Evolution? How?

Cicerone Imposter Wrote:

Quote:

"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?

C.I., the way you posted it is not the way it is in the Bible. You posted a verse from the New Testament and added a verse from the Old Testament to the end of it.

Nice try. You know something, one of my mentor's told me something awhile ago. Meek means willing to learn. It doesn't mean I don't have a backbone and it doesn't mean I have to put up with certain things.

So, be honest.

0 Replies

From the NT (your loving god speaking):

And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched. Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.--Mark 9:43-44

0 Replies

From Mathew (the loving god working again - with his mouth):

10:21 And the brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death.

0 Replies

So there was a misunderstanding. I answered your question as I understood the question.
------------------>>
yes. which is why i pointed out that it would have helped immensely if you understood the question.

You answered my question as you understood my question.
------------->
yes. you asked about abortion and answer about abortion i did

We misunderstood each other plain and simple.
---------------->
i did not misunderstand your question.

No need for snide remarks.
------------>
yes no need for that... more clarity would help though.

Assumptions are something I am good at making?
------------------->
well you assumed i was talking about a2k when i was talking about a bush.
you assumed i was talking about your mode of communication, when i was talking of god's.
you assumed that the voice was god's
you assumed that it was god's cos the bible says so.
and you assumed that the bible is right cos you assumed that it came from god.

well just as long you dont assume that we are being convinced by your "beat around the bush" (pun intended), arguements.

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.
--------------->>
i was sarcastic at times but often not.

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?
------------------->>
well if i have then show where it is. cos i dont remember it.

besides can you prove that jesus died for us (- or are you again just assuming??) and not for himself?? does he know all the other people that were born after him that he'd die for them??? and if he indeed die for our sins then why hunt osama bin laden eh?? - after all someone has already been punished about 2000 years back for the sin osama commited on 9/11 !!! bleh, just bleh !!

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?
--------------->
well for once your assumptions are right and need no proving. dont mistake me here - i am not saying that i am god (who according to you is the one dude that needs no proving) - just that i doi make a lot of typos.

0 Replies

brahmin,

Feel better? You are such a gentleman. I feel so respected because I have differing beliefs and the fact that I am obviously not as well educated as you are. Your nobility and common courtesy are so overwhelming. Thank you for putting me in my place. Embarrassed

C.I.,

That's right, keep ignoring it. Speaks louder than anything you would post.

And, uh, oh never mind, you'd twist it anyway.

0 Replies

Yeah, MA, attack the messenger, and not the topic at hand.

0 Replies

Feel better?
-------------->
not really. what should i be feeling better about?

You are such a gentleman.
----------------->
if that wasnt sarcasm, then thanks.

I feel so respected because I have differing beliefs
----------------->
i have no problems with your different beliefs.
i do have a problem whan you state them for facts and then fail to prove them.
if you called your belief a belief - then i have no problem.
if you are going to say those beliefs are facts - then you have to prove it.

and the fact that I am obviously not as well educated as you are.
------------------->
well you sure are very educated about some books.

Your nobility and common courtesy are so overwhelming.
--------------->
your failed attempt at comming across as sardonic, is not quite so overwhelming though. off-putting rether.

Thank you for putting me in my place. Embarrassed

-------------->
you are welcome. though i'd appreciate if you managed to realise that it wasnt you but your circular arguements/tautologies that have been trashed.

0 Replies

I had to turn my sound down for that one!

0 Replies

brahmin Wrote:

Quote:

not really. what should i be feeling better about?

Well, I have always believed that people make fun of other people because they either want the other person to feel bad or to make themselves feel better.

I think we both know that was meant sarcastically. I won't make fun about your beliefs nor will I make jokes about you but I think the occasion called for a bit of sarcasm.

brahmin Wrote:

Quote:

if that wasnt sarcasm, then thanks.

Make no mistake, it was sarcasm and I don't feel you are very gentlemanly at all.

brahmin Wrote:

Quote:

i have no problems with your different beliefs.
i do have a problem whan you state them for facts and then fail to prove them.
if you called your belief a belief - then i have no problem.
if you are going to say those beliefs are facts - then you have to prove it.

Yes, I think you do have a problem with my different beliefs. If you had no problem with them, you wouldn't be ridiculing them. You having a problem with the fact that I state my beliefs as fact is neither here nor there to me. And no, I don't HAVE to prove anything. Why should I? I offer what I consider proof and you dismiss it because it's not proof you accept. Fine, you don't accept it. Big deal.

brahmin Wrote:

Quote:

well you sure are very educated about some books.

Not nearly as much as I intend to be. I believe I have a pretty good understanding of the Holy Bible, but I will never be so educated in it that I know it all.

brahmin Wrote:

Quote:

your failed attempt at comming across as sardonic, is not quite so overwhelming though. off-putting rether.

What the heck does off-putting rether mean? I couldn't find it in the dictionary.

brahmin Wrote:

Quote:

you are welcome. though i'd appreciate it if you managed to realise that it wasnt you but your circular arguements/tautologies that have been trashed.

That was MOST DEFINITELY a sarcastic remark. I find your posts have a sense of superiority to them. If you trash my beliefs, you trash me. And I would appreciate it if you would use your Spell Check now that you know you have one.

Now can we get back to the topic of this thread?

0 Replies

Brahmin...

...you would do a much better job of being clear if you would learn to use the "quote" function.

It is not that hard to master.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

Brahmin...

...you would do a much better job of being clear if you would learn to use the "quote" function.

It is not that hard to master.

Frank!

AMEN TO THAT!

How are you doing this fine day? Good to see you. Been wondering where you were.

0 Replies

10:37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
Brahmin...

...you would do a much better job of being clear if you would learn to use the "quote" function.

It is not that hard to master.

Frank!

AMEN TO THAT!

How are you doing this fine day? Good to see you. Been wondering where you were.

Doing some "honey do" items around the house before Nancy gets home.

Hope all went well with you when Rita came acallin'.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

10:37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

C.I.,

For someone who doesn't believe in the God of the Bible, you sure do like to just throw scripture out there without stating a thing about it, don't you?

So, you put posted it for what reason? Because you believe it? Because you don't believe it? Because you have a question about it?

Yeah, and I haven't forgotten your hypocritical post. Have some guts!

0 Replies

Frank Apisa Wrote:

Quote:

Hope all went well with you when Rita came acallin'.

Well, she knocked on the door pretty hard but the only damage we had were lots of limbs torn off trees and quite a few shingles off the roof. Other than that, we came through just fine. Thank you for asking.

0 Replies

brahmin Wrote:

Quote:

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.

unborn what? UNBORN CHILDREN! You can't call it an unborn fetus because obviously to you, it's only a fetus as long as it's not born. UNBORN CHILDREN! I'm not really clear on that circular reasoning thing.

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

brahmin Wrote:

Quote:
not really. what should i be feeling better about?

Well, I have always believed that people make fun of other people because they either want the other person to feel bad or to make themselves feel better.

I think we both know that was meant sarcastically. I won't make fun about your beliefs nor will I make jokes about you but I think the occasion called for a bit of sarcasm.

i did not make fun of you or your beliefs, though you may choose to think so.

MA wrote:

brahmin Wrote:

Quote:
if that wasnt sarcasm, then thanks.

Make no mistake, it was sarcasm and I don't feel you are very gentlemanly at all.

yes i knew it was and i know that you have it not in you to tell gentlemanly posts from those that are not. not that it matters what you feel.

and why am i not gentlemanly?? cos i floored your claims repeatedly??

spoilt sport !!

ma wrote:

brahmin Wrote:

Quote:
i have no problems with your different beliefs.
i do have a problem whan you state them for facts and then fail to prove them.
if you called your belief a belief - then i have no problem.
if you are going to say those beliefs are facts - then you have to prove it.

Yes, I think you do have a problem with my different beliefs. If you had no problem with them, you wouldn't be ridiculing them. You having a problem with the fact that I state my beliefs as fact is neither here nor there to me. And no, I don't HAVE to prove anything. Why should I? I offer what I consider proof and you dismiss it because it's not proof you accept. Fine, you don't accept it. Big deal.

you are being dense.
you fail to come up with logical arguements.
and when someone else does, you fail to understand them.

now get the facts right once for all.

-i do NOT have a problem with your or anyone's beliefs.
-i did not redicule your beliefs, but only your assumptions that those unprovable beliefs of yours are TRUE/FACTS.
-i understand why its "neither here nor there" with you. you havent learn to differentiate between scientically provable facts and beliefs.
- you dont have to prove anything yes. but if you are going to tell us that your belief that a cat is actually a rat is true - then you need to prove it.
- you offere what YOU consider proof - thats just not good enough. whats proof to you, is not what is considered scientific/logical proof.

if thats to difficult for you to understand i wont be surprised - you afterall cound not understand what pauligirl had to say about your circular logic.
brahmin Wrote:

Quote:

your failed attempt at comming across as sardonic, is not quite so overwhelming though. off-putting rether.

ma wrote:

What the heck does off-putting rether mean? I couldn't find it in the dictionary.

lol !!
of-putting = disgusting sort of.
brahmin Wrote:

Quote:

you are welcome. though i'd appreciate it if you managed to realise that it wasnt you but your circular arguements/tautologies that have been trashed.

ma wrote:

That was MOST DEFINITELY a sarcastic remark. I find your posts have a sense of superiority to them. If you trash my beliefs, you trash me. And I would appreciate it if you would use your Spell Check now that you know you have one.

Now can we get back to the topic of this thread?

yes it was a sarcastic remark. they are allowed in a2k.

the superiority that my posts have is logical superiority. sorry but try as i may i cant come down to your level of absurdity.

i did NOT trash your beliefs. i trashed your belief that those belifs were FACTS. and yes i did trash you and your tautologies, but who wouldnt?

and yes comming back to the topic - creationism is a myth ripped off from the sumerian story called "enuma elish" - and its scientifically absurd.
not that evolution is perfect though. like the benifits of capitalism, it did not reach all people.

0 Replies

I'm not a scholar of the bible, but have some skills in understanding the English language. The verses from the bible that I've posted seems very clear in their message. The bible god is a terrorist. If he doesn't agree with how you live, he'll threaten eternal hell or have you stoned by one of his followers - or both. I don't see any verse in the bible that says some parts of the bible must be read together with other verses. Nor does it disclaim verses that threatens punishment for not following his rules.

The bible god is a jealous, vain, unforgiving SOB. But then, what can we expect from a two thousand year old comic book?

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

brahmin Wrote:

Quote:
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.

unborn what? UNBORN CHILDREN! You can't call it an unborn fetus because obviously to you, it's only a fetus as long as it's not born. UNBORN CHILDREN! I'm not really clear on that circular reasoning thing.

unborn children = children who arnt yet born = foetus
also
UNBORN CHILDREN = children who arnt yet born = foetus.

there is no such thing as an "unborn foetus" - thats like a assinine ass - asses by defination are assinine and so are foetuses by definations unborn.

not just to me, but to science too - as long as its not born its only a foetus - once its born its a baby.

ma, if you dont mind how far did you study and was science/math/logic part of of your subjects?? is that where you picked up that using caps makes your arguements more logical?? did you answer you math paper in caps?? wouldnt be surprised to learn that YOU DID Wink

0 Replies

brahmin,

Perhaps it's the use of adjectives describing my beliefs that I object to, as in saying ...my level of absurdity? tautologies....who wouldn't?

lol!!
of-putting = disgusting sort of.

Duh? use your Spell Check is what I mean and you know it.

C.I.,

You are just making me laugh harder and harder. Yes, those messages are very clear and I have no problem with that. The problem I have is that when we Christians point out to you that the NT has to be taken into account you ignore that. You continually post the same scriptures of the OT. You don't accept the Christians saying you have to use both books unless it, of course, serves your purpose.

And I'm sorry you feel the Bible is a two thousand year old comic book. Funny thing though, it's always been the most sold book in the world.

You don't see how parts of the bible must be read together with other verses? Honey, it's a book. How do you read other books? Don't you read the whole thing to get the whole story or do you just use Cliff (??) Notes?

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know