Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Fairy tales and The bible..which story do you favor???

Originally posted by alltoomany
Fairy tales and The bible..which story do you favor???

Wrong forum.

I favor The Legend of 1900. That is the best fairy tale.

Tim Roth is my personal saviour.

Neither is a story. Both are anthologies.

So many of the Bible stories don't really make since so I won't pick any. However there are a lot of other books that have great story lines and valuable lessons in them.

Little red riding hood -is one of them

Originally posted by alltoomany
Little red riding hood -is one of them

Little red riding hood is in the bible?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Little red riding hood is in the bible?

the wolf comes in sheep's skin

Originally posted by alltoomany
the wolf comes in sheep's skin

Wouldn't he be eaten by other wolves?

Originally posted by alltoomany
Fairy tales and The bible..which story do you favor???

Because one is real and the other is not. That is a hard question to answear.

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
Because one is real and the other is not. That is a hard question to answear.

I agree with the answer. I'm just not sure which one is real.

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
Because one is real and the other is not. That is a hard question to answear. Fairy tales are not real.

That is what I meant but the bible I believed to be.

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
That is what I meant but the bible I believed to be.


Why does the bible have to be fact. Would you not believe in the bible if it wasn't fact?

I thought that faith was required.

Yes, yes it's all faith. Every animal 2 by 2 and don't forget the extras on there to feed the meat eating animals on the voyage and once they found land since there wouldn't be any animals for the meat eaters to eat.

How large was that Ark? Manhattan size??

Originally posted by Deja~vu
Yes, yes it's all faith. Every animal 2 by 2 and don't forget the extras on there to feed the meat eating animals on the voyage and once they found land since there wouldn't be any animals for the meat eaters to eat.

How large was that Ark? Manhattan size?? Atlantis-seized. Solves two mysteries.

Snow White and the 7

Fairy tales, especially those by the Brothers Grimm

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Atlantis-seized. Solves two mysteries. Don't forget the unicorns. The meat eaters ate them.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Atlantis-seized. Solves two mysteries.

hmm

I knew it.


This solves a third mystery: your God-like sarcasm powers solving the the world's greatest mysteries can only mean...you are God.

Tell me, God, do you really care if I help homeless people? Or is that shit liberals say to do to make themselves feel better?

Originally posted by dadudemon
hmm

I knew it.


This solves a third mystery: your God-like sarcasm powers solving the the world's greatest mysteries can only mean...you are God.

Tell me, God, do you really care if I help homeless people? Or is that shit liberals say to do to make themselves feel better? My former name was no coincidence.


And all I care about is the continued devotion of millions of sheep, asking me to contradict everything to appease their petty desires. If this were the Elder Scrolls, I'd be a Daedra Prince.

Originally posted by dadudemon
hmm

I knew it.


This solves a third mystery: your God-like sarcasm powers solving the the world's greatest mysteries can only mean...you are God.

Tell me, God, do you really care if I help homeless people? Or is that shit liberals say to do to make themselves feel better?

Robin Hood or under dog ..is here! lol

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
My former name was no coincidence.


And all I care about is the continued devotion of millions of sheep, asking me to contradict everything to appease their petty desires. If this were the Elder Scrolls, I'd be a Daedra Prince.

Yeah I know...I'd like to know what Superman feels about, too

My favorite: 401k's are good for a secure retirement.

Originally posted by Mindship
My favorite: 401k's are good for a secure retirement.

Let' leave and go 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Why does the bible have to be fact. Would you not believe in the bible if it wasn't fact?

I thought that faith was required.

It is true that is what I mean by its a fact. Anyway there is really no point comparing Fairy Tales and the bible it does not make any sence.

Originally posted by alltoomany
Let' leave and go 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea This is an offer I can't refuse.

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
It is true that is what I mean by its a fact. ...

Then you are using the word "fact" incorrectly.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
My former name was no coincidence.


And all I care about is the continued devotion of millions of sheep, asking me to contradict everything to appease their petty desires.

That explains a lot...like...everything.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
If this were the Elder Scrolls, I'd be a Daedra Prince.

See, I don't think Daedra's are all that bad. Some of them seem decent but a bit dark. Some are like The Joker but much much more intelligent than him, obviously.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Then you are using the word "fact" incorrectly. Fact as in factory. A producer of something, an out put of a product? Do dee do dee dooo

eat

Noah's ark...

Originally posted by alltoomany
Noah's ark...

Epic of Gilgamesh.

http://www.ancienttexts.org/library/mesopotamian/gilgamesh/

Anything that has metaphores and analogies are great. You can learn something from them, but it doesn't make them a true story.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I agree with the answer. I'm just not sure which one is real.

Both have some truth to it and neither is absolute fiction. Both are equally disturbing.

Like the Sleeping Beauty story.

In the original story, the sleeping beauty, under a spell slept in a castle for a long bloody time, then king came along one day, raped her, she got pregnant few times from the rapes, gave birth to children (all this while asleep) then one day one of her children sucked on her finger and the ring that was keeping the spell on her slid off her finger and broke the spell.
She woke up raped and with few children around. The end.



I like the Disney one a lot better. cry

Which story do I prefer?

1. The Galactus Trilogy
2. The Matrix

well one thing the bible left out was the existence of the dinosaurs? There wasn't much talk about mythological beast revelations, where he talks about the beast coming out of the river with seven heads, and the lion with many eyes.

The Legend of 1900 is a legit movie. I recommend it to anyone.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Like the Sleeping Beauty story.

In the original story, the sleeping beauty, under a spell slept in a castle for a long bloody time, then king came along one day, raped her, she got pregnant few times from the rapes, gave birth to children (all this while asleep) then one day one of her children sucked on her finger and the ring that was keeping the spell on her slid off her finger and broke the spell.
She woke up raped and with few children around. The end.

Omg. Link?

Originally posted by rudester
well one thing the bible left out was the existence of the dinosaurs? There wasn't much talk about mythological beast revelations, where he talks about the beast coming out of the river with seven heads, and the lion with many eyes.

The people who wrote and edited the Bible didn't have the knowledge we do now. There's no reason to suspect they'd know about the dinosaurs.


__________


On a serious note, I use Aesop's Fables to try to explain my take on myth. They aren't true, but that doesn't mean they aren't valuable tools for teaching children about morality, life situations, and managing or coping with relationships or struggles.

The Bible, and indeed much of mythology in general, is just Aesop's Fables for adults. The fact that it's either provably false (much of the Old Testament, for example) or dubious as literal truth (the rest) doesn't need to strip it of value, it just should strip it of literal import.

Most fairy tales are usually laced with occult symbolism.

The Bible, however, is the perfect Word of God.

I think I know which one I favor...

Batman's not real either, you know.

Originally posted by Bat Dude
Most fairy tales are usually laced with occult symbolism.

The Bible, however, is the perfect Word of God.

I think I know which one I favor...

You know, Jews and Christians (most, actually) believe Bible was written by men but inspired by God. Traditionally this has been the case.

Also, original Christianity, as in the first 500 years or so, Christianity had many mystical and ''occultish'' things in it.
Ironically, much later it was the Catholic Church that declared all mystical Christian practices as ''heresy'' and ''from Satan''. It wasn't originally so.
First Christians practised ''magic'' as part of the Christian mysticism. It is still present with some orthodox Christians.
One thing that was 'removed' totally from the Bible was the belief in reincarnation and the idea of eternal Hell was brought in.
This too, (eternal hell) was not the original Christian teaching.

Originally posted by Bat Dude
Most fairy tales are usually laced with occult symbolism.

The Bible, however, is the perfect Word of God.

I think I know which one I favor...

Really? What is your proof for the bible being the "perfect Word of God"?

Is it because, that is what the bible says, or is it just something you believe?

What? There are all kinds of occult symbolisms in the Bible. Heck, they followed astrology. Also, the way the Temple faced was based on the Sun.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
You know, Jews and Christians (most, actually) believe Bible was written by men but inspired by God. Traditionally this has been the case.

Bam!

Of course that's a logical fallacy because it is "argumentum ad populum". However, that's that way I believe it is intended.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Also, original Christianity, as in the first 500 years or so, Christianity had many mystical and ''occultish'' things in it.
Ironically, much later it was the Catholic Church that declared all mystical Christian practices as ''heresy'' and ''from Satan''. It wasn't originally so.

First Christians practised ''magic'' as part of the Christian mysticism. It is still present with some orthodox Christians.
One thing that was 'removed' totally from the Bible was the belief in reincarnation and the idea of eternal Hell was brought in.
This too, (eternal hell) was not the original Christian teaching.

I myself, personally, think some form of reincarnation is possible...even as a Christian. One of the "lost" gospels talks about that. It was "magically" struck from the canon.

The support using the existing Bible (OT and NT) is weak and feeble. It is only with the lost gospels that we find awesome support for a form of reincarnation.

I believe it is fully possible that we have to be reborn over and over again until we get it right...with subtle influences, from our souls, from past lives. I don't know if that's true: I only think it is possible.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Bam!

Of course that's a logical fallacy because it is "argumentum ad populum". However, that's that way I believe it is intended.



I myself, personally, think some form of reincarnation is possible...even as a Christian. One of the "lost" gospels talks about that. It was "magically" struck from the canon.

The support using the existing Bible (OT and NT) is weak and feeble. It is only with the lost gospels that we find awesome support for a form of reincarnation.

I believe it is fully possible that we have to be reborn over and over again until we get it right...with subtle influences, from our souls, from past lives. I don't know if that's true: I only think it is possible.

That was the original Christian idea - I can't recall who exactly scrapped the reincarnation idea and brought in eternal Hell. I might have to do a search on it again sometime.

I recall reading about it, God lets people be reborn on earth until their soul is pure enough to enter Heaven or until we repay all sins and transgressions to each other. In an essence, we are in Hell now. Hence Jesus' arrival to guide everyone out of hell and rebirth, hence the teaching of 'love thy enemy', pray for those who persecute you, sell everything and give it to the poor...and the likes.

I searched this years ago and I stumbled upon all sorts of stuff about this.

Don't quote me on here, I'm talking from memory, but I think it was something along those lines.
Christianity was more fun back then...

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
That was the original Christian idea - I can't recall who exactly scrapped the reincarnation idea and brought in eternal Hell. I might have to do a search on it again sometime.

I recall reading about it, God lets people be reborn on earth until their soul is pure enough to enter Heaven or until we repay all sins and transgressions to each other. In an essence, we are in Hell now. Hence Jesus' arrival to guide everyone out of hell and rebirth, hence the teaching of 'love thy enemy', pray for those who persecute you, sell everything and give it to the poor...and the likes.

I searched this years ago and I stumbled upon all sorts of stuff about this.

Don't quote me on here, I'm talking from memory, but I think it was something along those lines.
Christianity was more fun back then...

Yeah, that's pretty much one of the ideas I entertain: this is hell. Hell is a state of mind and mortality. God does little to interact with creation and we act as God through Godly acts.

This is how a Buddhist, tribal member, atheist, puritan, etc. can all obtain "heaven" after death, imo. Just be a good person and the benevolent God will not give a damn (pun?) about what religion you were. That's almost superfluous.


However, I am still do not know if reincarnation is really the "path". In a way, all Muslims/Christians/Jews believe in reincarnation: we just go to a different life on another plane.

the 3 pigs

Every prophecy of the Bible has come true so far.

As a Bible-believing Christian, of course I believe it to be inspired by God.

Originally posted by Deja~vu
What? There are all kinds of occult symbolisms in the Bible. Heck, they followed astrology. Also, the way the Temple faced was based on the Sun.

That's laughable, tbh.

The Bible CONDEMNS astrology. In the Old Testament, the punishment for astrology was death. The Bible completely condemns any and all forms of witchcraft.

"For these nations, which thou shalt possess, hearkened unto observers of times, and unto diviners: but as for thee, the LORD thy God hath not suffered thee so to do." -Deuteronomy 18:14

"Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." -Exodus 22:18

And those are just two of the MANY verses that condemn witchcraft.



The Bible condemns witchcraft. Why would the early Christians go against the Bible like that? It makes no sense whatsoever.

The Roman Catholic Church practices witchcraft with all of their phony exorcism ceremonies and "holy" water. But the Catholic Church didn't start until hundreds of years AFTER Jesus' death. They don't even follow the Bible, anyway, but that's a discussion for another time.

Originally posted by Bat Dude
The Bible condemns witchcraft. Why would the early Christians go against the Bible like that? It makes no sense whatsoever.


Standardization of the Bible did not exist in the time period she's talking about.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I don't know. I'm very partial to the prophecy about people preaching the word for money...and paying money to receive forgiveness of sins. That was fairly spot on.

But that is human nature. How could you go wrong with such a prophecy.

It would be like prophesying that people are going to have sex.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
But that is human nature. How could you go wrong with such a prophecy.

It would be like prophesying that people are going to have sex.

By making the prophecy it should automatically deter it from happening because everyone would be like, 'dude, you can't sell forgiveness because it is specifically philosophized about as being evil."

NOPE!

The word was kept "secret" and only educated monks and priests were allowed to read the bible. Thus paving the way for them to get away with "selling forgiveness" during medieval times (which continues by various churches, to this day...in various forms).


But I sort of agree that "buying salvation" has been around since Egyptians bought their burials for the after life. In the middle kingdom, you could better your afterlife by being buried with more stuff to help you there. That's similar to, but not the same as, buying forgiveness of sins...but it is a similar concept.

Originally posted by dadudemon
By making the prophecy it should automatically deter it from happening because everyone would be like, 'dude, you can't sell forgiveness because it is specifically philosophized about as being evil."

NOPE!

The word was kept "secret" and only educated monks and priests were allowed to read the bible. Thus paving the way for them to get away with "selling forgiveness" during medieval times (which continues by various churches, to this day...in various forms).


But I sort of agree that "buying salvation" has been around since Egyptians bought their burials for the after life. In the middle kingdom, you could better your afterlife by being buried with more stuff to help you there. That's similar to, but not the same as, buying forgiveness of sins...but it is a similar concept.

People of the past were just as smart as we are. They didn't have the information that we have, but did understand people.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
People of the past were just as smart as we are. They didn't have the information that we have, but did understand people.

That's not true. Intelligence and education has increased greatly in the last 200 years. Now, an idiot by today's western standards, would know more than most if not all of the greatest minds on some of the big things.


For instance, my wife thinks she's dumb when it comes to science. I told her it is all about perspective. She didn't know what I meant. I said, "pretend you go back in time 200 years. You'd know more about modern science than anyone else. What is an electron and what is its function"?




Serious business.


There's tons of other things that even people that think they are dumb, are not. What about eating habits? What about modern medicine?

Just simply knowing about stuff and telling a genius from 200 hundred years ago could cause it to be done. Describe an artificial heart and explain the need of ultra-sanitary operating environments. Hell, just explain germs in an operating environment and that would be a massive jump in medicine for 200 years ago.

Originally posted by dadudemon
That's not true. Intelligence and education has increased greatly in the last 200 years. Now, an idiot by today's western standards, would know more than most if not all of the greatest minds on some of the big things.


For instance, my wife thinks she's dumb when it comes to science. I told her it is all about perspective. She didn't know what I meant. I said, "pretend you go back in time 200 years. You'd know more about modern science than anyone else. What is an electron and what is its function"?




Serious business.


There's tons of other things that even people that think they are dumb, are not. What about eating habits? What about modern medicine?

Just simply knowing about stuff and telling a genius from 200 hundred years ago could cause it to be done. Describe an artificial heart and explain the need of ultra-sanitary operating environments. Hell, just explain germs in an operating environment and that would be a massive jump in medicine for 200 years ago.

We are not talking about the same thing. I am not talking about information; I am talking about the brain. They had the same brain that we have. They filled their brains with different stuff they we do.

They could live in the wild with nothing, and build a kingdom. You put a genius from today in the wilderness, and take away his iPhone, he will be dead in days.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
We are not talking about the same thing. I am not talking about information; I am talking about the brain. They had the same brain that we have. They filled their brains with different stuff they we do.

K.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
They could live in the wild with nothing, and build a kingdom. You put a genius from today in the wilderness, and take away his iPhone, he will be dead in days.

Not necessarily.


If you were to do that to a city dweller from "back then", as well, they'd die just the same as the genius you refer to from these days. That's because they wouldn't know any better.

I'm a tech nerd to the max. Put me in the wilderness (assuming it is not extreme cold or desert) and I'd survive just fine. That's actually what was done as part of my "Wilderness Survival" merit badge when I was 15. We were driven out into the remote woods, had to build our own shelters and toilets, and killed our own food and ate it (squirrel and fish is what we ate those 4 nights). Oh, and...someone found lots of pecans so we supplemented our diets with wild pecans which was awesome.

Here's the thing: there are more people, now, that could survive in various situations than people back then. This is due to our knowledge and modern medicine. We know how to filter water in ways that were not considered back then (that's actually a requirement for the Wilderness Survival merit badge, lol. You have to demonstrate filtering water in at least 3 different ways). We know how to treat wounds better. We know how to prepare our food better. Bla bla bla. Etc. and so forth.

What's the difference? Back in the day (I am aiming for 200+ years), they did not have access to as much information as we do now. They also did not know as much as we do, now. A highschool student will graduate from highschool (hopefully) knowing more about particle physics than any scientist could possibly know from 200 years ago. That's just amazing. Also, you have techy office nerds like me that could live in almost in climate and survive simply because I was exposed to information that thousands (millions?) of people discovered and refined in the last 200 years. I COULD NOT do that without their discoveries.

One last thing: now, we can know this information in a few seconds by searching for it on our information networks or locally stored information. That's even more amazing.

Originally posted by dadudemon
That's not true. Intelligence and education has increased greatly in the last 200 years. Now, an idiot by today's western standards, would know more than most if not all of the greatest minds on some of the big things.

For instance, my wife thinks she's dumb when it comes to science. I told her it is all about perspective. She didn't know what I meant. I said, "pretend you go back in time 200 years. You'd know more about modern science than anyone else. What is an electron and what is its function"?

Erm, that definition of intelligence gets you weird results. A competent physics undergrad will come away from college knowing more about relativity than Einstein ever did but I'd argue that that fact says little about their respective intelligence.

Knowledge is easy to get, every generation is more knowledgeable than the last, but being intelligent is about being able to have great thoughts, which I think has remained more constant over the course of history.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Erm, that definition of intelligence gets you weird results.

It is quite obvious which definition I am using.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
A competent physics undergrad will come away from college knowing more about relativity than Einstein ever did but I'd argue that that fact says little about their respective intelligence.

That's non-sequitur.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Knowledge is easy to get, every generation is more knowledgeable than the last, but being intelligent is about being able to have great thoughts, which I think has remained more constant over the course of history.

That's your definition but not the context for which I was using "intelligence'.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Erm, that definition of intelligence gets you weird results. A competent physics undergrad will come away from college knowing more about relativity than Einstein ever did but I'd argue that that fact says little about their respective intelligence.

Knowledge is easy to get, every generation is more knowledgeable than the last, but being intelligent is about being able to have great thoughts, which I think has remained more constant over the course of history.

depending on how you feel about IQ tests, they do show upward trends over time. There are lots of theories about it, but as a consequence, the "mean" IQ score needs to be reset from time to time so that it actually reflects a score of "100".

Again though, depends on how you feel about IQ tests.

EDIT: no, I don't know why I included quotation marks...

Originally posted by inimalist
depending on how you feel about IQ tests, they do show upward trends over time. There are lots of theories about it, but as a consequence, the "mean" IQ score needs to be reset from time to time so that it actually reflects a score of "100".

Again though, depends on how you feel about IQ tests.

EDIT: no, I don't know why I included quotation marks...

This cat knows. 313

Originally posted by dadudemon
That's non-sequitur.

No, it's an example of why your definition of intelligence gets results I find strange. If knowing more makes you smarter then the average modern physicist is smarter than Einstein.

Originally posted by dadudemon
This cat knows. 313

to be straight, I don't think the numbers reflect a general improvement of what I would define as intelligence though.

imho, any real increase in intelligence is due to more leisure time to involve oneself in academic practices and the institutionalizing of public education and test taking in general. One of the interesting trends of these findings is that they seem to plateau (though not disappear, yet), accelerating during periods of initial industrialization and setting up education systems. IQ scores themselves might simply reflect the fact that people, over time and culturally, become more used to using and taking written tests.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
If knowing more makes you smarter then the average modern physicist is smarter than Einstein.

You do know that that average professional physicist knows cascades more than Einstein knew about physics, right?

It's still non-sequitur, however.

The intelligence (the way I am using) would not necessarily be the same. Einstein very well could have a higher IQ than the theoretical person you speak of. Also, I am using knowledge and intelligence, not "smarts". This is also why it "does not follow".

Originally posted by dadudemon
You do know that that average professional physicist knows cascades more than Einstein knew about physics, right?

Yes, I actually made that point. Read what I write before responding, would you?

Originally posted by dadudemon
It's still non-sequitur, however.

If X then Y
X
Y

If you believe knowledge is intelligence then any modern scientist is more intelligent than Einstein.
You believe knowledge is intelligence.
You believe any modern physicist is more intelligent than Einstein.

It's follows perfectly.

All I'm arguing is that your definition of intelligence seems like a poor one. We have the perfectly good word "knowledgeable" to describe what you're trying to refer to. Then again, you're probably picking the most ambiguous possible terms just to make yourself difficult to understand.

In any event I'm not getting sucked into more of your trolling. Have a nice night.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Yes, I actually made that point. Read what I write before responding, would you?

No, that's not the point you made. Read what I write before you automatically try to force a contrary or negative post at me. This time, I'm serious and not just playing word games with your insults. You actually did not make the same point I did.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
If X then Y
X
Y

If you believe knowledge is intelligence then any modern scientist is more intelligent than Einstein.
You believe knowledge is intelligence.
You believe any modern physicist is more intelligent than Einstein.

It's follows perfectly.

All I'm arguing is that your definition of intelligence seems like a poor one. We have the perfectly good word "knowledgeable" to describe what you're trying to refer to. Then again, you're probably picking the most ambiguous possible terms just to make yourself difficult to understand.

In any event I'm not getting sucked into more of your trolling. Have a nice night.

You typed a bunch just to miss the point, yet again. It's hilarious that you say you're getting "sucked" into more of "my" trolling when your entire MO is to just post things contrary or in opposition to what I say. You literally follow me around on the boards and do that.

How often do I quote you in a conversation that I am not yet part of, and then say something to oppose it? How often do you do the same to me? Exactly: there's a very large disproportion, here. Why do you do it? Obviously, it is to troll. You're a subtle troll, for sure. You also didn't start pulling out the "troll" label until I called you out. Was it when I pointed out your internet bullying ADarkSideJedi? Seems like it has been that way since a bit after that time.

However, you're not irritating contrary to what you make think you're doing.




To actually address your point, I don't care what you think my definition of "intelligence" is. I don't care what yours is, either. You'll get over it just like you always do.

Additionally, I do not think knowledge is intelligence. You missed the point yet again. How could you miss it when that distinction was made in the same post you quoted? You're killing me, man.


Lastly, how could I be picking ambiguous terms when inimalist quoted me, expanded my approach, and I gave him a virtual high-five for being on the same page? You're forcing it, man. Why can't we go back to the old days where you impressed me with your awesome and obscure knowledge of various topics and made awesome one liners? Just forget that I ever asked you to stop riding ADarkSideJedi's ass and pretend I endorsed your actions. I just felt sorry for her because there were no less than 3 people riding her about stuff she said in every other thread (you guys wouldn't drop shit, either). You were the worst about it. But, if you thought I was being a douche by calling attention to that behavior, pretend I never did (as best as you can) and forgive my past actions.


If you would like to continue this conversation, we should do so in private. If you respond here, I'll reply via PM.

Originally posted by inimalist
depending on how you feel about IQ tests, they do show upward trends over time. There are lots of theories about it, but as a consequence, the "mean" IQ score needs to be reset from time to time so that it actually reflects a score of "100".

Again though, depends on how you feel about IQ tests.

EDIT: no, I don't know why I included quotation marks...

Or could that reflect the fact that the test has changed over time. It could be the test improving, and not over all human intelligence.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Or could that reflect the fact that the test has changed over time. It could be the test improving, and not over all human intelligence.

We see the effect when we keep the tests identical, the tests are the one variable we know is not changing.

Originally posted by inimalist
thats my point

its changes in the culture that make people better at taking tests or give them free time to go to school and pursue academic activities.

Ok, but I'm not sure how we got away from prophecies. However, this thread has nothing to do with prophecy. Maybe we need a new thread.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Ok, but I'm not sure how we got away from prophecies. However, this thread has nothing to do with prophecy. Maybe we need a new thread.

I predict a new thread may be made to talk about prophecies!

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I predict a new thread may be made to talk about prophecies!

I thought about it, but then a very interesting dust particle floated in front of my face.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I predict a new thread may be made to talk about prophecies! Only flies are pro phecies.

http://instantrimshot.com/classic/?sound=rimshot

Originally posted by Mindship
Only flies are pro phecies.

http://instantrimshot.com/classic/?sound=rimshot

It take a sick man to find a button that makes a rim shot.



Now I don't have to go look for it.

the bible by far.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
A new thread will be made to talk about biblical prophecies after the atheistic backlash against them but immediately following a theistic apologetic discussion!

Corrected for proper wording and a proper parallel. estahuh

Remember, revelations doesn't say stuff "may" happen: it says sh*t is going down.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Corrected for proper wording and a proper parallel. estahuh

Remember, revelations doesn't say stuff "may" happen: it says sh*t is going down.

It is also not talking about something far off in the future.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
It is also not talking about something far off in the future.

That's one interpretation (which is part of the problem).

There's some interpretations which has it as a mixture of "near" and "far". One where it had already happened. One where it is yours above: "near". One where it is only "far". One where it is completely false. One where it is the ravings of a madman. One where it was intended as literature (something to be enjoyed rather than taken as canon).

In fact, there are so many "legit" ways to approach that book as to make it virtually meaningless (IMO, of course).


Some have multiple authors (fact) involved with the book of revelations.


However, the general arguments are "Futurist, Preterist, Idealist, or Historicist".

Originally posted by dadudemon
That's one interpretation (which is part of the problem).

There's some interpretations which has it as a mixture of "near" and "far". One where it had already happened. One where it is yours above: "near". One where it is only "far". One where it is completely false. One where it is the ravings of a madman. One where it was intended as literature (something to be enjoyed rather than taken as canon).

In fact, there are so many "legit" ways to approach that book as to make it virtually meaningless (IMO, of course).


Some have multiple authors (fact) involved with the book of revelations.


However, the general arguments are "Futurist, Preterist, Idealist, or Historicist".

It is ether fantasy, or written in code. I believe it is an anti-Roman code book, but we have lost the cipher.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
It is ether fantasy, or written in code. I believe it is an anti-Roman code book, but we have lost the cipher.

Well, imo, there is definitely some anti-Roman sentiments in there.