Interesting figures. Though what you write contradicts the original projections in the pew graph (not to say you are ‘wrong’). I’d also be curious as to whether there are more folks falling between the gaps due to the wording in the questionnaires. Personally I’d be unlikely to answer a questionnaire in the first place but if someone asked me which religion I belonged to I’d most likely have to put ‘none.’ There would most likely not be a box to tick that said ‘Asking me which religion I belong to is a bit like asking me which pen I belong to when I write.’
Britain relentlessly becoming land of secularists and atheists
A 'dramatic decline' in Christian belief and practice and a 'substantial increase in atheism', are recorded in a new surveywww.thetablet.co.uk
Atheism is growing at a greater rate than any religion is. And anywhere where there is atheism, it is growing very quickly (quadrupling over the last ten years in many countries).
Even in places you wouldn’t expect, like Iran; around 9% of their population are convinced atheists.
Religion
- Thread starter idahoblues
- Start date
mancity2012_eamo
Well-Known Member
Spiritually Agnostic?
God knows, lol…I might look at it and say that it as simple as whether I am open or closed to the flow of Life - though ‘going with the flow’ can be closed and what seems to be closed can be a step before opening. So I might visit this religion or that place or this scientific article or meet that (non?) spiritual person. And through that there is an exploration and a process of change rather than a fixed dogma to follow. Might not be everyone’s cup of tea (myself included at times…) but each to their own ‘god’ or ‘no god.’
I'm no cynic but...
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 22 Jan 2013
- Messages
- 4,000
- Location
- True friends stab you in the front.
- Team supported
- The one and only City
Philosophical.
paulsimpson
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 16 Nov 2008
- Messages
- 3,457
Glad you noticed
How did Noah fit all of those animals on the ark? Was the ark big enough to fit “two of every kind… of the birds after their kind
(species) , and of the animals after their kind, of every creeping thing of the ground after its kind,” and seven of some kinds? What about food? There had to be enough room to store enough food to last Noah and his family (8 in all), plus all of the animals, at least a year (see Genesis 7:11 8:13-18) and maybe more, depending on how long it took for vegetation to grow back. That’s a lot of food as you noticed! What about drinking water? Is it realistic to believe that Noah’s boat was big enough to store all of these animals and all of this food and water for over a year?
The dimensions for the ark given in Genesis are 300 cubits long, 50 cubits wide and 30 cubits high (Genesis 6:15). What is a cubit? A cubit is an ancient unit of measurement, the length of the forearm from the elbow to the longest finger (the term “cubit” comes from the Latin word “cubitum” which means “elbow.” We know a cubit is somewhere between 17 and 22 inches (43-56 centimeters). So, doing the maths using the Egyptian cubit:
300 x 22 inches = 6,600; 50 x 22 inches = 1,100; 30 x 22 inches = 660
6,600/12 = 550 feet; 1100/12 = 91.7 feet; 660/12 = 55 feet.
Thus, the ark could have been up to 550 feet long, 91.7 feet wide and 55 feet high. These are not unreasonable dimensions. But how much storage space does this amount to?
550 x 91.7 x 55 = 2,773,925 cubic feet. (If we take the smallest measurement of cubit, 17 inches, we end up with 1,278,825 ft³). Of course, not all of it would have been free space. The ark had three decks (Genesis 6:16) and a lot of rooms (Genesis 6:14), the walls of which would have taken up space. Nevertheless, it has been calculated that a little more than half (54.75%) of the 2,773,925 cubic feet could store 125,000 sheep-sized animals, leaving over 1.5 million cubic feet³ of free space (see icrDOTorg/article/how-could-all-animals-get-board-noahs-ark/).
John Woodmorappe, author of the definitive Noah’s Ark: A Feasibility Study, estimated that only about 15 percent of the animals on the ark would have been larger than a sheep. This figure does not take into account the possibility that God may have brought Noah “infant” animals, which can be significantly smaller than adult animals.
How many animals were on the ark? Woodmorappe estimates 8,000 “kinds.” What is a “kind”? The description of “kind” is thought to be much broader than the designation “species.” Even as there are over 400 dog breeds all belonging to one species (Canis familiaris), so many species can belong to one kind. Some think that the category “genus” is close to what is called the biblical “kind.”
So even if we presume that “kind” is synonymous with “species,” “there are not very many species of mammals, birds, amphibians and reptiles. The leading systematic biologist, Ernst Mayr, gives the number as 17,600. Allowing for TWO of each species on the ark, plus seven of the few so-called “clean” kinds of animals for eventual sacrifice, plus a reasonable increment for known extinct species, it is obvious that not more than, say, 50,000 animals were on the ark.
Christ Jesus spoke of Noah and how God judged the world in the flood. Billions of dead things, buried in rock layers , laid down by water all over the whole earth are a reminder of a watery catastrophic judgement.( Search flume experiments for confirmation of layering and strata)
"For as were the days of Noah so will be the coming of the Son of Man. For as in those days before the flood they
were eating and drinking and marrying , giving in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, and they were unaware until the flood came and swept them all away so will be the coming of the Son of Man"
Jesus is coming again to judge the earth very soon as we near the end of the sixth millennium since creation. He is not coming as a little baby next time.
Just as Noah’s contemporaries failed to understand their impending doom, many of our own people will be swept away in God’s judgment without ever realising their need for a Savior. The flood functions as a warning to any of us who presume upon God’s mercy in continuing our lack of humility not owning up. Why not admit to God stuff we've done in our past hasnt been the best? For instance, atheism is the belief in an idol above God. The flood speaks to all to turn to God and not be so hard of heart. Jesus is knocking on our door - Rev3:20.
It only takes a moment to turn to Christ and let Him in. The gains are glorious and completeness as opposed to brokenness . Healing victory - Revelation 3:21
SWP's back
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2009
- Messages
- 90,478
Cogent and critical thought is not high on his agenda.
My wife doesn’t believe Noah’s Ark ever happened and believe a lot of the Old Testament stories are parables in themselves. She believes it’s a metaphor for Jesus and he’s the “Ark”.
Convenient I suppose but there’s no way Noah’s Ark ever happened. The dimensions you’ve posted are laughable, even if you’re going to fit 2 of every species on as infants.
Again, she believes that Adam and Eve are a metaphor for humanity turning to sin over God… however I’ve pointed out a massive problem is that Adam is mentioned in Matthew and Luke as Jesus’s ancestor.
Fiftyyearsandcounting
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 25 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 2,361
Absolute tosh, you've just made that up. The dictionary definition of an atheist -
"A person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods". There is no god, so logically there can be no one above him, idol or busy".
All the animals "Came to Noah". So in your version 14 infant kangaroos hopped over from Australia? To believe the story as fact and to try and mitigate the impact of so many animals is simply ridiculous.
"Few clean animals" -says who? "17,600 species" - science says over 8 million. "Infant animals" -no mention of this.
You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.
Kippaxpete
Well-Known Member
You may as well piss into the wind as hope to have a reasoned debate with these arrogant fuckwits. In short, the prevailing scientific consensus means fuck all to them for one simple reason. Scientific investigation, by its very nature, requires empirical evidence to prove any theory whereas the creationist nutters choose to start with a literal interpretation of a book written by numerous authors in excess of 30 years following Christ's death and present arguments drawn from various branches of pseudoscience as evidence in support of a prescribed agenda. Just to reinforce how marginalised Mr Simpson and his ilk are, note that the official position adopted by both the Protestant and Catholic church is that the bible's account of creation should not be interpreted literally. Also, Simpson refers to John Woodmorappe as the 'author of the definitive Noah’s Ark: A Feasibility Study'. Take five minutes to research Mr Woodmorappe (a pseudonym for some reason) and you'll find that his theories have been routinely debunked by numerous respected scientists and scholars. As said, irrespective of the overwhelming, undeniable weight of opinion in the scientific community, anyone seeking to debate these people is, sadly, wasting their breath.
From an interview with a guy called Neil Douglas Klotz around the language and culture of Aramaic spirituality and the Bible. See which interpretation or interpretation speaks to you might be his message. If none of them do then why not go somewhere else? But it may give a different context as to how some might explore the teachings.
“TS: I love that. So you’re offering different forms of translation and saying, “see which one speaks to you”?
NDK: Yes. In the Jewish tradition, especially in the Kabbalistic traditions, this is called Midrash. You take a translation, [and] rather than do a so-called a literal translation, you do maybe five or six different literal translations, because the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Arabic [each] allows for different literal translations of the same word. And so they would say that you could [then] look at these sayings, you can look at the wisdom in different ways from our everyday reality: “How does the saying relate to me in my relationships?” Or you could say, “my work life,” “my inner spiritual life,” “my psychological life,” “my relationship to nature.”
All of these are what you could call different arenas [in which] we act and feel, and which we are in life. And the ancient Semitic languages seemed to revel in this almost paradoxical way of looking at life. Life was both heaven and earth. It was both a connected “shimmering wave,” which would be one way of translating “heaven.” And it was also an individual particle; it was an individual essence that each of us came into life to offer and to blossom like a seed blossoms.
So there’s individuality. There’s diversity. But there’s also unity. And this is the way the Hebrew Bible begins. If it begins in paradox, it certainly not going to go anywhere else from there. And so I think the main difficulty is when people try to boil things down to an “only translation” or an “only correct belief” in any religious or spiritual tradition, this is where things tend to get a bit volatile.”
m.dailygood.org
“TS: I love that. So you’re offering different forms of translation and saying, “see which one speaks to you”?
NDK: Yes. In the Jewish tradition, especially in the Kabbalistic traditions, this is called Midrash. You take a translation, [and] rather than do a so-called a literal translation, you do maybe five or six different literal translations, because the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Arabic [each] allows for different literal translations of the same word. And so they would say that you could [then] look at these sayings, you can look at the wisdom in different ways from our everyday reality: “How does the saying relate to me in my relationships?” Or you could say, “my work life,” “my inner spiritual life,” “my psychological life,” “my relationship to nature.”
All of these are what you could call different arenas [in which] we act and feel, and which we are in life. And the ancient Semitic languages seemed to revel in this almost paradoxical way of looking at life. Life was both heaven and earth. It was both a connected “shimmering wave,” which would be one way of translating “heaven.” And it was also an individual particle; it was an individual essence that each of us came into life to offer and to blossom like a seed blossoms.
So there’s individuality. There’s diversity. But there’s also unity. And this is the way the Hebrew Bible begins. If it begins in paradox, it certainly not going to go anywhere else from there. And so I think the main difficulty is when people try to boil things down to an “only translation” or an “only correct belief” in any religious or spiritual tradition, this is where things tend to get a bit volatile.”
Neil Douglas-Klotz On The Aramaic Jesus, By Tami Simon | DailyGood
What follows is the transcript of a SoundsTrue interview from the podcast Insights at the Edge between host Tami Simon and Neil Do...
skiddypants
Well-Known Member
Religion seems to be the Devil's toy!
I do believe we needed structure like the commandments and now changing rules as Humanity goes forward.
Religion seems to have been hijacked by nut jobs, maybe always was like this.
The local blue rinses down our church look harmless.
If people are looking for something after a death i see no harm.
I do believe we needed structure like the commandments and now changing rules as Humanity goes forward.
Religion seems to have been hijacked by nut jobs, maybe always was like this.
The local blue rinses down our church look harmless.
If people are looking for something after a death i see no harm.
Last edited:
Just a point on the first highlighted part, Noah’s Ark was written many centuries before Jesus was born. The New Testament Gospels were formally put together 30+ years after his death, however Paul’s letters were written 20 years after and he wrote about “scripture” relating to Jesus being taught for a period of time in his churches… so it’s likely the gospel authors plagiarised at least some of it.
The 2nd highlighted part is true. The Catholic Church and the main Protestant Churches (ie of England) both refer to Old Testament stories of Ark’s and Whales swallowing men, as symbolic metaphors.
The term “buffet Christian” does have some merit but it’s largely true for what Christian take and don’t take from the Old Testament, not New Testament.
Literally believing the young Earth theory and Noah’s Ark etc. is for the birds.
Taken from the interview posted above. Perhaps there could be a suggestion that there was a religion needed for a humanity ‘unripe’ in understanding and behavior…but as humanity ripens (matures) then there can be room for something else.
“For instance, that really the meaning of the word “good” in Aramaic really means “ripe.” That is, r-i-p-e, meaning “at the right time, at the right place.” It’s essentially a planting image and one that is drawn from nature.
Conversely, you could say, the word for “evil” as it’s translated as evil in the Gospels, really means unripe. It’s the Aramaic bisha where as “ripe” is the Aramaic tuve, which is similar to the modern-day Hebrew, Tove. Just knowing that makes a huge difference when you look at works that have come to “theological” implications of, “Well, this is good belief and this is bad belief.” Or, “This is categorically, as Jesus says in the Gospels: a good tree bears good fruit. An evil tree bears evil fruit.” Well, I mean, he’s really saying that “a ripe tree bears ripe fruit and an unripe tree bears unripe fruit.””
Kippaxpete
Well-Known Member
Fair challenge Octavian. I should have specified, 'much of which was written...'
Otherwise, it's reassuring to know we agree on the central point.
skiddypants
Well-Known Member
Does this mean, I can shag my neighbour?
You can shag him if you wish.
Kippaxpete
Well-Known Member
Interesting piece. One of the most significant takeaways from the Klotz interview for me was the following.From an interview with a guy called Neil Douglas Klotz around the language and culture of Aramaic spirituality and the Bible. See which interpretation or interpretation speaks to you might be his message. If none of them do then why not go somewhere else? But it may give a different context as to how some might explore the teachings.
“TS: I love that. So you’re offering different forms of translation and saying, “see which one speaks to you”?
NDK: Yes. In the Jewish tradition, especially in the Kabbalistic traditions, this is called Midrash. You take a translation, [and] rather than do a so-called a literal translation, you do maybe five or six different literal translations, because the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Arabic [each] allows for different literal translations of the same word. And so they would say that you could [then] look at these sayings, you can look at the wisdom in different ways from our everyday reality: “How does the saying relate to me in my relationships?” Or you could say, “my work life,” “my inner spiritual life,” “my psychological life,” “my relationship to nature.”
All of these are what you could call different arenas [in which] we act and feel, and which we are in life. And the ancient Semitic languages seemed to revel in this almost paradoxical way of looking at life. Life was both heaven and earth. It was both a connected “shimmering wave,” which would be one way of translating “heaven.” And it was also an individual particle; it was an individual essence that each of us came into life to offer and to blossom like a seed blossoms.
So there’s individuality. There’s diversity. But there’s also unity. And this is the way the Hebrew Bible begins. If it begins in paradox, it certainly not going to go anywhere else from there. And so I think the main difficulty is when people try to boil things down to an “only translation” or an “only correct belief” in any religious or spiritual tradition, this is where things tend to get a bit volatile.”
Neil Douglas-Klotz On The Aramaic Jesus, By Tami Simon | DailyGood
What follows is the transcript of a SoundsTrue interview from the podcast Insights at the Edge between host Tami Simon and Neil Do...
'He doesn’t say, “Believe in me.” He says, “Believe like me. Believe as I do.”'
Taken at face value, this would appear to be inconsequential. In reality, it highlights a subtle but important distinction. Central to my aversion to all forms of organised religion is a view articulated by the philosopher, Nietzsche, who said, 'I cannot believe in a God who wants to be praised all the time'. While not changing my view of organised religion in any way, I would be far more comfortable with the concept of seeking to live one's life by a set of sensible, benevolent and altruistic guidelines without the imposition of a deity that requires my 'worship'.
Last edited: