The homeland Vikings were comprised of small or 'petty' autonomous kings, who would raid other homeland kings , even when such clans put differences aside to form large fleets of longships for mutual benefit ..so they could go in great force to raid, trade and settle in distant and foreign lands , such kings would still act autonomously.
The allure of cHristianity [for Vikings leaders] was that it was seen as a way of uniting the clans like never before.
Christianity facilitated the ultimate agenda of wanting to consolidate power , by wielding control over the clans.
Leif Erikson was converted to christianity by king Olaf of Norway, and being made a member of the kings court, was commissioned the task of evagelizing and spreading it.
Harald Hardrada [the son King Olaf], was a catholic, but was no less ruthlessly ambitious, blood thirsty and barbaric than the pagan raider Vikings that came before him.
-Bulletproof and Waterproof don't mean Idiotproof.
Is somebody on the campfire seriously worshipping Thor?
All the cool kids are doing it. I love Thor. I dedicate most of my Friday and Saturday nights to Him.
And worship can mean so many things. To some it may mean viciously admonishing nonbelievers for their sins with or without the semi-frequent engagement in the same base activities behind closed doors. To others, it could be smugly laughing inside at the sight of a filthy sinner whilst choosing for his self which words of God to follow to the letter and which can be twisted into what's convenient or what feels good, as long as he is sorry afterwards. To me, it generally means getting piss drunk and staggering around my yard in my underwear, whilst shouting a lot about the virtues of raping and pillaging with a big hammer in my hand, and then vomiting a lot. Sometimes I puke and rally.
Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven.
You trout out a philosopher from The Discovery Institute and a 52 minute argument from ignorance as your evidence?
Stephen Fletcher, chemist at Loughborough University, responded in The Times Literary Supplement that Nagel was "promot[ing] the book to the rest of us using statements that are factually incorrect."[37] Fletcher explained "Natural selection is in fact a chemical process as well as a biological process, and it was operating for about half a billion years before the earliest cellular life forms appear in the fossil record."[37] In another publication, Fletcher wrote: "I am afraid that reality has overtaken Meyer's book and its flawed reasoning", pointing out scientific problems with Meyer's work by citing how RNA "survived and evolved into our own human protein-making factory, and continues to make our fingers and toes."[38]
Darrel Falk, former president of the BioLogos Foundation and a biology professor at Point Loma Nazarene University, reviewed the book, saying it illustrates why he does not support the intelligent design movement.[39] Falk is critical of Meyer's declaration of scientists being wrong, such as Michael Lynch about genetic drift, without Meyer having done any experiment or calculation to disprove Lynch's assertion. Falk writes, "the book is supposed to be a science book and the ID movement is purported to be primarily a scientific movement—not primarily a philosophical, religious, or even popular movement", but concludes "If the object of the book is to show that the Intelligent Design movement is a scientific movement, it has not succeeded. In fact, what it has succeeded in showing is that it is a popular movement grounded primarily in the hopes and dreams of those in philosophy, in religion, and especially those in the general public."[39]
How did the Discovery Institute do when attempting to push intelligent design against real scientist in a court of law?
That's right, they lost.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
Trout out? You believe our courts are interested in truth? Try again. DNA is information . Technical specific design information in the form of complex code. All life deep dependss on it and no materialist (such as yourself) can account for this information by random accident.
In addition Falk is a confessed Christian who believes in theistic evolution. As an atheist you stand with him?
Last edited by Robert_White; 04/10/19.
Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven.
Theodoret wasn't born for another 60 years after the alleged events, Sozomen 40 years later, and Socrates Scholasticus finished his work 80 years after the fact. [/quote]
WHY wasn't the temple rebuilt? You explain that because Julian declared them to do it.
Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven.
Trout out? You believe our courts are interested in truth? Try again. DNA is information . Technical specific design information in the form of complex code. All life deep depends on it and no materialist (such as yourself) can account for this information by random accident.
In addition Falk is a confessed Christian who believes in theistic evolution. As an atheist you stand with him?
DNA is not a code. It's a chemical process. It's a copy paste process that makes the occasional error, and there are sorted according to their continued likely hood to be passed from generation to generation in a process Darwin called "evolution by natural selection".
As for DNA being a "code", I know many code writers, and in every instance the author of the code is way more complex than the code. If DNA is so complex it requires an intelligent designer, than by extension, the more complex creator would fall under those same conditions. To claim other wise would be a case of special pleading.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
Theodoret wasn't born for another 60 years after the alleged events, Sozomen 40 years later, and Socrates Scholasticus finished his work 80 years after the fact.
WHY wasn't the temple rebuilt? You explain that because Julian declared them to do it.[/quote]
I'm not convinced any part of the fable is true.
Modern "historians" record that every bird in the entirety of North Korea sang at the exact moment of the birth of their "Dear Leader", and Vespasian allegedly performed two miraculous healings in Egypt. that doesn't mean the stories is believable.
The accounts of your alleged event were written two and three generations later, plenty of time for embellishment, and/or invention out of whole cloth.
As for why the alleged temple was not completed, do you think they could complete it in no more than 18 months? According to your story, construction began in 362. Julian died on 26 June 363. The Galilee earthquake of 363 occurred in May, just a month before Julian's death. His successor, Jovian took the crown just a month after this earth quake, and reinstated Christianity upon his return from campaign from Persia that same year, burned the Library of Antioch, and subjected those who worshiped ancestral gods to the death penalty. He extended the same punishment on 23 December to participation in any pagan ceremony (even private ones).
No miracles required, just a natural even, and a change in funding priorities.
Last edited by antelope_sniper; 04/10/19.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
You all should have a drink of the Jim Jones KoolAid.
Jim Jones tossed the bible on the floor in front of his congregation and shouted in contempt, Some of you love this book more than me...
Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven.
DNA thing is really not so mystical. DNA is prone to mistakes, and basically small sections can have periodic typo errors. In human DNA there is 6 billion base pairs. 3 base pairs encode for a specific amino acid on the protein (polypeptide) chain. Amino acids come in two basic groups, water fearing, and water liking. So when assembled in a chain, the protein chain forms a 3D configuration due to the stress interaction from the hydrophobic and hydrophilic amino acids. So all corn in a field has the same DNA except for one stalk. That unique stock took a hit from UV radiation from the sun during growth. So it's DNA is changed from the rest of the corn in the field. So for example, lets say the DNA change deals with stock diameter. So the seeds from these couple of ears will be different the next planting. This random sun induced mistake will carried on to the seeds. Next year the corn field sees a wind storm, and the only stocks that survive are the thicker ones. So the mutation survives, and becomes the new standard. Just as likely there was a small stock version, and it gets wiped out with the standard diameter stocks. DNA is not planned, it is trial and error. Mistakes can be good or bad. Bad mistakes, like albino deer get eaten by predators fast because albinos lake stealth. So that mistake gets removed.
The next thing to grasp is millions and millions of years of trial and error with millions and millions of experiments per day.
Hence Darwin.
DNA does not point to the need for an authoritarian church.
