Evolution? How?

brahmin,

You DO support abortion and yet, you would accuse God of slaying innocents? Isn't this the pot calling the kettle black?

My kind? And what exactly is my kind?
------------->>
christians. charlemenge for example.



Is English my first language? Now, I take it that's not meant to be sarcastic either?
----------->>
yes this one is. it was alo meant to point out that not all things you post hold out grammatically (thats apart from those that fail to hold out logically. and yes this is also sarcasm)



Mentioning that it wasn't meant to be serious does not negate the fact that it sounded like a quip, joke, snide remark, etc. to me.
----------------------->>
what it sounds like to YOU does not change anything. if a tiger looked like a pegion to you, it still would not be a pegion.



Pity some people confuse facts for jokes - and sometimes - jokes for facts? Uh, and just what jokes for facts are you referring to here? My beliefs?
------------->
nope. now you are again putting words into my mouth. i just said some people confuse jokes for facts and some others confuse facts for jokes.



You doubt english is my first language? That's a non-sarcastic comment?
---------------------->>
no its not. i doubt cos you have given enough reasons to cast doubt.


You hide behind bushes and talk to people from there?? splindid! This is not sarcastic either?
---------------->
well you said that was yor preferred mode of communicatiuon. from behind bushes. either you were joking or - you need to brush up your english.



And frankly, it doesn't upset my row boat if you don't buy the mode or the content. You asked, I answered.
-------------->
that you did. it would have helped immensely though, if you had managed to understand the question (ie. what mode i was talking about)



I can learn what's sarcasm and what's not? I'm not a three-year old child.
----------------->>
now THATS sarcasm.
you may not be one, but you still construe a lot of innocent remarks as sarcastic when in reality they are far from being it.



Prove that God spoke through a bush? I told you why I believed it. Can you prove that it didn't happen?
----------------->
yes you did.
you believed it cos the bible said so.
and you believed the bible cos its supposed to be the word of god.
and you believed that it was god doing the talking cos the bible says so.
go to step 1.

i cant prove it didnt happen - does not mean it DID actually happen. what i can prove is that it could not have happened - within the laws of relativity and physics that is.



I still feel you are being sarcastic.
--------------------->
i still feel that you need to check the meaning and also feel the necessity to reiterate that your "feeling" does not change what it actually was.



I don't need to defend what the Bible says about the burning bush. The Bible defends itself.
--------------------->
how so?? by using tautologies left right and centre?



Never said my feelings were proof, just my feelings.
------------------>
well then you accept !!
that you dont have proofs - just your feelings.
and your or anyone's feelings are NOT proof.



Better late than never? woo hoo!
-------------------->
woo hoo?



Something tells me that deep inside you also know that scientific proof, you have none.
------------------------->
hmm., i meant "something tells me deep inside you also know that you dont have any scientific proof"
in the previous line i quoted from you - you vindicated me, when you accepted that you hadnt any proof but just your feelings.



If I know that scientific proof, how can I have none?
---------------->
NOW dont blame me for asking what your first language is !!



You doubt God is better than humans in any case? Have a look at the mess in the world? Man made a mess of this world, it wasn't God.
-------------------->
are you sure? do you have proof or only feelings that it wasnt god, while the bush was god and not a man hiding or an author in full flow??




I need to brush up on my english? May be, but we all have things in life we need to brush up on.
-------------->
yes. fortunately i dont need to brush up on logic - since i managed to understand what pauligirl had to say about tautologies.




Yes, it's one thing to believe what the Bible says and another to prove it, but it still doesn't mean it is not true.
--------------->
it still doesnt mean its true either.



Well, who do you think was talking to Moses from that bush?
------------------->
prove that the voices did indeed come from the bush first !!



The Bible says that no one can look upon the face of God and live.
-------------------->
and how do you knw the bible is right on this ?



What Christians doing barbaric things are you talking about? The ones in the OT?
------------------->
no. the ones in the OT hardly did anything barbaric, or at least none that i know of. i am talking of the NT, since i was asking about christians.



"How come when christians do barbaric things its their will and when they don't its god's will? Isn't it possible god willed the spaniards hack the natives to death?? If not, why not.

I doubt that He did will that. Once Christ came into the picture, things were different.
-------------------->
your doubting proves jack.
prove with logic - and without resorting to tautologies, that it could not have been Him.

but yes things did change once Christ came into the picture. the genocidal evengelism started in europe, followed by the inquisition, the crusades, the obliteration of natives in 3 continents, the killing off of their beliefs by the sword... etc. all after he came to the picture and in his name.





Does god communicate his will for adolf hitler though?
Yes. But was Adolph Hitler listening is probably a better question. God communicates His will for all of us. It's up to us to follow His will or not.
------------------->
well if he is god, then he should have it in him to make us listen shouldnt he?? and whats to prove that it wasnt god's will that hitler do what he did??

not really.
this pot does not claim to be in touch with the kettle, through bush, i-pod or anything else.


yes i support abortion. people have a right to decide if they want to go for something in their lives or not.


and i dont accuse god of anything - i accuse god believing men of killing a lot many others in the name of their god.

i blame the way the concept of god was packaged in some belief systems, for spoiling the mentality of its believers.


and yes, if all things indeed happen through god's will, and that this world is god's will - then i do accuse god of every mess thats around.

I want to apologize for becoming lost in my bowl of alphabet soup. I meant to postulate that NDEers and ECKers might possibly be congregating on Mars, But I used the term IDers instead. The soul migration of the former two groups is a pipe dream well advertised; but we all know the IDers eschew any interplanetary soul travel, I think.

In summation: I would like to remind everyone that though you may think you understand what you believe I have written, I must warn you that what I have written is very likely not what I meant.

MA, you make a very good case for the bible.

The bible was not written as a treatise to tickle the ears of intellectuals.

The very name Jehovah, which means 'He who causes to become', implies a creator with powers that transcend our limited perceptions of space and time. It is the height of arrogance to assume that our knowledge, no matter how profound, could possibly trump that of Jehovah.

What part of 'love thy neighbor' don't we understand?

Hi Farmerman,

I think it's a bit premature to state that parts of human DNA are 'unused' simply because we do not know what it controls, don't you?

brahmin,

I am not going to go through all that and reply again.

Someone told me on here it's not a good idea to point out someone's lack of grammar, English, etc., because it always comes back to bite you in the butt. That was some pretty wise advice and I am doing my by best to follow it.

Proof! Proof! Proof! All you want is scientific proof. You just don't get it, He is God. HE does not have to be proven to you or anyone else. (IMO) asking God to prove Himself is putting yourself above God.

And I noticed how you try to justify killing an innocent child in a mother's womb but blame God for the deaths of innocents. Attack my English all you want, but the things you leave out speak volumes.

Mamma, you can believe whatever you want, but the arguments you offered as proof of god (earlier in this thread) simply aren't "proof". They are self generated circular assumptions which are not bounded by any rules except your faith in them. That is not "proof". There is no definition of proof which correlates to your usage of the term based on the examples you cited.

You can all it proof, but it's not. I can point at a cat and call it a dog, but it's not. If you want to believe that a cat is called a dog, that's fine, but please don't expect the rest of us to just agree with your assumption.

brahmin,

I was coming back in here to address the comment you made about the soldiers not dying for our freedom. But, it does't appear to be there now.

And the mode of communication I thought was good was our posting here on A2K, not talking to or from a bush.

"John 3:16 - For God so loved the world that He gave his only begotten son that whosoever believeth in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life."

I've asked this elsewhere...the assumption that God loved the world (mankind) is pure conjecture

If he did give his only son, that would be a sign of his seriousness, but how many times (if at all) did Jesus claim to be The Son of God?

Why should human sacrifice save souls?

All the way through, assumption, conjecture, wishfull thinking, myth, hope, guesswork......I'm sick of it.

Steve, Don't forget the other side of the "god so loved the world..." that those who do not believe in him should be stoned to death.

The assumption that God loved the world is conjecture? What label would you put on what you believe?

I don't know how many times Christ actually said, "I am the Son of God." What difference does that make in who He is or not? And since God said, "This is my Son, in whom I am well pleased," pretty much says it for me that He was and is God's son.

What human sacrifice?

Well, if you are sick of it, then I suggest you don't post in the Spirituality and Religion Forum. That's also one of your freedoms.

Cicerone Imposter Wrote:



I don't know what Bible you got that from but that is not what it says.

A perfect human (Adam) brought death to the human race. A perfect human (Jesus) paid the ransom price. There is not much to it, really.

Obviously you spend more time glowing in your own posts than you spend reading answers.

The bible says:

Deut 13:6-10 If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth; Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage.

C.I.,

You know, I find it rather hypocritical that you would take a verse out of the Old Testament and put it's meaning to one in the New Testament, considering I (and other Christians on this thread) have tried to tell you that you have to use them together and you kept ignoring that fact. Now, YOU are using both the Old and New Testament verses to justify your statement? I don't call that circular reasoning, I call that a double standard.

which is why i asked you if english was your first language !!
and then went on to suggest that may be you need to brush it up.


i was alluding to the mode of com. used by the maker involving bushes.
how you "asumed" that to be the mode of posting on A2K, i'll never know.


but then no surprise - assumptions are something you are good at making.


and what soldier comment of mine are you talking about ??
if soldiers fight against other people who want to invade their country - yes thats dying for their freedom.
if they go to other countries to kill innocents - like say in the vietnam war - then thats no different from spaniard and germanic mercinaries hacking the natives and annexing their land/wealth.

Brahmin,

So there was a misunderstanding. I answered your question as I understood the question. You answered my question as you understood my question. We misunderstood each other plain and simple. No need for snide remarks.

Assumptions are something I am good at making? All I have to go by is what you post and all you have to go by is what I post. And yes, I am assuming you are still being sarcastic.

What soldier comment? Oh, ok, I see. I dreamed it. You didn't make a statement about the soldiers not dying for our freedom? You never posted that? Not only do I assume things I now make them up? You said nothing in response to my comment about Jesus dying for us is like a friend stepping in front of a bullet meant for us? You didn't say anything about that? I just imagined it was there?

Oh, and I am going to assume that you don't know there is a Spell Check on this thing and that's why you haven't been using it?

"I don't know what bible you got that from but that is not what it says."

Gee, you mean Deut is not part of the bible? What other books of the bible are not part of the bible according to MA?

I am not going to go through all that and reply again.
----------------->
wisew decision. it was becomming a pain reading your illogical and circular assumptions backed by more unproven assumptions. so thanks for sparing me the trouble of reading more of that.




Someone told me on here it's not a good idea to point out someone's lack of grammar, English, etc., because it always comes back to bite you in the butt. That was some pretty wise advice and I am doing my by best to follow it.
----------------->
yes you really need to follow that advice, given the high number of grammatical mistakes you make !!



Proof! Proof! Proof! All you want is scientific proof. You just don't get it, He is God.
-------------->
i cant get/accept that he is god - unless you prove that it wasnt jepardiah hiding behind the bushes.
because most others blindly accepted it without asking for scientific proof - dont mean some rational people dont exist.



HE does not have to be proven to you or anyone else.
-------------------->
he doesnt - if god he really is.
but if it was only houdini hiding behind the bush and talking then what ??
so first prove that it was indeed god.



(IMO) asking God to prove Himself is putting yourself above God.
--------------------->
in my opinion, asking you to prove that it was indeed god hiding behind a bush (for reasons best known to god) - is DIFFERENT from asking god to prove himself.




And I noticed how you try to justify killing an innocent child in a mother's womb but blame God for the deaths of innocents.
---------------------->
unborns are not children. they are just a foetus.
a 14 year old mother should not be forced by the church to deliver and thus have her life screwed. not should a 35 year old if she dont want to have another mouth to feed.
and yes, if the whole world is indeed god's creation and if everything happens in accordance to god's will - as some recently lobotomised sorts have claimed often - then ofcourse i blame god for every mess and death.





Attack my English all you want, but the things you leave out speak volumes.
------------>
after reding your repeated circular illogical arguements, i am of the opinion that would have been a better idea to be sarcastic about the logic (er. the lack of it) in your posts than your grammatical pitfalls.