“When I’m preaching the gospel, I don’t like to waste time debating people or getting sidetracked by minor issues.” – Ray Comfort
Yeah those pesky minor issues, facts and science they get right on my thrupenny bits too. Or is he referring to those issues the church has with minors they don't like to talk about? ;-)
> Or is he referring to those issues the church has with minors they don't like to > talk about? ;-)
Make generalizing sweeping statements much? How about this 'all atheists like to pick fights'? Oh wait ';-)' see its funny that way. In fact you yourself have come on this board *MANY* times doing this exact thing. You are being an atheist troll. You probably will get a few who cheer you on about it as it is 'funny'. I have ignored it for 3 years as I usually do not feed the trolls. But today you caught me in a 'mood'.
Maybe instead of making fun of him you could take the time to actually listen to what they are saying. You may get something out of it. I *DARE* you to buy that book and read the whole thing instead of ridiculing it.
Let me ask you two questions. What if you are wrong about what you believe? Why does it bug you that some people want to hold themselves to higher standards?
> “When I’m preaching the gospel, I don’t like to waste time debating people or getting sidetracked by minor issues.” – Ray Comfort
You missed his point and assumed what he was talking about.
From day 1 he has been a troll. Ridiculizing anyone who doesn't think the same as him. Just because he puts cool links too doesn't make him less of a troll.
Wound up, can't sleep, can't do anything right, little honey / Oh, since I set my eyes on you. / I tell you the truth. I can't get it right / Get it right / Since I met you...
Quote: I *DARE* you to buy that book and read the whole thing instead of ridiculing it.
I'd actually like to get it just to see what it is they're presenting as "evidence." But I wouldn't pay for it...Why can't people see that this is just business for them? Ray and Kirk are selling a book. They want to make money from it.
How can Ray Comfort say that he doesn't like to waste time debating, yet try to push a book that tries to do just that?....To give you ammo in a debate with non-believers.
> How can Ray Comfort say that he doesn't like to waste time debating, yet try to push > a book that tries to do just that?....To give you ammo in a debate with > non-believers.
There really wouldn't be much point in debating since those that already have their mind made up will be less likely to have an open heart and mind to the Gospel. Although, planting a seed of faith never hurts.
But what about those that have genuine questions about God, or questions about salvation (being free from sin and the condemnation of their sins/transgressions)? Or just taking responsibility for what is to come when their life is over? If this helps a Christian to reach out to people... or souls that are hungry to know and understand God - then I'm sure they (Christians) wouldn't care if Ray and Kirk are out to make money.
Watch the video again....they're not concerned about planting a seed of faith in anyone. The book's purpose is to give the reader points to debate atheists or people of other faith.
I sure hope for their sake that the evidence they found is better evidence than Ray's banana argument.
> Watch the video again....they're not concerned about planting a seed of faith in > anyone. The book's purpose is to give the reader points to debate atheists or people > of other faith.
I claim Zeus phallacy.
Wound up, can't sleep, can't do anything right, little honey / Oh, since I set my eyes on you. / I tell you the truth. I can't get it right / Get it right / Since I met you...
> Watch the video again....they're not concerned about planting a seed of faith in > anyone. The book's purpose is to give the reader points to debate atheists or people > of other faith. > > I sure hope for their sake that the evidence they found is better evidence than Ray's > banana argument.
As a person of faith, those two are an embarrassment. They worship at the altar of Tim Lahaye, who is basically is to the Bible what Dan Brown is to history.
> As a person of faith, those two are an embarrassment. They worship at the altar of > Tim Lahaye, who is basically is to the Bible what Dan Brown is to history.
LMAO
Great comparison.
I'm not a person of faith or whatever you call it, but I have my respect for others' beliefs as long as they dont' come up with bullshit to try to prove me wrong or stuff like that. I don't go around telling my friends to stop believing in whatever they do believe.
Wound up, can't sleep, can't do anything right, little honey / Oh, since I set my eyes on you. / I tell you the truth. I can't get it right / Get it right / Since I met you...
Same here, although I have sometimes been a bit over zealous, including in the Bin.
The thing I hate about Ray and Kirk's methods though is how they basically laugh at science and man's efforts to find out why things are they way they are. If you say anything other than "God did it" even when proven wrong (like in the banana argument) then you're wrong, and a lost cause.
Also at every opportunity they're pushing books and movies. They're just salesmen, and God is their product. Whenever they're pressed in debates, they'll just sit there with a smirk on their faces and then back out, only to come out with another youtube video later explaining that their opponents took things "out of context" or that they were trying to slip them up.
They're selling Jesus again They want your soul And your money Your blood And your votes They're selling Jesus again Selling love to you Selling love
Wound up, can't sleep, can't do anything right, little honey / Oh, since I set my eyes on you. / I tell you the truth. I can't get it right / Get it right / Since I met you...
> Same here, although I have sometimes been a bit over zealous, including in the Bin. > > The thing I hate about Ray and Kirk's methods though is how they basically laugh at > science and man's efforts to find out why things are they way they are. If you say > anything other than "God did it" even when proven wrong (like in the banana argument) > then you're wrong, and a lost cause. > > Also at every opportunity they're pushing books and movies. They're just salesmen, > and God is their product. Whenever they're pressed in debates, they'll just sit there > with a smirk on their faces and then back out, only to come out with another youtube > video later explaining that their opponents took things "out of context" or that they > were trying to slip them up.
Stuff like that kills me. The commercialization of deities is creating a slow disdain for religion that isn't likely to turn around any time soon. I attended a church service for the first time in probably 10 years last Sunday. Seven minutes into the service they dimmed the lights, fired up a projector, and played 5 minutes of commercials. They lost me at that point, and if I wasn't obligated to be there I probably would have left.
I can't consider myself very religious at all anymore. I was Baptized Catholic, raised Lutheran, and attended a religious school up to high school. I'm very open to spiritual ideals, but more inclined to side with scientific theory/fact. I appreciate the morals a Christian upbringing has given me. I apply them to every aspect of my life. "Selling Jesus" just seems wrong in every possible way. It kills me that the same people who have recited the ten commandments since childhood are most likely their best customers. They are buying the message, but completely missing the point.
> > > You are being an atheist troll. > > > > From day 1 he has been a troll. > > I remember it well. The chart of more deaths due to God or the Bible or some junk. > Jopezu replied asking him for proof.
Well remembered, my personal favourite was "The World Without Us Thread" that baby went on and on much like us Atheists.
Actually that chart was the first thing I found after creating a new profile when I killed my last one due to "Plategate".
The religious stuff I post I just think is bloody stupid or annoys me to the point of thinking "lets see what the God squad think of this" And if that makes me a troll then don't come trip trapping over my bridge!
>I *DARE* you to buy that book and read the whole thing instead of ridiculing it.
Not debating the validity of the Bible itself or not... but just to focus on the New King James version... or any "translated" version for that matter.
And it is just that... a VERSION. Meaning it's not the original. Meaning some 'meaning' neccessarily is not exactly as the original, and the translator gets the option of editorializing the translation... which is why there are multiple translations... because they are not all the same and someone decided they wanted a different translation... or they decided they could make some money selling a new one... or whatever. It's not like computer code, where there is only one way to translate a character from ascii into hex.
So, then, do you put your faith in the translator... in this case, originally, King James, who wanted his own translation to meet his own agenda? Or do you put your faith in the original authors of the scriptures that comprise what we call the Bible? If your faith resides in the original scriptures, why are you not studing those as the basis of your faith? Or have you not thought about what comprises your authoritative text on your beliefs before?
Personally, if I were to belive in the scriptures, I would want to spend my scholarly time understanding the original works, not some "translators" opinion of those works... and there is lots of opinion in those translations. I've studies the Bible on a thesis level, including various translations, and the political climates those various translations were created to support, and the differences between versions of the Bible are not subtle... they are faith changing... wars were fought, governments were overthrown, and territories redrawn over which versions of the Bible to follow... which in theory should all be the same, if there is truely ONE definitive authoritative text of the faith, right?
As is is, even the original scriptures went through an editorial process, since someone had to decide which scriptures would be included, and which would be excluded, so perhaps even the Bible itself is missing important works. For example, where are the writings of Mary? She was, after all, only the Mother of Jesus. Well, she was a woman, so anything she had to say was deemed irrelevant, and so her writings were excluded. Maybe to truely understand your faith's origins, you need to find and read all the unincluded stuff too, to understand why it was excluded... was it wrong, was it misguided, did it conflict with a man's personal agenda unrelated to his relationship to God... man is falliable, is he not?
At the end of the day, every single parchment of paper in the Bible, rather included, excluded, translated or original, was penned by a human being. Theologists will counter pointing out that the will of God was there to guide those humans in the writing of ther Bible to ensure its accuracy. Literally, then, that means that it was the will of God to have conflicting versions over which his children will kill each other over trying to decide whose is best.
> > So, then, do you put your faith in the translator... in this case, originally, King > James, who wanted his own translation to meet his own agenda? Or do you put your > faith in the original authors of the scriptures that comprise what we call the Bible? > If your faith resides in the original scriptures, why are you not studing those as > the basis of your faith? Or have you not thought about what comprises your > authoritative text on your beliefs before? > >
Actually you should study on how King James did have it translated. It's actually a very good history lesson. He actually tried to have it translated to the greatest drgree of accuracy. No one was allowed to add anything to it. Not the board who over seen it, nor the translators etc. etc. its also interesting how he had everone double check triple checked etc. again read it's history it's quite amazing at the way he went about trying to keep it as true to the original scrolls as was humanly possible.
Also read the history of how the king james version lives up to the comparison to the dead sea scrolls. again a good history lesson...
> > > > So, then, do you put your faith in the translator... in this case, originally, King > > James, who wanted his own translation to meet his own agenda? Or do you put your > > faith in the original authors of the scriptures that comprise what we call the > Bible? > > If your faith resides in the original scriptures, why are you not studing those as > > the basis of your faith? Or have you not thought about what comprises your > > authoritative text on your beliefs before? > > > > > > Actually you should study on how King James did have it translated. > It's actually a very good history lesson. He actually tried to have > it translated to the greatest drgree of accuracy. No one was allowed > to add anything to it. Not the board who over seen it, nor the translators > etc. etc. its also interesting how he had everone double check triple checked > etc. again read it's history it's quite amazing at the way he went about > trying to keep it as true to the original scrolls as was humanly possible. > > Also read the history of how the king james version lives up to the comparison > to the dead sea scrolls. again a good history lesson...
I don't want to argue your point, so much as guide you in your critical analysis of it... but ask yourself this... history says how accurately he tried to translate the scriptures. And who recorded that history, which praises its efforts at accuracy? That would be King James' own historians, of course. Not all Christians agreed with its accuracy, and thus yet one more example of wars and bloodshed over who gets it right...
Quote: William Tyndale, the Roman Catholic priest who translated the Bible from Greek and Hebrew, lived and worked on the English Bible in exile in Antwerp, Marburg, and Worms for the last 12 years of his life. He was branded a heretic, strangled and burned at the stake near Brussels.
The four-hundred year old King James Bible that we use today is essentially the Tyndale translation, which is the basis for about 85 percent of the King James Version of 1611.
By saying something is flawed, or in this case - I'll presume you're implying there is a large difference between certain versions - that they essentially contradict each other...?
Is this what you're implying? (any examples?)
Or would it be that, although there may be technical differences in translation of texts, where one verse of scripture would say one thing in one version, while in another version -using the same verse- it says the same thing, just a different way?
As in; not to say something different, but to reinforce an idea.
What about Christians in other countries where expressing one's faith isn't as freely accepted/tolerated as it is here in America? Take China, Africa, or various places in the Middle East - where... (not going to make this an emotional matter and just say) terrible things happen, even if you're found carrying a Bible, let alone having a congregation 'busted'. They may not have as great a knowledge or resources to the Word, but their Love and hunger for it is... well... most likely greater than most of us (Christians) here in America. Does that make them any less of a worthy Christian?
The point is; God sees the heart and is the only worthy to judge someone, regardless of what version/"translation" they've had access to God had made available to them.
eta: Regarding differences in versions. Not everyone can read Greek, ancient Hebrew, or whatever. So a translation is needed. The questions are!... Which translation is closest to the original texts? Which adds/changes, and which takes away? What are the purposes of having done so? Is it lessen confusion, or is it to misdirect from it's intended meaning?
Conclusion. Personally, I'd stick with the (translated) version that has been around the longest. Assuming that other versions are variations of the KJV. So....
They actually have something that is pretty well thought out. However, you can save a few bucks it is all up on their website. They have 1 method and drive it home.
The evidence bible is basically an annotated KJV with Ray's thoughts on different things. The forward and outros are the stuff off his website fleshed out a bit more. The other books are very similar. The movies they have are fairly hit or miss. They all usually have a decent message and one worth incorporating into your life. But the acting can be well lets just call B quality in many cases.
You have to give them props though they try to witness to everyone. Most Christians cant do that very well. I know I cant but that is just my anxiety getting in the way. I read their stuff as a way to help me do better in life.
I admit I let DR get to me today (said I was in a mood ). My question is still open to him why does he feel the need to troll? I am not looking for 'oh its fun', I get that. As fun is one or two posts and that is the end of it. This is a repeated thing. I truly want to understand why he feels the need to do this several times a month. I have some pretty good guesses and lets say most of them remind me of people I went to high school with, and remind me of a child who has found a 'funny' joke.
Or maybe I am just becoming an intolerant old bastard.
> is a large difference between certain versions - that they essentially contradict each other...? > > Is this what you're implying? (any examples?)
Yes, there are massive glaring examples where a single word translated or interpreted changed the entire course of Christianity.
Just one for discussion: In translating Hebrew to English...
In English versions of the Bible, it says that a virgin will bear a son (for example Isaiah 7:14). In the original scripture, however, the word used to describe Mary was "almah". According to the Strong's Concordance it means, "young woman 1a) of marriageable age 1b) maid or newly married." Therefore, the word "almah" does not always mean virgin. Additionally, there is a specific Hebrew word for virgin "bethulah". If the scriptures were meant to mean specifically virgin instead of young maiden, then why wasn't the word "bethulah" used here? The church declared her a virgin at the Counsel of Trent in 1545 AD because that would avoid any question that Mary was free from Original Sin, immaculate, as was Jesus clean of this sin. But for more than 1000 years Christianity merely accepted her as a young woman. Modern Christianity takes without question that Mary was a virgin, in part because those Christians that refused to accept this inturpretation after the Counsel of Trent were systematically persecuted as heretics and executed into extinction. When the Bible was translated into English, by choice, this ambiguity was dealt away with by choosing the word "virgin" over the closer more accurate translation of "maiden."
The genocide of Christians who refused to accept this translation is yet another example of bloodshed over interpretation and translation.
> In English versions of the Bible, it says that a virgin will bear a son (for example > Isaiah 7:14). In the original scripture, however, the word used to describe Mary was > "almah". According to the Strong's Concordance it means, "young woman 1a) of > marriageable age 1b) maid or newly married." Therefore, the word "almah" does not > always mean virgin. Additionally, there is a specific Hebrew word for virgin > "bethulah". If the scriptures were meant to mean specifically virgin instead of young > maiden, then why wasn't the word "bethulah" used here?
The "virgin" mistranslation thing got propagated further in the gospels in the new testament. By the time they were written, people had pretty much bought into the whole virgin birth myth.
I'll take your word for it... only as long as we're focusing on just one 'word'. But what about the explanations and other verses? Those should put the word 'virgin' in context. Right? Like where it says that she knew no man (was single). Or where it plainly says that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit...?
& Why, if Mary were NOT a virgin, would she risk getting caught and punished for such a transgression - e.g. "being with a man" before she was married to him (or whoever she might've "been with" before Joseph)?
eta: Perhaps the original text was assuming she would be thought of as a virgin - and making the distinction would've been pointless...? Eh?
does it say those things in the ORIGINAL texts? Who wrote the texts? And in what year?
I'm convinced that it's a story and not accurate at all, even in the so called 'original' texts.
I have nothing against religion. I was brought up in the Catholic faith and wholeheartedly agree that it's a good way to be brought up. You learn what is right and what is wrong. I wish everyone would learn, understand, and follow that philosophy and lifestyle.
But in the end, if you truly believe in the story in and of its self, word for word, you're just being gullible.
> and again.. accuracy? Then why the need for a "new version"? The damn thing is a > contradiction of itself. So sad...
Irony here is devote religious deny science because it isn't reliable as changes constantly through time.
I don't trust historians anymore, when a child I was made to believe everything written on books was a fact. It still surprises me everything to ancient historians should be related to deities and work. Apparently no one from the past had imagination or time to create stories/games for entertainment or pass time.
I bet if we suddenly disappear and a new intelligent life form encounters our destroyed PCs, the first thing it will come them to mind is they're ornaments for an altar.
> I admit I let DR get to me today (said I was in a mood ). My question is still open > to him why does he feel the need to troll? I am not looking for 'oh its fun', I get > that. As fun is one or two posts and that is the end of it. This is a repeated thing. > I truly want to understand why he feels the need to do this several times a month. I > have some pretty good guesses and lets say most of them remind me of people I went to > high school with, and remind me of a child who has found a 'funny' joke. > > Or maybe I am just becoming an intolerant old bastard.
Call me troll if you like but if that was my motivation I can assure you there is a lot more stuff I could post to wind you up almost every minute of every day. I just post the REALLY stupid and funny stuff or stuff I find offensive as an Atheist and I couldn't give a toss if it offends you or not. I don't care if it takes the piss out of religion as I don't believe religion or religious people should be given any special treatment.
Theologians, priests etc. commenting on moral issues are a joke. We don't need religion for moral guidance. Their comments on creation and evolution are just plain wrong and seriously damaging to the education of children.
The human race does not need religion in any shape or form. Religion has done nothing for us but pile on misery and oppression by the bucket load. I know some people find it comforting but so what? some people find Heroin comforting.
If you want to believe in some sort of deity with power and control over your life who "zapped" the Earth into being then "zapped" all the animals into being then go ahead just don't be surprised when other people think your delusional.
I'm sick of religion trying to hide the real world from him people, we should be encouraged to try and understand the universe and not be satisfied by those who seek to hide its true beauty and the thrill of knowing the time we have in which to understand and enjoy it is limited and precious.
If you want to post funny or stupid things about Atheists and science be my guest, this was a forum for posting what the fuck you like last time I looked.
>Those should put the word 'virgin' in context. Right? Like where it says that she knew no man (was single). Or where it plainly says that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit...?
Good questions Tom. The concept of Mary having conceived by the holy spirit wasn't solidified as dogma until The Immaculate Conception was solemnly defined as a dogma by Pope Pius IX in his constitution Ineffabilis Deus on 8 December 1854... almost 2000 years after Jesus.
In the original scriptures, Mary is described as having been visited by the Angel Gabriel, and that Mary was "achrantos" or "spotless"... but never defines what it means to be spotless. This created a rift in the church beginning about 1009 AD, where some factions felt that she must have been a virgin and therefore conceived with God, while others pointed out no such evidence exists in the scriptures, which Pope Pius IX was hoping to end once and for all...
"We declare, pronounce and define that the doctrine which holds that the Blessed Virgin Mary, at the first instant of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace of the Omnipotent God, in virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of mankind, was preserved immaculate from all stain of original sin, has been revealed by God, and therefore should firmly and constantly be believed by all the faithful." —Pope Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus, December 8, 1854
From the Original Catholic Encyclopedia:
Quote: No direct or categorical and stringent proof of the dogma can be brought forward from Scripture. ... The Proto-evangelium [Genesis 3:15], therefore, in the original text contains a direct promise of the Redeemer, and... The salutation of the angel Gabriel — chaire kecharitomene, Hail, full of grace...finds its explanation only in the Immaculate Conception of Mary. But the term kecharitomene (full of grace) serves only as an illustration, not as a proof of the dogma.
The proof of the dogma is that a Pope is defined as infallible, and therefore the Pope's word is canon law. The scriptures never said Mary was a virgin, or that Jesus was conceived of the Holy Spirit, a Pope did.
Quote: If you want to believe in some sort of deity with power and control over your life who "zapped" the Earth into being then "zapped" all the animals into being then go ahead just don't be surprised when other people think your delusional.
God could zap everything he wanted into existence...but needed a rib to create a woman.
> Theologians, priests etc. commenting on moral issues are a joke. We don't need > religion for moral guidance. Their comments on creation and evolution are just plain > wrong and seriously damaging to the education of children. >
What about someone that has done things they now regret and are merely passing along sage advice to others that might be following the same path they took, like saying; "Don't do ______ because it will come back to bite you in the end."
They can be listened to (right?), but when you get around to it - the Theologians, Priests, Pastors, Preachers, etc. are saying the same thing. "Don't do ______." But since they believe in a "fairy tale" that makes everything else they say illegitimate...?
And how does having a different view on (what can only be) origins of life or the universe harm anyone? Thinking things came about from nothing with no cause or reason isn't any more ridiculous than an infinite eternal being making stuff just by speaking it into existence.
> The human race does not need religion in any shape or form. Religion has done nothing > for us but pile on misery and oppression by the bucket load. I know some people find > it comforting but so what? some people find Heroin comforting. >
Try telling that to the person that has been set free from destructive/sinful lifestyle choices. They will tell it could only have been God that set them free, even after trying for many years.
Or, on the flip side of the coin (something I can attest to) the things having a religion can keep people from... and having the moral judgement or standards to not do things that could be the biggest mistake/s of their lives.
> I'm sick of religion trying to hide the real world from him people, we should be > encouraged to try and understand the universe and not be satisfied by those who seek > to hide its true beauty and the thrill of knowing the time we have in which to > understand and enjoy it is limited and precious. >
I don't know where you're getting that from. But... Take ID. All things in nature or in the universe can really be appreciated when looked at as something like a work of art... A perfect work of art. & Eternity is a long time... It could allow for some time to get around and not only study things, but truly understand them. Yet, if there were nothing waiting for us beyond this life... that - I find depressing.
The birth of Jesus was prophesied in the Old Testament. "The seed of a woman." And if Christ was sinless he would have to have been conceived without sin (through copulation). So no seed from a man is involved.
Unless you want to say that all the prophesies regarding/pertaining to Jesus from the Old Testament were very elaborate deceptions as well...
> > Theologians, priests etc. commenting on moral issues are a joke. We don't need > > religion for moral guidance. Their comments on creation and evolution are just > plain > > wrong and seriously damaging to the education of children. > > > > What about someone that has done things they now regret and are merely passing along > sage advice to others that might be following the same path they took, like saying; > "Don't do ______ because it will come back to bite you in the end." > > They can be listened to (right?), but when you get around to it - the Theologians, > Priests, Pastors, Preachers, etc. are saying the same thing. "Don't do ______." But > since they believe in a "fairy tale" that makes everything else they say > illegitimate...?
I have no problem with people passing on their experience of life to others and trying to help them avoid mistakes they made. My beef is with the pedestal Theologians, Priest, Pastors etc. are placed on as if they are somehow more qualified to give advice on subjects they often have no clue about.
> And how does having a different view on (what can only be) origins of life or the > universe harm anyone?
Teaching people the world was created a few thousand years ago is a lie, teaching them evolution did not happen is a lie. These are well proven any other explanation is a lie, its as simple as that.
>Thinking things came about from nothing with no cause or reason > isn't any more ridiculous than an infinite eternal being making stuff just by > speaking it into existence.
And why does there have to be a "reason" for the universe? Just because we don't understand the first few moments of the universe it doesn't then follow that it was invoked by some "higher" power.
> > The human race does not need religion in any shape or form. Religion has done > nothing > > for us but pile on misery and oppression by the bucket load. I know some people > find > > it comforting but so what? some people find Heroin comforting. > > > > Try telling that to the person that has been set free from destructive/sinful > lifestyle choices. They will tell it could only have been God that set them free, > even after trying for many years.
So what, that doesn't mean it was God. Its their interpretation, it sounds more likely that it was the group of people who gave them the support to change their life. That they happen to have been a religious group who ended up making them believe "God" helped them proves nothing.
> Or, on the flip side of the coin (something I can attest to) the things having a > religion can keep people from... and having the moral judgement or standards to not > do things that could be the biggest mistake/s of their lives.
Good family support and a good network of friends does the same thing, religion is unnecessary.
> > I'm sick of religion trying to hide the real world from him people, we should be > > encouraged to try and understand the universe and not be satisfied by those who > seek > > to hide its true beauty and the thrill of knowing the time we have in which to > > understand and enjoy it is limited and precious. > > > > I don't know where you're getting that from. But... Take ID. All things in nature or > in the universe can really be appreciated when looked at as something like a work of > art... A perfect work of art. & Eternity is a long time... It could allow for some > time to get around and not only study things, but truly understand them. Yet, if > there were nothing waiting for us beyond this life... that - I find depressing.
Intelligent design is just creationism 2.0 its flawed and wrong. The true beauty of the universe is trying to understand how it came into being. How the stars formed and how they in turn produce the elements necessary for life to occur and how that life evolved into the myriad of life we see all around us. Knowing that everything I'm made from was forged in a star and that when I die everything I am made from will be returned to the universe it came from to make something else, now that is beautiful.
Stop worrying about what happens when you die and start living your life and discovering the real world.
> > Or is he referring to those issues the church has with minors they don't like to > > talk about? ;-) > > Make generalizing sweeping statements much?
>Unless you want to say that all the prophesies regarding/pertaining to Jesus from the Old Testament were very elaborate deceptions as well...
No, Tom. I haven't said ANYTHING was a deception. I haven't placed ANY value judgement on anything I've posted. I'm merely pointing out the written documented history of the origin of Christianity and many of it's beleifs. Some of that comes from the original scriptures, some of it comes from Canon Law, which is the infalliable word of a Pope. If you believe in the infallibility of the Pope, and you believe in the scriptures, then that history shouldn't shake your faith.
But too often people quote scripture that simply doesn't exist. They are actually quoting a modern English Bible, which is a modified version of the original scripture. It incorporates the original scripture along with modifications to adhere to and reinforce modern Canon Law. In my opinion, instead of saying "The Bible says X Y and Z" if instead they said "The scriptures of the Bible say X, and the Pope said that also Y, so therefore our Bible now reads Z" then their arguement would be followable and open to a clearer understanding.
But its also true alot of people get upset at understanding the origins of thier belief, and prefer to just accept it in its present form without context. If its what you truly believe, understanding its origins shouldn't shake your faith... just help you understand where it comes from, and ultimately, understand it better. Rather you believe or not is up to you.
But I never applied value judgement to my posts. Actually, I'll quit this thread, since it wasn't my intention to upset you.
> > Teaching people the world was created a few thousand years ago is a lie, teaching > them evolution did not happen is a lie. These are well proven any other explanation > is a lie, its as simple as that. >
That alone is a joke, with or without religian. "evolution" changes so much it isn't funny. even the "evolution" community can't agree on most of it.
30 yrs ago the earth was 400 million yrs old now it's over a billion or what ever age they put it to today, when they can't figure out how something happened they add more yrs to it to make their thoery feasible.
Then did dinos have feathers or scales, another big debate. then was there a major ice age thet killed them off? NO! say some evolutionists! YES!! say other evolutionists. Was it a meteorite that did it? YES!! say some and NO! say others. again they (Evolutionist scientists) can't even agree. then there is the theory of disease, lack of food supply, etc. and that's just on what killed dinosaurs!
and then though mankind into the mix and it gets even more split. Funny thing is most stuff still taught today in science books is LIES. they still talk and show lucy the walking monkey but IT'S FAKE!! that's a proven fact. the embro chart by Ernst Haeckel still in science book's today is a FAKE and that was proven years ago http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/site/content/view/210/63/ and on and on.
I can go on and on about the "problems" with evolution. Nothing to do with GOD or religion it has to do with the FACT that evolutionists are teaching just as many false doctrines as you blame the church of doing.
Just a side note. you also confuse christianity with the catholic church. 2 different relious systems. Christianity beleives in christ, the church beleives in a pope, christianity as taught by christ is for each and every individual and their own relationship with God. the church the individuals relationship with the church. Christ didn't seek power or leadership or prestige. well the church their history shows....
anyway this wasn't about religion it's about the enormous holes and all out lies pushed by evolutionists.
> I bet if we suddenly disappear and a new intelligent life form encounters our > destroyed PCs, the first thing it will come them to mind is they're ornaments for an > altar.
> > > > Teaching people the world was created a few thousand years ago is a lie, teaching > > them evolution did not happen is a lie. These are well proven any other explanation > > is a lie, its as simple as that. > > > > That alone is a joke, with or without religian. "evolution" changes so much > it isn't funny. even the "evolution" community can't agree on most of it.
Details change but the premise doesn't.
> 30 yrs ago the earth was 400 million yrs old now it's over a billion or > what ever age they put it to today, when they can't figure out how something > happened they add more yrs to it to make their thoery feasible.
You're making a mountain out of a mole hill. Once you get into the hundreds of millions of years, adding or subtracting some is pretty minor of a detail. It's still an argument of a few hundred million years vs. 6,000. That hasn't changed so basically you have no point here.
> Then did dinos have feathers or scales, another big debate. then was there > a major ice age thet killed them off? NO! say some evolutionists! YES!! say > other evolutionists. Was it a meteorite that did it? YES!! say some and NO! > say others. again they (Evolutionist scientists) can't even agree. then there > is the theory of disease, lack of food supply, etc. and that's just on > what killed dinosaurs!
Again this is very minor and nothing to do with the evolution vs. religion bases. It doesn't matter what their skin was like. The argument is whether they existed at all (evolutionists say) or whether their bones were created when the earth was inside the ground to later test people's faith in religion.
> and then though mankind into the mix and it gets even more split. Funny thing > is most stuff still taught today in science books is LIES. they still talk and > show lucy the walking monkey but IT'S FAKE!! that's a proven fact. the embro chart > by Ernst Haeckel still in science book's today is a FAKE and that was proven > years ago http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/site/content/view/210/63/ and on and > on.
I don't know/care about this.
> I can go on and on about the "problems" with evolution. Nothing to do with > GOD or religion it has to do with the FACT that evolutionists are teaching > just as many false doctrines as you blame the church of doing.
The theories are evolving. Even the "law" of gravity might go up in smoke. It's about figuring stuff out the best we can.
> Just a side note. you also confuse christianity with the catholic church. > 2 different relious systems. Christianity beleives in christ, the church > beleives in a pope, christianity as taught by christ is for each and every > individual and their own relationship with God. the church the individuals > relationship with the church. Christ didn't seek power or leadership or > prestige. well the church their history shows.... > > anyway this wasn't about religion it's about the enormous holes and all out > lies pushed by evolutionists.
You say that like they know things they "push" are false before they say it, like they are dastardly or something, and that's ridiculous.
What is a theory without proof or details? nothing more than an idea and that's it. you must have details to base your theory upon.
> > You're making a mountain out of a mole hill. Once you get into the hundreds of > millions of years, adding or subtracting some is pretty minor of a detail. It's still > an argument of a few hundred million years vs. 6,000. That hasn't changed so > basically you have no point here.
actually going from 400 thousand to 4.5 billion is quite alot .
> > Again this is very minor and nothing to do with the evolution vs. religion bases. It > doesn't matter what their skin was like. The argument is whether they existed at all > (evolutionists say) or whether their bones were created when the earth was inside the > ground to later test people's faith in religion. >
point is even evolutionists can't even agree and they are the so-called "experts" on evolution...
> > and then though mankind into the mix and it gets even more split. Funny thing > > is most stuff still taught today in science books is LIES. they still talk and > > show lucy the walking monkey but IT'S FAKE!! that's a proven fact. the embro chart > > by Ernst Haeckel still in science book's today is a FAKE and that was proven > > years ago http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/site/content/view/210/63/ and on and > > on. > > I don't know/care about this.
but this is the MOST important part of evolution (mans origins).
> > I can go on and on about the "problems" with evolution. Nothing to do with > > GOD or religion it has to do with the FACT that evolutionists are teaching > > just as many false doctrines as you blame the church of doing. > > The theories are evolving. Even the "law" of gravity might go up in smoke. It's about > figuring stuff out the best we can.
Agree it is changing but to just pretend that there is not other way that anything could exist other than what some one says is sad. world was flat hundreds of yrs ago good thing someone thought that the scientists of the times were wrong and went to find out on their own.
> > You say that like they know things they "push" are false before they say it, like > they are dastardly or something, and that's ridiculous.
that my friend is the whole point, the embryo chart was known to be false by the man that drew it. Lucy was known to be false by the dr who put her together to "present his find to the world". answer one question just the 2 examples I have given here, the chart and lucy (I can present more) are proven false and been known false for over a decade then why are they still presented into science books today that are used in schools, why are they still presented in major museums? if only for a reference then why no disclaimer with either the text books or the museums?
> > > > Details change but the premise doesn't. > > > > What is a theory without proof or details? nothing more than an idea and that's it. > you must have details to base your theory upon.
Science is about making sense of things by trying to figure things out based on what we have already figured out in the past and revising it when new things come to light. Religion is about making sense of things based on ancient story books. If you want to believe fossils are fake and carbon dating and other element dating is all bullshit then you are free to, but you don't have your facts straight about the arguments people are saying, is all I'm saying. I'm not saying that I personally know the history of the earth for fact.
> > > > You're making a mountain out of a mole hill. Once you get into the hundreds of > > millions of years, adding or subtracting some is pretty minor of a detail. It's > still > > an argument of a few hundred million years vs. 6,000. That hasn't changed so > > basically you have no point here. > > actually going from 400 thousand to 4.5 billion is quite alot .
It's like I said, for a long time an argument that it's millions of years old vs. 6,000. You're now changing your numbers around too.
> > Again this is very minor and nothing to do with the evolution vs. religion bases. > It > > doesn't matter what their skin was like. The argument is whether they existed at > all > > (evolutionists say) or whether their bones were created when the earth was inside > the > > ground to later test people's faith in religion. > > > > point is even evolutionists can't even agree and they are the so-called "experts" > on evolution...
Some of them don't agree on details. It doesn't matter.
> > > and then though mankind into the mix and it gets even more split. Funny thing > > > is most stuff still taught today in science books is LIES. they still talk and > > > show lucy the walking monkey but IT'S FAKE!! that's a proven fact. the embro > chart > > > by Ernst Haeckel still in science book's today is a FAKE and that was proven > > > years ago http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/site/content/view/210/63/ and on and > > > on. > > > > I don't know/care about this. > > but this is the MOST important part of evolution (mans origins).
Lucy the walking monkey is the most important part of evolution/science vs. religion discussions?
> > > I can go on and on about the "problems" with evolution. Nothing to do with > > > GOD or religion it has to do with the FACT that evolutionists are teaching > > > just as many false doctrines as you blame the church of doing. > > > > The theories are evolving. Even the "law" of gravity might go up in smoke. It's > about > > figuring stuff out the best we can. > > Agree it is changing but to just pretend that there is not other way that anything > could exist other than what some one says is sad. world was flat hundreds of yrs ago > good thing someone thought that the scientists of the times were wrong and went to > find out on their own.
I agree.
> > You say that like they know things they "push" are false before they say it, like > > they are dastardly or something, and that's ridiculous. > > that my friend is the whole point, the embryo chart was known to be false by the man > that > drew it. Lucy was known to be false by the dr who put her together to "present his > find to the world". answer one question just the 2 examples I have given here, the > chart > and lucy (I can present more) are proven false and been known false for over a decade > then why are they still presented into science books today that are used in schools, > why > are they still presented in major museums? if only for a reference then why no > disclaimer > with either the text books or the museums?
Personally I'm in favor of science evolution and not the theory of evolution. Darwin certainly had some "best guesses" that he had to use, though I've never even read his book. Surely there are a few quacks on either side with "Lucy" stories. Like multiplying fish.
> Agree it is changing but to just pretend that there is not other way that anything > could exist other than what some one says is sad. world was flat hundreds of yrs ago > good thing someone thought that the scientists of the times were wrong and went to > find out on their own. >
That may just be a lie taught to schoolchildren for the purpose of making creationists look silly.
> > > > Details change but the premise doesn't. > > > > What is a theory without proof or details? nothing more than an idea and that's it. > you must have details to base your theory upon. > > > > > You're making a mountain out of a mole hill. Once you get into the hundreds of > > millions of years, adding or subtracting some is pretty minor of a detail. It's > still > > an argument of a few hundred million years vs. 6,000. That hasn't changed so > > basically you have no point here. > > actually going from 400 thousand to 4.5 billion is quite alot . > > > > > Again this is very minor and nothing to do with the evolution vs. religion bases. > It > > doesn't matter what their skin was like. The argument is whether they existed at > all > > (evolutionists say) or whether their bones were created when the earth was inside > the > > ground to later test people's faith in religion. > > > > point is even evolutionists can't even agree and they are the so-called "experts" > on evolution... > > > > > and then though mankind into the mix and it gets even more split. Funny thing > > > is most stuff still taught today in science books is LIES. they still talk and > > > show lucy the walking monkey but IT'S FAKE!! that's a proven fact. the embro > chart > > > by Ernst Haeckel still in science book's today is a FAKE and that was proven > > > years ago http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/site/content/view/210/63/ and on and > > > on. > > > > I don't know/care about this. > > but this is the MOST important part of evolution (mans origins). > > > > I can go on and on about the "problems" with evolution. Nothing to do with > > > GOD or religion it has to do with the FACT that evolutionists are teaching > > > just as many false doctrines as you blame the church of doing. > > > > The theories are evolving. Even the "law" of gravity might go up in smoke. It's > about > > figuring stuff out the best we can. > > Agree it is changing but to just pretend that there is not other way that anything > could exist other than what some one says is sad. world was flat hundreds of yrs ago > good thing someone thought that the scientists of the times were wrong and went to > find out on their own. > > > > > You say that like they know things they "push" are false before they say it, like > > they are dastardly or something, and that's ridiculous. > > that my friend is the whole point, the embryo chart was known to be false by the man > that > drew it. Lucy was known to be false by the dr who put her together to "present his > find to the world". answer one question just the 2 examples I have given here, the > chart > and lucy (I can present more) are proven false and been known false for over a decade > then why are they still presented into science books today that are used in schools, > why > are they still presented in major museums? if only for a reference then why no > disclaimer > with either the text books or the museums?
So you think that science needs to START with all the answers? Science is not a religion, it is a process; the point is to seek a better understanding through the acquisition of new information which can and does radically alter that understanding.
Any "new" understanding or enlightenment in any religion comes from looking at, and generally misinterpreting, the same information that was written down and declared infallible thousands of years ago. Well, unless you're a Mormon or Scientologist.
That things previously taken as fact are later proven wrong is the nature of science, and a failure to remove that information is a failure of the persons providing it, not of the process. That doesn't make science less valuable, as it is always based on the latest information available. How long did it take for all the people who worshiped all the gods that weren't God to stop teaching, preaching, praying to whatever deity they followed when something new came along and said they were wrong?
That there are frauds perpetrated in all fields of human endeavor is also known and understood. Do you need examples in religion, or can you think of your own?
> > So you think that science needs to START with all the answers? Science is not a > religion, it is a process; the point is to seek a better understanding through the > acquisition of new information which can and does radically alter that understanding.
I agree wholeheartedly!!! problem is many people believe science has all the answers, isn't ever wrong. If a science book say's it it's fact and there is no disputing it.
>
There are alot of "science" that came from biblical standings. Hospital routines are a perfect example. read the history on the black plague and how biblical principles where imployed there. also read how biblical principles were adopted to american hospitals in the teen's and twenty's and how the science and medical communities laughed and scoffed at the idea's until they were proven true. again today we still see proof in the fact that prayer does indeed increase the health and recovery of patients. again also scoffed at by medical and science personal...
point is many say that religous people refuse to see anything that isn't from a religious beginning same is said to those that are anti-god....
Quote: ...again today we still see proof in the fact that prayer does indeed increase the health and recovery of patients.
Woah woah woah...please show your proof.
Why didn't prayer stop the extermination of millions of Jewish people? I guarantee you they were all praying for God to intervene.
Why hasn't prayer ended poverty, or starvation, or the exploitation and slavery of children across the world?
Does God only help in hospitals, and kids who didn't study for their math test?
I have a 5 year old nephew with Leukemia. My sister's family are devout Christians who go to church every sunday, pay their tithing, study scriptures as a family and are the nicest, most genuine people you could ever meet.
My nephew is responding well to treatment and so far is doing better than expected but I'm chalking it up more to the state of the art Children's Hospital facility and he's at and the top notch doctors for his recovery than prayer. Prayer apparently didn't save the kid in the room next to him, also from a devout Christian family that I'm sure were also praying just as hard as my Sister and her family.
I have a cousin who also had Leukemia when he was 11 years old. The methods used to treat his illness were state of the art at the time in the 80's but looks archaic compared to how my nephew is being treated. Thanks to medical science and technology, my nephew has to deal with much less intrusive (however still painful) treatments and has a much better chance of survival than my cousin ever did (who was given 1% chance of survival past 1 year...he's now 37)
> Science is about making sense of things by trying to figure things out based on what > we have already figured out in the past and revising it when new things come to > light. Religion is about making sense of things based on ancient story books. If you > want to believe fossils are fake and carbon dating and other element dating is all > bullshit then you are free to, but you don't have your facts straight about the > arguments people are saying, is all I'm saying. I'm not saying that I personally know > the history of the earth for fact. >
Didn't say fossils are fake. Im stating there are alot of things in life that aren't explained nor are they truely or in a factual way put to lite. But by just throwing a theory out there to push your point whether true or not is not science. Will they be some day? possibly, like why dino's died out but to push a certain view and allow no other views be examined because they are considered a "religous" veiw is stupid on either side the arguement...
oops sorry bout the time span/age got to typing so fast I missed that!
> Personally I'm in favor of science evolution and not the theory of evolution. Darwin > certainly had some "best guesses" that he had to use, though I've never even read his > book. Surely there are a few quacks on either side with "Lucy" stories. Like > multiplying fish.
That's my point smit, many people beleive many things without reading or studying. Not saying they shouldn't, but before they attack another on their beleifs (and that's not what Im trying to do here) one should read books from the other side to understand where their beliefs come from.
Honestly I used to beleive in evolution but have come to the other side. there are many things I beleive are of little importance. like the age of the earth, first off the bible doesnt' state how long adam was in the garden, second the bible doesn't say what was going on outside the garden, there could have been every type of dino, bird, fish etc. walking the earth at that time, bible doesn't care it's a book on man not the earth so it's focus was on man thus why no explaintion on anything outside eden.
Second the bible states the earth was created in 6 days, 6 days according to who? man or God? we know man's day is 24 hours, we know mans average life is 72 yrs old but the bible also states in many places that to God man's 72 yr life span is but a moment to him, a blinking of an eye. Seeing how man was not created when the earth was created those 6 days are according to God not to man's idea of time.
Point is I don't know everything but I do beleive that science and creation have many good points and that many do go hand in hand and just to refuse or deny either because one contains parts of the other is stupid.
well Im off for the weekend I hope you all have a great weekend !!
Well now we're mostly back in agreeance like Fred Durst. Anyway I think the Bible claims that because Adam was so pure that he would have lived something like 900 years naturally. But after his kids started inbreeding the DNA purity went away. Still a relatively short time period though. The 6 day interpretation/explanation is a stretch but I'll grant it so we can move on.
While you're out I'll suggest a quick view (especially around the 5 minute mark):
And for anyone really, if you have more time I'd recommend checking out the entire series (Why I'm No Longer A Christian) the author of that video has put together. The series isn't done yet...he's still adding videos on a semi-frequent basis. His journey for truth is very similar to my own, however I was not of the same religion as him but it doesn't really matter.
> “When I’m preaching the gospel, I don’t like to waste time debating people or getting > sidetracked by minor issues.” – Ray Comfort > > Yeah those pesky minor issues, facts and science they get right on my thrupenny bits > too. Or is he referring to those issues the church has with minors they don't like to > talk about? ;-)
> point is many say that religous people refuse to see anything that isn't from > a religious beginning same is said to those that are anti-god....
Comment apart, that's what I love about being agnostic. Though the very moment I question a religious fact, I immediately get called an atheist.
Scientific method research is that way. It's not like they don't agree each other, but they propose new hypothesis that need to be backed up with new findings. And while theologists can't prove god exist just as atheist can't prove he doesn't, I prefer to stay with an hypothesis proposing our origin than joining to a group of believers who make me believe things for the only purpose to join their churches and take my money in the big faith enterprise called Religion, Inc.
Another fact is, what would have happened if instead of Romans it would have been Greeks the conquerors or our world? We would be polytheists of course and the Bible would be another fantasy literature book for everyone. Just as is not a coincidence Virgin Mary turned a different ethnic race the moment it was needed for a recently conquered territory to believe in a new religion and eliminate theirs. I don't need to remind USA territory believed in different things to Christ before it was conquered and colonized. And after all if The Bible is indeed right, most of everyone around the world should have related the same, shouldn't it?
Many have described here what religion is, it's Santa Claus for adults and a tool for changing faith in order to obey or impose ideas. Religion doesn't know as much as science, but science tries to find answers instead of only the conformist view "God did it. Obey".
The problem isn't in believing in a God, but to obey a doctrine which neither has an idea about what God really wants. Also God shouldn't necessary be a living entity watching for everyone, but apparently believers haven't considered that in mind.
Quote: Second the bible states the earth was created in 6 days, 6 days according to who? man or God? we know man's day is 24 hours, we know mans average life is 72 yrs old but the bible also states in many places that to God man's 72 yr life span is but a moment to him, a blinking of an eye. Seeing how man was not created when the earth was created those 6 days are according to God not to man's idea of time.
I know this was directed at Smit, but isn't this exactly what you were just upset about when scientists debate the age of the earth? Isn't this just changing things to make it fit the 6-day creation theory?
> > > Or is he referring to those issues the church has with minors they don't like to > > > talk about? ;-) > > > > Make generalizing sweeping statements much? > > Not really > http://www.adrianliston.eu/blog/2010/9/1...t-catholic.html
I'm convinced by a single guy's private blog. Well cited.
How else was I supposed to get you to show your hand?
Not being Catholic I don't uphold the Pope as a religious authority. (Consider all men liars)... Everything we're taught by someone that claims to understand the word of God should be put to the standard of the word it came from... But understanding it yourself can be hard enough. Who should I listen to? The Holy Spirit. Those that have been filled gain understanding. Those that understand are able to teach.
Although I will admit that the Protestant Christian church of today was born out of the Catholic Church. The Catholic church was born from the Roman Empire, the same empire that wanted to destroy all those that proclaimed Christ as their savior/God. Since they couldn't beat 'em, they joined 'em. Yet (and I'm sorry if this offends anyone, but they are my heart felt opinions) they perverted the faith by deviating the word of God. Just look at the 2 commandments they already break. Graven Images and essentially worshiping the Pope. ...There is also remembering or observing the Sabbath (7th) Day. That was always Saturday. This shows our ties/religious lineage to the Catholic Church, The (Pagan) Roman Empire... something 'bout sun worship.
Anyway... more things could be said, but not worth it.
> > > > Or is he referring to those issues the church has with minors they don't like > to > > > > talk about? ;-) > > > > > > Make generalizing sweeping statements much? > > > > Not really > > > http://www.adrianliston.eu/blog/2010/9/1...t-catholic.html > > I'm convinced by a single guy's private blog. Well cited.
Thanks and its not a single guys opinion if you read it.
>Not being Catholic I don't uphold the Pope as a religious authority.
Neither do I. And I hear that all the time from Protestants and Baptists etc too. Then, likewise, they shouldn't believe that Mary was a virgin, conceived by the holy spirit, and that Jesus's physical body was physically raised up and physically sits in Heaven, because none of that is written in any original scriptures... all of that was imposed later by Canon Law... by the infallible word of a Pope, more than a millennium after his death.
But if you point that out to Protestants and Baptists, they get all upset and whatnot... so then, in fact, they DO consider past Popes authorities and infallible, because they accept their word as infallible truths... quoting modern English bibles as their authority... which of course adhere to Canon Law, not the original scriptures.
It's amazing to me how so many people can "follow" a religion without having any insight into what it is they follow.
>(Consider all men liars)... Everything we're taught by someone that claims to understand the word of God should be put to the standard of the word it came from...
Which was scripture, penned by men (liars all?). And most of it penned centuries after all the "authors" died... since they were presumably writing down what was until that point oral traditions.
>This shows our ties/religious lineage to the Catholic Church, The (Pagan) Roman Empire
So true. That's why Easter's timing it linked to the moon... to make it easier to convert pagans since they had a spring celebration timed on that exact event. Or Christmas is in December, even though historical record puts Jesus's birthday somewhere in August, but again, pagans had a celebration on December 25th, so it was easier to convert pagans if they could keep their favorite holidays.
Amazing, isn't it, how Christians are willing to forsake the real timing of even the two most important traditions in Christianity if it would have helped recruitment.
> > Not being Catholic I don't uphold the Pope as a religious authority.
Speaking of Catholic...
Did you know that official Catholic church doctrine is that during communion, the wafer and the wine are the LITERAL (not symbolic) body and blood of Christ via Transubstantiation?
> > > Not being Catholic I don't uphold the Pope as a religious authority. > > Speaking of Catholic... > > Did you know that official Catholic church doctrine is that during communion, the > wafer and the wine are the LITERAL (not symbolic) body and blood of Christ via > Transubstantiation?
> I attended a church service for the first time in probably > 10 years last Sunday. Seven minutes into the service they > dimmed the lights, fired up a projector, and played 5 > minutes of commercials.
Okay, no one else has asked about this? If you don't mind, what were the commercials? (Other than weddings and funerals I've not stepped foot in a church in twenty years.) I can't even imagine... Books? Dave Ramsey's FPU? Political? What??
> “When I’m preaching the gospel, I don’t like to waste time debating people or getting > sidetracked by minor issues.” – Ray Comfort > > Yeah those pesky minor issues, facts and science they get right on my thrupenny bits > too. Or is he referring to those issues the church has with minors they don't like to > talk about? ;-)
I personally find it interesting that Matthew himself uses a word that I understand must be translated as the English word "virgin" in Mat 1:23, in which he quotes the troublesome Isaiah passage. Sure you could claim that he was one of the first who misinterpreted it, or is an idiot, liar, etc. but I think the two articles I linked to would vindicate him and put the controversy where it really belongs.
Re: Am I going to have to DDOS this thread to get it to go away? <nT>
[Re: italie]
#250007 - 03/26/11 11:40 PM Attachment: Make-It-So.jpg 31 KB (1 downloads)
Re: Am I going to have to DDOS this thread to get it to go away? <nT>
[Re: Smitdogg]
#250019 - 03/27/11 02:15 AM Attachment: WonderWomanDidnt.jpg 62 KB (1 downloads)
> I personally find it interesting that Matthew himself uses a word that I understand > must be translated as the English word "virgin" in Mat 1:23, in which he quotes the > troublesome Isaiah passage. Sure you could claim that he was one of the first who > misinterpreted it, or is an idiot, liar, etc. but I think the two articles I linked > to would vindicate him and put the controversy where it really belongs.
"I am the root and offspring of David, and the bright and morning star." (Revelation 22:16)
Comment
This verse presents the most shocking revelation in the entire Bible. On the very last page, it reveals Jesus as the "bright and morning star". In other words, Lucifer-- Satan!
In Isaiah 14:12, St. Jerome, translated the Hebrew "morning star" into the Latin term "Lucifer" (light bearer), a name commonly ascribed to Satan by Christians, and represents the fallen star, an ancient symbol for the fallen or evil one. The mourning star actually appears as the planet Venus, the brightest "star" in the sky (but the ancients did not know about planets). Venus always appears low on the horizon, thus it looked like a fallen star (fallen angel) to the believers.
Although the Isaiah verse describes the fallen king of Babylon, Christians have, for centuries, ascribed Satan as taking many forms. And what more powerful form could an evil being take than to pretend himself as the saviour of the world? This would certainly explain the hate filled verses attributed to Jesus and the blind followers who inherit ignorance. Thus, a conclusion, based on Christian beliefs of Satan, and the belief in the "inerrancy" of the Bible, one must conclude that Jesus has revealed himself as Satan!
> > “When I’m preaching the gospel, I don’t like to waste time debating people or > getting > > sidetracked by minor issues.” – Ray Comfort > > > > Yeah those pesky minor issues, facts and science they get right on my thrupenny > bits > > too. Or is he referring to those issues the church has with minors they don't like > to > > talk about? ;-)
Index 
Threaded 
S**t the New King James version is out, why wasnt I told!!!!????
Reply
[Re: 
