I'm not religious but this dude has been amazing during his tenure so far.
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
 
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> Off Topic Reply to topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Fan0Bynum17
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 30 Nov 2005
Posts: 15436

PostPosted: Thu Oct 30, 2014 7:52 am    Post subject:

Reflexx wrote:
Fan0Bynum17 wrote:
The Catholic church hasn't necessarily been that opposed to these ideas compared to many protestant churches. Still, coming out in alignment now with theories that have been the backbones of astronomy and biology (two major scientific fields) for a long time doesn't deserve applause. The desire to applaud it from people, shows just how regressive of a standard religion has set.

With all that said, this pope being "progressive" is just the Catholic Church inc. trying to adapt to survive to the current society, that's all. Churches and religions, at their core, are just businesses, a meal ticket for the proprietors of it, and they all eventually adapt to larger society, or they die off.


I think you may be saying this without really knowing much about the current Pope.


Okay then, what am I missing?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Tark the Shark
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 3510

PostPosted: Thu Oct 30, 2014 8:01 am    Post subject:

I don't care about the pope's views on evolution. A bigger issue is whether he has purged the church of the child molesters that his predecessors Pope Benedict and especially John Paul II protected.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
C M B
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 15 Nov 2006
Posts: 19853
Location: Prarie & Manchester, high above the western sideline

PostPosted: Thu Oct 30, 2014 8:22 am    Post subject:

It's not quite the "Everything in the bible is crap." that the world needs, but...baby steps.
_________________
http://chickhearn.ytmnd.com/

Sister Golden Hair wrote:
LAMAR ODOM is an anagram for ... DOOM ALARM
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Reflexx
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 25 Jun 2005
Posts: 11163

PostPosted: Thu Oct 30, 2014 8:50 am    Post subject:

Fan0Bynum17 wrote:
Reflexx wrote:
Fan0Bynum17 wrote:
The Catholic church hasn't necessarily been that opposed to these ideas compared to many protestant churches. Still, coming out in alignment now with theories that have been the backbones of astronomy and biology (two major scientific fields) for a long time doesn't deserve applause. The desire to applaud it from people, shows just how regressive of a standard religion has set.

With all that said, this pope being "progressive" is just the Catholic Church inc. trying to adapt to survive to the current society, that's all. Churches and religions, at their core, are just businesses, a meal ticket for the proprietors of it, and they all eventually adapt to larger society, or they die off.


I think you may be saying this without really knowing much about the current Pope.


Okay then, what am I missing?


From the very beginning this Pope has been bucking the system. Instead of standing high on his perch, he mingles with the poor and needy. Instead of having others serve him, he'll go to the poor and serve them. He'll wash their feet. He'll be their servant.

It's a total break from what has been happening traditionally in the high levels of Catholic hierarchy. He's basically acting like a man of God is supposed to act in the sense that he doesn't put himself above anyone. He'll serve what others consider the dredge of society.

I don't follow him closely. But from what I've seen, he's a refreshing change from his predecessors. People are just so anti-religion that they purposely look for a bad way to interpret things.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
LarryCoon
Site Staff
Site Staff


Joined: 11 Aug 2002
Posts: 11264

PostPosted: Thu Oct 30, 2014 10:59 am    Post subject:

Reflexx wrote:
I don't follow him closely. But from what I've seen, he's a refreshing change from his predecessors. People are just so anti-religion that they purposely look for a bad way to interpret things.


While I certainly think there's some of that going on, there's also a flip side -- some are so far on the "pro" side that they're happy to view any gesture as a substantive change, rather than just a gesture or a PR move. Does he really support gay marriage, or does he just give the impression of tolerance? Is he really making substantive changes to help the poor, or is he just making gestures of hanging out with them and washing their feet?

Likewise with evolution, as I quoted earlier, his statement "is an incoherent pudding of inconsistencies in which he tries to claim compatibility by ignoring every conclusion of the science." I don't think it's indicative of an anti-religion bent to say that you can't have it both ways.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Reflexx
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 25 Jun 2005
Posts: 11163

PostPosted: Thu Oct 30, 2014 11:26 am    Post subject:

LarryCoon wrote:
Reflexx wrote:
I don't follow him closely. But from what I've seen, he's a refreshing change from his predecessors. People are just so anti-religion that they purposely look for a bad way to interpret things.


While I certainly think there's some of that going on, there's also a flip side -- some are so far on the "pro" side that they're happy to view any gesture as a substantive change, rather than just a gesture or a PR move. Does he really support gay marriage, or does he just give the impression of tolerance? Is he really making substantive changes to help the poor, or is he just making gestures of hanging out with them and washing their feet?

Likewise with evolution, as I quoted earlier, his statement "is an incoherent pudding of inconsistencies in which he tries to claim compatibility by ignoring every conclusion of the science." I don't think it's indicative of an anti-religion bent to say that you can't have it both ways.


He's had quite the reputation for being with the poor and treating them as equals before he was ever named Pope.

I'm going to choose to believe that he's being genuine in his attempt to reach out. I'm not as cynical as many of you are. I'm not Catholic, but this guy does appear to be making a real effort, and for that I can't fault him.

Might it all be PR and marketing? Sure. It might be. It also might not be.

As for his lack of understanding evolution... it doesn't bother me. I don't care how accurate he is. I believe what he's trying to say is that God created whatever started everything, and He made the rules that govern how things evolve from that point forward.

It's a message of inclusiveness, and that's a step in the right direction.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
JerryMagicKobe
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 28 Jul 2005
Posts: 15100

PostPosted: Thu Oct 30, 2014 11:52 am    Post subject:

Reflexx wrote:
He's had quite the reputation for being with the poor and treating them as equals before he was ever named Pope.

I'm going to choose to believe that he's being genuine in his attempt to reach out. I'm not as cynical as many of you are. I'm not Catholic, but this guy does appear to be making a real effort, and for that I can't fault him.

Might it all be PR and marketing? Sure. It might be. It also might not be.

As for his lack of understanding evolution... it doesn't bother me. I don't care how accurate he is. I believe what he's trying to say is that God created whatever started everything, and He made the rules that govern how things evolve from that point forward.

It's a message of inclusiveness, and that's a step in the right direction.
If "God created whatever started everything" (The Big Bang) and "He made the rules that govern how things evolve from that point forward" then wouldn't learning those rules be extremely important? That is the goal of science: to learn the rules that govern things.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
magickobe24
Starting Rotation
Starting Rotation


Joined: 24 Jul 2014
Posts: 217

PostPosted: Thu Oct 30, 2014 1:23 pm    Post subject:

JerryMagicKobe wrote:
Reflexx wrote:
He's had quite the reputation for being with the poor and treating them as equals before he was ever named Pope.

I'm going to choose to believe that he's being genuine in his attempt to reach out. I'm not as cynical as many of you are. I'm not Catholic, but this guy does appear to be making a real effort, and for that I can't fault him.

Might it all be PR and marketing? Sure. It might be. It also might not be.

As for his lack of understanding evolution... it doesn't bother me. I don't care how accurate he is. I believe what he's trying to say is that God created whatever started everything, and He made the rules that govern how things evolve from that point forward.

It's a message of inclusiveness, and that's a step in the right direction.
If "God created whatever started everything" (The Big Bang) and "He made the rules that govern how things evolve from that point forward" then wouldn't learning those rules be extremely important? That is the goal of science: to learn the rules that govern things.
who doesnt want to learn the so called rules? science was coming out of religious institutions back in the good old days.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_science

Quote:
...the resulting demand for calendar reform provided an important motive for the reform of astronomy itself. The Catholic Church was interested in the development of science in general and supported the work of astronomers. This is also true about Copernicus whose studies were sponsored by his uncle, the bishop, and whose work gained him recognition even in Vatican circles. During Copernicus' lifetime, Pope Leo X started work on the reform of the calendar. Copernicus was invited to take part in the studies but did not participate at the conference in person. We know from preserved documents that he did submit a paper, but unfortunately, it has not been found so we will never know for sure what Copernicus wrote. There are some indications, however, that he expressed an opinion that the existing models of the universe were inadequate to create a "long term calendar" which would be synchronized with the seasons. The reform that gave the Western world its modern calendar followed the publication of De Revolutionbus by only thirty-nine years. The new calendar, called the Gregorian calendar after Pope Gregory XIII during whose pontificate it was introduced, suppresses a leap year three times every four hundred years. The year 1600 was a leap year and the year 2000 will be a leap year, but 1700, 1800 and 1900 had only 365 days.


Quote:
Copernicus was the Polish astronomer who put forward the first mathematically based system of planets going around the sun. He attended various European universities, and became a Canon in the Catholic church in 1497. His new system was actually first presented in the Vatican gardens in 1533 before Pope Clement VII who approved, and urged Copernicus to publish it around this time. Copernicus was never under any threat of religious persecution - and was urged to publish both by Catholic Bishop Guise, Cardinal Schonberg, and the Protestant Professor George Rheticus. Copernicus referred sometimes to God in his works, and did not see his system as in conflict with the Bible.

So this stance is not new for religious folk and specifically its not new for the catholic church.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
JerryMagicKobe
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 28 Jul 2005
Posts: 15100

PostPosted: Thu Oct 30, 2014 2:21 pm    Post subject:

magickobe24 wrote:
Quote:
Copernicus was the Polish astronomer who put forward the first mathematically based system of planets going around the sun. He attended various European universities, and became a Canon in the Catholic church in 1497. His new system was actually first presented in the Vatican gardens in 1533 before Pope Clement VII who approved, and urged Copernicus to publish it around this time. Copernicus was never under any threat of religious persecution - and was urged to publish both by Catholic Bishop Guise, Cardinal Schonberg, and the Protestant Professor George Rheticus. Copernicus referred sometimes to God in his works, and did not see his system as in conflict with the Bible.

So this stance is not new for religious folk and specifically its not new for the catholic church.

Yes the church had plenty of interest in what Copernicus was discovering, Unfortunately, the interest was quickly replaced by condemnation and persecution. By 1609 the heliocentric model was being condemned by the RCC. In 1616 Copernicus' De Revolutionibus had been "suspended" until it could be "corrected" to remove the heliocentric references (yet leave in the quite accurate calender that was derived from his model). The Inquistion issued an injunction demanding that Galileo "obstain completely from teaching or defending this doctrine and opinion or from discussing it... to abandon completely... the opinion that the sun stands still at the center of the world and the earth moves, and henceforth not to hold, teach, or defend it in any way whatever, either orally or in writing." By 1633 Galileo was arrested, tried, convicted and imprisoned for the rest of his life for his Copernican beliefs.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Fan0Bynum17
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 30 Nov 2005
Posts: 15436

PostPosted: Thu Oct 30, 2014 2:36 pm    Post subject:

Reflexx wrote:


From the very beginning this Pope has been bucking the system. Instead of standing high on his perch, he mingles with the poor and needy. Instead of having others serve him, he'll go to the poor and serve them. He'll wash their feet. He'll be their servant.

It's a total break from what has been happening traditionally in the high levels of Catholic hierarchy. He's basically acting like a man of God is supposed to act in the sense that he doesn't put himself above anyone. He'll serve what others consider the dredge of society.

I don't follow him closely. But from what I've seen, he's a refreshing change from his predecessors. People are just so anti-religion that they purposely look for a bad way to interpret things.


"Mingling" with the poor and washing their feet? It makes for a great show I'm sure, but what do those things actually do for them? What about the massive amount of wealth the vatican hoards? That can go a long way in helping the poor and needy.

Sure, he's been different, and I guess any progress is better than none, but I won't congratulate anyone just because they're doing "good" merely by the piss poor standard the Catholic church has set up until this point.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Reflexx
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 25 Jun 2005
Posts: 11163

PostPosted: Thu Oct 30, 2014 2:44 pm    Post subject:

JerryMagicKobe wrote:
Reflexx wrote:
He's had quite the reputation for being with the poor and treating them as equals before he was ever named Pope.

I'm going to choose to believe that he's being genuine in his attempt to reach out. I'm not as cynical as many of you are. I'm not Catholic, but this guy does appear to be making a real effort, and for that I can't fault him.

Might it all be PR and marketing? Sure. It might be. It also might not be.

As for his lack of understanding evolution... it doesn't bother me. I don't care how accurate he is. I believe what he's trying to say is that God created whatever started everything, and He made the rules that govern how things evolve from that point forward.

It's a message of inclusiveness, and that's a step in the right direction.
If "God created whatever started everything" (The Big Bang) and "He made the rules that govern how things evolve from that point forward" then wouldn't learning those rules be extremely important? That is the goal of science: to learn the rules that govern things.


Yup
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Omar Little
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90299
Location: Formerly Known As 24

PostPosted: Fri Oct 31, 2014 12:23 am    Post subject:

Again, get back to me when the vatican actually changes any policy.
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
magickobe24
Starting Rotation
Starting Rotation


Joined: 24 Jul 2014
Posts: 217

PostPosted: Fri Oct 31, 2014 7:40 am    Post subject:

JerryMagicKobe wrote:
magickobe24 wrote:
Quote:
Copernicus was the Polish astronomer who put forward the first mathematically based system of planets going around the sun. He attended various European universities, and became a Canon in the Catholic church in 1497. His new system was actually first presented in the Vatican gardens in 1533 before Pope Clement VII who approved, and urged Copernicus to publish it around this time. Copernicus was never under any threat of religious persecution - and was urged to publish both by Catholic Bishop Guise, Cardinal Schonberg, and the Protestant Professor George Rheticus. Copernicus referred sometimes to God in his works, and did not see his system as in conflict with the Bible.

So this stance is not new for religious folk and specifically its not new for the catholic church.

Yes the church had plenty of interest in what Copernicus was discovering, Unfortunately, the interest was quickly replaced by condemnation and persecution. By 1609 the heliocentric model was being condemned by the RCC. In 1616 Copernicus' De Revolutionibus had been "suspended" until it could be "corrected" to remove the heliocentric references (yet leave in the quite accurate calender that was derived from his model). The Inquistion issued an injunction demanding that Galileo "obstain completely from teaching or defending this doctrine and opinion or from discussing it... to abandon completely... the opinion that the sun stands still at the center of the world and the earth moves, and henceforth not to hold, teach, or defend it in any way whatever, either orally or in writing." By 1633 Galileo was arrested, tried, convicted and imprisoned for the rest of his life for his Copernican beliefs.
hey hey, thats not the point. the point was simple. science has come out of the church in the past. a lot of it. specifically the catholic church.

So again what this pope is saying is not some new thing. thats all i was saying. and when you change leadership you get far right or far left and some in the middle. so things could change when that happens. you get some guy in there that thinks science is the devil. well we already know how thats going to go.you get some guy in there that thinks science and God can mix you will upset the folks that think science is the devil but make those happy that are in the middle. You can't make everyone happy can you?

From a religious standpoint about Creation. God created the laws that govern science. God created all of the chemicals/substances/atoms, etc. So whether you think he created man out of dirt directly. or indirectly(evolution). i'm not sure it matters much.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
JerryMagicKobe
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 28 Jul 2005
Posts: 15100

PostPosted: Fri Oct 31, 2014 8:44 am    Post subject:

magickobe24 wrote:
[ hey hey, thats not the point. the point was simple. science has come out of the church in the past. a lot of it. specifically the catholic church.

Quick, name the church's scientific discoveries of the last 100 years.

magickobe24 wrote:
So again what this pope is saying is not some new thing. thats all i was saying. and when you change leadership you get far right or far left and some in the middle. so things could change when that happens. you get some guy in there that thinks science is the devil. well we already know how thats going to go.you get some guy in there that thinks science and God can mix you will upset the folks that think science is the devil but make those happy that are in the middle. You can't make everyone happy can you?
Make everyone happy? No. But I would be happy if they would stop misleading and exploiting them.

magickobe24 wrote:
From a religious standpoint about Creation. God created the laws that govern science. God created all of the chemicals/substances/atoms, etc. So whether you think he created man out of dirt directly. or indirectly(evolution). i'm not sure it matters much.

The only reason to insert god into a discussion of the Big Bang is to make you feel better about not understanding what is still unknown. It is human nature to do so, which is why our ancestors invented gods from the paterns of stars in the night sky and then involved them in elaborate works of fiction in an attempt to explain the unknown. Flood? Poseidon is mad. Bountiful harvest? Demeter is happy. Hear that thunder? Zues is pissed. The tales woven by our ancestors were told and re-told throughout the generations and eventually became the basis for the thousands of religions today. Use those stories for whatever purpose suits you, but confusing them with the singular truth pursued by science is awfully silly.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Lakers#1Team
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 24 Jun 2005
Posts: 36360
Location: Nomad

PostPosted: Fri Oct 31, 2014 8:52 am    Post subject:

magickobe24 wrote:
From a religious standpoint about Creation. God created the laws that govern science. God created all of the chemicals/substances/atoms, etc. So whether you think he created man out of dirt directly. or indirectly(evolution). i'm not sure it matters much.


Yes, religion is a matter of faith in what we believe. Whatever we believe doesn't change the absolute truth of God's Creation. What we believe is important but it doesn't change the truth.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
1since71
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 06 Jun 2002
Posts: 2674
Location: the sfv

PostPosted: Fri Oct 31, 2014 2:04 pm    Post subject:

What was before the big bang?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Omar Little
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90299
Location: Formerly Known As 24

PostPosted: Fri Oct 31, 2014 2:05 pm    Post subject:

1since71 wrote:
What was before the big bang?
Nothing. And nothing is the most unstable thing there is(n't). And totally more plausible than a being far more complex than the universe having existed before it and creating it out of his/its imagination. If the existence of a universe without a creator is considered implausible, why is the existence of that creator without an origin not considered more implausible?

Because most people can't wrap their heads around the math, and due to the limits of human cognition and the traditions they grew up in, a god always existing seems more plausible than the Big Bang, despite being demonstrably far less so.
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel


Last edited by Omar Little on Fri Oct 31, 2014 2:15 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
1since71
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 06 Jun 2002
Posts: 2674
Location: the sfv

PostPosted: Fri Oct 31, 2014 2:13 pm    Post subject:

24 wrote:
1since71 wrote:
What was before the big bang?
Nothing. And nothing is the most unstable thing there is(n't).

so there was nothing? no such thing as time?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Omar Little
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90299
Location: Formerly Known As 24

PostPosted: Fri Oct 31, 2014 2:19 pm    Post subject:

1since71 wrote:
24 wrote:
1since71 wrote:
What was before the big bang?
Nothing. And nothing is the most unstable thing there is(n't).

so there was nothing? no such thing as time?


Not sure I get the question. Time is a fairly arbitrary concept in the manner we consider it. Spacetime is more accurate, but still a different animal from the concept we use.
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Omar Little
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90299
Location: Formerly Known As 24

PostPosted: Fri Oct 31, 2014 2:22 pm    Post subject:

The concept of a deity works backward from us, using our limited knowledge and an anthropomorphic mindset.
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
1since71
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 06 Jun 2002
Posts: 2674
Location: the sfv

PostPosted: Fri Oct 31, 2014 2:32 pm    Post subject:

24 wrote:
1since71 wrote:
24 wrote:
1since71 wrote:
What was before the big bang?
Nothing. And nothing is the most unstable thing there is(n't).

so there was nothing? no such thing as time?


Not sure I get the question. Time is a fairly arbitrary concept in the manner we consider it. Spacetime is more accurate, but still a different animal from the concept we use.

I just ask because i dont know.Any kind of time,there was nothing before the Bang?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
KobeBryantCliffordBrown
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 28 Apr 2008
Posts: 6429

PostPosted: Fri Oct 31, 2014 2:35 pm    Post subject:

24 wrote:
1since71 wrote:
24 wrote:
1since71 wrote:
What was before the big bang?
Nothing. And nothing is the most unstable thing there is(n't).

so there was nothing? no such thing as time?


Not sure I get the question. Time is a fairly arbitrary concept in the manner we consider it. Spacetime is more accurate, but still a different animal from the concept we use.


Before the big band there could not have been any such a thing as time as time is defined as the increase in entropy in a closed system. That's one of the reasons why I have such a hard time wrapping my mind to the period before the big bang. Just can't do it.
_________________
“It took many years of vomiting up all the filth I’d been taught about myself, and half-believed, before I was able to walk on the earth as though I had a right to be here.”
― James Baldwin, Collected Essays
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Omar Little
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90299
Location: Formerly Known As 24

PostPosted: Fri Oct 31, 2014 2:40 pm    Post subject:

KobeBryantCliffordBrown wrote:
24 wrote:
1since71 wrote:
24 wrote:
1since71 wrote:
What was before the big bang?
Nothing. And nothing is the most unstable thing there is(n't).

so there was nothing? no such thing as time?


Not sure I get the question. Time is a fairly arbitrary concept in the manner we consider it. Spacetime is more accurate, but still a different animal from the concept we use.


Before the big band there could not have been any such a thing as time as time is defined as the increase in entropy in a closed system. That's one of the reasons why I have such a hard time wrapping my mind to the period before the big bang. Just can't do it.


Yeah, it is a mind bender for sure. Easier to have a being that loves us always existing and one day deciding to make us. Although the concept of an eternally existing being creating something at a finite time would be mind bendingly complex as well. Wouldn't that always occur in the future?
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
1since71
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 06 Jun 2002
Posts: 2674
Location: the sfv

PostPosted: Fri Oct 31, 2014 2:40 pm    Post subject:

KobeBryantCliffordBrown wrote:
24 wrote:
1since71 wrote:
24 wrote:
1since71 wrote:
What was before the big bang?
Nothing. And nothing is the most unstable thing there is(n't).

so there was nothing? no such thing as time?


Not sure I get the question. Time is a fairly arbitrary concept in the manner we consider it. Spacetime is more accurate, but still a different animal from the concept we use.


Before the big band there could not have been any such a thing as time as time is defined as the increase in entropy in a closed system. That's one of the reasons why I have such a hard time wrapping my mind to the period before the big bang. Just can't do it.

This is interesting.It is strange.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Omar Little
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90299
Location: Formerly Known As 24

PostPosted: Fri Oct 31, 2014 2:57 pm    Post subject:

Here is another fun one: Imagine a line stretching to infinity in either direction. This represents the existence of an eternal deity. Now try to place a six thousand year period of time on this line, commensurate in scale with the time vs the total time line, and commensurate in location of that 6k years of time relative to the passage of time along that line.
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> Off Topic All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 2 of 4
Jump to:  

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum






Graphics by uberzev
© 1995-2018 LakersGround.net. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy. Terms of Use.
LakersGround is an unofficial news source serving the fan community since 1995.
We are in no way associated with the Los Angeles Lakers or the National Basketball Association.


Powered by phpBB