Reply With Quote
Only if (as first-hand witnesses) they had actually seen him rise from the dead. If they were lying, they would know they were lying and wouldn't choose to die horrifically for the lie.
They had glory in heaven to gain.
Only if (as first-hand witnesses) they had actually seen him rise from the dead. If they were lying, they would know they were lying and wouldn't choose to die horrifically for the lie.
Why are you assuming that the apostles actually saw the resurrected Jesus?
Oh yeah Paul and John had nothing like power and prestige all over the Mediterranean to gain.
The story of John is that he was boiled but took no harm. I am going to go out on a limb say thats not really what happened. Just like there was no asexual reproduction and hanging out in lit furnaces. All the people in the Coliseum were converted that day. Its true: I read it in the Bible.
Those two made most of the whoppers. Like all you have to do is say your sorry and all the crap that Jesus didn't actually say as written in the Gospels.
why is it that those who do not believe feel compelled to convince those who do believe that they are idiots for believing?
Granted, believers are sometimes their own worst enemies for pushing their beliefs on others.
I, for one, choose to believe. Not because science proves it to me, but because of the evidence I have seen firsthand in lives of people i know such as the gifts of faith, patience, sacrifice, unconditional love, and service to others. Can you possess these traits without God. Yes, I suppose so. However, when someone possesses these traits and give credit to their God for them, how can you argue with them. It is their belief, their faith, and ultimately their destiny.
Frankly, for me, beleiving that we came to be out of randomness is more illogical than believing there is a creator. You may think I am being intellectually naive in saying so, but when you consider the expanse of the universe and the wonder of this world, the onlyl conclusion i can come to is that we, the human race, do not have the adequate capacity of intellect to comprehend the fullness of creation. Creationism or evolution? I believe there is room for both under the guiding hand of a supreme being.
One day - at the end of our time on this earth - i suppose we will all know the answer. Until then, i will find comfort and peace in the belief that there is a God and that he loves me and you, regardless of whether we love him back.
How will any of us know anything when dead?
Great. Which religion then is the right one?
It is.
google the URL of the picture, gets you to here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/gorbould/2761163127/
Caption:
Fossilized tree at Joggins Fossil Cliffs
Nova Scotia:
http://jogginsfossilcliffs.net/cliffs/
It doesn't prove anything mouse says it does though. He is simply trolling crap he doesn't believe in either.
"spinning so fast the dinosaurs would fall off."
We come out of randomness. We will go back to that.
That the universe exists does not prove any supreme being, merely that a universe exists.
Strange that it would look so unlike a tree, then. I looked at the largest version of the flickr image and it looks perfectly/evenly fluted. Like a thinner Doric column.It is.
google the URL of the picture, gets you to here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/gorbould/2761163127/
Caption:
Fossilized tree at Joggins Fossil Cliffs
Nova Scotia:
http://jogginsfossilcliffs.net/cliffs/
It doesn't prove anything mouse says it does though. He is simply trolling crap he doesn't believe in either.
"spinning so fast the dinosaurs would fall off."
meh... it's not worth a debate to me. I'll believe what I believe and you believe what you believe. I'm not here to convince anyone. Just wanted to make the point that in some ways it takes as much faith to believe in randomness as it does to believe in a supreme being. You see evidence, but at some point you take a leap of faith to readch a conclusion.
It's a fascinating topic for discussion, so long as I don't try to proselytize you in the process and you don't try to belittle my intelligence for my belief. That's what usually gets lost in these discussions -- mutual respect.
IN the words of Jesus, Peace be to you.
And I am just saying that if you look at the logical, factual and sensible contradictions and consistency in most common forms of christianity that its as easy as if you do the same things with greek mythology, scientology, rastfarianism hindu zorastrianism and the other hokey religionsmeh... it's not worth a debate to me. I'll believe what I believe and you believe what you believe. I'm not here to convince anyone. Just wanted to make the point that in some ways it takes as much faith to believe in randomness as it does to believe in a supreme being. You see evidence, but at some point you take a leap of faith to readch a conclusion.
It's a fascinating topic for discussion, so long as I don't try to proselytize you in the process and you don't try to belittle my intelligence for my belief. That's what usually gets lost in these discussions -- mutual respect.
IN the words of Jesus, Peace be to you.
Once you accept that there are no flying elephant cities and boatman of the dead it becomes quite easy to understand about ni such thing as human asexual reproduction and god doesn't want you to he, Thats just the priest
I will admit I was in a hurry and had a few that night and I kinda noticed I may have posted the first image I found on Google too soon but if any of you have ever debated with the people in the MAC forums you know they demand your full attention.
I will find the photo I should have posted but in reality posters in this topic just can't seem to grasp that you don't have to be a creationist to disagree with an Atheist. I know right now that must not make any sense to you but one day it will.
Just because I don't think a huge ball of mass which just came from out of nowhere exploded for no reason and now we are all here?
that doesn't makes sense if your mind has at least 35% usage.
but it still doesn't mean I support the Bible.
It seems to be a trend around here having to remind people over and over that just because someone disagrees with something doesn't mean they support the other team.
You can disagree with Obama and still not be a Republican. You can support PETA and still go home at night and choke your chicken.
It really makes you wonder how shallow is the thinking pool in here.
makes sense how a limited minded person would believe a huge ball of Dirt and rocks would be the reason they are on the Earth its easier to think that way when you just want to take the easy way out and don't want to feel guilty for any actions your responsible for some day.
I on the other hand look at the evidence and thus far the Darwin Clones have yet to show any.
There is a tree that is only 4,484 years old
Random said the trees are gone even though the earth is "4 Billion" years old the best you can do is 5,000-20,000 year old tree?
forget the word "Billion" how about "Million"
Where is the "Million" year old tree? I forgot they are now fossils.
Then my question is, if they existed at one time where are the fossilized million year old tress at? All the fossilized Trees have less than 200 rings.
where is the Million year old fossilized forest? You have no problem with the 25 Million year old dinosaur bones show me a million year old stump at least.
That is how silly your theory sounds if the solar system is 12 Billion years old and the earth is slowing down each year then one only has to reverse the time and add speed to the Earth's rotation and go back "4 Billion years" to see how fast the earth spun. It's like a top energy has to someday deplete it's sources."spinning so fast the dinosaurs would fall off."
You can't have a Battery that gets stronger with time. You don't have a cup of hot coffee that get's hotter with time.
You can't have it both ways, either you support Science or you don't.
Last edited by mouse; 04-23-2012 at 08:08 AM.
"the earth would be spinning so fast the dinosaurs would fall off"
"the solar system is 12 billion years old"
"comets came from the big bang"
"tops deplete their energy sources"
Ooooh man, I can't take much more...
Hard to tell how large it actually is. It might not even be specifically a tree, but a very, very large fern.
One has only to think of bamboo, or other very regular looking shapes. Unusual, but one has to remember one is looking at a very ancient species.
mouse trusts creationists to tell him the truth about the universe.
Ok then. Carry on, my wayward son.
"the earth would be spinning so fast the dinosaurs would fall off"
"the solar system is 12 billion years old"
"comets came from the big bang"
"tops deplete their energy sources"
Ooooh man, I can't take much more...
You want the books?
"no dead trees ever rot before they fossilize"There is a tree that is only 4,484 years old
Random said the trees are gone even though the earth is "4 Billion" years old the best you can do is 5,000-20,000 year old tree?
forget the word "Billion" how about "Million"
Where is the "Million" year old tree? I forgot they are now fossils.
Then my question is, if they existed at one time where are the fossilized million year old tress at? All the fossilized Trees have less than 200 rings.
where is the Million year old fossilized forest? You have no problem with the 25 Million year old dinosaur bones show me a million year old stump at least.
Last edited by RandomGuy; 04-23-2012 at 08:44 AM. Reason: ...nah. Fine line between sarcasm and being mean.
mouse obviously doesn't support science. He also says he doesn't support creation.
What does mouse support?
Nothing.
Because it is far more difficult to come up with a working theory than it is to cut and paste. When you actually come up with a theory, then you have to find evidence of that theory, and that takes effort.
Was Jesus gay? Probably
"When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing near, he said to his mother, 'Woman behold your son!' Then he said to the disciple. 'Behold your mother!' And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home."
That disciple was John whom Jesus, the gospels affirm, loved in a special way. All the other disciples had fled in fear. Three women but only one man had the courage to go with Jesus to his execution. That man clearly had a unique place in the affection of Jesus. In all classic depictions of the Last Supper, a favourite subject of Christian art, John is next to Jesus, very often his head resting on Jesus's breast. Dying, Jesus asks John to look after his mother and asks his mother to accept John as her son. John takes Mary home. John becomes unmistakably part of Jesus's family.
Jesus may well have been sexual. Had he been devoid of sexuality, he would not have been truly human. To believe that would be heretical.
The sexual option simply seems the most likely. The intimate relationship with the beloved disciple points in that direction. It would be so interpreted in any person today.
Whether Jesus was gay or straight in no way affects who he was and what he means for the world today. Spiritually it is immaterial. What matters in this context is that there are many gay and lesbian followers of Jesus – ordained and lay – who, despite the church, remarkably and humbly remain its faithful members.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...?newsfeed=true
I love all children of God but that doesn't make one gay.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
