[quote]
Genocide is entertainment? Thanks for showing your true colors. Those of you who like to refer to Christians and / or conservatives as “Nazis” would do well to read this genius’s post! [/quote]
Christianity has been covered in the blood of others all throughout its existence. Things like the Crusades and corrupt clergy prove this, but still only scratch the surface. Every human group is violent in some way or another. I challenge any of you to present a group that isn’t.
Genocide is entertainment? Thanks for showing your true colors. Those of you who like to refer to Christians and / or conservatives as “Nazis” would do well to read this genius’s post! [/quote]
Nice work on picking up the sarcasm ace! During the decline of the Roman Empire, this was, in fact, entertainment. Doesn’t make it anymore right than the 200,000+ women who were burned at the stake by Christians during the “Burning Times” in 16th century Bavaria or the summer of 1099 when the Crusaders breached the walls of Jerusalem and killed every inhabitant: Christian, Jew, Muslim, women, and children. One priest recorded that, near the Dome of the Rock, the blood was “knee deep to the horses.” I’ll limit myself to writing things like: “Killing people is bad” or “I like lifting weights” from now on so as not to confuse you.
I dont believe you’ve researched this much. Im short on time, and not too well researched my self. But many archaelologists believe they have found the ark (in the himalayas?) its just burried by hundreds of feet of snow for 9/10 years. And every culture has a story of a flood at some point in their history, and the stories paralell in more than just “a great flood happened” a few even have one person/family building a boat to survive. I’ll do some more research and post back later. And perhaps others will have more knowledge than me.
William
[quote]XCelticX wrote:
cap’nsalty wrote:
This conversation is so old and pointless…
Then don’t post in my damn thread! Jesus![/quote]
Yeah - how much did you pay for this thread again?
That’s right. It’s FREE. You are a king sized prick. Check that, A soft girly looking prick.
Scientists quit arguing with bible bangers. It is an utter waste of time. It is akin to explaining your 401k to a 6 month old - THEY DON’T GET IT.
I do not even give two sh!ts if someone chooses blind faith in religion over fact based science to explain the way of the world. That being the case SO LONG AS THEY DO NOT ATTEMPT TO ARGUE RELIGION IS SUPERIOR TO SCIENCE. In fact, I believe religion to be generally good. Often it serves as a bond for families, and it is a guide for those that cannot figure life (morals, right vs wrong) out on their own. Don’t attempt to shove your beliefs down my throat, and I won’t shove my facts down yours.
The timing here is interesting, as I just had this discussion with my g/f last night. It was more of an argument. She doesn’t want to talk about it with anyone except her family. Which makes sense, because they all think alike.
People of the extreme opinions are the ones to watch out for. The most f*cked up people that I have met have either been (A) total bible bangers or (B) atheists that totally HATE all aspects of religion.
I like analogies. Religious persons base life on faith and beliefs, as women base decisions on feelings and emotion. Scientific people base life on facts and reality, as men base decisions on logic and rationality.
My final thought is on a hypocritical aspect of religion. I have been informed (by those “in the know”) that god loves all creatures. Yet I will not go to “heaven” if I do not believe in god. Of course, someone that f*cks little kids and murders cops and rapes women WILL go to heaven so long as they beg for and receive forgiveness. Nice system.
Bastard F*ck Guy
XCelticX,
Jeremiah 33:22
?As the host of heaven cannot be numbered, nor the sand of the sea measured, so will I multiply the descendants of David My servant and the Levites who minister to Me.?
Even today, scientists admit that they do not know how many stars there are. Only about 3,000 can be seen with the naked eye. We have seen estimates of 10^21 stars?which is a lot of stars.[2] (The number of grains of sand on the earth?s seashores is estimated to be 10^25. As scientists discover more stars, wouldn?t it be interesting to discover that these two numbers match?)
Maybe that’s a typo, but there are way way WAY more grains of sand than 1,025, and as for stars, billions.
I put in the correction, it is supposed to be 10 to the 21st power and 10 to the 25th power, it the copy/paste process it did not transfer superscript.
As stated earlier, this is not meant to be an argument, only a inteligent discussion, I for one have enjoyed what has been said by both sides so far. I do not know what has happened in your life to make you so adamently upset with any discussion of said topic, but I am sorry and would ask that unless you wish to intelligently discuss the topic, rather than just throw out a bunch of five letter words and get upset, please do not post here.
Also if you take a closer look you will find that religious people have scientific facts supporting their thoughts in many ares, women think rationally and logically…they just think of a persons emotional well being as well(not a bad idea), science is proven logic and rational and I am quite sure that scientists, yes even scientists have feelings and sometimes base life decisions on such, and men do make decisions on emotion.(unless you have never done something because you care for someone, or lashed out because you were upset)
All I ask is that you be a little more gathered and respectful in your posts. Be open to listening to what others have to say, you don’t have to agree, but you might become more educated because of it. I know I have, the only way to learn is to question.
BFG -
There is no such thing as ‘fact-based science’ when it comes to the earth’s history. It’s all theory. All of it.
You can dress it up with impertinent facts. You can create a theory, never prove it and believe it as thruth.
Come to think of it that’s the same thing “bible bangers” are doing. They just don’t try to fool anyone with made up numbers and unproved theories.
This debate is completely pointless. Celtic shithead evidently hasn’t read the megabytes of debate that has already been posted on this subject, and for some reason thinks he has something ‘new’ to bring to the discussion.
It boils down to this - either you believe there is a God, or you don’t. Faith is not a quantifiable factor.
Those that don’t believe won’t. There is no need for me to pound you into submission and convert you, or anyone else - So in that respect I totally agree with you. I think you just come down on believers a little too hard.
[quote]battlelust wrote:
Genocide is entertainment? Thanks for showing your true colors. Those of you who like to refer to Christians and / or conservatives as “Nazis” would do well to read this genius’s post!
Nice work on picking up the sarcasm ace! During the decline of the Roman Empire, this was, in fact, entertainment. Doesn’t make it anymore right than the 200,000+ women who were burned at the stake by Christians during the “Burning Times” in 16th century Bavaria or the summer of 1099 when the Crusaders breached the walls of Jerusalem and killed every inhabitant: Christian, Jew, Muslim, women, and children. One priest recorded that, near the Dome of the Rock, the blood was “knee deep to the horses.” I’ll limit myself to writing things like: “Killing people is bad” or “I like lifting weights” from now on so as not to confuse you.[/quote]
If you dont believe everything that you hear, why the heck would you believe that those people were christians? What, because they called themselves christian? What, you think they went to heaven for that? Obviously burning people at the stake isnt part of christianity. So what religion are you refering to again?
[quote]battlelust wrote:
Nice work on picking up the sarcasm ace! During the decline of the Roman Empire, this was, in fact, entertainment. Doesn’t make it anymore right than the 200,000+ women who were burned at the stake by Christians during the “Burning Times” in 16th century Bavaria or the summer of 1099 when the Crusaders breached the walls of Jerusalem and killed every inhabitant: Christian, Jew, Muslim, women, and children. One priest recorded that, near the Dome of the Rock, the blood was “knee deep to the horses.” I’ll limit myself to writing things like: “Killing people is bad” or “I like lifting weights” from now on so as not to confuse you.[/quote]
Oh, I picked up on your sarcasm, ACE! You are truly a comic genius, ACE. Ever thought of going pro? And your condescension shows us all how oh-so-smart you are, ACE. See how impressed we are.
Problem is, the events you cite were perpetrated not by evangelical Christians, but the Roman Catholic Church, which dominated Europe during that period. I am not Catholic bashing here, either, I would just appreciate you getting your facts straight, ACE. I don’t claim that Christians are any more or less perfect than anyone else. In fact, a recognition our imperfect nature is why we chose to be Christians in the first place. Now I have to get back to work, ACE.
Oh, and Mr. Lust, sir? Here is at least one source that indicates your numbers might be just the teeniest bit inflated. Not to defend it, but just to show that you are not necessarily the authoritative source.
What I will never understand is the argument between the supposed scientists, and the supposed religious people.
Yes I said supposed.
First creation and evolution are two different things. Then again so is science and religion.
Forgive me but first the Bible has passed down through different hands, and has had to be translated repeatedly. It started as an oral tradition, and was eventually wrote down, and then there were a combining of different versions of stories. That is why the bible sometimes repeats itself, like the description of what Noah took onto the Ark.
Also many bible scholars talk about some of the stories being fables, and parables, not fully accurate stories.
Also we do not have the ability to even fathom how the people of that time thought. Their understanding of how things are put down into the bible has a different meaning to them then it does to people of today.
How much do people know about the bible here? How about revelations? The number 666? People try to say it is 3 sixes, but that is not true, it is actually 600 + 60 + 6. Also it is based on a little game the Jews used to play back then, partially seriously, partially not. Each letter of the Hebrew alphabet is also a number, and it was believed that if two items totaled the same number, they were related on some level.
It is theorized that 666 actually refers to one of the Caesars. (Actually two of them, considering they found a translation that used the number 616 instead of 666, but it was most likely a mistake.)
Now how many of you knew about this little gematria anyway?
Now as far as science, it has no reason to be attempting to disprove religion. It can deal with historical fact, but not religion. How do you prove there is no god, or prove there is? This is not science, but conjecture. So people go off trying to say they are atheists because they find fault with the Bible, without going to the trouble of even mentioning which bible, and going back to older translations. The Torah might just be the most accurate of the first 5 books of the old testament, and it does not match fully with the biblical version.
Now I am an atheist, but I see that there is some history to the bible. For example I kind of believe in Noah’s flood.
Now why would I do that? Does anyone know what happened about 12,000 to 13,000 years ago? The waters rose 300 feet. (Damn fossil fuels.) This might just be the original basis of the flood.
I truly believe that the old world was destroyed by a flood. But most people don’t even know the flood is still here. The waters never really went down. (There were 1 or 2 different times when the waters rose within a millennium of this event adding about 100 more feet.)
Now that I went through this whole spiel, I can say it does not matter. That’s right, it does not matter. The important thing is if it is beneficial, and in most cases it is. Now some want to go back into history, or look at people who twist religion, such as the fanatic Muslims who are fostering terrorism, but that is nothing more then an excuse. That is their tool. If it was not that, they would use something else. Some people try to use science.
Evolution was used by the Nazi’s to promote their superiority. There are those who think they are superior because they believe in science, and are better then those foolish Christians. Well get over yourself.
My personal belief is that of function. It does not matter what you believe as long as it works for you. Do you know how many people believe in spot reduction? Yet there are people who work out thinking it works, and they have gotten results. Not for the reason they think, but does that really matter? I don’t think so.
It is a proven statistical fact that people who attend church live longer then those that don’t, so there is some obvious benefit.
Now on the other end, religion should not be telling science what to think. Religion is not about facts or theories, but about faith.
The truth is neither will ever know the full truth, as each is just a representation of something.
It seems simple to me. Either you see God and His power in everything and you have faith in an afterlife that gives this life of free choice and consequences a meaning, or you see science and the force of nature and when it’s over you turn to dust and life means nothing (or everything because it ends). I personally believe in the human soul and that connection to a higher being. I think that’s what seperates us from the animals. We feel things like compassion and friendship. You can make a case for either side, but you can’t explain why we have evolved to be thinking, debating, intelligent, creative beings and nothing else on the planet has. I see that as all the evidence I need that God exhists and that we have been given a gift. The writings of man are fallable and always will be. Scripture has been modified by many, science changes it’s mind all the time. We all have to cross the same finish line. That’s the part that should make you think.
Fun Fact for the day: The theory known as “The Big Bang” was originally conceived and described by Georges Lemaitre, a Belgian priest.
XCelticX:
Paul(Saul of Tarsus) went through the same thing(as all Christians who are born again do, i know i certainly have and do) especially early in his Christian life, and speaks in depth about sin in the Book of Romans. Here’s an except from Romans 7:21-25
“So I find this law at work: When I want to do good, evil is right there with me. For in my inner being, I delight in God’s law; but i see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members. What a wretched man I am! Who will recue me from this body of death? Thanks be to God-through Christ Jesus our Lord!”
Also, John 6:60 describes many of Jesus’s followers, with the exception of the 12, deserting him because what he taught was indeed a hard teaching, and they left saying “This is a hard teaching, who can accept it?”
Exactly. That natural human nature is the sinful nature as a result of the fall that Paul is describing and struggling against in the above passage, however,
“…there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit set me free from the law of sin and death. For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering”(Romans 8:1-3)
[quote] present the evidence to me, and I’ll take a look at it openmindedly.
[/quote]
I could, but the problem is that if you find evidence afterwards that appeals to you more, that evidence would take precedence over what I’ve provided. Thats why i think you need to search for it on your own if you’re truly interested. Its not until one deals with their a priori beliefs about something, and the ensuing consequences, that they will be able to honestly analyze the data and reach a logical conclusion.
Give Romans a read through, because i think that is where the source of your position is rooted. Monergism.com is great source for doctrinal issues. If you are more interested in evolutionary issues, check out answersingenesis.org and icr.org, especially that RATE study i mentioned in my last post and critical analysis of radiological dating methods. Lee Strobel also has two good books, The Case for Christ and its followup, The Case for Faith, the first dealing with the evidence surrounding the ressurection, and the second focusing on objections such evil in the world if God is all loving and omnipotent.
I tried to keep this short, but apparently that didn’t work out too well.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
BFG -
There is no such thing as ‘fact-based science’ when it comes to the earth’s history. It’s all theory. All of it.
[/quote]
Are you serious? ALL is a pretty strong word.
So, the difference being that scientists provide justification, rational, and support of their theories. The religious don’t? Good point.
[quote]
This debate is completely pointless. Celtic shithead evidently hasn’t read the megabytes of debate that has already been posted on this subject, and for some reason thinks he has something ‘new’ to bring to the discussion.
It boils down to this - either you believe there is a God, or you don’t. Faith is not a quantifiable factor.
Those that don’t believe won’t. There is no need for me to pound you into submission and convert you, or anyone else - So in that respect I totally agree with you. I think you just come down on believers a little too hard. [/quote]
Anyone ever look at the relationship between education level and belief in religion? No, I am not calling you uneducated or stupid. I am simply pointing out the fact that the more people learn, the less they tend towards religion.
Someone posted that the history of the Earth will never be known. That’s quite open-minded. One thing scientific people know is this: the more you know, the more there is to know. Ignorance is bliss.
I am open to the possibility that our existence is scientifically probable but perhaps not provable. That being said, could there be a god or higher power? Sure there could. Still, scientific persons tend toward open-mindedness - it is inherent in the search to understand the unknown. Religious people tend towards narrow (or even closed) mindedness - it is inherent in believing that everything is as it is, “happens for a reason”, and is explainable only by the existence of god.
Bastard F*ck Guy
Which is my point. Science is being debunked everyday. Evidence is not concrete. Is there concrete evidence that debunks any occurence in The Bible,or is it only theory? I still would recommend the book I mentioned.
[quote]BFG wrote:
Are you serious? ALL is a pretty strong word. [/quote]
Unless I’ve missed something - every scientific statement regarding the earth’s history is still predicated by “theory of”. The age of the earth is “estimated”.
Who is the arbitor of “rational support”? Neither side can justify anything - one would have to assume too many things to be swayed by either side. Once again, you throw faith out the window because it is not rational.
I think you make a huge mistake by correlating education level with intelligence. Why not say wealthy rather than educated? They correlate the same way. The Bible says, “It’s easier for a camel to fit through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to inheret the kingdom of God”.
Maybe that’s your answer. Maybe faith is for the uneducated poor people. Maybe that’s why you never see Jesus hob-knobbing with the pseudo intellectual set. Maybe man just has too high an opinion of himself.
The very same can be said of those sitting on the other side. They’re of the opinion that everything can be explained by science. Nothing ‘just is’ when they know almost nothing about our history, so they make up theories to explain why their can’t be a creator.
[quote]willfull wrote:
I dont believe you’ve researched this much. Im short on time, and not too well researched my self. But many archaelologists believe they have found the ark (in the himalayas?) its just burried by hundreds of feet of snow for 9/10 years. And every culture has a story of a flood at some point in their history, and the stories paralell in more than just “a great flood happened” a few even have one person/family building a boat to survive. I’ll do some more research and post back later. And perhaps others will have more knowledge than me.
William[/quote]
So random pieces of wood that could have possibly been part of a boat somehow got on top of a mountain… ok
On top of that, those pieces might be part of a boat that couldn’t POSSIBLY exist, because 2 of every creature cannot fit on one boat.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
XCelticX wrote:
cap’nsalty wrote:
This conversation is so old and pointless…
Then don’t post in my damn thread! Jesus!
Yeah - how much did you pay for this thread again?
That’s right. It’s FREE. You are a king sized prick. Check that, A soft girly looking prick.
[/quote]
Did I ever suggest I paid money for this thread? That’s a bit ludicrous.
This thread wouldn’t exist if I hadn’t started it, that’s why I said ‘my’ thread.
So if you’re gonna throw around insults that belong in a middle school locker room, be my guest, it only makes you look like more of a child.
I, for one, don’t post worthless messages in others’ discussions like ‘this is pointless and old…’ Obviously the people posting in those threads don’t think the subject matter is worthless.