|
So, evolution or creationism - the poll (pg. 4)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| trancepixie17 |
| ** Okkk....that's pretty much what I had stated....besides it's all hot air... |
|
|
| Heinz |
nic01445, u didnt get the message. literally, i believe god said the words, and it happened. but there was more than that, that u did not realize. because he can simply say the words, this symbolically demonstrates his power. humans cannot possibly fathom his glory, his power, his majesty, his greatness. and it shows right here in this debate.
----------------
i see where your coming from on this diginut. scientists use their text books, and continue to research new things. christians have their text book. it hasa already told us everything we need to know to become righteous people, good people devoted to god. and in the end, we are rewarded with eternal life by his side in paradise. have u heard the story of jesus on the cross, while he was dying in agony, how he still managed to witness to a theif being crucified right next to him....
Luke 23:
39One of the criminals who hung there hurled insults at him: "Aren't you the Christ? Save yourself and us!"
40But the other criminal rebuked him. "Don't you fear God," he said, "since you are under the same sentence? 41We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong."
42Then he said, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.[6] "
43Jesus answered him, "I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise."
----------------------------
one day, u will see. i hope to look into your face on that day. the expression will be that of terror. i imagine the day i lay my eyes on god himself/jesus. i cant imagine my reaction. :happy2: :happy2: |
|
|
| Heinz |
| quote: | Originally posted by trancepixie17
** I know I'm going to get flammed on really bad now, but first amendment states that we have the freedom os speech. I understand that you don't care about what Heinz says, but the constituion states that ( which i assume you know.) Also, talking about religion and government, is really something you don't do in public because, there is no right or wrong answer....it's just perspectives, thoughts, comments, bias, etc.... |
O.M.G.......i cant believe u just posted that...first ammendment?? nic01445 stated well. nobody is stopping me from posting, and im not stopping anyone else...who's breaking the 1st amendment??
IM GOING TO HAVE A FIELD DAY WITH YOU TOMORROW !!!! |
|
|
| trancepixie17 |
| ** I need tissues Heinz! that was the most beautiful message I have ever heard!...:haha: You are right. Everyone can imagine, but you dn't know for sure. Everyone is equal in the kingdom of God...(he's the king) |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by trancepixie17
** I know I'm going to get flammed on really bad now, but first amendment states that we have the freedom os speech. I understand that you don't care about what Heinz says, but the constituion states that ( which i assume you know.) Also, talking about religion and government, is really something you don't do in public because, there is no right or wrong answer....it's just perspectives, thoughts, comments, bias, etc.... |
Actually it's funny that you bring up the constitution (which isn't too meaningful in a private debate anyway, but let's assume it is), because what I'm basing my recommendation on is actually a well-established legal principle: judicial notice.
When a person is relied upon for expert testimony, his testimony may be refused if the person calling him as a witness cannot prove that he is in fact an expert witness. When it is not a human being but a physical source, like a technology or in this case, a book, it must receive judicial notice before it can actually be used as evidence. Many of the early radar/lidar cases got dismissed because the technology hadn't received judicial notice - it's the same principle here - even if the source is completely reliable and valid, it's inadmissable as evidence unless the presenter of it can prove that it is reliable and valid, i.e. explain where it came from or how it works.
Of course this isn't a court trial, but neither does the "freedom of speech" apply to a discussion among private citizens. Personally, I think North Americans need to start being properly educated on the constitution in order to understand that it does not govern private enterprise. Far too many people seem to think their "rights" extend to their own personal dealings, as in the case of getting refused admission to a club because of their age or their clothes, or in the case of being told to shut up when they have "freedom of speech", or in the case of being aggressively hit on when they have the right not to be "sexually harassed." Sorry folks, the constitution can't help you here - it only applies to federal or state laws that violate the constitutional amendments.
Heinz, it's unbelievable and almost insulting that you'd compare the bible to a science textbook. As far as I'm concerned, the issue isn't even worth discussing. You keep rocking on with your bible thumping, but I think from now on I'm just going to ignore those posts. |
|
|
| nic01445 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Heinz
nic01445, u didnt get the message. literally, i believe god said the words, and it happened. but there was more than that, that u did not realize. because he can simply say the words, this symbolically demonstrates his power.
|
You still havent answered my question. You told me the symbolic ideas behind God speaking and then things happening, but never answered literally WHY God was talking to himself in the first place. |
|
|
| Heinz |
| quote: | Originally posted by nic01445
You still havent answered my question. You told me the symbolic ideas behind God speaking and then things happening, but never answered literally WHY God was talking to himself in the first place. |
tell me, how do u express a command?? if your commanding something, dont u need to speak to command?? |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by Heinz
occrider, how are those passages contradictions. they are not. this is old testament law. where people were put to death for sins. u know why?? because jesus had not died on the cross. that is why there was many jewish laws that held execution as punishment for a sin. after jesus came, this law of moses the jews held, of execution for sin, very soon began to die out, and is nonexistant today.
but again, show me the contradictions...
---------------
|
Hrrmmmmmmm. So now that the new testament says that killing is wrong, and that jesus died on the cross so we wouldn't have to die for our sins, we can start ignoring parts of the old testament that no longer "apply"? That sounds vaguely familiar for some reason.
But, If that's the case, why does the new testament not specifically say that the old testament is now invalid? As a matter of fact, Jesus specifically "said" otherwise, "Do not imagine that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I have come not to abolish them, but to complete them." (Matthew 5:17)
"if you do wrong, then you may well be afraid; because it is not for nothing that the symbol of authority is the sword: it is there to serve God, too, as his avenger, to bring retribution to wrongdoers." (Romans 13:4)
Luke 19:27, “Christ pronounced this judgement on those who rebelled against their king: ‘But these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here, and slay them in my presence’(NASB).
15:1 Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying,
15:2 Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.
15:3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?
15:4 For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.
(Matthew 15:1-9).
Sounds to me like the death penalty is alive and well.
/Why the hell am I even quoting the bible? Man I feel like an idiot using it as a source. |
|
|
| nic01445 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Heinz
tell me, how do u express a command?? if your commanding something, dont u need to speak to command?? |
My problem is who is he talking to? He is all by himself, and one day decides to create the universe. Why does he need to give a verbal command.
anyway, why are we arguing about this? |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by nic01445
My problem is who is he talking to? He is all by himself, and one day decides to create the universe. Why does he need to give a verbal command.
anyway, why are we arguing about this? |
I guess it's kinda like when I burp or fart, I always say, "excuse me", even when I'm by myself.
Cosmic habit. Cosmic manners. God has 'em both. |
|
|
| DrUg_Tit0 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Heinz
one day, u will see. i hope to look into your face on that day. the expression will be that of terror. i imagine the day i lay my eyes on god himself/jesus. i cant imagine my reaction. :happy2: :happy2: |
You know, believing in the bible only because you are afraid of the punishment if you do the opposite, and hoping that you will one day be able to mock and laugh to people who might have infact done more good deeds than you have but do not share your faith, will not get you in heaven. So, if the christian god and the afterlife exist in the way they are described in the bible, the expression on your face will be pretty much the same as it will be on our faces. :rolleyes: |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Heinz
nic01445, u didnt get the message. literally, i believe god said the words, and it happened. but there was more than that, that u did not realize. because he can simply say the words, this symbolically demonstrates his power. humans cannot possibly fathom his glory, his power, his majesty, his greatness. and it shows right here in this debate.
---------------- |
What's wrong with trying to fathom?
And furthermore, if God literally said these words, why does he continue to say them through man, and then man has to write them down? Couldn't God have done a better job giving his message with like, say, and earth-orbiting indestructible tablet of rules? Wouldn't that have been more appropriate from an all-knowing, all-powerful, glorious, majestic, great God? Why does an all-knowing, all-powerful, glorious, majestic, great God need to continue talking through a messenger (man writing stuff down in a book)?
Honestly, that really doesn't sound too much like an all-knowing, all-powerful, glorious, majestic, great God to me. I mean, Zeus did a much better job than that, didn't he?
| quote: | i see where your coming from on this diginut. scientists use their text books, and continue to research new things. christians have their text book. it hasa already told us everything we need to know to become righteous people, good people devoted to god. and in the end, we are rewarded with eternal life by his side in paradise. have u heard the story of jesus on the cross, while he was dying in agony, how he still managed to witness to a theif being crucified right next to him....
Luke 23:
39One of the criminals who hung there hurled insults at him: "Aren't you the Christ? Save yourself and us!"
40But the other criminal rebuked him. "Don't you fear God," he said, "since you are under the same sentence? 41We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong."
42Then he said, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.[6] "
43Jesus answered him, "I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise."
---------------------------- |
Jesus tells the "good thief" that they will both be in heaven "today." But how can that be since it's only Friday and, according to the gospels, Jesus lay dead in the tomb Friday night and all day Saturday?
Additionally, you pulled the version where only 1 thief will go to Heaven, while the other thief reviled Jesus. This is not what Mark.15:32 says: "And they that were crucified with him reviled him.", nor what Matthew.27:44 says:
"The thieves also, which were crucified with him, cast the same in his teeth." Both of these stories say the 2 thieves rejected Jesus. So which is it Heinz? Why did God have 2 different stories?
Furthermore, why did God not even mention this part of the story in John? Why the different accounts and omission? If this was truly written by God (through man, of course), shouldn't God have done a better job with accounting such events?
| quote: | | one day, u will see. i hope to look into your face on that day. the expression will be that of terror. i imagine the day i lay my eyes on god himself/jesus. i cant imagine my reaction. :happy2: :happy2: |
Ever heard of Pascal's Wager? You just fitted the description:
http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/wager.html |
|
|
|
|
