Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

No

Only Judeism

Only Islam

Yes to both Judeism and Islam

[XXSockXX]

Well, with regards the Roman empire Christianity first took root in the poor and disenchanted masses on the fringes of society who most easily identified with the message of reward in exchange for piety, poverty, pacifism and humility. Its not like they had much to lose.

Plus early Christianity was essentially an apocalyptic cult, Christians expected the end of the world (and thus all the rewards in the afterlife) rather sooner than later until well into the Middle Ages.
(That is actually still reflected in the name "Holy Roman Empire", according to the prophet Daniel the end of the world was to come after the end of 4 empires, Babylon, Persia, Greece and Rome. So after the end of the Western Roman empire, the Frankish (and later German) empire became the Roman Empire by translatio imperii, so that the prophecy could be fulfilled.)

[Ultimuh]

One could argue that the roman empire still exists in some form or another.
So the end might yet come. For some people at least.

[Dsarker]

[Arx]

It somehow seems that a slowpoke* is the appropriate image for that message - didn't he say that some time ago?

Pius XII is being referred to as Superpope though, I think. Unless that was a different Pope.

*I recognised that on sight I have never played a Pokemon game what is happening to me

[timferius]

It somehow seems that a slowpoke* is the appropriate image for that message - didn't he say that some time ago?

Pius XII is being referred to as Superpope though, I think. Unless that was a different Pope.

*I recognised that on sight I have never played a Pokemon game what is happening to me

Pius XII was pope in the 40's and 50's. The joke being that, despite the new pope stating the views were compatible, the ruling had been made officially some 70 years ago. The current pope is Pope Francis.

[Arx]

Ah. I'm just being confused, don't mind me!

[Lord Shonus]

It's not well known, but most scientists at the time rejected the Big Bang as "superstitious creationist nonsense" because it dared to posit that the universe had a definite origin point (as Christianity and several other religions proclaimed) rather than having existed for all eternity (as the then-prevailing Steady State theory held). The very name "Big Bang" was a derogatory attempt to discredit it. Indeed, every single argument now advanced against Intelligent Design (which, in the form presented, is clearly false) were advanced against the Big Bang in those days, which is the best proof yet that you can't judge a theory's worth purely by the quality of the opposition.

[Leafsnail]

Would you like to provide some kind of evidence for that claim?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Some quick searching definitely suggests that Steady State advocates lorded themselves over Big Bang advocates, though the guy who supposedly coined the term as an insult claims he didn't mean it that way. On the other hand, he only made that clarification after the consensus shifted for Big Bang.

[scrdest]

It's not well known, but most scientists at the time rejected the Big Bang as "superstitious creationist nonsense" because it dared to posit that the universe had a definite origin point (as Christianity and several other religions proclaimed) rather than having existed for all eternity (as the then-prevailing Steady State theory held). The very name "Big Bang" was a derogatory attempt to discredit it. Indeed, every single argument now advanced against Intelligent Design (which, in the form presented, is clearly false) were advanced against the Big Bang in those days, which is the best proof yet that you can't judge a theory's worth purely by the quality of the opposition.

Perhaps, but the parallels here are wrong - Intelligent Design, by its very own premises, is unfalsifiable. Not now, not ever, unless we build a Godon detector someday. Big Bang, on the other hand, does have a premise that has very real, measurable implications on the behavior of... stuff.

With ID, you have normal evolution plus 'we don't know what else could have caused a leap here, therefore God'.

[Lord Shonus]

It's not well known, but most scientists at the time rejected the Big Bang as "superstitious creationist nonsense" because it dared to posit that the universe had a definite origin point (as Christianity and several other religions proclaimed) rather than having existed for all eternity (as the then-prevailing Steady State theory held). The very name "Big Bang" was a derogatory attempt to discredit it. Indeed, every single argument now advanced against Intelligent Design (which, in the form presented, is clearly false) were advanced against the Big Bang in those days, which is the best proof yet that you can't judge a theory's worth purely by the quality of the opposition.

Perhaps, but the parallels here are wrong - Intelligent Design, by its very own premises, is unfalsifiable. Not now, not ever, unless we build a Godon detector someday. Big Bang, on the other hand, does have a premise that has very real, measurable implications on the behavior of... stuff.

With ID, you have normal evolution plus 'we don't know what else could have caused a leap here, therefore God'.

I know that, and I certainly have no intention of advocating a theory I don't support in the least (my view of the role of God in creation is that which scientists attribute to random chance). My point was that I've seen a lot of people (including a few lesser scientists that are also rabidly evangelical atheists) insist that the broad condemnation of ID from the scientific community is all the proof that is needed, and anyone who tries to investigate the theory on its own merits is a superstitious idiot.

[TD1]

Out of curiosity, how does an expanding universe fit in with Intelligent Design? When heat death begins, is that the End Days/Armageddon?

[Lord Shonus]

Out of curiosity, how does an expanding universe fit in with Intelligent Design? When heat death begins, is that the End Days/Armageddon?

Intelligent Design is just a half-assed evolution alternative, and doesn't really deal with that sort of thing (although anti-evolutionists often support other crackpot theories that would have impact, such as "the universe can't be as old as they say it is, because the light emitted from our eyes had to have the time to reach the things we're seeing."

That, however, is my personal belief on the End Times, that they will either coincide with the death of the Sun or with the Heat Death of the universe. (In the former case, God would have set the universal constants in a way that makes interstellar travel effectively impossible. In the latter, IS travel is possible in some way.)

[MetalSlimeHunt]

You might want to go ahead and default to the latter, then. Interstellar travel became technologically feasible in the 1950s.

[Lord Shonus]

I've never really been convinced about the feasibility of Orion, personally. There's a hard limit on how small you can make a nuclear explosive, and I have difficulty imagining a ship with enough magazine capacity to sustain the level of use they're positing. Not to mention that explosive fissionables are pretty rare, and thus there's a hard cap on how many Orion ships the Sol system could launch even if it was workable.

In any case, my theology's flexible enough to support them.