RugbyRebels

cashead wrote:

Vengeful Glutton wrote:

Lizard wrote: Tidbits and generalities may be. But fuck all of the bible is factually accurate in detail (no Adam & Eve, no flood, no exodus, no Roman census in Judea etc etc) And on this particular issue there is direct archaeological evidence that early humans killed animals and butchered them for meat.

You ok?

How early you want to go back? There's no doubt that at some point in our history humans began to eat meat. However, there is no conclusive evidence establishing a date. Arguing the historical merits of an implication in Genesis, versus scientific theories is, in this context quite pointless. It appears to have touched a nerve. For touching that nerve I apologise. I didn't intend to offend. An off the cuff remark if you like. Friends?

(There's also evidence that humans engaged in cannibalism. But it was probably very rare.)

The narrators of Genesis don't claim that it's all history (just like they don't claim that the Torah was divinely written, or that YHWH was omniscient). It's possible you're confusing that with later Theological constructs, hence your reference to the "Christian" Bible?

The historicity of the exodus is still disputed.

Considering that you've made three effort posts responding to the guy, basically on the same topic, it's pretty clear that between the two of you, Liz isn't the one that's had a nerve touched.

Also, that's bullshit, mate.

You're wasted on d'interwebs.

With all that hot air, you could be the first man to complete a lunar round trip in a balloon.

Vengeful Glutton wrote:

Lizard wrote:No nerves touched, I just like to call out religious nonsense when I see it, even if it's simply a modest cultural reference.

You should have seen my mother in law's face when I referred to the Ark she bought my kids as an "Evolution Boat."

No worries my friend.

We're all God's childr.....oops.

No worries taken, but indulge me one more time...

<militant atheism>God's bloody children, eh. Don't get me started on the illogicality of claiming Jebus as god's only begotten son but also being somehow a descendant (through 2 inconsistent genealogies) of the (probably mythical) King David through the cuckold stepfather's line. </militant atheism>

Interestingly Lizard there is some evidence of a Mediterranean flood iirc. Obviously Noah and the ark is nonsense.

As for there being evidence that man was "mainly vegetarian" I understand there's compelling evidence that people have been a little bit pregnant.

ETA There's no controversy about a man called Jesus who some claimed to be the messiah existing. The issue is with the concept of a messiah.

Vengeful Glutton wrote:

cashead wrote:

Vengeful Glutton wrote:
You ok?

How early you want to go back? There's no doubt that at some point in our history humans began to eat meat. However, there is no conclusive evidence establishing a date. Arguing the historical merits of an implication in Genesis, versus scientific theories is, in this context quite pointless. It appears to have touched a nerve. For touching that nerve I apologise. I didn't intend to offend. An off the cuff remark if you like. Friends?

(There's also evidence that humans engaged in cannibalism. But it was probably very rare.)

The narrators of Genesis don't claim that it's all history (just like they don't claim that the Torah was divinely written, or that YHWH was omniscient). It's possible you're confusing that with later Theological constructs, hence your reference to the "Christian" Bible?

The historicity of the exodus is still disputed.

Considering that you've made three effort posts responding to the guy, basically on the same topic, it's pretty clear that between the two of you, Liz isn't the one that's had a nerve touched.

Also, that's bullshit, mate.

You're wasted on d'interwebs.

With all that hot air, you could be the first man to complete a lunar round trip in a balloon.

Seems like I've touched a nerve.

Lizard wrote:

Vengeful Glutton wrote:

Lizard wrote:No nerves touched, I just like to call out religious nonsense when I see it, even if it's simply a modest cultural reference.

You should have seen my mother in law's face when I referred to the Ark she bought my kids as an "Evolution Boat."

No worries my friend.

We're all God's childr.....oops.

No worries taken, but indulge me one more time...

<militant atheism>God's bloody children, eh. Don't get me started on the illogicality of claiming Jebus as god's only begotten son but also being somehow a descendant (through 2 inconsistent genealogies) of the (probably mythical) King David through the cuckold stepfather's line. </militant atheism>

You appear to be indulging yourself!

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:Interestingly Lizard there is some evidence of a Mediterranean flood iirc. Obviously Noah and the ark is nonsense.

As for there being evidence that man was "mainly vegetarian" I understand there's compelling evidence that people have been a little bit pregnant.

ETA There's no controversy about a man called Jesus who some claimed to be the messiah existing. The issue is with the concept of a messiah.

There's no issue with the concept of Messiah (What does that even mean? ).

It's a legitimate idea in Jewish religious thinking. The period between 4BC and the 2nd century AD produced a few men who were proclaimed Messiah including Judas of Galillee and the "Star of Jacob" Bar Kocheba. That they failed to fulfil the prophecy of a saviour king who would liberate the children of Israel from foreign rule, simply means that they were not the messiah.

The concept you're confusing it with is the idea that JC was divine, which is abhorrent to Judaism, since only YHWH is divine.

Jesus was obese.

Who is the current messiah, anyway? Is it Eddie Jones? Can a coach be a messiah or does it have to be a young, gifted player on the crest of having all his spontaneity and spark ruthlessly coached out of him in the ludicrous grind of European club rugby?

Lizard wrote:Who is the current messiah, anyway? Is it Eddie Jones? Can a coach be a messiah or does it have to be a young, gifted player on the crest of having all his spontaneity and spark ruthlessly coached out of him in the ludicrous grind of European club rugby?

NZ rugby has never really gone for the concept of a messiah, has it?

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Lizard wrote:Who is the current messiah, anyway? Is it Eddie Jones? Can a coach be a messiah or does it have to be a young, gifted player on the crest of having all his spontaneity and spark ruthlessly coached out of him in the ludicrous grind of European club rugby?

NZ rugby has never really gone for the concept of a messiah, has it?

Not really. Our game has never needed saving, hence no search for a saviour. (You might argue that G Henry was seen as something of a messiah re RWC2011)

No we do it the other way around. We build up an experienced player as an anointed god without whom we are doomed. We then gnash our teeth, rend our garments and cry "Oh why have Ye forsaken us?" when they become unavailable (eg take up a lucrative contract in France/fuck off to fly gliders/get dropped for no reason after captaining 14 straight wins etc). Doom is then prophesied, fails to eventuate, and finally we all stumble about like idiots pretending that we always knew that we would be just fine without Michael Jones/Dan Carter/Richie McCaw because it had always been obvious that Josh Kronfeld/Beauden Barret/Ardie Savea would be as good if not better.

It's a bit like cults who reset their Armageddon date every time it fails to eventuate.

I thought NZ as a whole is/was rugby's messiah.

Can we also stop saying YHWH is the messiah. I keep reading it as HWNTW and having a minor heart attack.

Mellsblue wrote:I thought NZ as a whole is/was rugby's messiah.

Can we also stop saying YHWH is the messiah. I keep reading it as HWNTW and having a minor heart attack.

Holy writ:

Lizard wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Lizard wrote:Who is the current messiah, anyway? Is it Eddie Jones? Can a coach be a messiah or does it have to be a young, gifted player on the crest of having all his spontaneity and spark ruthlessly coached out of him in the ludicrous grind of European club rugby?

NZ rugby has never really gone for the concept of a messiah, has it?

Not really. Our game has never needed saving, hence no search for a saviour. (You might argue that G Henry was seen as something of a messiah re RWC2011)

No we do it the other way around. We build up an experienced player as an anointed god without whom we are doomed. We then gnash our teeth, rend our garments and cry "Oh why have Ye forsaken us?" when they become unavailable (eg take up a lucrative contract in France/fuck off to fly gliders/get dropped for no reason after captaining 14 straight wins etc). Doom is then prophesied, fails to eventuate, and finally we all stumble about like idiots pretending that we always knew that we would be just fine without Michael Jones/Dan Carter/Richie McCaw because it had always been obvious that Josh Kronfeld/Beauden Barret/Ardie Savea would be as good if not better.

It's a bit like cults who reset their Armageddon date every time it fails to eventuate.

Shorn mullets is more appropriate .