Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Yet nature isn't sentient.Nature is more powerful than I am, Davey. I can't wipe out whole cities the way tsunamis can.
So...you DIDN'T read the Bible.And if there is some supreme being, why should Jesus have had any different a relationship with it than most other people?
It figures you'd try to put 2 and 2 together and end up with Wednesday.
No, I got them, all right. You've done nothing but prove you don't understand a single thing about Christianity, but feel qualified to speak authoritatively on it.It's great literature, but a lot of harm has come from making it into more than that.
And Communism, which is state-sponsored atheism, has killed a hundred million people.
Did you have a point?
I've had many, all of which you missed.
Really? Name me a religious Communist society.(And atheism isn't even necessary in a communist nation to begin with. There's no corrleation.)
Uh huh. He spouted stupid nonsense just like you. I figured there was a pretty good chance.I bet you've read -- and believe -- Howard Zinn.How do you know, without citing an account written long after his death?
Amirite?
Noyouaint.
I know who he is and what his writings are generally about, but I haven't read them. Thanks for playing.
Enjoy. That's how I feel about Modbert. He is really smart.
My impression is that you're easily impressed...
Yet nature isn't sentient.
So...you DIDN'T read the Bible.
It figures you'd try to put 2 and 2 together and end up with Wednesday.
If you'd read the Bible, you'd know why Jesus would have had a different a relationship with God than most other people.
But you don't know that. So you couldn't have read the Bible.
That's some of that "logic" stuff you claim to value but don't really understand.
From that statement, I can say that you don't believe any of the "written" history unless there are signed documents to back it up? You don't believe in the ancient cultures because there is no "accurate" accounts? You don't believe anything written about the middle ages because there are no "accurate" accounts?
I am so relieved, because for sure you can't "believe" in evolution, because there certainly aren't any "accurate" accounts of any of that BS.
Everyone is prone to error, and of course I'm not going to take just one historian's word at face value.
Most people look at corroborating evidence when they want to determine whether something is (at least probably) true. And yes, there's all sorts of non-written evidence about ancient cultures, the medieval period, and even evidence that supports Darwin's theory (imagine that!)
And surprise, that doesn't mean that Darwin explained it all perfectly, only that it's the best explanation for the evidence that has been developed so far.
Whoa, big boy, you'll hurt yourself trying to back paddle so fast!
How funny, there is more evidence and documents supporting the Biblical events than the 90 percent of the history, and there is no documentation of evolution occurring (fossils can be anything, and they do not have the time thing covered that well), yet you want to support "those" stories, and deny the Bible. You are now officially speaking out of both sides of your mouth.
An Israeli kibbutz.No, I got them, all right. You've done nothing but prove you don't understand a single thing about Christianity, but feel qualified to speak authoritatively on it.And Communism, which is state-sponsored atheism, has killed a hundred million people.
Did you have a point?
I've had many, all of which you missed.
Leftists and atheists do that a lot.
Really? Name me a religious Communist society.(And atheism isn't even necessary in a communist nation to begin with. There's no corrleation.)
It figures you'd try to put 2 and 2 together and end up with Wednesday.
If you'd read the Bible, you'd know why Jesus would have had a different a relationship with God than most other people.
But you don't know that. So you couldn't have read the Bible.
That's some of that "logic" stuff you claim to value but don't really understand.
Wrong again. It's a logical fallacy - which is your stock in trade.
Everyone is prone to error, and of course I'm not going to take just one historian's word at face value.
Most people look at corroborating evidence when they want to determine whether something is (at least probably) true. And yes, there's all sorts of non-written evidence about ancient cultures, the medieval period, and even evidence that supports Darwin's theory (imagine that!)
And surprise, that doesn't mean that Darwin explained it all perfectly, only that it's the best explanation for the evidence that has been developed so far.
Whoa, big boy, you'll hurt yourself trying to back paddle so fast!
How funny, there is more evidence and documents supporting the Biblical events than the 90 percent of the history, and there is no documentation of evolution occurring (fossils can be anything, and they do not have the time thing covered that well), yet you want to support "those" stories, and deny the Bible. You are now officially speaking out of both sides of your mouth.
Everything I said is self consistent. You can't make that claim.
Whoa, big boy, you'll hurt yourself trying to back paddle so fast!
How funny, there is more evidence and documents supporting the Biblical events than the 90 percent of the history, and there is no documentation of evolution occurring (fossils can be anything, and they do not have the time thing covered that well), yet you want to support "those" stories, and deny the Bible. You are now officially speaking out of both sides of your mouth.
Everything I said is self consistent. You can't make that claim.
It is open for all to see.
You: the Bible hasn't been "accurate" enough for us to "know".
You: Darwin has the best explanation of how life "developed" so far.
One has witnesses and different writers that wrote very similar descriptions of an event. Even P Pilot mentioned the Christ in his writings.
One has a man's "theory" that he made up to have his travels/work/livelyhood paid for by "donors".
One had His followers murdered for their belief in him. Following the years of His "rising", thousands were tortured and murdered (in muslims countries that is still happening). They did not renounce their belief.
Wonder how many "Darwinists" would be willing to die for his "teachings"?
One had His followers murdered for their belief in him. Following the years of His "rising", thousands were tortured and murdered (in muslims countries that is still happening). They did not renounce their belief.
I don't think it's solely a question of comprehension. It's completely different to read the book and use it as a guide for your life.
One had His followers murdered for their belief in him. Following the years of His "rising", thousands were tortured and murdered (in muslims countries that is still happening). They did not renounce their belief.
That's just another variation of "Well, a bunch of people jumped off a bridge, so I should do it, too!"
...how do you expect him to save you?
This seems like a fatal theological flaw if ever there was one.
Everything I said is self consistent. You can't make that claim.
It is open for all to see.
You: the Bible hasn't been "accurate" enough for us to "know".
You: Darwin has the best explanation of how life "developed" so far.
One has witnesses and different writers that wrote very similar descriptions of an event. Even P Pilot mentioned the Christ in his writings.
One has a man's "theory" that he made up to have his travels/work/livelyhood paid for by "donors".
One had His followers murdered for their belief in him. Following the years of His "rising", thousands were tortured and murdered (in muslims countries that is still happening). They did not renounce their belief.
Wonder how many "Darwinists" would be willing to die for his "teachings"?
Just because people are willing to die for their beliefs, doesn't make it sound science.
I don't think it's solely a question of comprehension. It's completely different to read the book and use it as a guide for your life.
If you are using it for "a guide for your life", I agree. If you "want" to understand how Christians can believe what they believe, then it is essential that you have some comprehension of the Bible. Otherwise, the wackos want to make the claim of the Hebrews doing genocide, and David and Johnathan were lovers (it does not say that, it points to very different relationships), marriage means different partners, there is nothing about homosexual behavior in the NT, etc.
Wonkers, started the thread to "dis" Christians. He claimed that he read the Bible. He avoided my question on comprehension and did not acknowledge some of the basics that I listed. He wants to jump around and attack from all sides, but does not want to deal with the truth.
Again with your faith, I would not read the material and pick out specifics to mock and ridicule you. I might pick out specifics to ask you, so that I would understand why you believe that. Your life, "your life" is yours to make the decisions that you think are best for you. I want no power over your choices. I want no responsibility for the consequences of those choices. I may disagree with your choices; I may even go so far as to point out that choices you made and spoke about are damaging (in my experiences). Still, I want no power over "your life" and what you believe. That is between you and the Creator.
Islam, is a different thing. I have repeated again and again, the spiritual side of islam may be helpful to some people, but the Shariah side (that will not be renounced by any muslim), gives me the willies. It is a darkness that spreads until it is "forcefully" stopped. I do have a problem with that. If a systematic destruction is taking place due to "one" belief (supposedly a religion), it is obvious that it does not act in the interest of "people" but of dark spirituality that does not want the "truth" known. That said, I want no power over those people to "force" their lives to follow a pattern that I believe is best. They have their own choices to make and their own consequences to live.
Wonkers wants to tell other people that they believe wrong without the comprehension of what they believe. It appears petty and small. If he had comprehension, then eventually, we would get into the mysteries that are beyond the understanding of men. Those are fun to try to discuss, because we really have nothing in the physical universe to compare. Wonkers has said he read the Bible, but goes right back to his talking points without considering the depths of the Bible. It is sad. Maybe he is just predjudiced against Christians.
It is open for all to see.
You: the Bible hasn't been "accurate" enough for us to "know".
You: Darwin has the best explanation of how life "developed" so far.
One has witnesses and different writers that wrote very similar descriptions of an event. Even P Pilot mentioned the Christ in his writings.
One has a man's "theory" that he made up to have his travels/work/livelyhood paid for by "donors".
One had His followers murdered for their belief in him. Following the years of His "rising", thousands were tortured and murdered (in muslims countries that is still happening). They did not renounce their belief.
Wonder how many "Darwinists" would be willing to die for his "teachings"?
Just because people are willing to die for their beliefs, doesn't make it sound science.
Didn't say it was science. Did say it was truth. Big difference.
One had His followers murdered for their belief in him. Following the years of His "rising", thousands were tortured and murdered (in muslims countries that is still happening). They did not renounce their belief.
That's just another variation of "Well, a bunch of people jumped off a bridge, so I should do it, too!"
Says the darwinist.
