Any of you ACTUALLY believe our friend Jesus

[Amarelooms]

came back to life and rose from the dead. If you do believe he PHYSICALLY came back to life after he was DEAD post your education level because you are one big dummy.

Assuming he came back physically (which any semi-educated person knows never happened)...what exactly did he do and where did he go? Float up into the sky? Also why the hell hasn't he come back yet...it's been 2000 years already.....

Thanks...Happy Easter and God bless

:elephant

[Jesus]

When the shit hits the fan I'll rise to the occasion and make no mistake about it....there will be hell to pay.

[MavDynasty]

Lol religion

[redzero]

No, I don't.

[RaZon]

Try to explain the tv/cell phone/radio to those back in those days. You'd be laughed at.

Tell Jesse Owens who was a 9.4 guy that a junior in high school would run a 9.0. Try to explain Usain Bolt to 1910 tracksters. You'd be a crack pot.

This old world just hangs there. A gigantic ball of fire just hangs over there burning forever.

I'm no Bible thumper at all, I'm actually very skeptical of what is written there. I do think instead of Odin, Jupiter, Oisis and Zeus we have God. For some unknown reason God stuck, the others got demoted to myths. We can't however play this.."no way that's possible". If something the size of Earth can just hang there anything is possible. Save the...:rolleyes it's gravity dummy, it can be explained"....has it always been explainable?

To think nothing supernatural is possible is ridiculous. Sure we can't explain it, sure it appears to be a load of bullshit but so would a ton of other things once upon a time. We just are so used to being able to explain everything that when up against something we can't explain it has to be..."that's impossible and only a dummy would believe that bull".

Somebody explain the record to me. How can I listen to some old blind Mississippi bluesman from 1926 in 2012? I doubt anyone here really knows how that works. Try explaining it to those here 500 years ago.

[Woo Bum-kon]

RaZon with the incoherent bads.

[King]

I'm not going to get into a religious debate, or interject my opinions on it - but, your problem lies in comparing Jesus to a modern day man. You base all possibilities on what you know to be possible based on "science" or what you've seen. Christians view Jesus as more than a man, so comparing him to your neighbor is a lesson in futility.

To quote Lost, some people are men of science and some are men of faith.

One thing is certain, there will be an end, and one side will have made a huge mistake.

[RaZon]

RaZon with the incoherent bads.

Look stupid don't disrespect this guys thread. It's bad enought you put 56 people in the dirt...hahaha!!!!!! What a fucking clown:rolleyes

Don't bother responding, this thread isn't about you wimpering around...AGAIN!!!

[TDMVPDPOY]

someone needs to explain to me why his followers or believers didnt try saving his ass when he was walking with the cross....

[RaZon]

I'm not going to get into a religious debate, or interject my opinions on it - but, your problem lies in comparing Jesus to a modern day man. You base all possibilities on what you know to be possible based on "science" or what you've seen. Christians view Jesus as more than a man, so comparing him to your neighbor is a lesson in futility.

To quote Lost, some people are men of science and some are men of faith.

One thing is certain, there will be an end, and one side will have made a huge mistake.

Nailed it!

Look at where science/technology is at today compared to way back in the day. Back then things we take for granted today would have been deemed impossible. So we can't explain/prove something, that isn't anything new.

[King]

someone needs to explain to me why his followers or believers didnt try saving his ass when he was walking with the cross....

He had lost many followers by that time. Even his disciples denied him when they were called on it.

Not to mention the huge Roman soldiers and probably the same fear of getting involved that people have now.

[RaZon]

Never really understood why all that went down like it did. Was it really necessary? Really doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

[Woo Bum-kon]

If God was truly all-loving, I wouldn't have to worry about being wrong, would I?


Really doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

Christianity in a nutshell.

[Frenzy]

Believing that there is no purpose in this life then to eat,drink and be merry....now that's what real men believe.

[RaZon]

Believing that there is no purpose in this life then to eat,drink and be merry....now that's what real men believe.

Really can't buy into that. Why do we need a purpose?

[TDMVPDPOY]

so where was god to punish the romans like how he punish the egyptians with moses?

[DMC]

I am ignorant of physics and math, ergo God.

[Gutter92]

Razon, your whole argument is that since at one point some things were inexplicable, and now they are...that you don't want to write off religion as fake? So basically, you're telling us to "have faith" and "hang in there" until Jesus comes back? Because while we can't understand it now...we will when he comes back?


Hmm...so basically, you're like 99% of Christians, then?

[TheSkeptic]

Never really understood why all that went down like it did. Was it really necessary? Really doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

I might be completely out to lunch on this one, but I think that it was a political/religious ploy by the priests, Pharisees, and Sadducees. Jesus was gaining in popularity and was exposing their corruption for what it was.

His radical take on the traditions that they had in place was, imo, also costing them control over the people as well as their cushy lifestyles. At least that's my suspicion since they started making plans to kill him sometime after he'd criticised them for some reason or another. And you can read about how they tried to trap him with the whole "God or Caesar" bit with the intention of getting him killed. So there's that. Even then there were a few who seemed pretty split on the issue.

Although they were supposed to be guiding the people while waiting for the Messiah to come and deliver them a la Moses, I get the impression that many of them lost sight of the big picture and got caught up in the material things. Or in the case of the Pharisees they were so blinded by their traditions that they couldn't look past their ideas of "right" and "wrong".

After Jesus staked his claim as the Son of God (which was blasphemous according to their religion), they simply saw an opportunity and took him to the Romans because that's how death penalty cases were dealt with I think. Pilate made his decision for political reasons as well and the rest is history.

Someone more biblically educated can correct me though. :lol


so where was god to punish the romans like how he punish the egyptians with moses?

Completely different situations imo. In the case of Egypt, God was trying to lead them to the promised land out of slavery.

With Rome it wasn't so clear cut because I'm pretty sure that subjugation by the Romans was supposed to be part of their (the Israelites') punishment for falling away.

Second, because while the concept (gaining freedom) was similar I don't think the goal was to deliver them physically so much as spiritually in this instance.

Which, I think, is why Jesus ultimately had to die.

If you look through the Old Testament, sins couldn't be forgiven without bloodshed.

The idea I guess is that even the smallest wrong committed against an infinite being would be impossible for a finite human to pay off completely short of his/her life. The whole practice of sacrificing animals in exchange was probably a temporary sort of covering since they were finite as well.

As the Son of God who was fully God, however, Jesus was infinite and thus his death would've been enough to fully rectify all that went wrong between God and humanity. Since I guess infinity=infinity that would mean there'd be no limits which is how everyone else got to benefit from his death. At least I suspect that was the reasoning behind God's plan here? I won't claim to know.

The priests, Pharisees, and Sadducees on the other hand were so busy looking for a Moses (heck, they probably would've settled for a Maccabes) that they missed out on the one who could've helped them gain what so many of the better ones had spent their lives pursuing (freedom for their people, peace with God, a relationship with no pretence, etc.)

Again, I might be completely wrong on everything but that's at least how I've interpreted this aspect of Christianity.

I don't know, it made sense to me...

[Gutter92]

Lol @ the idea of "God helps those who help themselves" aka "help yourself then give credit to a higher power"

Cmon, wtf is that shit? Same with the people who believe that when someone dies young its because they were good, and deserved a spot in heaven, so instead of allowing them to live their lives til natural death, god gives them the express train to heaven, cutting their lives short...such a great god you people believe in...

[TheSkeptic]

Lol @ the idea of "God helps those who help themselves" aka "help yourself then give credit to a higher power"

Cmon, wtf is that shit? Same with the people who believe that when someone dies young its because they were good, and deserved a spot in heaven, so instead of allowing them to live their lives til natural death, god gives them the express train to heaven, cutting their lives short...such a great god you people believe in...

Not everybody believes that though.

There's a lot of people who believe that it's actually the devil that causes early deaths and the like since nothing bad can come from God.

...Granted, that doesn't sound much better but I think it's a more tenable position. :lol

[Gutter92]

Not everybody believes that though.

There's a lot of people who believe that it's actually the devil that causes early deaths and the like since nothing bad can come from God.

...Granted, that doesn't sound much better but I think it's a more tenable position. :lol

I see...one would argue that by allowing the devil to exist and claim people, he is allowing bad things to happen, especially singe "god is almighty" and can "do anything", right?

[mavs>spurs]

:rolleyes this thread is inappropriate

[TheSkeptic]

I see...one would argue that by allowing the devil to exist and claim people, he is allowing bad things to happen, especially singe "god is almighty" and can "do anything", right?

Hmm...Yes and no.

I think that God is the standard of perfection and good rather than whatever other people are saying these days. This does allow for the devil without being inconsistent.

I lean that way because absolute good imo makes evil possible. But on the other hand, evil behaviour, actions, and thought patterns don't exist without some standard to measure them against.

Sort of like how by virtue of having questions that need to be answered on a test the standard of 100% makes it possible for an individual to fail.

In that sense I'd say you're right because the devil doesn't exist without God.

Personally, I see it more like God's existence makes the devil possible. Like how that 100% score, by virtue of existing, leaves room for a mark of 0%.

This is where I think the concept of free will comes into play for humans.

Since it's established that God can't accept anything less than perfection, can't deceive, can't go back on his word, be anything less than consistent, etc. I don't feel like the 'can do anything' school of thought is accurate. I suspect "powerful" is the concept they're looking to express.

[mouse]

I'm no Bible thumper .


But you do have one?

[mouse]

I will try and explain it again.


http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/aa8.jpg

[King]

Cmon, wtf is that shit? Same with the people who believe that when someone dies young its because they were good, and deserved a spot in heaven, so instead of allowing them to live their lives til natural death, god gives them the express train to heaven, cutting their lives short...such a great god you people believe in...

I've never even heard that as a belief of Christianity.

[Spursfan092120]

Is there a point to this thread?


And yes...I do.

[Spursfan092120]

I've never even heard that as a belief of Christianity.

Same here.

[rascal]

someone needs to explain to me why his followers or believers didnt try saving his ass when he was walking with the cross....

How would they against an armed Roman army?

[rascal]

Yes, he rose from the dead.

[Fpoonsie]

The fact that people seriously responded to an Amarelooms thread (one in which he's not-so-mysteriously disappeared from after the OP) proves to me that there's no god.

[Jesus]

Never really understood why all that went down like it did. Was it really necessary? Really doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

Yes, it was.

[Blake]

To quote Lost, some people are men of science and some are men of faith.

One thing is certain, there will be an end, and one side will have made a huge mistake.

lol you believe in tv shows

[Blake]

..Which, I think, is why Jesus ultimately had to die.

If you look through the Old Testament, sins couldn't be forgiven without bloodshed.

God loves to see that blood.

Neat.

[Gutter92]

Same here.

"There were some who pleased God and were loved by Him, and while living among sinners were taken up. They were caught up so that evil might not change their understanding, or guile deceive their souls. For the fascination of wickedness obscures what is good, and roving desire perverts the innocent mind. Being perfected in a short time, they fulfilled long years; for their souls were pleasing to the Lord, therefore He took them quickly from the midst of wickedness. Yet the peoples saw and did not understand, to take such a thing to heart, that God's grace and mercy are with His elect, and that He watches over His Holy ones."

[TheSkeptic]

God loves to see that blood.

Neat.

Well in the Bible blood=life so it's it's the same thing. And like I said, that's where the death of Jesus came in.

[Blake]

Well in the Bible blood=life so it's it's the same thing. And like I said, that's where the death of Jesus came in.

Right. God is into the horror genre.

It's neat-o

[DeadlyDynasty]

The fact that people seriously responded to an Amarelooms thread (one in which he's not-so-mysteriously disappeared from after the OP) proves to me that there's no god.

:rollin

[RaZon]

A slimy little fishy thing can waddle out of an ocean=elephant. If that is possible....

[TheSkeptic]

A slimy little fishy thing can waddle out of an ocean=elephant. If that is possible....

Um...that's not exactly how the Theory of Evolution works...

[DeadlyDynasty]

You gotta admire the indomitable spirt of these godmongers.

[TheSkeptic]

You gotta admire the indomitable spirt of these godmongers.

I am going to ignore your sarcasm and take you literally instead.

Thanks! :toast

[RaZon]

Um...that's not exactly how the Theory of Evolution works...

Is that not what happened?

[TheSkeptic]

Is that not what happened?

Well...no. Not exactly.

From my understanding of Evolutionary Theory, what's being put forward is the idea that species are formed as a result of adapting to their environments and that the differences found in a population are largely the result of genetics. This is what affects everything else.

I'm pretty sure fish and elephants were always thought to be different species...

[RaZon]

Well...no. Not exactly.

From my understanding of Evolutionary Theory, what's being put forward is the idea that species are formed as a result of adapting to their environments and that the differences found in a population are largely the result of genetics. This is what affects everything else.

I'm pretty sure fish and elephants were always thought to be different species...

Didn't all the animals evolve from that little fishy thing? Yes they did...right?

[TheSkeptic]

Didn't all the animals evolve from that little fishy thing? Yes they did...right?

Hmm...I took Biology in a Christian school so I won't claim to know all the answers. :lol

I think my prof said that it was the fundamental building blocks of life (nitrogen, oxygen, et. al) that life evolved from. I don't remember anything about a "fishy thing" but now that I think about it you could have a point.

[RaZon]

Hmm...I took Biology in a Christian school so I won't claim to know all the answers. :lol

I think my prof said that it was the fundamental building blocks of life (nitrogen, oxygen, et. al) that life evolved from. I don't remember anything about a "fishy thing" but now that I think about it you could have a point.

The thing is this...

The first creatues on land did come from the sea, if we buy into evolution. From those creatures we did get...birds? How in the hell did that really happen? Where did the idea of flight even come from? Yet we'll...oh yeah sure, that happened. Which is about as hard to grasp as "there is a God."

[TheSkeptic]

The thing is this...

The first creatues on land did come from the sea, if we buy into evolution. From those creatures we did get...birds? How in the hell did that really happen? Where did the idea of flight even come from? Yet we'll...oh yeah sure, that happened. Which is about as hard to grasp as "there is a God."

Oh I definitely believe in God and I agree that it requires probably about the same amount of faith both ways.

Depends on which evolutionary perspective you follow though. I've seen people who take the stance that everything came from water and I've seen others argue otherwise.

Personally, I don't buy macroevolution to the extent that some people do but you'd have a difficult time sensibly arguing against evolution as a concept.

[RaZon]

Oh I definitely believe in God and I agree that it requires probably about the same amount of faith both ways.

Depends on which evolutionary perspective you follow though. I've seen people who take the stance that everything came from water and I've seen others argue otherwise.

Personally, I don't buy macroevolution to the extent that some people do but you'd have a difficult time sensibly arguing against evolution as a concept.

I year ya.

The thing is nobody really knows how it all went down so we grab what makes us feel the best about the situation. To tell anyone they are full of shit because they believe this or that is crazy since we don't really have a clue.

[Leetonidas]

Try to explain the tv/cell phone/radio to those back in those days. You'd be laughed at.

Tell Jesse Owens who was a 9.4 guy that a junior in high school would run a 9.0. Try to explain Usain Bolt to 1910 tracksters. You'd be a crack pot.

This old world just hangs there. A gigantic ball of fire just hangs over there burning forever.

I'm no Bible thumper at all, I'm actually very skeptical of what is written there. I do think instead of Odin, Jupiter, Oisis and Zeus we have God. For some unknown reason God stuck, the others got demoted to myths. We can't however play this.."no way that's possible". If something the size of Earth can just hang there anything is possible. Save the...:rolleyes it's gravity dummy, it can be explained"....has it always been explainable?

To think nothing supernatural is possible is ridiculous. Sure we can't explain it, sure it appears to be a load of bullshit but so would a ton of other things once upon a time. We just are so used to being able to explain everything that when up against something we can't explain it has to be..."that's impossible and only a dummy would believe that bull".

Somebody explain the record to me. How can I listen to some old blind Mississippi bluesman from 1926 in 2012? I doubt anyone here really knows how that works. Try explaining it to those here 500 years ago.

dude, you never go full retard

[RaZon]

dude, you never go full retard

You might wanna try that again amigo. Read it back to yourself....slowly.

[Leetonidas]

I'm no Bible thumper at all, I'm actually very skeptical of what is written there. I do think instead of Odin, Jupiter, Oisis and Zeus we have God. For some unknown reason God stuck, the others got demoted to myths. We can't however play this.."no way that's possible". If something the size of Earth can just hang there anything is possible. Save the... it's gravity dummy, it can be explained"....has it always been explainable?

tbh this paragraph exemplifies the retardation, I stopped there

[RaZon]

tbh this paragraph exemplifies the retardation, I stopped there

Think about it, prove the Bible stories/God aren't myths. Go ahead.

What seperates Hercules from Samson?

[Leetonidas]

Think about it, prove the Bible stories/God aren't myths. Go ahead.

What seperates Hercules from Samson?

Prove I'm not your mother faggot.

and :lmao @ the bolded part. What point are you trying to make here?

[RaZon]

Prove I'm not your mother faggot.

and :lmao @ the bolded part. What point are you trying to make here?

Prove you know your mother prick.

If you had half a fucking brain dummy it should be obvious.

I'll slow it down moron...

Odin...a God
Jupiter...a God
Oisis...a God
Zeus...a God
God...a God

Now add...

Allah...a God

Now really concentrate idiot.

[Leetonidas]

I literally lol'd at how dumb you are

[RaZon]

I literally lol'd at how dumb you are

They found a tribe of Filipino's totally lost to civilization living way back in the jungle. They worshipped a God.

Dumb is not being about to grasp what I talking about. Tell me dummy what seperates Allah/God from Jupiter/Zeus? Well?

[Agloco]

The thing is this...

The first creatues on land did come from the sea, if we buy into evolution. From those creatures we did get...birds? How in the hell did that really happen? Where did the idea of flight even come from? Yet we'll...oh yeah sure, that happened. Which is about as hard to grasp as "there is a God."

Not really.

[Stalin]

is this what an american high school education gets you?

[mouse]

your mother prick.

fucking dummy

moron...

idiot.


I refuse to debate anyone who replies in this manor.

[rascal]

Darwin turned bitter towards God and to an atheist after his daughter Annie died at a young age. He could not understand how could God allow his daughter to die and came to the conclusion that there was no God.
It fueld his theroy of evolution.

[scampers]

I can see (by that I mean physically see) supporting evidence of evolution. Do I fully buy into it? Not really. But,

I can not see any supporting evidence of the existence God. -none-.

[Gutter92]

I can see (by that I mean physically see) supporting evidence of evolution. Do I fully buy into it? Not really. But,

I can not see any supporting evidence of the existence God. -none-.

But what about the millions of people that swear he exists!

[TheSkeptic]

Darwin turned bitter towards God and to an atheist after his daughter Annie died at a young age. He could not understand how could God allow his daughter to die and came to the conclusion that there was no God.
It fueld his theroy of evolution.

It's possible. Like I said earlier though, it's tough to sensibly argue against the existence of evolution on a smaller scale.

Being able to adapt to your surroundings is a part of what it means to be alive.


I can see (by that I mean physically see) supporting evidence of evolution. Do I fully buy into it? Not really. But,

I can not see any supporting evidence of the existence God. -none-.

Fair enough.

I buy the concept of God because it makes sense to me on a philosophical level. Not going to talk you out of your perspective though.

[DoubtingThomas]

Can't really blame any non-believers. I know the feeling.

[Warlord23]

Darwin turned bitter towards God and to an atheist after his daughter Annie died at a young age. He could not understand how could God allow his daughter to die and came to the conclusion that there was no God.
It fueld his theroy of evolution.

Listen, I have no problem if you want to believe in the outlandish and the indefensible and then run and hide behind your "faith" when you lose every rational argument.

But you could at least try and stick to the truth when it comes to recent recorded history. Darwin started sketching the theory in 1842, sent a letter to a botanist friend in 1844 discussing his theory that species were not immutable. Also in 1844 he transformed his sketch into a 189-page essay on the topic - and wrote a letter that was to be opened by his wife in the event of this death, in which he requested her to publish the essay posthumously after his death. This essay not only discusses the ideas of common descent, variation, intermediate species etc, but also includes the phrase "natural selection".

Darwin's daughter fell ill in 1851, 7 years after he wrote this essay.

[TheSkeptic]

Listen, I have no problem if you want to believe in the outlandish and the indefensible and then run and hide behind your "faith" when you lose every rational argument.

But you could at least try and stick to the truth when it comes to recent recorded history. Darwin started sketching the theory in 1842, sent a letter to a botanist friend in 1844 discussing his theory that species were not immutable. Also in 1844 he transformed his sketch into a 189-page essay on the topic - and wrote a letter that was to be opened by his wife in the event of this death, in which he requested her to publish the essay posthumously after his death. This essay not only discusses the ideas of common descent, variation, intermediate species etc, but also includes the phrase "natural selection".

Darwin's daughter fell ill in 1851, 7 years after he wrote this essay.

I knew I'd heard that somewhere before.

Thanks.

[Wild Cobra Kai]

I used to believe the Jewish Zombie theory. Then again, I used to believe in Santa Clause, the Tooth Fairy, and the E.B., and don't anymore, and there was a LOT more reason to believe in them, i.e. cash under the pillow, presents, candy in stockings, baskets, etc.

I think there was a dude from Nazareth who had some interesting ideas in a Gandhi-esque area, and got nailed to a tree by a government not much different than our US one today. He died. End of story, beginning of fable.

[Amarelooms]

I used to believe the Jewish Zombie theory. Then again, I used to believe in Santa Clause, the Tooth Fairy, and the E.B., and don't anymore, and there was a LOT more reason to believe in them, i.e. cash under the pillow, presents, candy in stockings, baskets, etc.

I think there was a dude from Nazareth who had some interesting ideas in a Gandhi-esque area, and got nailed to a tree by a government not much different than our US one today. He died. End of story, beginning of fable.

Bingo...give this man a prize. His body was put into a cave or whatever...someone took/moved his body....3rd day people go and notice his body missing.. rumor spreads "He rose from the dead".....now idiots still believing it 2000 years later

:elephant

[TDMVPDPOY]

why did he respawn in 3 days??

[TheSkeptic]

Bingo...give this man a prize. His body was put into a cave or whatever...someone took/moved his body....3rd day people go and notice his body missing.. rumor spreads "He rose from the dead".....now idiots still believing it 2000 years later

:elephant

I don't know. Given that it's been well documented that a lot of the disciples were martyred for refusing to recant, I believe that they believed in what they were telling people. Between the way those tombs were set up back then and the fact that Jesus' body was kept in a rich person's tomb, I don't fully buy the body snatcher theory.

Of course, I believe in the Resurrection because I don't have a choice. :lol


why did he respawn in 3 days??

Serious question?

It's because 3 is the number of completion. In the Bible at least, that number was used pretty often when God was involved with something. I.e. The Triune

3 days, I think, brought home the fact that Jesus was who he said he was and that his fate was God's plan all along. Between that and the tearing of the temple veil at his death, I thought it was a wrap.

The resurrection, I suspect, was another example of God showing he was more powerful? Death and Hell are shown a lot of the time as the domain of the devil and apparently it was the devil's plan to kill Jesus all along since he didn't realize people would be saved according to God's plan. So that part was probably necessary.

In a nutshell I'd say that completion, full cycle, rebirth, and all that stuff were the main reasons why it took him 3 days to rise. Maybe that and also to confirm that he was dead in the minds of the disciples?

As always, anyone with more biblical knowledge can correct me...

[IWantsACuatro]

I'm agnostic, but you bet your bottom dollar I'm praying to anything when I'm in the foxhole!

Plus, Jesus seemed like a cool guy. Tall and fit carpenter who could have started on any number of juco bball teams in his day, but he decided to stay in his dorm and poke smot.

[Amarelooms]

I don't know. Given that it's been well documented that a lot of the disciples were martyred for refusing to recant, I believe that they believed in what they were telling people. Between the way those tombs were set up back then and the fact that Jesus' body was kept in a rich person's tomb, I don't fully buy the body snatcher theory.

Of course, I believe in the Resurrection because I don't have a choice. :lol



Serious question?

It's because 3 is the number of completion. In the Bible at least, that number was used pretty often when God was involved with something. I.e. The Triune

3 days, I think, brought home the fact that Jesus was who he said he was and that his fate was God's plan all along. Between that and the tearing of the temple veil at his death, I thought it was a wrap.

The resurrection, I suspect, was another example of God showing he was more powerful? Death and Hell are shown a lot of the time as the domain of the devil and apparently it was the devil's plan to kill Jesus all along since he didn't realize people would be saved according to God's plan. So that part was probably necessary.

In a nutshell I'd say that completion, full cycle, rebirth, and all that stuff were the main reasons why it took him 3 days to rise. Maybe that and also to confirm that he was dead in the minds of the disciples?

As always, anyone with more biblical knowledge can correct me...

lol son. Just cause it's in the bible doesn't mean it's true....tons of horrible and incorrect things in there. If he came back physically...what happened to him....where did he go?

:elephant

[TheSkeptic]

lol son. Just cause it's in the bible doesn't mean it's true....tons of horrible and incorrect things in there. If he came back physically...what happened to him....where did he go?

:elephant

I'm a woman! :bang

The preparation of rich people's tombs back then had nothing to do with the Bible (other than making appearances).

And the martyred original disciples I don't think were covered originally in the Bible either. Their deaths I believe were mostly recorded independently.

Where I really relied on the Bible there was in explaining to that other poster my opinion on the whole 3 days thing. In which case it'd be reasonable to take that event within the context of itself no?

What do you mean if he came back physically? I seem to recall that at one point after coming back he told them (disciples/women/followers) that they couldn't touch him although he did eat something at some point.

So I'm on the fence because while I have to believe that he did resurrect I'm not sure he came back completely normal.

I would assume he went back home. But like I said, he must've come back maybe in a slightly different form for him to have disappeared.

[boutons_deux]

Nat Geo channel ran their 2-hour show this weekend on what (we'd call today) the politicians/marketing men (women were oppressed/excluded then as now from "religious" power) left out of the Bible.

There was lots of competing stuff around when the Christians were building their brand, so they had to come up a huge persistent, multi-century marketing/spin campaign to sell their Boy to the uneducated, child-like, low-information simpletons of their time (seems most of those simpleton's descendents watch Fox, love Rush, and live in US rural areas).

And of course, the resulting Catholic Church hierarchy always needed money, money, money. :lol

Virgin Birth (misogyny/anti-sex, their Boy couldn't possibly arrive from screwing a woman)/assumption, numerous miracles, resurrection from death, stone rolling, etc would have certainly wowed the simpletons back then, as now.

[Woo Bum-kon]

Nat Geo channel ran their 2-hour show this weekend on what (we'd call today) the politicians/marketing men (women were oppressed/excluded then as now from "religious" power) left out of the Bible.

There was lots of competing stuff around when the Christians were building their brand, so they had to come up a huge marketing/spin campaign to sell their Boy to the uneducated, child-like, low-information simpletons of their time (seems most of those simpleton's descendents watch Fox, love Rush, and live in US rural areas).

Virgin Birth (misogyny/anti-sex, their Boy couldn't possibly arrive from screwing a woman)/assumption, numerous miracles, resurrection, etc would have certainly wowed the simpletons back then, as now.

:lol If there were no Republicans, you'd have no reason to live anymore.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I'm agnostic, but you bet your bottom dollar I'm praying to anything when I'm in the foxhole!

Plus, Jesus seemed like a cool guy. Tall and fit carpenter who could have started on any number of juco bball teams in his day, but he decided to stay in his dorm and poke smot.

its doubtful that he was tall and fit. He was a bastard and treated like shit by his peers. thats why he went to the countryside to learn from john the baptist. he was more than likely malnourished which would have stunted his growth. he sure did like getting people to feed him later in life though. it was the last of many suppers while he was on the lam.

[Wild Cobra Kai]

lol son. Just cause it's in the bible doesn't mean it's true....tons of horrible and incorrect things in there. If he came back physically...what happened to him....where did he go?

:elephant
I was just thinking that the martyrdoms were documented by the same people that proclaimed his resurrection. Not exactly a neutral confirming source. :lol

Oh, and to answer your question, he was apparently "beamed up" after hanging around for a while with the eleven surviving disciples and the new twelfth one. A missed opportunity, I must say. If he really wanted believers, he should have just picked up preaching again...after scores of people saw him crucified to death. That'll get you some followers....

[JoeChalupa]

Yeah, I do.

[Sportcamper]

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God….He was in the beginning with God…All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being….In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men….The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it…

[Blake]

as in the beginning with God…All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being….In Him …[/B][/I]

Thanks for the evil, God.

What a friend!

[boutons_deux]

:lol If there were no Republicans, you'd have no reason to live anymore.

You injected Repugs, I didn't.

But I do appreciate your accuracy in attributing to Repugs the characteristics in my post. They are the ignorant, truthiness, low-information crowd.

[CosmicCowboy]

I don't think the bible (written by mortal men all of which lie to one degree or another) or christianity has a lock on the absolute truth, but I don't see how anyone could not believe in a higher power of some kind. The complexity of nature and the world is beyond anything that could have just randomly evolved from pond scum. I'm not saying this higher power created each organism, but that even more mind boggling, created the mechanism for that diversity to evolve.

[redzero]

I don't think the bible (written by mortal men all of which lie to one degree or another) or christianity has a lock on the absolute truth, but I don't see how anyone could not believe in a higher power of some kind. The complexity of nature and the world is beyond anything that could have just randomly evolved from pond scum. I'm not saying this higher power created each organism, but that even more mind boggling, created the mechanism for that diversity to evolve.

Then it logically follows that this complex being would require an even more complex creator.

[CosmicCowboy]

Then it logically follows that this complex being would require an even more complex creator.

That's a reasonable argument based on the limitations of the human mind. It's like our inability to truly grasp the nature of infinity.

[clambake]

That's a reasonable argument based on the limitations of the human mind. It's like our inability to truly grasp the nature of infinity.

a great being once told me that infinity is fuckable/unfuckable.

[TheSkeptic]

its doubtful that he was tall and fit. He was a bastard and treated like shit by his peers. thats why he went to the countryside to learn from john the baptist. he was more than likely malnourished which would have stunted his growth. he sure did like getting people to feed him later in life though. it was the last of many suppers while he was on the lam.

Well...yes and no.

He probably wasn't tall, likely was somewhat fit as a carpenter and with all that walking though.

He didn't go into the desert to be taught by the John the Baptist. John just baptised him. You're conflating two different stories. And he also fed other people at various point.


I was just thinking that the martyrdoms were documented by the same people that proclaimed his resurrection. Not exactly a neutral confirming source. :lol

Oh, and to answer your question, he was apparently "beamed up" after hanging around for a while with the eleven surviving disciples and the new twelfth one. A missed opportunity, I must say. If he really wanted believers, he should have just picked up preaching again...after scores of people saw him crucified to death. That'll get you some followers....

No because most of them were the ones who first got martyred.

St. Paul in particular was executed as a Roman citizen and St. Peter I believe was also crucified. That stuff wasn't recorded by Luke or even written in the Bible. Like I said, that was done independently.

See that's another area where I think you're mistaken. While he first appeared before the surviving 11 there were quite a few other followers he hung out with before leaving. Don't remember if that numbered in the hundreds or the thousands though...It was a good amount although obviously not completely ideal.

Thing is, I just don't think the goal was to get followers/become recognized in this instance.

[Big Empty]

All I know is I didn't come from a damn monkey. lol I will accept that Jesus was an alien.

[Bill_Brasky]

Evolution has nothing to do with religion.

Carry on.

[russellgoat]

I don't believe in religions, but I take Jesus over Muhammad the pedophile.

[mouse]

Evolution has nothing to do with religion.

Carry on.

Evolution is a religion.
Carry off.

[redzero]

Evolution is a religion.
Carry off.

Only to idiots like you.

[Latarian Milton]

education level doesn't mean shit, if religion tells u tons of bullshit, science does too. jesus got rescued and fled away, and i ain't no skeptic or pagan tbh

[Wild Cobra Kai]

education level doesn't mean shit, if religion tells u tons of bullshit, science does too. jesus got rescued and fled away, and i ain't no skeptic or pagan tbh

Science is fluid, and constantly re-evaluating it's own conclusions. Religion is like a bug frozen in amber.

[CosmicCowboy]

Belief in a higher power and belief in evolution are not mutually exclusive.

[mouse]

Only to idiots like you.
Why must you show everyone your true age with your immature comments?
http://www.icr.org/i/pdf/imp/imp-332.pdf

[redzero]

Why must you show everyone your true age with your immature comments?
http://www.icr.org/i/pdf/imp/imp-332.pdf

Why must you show your stupidity with your stupid comment?

[redzero]

Do you believe that evolution is a religion?

[Jacob1983]

I thought evolution was a theory.

[redzero]

I thought evolution was a theory.

Evolution is a fact. The theory explains the fact.

[mouse]

Evolution is a fact. The theory explains the fact.

_____^ this may be the most asinine post ever posted on the www

[redzero]

_____^ this may be the most asinine post ever posted on the www

Do you think gravity is a religion, too?

[DarkReign]

Evolution is a fact. The theory explains the fact.


_____^ this may be the most asinine post ever posted on the www

Evolution is fact. The mechanics however, cant be reproduced in a lab. Until evolution can be reproduced under controlled settings, it will remain a theory by definition only.

Evolution has been observed at every level of science. It absolutely happens.

Science just doesnt specifically know how it happens. The leading theory says its natural mutations that confer benefits and that trait gets passed on. How those mutations happen (is there a genetic trigger? or is it random?) or what causes them (nature vs nurture) is the only portion that hasnt been answered.

...and really, it will never be answered in our lifetimes. Unless we crack the riddle of life in the next 50 years, which I doubt.

Carry on.

[mouse]

Do you think gravity is a religion, too?

Did some old pot smoking bearded man studying birds on an Island in the 1800's say it evolved from a snail after 2 billion years?

[mouse]

Evolution is fact. The mechanics however, cant be reproduced

And how is that any different from Jesus?

[mouse]

Why must you show your stupidity with your stupid comment?

First off prove it's stupid. Second, this is a public forum in case you didn't know. I don't remember me addressing you to reply in the first place

Besides I don't have to prove your comments are immature, posters here can read for themselves.

If I am so "stupid" as you claim why am i worth your time, and why do you care?

The truth is small minded mountain dew drinking kids like yourself find me intimidating and yet fascinating and your drawn to my wisdom and education so you question me and by being less educated and not having anything useful to add to the subject you resort to outdated insults.


Why not put your mind where your keyboard is and produce something to prove me wrong instead of showing how immature you are?

(insert another useless comment from red zero)

[TheSkeptic]

Evolution is fact. The mechanics however, cant be reproduced in a lab. Until evolution can be reproduced under controlled settings, it will remain a theory by definition only.

Evolution has been observed at every level of science. It absolutely happens.

Science just doesnt specifically know how it happens. The leading theory says its natural mutations that confer benefits and that trait gets passed on. How those mutations happen (is there a genetic trigger? or is it random?) or what causes them (nature vs nurture) is the only portion that hasnt been answered.

...and really, it will never be answered in our lifetimes. Unless we crack the riddle of life in the next 50 years, which I doubt.

Carry on.

I think that about covers it quite nicely although there are probably limits to Evolution. We've seen separate species evolve due to separation and we've seen that living things can adapt lots of times although I think drug-resistant bacteria is a good example of "survival of the fittest".

Personally, I'm of the opinion that it's a combination of mutations and learned survival traits as far as that goes. As for random vs. genetic trigger, there's likely elements of both involved. Ditto for nature vs. nurture. That said, the genetics are probably what get the ball rolling more often than not in my opinion.

The thing is, there's still genetic material to work with in every instance.

Having studied DNA, RNA, and genetics a bit in school, my take is that "God created". Given the randomness of mutations and the odds of all of that coming together to create what we see today, I think the "something out of nothing" concept is just too far-fetched to me when the idea of an Intelligent Designer (or at the very least something not human creating the building blocks of life) fits a little bit better in my opinion.

Of course, there's plenty of credible experts who disagree with me on every level but that's just how I see it.

[mouse]

Science just doesnt specifically know how it happens.


Then why do the Science books say
The Earth is 4.55 billion years old


Dinosaur's were around 25 Million years ago


If your not sure about something why teach it to the kids?


Isn't that what the anti religious people say about the Bible?

starting to sound more and more like a religion as we proceed doesn't it?

[TheSkeptic]

Then why do the Science books say




If your not sure about something why teach it to the kids?


Isn't that what the anti religious people say about the Bible?

starting to sound more and more like a religion as we proceed doesn't it?

Right down to the manifesto.

[mouse]

I think that about covers it quite nicely

Translation: It has to be true or else I may have to answer for my sins if religion is fact.

What ever helps you sleep at night. I don't support religion but I am not going to let you say one theory is fact and the other is fiction. Unless you can show me proof.

Funny how Millions of people on this planet after all these years still want answers if Evolution is the reason man is here and yet all this time they could have just emailed DarkReign to find out the answers.

[Warlord23]

Then why do the Science books say




If your not sure about something why teach it to the kids?


Isn't that what the anti religious people say about the Bible?

starting to sound more and more like a religion as we proceed doesn't it?

This is just too stupid for anyone to try and correct. Mixing evolution, radioactive decay and paleontology into a stunningly idiotic statement.

Mouse, you're funny sometimes, but you'll die ignorant.

[TheSkeptic]

Translation: It has to be true or else I may have to answer for my sins if religion is fact.

Come again?

Have you read my other posts? I agree with you that religion gets marginalized and as a Christian I do also believe in the Resurrection and all because I have to and it makes sense to me.

That said, I'm also a woman of reason.

Given what I've studied of genetics and biology, I don't think you can sensibly argue against evolution on a micro-level/smaller scale. Being able to adjust to what's happening in your environment is part of what differentiates living organisms from inanimate objects. It would be incredibly asinine to also argue that genetics isn't a big part of what traits get passed down in a given population.

Where things get sticky is with the issue of where it all began. On this front I say "God created" because I find that easier to believe than the "something out of nothing it all evolved" theory. Since I'm also a Christian I just attached the Intelligent Designer to God and the rest is self-explanatory.

I've taken evidence from both sides and formed an opinion.

[Blake]

Then why do the Science books say




If your not sure about something why teach it to the kids?


Isn't that what the anti religious people say about the Bible?

starting to sound more and more like a religion as we proceed doesn't it?

You sound very religious.

[RandomGuy]

Hmm...Yes and no.

I think that God is the standard of perfection and good rather than whatever other people are saying these days. This does allow for the devil without being inconsistent.

I lean that way because absolute good imo makes evil possible. But on the other hand, evil behaviour, actions, and thought patterns don't exist without some standard to measure them against.

Sort of like how by virtue of having questions that need to be answered on a test the standard of 100% makes it possible for an individual to fail.

In that sense I'd say you're right because the devil doesn't exist without God.

Personally, I see it more like God's existence makes the devil possible. Like how that 100% score, by virtue of existing, leaves room for a mark of 0%.

This is where I think the concept of free will comes into play for humans.

Since it's established that God can't accept anything less than perfection, can't deceive, can't go back on his word, be anything less than consistent, etc. I don't feel like the 'can do anything' school of thought is accurate. I suspect "powerful" is the concept they're looking to express.

I think the God depicted in the bible that most read is more than a little inconsistent. (http://www.evilbible.com/Biblical%20Contradictions.htm)

Not sure I would buy that has been established.

[TheSkeptic]

I think the God depicted in the bible that most read is more than a little inconsistent. (http://www.evilbible.com/Biblical%20Contradictions.htm)

Not sure I would buy that has been established.

Horrible list. The Bible's a big book and if you cherry pick specific sentences without reading the whole thing you can pull anything you want out of it. I've read it about 6 times myself and while I'll admit to not remembering everything, I can guarantee you that I have a better understanding of it than those guys.

While the actions taken definitely vary, there's no question that the personality behind them was constant throughout the Bible. The goals stayed the same and the requirements stayed the same as did the priorities.

[RandomGuy]

Evolution is fact. The mechanics however, cant be reproduced in a lab. Until evolution can be reproduced under controlled settings, it will remain a theory by definition only.

Evolution has been observed at every level of science. It absolutely happens.

Science just doesnt specifically know how it happens. The leading theory says its natural mutations that confer benefits and that trait gets passed on. How those mutations happen (is there a genetic trigger? or is it random?) or what causes them (nature vs nurture) is the only portion that hasnt been answered.

...and really, it will never be answered in our lifetimes. Unless we crack the riddle of life in the next 50 years, which I doubt.

Carry on.

Evolution has been reproduced under controlled settings. There is a famous, multi-decade and still going, experiment with bacteria that have developed the ability to metabolize (citric acid? can't remember exactly which)

We also know, in a very detailed manner, how mutations happen, and generally what causes specific mutations.

We have done a LOT of drilling down into the basic molecular DNA/RNA level to figure this out.

I got to audit my wife's class on evolution a few times to get the newest stuff, but we are doing some serious tinkering with the building blocks to see how this all works.

[RaZon]

See that little critter that just waddled out of the ocean? That is the beginings of an elephant. Oh yeah and an eagle.

Pretty hard to grasp.

[TheSkeptic]

See that little critter that just waddled out of the ocean? That is the beginings of an elephant. Oh yeah and an eagle.

Pretty hard to grasp.

:bang

[RaZon]

:bang

According to evolution that's where it all started.

paste...

Like the plants, animals evolved in the sea. And that is where they remained for at least 600 million years. This is because, in the absence of a protective ozone layer, the land was bathed in lethal levels of UV radiation. Once photosynthesis had raised atmospheric oxygen levels high enough, the ozone layer formed, meaning that it was then possible for living things to venture onto the land.

[RandomGuy]

Horrible list. The Bible's a big book and if you cherry pick specific sentences without reading the whole thing you can pull anything you want out of it. I've read it about 6 times myself and while I'll admit to not remembering everything, I can guarantee you that I have a better understanding of it than those guys.

While the actions taken definitely vary, there's no question that the personality behind them was constant throughout the Bible. The goals stayed the same and the requirements stayed the same as did the priorities.

To some extent it is cherry picking, but one only has to find one or two instances out of the 100+ to disprove the statement "God is consistent".

I also wonder why Isaac was spared, but Jepthah's daughter was not.


JDS11:30 And Jephthah vowed a vow unto the LORD, and said, If thou shalt without fail deliver the children of Ammon into mine hands,

JDS11:31 Then it shall be, that whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, shall surely be the LORD'S, and I will offer it up for a burnt offering.

JDS11:32 So Jephthah passed over unto the children of Ammon to fight against them; and the LORD delivered them into his hands.

JDS11:33 And he smote them from Aroer, even till thou come to Minnith, even twenty cities, and unto the plain of the vineyards, with a very great slaughter. Thus the children of Ammon were subdued before the children of Israel.

JDS11:34 And Jephthah came to Mizpeh unto his house, and, behold, his daughter came out to meet him with timbrels and with dances: and she was his only child; beside her he had neither son nor daughter.

JDS11:35 And it came to pass, when he saw her, that he rent his clothes, and said, Alas, my daughter! thou hast brought me very low, and thou art one of them that trouble me: for I have opened my mouth unto the LORD, and I cannot go back.

JDS11:36 And she said unto him, My father, if thou hast opened thy mouth unto the LORD, do to me according to that which hath proceeded out of thy mouth; forasmuch as the LORD hath taken vengeance for thee of thine enemies, even of the children of Ammon.

JDS11:37 And she said unto her father, Let this thing be done for me: let me alone two months, that I may go up and down upon the mountains, and bewail my virginity, I and my fellows.

JDS11:38 And he said, Go. And he sent her away for two months: and she went with her companions, and bewailed her virginity upon the mountains.

JDS11:39 And it came to pass at the end of two months, that she returned unto her father, who did with her according to his vow which he had vowed

That seems pretty unambiguously inconsistent to me.

[redzero]

First off prove it's stupid. Second, this is a public forum in case you didn't know. I don't remember me addressing you to reply in the first place

Besides I don't have to prove your comments are immature, posters here can read for themselves.

If I am so "stupid" as you claim why am i worth your time, and why do you care?

The truth is small minded mountain dew drinking kids like yourself find me intimidating and yet fascinating and your drawn to my wisdom and education so you question me and by being less educated and not having anything useful to add to the subject you resort to outdated insults.


Why not put your mind where your keyboard is and produce something to prove me wrong instead of showing how immature you are?

(insert another useless comment from red zero)

:lmao Oh look, mouse is pretending to have some maturity again!

[redzero]

Did some old pot smoking bearded man studying birds on an Island in the 1800's say it evolved from a snail after 2 billion years?

Answer my question.

[TheSkeptic]

To some extent it is cherry picking, but one only has to find one or two instances out of the 100+ to disprove the statement "God is consistent".

I also wonder why Isaac was spared, but Jepthah's daughter was not.



That seems pretty unambiguously inconsistent to me.

An intelligent discussion. I'm really enjoying it down here.

Sorry, I can't figure out how to keep the quote in there while quoting you.

Isaac as Abraham's sacrifice vs. Jepthah's daughter?

I think probably the major difference was that God was the one originally requesting Isaac as a sacrifice while Jepthah was the one who made the original offer. In both cases the father involved was demonstrating that they loved God more than they did their children.

What you get from that is entirely up to you, but I don't find that necessarily inconsistent. Like I said, the actions may vary but the personality and the priorities don't. Sometimes you just have to look beyond the surface. :)

Don't get me wrong here. Despite being a Christian I do believe that Christianity has been/is kind of destructive for certain types of people. These just aren't really the reasons why imo.

[RandomGuy]

Did some old pot smoking bearded man studying birds on an Island in the 1800's say it evolved from a snail after 2 billion years?

You keep trotting this one out, despite being corrected numerous times.

No scientist has ever said that birds evolved from snails.

That is a bit like saying your cousin is your grandfather.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=57&pictureid=1642

[RandomGuy]

An intelligent discussion. I'm really enjoying it down here.

Sorry, I can't figure out how to keep the quote in there while quoting you.

Isaac as Abraham's sacrifice vs. Jepthah's daughter?

I think probably the major difference was that God was the one originally requesting Isaac as a sacrifice while Jepthah was the one who made the original offer. In both cases the father involved was demonstrating that they loved God more than they did their children.

What you get from that is entirely up to you, but I don't find that inconsistent. Like I said, the actions may vary but the personality and the priorities don't. Sometimes you just have to look beyond the surface. :)

Don't get me wrong here. Despite being a Christian I do believe that Christianity has been/is kind of destructive for certain types of people. These just aren't really the reasons why imo.

You might quibble with the inconsistency, but answer this:

Why did God let Jepthah carry through?

Why did God not stop him?

Did God in this case approve of human sacrifice?

[TheSkeptic]

You keep trotting this one out, despite being corrected numerous times.

No scientist has ever said that birds evolved from snails.

That is a bit like saying your cousin is your grandfather.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=57&pictureid=1642

Thanks RandomGuy.

You see this Razon?

[RandomGuy]

An intelligent discussion. I'm really enjoying it down here.

Sorry, I can't figure out how to keep the quote in there while quoting you.

Isaac as Abraham's sacrifice vs. Jepthah's daughter?

I think probably the major difference was that God was the one originally requesting Isaac as a sacrifice while Jepthah was the one who made the original offer. In both cases the father involved was demonstrating that they loved God more than they did their children.

What you get from that is entirely up to you, but I don't find that necessarily inconsistent. Like I said, the actions may vary but the personality and the priorities don't. Sometimes you just have to look beyond the surface. :)

Don't get me wrong here. Despite being a Christian I do believe that Christianity has been/is kind of destructive for certain types of people. These just aren't really the reasons why imo.

What does one find when one looks just beyond the surface then?

Does God then condone slaughtering non-believers?


DT13:13 Certain men, the children of Belial, are gone out from among you, and have withdrawn the inhabitants of their city, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which ye have not known;

DT13:14 Then shalt thou enquire, and make search, and ask diligently; and, behold, if it be truth, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought among you;

DT13:15 Thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that is therein, and the cattle thereof, with the edge of the sword.

DT13:16 And thou shalt gather all the spoil of it into the midst of the street thereof, and shalt burn with fire the city, and all the spoil thereof every whit, for the LORD thy God: and it shall be an heap for ever; it shall not be built again.

DT13:17 And there shall cleave nought of the cursed thing to thine hand: that the LORD may turn from the fierceness of his anger, and shew thee mercy, and have compassion upon thee, and multiply thee, as he hath sworn unto thy fathers;

DT13:18 When thou shalt hearken to the voice of the LORD thy God, to keep all his commandments which I command thee this day, to do that which is right in the eyes of the LORD thy God.

God in the old testament pretty consistantly says that the penalty for conversion or denial of his existance should be death.

All sorts of things get you the death penalty:


ZEC13:3 And it shall come to pass, that when any shall yet prophesy, then his father and his mother that begat him shall say unto him, Thou shalt not live; for thou speakest lies in the name of the LORD: and his father and his mother that begat him shall thrust him through when he prophesieth.

It doesn't take much digging, and it isn't cherry picking one thing here or there. The message about non-belief seems plain.

[RandomGuy]

Thanks RandomGuy.

You see this Razon?

That bit is drawn directly from one of mouse's favorite gifs, that he seems to think supports his "we evolved from snails" factual mistake.

The "family" structure there is pretty much the same picture as the modern understanding of how life evolved.

It all gets distilled and looks a lot like family trees.

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

[RandomGuy]

An intelligent discussion. I'm really enjoying it down here.

Sorry, I can't figure out how to keep the quote in there while quoting you.

I tend to use the Bible portal:

http://bibleportal.christianpost.com/

Good search functions, multiple versions.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Most of the ire with evolution seems to be anthropocentric pride and emotional more than analytical.

That being said i would like Christianity a lot better if they got rid of all of Paul's bullshit.

[RaZon]

Thanks RandomGuy.

You see this Razon?

Sure!

Whats the bottom line? What if no little creatures had left the ocean, now what?



EraCenozoicMesozoicPaleozoicPeriodQuaternary First Humans3 to 0 Million Years Ago. From the Ice Age to the Appearance of the first human beings.
Cretaceous Dinosaur
Birds
Mammals144 to 65 Million Years ago. Last part Of the age of Dinosaurs
Carboniferous Amphibians
Early Reptiles360 to 248 million years ago. Appearance of the first reptiles (laying their eggs on land).
Tertiary Dinosaur Extinction65 to 3 Million Years Ago. Dinosaurs inexplicably become extinct and mammals and birds become the dominant species.
Jurassic Dinosaurs
Birds
Mammals206 to 144 Million Years ago. This is the high point of the dinosaur age, there are a great number of species including giant plant eaters. Appearance of the first feathered birds.
Devonian Amphibians
Fish408 to 360 Million Years Ago. Appearance of the first amphibious creatures.
Triassic Dinosaurs
Mammals248 to 206 Million Years Ago. Appearance of the The first dinosaurs and the first mammals.
Silurian Fish438 to 408 Million Years Ago. Plants begin to cover the land.
Ordovician Marine Invertebrates
Fish505 to 438 Million Years Ago. The Oceans are teeming with invertebrate life. Appearance of he first true fish.
Cambrian Marine Invertebrates570 to 505 Million Years Ago. Appearance of the first marine invertebrates.

[RandomGuy]

Most of the ire with evolution seems to be anthropocentric pride and emotional more than analytical.

That being said i would like Christianity a lot better if they got rid of all of Paul's bullshit.

Christianity would still have some rather fatal logical flaws, even so. I don't have time to get really into it, at the moment.

Let's just say that apologetics have their hands full, and I am not talking about my paltry posts here, but about more basic, fundamental ontological flaws.

[RandomGuy]

Sure!

Whats the bottom line? What if no little creatures had left the ocean, now what?

Then it is certain there would be no tool-using intelligent life forms. Whales, dolphins, octopi.

Intelligence, but no civilization. Civilization takes tools, and tools take fire, something of a problem for dolphins.

(edit)
The thing is though, that there is a huge evolutionary incentive to get onto land. If an aquatic organism can do it, and other water creatures can't, that is a huge new geography to spread without competition.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Christianity would still have some rather fatal logical flaws, even so. I don't have time to get really into it, at the moment.

Let's just say that apologetics have their hands full, and I am not talking about my paltry posts here, but about more basic, fundamental ontological flaws.

Oh i get that. Virgin births, zombies, heaven for contrition no matter what, and whatnot but even then that was John, Matt, et al making a lot of those claims.

I just find Paul to be the most reprehensible.

[TheSkeptic]

You might quibble with the inconsistency, but answer this:

Why did God let Jepthah carry through?

Why did God not stop him?

Did God in this case approve of human sacrifice?

I quibbled because I was addressing the original charge of inconsistency. :D

For this particular instance, I think because it was more important for Jepthah to carry through on his promise.



What does one find when one looks just beyond the surface then?

Does God then condone slaughtering non-believers?



God in the old testament pretty consistantly says that the penalty for conversion or denial of his existance should be death.

All sorts of things get you the death penalty:



It doesn't take much digging, and it isn't cherry picking one thing here or there. The message about non-belief seems plain.

I'd say you can see a lot of things by looking past the surface.

For example, I'm reading what you're saying and I think that besides your (fair and logical imo) objections, your main contention with the Christian God is morality. I'm sure there's a more technical name for the process but I pick things like that up. That's really what I meant there.

First of all, I think you're arguing from the "God is love" paradigm. I can't argue on behalf of that approach because I take a "God is the most powerful being in the universe" line of thinking. (There's a reason why other Christians and I tend to disagree on lots of points :lol).

While he definitely does show support, mercy, and care for the people aligned with his goals, I find him pretty cool towards those that aren't even if he does extend grace to all people. Hence, the whole "if you're not a friend of God you're an enemy" sentiment that can be seen throughout both the Old and New Testament. It's reiterated over and over again that the consequences of not being on God's side is death. To me, those statements you listed off are an extension of that.

Jesus was sent over in the spirit of fairness (the justice side of God) and free will does allow people to make a choice. There's nothing to stop people from leaving the faith, denying, and sinning if they like, those are decisions they can make. The result is just death.

It goes back to what I said earlier about small wrongs by a finite being against an infinite being being only payable through death. In the Old Testament people/animals had to die physically to cover for those wrongs. Jesus by being perfect and dying was able to fix that although it's still up to the individual to accept their only means of escape.

In a lot of Christianity today, however, I'd argue that the cult of the individual really overlooks some of these points by emphasizing the rainbows and good feelings side and completely neglecting the grittier side.

Although God does embody love to a degree that most of us can't imagine, I don't think that's his main quality. It just goes back to the fact that he's infinite. You can disagree with the whole thing (and obviously you do) but I was originally arguing against the premise that Christianity doesn't make sense/lacks consistency overall.

Definitely a few chinks in the armour and likely some flaws I've overlooked here but I think it's disingenuous to suggest there's no rhyme or reason behind the beliefs that Christians hold.

Note:

Kind of long and I'm starting to ramble but I think I've covered the main points. I'm in a hurry here though so I can't stay back and edit. Just say something if I'm not making sense here.

[mouse]

You keep trotting this one out, despite being corrected numerous times.

No scientist has ever said that birds evolved from snails.

That is a bit like saying your cousin is your grandfather.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=57&pictureid=1642

I keep bringing it out becase it hasn't sunk in yet in your very limited mind the point I try to make. So here goes again for the #198th time....




Scientist claim the earth was formed 4 billion years ago after two billion years the earth cooled down and in the huge pools of liquid very small oranizums swimming in these pools formed into various life forms one being a snail < IMPORTANT

Now put down the bing for 90 seconds and remember if snails were one of the first life forms to "Evolve" from this pool of liquid then....>IMPORTANT> any life form from that point on is a result from that very "Snail" including you your your cousin vinny and your very annoing ignorant stepson redzero.

[mouse]

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/snail.jpg

[DMC]

Why do people get into extended discussions with a guy who has 1000 troll names and think they are going to achieve something?

[IWantsACuatro]

I'm a happy haplorini, tyvm.

[mouse]

Why do people get into extended discussions with a guy who has 1000 troll names and think they are going to achieve something?

So now you shift the conversation to how many screen names a person has to avoid the subject?

What does it matter if I, or Aunt Jemima proves you wrong your still wrong.



This is a very desperate and Frankly pathetic move on your part especially since you have over 16,000 post you should not still be asking such meaningless questions.

[redzero]

:lol mouse still acting like he wants to have serious conversations. I still want to know why gravity isn't a religion.

[lint]

:lol mouse still acting like he wants to have serious conversations. I still want to know why gravity isn't a religion.

You are such an idiot.

[redzero]

Looks like you dropped the pretense of wanting a civil conversation. I still want to know why gravity isn't a religion.

[Blake]

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/snail.jpg

This chart you've posted ad nauseum doesn't imply that humans come from snails. You're the only one that is insisting that evolution means we must have come from snails.

You're a lazy idiot.

[mouse]

You're a lazy idiot.

I never thought Blake would stoop down to to Red zero's way of expressing ones self.

I knew the small brains in this topic couldn't comprehend what Science teaches and many of you all find it frustrating I am using your own Science books to expose your silly theories.

keep the insults coming I want many at ST to see who the weak minded wannabee debaters are around here.

Is there anyone still left here at ST that is mentally above the age of 16?

[Mog]

Looks like you dropped the pretense of wanting a civil conversation. I still want to know why gravity isn't a religion.

Because only idiots like yourself would think that gravity should be a religion. :bang:bang

[Blake]

I never thought Blake would stoop down to to Red zero's way of expressing ones self.

I knew the small brains in this topic couldn't comprehend what Science teaches and many of you all find it frustrating I am using your own Science books to expose your silly theories.

keep the insults coming I want many at ST to see who the weak minded wannabee debaters are around here.

Is there anyone still left here at ST that is mentally above the age of 16?


You're too lazy, stupid, and too concerned with insults (yours included) to expose anything.

[Phenomanul]

I quibbled because I was addressing the original charge of inconsistency. :D

For this particular instance, I think because it was more important for Jepthah to carry through on his promise.




I'd say you can see a lot of things by looking past the surface.

For example, I'm reading what you're saying and I think that besides your (fair and logical imo) objections, your main contention with the Christian God is morality. I'm sure there's a more technical name for the process but I pick things like that up. That's really what I meant there.

First of all, I think you're arguing from the "God is love" paradigm. I can't argue on behalf of that approach because I take a "God is the most powerful being in the universe" line of thinking. (There's a reason why other Christians and I tend to disagree on lots of points :lol).

While he definitely does show support, mercy, and care for the people aligned with his goals, I find him pretty cool towards those that aren't even if he does extend grace to all people. Hence, the whole "if you're not a friend of God you're an enemy" sentiment that can be seen throughout both the Old and New Testament. It's reiterated over and over again that the consequences of not being on God's side is death. To me, those statements you listed off are an extension of that.

Jesus was sent over in the spirit of fairness (the justice side of God) and free will does allow people to make a choice. There's nothing to stop people from leaving the faith, denying, and sinning if they like, those are decisions they can make. The result is just death.

It goes back to what I said earlier about small wrongs by a finite being against an infinite being being only payable through death. In the Old Testament people/animals had to die physically to cover for those wrongs. Jesus by being perfect and dying was able to fix that although it's still up to the individual to accept their only means of escape.

In a lot of Christianity today, however, I'd argue that the cult of the individual really overlooks some of these points by emphasizing the rainbows and good feelings side and completely neglecting the grittier side.

Although God does embody love to a degree that most of us can't imagine, I don't think that's his main quality. It just goes back to the fact that he's infinite. You can disagree with the whole thing (and obviously you do) but I was originally arguing against the premise that Christianity doesn't make sense/lacks consistency overall.

Definitely a few chinks in the armour and likely some flaws I've overlooked here but I think it's disingenuous to suggest there's no rhyme or reason behind the beliefs that Christians hold.

Note:

Kind of long and I'm starting to ramble but I think I've covered the main points. I'm in a hurry here though so I can't stay back and edit. Just say something if I'm not making sense here.

I've tried explaining this very difference to the agnostic/athiest folks in here before... i.e. the differences in GOD's interaction with humanity on account of the Covenants at play. In other words, GOD's Old Covenant "behavior" is not nearly as gracious as HIS New Covenant "behavior" simply because Jesus' atonement for us, HIS redemptive act for us, HIS sanctifying act for us, had not occured before the New Covenant was extended by Jesus. Furthermore that the Old Covenant was extended only to the descendants of Abraham, whereas the New Covenant is extended to all and any who would accept it... and that yes, that is a choice we ultimately have to make...

But don't even bother trying to explain that further, because these folks think they have it all figured out... they simply don't care to truly understand. They're derisive, arrogant and beligerent all wrapped up with bitterness and scorn. They love, absolutely LOVE, mocking GOD and HIS believers. They get a rise out of it, simply to pat themselves on the back and to continue justifying their own disbelief... This is one of those subjects I no longer care to discuss with them (I'd rather chat about the Spurs or Soccer, or the latest movie, technology, etc...)... but just for your sake, don't waste your time either...

[redzero]

lol creationist


Because only idiots like yourself would think that gravity should be a religion. :bang:bang

I didn't realize that I was arguing that gravity should be a religion. Link?

[DarkReign]

Evolution has been reproduced under controlled settings. There is a famous, multi-decade and still going, experiment with bacteria that have developed the ability to metabolize (citric acid? can't remember exactly which)

We also know, in a very detailed manner, how mutations happen, and generally what causes specific mutations.

We have done a LOT of drilling down into the basic molecular DNA/RNA level to figure this out.

I got to audit my wife's class on evolution a few times to get the newest stuff, but we are doing some serious tinkering with the building blocks to see how this all works.

Admittedly, I am way out of the game with evolution anymore. I wasnt referring to basic organisms like bacteria in my explanation above, which doesnt make my statement about "controlled settings in a lab" any less true.

I was more referring to how birds of the same genus, when separated, will eventually become two separate and unique species given time. More or less referring to higher order organism evolution not being able to be reproduced in a lab, under controlled settings, because the life cycle on that experiment would exceed many lifetimes.

Again, my explanation was inherently inaccurate nonetheless.

[RandomGuy]

I keep bringing it out becase it hasn't sunk in yet in your very limited mind the point I try to make. So here goes again for the #198th time....

Scientist claim the earth was formed 4 billion years ago after two billion years the earth cooled down and in the huge pools of liquid very small oranizums swimming in these pools formed into various life forms one being a snail < IMPORTANT

Now put down the bing for 90 seconds and remember if snails were one of the first life forms to "Evolve" from this pool of liquid then....>IMPORTANT> any life form from that point on is a result from that very "Snail" including you your your cousin vinny and your very annoing ignorant stepson redzero.

The communication problem is on *my* end...? :lol

First off your "snail" here isn't a snail. It is a very primitive animal of some sort. Animal in this sense simply means "non-plant".

The picture you keep posting is a hugely simplified, and somewhat dated, example of a phylogenetic tree.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phylogenetic_tree

You would be more accurate to use the word "eukaryote". Substitute that word for "snail" and you would have it correctly.

snails, birds, and humans, all do have common ancestors, but the split between humans and snails occurred in the very distant past. This split seems to have occurred from an ancestor that was barely multicellular, and quite possibly unicellular.

Snails were NOT one of the first forms of life to evolve, and that is NOT what "scientists say". Snails did come along much later, but still before humans, but they are not our direct ancestor anymore than our cousin is our ancestor.

[RandomGuy]

Admittedly, I am way out of the game with evolution anymore. I wasnt referring to basic organisms like bacteria in my explanation above, which doesnt make my statement about "controlled settings in a lab" any less true.

I was more referring to how birds of the same genus, when separated, will eventually become two separate and unique species given time. More or less referring to higher order organism evolution not being able to be reproduced in a lab, under controlled settings, because the life cycle on that experiment would exceed many lifetimes.

Again, my explanation was inherently inaccurate nonetheless.

Ah, gotcha.

You do have the basic mechanisms of evolution correct though, i.e. separation and time.

I am not aware of any larger animals that have been the subject of such experiments, but now that we have been looking, we have had almost 150 years or so to observe it happening in the wild and have several examples of new species that have arisen since we have really started identifying and classifying things.

These things tend to be short lived things like annual plants, insects, and small animals with shorter life spans.

[Blake]

I've tried explaining this very difference to the agnostic/athiest folks in here before... i.e. the differences in GOD's interaction with humanity on account of the Covenants at play. In other words, GOD's Old Covenant "behavior" is not nearly as gracious as HIS New Covenant "behavior" simply because Jesus' atonement for us, HIS redemptive act for us, HIS sanctifying act for us, had not occured before the New Covenant was extended by Jesus. Furthermore that the Old Covenant was extended only to the descendants of Abraham, whereas the New Covenant is extended to all and any who would accept it... and that yes, that is a choice we ultimately have to make...

But don't even bother trying to explain that further, because these folks think they have it all figured out... they simply don't care to truly understand. They're derisive, arrogant and beligerent all wrapped up with bitterness and scorn. They love, absolutely LOVE, mocking GOD and HIS believers. They get a rise out of it, simply to pat themselves on the back and to continue justifying their own disbelief... This is one of those subjects I no longer care to discuss with them (I'd rather chat about the Spurs or Soccer, or the latest movie, technology, etc...)... but just for your sake, don't waste your time either...

Rofl

Don't try to explain the obvious flaws of the Bible to Phenomanul. He'll simply get butthurt and cry that you're just being mean.

[Warlord23]

Admittedly, I am way out of the game with evolution anymore. I wasnt referring to basic organisms like bacteria in my explanation above, which doesnt make my statement about "controlled settings in a lab" any less true.

I was more referring to how birds of the same genus, when separated, will eventually become two separate and unique species given time. More or less referring to higher order organism evolution not being able to be reproduced in a lab, under controlled settings, because the life cycle on that experiment would exceed many lifetimes.

Again, my explanation was inherently inaccurate nonetheless.

Experiments have been done on more complex organisms than bacteria. There was this experiment regarding the color of fish in 2 different streams. It was originally observed that fish in one stream were brightly colored, while in the other they took on the color of the river bed (almost as a camouflage). This was correlated with the absence of predators in the first stream (allowing the fish to attract its mate by sporting bright colors) and the presence of predators in the second (where survival via hiding was the dominant gene that was passed down).

Now the experimenter took some colored fish and introduced them into a controlled environment where predators were abundant. Over a few generations, the fish stopped displaying bright colors and adopted dull colors similar to the river bed. The converse was also done, and mud-colored fish began showing off bright colors in a predator-free environment. IIRC several other factors were also introduced, and each time the genes that were passed down were the ones that, on balance, aided survival and reproduction the most. It's a terrific demonstration of natural selection in action IMO.

[RandomGuy]

Experiments have been done on more complex organisms than bacteria. There was this experiment regarding the color of fish in 2 different streams. It was originally observed that fish in one stream were brightly colored, while in the other they took on the color of the river bed (almost as a camouflage). This was correlated with the absence of predators in the first stream (allowing the fish to attract its mate by sporting bright colors) and the presence of predators in the second (where survival via hiding was the dominant gene that was passed down).

Now the experimenter took some colored fish and introduced them into a controlled environment where predators were abundant. Over a few generations, the fish stopped displaying bright colors and adopted dull colors similar to the river bed. The converse was also done, and mud-colored fish began showing off bright colors in a predator-free environment. IIRC several other factors were also introduced, and each time the genes that were passed down were the ones that, on balance, aided survival and reproduction the most. It's a terrific demonstration of natural selection in action IMO.

One has to be careful in distinguishing between actual species, and simply changing dominant traits *within* a species.

When one digs into the details and definitions, there is even some ambiguity as to what exactly constitutes a "species", simply because reality is not always stark black and white, with lots of shades of gray.

[RandomGuy]

I've tried explaining this very difference to the agnostic/athiest folks in here before... i.e. the differences in GOD's interaction with humanity on account of the Covenants at play. In other words, GOD's Old Covenant "behavior" is not nearly as gracious as HIS New Covenant "behavior" simply because Jesus' atonement for us, HIS redemptive act for us, HIS sanctifying act for us, had not occured before the New Covenant was extended by Jesus. Furthermore that the Old Covenant was extended only to the descendants of Abraham, whereas the New Covenant is extended to all and any who would accept it... and that yes, that is a choice we ultimately have to make...

But don't even bother trying to explain that further, because these folks think they have it all figured out... they simply don't care to truly understand. They're derisive, arrogant and beligerent all wrapped up with bitterness and scorn. They love, absolutely LOVE, mocking GOD and HIS believers. They get a rise out of it, simply to pat themselves on the back and to continue justifying their own disbelief... This is one of those subjects I no longer care to discuss with them (I'd rather chat about the Spurs or Soccer, or the latest movie, technology, etc...)... but just for your sake, don't waste your time either...

I am not sure what needs explaining.

Yes or no, is human sacrifice evil?

[RandomGuy]

I've tried explaining this very difference to the agnostic/athiest folks in here before... i.e. the differences in GOD's interaction with humanity on account of the Covenants at play. In other words, GOD's Old Covenant "behavior" is not nearly as gracious as HIS New Covenant "behavior" simply because Jesus' atonement for us, HIS redemptive act for us, HIS sanctifying act for us, had not occured before the New Covenant was extended by Jesus. Furthermore that the Old Covenant was extended only to the descendants of Abraham, whereas the New Covenant is extended to all and any who would accept it... and that yes, that is a choice we ultimately have to make...

But don't even bother trying to explain that further, because these folks think they have it all figured out... they simply don't care to truly understand. They're derisive, arrogant and beligerent all wrapped up with bitterness and scorn. They love, absolutely LOVE, mocking GOD and HIS believers. They get a rise out of it, simply to pat themselves on the back and to continue justifying their own disbelief... This is one of those subjects I no longer care to discuss with them (I'd rather chat about the Spurs or Soccer, or the latest movie, technology, etc...)... but just for your sake, don't waste your time either...

So you have the old covenant for jews. The new covenant for the gentiles, i.e. the jews that accepted Jesus as savior.

What about the people on the planet that don't fit into those two categories? What covenent do they get?

[Warlord23]

One has to be careful in distinguishing between actual species, and simply changing dominant traits *within* a species.

When one digs into the details and definitions, there is even some ambiguity as to what exactly constitutes a "species", simply because reality is not always stark black and white, with lots of shades of gray.

You're right, strictly speaking my example was about dominant traits and the role of natural selection in changing traits. However, If anything needed defending or proving, it might be natural selection, which is the prominent theory behind evolution.

Evolution itself is a fact. No reputable biologist will deny that. A few may consider alternatives to natural selection to explain evolution, but the argument about evolution itself doesn't exist outside closeted, ultra-religious circles.

[Blake]

So you have the old covenant for jews. The new covenant for the gentiles, i.e. the jews that accepted Jesus as savior.

What about the people on the planet that don't fit into those two categories? What covenent do they get?

Has the Old Covenant been scrapped, or are modern day Jews going to hell?

[RandomGuy]

Has the Old Covenant been scrapped, or are modern day Jews going to hell?

I dunno what exactly is canon in the various wings of Christianity. Not my cup of tea overall, although I have gained a fair familiarity with various dogmas.

[TheSkeptic]

I've tried explaining this very difference to the agnostic/athiest folks in here before... i.e. the differences in GOD's interaction with humanity on account of the Covenants at play. In other words, GOD's Old Covenant "behavior" is not nearly as gracious as HIS New Covenant "behavior" simply because Jesus' atonement for us, HIS redemptive act for us, HIS sanctifying act for us, had not occured before the New Covenant was extended by Jesus. Furthermore that the Old Covenant was extended only to the descendants of Abraham, whereas the New Covenant is extended to all and any who would accept it... and that yes, that is a choice we ultimately have to make...

But don't even bother trying to explain that further, because these folks think they have it all figured out... they simply don't care to truly understand. They're derisive, arrogant and beligerent all wrapped up with bitterness and scorn. They love, absolutely LOVE, mocking GOD and HIS believers. They get a rise out of it, simply to pat themselves on the back and to continue justifying their own disbelief... This is one of those subjects I no longer care to discuss with them (I'd rather chat about the Spurs or Soccer, or the latest movie, technology, etc...)... but just for your sake, don't waste your time either...

Thanks for the heads up. :toast

I don't mind though. I like being challenged on the things I believe because then if I'm wrong about something I can change my position rather than continuing to be wrong for the rest of my life. Besides, I kind of like the way these guys think. :)


So you have the old covenant for jews. The new covenant for the gentiles, i.e. the jews that accepted Jesus as savior.

What about the people on the planet that don't fit into those two categories? What covenent do they get?

A Gentile is just someone who's not a Jew and everyone uses the New Covenant now.


I dunno what exactly is canon in the various wings of Christianity. Not my cup of tea overall, although I have gained a fair familiarity with various dogmas.

I would disagree with this simply because so far I've only seen you dispute the things said by the emotional/mainstream branch of Christianity that's popular today. That group just doesn't think and when they do I've found that a lot of them lack the ability to reason. Of course they're going to lack logical consistency more often than not.

I won't claim to have all the answers or to be perfectly rational when it comes to my beliefs and I definitely won't try to talk you out of your position though. To be honest, I just like conversing with intelligent people.

Really having fun talking to you RandomGuy :toast

[Blake]

Thanks for the heads up. :toast

I don't mind though. I like being challenged on the things I believe because then if I'm wrong about something I can change my position rather than continuing to be wrong for the rest of my life. Besides, I kind of like the way these guys think. :)


If you can't thoroughly scrutinize and dissect your own belief system, then what's the point of believing it, right?

:tu

[mouse]

Snails were NOT one of the first forms of life to evolve, and that is NOT what "scientists say". Snails did come along much later, but still before humans, but they are not our direct ancestor anymore than our cousin is our ancestor.

If your son decides to have sex with a goat and creates a "goat boy" the "goat boy" can be traced to "you" w/o "you" there would be no "goat boy"

why is this so hard to sink in?

I honestly think you don't want it to sink in it blows your silly Evolution theory all to shit.

You just don't get it. Scientist claim "A LIFE" started with a hot soupy pool of liquid.

That means "Any LIFE" from that point on is connected to that soup!

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/33-4.jpg
http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/1221.jpg


I didn't write this shit so go after the text books.

[Blake]

If your son decides to have sex with a goat and creates a "goat boy" the "goat boy" can be traced to "you" w/o "you" there would be no "goat boy"

why is this so hard to sink in?

I honestly think you don't want it to sink in it blows your silly Evolution theory all to shit.

You just don't get it. Scientist claim "A LIFE" started with a hot soupy pool of liquid.

That means "Any LIFE" from that point on is connected to that soup!


I didn't write this shit so go after the text books.

What's your best guess as to how man came to be?

[RandomGuy]

If your son decides to have sex with a goat and creates a "goat boy" the "goat boy" can be traced to "you" w/o "you" there would be no "goat boy"

why is this so hard to sink in?

I honestly think you don't want it to sink in it blows your silly Evolution theory all to shit.

You just don't get it. Scientist claim "A LIFE" started with a hot soupy pool of liquid.

That means "Any LIFE" from that point on is connected to that soup!

I didn't write this shit so go after the text books.

There you go. THAT is correctly stated, more or less.

It doesn't "blow [the] silly evolution theory all to shit" though.

Why do you think it does?

[mouse]

What's your best guess as to how man came to be?

Like you have the mental capacity to carry an adult conversation?

I rather not waste my time trying to educate you and the other Igmo's who can't absorb data they have never been exposed to.


And then to be called Idiot and other names you small brains use when you have no intelligent come backs.

Maybe if you can find someone like Agloco who claims to be highly educated and seems to know it all then I may return to further open your eyes....oh wait!.......

NBC news just aired yesterday how dental X-rays are linked to brain tumors. Never mind he is just as hard headed as you and the very limited minds on this website.


Maybe one day we can do lunch soups on me.

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/3333-1.jpg

[mouse]

There you go. THAT is correctly stated, more or less.

It doesn't "blow [the] silly evolution theory all to shit" though.

Why do you think it does?


OMG now RandomLie wants in on the free seminar.

If you can't comprehend my last two postings why would a third be any different?

Ob course you can't have soup w/o water so Scientists add to the fairytale as they in attempt to cover their ass.


http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/12-1.jpg


Earth floods for them it's called Science.




http://www.friendsofjehovahswitnesses.com/wp-content/uploads/NoahsArk.jpg
Earth floods for the Bible it's called science fiction?

One thing I can honestly say is ignorant people do have each others backs.

[Magua]

somebody PLEASE tell me the conspiracy theory schticks are just a trolljob from mouse. I need to hear this.

[TheSkeptic]

OMG now RandomLie wants in on the free seminar.

If you can't comprehend my last two postings why would a third be any different?

Ob course you can't have soup w/o water so Scientists add to the fairytale as they in attempt to cover their ass.


http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/12-1.jpg


Earth floods for them it's called Science.




http://www.friendsofjehovahswitnesses.com/wp-content/uploads/NoahsArk.jpg
Earth floods for the Bible it's called science fiction?

One thing I can honestly say is ignorant people do have each others backs.

I...uh...I...He can't be serious.

:bang :bang :bang

[Blake]

Mouse with the sophisticated adult level put downs. :tu

[FuzzyLumpkins]

If your son decides to have sex with a goat and creates a "goat boy" the "goat boy" can be traced to "you" w/o "you" there would be no "goat boy"

why is this so hard to sink in?

I honestly think you don't want it to sink in it blows your silly Evolution theory all to shit.

You just don't get it. Scientist claim "A LIFE" started with a hot soupy pool of liquid.

That means "Any LIFE" from that point on is connected to that soup!

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/33-4.jpg
http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/1221.jpg


I didn't write this shit so go after the text books.

http://www.borev.net/batboy.JPG

[RandomGuy]

Thanks for the heads up. :toast

I don't mind though. I like being challenged on the things I believe because then if I'm wrong about something I can change my position rather than continuing to be wrong for the rest of my life. Besides, I kind of like the way these guys think. :)

A Gentile is just someone who's not a Jew and everyone uses the New Covenant now.

I would disagree with this simply because so far I've only seen you dispute the things said by the emotional/mainstream branch of Christianity that's popular today. That group just doesn't think and when they do I've found that a lot of them lack the ability to reason. Of course they're going to lack logical consistency more often than not.

I won't claim to have all the answers or to be perfectly rational when it comes to my beliefs and I definitely won't try to talk you out of your position though. To be honest, I just like conversing with intelligent people.

Really having fun talking to you RandomGuy :toast

Thanks. I work to be even-handed and respectful, but am far from perfect.

To be honest, though I do think the bible is pretty much bunk, and far from logical. It is hard to say that without sounding overly confrontational, but that is what I think.

As long as someone can answer questions honestly and fairly, I can return in kind.

[Magua]

If your son decides to have sex with a goat and creates a "goat boy" the "goat boy" can be traced to "you" w/o "you" there would be no "goat boy"
.

QpEy-LYo3vg

[RandomGuy]

OMG now RandomLie wants in on the free seminar.

If you can't comprehend my last two postings why would a third be any different?

Ob course you can't have soup w/o water so Scientists add to the fairytale as they in attempt to cover their ass.

Earth floods for them it's called Science.

Earth floods for the Bible it's called science fiction?

One thing I can honestly say is ignorant people do have each others backs.

Water has been found to be one of the most common molecules in the universe.

The forming of the earth entailed a cooling from a large molten blob, and a period of time before there were polar caps.

Hydrogen and oxygen combined to form water, and when it cooled enough, did condense.

This period of time had no existing life though.

The bible's flood is bunk because it would have annihilated most forms of existing life, and certainly any fresh water organisms. (edit) among many many flaws(/edit)

You can't equate the two, and attempting to is either highly dishonest, or incredibly ignorant, because you can't fairly or logically compare the two.

[TheSkeptic]

Thanks. I work to be even-handed and respectful, but am far from perfect.

Have you seen mouse? I'm beginning to think he's trolling and compared to that I feel like this has been a fairly decent discussion.
:lol



To be honest, though I do think the bible is pretty much bunk, and far from logical. It is hard to say that without sounding overly confrontational, but that is what I think.

I hear you. I think that since it's a religion that is more emotion-based I wouldn't expect it to be perfectly rational since there is that element of faith involved. It all really boils down to whether or not you believe the Christian God exists. If I didn't think so then I'd probably share your opinion on the whole thing.

As it stands, there's enough logic to not drive me crazy and at the very least I find it consistent. I won't try to talk you out of your opinion anything though.

It's one of those things where you either really believe it or you really don't.



As long as someone can answer questions honestly and fairly, I can return in kind.

That's what message boards are supposed to be for. :toast

[RandomGuy]

somebody PLEASE tell me the conspiracy theory schticks are just a trolljob from mouse. I need to hear this.

Nope. I am fairly sure he half believes all of them.

If memory serves, life on earth has sentient alien origins or similar, but he doesn't like admitting this, because then he has to defend it. Easier to pick pot shots at established theories than have one of your own.

His attacks on science stem almost entirely from a shocking degree of ignorance about science, absorbed from other people who are similarly ignorant, with a rather stubborn insistance on not subjecting anything to critical thinking.

[RandomGuy]

Have you seen mouse? I'm beginning to think he's trolling and compared to that I feel like this has been a fairly decent discussion.
:lol



I hear you. I think that since it's a religion that is more emotion-based I wouldn't expect it to be perfectly rational since there is that element of faith involved. It all really boils down to whether or not you believe the Christian God exists. If I didn't think so then I'd probably share your opinion on the whole thing.

As it stands, there's enough logic to not drive me crazy and at the very least I find it consistent. I won't try to talk you out of your opinion anything though.

It's one of those things where you either really believe it or you really don't.

That's what message boards are supposed to be for. :toast

Do you believe in Bigfoot?

(serious question)

[TheSkeptic]

Do you believe in Bigfoot?

(serious question)

:lol

I think it's an interesting story.

I have a hard time believing that an animal that size would be undiscovered. Granted there are some places in Canada and America that are really remote and unexplored but with the sightings so spread out that would suggest a decent breeding population and a large roaming area.

If there's that many of them alive and all, there should be some evidence like droppings, hair samples, a dead body someone stumbled upon in the woods -something. Unless people want to start arguing that Bigfoot is supernatural, I just don't really think it exists or if it does it's a case of mistaken identity (i.e. a prank or perhaps a human that's withdrawn from civilization?).

That said, given the sheer number of sightings dating back a long ways, I won't say it's impossible. Just highly, highly, highly, implausible to the point where I don't object when people say it isn't possible.

Why?

[Reck]

You know, he was kidding after all Skept.

[TheSkeptic]

You know, he was kidding after all Skept.

*shrug* I took the "serious question" in brackets to mean he wanted an answer.

No skin off my nose either way.

[rascal]

I'm a woman! :bang

The preparation of rich people's tombs back then had nothing to do with the Bible (other than making appearances).

And the martyred original disciples I don't think were covered originally in the Bible either. Their deaths I believe were mostly recorded independently.

Where I really relied on the Bible there was in explaining to that other poster my opinion on the whole 3 days thing. In which case it'd be reasonable to take that event within the context of itself no?

What do you mean if he came back physically? I seem to recall that at one point after coming back he told them (disciples/women/followers) that they couldn't touch him although he did eat something at some point.

So I'm on the fence because while I have to believe that he did resurrect I'm not sure he came back completely normal.

I would assume he went back home. But like I said, he must've come back maybe in a slightly different form for him to have disappeared.

Thomas touched his wounds for proof. The wounds were somehow preserved on Jesus's new body as a lesson to teach the future doubting Thomas's.

[rascal]

I'm a woman! :bang

The preparation of rich people's tombs back then had nothing to do with the Bible (other than making appearances).

And the martyred original disciples I don't think were covered originally in the Bible either. Their deaths I believe were mostly recorded independently.

Where I really relied on the Bible there was in explaining to that other poster my opinion on the whole 3 days thing. In which case it'd be reasonable to take that event within the context of itself no?

What do you mean if he came back physically? I seem to recall that at one point after coming back he told them (disciples/women/followers) that they couldn't touch him although he did eat something at some point.

So I'm on the fence because while I have to believe that he did resurrect I'm not sure he came back completely normal.

I would assume he went back home. But like I said, he must've come back maybe in a slightly different form for him to have disappeared.

What do you mean he went back home? Jesus preached some to his close followers so they would keep his teachings alive.

Had he not come back his teachings would have died with him on the cross. He would have been proven to be a fraud, as his followers were cowarding in hiding while he was dying. But the fact he came back gave them inspiration to continue his teachings and many of them even died for their beliefs.

[TheSkeptic]

Thomas touched his wounds for proof. The wounds were somehow preserved on Jesus's new body as a lesson to teach the future doubting Thomas's.

Still doesn't mean something different hadn't happened by the time he resurrected though. Like I said, I'm on the fence on that one because he did tell someone not to touch him.

I don't dispute that he resurrected but I'm still looking at the logistics when Christ's actions are taken into account.


What do you mean he went back home? Jesus preached some to his close followers so they would keep his teachings alive.

Had he not come back his teachings would have died with him on the cross. He would have been proven to be a fraud, as his followers were cowarding in hiding while he was dying. But the fact he came back gave them inspiration to continue his teachings and many of them even died for their beliefs.

So you're disputing that he went back to heaven after resurrecting? He came back, appeared, and energized his followers but that doesn't change the fact that he went back to heaven which in this case was his home.

[rascal]

Still doesn't mean something different hadn't happened by the time he resurrected though. Like I said, I'm on the fence on that one because he did tell someone not to touch him.



So you're disputing that he went back to heaven after resurrecting? He came back, appeared, and energized his followers but that doesn't change the fact that he went back to heaven.

I am not disputing that he went to Heaven. I just didn't know what you meant.

[TheSkeptic]

I am not disputing that he went to Heaven. I just didn't know what you meant.

Oh. No worries then. I just realized that that post came up a little harsher than I'd intended. Sorry about that.

[mouse]

Have you seen mouse? I'm beginning to think he's trolling


When was the last time you attended a ST gtg where someone acually called you "The Sceptic" ? Your more TRoll then 1/2 the posters in this topic


and compared to that I feel like this has been a fairly decent discussion.
:lol

So your saying you approve od DeadZero and his skate boarding TRolls outdated insults over my researched evidence ?

There went your creditability not like you really had any.


Why not get over your man love for me and add something worth reading to the subject at hand?


:toast[/QUOTE]

[redzero]

:lol Deadzero and his skateboarding trolls?

[mouse]

When one digs into the details and definitions, there is even some ambiguity as to what exactly constitutes a "species", simply because reality is not always stark black and white, with lots of shades of gray.


Have you even opened a science text book?

The pages are white the text is black Science doesn't say "we think" the earth is 4 billion years old they say it "is" 4 billion years old.

Have you even clicked on the link in my signature?

[Blake]

When was the last time you attended a ST gtg where someone acually called you "The Sceptic" ? Your more TRoll then 1/2 the posters in this topic



So your saying you approve od DeadZero and his skate boarding TRolls outdated insults over my researched evidence ?

There went your creditability not like you really had any.


Why not get over your man love for me and add something worth reading to the subject at hand?


:toast

lol subject at hand

you're an idiot and you know it

[mouse]

Thanks. I work to be even-handed and respectful, but am far from perfect.

To be honest, though I do think the bible is pretty much bunk, and far from logical. It is hard to say that without sounding overly confrontational, but that is what I think.

As long as someone can answer questions honestly and fairly, I can return in kind.


Open Mic night in the Club?
RandomLie your the king of Propaganda when it comes to

9/11

Age of Earth

Evoulution

And Science

No matter how many times I blow your paper thin theories out of the water you curl up in a fetal position and try and insult my character with outdated school yard insults that have as much effect on me as RedZero's re-fried pick up lines at a Lesbian wedding.

And yet you still find time to gloss yourself on that shinny Chrome plated high horse on witch you proudly post on your used 2G Cricket flip phone you found while busing a table at Bill Millers Bar B Q


Well you better make sure you take your rusty phone charger you paid 8 dollars for off Craigslist to work Thursday because I am done trying to dumb it down so you can try and keep up with my highly educated points of view.

[Saved By Zero]

Hell, I can't even save that lame ass anti-marriage, mouse stalkin', gravity seduced maniac.

[redzero]

lol mouse-stalking
lol pretending yet again that you aren't a manchild
lol still not understanding my point about gravity

[redzero]

Dp

[Blake]

Open Mic night in the Club?


http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-gTHIlV9sBOg/TtPni3AUvXI/AAAAAAAAAqM/S2zGZ87vvkM/s1600/tomatoes.jpg

[RandomGuy]

:lol

I think it's an interesting story.

I have a hard time believing that an animal that size would be undiscovered. Granted there are some places in Canada and America that are really remote and unexplored but with the sightings so spread out that would suggest a decent breeding population and a large roaming area.

If there's that many of them alive and all, there should be some evidence like droppings, hair samples, a dead body someone stumbled upon in the woods -something. Unless people want to start arguing that Bigfoot is supernatural, I just don't really think it exists or if it does it's a case of mistaken identity (i.e. a prank or perhaps a human that's withdrawn from civilization?).

That said, given the sheer number of sightings dating back a long ways, I won't say it's impossible. Just highly, highly, highly, implausible to the point where I don't object when people say it isn't possible.

Why?

So, you don't believe this, because you have no proof that it exists?

[RandomGuy]

Have you even opened a science text book?

The pages are white the text is black Science doesn't say "we think" the earth is 4 billion years old they say it "is" 4 billion years old.

Have you even clicked on the link in my signature?

okaaay. Your point being?

We know the age of the earth within a pretty good range.

The age of the Earth is 4.54 ± 0.05 billion years
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth

Some things are a lot less ambiguous and subjective than others.

[RandomGuy]

Open Mic night in the Club?
RandomLie your the king of Propaganda when it comes to

9/11

Age of Earth

Evoulution

And Science

No matter how many times I blow your paper thin theories out of the water you curl up in a fetal position and try and insult my character with outdated school yard insults that have as much effect on me as RedZero's re-fried pick up lines at a Lesbian wedding.

And yet you still find time to gloss yourself on that shinny Chrome plated high horse on witch you proudly post on your used 2G Cricket flip phone you found while busing a table at Bill Millers Bar B Q


Well you better make sure you take your rusty phone charger you paid 8 dollars for off Craigslist to work Thursday because I am done trying to dumb it down so you can try and keep up with my highly educated points of view.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=57&pictureid=1438

:lol

Science is the method through which we learn about our universe. Your hostility to the empirical method has always puzzled me.

So, how would you go about finding the age of the earth?

What do you think it is, if not 4.5Bn years?

What evidence supports your thesis?

Why do you discard all the other evidence we have?

[RandomGuy]

You might quibble with the inconsistency, but answer this:

Why did God let Jepthah carry through?

Why did God not stop him?

Did God in this case approve of human sacrifice?


I quibbled because I was addressing the original charge of inconsistency. :D

For this particular instance, I think because it was more important for Jepthah to carry through on his promise.


Is human sacrifice moral to you?

Jepthah asked God for victory, promising a sacrifice. God granted his wish. God did not stop Jepthah, nor condemn him in any way.

[TheSkeptic]

So, you don't believe this, because you have no proof that it exists?

Hey, I never said that believing in God was necessarily logical. :lol As far as atheism/agnosticism goes, I honestly get it. If I wasn't a Christian I'd probably be an atheist.

On most issues I'm a woman of reason but not so much in this case. I'll admit to that without any prodding.


Is human sacrifice moral to you?


While I definitely think it's a bad thing, my opinion on human sacrifice doesn't matter with respect to the topic...



Jepthah asked God for victory, promising a sacrifice. God granted his wish. God did not stop Jepthah, nor condemn him in any way.

I believe that's how the story went. I'm assuming that you want a response to what that's supposed to be about right?

Like I said earlier, I think it's because Jepthah was keeping his promise to God. One of the main commandments is to put God first and ahead of everything and everyone. By following through on his word in spite of what it costed him, Jepthah was following the first commandment as he understood it. Why would God condemn him in that case? On top of which, he didn't explicitly offer a human just the first thing that came out of his house. For all we know, he could've been expecting a dog or a bird to come out first.

Those are the facts. Now whether or not it was the right thing to do is a topic that's definitely up for debate.

Again, you're going from the "God is love" paradigm and then bringing morality into it. I'm the wrong person to ask that of because I don't buy into that particular belief system.

[TheSkeptic]

lol subject at hand

you're an idiot and you know it

Thanks Blake.

And for the record mouse, I don't approve of trolling when anyone does it.

[RandomGuy]

Hey, I never said that believing in God was necessarily logical. :lol As far as atheism/agnosticism goes, I honestly get it. If I wasn't a Christian I'd probably be an atheist.

On most issues I'm a woman of reason but not so much in this case. I'll admit to that without any prodding.



While I definitely think it's a bad thing, my opinion on human sacrifice doesn't matter with respect to the topic...



I believe that's how the story went. I'm assuming that you want a response to what that's supposed to be about right?

Like I said earlier, I think it's because Jepthah was keeping his promise to God. One of the main commandments is to put God first and ahead of everything and everyone. By following through on his word in spite of what it costed him, Jepthah was following the first commandment as he understood it. Why would God condemn him in that case? On top of which, he didn't explicitly offer a human just the first thing that came out of his house. For all we know, he could've been expecting a dog or a bird to come out first.

Those are the facts. Now whether or not it was the right thing to do is a topic that's definitely up for debate.

Again, you're going from the "God is love" paradigm and then bringing morality into it. I'm the wrong person to ask that of because I don't buy into that particular belief system.

Ok, so you admit human sacrifice is immoral. That is the first step.

As for keeping promises to God:

God being omnipotent/omniscient would have known what was going to come out of the house first. God's plan could have been for the family dog to come out first.

Instead, God's plan was for Jepthah's daughter to come out.

I am not coming at this from a "God is love" paradigm.

God is an authority figure. Laws and morality are supposed to flow from what God says/does.

If you promised the mayor or your town that you would sacrifice your child to him, if he would give you a zoning exemption that lets to build an otherwise illegal addition to your house, what do you think the mayor would do?

[TheSkeptic]

Ok, so you admit human sacrifice is immoral. That is the first step.

As for keeping promises to God:

God being omnipotent/omniscient would have known what was going to come out of the house first. God's plan could have been for the family dog to come out first.

Instead, God's plan was for Jepthah's daughter to come out.


He would've known what was going to come out first, but he wouldn't have controlled the daughter. God may be omnipotent but that doesn't mean that's a power he exercises on a regular basis.

There's an element of free-will that's involved with all of this.



I am not coming at this from a "God is love" paradigm.

God is an authority figure. Laws and morality are supposed to flow from what God says/does.


See, that's just not the way it's worked in my opinion. I'd say that the laws/morality are a byproduct more than anything else and I'd argue that Jepthah was demonstrating the qualities God looks for people to develop in this case.




If you promised the mayor or your town that you would sacrifice your child to him, if he would give you a zoning exemption that lets to build an otherwise illegal addition to your house, what do you think the mayor would do?

That's a different situation to me because Jepthah didn't say "...If you give me this victory I'll sacrifice my daughter." what he said was "...I'll give you the first thing that comes out of my house".

It turned out to be his daughter and rather than going back on the promise he made with God, he ended up sacrificing her. Under the old way of doing things at least, that was probably one of several correct courses of action.

Do I agree on a personal level? No. But I do understand the rationale and I don't find it inconsistent because the main goal in both this situation and the Isaac one are the same. That's basically what I look for when it comes to these things.

[Blake]

God obviously is into the human sacrifice thing since he sent his own son to be sacrificed.

He also fucked around with Abraham telling him to kill Isaac.

Bible God is a sick bastard.

[RandomGuy]

If you promised the mayor or your town that you would sacrifice your child to him, if he would give you a zoning exemption that lets to build an otherwise illegal addition to your house, what do you think the mayor would do?


That's a different situation to me because Jepthah didn't say "...If you give me this victory I'll sacrifice my daughter." what he said was "...I'll give you the first thing that comes out of my house".


That doesn't answer my question.

If you promised the mayor you would burn your child alive to get what you wanted, what do you think the mayor would do?

or, if you prefer:

What woud *you* do if someone wanted something from you, and said they were ready to burn their child alive in order to get it?

[RandomGuy]

He would've known what was going to come out first, but he wouldn't have controlled the daughter. God may be omnipotent but that doesn't mean that's a power he exercises on a regular basis.

There's an element of free-will that's involved with all of this.

See, that's just not the way it's worked in my opinion. I'd say that the laws/morality are a byproduct more than anything else and I'd argue that Jepthah was demonstrating the qualities God looks for people to develop in this case.
That's a different situation to me because Jepthah didn't say "...If you give me this victory I'll sacrifice my daughter." what he said was "...I'll give you the first thing that comes out of my house".



The God of the bible is both all-knowing and all-powerful. God would not have to control anybody. He could have simply told Jepthah that the first thing that would come out of the house would be Jepthah's daughter, and that God would be happy with something a bit less drastic.

Why do you think God looks for the quality of "I'm willing to murder children" in his followers?

[RandomGuy]

NU31:7 "So they made war against Midian, just as the LORD had commanded Moses, and they killed every male."

NU31:8 "And they killed the kings of Midian along with the [rest of] their slain: Evi and Rekem and Zur and Hur and Reba, the five kings of Midian; they also killed Balaam the son of Beor with the sword."

NU31:9 "And the sons of Israel captured the women of Midian and their little ones; and all their cattle and all their flocks and all their goods, they plundered."

NU31:10 Then they burned all their cities where they lived and all their camps with fire.

NU31:11 "And they took all the spoil and all the prey, both of man and of beast."

NU31:12 "And they brought the captives and the prey and the spoil to Moses, and to Eleazar the priest and to the congregation of the sons of Israel, to the camp at the plains of Moab, which are by the Jordan opposite Jericho."

NU31:13 And Moses and Eleazar the priest and all the leaders of the congregation went out to meet them outside the camp.

NU31:14 "And Moses was angry with the officers of the army, the captains of thousands and the captains of hundreds, who had come from service in the war."

NU31:15 "And Moses said to them, ""Have you spared all the women?"

NU31:16 "Behold, these caused the sons of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, so the plague was among the congregation of the LORD."

NU31:17 "Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man intimately."

NU31:18 "But all the girls who have not known man intimately, spare for yourselves."



God directly ordered every male killed. Moses carried that out, and it included every male boy and infant.

This isn't the kind of stuff that gets talked about in sermons or sunday schools for a reason.

What reason do you think that is?

(again, serious question)

[RandomGuy]

EX34:1 And the LORD said unto Moses, Hew thee two tables of stone like unto the first: and I will write upon these tables the words that were in the first tables, which thou brakest.

EX34:2 And be ready in the morning, and come up in the morning unto mount Sinai, and present thyself there to me in the top of the mount.

EX34:3 And no man shall come up with thee, neither let any man be seen throughout all the mount; neither let the flocks nor herds feed before that mount.

EX34:4 And he hewed two tables of stone like unto the first; and Moses rose up early in the morning, and went up unto mount Sinai, as the LORD had commanded him, and took in his hand the two tables of stone.

EX34:5 And the LORD descended in the cloud, and stood with him there, and proclaimed the name of the LORD.

EX34:6 And the LORD passed by before him, and proclaimed, The LORD, The LORD God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth,


"God is merciful and gracious".

God wants you to kill children of people who deny him.

That seems pretty unambiguously inconsistant.

Again, not trying to be unkind or overly confrontational, but this stuff is there, if one looks and reads.

This seems to be to be very, very basic stuff, and I can't wave it off as cherry picking.

It all makes much more sense if one looks at it from the perpective of kings doing nasty things and using the excuse of "god told me to do it, so don't question it".

Kings and leaders have been using divine will to get people to do things for millenia, and not just in the middle east. It is a very common theme among all monarchies.

The Japanese shinto religion still hold that the Emporer of Japan *is* a god.

[RandomGuy]

Hey, I never said that believing in God was necessarily logical. :lol As far as atheism/agnosticism goes, I honestly get it. If I wasn't a Christian I'd probably be an atheist.

On most issues I'm a woman of reason but not so much in this case. I'll admit to that without any prodding.

If you don't want to believe in Bigfoot without some evidence, why would you want to believe in something as important as God without evidence?

It seems to me to be vastly more important to have a logical reason to believe in God than in something like Bigfoot or the Easter bunny.

[mouse]

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=57&pictureid=1438

:lol


butthurt?

since when did you trade in your 1999 Honda Accord for a skateboard?

I thought of you much older I guess.

If I am any way near butthurt it's from sitting around for days waiting for you to show me evidence Evolution is why are here.

It's amusing how posters at ST when confronted with hard facts look for way out by pulling out the "butthurt" card or the "i know what you are but what am I?" card.

It happens in the Spurs forum. Spurs beat the MAVS? and its an all out war of "count the Rings bitch" but if the Spurs get Waxed by the Lakers it's

"stop calling us Butthurt it' so immature"

Why can't anyone here let the evidence speak for itself?

Becuase you have none so resorting to childish insults is a way to look Un-Butthurt














Science is the method through which we learn about our universe. Yourhostility to the empirical method has always puzzled me.

learn all you want, just make sure you "learned" it before you print it as fact in the textbooks. why is that so much to ask?



So, how would you go about finding the age of the earth?

I said already in my signature.




What do you think it is, if not 4.5Bn years?

How can the earth be older than the oldest comet which is "supposedly" from the big bang? (again address in my link)




What evidence supports your thesis?

The Sun loses 5ft of mass ever 30 minutes if you go back "4 Billion" years the sun would be so big it would have burned everything in the solar system




Why do you discard all the other evidence we have?

post it first.

[redzero]

:lmao mouse thinks that it is a bad thing for science to continually change based on new evidence

[mouse]

:lmao mouse thinks that it is a bad thing for science to continually change based on new evidence

Not true.

I only ask Science "change" the School Science text books at the same time they make change.

Why is that so hard for your limited mind to comprehend?

[redzero]

School books are updated. Do you think there is some evil conspiracy to not update textbooks?

:lmao limited mind

[mouse]

Then why do they still say Dental Exams are safe, and the Earth is 4 Billion years old?

Do you even know the process and time that goes into modifying a text book?

How about you put down the meth pipe and do some research.

[mouse]

:lmao mouse thinks that it is a bad thing for science to continually change based on new evidence

How about you meet me on the radio for a live debate and I will not only change Science I will "change" your crusty diaper.

[redzero]

:lmao Do you want the publishers to wave a wand and magically update all textbooks as soon as new info comes out?

[mouse]

Your like that piece of popcorn that gets stuck in your gums.


which means you had to have been eaten earlier and really you have no legitimate comebacks to dispute my claims so the stage is yours my Game Stop frequent visiting friend I shall seek IQ's above at least 89 from this point on in further discussion.

[TheSkeptic]

It all makes much more sense if one looks at it from the perpective of kings doing nasty things and using the excuse of "god told me to do it, so don't question it".

Kings and leaders have been using divine will to get people to do things for millenia, and not just in the middle east. It is a very common theme among all monarchies.

The Japanese shinto religion still hold that the Emporer of Japan *is* a god.


That's exactly how I see it though (albeit on a grander scale). Especially in the Old Testament when God was essentially their king since he was the one coming up with the laws and telling them what to do. Now that it's the New Testament days, the same concepts are at work but on a spiritual level.

Hence why I look more for things like consistency in terms of personality and goals rather than actions and the like.

Though if that's all I needed to say I would have done that sooner. :D


If you don't want to believe in Bigfoot without some evidence, why would you want to believe in something as important as God without evidence?

It seems to me to be vastly more important to have a logical reason to believe in God than in something like Bigfoot or the Easter bunny.

Well because I have seen evidence of God in my own life and in the lives of others. On a philosophical level it makes a lot of sense to me as well so there's that. Probably the biggest thing is harder to explain since you likely haven't experienced this but I'll try:

I know it might sound really strange but I feel like there's something pulling me that first helped me look at Christianity and that even now doesn't let me let go of God.

I've tried to think and be like everybody else and I just haven't been able to. I get unsettled and I lack peace whenever I go too far away from where I'm supposed to be and whenever that happens it always feels like someone's calling me back even if I'm not hearing voices or anything. So a lot of it is about maintaining my own internal balance...or something to that effect.

For all my talk of being a rational person it would probably make more sense if I said that I'm looking to save my soul and avoid Hell, but that's not really why I became a Christian. Something just compelled me to. I'll be the first to admit that it's really weird because I don't operate like that normally (I promise).

I don't know that it's less important than Bigfoot and the Easter Bunny. Hell and eternal destiny are pretty serious topics in my opinion. :p:

And in any case, I don't lose anything for being a Christian and believing in God. I'm 20 so it goes without saying that I'm a work in progress as a person but it's helped me become someone who tries to do the right thing in general.

I try to practice maturity, help people whenever I can, be gentle when I'm dealing with others, weather things gracefully, try to be consistent in my beliefs, etc. These are qualities that will help me in life no matter where I go. Just because I view the world through Christ that doesn't mean I'm suffering from a lower standard of living. :lol

I've said before that Christianity is pretty destructive for certain types of people and I would contend that the militantly religious/gullible are the ones that have a tough row to hoe. Though you might disagree (and that'd be fair enough) I'd say that I'm a fairly intelligent woman and that by interacting more with non-believers I've learned how to live in the real world without using my faith as a crutch or as a weapon against other people even if that's put me at odds with other Christians before. I don't see how that's bad for me.

Long again...I've got to stop typing when I'm tired...:D

[redzero]

So much for wanting serious conversations!

:lol first to bitch about immaturity
:lol first to call people names

Mouse just doing what mouse does best. No surprises here.

[Blake]

mouse, what is your theory on how humans came into existence?

[CosmicCowboy]

:lmao Do you want the publishers to wave a wand and magically update all textbooks as soon as new info comes out?

They will be able to do exactly that with digital textbooks.

[RandomGuy]

The Sun loses 5ft of mass ever 30 minutes if you go back "4 Billion" years the sun would be so big it would have burned everything in the solar system

What evidence do you have that this rate has held constant for that period of time?

[RandomGuy]

How can the earth be older than the oldest comet which is "supposedly" from the big bang? (again address in my link)

Comets weren't formed in the Big Bang.

I don't think you understand what scientists generally agree on about the formation of our solar system.

The address in your link is not something I am going to spend time listening to, as I am fairly sure I already have. How exactly do you feel it supports your mistaken statement here?

[RandomGuy]

I will try and explain it again.


http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/aa8.jpg

Debunked.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html

or you could just go down the list:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html#CB100

[RandomGuy]

Becuase you have none so resorting to childish insults is a way to look Un-Butthurt .



Why not get over your man love


RandomLie your the king of Propaganda ...

...
insults that have as much effect on me as RedZero's re-fried pick up lines at a Lesbian wedding...

I am done trying to dumb it down for you


If your son decides to have sex with a goat


I keep bringing it out becase it hasn't sunk in yet in your very limited mind ... Now put down the bing for 90 seconds


... your very annoing ignorant stepson redzero.


Why do you feel the need to resort to the same kinds of insults?

My posting of the butthurt picture was quite after you posted these, and was the only time I commented at all about you, other than to politely ask questions, or correct factual mistakes, of which you have made several.

[Blake]

The Sun loses 5ft of mass ever 30 minutes if you go back "4 Billion" years the sun would be so big it would have burned everything in the solar system



What evidence do you have that this rate has held constant for that period of time?

science!

[RandomGuy]

Well because I have seen evidence of God in my own life and in the lives of others.

What evidence?

Do you have evidence that cannot be attributed to natural causes?

[RandomGuy]

He would've known what was going to come out first, but he wouldn't have controlled the daughter. God may be omnipotent but that doesn't mean that's a power he exercises on a regular basis.

There's an element of free-will that's involved with all of this.

See, that's just not the way it's worked in my opinion. I'd say that the laws/morality are a byproduct more than anything else and I'd argue that Jepthah was demonstrating the qualities God looks for people to develop in this case.
That's a different situation to me because Jepthah didn't say "...If you give me this victory I'll sacrifice my daughter." what he said was "...I'll give you the first thing that comes out of my house".



The God of the bible is both all-knowing and all-powerful. God would not have to control anybody. He could have simply told Jepthah that the first thing that would come out of the house would be Jepthah's daughter, and that God would be happy with something a bit less drastic.

Why do you think God looks for the quality of "I'm willing to murder children" in his followers?

[RandomGuy]

If you promised the mayor or your town that you would sacrifice your child to him, if he would give you a zoning exemption that lets to build an otherwise illegal addition to your house, what do you think the mayor would do?


That's a different situation to me because Jepthah didn't say "...If you give me this victory I'll sacrifice my daughter." what he said was "...I'll give you the first thing that comes out of my house".


That doesn't answer my question.

If you promised the mayor you would burn your child alive to get what you wanted, what do you think the mayor would do?

or, if you prefer:

What woud *you* do if someone wanted something from you, and said they were ready to burn their child alive in order to get it?

[RandomGuy]

And in any case, I don't lose anything for being a Christian and believing in God.

I disagree.

You lose a great deal when you believe in things that are not real, or give in to threats of infinite punishment for finite crimes.

[mouse]

science!

Scientist at one time claimed Asbestos was good for you.

You just can't do a drive by and post one word "Science" and then pull the ripcord and bail out of a debate.

Congrats your on the DeadZero list of people I will avoid in any future discussion on this matter.

[mouse]

mouse, what is your theory on how humans came into existence?

When someone mature enough to carry an adult conversation asked me that question, I shall answer them.

[Woo Bum-kon]

mouse, what is your theory on how humans came into existence?

[Blake]

Scientist at one time claimed Asbestos was good for you.

You just can't do a drive by and post one word "Science" and then pull the ripcord and bail out of a debate.

Are you trying to say you did the sun measurements yourself?


Congrats your on the DeadZero list of people I will avoid in any future discussion on this matter.

Just when I was starting to take you seriously!

:depressed

[mouse]

Why do you feel the need to resort to the same kinds of insults?

My posting of the butthurt picture was quite after you posted these, and was the only time I commented at all about you, other than to politely ask questions, or correct factual mistakes, of which you have made several.

If your so good at quoting people why not show the quotes that lead up to those replies?

Don't cherry pick the quotes show all the ones that matter.

By the time I stoop down to someones trailer park level of mentality I have already endured three pages of useless insults.

Get something straight RandomLie I am not going to be pushed around like the Bible believers allow themselves to be treated in here I don't have another spare cheek to turn.

[mouse]

mouse, what is your theory on how humans came into existence?

You made the DeadZero list after page two

list of posters who forfeited their right's to ask me any further questions.

RedZeo

Woo Bum-kon

The Skeptic

Blake

more to come.....

[RandomGuy]

If your so good at quoting people why not show the quotes that lead up to those replies?

Don't cherry pick the quotes show all the ones that matter.

By the time I stoop down to someones trailer park level of mentality I have already endured three pages of useless insults.

Get something straight RandomLie I am not going to be pushed around like the Bible believers allow themselves to be treated in here I don't have another spare cheek to turn.

As you wish. I will refrain from insulting you in any way, and stick to simply asking you polite questions.


The Sun loses 5ft of mass ever 30 minutes if you go back "4 Billion" years the sun would be so big it would have burned everything in the solar system

What evidence do you have that this rate has held constant for that period of time?

[Blake]

You made the DeadZero list after page two

list of posters who forfeited their right's to ask me any further questions.

RedZeo

Woo Bum-kon

The Skeptic

Blake

more to come.....

Oh noes!

You mean I can never ask you a question again?

[mouse]

What evidence do you have that this rate has held constant for that period of time?


NASA

http://www.universetoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/NASASDO171_1111111111.jpg


The Sun is using losing 4 billion kilograms of mass a second; as four hydrogen nuclei are converted to a single helium one, this loss in mass provides the energy for the Sun to shine. (Mass and energy are equivalent, as shown by Einstein's famous formula E=mc2). Large though it sounds, this mass loss is actually insignificant compared to the Sun's total mass. The Sun's total mass is 2 x 1030 (or 2 nonillion) kilograms

[mouse]

Oh noes!

You mean I can never ask you a question again?

Sure just not in this topic.

[RandomGuy]

NASA

http://www.universetoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/NASASDO171_1111111111.jpg

You have stated NASA cannot be trusted.

A picture of the sun is not proof that this rate has not changed in 4 billion years.

Do you have any other evidence that this rate has not changed in this period of time?

(edit)

The statement "the sun is losing" does not state what that rate was in the past. It cannot, therefore, be used to support past rates.

(/edit)

[Blake]

Sure just not in this topic.

So you trust NASA now?

[RandomGuy]

NASA

The Sun is using losing 4 billion kilograms of mass a second; as four hydrogen nuclei are converted to a single helium one, this loss in mass provides the energy for the Sun to shine. (Mass and energy are equivalent, as shown by Einstein's famous formula E=mc2). Large though it sounds, this mass loss is actually insignificant compared to the Sun's total mass. The Sun's total mass is 2 x 1030 (or 2 nonillion) kilograms


The Sun loses 5ft of mass ever 30 minutes if you go back "4 Billion" years the sun would be so big it would have burned everything in the solar system

Mass is not measured in "ft" or "feet".

Please show how this loss of mass translates to the circumference and volume of a sphere the current size of the sun. I would point out that the volume of a sphere is a cubed factor.

[RandomGuy]

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

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/math/e/6/7/e678db0137d57dddf5d66f02a6fdf4ef.png

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e2/Esfera_Arqu%C3%ADmedes.jpg/220px-Esfera_Arqu%C3%ADmedes.jpg

http://www.basic-mathematics.com/volume-of-a-sphere-calculator.html

For reference.

[mouse]

You have stated NASA cannot be trusted.

Are we going to talk Apollo 11?

I was using one of they're photos of the sun for illustration, you have a photo of the sun I can use?
I can easily edit.




A picture of the sun is not proof that this rate has not changed in 4 billion years.

You don't have Google? I suppose you think something that is burning gets larger over time?


This is going to be devastating news for the Candle industry.



Do you have any other evidence that this rate has not changed in this period of time?

The Sun consumes about 600 million tons of hydrogen per second. (That's 6 x 108 tons.) For comparison, the mass of the Earth is about 1.35 x 1021 tons. This would mean the Sun consumes the mass of the Earth in about 70,000 years.

Dr. Louis Barbier


__________________________________________________ _______



HOWARD J. VAN TILL

Professor of Physics and Astronorny
Calvin College Grand Rapids, Michigan



The sun's diameter has been shrinking in such a manner as to preclude the credibility of the standard multibillion-year chronology for terrestrial history. Within the professional scientific community, a preliminary report which suggested a long-term and rapid shrinkage of the sun presented a puzzle for solar astronomers. Consequently, additional studies were made and the credibility of the original data was re-evaluated. The result is that secular shrinkage has not beenPost Flare Loops on the Sun substantiated, but an 80-year oscillatory behavior was discovered. Within the "creation-science" community, however, the response to the original report has been remarkably different. The suggestion of rapid long-term shrinkage was uncritically accepted, the evidence and conclusions drawn from subsequent studies were generally dismissed, and extrapolations of the presumed rapid solar shrinkage have been performed without restraint. Isolated from the corrective of continuing professional investigation and evaluation, the "creation-science" community continues to employ this unwarranted extrapolation of a discredited report as a scientific evidence" for a young earth. The credibility of the Christian witness to a scientifically knowledgeable world is thereby clouded.

[mouse]

Mass is not measured in "ft" or "feet".

Please show how this loss of mass translates to the circumference and volume of a sphere the current size of the sun. I would point out that the volume of a sphere is a cubed factor.

You have a measuring stick that can handle the Sun's heat and a rocket ship to get us there?

I am not going to split hairs on if the Sun loses 90 million tons per second or 4 feet of mass per hour the fact is it could not have been the same size 4 billion years ago.

So in all fairness I will give you another example:

Since laser reflecting mirrors have been placed on the moon (by unmanned probes)

Researchers can measure the exact distance the moon is from the earth.

In doing so researchers have discovered the Moon drifting from the earth at a rate of 4 inches a year.

That may not seem like a lot but if you take the clock back "4 Billion" years that would put the moon to close to the earth for the Big bang theory to hold water.


Another example is the oldest comet recorded is 10,000 - 15,000 years old and yet comets are the result of the big bang that supposedly took place "4 Billion" years ago?

Who writes this shit?

[RandomGuy]

HOWARD J. VAN TILL

Professor of Physics and Astronorny
Calvin College Grand Rapids, Michigan



The sun's diameter has been shrinking in such a manner as to preclude the credibility of the standard multibillion-year chronology for terrestrial history. Within the professional scientific community, a preliminary report which suggested a long-term and rapid shrinkage of the sun presented a puzzle for solar astronomers. Consequently, additional studies were made and the credibility of the original data was re-evaluated. The result is that secular shrinkage has not beenPost Flare Loops on the Sun substantiated, but an 80-year oscillatory behavior was discovered.

Within the "creation-science" community, however, the response to the original report has been remarkably different. The suggestion of rapid long-term shrinkage was uncritically accepted, the evidence and conclusions drawn from subsequent studies were generally dismissed, and extrapolations of the presumed rapid solar shrinkage have been performed without restraint. Isolated from the corrective of continuing professional investigation and evaluation, the "creation-science" community continues to employ this unwarranted extrapolation of a discredited report as a scientific evidence" for a young earth. The credibility of the Christian witness to a scientifically knowledgeable world is thereby clouded.

I concur. This does seem to be discredited.

Thank you.

[Blake]

Who writes this shit?

Scientists?

How do you think humans came to be?

[mouse]

that is just one of many articles.

I don't judge people by if they go to church and what God they pray too.

I can only post what researcher's discovered and decide what makes sense.

Most of this is common sense. You can't make a cup of hot coffee and come back 4 years later and expect it to still be hot.

But scientist want you to believe that comets can survive billions of years?


Forget all the websites and cut and paste jobs how about you answer some questions directly?

If the earth is "4 Billion" years old why is the oldest Tree only 20,0000 years old?

[mouse]

that is just one of many articles.

I don't judge people by if they go to church and what God they pray too.

I can only post what researcher's discovered and decide what makes sense.

Most of this is common sense. You can't make a cup of hot coffee and come back 4 years later and expect it to still be hot.

But scientist want you to believe that comets can survive billions of years?


Forget all the websites and cut and paste jobs how about you answer some questions directly?

If the earth is "4 Billion" years old why is the oldest Tree only 20,0000 years old?