namelesstavern.net

I am sure this is one of the prophecies in the book. Perhaps we can get "Sorrina Jesus" and Jill Carrol to tell us about it.

Jesus is the one raising the global temperature. He's trying to burn a pathway between heaven, hell and earth so we can all have like a three world WWF Smackdown like battle because obviously jesus is bored as fucking hell up there in heaven.

I mean seriously how many thousands of years can you sit around with a bunch of Christians without losing your FUCKING MIND.

kaharthemad wrote:I am sure this is one of the prophecies in the book. Perhaps we can get "Sorrina Jesus" and Jill Carrol to tell us about it.

I thought I'd seen em all but THAT is the lamest, weakest, was born with no balls, troll of all time. All I can say Kahar is that when the poles melt I hope you own beachfront property.

When the poles melt, I'll end up with beachfront property


boooya

Of course Jesus will come back when the ice at poles melt. There will be more water for him to impress the ladies with the walk on water trick.

Phlegm wrote:Of course Jesus will come back when the ice at poles melt. There will be more water for him to impress the ladies with the walk on water trick.

that and to use to make tidal waves to annihilate the heathen jews and muslims and probably those fucking crazy mormons.

captain_insano wrote:Jesus is the one raising the global temperature. He's trying to burn a pathway between heaven, hell and earth so we can all have like a three world WWF Smackdown like battle because obviously jesus is bored as fucking hell up there in heaven.

I mean seriously how many thousands of years can you sit around with a bunch of Christians without losing your FUCKING MIND.

I loved it when the President was speaking the other day (I'm not sure who/exactly when) but they opened the questions to the audience, and one woman asked Bush if he thought that everything that has happened is a sign of the apocalypse..he just started laughing and so did everyone else, I laughed too.

Sorina S wrote:

kaharthemad wrote:I am sure this is one of the prophecies in the book. Perhaps we can get "Sorrina Jesus" and Jill Carrol to tell us about it.

I thought I'd seen em all but THAT is the lamest, weakest, was born with no balls, troll of all time. All I can say Kahar is that when the poles melt I hope you own beachfront property.

actualy when the poles 'melt' I doubt Ill be alive dumbass. Must not have been too weak cause your lame ass responded to it with some whiney bitch retort.

Phlegm wrote:Of course Jesus will come back when the ice at poles melt. There will be more water for him to impress the ladies with the walk on water trick.

Now, how's he supposed to walk on water with those holes in his feet?

he'll tippy toe, and possibly prance

word on the street is that next time he comes back, he'll be gay

Tikker wrote:word on the street is that next time he comes back, he'll be gay

So it is Sorrina...I knew it!!!

If Sorina is Jesus, we're fucked.

Jesus is being fashionably late :

"We don't have to protect the environment, the Second Coming is at hand."

James Watt - Secretary of Interior during Reagan administration, reasponsible for environmental policy

Phlegm wrote:Of course Jesus will come back when the ice at poles melt. There will be more water for him to impress the ladies with the walk on water trick.

Well maybe not. From Reuters:

MIAMI, Florida (Reuters) -- The New Testament says that Jesus walked on water, but a Florida university professor believes there could be a less miraculous explanation -- he walked on a floating piece of ice.

Professor Doron Nof also theorized in the early 1990s that Moses's parting of the Red Sea had solid science behind it.

Nof, a professor of oceanography at Florida State University, said on Tuesday that his study found an unusual combination of water and atmospheric conditions in what is now northern Israel could have led to ice formation on the Sea of Galilee.

Nof used records of the Mediterranean Sea's surface temperatures and statistical models to examine the dynamics of the Sea of Galilee, which Israelis know now as Lake Kinneret.

The study found that a period of cooler temperatures in the area between 1,500 and 2,600 years ago could have included the decades in which Jesus lived.

A drop in temperature below freezing could have caused ice -- thick enough to support a human -- to form on the surface of the freshwater lake near the western shore, Nof said. It might have been nearly impossible for distant observers to see a piece of floating ice surrounded by water.

Nof said he offered his study -- published in the April edition of the Journal of Paleolimnology -- as a "possible explanation" for Jesus' walk on water.

"If you ask me if I believe someone walked on water, no, I don't," Nof said. "Maybe somebody walked on the ice, I don't know. I believe that something natural was there that explains it."

"We leave to others the question of whether or not our research explains the biblical account."

When he offered his theory 14 years ago that wind and sea conditions could explain the parting of the Red Sea, Nof said he received some hate mail, even though he noted that the idea could support the biblical description of the event.

And as his theory of Jesus' walk on ice began to circulate, he had more hate mail in his e-mail inbox.

"They asked me if I'm going to try next to explain the resurrection," he said.

That florida university professor just earned himself a hotseat in hell for doubting the jesus's water skiing capabilities.

Ice lawl

captain_insano wrote:That florida university professor just earned himself a hotseat in hell for doubting the jesus's water skiing capabilities.

Or Jesus is laughing because someone just figured out exactly how he did it.
An interesting question spawns from discoveries like these in my mind... does it invalidate or reinforce the stories of the bible? On the one hand the idea would lend to dispelling the miraculous nature of the story, yet is also provides a plausible explanation... belief would no longer rely on faith, but on scientific proof. This helps those who place thier belief system in the roots of science to accept what those with faith have accepted all along... but at the same time cheapening the mystical aspect for the faithful.

Lueyen wrote:but at the same time cheapening the mystical aspect for the faithful.

Lies arent mystical. They are lies.

I'd like to know more about this research of his. So far all we know is that some professor claims that there MIGHT have been ice during that time period. This is of course bullshit. The world hasn't changed that much in 2000 years.

Actually, climate has changed rather dramatically in just a few hundred years. Back in the middle ages, the Thames river that goes through London would freeze over solid for most of the entire winter, they used to have a yearly festival that took place in the middle of the river on the ice. Now, it never freezes up, ever, not for the last 100ish years or so.

-Arlos

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eocene

Eocene
56-34 million years ago

Marking the start of the Eocene, the planet heated up in one of the most rapid (in geologic terms) and extreme global warming events recorded in geologic history, called the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum or Initial Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM or IETM). This was an episode of rapid and intense warming (up to 7°C at high latitudes) that lasted less than 100,000 years [1]. The Thermal Maximum provoked a sharp extinction event that distinguishes Eocene fauna from the ecosystems of the Paleocene.

The Eocene global climate was perhaps the most homogeneous of the Cenozoic; the temperature gradient from equator to pole was only half as much as it is today, and deep ocean currents were exceptionally warm compared to today.[2] The polar regions were much warmer than today, so mild that warm temperate forests extended right to the poles. They were also much wetter than today. The polar regions may have been at least as mild as the modern-day Pacific Northwest. Tropical climates extended as far north as 45 degrees latitude away from the Equator.

Climates remained warm through the rest of the Eocene, although slow global cooling, which eventually led to the Pleistocene glaciations, started around the end of epoch as ocean currents around Antarctica cooled.

mofish wrote:

Lueyen wrote:but at the same time cheapening the mystical aspect for the faithful.

Lies arent mystical. They are lies.

tsk tsk, such insecure intolerance. For those who believe the contents of the bible, specifically the passages discussing Jesus walking on water, the event describes an encounter with divine power, from their perspective mystical describes it, lies does not. Your response seems pretty illogical, however I think it has less to do with making sense and more of having an axe to grind. Glad you cleared it up that you don't subscribe to the Bible, I was wondering... no really .

I suppose I sort of provoked it though via the perspective from which I approached the subject showing only one aspect and the one preferable to those who would further Christianity. I only really discussed one possible result of this "scientific theory" surrounding shifts toward attitudes and beliefs about the Bible, and those shifts I discussed were only those that would be favorable to various Christian religions. I somewhat insinuated (unintentionally) that those who hold science in a virtual position of a religion in and of its self, would now have no choice but to accept the Bible as being validated by science (If indeed this idea was not debunked and gained support in the scientific community).

Really there is a flip side that I can see, and one that would be more favorable for those who believe Christianity is debunked at every turn due to scientific discoveries and findings. As something like this could cause those who have trouble buying the Bible due to scientific evidence to the contrary to start to lean the other way, it could have a similar opposite effect on those who have trouble accepting scientific discovery due to it's contradiction with the Bible.

For those who were raised in a religious environment, who's core beliefs, personality, general line of thought, and point of view on life are rooted in religious belief, throwing off religion even when faced with strong arguments against it, is difficult, unlikely and in many cases likely impossible. Gradual shifts are much easier, and more likely, and ideas like this could easily facilitate a gradual shift in mindset away from thier more traditional Christian beliefs.

In short Mofish, I don't believe that even should this idea gain support and validation we aren't in any danger of seeing you turn into a Bible thumping radical Christian.. so chill out 8).

Really there is a flip side that I can see, and one that would be more favorable for those who believe Christianity is debunked at every turn due to scientific discoveries and findings. As something like this could cause those who have trouble buying the Bible due to scientific evidence to the contrary to start to lean the other way, it could have a similar opposite effect on those who have trouble accepting scientific discovery due to it's contradiction with the Bible.

If a "Christian" is that easily swayed by atheistic sensationalism/propaganda, then they weren't really Christians to begin with.

I think part of being human is questioning that which makes no sense.

Gargamellow wrote:I think part of being human is questioning that which makes no sense.

True, but buying into a ridiculous "explanation" offered up by atheists with an agenda, makes no sense either.