Who Believes the Bible Is Literally True?

[scott]

All I will say is this.... if I did reset my odds at every step, the probability is lower not greater (cause that would mean I was always multiplying by a larger number).... so your math is still wrong -- :wakeup

I haven't done any math to be "wrong" - I say that your multipicate effects in each step of your calculation of the odds are wrong. The odds of winning a lottery twice is simply not x^2 of winning it once. Anyway, this is a point that doesn't even matter anymore. I'll retract all my statements about your odds - because no matter who is right (which right here I will concede you are), that doesn't make a difference to my position on the issue.




As I said before, molecular biologists are the ones most likely to embrace ID... your friend is probably the exception but not the rule.

My friend is the exception to what rule? All I said about her was that she believes the evidence for evolution (as a whole theory, not specific to DNA formation or any other specific thing) is getting stronger. Either way, we will just have unverified suspicion about what the majority of microbiologists believe.


Let me put it this way... you allowing or consenting to IDs exposure in the classrooms would be tantamount to accepting your entire belief system, with regards to the belief that a higher power does not exist, was possibly wrong... So in essence, you already embody a great deal of resistance against the ID movement whether you choose to admit it or not.

Says you. I'm not attached to my belief system, I'm attached to a logical and supported explanation of things. I haven't presumed to tell you what you believe, it's probably wise you follow suit. You sure make a lot of faulty assumptions about my (unstated) beliefs.


If you are looking for 'proof' of 'GOD' you won't get it here... His creation is proof enough already and men are still blinded by their pitiful arrogance. All I can offer is evidence suggesting point-zero of evolution, never existed - since no process for the unguided formation of DNA will ever be found... How can I be certain? it goes against the very fundamentals of the scientific principles you boast about. Sure, how about we break the Second Law of Thermodynamics this one bitsy time.... no one will mind... right??. Well IDers, such as myself do.

This topic probably fits on where we discussed earlier that (high school science classrooms) take no position.





turmabar85 exemplified the problem with his post a few posts ago.... and you still don't see this. Many in the scientific community, despite their studies are still not very well versed in the concepts exposed by molecular biology... I don't care what the majority thinks, as long as I have a basis for my doubts on their claims. The hurdles are too great, too massive, too hindering to have allowed the evolutionary model from even commencing as they believe it did.

I'm not concerned with turmabar85 anymore than you are concerned about what the majority thinks. But you are the one trying to get a theory taught in HS science classrooms, and whether you care or not that likely involves getting buy in from the rest of your peers.



And that is your 'GOD-given' perogative. I was never here to change your mind, I was here to show that people on the other side have legitimate concerns to back up their claims. Adieu.

edit: Third ---> Second....

I'm not here to change your mind either - I'm simply expressing why I don't want certain topics taught in public school. Furthermore, I never brought up the topic of ID, I said I don't want religion taught in public school. If all world religions were represented fairly in a context that doesn't promote any of them but rather provides historical context, I'd be okay with it... but I don't think that is remotely possible. At the same time, I've acknowledged that some teachers may teach scientific concepts as "religion" - they shouldn't do that either.

[Phenomanul]

I'm going to let hegamboa off the hook, because I'm impatient...

This has been a test of the Emergency Secularist System... if I had been an actual secularist, I would have waited for hegamboa to suggest that the external source of energy to perform work must be God... to which I would have made the bitingly sardonic suggestion in reply to go outside and look up at the big glowing spherical source of external energy in the sky...

...falling into the use of the Second Law creationist fallacy is not a mistake that a person as smart as hegamboa ought to make... a hostile secularist could destroy his credibility if he caught hold of such an elementary mistake...

...this concludes the test of the Emergency Secularist System...

Sorry, I was busy with work... as I am back at work... :spin

Let me see if I can clear this up for you...

It has been observed that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics can seemingly be 'broken' for larger systems such as stars or galaxies where material from an exploding supernovae can recoalesce to form new planetary nebulas and give rise to order again... The order established in the new system (a few new planets scattered here and there and maybe 20 new stars or so) would still be less than the original order (before the nova)... Sure, the energy balance would take a hit... but small-scale order would nevertheless be established. The principle being that small-scale order can be established at the expense of large-scale disorder.

The example you allude to assumes that if enough solar energy entered a large enough system bounded by an 'imaginary' envelope in 'primitive earth' that then said flux could negate the entropic hurdles posed by a chemical reaction... In essence, the total energy balance would still satisfy the 2nd Law, because the energy bounded by such a large system could then establish small-scale order with the difference... and then create massive disorder around it.

The flaw in said concept when applied to molecular biology is that biomolecular systems require stabilizing forces to prevent deterioration... that is, sufficient energy would have to be channeled to a central location not only to form the highly specialized molecule (DNA in this case), but also to rapidly create the stabilizing environment that would prevent the molecule from breaking apart... There is a reason why we don't observe this phenomena anywhere in the biomolecular world today --- without enzymes that is. The key word here that slips by the minds of many people has been italicized for word stress...


In star systems we rely on gravitational forces to kick-start the 'order-producing' nebulae... Said force is gradient producing in nature (think of a free-body diagram) and inherently able to channel energies into the formation of planetary nebulas or the such... all within the 'boundary' and without the need for additional and external energy sources... that is, flux from outside the system boundary...


Back to your example... Yes, although energy is entering a large scale system, it still needs to be channeled to a focal reaction point (where DNA is being formed) -- bear in mind that the magnitude of the dimensions we are dealing with in regards to the size of DNA are very very small... This is important, because a chemical reaction with such a large entropic hurdle rarely 'sucks' the energy out of its medium in order to proceed -- an energy flux limitation inhibits how fast said energy can be directed at one focal point... that is, the inward gradient (across a spherical boundary immediately surrounding the reaction center) can not exceed the critical thermal conductivity of the medium (water in this case). And because the 'size' of that immediate boundary is small - the critical gradient can be readily approached.

To circumvent this gradient problem one could assume that the solar flux were greater (as this would more evenly distribute the energy and diminish the magnitude of said gradient approach). Unfortunately, the average water temperature would have to rise well above its boiling point... or require that earth's atmospheric pressure be about 25 times greater than it is today... which would not be a valid assumption... so without said pressure credit, an increased flux effect would negate the aqueous phase reaction altogether...

It was then proposed that a concentrated beam of solar energy localized via an atmospherically manifested lightning bolt could produce enough energy to create such a molecule, and not boil the entire system. This seemed to solve the problem since most lightning strikes are somewhat 'random' in nature and do not rely on a guiding force to channel energy toward a specific point. It was afterall a 'chance' path... The next problem that was encountered, however, was dynamic.... A jolt of electricity would require that the constituent species first be created (amino acids, phosphate sugar bases) followed immediately by the reaction the would produce the DNA molecule itself...

Even with the use of 'lightning-like' energy strikes we have never been able to provide either enough energy or enough time to drive both series of reactions forward... If one increases the amperage, more time is needed for the reaction to proceed... but if one reduces it, then there is not enough energy to overcome the entropic hurdle posed by the new set of conditions... on top of that the stabilizing medium would never get a chance to form since the electric currents propagated by a typical lightning strike are the epitome of 'change' and chaos... not stability. It's a very big dilemma.


Based on this premise we have been able to succesfully create 'amino-acids' in laboratories with artificial bolts of electricity only to see them rapidly revert to more stable constituent species... The kinetic perks for the formation of DNA, however, haven't allowed for experiments to create the molecule from scratch. <-- that's not to assume it never would... but there are many kinetic limitations that oppose the formation of DNA without enzymes.

And the fact of the matter is that the premise small-scale order can be established at the expense of large-scale disorder has not been succesfully applied to the creation of DNA. Will it ever? Who knows, but that is why we pursue the answer.


I haven't even touched on the matter of information... an additional level of complexity conveyed by the DNA code itself...

So yes I am using the concept provided by the Second Law to establish the hurdle, but not solely relying on it... instead I am relying on more practical principles to show why the formation of DNA from nothing has been an empty nest for science thusfar.

On a related subject check out the following study... amazing stuff really, if we were to assume that billions of years have acted on the genetic code.

http://www.tiem.utk.edu/~gross/bioed/webmodules/aminoacid.htm

[Cant_Be_Faded]

and perhaps in 10 years we will discovery a quantum physics explanation of how that channellign into biological molecules can work

oh wait, what's the point of furthering in that direction
GOD DID IT
no need to research further

jesus christ how is this thread still going

i wish god hadn't intelligently designed my impatience for religion

[Cant_Be_Faded]

religion is for fags

[Guru of Nothing]

Sorry, I was busy with work... as I am back at work... :spin

Let me see if I can clear this up for you...

It has been observed that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics can seemingly be 'broken' for larger systems such as stars or galaxies where material from an exploding supernovae can recoalesce to form new planetary nebulas and give rise to order again..... The order established (a few new planets scattered here and there and maybe 20 new stars or so) would still be less than the original amount (before the nova)... The energy balance would take a hit... and nevertheless small-scale order would be established. The principle being that small-scale order can be established at the expense of large-scale disorder.

The example you allude to assumes that if enough solar energy entered a large enough system bounded by an 'imaginary' envelope in 'primitive earth' that then said flux could negate the entropic hurdles posed by a reaction... In essence, the total energy balance would still satisfy the 2nd Law, because the energy bounded by such a large system could then establish small-scale order with the difference... and then create massive disorder around it.

The flaw in said concept when applied to molecular biology is that biomolecular systems require stabilizing forces to prevent deterioration... that is, sufficient energy would have to be channeled to a central location not only to form the highly specialized molecule (DNA in this case), but also to rapidly create the stabilizing environment that would prevent the molecule from breaking apart... There is a reason why we don't observe this phenomena anywhere in the biomolecular world today --- without enzymes that is. The key word here that slips by the minds of many people is italicized for word stress...


In star systems we rely on gravitational forces to kick-start the 'order-producing' nebulae... Said force is gradient producing in nature (think of a free-body diagram) and inherently able to channel energies into the formation of planetary nebulas or the such... all within a boundary and without the need for additional and external energy sources... that is, flux from outside the system boundary...


Back to your example... Yes although energy is entering a large scale system, it still needs to be channeled to a focal reaction point (where DNA is being formed) bear in mind the magnitude of the dimensions we are dealing with in regards to the size of DNA... A chemical reaction, with such a large entropic hurdle however, rarely 'sucks' the energy out of its medium in order to proceed due to energy flux limitations. Thus the amount of solar energy required for the gradient problem not to be an issue would require that the average water temperature rise well above its boiling point... but then that would negate the aqueous phase reaction altogether...


It was then proposed that a concentrated beam of solar energy localized via an atmospherically manifested lightning bolt could produce enough energy to create such a molecule, and not boil the entire system. This seemed to solve the problem since most lightning strikes are somewhat 'random' in nature and do not rely on a guiding force to channel energy toward a specific point. It was afterall a 'chance' path... The next problem that was encountered, however, was dynamic.... A jolt of electricity would require that the constituent species first be created (amino acids, phosphate sugar bases) followed by the reaction the produces the DNA molecule itself...


Even with the use of lightning-like energy strikes there is never either enough energy or enough time to get by both reactions... If one increases the amperage, more time is needed for the reaction to proceed... but if one reduces it, then there is not enough energy to overcome the entropic hurdle posed by the new set of conditions... on top of that the stabilizing medium would never get a chance to form since the electric currents propagated by lightning strikes are the epitome of 'change' and chaos... not stability. Its a big dilemma.


Based on this premise we have been able to succesfully create 'amino-acids' in laboratories with artificial bolts of electricity only to see them rapidly revert to more stable constituent species... The kinetic perks for the formation of DNA, however, haven't allowed for experiments to create it from scratch. <-- that's not to assume it never would... but there are many kinetic limitations that oppose the formation of DNA without enzymes. And the fact of the matter is that the premise small-scale order can be established at the expense of large-scale disorder has not been succesfully applied to the creation of DNA. Will it ever? Who knows, but that is why we pursue the answer.


I haven't even touched on the matter of information... an additional level of complexity conveyed by the DNA code itself...

So yes I am using the concept provided by the Second Law to establish the hurdle, but not solely relying on it... instead I am relying on more practical principles to show why the formation of DNA from nothing has been an empty nest for science thusfar.

On a related subject check out the following study... amazing stuff really, if we were to assume that billions of years have acted on the genetic code.



Obviously, God is a merely a concept not intended for the common man in Mississippi.

[Phenomanul]

Obviously, God is a merely a concept not intended for the common man in Mississippi.

Haven't you heard? Humanity was were never meant to 'know' everything about GOD... we were supposed to take him for his Word.

And that's not to say that learning about the world around us was ever discouraged either... but GOD did not intend for us to use His creation as the motive for our disbelief.

sshhhht yeah... of course everybody would believe if he kept killin' folks left and right with fire and brimstone from the skies... but that's not how He chooses operate. He would rather people just place their Faith in Him... it's just too hard for many 'doubting' Thomas's out there...

[Phenomanul]

and perhaps in 10 years we will discovery a quantum physics explanation of how that channellign into biological molecules can work

oh wait, what's the point of furthering in that direction
GOD DID IT
no need to research further

jesus christ how is this thread still going

i wish god hadn't intelligently designed my impatience for religion



religion is for fags

Warning, Warning -- feeble mind at work.

[boutons_]

"we were supposed to take him for his Word."

aka "The Dark Ages", which is what IDers/Creationists want to establish again.

[xrayzebra]

^^Only the regressive liberals have the true word. Just ask boutons. No other word
is allowed. You mustn't offend, well you cant, but they can.

[Phenomanul]

"we were supposed to take him for his Word."

aka "The Dark Ages", which is what IDers/Creationists want to establish again.


No its about a 'Trust' relationship you seem to have no understanding of...

How about you actually try refuting some arguments instead of spewing your typical hateful rant...

[boutons_]

"refuting some arguments"

because your retrograde/smug stance is "I believe, end of argument". aka, "Dark Ages", shutting off all advances in knoweldge.

When do you start PROVING your own stance with hard evidence, rather than folding your arms and saying "I believe, so it's true", rather trying to discredit/preclude the bulk of current scientific EVIDENCE.

The absence of proof, the incomplete, ever-changing scientific grasping at truth is not, therefore, proof that Genesis is how the world came about. That's the core problem with your creationist/IDer stance.

Seeking the truth, ANY TRUTH, IN ANY CONTEXT, BY ANY MEANS, is the nature of man.

Scientificially/rationally seeking the truth is as religious as any legit religion.

But no, narrow-minedd un-Christian "Christians" insist on blind belief and exclusion of non-Christians from salvation.

Rather than trying to resolve and incorporate scientific knowledge and discoveries into your worldview, your worldview is fixed, closed, and wrong.

It's incredible hubris, and lack of true faith and peace with the universe, to say the Bible is absolutely, literally true and the universe/science must be distorted, bent, perverted to fit the your narrow-minded reading of the Bible.

There are "Christian" docents leading school kids around natural history museums saying "when man and dinosaurs lived togther...". GMAFB

[RandomGuy]

Science Confirms the Bible

http://www.livingwaters.com/Merchant2/merchant.mv?Screen=PROD&Product_Code=284


That was good for a laugh, thanks.

[Phenomanul]

"refuting some arguments"

because your retrograde/smug stance is "I believe, end of argument". aka, "Dark Ages", shutting off all advances in knoweldge.

When do you start PROVING your own stance with hard evidence, rather than folding your arms and saying "I believe, so it's true", rather trying to discredit/preclude the bulk of current scientific EVIDENCE.

The absence of proof, the incomplete, ever-changing scientific grasping at truth is not, therefore, proof that Genesis is how the world came about. That's the core problem with your creationist/IDer stance.

Seeking the truth, ANY TRUTH, IN ANY CONTEXT, BY ANY MEANS, is the nature of man.

Scientificially/rationally seeking the truth is as religious as any legit religion.

But no, narrow-minedd un-Christian "Christians" insist on blind belief and exclusion of non-Christians from salvation.

Rather than trying to resolve and incorporate scientific knowledge and discoveries into your worldview, your worldview is fixed, closed, and wrong.

It's incredible hubris, and lack of true faith and peace with the universe, to say the Bible is absolutely, literally true and the universe/science must be distorted, bent, perverted to fit the your narrow-minded reading of the Bible.

There are "Christian" docents leading school kids around natural history museums saying "when man and dinosaurs lived togther...". GMAFB

You go ahead and believe that... I believe what I've studied to be true, and I pursue to study that which remains unanswered. You really have no clue... only hate.

Sure... there is incomplete data.... and many unanswered questions but you seem to ignore that the incompleteness is there for both sides.

I continue studying despite your lies that religion is trying to bring back the 'dark-ages'... In fact I'm not even a proponent of religion the way you see it... I'm a proponent of GOD's Word. True religion is taking care of the hungry, the weak, the poor, widows and orphans. But you never care to see that...

[Cant_Be_Faded]

Warning, Warning -- feeble mind at work.


you're right, we should keep researching more and more in every possible field, so that we may develop more intricate theories on how and why god created reality

[gtownspur]

you're right, we should keep researching more and more in every possible field, so that we may develop more intricate theories on how and why god created reality


No, we should sit around like pious assholes like you and not question our existance.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

religion is for FAGS

[NASpurs]

religion is for FAGSSays the guy going to hell

[Cant_Be_Faded]

LoLL that statement is just as ignorant as mine
thats why religion is for fags

[NASpurs]

You going to hell I saaaaaaaaaaid

What's your fall back plan when you die? You're going to be in your death bed praying for your sins to be repented like a pussy.

[Guru of Nothing]

Haven't you heard? Humanity was were never meant to 'know' everything about GOD... we were supposed to take him for his Word.

And that's not to say that learning about the world around us was ever discouraged either... but GOD did not intend for us to use His creation as the motive for our disbelief.

sshhhht yeah... of course everybody would believe if he kept killin' folks left and right with fire and brimstone from the skies... but that's not how He chooses operate. He would rather people just place their Faith in Him... it's just too hard for many 'doubting' Thomas's out there...

Hello! Thomas doubted Christ; I doubt You. Please don't confuse the two.

My disbelief is rooted in Your words, and others like You, ... moreso than You will ever recognize.

Ponder that.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

You going to hell I saaaaaaaaaaid

What's your fall back plan when you die? You're going to be in your death bed praying for your sins to be repented like a pussy.

Well if that came to pass noone would know about it unless i blogged with my final reserves of energy...energy.....conserved, or not? I guess you can only violate the laws of energy based on faith...

faith....the premise by which you assume i care about hell, afterlife, sins, or death

death....the greatest adventure of all...the undiscovered country...

country....the usa....the usa is mostly christian....christian....these people have done nothing but good for the entire world....world....a world intelligently designed.....design....whoa, i've come full circle!

how foolish of me? This proves god in fact designed (intelligently of course) our entire existence!

I was wrong.
Christians were right.

[NASpurs]

Well if that came to pass noone would know about it unless i blogged with my final reserves of energy...energy.....conserved, or not? I guess you can only violate the laws of energy based on faith...

faith....the premise by which you assume i care about hell, afterlife, sins, or death

death....the greatest adventure of all...the undiscovered country...

country....the usa....the usa is mostly christian....christian....these people have done nothing but good for the entire world....world....a world intelligently designed.....design....whoa, i've come full circle!

how foolish of me? This proves god in fact designed (intelligently of course) our entire existence!

I was wrong.
Christians were right.You go from science to sarcasm at the end. Seems like close minded people like you who belittle religion with your ignorant insults don't even care what we say as long as you get to throw your little jabs at us thinking we're dumbasses because we believe something that you can't see.

I'm not even here to try and argue with you because we all know it's futile. Just don't go saying religion is for fags because those "fags" are probably better people than you I saiiiiid.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

im not arguing with you bro
i respect you, anyone with true faith, and if you were skilled at blogging sarcasm you'd realize i was just playing generic devil's advocate after turambar's post saying how he wished this thread was how it was at the beginning

[NASpurs]

im not arguing with you bro
i respect you, anyone with true faith, and if you were skilled at blogging sarcasm you'd realize i was just playing generic devil's advocate after turambar's post saying how he wished this thread was how it was at the beginning:tu sorry about that then.

[Extra Stout]

LoLL that statement is just as ignorant as mine
thats why religion is for fags
I'm keeping the faith.
Pack lightly for hell.

[Phenomanul]

Hello! Thomas doubted Christ; I doubt You. Please don't confuse the two.

My disbelief is rooted in Your words, and others like You, ... moreso than You will ever recognize.

Ponder that.


What you don't realize is that your disbelief is rooted in your own lack of faith... not anything I have or haven't said.

I'm not accountable for you... you are. How about you ponder that...

[Extra Stout]

For example, Sauls consistent ramblings against women and their involvement in church and society.
See: cultural context. Oracle at Delphi, etc.

[Extra Stout]

im not arguing with you bro
i respect you, anyone with true faith, and if you were skilled at blogging sarcasm you'd realize i was just playing generic devil's advocate after turambar's post saying how he wished this thread was how it was at the beginning
In hell, John Mackovic coaches t.u. every year and can never be fired and UCLA is on the schedule every week.

[Extra Stout]

hegamboa and scott are on fire in this thread. they need to put on NOMEX.

[Phenomanul]

hegamboa and scott are on fire in this thread. they need to put on NOMEX.

ES did I address your questions on the 2nd Law?

I already have NOMEX on... it is my daily attire.

[Extra Stout]

ES did I address your questions on the 2nd Law?
I understand your point, but don't think 2nd Law applies. As long as dS > 0 for the system, 2nd Law is satisfied.

But I would agree that naturalistic science does not have a satisfactory explanation at this time for the fine-tuned structure of DNA.

This "fine-tuning" observation is a recurring theme in other areas of science, for example cosmology.

[Extra Stout]

ES did I address your questions on the 2nd Law?

I already have NOMEX on... it is my daily attire.
I know. I was making a pun about the two oil boys in their deep discussion about molecular biology, theology, and U.S. education policy.

[Phenomanul]

I understand your point, but don't think 2nd Law applies. As long as dS > 0 for the system, 2nd Law is satisfied.

But I would agree that naturalistic science does not have a satisfactory explanation at this time for the fine-tuned structure of DNA.

This "fine-tuning" observation is a recurring theme in other areas of science, for example cosmology.


I understood it was a pun... :spin

The unique and highly amazing DNA molecule is not only the strongest example of 'Intelligent Design'... it is also a thorn on the side for those wishing to create it from scratch and assume that evolution just 'took it from there.'

Again, without DNA, 'evolution' has no subject to work with, nothing to 'mutate' --- simply, it can't begin. Those ignoring the incredible odds against the formation of DNA from an aqueous pool of ammonia, and small organic precursors would not only have to create the molecule, but somehow ensure that the information contained in the original double-strand be of any biological relevance whatsoever... What is the purpose of a code, without a decoder to even translate the code?

Anyways, DNA is the key.

[scott]

hegamboa and scott are on fire in this thread. they need to put on NOMEX.

Given recent events at my company's refineries, which I'm sure hegamboa is acutely aware of at least one of them, that is probably not a bad idea!

[Extra Stout]

CBF needs NOMEX too cos' he is going to Hellllllllll I saiiiidddddd

[Neuromancer]

You can find happiness in slavery.

[Guru of Nothing]

What you don't realize is that your disbelief is rooted in your own lack of faith... not anything I have or haven't said.



You are correct, my disbelief is rooted in my lack of faith; you merely reinforce it.

You win.

[2centsworth]

That was good for a laugh, thanks.
please enlighten us.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

What the fuck is NOMEX? No really, what is it?

I sure hope those of you saying that I am going to hell are being sarcastic.

So I think religion is for flaming fags. Get over it. Why don't you take your own faith to heart and forgive me.

Hypocrites.

[Phenomanul]

What the fuck is NOMEX? No really, what is it?

I sure hope those of you saying that I am going to hell are being sarcastic.

So I think religion is for flaming fags. Get over it. Why don't you take your own faith to heart and forgive me.

Hypocrites.


No one here is mad at you... and we're not the ones who should be forgiving you... you need to seek forgiveness from above.

[Phenomanul]

You are correct, my disbelief is rooted in my lack of faith; you merely reinforce it.

You win.


Quit being so ambiguous... How so?

[smeagol]

What the fuck is NOMEX? Why don't you take your own faith to heart and forgive me.
It's not us who have to forgive you.

[Extra Stout]

What the fuck is NOMEX? No really, what is it?

I sure hope those of you saying that I am going to hell are being sarcastic.

So I think religion is for flaming fags. Get over it. Why don't you take your own faith to heart and forgive me.

Hypocrites.
NOMEX is fire-retardant clothing, which will come in handy in the environment of everlasting fire and brimstone.

Shield your eyes in hell. I understand they have a Jumbotron that shows constant replays of 0.4 and Ginobili's foul on Dirk.

Clearly I am being dead serious.

[Extra Stout]

Repenttttttttt I saaaiiiiiiddddddd

[mikejones99]

Bible is pure fiction like santa and the easter bunny, jesus christ.

[atxrocker]

Bible is pure fiction like santa and the easter bunny, jesus christ.

:tu

[2centsworth]

Bible is pure fiction like santa and the easter bunny, jesus christ.
then explain to me few things:

1. Explain to me the existence of a conscience? If there's no higher power why do we have a sense of right and wrong?

2. Do rapist, murders, child molestors, and thieves who get away with their crimes on earth ever pay for their transgressions? If not, why do most people feel like they do? Is it because like the bible says we are created in God's image and the bible says violators of the law will pay the price?

[Cant_Be_Faded]

rofl


Ya'll call me ignorant, and damned because I said religion is for Fags, and now I am supposed to say I am sorry and ask for the christian God to forgive me?

How will I ever know when he forgives me? Will he intelligently design a thought inside my brain that makes me know I am forgiven?

[turambar85]

I don't know if this has been brought up, so forgive me if I am mistaken.

Some people believe that the entire Bible, word for word, has meaning in todays society and is to be taken literally. I will ignore those who believe the Old Testament is literal because that has been proven wrong so many times it would be a waste of time.

In Colassions 4:1, the new testament, you can find this verse.

-"Masters, provide your slaves with what is right and fair, because you know that you also have a Master in heaven."

This is talking to Christians, it implies that it is morally acceptable for Christians to own slaves. How, then, can people use Pauls new testament verses on womens right as fact??

This is clearly talking directly to people in that time period, and has no place in our society. If this is true, then perhaps more of the Bible isn't meant to be taken literally, or used in todays society.

[turambar85]

Also, this is found in Titus 2:9

-"Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them"

[2centsworth]

I don't know if this has been brought up, so forgive me if I am mistaken.

Some people believe that the entire Bible, word for word, has meaning in todays society and is to be taken literally. I will ignore those who believe the Old Testament is literal because that has been proven wrong so many times it would be a waste of time.

In Colassions 4:1, the new testament, you can find this verse.

-"Masters, provide your slaves with what is right and fair, because you know that you also have a Master in heaven."

This is talking to Christians, it implies that it is morally acceptable for Christians to own slaves. How, then, can people use Pauls new testament verses on womens right as fact??

This is clearly talking directly to people in that time period, and has no place in our society. If this is true, then perhaps more of the Bible isn't meant to be taken literally, or used in todays society.

It's not talking about "slavery". It refers to the employer employee relationship.

Please cite verses on Paul and Womens rights.

[turambar85]

What is your grounds of proof for this claim. That and the other verse seem to explicitly speak of slavery, they even use the term.

[turambar85]

As for the verses on womens rights, they will have to wait until I see my fiancee later. I am no biblical scholar, and she was the one who brought them to my attention a few months ago.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

there were slaves in the OT, anyone who has read it knows this
but there will always be hardcore faux christians who construe the bible in any way they see fit

its like trying to make muslims believe in the christian god
but different

[turambar85]

There were slaves in the NT as well, and 2cents, I looked in the back index of my bible, and it talks, very plainly about slavery, cementing my view that this is, in fact, actual slavery.

How can it say slavery, and speak of slavery, but you refuse to believe it is slavery.

[jochhejaam]

How will I ever know when he forgives me? Will he intelligently design a thought inside my brain that makes me know I am forgiven?
God reacts to genuine, heartfelt communion from his creation. If you ask in that manner what you experience will be more than a thought.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

So you believe god created me?

[jochhejaam]

So you believe god created me?
Okay CBF, I'll play...for now. Yes. :)

[Cant_Be_Faded]

all i am trying to prove is that the muslim god is the one true god, and it is us americans going to live in hell for eternity, while they fuck harems beautiful tanned full breasted virgins for eons at a time
:smokin

[Cant_Be_Faded]

god is dead and noone cares

if there is a hell, i'll see you there

[smeagol]

god is dead and noone cares

if there is a hell, i'll see you there
I pray to God you are wrong on this one.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

The Real Wrold, unattainable for the moment, but promised to the wise, the pious, the virtuous man ('to the sinner who repents')
---(Progress of the idea: it grows more refined, more enticing, more incomprehensible -- it becomes a woman, it becomes Christian...)

--Nietzsche

(bolded by CBF)

[Cant_Be_Faded]

I pray to God you are wrong on this one.


that post was Reznor

[jochhejaam]

god is dead and noone cares

if there is a hell, i'll see you there
Here's another one you might like.
"I swear there ain't no heaven but I pray there ain't no hell".

-Blood, Sweat and Tears- (And When I Die)

[Extra Stout]

Re: slavery cf: Philemon

The NT has numerous instances of general moral teaching applied to specific social situations which may not occur in a different society, like slavery, or the whole women's hair thing in Corinth.

And then there was the whole Oracle at Delphi problem, which turned early church services into a mix between Benny Hinn, the Jerry Springer Show, and the oxygen network.

Now if your church sounds like a mix between Benny Hinn, the Jerry Springer Show, and the oxygen network, you would do well to follow Paul's specific guidance to the women at the church of Corinth pretty closely. Otherwise, keep the cultural context in mind, and focus on the general moral principles being communicated.

[Extra Stout]

all i am trying to prove is that the muslim god is the one true god, and it is us americans going to live in hell for eternity, while they fuck harems beautiful tanned full breasted virgins for eons at a time
:smokin
If you convert to Islam now, you're safe from terrorists

You could change your name to Mahmoud Cant Be al-Faded.

[Extra Stout]

then explain to me few things:

1. Explain to me the existence of a conscience? If there's no higher power why do we have a sense of right and wrong?

2. Do rapist, murders, child molestors, and thieves who get away with their crimes on earth ever pay for their transgressions? If not, why do most people feel like they do? Is it because like the bible says we are created in God's image and the bible says violators of the law will pay the price?
Are you seriously debating the same guy who said 94% of all woman are prostitutes, and who follows the Gospel according to Tom Leykis?

[Cant_Be_Faded]

If you convert to Islam now, you're safe from terrorists

You could change your name to Mahmoud Cant Be al-Faded.



now that was moderatly funny :smokin

instead of accusing me for not beleiving in an unproven ideal, how about you make your fellow man laugh?

that causes more immediate good than does forcing an unprovable ideal upon another
doesn't it?
and i can't imagine any 300 year wars going on because you're making someone laugh :smoking

-cbf

[Extra Stout]

now that was moderatly funny :smokin

instead of accusing me for not beleiving in an unproven ideal, how about you make your fellow man laugh?

that causes more immediate good than does forcing an unprovable ideal upon another
doesn't it?
and i can't imagine any 300 year wars going on because you're making someone laugh :smoking

-cbf
Well if we can't go to war over religion then there's always oil

[Extra Stout]

Although if you repent now, I hear that in heaven Vince Young never graduates and Matt Leinart has that stunned hurt puppy visage for all eternity.

[Phenomanul]

god is dead and noone cares

if there is a hell, i'll see you there


I might have said this before... but think about this comment:

Not one athiest resides in hell.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

If you convert to Islam now, you're safe from terrorists

You could change your name to Mahmoud Cant Be al-Faded.
:lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao

[Oscar DeLa]

I don't know what it is but this is the same hememegogaba who has 3 degrees from MIT, but doesn't believe in evolution!


AND extra stout isn't funny at all, he's a poor mans clandestino, posing as vashner!

[Phenomanul]

I don't know what it is but this is the same hememegogaba who has 3 degrees from MIT, but doesn't believe in evolution!


AND extra stout isn't funny at all, he's a poor mans clandestino, posing as vashner!


I don't know what it is but you should really consider retirement... for good.

And FYI I happen to believe GOD guides evolutionary shifts to preserve His Creation as He sees fit.... it's not some random unguided process... nor can it be proven as such.

[Extra Stout]

I don't know what it is but this is the same hememegogaba who has 3 degrees from MIT, but doesn't believe in evolution!


AND extra stout isn't funny at all, he's a poor mans clandestino, posing as vashner!
I don't know what it is but your knowledge of classic 1960's British comedy is sorely lacking.

[Winnipeg_Spur]

And FYI I happen to believe GOD guides evolutionary shifts to preserve His Creation as He sees fit.... it's not some random unguided process... nor can it be proven as such.
That's like saying you don't believe in gravity, it's just GOD guiding things towards the ground as he sees fit. You wouldn't be able to prove that one way or the other either...

[Extra Stout]

That's like saying you don't believe in gravity, it's just GOD guiding things towards the ground as he sees fit. You wouldn't be able to prove that one way or the other either...
Well when you get down to it, the existence of God can't be proven or disproven deductively. Each person just has to look at the evidence and inductively make a decision for themselves.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Well when you get down to it, the existence of God can't be proven or disproven deductively. Each person just has to look at the evidence and inductively make a decision for themselves.
First and last post in this thread.

I've browsed plenty of times here and read what you all have to say.
Extra Stout hit the nail on the head with this post.
And it makes me wonder: If everyone is making this decision for themselves, why do they feel the need to argue their side and try and sway others to believe what they believe?

[jochhejaam]

First and last post in this thread.

I've browsed plenty of times here and read what you all have to say.
Extra Stout hit the nail on the head with this post.
And it makes me wonder: If everyone is making this decision for themselves, why do they feel the need to argue their side and try and sway others to believe what they believe?

Why to you feel the need to sway us into believing that Stout has hit the nail on the head? Why not let us look at the evidence and inductively come to a conclusion for ourselves?



Believing in the Bible means something differently to many of us and that doesn't make differing opinions wrong. Some believe it literally, some believe it's the inspired Word of God, other believe that it's the inspired Word of God but also believe that taking it literally in it's entirety may be taking some things out of context.

In most threads in this forum you'll find an exchange of information in order that we might compel others to believe something is true or at times to reinforce what we believe to be true. That evidence is not a hinderance to believing what Stout stated in his last post it's something he himself has asked us to entertain before coming to what is a personal decision regarding this matter.


Whatever the case may be in order for us to come to an intelligent conclusion for ourselves about something it's imperative that we are given the opportunity to throughly examine evidence.


Mark 15: 15 He said to them, "Go into all the world, and preach the Good News to the whole creation.

16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who disbelieves will be condemned.

This attempt to sway is referred to as "The Great Commission" Spicoli. This Commission has eternal ramifications and believers are compelled and required to provide information clearly and evidentially in the hope that others might receive and believe the gift of life that God intend for all to partake in.

And yes, Stout hit the nail on the head.

[smeagol]

I don't know what it is but this is the same hememegogaba who has 3 degrees from MIT, but doesn't believe in evolution!


AND extra stout isn't funny at all, he's a poor mans clandestino, posing as vashner!
I don't know what it is but this is the same immature idiot who spam the forum with gay porn a couple of months ago.

Stick to posting in the club.

[George W Bush]

I don't know what it is but this is the same immature idiot who spam the forum with gay porn a couple of months ago.

Stick to posting in the club.

Now, that ain't Christ-like.

Ahh, who am I to talk?

Continue....


And God Bless america :tu

[Phenomanul]

That's like saying you don't believe in gravity, it's just GOD guiding things towards the ground as he sees fit. You wouldn't be able to prove that one way or the other either...


There are mathematical expressions for the 'Law of Gravity'... that yield empirical answers... why would I even question that? Oddly enough the smallest forces are the ones least understood; they also are some of the strongest forces in the quantum universe... appropriately named the 'Strong' and 'Weak' forces respectively... And I believe those two forces exist despite the fact that they can't be quantified to the same extent as gravity.

I also don't question true evolutionary evidence... fossils found here or there, or the existence of very similar animals who we have chosen to classify as distinct species when perhaps by a 'better' definition of the term they are the same 'kind' of animal... I question the fact that most people believe evolution to be an 'unguided' and 'random' process when the data doesn't show that. I also question the fact that the incipient point of said model never gets the scrutiny it deserves... In essence my definition for 'evolution' is not the mainstream definition... Which is why when entering discussions about the subject I'll come out and say I don't believe in evolution.... I will instead say that the data proves adaptive speciation... but not evolution in it's mainstream form.

[DarkReign]

It's not talking about "slavery". It refers to the employer employee relationship.

Please cite verses on Paul and Womens rights.

:lmao

Youre awesome.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

There are mathematical expressions for the 'Law of Gravity'... that yield empirical answers... why would I even question that?


Maybe because at base level mathematics only exists in the human minds and has no effect or consequence to anything other than humans? Why does your belief in the christian god allow you to submit to mathematics?


Oddly enough the smallest forces are the ones least understood; they also are some of the strongest forces in the quantum universe... appropriately named the 'Strong' and 'Weak' forces respectively... And I believe those two forces exist despite the fact that they can't be quantified to the same extent as gravity.


That's a pretty bold belief right there. Talk about stepping into the unknown.


I also don't question true evolutionary evidence... fossils found here or there, or the existence of very similar animals who we have chosen to classify as distinct species when perhaps by a 'better' definition of the term they are the same 'kind' of animal... I question the fact that most people believe evolution to be an 'unguided' and 'random' process when the data doesn't show that.
It's funny because drift is only one evolutionary driver. (Oddly enough, the others are supported by--gasp--mathematics!)


I also question the fact that the incipient point of said model never gets the scrutiny it deserves... In essence my definition for 'evolution' is not the mainstream definition... Which is why when entering discussions about the subject I'll come out and say I don't believe in evolution.... I will instead say that the data proves adaptive speciation... but not evolution in it's mainstream form.

So where is the equation defining your christian god?

[Phenomanul]

Maybe because at base level mathematics only exists in the human minds and has no effect or consequence to anything other than humans? Why does your belief in the christian god allow you to submit to mathematics?


GOD said,

"http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g138/hegamboa/f55d633cebc6b163a04cbe67b23cb479.png
http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g138/hegamboa/e8ba21f67031ad550ccba945b15cfc4e.png
http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g138/hegamboa/d8800d6e8dda7092a585bb86ac62c4fe.png
http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g138/hegamboa/7c580308a98589fe8c9caf8807518a9d.png"

AND THERE WAS LIGHT!!!

BTW you are mistaken that math only has consequence to humans... Dolphins, and some primates can add and subtract... Most octopus species can count... shoot, even my dog can count.




That's a pretty bold belief right there. Talk about stepping into the unknown.

I believe in those forces, cause without them, atoms of every element not named hydrogen could not exist. The repelling forces between the protons in the nucleus of said atoms would split the atom apart. Instead they are bound by a 'strong force' which allows said nucleus to even exist. 'Gluons' or 'pions' whatever the latest term may be for the force particles are about as hard to quantify as the 'gravitons'...

And yet I believe.



It's funny because drift is only one evolutionary driver. (Oddly enough, the others are supported by--gasp--mathematics!)

The driver is natural selection... the problem with sole focus on said concept is that it doesn't allow for changes to have come from within the species' own genotype. That is, if I have a blond-haired baby... maybe just, maybe that gene was always dormant in my generational history... but nevertheless there... I didn't have mutate to allow that gene to be expressed...

The same can be true of any change we observe today... no one can prove it however without hundreds of generational samples to compare the FULL and complete genomes of the species in question. Just some outside the box thinking... which has stumped many evolutionary proponents....

Changes from within, from a vast wealth of genetic content instead of relying on externally applied mutations -- to drift.


BTW weren't you the one willing to accept infintessimal odds for the fabrication of a simple 200-part system representing a single stranded DNA molecule? There is your math...



So where is the equation defining your christian god?

Look around you.

[Mr. Peabody]

then explain to me few things:

1. Explain to me the existence of a conscience? If there's no higher power why do we have a sense of right and wrong??

We have a sense of right and wrong because it is taught to us. I don't know that we are born knowing "right and wrong." Our only inherent system of morality is probably rooted in protecting ourselves and our family.


2. Do rapist, murders, child molestors, and thieves who get away with their crimes on earth ever pay for their transgressions? If not, why do most people feel like they do? Is it because like the bible says we are created in God's image and the bible says violators of the law will pay the price?

Maybe it's our way of coping with the unfortunate reality that some people do get away with murder. And again, we are taught that people will be punished in the afterlife, it is not innate in us.

[2centsworth]

We have a sense of right and wrong because it is taught to us. I don't know that we are born knowing "right and wrong." Our only inherent system of morality is probably rooted in protecting ourselves and our family.
So if someone has been isolated from the world and they murder someone is that enough reason to set that person free? Do we still expect that person to know that murder is wrong even though no one has ever told them?



Maybe it's our way of coping with the unfortunate reality that some people do get away with murder. And again, we are taught that people will be punished in the afterlife, it is not innate in us.
maybe it's because we are created in the image of God and we innately know that there's eternal punishment.

[scott]

BTW weren't you the one willing to accept infintessimal odds for the fabrication of a simple 200-part system representing a single stranded DNA molecule? There is your math...

When you are delt a hand in bridge, do you accept that it was given to you by an unguided process, or do you assume there was some intelligent cause for that specific bridge hand to make it's way to you (which would be cheating)?

There are 635 billion possible bridge hands, and that's just one tiny deck of cards.

Whatever your odds are (I'll defer to yours to avoid that arguement) another critical flaw of yours is that its a 1:X chance of evolution being "unguided" and a X - 1:X chance in it being "guided" - or so that appears to be your arguement.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

hegamboa the bottom line is you depend on science when it suits your argument and refute science when it goes against your argument.


You can fill your posts with overly long winded explanations of fundamental quantum physics, but most of us can see right through it.


LAME

[Phenomanul]

When you are delt a hand in bridge, do you accept that it was given to you by an unguided process, or do you assume there was some intelligent cause for that specific bridge hand to make it's way to you (which would be cheating)?

There are 635 billion possible bridge hands, and that's just one tiny deck of cards.

This coming from the guy who doesn't know the difference between the factorial operand (!) and the power operand (^)....

Your last post accused me of multiplying with a power sign... which was laughable, but I wasn't going to bicker about it considering you had just stated that you would concede on that point.

The ^ sign was never used as an operand, it was only present in the answer.... as in; "the odds of creating a 200 part system is 10^-287 or whatever that infintessimally small number was...." After suggesting that numbers smaller than 10^-50 were considered 'zero' by all intents and purposes in any scientific field, CBF nevertheless maintained that those were odds he was willing to accept...

I then suggested that if only 1 person in all of mankind's history had seen GOD and had direct evidence for His existence that those odds would be far greater than the number he was holding on to.

So much for his logic.

But to answer your analogy.... whoever* dealt me the hand that's WHO is responsible.


Whatever your odds are (I'll defer to yours to avoid that arguement) another critical flaw of yours is that its a 1:X chance of evolution being "unguided" and a X - 1:X chance in it being "guided" - or so that appears to be your arguement.

It never boils down to that math; I have a spiritual relationship with GOD that can not be defined by any scientific set of equations. In fact, I've never had to rely on the answer to your 'X-1:X' expression as the sole determinant of my faith. But since my faith itself cannot be quantified on any grounds, much less scientific grounds, why even bring that up?

In anycase the point is simple, you may see it as a flaw, but I ask again, "what concept is erred??" The one where evolution hinges its existence on materials and substances that have no known mechanism for their abiotic creation? Or the one that assumes that no one will care, if said model tries to extrapolate an origin it can't even define -- especially when one considers that the core of the theory's model IS entirely based on random mutations to the genetic code. When did the first mutation occur?? It had to be after DNA was around.... but how did DNA arrive? Few care enough to try and answer this question. The more we study it however, the more and more we are forced to take the Creator for his Word... instead of a liar. It took an act of GOD to kick-start life. And yet people would rather hold on to miserable odds than embrace the Truth.

[Phenomanul]

hegamboa the bottom line is you depend on science when it suits your argument and refute science when it goes against your argument.


You can fill your posts with overly long winded explanations of fundamental quantum physics, but most of us can see right through it.


LAME

I'll keep this short then, since then I know you will read it.


It's not a matter of suiting the argument or not... it is what it is. You just have to try and think outside the box for a sec. Try it.

And the only thing I can see is that you lack the capacity to even question what you are fed. I do. If you did, maybe you would actually 'SEE' the severity of the odds you are willing to live by. Failure to do so?... Now that there would be lame.

[scott]

This coming from the guy who doesn't know the difference between the factorial operand (!) and the power operand (^)....

Your last post accused me of multiplying with a power sign... which was laughable, but I wasn't going to bicker about it considering you had just stated that you would concede on that point.

Link?



But to answer your analogy.... whoever* dealt me the hand that's WHO is responsible.

True, the hands don't "deal themselves" - but the "dealer" of the hand didn't guide the hand to come out the way it did - otherwise that would be cheating. Your holding the dealer responsible is the same as saying some "Intelligent Agent" threw a bunch of stuff out in the universe that randomly came together - which you've already decided for yourself is "impossible".


It never boils down to that math; I have a spiritual relationship with GOD that can not be defined by any scientific set of equations. In fact, I've never had to rely on the answer to your 'X-1:X' expression as the sole determinant of my faith. But since my faith itself cannot be quantified on any grounds, much less scientific grounds, why even bring that up?

Why bring it up... um... because you are the one talking about the improbability of "whatever" being evidence that "opposite of whatever" is true.


In anycase the point is simple, you may see it as a flaw, but I ask again, "what concept is erred??" The one where evolution hinges its existence on materials and substances that have no known mechanism for their abiotic creation? Or the one that assumes that no one will care, if said model tries to extrapolate an origin it can't even define -- especially when one considers that the core of the theory's model IS entirely based on random mutations to the genetic code. When did the first mutation occur?? It had to be after DNA was around.... but how did DNA arrive? Few care enough to try and answer this question.

I've taken a rather ambivalent approach to the topic, if you've been paying attention. My only position has been not to present religion in schools - which you have a huge problem with (fortunately the Constitution is on my side on this one).


The more we study it however, the more and more we are forced to take the Creator for his Word... instead of a liar. It took an act of GOD to kick-start life. And yet people would rather hold on to miserable odds than embrace the Truth.

Whoever "we" is, good for them.

It seems that for you to feel like a good Christian, you need an enemy, someone to take the opposite position so you can beat your chest and show off your Evangelism. When people don't take opposite positions, but rather positions that are open to both your side and an opposing side, you just assume they are your enemy anyway. Good job.

[Phenomanul]

Link?

Here it is from post #513


I haven't done any math to be "wrong" - I say that your multipicate effects in each step of your calculation of the odds are wrong. The odds of winning a lottery twice is simply not x^2 of winning it once. Anyway, this is a point that doesn't even matter anymore. I'll retract all my statements about your odds - because no matter who is right (which right here I will concede you are), that doesn't make a difference to my position on the issue.


Why bring it up... um... because you are the one talking about the improbability of "whatever" being evidence that "opposite of whatever" is true.

It's truly sad that this is the only way you can see it. Again, you seek proof of GOD's existence and I can't give you that.




True, the hands don't "deal themselves" - but the "dealer" of the hand didn't guide the hand to come out the way it did - otherwise that would be cheating. Your holding the dealer responsible is the same as saying some "Intelligent Agent" threw a bunch of stuff out in the universe that randomly came together - which you've already decided for yourself is "impossible".



You're the one assuming the dealer doesn't exist... not me.

And I won't even touch the rest of your last post... just a bunch of opinions.

[scott]

Here it is from post #513

Don't see where I accused you of multiplying with a power sign.

Best wishes to you.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

I'll keep this short then, since then I know you will read it.


It's not a matter of suiting the argument or not... it is what it is. You just have to try and think outside the box for a sec. Try it.

And the only thing I can see is that you lack the capacity to even question what you are fed. I do. If you did, maybe you would actually 'SEE' the severity of the odds you are willing to live by. Failure to do so?... Now that there would be lame.



So saying the christian god intelligently designed our seemingly complex universe is "thinking outside the box"? :smchode: ERRORRRR ERRORRRRR

[Cant_Be_Faded]

At what point do we say god is dead? When that evil science finally yields "proof" (such a nebulous word) of how DNA molecules were formed?

You know, I know, every christian and anti christian knows what will happen. That "proof" will not be conclusive enough, and you'll just stick to your stupid argument further. Well that isn't as concrete as my christian god designing this universe!!!

Its a never ending struggle against progress and regress and throwing god into any logical discussion is something that has lead our collective intelligence in circles for what, how many millenia now?

[Guru of Nothing]

Does Intelligent Design attempt to address the afterlife?

[Phenomanul]

Don't see where I accused you of multiplying with a power sign.

hmmm...



I haven't done any math to be "wrong" - I say that your multipicate effects in each step of your calculation of the odds are wrong. The odds of winning a lottery twice is simply not x^2 of winning it once. Anyway, this is a point that doesn't even matter anymore. I'll retract all my statements about your odds - because no matter who is right (which right here I will concede you are), that doesn't make a difference to my position on the issue.

My calculation was never based off of that operation.


Best wishes to you.

Likewise :fro

[Phenomanul]

Does Intelligent Design attempt to address the afterlife?

No, that is purely a spirtitual belief... or what science would like to term as pertaining to the metaphysical realm...

[SA210]

At what point do we say god is dead? When that evil science finally yields "proof" (such a nebulous word) of how DNA molecules were formed?

You know, I know, every christian and anti christian knows what will happen. That "proof" will not be conclusive enough, and you'll just stick to your stupid argument further. Well that isn't as concrete as my christian god designing this universe!!!

Its a never ending struggle against progress and regress and throwing god into any logical discussion is something that has lead our collective intelligence in circles for what, how many millenia now?
Actually, I think the problem is that a huge majority of people who use "God" and "religion" are actually not "true" Christians.

People who get angry and hurt over that comment can steam all they want, but they may know this to be true deep inside even though they would not admit it out loud, or maybe they would notice it if they took a moment and analyzed who they really are..

So, the majority use "God" and "religion" in the wrong way, and it gives the small minority of "true" Christians a bad name and thrown into the group that many people hate and criticize.

Kind of like Bush lying that he is Christian, but yet lives an ani-Christian like life, completely. But people will look at Bush and think he really represents Christians and what Christians believe. That couldn't be further from the truth.

Not to throw Politics in this, but honestly, that's one of the big reasons people hate so called, "Christians" or "religion", because of liars like the Republican party who would like you to believe that they are the Christian party. And "religions" across the world that claim they worship God, but yet terrorize.

It sends the wrong message and confusion, and of course, that's what the Satan would want.

Believe me, I know you have your beliefs, but I only ask that you not think that this is what "true" Christians really are. They are not like that in any way, shape, or form and they do not support war. In fact, I believe it is very rare for you to have known a "true" Christian. "True" Christians are no part of this world.

That is all.

[Extra Stout]

At what point do we say god is dead? When that evil science finally yields "proof" (such a nebulous word) of how DNA molecules were formed?

You know, I know, every christian and anti christian knows what will happen. That "proof" will not be conclusive enough, and you'll just stick to your stupid argument further. Well that isn't as concrete as my christian god designing this universe!!!

Its a never ending struggle against progress and regress and throwing god into any logical discussion is something that has lead our collective intelligence in circles for what, how many millenia now?
You have succinctly stated the "god of the gaps" fallacy. This happens when one points out something science cannot explain and declares that God must have done it.

Of course there was some mechanism by which DNA molecules were formed. I don't think even hegamboa buys that God just went POOF! and hey, look, DNA. The question is whether it is more plausible to think that such a mechanism occured randomly, or that it was guided.

[Phenomanul]

At what point do we say god is dead? When that evil science finally yields "proof" (such a nebulous word) of how DNA molecules were formed?

You know, I know, every christian and anti christian knows what will happen. That "proof" will not be conclusive enough, and you'll just stick to your stupid argument further. Well that isn't as concrete as my christian god designing this universe!!!

Its a never ending struggle against progress and regress and throwing god into any logical discussion is something that has lead our collective intelligence in circles for what, how many millenia now?


Right... :rolleyes because people like me impede the progress of science.... get a clue. Go back and read the thread again.

Science is at a standstill will regards to that 'elusive' proof not because people like me are preventing them from getting it... Science simply can't find it...

First of all, no one can go back in time to even know what earth's primitive environment was made of... we can only make a best-educated guess, and for now that is as good as any in attempting to define the starting point... If we then assume that amino acids are precursors to DNA we have to find mechanisms that can build amino acids from even smaller organic precursors such as formaldehyde, methanol, thiols, etc... You then would have to find abiotic means of propeling said reactions... and that's where the train comes to a halt. The envelope required for the entropy of said reaction sets to be satisfied would be so large that nothing else in the natural world would even come close. That's not to say that the creation of amino acids is impossible as even we have created them in a laboratory... the only problem there, is that we interfere excessively in a process that was supposed to occur without any interference or manipulation....

I'll make an analogy for the creation of DNA....
It's like wishing for a bowling ball at the bottom of a 1000-ft hill to suddenly find itself at the top of the hill without assistance. You could let millions of years pass by but the ball would never do that or 'want' to do that on its own. Sure, someone can guide it up there; but then that would be interefering... and that is exactly what we pass off for the creation of amino acids....

Of course, science never counted on the fact that the "ball becomes extremely heavier" the closer you take it to the apex of the hill, and that once there, it immediately wants to roll down again. Rather than allowing the ball to roll down the hill and negate all the work it took to get it there we fix the environment so that everything around the ball is also at 1000-ft... now the ball can't or 'won't' feel the urge to roll down... after all, that is what we do in the laboratory with a purification step...

At this point, we then hope that 100 other bowling balls that made it to this point can all reach the pinnacle of a separate 15,000 ft mountain and create a bigger ball while doing so (this one representing DNA) -- again, unassisted. Can you see the hurdles???

People like me did not place those chemical hurdles there... they were always there. And I'm not assuming Science didn't know about them either... they just know that the average Joe Moe doesn't care enough about these itsy-bitsy details.... conveniently though -- even while peer reviewed -- these methods are passed off as representing the 'genesis of life' reactions... but 'I can see right through their methods' and am not easily fooled.

People like me point to the fact that the 'most widely accepted' theory on nature cannot begin until said hurdles are overcome. Ignoring that would be dismissive of science and not the other way around.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

Right... :rolleyes because people like me impede the progress of science.... get a clue. Go back and read the thread again.

Science is at a standstill will regards to that 'elusive' proof not because people like me are preventing them from getting it... Science simply can't find it...

First of all, no one can go back in time to even know what earth's primitive environment was made of... we can only make a best-educated guess, and for now that is as good as any in attempting to define the starting point... If we then assume that amino acids are precursors to DNA we have to find mechanisms that can build amino acids from even smaller organic precursors such as formaldehyde, methanol, thiols, etc... You then would have to find abiotic means of propeling said reactions... and that's where the train comes to a halt. The envelope required for the entropy of said reaction sets to be satisfied would be so large that nothing else in the natural world would even come close. That's not to say that the creation of amino acids is impossible as even we have created them in a laboratory... the only problem there, is that we interfere excessively in a process that was supposed to occur without any interference or manipulation....

I'll make an analogy for the creation of DNA....
It's like wishing for a bowling ball at the bottom of a 1000-ft hill to suddenly find itself at the top of the hill without assistance. You could let millions of years pass by but the ball would never do that or 'want' to do that on its own. Sure, someone can guide it up there; but then that would be interefering... and that is exactly what we pass off for the creation of amino acids....

Of course, science never counted on the fact that the "ball becomes extremely heavier" the closer you take it to the apex of the hill, and that once there, it immediately wants to roll down again. Rather than allowing the ball to roll down the hill and negate all the work it took to get it there we fix the environment so that everything around the ball is also at 1000-ft... now the ball can't or 'won't' feel the urge to roll down... after all, that is what we do in the laboratory with a purification step...

At this point, we then hope that 100 other bowling balls that made it to this point can all reach the pinnacle of a separate 15,000 ft mountain and create a bigger ball while doing so (this one representing DNA) -- again, unassisted. Can you see the hurdles???

People like me did not place those chemical hurdles there... they were always there. And I'm not assuming Science didn't know about them either... they just know that the average Joe Moe doesn't care enough about these itsy-bitsy details.... conveniently though -- even while peer reviewed -- these methods are passed off as representing the 'genesis of life' reactions... but 'I can see right through their methods' and am not easily fooled.

People like me point to the fact that the 'most widely accepted' theory on nature cannot begin until said hurdles are overcome. Ignoring that would be dismissive of science and not the other way around.

So the most educated of all guesses HAS to coincidentally be the first of all guesses as well:

GOD
DID
IT!

brilliant!

my mind is at ease now


btw your analogies are flawed in that they rely on laws of the old physics, while you yourself mentioned quantum physics to (somehow) bolster your argument, another case of using science to your advantage one sentence, then fagbashing it the next.

Didn't I already call you out for that? Surely someone as well versed in the new physics as yourself realizes the feebleness of your analogies?

[Phenomanul]

So the most educated of all guesses HAS to coincidentally be the first of all guesses as well:

GOD
DID
IT!

brilliant!

my mind is at ease now

I'm not trying to convince you that GOD exists... that only happens at a spiritual level.

BTW re-read the post... you clearly have comprehension deficiencies... That is the best guess man can make... science and all...




btw your analogies are flawed in that they rely on laws of the old physics, while you yourself mentioned quantum physics to (somehow) bolster your argument, another case of using science to your advantage one sentence, then fagbashing it the next.

Didn't I already call you out for that? Surely someone as well versed in the new physics as yourself realizes the feebleness of your analogies?

Old physics??? you mean classical mechanics?? Ummm dude. Those concepts still apply.

Call me out all you want, it doesn't faze me out.... particularly because you are doing it without much substance to begin with. Feebleness... Please... :rolleyes

[DarkReign]

Just stop CBF, faith does not conform to reason.

The sole purpose I entered this thread was to prove the inherent aloofness and righteous superiority these zealots feel being emboldened by their popularity. They are ignorant and arrogant and believe that some divine (ie 'good guy') force guides them.

Dangerous individuals. More dangerous than some terrorist holed up in a mountain on a dialesis machine.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

I'm not trying to convince you that GOD exists... that only happens at a spiritual level.

BTW re-read the post... you clearly have comprehension deficiencies... That is the best guess man can make... science and all...



Old physics??? you mean classical mechanics?? Ummm dude. Those concepts still apply.

Call me out all you want, it doesn't faze me out.... particularly because you are doing it without much substance to begin with. Feebleness... Please... :rolleyes



rOFLROFLROFLROFL

LOLOL

Dude
your true knowledge of the new physics reveals itself

[Cant_Be_Faded]

Just stop CBF, faith does not conform to reason.

The sole purpose I entered this thread was to prove the inherent aloofness and righteous superiority these zealots feel being emboldened by their popularity. They are ignorant and arrogant and believe that some divine (ie 'good guy') force guides them.

Dangerous individuals. More dangerous than some terrorist holed up in a mountain on a dialesis machine.


yeah fuck this thread

i only trolled it to sidetrack it, but it is fun too

we should all just go to www.youtube.com and look at tool concert videos

[Phenomanul]

Just stop CBF, faith does not conform to reason.

The sole purpose I entered this thread was to prove the inherent aloofness and righteous superiority these zealots feel being emboldened by their popularity. They are ignorant and arrogant and believe that some divine (ie 'good guy') force guides them.

Dangerous individuals. More dangerous than some terrorist holed up in a mountain on a dialesis machine.

People's Exhibit-A on Hypocrisy....

[Cant_Be_Faded]

hegamboa you said im not leaning on much substance but you made analogies based on laws of classical physics, which, (based on new scientific breakthrough you oh so eagerly want to embrace) all but tells us what we are sensing with our senses isn't exactly what is "really happening" so I guess you are standing on firm ground there, mr MIT.

[Phenomanul]

rOFLROFLROFLROFL

LOLOL

Dude
your true knowledge of the new physics reveals itself


Your lack of comprehension is now evident... what else is new?? ... your manifest stupity completely revealed... Good one.

Next time when someone asks you to bring an argument with substance, at least try to do it... prove us wrong and show us you are capable of that task...

[Phenomanul]

hegamboa you said im not leaning on much substance but you made analogies based on laws of classical physics, which, (based on new scientific breakthrough you oh so eagerly want to embrace) all but tells us what we are sensing with our senses isn't exactly what is "really happening" so I guess you are standing on firm ground there, mr MIT.


You make no sense whatsoever....

The analogy I made was simple potential energy relationship... as far as I know that is still a valid concept Mr. Mohamed al-faded...

[Cant_Be_Faded]

Next time you support your belief in the christian god, use more analogies based on classical physics

[Cant_Be_Faded]

You make no sense whatsoever....

The analogy I made was simple potential energy relationship... as far as I know that is still a valid concept Mr. Mohamed al-faded...


Which is about as meaningless and useless as feeding a mathematical counting machine some mangoes and mandarin oranges

New physics says all that crap you keep referring to isn't really happening as you say it is
hence
your analogies blow

[Cant_Be_Faded]

An object tends to fall down towards the earth's surface, but we don't know how DNA was created, so GOD did it :smokin

-hegamboa

[Phenomanul]

Next time you support your belief in the christian god, use more analogies based on classical physics


Backpedaling.... CBF ... you couldn't take the heat???

[Phenomanul]

Which is about as meaningless and useless as feeding a mathematical counting machine some mangoes and mandarin oranges

New physics says all that crap you keep referring to isn't really happening as you say it is
hence
your analogies blow


Again, I'm not talking about quantum physics... when I do you'll know about it... a ball on a hill is still a ball on a hill.

Governed by the gravitational force between the mass of two bodies... where the big body is Earth and the little one the ball. Simple really...

[Phenomanul]

An object tends to fall down towards the earth's surface, but we don't know how DNA was created, so GOD did it :smokin

-hegamboa


Your understanding of our world needs more substance....

[Cant_Be_Faded]

Backpedaling.... CBF ... you couldn't take the heat???


no i was being sarcastic

only point im really trying to make is science and religion are different entities and they will never be truely reconciled

it's madness

[Phenomanul]

no i was being sarcastic

only point im really trying to make is science and religion are different entities and they will never be truely reconciled

it's madness

I've said this multiple times...

Science can't prove or disprove the existence of GOD...

Nature can only point to its Creator... and does. Look around you, you actually believe earth's highly varied fauna and flora, the stars in the sky, the weather... earths perfect distance from the sun, our perfect oxygen concentration, earth's protective magnetic shield... just happened to be???

The Bible clearly says 'that men are without excuse' due to the fact that GOD left his 'calling card' on His creation.... that most don't believe is there own perogative... but, we will still be accountable to GOD nonetheless...

Did you ever think about that rhetorical comment I posted earlier? That there are no athiests in hell... did you get it?

[Cant_Be_Faded]

I've said this multiple times...

Science can't prove or disprove the existence of GOD...

exactly, they are seperate and irreconcilable



Nature can only point to its Creator... and does. Look around you, you actually believe earth's highly varied fauna and flora, the stars in the sky, the weather... earths perfect distance from the sun, our perfect oxygen concentration... just happened to be???

heeeere we go, okay everyone, heeeere we go, hegamboa is using science to defend the christian god


The Bible clearly says 'that men are without excuse' due to the fact that GOD left his 'calling card' on His creation.... that most don't believe is there own perogative... but, we will still be accountable to GOD regardless...

heeeeere we go, okay everyone, sit down, relax, heeeere we go, okay hegamboa is teaching us christian doctrine


Did you ever think about that rhetorical comment I posted earlier? That there are no athiests in hell... did you get it?

yes i did, witty on a couple levels, but who cares

[Phenomanul]

exactly, they are seperate and irreconcilable

Which means you really don't know what I'm debating... otherwise your comments would address the concerns and not your own opinions of what you believe I'm trying to propose...


heeeere we go, okay everyone, heeeere we go, hegamboa is using science to defend the christian god

For example, what does "using science to defend the christian god" really mean??? I'm using Creation's perfection to 'defend' GOD.... not science... If 'science' is how you've chosen to classify your world... so be it.. But, you will inherently misunderstand my stance when you take that perspective.


heeeeere we go, okay everyone, sit down, relax, heeeere we go, okay hegamboa is teaching us christian doctrine


You can be eerily paranoid at times... it is only my belief and simply an opinion. Take it as such.



yes i did, witty on a couple levels, but who cares

Just realize you will have no excuse.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

so now all the gloves are off

hegamboa's christian beliefs dictate that i am going to hell too

[Phenomanul]

so now all the gloves are off

hegamboa's christian beliefs dictate that i am going to hell too


I believe it... whether you choose to accept it or not is still only your decision...

[Cant_Be_Faded]

yet my decision has absolutely no consequence in your entire existence due to me being entirely uninfluenced by christian dogma

so, no, i don't have a decision
according to you that is

actually

according to you
i don't even really exist

[Cant_Be_Faded]

for all you know i am a demon or satan himself, simply trying to make you stray from your precious faith

[Phenomanul]

yet my decision has absolutely no consequence in your entire existence due to me being entirely uninfluenced by christian dogma

so, no, i don't have a decision
according to you that is

actually

according to you
i don't even really exist


???????????

How old are you? Are you like 8 years old or something?

[Phenomanul]

for all you know i am a demon or satan himself, simply trying to make you stray from your precious faith

:rolleyes :rolleyes weak.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

I have no choice or mind of my own in your reality.

Because I know I honestly do not believe in your christian god and I think your christian god has been dead for a long time now.

But to you, my final judgement depends on whether I accept your christian god or not.

If I do, I will be spared hell.
If I don't, I will go to hell.

To you, I have no choice. Any rational being would choose heaven over hell.

But to me, Jesus would die of sadness if he saw the state of his religion today, and people who are overzealous (and i stress this word) practicers of this sham faith are no better than the common gutter punk.

Believe what you wanna believe, practice what you wanna practice, but keep it the fuck outta other people's way. When you try to mix your crock belief with science, then you step on way too many toes. Nothing in science says this person or that person will go to "hell" for not beleiving in this or that theory. It's an entirely different sphere from religion. Only idiots and warmongers try to combine them.

Do you actually believe intelligent design will be widely accepted?
Kudos if you do. Ignorance is bliss.

[jochhejaam]

Actually, I think the problem is that a huge majority of people who use "God" and "religion" are actually not "true" Christians.

So, the majority use "God" and "religion" in the wrong way, and it gives the small minority of "true" Christians a bad name and thrown into the group that many people hate and criticize.

Believe me, I know you have your beliefs, but I only ask that you not think that this is what "true" Christians really are. They are not like that in any way, shape, or form and they do not support war. In fact, I believe it is very rare for you to have known a "true" Christian. "True" Christians are no part of this world.

Preach it brother! ...of course you are one of the "true" Christians right?

And SA210, doesn't it just bother you to no end when some who think of themselves as "true Christians" drop F Bombs left and right during Spurs playoff game threads (squirming?) and then act all self righteous in the other forums...?




Moral? Remove the plank from your own eye and then you can see clearly to help your brother remove the splinter from his. There is no perfect man so stop the sanctimonious blathering when people don't agree with your interpretation of God's Word.


For all have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God.

[Phenomanul]

I have no choice or mind of my own in your reality.

Because I know I honestly do not believe in your christian god and I think your christian god has been dead for a long time now.

But to you, my final judgement depends on whether I accept your christian god or not.

If I do, I will be spared hell.
If I don't, I will go to hell.

To you, I have no choice. Any rational being would choose heaven over hell.

But to me, Jesus would die of sadness if he saw the state of his religion today, and people who are overzealous (and i stress this word) practicers of this sham faith are no better than the common gutter punk.

Believe what you wanna believe, practice what you wanna practice, but keep it the fuck outta other people's way. When you try to mix your crock belief with science, then you step on way too many toes. Nothing in science says this person or that person will go to "hell" for not beleiving in this or that theory. It's an entirely different sphere from religion. Only idiots and warmongers try to combine them.

I'm not getting in your life... I've always said you're free to do as you wish...

I know it burns people to know that the creeds of my beliefs denounce what they do... but frankly, that is between them and GOD despite their incredulence.

I don't denounce you... otherwise I would be a judge... which I'm not.
That the Bible denounces people is another thing altogether...

And yes, Jesus would be sad at the state of His church... but not for the reasons you stated.

The path to GOD is narrow, and available to anyone and everyone... it is exclusive however. But that's not me saying it. It is written as such.




Do you actually believe intelligent design will be widely accepted?
Kudos if you do.

NO, nor do I hinge my existence on convincing the world that it does.



Ignorance is bliss.

And can also be a downfall.

[gtownspur]

Can't be Faded,

If GOd doesnt exist, then hegamboa's faith should not cause you to fear eternal damnation.

No one is sending you to hell. Quit playing the victim, and grow up. No one hear has any sympathy for you.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

I'm not getting in your life... I've always said you're free to do as you wish...

but that is my point, i AM NOT free to do as i wish, according to you.
You, stout, other christians have all damned me already for saying god is dead.

If god is not dead, then according to you, the only way to avoid damnation is by accepting his presence and following his dogma.

Yet, any non-insane human being would choose heaven over hell as described by the bible.

So, am I, as a non christian, really free to do what I want, in your mind?

Yes, insofar as I am insane enough to want to suffer eternal hellfire.

But no, insofar as I am a decently sane person.

[Phenomanul]

but that is my point, i AM NOT free to do as i wish, according to you.
You, stout, other christians have all damned me already for saying god is dead.

If god is not dead, then according to you, the only way to avoid damnation is by accepting his presence and following his dogma.

Yet, any non-insane human being would choose heaven over hell as described by the bible.

So, am I, as a non christian, really free to do what I want, in your mind?

Yes, insofar as I am insane enough to want to suffer eternal hellfire.

But no, insofar as I am a decently sane person.

Do what you want. What I believe is irrelevant to what you will do... you know that, I know that. So don't pretend to be traumatized by what I believe.

[Extra Stout]

Which is about as meaningless and useless as feeding a mathematical counting machine some mangoes and mandarin oranges

New physics says all that crap you keep referring to isn't really happening as you say it is
hence
your analogies blow
Quantum mechanics doesn't mean what you think it means.

[Extra Stout]

Believe what you wanna believe, practice what you wanna practice, but keep it the fuck outta other people's way. When you try to mix your crock belief with science, then you step on way too many toes. Nothing in science says this person or that person will go to "hell" for not beleiving in this or that theory. It's an entirely different sphere from religion. Only idiots and warmongers try to combine them.

Do you actually believe intelligent design will be widely accepted?
Kudos if you do. Ignorance is bliss.
I'm a Christian who accepts the theory of evolution. Do I go to Purgatory?

[Extra Stout]

but that is my point, i AM NOT free to do as i wish, according to you.
You, stout, other christians have all damned me already for saying god is dead.

If god is not dead, then according to you, the only way to avoid damnation is by accepting his presence and following his dogma.

Yet, any non-insane human being would choose heaven over hell as described by the bible.

So, am I, as a non christian, really free to do what I want, in your mind?

Yes, insofar as I am insane enough to want to suffer eternal hellfire.

But no, insofar as I am a decently sane person.
If you seriously think I've condemned you, you're either insecure, paranoid, or both. That you take outbursts like "you're going to hell I saaaiiiiddd" or the Monty Python skit so seriously and personally tells me that somewhere this is gnawing at you.

Nobody here has any power or authority to determine your afterlife.

However, it is a clear tenet of Christian doctrine, obviously delineated in the Bible, that any person who hears the gospel of Jesus Christ and rejects it will be separated from God for eternity.

That is not our opinion, that is not our personal judgment of you, that is not some battle cry which we're going to use to smite your throat, but it is the testimony of the Bible which we follow as the written word of God for the practice of our faith.

If you don't believe God exists, if you don't believe the Bible has anything other than anthropological and literary meaning, then none of that should bother you. If none of it is true, probably you should feel sorry for us for following a lie.

[SA210]

Preach it brother! ...of course you are one of the "true" Christians right?

And SA210, doesn't it just bother you to no end when some who think of themselves as "true Christians" drop F Bombs left and right during Spurs playoff game threads (squirming?) and then act all self righteous in the other forums...?




Moral? Remove the plank from your own eye and then you can see clearly to help your brother remove the splinter from his. There is no perfect man so stop the sanctimonious blathering when people don't agree with your interpretation of God's Word.


For all have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God.

Jocc, I know you too have been guilty at throwing f bombs. Does the "wtf" smilie count, because you've used it. What does it stand for? Confusion yea, but it's an acronym for what exactly?

I'm glad you brought that up. Since that time in the playoff thread when I was emotional, find me throwing an f bomb and even before that in anything close to any regularity in my day to day posts. I'm a student of the Bible and learn more everyday from my mistakes. No squirming here. I can admit to when I act out of character or am rude. Pretty cheap if you ask me.

It's the ones who know they are doing wrong and continue it, and killing and the support of killing is a real bad one, believe Christ on that one.

I can apologize for my actions of using the f word, but I don't know what I would do if I had supported war and killing and lying in which most definitely Christ was against, no matter YOUR interpretation. I'm just very fortunate it wasn't murder to others that's in my heart.

However you continuously support lies and war while knowing the truth deep inside.

I see you took offense to the truth that I wrote and at the same time never denied the fact of what I said. Just because you get mad at me and pull a weak "cursing" card doesn't change that. What I said stands. "True" Christians do not support war and don't do the things that your administration practices.

It's not my interpretation Jocc, The Bible itself tells you not to kill, to make peace with your enemy and to turn the other cheek. There is no way to spin that really with any interpretation. That was Jesus.

Christ that is. :tu

[Cant_Be_Faded]

If you seriously think I've condemned you, you're either insecure, paranoid, or both. That you take outbursts like "you're going to hell I saaaiiiiddd" or the Monty Python skit so seriously and personally tells me that somewhere this is gnawing at you.

Nobody here has any power or authority to determine your afterlife.

However, it is a clear tenet of Christian doctrine, obviously delineated in the Bible, that any person who hears the gospel of Jesus Christ and rejects it will be separated from God for eternity.

That is not our opinion, that is not our personal judgment of you, that is not some battle cry which we're going to use to smite your throat, but it is the testimony of the Bible which we follow as the written word of God for the practice of our faith.

If you don't believe God exists, if you don't believe the Bible has anything other than anthropological and literary meaning, then none of that should bother you. If none of it is true, probably you should feel sorry for us for following a lie.


I dont remmeber what you said at the time, i just thought u told me i was going to hell :lol
But that response was at least coherent; hegamboa you are on notice :nope

[jochhejaam]

[QUOTE]Jocc, I know you too have been guilty at throwing f bombs. Does the "wtf" smilie count, because you've used it. What does it stand for? Confusion yea, but it's an acronym for what exactly?
If you put your cursor on the emoticon it says "smiconfused". If you want to equate that to dropping the F-Bomb that's fine by me.





I'm glad you brought that up.
Yeah, I bet you are. :lol





Since that time in the playoff thread when I was emotional, find me throwing an f bomb and even before that in anything close to any regularity in my day to day posts.
When I get emotional I use the "smiconfused" emoticon. :lol




I'm a student of the Bible and learn more everyday from my mistakes. No squirming here. I can admit to when I act out of character or am rude. Pretty cheap if you ask me. Just because you get mad at me and pull a weak "cursing" card
You admit to acting out of character then label being called on it a cheap shot and become defensive. Way to take it like a man.




What I said stands. "True" Christians do not support war and don't do the things that your administration practices.
It's not my interpretation Jocc, The Bible itself tells you not to kill, to make peace with your enemy and to turn the other cheek. There is no way to spin that really with any interpretation. That was Jesus.
Christ that is.
And we're back to the same sanctimonious drivel that prompted my previous post.

Bottom line, I support the war on terrorism and you don't. We'll leave it at that.

[rascal]

Actually, I think the problem is that a huge majority of people who use "God" and "religion" are actually not "true" Christians.

People who get angry and hurt over that comment can steam all they want, but they may know this to be true deep inside even though they would not admit it out loud, or maybe they would notice it if they took a moment and analyzed who they really are..

So, the majority use "God" and "religion" in the wrong way, and it gives the small minority of "true" Christians a bad name and thrown into the group that many people hate and criticize.

Kind of like Bush lying that he is Christian, but yet lives an ani-Christian like life, completely. But people will look at Bush and think he really represents Christians and what Christians believe. That couldn't be further from the truth.

Not to throw Politics in this, but honestly, that's one of the big reasons people hate so called, "Christians" or "religion", because of liars like the Republican party who would like you to believe that they are the Christian party. And "religions" across the world that claim they worship God, but yet terrorize.

It sends the wrong message and confusion, and of course, that's what the Satan would want.

Believe me, I know you have your beliefs, but I only ask that you not think that this is what "true" Christians really are. They are not like that in any way, shape, or form and they do not support war. In fact, I believe it is very rare for you to have known a "true" Christian. "True" Christians are no part of this world.

That is all.

Wow. Great logic here and insight into the truth. You have the ability to understand the true meaning of life with the complexities that surround and challenge it yet you put it all together anyways.

[Phenomanul]

I dont remmeber what you said at the time, i just thought u told me i was going to hell :lol
But that response was at least coherent; hegamboa you are on notice :nope

A matter of perspectives... I wish you no harm. Never have.

[SA210]

If you put your cursor on the emoticon it says "smiconfused". If you want to equate that to dropping the F-Bomb that's fine by me.
Yeah, I bet you are. :lol
When I get emotional I use the "smiconfused" emoticon. :lol
You admit to acting out of character then label being called on it a cheap shot and become defensive. Way to take it like a man.
And we're back to the same sanctimonious drivel that prompted my previous post. Bottom line, I support the war on terrorism and you don't. We'll leave it at that.
:wtf <<< how would you type that in exactly?

And you did call someone a butthole, :lol

I didn't get defensive by the way, I was simply pointing out that you did, at the truth I posted about "true" Christians. It obviously angered you that someone talked about the hypocrisy within the so called "Christian" right.

Bottom line is, you claim to be Christian, but admit to supporting a war, which by the way, Christ is against. It's sad to hear that you call Jesus' words drivel. That's the Christian spirit.

Peace.

[Gerryatrics]

Hey SA210, are you a prophet? Because you seem to speak for Christ a lot without providing any basis or justification from the Scriptures. Please correct me if I'm wrong, I just don't remember Jesus saying he was opposed to the War in Iraq anywhere in the Bible. It also seems that you are the holder of secret truths, since you and you alone seem fit to judge who are true Christians and who are not. And all based on posts on an internet message board no less. It's comforting to know that there is no need for God's final judgement since you have already separated the Wheat from the Tares.

[SA210]

Hey SA210, are you a prophet? Because you seem to speak for Christ a lot without providing any basis or justification from the Scriptures. Please correct me if I'm wrong, I just don't remember Jesus saying he was opposed to the War in Iraq anywhere in the Bible. It also seems that you are the holder of secret truths, since you and you alone seem fit to judge who are true Christians and who are not. And all based on posts on an internet message board no less. It's comforting to know that there is no need for God's final judgement since you have already separated the Wheat from the Tares.
I''ll repost this to give you some understanding of the difference in the wars of then and now.

In the bible,

God made war with the nations.

This was war by command. Nations were executed in righteous war by God, using the Isrealites. And the Last War will be the same.

Wars of today are Not made by God. We are NOT to start wars, finish them or be associated with them in anyway.

Simple, "You must not kill" . No exceptions. You can read I and II Kings and I and II Samuel to see the difference.
----------------------------------------------------------

Now is different.

Paul in Romans:
17 Do not repay anyone evil for evil... not "an eye for an eye", but "turn the other cheek", said Jesus.

19 Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: It is mine to avenge; I will repay, says the Lord. ("Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord", says in the King James Version).

20 On the contrary: If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.

21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.
(Rom.12:17-21).
---------------------------------------------------------------


I don't need to be a prophet Gerry, it's there in the scriptures.

[Gerryatrics]

Paul in Romans:
17 Do not repay anyone evil for evil... not "an eye for an eye", but "turn the other cheek", said Jesus.

19 Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: It is mine to avenge; I will repay, says the Lord. ("Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord", says in the King James Version).

20 On the contrary: If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.

21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.
(Rom.12:17-21).


Those are all nice scriptures, but what do they have to do with war? The first two verses address revenge; the third addresses compassion and the final one addresses evil in general. None of these verses directly or indirectly address waging war, self-defense or pacifism.

[smeagol]

War should be the last resort. All other avenues should be pursued before going to war, because war a waste of human life.

Is that really what the US did when going to war with Iraq? (pursue all other avenues).

[jochhejaam]

[QUOTE=SA210]:wtf <<< how would you type that in exactly?

And you did call someone a butthole, :lol
I don't type it in the hit the emoticon and they probably were being a butthole. In retrospect I probably should have called them an anus. :lol







I didn't get defensive by the way, I was simply pointing out that you did, at the truth I posted about "true" Christians. It obviously angered you that someone talked about the hypocrisy within the so called "Christian" right.
Bottom line is, you claim to be Christian, but admit to supporting a war, which by the way, Christ is against. It's sad to hear that you call Jesus' words drivel. That's the Christian spirit.
Peace.

The drivel came from you, if you want to twist that to putting in on Christ that's on you. :spin

No anger at all as you've stated you're position on God and war ad nauseam. The problem I have is when someone decides to fill for God by deciding which Christians are "true Christians" based on a narrow-minded interpretation of Scripture.
There are plenty of solid Christians around who if they held the same opinion as you and backed it up in an intelligent, spiritual manner would command a serious look by me into what they're saying. Sorry to say Brother but you don't fit that description.

Peace.

[boutons_]

The Bible is not literally true

[SA210]

I don't type it in the hit the emoticon and they probably were being a butthole. In retrospect I probably should have called them an anus. :lol
The drivel came from you, if you want to twist that to putting in on Christ that's on you. :spin

No anger at all as you've stated you're position on God and war ad nauseam. The problem I have is when someone decides to fill for God by deciding which Christians are "true Christians" based on a narrow-minded interpretation of Scripture.
There are plenty of solid Christians around who if they held the same opinion as you and backed it up in an intelligent, spiritual manner would command a serious look by me into what they're saying. Sorry to say Brother but you don't fit that description.

Peace.
It's interesting that you can type all those words and make up things about me just so that people will view me a certain way, just because you know what the truth really is about war and killing, and afraid to admit it, and yet, after all your words, the Bible still says Do Not kill and to Love thy neighbor.

That's what Jesus believed, and you called that drivel, because it's obvious that your political views come first before The Word. You and others have twisted the Word into fitting your political beliefs, to say that war is Just.

What can I bring up in a spiritual manner (in jocc's definition of spiritual manner) that you would agree with or take a look at? I've been nice in the past when I have raised this issue, you've just ignored it or spun it. I doubt that you would take it in and think about it. That would go against your political views. But it's nice to know that you would want people to believe otherwise and take the easy road and try and label me.

It's real easy to play the "do not judge" card. That would make it easy to avoid the subject, but yet, you judge democrats and people all the time, but I guess since this raises the issue of morality and what Jesus would do in times of war, I guess it's different.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

If god is alive why am I allowed to sin?

[jochhejaam]

[QUOTE=SA210]It's interesting that you can type all those words and make up things about me just so that people will view me a certain way, just because you know what the truth really is about war and killing, and afraid to admit it, and yet, after all your words, the Bible still says Do Not kill and to Love thy neighbor.
Thanks for expressing faith in my powers of persuasion but I seriously doubt that anyone is going to see you in a different light because of my posts.
The important difference between our opinions on war is that I don't insinuate that those Christians who differ with me aren't "true Christians".






That's what Jesus believed, and you called that drivel, because it's obvious that your political views come first before The Word. You and others have twisted the Word into fitting your political beliefs, to say that war is Just.
Wanting to stop terrorist's from killing innocents is not political. Do you think Scripture backs terrorism? Do you believe that God wants innocents killed by terrorists? Do you believe He wants us to sit back and watch them picked off by the hundreds or thousands or more?
Sorry to tell you this but Jesus Christ wasn't and isn't a pacifist.








What can I bring up in a spiritual manner (in jocc's definition of spiritual manner) that you would agree with or take a look at? I've been nice in the past when I have raised this issue, you've just ignored it or spun it. I doubt that you would take it in and think about it. That would go against your political views. But it's nice to know that you would want people to believe otherwise and take the easy road and try and label me.
You've probably aired your views on War and Christianity dozens of times and there's nothing to be found in them (they're simplistic, close-minded, redundant views) that would merit me taking a closer look into what I believe.






It's real easy to play the "do not judge" card. That would make it easy to avoid the subject, but yet, you judge democrats and people all the time, but I guess since this raises the issue of morality and what Jesus would do in times of war, I guess it's different.
Don't judge other self proclaimed Christians sincerity and the "do not judge card" won't be played.
Me having differing political views with any political party's adherents does not equate toyour judging those who declare themselves as Christians as not being a "true Christian" because they don't support your theology. Nice try (actually it wasn't) :spin

[Phenomanul]

If god is alive why am I allowed to sin?


You have been given the freedom of choice...

[pussyface]

if cant be faded is trying to disprove the existence of god he is as misguided as you bible thumpers.

[xrayzebra]

^^Have you been drinking today??

[pussyface]

??

i could argue that you'd have to be drunk/on drugs/crazy to believe in the Bible literally.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

And I could argue that anyone who is a mavericks fan is a big pussy face as well but you don't see me doing it either

[pussyface]

wow...good one.
zing.

[pussyface]

sorry if you took that as a personal slap in the face buddy.

it pained me to see you losing in an argument to a religious fundamentalist, but your "if god isnt dead why can i sin?" line of argument ensured that.

you leave a lot to be desired as a theologian.

[DarkReign]

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/forumfun/misc8.jpg

[xrayzebra]

How could it with the great theologian pussyface putting forth his great arguments,
like: "if cant be faded is trying to disprove the existence of god he is as misguided as you bible thumpers.".

What he say?

[clambake]

He's saying if you believe in the bible "literally", then some kind of medical examination would be appropriate.

[pussyface]

my point, xray, was that cantbefaded saying that the fact that he could chose to sin proves that "god is dead" is as ridiculous as someone saying they "know" everything about everything because its all in the Bible.

the notion of a divine gift of "free will" is a well known and intellectually viable tenet of Christian theology, for instance. I am not someone with an anti-Christian axe to grind; I am however skeptical of anyone claiming to "know" the nature of God/the afterlife etc.

[mikejones99]

Tom Leykis is God and will answer all your question people

[xrayzebra]

my point, xray, was that cantbefaded saying that the fact that he could chose to sin proves that "god is dead" is as ridiculous as someone saying they "know" everything about everything because its all in the Bible.

the notion of a divine gift of "free will" is a well known and intellectually viable tenet of Christian theology, for instance. I am not someone with an anti-Christian axe to grind; I am however skeptical of anyone claiming to "know" the nature of God/the afterlife etc.

I really have no quarrel with anyone about religion. It is a to much of a personal
thing to quarrel about. You either believe or you don't. Some people who
have doubts, well they have doubts. I don't condemn them for those
doubts. I believe in god. And should have stayed out the conversation
all together. So please accept my apologies. I was just trying to interject
a little humor and failed badly.

[Extra Stout]

Tom Leykis is God and will answer all your question peopleThis is the most meta post ever.

[Nesterofish]

God said it, its in the bible I believe it. All you people are jusy amking it complicated.

[Phenomanul]

For all of those that claim that Christianity impedes the progress of Science (a topic debated often on this forum) check out Rodney Stark's latest book...

Here is a review

The "secret" of Western civilization's success? One factor above all: Christianity

Victory of Reason
by Rodney Stark

By the end of the Middle Ages, Western Europe was set to dominate the globe, while other civilzations like Islam and China were in decline. Why? As Rodney Stark shows in The Victory of Reason: How Christianity Led to Freedom, Capitalism, and Western Success, the triumph of the West has one and only one ultimate cause: Christianity, and the breakthroughs -- intellectual, political, technological, and economic -- it made possible.

As Stark demonstrates in detail, while the other world religions emphasized mystery and intuition, Christianity alone taught that man's capacity for reason was his supreme gift from God. Encouraged by the Scholastics and embodied in the great medieval universities founded by the church, faith in the power of reason infused Western culture, stimulating the pursuit of science and the evolution of democratic theory and practice. The rise of capitalism also was a victory for church-inspired reason, since capitalism is in essence the systematic and sustained application of reason to commerce -- something that first took place within the great monastic estates. And, Stark shows, whereas other faiths asserted the superiority of the past, Christianity was oriented to the future, which allowed the dynamic new societies of late medieval Europe to take off.
In explaining the West's dominance, Stark convincingly debunks long-accepted "truths" about the supposed conflict between Christianity and progress, and proves that far from impeding what we most admire about our world -- scientific discovery, democratic rule, free commerce -- Christianity is what made these developments possible.


The Christian origins of Western success


The nature and consequences of the Christian commitment to rational theology. Its absolutely essential role for the rise of science


Why science arose in Europe but failed to do so in China, ancient Greece, or in Islam


Important moral innovations achieved by the medieval church -- e.g., how Christianity fostered a very strong conception of individualism consistent with its doctrines concerning free will and salvation


How medieval monasticism cultivated regard for the virtues of work and plain living that fully anticipated the Protestant ethic by almost a millennium


The role of early and medieval Christianity in fostering new ideas about human rights


How, among all major faiths, Christianity was unique in evolving moral opposition to slavery -- all but abolishing it by the tenth century


How, after the resurgence of slavery in Europe's New World colonies, it was Christianity again that produced and sustained the abolition movements


The material and religious foundations of capitalism laid down during the so-called Dark Ages -- an era, in fact, of spectacular technological and intellectual progress


How Christian commitment to progress played an important role not only by prompting the search for new technology, but by encouraging its rapid and widespread adoption


How medieval theologians stoutly defended private property and the pursuit of profits


The Christian foundations of Western democratic theory -- including the doctrines of individual moral equality, private property rights, and democratic self-rule


The perfection of capitalism in the Italian city-states. How they developed the management and financial techniques needed to sustain large industrial firms

"Every once in a while a book comes along that not only provides new answers but also transforms the old questions. The Victory of Reason is such a book." -- Richard John Neuhaus, editor in chief of First Things
"Rodney Stark may be the most influential religious researcher of the past hundred years. He has revolutionized contemporary thought about religion and economics, and in this book - his most provocative yet -- he makes a compelling case for the claim that we owe our prosperity, freedom, and progress to centuries of faith in one great, loving, and rational God. The Victory of Reason is itself a victory of reason in a field long dominated by anti-Western, anti-capitalist, and anti-religious myth." -- Lawrence Iannaccone, George Mason University

"Stimulating and provocative . . . Stark demonstrates that elements within Christianity actually gave rise not only to visions of reason and progress but also to the evolution of capitalism." -- Publishers Weekly

[Phenomanul]

Another Book...


What evolutionists, environmentalists, and global warming Chicken Littles hope you never learn about science

The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science
by Tom Bethell

In science, dispassionate, objective inquiry reigns supreme, and researchers will readily give up their most cherished views if the evidence proves them wrong -- right? Unfortunately, the answer is no. Science, like virtually everything else these days, has become a highly politicized field in which the Left has worked energetically to present its pet theories and schemes -- all of which just happen to advance their case for the necessity for ever more government control over our lives. But in The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science, Tom Bethell, who has for several years been making the case for real science as opposed to its politically correct counterfeit in the pages of The American Spectator, sets the record straight about some of the most controversial and politicized issues of our time.

Not only does Bethell tell the truth about evolution, global warming, and stem cells -- he also reveals the politically motivated manipulation behind the classification of species as endangered, the denigration of nuclear power as unsafe, Third World health crises, the banning of DDT and other supposedly unsafe pesticides, and more. He even skewers the modern scientific faith of materialism, showing how scientists embrace the evolutionist faith not because it is scientifically unassailable, but because they hate and fear religion -- and direct their supposedly detached scientific efforts to debunking it.

Among the scientific myths exploded by Tom Bethell:


Why, quite independently of Intelligent Design, fewer informed people than ever believe in evolution now

Evolution from the primordial soup: not a scientific truth but a highly questionable philosophical worldview, whose real premises have been carefully concealed

How boosters of the evolutionary theory systematically stifle debate on the premises of Intelligent Design, and shamelessly silence challenges to evolution

How evolutionists twist any outcome in nature as a "confirmation" of Darwin's theory

The famous (and non-believing) philosopher who admitted that "It's easier to believe in God" than in evolution

PC madness: how the government and private firms have spent billions to clear away trace amounts of chemicals that are actually beneficial in small doses to humans

Death by environmentalism: how the banning of DDT has created a health crisis of catastrophic proportions in Africa

How DDT was banned despite clear evidence that it did not pose a significant cancer risk

Stem cell research: How many of the "breakthroughs" trumpeted by the liberal media have in fact been based on wrongly interpreted or fudged data

Ugly tissue malfunctions that have resulted from hasty and ill-informed injections of stem cells

Genetic engineering: how it is turning out to be as hard to achieve in our day as social engineering was in the Communist era

How, despite the manifest failures and broken promises of the genetic engineering movement, budgets for the Genome Project and similar efforts continue to soar

The AIDS epidemic in Africa: how it has been trumped-up (requiring the imputation of Hollywood lifestyles to rural Africans) to support the media's myth of heterosexual AIDS and exponential increases in funding for AIDS research

How Leftist dogmas have interfered with finding genuine solutions to the problem of AIDS and other diseases spreading in Africa

War between science and religion? Why modern science would never have developed at all without Judeo-Christian religious principles

Why the Victorian notion of conflict between religion and science refuses to die: it's still being waged by some eminent Darwinians, in defiance of the facts

The materialist superstition: how, having (they think) disposed of God, some scientists are eager to fill the void themselves
Charles Darwin: not merely a detached agnostic (his public pose) but a determined antagonist of Christianity

Global warming debunked: why the environmentalist dogma that the increase in temperatures has been caused by human activity, primarily the burning of fossil fuels, is unequivocally false

How, as the inadequacies of global warming theory became apparent, its disciples have resorted to scare tactics and name-calling

Solar energy and other pet projects of the Left: why they won't work (contributing a mere 0.19 percent of total U.S. energy needs despite massive efforts) and are wasteful to boot

How economic depression would unavoidably result from the U.S.'s adoption of the Kyoto accords so beloved of leftist environmentalists

The remarkable study that was intended to demonstrate the danger of nuclear radiation to workers, but instead showed just the opposite

Why radon spas are so popular -- and other surprising facts about radiation's effects on the human body that environmentalists hope you don't find out

An open admission by a Sierra Club official that they want to keep the DDT ban in place because it reduces African populations

PC myth exploded: a worldwide epidemic of extinctions? No: how most species extinctions can be proven to have had nothing to do with human activity

How the myth of mass extinctions of species caused by humans has been embraced by mass-circulation, once mainstream magazines such as National Geographic, as well by internationally respected scientists -- despite there not being a shred of evidence in its favor

Why -- despite vehement denials from environmentalists -- property rights are intimately connected with the survival and flourishing of species

How the environmental movement abandoned science and logic in the mid-1980s -- just as mainstream society was adopting all the more reasonable items on the environmental agenda

Hormesis: how this little-known but well-attested phenomenon could revolutionize our understanding of how to deal with hazardous materials

The Flat Earth Myth: how no educated person in the history of Western Civilization since the third century B.C. believed that the earth was flat -- and how the myth that they did has been a powerful weapon of ridicule in the war against religion

Galileo: one of the first casualties in the war between science and religion? Not quite: how he could have avoided trouble with the Catholic Church if only he had stuck to science and not ventured into theology

Science: objective? Why it is more politicized today than ever before in history

Punchy, breezy, blisteringly honest, and consistently entertaining -- as well as carefully argued and meticulously documented -- The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science is a perfect aid for the non-specialist trying to find the truth amid the PC distortions and half-truths that surround us everywhere these days. Here is a strong effort to wean our society and public policy from the scientific myths and cant that have dominated public discourse for far too long.

[Phenomanul]

:lmao
:lmao
:lmao
:lmao

wow you are a dumb motherfucker hegamboa

well i guess that dispels my cherished and long-held beliefs that eddymication is the answer to the evils of the world


I didn't write the book you ignorant twit... I don't even know if it's been released yet.... which means if you've read my posts you would know that I don't readily accept something unless I've read it... this was only a review. :rolleyes

[pussyface]

Hega: I didn't know you were into scholarly, secular texts!
In the interest of a better-rounded brand of intellectualism, try one like this too.

THE INCREDIBLE SHRINKING SON OF MAN: HOW RELIABLE IS THE GOSPEL TRADITION?" by ROBERT PRICE

Ulster Humanist, April-May 2004
"This informative and gripping books shows us how the Gospel stories were put together in order to satisfy religious craving."

Freethinker, April 2004
"...for all scholars concerned with Christian origins...nothing of comparable importance has been written for at least a decade."

Book Description
What do the Gospels really reveal about the historical Jesus?
Scholars have dissected the Gospels and other stories about Jesus for more than a century, attempting to determine their historical accuracy. Many experts today believe that the writings of Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John cannot be taken as revelatory. A group of more than 100 scholars called the Jesus Seminar concluded that only about 18 percent of the Gospels is historically correct.

Believing his Jesus Seminar colleagues "too critical," Robert M. Price presents THE INCREDIBLE SHRINKING SON OF MAN, a balanced yet radically pessimistic new assessment of gospel historicity. While indebted to two centuries of scholarship, Price's latest book charts new territory, illustrating the virtual lack of historical information in the New Testament's Jesus stories. After an excellent introduction to the historical-critical method in language tailored to nonspecialists, Price analyzes sections of the Gospels, separating fact from fiction in all episodes of Jesus' life. Price examines both familiar parables and Jesus' teachings for authenticity, carefully studying miracle stories and drawing surprising conclusions. In addition, Price critically explores whether Jesus preached his Messiahship or predicted his own death as a means to save souls.

Written for a general audience in a refreshing and accessible style, Price's highly informative discussion will interest anyone who has wondered about the origins of Christianity.

From the Inside Flap
In THE INCREDIBLE SHRINKING SON OF MAN, Robert M. Price, a noted biblical scholar and a member of the Jesus Seminar, investigates the historical accuracy of Jesus as written in the New Testament stories. Beginning with the assumption that Jesus indeed walked the earth, Price discovers that the Bible provides no paint with which to draw a historically accurate portrait of such an important religious figure. Price juxtaposes Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John's accounts of Jesus' life, revealing both well-known and not-so-obvious contradictions in the Gospels.

In his introduction, Price defines and defends higher criticism of the Bible, a tool he uses to reconcile history with Scripture. Next, Price presents the sources the Gospel writers used to compose their works, as well as the territory already charted by biblical scholarship. Price's investigation follows a traditional life-of-Jesus outline, starting with Jesus' birth--why is it celebrated on December 25? Was it really a virgin birth?

In chapter 4, Price analyzes Baptist and other Christian beliefs about Jesus and John the Baptist, proposing that the latter's role may not be historical. Price wrestles with the controversial question of miracles, setting the groundwork for judging the authenticity of these stories. Many miracle accounts, Price shows, have parallels in other Jewish and Hellenistic traditions, and each miracle story has a particular structure, which fits a general pattern. Does this mean that historians cannot judge any miracle stories as occurring historically?

After scrutinizing stories of Jesus as a man of the people, Price delves into the descriptions of the twelve disciples, analyzing each one, especially Simon Peter. In this thorough examination, Price draws parallels with other religious traditions. The next two chapters take this comparison a step further in a brief review of Buddhism. Finally, Price surveys the details of the accounts of Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection, concluding that similarities in Christian and other religious traditions must mean a common origin--one with no room for a historical Jesus.

THE INCREDIBLE SHRINKING SON OF MAN belongs in the tradition of David Friedrich Strauss and Rudolf Bultmann, scrutinizing the Gospels concisely and in astonishing detail. Price takes a consistent, thorough-going critical look at the gospel tradition, discarding faith's mandates and delivering good reasons for every skeptical judgment of the Gospels' historical accuracy in depicting Jesus.

A prequel to Price's DECONSTRUCTING JESUS, THE INCREDIBLE SHRINKING SON OF MAN explains advanced scholarship on the historical Jesus in terms--and with references to popular culture--that any reader can understand


A great read! Also worth noting, you can always import a random book to justify pretty much whatever you want.

[pussyface]

also check out one called THE JESUS PUZZLE.
interestin, thought provoking stuff if you arent already anchored in your beliefs

[Phenomanul]

also check out one called THE JESUS PUZZLE.
interestin, thought provoking stuff if you arent already anchored in your beliefs


Interesting stuff... but not new.

These are arguments that have long been debated.

BTW I am anchored in my beliefs due to the personal manifestation of GOD's presence in my life... can I prove it?? No. But I believe it because I don't believe in coincidences...

[Guru of Nothing]

BTW I am anchored in my beliefs due to the personal manifestation of GOD's presence in my life... can I prove it?? No. But I believe it because I don't believe in coincidences...

Do you believe in irony?

[Phenomanul]

Do you believe in irony?


It will happen every now and then when I stick my foot in my mouth... so to answer your question.... yes.

[Blake]

Another Book...


What evolutionists, environmentalists, and global warming Chicken Littles hope you never learn about science

The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science
by Tom Bethell

In science, dispassionate, objective inquiry reigns supreme, and researchers will readily give up their most cherished views if the evidence proves them wrong -- right? Unfortunately, the answer is no. Science, like virtually everything else these days, has become a highly politicized field in which the Left has worked energetically to present its pet theories and schemes -- all of which just happen to advance their case for the necessity for ever more government control over our lives. But in The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science, Tom Bethell, who has for several years been making the case for real science as opposed to its politically correct counterfeit in the pages of The American Spectator, sets the record straight about some of the most controversial and politicized issues of our time.

Not only does Bethell tell the truth about evolution, global warming, and stem cells -- he also reveals the politically motivated manipulation behind the classification of species as endangered, the denigration of nuclear power as unsafe, Third World health crises, the banning of DDT and other supposedly unsafe pesticides, and more. He even skewers the modern scientific faith of materialism, showing how scientists embrace the evolutionist faith not because it is scientifically unassailable, but because they hate and fear religion -- and direct their supposedly detached scientific efforts to debunking it.

Among the scientific myths exploded by Tom Bethell:


Why, quite independently of Intelligent Design, fewer informed people than ever believe in evolution now

Evolution from the primordial soup: not a scientific truth but a highly questionable philosophical worldview, whose real premises have been carefully concealed

How boosters of the evolutionary theory systematically stifle debate on the premises of Intelligent Design, and shamelessly silence challenges to evolution

How evolutionists twist any outcome in nature as a "confirmation" of Darwin's theory

The famous (and non-believing) philosopher who admitted that "It's easier to believe in God" than in evolution

PC madness: how the government and private firms have spent billions to clear away trace amounts of chemicals that are actually beneficial in small doses to humans

Death by environmentalism: how the banning of DDT has created a health crisis of catastrophic proportions in Africa

How DDT was banned despite clear evidence that it did not pose a significant cancer risk

Stem cell research: How many of the "breakthroughs" trumpeted by the liberal media have in fact been based on wrongly interpreted or fudged data

Ugly tissue malfunctions that have resulted from hasty and ill-informed injections of stem cells

Genetic engineering: how it is turning out to be as hard to achieve in our day as social engineering was in the Communist era

How, despite the manifest failures and broken promises of the genetic engineering movement, budgets for the Genome Project and similar efforts continue to soar

The AIDS epidemic in Africa: how it has been trumped-up (requiring the imputation of Hollywood lifestyles to rural Africans) to support the media's myth of heterosexual AIDS and exponential increases in funding for AIDS research

How Leftist dogmas have interfered with finding genuine solutions to the problem of AIDS and other diseases spreading in Africa

War between science and religion? Why modern science would never have developed at all without Judeo-Christian religious principles

Why the Victorian notion of conflict between religion and science refuses to die: it's still being waged by some eminent Darwinians, in defiance of the facts

The materialist superstition: how, having (they think) disposed of God, some scientists are eager to fill the void themselves
Charles Darwin: not merely a detached agnostic (his public pose) but a determined antagonist of Christianity

Global warming debunked: why the environmentalist dogma that the increase in temperatures has been caused by human activity, primarily the burning of fossil fuels, is unequivocally false

How, as the inadequacies of global warming theory became apparent, its disciples have resorted to scare tactics and name-calling

Solar energy and other pet projects of the Left: why they won't work (contributing a mere 0.19 percent of total U.S. energy needs despite massive efforts) and are wasteful to boot

How economic depression would unavoidably result from the U.S.'s adoption of the Kyoto accords so beloved of leftist environmentalists

The remarkable study that was intended to demonstrate the danger of nuclear radiation to workers, but instead showed just the opposite

Why radon spas are so popular -- and other surprising facts about radiation's effects on the human body that environmentalists hope you don't find out

An open admission by a Sierra Club official that they want to keep the DDT ban in place because it reduces African populations

PC myth exploded: a worldwide epidemic of extinctions? No: how most species extinctions can be proven to have had nothing to do with human activity

How the myth of mass extinctions of species caused by humans has been embraced by mass-circulation, once mainstream magazines such as National Geographic, as well by internationally respected scientists -- despite there not being a shred of evidence in its favor

Why -- despite vehement denials from environmentalists -- property rights are intimately connected with the survival and flourishing of species

How the environmental movement abandoned science and logic in the mid-1980s -- just as mainstream society was adopting all the more reasonable items on the environmental agenda

Hormesis: how this little-known but well-attested phenomenon could revolutionize our understanding of how to deal with hazardous materials

The Flat Earth Myth: how no educated person in the history of Western Civilization since the third century B.C. believed that the earth was flat -- and how the myth that they did has been a powerful weapon of ridicule in the war against religion

Galileo: one of the first casualties in the war between science and religion? Not quite: how he could have avoided trouble with the Catholic Church if only he had stuck to science and not ventured into theology

Science: objective? Why it is more politicized today than ever before in history

Punchy, breezy, blisteringly honest, and consistently entertaining -- as well as carefully argued and meticulously documented -- The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science is a perfect aid for the non-specialist trying to find the truth amid the PC distortions and half-truths that surround us everywhere these days. Here is a strong effort to wean our society and public policy from the scientific myths and cant that have dominated public discourse for far too long.

Fascinating, imo.

[boutons_deux]

For all of those that claim that Christianity impedes the progress of Science (a topic debated often on this forum) check out Rodney Stark's latest book...

Here is a review

The "secret" of Western civilization's success? One factor above all: Christianity

Victory of Reason
by Rodney Stark

By the end of the Middle Ages, Western Europe was set to dominate the globe, while other civilzations like Islam and China were in decline. Why? As Rodney Stark shows in The Victory of Reason: How Christianity Led to Freedom, Capitalism, and Western Success, the triumph of the West has one and only one ultimate cause: Christianity, and the breakthroughs -- intellectual, political, technological, and economic -- it made possible.

As Stark demonstrates in detail, while the other world religions emphasized mystery and intuition, Christianity alone taught that man's capacity for reason was his supreme gift from God. Encouraged by the Scholastics and embodied in the great medieval universities founded by the church, faith in the power of reason infused Western culture, stimulating the pursuit of science and the evolution of democratic theory and practice. The rise of capitalism also was a victory for church-inspired reason, since capitalism is in essence the systematic and sustained application of reason to commerce -- something that first took place within the great monastic estates. And, Stark shows, whereas other faiths asserted the superiority of the past, Christianity was oriented to the future, which allowed the dynamic new societies of late medieval Europe to take off.
In explaining the West's dominance, Stark convincingly debunks long-accepted "truths" about the supposed conflict between Christianity and progress, and proves that far from impeding what we most admire about our world -- scientific discovery, democratic rule, free commerce -- Christianity is what made these developments possible.


The Christian origins of Western success


The nature and consequences of the Christian commitment to rational theology. Its absolutely essential role for the rise of science



Why science arose in Europe but failed to do so in China, ancient Greece, or in Islam



Important moral innovations achieved by the medieval church -- e.g., how Christianity fostered a very strong conception of individualism consistent with its doctrines concerning free will and salvation



How medieval monasticism cultivated regard for the virtues of work and plain living that fully anticipated the Protestant ethic by almost a millennium



The role of early and medieval Christianity in fostering new ideas about human rights



How, among all major faiths, Christianity was unique in evolving moral opposition to slavery -- all but abolishing it by the tenth century



How, after the resurgence of slavery in Europe's New World colonies, it was Christianity again that produced and sustained the abolition movements



The material and religious foundations of capitalism laid down during the so-called Dark Ages -- an era, in fact, of spectacular technological and intellectual progress



How Christian commitment to progress played an important role not only by prompting the search for new technology, but by encouraging its rapid and widespread adoption



How medieval theologians stoutly defended private property and the pursuit of profits



The Christian foundations of Western democratic theory -- including the doctrines of individual moral equality, private property rights, and democratic self-rule



The perfection of capitalism in the Italian city-states. How they developed the management and financial techniques needed to sustain large industrial firms


"Every once in a while a book comes along that not only provides new answers but also transforms the old questions. The Victory of Reason is such a book." -- Richard John Neuhaus, editor in chief of First Things
"Rodney Stark may be the most influential religious researcher of the past hundred years. He has revolutionized contemporary thought about religion and economics, and in this book - his most provocative yet -- he makes a compelling case for the claim that we owe our prosperity, freedom, and progress to centuries of faith in one great, loving, and rational God. The Victory of Reason is itself a victory of reason in a field long dominated by anti-Western, anti-capitalist, and anti-religious myth." -- Lawrence Iannaccone, George Mason University

"Stimulating and provocative . . . Stark demonstrates that elements within Christianity actually gave rise not only to visions of reason and progress but also to the evolution of capitalism." -- Publishers Weekly

what bullshit! :lol

[Leetonidas]

"Christian" and "rational" do not belong in the same sentence :lol

[RandomGuy]

Another Book...


What evolutionists, environmentalists, and global warming Chicken Littles hope you never learn about science

The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science
by Tom Bethell

In science, dispassionate, objective inquiry reigns supreme, and researchers will readily give up their most cherished views if the evidence proves them wrong -- right? Unfortunately, the answer is no. Science, like virtually everything else these days, has become a highly politicized field in which the Left has worked energetically to present its pet theories and schemes -- all of which just happen to advance their case for the necessity for ever more government control over our lives. But in The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science, Tom Bethell, who has for several years been making the case for real science as opposed to its politically correct counterfeit in the pages of The American Spectator, sets the record straight about some of the most controversial and politicized issues of our time.

Not only does Bethell tell the truth about evolution, global warming, and stem cells -- he also reveals the politically motivated manipulation behind the classification of species as endangered, the denigration of nuclear power as unsafe, Third World health crises, the banning of DDT and other supposedly unsafe pesticides, and more. He even skewers the modern scientific faith of materialism, showing how scientists embrace the evolutionist faith not because it is scientifically unassailable, but because they hate and fear religion -- and direct their supposedly detached scientific efforts to debunking it.

Among the scientific myths exploded by Tom Bethell:


Why, quite independently of Intelligent Design, fewer informed people than ever believe in evolution now

Evolution from the primordial soup: not a scientific truth but a highly questionable philosophical worldview, whose real premises have been carefully concealed

How boosters of the evolutionary theory systematically stifle debate on the premises of Intelligent Design, and shamelessly silence challenges to evolution

How evolutionists twist any outcome in nature as a "confirmation" of Darwin's theory

The famous (and non-believing) philosopher who admitted that "It's easier to believe in God" than in evolution

PC madness: how the government and private firms have spent billions to clear away trace amounts of chemicals that are actually beneficial in small doses to humans

Death by environmentalism: how the banning of DDT has created a health crisis of catastrophic proportions in Africa

How DDT was banned despite clear evidence that it did not pose a significant cancer risk

Stem cell research: How many of the "breakthroughs" trumpeted by the liberal media have in fact been based on wrongly interpreted or fudged data

Ugly tissue malfunctions that have resulted from hasty and ill-informed injections of stem cells

Genetic engineering: how it is turning out to be as hard to achieve in our day as social engineering was in the Communist era

How, despite the manifest failures and broken promises of the genetic engineering movement, budgets for the Genome Project and similar efforts continue to soar

The AIDS epidemic in Africa: how it has been trumped-up (requiring the imputation of Hollywood lifestyles to rural Africans) to support the media's myth of heterosexual AIDS and exponential increases in funding for AIDS research

How Leftist dogmas have interfered with finding genuine solutions to the problem of AIDS and other diseases spreading in Africa

War between science and religion? Why modern science would never have developed at all without Judeo-Christian religious principles

Why the Victorian notion of conflict between religion and science refuses to die: it's still being waged by some eminent Darwinians, in defiance of the facts

The materialist superstition: how, having (they think) disposed of God, some scientists are eager to fill the void themselves
Charles Darwin: not merely a detached agnostic (his public pose) but a determined antagonist of Christianity

Global warming debunked: why the environmentalist dogma that the increase in temperatures has been caused by human activity, primarily the burning of fossil fuels, is unequivocally false

How, as the inadequacies of global warming theory became apparent, its disciples have resorted to scare tactics and name-calling

Solar energy and other pet projects of the Left: why they won't work (contributing a mere 0.19 percent of total U.S. energy needs despite massive efforts) and are wasteful to boot

How economic depression would unavoidably result from the U.S.'s adoption of the Kyoto accords so beloved of leftist environmentalists

The remarkable study that was intended to demonstrate the danger of nuclear radiation to workers, but instead showed just the opposite

Why radon spas are so popular -- and other surprising facts about radiation's effects on the human body that environmentalists hope you don't find out

An open admission by a Sierra Club official that they want to keep the DDT ban in place because it reduces African populations

PC myth exploded: a worldwide epidemic of extinctions? No: how most species extinctions can be proven to have had nothing to do with human activity

How the myth of mass extinctions of species caused by humans has been embraced by mass-circulation, once mainstream magazines such as National Geographic, as well by internationally respected scientists -- despite there not being a shred of evidence in its favor

Why -- despite vehement denials from environmentalists -- property rights are intimately connected with the survival and flourishing of species

How the environmental movement abandoned science and logic in the mid-1980s -- just as mainstream society was adopting all the more reasonable items on the environmental agenda

Hormesis: how this little-known but well-attested phenomenon could revolutionize our understanding of how to deal with hazardous materials

The Flat Earth Myth: how no educated person in the history of Western Civilization since the third century B.C. believed that the earth was flat -- and how the myth that they did has been a powerful weapon of ridicule in the war against religion

Galileo: one of the first casualties in the war between science and religion? Not quite: how he could have avoided trouble with the Catholic Church if only he had stuck to science and not ventured into theology

Science: objective? Why it is more politicized today than ever before in history

Punchy, breezy, blisteringly honest, and consistently entertaining -- as well as carefully argued and meticulously documented -- The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science is a perfect aid for the non-specialist trying to find the truth amid the PC distortions and half-truths that surround us everywhere these days. Here is a strong effort to wean our society and public policy from the scientific myths and cant that have dominated public discourse for far too long.

ish... what a laundry list of dumbassery. If PM still responded to my posts I might bother picking them apart individually.

As it is, when I showed how arguing that "God in the Bible was moral" ends up with having to morally justify murdering children, he kind of gave up on me. Shocking, I know, but then again, I am a demon sent from hell to tempt him off the path of true enlightenment.

oh the things people believe...

[FuzzyLumpkins]

ish... what a laundry list of dumbassery. If PM still responded to my posts I might bother picking them apart individually.

As it is, when I showed how arguing that "God in the Bible was moral" ends up with having to morally justify murdering children, he kind of gave up on me. Shocking, I know, but then again, I am a demon sent from hell to tempt him off the path of true enlightenment.

oh the things people believe...

You are possessed by a demon.