

New member
Jan 10, 2010
112
0
0
At this point Bob, you dont just come across as arrogent, you come across as ignorant. Yea I said it. I say this because you said this "There's never not a good time to give a screw you to the intelligent design argument" Which is plain STUPID because one of the theories of intelligent design is...aliens. Yes, aliens. There is a theory that human was introduced to earth through aliens. Just wanted you to know that.
 

Dr Killpatient

New member
Jun 18, 2008
29
0
0
Ritter315 said:
At this point Bob, you dont just come across as arrogent, you come across as ignorant. Yea I said it. I say this because you said this "There's never not a good time to give a screw you to the intelligent design argument" Which is plain STUPID because one of the theories of intelligent design is...aliens. Yes, aliens. There is a theory that human was introduced to earth through aliens. Just wanted you to know that.
Umm... no.

The "theory" that human was introduced to Earth by aliens has nothing to do with ID.

None of what you said makes Bob arrogant or ignorant.
 

duchaked

New member
Dec 25, 2008
4,451
0
0
anyway...guess I should go watch Battle LA!

haha I'm actually not that big of a CoD fan (since I don't regularly play its MP), but it's always been a great spectacle
 

duchaked

New member
Dec 25, 2008
4,451
0
0
the jab at ID was about as bad as the one at Halo heh, kinda just out of place and slipped in there (what's the term of those moments in a movie? some kinda trope) but ah it'll earn a few fans heh

still, I need to finish Hot Fuzz and get started on Shaun of the Dead...gahh my roommate has had the movies on his shelf for a year plus just reminding me what I have yet to get done lol
 

HotFezz8

New member
Nov 1, 2009
1,139
0
0
MovieBob said:
Paul

Does combining the comedic talents from some of the best of tv and film result in the funniest movie this year?

Watch Video
battle los angleles: what shocking news; movie bob hates a film that lacks naked women or some semblence of "deeper intrinsic artisic value". battle los angeles grossed $13.4 million on its first day, currently the highest grossing opening day film of 2011.

seriously, i appreicate your job involves you going to a lot of films like centurion expendables transformers (and yes, battle los angeles) that are there purely as fun explosion filled good times and lack deeper meaning, but surely you can see that popular films are popular for a reason? how about you try going into one of these films at some point just looking for a good way to blow 90 minutes without needing to think too hard?

i also appreciate chances are you will completely ignore this, as another dull retard not "getting you", but i watched Battle Los Angeles in the evening having spent all day working on my dissertation and moving my elecricity provider, by the time i walked into the cinema i was so mentally drained i didn't want to watch eternal sunshine of the spotless mind. I had great fun sitting there in the cinema, popcorn in one hand drink in the other giggling at the cliches and enjoying the massive explosions.

its not a waste of my time if i have fun, and im not some brainless fuckwit who hates you if i enjoyed it.
 

Tyrany42

New member
Aug 5, 2010
17
0
0
Dr Killpatient said:
Tyrany42 said:
Squigie said:
Tyrany42 said:
Cliff_m85 said:
Tyrany42 said:
Cliff_m85 said:
Tyrany42 said:
Cliff_m85 said:
Jetsetneo said:
hurricanejbb said:
Just an aside, my aunt is religious and she doesn't consider the idea of alien life blasphemous. Rather, she believes that if extraterrestrial life were discovered, it would be further proof of God's majesty. I know this is pretty irrelevant to the topic, but I just felt I should bring up that I don't think all religious people would react to aliens the way Kristen Whig's character does.
Very much so, I'm not a catholic, but even the pope has had some reconciliation with the idea of other intelligent life.

Aliens are 'far' from the 'nail-in-the-coffin' of religon in general that Militant atheists want it to be. Much like evolution in general. Religion tends to roll with the punches, always have, always will, whether its Christianity, Buddhism, Judaism, Islam, or Scientology.
Woah woah woah. Roll with the punches as in "fight if for a multitude of decades before realizing they lost the battle and readjusting their belief with apologetics and claiming that there was evidence for it in the Bible/Quran/Torah/Etc the whole time"?

Are we forgetting that the Catholic Church imprisoned Galileo? Let's not pretend that religion is absolutely all for scientific discoveries.
You do realize that was a few hundred years ago, right? And that large organizations change over time? Does America still allow slavery, too?
Yes, I do. But it shows the span of time it takes for the Church to get with the program. It just recently accepted Evolution. It took hundreds of years for them to accept that we aren't the center of the universe. It comes late to the party, but stands outside said party screaming "LIAR" for the first four hours before finally coming into the house.
Change hardly ever comes quickly, especially change of beliefs. This applies to everyone, not just close-minded religious leaders. In fact, you could call it a sort of evolution. You might as well rip on humanity for taking so long to walk upright and to stop flinging poo.
No, change hardly does come quickly. However having to wait for the 2000s for the Catholic Church to admit that there MIGHT be some truth to Evolution is not feasible. That's not "change hardly ever comes quickly", it's "change is fought against violently by religious institutions until they finally concede because their numbers are dwindling". We're talking about hundreds of years going by before they admit that evolution has some truth to it, duder. And they get their knowledge from a supposed higher source?
I suppose I wouldn't know how Catholics think, as I'm not Catholic myself, but I'm just saying, what if someone came up to you and said your whole exsistance was a lie, that everything you thought was real is an illusion, and they presented some barely feasible evidence that what they're saying is true. Don't pretend that you won't be in denial and don't be quick to scoff at people who have a hard time letting go of beliefs they have held for centuries.
Well, I was Catholic, and I can tell you there is a difference between what the Church actually teaches and believes and when official proclamations against past wrongs are (finally) made. For instance, in theology class at my Catholic high school (class of 2000) the priest teaching the class explained, in detail, why they reject a literalistic interpretation of scripture (numerous unavoidable contradictions both within the text and with known historical and scientific facts). Among those rejected beliefs were geocentrism and creationism.

The Roman Catholic Church is (extremely) slow to accept and acknowledge change, but they do put a great deal of thought and effort into why they believe what they do.
Interesting...I went to a Christian school that wasn't any specific denomination, and we were taught how much of the Bible could be open to interpretation. Taking every single passage literally would be kind of foolish, seeing as how the writers are from a society that is millions of years old and that the Bible was translated and re-translated several times. For instance, it says that God created the world in 7 days, but since the Bible also says God is beyond time, how do we know that it wasn't actually billions of years in which God manipulated things to evolve accordingly? Sounds stupid, I know, but I thought it was fascinating. You know, I come across a LOT of you people on the internet...lapsed Catholics, I mean, if you don't mind me asking, what is it that Catholics teach that makes you turn away so angrily?
I don't want to add to this religion vs science debate, since it's pointless (those who like to believe in fairytales, will do so regardless). But I need to point out few problems.

Saying (and teaching) that Bible is open to interpretation is creating single-handedly a whole new bag of issues - for example where does the interpretation come from, who is responsible for it, and how will we know that it is what god meant? The same thing is happening in Islam - there are people who will tell you that Islam is a "peaceful religion" and then there are people who blow themselves up in a crowded marketplace, because some cleric told them to.

For example, how would you interpret the stoning of disobedient children (Deuteronomy 21:18-21)? Or how about selling your daughter as a slave (Exodus 21:7-10) or burning her to please god (Judges 11:29-40)? Or that women need to give birth in order to get to Heaven (1 Timothy 2:15)? I guess some religious people would run to their priest to ask what those things mean, but most would bury their heads in the sand. Hey, if you don't know about it, it doesn't exist (like evolution), right? Besides the Bible is filled with examples where god or Jesus tells someone to do something and they go and do it, not sit on their behind and try to interpret it (Abraham comes to mind).

And I had an impression that Bible was supposed to be the word of god (Deuteronomy 18:17-19) - so, if it was written long time ago and then translated again and again (as you put it) it shouldn't really factor into things at all. Which creates another question - if it was written by a Stone Age man to Stone Age men, then why believe in it at all? This is where religious and non-religious people will come to a T-junction - religious people (even if they understand that it is a book of prehistoric fables and tall tales) will believe in it regardless, while atheists will realize that if the Bible was a story of Red Riding Hood (Jesus was sort of a child led astray, Devil was the wolf, and god was the hunter) people wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

Just FYI, god created the world in 6 days (tsk-tsk, and YOU went to Christian school).
Hm. Caught me there. But I have another question: I've been doing some research into evolution, and came across this site: http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoEvidence.html Can anyone tell me if this is a reliable site for evolution evidence?
 

Mr. Omega

ANTI-LIFE JUSTIFIES MY HATE!
Jul 1, 2010
3,902
0
0
Maybe the Escapist should move this to the Religion and Politics forum, because that's what this has become...

Seriously, there are more people debating ID and stuff like that than people talking about the review of the movie!
 

Frostryu

New member
Aug 27, 2010
10
0
0
Why must we always be hating on the itellegent design? or are we still pissed off about the disproving about ALOT of the theories of evolution, and the big bang. Oh wait, since no one pays attention to us disproving those theories, i guess we never did. Sorry if i seem just a little annoyed at this, but us ID people get ALOT, excuse me, ALOT of shit about this. Dont mean to flame but still, it doth get annoting to my sences. Im just wondering why its okay to take pot shots at intellegent design, but say, homosexuality or abortion, and we are suddenly crossing a line? why does are belief in where we come from so much lower then what we think we are. Can someone answer that for me?
FYI, YES I UNDERSTAND MY TYPING SUCKS GREATLY.