NationStates Jolt Archive

Oh tell me...tell me... I dont know. Where does it comes?...its going to be one of those phooney stories that I can use to mock my christian friends?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Fish#History
Symbolic meaning

An early circular ichthys symbol, created by combining the Greek letters ΙΧΘΥΣ, Ephesus.The use of the Ichthys symbol by early Christians appears to date from the end of the 1st century AD. Ichthus (ΙΧΘΥΣ, Greek for fish) is an acronym, a word formed from the first letters of several words. It compiles to "Jesus Christ God Son Saviour", in ancient Greek "Ἰησοῦς Χριστός, Θεοῦ Υἱός, Σωτήρ"

Iota is the first letter of Iesous (Ιησους), Greek for Jesus.
Chi is the first letter of Christos (Χριστóς), Greek for "anointed".
Theta is the first letter of Theou (Θεοῦ), genitive case of Θεóς "God".
Upsilon is the first letter of Huios (Υἱός), Greek for Son.
Sigma is the first letter of Soter (Σωτήρ), Greek for Saviour.
Historically, twentieth century use of the ichthys motif is an adaptation based on an Early Christian symbol which included a small cross for the eye or the Greek letters "ΙΧΘΥΣ". Catholic theology has elaborated on the five words of the acronym into the "Jesus prayer", or, "Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner."

An ancient adaptation of ichthus is a wheel which contains the letters ΙΧΘΥΣ superimposed such that the result resembles an eight-spoked wheel.

The symbol of the fish can also have the double meaning of the sign of Pisces. Jesus Christ represents the central figure of the Age of Pisces, which is now giving way to the Age of Aquarius. The Ages go backwards through the signs of the Zodiac. Prior to the birth of Christ there was the Age of Aries and before that Taurus and so on. Each Age lasts approximately 2,000 years


Bottle once explained it better, and without resorting to wiki, but I can't find the old post now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Fish#History


Bottle once explained it better, and without resorting to wiki, but I can't find the old post now.

uhhuh. so why does that make the jesus fish swallowing the darwin fish with legs ....wrong?

not that it isnt wrong (unchristian) without that explanation.

uhhuh. so why does that make the jesus fish swallowing the darwin fish with legs ....wrong?

not that it isnt wrong (unchristian) without that explanation.

Ack, good call. I forgot to include this part from later in the article:
The early Christian church
Societies of Christians in Hellenistic Greece and Roman Greece, prior to the Edict of Milan, protected their congregations by keeping their meetings secret. In order to point the way to ever-changing meeting places, they developed a symbol which adherents would readily recognize, and which they could scratch on rocks, walls and the like, in advance of a meeting. At the time, a similar symbol was used by Greeks to mark the location of a funeral, so using the ichthys also gave an apparent legitimate reason for Christians to gather.


The way I see it, though I may be wrong, I just find it a little funny that a symbol used in the face of persecution is now called upon in attacking science.

Oh he's been observed. I observe him everyday.

Can you demonstrate to others that you have observed him?
No, you cannot, thus the observation does not count.

Okay, let him show us then.

Oh wait, he won't.

It's funny how you mock something studied but found to be a theory, even though gravity is a theory as well.

Just wait, in 300 years the Church will apologize for not believing evolution, like how they apologized to Galileo thirty years ago.

If you can mock a theory and say it's false, then you surely can't defend something with no proof.

We don't have to wait that long, or at all for that matter
Pope John Paul II revisited the question of evolution in a 1996 a message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. Unlike Pius XII, John Paul is broadly read, and embraces science and reason. He won the respect of many scientists in 1993, when in April 1993 he formally acquitted Galileo, 360 years after his indictment, of heretical support for Copernicus’s heliocentrism. The pontiff began his statement with the hope that “we will all be able to profit from the fruitfulness of a trustful dialogue between the Church and science.” Evolution, he said, is “an essential subject which deeply interests the Church.” He recognized that science and Scripture sometimes have “apparent contradictions,” but said that when this is the case, a “solution” must be found because “truth cannot contradict truth.” The Pope pointed to the Church’s coming to terms with Galileo’s discoveries concerning the nature of the solar system as an example of how science might inspire the Church to seek a new and “correct interpretation of the inspired word.”

When the pope came to the subject of the scientific merits of evolution, it soon became clear how much things had changed in the nearly since the Vatican last addressed the issue. John Paul said:

Today, almost half a century after publication of the encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory.

Evolution, a doctrine that Pius XII only acknowledged as an unfortunate possibility, John Paul accepts forty-six years later “as an effectively proven fact.” (ROA, 82)
Linky (http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/vaticanview.html)

So I'll address these:

New Genoa, Islam has two noticable sects. Christianity easily has hundreds perhaps even thousands of sects. Large populations of either sect live in nations ruled by religious dictators.
Its four actually, but your point stands.
(Ahmadiyya, Shi'a, Sufism, Sunni)
Uzbanistan, Islam is inherently violent - read the Quran (Muhammed and his followers kill people; I doubt you'll remember Christ doing similar things).
Yeshua, no, his followers, yes.
The Muslims were fighting AGAINST the Catholics in the Crusades, but they were the aggressors when they violently took control of Israel and of Constantinople (Istanbul).
Say what?
In 638, the Islamic Caliphate extended its dominion to Jerusalem. With the Arab conquest, Jews were allowed back into the city. The Rashidun caliph Umar ibn al-Khattab signed a treaty with Monophysite Christian Patriarch Sophronius, assuring him that Jerusalem's Christian holy places and population would be protected under Muslim rule. Umar was then led to the Temple Mount, where the Foundation Stone laid and he and other Muslims began cleaning up the site to build the al-Aqsa Mosque. Umar was invited by Sophronius to pray at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, but refused fearing future generations of Muslims would claim the church as their own. Instead, however, he arranged the construction of the Mosque of Umar across from the church.

By the end of the 7th century, the Umayyad caliph Abd al-Malik had commissioned and completed the construction of the Dome of the Rock over the Foundation Stone. In the four hundred years that followed, Jerusalem's prominence diminished as Arab powers in the region jockeyed for control.

While I can not deny that Islam is of the same origins as Christianity, it has failed to advance from the (somewhat absurd) religious customs that it had 1300 years ago.
Nor has christianity

Circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works.
Sigworthy :D

I'd have to see the brothel for myself before I could draw any conclusions. And I'd need some spending money.That's only fair.
Hope you don't mind, i don't believe in the promissory nature of bills, so i had been using pennies ... which of late are worth less than it costs to make them, so you can imagine how much fun it's been of late trying to swipe the card.

Nope. --> Raelian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ra%C3%ABlism)

Well, this part was certainly interesting:
Sensuality is an important part of the Raëlian doctrine, though Raëlians recommend a non-contractual agreement between matured sexual partners.
:)
...but i didn't see so much tribal art around the temples, and i kinda lost interest.
:(

Nah, the Biblical God really is a pussy. He couldn't even win a fight against Jacob till he whacked him in the nuts.

(Genesis 32:25)
That would explain his hesitation in showing his cowardly, bloodlusting grimace around these parts. Well, every parts, i guess.

That's only fair.
Hope you don't mind, i don't believe in the promissory nature of bills, so i had been using pennies ... which of late are worth less than it costs to make them, so you can imagine how much fun it's been of late trying to swipe the card.

Can I pay them in blow?

That would explain his hesitation in showing his cowardly, bloodlusting grimace around these parts. Well, every parts, i guess.

*Puts on a bloodlusting grimace
*Sees that no one is scared
*Runs away whimpering

I'd like it if you would stop mocking me and let me use my post.

*Stops halfway through a fit of mocking and edges slowly out the thread*:eek:

I think I'm done with this thread now... very long.

No question I'd save the humans first, though.
Yes, and I bet you'd give priority to children, too.

Ack, good call. I forgot to include this part from later in the article:


The way I see it, though I may be wrong, I just find it a little funny that a symbol used in the face of persecution is now called upon in attacking science.

I've heard that story before, but I've never seen a decent citation. Interestingly Wikipedia doesn't offer any sources for that particular claim.

-moves thread in new direction-

What's everyone's eschatology views? I really don't know what to call myself.

-moves thread in new direction-

What's everyone's eschatology views? I really don't know what to call myself.

:eek: Scatology views!?!?!?

:eek: Scatology views!?!?!?

Yes, do you believe that you will reign on the porcelain throne sometime before you can have colonic rest, or do you believe that you will only rest after you get done with the turdulation?

:eek: Scatology views!?!?!?

Eschatology, the analysis of philsophies and traditions surrounding the eventual end of the world.

Ok but rememberhttp://www.av1611.org/buttons/images/darwin_jesus.jpg

Ack, good call. I forgot to include this part from later in the article:


The way I see it, though I may be wrong, I just find it a little funny that a symbol used in the face of persecution is now called upon in attacking science.

i can almost understand that. its not as compelling to me as it is to you.

but perhaps you, or someone else, can tell me what this stupid pin is trying to say? it makes no religious sense to me. jesus swallows darwin? huh? our OP found it very telling but it doesnt seem to me to fit any religious paradigm that i can dredge up out of my no-longer-religious mind.

I've heard that story before, but I've never seen a decent citation. Interestingly Wikipedia doesn't offer any sources for that particular claim.

Yeah, I've unfortunately never seen a good citation of it either. I know snopes debunked the "making the Jesus Fish sign to travellers" thing, but don't know if that invalidates this as well.

Yes, do you believe that you will reign on the porcelain throne sometime before you can have colonic rest, or do you believe that you will only rest after you get done with the turdulation?

Isnt it more like the whole rapture thingy is pure bullSHIT :D

Isnt it more like the whole rapture thingy is pure bullSHIT :D

Eh, to be honest, I doubt the rapture as well, even as a Christian. What makes me better than others to be taken away before the world faces a break out of hell on earth? I figure that would be our best time to be here anyways. More chance to try and show people the Way, before it all ends.

i can almost understand that. its not as compelling to me as it is to you.

but perhaps you, or someone else, can tell me what this stupid pin is trying to say? it makes no religious sense to me. jesus swallows darwin? huh? our OP found it very telling but it doesnt seem to me to fit any religious paradigm that i can dredge up out of my no-longer-religious mind.

The implication is that Christianity is more fit to survive as an idea than the Theory of Evolution. Or something along those lines. It's a fairly silly picture, but what do you expect?

Well I dont know... but after what we did to Jesus the first time around I dont think he is coming for seconds... I wouldnt. :D

Well I dont know... but after what we did to Jesus the first time around I dont think he is coming for seconds... I wouldnt. :D

Don't worry, he won't come back like the first time. You know the lion and lamb symbols right? He came as the Lamb, but will come back as the lion of Judah.:D

The implication is that Christianity is more fit to survive as an idea than the Theory of Evolution. Or something along those lines. It's a fairly silly picture, but what do you expect?

i expect it to make religious sense. maybe if darwin had been emerging from the mouth of jesus instead of being swallowed it would have implied that even darwin exists because of the grace of god...

but jesus doesnt swallow things.

Don't worry, he won't come back like the first time. You know the lion and lamb symbols right? He came as the Lamb, but will come back as the lion of Judah.:D

oh ok... so this time instead of letting us crucify him he is going to fight back?

Well he doesnt scares us!!!.. We killed him once we can do it again!
:mad::sniper:

i expect it to make religious sense. maybe if darwin had been emerging from the mouth of jesus instead of being swallowed it would have implied that even darwin exists because of the grace of god...

but jesus doesnt swallow things.

*suppresses obvious joke*

It's made by a bunch of hicks who got pissed off at the Darwin fish stickers and Evolve Fish stickers they were seeing on atheists' cars, and the fines they were facing from vandalism charges for being "good Christians" to said cars. It's not supposed to make sense to rational people.

The proof is only given to those thst are saved. I'm done arguing with lies.Then why do you keep lying?

Don't worry, he won't come back like the first time. You know the lion and lamb symbols right? He came as the Lamb, but will come back as the lion of Judah.:D

i thought that was the month of march.

*suppresses obvious joke*

It's made by a bunch of hicks who got pissed off at the Darwin fish stickers and Evolve Fish stickers they were seeing on atheists' cars, and the fines they were facing from vandalism charges for being "good Christians" to said cars. It's not supposed to make sense to rational people.

yeah i see what you are getting at. ill stop questioning it and accept that it is the domination of jesus over science.

Don't worry, he won't come back like the first time. You know the lion and lamb symbols right? He came as the Lamb, but will come back as the lion of Judah.:DYeah. You must be one proud Rastafarian.

I'm back. I also figured out why The Great flood would have needed less water then than it does now.

That lion of Judah thingy...

its like the lion in that lame Narnia movie?

I'm back. I also figured out why The Great flood would have needed less water then than it does now.

you dont believe in a literal world flood do you?

I'm back. I also figured out why The Great flood would have needed less water then than it does now.The Flood of Enlil ?

you dont believe in a literal world flood do you?

Yes I do why else would the bible give the exact measurements of the ark.

you dont believe in a literal world flood do you?

I bet my Uzzi he does!

Come on Tucker....explain this to us!!! The second coming is going to happen any time so hurry up!!!

Yes I do why else would the bible give the exact measurements of the ark.

yes...I think I read this part... its where the bible says number PI is 3.... isnt it?

why would God/Jesus come now. Look around, he don't want us, that's why we're living longer.

Yes I do why else would the bible give the exact measurements of the ark.Because those measurements were given in the Ziusudra story. The bible has copied many older tales.

Yes I do why else would the bible give the exact measurements of the ark.

isnt that kind of silly? we know there was never a world wide flood.

the stories of genesis are allegory, not meant to be taken as scientific fact.

yes...I think I read this part... its where the bible says number PI is 3.... isnt it?And? For biblical times it is a sufficient approximation.

yes...I think I read this part... its where the bible says number PI is 3.... isnt it?

No it's where the bible says "make it 450 ft long and 45 ft high"

Yes I do why else would the bible give the exact measurements of the ark.

*Keeps his Uzzi and shoots everybody*

:mp5:

by the way... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uzzi


how funny!!

isnt that kind of silly? we know there was never a world wide flood.

the stories of genesis are allegory, not meant to be taken as scientific fact.allegory for what?

isnt that kind of silly? we know there was never a world wide flood.

the stories of genesis are allegory, not meant to be taken as scientific fact.

there is too much detail to be taken metaphorically

Uzbanistan, Islam is inherently violent - read the Quran (Muhammed and his followers kill people; I doubt you'll remember Christ doing similar things).

No, but God's messenger did, Curses of destruction and all that .

The Muslims were fighting AGAINST the Catholics in the Crusades, but they were the aggressors when they violently took control of Israel and of Constantinople (Istanbul).

Sweet God how wrong you are. The Muslims were not the aggressors. They controled Israel before the Crusaders took it from them. They took it back. Thats not aggression. Also, Constantinople was not taken during the Crusades. By 1453 the Crusades in the Middle East were long over.

you dont believe in a literal world flood do you?Yes I do why else would the bible give the exact measurements of the ark.
It's just a wild stab in the dark, and I know that there are some other scholars of ancient myths around on NSG who'll no doubt have a verifiable answer, but I'd guess that it was to try and differentiate this particular variant of the old flood myth from the others that were floating (no pun intended) around back then, and to attempt to lend some extra credence to their new version to sort of, y'know, make it seem a bit more plausible.

That lion of Judah thingy...

its like the lion in that lame Narnia movie?

Sorta, but a bagillion times better.

there is too much detail to be taken metaphorically

Tucker is right, the bible has too many details to be taken metaphorically... stop being such wimpy christians!!! :mad:

Sweet God how wrong you are. The Muslims were not the aggressors. They controled Israel before the Crusaders took it from them. They took it back. Thats not aggression. Also, Constantinople was not taken during the Crusades. By 1453 the Crusades in the Middle East were long over.

Erm, quick question, Who did they get it from?

there is too much detail to be taken metaphorically

but we know there was never a flood that covered the whole world at one time. the concept doesnt even make sense.

Sorta, but a bagillion times better.

Any way we are not scared. If it bleeds it can be killed. That is an undeniable truth. :mp5:

Any way we are not scared. If it bleeds it can be killed. That is an undeniable truth. :mp5:

You know what that means.

Mecha Jesus!

Erm, quick question, Who did they get it from?

The Byzantines. But, their taking it is irrelevent to his statement. He said during the Crusades the Muslims were the aggressors and cited two piss poor examples of how they were. One was just wrong, the other was long after the Crusades in the Holy Land had ended.

You know what that means.

Mecha Jesus!

Godzilla can kick Mecha Jesus ass any day of the week...

but we know there was never a flood that covered the whole world at one time. the concept doesnt even make sense.

If you read the bible it says there was an Firmiment (i think i spelt that right)
above the earth. It came down in the flood.

Any way we are not scared. If it bleeds it can be killed. That is an undeniable truth. :mp5:

Well, he will not be killed, or hurt anymore. That was a one time deal.-nods-

I'm back. I also figured out why The Great flood would have needed less water then than it does now.

Go on then, surprise me.

Erm, quick question, Who did they get it from?From the Constantinopolitans. When the city fell all that was ruled by the remaining emperor was the territory of the city.
The fact of the matter is that Constantinople never really recovered from the sacking in 1204, done by Christian crusaders. Its days were numbered since then and when the Ottoman realm expanded it was only a question of time when they would finally take the city.

Godzilla can kick Mecha Jesus ass any day of the week...

Pfft, Mecha Jesus returns to do battle every three days. It'll be a war of attrition, and the MJ will be victorious.

there is too much detail to be taken metaphorically

There is too much fiction for it to be taken seriously

No it's where the bible says "make it 450 ft long and 45 ft high"

ahem...

http://www.abarim-publications.com/Bible_Commentary/Pi_In_The_Bible.html

http://www.direct.ca/trinity/pi.html

Steenhuffel;13731131']There is too much fiction for it to be taken seriously

How do you know? were you there?

If you read the bible it says there was an Firmiment (i think i spelt that right)
above the earth. It came down in the flood.

Which would increase atmospheric pressure to the point that the surface temperature of the Earth would be over 100 degrees Celsius.

ahem...

http://www.abarim-publications.com/Bible_Commentary/Pi_In_The_Bible.html

http://www.direct.ca/trinity/pi.html

Pi = 3.14 ooo sory we were off by .14

Pfft, Mecha Jesus returns to do battle every three days. It'll be a war of attrition, and the MJ will be victorious.

No dude... Mecha Jesus returns every three days and then ascends to heaven... and then it takes him 2000 years and some to come back. Godzilla can kick his ass take a long long vacation and then kick his ass again!

How do you know? were you there?

Others were there who wrote about it.

Pi = 3.14 ooo sory we were off by .14

PI is NOT 3.14

Which would increase atmospheric pressure to the point that the surface temperature of the Earth would be over 100 degrees Celsius.

unless there were gaps in the firmiment to let the heat out, or two holes at the poles.

How do you know? were you there?

How do you know its true? Were you there?


We have archeological and geological evidence that says there was never a global flood. We have a really old, self contradicting book that consitantly puts it self at odds with historical fact that says there was. Which would any rational person believe?

How do you know? were you there?

If you have two contradictory statements, at least one of them must be wrong.

The bible contradicts itself all over the place.

Lots of statements in the bible are therefore wrong (=fiction)

How do you know its true? Were you there?


We have archeological and geological evidence that says there was never a global flood. We have a really old, self contradicting book that consitantly puts it self at odds with historical fact that says there was. Which would any rational person believe?

then how do you explain clam shells in norweigian mountains.

Steenhuffel;13731149']If you have two contradictory statements, at least one of them must be wrong.

The bible contradicts itself all over the place.

Lots of statements in the bible are therefore wrong (=fiction)

name one!

Pi = 3.14 ooo sory we were off by .14

Actually, Pi equalts 3.14 and then a gazillion numbers afterwords and we still dont know where Pi ends.

And in mathametics, .14 is a good bit. So, apperantly God is all knowing, I am better at math then he is. Which is sad.

then how do you explain clam shells in norweigian mountains.
I go with the plate tectonics idea, myself.

Actually, Pi equalts 3.14 and then a gazillion numbers afterwords and we still dont know where Pi ends.

And in mathametics, .14 is a good bit. So, apperantly God is all knowing, I am better at math then he is. Which is sad.

The bible was written by men not God. God just influenced what they wrote. and you don't even know what pi equals so don't criticize us when you don't know yourself!

If you read the bible it says there was an Firmiment (i think i spelt that right)
above the earth. It came down in the flood.

yeah ive read that "theory".

we still know that there was never a world wide flood. such an event--the simultaneous dying off of all people and animals on earth except for one boatful--would have left undeniable achaeological and biological evidence.

then how do you explain clam shells in norweigian mountains.

There are hundreds of other explainations for that. Groups of hunter gatherers could have fished them out and then brought them into the Mts. They could have been carried up there by a stream. Or by birds.

Besides, Norway =/= the whole world. Unless you can somehow refute the evidence that says that there are definitally certian parts of the earth where there was no flood.

Actually, Pi equalts 3.14 and then a gazillion numbers afterwords and we still dont know where Pi ends.

And in mathametics, .14 is a good bit. So, apperantly God is all knowing, I am better at math then he is. Which is sad.

i dont think they had decimals when those passages were written.

There are hundreds of other explainations for that. Groups of hunter gatherers could have fished them out and then brought them into the Mts. They could have been carried up there by a stream. Or by birds.

Besides, Norway =/= the whole world. Unless you can somehow refute the evidence that says that there are definitally certian parts of the earth where there was no flood.

I also find them in my backyard. In a land locked area.

name one!

How many do you want?
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html

name one!

Jesus Christ. Really? Are you this childish and naive where we have to?:rolleyes:

yeah ive read that "theory".

we still know that there was never a world wide flood. such an event--the simultaneous dying off of all people and animals on earth except for one boatful--would have left undeniable achaeological and biological evidence.

It does they're called FOSSILS

then how do you explain clam shells in norweigian mountains.

how would they get there in a 40-day flood? clams dont swim. a deluge of fresh water that innundated the whole world would have killed them off in their beds anyway.

I also find them in my backyard. In a land locked area.

lol. Sure.


That doesnt account for the birds/hunter gatherers theory though.

Steenhuffel;13731172']How many do you want?
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html

don't give me stuff written by a guy typing in his mom's basement.

It does they're called FOSSILS

no. just no.

fossils from 4000-ish years ago? no.

there is no evidence of a total animal die-off 4000 years ago.

i dont think they had decimals when those passages were written.

Nope...but they did had fractions. Egyptians about the time the bible was written had the 22/7 aproximation which is much better than the one in the bible...

The bible was written by men not God. God just influenced what they wrote. and you don't even know what pi equals so don't criticize us when you don't know yourself!

:rolleyes:

It does they're called FOSSILS

:rolleyes:

lol. Sure.


That doesnt account for the birds/hunter gatherers theory though.

ya seagulls picked up clams and brought them all the way to my house and burie them in my backyard.

don't give me stuff written by a guy typing in his mom's basement.

Typing in your mom basements invalidates you as a source?

Interesting theory...I think I will be usefull...muwaahahahahaha

no. just no.

fossils from 4000-ish years ago? no.

there is no evidence of a total animal die-off 4000 years ago.

Have we dug that deep.

Nope...but they did had fractions. Egyptians about the time the bible was written had the 22/7 aproximation which is much better than the one in the bible...

*suppresses a silly united beleriand-ish dis of the ancient jews*

ya seagulls picked up clams and brought them all the way to my house and burie them in my backyard.

I never said they did it yesterday. You dont know what your yard looked lke 1 million years ago.

don't give me stuff written by a guy typing in his mom's basement.

So, when faced with information that might challenge your tiny world view you do the electronic equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting.

No wonder you're so ignorant.

I never said they did it yesterday. You dont know what your yard looked lke 1 million years ago.

well unless it was COVERED IN WATER

Have we dug that deep.

yes. its not very deep at all.

Steenhuffel;13731199']So, when faced with information that might challenge your tiny world view you do the electronic equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting.

No wonder you're so ignorant.

that was something you could of wrote. get me something from rueters or something and I'll consider it.

*suppresses a silly united beleriand-ish dis of the ancient jews*

God should have chosen better... I mean there was the Egyptians, the Sumerians, the Caananites... why did he chose the jews?

Had we waited some more and he could have picked the greeks...that woudl have been neat!
Greeks would have written PI in the holy book...not 3!

yes. its not very deep at all.

The world was flushed with water moving the layers of the Earth with sediments.

well unless it was COVERED IN WATER

Which every bit of archeological evidene refutes.

The world was flushed with water moving the layers of the Earth with sediments.

no, it wasnt. there is no evidence of any such thing.

no, it wasnt. there is no evidence of any such thing.

evidence is something forensic scientists don't even get sometimes.

God should have chosen better... I mean there was the Egyptians, the Sumerians, the Caananites... why did he chose the jews?

Had we waited some more and he could have picked the greeks...that woudl have been neat!
Greeks would have written PI in the holy book...not 3!

like the greeks would have been impressed by a god dressed up as a burning bush. they werent last off the turnip truck you know.

Which every bit of archeological evidene refutes.

Not True. The sediments are in columns right?

evidence is something forensic scientists don't even get sometimes.

if you have such evidence, lets look at it.

if you dont, there is no sense in supposing that it might exist. either it does or it doesnt.

it doesnt.

most scientists are religious. if they found evidence that the book of genesis was true in any part, they would be all over it and we would all know that such evidence exists.

like the greeks would have been impressed by a god dressed up as a burning bush. they werent last off the turnip truck you know.

Let's see...

Burning Bush God

vs.

Zeus Thrower of Lightning Bolts, Randy Old Goat.

...I think Zeus wins.

like the greeks would have been impressed by a god dressed up as a burning bush. they werent last off the turnip truck you know.

So you think god chose the jews because they were the more gullible?

The world was flushed with water moving the layers of the Earth with sediments.

There is 0 evidence to support that claim, none whatsoever

Come back when you have evidence

that was something you could of wrote. get me something from rueters or something and I'll consider it
I don't think that Reuters will be covering it because, basically, it's not news.

Seriously, the contradictions listed on that site are there to be checked out. Pick up your Bible, check the references, and deny that they contradict if you feel able to once you've seen them for yourself.

Part of me admires just how bloody-mindedly you are trying to defend your position on this but, honestly, it's indefensible. The Bible, particularly the OT but some areas of the NT (e.g. the Gospels) as well, is riddled with contradictions. You can try to spin it all you like, that remains a fact.

The more competent Christian apologists in the world have moved away from any kind of literal interpretation of this book precisely because it's simply not possible to defend such a stance.

The last time I read through the OT of my Bible (KJV variant) I was struck by just how much it come across as the sort of draft scribblings that an author would jot down before crossing out some plots and subplots in order to form a coherent story. It appears that someone didn't like the idea of culling any part of their god's word, and so they left all of it in.

if you have such evidence, lets look at it.

if you dont, there is no sense in supposing that it might exist. either it does or it doesnt.

it doesnt.

most scientists are religious. if they found evidence that the book of genesis was true in any part, they would be all over it and we would all know that such evidence exists.

Prove evolution!

Prove evolution!

You retort with a request for evidence to back your claim with a wish for someone to "Prove" something else?

That makes no sense their ability to do such or to show evidence does not negate your absolute and utter failure to produce evidence to support your claims.

Look what I found, it's some variables on my side:

1. High O2 levels
2. Medium CO2 levels
3. Warm environment due to:
a. UVA and UVB exposure due to lack of vapor canopy
b. Higher ground level
c. Lack of snow, or otherwise any winter conditions what so ever.
d. Regulated and constant humidity level, causing no variation in temperature.
4. Ultra Virile Plantlife, producing flawless fruits with all necessary nutrients to sustain life, O2 like crazy, and keeping said humidity in check.
5. Animals which at exclusively fruits and vegetables, causing no ground pollution from fecal waste which produces nitrogen instead of toxins, along with pumping out CO2 for the plants, and keeping them in check, and free of overgrowth.
6. Spongy soil that allows for both O2 and water vapor access to the root structures of plants.
7. Nitrogen fertilizer producing fish poop in the seas.
8. Oxygen producing krill and plankton in the seas.
9. Whales and fish to keep the plankton and krill in check.
10. Underground reserviors containing all (estimated) freshwater, probably below what we now call 'bedrock'.

that was something you could of wrote. get me something from rueters or something and I'll consider it.

Reuters is a news source. Why on earth do you think they'd be reporting on some collection of ancient myths?

And this is where I stop even pretending like I am taking you seriously.

So you can't?

Prove evolution!

And this is where I stop even pretending like I am taking you seriously.

So you think god chose the jews because they were the more gullible?

all im saying is that these are the people who thought that pi=3.

So you can't?

Can't what, take you seriously? No, I don't think anyone can at this point.

And this is where I stop even pretending like I am taking you seriously.

Well in reality, no one can really PROVE it without a shadow of doubt. All we have is an incomplete fossil record, and people have made assumptions about it. We could, although VERY unlikely, be so wrong. I don't think we are wrong, mind you, but its still a slight chance, right?

Can't what, take you seriously? No, I don't think anyone can at this point.

No prove evolution. it's just a question. Did I hit a nerve or something?

*suppresses a silly united beleriand-ish dis of the ancient jews*
??

all im saying is that these are the people who thought that pi=3.

Yet were able to have the richest kingdom of all time.

Well in reality, no one can really PROVE it without a shadow of doubt. All we have is an incomplete fossil record, and people have made assumptions about it. We could, although VERY unlikely, be so wrong. I don't think we are wrong, mind you, but its still a slight chance, right?

Thank you for not dodging my question.

Well in reality, no one can really PROVE it without a shadow of doubt. All we have is an incomplete fossil record, and people have made assumptions about it. We could, although VERY unlikely, be so wrong. I don't think we are wrong, mind you, but its still a slight chance, right?One does not need fossils to prove evolution. Fruit flies suffice.

Yet were able to have the richest kingdom of all time.

According to their own propaganda material.

Thank you for not dodging my question.

Well, I am not backing you up either. Just trying to find a middle ground. I hate such polarization, where it HAS to be THIS way or THAT way.

One does not need fossils to prove evolution. Fruit flies suffice.

Well, what we can measure in one species in a limited amount of time doesn't necessarily mean it applies for all lifeforms, over millions of years.

Yet were able to have the richest kingdom of all time.

Richest kingdom of all time...hardly. Mongols on the other hand....

Why god didnt chose the Mongols? that would have been so neat!

Well, I am not backing you up either. Just trying to find a middle ground. I hate such polarization, where it HAS to be THIS way or THAT way.

Exactly, why does it have to be either science [B]or[B] Religion why can't it be both?

Yet were able to have the richest kingdom of all time.The what? The richest kingdom of all time was Egypt. The wealth of Egypt had always been legendary. This ancient superpower's power was built on grain and gold.

Prove evolution!

so you dont have evidence. not that i expected any since it doesnt exist.

the theory of evolution is irrelevant to whether or not there is evidence for a world-wide flood.

Thank you for not dodging my question.

No one here is dodging your question. We are just done humoring you. You have proven time and time again that you dont know anything and are utterly incapable of backing up your point.

Science is not in the business of proving things. Thats what math does. Science proposes theories and tests those theories to see how well they hold up, until eventually that theory is disproven to be replaced with a superior theory. So far, the theory of evolution has held up as the most likely theory for life getting to where it is.

Could it be wrong? Yes, of course. It may at some point be replaced by a superior theory. However, it will always be superior to the superstitious myth of the Genisis story, which has an exactly 0% chance of being true.


Im running out of troll-feed.

[QUOTE=Knights of Liberty;13731293]No one here is dodging your question. We are just done humoring you. You have proven time and time again that you dont know anything and are utterly incapable of backing up your point.

Science is not in the business of proving things. Thats what math does. Science proposes theories and tests those theories to see how well they hold up, until eventually that theory is disproven to be replaced with a superior theory. So far, the theory of evolution has held up as the most likely theory for life getting to where it is.

Could it be wrong? Yes, of course. It may at some point be replaced by a superior theory. However, it will always be superior to the superstitious myth of the Genisis story, which has a exactl 0% chance of being true.


There is 0% proof of evolution. (and don't answer with look how much wolves and jackals look alike).

so you dont have evidence. not that i expected any since it doesnt exist.

the theory of evolution is irrelevant to whether or not there is evidence for a world-wide flood.

but can you prove it?

Yet were able to have the richest kingdom of all time.

what kingdom is that? and is there any non-biblical evidence that it ever existed in such splendor?

The what? The richest kingdom of all time was Egypt. The wealth of Egypt had always been legendary.

And the riches of Solomon hasn't been legendary?

??

im suppressing it.

No prove evolution. it's just a question. Did I hit a nerve or something?
There is 0% proof of evolution. (and don't answer with look how much wolves and jackals look alike).
That evolution takes place is fact. It has been observed, measured and verified time and time and time and time again. Evolution due to natural selection, as per the ideas published by Darwin and Wallace, is theoretical and as such is continually tested as new evidence is gethered. It has yet to be found wanting.

Exactly, why does it have to be either science or Religion why can't it be both?

Because Religion states that the universe was created in seven days. Science has calculated the age of the universe in... billions of years... I dont know the exact number.

There can NOT be any middle ground.

There is 0% proof of evolution. (and don't answer with look how much wolves and jackals look alike).

Says what sources and evidence?

Well, what we can measure in one species in a limited amount of time doesn't necessarily mean it applies for all lifeforms, over millions of years.Yes it does. Genes are the same size in all lifeforms, although they vary in numbers. And what affects them is the same in all species. Evolution is the result of changes in the genome meeting environmental settings that in combination determine the survival rate for a group of individuals.
Evolution happens all the time and it is irrefutable.

Says what sources and evidence?

Um...the entire scientific community.

but can you prove it?

Viruses.

Viruses.

viruses became humans. Ya and my computer came from that crumb on the table.

And the riches of Solomon hasn't been legendary?

What about Moctezuma?

but can you prove it?

im not a scientist. my inability (or unwillingness) to prove evolution does not change your lack of evidence for a world wide flood.

Because Religion states that the universe was created in seven days. Science has calculated the age of the universe in... billions of years... I dont know the exact number.

There can NOT be any middle ground.

billions of years the guy on the news said it would rain today and it's sunny.

And the riches of Solomon hasn't been legendary?Only inside the bible and derivative works (Qur'an etc). Solomon is not even mentioned in other sources.

Oh what a clever strategy.... every time he gets cornered he changes the subject completely... good good...

Really? The entire scientific community says there is 0% chance of evolution happening? Care to show me a source on that? Because Im pretty sure thats complete and total bullshit.

Okay then prove it. No one has proved it to me yet?

Um...the entire scientific community.

Really? The entire scientific community says there is 0% chance of evolution happening? Care to show me a source on that? Because Im pretty sure thats complete and total bullshit.

There is 0% proof of evolution. (and don't answer with look how much wolves and jackals look alike).

Can you prove that?

And the riches of Solomon hasn't been legendary?

actually, no.

did the egyptians write about their fabulously wealthy neighbors? did the babylonians? did anyone write anything at any time close to when solomon is supposed to have lived?

Oh what a clever strategy.... every time he gets cornered he changes the subject completely... good good...

so do y'all!

billions of years the guy on the news said it would rain today and it's sunny.

Your point is? :confused:

so do y'all!

And he does it once more!!!! yay...

viruses became humans. Ya and my computer came from that crumb on the table.

This statement just shows how utterl confused and ignorant you are.


Viruses evolve all the time. They change and adapt to function in a host without being destroyed by the immun system. That is, for example, why the cold is so difficult to "cure". There are hundreds of strains, and more are constantly evolving.

This statement just shows how utterl confused and ignorant you are.


Viruses evolve all the time. They change and adapt to function in a host without being destroyed by the immun system. That is, for example, why the cold is so difficult to "cure". There are hundreds of strains, and more are constantly evolving.

adapt is the keyword. Adaptions happen all the time but they're still viruses aren't they? They didn't change species.

Your point is? :confused:

That not even meterologists with 20 years of expierience cannot tell me the weather so why am I supposed to believe the scientists?

Okay then prove it. No one has proved it to me yet?

Oh no, you are not getting off that easily.


You said the entire scientific community said there was a 0% chance of evolution happening. I am still waiting for a source on that one. Or do you just want to admit you just shoved your foot in your mouth?

adapt is the keyword. Adaptions happen all the time but they're still viruses aren't they? They didn't change species.

..............


Adaptation = Evolution....

Oh no, you are not getting off that easily.


You said the entire scientific community said there was a 0% chance of evolution happening. I am still waiting for a source on that one. Or do you just want to admit you just shoved your foot in your mouth?

Ok you're right I came up with that one. Now answer my question.

There is 0% proof of evolution. (and don't answer with look how much wolves and jackals look alike).

This is pure trolling... thats why I love it.

..............


Adaptation = Evolution....no. adaption is what an individual does. evolution is what happens in procreation.

That not even meterologists with 20 years of expierience cannot tell me the weather so why am I supposed to believe the scientists?

Because they are more informed then your thousand year old book of fairy tales?

Because they are more informed then your thousand year old book of fairy tales?

So I am supposed to believe someone that's guessing over people that were actually there?

That not even meterologists with 20 years of expierience cannot tell me the weather so why am I supposed to believe the scientists?

Can the bible tell me the weather?

Ok you're right I came up with that one.

So you are admitting to lying?

So I am supposed to believe someone that's guessing over people that were actually there?

In that case there are many records of people who were actually there and have nothing written about the flood.

Can the bible tell me the weather?

No because it's not a weatherman. oh wait that doesn't matter it still couldn't tell you the weather.

Ok, you admit that you have lied through your teeth on that comment.


Why should I know believe anything you say? In my mind, everything youve said has been equally untrue and just became indefensable. You are finished as a poster. Be gone troll.


ps- I have answered your question. Twice. Your pathetic memory is not my problem.

answer it a third time.

Ok you're right I came up with that one. Now answer my question.

Ok, you admit that you have lied through your teeth on that comment.


Why should I know believe anything you say? In my mind, everything youve said has been equally untrue and just became indefensable. You are finished as a poster. Be gone troll.


ps- I have answered your question. Twice. Your pathetic memory is not my problem.

No because it's not a weatherman. oh wait that doesn't matter it still couldn't tell you the weather.

THEN THE BIBLE IS WORTHLESS.... BURN THEM BURN THEM ALL

prove me wrong!

billions of years the guy on the news said it would rain today and it's sunny.

Do you have any idea how fucking complex meteorology is? The development of an accurate forecast model isn't something you just sit down, crap onto a page, and then pass on to the newscaster. It's an extremely involved process in terms of both data acquisition and modelling. Not that I expect you to understand this, but, well, maybe someone else on here will appreciate the sheer enormity of effort that goes into developing a three day forecast.

So I am supposed to believe someone that's guessing over people that were actually there?

There is no evidence they were actually there.


In fact, they werent. Considering the OT was written during the Babylonian Captivity.

Can the bible tell me the weather?
past weather.

answer it a third time.

No. Page back. Its really easy.


Why should I have to keep answering the same question? Again, your inability to read, understand, remember, or all three is none of my concern.

No. Page back. Its really easy.


Why should I have to keep answering the same question? Again, your inability to read, understand, remember, or all three is none of my concern.

Is yours the virus thingy cause i already replied about that one.

not even meterologists with 20 years of expierience cannot tell me the weather so why am I supposed to believe the scientists?
Slightly unfair shift in focus there, I feel, in your attempt to equate prediction with observation.

A fairer corollary would be asking a meteorologist to tell you what yesterday's weather was like... betcha they're all able to do that.

So because your local meteorologist gave a prediction of rain, not a guaranteed "It's going to rain today!", you distrust all scientists?

Wow. That is just astounding.

Not scientists, Darwinists

That not even meterologists with 20 years of expierience cannot tell me the weather so why am I supposed to believe the scientists?

So because your local meteorologist gave a prediction of rain, not a guaranteed "It's going to rain today!", you distrust all scientists?

Wow. That is just astounding.

Slightly unfair shift in focus there, I feel, in your attempt to equate prediction with observation.

A fairer corollary would be asking a meteorologist to tell you what yesterday's weather was like... betcha they're all able to do that.

No i'd ask what the weather was like 10,000 years ago.

Is yours the virus thingy cause i already replied about that one.

Ive done it twice. Two seperate arguements. And I responded to your pitiful attempt to invalidate the virus comparison.

Not scientists, Darwinists

Meteorologist are darwinist...WOW...why nobody told me about this!

..............


Adaptation = Evolution....

No it doesn't. Evolution is the changing of species.

Meteorologist are darwinist...WOW...why nobody told me about this!

Some might be. You never know. GTG be back later.

your inability to read, understand, remember, or all three is none of my concern.
Anyone else find it ironic that people who want to base their important decisions on an ancient book which can be difficult to interpret, are typically people who have very basic problems with reading comprehension?

Not scientists, Darwinists

Once again:

That not even meterologists with 20 years of expierience cannot tell me the weather so why am I supposed to believe the scientists?

Oh really?

No i'd ask what the weather was like 10,000 years ago.
According to your source material, there was no planet for there to actually be weather on 10,000 years ago, so I'll just assume that that was yet another off the cuff blurting out of nonsense on your part.

You stated that you distrusted all scientists because one of them was unable to predict something that is acknowledged as being hugely difficult to predict. My objection to your comparing that to theories founded on observations of things that have actually happened, as opposed to things that might happen today, stands.

Are you all arguing with one guy?
Come on play fair:D

Is it just me or does TI just seem to have a bone to pick with weather men?

Anyone else find it ironic that people who want to base their important decisions on an ancient book which can be difficult to interpret, are typically people who have very basic problems with reading comprehension?

I find it more sad.

Is it just me or does TI just seem to have a bone to pick with weather men?
It's either the wild flailings of a genuinely ignorant individual with a seriously blinkered worldview, or it's a neat exercise in trolling.

Either way, it doesn't hurt to have some responses to his 'objections' posted for posterity. When beliefs like these go unchallenged, as they have for most of history, they have a nasty tendency to pick up a following and I hate the thought of my future children having to grow up in a world of stupid.

Do it for the children ;)

Is it just me or does TI just seem to have a bone to pick with weather men?

dont we all?

its sick to call them SCIENTISTS when they are mostly pretty faces reading other people's work. (tv weathermen that is)

dont we all?

its sick to call them SCIENTISTS when they are mostly pretty faces reading other people's work. (tv weathermen that is)

TV weathermen, yes. The meteorologist who actually put together the forecast? Most certainly not. The poor fellow who's trying to actually do research in the field? Have pity on us wayward souls.

dont we all?

its sick to call them SCIENTISTS when they are mostly pretty faces reading other people's work. (tv weathermen that is)

Well, they have to put up with being universally hated because someone else's work is WRONG half of the time. So I guess they deserve some sort of title...

Are you all arguing with one guy?
Come on play fair:D

If you like him...take his side... He could use a tag out.

TV weathermen, yes. The meteorologist who actually put together the forecast? Most certainly not. The poor fellow who's trying to actually do research in the field? Have pity on us wayward souls.

do you doubt that when he attacks weathermen he is referring to the pretty girl pointing to the weather map not the meteorologist who made up the forecast?

I think I'm done with this thread now... very long.

Tata BB

i expect it to make religious sense. maybe if darwin had been emerging from the mouth of jesus instead of being swallowed it would have implied that even darwin exists because of the grace of god...

but jesus doesnt swallow things.

Or maybe he does and those stories were just left out of the bible.

Pi = 3.14 ooo sory we were off by .14

π=3.14159265358979323846264338327950288419716939937510

π=3.14159265358979323846264338327950288419716939937510

That's not correct either.

name one!

How many languages before Babel
Genesis 11:1
And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech.

Genesis 11:6-9
And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one
language.... Go to, let us go down, and there confound their
language, that they may not understand one another's speech.... Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the LORD did there confound the language of all the earth:Genesis 10:5
By these were the isles of the Gentiles divided in their lands, every one after his tongue.

Genesis 10:20
These are the sons of Ham, after their families, after their tongues.

Genesis 10:31
These are the sons of Shem, after their families, after their tongues.
There's one.

π=3.14159265358979323846264338327950288419716939937510

I have the first 100 million digits uploaded
http://www.youdontevenrealize.com/pi.txt

Prove evolution!And this is where I stop even pretending like I am taking you seriously.So you can't?

No, he can't, because that is not what science does. Science does not prove things, it tries to disprove things. So far, no one has managed to disprove evolution.
I would suggest you study science a bit. Also, since you seem to be under the impression that there are no contradictions in the bible, I suggest you actually read it.

Exactly, why does it have to be either science [B]or[B] Religion why can't it be both?

It can be, and is for many people, including many scientists.

i dont think they had decimals when those passages were written.

No, but they did have fractions. Other civilisations in the Middle East like the Babylonians worked out pretty good approximations of Pi (22/7 for example, which comes out to 3.142857...).

viruses became humans. Ya and my computer came from that crumb on the table.

:confused:

So I am supposed to believe someone that's guessing over people that were actually there?

Do you have any strong evidence that the writers of the bible were actually there?

Not scientists, Darwinists

There's no such thing.

That's not correct either.

True, its a lot closer than 3.14, though.

where's my post?
It was a long one.
Explaining what viruses are and how they DO evolve.
And a few other things.
Aaargh, I'm not writing it again:upyours:

True, its a lot closer than 3.14, though.

That's just the point. It undermines the criticism of using 3, to give an approximation of pi as a decimal and say "this is pi."

It's also insulting to pi, so watch yourself.

viruses became humans. Ya and my computer came from that crumb on the table.

No, that crumb and your table have the same source, your quote's a bit like saying that one mouth of a delta is caused by the part ten miles along the coast.

That's just the point. It undermines the criticism of using 3, to give an approximation of pi as a decimal and say "this is pi."

It's also insulting to pi, so watch yourself.

*watches self*
*fails to do tricks*
*gets bored*

So I couldn't be bothered to use this: ≈
So what?

And in any case how can you insult a number anyways?

So I couldn't be bothered to use this: ≈
So what?

Politeness forbids me to say.

And in any case how can you insult a number anyways?

Approximating it is one of the ways. Forcing it to do unskilled work is another.

Come on you mathematicians, let's pijack this thread!

Has anyone read Saint Agostino 'The City Of God' and 'The Confessions' books?
As everyone knows Saint Agostino was the biggest philosofer in the period of patristic. The thing is he says in his book that the salvation doesn't come through faith but by the grace of God. And he uses himself as an exemple of that.

He made me wonder something, if the salvation comes through God's grace and all we can do is hope that He'll chose us. Why bother in being good christian if God will chose you regardless your life style?

Yes I do why else would the bible give the exact measurements of the ark.

I'm getting more and more sure you're a troll....

Well, he will not be killed, or hurt anymore. That was a one time deal.-nods-

I've seen Buffy. These mythical figures turn out to be easy meat to a RPG launcher.

unless there were gaps in the firmiment to let the heat out, or two holes at the poles.

If you're for real (which I'm beginning to doubt more and more), then this is pretty impressive. By your logic, it can't be hot at the bottom of a cup of coffee, because the heat can get out at the top...

yeah ive read that "theory".

we still know that there was never a world wide flood. such an event--the simultaneous dying off of all people and animals on earth except for one boatful--would have left undeniable achaeological and biological evidence.

Not least being the evidence it would have left in the otherwise unbroken historical records of a number of cultures (who - theoretically - were 'killed in the Flood - since everyone was, right?) which somehow just carry on before and after the alleged event.

I'm curious as to how so many people just ignored the fact that they were dead under five and a half miles of water. Careless of them, really. They probably just pretended they were still alive, to make a literal interpretation of Genesis look bad.

He made me wonder something, if the salvation comes through God's grace and all we can do is hope that He'll chose us. Why bother in being good christian if God will chose you regardless your life style?

because you know the first ones He'll pick would be ones that lived life according to His desires. "Stacking the deck" so to speak. ;)

that was something you could of wrote. get me something from rueters or something and I'll consider it.

For biblical contradictions?

All you have to do is actually read your bible, and pay attention to the bits that don't match....

Prove evolution!

Why? Evolution isn't the only alternative to Biblical Creationism. Even if you COULD 'prove' evolution to be false, it wouldn't make Biblical Creationism any more likely to be true.

Not least being the evidence it would have left in the otherwise unbroken historical records of a number of cultures (who - theoretically - were 'killed in the Flood - since everyone was, right?) which somehow just carry on before and after the alleged event.

I'm curious as to how so many people just ignored the fact that they were dead under five and a half miles of water. Careless of them, really. They probably just pretended they were still alive, to make a literal interpretation of Genesis look bad.

freaking tools of satan will do anything, even create evidence of continuous human habitation predating the flood.

Exactly, why does it have to be either science [B]or[B] Religion why can't it be both?

It can. But you don't really mean what you say - because you would probably argue with the Native American creation myths, wouldn't you?

You don't mean 'religion' - you just mean Christianity... and the problem there is, there's no reason to believe the Genesis account any more than any one else's.

Has anyone read Saint Agostino 'The City Of God' and 'The Confessions' books?
As everyone knows Saint Agostino was the biggest philosofer in the period of patristic. The thing is he says in his book that the salvation doesn't come through faith but by the grace of God. And he uses himself as an exemple of that.

He made me wonder something, if the salvation comes through God's grace and all we can do is hope that He'll chose us. Why bother in being good christian if God will chose you regardless your life style?

thats a good question. what about those that god does NOT choose? do they really end up in hell because god cant be bothered to grant them his grace?

do you know the phrase "there but for the grace of god go i"?

its used when something bad happens to someone and we give a backhanded thanks to god that it didnt happen to us. but if you are the one who got the bad outcome, where was the grace of god?

because you know the first ones He'll pick would be ones that lived life according to His desires. "Stacking the deck" so to speak. ;)

Well He chose Saint Agostino that was everything that He said not be and did everything that He was against. Agostino said that in his book. He didn't change until God 'touched' him with His grace.

He said that if God chose him to be touched He could chose anyone regardless the life that the person has been living before His touch.

I'm sorry it's kind of hard to explain that in English lol

freaking tools of satan will do anything, even create evidence of continuous human habitation predating the flood.

It's quite clever, you have to grant them that. They were so intent on fucking up the future records of the flood, that they pretended not to die during the flood, and pretended they were still alive, and that their cultures were still intact and flourishing after the events were supposed to have transpired.

Sneaky buggers.

It's quite clever, you have to grant them that. They were so intent on fucking up the future records of the flood, that they pretended not to die during the flood, and pretended they were still alive, and that their cultures were still intact and flourishing after the events were supposed to have transpired.

Sneaky buggers.

and you wonder why christians feel persecuted.

and you wonder why christians feel persecuted.

I get it now. With a conspiracy of that scale, it's not too unexpected, I guess.

I'm just glad there's not a group of dead people pretending to be alive just to get at me.

Funny thing about most christians is that they don't even try to study more to back up their argument and to defend their belife. They just use the same argument over and over again.

I'm just glad there's not a group of dead people pretending to be alive just to get at me.

Riiiiight.

Well He chose Saint Agostino that was everything that He said not be and did everything that He was against. Agostino said that in his book. He didn't change until God 'touched' him with His grace.

He said that if God chose him to be touched He could chose anyone regardless the life that the person has been living before His touch.

I'm sorry it's kind of hard to explain that in English lol

yep, now how many others who did NOT live a life pleasing to Him were given salvation?

yep, now how many others who did NOT live a life pleasing to Him were given salvation?

what is the answer to that question?

what is the answer to that question?

dunno, it's one of those questions you get the answer to after the test is done and graded. :p

what is the answer to that question?

How many that lived a life of pleasing Him were given?

See the thing is we wont know the answer anytime soon.

dunno, it's one of those questions you get the answer to after the test is done and graded. :p

you must have had some point in mind when you asked.

st augustine was a libertine wasnt he? he wasnt living a life pleasing to god until his conversion.

so was his life typical or unusual? did god give him a special gift?

i dont think there is a set answer to those questions. its a point of view thing that depends on how you view god and his relationship to the unsaved.

you must have had some point in mind when you asked.

st augustine was a libertine wasnt he? he wasnt living a life pleasing to god until his conversion.

so was his life typical or unusual? did god give him a special gift?

i dont think there is a set answer to those questions. its a point of view thing that depends on how you view god and his relationship to the unsaved.

He was the man of many women and the woman of many men lol. He didn't give a damn about God or His principles. He said that God 'touched' and after that he realized the mess his was. God gave him His grace.

You should really read the book, it is amazing.

He was the man of many women and the woman of many men lol. He didn't give a damn about God or His principles. He said that God 'touched' and after that he realized the mess his was. God gave him His grace.

You should really read the book, it is amazing.

maybe i can find a used copy with the dirty parts marked in yellow highlighter so i can skip the religious stuff.

I just want to say, at the moment I posted here, there were 999 posts on the link on nationstates.
eep.

yep, now how many others who did NOT live a life pleasing to Him were given salvation?salvation of what??

you must have had some point in mind when you asked. nope, no point. you mentioned being saved though his glory and wondering why one would strive to live a Christian life if God sometimes chose and graced those who didn't.

so was his life typical or unusual? did god give him a special gift? God did give him a special Gift. but wether or not his being graced was 'typical' or 'unusual' is one baised off of opinion.

i dont think there is a set answer to those questions. its a point of view thing that depends on how you view god and his relationship to the unsaved.agreed.

If you're for real (which I'm beginning to doubt more and more), then this is pretty impressive. By your logic, it can't be hot at the bottom of a cup of coffee, because the heat can get out at the top...

*Inadvertantly considers what the dispersion would be of the heat flowing through the cup
*Shudders as memories of partial differential equations pop into his head.

I have a better objection. If there were holes at the celestial poles of the firmament, you'd be able to see them. In the Northern Hemisphere, they'd be near Polaris.