0
   

Don't tell me there's any proof for creationism.

Forums: Religion, Creationism, Spirituality And Religion, Insanity
Email this Topic • Print this Page
 
 
Joe Nation
 
  2  
Reply Wed 23 Jul, 2008 04:50 am
Sorry. OF


Now, got milk?

Got proof?

Joe(got Syntexcheck.)Nation
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Wed 23 Jul, 2008 05:03 am
respectfully editing joes post
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Neo is trying to do an imitation of one thousand angels on the head of a pin rather than offer a scintilla of proof that any on this existence in the result of the actions of a supernatural creator.
actually should read
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Neo is trying to do an imitation of one thousand angels on the head of a pin rather than offer a scintilla of proof that any OF this existence IS the result of the actions of a supernatural creator.



I believe thats the way Joe meant it. Now please comply.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jul, 2008 05:12 am
I'm not insisting that any one believe the bible is authentic. What I find laughable is the superciliousness of those who would presume to tell me what I must believe.

I understand that my belief in same relegates me to a2k dweeb status. So what?

Nevertheless, the allegations made in the bible about angels and gods are pretty straightforward:

There were other beings in the universe who were witness to the creation. If that is what is meant by polytheism, I apologize to the esteemed member for disagreeing.

You may call them by whatever name you wish, but one of them apparently became Satan, as recorded in Genesis, chapter 3.

Some of them apparently chose to come to earth, as recorded in Genesis, chapter 6. They were not destroyed in the flood, but their hybrid offspring would have been.

Many have been worshipped as gods. Even the Israelites worshipped some of them, in spite of warnings to the contrary.

They have been referred to as angels in several places. For example, Revelation, chapter 12 Refers to 2 opposing groups.

As to who created these beings, I suppose you will just have to guess.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jul, 2008 05:22 am
Oh, and how many may fit on the head of a pin?

Beats me.

Check your pincushion under black light during a full moon and let me know.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Wed 23 Jul, 2008 05:27 am
neo
Quote:
What I find laughable is the superciliousness


I dont think Ive heard that word used in about 20 years and that was in some novel wherein the author was just looking to max out his syllable count.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jul, 2008 05:31 am
neologist wrote:
I'm not insisting that any one believe the bible is authentic. What I find laughable is the superciliousness of those who would presume to tell me what I must believe.


Who's tellin' you what to believe, Creep? Insofar as concerns me, i've just been pointing out your horseshit, and why i'm not prepared to buy the dog and pony show. I don't give a rat's ass what crackpot fairy tales you choose to believe in.

The real superciliousness around here is the bible-thumpers peddling incredibly stupid whoppers, and expecting to be treated as though they were engaged in serious debate.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jul, 2008 05:31 am
farmerman wrote:
neo
Quote:
What I find laughable is the superciliousness


I dont think Ive heard that word used in about 20 years and that was in some novel wherein the author was just looking to max out his syllable count.
Yeah.

It just proves what a dweeb I am for using it.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Wed 23 Jul, 2008 05:33 am
syllables / no. of words in a paragraph= FOG FACTOR


Anything with a fog factor > 3 is considered to be "Freshman English Comp level" or "Govt Beureaucrat level"
WATCH IT, or soon you will have to submit your posts in triplicate
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jul, 2008 05:41 am
I see the esteemed member has chimed in by misreading yet another of my statements.

I am not saying some of you folks are telling me what to believe. Rather, some on this board have incorrectly represented what I do believe.

Sort of like telling me that because I am a Mariners fan, I must believe the team does not suck.

Also, I admit to being a dweeb, but have not crept lately.

Brew that one.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Wed 23 Jul, 2008 05:44 am
The Flannel-mouthed Bible-Thumper wrote:
What I find laughable is the superciliousness of those who would presume to tell me what I must believe. (emphasis added)


. . . and then . . .

The Flannel-mouthed Bible-Thumper wrote:
I am not saying some of you folks are telling me what to believe.


Words have meanings which will come back to bite you in the ass if you lie about what you've written.

Liar.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jul, 2008 05:53 am
Perhaps I should have said ". . . who would presume to tell me what I must necessarily believe."

I pray I did not upset the sublime demeanor of the esteemed one.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jul, 2008 05:55 am
An esteemed one once wrote:

"Words have meanings which will come back to bite you in the ass if you lie about what you've written."

How profound.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Wed 23 Jul, 2008 06:01 am
Your snide and pathetic attempts at sarcasm and your feeble attempt to claim that you didn't say what you patently wrote notwithstanding, you remain a liar.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jul, 2008 08:56 am
A word misplaced, inserted or omitted.

This often applies when posting:

I know you think you understand what you believe I wrote, but I'm not sure you realize that what I wrote is not what I meant.

Of course, this is never the case when the one posting is highly esteemed.

Then again .. . . .
0 Replies
 
mesquite
 
  2  
Reply Thu 24 Jul, 2008 11:05 pm
neologist wrote:
Nevertheless, the allegations made in the bible about angels and gods are pretty straightforward:

There were other beings in the universe who were witness to the creation. If that is what is meant by polytheism, I apologize to the esteemed member for disagreeing.

You may call them by whatever name you wish, but one of them apparently became Satan, as recorded in Genesis, chapter 3.

There is no mention of Satan in Genesis chapter three. You are getting that from Revelation which reads like John was on a massively bad mushroom trip.

Quote:
Some of them apparently chose to come to earth, as recorded in Genesis, chapter 6. They were not destroyed in the flood, but their hybrid offspring would have been.

It is not at all clear that the term "sons of God" in Genesis 6 is alluding to pre-creation beings, but if it were...

Why would they not have died in the flood? Would they not have to have been of the flesh in order to breed with man?

Why would the hybrid offspring have to have been destroyed? Couldn't they have been in Noah's line?
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Jul, 2008 05:16 am
mesquite wrote:
. . . There is no mention of Satan in Genesis chapter three. You are getting that from Revelation which reads like John was on a massively bad mushroom trip.
True.
mesquite wrote:

It is not at all clear that the term "sons of God" in Genesis 6 is alluding to pre-creation beings, but if it were...

Why would they not have died in the flood? Would they not have to have been of the flesh in order to breed with man?
My own opinion, of course:
If they were non human and took the form of humans in order to have relations with women, they would certainly have the power to return to their non human form.
mesquite wrote:
Why would the hybrid offspring have to have been destroyed? Couldn't they have been in Noah's line?
I'm not sure I understand this question. According to the story, only 8 people survived the flood.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Fri 25 Jul, 2008 07:25 am
wow, and RL is snicking about whether a much studied complex organic polymer was evidenced to be a principal chemical in early earth. Yet his cohorts are busy arguing whether there were invisible beings who mated with the few women during early Genesis time, and then turned back into G'in.

UH YEH, Ask me if Im willing to buy into these fairy tales that keep building and changing as the conversations progress. The omnly evolution that these guys buy into is the growth of a "ripping yarn" Laughing
0 Replies
 
mesquite
 
  2  
Reply Fri 25 Jul, 2008 12:58 pm
neologist wrote:
mesquite wrote:
. . . There is no mention of Satan in Genesis chapter three. You are getting that from Revelation which reads like John was on a massively bad mushroom trip.
True.
mesquite wrote:

It is not at all clear that the term "sons of God" in Genesis 6 is alluding to pre-creation beings, but if it were...

Why would they not have died in the flood? Would they not have to have been of the flesh in order to breed with man?
My own opinion, of course:
If they were non human and took the form of humans in order to have relations with women, they would certainly have the power to return to their non human form.

By "return to their non human form", do you mean like Jesus did? I say that because I think I recall you saying that Jesus was also a pre-creation being.
neologist wrote:
mesquite wrote:
Why would the hybrid offspring have to have been destroyed? Couldn't they have been in Noah's line?
I'm not sure I understand this question. According to the story, only 8 people survived the flood.

By "Noah's line" I meant the line that Noah was born into. Couldn't either Noah or one of his ancestors have been one of these hybrids? After all Genesis 6:4 says that they were "men of renown".
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Jul, 2008 08:39 pm
mesquite wrote:
neologist wrote:
mesquite wrote:
. . . There is no mention of Satan in Genesis chapter three. You are getting that from Revelation which reads like John was on a massively bad mushroom trip.
True.
mesquite wrote:

It is not at all clear that the term "sons of God" in Genesis 6 is alluding to pre-creation beings, but if it were...

Why would they not have died in the flood? Would they not have to have been of the flesh in order to breed with man?
My own opinion, of course:
If they were non human and took the form of humans in order to have relations with women, they would certainly have the power to return to their non human form.

By "return to their non human form", do you mean like Jesus did? I say that because I think I recall you saying that Jesus was also a pre-creation being.
Before the creation of mankind? . . . Because, unlike trinitarians, I think it obvious that Jesus was also a creation - 'only begotten' as is often said. So, yes. These creatures would have had that power.
mesquite wrote:

neologist wrote:
mesquite wrote:
Why would the hybrid offspring have to have been destroyed? Couldn't they have been in Noah's line?
I'm not sure I understand this question. According to the story, only 8 people survived the flood.

By "Noah's line" I meant the line that Noah was born into. Couldn't either Noah or one of his ancestors have been one of these hybrids? After all Genesis 6:4 says that they were "men of renown".
Noah's line was recorded in Genesis
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  0  
Reply Sat 26 Jul, 2008 09:59 am
neologist wrote:
I think it obvious that Jesus was also a creation - 'only begotten' as is often said.


In context, the term "Only begotten" refers only to Christ's appearance in a human body, not to being 'created'.

Jesus is presented in the Biblical text as the creator, not as created.


Heb 1:8-10 But about the Son he says,
"Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever,
and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom.
You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness;
therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions
by anointing you with the oil of joy." He also says,
"In the beginning, O Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth,
and the heavens are the work of your hands.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

What if no religions are correct, but there still is a God? - Question by neologist
We are all like little children who often say: "Mom, Dad, leave me alone, I want to be on my own". - Question by Leaffan
How can we be sure that all religions are wrong? - Discussion by reasoning logic
Beyond tribalism; How well does your religious label serve you? - Discussion by MattDavis
Is religion responsible for the opposition to peace in the Israel-Palestine conflict? - Question by maxdancona
Concern for Religious Freedom or Preaching Political Messages? - Discussion by wandeljw
Why People Seek Solace In Gods. - Question by mark noble
Catholic remarried couples should abstain from sex - Question by Tes yeux noirs
How can a good God allow suffering - Question by SawyerMentink
Religion and Fear - Discussion by TomTomBinks
Does the Bible's account allow for living things to change over time? - Question by anthony1312002
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Don't tell me there's any proof for creationism.
  3. » Page 120
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/01/2024 at 06:43:46
▲ ▼