100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Throw down - part 2 | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
So you are serious? That is your rebuttal to our arguments? Your belief is based on faith alone? Fine, have it your way I guess. I do not rely on faith exclusively. I want answers. Real answers. So do many others on forum. And if according to you, god is this real nice guy who created all of us, he would not feel threatened by any of us humans throwing a couple questions his way correct? Ok...so you choose to live in unbelief instead of the possibility of God's very divinity? Do you really understand what you are giving up? |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Krimsa
on
Mon 08/11/08 05:52 AM
|
|
You didn’t answer the question posed to you. Why would god have a problem with his humans (his own creations according to your faith) asking questions of his invented doctrines and scripture which he expects us to live by?
What I either choose to believe in or not believe in is not relevant to this conversation. You would have no way of knowing that. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Bushidobillyclub
on
Mon 08/11/08 05:54 AM
|
|
So you are serious? That is your rebuttal to our arguments? Your belief is based on faith alone? Fine, have it your way I guess. I do not rely on faith exclusively. I want answers. Real answers. So do many others on forum. And if according to you, god is this real nice guy who created all of us, he would not feel threatened by any of us humans throwing a couple questions his way correct? and one of those questions is why would a woman be unclean longer for having given birth to a female child then a male child? I think the whole unclean thing was answered, but forgive me not seeing the actually answer directed toward the difference between male and female birth changing the period of uncleanliness? Science shows us nothing is different in the cycle based on the gender of the baby. . . . So I await your faith based answer with bated breath . . . |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Krimsa
on
Mon 08/11/08 06:45 AM
|
|
I’m not sure they even answered the "unclean" part unless I missed it. I know they basically just tried to do a whole lot of minimizing and claiming it just had to do with her medical condition and to keep the men folk off her. Why not refer to it in those terms then instead of “unclean”? Alright, if that's their answer, fine. It kind of sounds like "it is what it is and just go along with it." There is another passage where they refer to an animal as unclean. An animal! That’s not very nice. Either way, it's quite hostile in tone. It would be my suspicion that in biblical times, if you referred to ANYONE as unclean, you better have some muscle to back it up. Or at the very least come prepared to explain these assertions.
I guess their position is the word "unclean" can have all kinds of meanings in the scripture. Alright I am asking that you look at this particular instance in Leviticus 12 that the term "unclean" is used to describe a human woman who has recently given birth and explain that meaning. Also look at the context and what is being asked of her. I’m sure any of you who have read the bible from ear to ear, also understand that this anti-female stance or aversion only increases and becomes increasingly more apparent? Why would god be so nervous about the capability of a woman to give birth and create life? What did the Pagans believe prior to the advent of Christianity as it related to ALL female creatures on Earth? So what was Christianity in direct conflict with now? That's about as agenda driven as they come. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You didn’t answer the question posed to you. Why would god have a problem with his humans (his own creations according to your faith) asking questions of his invented doctrines and scripture which he expects us to live by? What I either choose to believe in or not believe in is not relevant to this conversation. You would have no way of knowing that. It's very relevent. Nuff said... I guess the answer is Yes. Have a nice day. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So you feel you need to know what my religious background is in order to further persecute? Good luck on that. Its personal and I am not telling you because you have been quite abusive on this thread. Not exactly a person I would want to share any personal information about myself with.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Still at it I see.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is a friendly reminder. Please read the Forum Rules at no time are members allowed to attack another member due to their opinion.
Please refrain yourselves from doing so this is only a friendly reminder if you can not have a debate in a civil manner then please by pass the Topic in hand and move on. This is the only friendly reminder within this thread that will be given. The next incident will either be a warning or possible suspension. There is no reason why Adults can not voice their opinions in a civil matter with out having to attack another. Pleas read the Forum Rules and abide by them. Thank You Site Mod Kristi |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There were other people on the earth when Adam and Eve were introduced to the breeding population. Have you ever heard of the wild mustang populations? They were ragged ugly horses until people introduced some fine breeding stallions to improve the current population. Now the wild mustangs are quite nice looking horses. That was the purpose of Adam and Eve. It was to upgrade the current primitive populations. (They were considered more like animals to the alien gods placing Adam and Eve with them.) But they were the humans that had been on the earth for a long time. They had no culture, and they lived in caves etc. The alien gods taught them how to farm, taught them about religion etc. Read all about this stuff in the Urantia book. It goes into a lot of detail about the genetic improvements they were introducing. Its interesting. JB Actually mustang which means feral were not derived from Iberian horses brought to Mexico and Florida and were Andalusian, Arabian and Barb ancestry. Some of these horses escaped or were stolen by Native Americans, and rapidly spread throughout western North America. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There were other people on the earth when Adam and Eve were introduced to the breeding population. Have you ever heard of the wild mustang populations? They were ragged ugly horses until people introduced some fine breeding stallions to improve the current population. Now the wild mustangs are quite nice looking horses. That was the purpose of Adam and Eve. It was to upgrade the current primitive populations. (They were considered more like animals to the alien gods placing Adam and Eve with them.) But they were the humans that had been on the earth for a long time. They had no culture, and they lived in caves etc. The alien gods taught them how to farm, taught them about religion etc. Read all about this stuff in the Urantia book. It goes into a lot of detail about the genetic improvements they were introducing. Its interesting. JB Actually mustang which means feral were not derived from Iberian horses brought to Mexico and Florida and were Andalusian, Arabian and Barb ancestry. Some of these horses escaped or were stolen by Native Americans, and rapidly spread throughout western North America. Well okay you little mustang cat. Not my point anyway. My point is that they introduced better looking stallions (Arabian) to the population to improve whatever was there. JB |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Besides Feral, everyone has a right to their own belief in creationism. I lean towards evolution and anthropogenesis. JB seems to be mixing it up a bit and even allows for some of your faith driven beliefs such as Adam and Eve to enter into the picture. She is giving you MUCH more leeway than I as I don’t accept that at all. I feel it was a symbolic story and interpretation made by men of the period.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I’m not sure they even answered the "unclean" part unless I missed it. I know they basically just tried to do a whole lot of minimizing and claiming it just had to do with her medical condition and to keep the men folk off her. Why not refer to it in those terms then instead of “unclean”? Alright, if that's their answer, fine. It kind of sounds like "it is what it is and just go along with it." There is another passage where they refer to an animal as unclean. An animal! That’s not very nice. Either way, it's quite hostile in tone. It would be my suspicion that in biblical times, if you referred to ANYONE as unclean, you better have some muscle to back it up. Or at the very least come prepared to explain these assertions. I guess their position is the word "unclean" can have all kinds of meanings in the scripture. Alright I am asking that you look at this particular instance in Leviticus 12 that the term "unclean" is used to describe a human woman who has recently given birth and explain that meaning. Also look at the context and what is being asked of her. I’m sure any of you who have read the bible from ear to ear, also understand that this anti-female stance or aversion only increases and becomes increasingly more apparent? Why would god be so nervous about the capability of a woman to give birth and create life? What did the Pagans believe prior to the advent of Christianity as it related to ALL female creatures on Earth? So what was Christianity in direct conflict with now? That's about as agenda driven as they come. I guess 4 times answering this same question is just not good enough...Maybe you should just answer it the way you see fit.... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There were other people on the earth when Adam and Eve were introduced to the breeding population. Have you ever heard of the wild mustang populations? They were ragged ugly horses until people introduced some fine breeding stallions to improve the current population. Now the wild mustangs are quite nice looking horses. That was the purpose of Adam and Eve. It was to upgrade the current primitive populations. (They were considered more like animals to the alien gods placing Adam and Eve with them.) But they were the humans that had been on the earth for a long time. They had no culture, and they lived in caves etc. The alien gods taught them how to farm, taught them about religion etc. Read all about this stuff in the Urantia book. It goes into a lot of detail about the genetic improvements they were introducing. Its interesting. JB Actually mustang which means feral were not derived from Iberian horses brought to Mexico and Florida and were Andalusian, Arabian and Barb ancestry. Some of these horses escaped or were stolen by Native Americans, and rapidly spread throughout western North America. Well okay you little mustang cat. Not my point anyway. My point is that they introduced better looking stallions (Arabian) to the population to improve whatever was there. JB Just wanted to give you the right info.....And especially since I do work to adopt out these beautiful creatures..... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Besides Feral, everyone has a right to their own belief in creationism. I lean towards evolution and anthropogenesis. JB seems to be mixing it up a bit and even allows for some of your faith driven beliefs such as Adam and Eve to enter into the picture. She is giving you MUCH more leeway than I as I don’t accept that at all. I feel it was a symbolic story and interpretation made by men of the period. and hmmmmm this is supposed to surprise me.....not in the least.....But no matter what you may think....I did not fall from a floosom of nothingness into the water, turning into a tadpole, frog, crawled out, turned into a monkey, then an ape and then me.....no sir re Bob..... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I’m not sure they even answered the "unclean" part unless I missed it. I know they basically just tried to do a whole lot of minimizing and claiming it just had to do with her medical condition and to keep the men folk off her. Why not refer to it in those terms then instead of “unclean”? Alright, if that's their answer, fine. It kind of sounds like "it is what it is and just go along with it." There is another passage where they refer to an animal as unclean. An animal! That’s not very nice. Either way, it's quite hostile in tone. It would be my suspicion that in biblical times, if you referred to ANYONE as unclean, you better have some muscle to back it up. Or at the very least come prepared to explain these assertions. I guess their position is the word "unclean" can have all kinds of meanings in the scripture. Alright I am asking that you look at this particular instance in Leviticus 12 that the term "unclean" is used to describe a human woman who has recently given birth and explain that meaning. Also look at the context and what is being asked of her. I’m sure any of you who have read the bible from ear to ear, also understand that this anti-female stance or aversion only increases and becomes increasingly more apparent? Why would god be so nervous about the capability of a woman to give birth and create life? What did the Pagans believe prior to the advent of Christianity as it related to ALL female creatures on Earth? So what was Christianity in direct conflict with now? That's about as agenda driven as they come. I guess 4 times answering this same question is just not good enough...Maybe you should just answer it the way you see fit.... No, try just one time. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Krimsa
on
Mon 08/11/08 08:29 AM
|
|
Besides Feral, everyone has a right to their own belief in creationism. I lean towards evolution and anthropogenesis. JB seems to be mixing it up a bit and even allows for some of your faith driven beliefs such as Adam and Eve to enter into the picture. She is giving you MUCH more leeway than I as I don’t accept that at all. I feel it was a symbolic story and interpretation made by men of the period. and hmmmmm this is supposed to surprise me.....not in the least.....But no matter what you may think....I did not fall from a floosom of nothingness into the water, turning into a tadpole, frog, crawled out, turned into a monkey, then an ape and then me.....no sir re Bob..... No, it’s not intended to surprise you. You are well aware of my take on how man came to exist as Homo sapien on earth now. It’s not even my take. It’s a scientific interpretation of how this might have occurred. I just happen to buy into it. We did NOT evolve from apes. Where would the great apes be today if this was the case? The term "human", in the context of human evolution, refers to the genus Homo, but studies of human evolution usually include other hominins, such as the australopithecines. The Homo genus diverged from the australopithecines about 2 million years ago in Africa. Several typological species of Homo, now extinct, evolved. These include Homo erectus, which inhabited Asia, and Homo neanderthalensis, which inhabited Europe. Think of it in this way if it helps. There was a tree, with large branches reaching outwards. Apes and monkey were on one branch and so were what would become Homo sapiens. This branch extended outward and the species shared their genetic make up for a period of time until one diverged. This would continue on another branch from the same trunk. The great apes would also continue down their own branch. I don’t know if that makes sense but its one way to help people understand the concept a little better with kind of a creative visualization if you prefer. This is also supported by genetic factors in modern day chimpanzees and humans. There is a high degree of genetic similarity between humans and chimpanzees. Presumably, the 95-99% overlap of DNA sequences indicates that humans and chimpanzees arose from a common ancestor in the relatively recent past (about 6 million years ago). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Mon 08/11/08 08:30 AM
|
|
Even according to the Urantia book primitive man evolved from Lemurs, not apes. Adam and Eve were placed here by an advanced society (Specific creator gods according to Urantia) -to upgrade the human population according to the urantia book.
The Urantia book is the new "Bible" I think. It is a very detailed story about the creation, Christ Michael,(Jesus) etc. There are many new followers of Jesus who have left the Bible and are using the Uranita book as their holy book. I kid you not. I think the Urantia book is meant to replace the Bible and meant to be the new one world religion of the future. I don't know if the plan will work, but that is my guess as to why it was written. It was supposedly written by an other worldly being. I have met some Urantia Christians and they are very true to their faith. Of course you know my take on it. It is the founding of another myth based religion. Well written, very convincing, but still myth based. The Urantia book's agenda is a new religion geared to the worship of Jesus and the Father Creator but it goes into incredible details. JB |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Judge Dread judges again
One win for everyone who has posted in this throw down forum! 
So now everyone is tied except Abra who now has 2 wins!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is also supported by genetic factors in modern day chimpanzees and humans. There is a high degree of genetic similarity between humans and chimpanzees. Presumably, the 95-99% overlap of DNA sequences indicates that humans and chimpanzees arose from a common ancestor in the relatively recent past (about 6 million years ago).
This explains why my neighbor has a unibrow and keeps throwing his feces at me when I look over the fence.I'm checking for a tail next time I see him. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
and a watermelon and the human body are 98% water. hhmm..... 
|
|
|
|
|
