Piano Forum
Non Piano Board => Anything but piano => Topic started by: TwinkleFingers on November 03, 2003, 11:36:46 PM
-
For all you dialup users that are waiting hours for the reply to load ;D
-
well said wired. I love Dumb and Dumber
You were looking for 'I am' instead of 'I love'.
Wired, if you simply don't understand that even though something has a ridiculously small probability of happening, that event can happen, I wonder how you got your degree.
Besides, your little movie quote has nothing to do with this, because it involves human feelings.
So where does God come from, assuming he exists ?
-
noah, I'll put you in the same boat ehem "ark" as ed. your insults are meaningless and prove that you need to make fun in order to "feel" right about your thinking. you and ed must be friends. you both are in or close to London, UK.
So where does God come from, assuming he exists ?
If you havent figured it out yet, let me tell you. We do not know everything about God. If we did know everything about Him we would be supreme as Him. And that will never happen. It is not important to know where he came from. Let me rephrase that. He always was. He said He was the alpha and the omega. The beginning and the end. Eternal:Being without beginning or end; existing outside of time.
Continuing without interruption; perpetual.
Forever true or changeless: eternal truths.
Seemingly endless; interminable.
Of or relating to spiritual communion with God, especially in the afterlife
How am I supposed to explain that which I dont understand? Do you understand eternity? other than the fact of no beginning and no end...
Ed do you wanna talk about the Bible and dinosaurs some more? what do you want to know? go here if you want https://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/dinos.shtml Im just asking atheists or unbelievers(yes ed in Jesus not evolution) to be open minded about the fact of the existance of God. Look into it more wired has been open minded to look into evolution way more than I and he has disproven the methods used for the theory.
-
noah, I'll put you in the same boat ehem "ark" as ed. your insults are meaningless and prove that you need to make fun in order to "feel" right about your thinking. you and ed must be friends. you both are in or close to London, UK.
Yeah, sure, all atheists in London know each other.
We do not know everything about God. If we did know everything about Him we would be supreme as Him.
That's quite convenient, isn't it ? That's what you say everytime you can't answer a question in this thread.
Eternal:Being without beginning or end; existing outside of time.
Continuing without interruption; perpetual.
Forever true or changeless: eternal truths.
Seemingly endless; interminable.
Of or relating to spiritual communion with God, especially in the afterlife
Thanks, but I don't think I'm the one who needs a dictionary here.
Im just asking atheists or unbelievers(yes ed in Jesus not evolution) to be open minded about the fact of the existance of God. Look into it more wired has been open minded to look into evolution way more than I and he has disproven the methods used for the theory.
Well, I have an open mind, if someone offers credible arguments. But it's certainly not your pathetic attempts that will convince me, actually they only strenghten my beliefs.
And for Bob's sake, Wired hasn't proved anything. It's just that none of us here has a degree in physics (yet), so we don't really have the tools to counter his arguments. But I'm sure if I had time to waste and showed this thread to any teacher/researcher in my department at uni, they would immediately spot the mistake in his 'proofs'.
If carbon dating was so obviously faulty, why would scientist keep using it ? Wired, I urge you to go to any research lab and show them your brilliant work.
-
That's quite convenient, isn't it ? That's what you say everytime you can't answer a question in this thread.
convenient... maybe. true..... definitely. your asking questions that cant be answered. what else am I supposed to say? I guess nothing from now on. We do not know everything there is to know nor will we ever. So convenient or not that is a fact my friend.Thanks, but I don't think I'm the one who needs a dictionary here.
maybe a bible then and go to a reformed church.If carbon dating was so obviously faulty, why would scientist keep using it ?
you ever hear of ignorance? pride? just because they are doing it doesnt make it right. cmon now. if everyone jumps off the bridge etc etc you know.It's just that none of us here has a degree in physics (yet), so we don't really have the tools to counter his arguments.
nor would you having a physics degree cause obviously he has proven the faults in the dating. also I pointed out the faults in your assumption of probability. in reality you all are saying something came from nothing. and I know me saying God always was isnt anything easy to grasp. I dont understand it like I said before. But I do believe that the (original books of the Bible) are God inspired and faultless. Has ed proven anything faulty in the "original" books of the bible? Does ed speak hebrew/greek? He doesnt seem to want to answer that question.
-
If carbon dating was so obviously faulty, why would scientist keep using it ? Wired, I urge you to go to any research lab and show them your brilliant work.
No need -- the argument has been made and never refuted. Same with other dating methods -- the faults have been pointed out, and if they were so blatantly wrong, why would we be debating?
Wired, if you simply don't understand that even though something has a ridiculously small probability of happening, that event can happen, I wonder how you got your degree.
I didn't say understand, I said I found how funny it is someone puts trust in something that has such a minute chance of actually ever have happening. At least with the Bible, we don't rely on a "chance." We have written accounts that has yet to be unproven that requires no chance. God did it. God did it all. There is no uncertainty in that -- only for non-believers.
As I've said before, faith is, "Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence." Logical: "Based on earlier or otherwise known statements, events, or condition"
So, if logical proof is proof that relies on *known* statements, events and conditions, how can we call the belief in Evolution nothing but faith? In Science, there should be no faith. When there is faith, it becomes more of a religion.
And I believe basing the knowledge of our existence on such a small probability is faith.
Besides, your little movie quote has nothing to do with this, because it involves human feelings.
That's my whole point. Our basic human instincts tell us to laugh at something like that, yet people don't laugh (well, some of us do) when we say we just appeared out of thin air as a few pieces of matter that eventually somehow grew into all of existence. That is much more laughable than Lloyd hooking up with that chick.
So where does God come from, assuming he exists ?
If we assume He exists, then we know he existed forever. This point doesn't have to be proven, since it never can be. God is not meant to be comprehended or fully understood. That's why religion is based on faith.
However, the opposite isn't true. If science isn't based on faith, then someone somewhere has to explain how matter formed out of no energy, or if there was energy, how was it formed with no matter?
I have a feeling my arguments here won't make sense to anyone who doesn't believe in God. I'll probably be flamed, but what the heck. I guess the main point I'm trying to say is that no one here is going to win, as I've said many times before.
-
ROCK
CHALK
JAY
HAWK
K
U
-
ROCK
CHALK
JAY
HAWK
K
U
Big KU Basketball fan? ;) I'm not too into watching sports, but they generally are fun to watch.
-
Big KU Basketball fan? ;) I'm not too into watching sports, but they generally are fun to watch.
I dont see the relevence to this topic. Is there?
-
ok, I finally have some time on my hands where I can talk so I will answer the so called contradictions in the website that ed sent us a while ago.
1. God gives peace and comfort to His children, but is at a constant war against the enemy.
2. Who was the father of Joseph? Jacob was his father. Heli was a father-figure, mentor, or even a grandfather. The word for son can be used in different ways.
3. Who was at the empty tomb? these verses don't contradict each other. All say mary magdalene, 2 say say the other mary, and the third Salome. Just because the other verses didn't mention each individual person by name doesn't deny the fact that they were there. If I go to a huge piano concerto performance. I will probably remember the pianist, I might remember the conductor, but most assuredly I will not remember the little guys of the orchestra that doesn't deny the fact that they were there, they played in the concerto, and were vital to its performance.
4. Is Jesus equal or less than God? the first verse says that Jesus and God are on the same wave-length. They have the same mindset. The second verse tells that God is more powerful that Jesus.
5. The number of beasts in the ark? Noah was instructed to take 7 extra clean beasts for sacrificing when they got off the ark, but Noah still needed 2 of those clean beasts to reproduce and replenish the earth.
6. How many stalls did Solomon have? Solomon was a wise man and brought riches to his kingdom. The smaller number was at the beginning of his reign, the larger number being towards the end.
7. Is it folly to be wise or not? Solomon says that without wisdom you have nothing. You can't accomplish anything without it, but he also states that with it comes much responsibility and at times sorrow. By the way we are talking about Godly wisdom, the third reference refers to manly wisdom which is fallible.
8. Human vs. ghostly impregnation. The term fruit of my loins is another way of saying son. Many people have adopted children that have none their blood in them, but yet they still call them son/daughter and treat them as if they were. Though Joseph wasn't the biological father of Jesus, he had the responsibility of raising the Saviour of the world.
9. The bat is not a bird. The bible doesn't have the same scientific classification of animals like we do. A bird to them was anything that was flying and looked like other birds.
10. Insects do not have 4 feet. Again, they don't classify like we do. they are just talking about little creeping things.
11. Snails do not melt. Put salt on one, they shrivel up and look as if they are melting away. once, again they don't have the scientific terminology that we do today.
12. Fowls from water or ground? God molded them out of dirt, but they are brought forth to life through water. Without water we cease to exist.
13. The shape of the Earth. Remember at this time people talked about the known world. They didn't have the transportation that we have today to know what was out there.
14. Snakes don't eat dirt. Have you heard the expression when some crashes on a bicycle or something of the sort and they fall face first in the dirt? we call it eating dirt. It is an expression saying that we have dirt all over our face, which snakes do have, because of being so low to the ground.
15. Earth supported? the first reference refers to hanging onto nothing in space, the second refers to the inner makings of the earth like the core, mantle, and tectonic plates.
16. Heaven supported too? Heaven is described as having large pearly gates. Large gates must have large pillars to hold them up.
17. Order of creation. God didn't forget anything. He was pleased with what he created. He had work for Adam to accomplish before he would create Eve. Eve would cause distractions and wouldn't allow him to accomplish naming the animals as fast as possible. God knew that the couple would sin, but it was ok. God created us for loving fellowship with Him. Not to be roboticly in love with Him. If we didn't have a choice we wouldn't know what loving Him and appreciating him really was.
18. Righteous live? Though we are persecuted for righteousness sake and many are killed because of it. ONe day we will reign forever with God in Heaven.
19. Jesus last words? These references don't say that this is the last words that he spoke, These are the last thingS that he spoke. I may remember one part of a finale of a performance you may remember another, but both happened. Each of the gospels are written in a slightly different style and towards a slightly different person.
20. Moved David to anger? God allows all things to happen. It doesn't mean that he personally with His hands does everything.
21. Geneology of Jesus. one gives his mary's geneology the other Joseph's geneology. I already discussed the fatherhood issue earlier.
22. Seeing God or not? Man cannot see God directly with his human eyes, that is why Moses could see only where God had been (backparts). Man can see God through visions and other spiritual endeavors (souls can't die).
23. Cruel or merciful God? I explained this one earlier.
24. Tempts? Again, If God allowed it to happen, in a way he caused it, but his hands do not do the work.
25. Judas died how? the references mention the same thing. just different descriptions of hanging oneself.
26. Ascend to Heaven. Elijah ascended into the second Heaven, the third is where Jesus came from and where we will ultimately reign forever after the rapture. If you want me to clarify this further email me here at boliverallmon@pianomail.net It will just take along time to write it all down here.
27. Peter denial and the crow? One reference says that the cock crowed, it doesn't say how many times, the other reference gives the exact number.
28. who killed Saul. The references all say that Saul did. the last reference doesn't mention who david killed. It just says him.
29. How many beatitudes? Again, just because I can't quote word for word what someone's speech was, doesn't mean that he didn't speak it.
30. Does every man sin? Are you born of God? wouldn't that make you God? We as Christians are adopted into the family and therefore have sinned before.
31. Who purchased the potter's field? who says it is the same field? the field of blood is another way of saying cemetery. Look even the religiuos leaders said they bought it to bury strangers in. Cities are allowed to have more than one cemetery.
32. Who bears guilt? I have to pay the consequences for my sins, but my brothers in Christ are suppose to help me in my time of need by comforting me and helping me find the will of God. A psychiatrist may diagnose a patient and help them toward the road of recovery, but the patient must go down the road.
33. Don't answer a fool, just to answer a fool, because you can easily end up looking just like the fool. Do come up with constructive criticism which delivers the fool from his own conceit.
34. How many children did Michal have? She had five sons, then was cursed and had no more children. Read the context.
35. How old was Jehoiachim when he began to reign? He was 8 years old when he became king, but because he was too young to rule his council ruled the kingdom until his 18th birthday. After his 18th birthday he reigned for 3 months.
36. did those with paul at his conversion hear a voice? They heard the first words spoken by God to get Paul's attention and cause them to stop completely. After that the words that God spoke were for the ears of Paul only.
37. Where was Jesus 3 days after His baptism? who is to say that John wasn't in the wilderness also?
38. Judging. There is a difference between casting judgement on someone as a form of punishment and judging whether or not something is a good choice or not.
39. Good deeds. I may do something and people see it. That is ok because God gets the glory. If I go out and try to do good deeds just so people see me and I get glorified that is wrong. The difference is the condition of the heart.
40. For or against? I don't see the contradiction here.
41. Just because I mention only one angel doesn't deny the fact that the other one was there also. They recognized only the one angel because he was the one speaking to them.
42. When is the second coming? When the antichrist comes and causes the abomination not a generation will pass until the return of Christ and his reign forever.
43. Solomon's overseers. Again his kingdom grew therefore he had a larger counsel.
44. What was the color of the robe? scarlet and purple are the same.
45. What was give to jesus to drink? the references just refer to a bitter drink that helped numb the pain.
That isn't all of them, but I have to get to class now.
Boliver Allmon
-
I dont see the relevence to this topic. Is there?
Basketball is religion in Kansas.
-
thankyou bolliver for answering those questions. Im sorry to say that the atheists probably wont care in the least though. It is a sad thing. Ed never really pointed out major errors in the bible. all that he pointed out was how different translations can misinterpereted.
-
Even if the Bible as story is consistent, it doesn't make it plausible. It's just a story.
What I want is explanations for stuff that go against basic scientific laws. People living 900+ years, Noah building his massive ark, rain for 40 days and 40 nights enough to submerge the earth, etc.
-
how about start from the beginning and see if science can tell us how it all started. oh wait science cant tell us that. thats why its called the big bang "theory". evolutionary "theory". You want to believe in theories, then you believe in man. Man=flawed reasoning. Bible=consistency, true, not proven otherwise.
evidence of global flood:Niagara Falls - Because the rim of the falls is wearing back at a known rate every year, geologists recognize that it has only taken about 5,000 years to erode from its original precipice.
The Grand Canyon - Evolutionists believe that the Grand Canyon was formed by the Colorado River (small amount of water) over a long period of time. The problem with this theory is that there is over 900 cubic miles of dirt missing from the end of the river, there is no delta which would have been formed by slow water erosion! Creationists believe that the Gran Canyon was formed as a result of the Flood, (or a large amount of water flowinf over a short period of time).Mississippi River Delta - The delta formed by the Mississippi River is approximately 5000 years old Oldest Living Thing - High in the arid desert of the White Mountains bordering California and Nevada, grows the oldest living thing, a Bristle Cone Pine Tree, which has been dated at 4700 years old. Because of the hardiness of these trees, it is fair to say that these trees will likely go on living for additional thousands of years, barring any catastrophe that would remove them. The question arises logically: Why is it that we can't we find anything older than this tree, or more trees like it? Answer: because of the Flood.
God Created the earth perfect. But when Adam sinned this world began to decay.
Then when the flood came, things really got wrecked. Some Creationists believe that the pre-flood vapor canopy (the firmament in GEN 1:6 ) would filter out radiation, and hold in incoming solar heat making the earth a warmer place to live. This "expanse" seperated the "waters above" from the "waters below" in the Creation week. I believe that the firmament may have collapsed at the time of the flood.
As a result harmful radiation can enter the earth more easily than before, bringing with it all kinds of damaging effects.
The life span of man has been declining since the flood. The average age of man quickly dropped to less than 100 in the 200 years after the flood.
-
Even if the Bible as story is consistent, it doesn't make it plausible. It's just a story.
What I want is explanations for stuff that go against basic scientific laws. People living 900+ years, Noah building his massive ark, rain for 40 days and 40 nights enough to submerge the earth, etc.
Since when does living 900 years go against scientific laws? https://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4082.asp
I thought you were someone who believed in chance? In the same way that evolution isn't very probable, certain aspects of the Bible require circumstances to be correct as well. But again, I stress that religion is based on faith, and science is not. I don't find Evolution requiring you to believe that it happened (without full scientific proof) being anything but faith.
-
Basketball is religion in Kansas.
Amen! ;)
-
I find discusion on this ridiculous. Im am pretty religious, but I thought anyone knows that the bible, of all books is written in a metaphorical style very pouplar in its time and region. You can find books about interpretation and the meaning of certain numbers or events... ask your priest. Its pretty impossible, and downright stupid in some cases to try to give a literal meaning to many of the things that apear in the bible. Enough said about that. In the new testament, JEsus makes it clear that EVERYTHING in the bible boils down to two things:
Love God and his creation.
Love your neighbor (including your enemies)
Now, with the love god thing out of it, Im sure no atheist can deny that these basic principles: love everyone as you would love yourself, and love everything.... will not harm anyne, and are an inmediate solution to many of the worlds problems.... basically. the asis of this religion is an ethic principle. Do no harm to others.
So what if you dont believe in the arc, or that someone lived 900 years. You cant deny the basic goodness in this teaching. Apart from this, I get very irritated about ardent theists defending their religion, but saying trash about others' religions... that is irresponsible, stupid and completely against the principles of a cult of God... so in your veiws, Gandhi is in hell cause he wasnt a christian???
-
Enough said about that. In the new testament, JEsus makes it clear that EVERYTHING in the bible boils down to two things:
Love God and his creation.
Love your neighbor (including your enemies)
so in your veiws, Gandhi is in hell cause he wasnt a christian???
Well, what do you think after rereading those lines? I personally am not trying to be the judge of anyone, but my beliefs are that the Bible is correct. Jesus says that whoever believes in him will have eternal life. If Gandhi didn't believe in Jesus (which would make him a Christian), I have no reason to think that he is in heaven. However, I know that I am not the final step, and I know that God knows more than I do, which is why I usually don't answer the question, "Did this person go to heaven then?"
The point that we're arguing the Bible's validity over is the fact that if the Bible in its roots is incorrect, the Bible can't be taken seriously. And if the Bible can't be taken seriously, neither can the God of the Bible, since it was written by God through men. That's why it must be correct in its original form.
-
Jesus says that whoever believes in him will have eternal life. If Gandhi didn't believe in Jesus (which would make him a Christian), I have no reason to think that he is in heaven.
What are you talking about?! I believe in Jesus. The people that crucified him clearly believed in him. That he was an eccentric nutter is besides the point, I still believe he existed. See you in heaven ::),
Ed
-
This is a statement that was read over the PA system at the football game at Roane County High School, Kingston, Tennessee, by school Principal, Jody McLoud. I thought it was worth sharing with the world and hope you will forward it to all your friends. It shows clearly just how far this country has gone in the wrong direction.
"It has always been the custom at Roane County High School football games, to say a prayer and play the National Anthem, to honor God and Country."
Due to a recent ruling by the Supreme Court, I am told that saying a Prayer is a violation of Federal Case Law. As I understand the law at this time, I can use this public facility to approve of sexual perversion and call it "an alternate lifestyle," and if someone is offended, that's OK.
I can use it to condone sexual promiscuity, by dispensing condoms and calling it, "safe sex." If someone is offended, that's OK.
I can even use this public facility to present the merits of killing an unborn baby as a "viable means of birth control." If someone is offended, no problem.
I can designate a school day as "Earth Day" and involve students in activities to worship religiously and praise the goddess "Mother Earth" and call it "ecology."
I can use literature, videos and presentations in the classroom that depict people with strong, traditional Christian convictions as "simple minded" and "ignorant" and call it "enlightenment."
However, if anyone uses this facility to honor God and to ask Him to bless this event with safety and good sportsmanship, then Federal Case Law is violated.
This appears to be inconsistent at best, and at worst, diabolical. Apparently, we are to be tolerant of everything and anyone, except God and His Commandments.
Nevertheless, as a school principal, I frequently ask staff and students to abide by rules with which they do not necessarily agree. For me to do otherwise would be inconsistent at best, and at worst, hypocritical. I suffer from that affliction enough unintentionally. I certainly do not need to add an intentional transgression.
For this reason, I shall "Render unto Caesar that which is
Caesar's," and refrain from praying at this time.
"However, if you feel inspired to honor, praise and thank God and ask Him, in the name of Jesus, to bless this event, please feel free to do so. As far as I know, that's not against the law----yet."
One by one, the people in the stands bowed their heads, held hands with one another and began to pray.
They prayed in the stands. They prayed in the team huddles. They prayed at the concession stand and they prayed in the Announcer's Box!
The only place they didn't pray was in the Supreme Court of the United States of America - the Seat of "Justice" in the "one nation, under God."
Somehow, Kingston, Tennessee remembered what so many have forgotten. We are given the Freedom OF Religion, not the Freedom FROM Religion. Praise God that His remnant remains!
Celebrate Jesus in 2003!
Jesus said, "If you are ashamed of Me before men, then I will be ashamed of you before My Father."
If you are not ashamed, pass this on, but only if you mean it.
Yes, I do Love God. He is my source of existence and Savior. He keeps me functioning each and every day. Without Him, I will be nothing, but with Him, I can do all things through Christ that strengthens me.
Philippians 4:13
This is the simplest test . . . if you Love God, and are not ashamed of all the marvelous things He has done for you, feel free to pass it on!!!
-
Very well written! It sure puts light on the corruption of governments, concerning rights and freedoms. It is completely true and I've seen it apply before. I will definately forward it to my friends.
Thanks for the article, Prof :)
-
What are you talking about?! I believe in Jesus. The people that crucified him clearly believed in him. That he was an eccentric nutter is besides the point, I still believe he existed. See you in heaven
By believe in him, I meant (as well as he meant when he said it) that you believe that he is indeed the son of God, that through him anything is possible, and that through him your sins are forgiven (As long as you ask for them to be)
-Jon
-
And also, I reread my previous statement and I am not incorrect in any way. Jesus did say that (in a different language of course, and slightly paraphrased, hence the lack of quotes). I took it out of context because only part of it was relevant to the point I was discussing.
-
That's a good story. (I should try to combine posts :P)
-
that is irresponsible, stupid and completely against the principles of a cult of God... so in your veiws, Gandhi is in hell cause he wasnt a christian
why would you use "cult" and "God" in the same sentence? you dont know what you are talking about.That's a good story. (I should try to combine posts )
LOL!! use the modify button at top right of message. ;)that story was very enlightening. I cant believe that the supreme court would do that. They cant do that. It goes against the constitution of the United States of America!What are you talking about?! I believe in Jesus. The people that crucified him clearly believed in him. That he was an eccentric nutter is besides the point, I still believe he existed. See you in heaven ,
wired explained it already. thankyou wired. maybe ed will understand now what we mean when we say "believe" for someone to claim they understand religions so well and to think that believe means to just think he existed on earth tells me so much.
-
By believe in him, I meant (as well as he meant when he said it) that you believe that he is indeed the son of God, that through him anything is possible, and that through him your sins are forgiven (As long as you ask for them to be)
Well you should have written that then shouldn't you?
Ed
-
Bring out the dictionary:
Cult=worship... you worship God, dont you?
In the bible it says that God has other herds (I dont know the word in english for rebaño, her of sheep?) apart from Israel... so I dont think Ghandi went to hell, in this day and age there weren't manuy people as basically good as he was. Any egotistical raving of saying that your religion is the only true path is the basis of many of the troubles that religion has in modern society, and the increasing hatred of many of this worlds religious institutions.
-
maybe ed will understand now what we mean when we say "believe" for someone to claim they understand religions so well and to think that believe means to just think he existed on earth tells me so much.
be·lieve ( P ) Pronunciation Key (b-lv)
v. be·lieved, be·liev·ing, be·lieves
v. tr.
1. To accept as true or real: Do you believe the news stories?
2. To credit with veracity: I believe you.
3. To expect or suppose; think: I believe they will arrive shortly.
Thus I was simply complying with the definition of the word "believe". If you do not mean "believe" by the definition provided above, then I suggest you use different phraseology,
Ed
-
Jesus Christ said in the N.T. of the Bible, "I am the Way, the Truth and the Light, NO ONE comes to the Father, God except through me." :)
-
You go to Speaker's Corner in Hyde Park, you'll find plenty of people like that.
-
Bring out the dictionary:
Cult=worship... you worship God, dont you?
I don't really care about the rest of your post, simply because I'm not in the mood to read a huge paragraph that seems to be deriving off this false information. I did break out the dictionary: https://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=cult&r=67.
Which definition is "Cult is equal to worship"?
-
You go to Speaker's Corner in Hyde Park, you'll find plenty of people like that.
And most of them are American too!
Ed
-
be·lieve ( P ) Pronunciation Key (b-lv)
v. be·lieved, be·liev·ing, be·lieves
v. tr.
1. To accept as true or real: Do you believe the news stories?
2. To credit with veracity: I believe you.
3. To expect or suppose; think: I believe they will arrive shortly.
Thus I was simplying complying with the definition of the word "believe". If you do not mean "believe" by the definition provided above, then I suggest you use different phrasiology
Simply? Phraseology? Perhaps you should run spell check too ;)
And we do mean believe. It'd fall more under definition 2. However, if you scroll down and see the "Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary" definition, you'd see this:
believe
\Be*lieve"\, v. t. [imp. & p. p. Believed; p. pr. & vb. n. Believing.] [OE. bileven (with pref. be- for AS. ge-), fr. AS. gel?fan, gel?fan; akin to D. gelooven, OHG. gilouban, G. glauben, OS. gil?bian, Goth. galaubjan, and Goth. liubs dear. SeeLief, a., Leave, n.] To exercise belief in; to credit upon the authority or testimony of another; to be persuaded of the truth of, upon evidence furnished by reasons, arguments, and deductions of the mind, or by circumstances other than personal knowledge; to regard or accept as true; to place confidence in; to think; to consider; as, to believe a person, a statement, or a doctrine.
Or the next entry (Also from Webster's):
believe
\Be*lieve"\, v. i. 1. To have a firm persuasion, esp. of the truths of religion; to have a persuasion approaching to certainty; to exercise belief or faith.
Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief. --Mark ix. 24.
With the heart man believeth unto righteousness. --Rom. x. 10.
2. To think; to suppose.
I will not believe so meanly of you. --Fielding.
To believe in. (a) To believe that the subject of the thought (if a person or thing) exists, or (if an event) that it has occurred, or will occur; -- as, to believe in the resurrection of the dead. ``She does not believe in Jupiter.'' --J. H. Newman. (b) To believe that the character, abilities, and purposes of a person are worthy of entire confidence; -- especially that his promises are wholly trustworthy. ``Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me.'' --John xiv. 1. (c) To believe that the qualities or effects of an action or state are beneficial: as, to believe in sea bathing, or in abstinence from alcoholic beverages.
And there you have it: "To believe in," being defined in the Webster's dictionary explaining exactly what it means, and even gives an example usage from the Bible.
-
Simply? Phraseology? Perhaps you should run spell check too ;)
Forgive me - I was very tired at the time and just sustaining myself on coffee. Do I get originality marks for the phrase "simplying complying" though? I think it's quite inventive. Anyway, I'm off to see the paster now,
Ed
-
Any egotistical raving of saying that your religion is the only true path is the basis of many of the troubles that religion has in modern society, and the increasing hatred of many of this worlds religious institutions.
I am not saying my religion is the only way. Im saying Jesus is the only way.Well you should have written that then shouldn't you?
Ed
well if you did understand religions around the world then you would know what we were talking about in regards to the context of the word believe. Forgive me - I was very tired at the time and just sustaining myself on coffee. Do I get originality marks for the phrase "simplying complying" though? I think it's quite inventive. Anyway, I'm off to see the paster now,
Ed
A) get some sleep B) coffee is bad for the liver C) no originality marks because a bad speller like me probably at one time wrote those exact words. D)Let me know how your visit with the "pastor" turned out. Gee... this is turning into a spelling bee contest or something. New thread maybe? Maybe we should tell the moderator to include a spellchecker with the forum. ;D
-
IS that suposed to be better?
I think that most of peoples disbelief of God is in grand part due to the theist's unwavering point of view of theirs being the one and only path...
When I said Cult=worship, it was in reference to another post. I said "a cult of God".... meaning a worship of God; someone sai: Why do you have to use the word cult?
maybe Im wrong, because in spanish the word cult is also a verb meaning to worship (culto)
-
I think that most of peoples disbelief of God is in grand part due to the theist's unwavering point of view of theirs being the one and only path...
How is that different than any scientist coming up with a theory on how we got here? How is it different than anyone trying to prove anything? Everyone thinks they're right until proven wrong.
When I said Cult=worship, it was in reference to another post. I said "a cult of God".... meaning a worship of God; someone sai: Why do you have to use the word cult?
Ah, I missed that part. Sorry about that.
maybe Im wrong, because in spanish the word cult is also a verb meaning to worship (culto)
As is the latin word (cultus, if I remember correctly). However, a cult is much different in English (our silly language.... :P)
-
I am not saying my religion is the only way. Im saying Jesus is the only way.
So you are saying your religion is the only way.
well if you did understand religions around the world then you would know what we were talking about in regards to the context of the word believe.
I know what was meant, I just wanted to comment on the fact that what was meant wasn't what was written.
Let me know how your visit with the "pastor" turned out.
I didn't go to the pastor, I went to the paster. I needed to get something pasted,
Ed
-
I didnt say it, Jesus did. So its not my only way. Its "THE" only way. No doubt about it.
I know what was meant, I just wanted to comment on the fact that what was meant wasn't what was written.
oh? It looked like it to me. If you understood religion then you would understand the way we use that word then wouldnt you.I didn't go to the pastor, I went to the paster. I needed to get something pasted,
Ed
hopefully the ten commandments to your forehead! ;DIn your last post, you said, and I quote, "I am not saying my religion is the only way". This is clearly a contradiction
Well Jesus said He is the only way. Jesus is not a religion. And sorry if I sound like Im contradicting myself. I guess I was sorta speaking on a denominational level instead of religious.
-
Its "THE" only way. No doubt about it.
In your last post, you said, and I quote, "I am not saying my religion is the only way". This is clearly a contradiction.
It looked like it to me.
I think that says something about you rather than me!
If you understood religion then you would understand the way we use that word then wouldnt you.
I said that I understood why the word was used. I also said this was an incorrect use of the word.
hopefully the ten commandments to your forehead! ;D
Even by your extremely high standards of wit, that was hysterical. Oh the hilarity,
Ed
-
Did you know... Since you are talking about .....
As you walk up the steps to the Capitol Building which houses the
Supreme Court, you can see near the top of the building a row of
the world's law givers and each one is facing one in the middle
who is facing forward with a full frontal view --- it is Moses and
The Ten Commandments!
As you enter the Supreme Court courtroom, the two huge oak doors
have The Ten Commandments engraved on each lower portion of
each door.
As you sit inside the courtroom, you can see on the wall right above
where the Supreme Court judges sit a display of The Ten
Commandments!
There are Bible verses etched in stone all over the Federal Buildings
and Monuments in Washington, D.C.
James Madison, the fourth president, known as "The Father of Our Constitution" made the following statement "We have staked the
whole of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind
for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the
Ten Commandments of God."
Patrick Henry, that patriot and Founding Father of our country said,
"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great
nation was founded not by religionists but by Christians not on
religions but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ".
Every session of Congress begins with a prayer by a paid preacher
whose salary has been paid by the taxpayer since 1777.
Fifty-two of the 55 founders of the Constitution were members of the established orthodox churches in the colonies.
Thomas Jefferson worried about that the Courts would overstep their authority and instead of interpreting the law would begin making law.
An oligarchy --- the rule of few over many.
The very first Supreme Court Justice, John Jay, said, "Americans should select and prefer Christians as their rulers."
How then, have we gotten to the point that everything we have done for
200 years in this country is now suddenly wrong and unconstitutional?
Thomas Jefferson was right to worry.....!!
God help us before it is too late!! :'(
-
Well, thanks for giving examples that all this is completely unacceptable. The world's most powerful country is mixing politics with religion... and proselytism.
Americans should select and prefer Christians as their rulers
Yeah, and then you could also add 'and send the others to extermination camps' while you're at it.
-
Yeah, and then you could also add 'and send the others to extermination camps' while you're at it.
noah, this doesnt make any sense at all. are you comparing christianity with nazis? oh my gosh. you have some serious issues. nuff said.
Pres. Bush is a christian if Im not mistaking. The thing I dont get is that his wife is pro-choice or pro-abortion if dont know which but both are bad in my book.Well, thanks for giving examples that all this is completely unacceptable. The world's most powerful country is mixing politics with religion...
that is why it is the worlds most powerful country. ;) And I wouldnt say "mixing" cause we have that little constitution saying of "seperation of church and state".
-
the words seperation of church and state do not occur in the constitution, nor any other political document. The words came from a letter from Jefferson when he was quoting a baptist minister. He said this implying the the country would never cause a country mandated religion to come about.
boliver
-
noah, this doesnt make any sense at all. are you comparing christianity with nazis?
Not with nazis in particular, with any form of totalitarian authority. I found
PianoProfBonsWay's post particularly shocking and discriminating though.
oh my gosh. you have some serious issues.
I return the compliment to you and most theists in this forum.
Pres. Bush is a christian if Im not mistaking. The thing I dont get is that his wife is pro-choice or pro-abortion if dont know which but both are bad in my book.
What are you trying to prove ? That the leader of your country is too stupid to realise he contradicts himself ?
And I wouldnt say "mixing" cause we have that little constitution saying of "seperation of church and state".
Which is then not respected.
-
Not with nazis in particular, with any form of totalitarian authority. I found
PianoProfBonsWay's post particularly shocking and discriminating though.
Really... it seems like just facts to me (except for the last paragraph, which is simply a question). Do you find facts discriminating?
Which is then not respected.
Well, as Boliver said, separation of church and state isn't in any political document. https://www.noapathy.org/tracts/mythofseparation.html
-
I was just relating facts of the our nation's past.
The information I am getting President Bush's wife stands the same as her husband concerning these issues not the opposite, and yes they are Christians. They start each day reading the Bible and in prayer.
Do you know what separation of church and state really means, and how today it has been changed in our thinking? Our forefathers came to America to have a new nation that didn't have a ONE BELIEF-ISM- CHURCH STATE and everyone had to be connect to that ONE- CHURCH STATE ~ in other words ~ FREEDOM to worship God as one believed. Today, separation means ~ no GOD IN ANYTHING ~ in my book of knowing GOD IS GOD ~ CREATOR GOD ~ this is dangerous to loose the blessings of GOD with this kind of action ~ " one Nation under God..." I want his continued blessings, where people are feel accountable to God for their actions.
-
Last line, take out 'are' haven't had my wake up cup of coffee yet this morning ~ just looked outside and we have our first snow covering ~ beautiful ~ love living in Alaska especially in Whittier Alaska ~ water falls in my backyard with Whittier Glacier, and port in the front of our condo building. Have a nice day :)
-
I was just relating facts of the our nation's past.
Well that's even worse then.
The information I am getting President Bush's wife stands the same as her husband concerning these issues not the opposite, and yes they are Christians. They start each day reading the Bible and in prayer.
Who cares what brainless W and his wife do every morning ?
Do you know what separation of church and state really means, and how today it has been changed in our thinking? Our forefathers came to America to have a new nation that didn't have a ONE BELIEF-ISM- CHURCH STATE and everyone had to be connect to that ONE- CHURCH STATE ~ in other words ~ FREEDOM to worship God as one believed. Today, separation means ~ no GOD IN ANYTHING ~ in my book of knowing GOD IS GOD ~ CREATOR GOD ~ this is dangerous to loose the blessings of GOD with this kind of action ~ " one Nation under God..." I want his continued blessings, where people are feel accountable to God for their actions.
You haven't been blessed with clarity of expression, that's for sure.
I'm not saying you can't believe in your fancy stories if you want to, just that it shouldn't be mixed with politics, for obvious reasons.
-
Who cares what brainless W and his wife do every morning ?
well maybe just because he is our commander in chief of the united states of america. the words seperation of church and state do not occur in the constitution, nor any other political document. The words came from a letter from Jefferson when he was quoting a baptist minister. He said this implying the the country would never cause a country mandated religion to come about.
i sit corrected :P
-
well maybe just because he is our commander in chief of the united states of america.
He also has the intellect of a small pancake,
Ed
-
"While the storm clouds gather far across the sea,
Let us swear allegiance to a land that's free,
Let us all be grateful for a land so fair,
As we raise our voices in a solemn prayer.
God Bless America.
Land that I love
Stand beside her, and guide her
Thru the night with a light from above.
From the mountains, to the prairies ,
To the oceans, white with foam
God bless America
My home sweet home."
-
Well that's even worse then.
Or better. If the founding fathers didn't exercise religious beliefs, how could they keep their rights protected properly?
Who cares what brainless W and his wife do every morning?
Obviously someone, otherwise we wouldn't have this common knowledge.
You haven't been blessed with clarity of expression, that's for sure.
I'm not saying you can't believe in your fancy stories if you want to, just that it shouldn't be mixed with politics, for obvious reasons.
Obvious reasons? Like...?
-
He also has the intellect of a small pancake,
And your proof being? Sure, he's not a great public speaker, but he doesn't have to be. Sure, his administration and himself have made a few errors (but mostly were cases of incorrect information given between departments). Our whole administrations actions can't be put onto one individual. If something big happens, it requires more than one person to approve it.
Bachelor's degree from Yale, master's from Harvard -- I fail to see how a pancake can beat that.
-
PianoProfBonsWay,
If you think your country is free and fair, think again. Or better, grab a history book.
Obvious reasons? Like...?
Like the fact that religion interferes with the objective thinking that politicians should have.
Bachelor's degree from Yale, master's from Harvard -- I fail to see how a pancake can beat that.
Yeah, a pancake doesn't have a dad that's rich enough to pay for some prestigious degrees.
-
Do you know what the requirements were for the Founding Fathers of our Nation to be able to run for office?
-
Like the fact that religion interferes with the objective thinking that politicians should have.
Fact? Where was this proven? Is there some study you know about that I don't? Perhaps you meant "Like the possibility," but no such correlation has ever been made.
Yeah, a pancake doesn't have a dad that's rich enough to pay for some prestigious degrees.
Do you have proof of this? If not, I suggest we stick to facts when trying to credit people's intelligence, simply because it's stupid to argue points that aren't facts.
-
it's stupid to argue points that aren't facts.
Actually, it's stupid to argue points that ARE facts. (On a side note, this does make your whole creationist argument rather stupid in that the world being ever so slightly older than a mere 10 000 years is a fact).
"While the storm clouds gather far across the sea,
Let us swear allegiance to a land that's free,
Let us all be grateful for a land so fair,
As we raise our voices in a solemn prayer.
Fair? America?! Have you heard of the Vietnam war?
And not to mention how George W. Bush was elected!
Ed
-
Do you have proof of this? If not, I suggest we stick to facts when trying to credit people's intelligence, simply because it's stupid to argue points that aren't facts.
Well I doubt people who really have the intelligence to get a Masters from Harvard would say such gems as :
"Rarely is the questioned asked: Is our children learning?" —Florence, S.C., Jan. 11, 2000
"I know what I believe. I will continue to articulate what I believe and what I believe — I believe what I believe is right." —Rome, July 22, 2001
"I am here to make an announcement that this Thursday, ticket counters and airplanes will fly out of Ronald Reagan Airport." —Washington, D.C., Oct. 3, 2001
"I promise you I will listen to what has been said here, even though I wasn't here." —Waco, Texas, Aug. 13 2002
"The ambassador and the general were briefing me on the — the vast majority of Iraqis want to live in a peaceful, free world. And we will find these people and we will bring them to justice." —George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Oct. 27, 2003
"I recently met with the finance minister of the Palestinian Authority, was very impressed by his grasp of finances." —George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., May 29, 2003
"I think war is a dangerous place." —George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., May 7, 2003
-
"They misunderestimated me" - George W. Bush,
Ed
-
Actually, it's stupid to argue points that ARE facts. (On a side note, this does make your whole creationist argument rather stupid in that the world being ever so slightly older than a mere 10 000 years is a fact).
That again has yet to be disproven. While it has been proven in some respect, the methods used to prove it have had (so far) uncontested innacuracies raised about them.
Fair? America?! Have you heard of the Vietnam war?
We had obligations to go to Vietnam due to a (or some, I'm at work and don't have too much time :P) treaty. If we don't respect treaties, the world would be in horrible trouble. However, for the amount of time we spent there -- I agree, that wasn't good.
And not to mention how George W. Bush was elected!
What? Fairly? If you think our electoral college setup is not fair, well, I think you're misinfomed. Sure the circumstances were awkward, but I think that is mainly because the media reports things before they are official.
-
Well I doubt people who really have the intelligence to get a Masters from Harvard would say such gems as:
Well, you need to insert a comma after "well" because it is an interjection. Master's needs an apostrophe and technically should be lowercase unless you provide which kind of degree it pertains to. "Who" should really be "whom."
As I said (indirectly), public speaking is not a measure of intelligence. Whether or not someone can speak English well is not a measure of how much knowledge, common sense, and other intellectual traits of an individual. For example, I was required to take a single public speaking class to obtain my degree in Computer Science, which lies inside of the College of Engineering. Are you implying that every geek and nerd that doesn't have any public speaking skills has no intelligence -- or at least not enough intelligence to have graduated from a prestigious school?
-
We had obligations to go to Vietnam due to a (or some, I'm at work and don't have too much time :P) treaty. If we don't respect treaties, the world would be in horrible trouble. However, for the amount of time we spent there -- I agree, that wasn't good.
What are you talking about? America went to war for their own selfish purposes and don't even try to say otherwise. There was no such treaty, and even if there were, I don't think events such as the My Lai massacre were justified! Honestly...
What? Fairly? If you think our electoral college setup is not fair, well, I think you're misinfomed. Sure the circumstances were awkward, but I think that is mainly because the media reports things before they are official.
You obviously have no idea how your own president was elected. The media report you are referring to was by a TV network who's chairman is George Bush's cousin by the way. What about the fact that the Republicans basically bought the Florida vote? (If you don't believe me just say and I will elaborate!),
Ed
-
I've talked with VA's who have been in "fox-holes" at death's door and they have said, "Don't talk against what is happening in America ~ my beloved America and my Creator God until you have been in a "fox-hole" and served on foreign soil.," ~ then you will change your opinions about our land, and appreciate what we do have, which may be far from perfect, but better than foreign-soil problems. When I see corruption in high places, even in city govt. and don't like it, and there is no way I can change it even with trying, my husband and I solve the problem by praying for it to change. When we came to Whittier AK ~ so much wrong was happening and had been this way for the last 10 years, my husband and I started addressing the needs of change 2 years ago, and today ALL the head people quit and now we have honorable people in leadership of this town. We have unity in govt and no private agenda's. And, even the un-churched people in our community said prayer was the reason why it changed.
My husband is 65 years old a VA and I am 63 years old, we have seen all the bad and good happenings in our blessed America, thus having a fuller understanding why this happened this way when it should of happened that way, or it shouldn't of happened at all.
We, as American Citizens continue to address people, write letters when we don't agree with our President and Leaders.
I had a friend who was 70 years old, and I was only in my 20's tell me, "Don't judge that person, until you have walked in their shoes for a while."
I don't judge you all either, only share with you what is in my heart and what I have learned from those years.
I have only asked God for His guidance and wisdom, and I have never been disappointed.
-
Well, you need to insert a comma after "well" because it is an interjection. Master's needs an apostrophe and technically should be lowercase unless you provide which kind of degree it pertains to. "Who" should really be "whom."
1- English is not my first language
2- I'm not the president of the USA
If we don't respect treaties, the world would be in horrible trouble
Is this some kind of sarcasm ? What did the USA do 6 months ago ?
Are you implying that every geek and nerd that doesn't have any public speaking skills has no intelligence -- or at least not enough intelligence to have graduated from a prestigious school?
I'm not criticising his way of speaking here (though examples oh his pancake-like level of literacy are abundant), but the content of his speeches.
And anyway, his mistakes are not like forgetting the comma in Master's, but more like the "I be W and me dad buyed me nice diploma".
-
What are you talking about? America went to war for their own selfish purposes and don't even try to say otherwise. There was no such treaty,
https://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Southeast-Asia-Treaty-Organization- The Southeast Asia Treaty Organization, an alliance formed to oppose further Communistic gains in Southeast Asia.
and even if there were, I don't think events such as the My Lai massacre were justified! Honestly...
No, it doesn't, but it does give us a non-selfish reason (before you reply, click that link -- Great Britain was a member of that organization) to be in the war in the first place. We also have better training in dealing with non-hostile citizens because of the incident.
What about the fact that the Republicans basically bought the Florida vote? (If you don't believe me just say and I will elaborate!)
Please do.
-
1- English is not my first language
2- I'm not the president of the USA
Fair enough.
Is this some kind of sarcasm ? What did the USA do 6 months ago ?
I assume you're talking about the 1972 anti-ballistic missile treaty? If not, please do say which treaty you speak of. If so, please say how it was out of line.
I'm not criticising his way of speaking here (though examples oh his pancake-like level of literacy are abundant), but the content of his speeches.
Sadly, the content of 90% of his speeches aren't written by him.
And anyway, his mistakes are not like forgetting the comma in Master's, but more like the "I be W and me dad buyed me nice diploma".
Again, I don't see how speech can represent intelligence.
And I also don't see how no one else realizes that the President has very little specific powers that he can use without prior authority by other sections of the government. Even the powers that he does possess, they are rarely used without prior approval from Congress. Add to that the fact that the President has a full cabinet that advises him.
The President, although an icon of power in the US, doesn't actually get much accomplished by himself. Rather than blame George W., we should put the blame on everyone. While that doesn't really make us feel better (we, as humans, try to blame someone for everything), it does make more sense.
-
Wired,
Thank you for your keen sense of understanding how our government runs ~ people run it, not just one person, whom we all point out good or bad. We have checks and balances in our govt., for none of us are always right all the time.
I love America ~ she is not perfect, but I am proud of her, and that I live in America, and that I am a citizen of USA. :) AND, that we all can POST our opinions for or against on such a open forum such as this one.
-
I have only asked God for His guidance and wisdom, and I have never been disappointed.
But have you ever gotten a response?!
Southeast Asia Treaty Organization, an alliance formed to oppose further Communistic gains in Southeast Asia.
What connection do any of these countries have with Vietnam?! And therefore, what right do the USA have being there? There is absolutely no reason for their involvement except their own "security" at the expense of others.
No, it doesn't, but it does give us a non-selfish reason (before you reply, click that link -- Great Britain was a member of that organization) to be in the war in the first place.
As I have just said, it clearly doesn't.
We also have better training in dealing with non-hostile citizens because of the incident.
Well I should hope so too!
Please do.
This is what I remember from off the top of my head:
- Florida was the crucial deciding state at the election.
- About 50 000 voters (all of them minorities who would have voted democrats or white democrats) were not allowed to vote if their names shared any resemblance to a convicted criminal in any other state. For example, a convicted criminal named Jon Michaels in North Carolina would disqualify anybody named Jon, Jonny, or Jonathon Michaels in Florida from voting. Indeed, one person was disqualified from voting for a crime had supposedly committed in 2007! (According to official records).
- Furthermore, around 1 000 republican votes were counted (remember, Florida was only won by about 150 votes) which should not have been allowed at all - these included votes without US postal marks on - i.e. they were from people living abroad and from convicted criminals who were therefore not eligible to vote.
- One would think this would be a huge affair - however the lady who was responsible for making sure the voting in Florida was as fair as possible also had another job - she was one of Bush's senior election campaigners.
- Before the votes had finished being counted, a certain television network, incidentally one whose chairman is George Bush's cousin, announced Bush had won Florida. Wouldn't the governor of Florida be slightly concerned with the "result" being broadcast prematurely? No - the governor of Florida is Jed Bush, George's brother.
- Despite all the problems with the recounting of votes which we all know about, and the fact that Al Gore actually managed to obtain more votes than Bush, the decision on what to do was given to the Supreme Court. Two thirds of the nine judges were appointed by republican leaders (most by George Bush Snr.). One of the judge's wives was high up in George Bush's administration and would therefore be out of a job if the republicans did not win Florida (this type of situation was not uncommon within the members of the Supreme Court). Not surprisingly, the decision was to give Florida to Bush, without which Gore would have been president.
- An official report was due to be released months later on the controversy surrounding the election, but was interrupted by 9/11.
I assume you're talking about the 1972 anti-ballistic missile treaty? If not, please do say which treaty you speak of. If so, please say how it was out of line.
He said six months ago. Heard of Iraq?
Ed
-
What connection do any of these countries have with Vietnam?! And therefore, what right do the USA have being there? There is absolutely no reason for their involvement except their own "security" at the expense of others.
What connection do we have with you? Nothing, that doesn't mean we don't try to help you out when we can, and you try to help us out when we can. This alliance was formed to prevent communistic gains in Southeast Asia. That is one reason for us entering the war. How is that not unselfish?
This is what I remember from off the top of my head:
1. Having relations to people who are in charge of things doesn't mean that they will unethically go against their duties to ensure things go well for you.
2. "The" TV station that reported it wasn't just one station, it was every station. Technically, no one gets elected on the voting day, and people's votes don't actually decide who the President is. Instead, the votes only direct the electors to vote in a certain direction. They are in no way required to vote a certain way.
Despite all of these facts, TV stations report the winner the night of the election. Sure, it hasn't happened where the electors change sides enough that it changes the result of the election, but electors have changed sides.
He said six months ago. Heard of Iraq?
Yes, and I asked what treaty.
-
What connection do we have with you? Nothing, that doesn't mean we don't try to help you out when we can, and you try to help us out when we can. This alliance was formed to prevent communistic gains in Southeast Asia. That is one reason for us entering the war. How is that not unselfish?
So - America view communism as evil and therefore they see it as their duty to rid South-East Asia of it. This does not give them the right to actually try and rid South-East Asia of it! Who made them the world's policemen?!
1. Having relations to people who are in charge of things doesn't mean that they will unethically go against their duties to ensure things go well for you.
Wake up.
2. "The" TV station that reported it wasn't just one station, it was every station.
It was one TV station originally. Once they had reported it, of course every other station reported it too.
Yes, and I asked what treaty.
They didn't break a treaty as such, just International Law! Which is worse?!
Ed
-
So - America view communism as evil and therefore they see it as their duty to rid South-East Asia of it.
Great Britain did too.
This does not give them the right to actually try and rid South-East Asia of it! Who made them the world's policemen?!
Originally I don't think our goal was to oust communism, but rather help hold up democracy that was in South Vietnam.
Wake up.
Sorry, I won't sleep-type again, I promise.
It was one TV station originally. Once they had reported it, of course every other station reported it too.
Yes, but if you read the rest of my post you'd realize that everyone is premature in announcing voting decisions unless they wait until January 6 to hear the official reading of the electors ballots.
They didn't break a treaty as such, just International Law! Which is worse?!
And so where's the irony?
-
Great Britain did too.
But we didn't kill thousands of innocent Vietnamese civillians trying to uphold it did we?
Originally I don't think our goal was to oust communism, but rather help hold up democracy that was in South Vietnam.
Rather? They are the same thing you idiot.
Sorry, I won't sleep-type again, I promise.
Way to avoid the point.
Yes, but if you read the rest of my post you'd realize that everyone is premature in announcing voting decisions unless they wait until January 6 to hear the official reading of the electors ballots.
But the votes hadn't finished being counted! Are you going to completely avoid the rest of my post (a comment on all the disqualified voters would be nice...)?
And so where's the irony?
I never said anything about irony,
Ed
-
break it up wired and eddie. Ed, there is no need for name calling in a debate. That is very immature of you.
He also has the intellect of a small pancake,
Ed
is that a silver dollar pancake or your regular aunt jemima style?What did the USA do 6 months ago ?
where have you been mister? are you just coming out of the closet for the first time in your life? WE WENT TO WAR WITH IRAQ! I have only asked God for His guidance and wisdom, and I have never been disappointed.
But have you ever gotten a response?!
I sure hope you dont mean verbal. If so, you really need to understand christianity better. the decision was to give Florida to Bush, without which Gore would have been president.
thank goodness that didnt work out. Way to avoid the point.
And likewise to you ed.
Interesting, no one has pointed out that Iraq has broken many treaties in the past 10 years. Interesting, most of you could care less about the lives we are loosing or lost in vietnam and iraq. Let me ask you this, Given 9/11 and your in george bush's shoes...what would you do? would you sit back like billy clinton and launch a couple of missles at aspirin factories? Dont you think we should fight for our freedom. So we can be "LESS" oppressed by terrorism. Do you think the talks with the UN were going anywhere? Give me some feedback.What did I tell you about personal attacks? They get you nowhere.
hence that is why he still does them. He is going nowhere with his mindset.
-
But we didn't kill thousands of innocent Vietnamese civillians trying to uphold it did we?
No, but my original point is that we didn't back out of a treaty among several countries.
Rather? They are the same thing you idiot.
What did I tell you about personal attacks? They get you nowhere.
They are not the same thing. To protect something is not the same thing as trying to get rid of the thing that attacks what you are protecting. I'm tempted to refer to you in the same way you referred to me.
Way to avoid the point.
*bows* There was no point in that line.
But the votes hadn't finished being counted! Are you going to completely avoid the rest of my post (a comment on all the disqualified voters would be nice...)?
I was trying to avoid quoting such a large message.
Basically, there were errors and are problems. That's why people are trying to make all electronic systems for voting (which isn't that hard, I don't know how they keep messing up).
The Supreme Court decision originally was that Gore had met his burden of proof to allow a recount. However, a partial recount doesn't guarantee equal voting power to each citizen, as a partial recount means that new votes were considered when others possibly should have as well. This is guaranteed under the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses.
However, this, the supreme court decision, and anything else doesn't really matter. If it truly was the obvious thing -- that Gore should have one -- the electors could easily have voted for Gore instead. After all, they are supposed to reflect the public's intent (although they are not required to).
I never said anything about irony
Right... and the original point was:
Is this some kind of sarcasm ? What did the USA do 6 months ago ?
So, I'm sorry. I meant sarcasm.
-
Have you looked up 14,000 days on the Internet?
Have you read Matt. 24 in the Bible.
Nothing can stop what is suppose to happen told in the Bible Prophecy. Most has already been fulfilled.
Situations are not going to get better in our world, until the Son of God returns.
All through the Bible History shows man repeating history, and evil and good upon this world.
There are some God fearing men who became leaders, and some that were evil.
Soon one is coming after the Rapture, that will bring peace for 3 1/2 years, and after that he is worse then any person can imagine for another 3 1/2 years....EVIL!
I can put my Bible next to the world news, and they match as to what is happening and will happen soon.
God said we would not know the day or hour, but he didn't say we would not know the year....14,000 days is really looking interesting.
Regardless, Christians are going to come back to rule and reign with the Son of God, before man completely destroys themselves.
Knowing the end of the prophecy makes life have great meaning, and knowing I serve not self, but HIM, Jesus Christ the coming King ~ WOW!~ THAT WILL MEAN finally real peace on earth.
You all are probably young, but the real living is going to be on the other side with God's Son, our coming King.
Hope to see you there ~ seriously ~ this is my prayer.
Have a great day! :)
Wrote this at 4 am in the morning....just getting to bed. Probably lots of mistakes, but hope you get the message.
-
break it up wired and eddie. Ed, there is no need for name calling in a debate. That is very immature of you.
"The French are nothing but cheese eating surrender monkeys." George W. Bush.
where have you been mister? are you just coming out of the closet for the first time in your life? WE WENT TO WAR WITH IRAQ!
WE KNOW! THAT WAS THE POINT!
I sure hope you dont mean verbal. If so, you really need to understand christianity better.
I understand that you worship something that won't give you a response.
thank goodness that didnt work out.
Not what Iraqi civillians would say I'm sure!
Interesting, no one has pointed out that Iraq has broken many treaties in the past 10 years.
So it makes it okay for the USA to?
Interesting, most of you could care less about the lives we are loosing or lost in vietnam and iraq.
When did anyone ever say this?
Let me ask you this, Given 9/11 and your in george bush's shoes...what would you do? would you sit back like billy clinton and launch a couple of missles at aspirin factories? Dont you think we should fight for our freedom. So we can be "LESS" oppressed by terrorism. Do you think the talks with the UN were going anywhere? Give me some feedback.
hence that is why he still does them. He is going nowhere with his mindset.
For a start, one thing I don't do is break international law. Not only can the war on Iraq by definition be classed as terrorism, but also the threat of terrorism on the USA is now greater after the war!
No, but my original point is that we didn't back out of a treaty among several countries.
I ask you again: What right do you have being there in the first place?
Basically, there were errors and are problems. That's why people are trying to make all electronic systems for voting (which isn't that hard, I don't know how they keep messing up).
The Supreme Court decision originally was that Gore had met his burden of proof to allow a recount. However, a partial recount doesn't guarantee equal voting power to each citizen, as a partial recount means that new votes were considered when others possibly should have as well. This is guaranteed under the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses.
However, this, the supreme court decision, and anything else doesn't really matter. If it truly was the obvious thing -- that Gore should have one -- the electors could easily have voted for Gore instead. After all, they are supposed to reflect the public's intent (although they are not required to).
How very democratic! ::).
So, I'm sorry. I meant sarcasm.
I did not say anything about sarcasm,
Ed
-
Interesting, most of you could care less about the lives we are loosing or lost in vietnam and iraq.
When did anyone ever say this?
nobody did. But nobody mentioned it or even cares to.For a start, one thing I don't do is break international law. Not only can the war on Iraq by definition be classed as terrorism, but also the threat of terrorism on the USA is now greater after the war!
So us trying to disrupt the terrorism network is an act of terror in itself? cmon man. How is the threat of terror any greater than 9/11 eddy? we lost what?,5000 people or more in that! That is alot more than these little acts of terror in Israel and other places like that with those suicide bombers.I ask you again: What right do you have being there in the first place?
Im guessing your talking about vietnam. But Im sure you could imply it to Iraq as well. The right we have to be in iraq is to stop or at least severely disrupt the terrorism network. Sounds like a tv station:) Whether or not we find WMD, I dont care. We are disrupting their network for sure being over there. We all know they had WMD, they had plenty of time to dispose/transport it elsewhere. Im guessing we should hit Iran next. That is if we havent secretly yet done it. Im sure we have some special ops over there checking it out. How very democratic! .
*cough*republican*cough*
Ya, I dont know what pianoproffesor is saying about the bible and 14000 days. Unless wired could shed some light. Yeah, so how come things like 9/11 attacks couldn't be foreseen when you've got such a religious president ?
talk about taking things literaly. We are talking about the Bible, not some chain smoking Miss Cleo(who dis fraud by teh way) We are talking in a general sense about how things are the way the bible said they would be. The bible doesnt give specific terror attacks listed before the end times. I know we are not that illiterate about the bible are we? If so pick it up and read it. I know I need to some more and maybe this forum will inspire me to. Well, ultimately God does the inspiring to be correct n all.
Knowing the end of the prophecy makes life have great meaning, and knowing I serve not self, but HIM, Jesus Christ the coming King ~ WOW!~ THAT WILL MEAN finally real peace on earth
Totally awesome, dude. Calm down, and stop smoking drugs.
what then, is the meaning of life then?
-
I can put my Bible next to the world news, and they match as to what is happening and will happen soon.
Yeah, so how come things like 9/11 attacks couldn't be foreseen when you've got such a religious president ?
God said we would not know the day or hour, but he didn't say we would not know the year....14,000 days is really looking interesting.
Or is it ?
Regardless, Christians are going to come back to rule and reign with the Son of God, before man completely destroys themselves.
Was W your English teacher ?
Knowing the end of the prophecy makes life have great meaning, and knowing I serve not self, but HIM, Jesus Christ the coming King ~ WOW!~ THAT WILL MEAN finally real peace on earth.
Totally awesome, dude. Calm down, and stop smoking drugs.
Wrote this at 4 am in the morning....just getting to bed. Probably lots of mistakes, but hope you get the message.
Mistakes like.... none of this makes any sense ?
-
these little acts of terror in Israel and other places like that with those suicide bombers.
Does your stupidy grow exponentially ?I'm tempted to call that sentence racist.
Im guessing we should hit Iran next
You're guessing your country should start a war and kill a few thousand civilians ?
-
You're guessing your country should start a war and kill a few thousand civilians ?
Start a war? Hey bud, as far as I am concerned we are still at war. I know we declared an end to the war on Iraq. But as far as I am concerened we are still at war. no I am not saying to kill civilians, although sadly that is what happens in war alot of times. I am saying that we probably need to look further than Iraq and Afganistan.
Does your stupidy grow exponentially ?I'm tempted to call that sentence racist.
racist? how so? Im just given the facts man. When I think of racists, I think of people using racial slang. n****r or something like that. All I was saying is that those acts of terror are on a much smaller scale over there than that of 9/11. and you go and blow this thing into a racist remark. on what grounds? you can be tempted to call it whatever you like. wrong you will be.This is what I remember from off the top of my head:
looks like a copy/paste to me lol:)
-
"The French are nothing but cheese eating surrender monkeys." George W. Bush.
I believe you are mistaken. Fox News said this, not George W.
So it makes it okay for the USA to?
I asked which treaties.
For a start, one thing I don't do is break international law. Not only can the war on Iraq by definition be classed as terrorism, but also the threat of terrorism on the USA is now greater after the war!
The whole war was based off misinformation between different government organizations. I believe this debate started as to challenge the intellect of our President. I don't hold Bush responsible for everything our entire government does, and neither should anyone else. I'm not going to argue whether or not the war was good -- I feel opinionated on both sides, as my stepbrother belongs to the air force, and I have beliefs against war (in most circumstances).
I ask you again: What right do you have being there in the first place?
The same right that any other country in that treaty organization had. We happened to be the only people directly trying to uphold the treaty.
How very democratic! ::).
It is democratic -- it's more like a representative democracy though, but it isn't really that either. It's a nice balance.
I did not say anything about sarcasm
Then why did you reply to that point to begin with? I questioned which treaty because Noah thought I was being sarcastic about how we were upholding a treaty when entering Vietnam. Then you reply, and I still haven't figured out why you replied in the first place to this point, since the original question never was answered.
-
racist? how so? Im just given the facts man. When I think of racists, I think of people using racial slang. n****r or something like that
You're one of those guys who consider that the death of one of his fellow Americans is more important than the death of someone in a country far away. That's not exactly racism, but it's just as bad.
Israeli (and Palestinian) people have to live in fear every day, while you had to suffer that terrible attack once. You don't have to wonder every day if your kids will come back alive from school. So don't come and present America as the martyr of terrorism using your pointless comparisons. Besides, USA didn't seem to care that much about freedom and justice before 9/11. If the war in Iraq really had been about defending freedom, it would have happened 10 or 15 years ago.
Start a war? Hey bud, as far as I am concerned we are still at war. I know we declared an end to the war on Iraq. But as far as I am concerened we are still at war
Oh, so does that mean you can go at war with any country because you're "still at war" with Iraq ??
-
Noah, I find your quote quite amusing considering the topic.
boliver
-
So us trying to disrupt the terrorism network is an act of terror in itself? cmon man. How is the threat of terror any greater than 9/11 eddy? we lost what?,5000 people or more in that! That is alot more than these little acts of terror in Israel and other places like that with those suicide bombers.
If you knew the definition of terrorism you would understand - "The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons". That is exactly what the war on Iraq was!
Noah pointed out quite rightly that you have suffered one terrorist attack when they occur much more frequently in the Middle East, and before 9/11 America didn't seem to be that interested!
Im guessing your talking about vietnam. But Im sure you could imply it to Iraq as well. The right we have to be in iraq is to stop or at least severely disrupt the terrorism network. Sounds like a tv station:) Whether or not we find WMD, I dont care. We are disrupting their network for sure being over there. We all know they had WMD, they had plenty of time to dispose/transport it elsewhere. Im guessing we should hit Iran next. That is if we havent secretly yet done it. Im sure we have some special ops over there checking it out.
America has NO right to be in Iraq. They were not under threat from Saddam Hussein before the war, so self-defence won't justify it. I say it again: The USA is not the world's policemen. Furthermore, do you have any idea about Iran's situation or do you just presume it to be full of terrorists since it's in the Middle East (that is the impression I am getting!)?
Start a war? Hey bud, as far as I am concerned we are still at war. I know we declared an end to the war on Iraq. But as far as I am concerened we are still at war.
Yes it is really hard for you isn't it? You can't even step outside without fear... ::).
no I am not saying to kill civilians, although sadly that is what happens in war alot of times. I am saying that we probably need to look further than Iraq and Afganistan.
Since nothing has been found there that links them to terrorism!
looks like a copy/paste to me lol:)
I'll take that as a compliment! I assure you it is not copy and pasted. If you don't believe me I urge you to type a phrase from it into AltaVista.
I believe you are mistaken. Fox News said this, not George W.
That wasn't what the newspapers over here said.
I'm not going to argue whether or not the war was good -- I feel opinionated on both sides, as my stepbrother belongs to the air force, and I have beliefs against war (in most circumstances).
What relevance has your step-brother got? After all, it was you that said "Having relations to people who are in charge of things doesn't mean that they will unethically go against their duties to ensure things go well for you".
The same right that any other country in that treaty organization had. We happened to be the only people directly trying to uphold the treaty.
Which was no right at all! Unless Vietnam sign that treaty, you have no right being there! When will you realise this?!
It is democratic -- it's more like a representative democracy though, but it isn't really that either. It's a nice balance.
Representative of who? The democrats who weren't allowed to vote?
Ed
-
I was under the impression that Gore actually had more votes than bush did in Florida, but that Bush won more districts, hence giving him the electoral college.
Boliver
-
Here is something else. I have noticed that Eddie is just looking for a fight. YOU DON"T LIVE IN AMERICA SO WHY DO YOU CARE WHAT WE DO? Fix your own problems before trying to gripe and fix ours. You must take the plank out of your eye before removing the spec from your brothers.
boliver
-
YOU DON"T LIVE IN AMERICA SO WHY DO YOU CARE WHAT WE DO?
Because you mess up with the world ?
You don't live in Iraq, so why do you care what they do ?
-
Because you mess up with the world ?
British are fighting with us too dont forget now.You don't live in Iraq, so why do you care what they do ?
Because they have reason to believe they are funding the terrorism that struck us and that is striking everyday to those people in israel(that I do care about)I cant imagine living like they do. And guess what? WE will turn into one of those countries if we dont do something about that.I was under the impression that Gore actually had more votes than bush did in Florida, but that Bush won more districts, hence giving him the electoral college.
I hope that settles it then.America has NO right to be in Iraq.
I guess your mad because your terrorism network is all fudged. Seriously what are you going to do about terrorism? List alternatives Ed. You have to cut the head off the snake to kill it. ITs just that terrorism is a multiheaded snake that makes it much harder to kill. They were not under threat from Saddam Hussein before the war, so self-defence won't justify it.
not directly under threat but indirectly. they were funding the terrorists network to keep it alive.Furthermore, do you have any idea about Iran's situation or do you just presume it to be full of terrorists since it's in the Middle East (that is the impression I am getting!)?
I would call Iran the capitol of terrorism right now!You're one of those guys who consider that the death of one of his fellow Americans is more important than the death of someone in a country far away. That's not exactly racism, but it's just as bad.
Dude you need to stop with this racism bull-crap. I care about everyone. Israeli (and Palestinian) people have to live in fear every day, while you had to suffer that terrible attack once.
And I think bush and his crew is doing the best they can do at the given time to try to stop further attacks.(except stopping young boys from boarding planes with boxcutters and other stuff :))You don't have to wonder every day if your kids will come back alive from school. So don't come and present America as the martyr of terrorism using your pointless comparisons.
1. No kids 2. IF I did have them I would fear more about school shootings then terror at the given time. 3. 9/11 is far from pointless. It was devistating. If the war in Iraq really had been about defending freedom, it would have happened 10 or 15 years ago.
Well not while Billy boy Clinton was in office that is for sure:) I think if AL Gore was in office, he would be doing nothing about 9/11. But I kinda agree with what your saying there. We should of had better intelligence and broke up the network of terror. Of course it evidently wasn't formed like it is today also.I believe you are mistaken. Fox News said this, not George W.
That wasn't what the newspapers over here said.
Ya and Im sure your news isnt biased like some of ours over here in the US.
-
I urge you to type a phrase from it into AltaVista.
AltaVista? That's still alive? Use google :)
That wasn't what the newspapers over here said.
Well, there's another case of mistaken reporting. It's almost as bad as: https://slashdot.org/articles/02/06/07/1829212.shtml.
What relevance has your step-brother got?
Well, a fighting soldier has a different viewpoint than someone who doesn't obviously.
After all, it was you that said "Having relations to people who are in charge of things doesn't mean that they will unethically go against their duties to ensure things go well for you".
After all, I wasn't talking about anything like this. It's not like he gave me something because he's in the Air Force, unless you consider him talking to me about issues giving me something, or giving me an unfair advantage. All I said is I can see both sides from at the beginning of the war.
Which was no right at all! Unless Vietnam sign that treaty, you have no right being there! When will you realise this?!
When will you realize that forming an alliance with other countries (including the one you're arguing from) is all that makes up international trade and law? Are you saying that the United Nations has no authority to do anything if it involves entering some country?
If everyone who formed that treaty organization formed it under the assumption that they wouldn't ever enforce it, then why form it at all?
Representative of who? The democrats who weren't allowed to vote?
Representative of the popular demand. However, the founding fathers realized they shouldn't trust us, which is why we have an elector system.
-
When will you realize that forming an alliance with other countries (including the one you're arguing from) is all that makes up international trade and law? Are you saying that the United Nations has no authority to do anything if it involves entering some country?
No, but the United Nations security council has to vote whether a country can take action in another country.
If everyone who formed that treaty organization formed it under the assumption that they wouldn't ever enforce it, then why form it at all?
Are you saying that treaties are made to be enforced ? That's ridiculous.
Representative of the popular demand. However, the founding fathers realized they shouldn't trust us, which is why we have an elector system.
So the founding father already didn't trust their own fellow Americans ?? Oh well maybe they got that point right.
If the war in Iraq really had been about defending freedom, it would have happened 10 or 15 years ago.
Well not while Billy boy Clinton was in office that is for sure I think if AL Gore was in office, he would be doing nothing about 9/11.
Can you even count up to 15 ? I don't think Bill Clinton was president 15 years ago. Oh wait, the period I'm talking about is the presidency of Reagan and.... Daddy Bush ! What a coincidence !
-
No, but the United Nations security council has to vote whether a country can take action in another country.
screw the U.N.!!! They are a bunch ignorant people as well. When do you think they would give us authority to go to any country to wage war?Are you saying that treaties are made to be enforced ? That's ridiculous.
then why make them at all? they renders them useless if not enforced.So the founding father already didn't trust their own fellow Americans ?? Oh well maybe they got that point right.
Im glad you can agree on at least one point we make:)Can you even count up to 15 ? I don't think Bill Clinton was president 15 years ago. Oh wait, the period I'm talking about is the presidency of Reagan and.... Daddy Bush ! What a coincidence !
can you stop with the childish insults please. really! Grow up will you. Bill clinton would fall in 8 of those years dont you think? thats a major portion of the 15 years. Anyway I was sort of agreeing with you on that point you made about us taking care of this earlier. So stop with you childish remarks. Care to comment on what Al Gore would do in these times? Im really interested in what some of you might say.
Also about the 10 commandments being taken down and moved in a secluded location of the court, What is wrong with our nation? THey dont want to offend anyone by leaving them there. Well dont I count for a human being offended? And if some buhdist or islamic person is offended by it, leave our country and practice your religion elsewhere. Im really angry about all of this. We, as christians, should pray for forgiveness on what is happening and that our country would start to put God first. Im guessing, with the way things are going, that they are going to take "in God we trust" off of our currency as well >:(
-
screw the U.N.!!!
And if some buhdist or islamic person is offended by it, leave our country and practice your religion elsewhere.
That pretty much says it all about you.
-
YOU DON"T LIVE IN AMERICA SO WHY DO YOU CARE WHAT WE DO?
I'm not going to validate this pathetic statement with a response.
British are fighting with us too dont forget now.
I'm not proud of that.
Because they have reason to believe they are funding the terrorism that struck us and that is striking everyday to those people in israel(that I do care about)I cant imagine living like they do.
There is still no evidence.
I hope that settles it then.
It doesn't settle anything. What about all the votes that should never have been allowed, and all the non-votes which should have been allowed?
You have to cut the head off the snake to kill it. ITs just that terrorism is a multiheaded snake that makes it much harder to kill.
One of those heads is your own.
not directly under threat but indirectly. they were funding the terrorists network to keep it alive.
There is no evidence of this.
I would call Iran the capitol of terrorism right now!
Why is that?!
And I think bush and his crew is doing the best they can do at the given time to try to stop further attacks.
War with Iraq won't cause any further resentment...oh...wait, yes it will.
Ya and Im sure your news isnt biased like some of ours over here in the US.
I don't read the Daily Mail.
Well, a fighting soldier has a different viewpoint than someone who doesn't obviously.
I was wondering why your viewpoint should change.
All I said is I can see both sides from at the beginning of the war.
You need a relative actually fighting to be able to do that? That's pretty pathetic.
When will you realize that forming an alliance with other countries (including the one you're arguing from) is all that makes up international trade and law?
When will you realise that unless Vietnam sign that treaty, you have absolutely no right in being there? Does bullying become acceptable when enough people do it?
If everyone who formed that treaty organization formed it under the assumption that they wouldn't ever enforce it, then why form it at all?
I'm not entirely sure why they did form a treaty that would require entry into a non-treaty signing country to uphold it.
Representative of the popular demand. However, the founding fathers realized they shouldn't trust us, which is why we have an elector system.
They were right!
screw the U.N.!!! They are a bunch ignorant people as well. When do you think they would give us authority to go to any country to wage war?
You could almost be George Bush himself!
then why make them at all? they renders them useless if not enforced.
I suggest you obtain a basic knowledge of history.
Also about the 10 commandments being taken down and moved in a secluded location of the court, What is wrong with our nation? THey dont want to offend anyone by leaving them there. Well dont I count for a human being offended? And if some buhdist or islamic person is offended by it, leave our country and practice your religion elsewhere.
They do offend people though - it says: "These are the rules to live by. If you do not agree, then you are wrong." By the way, an Islamic person is called a Muslim ::).
Im guessing, with the way things are going, that they are going to take "in God we trust" off of our currency as well >:(
One can hope,
Ed
-
And if some buhdist or islamic person is offended by it, leave our country and practice your religion elsewhere.
YOUR country? Remember - America is a land of immigrants,
Ed
-
There is still no evidence.
are you sure about this? That pretty much says it all about you.
That pretty much says that I am offended by the removal of the 10 commandments and they dont care about it.It doesn't settle anything. What about all the votes that should never have been allowed, and all the non-votes which should have been allowed?
what about the fact the election is over and its time to move on! Al Gore would suck as a president anyway.One of those heads is your own.
your humor is as dry as the paint on my walls.There is no evidence of this
are you still positive about this?I would call Iran the capitol of terrorism right now!
Why is that?!
well because Iraq and Afganistan are a little "disrupted" sort of speak.War with Iraq won't cause any further resentment...oh...wait, yes it will.
not going to war would leave the terrorists alone and let them get even stronger!
Ya and Im sure your news isnt biased like some of ours over here in the US.
I don't read the Daily Mail.
So what I dont either!Representative of the popular demand. However, the founding fathers realized they shouldn't trust us, which is why we have an elector system.
They were right!
If they were right then the 10 commandments should also be left alone!screw the U.N.!!! They are a bunch ignorant people as well. When do you think they would give us authority to go to any country to wage war?
You could almost be George Bush himself!
shhhhhh! be verry verry quiet. They do offend people though - it says: "These are the rules to live by. If you do not agree, then you are wrong."
only those who do not try to follow them and want to lead a life of sin.Im guessing, with the way things are going, that they are going to take "in God we trust" off of our currency as well
One can hope,
that is a sad statement ed. After all, our founding fathers put that there in the first place and you said they were right.And if some buhdist or islamic person is offended by it, leave our country and practice your religion elsewhere.
YOUR country? Remember - America is a land of immigrants
did I say "my country" NO! I said "our country" If they cant respect the religion that founded this country then they shouldnt be here.
-
what about the fact the election is over and its time to move on! Al Gore would suck as a president anyway
That's quite convenient. That would mean you could do anything, since after a few years you could say 'oh well, it's time to move on'.
And what do you know about how good a president Al Gore would be ? No one knows, since W stole the presidency.
Im guessing, with the way things are going, that they are going to take "in God we trust" off of our currency as well
Precisely, it is offensive to have that kind of statement on currency. Muslims who have the American citizenship don't believe in the same god as you, yet they are as American as you, so there is no reason why there should be 'in god we trust' instead of 'in Allah we trust'.
After all, our founding fathers put that there in the first place and you said they were right
It was very clear what Ed meant, ie that the founding fathers were right thinking Americans shouldn't be trusted, so don't try to make him say what he didn't say.
shhhhhh! be verry verry quiet.
"your humour is as dry as the paint on my wall".
only those who do not try to follow them and want to lead a life of sin.
Again, you're dismissing people who don't share your beliefs.
-
And what do you know about how good a president Al Gore would be ?
I take it you dont know al gore that well ;)"your humour is as dry as the paint on my wall".
I thought it was funny ;D very creative using the same phrase as I. Thanks for the correct spelling of humour :PPrecisely, it is offensive to have that kind of statement on currency. Muslims who have the American citizenship don't believe in the same god as you, yet they are as American as you, so there is no reason why there should be 'in god we trust' instead of 'in Allah we trust'
maybe I'll move to a muslim country and have them take everything down that is muslim as well.
-
Technically speaking Yahweh and Allah are supposedly the same God. the difference being Jews are looking for the Messiah, Christians say Jesus was Him, and Muslims say Jesus was a good prophet, but that Mohammed was the Savior or something. The Koranh (sp?) is laced with references to the Bible.
boliver
-
Then why would noah say it would offend muslims to have In God We Trust on the currency?
-
You never answered my question about the lottery numbers, Twinkle Fingers.
but in case you don't care, i have another for you. what is the difference between knowledge and belief?
to answer that, i'll ask another- is it possible to both a) believe that the universe was created in a certain way, say by god, AND b) accept that your belief may or may not be true? that is to say, can you believe something WHILST acknowledging alternatives as possible?
the answer must be yes, for any detective will tell you that a certain combination of evidence at a crimescene may provide several equally plausible explanations. that is to say, there is more than one possibility that fits the evidence provided, and the detective would be stupid if he dismissed one of them as being impossible- he could only do that if there was evidence to suggest otherwise.
he would not be stupid, however, if he had a hunch, or a belief, in just one. he knows they all could have happened, but he truly believes, for whatever reason, that only one of them did.
he believes in one, but accepts that others may have been true.
however, suppose he was there, and he KNEW which one was true. he would then be unable to accept the others as being possible- that would go against what he knows.
so the difference between knowledge and belief is doubt.
perhaps that was obvious, but i was explaining it only to provide an insight into atheistic thinking- we don't like to doubt things when there are other things we know.
-
the answer must be yes, for any detective will tell you that a certain combination of evidence at a crimescene may provide several equally plausible explanations.
unfortunatly, the theory of evolution does not have enough evidence to make me even consider it.to answer that, i'll ask another- is it possible to both a) believe that the universe was created in a certain way, say by god, AND b) accept that your belief may or may not be true? that is to say, can you believe something WHILST acknowledging alternatives as possible?
well that would mean I wouldnt have much faith then. But Im not saying I wouldnt even look at other possibilities just for fun. Im not that narrowminded.we don't like to doubt things when there are other things we know.
thankyou for trying to explain the way you think. Unlike eddie always verbally bashing people. Are you saying you know how this whole existence started? Even Pre-bang? I doubt that :) Doubt is a common thing of human beings anyway.You never answered my question about the lottery numbers, Twinkle Fingers.
no Im not going to tell you what Im picking for next weeks lotto ;D
-
I was wondering why your viewpoint should change.
My personal viewpoint hasn't, it's just that having someone that did fight talking to you almost every day (he was my roommate at college) gives you another vantage point.
You need a relative actually fighting to be able to do that? That's pretty pathetic.
It's hard to know all sides of an argument without hearing the arguments first. Believe it or not, media doesn't cover every side to each argument -- it's often quite biased. Prior to the war, it was pretty much anti-war. Once the war started, it became pro-war with less coverage on people against the war. That's why when reading anything, or watching anything, it must be taken with a grain of salt, or even a pinch of salt.
When will you realise that unless Vietnam sign that treaty, you have absolutely no right in being there? Does bullying become acceptable when enough people do it?
Firstly, it's annoyed me for a bit... realize (notice the z)
Secondly, if Taiwan suddenly posed immediate threat to Vatican City, you wouldn't expect the UN to intervene?
Also, let's step back a few years in history. In 1942, Ho Chi Minh declared Vietnam free from French rule. However, Ho Chi Minh's rein wasn't very strong in the south, and in 1945 (at the Postdam conference in July), Britain was placed in control of South Vietnam.
On September 6 of that same year, British troops did go in to Vietnam, and became a full strength fighting force (20,000 troops) in the following weeks. General Douglas Gracey was in charge and here's a direct quote: "I was welcomed on arrival by the Vietminh. I promptly kicked them out." Instead of continuing to try to do it peacefully, he set about driving nationalists off the streets, banning meetings and restoring Japanese curfew regulations. On September 23 (with his connivance and under his protection), the French troops staged a coup. They seized public buildings, including the town hall, and made widespread arrests.
Making a long story short, all of this put France back into power of Vietnam, which thereby precipitated the national liberation war that was to come.
So, if you consider America out of line for holding up a decision rendered by a group of countries, so was Britain.
I'm not entirely sure why they did form a treaty that would require entry into a non-treaty signing country to uphold it.
It's called World War II. It made a lot of things change.
They were right!
A large population is often a fickle population. That's why the legislation and party members choose who they would like to represent us.
-
what is the difference between knowledge and belief?
Knowledge is "The state or fact of knowing," and belief is "Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something."
is it possible to both a) believe that the universe was created in a certain way, say by god, AND b) accept that your belief may or may not be true? that is to say, can you believe something WHILST acknowledging alternatives as possible?
No. While you can still consider others, if you think they are possible, you no longer have a single belief in the way something happened. Instead you then have two beliefs. Believing in two things that contradict each other makes you agnostic.
However, this isn't to say that it limits people's judgment skills. Instead, it objectifies them -- they believe something, and enough evidence must be presented to make them stop believing it.
-
they believe something, and enough evidence must be presented to make them stop believing it.
which will never happen because we have the ultimate evidence, God and His creation.
-
which will never happen because we have the ultimate evidence, God and His creation.
Very true -- the reason I didn't mention it was that I keeping it very general ;)
-
which will never happen because we have the ultimate evidence, God and His creation.
No evidence of the existence of god has been presented to me.
Firstly, it's annoyed me for a bit... realize (notice the z)
That is an americanism. The original spelling is "realise" (notice the s)
-
No evidence of the existence of god has been presented to me.
The Bible. That's our evidence, so it has been presented to you, and our evidence hasn't been proven false either.
That is an americanism. The original spelling is "realise" (notice the s)
You mean Americanizm (just kidding of course :P). Sorry about that -- that possibility didn't even jump in my mind.
-
You mean Americanizm (just kidding of course :P). Sorry about that -- that possibility didn't even jump in my mind.
Typical. You think USA are right about everything, and as you say it yourself, the fact that you might be wrong or that there is an alternative doesn't even jump to your mind. From spelling considerations to foreign politics... :P
-
Typical. You think USA are right about everything, and as you say it yourself, the fact that you might be wrong or that there is an alternative doesn't even jump to your mind. From spelling considerations to foreign politics... :P
Nah, I talk almost every day with a fellow programmer that I've known online for over 5 years now, and he's from London. I get my fair share of international viewpoints, as well as points as to why we've "bastardized the language."
-
Well, wired mentioned the bible as evidence. No one will comment on that? You just keep the subjects rounding about. And in all fairness, I think wired has examined other areas and he has shown the faults of them..
-
Well, wired mentioned the bible as evidence. No one will comment on that? You just keep the subjects rounding about. And in all fairness, I think wired has examined other areas and he has shown the faults of them..
And I think we have shown the faults in the Bible.
-
And I think we have shown the faults in the Bible.
And again, I ask, which faults?
-
Go and read pages 1-8
-
The Bible. That's our evidence, so it has been presented to you, and our evidence hasn't been proven false either.
Well in that case I present to you "Spot the dog" as my evidence for dogs being able to talk. Try and disprove that one!
Ed
-
Well in that case I present to you "Spot the dog" as my evidence for dogs being able to talk. Try and disprove that one!
Ed
youve got us on that one ed :PAnd I think we have shown the faults in the Bible.
the only thing shown is that the new translations of today are slightly misinterperated. That is not a fault of the bible, merely man.
If you can read hebrew, latin, greek, then let us know the faults.
-
Well in that case I present to you "Spot the dog" as my evidence for dogs being able to talk. Try and disprove that one!
Ed
The only difference is that Spot isn't available to make appearances, while a modern translation of the Bible can be bought at almost any bookstore, lots of other stores, as well as for free in most hotels.
-
wired, that question wasnt even worth answering. I think eddie is running out of intelligent things to say. Ed is always comparing God to the physical dimension we live in (that God created by the way) I dont see how a dog that can talk has any relevence to this anyhow. We all have access to the Bible. Not to old spotty. Nor do I want to see a talking dog(that would freak me out)
-
The only difference is that Spot isn't available to make appearances, while a modern translation of the Bible can be bought at almost any bookstore, lots of other stores, as well as for free in most hotels.
And that makes the bible more valid how exactly?! If you would like to purchase Spot the Dog - here is the link:
https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0399240462/qid=1069070906/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/102-1292623-0185705?v=glance&s=books
Ed
P.s. TwinkleFingers - be warned - the reading level is, I quote, "Baby-Preschool".
-
(https://images.amazon.com/images/P/0399240462.01._PE_PI_SCMZZZZZZZ_.jpg)I hope you had a good read eddie ;D let me know if you need help anaylizing that one.
-
And that makes the bible more valid how exactly?! If you would like to purchase Spot the Dog - here is the link
And the other difference is that Spot the Dog is regarded as Children's Fiction while the Bible is considered to be a historically accurate book, which would classify it as non-fiction (Except usually it is in the religious section instead).
-
No. While you can still consider others, if you think they are possible, you no longer have a single belief in the way something happened.
wired, did you actually read my post about belief and knowledge?
i was saying that if there are a set of equally possible explanations, believing one of them to be true is simply the act of YOU making the choice to value that option as most preferable TO YOU. meanwhile, this act does not change the state of the other options, it only changes how YOU must react to them. that is to say, they are only illogical BECAUSE of the choice you made, not because of any qualities inherent within them on their own.
if you considered others, you would still have your singular belief, you would simply recognise that it is just that, a belief. a choice and a preference unique to you, and which can't stand on it's own as individual knowledge if you weren't there.
Instead you then have two beliefs. Believing in two things that contradict each other makes you agnostic.
you don't believe in the others if you accept them as possible. believing in alternatives is simply an acceptance of your own fallability. and if you can't accept your own fallability, i think you forgot what separates you from god.
P.S i have no idea how the universe started. i don't claim to know. how can a human being know something that immense? similarly i do not know if god exists. he may, he may not. he may be in the form you say, he may not. he may be a she or an it. he may be dead. i do not know, and i never will. the only thing i know is that i do not know.
-
wired, did you actually read my post about belief and knowledge?
Yes. I also gave the definition of belief. If you think something is possible, you believe that it could have happened. It then falsifies your other belief simply because when you believe in two different and opposite things, by definition, you are agnostic.
you don't believe in the others if you accept them as possible. believing in alternatives is simply an acceptance of your own fallability. and if you can't accept your own fallability, i think you forgot what separates you from god.
To accept your own fallibility is different than considering other things as being possible. If everyone considered everything possible, then where would we be today? Pi is 3.0, as well as 3.14. I can levitate because it could be possible. Pigs are flying somewhere.
Again, I state that belief is "mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something."
If you believe that something is valid and true, and then go and say, "But this other thing is possible too," then you are no longer convicted to that one belief.
-
And the other difference is that Spot the Dog is regarded as Children's Fiction while the Bible is considered to be a historically accurate book, which would classify it as non-fiction (Except usually it is in the religious section instead).
I don't regard the bible as anything more than children's fiction,
Ed
-
as do we about you ed.
boliver
-
I don't regard the bible as anything more than children's fiction,
Leading historians find the Bible to be historically accurate. https://www.christianadvice.net/the_bible_as_history.htm
Can you provide any historical facts in the Bible that aren't true by other historical aspects? I'm not asking whether or not scientifically you believe in creation, but any other points historically jump out, feel free to name them.
-
as do we about you ed.
So...I'm children's fiction. Great argument by the way!
Leading historians find the Bible to be historically accurate.
They also find Spot the Dog to be historically accurate.
Can you provide any historical facts in the Bible that aren't true by other historical aspects?
Whatever error I point out you will blame on incorrect translations,
Ed
-
Leading historians find the Bible to be historically accurate.
Leading historians believe that they were dinosaurs on this planet tens of millions of years ago, so how could they judge historically accurate the fact that the earth was supposedly created around 10,000 years ago ?
-
read this verycarefully wired:
if there are a set of equally possible explanations, say option A B C and D, believing option A to be true is simply the act of YOU making the choice to value that option as most preferable TO YOU. as you would say, you have your own mental conviction regarding option A.
meanwhile, this act of choosing to prefer A instead of B C or D DOES NOT CHANGE THE STATE OF B C AND D, it only changes how YOU must react to them.
so, whilst you are obligated to admit that you do not have a mental conviction for those alternatives, YOU NEVERTHELESS MUST KNOW THAT THIS IS ONLY BECAUSE YOU HAVE CHOSEN A. that is to say, you must dismiss B C and D BECAUSE the choice you made contradicts with them, not because of any qualities inherent within B C and D ON THEIR OWN.
this means that if YOU YOURSELF PERSONALLY ON YOUR OWN choose to believe option A, then YOU YOURSELF PERSONALLY ON YOUR OWN must disregard options B C and D- but that DOES NOT stop them from being possible in reality- they are only impossible in your own head, they are impossible compared to YOUR OWN conviction. it is simply a factual statement to say, "I may be wrong in reality, but i do not like to think so."
if you considered others, you would still have your singular belief, you would simply recognise that it is just that, a belief. a choice and a preference unique to you, and which can't stand on it's own as individual knowledge if you weren't there.
-
if there are a set of equally possible explanations, say option A B C and D, believing option A to be true is simply the act of YOU making the choice to value that option as most preferable TO YOU. as you would say, you have your own mental conviction regarding option A.
No, if you think that all of the options are possible, then you can't believe very strongly about any of the options. While you may consider one to be more possible, conviction by definition is "a fixed or strong belief."
Well, I take my point back. While I personally believe that belief means that you must consider only one thing possible, some people may believe that belief means something slightly different. From what I've looked up in the Dictionary, it doesn't seem that way, but from practical use in the English language, it does start to feel that way.
The reason I was arguing so firmly was that I believe that if someone believes the Bible is true, he or she shouldn't be saying, "The Bible is true, but other things are possible."
But, as many words also have, belief is used slightly different by different people.
-
Whatever error I point out you will blame on incorrect translations
So find an error that I can't point out an explanation for. I didn't just say, "Oh, that's just improper translation. I know it."
I provided links to sites that explained them, or personally explained them. If you have a question about something you find to be incorrect, ask. The site with lots and lots of supposed contradictions is a bit much, so I posted something that I am willing to bet you didn't even read past the headline on.
(I did search for the first few items, they were explained. It's not like I just found something totally unrelated)
-
Leading historians believe that they were dinosaurs on this planet tens of millions of years ago, so how could they judge historically accurate the fact that the earth was supposedly created around 10,000 years ago ?
Since when were historians studying dinosaurs? Historians are those who study written accounts of history and piece things together based on their findings. They aren't paleontologists.
-
So...I'm children's fiction. Great argument by the way!
your the one bringing childrens fiction in this debate. I have no idea why either.
We are still waiting for a question Ed in regards to the bible. If all you can talk about is inconsistencies with the wording, then all we can say is improper translation. I think wired means solid evidence that an event in the bible didnt take place that you can prove.I don't regard the bible as anything more than children's fiction,
Ed
Why?
-
Since when were historians studying dinosaurs? Historians are those who study written accounts of history and piece things together based on their findings. They aren't paleontologists.
Historians study the History of our planet, ans while they don't study dinosaurs 'in detail' (that's the paleontologists' job), thet still place the existence of dinosaurs some millions of years ago on their timeline.
-
Historians study the History of our planet, ans while they don't study dinosaurs 'in detail' (that's the paleontologists' job), thet still place the existence of dinosaurs some millions of years ago on their timeline.
Where do you find this information? I've never heard of a timeline done by a historian that details things about dinosaurs. While I've heard of Natural History (which isn't really history, but science), I haven't ever heard of a plain ol' historian studying anything that doesn't involve written accounts of that period.
-
still waiting Ed, or anyone else.
-
No, if you think that all of the options are possible, then you can't believe very strongly about any of the options. While you may consider one to be more possible, conviction by definition is "a fixed or strong belief."
i see where ed gets his condescending nature from. that was really quite a stunning feat of ignorance wired.
again, please read my post. and try to understand it.
a fixed or strong belief does not impede the ability to recognise the possibility you are wrong.
The reason I was arguing so firmly was that I believe that if someone believes the Bible is true, he or she shouldn't be saying, "The Bible is true, but other things are possible."
so you're saying that they should have a completely closed mind, utterly ignorant of other possibilites and completely unable to consider the possibility that they are wrong?
But, as many words also have, belief is used slightly different by different people.
i'm not talking about the usage of a word, i'm talking about the concept of being able to accept your own fallability.
P.S i may be wrong. but if you're going to tell me that, at least talk about what i said, not about a dictionary.
-
i see where ed gets his condescending nature from. that was really quite a stunning feat of ignorance wired.
Since when are Ed and I related or even how is it possible for Ed to get his condescending nature from me? I still am not being ignorant.
again, please read my post. and try to understand it.
I do understand what you're trying to say.
a fixed or strong belief does not impede the ability to recognize the possibility you are wrong.
Right.
so you're saying that they should have a completely closed mind, utterly ignorant of other possibilites and completely unable to consider the possibility that they are wrong?
No, I'm saying that if there are multiple possibilities (that are indeed possible, and there's enough evidence to say so), even acknowledging that you know both are possible makes you fall into the agnostic category.
i'm not talking about the usage of a word, i'm talking about the concept of being able to accept your own fallability.
But that's all we're arguing over -- the usage of the word belief. Or at least, that's all I'm arguing over.
P.S i may be wrong. but if you're going to tell me that, at least talk about what i said, not about a dictionary.
Knowing that there are theories out there is one thing. Acknowledging them is another thing. But to go as far as to say that there is enough evidence for you to consider that theory possible makes you have a belief in it. If you have two contradicting theories that have evidence in them, and you personally feel that both have met their burden of proof to make you think they are possible, then you have a situation where you are not able to believe in one thing. Instead, the simple act of knowing that they both are possible makes you have a belief in both.
I'm not saying that it isn't possible to consider other evidence of other theories. I'm just saying that the moment you decide that another theory is indeed possible, then you no longer have a single belief and are agnostic, by definition.
-
still waiting Ed, or anyone else.
We consider the Bible as fiction, because that's what it is. Of course it's nowhere as good as Spot the Dog.
And forgive me if I have a life apart from this forum and to reply to your primary school - level posts within the femtosecond.
-
We consider the Bible as fiction, because that's what it is. Of course it's nowhere as good as Spot the Dog.
I beg to differ on both points. It isn't fiction. If it was so clearly cut that it was fiction, we wouldn't be having this argument. There is either two reasons you have this belief: 1. You think that the Bible is fiction because that's what others have told you, or 2. You have found something in it that you think can't be true because of what your current knowledge of the world is.
If there aren't any arguments presented other than, "That's just the way I feel about it," then you're under category 1. For a debate to work, you have to be under category 2.
And forgive me if I have a life apart from this forum and to reply to your primary school - level posts within the femtosecond.
Femtosecond: one quadrillionth of a second
Actual time: 11 hours, 44 minutes, and some seconds.
That type of exaggeration is... almost childish.
-
There is either two reasons you have this belief: 1. You think that the Bible is fiction because that's what others have told you, or 2. You have found something in it that you think can't be true because of what your current knowledge of the world is.
So I'm a 2.
For a debate to work, you have to be under category 2.
Good then.
Femtosecond: one quadrillionth of a second
Actual time: 11 hours, 44 minutes, and some seconds.
That type of exaggeration is... almost childish.
What, as childish as believing that people can live inside a whale/fish. ? Or that a boat can be built on which you can put millions of animals and feed them during 40 days ?
Sorry I forgot you lot don't understand sarcasm, I'll make it really obvious for you next time...
You'll be happy to see that my reply-time has much improved.
-
The site with lots and lots of supposed contradictions is a bit much
Then why are you asking me for MORE contradictions to state?
your the one bringing childrens fiction in this debate. I have no idea why either.
That is because you cannot think laterally. This is not my problem.
Why?
Because it has a story about a man who lives in a fish.
Since when are Ed and I related or even how is it possible for Ed to get his condescending nature from me? I still am not being ignorant.
Your ignorant comments encourage my condescension.
If you have two contradicting theories that have evidence in them, and you personally feel that both have met their burden of proof to make you think they are possible, then you have a situation where you are not able to believe in one thing. Instead, the simple act of knowing that they both are possible makes you have a belief in both
Hypothetical situation:
You are a member of a jury. A man is on trial for murder. After all the evidence it is still possible that he may be either innocent or guilty. This does not mean you believe he is both innocent and guilty!
There is either two reasons you have this belief: 1. You think that the Bible is fiction because that's what others have told you, or 2. You have found something in it that you think can't be true because of what your current knowledge of the world is.
Clearly we are under category 2.
That type of exaggeration is... almost childish.
Not familiar with satire?
Ed
-
What, as childish as believing that people can live inside a whale/fish. ?
I thought we had already covered this.
https://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/jonah.html
https://whale.wheelock.edu/archives/ask03/0136.html
https://whale.wheelock.edu/archives/ask03/0178.html
If you would like more theories, just click here: https://www.google.com/search?q=jonah+whale+possible&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
Or that a boat can be built on which you can put millions of animals and feed them during 40 days ?
And we covered this also...
https://www.inthelight.org/evo_questions/noahsarkpossible.htm
https://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c013.html
https://www.flood-myth.com/animals.htm
Sorry I forgot you lot don't understand sarcasm, I'll make it really obvious for you next time...
Sarcasm? Since when was that reply, "A cutting, often ironic remark intended to wound?" The next sarcastic remark better actually be sarcastic, rather than just a silly exaggeration.
You'll be happy to see that my reply-time has much improved.
YAY!
-
Then why are you asking me for MORE contradictions to state?
I say it is a bit much because you didn't specifically ask about a single thing. Even if I were to go through and reply to every single one, you wouldn't read it. That's why I ask for you to focus on one thing -- one at a time.
Your ignorant comments encourage my condescension.
Which comments are ignorant? Just because someone doesn't believe the same way you do doesn't mean they are ignorant. If that were true, everyone was ignorant back when people thought the Earth was round. While they did indeed think that way, I think you can see why them thinking that was was incorrect -- or at least I hope you can see why that's incorrect.
Hypothetical situation:
You are a member of a jury. A man is on trial for murder. After all the evidence it is still possible that he may be either innocent or guilty. This does not mean you believe he is both innocent and guilty!
Right. That's called reasonable doubt. And, at that point in time, you are agnostic with respect to the guilt/innocence of that person.
Not familiar with satire?
No, I am. It's a literary term that is defined as, "witty language used to convey insults or scorn." I didn't see any wit.
-
I say it is a bit much because you didn't specifically ask about a single thing. Even if I were to go through and reply to every single one, you wouldn't read it. That's why I ask for you to focus on one thing -- one at a time.
Okay then - focus on the first one. Then, when you are done, move on to the next one. And so the process should continue until I am satisfied.
Which comments are ignorant? Just because someone doesn't believe the same way you do doesn't mean they are ignorant. If that were true, everyone was ignorant back when people thought the Earth was round.
Quite. Ignorant meaning lacking knowledge.
That's called reasonable doubt. And, at that point in time, you are agnostic with respect to the guilt/innocence of that person.
This completely contradicts what you said before ("Instead, the simple act of knowing that they both are possible makes you have a belief in both").
It's a literary term that is defined as, "witty language used to convey insults or scorn." I didn't see any wit.
"Irony, sarcasm, or caustic wit used to attack or expose folly, vice, or stupidity."
Quite apt I feel,
Ed
-
Okay then - focus on the first one. Then, when you are done, move on to the next one. And so the process should continue until I am satisfied.
Sadly, I'm not committed enough because I posted a reply which explains most of them. If you didn't read them there, why would you read them here?
Quite. Ignorant meaning lacking knowledge.
Well, I find your arguments lacking knowledge as much as I find mine lacking knowledge.
This completely contradicts what you said before ("Instead, the simple act of knowing that they both are possible makes you have a belief in both").
What? How does that contradict that statement? When you believe in two opposites (guilt and innocence), you are agnostic. When people can't decide whether they think a person is more innocent or guilty, it's called reasonable doubt. I can't seem to find any contradictions there...
"Irony, sarcasm, or caustic wit used to attack or expose folly, vice, or stupidity."
Quite apt I feel,
I see no use of irony, sarcasm, or wit. Or, perhaps that's because I'm not on a primary-school humor level?
-
so you're saying that they should have a completely closed mind, utterly ignorant of other possibilites and completely unable to consider the possibility that they are wrong?
wired has an open mind. He must because he knows how flawed the evolutionary theory is.i'm not talking about the usage of a word, i'm talking about the concept of being able to accept your own fallability.
will you?And forgive me if I have a life apart from this forum and to reply to your primary school - level posts within the femtosecond.
there goes the maturity again:)[If there aren't any arguments presented other than, "That's just the way I feel about it," then you're under category 1. For a debate to work, you have to be under category 2.
/quote]nicely stated wiredFemtosecond: one quadrillionth of a second
Actual time: 11 hours, 44 minutes, and some seconds.
That type of exaggeration is... almost childish.
I knew that before I knew what a femtosecond even was.What, as childish as believing that people can live inside a whale/fish. ? Or that a boat can be built on which you can put millions of animals and feed them during 40 days ?
how about as silly as us even existing?That is because you cannot think laterally. This is not my problem.
how is the book report coming along on spot the dogBecause it has a story about a man who lives in a fish.
?im glad you said fish because that is what the bible says, not whale. And it has been proven already that man can live inside a fish. Late 1800's I believe. Try Again ED!!!I see no use of irony, sarcasm, or wit. Or, perhaps that's because I'm not on a primary-school humor level?
ouch wired :)
-
there goes the maturity again
So me using the word femtosecond is a lack of maturity ? I'm sorry if you don't understand words that have more than 3 syllables.
im glad you said fish because that is what the bible says, not whale. And it has been proven already that man can live inside a fish. Late 1800's I believe. Try Again ED!!!
Ooh, please, give me some references of the 'proof'.
-
Ooh, please, give me some references of the 'proof'.
As I posted to your previous reply:
https://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/jonah.html
https://whale.wheelock.edu/archives/ask03/0136.html
https://whale.wheelock.edu/archives/ask03/0178.html
-
So me using the word femtosecond is a lack of maturity ? I'm sorry if you don't understand words that have more than 3 syllables.
I could care less about the meaning or your usage of the word femtosecond. I was refferring to your statement when you saidAnd forgive me if I have a life apart from this forum and to reply to your primary school - level posts
I'm sorry if you don't understand words that have more than 3 syllables.
and there is more maturity out the window. Even if I didnt understand the word, which I'll admit I didn't,I could always look it up. Ooh, please, give me some references of the 'proof'.
so now not only do you disbelieve the bible, now you disbelieve relatively recent historical evidence. Very well. I doubt you believe that you even exist.
Wired, that 3rd link talks about the story Ive heard. The one in the late 1800's. I guess there is no proof in that one. They said the capt. of the ship didnt write anything down in the ship log about it. but the 2nd link kind of makes sence. For jonah to sit in the mouth of the whale while skimming the surface of the ocean. You have to believe that miracles can happen. I mean even "some"people who saw the actual miracles doubted it was Jesus. I cant imagine that. But it did happen.So me using the word femtosecond is a lack of maturity ? I'm sorry if you don't understand words that have more than 3 syllables.
besides do you know who your even talking to?(https://i.emode.com/tests/uiq/images/streamlined2_intro.jpg) ;D :D ;) :)
-
twinkle fingers, you have to be the stupidest person i know-
Quote:i'm not talking about the usage of a word, i'm talking about the concept of being able to accept your own fallability.
will you?
did you notice the SEVERAL occasions i did this or were you too busy contemplating the awesomeness of your ignorant dim-wittedness?
viz a viz, IMMEDIATELY after the quote you used, there was-
i'm not talking about the usage of a word, i'm talking about the concept of being able to accept your own fallability.
P.S i MAY BE WRONG. but if you're going to tell me that, at least talk about what i said, not about a dictionary.
there was also this:
P.S i have no idea how the universe started. i don't claim to know. how can a human being know something that immense? similarly i do not know if god exists. he may, he may not. he may be in the form you say, he may not. he may be a she or an it. he may be dead. i do not know, and i never will. the only thing i know is that i do not know.
do you bother to read all of it or do you just react to the bits your meagre brain can is provoked by?
sorr for the language but for the sake of pete- i wrote I MAY BE WRONG- how much more obvious do you want an acception of fallability!?
-
From one of your propaganda website : "What happened to Jonah while he was in the belly of the whale (or fish)...?? How was he protected from the creatures natural digestive process?"
Ginnie B. 8/19/01
Answer:
We are not given enough details to know for sure what sea creature this was, so any ideas on how Jonah was not digested would be mere speculation.
The Bible said that God "prepared" the creature, so in doing so I'm sure he protected Jonah.
This is all very vague. You didn't provide me with any proof whatsoever... And about the 1800's story, it's the same kind of people as the ones who claim they've been abducted by aliens. So here we are, still no proof.
twinkle fingers, you have to be the stupidest person i know
:)
-
This is all very vague. You didn't provide me with any proof whatsoever... And about the 1800's story, it's the same kind of people as the ones who claim they've been abducted by aliens. So here we are, still no proof.
Well, how about some proof that it isn't possible? We've shown a few possible scenarios, now you prove that they aren't possible.
-
i think that the universe came into being as a result of an enormous sneeze of a large mystical turkey existing in boundless nether, how periodocally jives to the tune of "I got Rhythm." i also believe that when we die we enter a world where life goes backwards, so that in fact we get to leave the world as an orgasm. i also believe that god is in fact an animate pile of the mystical turkey's excrement, the result of an accidental concoction of berroca and honey juice.
Well, how about some proof that it isn't possible? I've shown a few possible scenarios, now you prove that they aren't possible.
-
i think that the universe came into being as a result of an enormous sneeze of a large mystical turkey existing in boundless nether, how periodocally jives to the tune of "I got Rhythm." i also believe that when we die we enter a world where life goes backwards, so that in fact we get to leave the world as an orgasm. i also believe that god is in fact an animate pile of the mystical turkey's excrement, the result of an accidental concoction of berroca and honey juice.
Well, how about some proof that it isn't possible? I've shown a few possible scenarios, now you prove that they aren't possible.
Exactly.
Wired, I'll just encourage you to get inside a giant fish for 3 days yourself since you think it's possible. There are so many arguments one could give to show it's impossible I don't know which one to pick. I'll just repeat myself with the digestive process question. The websites you posted don't even provide an explanation for this, they merely state "we're not sure because they don't know the exact type of fish/whale Jonah was in...".
-
twinkle fingers, you have to be the stupidest person i know-
nice...really nice >:(besides you dont even know me.This is all very vague. You didn't provide me with any proof whatsoever... And about the 1800's story, it's the same kind of people as the ones who claim they've been abducted by aliens. So here we are, still no proof.
Well, you are agreeing with the stupidest person you DONT know. I agree with you on this one. It could very well be a hoax. But it still DOESNT prove the bible wrong.i think that the universe came into being as a result of an enormous sneeze of a large mystical turkey existing in boundless nether, how periodocally jives to the tune of "I got Rhythm." i also believe that when we die we enter a world where life goes backwards, so that in fact we get to leave the world as an orgasm. i also believe that god is in fact an animate pile of the mystical turkey's excrement, the result of an accidental concoction of berroca and honey juice.
Well, how about some proof that it isn't possible? I've shown a few possible scenarios, now you prove that they aren't possible.
and Im stupid. muhahahahah ;D put the dubi down bro I know you are trying to be witty. But in the end you just insult us (christians) and even for witty standards you stink.Wired, I'll just encourage you to get inside a giant fish for 3 days yourself since you think it's possible. There are so many arguments one could give to show it's impossible I don't know which one to pick. I'll just repeat myself with the digestive process question. The websites you posted don't even provide an explanation for this, they merely state "we're not sure because they don't know the exact type of fish/whale Jonah was in...".
so then how could you refute it not knowing which "great fish" it was? God prepared the fish. Also one of the links stated that Jonah stayed in the mouth of the fish. How about the fact we even exist. Without God, there would be total chaos. There would be no laws which hold the universe together. No laws that determine our physical characteristics.
-
and Im stupid. muhahahahah put the dubi down bro I know you are trying to be witty. But in the end you just insult us (christians) and even for witty standards you stink.
what are you talking about? i really do believe that.
do you have any proof to suggest that it isn't true? i bet you don't.
are saying that just because what i believe seems ridiculous to you that you can automatically dimiss it as being stupid? gee, that wouldn't be much fun if somthing seemingly impossible could be easily dismissed as stupid! what would happen if someone thought the idea of a man living in a whale was seemingly impossible, just as you suppose what i believe is seemingly impossible.
have YOU ever looked inside the excrement of a cosmic turkey who's just eaten berocca and honey juice? How do YOU know what would be inside? Huh?
-
but the fact that God is supreme and created us you dont believe? but you can believe a story made up by yourself, which by the way is in need of some good medication. Interesting. Indubitably. I would invite you to my house for thanksgiving, but I think that would offend your cosmic turkey belief.
are saying that just because what i believe seems ridiculous to you that you can automatically dimiss it as being stupid?
maybe if I wasnt thinking rational I would agree with you ;)
-
but the fact that God is supreme and created us you dont believe?
maybe if I wasnt thinking rational I would agree with you.
-
well your obviously not, so I'll take it that you are agreeing with me. yay!!!
-
maybe if I wasnt thinking rational I would agree with you.
Well, there's a few things wrong with your story. One, the tune of I got Rhythm wasn't actually "I got Rhythm" until someone decided to write it as a song. Two, where did you hear the tune? Three, if the Turkey existed in endless nether, how did sound travel so that he could indeed jive to "I got Rhythm"? Four, what did the mystical turkey eat, why does he need to eat, and does he make everything he eats, just to be able to eat it? Five, is there any evidence that this could have happened? I'm not saying if there is conclusive evidence -- just some evidence.
-
Wired, I'll just encourage you to get inside a giant fish for 3 days yourself since you think it's possible.
Why would I? I believe it's true already. I don't feel obligated to prove to you that God exists, and even if I was able to find which kind of fish the Bible talks about and do this deed, you still wouldn't believe. My goal in debating isn't to get you guys to believe, it's merely to make you realize that there are rational people who are well educated that believe in God.
There are so many arguments one could give to show it's impossible I don't know which one to pick. I'll just repeat myself with the digestive process question.
Ok, well, to answer this question, I would have to know about every type of fish ever in existence, as well as about their digestive systems. I personally will never feel that I can make that claim, and I'm surprised that you believe other people can.
However, let me point out that there are fish that their digestive system only excretes digestive enzymes, without actually excreting hydrochloric acid, which would make it even more possible for it to have happened.
The websites you posted don't even provide an explanation for this, they merely state "we're not sure because they don't know the exact type of fish/whale Jonah was in...".
Exactly. Without knowing the full details, it's impossible to prove or disprove whether this event actually happened. It would be possible to prove if we had knowledge of every type of fish that existed at that time, as well as had working knowledge of their digestive systems.
So let me reword my question -- is there anything in the Bible that you feel science has disproven?
-
Well, there's a few things wrong with your story. One, the tune of I got Rhythm wasn't actually "I got Rhythm" until someone decided to write it as a song. Two, where did you hear the tune? Three, if the Turkey existed in endless nether, how did sound travel so that he could indeed jive to "I got Rhythm"? Four, what did the mystical turkey eat, why does he need to eat, and does he make everything he eats, just to be able to eat it? Five, is there any evidence that this could have happened? I'm not saying if there is conclusive evidence -- just some evidence.
Why would I answer these questions? I believe it's true already. I don't feel obligated to prove to you that the cosmic turkey exists, and even if I was able to find which kind of food the turkey eats, you still wouldn't believe. My goal in debating isn't to get you guys to believe, it's merely to make you realize that there are rational people who are well educated that believe in the cosmic turkey.
In order to tell you what food he eats I would have to know about every type of cosmic turkey ever in existence, as well as about their digestive systems. I personally will never feel that I can make that claim, and I'm surprised that you believe other people can.
However, let me point out that there are cosmic turkeys that their digestive system only excretes digestive honey juice, without actually excreting berocca, which would make it even more possible for it to have happened.
I don't know anything about the cosmic turkey! Without knowing the full details, it's impossible to prove or disprove whether this event actually happened. It would be possible to prove if we had knowledge of every type of cosmic turkey that existed at that time, as well as had working knowledge of their digestive systems.
-
Quote:are saying that just because what i believe seems ridiculous to you that you can automatically dimiss it as being stupid?
maybe if I wasnt thinking rational I would agree with you
well your obviously not, so I'll take it that you are agreeing with me. yay!!!
-
Why would I answer these questions?
Because, you have *no* evidence. We at least have the Bible, which cannot be proven to be incorrect (and hasn't yet).
-
the Bible...cannot be proven to be incorrect (and hasn't yet).
of course it can't: Without knowing the full details, it's impossible to prove or disprove whether this event actually happened
viz a viz, any events in the bible.
good point wired. i couldn't have said it better myself.
Without knowing the full details, it's impossible to prove or disprove
ANYTHING, so if you show a few possible scenarios
and ask someone now you prove that they aren't possible
they won't be able to- so you can make anything at all seem like it's real merely by asking someone to disprove it. Ultimately you are likely to find their arguments lacking knowledge as much as you find yours lacking knowledge
because it's all a game of "is this what it isn't?"
-
of course it can't:
viz a viz, any events in the bible.
good point wired. i couldn't have said it better myself.
Not true. There's truth all over it -- all of the historically accurate parts about how life was, who was ruling, their characteristics... they all match up with what our history books teach us about those time periods. Then the fact that all of the proven scientific traits of the world we live in are all coinciding with the Bible (note how I said proven).
ANYTHING, so if you
and ask someone they won't be able to- so you can make anything at all seem like it's real merely by asking someone to disprove it. Ultimately you are likely to because it's all a game of "is this what it isn't?"
No. If someone were to claim the Bible says the Earth is flat (it doesn't, read Part I of this forum), and the Bible did indeed say that, I would be proven wrong, since we now know the Earth is round.
If someone were to claim that the number PI is misrepresented in the Bible on several occasions (it isn't: https://www.yfiles.com/pi.html), and they had places to prove it, then I'd be proven wrong.
If the Bible claimed something that didn't match modern fluid dynamics studies, I'd be proven wrong. However, this instance, the Bible makes a claim that wasn't even discovered until 300 years ago (Job 28:25).
However, no one has made any such claim that was accurate. I don't remember if I gave this URL before, but here it is: https://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/science.shtml. From the paragraph at the bottom:
The purpose of this page is not to explain what a great science text the Bible is, but to show that it is consistent with scientific facts.
-
Then the fact that all of the proven scientific traits of the world we live in are all coinciding with the Bible
How exactly does the parting of the Red Sea, for example, coincide with scientific knowledge?!
Ed
-
However, let me point out that there are cosmic turkeys that their digestive system only excretes digestive honey juice, without actually excreting berocca, which would make it even more possible for it to have happened.
what to happen? maybe you should stop cut/pasting wired's comments and filling in your useless garbage. what are you trying to prove with the turkey's digestive juices? that there was a person inside of it? :)How exactly does the parting of the Red Sea, for example, coincide with scientific knowledge?!
how does this coincide with what we are talking about? (note how he said proven).
The parting of the red sea was a miracle by God through moses.
-
How exactly does the parting of the Red Sea, for example, coincide with scientific knowledge?!
How does it not? Do we know that we can move water? Yes. Do we know how Moses (or rather God) parted the water? No.
The link I posted also provides a good summary:
The purpose of this page is not to explain what a great science text the Bible is, but to show that it is consistent with scientific facts. Still, the Bible mentions some things that we can not explain. Yet, if God is really God, He should have the ability to do some things we can not explain.
-
So by saying
the fact that all of the proven scientific traits of the world we live in are all coinciding with the Bible
you mean some things in the bible are scientifically correct, and others we can just say "god did it",
Ed
-
How exactly does the parting of the Red Sea, for example, coincide with scientific knowledge?!
The parting of the red sea was a miracle by God through moses.
actually, it wasn't. one of my religious studies teachers showed us a video which conclusively proved that that particular portion of the red sea, when subjected to the appropriate wind conditions, would actually dry up. it is an anomaly of the river bed and the surrounding geography, and although icannot remember the name of the commander, there was another military commander who benefitted from this peculiarity and was able to cross. (it may have been napolean, although don't hold me on that.)
Also, it scientifically proved that the burning bush moses saw was in fact a bush that, if put through a variety of circumstances, could self combust. it had a certain chemical inside it. (i cannot remember the details.)
my teacher was trying to prove to us that god and science work together, so that his miracles only seem like miracles to the ignorant, the same way a magic trick only seems like magic to those who don't know how it's done.
the section about Sam or whoever it was destroying the church by pushing the pylons- that was also proved to be possible by any unusually strong man, due to the way the church was built.
the video didn't have anything about wine-water or fish bread.
maybe you should stop cut/pasting wired's comments and filling in your useless garbage. what are you trying to prove with the turkey's digestive juices?
is anyone surprised that our dear twinkle fingers didn't understand the point of all that? you give theists a very bad name- if your belief stems from the same logic which produced such gems as-
screw the U.N.!!! They are a bunch ignorant people as well. When do you think they would give us authority to go to any country to wage war?
and
what about the fact the election is over and its time to move on! Al Gore would suck as a president anyway.
then i really, really have to worry about you.
-
So by saying
you mean some things in the bible are scientifically correct, and others we can just say "god did it"
No, those that have phrases around them that imply that God did something, we claim God did. The things that someone did by themselves, without asking the help of God, all are within scientific reason.
-
i was just reading macbeth and i came across this passage- you could imagine bush talking about killing saddam (that is, if bush knew what these words meant:
if it were done when tis done, then twere well
it were done quickly. if th'assassination
could trammel up the consequence and catch
with his surcease, success, that but this blow
might be the be-all and the end-all (of my dad's work), here
but here, upon this bank and shoal of time,
we'd jump the (presidential terms) to come. But in these cases
we still have judgement here that we but teach
bloody instructions, which being taught, return to plague the inventor, (CIA binladen etc). This even handed justice
commends the ingredeince of our poisoned chalice
to our own lips- (maybe we could have avoided 9/11 if
we didn't slap everyone around the face for the past half a century.)
-
No, those that have phrases around them that imply that God did something, we claim God did. The things that someone did by themselves, without asking the help of God, all are within scientific reason.
Such as walking, for example,
Ed
-
is anyone surprised that our dear twinkle fingers didn't understand the point of all that? you give theists a very bad name- if your belief stems from the same logic which produced such gems as-
sorry to dissapoint you, I completely understood what you were doing. You were using useless information and trying to turn it around and make it into a belief. By doing so you were trying to establish that "our" belief is just as irrelevent.
-
sorry to dissapoint you, I completely understood what you were doing. You were using useless information and trying to turn it around and make it into a belief. By doing so you were trying to establish that "our" belief is just as irrelevent.
The fact that you don't see the implications of that makes you a fool,
Ed
P.s. this is not childish name calling, I mean it when I say you are a fool.
-
A fool until you see the truth.
(maybe we could have avoided 9/11 if
we didn't slap everyone around the face for the past half a century.)
maybe we could of avoided the fallen world today if adam and eve didnt sin. Well that is just one of the things that has happened that is unavoidable now.
-
maybe we could of avoided the fallen world today if adam and eve didnt sin-
so you're saying the destruction of the world is due to white people?
damn white people!
wait a minute-- if they were both white...and evolution is obviously false...where did black people come from?
i suppose the bible never says whether they're white but- you'd expect that since there are only two of them, half the world's population would be whatever colour one of them was and the other half would be the other, just like it's half female half male.
but...that's strange, i could have sworn there were alot more skin colours than that
i'm very confused, twinkle fingers...if adam and eve populated the world, why aren't all humans the same as them?
-
wait a minute-- if they were both white...and evolution is obviously false...where did black people come from?
Neither the Bible nor science give us an absolute picture of how the human races arose. The Bible contains no explanation of when or how races came to be. Science tells us that the genetic differences among the races are very small. Such minor genetic differences can be easily explained through selective breeding using microevolutionary processes.
-
so you're saying the destruction of the world is due to white people?
Im not trying to turn this into a racial argument if thats where you are going. i'm very confused, twinkle fingers...if adam and eve populated the world, why aren't all humans the same as them?
what difference does it make. you are missing the whole point of this. If the bible never talks about this then how am I supposed to answer? Was I actually there when they were created? NO. My guess would be they were probably scattered at the time of tower of babble and when they dispersed all over the globe(or wherever the continents were at the time) and maybe the different climates slowly changed their color. I dont know though.Eddie? where is eddie? he knows everything...lets ask him.i suppose the bible never says whether they're white but- you'd expect that since there are only two of them, half the world's population would be whatever colour one of them was and the other half would be the other, just like it's half female half male.
are you a wise guy or just simple minded? what makes you think that the population would stay exactly half n half white and black even if adam and eve where white and black? Dont you think wars, disease,etc.etc. would offset this perfect balance you have given us?P.s. this is not childish name calling, I mean it when I say you are a fool.
oh if only you were not so childish ::)
-
maybe the different climates slowly changed their color. I dont know though.Eddie? where is eddie? he knows everything...lets ask him
I would have thought they would be arabic seeing where they lived,
Ed
-
well they were scattered all over the earth, hence different climates. Arabic being only one of many.https://www.forerunner.com/forerunner/X0722_Creationism_explains.htmlcreationism explains human diversity here:
-
and maybe the different climates slowly changed their color
what makes you think that the population would stay exactly half n half white and black even if adam and eve where white and black? Dont you think wars, disease,etc.etc. would offset this perfect balance you have given us?
these two arguments you have made to me are EXACTLY the logic of an evolutionist, because what you have described IS evolution. thankyou for realising you're an idiot.
could you please explain to us all what you think evolution is? because i don't think you understand exactly what we're talking about. i once knew someone like you who thought evolution suggested monkeys giving birth to birds. i can tell you, that is not what evolution is.
Science tells us that the genetic differences among the races are very small. Such minor genetic differences can be easily explained through selective breeding using microevolutionary processes.
thankyou also, wired, for being smart enough to know that evolution is not completely false.
-
thankyou also, wired, for being smart enough to know that evolution is not completely false.
you stupid piece of turkey dung. he said microevolution not the evolution your thinking of. i once knew someone like you who thought evolution suggested monkeys giving birth to birds. i can tell you, that is not what evolution is.
oh so thats why I've been thinking the theory was so screwed up. thanks for clarifying that for me.could you please explain to us all what you think evolution is?
evolution is an attempt by man to try and turn man away from their creator. they do not want to accept the fact that they will be judged eternally. They do not accept the fact that there is a supreme being keeping this complex reality together.
-
or it could be an attempt to explain what is happening around them. sort of like what you did...
and maybe the different climates slowly changed their color
also,
he said microevolution not the evolution your thinking of.
what evolution was i thinking of? enlighten me. i could have sworn i was thinking about descent with modification, which is exactly what microevolution is. but i obviously you know more about what i was thinking than i do.
you stupid piece of turkey dung
oh if only you were not so childish
-
but i obviously you know more about what i was thinking than i do.
what the heck are you saying here? are you drunk or something?oh if only you were not so childish
I guess im tired of being called an idiot. gotta fight fire with fire sometimes. mess with the bull and you get the horns ;) could have sworn i was thinking about descent with modification, which is exactly what microevolution is.
well lets see there is micro and macro. I think you were talking about macroevolution. Correct me if Im wrong, doesnt evolution violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics?
-
Correct me if Im wrong, doesnt evolution violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics?
Oh please. Don't even try to make us believe that you had a clue as to what the second law of thermodynamics was before looking up in google.
-
Correct me if Im wrong
okay.
(this is ALL quoted from https://www.2ndlaw.com/evolution.html)
Many fundamentalist Christians see the theory of evolution as a threat to their faith, evidently because it is not explicitly included in Genesis. (They also misunderstand the scientific application of the word "theory" that the chemist uses in discussing atomic theory or the kinetic molecular theory of gases, ideas as unquestioned by all chemists as evolution is by professional biologists.) This is tragic because it cuts off sincere individuals who are not scientists from understanding the powerful relevance of one of the most important concepts in all of science.
Most disquieting to chemists who are interested in thermodynamics are the misleading statements about the second law and chemistry that creationist spokespeople have made.
"A watch must have required a watchmaker; a car could not have formed itself from parts."
Why give a silly illustration like that? Anyone knows that it is not an inherent quality of metal parts to spontaneously join with similar or quite different parts to form complex new arrangements. Yet, this IS precisely the normal behavior of most of the chemical elements that constitute the world and the universe. The value of the second law of thermodynamics is that it quantitatively describes the energetic aspects of the chemical elements and the compounds they form. The chemical potential energy bound in most of the 20,000,000 known kinds of molecules is LESS than that in their elements. Thus, energetically, the second law says that the majority of compounds now known could spontaneously form from the corresponding elements. Watches or cars are not lower in thermodynamic energy than the total energy of their individual components. Therefore, the second law says that it is completely inappropriate to compare them with chemical compounds and elements.
Energetically, the second law of thermodynamics favors the formation of the majority of all known complex and ordered chemical compounds directly from their simpler elements. Thus, contrary to popular opinion, the second law does not dictate the decrease of ordered structure in its predictions, it only demands a "spreading out" of energy in all processes.
Most complex molecules may require the expertise of one or of many chemists to put them together in a laboratory. However, so far as the second law of thermodynamics is concerned, not only water but cholesterol, DNA, the anti-depressant in St. John’s Wort and millions of other complex substances contain less energy than their constituent elements. Therefore, thermodynamically, their formation from those elements would be a spontaneous process, energetically favored by the second law.
* * *
it goes on for quite a long time, systematically pulling any creationist argument to pieces. you should read it, twinkle fingers, even though i know you wont
-
Thus, contrary to popular opinion, the second law does not dictate the decrease of ordered structure in its predictions, it only demands a "spreading out" of energy in all processes.
so the sun is not shrinking, merely "spreading out"?The chemical potential energy bound in most of the 20,000,000 known kinds of molecules is LESS than that in their elements.
where did the potential energy come from in the first place?
-
what evolution was i thinking of? enlighten me. i could have sworn i was thinking about descent with modification, which is exactly what microevolution is. but i obviously you know more about what i was thinking than i do.
Evolution is more commonly used to describe macroevolution than microevolution. The term evolution generally is taken to mean the formation of different species over time through different processes. For example, the common ape->man (sorry if my nomenclature is a bit off) is considered "evolution", although more correctly it is called macroevolution.
Macroevolution hasn't been proven. Microevolution has. Microevolution is the general change and variation inter-species, usually based on geographical bounds.
Microevolution isn't in any way against what the Bible speaks of. It only supports it. Macroevolution, which hasn't been proven, speaks against the Bible.
When people say "evolution," people tend to think of the process of how we formed from previous species. That's why when I say evolution hasn't been proven, I speak truthfully.
-
where did the potential energy come from in the first place?
Exactly. For energy to just form out of nothing requires Einstein to be wrong (as well as everyone else who founded theories up to that point that state that energy is never lost nor gained). So, for any theory besides creation to be believed, almost every scientific law dealing with energy must be rewritten.
-
Exactly. For energy to just form out of nothing requires Einstein to be wrong (as well as everyone else who founded theories up to that point that state that energy is never lost nor gained). So, for any theory besides creation to be believed, almost every scientific law dealing with energy must be rewritten.
Maybe they wont think Im the stupidest person they ever knew anymore ;D
-
Maybe they wont think Im the stupidest person they ever knew anymore ;D
Don't worry, we still do. More and more as you keep posting.
-
Maybe they wont think Im the stupidest person they ever knew anymore
Don't worry, we still do. More and more as you keep posting.
And yet you still want to learn from wired and me or else you wouldnt even be reading this thread.
I have no pleasure in any man who despises music. It is no invention of ours: it is a gift of God. I place it next to theology. Satan hates music: he knows how it drives the evil spirit out of us.
-
And yet you still want to learn from wired and me or else you wouldnt even be reading this thread.
Something to learn from YOU ? Hahahaha, yeah, right. All I've learned from you & Wired is how stupid people can get with religion.
-
C'mon guys, the Bible itself isn't even quite this long.
-
And yet you still want to learn from wired and me or else you wouldnt even be reading this thread.
I read your posts for entertainment value not to learn from you! How disillusioned can one person possibly be...?
Ed
-
Exactly. For energy to just form out of nothing requires Einstein to be wrong (as well as everyone else who founded theories up to that point that state that energy is never lost nor gained). So, for any theory besides creation to be believed, almost every scientific law dealing with energy must be rewritten.
Nice for no one trying to refute this. I guess we win ;)
-
Nice for no one trying to refute this. I guess we win ;)
When you explain to me how god was created I may start considering your asinine claims,
Ed
-
When you explain to me how god was created I may start considering your asinine claims,
Asinine claims? What was flawed with my argument.
The whole point is that if we believe in God, we believe that he always existed. He created the universe -- that's where the initial input for our physics and mathematics comes from.
However, to prove that there is no God, one has to explain how all of the energy and mass was created.
So, once you can explain how matter appears or energy is created without any input, you can claim your riches (perpetual motion machine, infinite free energy) and laugh in my face. Until then, don't even try to call my arguments asinine.
-
The whole point is that if we believe in God, we believe that he always existed.
If that isn't asinine then nothing is,
Ed
-
If that isn't asinine then nothing is
And to some, your response is asinine. In fact, almost every statement in this forum made by you is equally as asinine. But what's the point of a debate? To point out flaws, not to just call an argument that you can't refute asinine. Point out a flaw, don't just go around scoffing everything I say. Point out flaws! Otherwise this isn't a debate at all.
So again, I say, our theory is that all the matter and energy that makes e=mc^2 true was created by God. Where in your theory does it come from, and how does it not violate the laws of physics?
The laws of physics are quite correct in this regard. The initial energy and mass was given to us by God. If you can go about proving matter can generate itself and energy can generate itself with no initial input, then set about rewriting all of physics so that it still is true, I will pat you on the back and stop worshiping God. Until then, stop scoffing and try point out flaws in what I'm saying.
-
right on wired ;D ed, you keep asking questions that we cant answer in detail. We dont know how God existed for eternity. Its beyond our thought processes. God didnt create us to understand Him completely, but to glorify Him forever in eternity.
-
If you can go about proving matter can generate itself and energy can generate itself with no initial input, then set about rewriting all of physics so that it still is true, I will pat you on the back and stop worshiping God. Until then, stop scoffing and try point out flaws in what I'm saying.
How can you not see the flaw in your argument?! Who the hell created god in the first place?! And don't say he existed for eternity, it's getting rather tedious,
Ed
-
How can you not see the flaw in your argument?! Who the hell created god in the first place?! And don't say he existed for eternity, it's getting rather tedious,
Our argument is that the Bible is 100% correct, and the Bible says that God existed forever.
Who created all this matter and energy in the first place? Don't ignore that question again, it's getting rather tedious.
-
Who the hell created god in the first place?
we answered that already ed. what else can we say about it. nothing. for it is beyond human intellect. show a fault in the bible and then this debate will actually turn into a legitiment debate. The reason you have not answered this question(other than the very minor faults in the different translations) is because the original bible is totally flawless.
-
One either believes or not. The whole basis of religion.
It is not a question of things being plausable or not.
Could be. Could not be. Life is a weird situation anyway.
-
One either believes or not. The whole basis of religion.
It is not a question of things being plausable or not.
Could be. Could not be. Life is a weird situation anyway.
Well, I disagree. Yes, it is a matter of whether someone believes in one thing or another, but it does matter whether it could have actually happened. If everything around us that we knew was true -- that had been fully proven to be true -- contradicted everything about a particular religion, that religion would be forgotten. Sure, some diehards would exist at first, but over a very short course of time, it would be forgotten.
However, I'm not arguing for the sake of trying to get people to believe. Right now it's more of getting Ed (and others) to realize that we aren't less competent for believing differently than them.
-
One either believes or not. The whole basis of religion.
It is not a question of things being plausable or not.
Could be. Could not be. Life is a weird situation anyway.
I think Wittgenstein rather elegantly proves that one cannot be swayed either way on this point.
-
do you realise you're now talking about the same stuff we were back on the first page?
if you tell us that the bible is 100% accurate, which version are you referring to? do you remember our whole discussion on the translations?
and if you really want a flaw, i can point out the flaw that started my atheism back when i was a kid. we started reading genesis in school and my interest waned sharply when it tried to convince me that god made a "dome, which he called the sky." i don't know if you guys ever did maths or played with lego but...think for a second...what happens when you place a dome on a sphere?
perhaps it was written at a time when people didn't know the earth was a sphere...but surely god, who they were supposedly dictating from, would have known that, and told them?
-
if you tell us that the bible is 100% accurate, which version are you referring to? do you remember our whole discussion on the translations?
The *original*. The very first and original. No translations done on it. No errors.
and if you really want a flaw, i can point out the flaw that started my atheism back when i was a kid. we started reading genesis in school and my interest waned sharply when it tried to convince me that god made a "dome, which he called the sky." i don't know if you guys ever did maths or played with lego but...think for a second...what happens when you place a dome on a sphere?
Dome isn't the appropriate word, and in most translations it is actually "firmament". However, this page explains it: https://www.aboutbibleprophecy.com/q1.htm
perhaps it was written at a time when people didn't know the earth was a sphere...but surely god, who they were supposedly dictating from, would have known that, and told them?
We've already covered this. The bible nowhere implies that the earth is flat. It either is using common analogies from that day and time or even mentions that it is spherical.
-
there you go cziffra, any other "flaws"?
-
The *original*. The very first and original. No translations done on it. No errors.
...which you have not read, incidentally,
Ed
-
...which you have not read, incidentally
Have you read every original report for every underlying theory on evolution? I think your reading list is quite larger than mine...
-
...which you have not read, incidentally
And while I'm still up and not sleeping (dang flu, 5 days now), whenever I see a contradiction or some other small problem that someone points out in the Bible and am able to do a small Google search and see someone explain exactly what's up (generally a faulty translation somewhere down the line), it reassures me that my claim is still true. Until someone points out a contradiction that I can't counter in less than 5 minutes of Googling or 5 minutes of reading it myself, I don't see why I need to read the original Bible.
And if you don't want a creationist view on why evolution isn't correct, read this: https://www.adequacy.org/stories/2001.9.30.172813.212.html. It's quite long, but a very interesting read. It assumes some slight prior knowledge of logic (like the terms tautology, sound, valid, etc.). It also does invoke certain logical principles and mathematical proofs as well, but to understand the page, it isn't necessary to understand the exact logical proof (BTW, I do have 9 hours of coursework in Logic under my belt. I've heard (and used) most principles he talks about, so it's not like I'm blindly reading this.)
Since your site you pointed out on several occasions (evolutionhappens.net) doesn't have any information on macroevolution's supporting facts, I'll quote another respected website:
Antievolutionists argue that there has been no proof of macroevolutionary processes. However, synthesists claim that the same processes that cause within-species changes of the frequencies of alleles can be extrapolated to between species changes, so this argument fails unless some mechanism for preventing microevolution causing macroevolution is discovered. Since every step of the process has been demonstrated in genetics and the rest of biology, the argument against macroevolution fails.
And, then here's what the above site says;
I'm sorry, but this is clearly among the worst arguments ever made in support of anything. Instead of answering the challenge with an actual model of how gradual microevolutinary change can result in macroevolutionary change, not only do the evolutionists decline responsibility for doing so, but to top it off place the responsibility of showing that their unsupported process can't happen on the people who point out that it's unsupported!
This is simply ridiculous. If you want people to believe you that X happens, you actually have to offer evidence that it does happen. You can't claim that unless the skeptics can prove that it doesn't happen, then it happens. It is intellectually dishonest, and logically inconsistent.
Sure, the talk.origins crowd has put forward more detailed arguments about why you should believe in macroevolution. But don't bother reading that document just yet. Not until you read my next section, which outlines the fallacy underlying all evolutionary reasoning, and will enable you to refute it point-by-point yourself.
I suggest you read the page. I am, it's quite entertaining to see all the flaws :)
-
If you want people to believe you that X happens, you actually have to offer evidence that it does happen. You can't claim that unless the skeptics can prove that it doesn't happen, then it happens. It is intellectually dishonest, and logically inconsistent.
Well that discredits your entire argument for god's existence then,
Ed
-
Well that discredits your entire argument for god's existence then
No, what it does is discredits your entire evolution argument. We've gone further than Evolution and laid out an exact way that everything in the world is explainable (the Bible), and a timeline on which everything came to be. That is evidence -- a book that accounts everything and hasn't been proven to be incorrect.
Evolution on the other hand, says that species and stuff evolve into new species. What evolution doesn't do is prove that the current set of species is actually possible to have achieved via evolution. What about the totally unrelated species that are on the Earth?
-
No, what it does is discredits your entire evolution argument. We've gone further than Evolution and laid out an exact way that everything in the world is explainable (the Bible), and a timeline on which everything came to be. That is evidence -- a book that accounts everything and hasn't been proven to be incorrect.
The book has the ultimate get out clause though! An atheist does not accept "god did it" as a valid explanation for anything,
Ed
-
The book has the ultimate get out clause though! An atheist does not accept "god did it" as a valid explanation for anything
Well, that's the atheist's problem. I'm not even talking about the "God did it" stuff. I'm saying that the Bible provides a historically accurate account of how we got from point A-> point B. The rest historians piece together by reading other accounts.
While the actual Creation requires you to believe in God, the rest of the facts and details in the Bible (not the actual stories, just everything about the times and people during those times) don't require you to believe in God.
And you're right, evolutionists don't have a "get out clause." Instead they just leave facts empty and expect everyone to believe it. At least the Bible has an explanation for things.
So here's what our argument boils down to: You don't accept our claims that there is a God, and the Bible is the book of God. That's really it. If you accepted that claim, there would be no arguments.
We don't accept your claims that simply because small scale evolution has happened, large scale evolution happened as well. We also don't accept atheistic views on how there is no way that everything in the universe was generated out of nothing. We also don't accept how the geological record is very loosely pieced together. We also don't accept how there are totally unrelated species, yet evolution claims that we all derive from the same specie in the beginning. We also don't accept many other claims, but these are the strongest claims that I am unsatisfied with.
Is this fairly accurate? And do you have any evidence for any of those claims so that the list might get knocked down (until I add more)?
-
I would like to clarify two things. Firstly, I do not claim that the bible is entirely incorrect (therefore the argument of slight historical accuracy at times goes no way to proving god's existence). Secondly, we are not debating whether evolutionary theory is correct or not. We are debating whether creationist theory is. Therefore the arguments provided by theists against the theory of evolution are in fact completely off topic. As far as I see it, the theists proof of god seems to rest in the fact that there was a book written many years ago which does not (in their opinion) contradict history/science etc. Now, what if I were to write a book which stated an entirely fictitious but plausible theory explaining how we arrived at the point of our existence which we find ourselves at right now? Nobody would respect it, and I wouldn't expect them to. However, in the case of the bible, through the greatest con in the history of mankind, some people actually believe the fiction within its pages. Extraordinary,
Ed
-
Firstly, I do not claim that the bible is entirely incorrect (therefore the argument of slight historical accuracy at times goes no way to proving god's existence).
Fair enough.
Secondly, we are not debating whether evolutionary theory is correct or not. We are debating whether creationist theory is. Therefore the arguments provided by theists against the theory of evolution are in fact completely off topic.
Quite incorrect. One way to prove something is to disprove every other possibility. Since this is the most widely accepted theory, why not start by disproving it?
As far as I see it, the theists proof of god seems to rest in the fact that there was a book written many years ago
In which prophecies in the earlier books were fulfilled later.
which does not (in their opinion) contradict history/science etc.
Not only does it not contradict it, it supports it. It mentions numerical values (pi), scientific theories, and other things that people didn't actually discover for years and years later.
Now, what if I were to write a book which stated an entirely fictitious but plausible theory explaining how we arrived at the point of our existence which we find ourselves at right now? Nobody would respect it, and I wouldn't expect them to.
Then what's Evolution? Some people respect it, although I find most of it to be extremely fictitious.
However, in the case of the bible, through the greatest con in the history of mankind, some people actually believe the fiction within its pages.
Some people actually believe that Evolution is true. I think that's a great con.
-
wired, your a great debater. Alot better than I would have been or am. Im glad you have been a part of this thread.
-
Quite incorrect. One way to prove something is to disprove every other possibility. Since this is the most widely accepted theory, why not start by disproving it?
Because there are many many theories. It is not an either/or situation we are dealing with.
Not only does it not contradict it, it supports it. It mentions numerical values (pi), scientific theories, and other things that people didn't actually discover for years and years later.
It mentions scientifically impossible things as well - however your response is always "god did it".
Then what's Evolution? Some people respect it, although I find most of it to be extremely fictitious.
There is far more evidence for it than any other theory.
wired, your a great debater. Alot better than I would have been or am. Im glad you have been a part of this thread.
He's as good a debater as you are a grammatically correct muslim,
Ed
-
Because there are many many theories. It is not an either/or situation we are dealing with.
Quite incorrect. We're always in a situation where proof by negation will work. You don't set out at proving everything else wrong at once. Instead, you prove one is wrong, then move on.
It mentions scientifically impossible things as well - however your response is always "god did it".
This is quite irrelevant in the argument at hand. Our argument is that the Bible and God are both true. If both are true, then this is an acceptable response. When analyzing an argument that contains multiple premises, you must analyze all premises when making any claims against it. Since I say that the Bible is 100% true, and God is the God mentioned in the Bible, you can't disprove it by claiming there are things that God can't do.
I only bring up the things that make the Bible stand out -- the fact that they acknowledge these laws of nature and mathematics far before any scientist or mathematician was able to actually "figure it out."
There is far more evidence for it than any other theory.
Yet there is so little! The thing is that Evolution is taught to EVERYONE in grade school (over here at least). Yet, it isn't a proven theory. That, my friend, is wrong. Why teach unproven theories? Why do we insist that everyone must learn about a world that many people claim is so old when that hasn't been proven either? Why did I learn about the big bang in Grade School despite the fact we don't even think that may have really happened?
*That* is why most people think it's true. Not because of the evidence supporting it... because it is taught by the very people we are told to look up to.
He's as good a debater as you are a grammatically correct muslim
Ok.. what other possibility is there than creation?
Premises
We know that in a closed system, no energy is lost or gained through any set of circumstances. It may be converted to potential energy or back to kinetic energy of some sort. However, the total energy of a closed system does not change.
For this proof, we will be mentioning a closed system of a large scale. The closed system is our universe -- everything physical we know about. However, we will be examining it as if it were empty, as it must have been at some point in time.
Since no energy can be added to a closed system (our universe), the universe was doomed to be empty for eternity. However, there is an explanation. Since our closed system is the universe, something outside of that closed system can add energy to the system.
Conclusion
There is a power outside of our universe that exists in no physical area we know of. There has to be something that created all of the energy and mass in the universe, and since a closed system cannot gain energy by any other means than something outside the system adding energy to it.
So, there you have it. Something created us. I cannot link this proof directly to being the God of the Bible, but it is some supernatural being, which by definition is a God. So, while this does not prove that there may not be more than one supernatural being, it does prove that there must have been at least one supernatural being. To disprove that, you must disprove science.
-
one word...WOW! :)
He's as good a debater as you are a grammatically correct muslim,
Ed
Mr. ED... will you ever get over my spelling and grammar inadequacies? why even bring that up in this debate like you have on numerous occasions? Should I start a grammar and spelling thread as well? Its a waste of space :) Just stick to the task on hand with answering wired's questions. He is far more educated than I.
-
I am an agnostic.
-
I am an agnostic
Well done.
-
i am agnostic
then there is a chance for you after all...maybe.
-
then there is a chance for you after all...maybe.
The annoying thing is I want to say to you "You'll see god doesn't exist when you are dead". But you won't see, because, in fact, you will be dead,
Ed
-
The annoying thing is I want to say to you "You'll see god doesn't exist when you are dead". But you won't see, because, in fact, you will be dead,
Did I not prove God exists?
Don't make a claim that some "God" being doesn't exist until you disprove the claim that I made above.
-
Did I not prove God exists?
Quite,
Ed
-
Quite
Quite is an adverb. Adverbs can't be used without another word, particularly another verb, adjective, or another adverb. For example, your statement can mean:
quite correct
quite incorrect
quite amazingly
... (almost infinite more terms)
Perhaps you should form a sentence of some sort? Or at least a phrase that makes sense?
-
Quite is an adverb. Adverbs can't be used without another word, particularly another verb, adjective, or another adverb. For example, your statement can mean:
quite correct
quite incorrect
quite amazingly
... (almost infinite more terms)
Perhaps you should form a sentence of some sort? Or at least a phrase that makes sense?
Perhaps you should get a dictionary that isn't full of americanisations,
Ed
-
perhaps we should stick to the topic here guys >:(
ed, im sorry for you because simply being dead is not an option for anybody. Our physical bodies will be dead but not our souls. They will be judged and we will be reunited with our perfect bodies of eternity. Im not sure about all the details as to what exactly happens after we die. But I know that I want to spend eternity in a perfect place(better than we could ever imagine) then spend eternity in hell where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth.(that is simply stated Im sure its worse than we could ever imagine)
-
spend eternity in hell where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth.(that is simply stated Im sure its worse than we could ever imagine)
Although that does sound pretty terrifying!
Ed
-
Perhaps you should get a dictionary that isn't full of americanisations,
Perhaps you should clarify what you were trying to say? Don't say I didn't prove a God/supernatural being existed until you counter that proof.
-
perhaps we should stick to the topic here guys >:(
ed, im sorry for you because simply being dead is not an option for anybody. Our physical bodies will be dead but not our souls. They will be judged and we will be reunited with our perfect bodies of eternity. Im not sure about all the details as to what exactly happens after we die. But I know that I want to spend eternity in a perfect place(better than we could ever imagine) then spend eternity in hell where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth.(that is simply stated Im sure its worse than we could ever imagine)
"gnashing of teeth"?
-
Perhaps you should clarify what you were trying to say? Don't say I didn't prove a God/supernatural being existed until you counter that proof.
So unicorns exist do they? Go on, try and prove they don't,
Ed
-
Jesus is gone, nobody cares
The sound of his name just brings indifferent stares.
People grew tired of his vanishing act
and finally decided he ain't coming back.
Relieved of the burden of fancy and fable
Society since brought great minds to the table
Biological research brought extension to life
To those who had once lived in pain and in strife
Society still has its few who believe
They cling to the myth that there is no reprieve
They just sit and stare at the moon in great awe
While men in white coats feed them meals through a straw.
-
So unicorns exist do they? Go on, try and prove they don't
Good way to avoid the proof.
But also, what does this point prove? Are you claiming they don't exist or do? The first question seems to be asking if I claim that unicorns exist. The next statement seems to tell me to prove they don't. Which one do you want me to do?
-
The first question seems to be asking if I claim that unicorns exist. The next statement seems to tell me to prove they don't. Which one do you want me to do?
Prove they don't exist. It is impossible. This does not mean that they do exist though,
Ed
-
Prove they don't exist. It is impossible. This does not mean that they do exist though
You failed to answer my first question... why? What about this answer would make a difference? So what if a unicorn did or did not exist. If I were to prove either way, would that really accomplish anything?
-
You failed to answer my first question... why?
It's very simple. The fact that you cannot prove a unicorn doesn't exist does not lead to the conclusion that they do exist. Therefore, the fact that we cannot prove god doesn't exist does not lead to the conclusion that he does,
Ed
-
Read freud and Nietzsche, they will deepen your thinking.
First of all, I believe that religion is simply wish fulfillment. Human beings, like other animals, have the instinct to survive. No one wants to die - everyone is afraid of death because it is unknown. Every world religion has some sort of afterlife or "becoming one with the universe" that allows its believers to escape death (I am counting Buddhism as philosophy here, although, ultimate enlightenment is still a little "death-defying"). Christianity is the one I will deal with because I think most people are familiar with it.
Christianity's spread is a result of the fact that it combined freedom from death with the morality that best seems to suit society. It is relatively simple to say that all one's societally unacceptable actions (ie murder) don't matter because one believes that someone died for them (which is really pagainstic if one thinks about it - sacrifice of a son for sins).
Where did morality originate from? Early society. As animals, we have the instinct of self - preservation. In early hunter - gather societies (created because it was in the best interest of the individual to benefit from the food and protection begotten by numbers) of relatively few people, stealing, lying or killing meant depriving the community of food, or someone of life. If that person was not punished, then they could simply repeat their actions. As society expanded and grew ever more complicated, so did this socially derived morality. Why do we distinguish between a purposeful crime and an accidental crime? Because the person who commits the purposeful crime has purposely deprived someone of the right to life or food (money, property, etc.), and the accidental crime was just that, an accident. In terms of the universe, no one is morally accountable, but by choosing to live in society, we face the disapproval and/or justice of our peers.
Has anyone ever thought about why morality is changing? I think it is because in most Western or Westernized nation, most people no longer have to struggle for survival. This would explain why there are conflicting (I am with the proponents of both) sides on abortion and homosexuality (conflicts between the happiness derived from self - presevation of individuals and the preservation of society). As we become more individual creatures, thanks to phones, internet, etc. we have to come in contact with society less and less, and people develop more and more personal moralities.
If anyone would like to talk to me more about this, feel free to email me. This is just a small part of my personal philosophy. Chopi
-
Wired,iIf you want to show a flaw with the Bible, then all I have to do is say it is wrong. If it were divine truth then it should be able to prove itself beyond a doubt, and there should exist no other religions on earth. How do you explain that? Also, the bible says that homosexuality is wrong - without using the bible as proof, can you prove that? It also says that Jesus was resurrected and that he was divine. I believe that he existed, but that he was simply a leader who was mythologized. Without using the bible as proof, can you prove that Jesus was divine and resurrected??? These are what I call flaws. Also, everything that you "google" in five minutes is not necessarily true. Those people have an agenda - they want to remove all flaws from the bible. You should read well- documented research if you want unbiased thought.
Also, I know biology very well, and I know that all species (except for a few, who began evolution from different chemical processes - bacteria that digest sulfur for instance) ARE related. Even the most most disparate organisms have many chemical processes in common. Glycolysis is present in both bacteria AND eukaryotic cells. This provides a link between the two.
-
Sorry I'm posting again - too much coffee!
This is just something that had to be said. Wired said that we shouldn't teach evolution because it isn't proven. This is a silly statement. Can we prove anything? Can one "prove" that 2+2 =4, what does the word two mean anyways? We can not "prove" anything. We can not prove any scientific laws. You can not even prove that your parents really are your parents (DNA analysis just shows how closely one's DNA matches with that of another individual). All we can teach is that which is most clearly observable. Evolution IS a theory. It just so happens that science based on it fits perfectly with the observable earth. In fact, nearly all modern biology is based off of evolution, and, unless you are proposing that we stop teaching biology to children, the two can not be separated.
-
Chopiabin, you rock dude.
Ed
-
most people no longer have to struggle for survival.
i guess you have no idea that 3rd world countries exist.Where did morality originate from? Early society. As animals, we have the instinct of self - preservation.
which came from....? dont you think we are different than animals? or did we evolve faster than they? :D
-
i guess you have no idea that 3rd world countries exist.
Chopiabin said, IN THE SAME SENTENCE, "in most Western or Westernized nation". Seriously, can you not read?
dont you think we are different than animals?
Fundementaly no,
Ed
-
Exactly, Ed.
I said in Westernized societies because I assume that if we are all on computers then we are all in at least somewhat Westernized societies. World policy, morality, etc. are decided by Western nations becasue they have the power.
You want to know where early societies came from? Well, this response might take a while. Think about it. Humans (animals that have simply evolved more complicated brains than other animals) have the will to survive (just like animals). They run into other humans and fight and kill each other. One day, they realize that they have to compromise to survive, and have a better chance of survival if they form small hunter-gatherer societies where some stay near the village to protect it and others find food.
Chimpanzees also form small societies, and have their own "morality". If one chimp steals the mate of the leader, or steals food from the collective society, then he is beaten up, killed or ostracized. Chimps don't have brains as complicated as ours, so their societies are not as complicated as ours.
Also, I believe that humans have simply adapted to their environment by developing larger brains. If you look at it, we are only a step up from gorillas. Of course we want to believe that humans are special because we ARE humans. Because we have developed such complicated brains, we have the most acute sense of self-awareness of any animal.
- Takes Deep Breath - :D
ChopChop
-
Well that kinda goes against the Bible, which in its original form is 100% accurate. God created man in His image. Also why haven't all the other animals "evolved" into what we are or even close for that matter. P.S. gorillas I do not consider close.
-
Well that kinda goes against the Bible, which in its original form is 100% accurate.
No, it is not.
God created man in His image. Also why haven't all the other animals "evolved" into what we are or even close for that matter. P.S. gorillas I do not consider close.
Why do you not consider them close? You certainly should do, because that's exactly what they are,
Ed
-
Twinkles, how many times do I have to explain this? You can NOT use the bible to prove that the bible is true. That's like trying to define a word by using the word itself. If you can show COLD, HARD FACTS, then maybe we can go somewhere.
By the way, it doesn't matter if you consider gorillas close relatives - they are, 99% of our DNA matches theirs.
What do mean about other species evolving into something like us? Not every species evolves into the same thing. They adapt to their environmentsI'm still waiting for you to prove me incorrect. NOT USING THE BIBLE!
-
Wired,iIf you want to show a flaw with the Bible, then all I have to do is say it is wrong. If it were divine truth then it should be able to prove itself beyond a doubt, and there should exist no other religions on earth. How do you explain that?
People believe what they want to believe, kind of like how people believe evolution is true.
Also, the bible says that homosexuality is wrong - without using the bible as proof, can you prove that?
Depends what your definition of wrong is. Since morality changes from person to person, it is impossible to prove something is wrong. I could prove murder is good, or at least that I personally think it (I don't, just an example).
It also says that Jesus was resurrected and that he was divine. I believe that he existed, but that he was simply a leader who was mythologized. Without using the bible as proof, can you prove that Jesus was divine and resurrected???
No.
These are what I call flaws. Also, everything that you "google" in five minutes is not necessarily true. Those people have an agenda - they want to remove all flaws from the bible.
Funny, all they do is explain what different hebrew and greek words truly mean. Unless you are talking about the theories behind large events. Those aren't flaws. Those are things yet to be proven. As science evolves, we will be able to prove even more.
As for them being flaws, those aren't flaws. Those are things that require faith. I asked for flaws as in contradictions, physically impossible (not improbable) events, and other things along those lines. As you have just pointed out, it is impossible to prove or disprove things based upon faith.
You should read well- documented research if you want unbiased thought.
Research on hebrew and greek words? Isn't that called a dictionary?
Also, I know biology very well, and I know that all species (except for a few, who began evolution from different chemical processes - bacteria that digest sulfur for instance) ARE related. Even the most most disparate organisms have many chemical processes in common. Glycolysis is present in both bacteria AND eukaryotic cells. This provides a link between the two.
If you were to understand what unrelated species are, then you would realize that it isn't necessarily what the cells contain, but what their genetic makeup is.
-
Twinkles, how many times do I have to explain this? You can NOT use the bible to prove that the bible is true. That's like trying to define a word by using the word itself. If you can show COLD, HARD FACTS, then maybe we can go somewhere.
History basically proves it. Until you start stepping into areas that science has influenced what some historians believe about the time period (incorrectly of course), everything matches.
By the way, it doesn't matter if you consider gorillas close relatives - they are, 99% of our DNA matches theirs.
What do mean about other species evolving into something like us? Not every species evolves into the same thing. They adapt to their environmentsI'm still waiting for you to prove me incorrect. NOT USING THE BIBLE!
Yes, species adapt to their environments. However, what science has failed to prove is that given a single type of ape that you will get lots of different species (not subspecies... actual new species).
I don't have to prove you incorrect. Macroevolution hasn't been proven, so trusting it fully is incorrect in itself. You're putting faith into science, something that shouldn't require faith.
Just because we share the same gene makeup doesn't mean that we evolved from them. Science hasn't proven that the 99.4% gene similarity is even a possible outcome with evolving from previous species. Science does have an unproven timeline, which is made up of some skeletons that have a single bone. I don't know if it's still true or not, but some skeletons are totally nonexistent!
-
So, for you evolutionists: Why haven't we seen any new species formed from Humans?
Surely we aren't the perfect organism.
-
Therefore, the fact that we cannot prove god doesn't exist does not lead to the conclusion that he does
My proof directly proves that something that I call God does exist. You have to disprove science to prove me wrong on that one, yet you keep avoiding the proof.
-
So, for you evolutionists: Why haven't we seen any new species formed from Humans?
Surely we aren't the perfect organism.
We are constantly evolving,
Ed
-
What do mean about other species evolving into something like us? Not every species evolves into the same thing. They adapt to their environmentsI'm still waiting for you to prove me incorrect. NOT USING THE BIBLE!
then why dont people who live in same enviroment as goriallas turn into gorillas or vice versa.We are constantly evolving,
Ed
Ya I just got back from the zoo.
Wired, consider using the modify button instead of post after post. Just a thought ;)Why do you not consider them close? You certainly should do, because that's exactly what they are,
Ed
the only thing we have in common is that we are both mammals.We are constantly evolving,
Ed
err adapting to enviroment. in human history i cant think of one ape in the gene pool.
-
Ya I just got back from the zoo.
Did you get bananas from visitors today ?
-
Uh... Is your brain ok?
If I'm not mistaken, I just read "why don't people who live in the same habitats as gorillas turn back into gorilla?"
You obviously don't (or can't) understand evolutionary theory. Evolutionary theory describes the passing down of traits through offspring which, over MILLIONS of years, results in a new species.
Please actually take the time to read some evolutionary theory (NOT some biased creationist summary!!!) and once you actually know what you are talking about get back to me.
Chopalapagos Islands (creative huh?)
-
Also, why don't you address the difficult issues in my posts?
-
Chopalapagos Islands (creative huh?)
Incredibly impressive! Surely you won't be able to maintain this high standard though. Only time will tell,
Ed
-
I have noticed that many people like using history to "prove" the Bible. I have to suggest that this is a logical fallacy. I will make two statements.
1. Paris is in France.
2. God does not exist.
Obviously, the first one is true, but that doesn't necessarily make the second one true. I could put these statements on a piece of paper and call it totally true. Obviously the first statement is true, so then the second must be true because the first it. That is the kind of logic that tries to prove the Bible through history. The really unfortunate thing, though, is that the Bible isn't even always historically accurate.
-
If I'm not mistaken, I just read "why don't people who live in the same habitats as gorillas turn back into gorilla?"
or vice versa i said. gorillas turning into humans
-
First of all, people are related to gorillas, but they didn't evolve directly from them, not that I've ever read anyway. Living things only evolve in the direction in which there is selective pressure. Animals don't evolve features for nothing, and people wouldn't evolve into gorillas because there is no pressure for them to do so. It takes millions of years, and no species just "changes" from one to another, it evolves into completely new species. Changes implies some magical transformation or another.
-
then explain the nonexistance of intermediate species.
-
Every species is an intermediate species. They all evolved from something, and they will all evolve into something else later, or go extinct.
-
Every species is an intermediate species. They all evolved from something, and they will all evolve into something else later, or go extinct.
-
well then apes should be extinct cause humans are superior
-
Where do you get this? First of all, if you define superior as reproductive success and population, then indeed humans are superior. It is not theorized that we evolved from any living apes, but rather that we evolved from a now extinct ancestor. This ancestor was related to modern apes, and probably our lineage and that of the great apes split sometime in the far past. Humans and apes are related, as technically speaking, humans are apes. They are related, but humans are not physically descended from any primate species alive today.
-
so what your saying is that todays primate is evolved from one of our primate ancestors too?
-
It depends on how far back in time you want to go, but if I understand you correctly, I suppose yes. At some point in the past there was most likely one species that diverged into our respecive lineages. Keep in mind, however, that I have done much more reading about fossil cats than about human fossils, and am probably not the best person to ask for details about human evolution.
Do you agree with my last post that just because the Bible may make some accurate historical comments, that does not automatically make it accurate about the supernatural?
-
agreed...but does it make it innaccurate?
why isnt there more intelligent life out there then? are you telling me out of the "billions" of years that no other planet "formed" living things. with another root of the question being who formed the planets themselves?
-
No, it doesn't necessarily make it inaccurate, but you can see how there really is no proof for anything that the Bible says about the supernatural.
First of all, we don't know whether there is intelligent life elsewhere or not. Why does it even have to be intelligent? Don't bacteria count as life? No planet we know of other than earth has life (although there is suspicion that Mars and some of Jupiter's moons might have unicellular life in the icecaps), but we only know a couple planets well enough to guess about life; there are billions of planets out there, and in reality I suspect that there is an extremely good chance of life on some other ones. You ask who formed the planets, but I would suggest that what formed the planets is a much more accurate question. I am grossly oversimplifying this, but the planets were formed by gravity. If you would honestly like to learn about scientific theories of origins, there are many books available, and a quick search of the internet might give you some general information.
-
im sure none of them could explain our beginnings. If there was one then this debate would be over. why even give an age to earth? why do we say it is billions of years old? saying that is saying that is was created at one point. everything "physical" was created at one point in this spectrum we call time, which by the way was created. the laws that govern time itself had to be created.
You obviously don't (or can't) understand evolutionary theory.
insert "could care less about"If it were divine truth then it should be able to prove itself beyond a doubt, and there should exist no other religions on earth.
read my signature at the end of each post
there shouldnt be religion at all then. why would man want to make something up? does it benefit us to make stuff up? take the evolutionary theory for instance ;) no benefit.
-
Do I think man made up religion? YES. Not consciously of course. Like I have said many times before, HUMAN BEINGS ARE SCARED OF DEATH just like every other animal. Human beings wnated to find some way to extend their lives so they came up with religion. Originally religion involved difficult things, like sacrificing children etc. Christianity caught on because it best fit the morality of the age in which it originated (if you've noticed, our morality is getting further and further away from that of the bible, hence the number of non-believers). Christianity is also the "easy" religion. It does not involve sacrificing anything to god to gain the reward of heaven. All you have to do is believe that there is a god and that some guy "died for one's sins." Instead of sacrificing to god, god sacrifices to you. Christianity is the ultimate expression of human vanity.
-
Ed, I knew you would be back here at some point, so I had to post this here. CONGRATULATIONS on getting into the Royal College of Music!! I just looked at the post where you were talking about it, and dude, that's incredible. I totally envy you! Wow, that is so awesome. If you don't mind my asking, what pieces did you play? Were you totally nervous?
Chop ;)
P.S. I hope no one minds my posting this here (it's slightly off topic ::))
-
For Chopiabin:
https://www.pianoforum.net/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=misc;action=display;num=1071556371;start=0,
Ed
-
You need to recognize that this debate between ordinary people resembles little of what is being debated in the scientific community at this time. If you mean human beginnings, the scientific consensus is that we evolved; and except for "scienists" with religious beliefs to defend, I can't think of a single reputable scientist in related fields who doubts our evolution. There might be some debate over exactly how we evolved, but that we evolved is considered biological fact.
The earth formed billions of years ago by means of gravity. Time as we know is theorized by some to have begun at the big bang. (if someone has more specific knowledge than me, please let me know as I don't want to say something incorrect) As the fabric of spacetime has expanded, so has the universe. But this is far from evolution, which is the change in the gene pool of one species from one generation to the next.
You could care less about evolutionary theory? Why are you debating it then? If you don't care about it, and have no knowledge of it, how can you reasonably expect to attack it in debate?
I know many Christians who suppose that all other religions were the product of mens' imaginations, and since all religions cannot be correct, it is obvious that somebody made most of them up. Why should any religion be believed over any other, when there really is no evidence to support it?
Evolutionary theory was not just "made up." It was formed by observation of the evidence and the formulation of a theory to accommodate all the known evidence at the time, and since its formation, all the evidence has pointed to evolution, and the theory constantly being refined in details, or sometimes new theories being created, to accommodate the evidence. That is the way of science. Knowledge of evolution does carry huge benefits. It is the foundation of most modern biology (think of all the medical benefits from that alone), and it explains in a very fine way much of what we see in the world around us.
-
I would like to make another point at this stage. The constant attack by theists on the scientific viewpoint of the universe being approximately 15 billion years old is a rather dreadful argument (theists argue that the universe could not have created itself, rather something must have created it, therefore god must have created it). While this may seem logical to them, it is indeed highly inconsequential to the actual debate, for the same problem exists in the creationist theory (who created the creator? Wired has answered this by saying god has always existed - a hugely illogical notion). I am not going to sit here and say I understand how the universe began because nobody knows this information yet. However, I will say that whilst theists give no logical explanation for the creation of the creator, their argument regarding this point falls into the realms of insignificance,
Ed
-
This is so much funnier if you're not involved. Wired has run away and left twinkle fingers to defend himself against a mounting number of people are far more intelligent than him, producing spectacular results:
then why dont people who live in same enviroment as goriallas turn into gorillas or vice versa
What can a person say to respond to that? Honestly?
-
This is so much funnier if you're not involved. Wired has run away and left twinkle fingers to defend himself against a mounting number of people are far more intelligent than him, producing spectacular results:
;D,
Ed
-
I have noticed that many people like using history to "prove" the Bible. I have to suggest that this is a logical fallacy. I will make two statements.
I wasn't offering a proof, I was offering evidence.
-
We are constantly evolving
Into...?
-
Do I think man made up religion? YES.
Do I think man made up Evolution? YES!
Christianity caught on because it best fit the morality of the age in which it originated (if you've noticed, our morality is getting further and further away from that of the bible, hence the number of non-believers).
Actually, christianity originally started developing partly because of 0. However, even if christianity as a religion didn't "catch on" immediately, that doesn't discredit the Bible in any way. The Bible was available, it wasn't written when someone said, "Oh, lets form a religion."
Christianity is also the "easy" religion. It does not involve sacrificing anything to god to gain the reward of heaven. All you have to do is believe that there is a god and that some guy "died for one's sins." Instead of sacrificing to god, god sacrifices to you. Christianity is the ultimate expression of human vanity.
Yes, it is much easier nowadays than it was back in the old testament days. For that I am thankful. So, what is your point again?
The popularity of Christianity isn't on how easy it is. If I were to make a religion that said, "Hey, if you say the name Jon each day before you go to bed, I'll promise you eternal life," no one would do it. Why? Well, popularity isn't based solely on how easy something is.
-
I would like to make another point at this stage. The constant attack by theists on the scientific viewpoint of the universe being approximately 15 billion years old is a rather dreadful argument (theists argue that the universe could not have created itself, rather something must have created it, therefore god must have created it). While this may seem logical to them, it is indeed highly inconsequential to the actual debate, for the same problem exists in the creationist theory (who created the creator? Wired has answered this by saying god has always existed - a hugely illogical notion).
No, I simply claimed that something outside of our physical realm created it. I claim that the God of the bible always existed, but my proof was only to prove that something had to create us. Whatever it was and however it has been there cannot be proven, but something outside of the universe must have created us.
I am not going to sit here and say I understand how the universe began because nobody knows this information yet. However, I will say that whilst theists give no logical explanation for the creation of the creator, their argument regarding this point falls into the realms of insignificance,
No, it does not. It proves that science itself cannot explain how we got here.
-
Wired has run away
It's called work. I had a contracting job in Dallas for the weekend, and am pulling extra hours trying to get a project done before Christmas so that I can leave on time to get back to Kansas.
-
Into...?
Time will tell. Surely that is obvious.
I claim that the God of the bible always existed
If you don't see that as highly illogical then you have a serious problem.
It proves that science itself cannot explain how we got here.
Wrong. Discovered science cannot explain how we got here, but I am convinced that it is only a matter of time until we have a complete theory. Just because we have not yet discovered something does not mean it does not exist,
Ed
-
Originally religion involved difficult things, like sacrificing children etc.
i dont remember sacrificing children in the bible. not 100% sure. I know God commanded abraham to kill his son but just before he did God stopped abraham(test of faith and obedience)And even christians sacrificed goats and such things as this. so why are you saying we didnt do this? We dont have to now because Jesus is the ultimate sacrifice.Just because we have not yet discovered something does not mean it does not exist
exactly ed. just keep an open mind. ;) HUMAN BEINGS ARE SCARED OF DEATH just like every other animal.
I dont think ed is. Besides its not death you should be scared of, but where you spend eternity. why would someone make up this religion? Do they think they are going to get life after death by making up some practice? defy the physical laws of our existence? that is nonsense. it was divinely inspired man. If I made up my religion I wouldnt feel any better about what is happening after death or if there was anything after death. You see what I am saying here?but I am convinced that it is only a matter of time until we have a complete theory.
a complete theory is still just that...theory.
-
exactly ed. just keep an open mind. ;)
I have an open mind - you're the one who "couldn't care less" about evolutionary theory while knowing nothing about it.
why would someone make up this religion? Do they think they are going to get life after death by making up some practice? defy the physical laws of our existence? that is nonsense. it was divinely inspired man. If I made up my religion I wouldnt feel any better about what is happening after death or if there was anything after death. You see what I am saying here?
Imagine you are in control of a great number of people. Now imagine they are all fairly depressed and you want to make them happier. Here's an idea - you can tell them that after they die, if they work hard they will go to a wonderful place called heaven. They believe you and work hard for the rest of their lives. Even though you yourself know that heaven does not exist, pretending it does has benefited your society hugely. I am not saying this is exactly how christianity started, but it is an example of how one might make up a religion without it being divinely inspired.
a complete theory is still just that...theory.
Do us all a favour and look up the word theory in a dictionary,
Ed
-
Hey, everybody. Right now I'm not going to respond to wired's ridiculous "points". He obviously either can not understand what I am saying, or he is simply choosing to overlook certain words in my posts - namely the word UNCONSCIOUSLY. I'm way to tired to respond the way I want to, and right now I'm supposed to be studying for a AP Calc exam which will make me want to die :P.
However, I wanted to leave the christians with a little something to think about.
Have any of you actually stopped to think about that in which you believe? I'm not talking about proof or evidence or anything like that. I'm simply talking about some of the tenets of your beliefs. One of my favorite Christian stories is that of Job. Job was a very good and godly man who was also very wealthy and blessed with a large family. Job thanked god everyday for all that the lord had given him, and he was very content. One day, the devil told god "If Job were not so blessed, then he would not worship you," to which god responded "Oh, yeah (or something like that)?" God then proceeded to destroy Job's farm, all his material possessions, his entire family, and his friends. Job continued to worship god. Then god gave Job a terrible illness, and Job continued to worship god. Finally, god said "See, Job worshipped me regardless of how blessed he was." Then god gave Job a "new family" new possessions, and a new farm.
My point is that your god destroyed one of his believers' life to win a bet with the devil. In my book that is incredibly childish, cruel, and petty.
Remember that next time you pray to god.
Chopchopchop
-
As much as I hate online religious debate, I will break my silence in order to correct a common misconception.
Chopiabin: You are obviously grossly misinformed about the story of Job. Instead of giving my opinion on the story, I will quote the bible itself and explain verse by verse the occurences documented in the first chapter verses 6-12 of the book of Job. Verses 1-5 tell about Job's possesions and his steadfast dedication to his god. I will now turn it over to the bible.
Verse 6:
Now there was a day when the sons of god came to present themselves before the LORD and satan came also among them.
EXPLANATION verse 6: "The sons of god" are God's faithful angels, probably taking their daily station before the throne of God. One day "Satan came also among them", meaning he also came before god's throne.
Verse 7:
And the LORD said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the earth , and from walking up and down in it.
EXPLANATION verse7: God asks Satan: Where did you come from? Satan says: From hanging around on the earth.
Verse 8:
And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil?
EXPLANATION verse 8: God is kind of showing off his servant Job saying, have you seen my servant? He is good and blameless, he fears God and turns aside from evil.
Verse 9: (I will do 9 and 10 together)
Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, Doth Job fear God for nought?
Verse 10:
Hast not thou made an hedge about him, and about his house, and about all that he hath on every side? Thou hast blessed the work of his hands, and his substance is increased in the land.
EXPLANATION verses 9 and 10:
Satan says in a taunting voice: Does Job fear god for nothing? He implies that Job only continues to serve God because he is gaining material wealth. Sidenote- Job does enjoy God's protection and blessings.
Verse 11:
But put forth thine hand now, and touch all that he hath, and he will curse thee to thy face.
EXPLANATION: Satan is telling God to take away all the things he has given Job. Satan thinks that if he (God) does so, Job will curse God to his face.
Verse 12: And the LORD said unto Satan, Behold, all that he hath is in thy power; only upon himself put not forth thine hand. So Satan went forth from the presence of the LORD.
EXPLANATION verse 12: God is granting Satan permission to do whatever he wants to Job with one restricion: He cannot kill him.
Now, I know what you are thinking, Exactly God LET Satan do it! Well, you are right! But consider the reasons:
Back in the garden of Eden, Satan raised a very important issue - that of universal sovreignty, or who has the right to determine what's right or wrong for humans and the spirit creatures. Satan said that humans could take care of themselves and God was not the highest authority. He implied to Adam and Eve that god had lied to them about eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and bad, saying "You most certainly will NOT die." (Sidenote- I am assuming all of you know the story and have read it yourselves. I am omiting a lot of the story for the sake of time).
Now, why didn't God just destroy Satan right then and there and forgive Adam and Eve? How would that have looked to the angels? They would probably have thought, Wow, God can't handle it when someone challenges his authority, maybe he really doesn't have the right to rule. Obviously, this would cause more problems later, as the issue of universal sovreignty wouldn't have really been solved. So, God is allowing man time to try things out and see if man ruling man can work.
Back to the story, As it happened, Satan came to God's throne when all the faithful angels were before him. The whole dialogue between God and Satan was witnessed by all of the faithful angels. Satan was here raising another issue, The integrity of God's servants. He was saying that no man really wants to serve God and that no man really will in the face of suffering. Again, it would have looked very suspicious if God said, no, I'm not gonna mess with Job and neither are you, he's a good man and that's that. God decided to allow Satan to test Job to prove that even a man who is not gaining materially by serving God will serve him out of love and reverence for his authority. Notice that god refused to hurt Job himself, and also notice that after Job had proved to be faithful(thus proving Satan a liar in the issue of integrity) God completely restored his material wealth and then some.
Attributing any suffering or hardship to God is a very misguided idea. as 1st John 5:19 puts it, "The whole world is lying in the power of the wicked one."(Satan)
True, God is allowing this, but soon he will put an end to Satan's control of the world.-Rev. 20:2,3.
-
Wow!
Do you mean to say that this actually took place? Like a board meeting with God , Angels and the Devil?
But wait a minute? How did the Devil manage to get into the meeting? I thought he was persona non grata, the enemy, the evil one.
And wasn't this meeting sort of hmmm secret?
I mean, who knows what Bill Gates really talks about in his corporate meetings. Who knows what Bush and Blair really said to each other.
So who was taking the minutes of the meeting?
And how the heck was such sensitive information leaked to the media?
You know, your explanations sound a lot like spin to me... ;D
Bless you all,
Bernhard.
-
Do you mean to say that this actually took place? Like a board meeting with God , Angels and the Devil?
I'm just telling you what the actual bible account says.
But wait a minute? How did the Devil manage to get into the meeting? I thought he was persona non grata, the enemy, the evil one.
There is nothing in the bible proir to the book of Job that indicates that Satan was not allowed in heaven.
And wasn't this meeting sort of hmmm secret?
It probably was. I like to think it was "declassified" and related to moses.
And how the heck was such sensitive information leaked to the media?
As 2 timothy 3:16,17 says "All scripture is inspired of God." So, the answer is that God "leaked" this information to Moses.
I try to keep my opinions and explanations as spin-free as possible. :D
-
Every time I've heard the story, It was god that "tested" Job. But that really doesn't matter the truth is, god still felt like he needed op prove something to the devil. You also forget that god did not forbid the devil to destroy Job's family. Is this the god you worship? One that allows the devil to hurt the faithful in order to win a bet?
Also, a side note. Christians believe that the meaning of life is to worship god, right? That seems a little self-righteous of god to create a world solely for the purpose of glorifying him. If he is a god, then why does he need glory? I think it's funny. By christian logic, all the pain on earth is justified by saying that the purpose of life is to glorify god. Next time you feel depressed, just remember that god's glory is more important than the pain that every human feels.
-
Anyways, getting back to the proof non-proof debate. Does anyone actually believe that different languages originated from the story of the tower of babel?
-
You brought up an excellent point there, Chopiabin. Christians speak of the loving god who came to earth, suffered, etc. But in fact, this god is amongst the most vain personalities I can think of. He created a universe heavily populated with little images of himself, all exercising "dominion" over creatures not lucky enough to look like him. Then, he demands worship from these little images of himself, who are all supposed to conform to him as closely as possible, grovelling and supplicating themselves towards him. Everything his little images do is meant to glorify him, rather like slaves work tirelessly for a master who takes all the rewards of their labour. In reality, humans are to be practical robots, exactly like their creator, all worshipping him. This god needs constant attention and praise or he gets mad and kills those who don't worship him. To tell you the truth, if the god of the Bible judged me, I wouldn't give much credit to his opinion, as he is just like a spoiled child without any responsibility to authority.
-
But that really doesn't matter the truth is, god still felt like he needed op prove something to the devil.
As I said, Satan raised an issue. God doesn't have to prove anything to anybody. He wasn't trying to prove anything to Satan. He allowed the test because he wants to give every intelligent creature the chance to see evidence that Satan is a liar and is trying to mislead them.
You also forget that god did not forbid the devil to destroy Job's family. Is this the god you worship? One that allows the devil to hurt the faithful in order to win a bet?
I didn't forget that. Yes he is the god I worship. Like I said it wasn't to win a bet, but to provide evidence that Satan is wrong and is trying to subvert God's faithul ones.
Also, a side note. Christians believe that the meaning of life is to worship god, right? That seems a little self-righteous of god to create a world solely for the purpose of glorifying him. If he is a god, then why does he need glory? I think it's funny. By christian logic, all the pain on earth is justified by saying that the purpose of life is to glorify god. Next time you feel depressed, just remember that god's glory is more important than the pain that every human feels.
I know some wierdo christians think that, but it is incorrect and not bible based. He didn't create the world and humans so we would glorify him. We should want to do so out of gratitude for his benevolent creation of us. I think that you and most people have the impression that the condition of this world is what God intented for us. Remember that God originally gave humans a paradise and perfection. This is what God truly desires for us. However, since Satan was rebelious and questioned God's authority, A miriad of problems for humans have arisen. They will all be corrected at the conclusion of this system of things. Satan will be bound for a time, so he will not be able to mislead the peoples of the earth anymore. After that time he will be let loose for a little while-Revalation 20:3. When he is freed from the abyss, he will go and mislead as many people as he can and attempt to have a final battle with God. As they surround God's faithul people, A fire from heaven will devour the people who have been misled again despite many warnings about the machinations of the Devil. Satan will the hurled into the lake of fire and sulphur as punishment for his crimes against humans and God. After that the dead, including Job and all of his family, will be resurected and judged according to their deeds-Revalation 20:7-13. Revalation 21:1 tells about a new heaven and new earth which will replace the current ones. Revalation 21:3,4 says:
3:With that I heard a loud voice from the throne say:"Look! the tent of God is with mankind, and he will reside with them, and they will be his peoples. And God himself will be with them.
4:And he will wipe out every tear from their eyes, and death will be no more, neither will mourning nor outcry nor pain be anymore. The former things have passed away.
That sounds like a pretty kind and loving promise from a God you suppose to be so cruel. I really think you fail to grasp why God allows suffering. It's not because he wants to prove a point, but because he wants Men to be able to see that they cannot govern themselves without his guidance, and that Satan cannot guide them either. I think it's blatantly obvious that man can't rule man and Satan can't rule man either, But God still allows time for people everywhere to come to the same conclusion. Just so you know, You have been misled by Satan. Do you think you are original in criticizing the righteous actions of God? You are definitely not the first to do so. Remember, you are demonstrating extreme ignorance by assuming that you know something that God doesn't.
***This ends my contribution to this particular thread, unless someone says something else that angers me.***
-
Just so you know, You have been misled by Satan
Shut up,
Ed
-
If god allows pain and suffering so that humans will realize that they can't run their own lives, the why do so many christians suffer? You also didn't answer one of my main points - god let the devil kill Job's family. Do they not matter? Does god not value their lives at all? If god is so powerful and he really despises evil, then why doesn't he destroy it? Humans are screwed because the devil challenged god? That seems a bit unfair. I suppose you would say that all believers in other religions are going to hell too.
I suppose you have never thought about why religion seems to fulfill so many human desires. Could it be that humans, just like animals, have an instinct to survive and an innate fear of death? I believe that humans started religions originally because they feared death and saw nature as a powerful force. Humans at the time were unable to comprehen that weather and earthquakes are caused by natural processes on earth. As religion continued to progress, it came to be more and more convenient to humans and began to fit the morality of the time period. This would explain why there are no (to my knowledge) religions in the modernized world that practice human sacrifice. Parents teach their children to believe in their religion from an early age ( by the way, do you think you would be christian if you were raised in Islam?) and the traditions become sanctified. No one really questions why so many different religions exist (it seems to me that if christianity were divine truth, then the stories would have been revealed to every nation on earth instead of a tiny middle eastern one). Did you know that the original Jewish word for god was "we"? Doesn't it seem that maybe "god" evolved from "gods". That maybe one god took on the properties of many and became omnipotent? It is funny. Humans are very self-concerned. Look how we've stopped sacrificing to god and now he sacrifices to us. He is the one whom we have prostrated before us.
Chop
P.S. Your remarks about satan don't really mean much to me except for the fact that they show your ignorance. I don't believe in satan, and I think he exists so that christians can scare others into believing in their religion. I know you'll say something like "just because you don't believe in him, that doesn't mean he doesn't exist," but you believe in god, and he doesn't exist.
-
If god allows pain and suffering so that humans will realize that they can't run their own lives, the why do so many christians suffer?
Nobody is exempt from the pressures Satan puts on this world, including Christians. It is not that humans can't run their own lives, but that they cannot run each others, or make decisions contrary to God's commands without grave consequences.
You also didn't answer one of my main points - god let the devil kill Job's family. Do they not matter? Does god not value their lives at all?
Maybe I should be more specific. God will resurect all humans that have died over the past 6000+ years. Included in this group will be Job and all of his family. Think of Job's family as a small temporary sacrifice for the greater good of mankind. Temporary because Job's whole family will be resurected to a new world with perfection. The greater good being evidence that Satan is a liar, will stop at nothing to undermine God's authority, and that he wants intellegent creation to turn away from God.
If god is so powerful and he really despises evil, then why doesn't he destroy it? Humans are screwed because the devil challenged god? That seems a bit unfair. I suppose you would say that all believers in other religions are going to hell too.
I told you why he didn't just destroy it. Once again, Satan raised an issue in the garden of Eden. God could have destroyed Satan and evil right there, but then the angels would have wondered why God didn't settle the issue. Again, dissent probably would have come up and caused further problems. God is allowing time for Satan to prove that humans can govern themselves without God's guidance. When Satan fails to do so, the issue will be settled once and for all. This means that God's sovreignty can never be called into question again. Humans are screwed temporarily because Satan challenged God. Once it has been proven beyond a doubt that Satan's accusations were groundless, Mankind will be restored to their former perfect condition. There will be no influence of evil or Satan's schemes. I would say that no person is going to hell. Hell is a creation of the catolic church. There is no biblical account to indicate the existence of hell. The way I come to this conlusion is by reading Ecclesiastes 9:5-The living are conscious that they will die; but as for the dead, they are conscious of nothing at all. Psalm 146:4- His spirit goes out, he goes back to his ground; in that day his thoughts do perish. These scriptures indicate that when humans die, They become unconscious. I don't see the point of this idea of "hell" if people aren't going to feel any pain when they go there.
Your remarks about satan don't really mean much to me except for the fact that they show your ignorance. I don't believe in satan, and I think he exists so that christians can scare others into believing in their religion. I know you'll say something like "just because you don't believe in him, that doesn't mean he doesn't exist," but you believe in god, and he doesn't exist.
Actually, I could say the same thing to you about your failure to acknowledge the existence of Satan. I will not say however, that "just because you don't believe in him, that doesn't mean he doesn't exist." That argument would lack substance just as yours often do, example: "but you believe in god, and he doesn't exist."
-
Maybe I should be more specific. God will resurect all humans that have died over the past 6000+ years. Included in this group will be Job and all of his family. Think of Job's family as a small temporary sacrifice for the greater good of mankind. Temporary because Job's whole family will be resurected to a new world with perfection. The greater good being evidence that Satan is a liar, will stop at nothing to undermine God's authority, and that he wants intellegent creation to turn away from God.
You are insane. I'm not joking,
Ed
-
I still totally disagree with you about "truth," but I guess I have a little more respect for you since you don't believe in hell. My little quip about god's nonexistence was in anticipation of what I thought you were going to say.
To me it still does not make sense. I know a super-christian family who is incredibly generous, kind, and faithful to Jesus. They used to have three daughters, two of whom were twins. One night, they were coming home from spring break, and they were on a small train thing. The two daughters kissed their mother goodnight and went to sit with their friens a few rows up. Then the train hit a truck that was on the tracks, and both daughters were burned to death. Why would a benevolent, all-powerful god allow something like that to happen? Did those two children deserve to die? They were not being "tempted" or anything, so obviously god killed them (if god controls all of nature then he is responsible for everything that happens).
You did not respond to my thoughts on the origin of religion. In addition to what I said there, I would like to add why I think the older religions (the ones with human sacrifice) disappeared. I believe that no one wants to believe in something that is hard. No one wants to believe that you must kill your children to appease a god. Christianity does not require anyone to sacrifice anything material to god. All one has to do is believe in order to be "saved". I think compared to scarifice, that is relatively easy. That is why christianity has stayed around so long. It is some thing that people want to believe in; it's comforting. All one has to do is have faith, and all one's "sins" are erased, and there is no problem getting the reward of heaven. Essentially it removes all responsiblity from humans.
These are the real issues I would like you to address. Not whether or not god's actions are just, but whether or not god exists at all.
Chop
-
You are insane. I'm not joking,
Ed
Oh, really? And do you suppose you are compos mentis?
I'm really sorry you feel that way though. I think you are confusing my strong convictions about what the bible says with insanity. In his 1st. letter to the Corinthians chapter 2:12-15 The apostle Paul says:
12: Now we received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is from God, that we might know the things that have been given us by God.
13: These things we also speak, not with words taught by human wisdom, but with those taught by the spirit, as we combine spiritual matters with spiritual words.
14:But a physical man does not receive the things of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot get to know them, because they are examined spiritually.
15: However, the spiritual man examines indeed all things, but he himself is not examined by any man.
I think people in general have difficulty understanding or accepting what the bible says because, as Paul so aptly stated in verse 14, "a physical man does not receive the things of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot get to know them, because they are examined spiritually." Once again, these "physical men" are victims of Satan's misguidance, having their eyes blinded by his pernicious slander against God. I dare say you fall into this category.
But there is hope for you yet. As you still have life and the ability to decide who's side you are really on, now is the time to think about what the bible really says, not all the denominational jargon. You may be opposed to bible teachings just because you have never heard the truth of what they say and what they mean. I think Christianity has been given a very bad name by means of Satans influence on the teachings of the Catholic church, protestants and the rest of the "denominations."
2 peter 3:9 says: "God is not slow respecting his promise (that is the promise of a resurection of the dead and restoration of paradisaic conditions to the earth.) as some people consider slowness, but he is patient with you because he does not desire any to be detroyed but desires all to attain to repentance."
We, as humans, all have an extrodinary chance to become free from Satan's influence and enjoy the perfect conditions God has promised. But you must act soon because time is running out for you to decide who you want to follow, God or Satan. Don't think that Satan isn't behind all this Darwinism and Evolutionism. They are just some of his MANY sneaky systems designed to blind mankind to God's existence and what he requires from them, thus robbing them of the gift of life. I urge you all to ponder these things deeply.
-
I urge you all to ponder these things deeply.
And I urge you to go and see a psychiatrist.
-
Chopiabin: I would like to say that I really appreciate your civility and willingness to disagree without animosity, it makes debate more enjoyable, and is much better than the rash, immature comments also seen in this thread.
I still totally disagree with you about "truth," but I guess I have a little more respect for you since you don't believe in hell. My little quip about god's nonexistence was in anticipation of what I thought you were going to say.
Good, I was really hoping you weren't seriously thinking that that was a viable argument. :)
To me it still does not make sense. I know a super-christian family who is incredibly generous, kind, and faithful to Jesus. They used to have three daughters, two of whom were twins. One night, they were coming home from spring break, and they were on a small train thing. The two daughters kissed their mother goodnight and went to sit with their friens a few rows up. Then the train hit a truck that was on the tracks, and both daughters were burned to death. Why would a benevolent, all-powerful god allow something like that to happen? Did those two children deserve to die? They were not being "tempted" or anything, so obviously god killed them (if god controls all of nature then he is responsible for everything that happens).
This is certainly an unfortunate case of wrong place wrong time, but that is all. Ecclesiastes 9:11,12 says-
11:"I returned to see under the sun that the swift do not have the race, nor the mighty ones the battle, nor do the understanding ones also have the riches, nor do even those having knowledge have the favor; because time and unforseen occurrence befall them all.
12:For man also does not know his time. Just like fishes that are being taken in an evil net, and like birds that are being taken in a trap, so the sons of men themselves are being ensnared at a calamitous time, when it falls upon them suddenly.
These scriptures say that even if things are looking good in our favor, we can never expect stability because "time and unforseen occurence befall them(us) all. I can think of no biblical account to support the idea that God controls nature on a continual basis :(. Of course they didn't deserve to die, but even though they are dead, the bible gives their family hope they will be resurrected-1st. Corinthians chapter 15.
I will say one last time, God doesn't hurt anybody in any way. James 1:13 says:When under trial, let no one say: "I am being tried by God." For with evil things God cannot be tried nor does he himself try anyone.
You did not respond to my thoughts on the origin of religion. In addition to what I said there, I would like to add why I think the older religions (the ones with human sacrifice) disappeared. I believe that no one wants to believe in something that is hard. No one wants to believe that you must kill your children to appease a god. Christianity does not require anyone to sacrifice anything material to god. All one has to do is believe in order to be "saved". I think compared to scarifice, that is relatively easy. That is why christianity has stayed around so long. It is some thing that people want to believe in; it's comforting. All one has to do is have faith, and all one's "sins" are erased, and there is no problem getting the reward of heaven. Essentially it removes all responsiblity from humans.
These are the real issues I would like you to address. Not whether or not god's actions are just, but whether or not god exists at all.
About religion: According to the bible, Adam and Eve were aware of their creators existence and likely had some knowledge of natural forces. They and their descendents until after the flood of Noah's day knew of the god that created them, and invented no other. during that time though, there was no established religion or organized worship of God. Needless to say, God would never request or expect human sacrifice from his servants, with the one exception of his test of Abraham. As for the rest, I really don't know what to say, except I don't think man invented God or religion but he has definitely perverted both.
As for Christianity: Some woud have you believe that all you have to do is accept Christ or whatever to attain heaven. This is not biblical. I will explain that at a later time if you wish.
THE REAL QUESTION: Does God exist or not?
Well, I will admit that this question plagued me for a long time. There is really no way to prove or disprove the existence of God. But there are signs that I think indicate a creator.
First, look at nature around you. I think that the likelihood that all of this came from nothing is very small. Think of intricate things such as a fingerprint or an insect. Can you honestly tell me that you can't believe they were created, or that they appeared out of something completely random?
Second, look at things that humans have that animal don't. Humans have the ability to ENJOY a wide variety of foods, smells and other sensory plesures, and intelligent conversation. the enjoyment of none of these things is nessecary to survival. I think it is more likely that we were created by a God who wants us to enjoy life.
One thing I often ask people who question the existence of God is this: Do YOU exist? Chopiabin, do YOU exist? Have you ever asked yourself this question? The obvious answer is that you do exist, but how do you really know? I wanted to say more, lots more, but it is 2:15 A.M. and I fear i'm becoming incoherrent. Maybe later....
-
And I urge you to go and see a psychiatrist.
Wow! The originality of your wit! Blows me away every time! My mother is a psycologist. I don't have any mental illness as of yet. I find your attempt at getting a giggle or two from serious readers of this discussion ironically laughable.
-
We need to have more maturity here, and stop deriding each other; I say this to those on both sides of the debate. When I was debating in the creation/evolution thread I tried not to use personal jibes. If anyone wants to see my arguments in support of evolution, look there; but I have a new mini-debate that I would like to start here.
What makes a "true" Christian? I know many who claim that the only true Christians are those who are saved by faith, attend a Baptist church, vote Republican, and think everybody not like them is going to Hell. Most are far less extreme. I am intrigued about your comment that you don't believe in Hell, yet you obviously strike me as a Christian. Could you explain in more detail those beliefs than in your previous thread
-
The two daughters kissed their mother goodnight and went to sit with their friens a few rows up. Then the train hit a truck that was on the tracks, and both daughters were burned to death. Why would a benevolent, all-powerful god allow something like that to happen?
Maybe god thought the daughters kissing their mother was a sign of homosexuality.
We, as humans, all have an extrodinary chance to become free from Satan's influence and enjoy the perfect conditions God has promised. But you must act soon because time is running out for you to decide who you want to follow, God or Satan. Don't think that Satan isn't behind all this Darwinism and Evolutionism. They are just some of his MANY sneaky systems designed to blind mankind to God's existence and what he requires from them, thus robbing them of the gift of life. I urge you all to ponder these things deeply.
You're a good laugh, I'll give you that.
First, look at nature around you. I think that the likelihood that all of this came from nothing is very small. Think of intricate things such as a fingerprint or an insect. Can you honestly tell me that you can't believe they were created, or that they appeared out of something completely random?
Yes. Great point though (?! ::) ).
Second, look at things that humans have that animal don't.
Humans are animals.
Humans have the ability to ENJOY a wide variety of foods, smells and other sensory plesures
So do animals...
and intelligent conversation.
I thought that before I spoke to you.
One thing I often ask people who question the existence of God is this: Do YOU exist? Chopiabin, do YOU exist? Have you ever asked yourself this question? The obvious answer is that you do exist, but how do you really know? I wanted to say more, lots more, but it is 2:15 A.M. and I fear i'm becoming incoherrent. Maybe later....
You have always been incoherent in your arguments, so why worry about being incoherent in your grammar? (I do exist by the way - another fantastic point though).
Wow! The originality of your wit! Blows me away every time! My mother is a psycologist. I don't have any mental illness as of yet. I find your attempt at getting a giggle or two from serious readers of this discussion ironically laughable.
No, he was being serious. As was I when I said I think you are insane. We are not trying to get a laugh, we are making valid points by observing what you write and coming to logical conclusions vis-a-vis your mental state,
Ed
-
Hey 6_Gen, I have a lot of thoughts on the origin of humanity and religion in the evolutionary theory room. I would spend three hundred hours typing them here, but I'm too tired. Look at my other posts about the origin of religion. That last one was an addendum to those. When I said religion had human sacrifices, I was speaking of the religions that preceded christianity.
Chop
Ed, I liked your quip about homosexuality. ;D
-
What makes a "true" Christian? I know many who claim that the only true Christians are those who are saved by faith, attend a Baptist church, vote Republican, and think everybody not like them is going to Hell. Most are far less extreme. I am intrigued about your comment that you don't believe in Hell, yet you obviously strike me as a Christian. Could you explain in more detail those beliefs than in your previous thread
I guess the definition of a true christian would be someone who follows the teachings of Jesus Christ.
A lot of so-called Christian religions do this to an extremely small degree. This is not true Christianity. What many groups of these "Christians" have done is invented doctrines that pervert what the bible says, therefore making their religion false. Common examples are:
Hell, Trinity and Immortality of the Soul.
I always use the bible to explain how I come to a conclusion on a certain matter.
Hell and Immortality of the Soul: I already quoted some scriptures that show that when a man dies, he ceases to be conscious. If you want to look them up yourself, here they are: Ecclesiastes 9:5,10 and Psalms 146:4. Also, Many bible translations do use the word hell. The hebrew word " She'ohl " and the greek word " Hai'des " Both refer to the common grave of mankind, but these words have often been translated as hell. This can be confusing, as hell doesn't exist as a place of torment for the wicked.
Trinity: Somehow, in spite of countless bible accounts that clearly state that God and Jesus are seperate persons, some people would rather believe that they are the same. Here are scriptures that debunk this belief. Acts 7:55,56- this scripute tells about Stephen's vision of Jesus in heaven at the right hand of God; Matthew 26:39-this is an accout of Jesus praying to his father. Such a prayer would have been meaningless if he was the same person as his father. There are countless other scriptures that point to the nonexistence of a trinity.
A true Christian then, would be someone who followed exactly the teachings of the Christ without mixing in man's thoughts.
No, he was being serious. As was I when I said I think you are insane. We are not trying to get a laugh, we are making valid points by observing what you write and coming to logical conclusions vis-a-vis your mental state,
No offence, but I highly doubt your ability to make or justify a snap judegment such as that. I don't expect you to understand or want to understand anything I say, because you are a physical man and spiritual things are mere foolishness to you. This should hardly give you reason to question my sanity.
I'll put it this way: It is safer to assume that there is a God, and follow his commandments, than it is to assume that we are on our own and are not accountable to anyone.
-
When you said it is safer to assume that there is a god, you are (consciously or unconsciously) using Pascal's wager idea. I find many problems with this. One is that you are betting on religion. I don't have a problem with that, but then again, I'm not a christian. The other problem is that this little bet thing assumes that there is meaning to life. Just because someone doesn't believe in god does not mean they are going to go around killing people or having orgies. Also, I thought about this and there seems to be aproblem with what you are saying (although I respect it more than what most christians hgave to say). The problem is that you say there is no hell or heaven, yet we should "resist the temptation of Satan". If there are no consequences, then why should we do it? I don't know of any christians that are actually friends with god, so I don't see on what their loyalty is based.
You still haven't responded to what I said in all those other posts.
Chop
-
When you said it is safer to assume that there is a god, you are (consciously or unconsciously) using Pascal's wager idea. I find many problems with this. One is that you are betting on religion. I don't have a problem with that, but then again, I'm not a christian. The other problem is that this little bet thing assumes that there is meaning to life. Just because someone doesn't believe in god does not mean they are going to go around killing people or having orgies. Also, I thought about this and there seems to be aproblem with what you are saying (although I respect it more than what most christians hgave to say). The problem is that you say there is no hell or heaven, yet we should "resist the temptation of Satan". If there are no consequences, then why should we do it? I don't know of any christians that are actually friends with god, so I don't see on what their loyalty is based.
You still haven't responded to what I said in all those other posts.
I didn't know about Pascal's theory. I know that there are people that don't lead a bad life, but sooner or later everyone is going to have to make a choice; acknowledge God or don't. The consequence of the latter is death without chance of life again. I never said there was no heaven, but the bible doesn't say that every righteous person is going there. Revelation 14.3-5 and chapter7. verse 4 indicate that there is a set number of people that will go to heaven- 144,000.
The rest of the people of earth that survive are described as the "great crowd"- Revelation 7:9.
The consequence of being wicked and not changing is simply death, and if you value life, you will avoid the temtation of the Devil.
I have to go out of town now, I will try to finish later. :(
-
Ed, I liked your quip about homosexuality. ;D
Quip?
Ed
-
It might be an American word. It means a little blurb, jibe, or remark. ;)
Chop
-
How do we know which god to believe in, then? There are many choices, all being spread by missionaries and other such door-to-door salesman convinced that they are the only truth, it is really very troubling.
I know this is unrelated, but I have always been curious. For anyone who's spent alot of time in both the UK and the US, what are some differences in everyday life?
-
God will resurect all humans that have died over the past 6000+ years. Included in this group will be Job and all of his family. Think of Job's family as a small temporary sacrifice for the greater good of mankind. Temporary because Job's whole family will be resurected to a new world with perfection.
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA ;D HA HA HA HA HA :D HA HA HA HA HA HA HA :)
oh dear...that's a very nice idea vladimir...oh look, here comes pozzo and his slave lucky again, lets wait for godot with him. he'll send us to a land of perfection, and that is why we must keep our appointment with him.
would you like a carrot?
-
How do we know which god to believe in, then? There are many choices, all being spread by missionaries and other such door-to-door salesman convinced that they are the only truth, it is really very troubling.
I would believe in the God of the Bible that He himself spoke to man to write. Not some god that man made up.Revelation 14.3-5 and chapter7. verse 4 indicate that there is a set number of people that will go to heaven- 144,000.
so you believe that this is all that will go to heaven? Ive never heard that before. Will look into that though.
-
Just for your future reference, when I say that man made up god, I'm not saying some guy one day said,"Hey dude, we should have religion and gods. Man, that would be cool." What I'm saying is that prehistoric people feared and did not understand the processes of nature and began to try to appease them with sacrifice. Eventually, all gods of this type became one supreme god because people started attributing more and more of the other gods' qualities to it. Read my other posts - there is a lot more about the origin of religion, and if you want to have an intelligent debate, you must attempt to answer all questions asked of you.
Chop
-
questions??? would you please list the questions you are speaking of? so your saying that the gods of prehistoric people are no longer worshiped? cough indians cough. they still believe in polytheism. or if not in modern times, they did not long ago. Well you are right that man created certain pagan religions. what does that have to do with God breathed scriptures.
what is your idea, chop, on how we came about? when you take God out of the equation, you dont get much of an answer. you get probably, this is theorized to of happened. this happened millions, billions, trillions of years ago. If you look at it from a nuetral standpoint, a person who believes in evolution has much more faith to be able to believe such a theory than that of a christian(on average)
-
It might be an American word. It means a little blurb, jibe, or remark. ;)
I know what a quip is, I just wasn't making one. I was being deadly serious.
If you look at it from a nuetral standpoint, a person who believes in evolution has much more faith to be able to believe such a theory than that of a christian(on average)
Completely incorrect,
Ed
-
I was going to stay out of this debate mostly until I read that quote about an evolutionist needing more faith than a creationist. Please, explain to me how a legitimate theory founded on hundreds of years of evidence from multiple sciences requires more faith than a religion with no evidence other than a self-contradictory and demonstratably incorrect (when it comes to facts about the world) 3000 year old book.
-
evolutionists need more faith because it is theory in which they believe. Anything that tries to go against God is wrong. Why turn your head from your creator? Because you refuse to believe that something is over you and is going to judge you to eternity. Whether you like it or not everyone will have to face judgment. Im just doing my part in spreading how to get saved...by believing in Jesus Christ our savior and that he died for our sins in order for us to be forgiven and let us spend eternity with Him in perfection. That is all. Whether you believe this or not I cant control. only you can (and ultimatly God)
-
evolutionists need more faith because it is theory in which they believe.
Then what exactly is the creationist theory? (And please, look up the word theory!).
Whether you believe this or not I cant control. only you can (and ultimatly God)
So let me get this straight - ultimately, god controls whether we each believe in him or not. Therefore, if we don't, it is his fault. Yet, he will judge us and if we don't believe in him we will go to hell,
Ed ::)
-
Good paradox Ed!
Also, Twinkles, I'm not going to go back and rewrite all of the questions I have asked of you. You never responded to any of them, and, if you actually want me (or anyone) to actually respect your beliefs and opinions , then you should at least attempt to answer them. By the way, do you believe man created the other modern religions, such as Buddhism, Hinduism, etc.? If man can make those up, then why could he not make up christianity? I am NOT saying that men created it consciously, I'm saying that people (just like animals) are afraid of death, and personify nature as a benevolent force that keeps one from dying (one lives forever in an afterlife). I believe that humans have a very powerful imagination, and when told that something exists for their entire lives, it is very hard for them to question it because it is easier to just accept. It seems funny to me that all world religions have in common some sort of life after death or "becoming one with the universe." I think it is also funny that three major religions all share the same god (christianity, Judaism, and Islam). These three religions all originated in the same region of the world, and it seems to me that they easily could have started out as branches of the same religion. They created the same god and then worshiped him in different ways.
It's al;so funny that your all powerful god only revealed himself to a tiny region of the world. It seems that if god loved humanity so much, he would have revealed himself to every culture and nation on earth, and not just a little part of the middle east.
Do you aactually believe that people who have never heard of christ are going to hell? If you do, then I ask you, is that a just god?
Read my other posts before you respond.
Chop
-
Do you aactually believe that people who have never heard of christ are going to hell? If you do, then I ask you, is that a just god?
What a wonderful question!
Ed
-
I've always wondered that myself.
Anyway, I am not "turning my back from my creator," despite whatever you may think. Why on earth would anybody reject a god that they knew existed if they knew that it would mean going to Hell? They reject your god because they don't believe that he exists. You make so many assertions about the future as if one really knows, when in fact, no one knows what happens after death. Certainly, some of us have convinced ourselves that we know our fate, but no one really does.
Why are you bothering to spread the word? In the Bible it says (and I forget where) that one can know from the glories of the earth or something like that that there is a god. Why would you need to spread the word to those people who are "without excuse"? Of course, Jesus says to spread the gospel to the whole world, but that is contradicting his own Bible.
I am not even going to bother responding to your comment about faith in evolution, and going against god.
-
Then what exactly is the creationist theory? (And please, look up the word theory!).
2 words you just put together for some reason.So let me get this straight - ultimately, god controls whether we each believe in him or not. Therefore, if we don't, it is his fault. Yet, he will judge us and if we don't believe in him we will go to hell,
Ed
I think He gives us free will. After all, Adam made the choice to eat the forbidden fruit.It seems that if god loved humanity so much, he would have revealed himself to every culture and nation on earth, and not just a little part of the middle east.
ever heard of missionaries? God uses them to spread His word also.Do you aactually believe that people who have never heard of christ are going to hell? If you do, then I ask you, is that a just god?
tis not my place to answer that. That is only in God's hands. And yes, He is THE just God.Why would you need to spread the word to those people who are "without excuse"? Of course, Jesus says to spread the gospel to the whole world, but that is contradicting his own Bible.
not aware of the verse you speak of about Not spreading the gospel(good news) but Im almost positive your taking it out of context.I am not even going to bother responding to your comment about faith in evolution, and going against god.
then dont.
-
Omigod. It's been ages since I've checked out this post.
What a mess. Oh man.
Good luck ed.
-
thankyou for your support ::) the irony of you saying omigod as well...
-
Good luck ed.
Hey, what about Chopiabin, Cziffra, Liszmaninopin and myself ? Don't we deserve to be on the atheists' roll of honour ? ::)
-
I suppose we did just put creation and theory together; giving them far more credit than they actually deserve. Perhaps creationist mysticism would be better.
Missionaries can't go everywhere and preach to everybody. What about the natives who lived in South America in say A.D. 200? Did they go to Hell just because a missionary never came? Sounds kind of unfair to me, and I definitely would not want to worship a god that would send somebody to Hell who had no way to prevent it. By the way, the verse is Romans 1:20 where it states that men are "without excuse." It suggests that from seeing the creation, one can know of God, which is evident fallacy. Need I say again, why does one need missionaries if all people should already know the truth?
So whenever we ask a question of God, you can't answer it because it is in God's hands? That sounds like avoiding the question to me. Explain how all the genocides and murders and sending innocent people to Hell are the works of a just, loving, compassionate God.
Or perhaps God is above the law in regard to how he treats his little images of himself. It is hypocrisy, how he wants us to aspire to his perfection (a supposedly impossible goal), but holds us accountable for anything wrong we do (which we can't help but do according to the Bible), and I don't see how a person could ever kill more people than the god of the Bible did.
Look at the missionary problem this way. If people never hear the Gospel and go to heaven, then we wouldn't want missionaries because as soon as one hears the gospel, then they are in danger of Hell. If people who never hear the gospel go to hell, then they should have known better, seeing it in the earth around them. Either way, missionaries are unnecessary.
-
Sorry, naoh and youn other guys. I just sorta grabbed the *flavor* of the thing, and the folks that got this all started in the first place.
I just get all creeped out that somebody's *belief system* (System in an interesting word to use dontcha think? Implies order. hm.) can be so strong that it eliminates any semblance of rational thought or cognitive process. Makes me wonder what those people would be capable of doing under that rationale.
Gives me the creeps.
-
I think its a little bit sad, really. Most people who are blindly following their belief system are fine people in almost all ways, until it gets to something that contradicts their belief system. No matter how wrong their system is, they still cling to it.
-
Sounds kind of unfair to me, and I definitely would not want to worship a god that would send somebody to Hell who had no way to prevent it.
you sound like you think you can choose not to go to either place. very bad thinking.It suggests that from seeing the creation, one can know of God, which is evident fallacy.
to not see God in His creation would mean you are blind(not physically but spiritually) Need I say again, why does one need missionaries if all people should already know the truth?
to further educate the people.Explain how all the genocides and murders and sending innocent people to Hell are the works of a just, loving, compassionate God.
He gives us free will to worship Him. Those who reject Him, he rejects as well.It is hypocrisy, how he wants us to aspire to his perfection (a supposedly impossible goal),
In heaven we will be reunited with perfect bodies and while we will never be God, we will be perfect. Never sinning, never the desire because Satan will have been crushed.Or perhaps God is above the law in regard to how he treats his little images of himself.
God is the law. You have to understand that he is the ultimate being.Either way, missionaries are unnecessary.
I dont know how you draw this conclusion. Your saying it is better off not to be taught about God. You think you will go to heaven if you just ignore Him completely? I never answered your question
-
What do you mean by either place? I only mentioned one.
This all-powerful god must not be good at showing himself, becuase out of all those people who never met a missionary, not one saw the "truth." In fact, looking at the world around me, I don't see a shred of evidence that suggests the existence of the Christian god. I guess I can only see the truth after I blindly accept it, right? It's a logical inconsistency.
Educate them about what?
-
So he can't reject us peacefully? He has to kill, torture, and maim millions of people. Very spiteful being, isn't he?
I don't believe in heaven, so I'm not worried about getting there or not. I thought I explained my missionary logic pretty thoroughly, but I will try again.
Let us say that if you never hear of God, you go to heaven. One would not want to preach to these people, because as long as they never hear the word, then they are not in danger of Hell. As soon as one preaches to them, now they are in danger of rejecting it, and thus going to Hell.
For a counterexample, if someone who doesn't hear the Gospel goes to Hell, they should've seen it anyway, as the world is evidence enough, according to the Bible.
I wouldn't want to follow a leader who broke his own laws, and I think it is very hypocritical of a god to break his own laws. I don't see how one takes genocide out of context and makes it okay for God to do it.
The Bible has many scientific errors, as well as historical ones, so I see no reason to believe it is spiritually correct, anyway.
-
I guess I don't get it. The *behavior* in God you (Twinklefingers) just described sounds like some insecure people I know. I would think that an all-powerful, all-knowing God, one that I would want to *worship* would be above all that. I believe Jesus was a person like that. But I'm not really into worshipping a god that would send people to hell just for not knowing about him, or choosing to not follow his *path*. Seems too insecure to me.
I'll worship a god when he shows himself to be significantly better than us.
-
He gives us free will to worship Him. Those who reject Him, he rejects as well.
And yet he teaches forgiveness. Hypocrit.
You think you will go to heaven if you just ignore Him completely?
We ignore him because we don't believe he exists, not because we want to rebel against him,
Ed
-
You both make very good points.
-
Can we start a new post for this topic? It takes too long to load this one.
-
So he can't reject us peacefully? He has to kill, torture, and maim millions of people. Very spiteful being, isn't he?
I think your confusing God with Satan. And yes, God does ALLOW these things to happen. Why exaclty? Probably because of the sin man committed in the garden of eden. Man rebelled against God hence they were thrown out of the garden and into a world of sin and chaos.I don't see a shred of evidence that suggests the existence of the Christian god.
then which god do you see? How about the creation around us? You have to admit that there is some, in scientific terms, "ultimate energy" God, that created us.There is too much structure and order to our bodies and every other thing on earth not to believe that there is some ultimate, all knowing, spirit-being whatever you want to call it, out there.Let us say that if you never hear of God, you go to heaven.
that right there is an unknown.The Bible has many scientific errors, as well as historical ones, so I see no reason to believe it is spiritually correct, anyway.
name someI wouldn't want to follow a leader who broke his own laws, and I think it is very hypocritical of a god to break his own laws.
which laws did He break?But I'm not really into worshipping a god that would send people to hell just for not knowing about him, or choosing to not follow his *path*. Seems too insecure to me.
that is incorrect. He doesnt send people to hell just for knowing about Him. He sends them to hell for disobeying Him and not asking forgiveness and not accepting His son as our ultimate sacrifice for our sins.We ignore him because we don't believe he exists, not because we want to rebel against him,
Ed
to believe He doesnt exist is to believe we dont exist. For without Him is nothing. You dont have a choice. You are either for Him or against Him(which is ultimately for satan) I'll worship a god when he shows himself to be significantly better than us.
How better can you get than perfect? He sent His only son(jesus) who lived a perfect life on earth in the human flesh. He never sinned. If you feel you never sin then you are blind.
-
I will answer your post in the new religious debate thread.