100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
|
|
|
I have 2 right now..
AJ Cook- SSA Jennifer 'JJ' Jareau- Criminal Minds and Jennifer Morrison- Dr. Allison Cameron- House |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All I see is blah blah blah same crap different day. It's weak at best...
of course you see it as "weak at best" because you have proved again, that you do not take the time to actually read what is being said. And when you won't read it, you can't understand it. That which we do not understand, we dismiss, just like you are doing here. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, Eljay, all I can say is, don't expect many of us to ever take you seriously again. First you make the claim that the Crusades predate Christianity, then you make the claim that the head of the Roman-Catholic church is not a Christian. And here's why I dont take you seriously Inkracer. I NEVER said the Crusades predated Christainity - YOU said I did. Another prime example of your critical reading skills. I defy you to find the post I said that and quote me. I NEVER said the head of the Roman Catholic church is not a Christain. YOU did. Upon closer examiniation of my post, you will see that I asked HOW one knows the Pope is a Christian. So - until I sense some improvement in your reading skills - I'm always going to consider your posts based on a serious lack of comprehension and merely a spewing of your biased uninformed opinions. That's why you can never respond to my questions with an answer on topic. Here are your quotes: That's quite amaizing since the Crusades preceeded the bible. How did they do that? This is a perfect example of how the idea of Christainity and the "acts of religion" get confused and misinterpreted. It's like the example of passing a secret around a room and coming up with something completely wrong. This is what happens when one just parrots what they hear without verifying the source.
It it quite obvious, seen as I wasn't the only person on here to take your words as I did. (Even though you will deny this) It is obvious by the way it is written and the words used, that you are again, trying to distance religion from the Evils committed in its name. What has the Pope got to do with anything religious? How do you know the Pope is even a christain? Here, I'll answer that - You don't! Now again, you are right in that you technically did not say it, but honestly, How else is this supposed to be taken? Look at the first sentence. "What has the Pope got to do with anything religious" He is the Head of the Roman-Catholic Church. Catholicism is basically the first Christian Church. How is it not religious? Looking at the rest of it. Seems to me you are back to arguing whether people fit your definition of a christian. The Pope(and other religious "heads"(be it the whole religion, or just one "temple" of the religion) have devoted their lives to whatever their holy book is, If those people can't be classified as belonging to whatever religion they gave themselves to, I don't see a reason for this section to exist, because surely then there is no religion. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I trust the scientists. And the Bible has been rewritten plenty of times. And I trust the Scientists as well. Mainly because there are standards that are upheld by the very nature of science. The bible, and other holy books only have the men(and when I say that, I mean people with penises), and their agendas behind it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, Eljay, all I can say is, don't expect many of us to ever take you seriously again. First you make the claim that the Crusades predate Christianity, then you make the claim that the head of the Roman-Catholic church is not a Christian. reread his post. that isn't what he said Really? 
That's quite amaizing since the Crusades preceeded the bible.
and What has the Pope got to do with anything religious? How do you know the Pope is even a christain? Here, I'll answer that - You don't!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html Great discovery, Evolution is action. Well it's a done deal now. There can be no more complaints from religious people claiming that evolution is 'just a theory'. Clearly it's a proven fact now, and will only continue to be more firmly proven as time goes on. This is kind of like Galileo looking at the phases of Venus, the Moons of Jupiter and the imperfection of sun spots on the sun. The religious zealots refused to believe him initially too. Evolution is in the bag. Religion must now assimilate it, there's nothing left for them to do. 
Of course, the Ironic thing here is the very church that condemned Galileo, has at the very least acknowledged that Evolution is more than "Just a Theory" for some time now... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Pope is only infallible when he speaks Ex Catheria and it has only been three times since the doctrine of papal infallibility was established. All three times, it was something pertaining to the Virgin Mary. Thankfully the pope does not command the kind of influence with governments that he used to. Otherwise, the current conflict in the Middle East would truly be a modern day Crusade... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, Eljay, all I can say is, don't expect many of us to ever take you seriously again.
First you make the claim that the Crusades predate Christianity, then you make the claim that the head of the Roman-Catholic church is not a Christian. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And just so we don't confuse the issue... Let's leave Hovind aside, since he is not out on an island with what he believes. Check out Frank Turek, R.C. Sproul, D.J. Kennedy, to name but a few. They are essentially saying the same thing as Hovind - asking the same questions of Evolution without getting answers.
The reason these guys aren't getting answers, is the very same reason that you "aren't getting answers" here. They say something, then real Scientists point out where their "theories" are wrong, and how they aren't even Scientifically possible, and since these guys, much like yourself on here, don't like the answer they were given, they just say things like "that's not enough evidence" or simply make the false claim(much like you on here, again) that "No one has answered my question". When the truth is, your question was answered, but you continue to complain, like a little child, because it's not the answer you want to hear. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
abra
Again doll......you can't change what just is. So let's look at the whole picture according to God's will FCL, you constantly come in here, and tell us that "we can't use bits and pieces, and we need to look at the whole story" Why is it then, that you are allowed to take the bits and pieces of evolution, instead of looking at the whole picture? Very Hypocritical, and not very Christian(at least the "christian" you would like us to believe anyway) is it? I saw the whole picture and it didn't add up so I left. And you can't take one lil itty piece of scripture and then interpret it wrong and let it fly with me....I frankly don't care ink what you or abra think...because I am not doing it for you....You have your beliefs and I am fine with it.....but I won't let him butcher scripture and get away with it..simple as that. But with the holy books, is it really a wrong interpretation, or just different people interpreting the same line differently? With Evolution, though, everything you have posted(i.e. "we came from monkeys") has been flat out wrong, and isn't just a "different interpretation". |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Body is a temple
|
|
Sometimes...yes. Don't you? Jesus drank wine. Never drank a drop of wine Jesus.... Of Course not, because fictional characters can't actually drink wine. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
abra
Again doll......you can't change what just is. So let's look at the whole picture according to God's will FCL, you constantly come in here, and tell us that "we can't use bits and pieces, and we need to look at the whole story" Why is it then, that you are allowed to take the bits and pieces of evolution, instead of looking at the whole picture? Very Hypocritical, and not very Christian(at least the "christian" you would like us to believe anyway) is it? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
but again....no one from the evolution side can prove where the "dot" that started everything came from evolution can't prove that anymore than creationism. at some point we all have to say "I don't know". for creationism, it's a matter of faith this is my whole point lol JB....scarey huh? how did people argue without the net??? lol I don't know what you are talking about when you say the 'dot.' But I don't think evolution is trying to solve that problem. They are just looking at fossils and evidence and trying to learn something. I don't think its a big deal to get upset about, and it does not destroy my faith in the slightest. I still believe in myself.   
if you reread the posts....the dot was just something to use for a lack of a better term. the dot is what started everything Well, Evolution only deals with what happened after that point, not what cause it. "The origin of life is a necessary precursor for biological evolution, but understanding that evolution occurred once organisms appeared and investigating how this happens does not depend on understanding exactly how life began. The current scientific consensus is that the complex biochemistry that makes up life came from simpler chemical reactions, but it is unclear how this occurred. Not much is certain about the earliest developments in life, the structure of the first living things, or the identity and nature of any last universal common ancestor or ancestral gene pool. Consequently, there is no scientific consensus on how life began, but proposals include self-replicating molecules such as RNA, and the assembly of simple cells." The above is from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#Origin_of_life |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Inkracer
on
Tue 03/03/09 07:59 AM
|
|
but again....no one from the evolution side can prove where the "dot" that started everything came from evolution can't prove that anymore than creationism. at some point we all have to say "I don't know". for creationism, it's a matter of faith this is my whole point lol JB....scarey huh? how did people argue without the net??? lol Evolution has nothing to do with the "dot" at the center of the Big Bang Theory. And I know I have seen someone point this out one this thread before. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the book of John (for example) was one of Jesus' disciples. just like how most history is handed down....word of mouth and past down to generation to generation Actually, It isn't. We do know that Paul was the first book written, and the other gospels of the NT were actually based off Paul. So, as in my earlier post, you have at least one generation passing before Paul's gospels, and the rest coming sometime after Paul. and how was history past down??? they didn't have the internet back then....by word of mouth Something being passed down by word of mouth doesn't make it true. And All you need is one person to start the lie... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
With the many atrocities in the name of God that has been reflected in the history of mankind, I cannot understand how anyone can follow such a idealogy in the first place regardless of what the religion or faith it comes from. There are truly people who can live peaceful amongst each other who are non religious or spiritual that have better belief systems then the gods that many have worshipped. Clearly a mediterrenean mythology as harmless as it may look is truly as dangerous as history has told it. When people start screaming "Because God whilsts it" then it is already a lost cause as we know in history people have lost their lives just because they are from a different culture, belief system, or lifestyle that is not adapted to the religion that seeks to spread across the globe by any means necessary. I admire those spiritual paths that do not seek by any means possible to influence their idealogies onto others, but instead practice for their own well being and inner happiness. Those are the people we should admire and follow and only few have made in the books of history as we know it. You are blaming religion for the people who abuse it. Do you think prescription drugs are evil? Lot's of people abuse them. Stalin killed millions in the name of Atheism. Does that make all people who do not believe in God evil because Stalin was? The way to my inner happiness and well being is to not follow anyone, and I don't admire anyone for their philosophies. It's their actions I admire. I couldn't care less what they believe. Why is it, that when someone mentions the evils that were done so, in the name of religion, then you(or someone else) flies in here with the claim that you cannot judge a religion based on those that "abuse" the beliefs of that religion, to cause harm. But, then you will make the completely incorrect statement that those killed in Stalin's Russia were killed in the name of Atheism. So, why are historically accurate cases where Religion/religious beliefs was the main cause behind one's actions not allowed to speak for all religion, but killings where the main cause is Socio-Political, you are allowed to make a blanket statement condemning something that you don't agree with, and/or choose not to understand? But you're making my point. Why do you attribute the attrocities of the Crusades or Jihad as anything but a Socio/political cause cleaverly misrepresented as a religious issue? Neither are adhering to the religious principles to which they are claiming justify their actions. How is the Pope saying "We must build an Army, and take back our Holy Land" Socio-Political? It isn't. It's a Religious Leader saying something needs to be done, for a religious reason. How is the modern day Jihad against non-muslims Socio-Political? Again it Isn't, not when the passages of the holy book(the Koran) clearly states one must kill the infidel(any non-muslim) that does not convert. So, again, it is an act by a Religious person, for a religious reason. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the book of John (for example) was one of Jesus' disciples. just like how most history is handed down....word of mouth and past down to generation to generation Actually, It isn't. We do know that Paul was the first book written, and the other gospels of the NT were actually based off Paul. So, as in my earlier post, you have at least one generation passing before Paul's gospels, and the rest coming sometime after Paul. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paul listened when God spoke, as all of the writers of the Bible Abra....And it's not a book of fairy tales as you call it....It is historically backed......
Really it's historically backed? How? As I have said on this board, because the places exist, doesn't make it true. and it is what it is...Don't believe it your choice...But don't say I and millions upon millions who do "CANT" THAT IS OBSURD. What was said by Jesus HELLO THEY WERE THERE......All of the writers of the gospels were there with Jesus can't get better witnesses now can ya.
Wrong again. Jesus cannot be accurately placed in history(if he existed at all) the time frame that his life is placed in, is somewhere between 100BC and 33AD. The Gospels were not written until sometime after 70AD. And again, cannot accurately be placed. Given the normal life span back around that time, we are talking at least one generation passing. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
very true...can't go back and ask. but i believe alot of atrocities (not just on one side) were committed by people that used religion as an excuse You don't have to "go back and ask" look at Islam today.(or hell, just look at the small excerpt from Religulous where bill Maher is talking to some Muslim people.(just a note, he isn't talking for Muslim "crazies", he is talking to people with everyday, normal beliefs) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Also, when dealing with someone who truly believes that Evolution is the work of Satan, they will never be objective enough to actually learn the facts, and instead will cling to the fundamentalist "understanding" to continue to refute it. I keep hearing this term "facts" used with evolution. What does this term - "facts" mean? WHAT FACTS! http://www.worsleyschool.net/science/files/evolution/facts.html http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact Not that you will actually look at any of these . . . |
|
|
|
|
Previous
