For those of you who don't believe in God

[thalbergmad]

Well said Sir and yes it would be better to replace the Bible with Moby Dick. It is a far better story and at least we know who wrote it and when.

"whosoever of thee finds me the white whale....................."

Thal

[G.W.K]

It is written in Judges 28/6.

Never mention Bible References! She'll only check them or be inspired to use them against us.

G.W.K

[pianogirl88]

She is saying that she understands that MY comments to her were sarcastic.

G.W.K

Yes, exactly.

[pianistimo]

G-d is never sarcastic and that is why i'd rather listen to Him.  He gives each person an equal chance to learn the simplest of lessons.  You don't have to be a scientist to know that he gave us all ten fingers to keep track of the ten commandments. If that isn't proof of G-d, I don't know what is.  I like reading Huck Finn and Moby Dick- but you see, the authors of those books also took things from a simpler perspective.

Take any great scientist.  They did experiments with whatever they had on hand.  I have a bathtub.  I can fill it with cold water (not meaning to) and then the warmer water finally comes out and i have about three layers of different temperature water in my bathtub.  Now, take a temperature of the tub in three different areas and you've got three different temperatures.  Tell me what is different about the ocean?  You have a base temperature - but the currents run through the equator where the water gets warmed up.  You have glacial melting which gets into the currents and also desalinifies the water making it heat or cool faster.

You have the currents which some are pushed down and some are pushed up near the surface.  This also matters because you could take a temperature on the surface and not even know that a vast majority of water underneath is freezing cold.  And, as it surfaces it will cool off the air that blows across it.  I'm no scientist - but I have common sense.  You can all say 'oh, the world is going to end by global warming....'  No.  It's not.  It's going to end when people decide to use science for intricate warfare including polluting water, allowing virus, anthrax and other spores to be launched from weapons, allowing famine, terrorism...these are all far more dangerous to life.  The above mentioned x-ray stuff - is all about blinding pilots while they are in the air.  How is that using science for good?

It won't matter what nationality you are in the end.  War is color blind.  The thing is anything G-d has created for good can be used for evil.  So...is it His fault we used it for the wrong thing?  And, what is so bad about a G-d who wants us to live in peace.  What other god or leader or reference do we have that actually spells out how that peace will come?  The bible is the only book I've ever read that spells out the exact placement of history so that we can prepare for the return of Jesus Christ who will bring final and lasting peace.  Forget the new year for a moment and think 'new millenium.'

[G.W.K]

Forget the new year for a moment and think 'new millenium.'

That doesn't even make sense! It may have escaped your limited knowledge, but we have been in a "new millenium" for the past 9 years!

G.W.K

[pianistimo]

If the Romans miscalculated the birth of Christ - we are off by a few years.  Also, we don't know exactly - to the date that the earth began.  We have a rough estimate - but we don't really know how much time has been allotted to us.

Where did the cycle of the week begin?  Did it evolve?  How did we get seven days?  Odd that G-d happens to like seven.  We are almost 6,000 years into a 7,000 year cycle.  Should he say 'a day is like a thousand years' and then forget His own reckoning?

Has G-d ever been late?  Look what happened at the ressurrection.  He said 'i'll be gone for 3 days and nights, just like the prophet Jonah.'  What happened?  He wasn't in the tomb after three days and nights.

The millenium is the factual representation of the feast of Sukkot.  People dwell in tents to signify their temporal status on the earth.  What happens when the tents are lifted?  You're suddenly in a different realm.  Like a butterfly having come out of a cocoon.  If the bible is true - which i believe it is - we will have a second life (like video games - hmmm. where did they come up with that?).  For those whose names are in the 'book of life' they will have ETERNAL life.

A lot of people think the bible is just stories - but even if it were the analogies are amazing because they fit together like a huge jigsaw puzzle.  We have the Israelites who go out of Egypt and it's like this huge exodus of people from opressive government.  Nowdays, everyone is burdened by debt, bad government, war, hunger, disease, lack of drinking water...now what science can solve all of that.  We looked to our economic experts for economic advice and look what happened there.  They don't consider G-d's ways of living.  Basically, it used to be that money was 'wayyy down here' and basic living was 'up here.' 

We live in a twisted world.

[G.W.K]

Has G-d ever been late?  Look what happened at the ressurrection.  He said 'i'll be gone for 3 days and nights, just like the prophet Jonah.'  What happened?  He wasn't in the tomb after three days and nights.

Yeah, that's the whole point of fiction books...the author plans what they are going to write before-hand! The Bible is a fiction book. It was created by the church to get more people in and donate money, etc and it was a feeble attempt to unite the population under one belief, instead of fighting!

It failed...it made things worst, and I have said this point before. But even churches have to make money: and the longer that people believe it, the more money they will get.

Give up Susan. Stop preaching! You'll never change our minds and make us believers just like I'll probably never convince you to observe things from a different angle. It is futile.

G.W.K

[pianistimo]

OK.  Let's take the point of reference that the institution of government itself evolved.  That kings naturally had god-like abilities even though a G-d idea had never been heard.  Also, that men decided to speak many different languages on their own and come up with it all in a matter of days (since we suddenly find language appearing after only one language was recorded before that time).  We believe everything that Dawkins says - BECAUSE HE SAID IT - and because he is out for our best interest since 'the fittest' only should survive.  He doesn't even talk about language because it mystifies him.  He cannot explain why only (early Aramean) Akkadian language on the Sumerian tablets is written/spoken and then suddenly all these other languages.  HOW did it happen?

Whatever happens to this world with warfare should prove once and for all that without G-d, this world is doomed.  To nothing.  Total annihilation.  Is that good?  Is that what you hope for?  Does that make you happy?  You can work from both ends with the bible.  You know the end and the beginning.  Is it better to guess everything?

If there is no G-d, there should be no order.  The chaos theory should prevail everywhere.  But, in every situation there is a search for balance.  What causes this.  Even with the ocean temperatures.

What I find unbelievable is that Dawkins book only explains several theories and doesn't cover the other 90% of unproven things that go together with those theories.  If you make one assumption - you must automatically put it together with what it will affect.  We can't even get past the first page of his book because of unsustainability of life.

Has Richard Dawkins taken the time to visit archeological sites and think about history - or does he only think into the future?  Does he ever mentions names and places like the bible does - with reference that historians like Eusebius and others reference.  And, some of the earlier historians who reference early works (History of the Kings) Ancient Egyptian kings records which name them in the correct order according to their rulerships.  Why should we be so confused in this modern age if we have supposedly so many brains?  Shouldn't we consider those who went before us.  Obviously, Dawkins thinks not.  I would never put my hopes on that man's writing.

If you are REALLY searching for proof - archeology should be a help to science.  What is happening nowdays?  If anything proves the bible - destroy it.   Take the temple mount.  What is happening there is that a bunch of it goes into a garbage site and  people have to beg to get some of their own history back and have access to it.  This area has now been proven to be the site of the temple that Solomon made to G-d.  The knowledge of the temple has been available to many down through history (templars sought out the knowledge - and many groups like the masons hold their  history to be through the mysteries of the temple).   But, the temple was made for worship to G-d.  Now, why would people worship G-d if they had 'less civilization' then than today? 

I tend to give ancient people more credit and feel that just because they didn't drive cars and pollute the world didn't mean they weren't intelligent.  Perhaps they were closer to truth in many ways - and witnessed more miracles in this area of the world than any other area.  And, shall again.

[G.W.K]

Have I suddenly disappeared? You always do that...you either avoid the point someone has made entirely either because you can't answer it or you're just ignoring them or you touch on the point very briefly and then prattle on about something else!

WHERE do you think the Bible came from? Hmmm? Did God send it in the post from Heaven to all the great religious people at that time?

"Dear Religious Preachers,

I thought I'd let you be the first to read my first book: The Bible. Please send word via the next angel and tell me your thoughts.

Happy New Year!

God           x x x"

G.W.K

[G.W.K]

This area has now been proven to be the site of the temple that Solomon made to G-d.

Yes, a temple that humans built to God. It doesn't PROVE that God exists. He doesn't take holidays there with his family. There is proof that people worship a God and that they build monuments, etc. There is, however, no solid evidence God exists! God has never appeared before us all!

Jesus probably did exist. He was probably a man born thousands of years ago. However, I don't think he was blessed with the divine powers of God. He was a magician. A guy who pulled tricks on others. He was just a good magician...that is, if he did exist.

G.W.K

[pianistimo]

You ridicule what you cannot understand.  The Holy Spirit manifests itself through mankind in history.  There is also another spirit of deception and lie.  It came to Eve through the serpent who said 'you shall not surely die.'  But, all of us face the inevitable.  Death.  So...whether you are right or i am right will be determined either at death or at the coming of Jesus Christ.  It is said that 'every eye' will see Him.  So...it won't be a matter that we are looking up at the sky and say 'where is He?  Can He save us?  He'll be acknowledged by the entire earth.

If Moses was a man of G-d, could not G-d have given him the first books to write down?  He was the man who kept the Word of G-d in the ark of the covenant and because of the Word - armies were destroyed wherever it was carried.  This sounds far fetched - but you know Jericho's walls indeed were archeologically discovered to have fallen just the way the bible says.  The ark is again mentioned in Revelations 11:19 'Then God's temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of His covenant was seen within His temple; and there were flashes of lightening, rumblings, peals of thunder, earthquakes, and heavy hail.'  Now, how could something so ancient reappear?  Maybe G-d has a vested interest in His own Word?

Basically, the entire book of Revelations is being completed in our day and age.  If it doesn't usher in a millenium - we'll just all be dead.  Which is preferrable?

[G.W.K]

So...whether you are right or i am right will be determined either at death or at the coming of Jesus Christ.  It is said that 'every eye' will see Him.  So...it won't be a matter that we are looking up at the sky and say 'where is He?  Can He save us?  He'll be acknowledged by the entire earth.

Well, until that fateful day when we die and supposedly we find out the truth behind the "Is God Real?"...can you please stop preaching and trying to convert everyone? Or at least find a religious forum to mention all this instead of here? Or...at least cut down so you only have to mention God once or twice a month? (I know any less would be devestating to you).

G.W.K

[thalbergmad]

If the Romans miscalculated the birth of Christ - we are off by a few years.  Also, we don't know exactly - to the date that the earth began.  We have a rough estimate - but we don't really know how much time has been allotted to us.

A lot of people think the bible is just stories - but even if it were the analogies are amazing because they fit together like a huge jigsaw puzzle.  We have the Israelites who go out of Egypt and it's like this huge exodus of people from opressive government.  Nowdays, everyone is burdened by debt, bad government, war, hunger, disease, lack of drinking water...now what science can solve all of that.  We looked to our economic experts for economic advice and look what happened there.  They don't consider G-d's ways of living.  Basically, it used to be that money was 'wayyy down here' and basic living was 'up here.' 

We live in a twisted world.

1. The Romans did not miscalculate the Birth of Christ and the New Testament that you believe every word of could not even agree with itself. Matthews Gospel - before 4BC, Lukes Gospel AD6.
2. Anyway, his name was not Christ, nor Jesus. More chance of him being called Hank Ben David. He was not even a Christian but a Jewish Zealot chosen because of his supposed bloodline. There was no Virgin Birth and no rising from the dead. This was stolen from other religions and inserted into Gospels by MAN for his own gain and kept there by the sword and persecution of anyone with an opposing view.
3. The divinity of Jesus was decided by MAN in a vote at the Council of Nicaea in 325A.D. The New Testament was not even finalized until the Council of Hippo some 70 years later and over 350 years since the "events" it was supposed to describe.
4. The New Testament you rely on so much was written by man, endorsed by man & edited by man for his own gain. Anyone that said any different was killed, persecuted or banished from the Church. Christians have killed more people than Nazis.
5. If jesus was allive today, he would be appalled at the way his name has been used by blinkered idiots like you.

Happy new year.

Thal

[thalbergmad]

Pianistimo - why don't you take your deluded crap and find a forum for religious nutters like yourself. G.W.K is right and so was i when i said it would not be long before pages of spastic spam started to appear.

You can then preach to everyone and they will probably love you for it.

On this forum you are just a aggressive cancer that despite treatment refuses to go away.

Thal

[G.W.K]

Pianistimo - why don't you take your deluded crap and find a forum for religious nutters like yourself. G.W.K is right and so was i when i said it would not be long before pages of spastic spam started to appear.

You can then preach to everyone and they will probably love you for it.

On this forum you are just a aggressive cancer that despite treatment refuses to go away.

Thal

Well done, have a rep. point (you should be lucky...I don't give them out often). I doubt she will pay any attention though. In fact I know she won't.

G.W.K

[cmg]

Well said Sir and yes it would be better to replace the Bible with Moby Dick. It is a far better story and at least we know who wrote it and when.

"whosoever of thee finds me the white whale....................."

Thal

 . . .whosoever of ye raises me a white-headed whale with a wrinkled brow and a crooked jaw; whosoever of ye raise me that white-headed whale, with three holes punctured in his starboard fluke--look ye, whosoever of ye raises me that same white whale, he shall have this gold ounce, my boys!"

"Huzza! huzza!" cried the seamen, as with swinging tarpaulins they hailed the act of nailing the gold to the mast.

"It's a white whale, I say," resumed Ahab, as he threw down the top-maul; "a white whale. Skin your eyes for him, men; look sharp for white water; if ye see but a bubble, sing out."

The Great American Novel, for sure!  Forget the Bible.  Here's a real story of good and evil.

[thalbergmad]

Indeed, a real story.

Gregory Peck as Ahab is the finest bit of acting i have ever seen.

Thal

[cmg]

Indeed, a real story.

Gregory Peck as Ahab is the finest bit of acting i have ever seen.

Thal

yep, one of his finest roles, right up there with Atticus Finch in "To Kill a Mockingbird."  Not to mention "Cape Fear," which still gives me nightmares.

[G.W.K]

...right up there with Atticus Finch in "To Kill a Mockingbird."

Oh god...I remember having to read that in my 3rd Year in High School. I HATED it! Had to go to the theatre in Edinburgh and everything. I don't understand how you can like it.

G.W.K

[aslanov]

those posts about science and war and global warming was my point exactly. why do i keep getting so shocked by these type of people. its ridiculous, how can they even think this...they warp every reality just so they can have a god to believe in.

i think if god  did exist, he'd laugh at people like pian-w/e-o. or maybe get angry, i give u all this flawless science and knowledge and you do WHAT with it? prove that some poor idiot thousands of years ago who wrote a book in my name was RIGHT?! I WONT STAND FOR IT!! *ARMAGEDDON*!!

[thalbergmad]

Pianistimo is brain damaged, she cannot help what she posts.

Your science is wasted on her as is any other line of argument.

Thal

[pianistimo]

Kindly reprint the first paragraphs of Dawkins book on 'The Origins of Life' or something like that - and you'll see who's blinkered.  That guy is making up stuff right and left - he has no scientific basis for the beginning of creation to be as messed up as he makes it.  It is so blind that a kindergartener could see through it's impossibility and infeasability.

Also, noone ever responded to the fact that Dawkins completely ignores human history through archeology and historical facts.  He is so into the future he forgets that humans have existed for a while with INTELLECT.  Why discredit ancestors.  We had some history, you know!  And, nobody ever answered a word about the language factor.  Where did our modern languages come from?  Now, we have MtDna to contend with.  What next.  What will also prove the bible true next that he will have to 'refute.'

[G.W.K]

Kindly reprint the first paragraphs of Dawkins book on 'The Origins of Life'

Can't. It is a breach of copyright laws. 

G.W.K

[thalbergmad]

We had some history, you know! 

Yeh, million of years of it and not the few thousand that you claim.

Nobody could possibly invent something as daft as Genesis and the absurd version you believe in. It is a fairy tale written by desert dwelling camel shaggers.

Thal

[thalbergmad]

He is so into the future he forgets that humans have existed for a while with INTELLECT. 

Yes, but it has not reached everyone yet as you have clearly demonstrated.

Thal

[thalbergmad]

https://www.religiousforums.com/forum/
https://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/
https://www.topix.com/forum/religion/christian
https://christianforums.com/
https://forums.xkcd.com/viewforum.php?f=40
https://www.big-boards.com/kw/religion/
https://www.lambuth.edu/religious-life/religious-forums

I have taken time to list above some forums that might actually read and appreciate your perverse history.

Please consider joining one of these and leaving this one.

Thal

[general disarray]

Oh god...I remember having to read that in my 3rd Year in High School. I HATED it! Had to go to the theatre in Edinburgh and everything. I don't understand how you can like it.

G.W.K

Well, it's obvious to me that you're NOT an American who was born in the Deep South.  Weep for Scotland, American Southerners, Weep! I implore you!  For, verily, they are a sad, kilted lot!  

[frigo]

Pianistimo's atittude lead me to give him no credit whatsoever (even less than the absurd credit I gave him when I first read his posts). I really want a chance to argument about god with a religious person, really argument, and not just be ignored or be answered just in those questions pianistimo chooses... I think she's hopeless...

And that's actually very nice! For pianistimo, living in such ilusion and being just hopeless is actually very kind of us. We would be certainly exterminated if we were the one who's 'hopeless'...

[G.W.K]

Weep for Scotland...For, verily, they are a sad, kilted lot!  

Do us a favour and shut up you pathetic, jumped-up, little child that has nothing better to do than be racist for no reason.

G.W.K

P.S. Do excuse my mild language everyone.

[general disarray]

Do us a favour and shut up you pathetic, jumped-up, little child that has nothing better to do than be racist for no reason.

G.W.K

P.S. Do excuse my mild language everyone.

I hope you're kidding.  If you aren't, you need to know that:

a) I'm only "pathetic" in your view.

b) I'm neither a child, nor "jumped up."

c) I actually have very warm feelings for Scotland and Edinburgh, particularly since I've appeared twice in Festival theater productions in 2004 and 2006.  Supporting roles, no great shakes, but a chance to summer in your great city and get to know some wonderful people there.

d) You need to recognize when posters are having some good-hearted fun WITH you and NOT at your expense.

e)  Over and out, comrade.  And, oh yeah, happy new year.

[G.W.K]

I hope you're kidding.  If you aren't, you need to know that:

a) I'm only "pathetic" in your view.

b) I'm neither a child, nor "jumped up."

c) I actually have very warm feelings for Scotland and Edinburgh, particularly since I've appeared twice in Festival theater productions in 2004 and 2006.  Supporting roles, no great shakes, but a chance to summer in your great city and get to know some wonderful people there.

d) You need to recognize when posters are having some good-hearted fun WITH you and NOT at your expense.

e)  Over and out, comrade.  And, oh yeah, happy new year.

I was joking, just didn't word it well...LOL However, I did think you were being slightly racist, as you have been so in the past.

Happy New Year!

G.W.K

[aslanov]

Kindly reprint the first paragraphs of Dawkins book on 'The Origins of Life' or something like that - and you'll see who's blinkered.  t he will have to 'refute.'

sorry unlike with the bible, in science, we cant just reprint what we want to fulfill our agenda and make ourselves feel better about reality.

to pick on something as immature as the origins of life is just ridiculous. no one said the origins of life is how evolution and everything happened. this was darwin who written it, long ago, but the idea behind it all is wats important. the evolution of genes.

please stop. the more u talk, the less faith and respect i have for people like you. your only making things worse. to so underhandedly try and falsely disprove accepted science is just wrong...its people like you that hold back human progress.
i dont mean to say that all accepted science is right. we know from history its not. explaining why the earth was not in the centre of the universe, for example. your introducing god and the bible to prove your point. your not explaining anything. your not giving a scientific explanation thats better than the current one. infact your doing quite the opposite. you people are so full of shyte its ridiculous.

say w/e u want. but im no longer dignifying your pointless rants with serious responses. only gonna mock like thal. i've learned.

[G.W.K]

sorry unlike with the bible, in science, we cant just reprint what we want to fulfill our agenda and make ourselves feel better about reality.

to pick on something as immature as the origins of life is just ridiculous. no one said the origins of life is how evolution and everything happened. this was darwin who written it, long ago, but the idea behind it all is wats important. the evolution of genes.

please stop. the more u talk, the less faith and respect i have for people like you. your only making things worse. to so underhandedly try and falsely disprove accepted science is just wrong...its people like you that hold back human progress.
i dont mean to say that all accepted science is right. we know from history its not. explaining why the earth was not in the centre of the universe, for example. your introducing god and the bible to prove your point. your not explaining anything. your not giving a scientific explanation thats better than the current one. infact your doing quite the opposite. you people are so full of shyte its ridiculous.

say w/e u want. but im no longer dignifying your pointless rants with serious responses. only gonna mock like thal. i've learned.

You learn quickly.

Futile to tell Susan (pianistimo) to stop...she doesn't pay any attention.

Happy New Year,

G.W.K

[timothy42b]

Kindly reprint the first paragraphs of Dawkins book on 'The Origins of Life' or something like that - and you'll see who's blinkered.  That guy is making up stuff right and left - he has no scientific basis for the beginning of creation to be as messed up as he makes it.  It is so blind that a kindergartener could see through it's impossibility and infeasability.

Now, pianistimo, are you being honest?  Are you showing the integrity I expect of a Christian? 

If you have actually read what you are dismissing, I will be impressed, but i suspect you have not. 

Darwin's book "Origin of Species" is public domain and online.  Dawkin's books (God Delusion, etc.) are not, you'll have to go to a library or bookstore. 

They may indeed be wrong.  But they are clearly written and make sense even to a kindergartner.  If you think otherwise, I can only believe you have NOT read them.  It is possible to read them and disagree with them, but not to make the comment you have made. 

I think that like most creationists, you have never read any original scientific material about evolution, but have relied completely on what your church told you.  It is either in error or deliberately dishonest.

[thalbergmad]

I very much doubt if she has read it. She is probably simply repeating what some blinkered goon at her Church told her. Her church has probably renounced it as heresy.

Because i was bored and drunk last night i admit i had a good laugh at some of her "proofs" in previous posts and as usual they are worthless.

Her archeology might show that the walls of Jericho came tumbling down, but she cannot proove that it was done by trumpets. She might find a giant camp by the Red Sea, but she can never proove the waves parted and let Moses through. She can even dig through the ruins of Solomons Temple, but she can never proove that the Ark exisited, even less that it destroyed armies. All of her evidence crumbles back into the dust from whence it came.

While she scratches around in the dust to try to proove events in the Bible, for the two most important events in Christianity (virgin birth and resurrection), she has got nothing. I wish she would at least investigate the possibility that the Jesus she reads about in her doctored New Testament is possibly not the Historical Jesus but the Vatican Jesus. The Jesus created by man, who's divinity was decided by ballot and who's story has been twisted by man to shore up his own power and hold over others.

The Vatican and other Church establishments must be shitting themselves that one day evidence will come to light that will destroy their power and the hold they have over millions.

I fell sorry for Jesus. This poor man who was crucified by the Romans nearly 2,000 years ago for sedition, has had his name used to spill a billion gallons of blood. If he does "come back", I hope the very first thing he does is destroy the Church.

Thal

[G.W.K]

I hope the very first thing he does is destroy the Church.

That is very unlikely. Even if He does exist, isn't the Church meant to be the "House of God"? But no doubt, Susan will bore us to death with more detailed information.

G.W.K

[thalbergmad]

isn't the Church meant to be the "House of God"?

Its meant to be, but does the Church really serve God, or does it serve itself??

[morningstar]

Its meant to be, but does the Church really serve God, or does it serve itself??

A bit of both I would think.

[pianistimo]

There are many churches.  Just like there are many names.  You can be called by a name - but it takes a lifetime to fulfill it.  Christians are at all stages of the 'game' and cannot claim to come to church for purposes of bingo only.  Otherwise, what would be the point of claiming salvation if you cannot praise your Savior.  And, yes - i believe the virgin birth was the only one of it's kind.  However, Mary must have had a hard time proving it to anyone either - and that's why she and her husband to be fled to Egypt shortly after Jesus was born.  There is a tree there - Mary's tree - where she is said to have sat and rested.  I suppose the onus was on Joseph AND Mary.  Joseph never saw her with any other guy.  Nobody claimed to be the father.  And, G-d gave Him a dream explaining the whole thing.  Also, they witnessed several miracles when the baby leapt in Mary's womb when she met Elizabeth - the mother of John the Baptist.  I suppose the Holy Spirit works in ways that at the time only seems to affect a very few - but in the end will affect the entire world.  Otherwise - we are doomed.

How can you explain Dawkins first chapter of 'The Origins of Life?'  You claim the bible is false information and blindly accept that book instead?  Or do you have your own theories?  I'm just wondering.  It's very easy to criticize something that sounds 'off' - until you read something that sounds much worse.  If anyone is blinkered it's Richard Dawkins.

As I see it - if one doesn't have a supreme prime motivator for activity and motion - it's all static.  And, this supreme being can do pretty much as He wants.  So...what is stopping him from creating the heavens and earth the way they were (valleys/canyons/mountains and all _ minus a few earthquakes and floods which may have helped the GRAND canyon become so grand).  He states in the beginning of Genesis that waters covered the earth.  Water must have been the first created thing that G-d was manipulating.  Funny - but most books completely leave water out and that seems very ODD since there is so much of it.  Where did water come from if G-d didn't make it.  And, HOW did He make water?  And, why is there only water on one planet and not much on the others.  Sure, there's a little ice and supposedly an 'ocean' on a moon of pluto or something - but who can prove it by scuba diving or seeing if there is 'life' there as they suppose.  What life can live in extreme temperatures with no oxygen and no food chain and nothing to support extended seasons (very extended) where animals can't hibernate or have a chance to multiply.  Only live and die?  And how would they live?!  No scientist can prove to me ANYTHING is alive in space until they bring back positive proof.  A fish from pluto's moon.  And it should be there by now, because water would have made itself in other regions of space and evolution should be working just as well on other planets as it did on this one. 

Oh, and about the chaos theory.  Why do we have constellations?  Nobody has explained that one at all.  Some say - well, the stars happen to have these patterns.  But, they are spread evenly in patterns in a rotating system that works into our astronomical calculations of more that days and years - but cycles, too.  Why do the Chinese have these calculations that date back and are similar to the ones in Ur of the Chaldeas - where Abraham hailed - and this system of dating was not evolutionized by the gradual ascent of man - but was from the beginning a system of reckoning?  It's just too bizarre to think man was anything other than a rational human being from the very first.  Too many rational things to put together here on earth aside from just dealing with wild animals.  To say that - puts humans in a very dismal brain power place.  Who can prove very early civilizations weren't advanced?  Still nobody really knows all the secrets of how the pyramids were built.

[pianogirl88]

There are many churches.  Just like there are many names.  You can be called by a name - but it takes a lifetime to fulfill it.  Christians are at all stages of the 'game' and cannot claim to come to church for purposes of bingo only.  Otherwise, what would be the point of claiming salvation if you cannot praise your Savior.  And, yes - i believe the virgin birth was the only one of it's kind.  However, Mary must have had a hard time proving it to anyone either - and that's why she and her husband to be fled to Egypt shortly after Jesus was born.  There is a tree there - Mary's tree - where she is said to have sat and rested.  I suppose the onus was on Joseph AND Mary.  Joseph never saw her with any other guy.  Nobody claimed to be the father.  And, G-d gave Him a dream explaining the whole thing.  Also, they witnessed several miracles when the baby leapt in Mary's womb when she met Elizabeth - the mother of John the Baptist.  I suppose the Holy Spirit works in ways that at the time only seems to affect a very few - but in the end will affect the entire world.  Otherwise - we are doomed.

First off, I want to say I admire you for sticking to and sharing your beliefs so confidently. I was reading this post and I don't mean to be rude, but I'd like to point out a few corrections.

What exactly is the "church"? Sure, there are church buildings where you go to sit in once or twice a week, but the real church is the body of Christ. The true believers.

The trouble Mary  had with proving she was still a virgin even though she was pregnant, was NOT why she and Joseph fled to Egypt. They fled to Egypt to escape King Herod. He wanted to kill all the baby boys, so G-d told them to flee to Egypt.

Also, when Mary went to Elizabeth, it was Elizabeth's baby that jumped in the womb. Not Mary's.

I don't mean to speak out of turn, especially since I'm only 15 years old, and you're an adult. I just wanted to clarify those few things. Hope you don't mind...

[pianistimo]

Pianogirl88, thank you!  I'm sitting here at the computer and my bible is downstairs - but you have aptly pointed out a few major things here.  And, I agree with you.  The early church was formed of the disciples who were left here to 'preach the gospel' to the house of Israel.  Only Paul was chosen to the gentiles.  But, now, we have a gospel to the entire world by way of many churches and many preachers - especially since Israel as a nation is scatterred (basically the ones who have the bible). 

However, in my own opinion, to trace the true Way (as it used to be called) since Jesus Christ said He was the only way to salvation and G-d's glory or kingdom - we have to trace baptisms down to today.  The early Christians were baptized.  As many as 3,000+ at a time.  Who can transmit the Holy Spirit excepting someone who HAS the Holy Spirit or is given the Holy Spirit?  And, what exactly IS the Holy Spirit.

I think many churches get confused on this point - but noone can tell another they are not Christian since it is G-d that hands out the Holy Spirit and His power is so mighty that water is not necessary if one is 'baptized by fire.'  This can mean huge problems in one's life to the point of saying 'ok G-d - I'm all yours...' and suddenly, things CAN change.  But, for the point of obedience - Jesus Christ himself was baptized to show us an example of how to submit to the will of G-d.  To bury oneself to sin and be raised in symbology of the ressurrection of the dead.

In the ancient cultures, if one was caught in adultery or accused of it - you could be killed.  Herod may have instigated the killing of the baby boys under two years of age - although it was also a census that caused Mary and Joseph to have to pick up and move as well...but, with both motivations the case we also have Mary witnessing because it seems that she had to move from her family to another location (Elizabeth's - during pregnancy) whereas many young women simply stayed at home.  I think she knew people  suspected her since she was only betrothed at the time of the inception.  That way G-d proved His sovereignty in her situation.  Had she been already married - Joseph couldn't have been proven so easily to NOt be the father.

[pianogirl88]

Pianogirl88, thank you!  I'm sitting here at the computer and my bible is downstairs - but you have aptly pointed out a few major things here.  And, I agree with you.  The early church was formed of the disciples who were left here to 'preach the gospel' to the house of Israel.  Only Paul was chosen to the gentiles.  But, now, we have a gospel to the entire world by way of many churches and many preachers - especially since Israel as a nation is scatterred (basically the ones who have the bible). 

You are very welcome pianistimo. And you can call me Paige..

[thalbergmad]

Concerning this Virgin birth that seems to be soooo important, as far as i am aware (and my Bible is downstairs) only two of the Gospels even bother to mention this incredible World changing event. Luke rather drops his foot in it a bit when he describes Mary and Jospeh as Jesus's "parents" and Joseph as Jesus's father. John in his Gospel states that jesus was the "son" of Joseph. Can we be certain there is no "sex" involved here and normal conception? Of course not.

There is no trace of the Virgin Birth in the letters of Paul which some consider to be the earliest New Testament writings. In fact, Paul, in his letters to the Romans states that Jesus "was made of the seed of David according to the flesh"

It is possible that we are at the mercy of mistranslation here. From the Hebrew Bible (the Old testament), Isiah had prophesied that a "young woman" would bear a son and that this son would be called Immanuel. The Hebrew word for young woman is "alma", which was translated into the Greek Bible as virgin "parthenos". Therefore, all that was needed to fulfill the prophecy was for a young woman to bear a child.

Virgin birth probably did not happen.

Thal

[thalbergmad]

And, HOW did He make water?  And, why is there only water on one planet and not much on the others.  Sure, there's a little ice and supposedly an 'ocean' on a moon of pluto or something - but who can prove it by scuba diving or seeing if there is 'life' there as they suppose.  What life can live in extreme temperatures with no oxygen and no food chain and nothing to support extended seasons (very extended) where animals can't hibernate or have a chance to multiply.  Only live and die?  And how would they live?!  No scientist can prove to me ANYTHING is alive in space until they bring back positive proof.  A fish from pluto's moon.  And it should be there by now, because water would have made itself in other regions of space and evolution should be working just as well on other planets as it did on this one. 

Oh, and about the chaos theory.  Why do we have constellations?  Nobody has explained that one at all.  Some say - well, the stars happen to have these patterns.  But, they are spread evenly in patterns in a rotating system that works into our astronomical calculations of more that days and years - but cycles, too.  Why do the Chinese have these calculations that date back and are similar to the ones in Ur of the Chaldeas - where Abraham hailed - and this system of dating was not evolutionized by the gradual ascent of man - but was from the beginning a system of reckoning?  It's just too bizarre to think man was anything other than a rational human being from the very first.  Too many rational things to put together here on earth aside from just dealing with wild animals.  To say that - puts humans in a very dismal brain power place.  Who can prove very early civilizations weren't advanced?  Still nobody really knows all the secrets of how the pyramids were built.

What the hell is this garbage? You jump around from subject to subject like a demented flea looking for its next meal.

I would advise anyone with a Scientific mind not to even bother responding to this latest spastic rant. We have gone through it all before and her very basic education and inability to read outside of the Bible, means she would not be able to understand any reasoned response.

Thal

[aslanov]

How can you explain Dawkins first chapter of 'The Origins of Life?'  You claim the bible is false information and blindly accept that book instead?  Or do you have your own theories?  I'm just wondering.  It's very easy to criticize something that sounds 'off' - until you read something that sounds much worse.  If anyone is blinkered it's Richard Dawkins.

As I see it - if one doesn't have a supreme prime motivator for activity and motion - it's all static.  And, this supreme being can do pretty much as He wants.  So...what is stopping him from creating the heavens and earth the way they were (valleys/canyons/mountains and all _ minus a few earthquakes and floods which may have helped the GRAND canyon become so grand).  He states in the beginning of Genesis that waters covered the earth.  Water must have been the first created thing that G-d was manipulating.  Funny - but most books completely leave water out and that seems very ODD since there is so much of it.  Where did water come from if G-d didn't make it.  And, HOW did He make water?  And, why is there only water on one planet and not much on the others.  Sure, there's a little ice and supposedly an 'ocean' on a moon of pluto or something - but who can prove it by scuba diving or seeing if there is 'life' there as they suppose.  What life can live in extreme temperatures with no oxygen and no food chain and nothing to support extended seasons (very extended) where animals can't hibernate or have a chance to multiply.  Only live and die?  And how would they live?!  No scientist can prove to me ANYTHING is alive in space until they bring back positive proof.  A fish from pluto's moon.  And it should be there by now, because water would have made itself in other regions of space and evolution should be working just as well on other planets as it did on this one. 

Oh, and about the chaos theory.  Why do we have constellations?  Nobody has explained that one at all.  Some say - well, the stars happen to have these patterns.  But, they are spread evenly in patterns in a rotating system that works into our astronomical calculations of more that days and years - but cycles, too.  Why do the Chinese have these calculations that date back and are similar to the ones in Ur of the Chaldeas - where Abraham hailed - and this system of dating was not evolutionized by the gradual ascent of man - but was from the beginning a system of reckoning?  It's just too bizarre to think man was anything other than a rational human being from the very first.  Too many rational things to put together here on earth aside from just dealing with wild animals.  To say that - puts humans in a very dismal brain power place.  Who can prove very early civilizations weren't advanced?  Still nobody really knows all the secrets of how the pyramids were built.

you are joking rite?
i mean you cant honestly be saying this.
you do realize that the constellations arent actually moving....you religious folk still think you're the centre of the universe dont you.
actually, WE move, EARTH moves, so from our perspective it seems that the stars are moving....they arent (in a sense. im sure i wont have to get into the other sense of the stars moving because, well, frankly, i doubt u know what i mean).
its funny how the people who based all their calculations from ages of observing stars and celestial bodies. WHAT a coincidence. wouldnt you say?
we know how water came about to be. do some reading, stop preaching BULL SHYTE

[thalbergmad]

Aslanov - you are obviously an intelligent man, but i urge you not to waste your time on pianistimo, who is the perfect ignoramus.

She will not accept anything outside of her Bible due to narrow mindedness and lack of intelligence.

I know i waste my time, but i am used to it. You will end up driving yourself mad as i hae done.

Thal

[G.W.K]

First off, I want to say I admire you for sticking to and sharing your beliefs so confidently. I was reading this post and I don't mean to be rude, but I'd like to point out a few corrections.

What exactly is the "church"? Sure, there are church buildings where you go to sit in once or twice a week, but the real church is the body of Christ. The true believers.

The trouble Mary  had with proving she was still a virgin even though she was pregnant, was NOT why she and Joseph fled to Egypt. They fled to Egypt to escape King Herod. He wanted to kill all the baby boys, so G-d told them to flee to Egypt.

Also, when Mary went to Elizabeth, it was Elizabeth's baby that jumped in the womb. Not Mary's.

I don't mean to speak out of turn, especially since I'm only 15 years old, and you're an adult. I just wanted to clarify those few things. Hope you don't mind...

Oh no, another one has joined the preaching.

G.W.K

[pianistimo]

She's a sharp one, she is.  I just may be a slight bit dyslexic in the brain because i re-read Luke 2 and forgot that the census was in Bethlehem.  So much for the re-telling of the birth story.  But, anyways - Mary was betrothed and not married when she was 'found to be with child.'  That didn't bode well in those days. 

Matthew's account of the geneaology of Jesus Christ follows the 'line of David' and calls Jesus Christ 'the son' of David.  That is simply giving Joseph the right to marry Mary since they are basically of the same tribe and also giving historically accurate accounts of names.  Lineage isn't so important to just anyone - but it is for a king/priest.  All of us are related to Adam and Eve who were created by G-d - so i'm just saying the jews of that time were very meticulous in record keeping and generally only let people of the same tribes marry - especially king/priests.

The other geneaology is Mary's.  It, however, says in several places that she was already 'found to be with child by the Holy Spirit' (Matthew 1:18) before they married so her genealogy is the only one to affect Jesus Dna.  He is referred to in the Psalms 8:1-8 as 'the Son of Man' and His connection with the earth and is proclaimed to have dominion over it because it is given to Him.  He is the 'heir of all things.'  Hebrews 2:8-9 mentions that because he humbled Himself to death - he was appointed glory and honor and to bring 'many sons to glory' as a second Adam.  The first Adam didn't bring us eternal life.

If Jesus Christ was not raised, the term Christos would not belong to Him.  It is interesting that the name has stuck all through history.  Perhaps history is good to record actual events after all!?  So...back to Dawkins.  Does he care about genealogies or histories?  That is scientific proof in the sense that many are witnesses of the death and ressurrection and many were actually ressurrected back to life after Jesus was ressurrected (but their tombs were brought to the surface by the earthquakes first).  Matt. 27:51-52:

'And behold, the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom, and the earth shook; and the rocks were split, and the tombs were opened; and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; and coming out of the tombs after his ressurection they entered the holy city and appeared to many....'

[pianistimo]

Matthew 9:6 calls him 'the Son of Man' again - but also proclaims Him as the only one with authority on earth to forgive sins.  John 5:19 is where Jesus Himself explains his own relationship to G-d the Father.  'Truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, unless it is something He sees the Father doing; for whatever the Father does, these things the Son also does in like manner...For just as the Father raises the dead (raised Jesus Christ) and gives them life, even so the Son also gives life to whom He wishes.  For not even the Father judges anyone, but He has given all judgement to the Son....'

This is quite fair since Jesus Christ had to live as a human being on this earth.  Much more reasonable than unreasonable, wouldn't you say?

[thalbergmad]

It, however, says in several places that she was already 'found to be with child by the Holy Spirit' (Matthew 1:18) before they married so her genealogy is the only one to affect Jesus Dna.  He is referred to in the Psalms 8:1-8 as 'the Son of Man' and His connection with the earth and is proclaimed to have dominion over it because it is given to Him.  He is the 'heir of all things.'  Hebrews 2:8-9 mentions that because he humbled Himself to death - he was appointed glory and honor and to bring 'many sons to glory' as a second Adam.  The first Adam didn't bring us eternal life.

Sex before marriage, that is terrible and as you say "the Son of Man", not the son of God.

What about Jesus's brothers? Did she have to have sex to produce them?

If this Virgin Birth really happened, it would have at least been included in all of the Gospels, but it was not. And as i mentioned earlier, the letters of Paul give us a more believable alternative.

There is NO proof for the Virgin Birth and the idea was second hand anyway, being previously used by the Egyptians.

You have nothing.

Thal