Evolution...?

[Blake]

So you will pretty much your life will end up same way as the atheists according to your "logic" ....so you believe in eternal life if you do good, but if you do bad eternal life is canceled and eternal torment in doesn't exist. How convenient.

it'd be hilarious to see gays move in next door to rob in heaven......errrr....I mean "new earth".

[cantthinkofanything]

it'd be hilarious to see gays move in next door to rob in heaven......errrr....I mean "new earth".

that sounds like the premise for a sitcom. "Heaven's Gayts" maybe...

[RandomGuy]

I don't have to elucidate anything. Why is a question that exists. You must be pretending when you say there is no why? because clearly you have not only asked that question yourself but answered it for yourself (raising kids, improving the world yada yada).

Actually you do need to explain "why what", if you want an answer. I can think of several things you *could* mean, but I would not want to spend time on that, when the onus of communication here is on you.

I am simply telling you that you are not making yourself understood to me. I do not know what exactly you are asking.

If you are unable to communicate that, or worse, unwilling, then there is nothing I feel overly compelled to answer, and strutting around like you have somehow "stumped the atheist" just looks foolish.

So, are you going to expand or elucidate, or continue to stroke your ego?

[RandomGuy]

I have no interest in reading it, as I said before, I am satisfied with the Bible and its teaching/message. If one day I am not, I will look elsewhere.

So, you have no idea if you are wrong or not. If your reason is that the "prophecies" of the bible are the best out of all the potential prophecies, and you have no clue as to what those others are, you might be missing something critically important.

Your answer is, essentially, "it makes me feel good about myself".

Not really very compelling answer, IMO.

[RandomGuy]

I agree with you completely. There are many such books such as the Torah and the Kabala, to name a couple more.

Eyup, and they are all pretty much primitive, ignorant attempts to explain the universe, just like the bible. We probably diverge on that point.

None of them has made any valid claim to having good evidence about the existence of God. Fun to read, as mythology is, but I just can't take any of it seriously.

[xmas1997]

Seek and you shall find, to me means to not be satisfied and content to settle for the information in the first book on any subject while doing your due diligent research on any sunject, it is merely the "first" book looked at among a long line of books that should be looked at in order to arrive at an objective over all complete knowledge of the truth of anything, be it evolution, religion, or even dish washiners.

This is why when searching for the truth with respect to God, the Bible, if it is the first one you study, should definitely not be the last book you study, it is merely a foundation, and not an "end-all" IMHO.

[RandomGuy]

Although if you can answer my previous question about why it was advantageous for all higher forms of life to lose the ability to photosynthesize light, that would be cool. Higher organisms that retained the ability to be both autotrophic and heterotrophic should have a great advantage over those that are only heterotrophic, yet they don't exist.

You will have to show how and why you assert that all unicellular life was photosynthetic, for me to really want to answer that question, which requires this assertion to be true to be valid.

Your underlying assumption is that "all higher life evolved from autotrophs". You have a burden of proof to demonstrate this first.

I am not overly familiar with the ins and outs, and mostly just require a basic flushing out. I will be happy to do a bit of reading, though.

[RandomGuy]

What is my record,....40 pages?

I wanna break it.

evolution, bored with it.

So how old were you when you first got laid and was it better than you thought it would be or were you disappointed?

I noticed you ignored the stages of rat development that I posted.

Why is that?

You asked for evidence, you were given it, and have ignored it.

Proves to me you aren't serious about it.

I will ask again, does the truth matter to you?

[RandomGuy]

Hmmmm?


While we don't really know what a missing link is (or was), we can know what they should be. As each type evolves into something else, there should be numerous in-between types, each stage gaining more and more traits of the descendant while losing traits of the ancestor.
If some type of fish evolved into some type of amphibian, there should have been distinct steps along the way of 90% fish/10% amphibian; then 80% fish/20% amphibian; etc., leading to the 100% amphibians we have today. You would suspect that unless evolution has completely stopped, there might even be some transitional links alive today, but certainly they lived and thrived for a while in the past before they were replaced.

Gave you the information. You ignored it.

Further, a lot of those intermediate links are still alive today. Evolution does not posit that things have to be "replaced".

Ignoring evidence, and simply doubling down on ed ignorance.

I sense a pattern here.

[RandomGuy]

Well technically as you have free will, you can. That doesn't mean they do not apply every day. And I could do that, but then I would be a hypocrite and not a true Christian.

LOL "free will".

"Do what I want, or I will do something horrible to you".

This is the Christian bible's explicit threat, and it is not alone in that. Cults of all types sustain themselves through such threats.

Why should anyone worship an extortionist who craves worship?

[RandomGuy]

Seek and you shall find, to me means to not be satisfied and content to settle for the information in the first book on any subject while doing your due diligent research on any sunject, it is merely the "first" book looked at among a long line of books that should be looked at in order to arrive at an objective over all complete knowledge of the truth of anything, be it evolution, religion, or even dish washiners.

This is why when searching for the truth with respect to God, the Bible, if it is the first one you study, should definitely not be the last book you study, it is merely a foundation, and not an "end-all" IMHO.

I have sought.

Seems to me if there is some god in the universe trying to get in touch with me, it could do a far better job of demonstrating its existence.

If it existed it would know exactly what it would take to convince me, but has chosen to not do that.

Why is this thing being such a ?

[SnakeBoy]

Actually you do need to explain "why what", if you want an answer. I can think of several things you *could* mean, but I would not want to spend time on that, when the onus of communication here is on you.

I am simply telling you that you are not making yourself understood to me. I do not know what exactly you are asking.

If you are unable to communicate that, or worse, unwilling, then there is nothing I feel overly compelled to answer, and strutting around like you have somehow "stumped the atheist" just looks foolish.

So, are you going to expand or elucidate, or continue to stroke your ego?

lol I don't need to explain what I am asking you because I am not asking you anything. Why is a question that exists and has always been the hardest question for Man to answer. The fact that you are confused about this is your problem, not mine, and no reason for you lash out at me.

[xmas1997]

I have sought.

Seems to me if there is some god in the universe trying to get in touch with me, it could do a far better job of demonstrating its existence.

If it existed it would know exactly what it would take to convince me, but has chosen to not do that.

Why is this thing being such a ?

That is okay.

I can give you hypothetical reasons why you haven't found Him yet in your life, but that is the best I can do for you.

Could it be that you are seeking something that you can wrap your mind around to the extent that you can know an en y that is for the most part unfathomable?

Maybe you want this en y to be more human-like.

You may have preconceived notions about this en y that you have to get past before you can "find" Him.

You might be looking all "around and above" you whereas you should be looking "within" you.

Or maybe you have expectations that He should be easy to find, because if He were easy to find, then you would more than likely take Him for granted and go your merry way.

For sure, it is far easier to believe no such en y exists, than that He does, because He would be beyond tangible proofs for the most part.
In any case, neither He nor anyone else is concerned whether you have found Him or not yet, because eventually you will, while you are alive, or after you die IMHO.

I know this probably doesn't help you much at this point, and for that I apologize, but relax, if it bothers you, because it is like death in that when your time comes, it is your time, and He will be there for you.
The important thing is that you seek, rather than take the easy way out and be apathetic.

And I believe God has a fantastic sense of humor.
Why? Because we do and He created us in His image, so I advise laughing more often about it because that is the healthy thing to do, worry never solved anything.

[Blake]

lol I don't need to explain what I am asking you because I am not asking you anything. Why is a question that exists and has always been the hardest question for Man to answer. The fact that you are confused about this is your problem, not mine, and no reason for you lash out at me.

"why" only exists for people that believe in a creator.

Pretty simple

[ChumpDumper]

Because some on here are totally confused about a certain point on here concerning "dogma", I won't mention any names but his initial starts with a "c", I am posting a difference between "dogma" and what he thinks is dogma but is actually "doctrine" especially his faux pas (intellectual blunder) concerning Rob's statement that "c" attributes mistakenly to a J. W. "dogma", here it is:

DOGMA/DOCTRINE


Although in many contexts “dogma” and “doctrine” are used interchangeably, in technical theological contexts “dogma” has a narrower meaning: a doctrine which has been given official status by a religious body. Especially in the Catholic Church dogmas are required beliefs whereas many other less firmly established beliefs are only doctrines.


Nonspecialists writing about religion often ignore the distinction, and call a doctrine which has not received such official status a “dogma.” Since only some doctrines are dogmas but all dogmas are doctrines and since “dogma” often has negative connotations, it’s safer in non-technical religious contexts to stick with “doctrine.”

http://public.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/dogma.html

The rest of his questions, links, and what-have-you, are trivial nonsense which he wants to spin into truths, yet FAILS to bring weight to and are no less than lies at best.

This is the gospel truth of the matter and the last it should be brought up because the truth is all there in the threads to back me up, and is a waste of time to go and find it!

If you choose not to believe me even though it is there, then fine, no skin off my back, but I won't stoop to his petty childish immature games because that is all they are.

I will laugh a lot at his foolishness and his defcon 1 melt down however.

< Here are the emoticons to exemplify it.

Rob was repeating dogma.

Thanks for confirming it.

[Blake]

And I believe God has a fantastic sense of humor.
Why? Because we do and He created us in His image.

not everyone has a sense of humor

[xmas1997]

Rob was repeating dogma.

Thanks for confirming it.

Wrong, he was talking about JW "doctrine" not dogma, and I just explained why there really is NO JW dogma to speak of.

But if you can find a link somewhere in this universe, then by all means cite it so I can change my mind about it.

I have looked, I have researched it, and I cannot find any dogma beyond the "commomnly held dogmas" shared by all of Christianity that I already elucidated but you refused to read.

No, you just made it up that I confirmed it.

I just now confirmed you were wrong and lied.

[xmas1997]

not everyone has a sense of humor

I disagree. I believe we all do to a greater or lessor extent.

Just because we ourselves might not recognize it as such according to our own preconceived notions does not mean it does not exist.

[ChumpDumper]

Wrong, he was talking about JW "doctrine" not dogma, and I just explained why there really is NO JW dogma to speak of.

But if you can find a link somewhere in this universe, then by all means cite it so I can change my mind about it.

I have looked, I have researched it, and I cannot find any dogma beyond the "commomnly held dogmas" shared by all of Christianity that I already elucidated but you refused to read.

Take it up with Webster's

dog·ma noun \ˈdȯg-mə, ˈdäg-\
: a belief or set of beliefs that is accepted by the members of a group without being questioned or doubted

: a belief or set of beliefs that is taught by a religious organization
plural dog·mas also dog·ma·ta



lol

[xmas1997]

"why" only exists for people that believe in a creator.

Pretty simple

I do not understand this statement of yours.

I thought how, why, when, where, and what were all questions that science was best at handling.

The "Press" is pretty good at it too.

[SnakeBoy]

I have sought.

Seems to me if there is some god in the universe trying to get in touch with me, it could do a far better job of demonstrating its existence.

If it existed it would know exactly what it would take to convince me, but has chosen to not do that.

Why is this thing being such a ?

Why would you think an omnipotent being would exist to serve you?

[xmas1997]

Take it up with Webster's

dog·ma noun \ˈdȯg-mə, ˈdäg-\
: a belief or set of beliefs that is accepted by the members of a group without being questioned or doubted

: a belief or set of beliefs that is taught by a religious organization
plural dog·mas also dog·ma·ta



lol

I already debunked your shallow use of the dictionary "generalized" definition of dogma earlier that you refused to read, probably because you were too shallow yourself to read it.

But I can post it again just for you if you're going to continue to stand behind your ignorance.

I underlined why your definition fails big time, it is too general to be used on a "specific" denomination such as the JWs.

[ChumpDumper]

I already debunked your shallow use of the dictionary "generalized" definition of dogma earlier that you refused to read, probably because you were too shallow yourself to read it.

But I can post it again just for you if you're going to stand behind your ignorance.

And I can post the definition again if you want to make it a contest.

[xmas1997]

And I can post the definition again if you want to make it a contest.

You're the only one here bringing up it being some sort of contest, not me.

And you are the only one making some sort of mythical issue of it being contest.

And the truth is, no one except you is even mistaking it for a "contest", this is all in your mind only, and probably explains why you are melting down so much over it.

I am merely educating you to the truth of the matter where you are wrong and continue to make a faux pas.

If you want to sidestep the truth and lean on misconceptions and falsehoods, that is purely your loss, no one else'.

So do you need me to re-post the proper and true definition? I can, and just for you.

I can also re-post how many times you have called this and implied this was a "contest" if you want.

Just say the word.

[xmas1997]

You quoted Avante and said this was "Christian dogma".
And then when I disputed it you gave me this "generalized" definition of "dogma", but that is much different than Christian dogma as you shall see.

First off your definition applies to all religions, not just Christianity.
But it is still a good starting place.

There are many "denominations" within the umbrella term of Christianity, the largest of which are: Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox, and Protestantism.
Within Protestantism are: Lutherans, Protestants, Methodists, Anglicans, Presbyterians, and Baptists, etc.
Within Baptists are: Disciples of Christ, Churches of Christ, Evangelical Christian Chrs. and others.
And there are what I call the "fringe" Christian denominations such as: Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists, Pentecostals, nondenominational, and Holy Rollers, etc.

All of these denominations have their own particular sets of dogma and/or more likely "doctrines containing dogma", and for the most part do not agree with each other except on a few select sets of "commonly shared dogma".

Commonly shared Christian dogma
1. belief in God the Father, the Son of God Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit.
2. God is eternal, always existed, holy, sinless, and does not lie.
3. the Incarnation - the Son of God became flesh.
4. Baptism - forgiveness of original sin.
5. the Resurrection - the Son of God died for the sins of mankind and came back to life so that we might receive eternal life with the Father.
6. the Ascension - the resurrected Jesus Christ was taken up to heaven in His resurrected body.
7. the Transfiguration -where Jesus Christ is "shown physically" to be the Son of God.

Everything else, including the Bible is hotly contested and thus does not fall under the Common Christian dogma umbrella.
You later quoted something about one of the Ten Commandments, but even those are not all agreed on by all the denominations because Biblical interpretaions vary so widely from sect to sect within Christianity..
For example: Protestants believe as dogma "sola scriptura" - that the Bible is necessary for their salvation and holiness. Whereas the Anglicans and Methodists believe as dogma "prima scriptura" - where the Bible is "illumined" by tradition, reason, and experience.
Some sects believe in total strict literalism such as many of the Baptists and some of the "fringe" sects mentioned above like the Jehovah Witnesses and Pentecostals, etc., while the Mormons, SDAs, etc. while accepting as dogma the seven mentioned above, also have another "book" they believe as dogma along with the bible.

So when you consider all this and attempt to get a "Christian worldview" you must consider more than just one denominations dogmas, because it is inclusive in that it is the framework of ideas, dogmas, creeds, and beliefs that Christians interpret and interact with the world.

Whereas the "Biblical worldview" is much the same with one major difference, it views life through the "lens" of God's Word, the Bible, and that it is inspired, inerrant, and infallible.
Not all the denominations subscribe to this Biblical worldview in the same way or degree.

So Christian dogma is widely varied, hotly contested, interpreted in many different ways, and very little is commonly agreed upon, yet the seven that are agreed on are considered true principals that do not change.

Just for you, chump.

Now do you finally understand the difference?

You should if you have any intelligence at all!