Evolution? How?

Intrepid wrote:

What do you want Frank? You asked a question. I answered it. I DID NOT lecture you and I DID NOT give advice. If you get satisfaction over calling people liars...that is your problem. I am tired of playing your childish games Frank. You go on and on and on and really say nothing. You expect everybody else to give answers to things that there is no verifiable answer to. Your mind and word games have grown lame.

You lied...and you now are showing that you do not have the integrity and strength of character to simply acknowledge that you overstated your case.

You did advise me...and you did lecture me. Try reading your own posts!

I am not playing a mind game...I asked a question.

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

Frank Apisa Wrote:

Quote:
C'mon, MA!

Intrepid specifically said that he KNEW there was a god.

I gave him the opportunity to change that to "believe" or "guess" there is a god...and he insisted. He repeated that he KNEW there was a god.

I asked again: How do you know.

After a bunch of running around the question...he finally answered and admitted that he does not KNOW...he "believes."

Words have to mean what they mean!

Well, according to at least one of these definitions in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, I would say Intrepid does KNOW, wouldn't you?

Main Entry: 1know
Pronunciation: 'nO
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): knew /'nü also 'nyü/; known /'nOn/; know·ing
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English cnAwan; akin to Old High German bichnAan to recognize, Latin gnoscere, noscere to come to know,
Greek gignOskein
transitive senses

1 a (1) : to perceive directly : have direct cognition of (2) : to have understanding of <importance of knowing oneself> (3) : to recognize the nature of : DISCERN b (1) : to recognize as being the same as something previously known (2) : to be acquainted or familiar with (3) : to have experience of

2 a : to be aware of the truth or factuality of : be convinced or certain of b : to have a practical understanding of <knows how to write>
3 archaic : to have sexual intercourse with
intransitive senses

1 : to have knowledge

2 : to be or become cognizant -- sometimes used interjectionally with you especially as a filler in informal speech

No I wouldn't. And for the record, Intrepid has already acknowledge (finally) that he does not know.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Hey, I'm just repeating the bible, and you're offended? LOL Preach, but don't practice. That's what I call a hypocrite.

No, a hypocrite is one who does not believe the bible but uses it to further his own agenda even though he cannot explain the quotes.

0 Replies

Intrepid wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:
Hey, I'm just repeating the bible, and you're offended? LOL Preach, but don't practice. That's what I call a hypocrite.

No, a hypocrite is one who does not believe the bible but uses it to further his own agenda even though he cannot explain the quotes.

Well...Jesus used the word "hypocrite" quite often...and it is obvious that his definition of the word is quite different from yours.

Read the Bible...you'll see what I mean.

0 Replies

Hey, the bible is the word of god - according to you christians that should be spread to all men, women, and children. You are offended, because the word of god is used? Please explain that to me. When you start attacking people for using the word of god, it gets a bit confusing - even to an atheist.

0 Replies

Final word on this one, Frank. I said I know because I know in my heart and mind. Would you prefer a different word? Should I go through a list of words until you find one that you like? You are nit picking and you know it. I BELIEVE by my FAITH that there is a God. I KNOW in myself that this is true. When one believes something to be true... it is true for them. I really do not care what you believe Frank... I only care what I believe.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Hey, the bible is the word of god - according to you christians that should be spread to all men, women, and children. You are offended, because the word of god is used? Please explain that to me. When you start attacking people for using the word of god, it gets a bit confusing - even to an atheist.

The Word is offered to everyone equally. There are those who accept it and those who do not. You choose not to believe it. That is your perogative, but how does that give you the right to use the bible for your own gain when you do not accept it. You do not believe the word of God, but you use it. That is hypocrisy!

0 Replies

My own gain? What did I gain?

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

Intrepid wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
Hey, I'm just repeating the bible, and you're offended? LOL Preach, but don't practice. That's what I call a hypocrite.

No, a hypocrite is one who does not believe the bible but uses it to further his own agenda even though he cannot explain the quotes.

Well...Jesus used the word "hypocrite" quite often...and it is obvious that his definition of the word is quite different from yours.

Read the Bible...you'll see what I mean.

Do you consider 3 instances to be "quite often"?

Matthew 7:5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

Luke 6:42 Either how canst thou say to thy brother, Brother, let me pull out the mote that is in thine eye, when thou thyself beholdest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to pull out the mote that is in thy brother's eye.

Luke 13:15 The Lord then answered him, and said, Thou hypocrite, doth not each one of you on the sabbath loose his ox or his ass from the stall, and lead him away to watering?

Perhaps you can now explain how it is different!

0 Replies

Intrepid wrote:

Final word on this one, Frank.

You don't get to decide what is the final word, Intrepid.

Quote:

I said I know because I know in my heart and mind.

Well...you now admit that you do not know...so you were lying no matter why you were lying.

Quote:

Would you prefer a different word?

Only if you wanted to convey the truth.

Quote:

Should I go through a list of words until you find one that you like? You are nit picking and you know it.

No...I am not nit picking. You are attempting to justify the lie you told. Good luck...but it ain't gonna work.

Quote:

I BELIEVE by my FAITH that there is a God.

I know people who "believe by their faith that there are no gods." to them, as to you...I say: Who cares what you believe or guess?

Quote:

I KNOW in myself that this is true.

Sure..you KNOW you believe there is a god. Big deal.

Quote:

When one believes something to be true... it is true for them.

Oh really!

And the REALITY doesn't count???

Get over it!

Quote:

I really do not care what you believe Frank... I only care what I believe.

Fine. So go on guessing. But if you post that you KNOW something, don't be surprised if people question how you know it.

0 Replies

Frank,

There is a big difference in just questioning something someone says and accusing them.

I gave you the dictionary's definition of know. Intrepid and every other person here can use at least one of those definitions to say they 'know.'

Now, if you have a different definition of any of those I listed, I would be glad to hear it.

And, as far as what seems to be your definition of 'know' goes, Intrepid or anyone else for that matter would have no choice but to say they didn't.

0 Replies

Intrepid wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
Intrepid wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
Hey, I'm just repeating the bible, and you're offended? LOL Preach, but don't practice. That's what I call a hypocrite.

No, a hypocrite is one who does not believe the bible but uses it to further his own agenda even though he cannot explain the quotes.

Well...Jesus used the word "hypocrite" quite often...and it is obvious that his definition of the word is quite different from yours.

Read the Bible...you'll see what I mean.

Do you consider 3 instances to be "quite often"?

Matthew 7:5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

Luke 6:42 Either how canst thou say to thy brother, Brother, let me pull out the mote that is in thine eye, when thou thyself beholdest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to pull out the mote that is in thy brother's eye.

Luke 13:15 The Lord then answered him, and said, Thou hypocrite, doth not each one of you on the sabbath loose his ox or his ass from the stall, and lead him away to watering?

Perhaps you can now explain how it is different!

Well first, I've got to ask you why you didn't cite passage...

Mat 6:2...Therefore when thou doest [thine] alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

Why did you stop with only three...and then ask me if I thought three instances constitute "quite often?"

And how about...Mat 6:5...And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites [are]: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

Or...Mat 6:16...Moreover when ye fast, be not, as the hypocrites, of a sad countenance: for they disfigure their faces, that they may appear unto men to fast. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

Or the passages at...Mat 15:7...Mat 16:3...Mat 22:18...Mat 23:13...Mat 23:14...Mat 23:15...Mat 23:23...Mat 23:25...Mat 23:27... Mat 23:29...Mat 24:51...Mark 7:6...Luke 11:44...Luke 12:56...

...ah...why bother.

You get my point.

Don't make this any easier than necessary, Intrepid.

0 Replies

Does it matter how many times it says hypocrite in the Bible?

The important thing is the message, not just the one word.

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

Does it matter how many times it says hypocrite in the Bible?

The important thing is the message, not just the one word.

Intrepid tried to make a point...and I once again showed him to be wrong.

I understand that you are more sympathetic and in tune with Intrepid's message than with mine...but, respectfully as possible, please allow me the space to make whatever points I want to make...without having to justify it to you.

0 Replies

I was just asking a question. It had nothing to do with anyone's particular posts.

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

I am going to assume you mean in your opinion there is 1) no proof that God exists, etc. Perhaps proof has different meanings for us?

MA,

With the utmost respect, you may assume what you want, but proof is proof. The definition of proof is not up for debate. There are not different kinds of proof. In regards to this topic, there is proof, then there is faith. Faith is what you continually espouse as proof, which it isn't.

Your faith is commendable. I know extremely well how difficult it can be to keep faith at all times

Quote:

We accept that what scientists write in books is true. We accept that the definitions in the dictionary are true. Well, where did all that come from? It came from man. Man wrote the science books and man decided what the words and definitions were and those change all the time. Yet, we accept this. We accept this to accommodate our wants and needs and not God's.

Yes, it came from man. The same failable man that makes mistakes throughout history. Are you suggesting that someone other than man penned the bible?

Quote:

Why do you suppose that 80% of the world believes in Christianity? Because we are all deluded? Logically speaking, if only 20% of the population believed in one thing and 80% of the population believed in something else it doesn't make either side 100% correct but it sure changes the odds.

They believe in it because it is comfortable for them to do so. Also let's not rule out the crusades, but that's another topic. Man would be sorely pressed to keep upbeat about life, especially through the dark ages when death was swift, life uncertain. Having a loving being watching over you and wanting nothing more than to bring you to paradise was comforting. As to why 80% (A ridiculously large figure of the world's population, and I rather doubt it's accuracy) believe in christianity, they believe because their parents believed. Thus they were taught, thus they live.

Besides, there was quite a large percentage of the population that used to belive that the earth was the center of the universe. Science later dispelled that "theory".

0 Replies

Perhaps my biggest problem with this discussion is it seems like those wanting scientific proof cannot tell me what constitutes scientific proof. First it's proof, then it's theory.

Today's science has dispelled theories (which were accepted as proof at the time) of yesterday's science. So, science makes mistakes. If it makes mistakes how are you supposed to know when it is absolute proof or not?

What I can't seem to get across to those that do not believe is this, it is not each individual word of the Bible that is what should be focused on. It is the message itself. The message itself has not, does not, and will not change.

Science changes because man changes.

And for that matter, proof is a word that man came up with, just like man came up with water freezes at 32 degrees. He could have said it freezes at 100 degrees if he's the one that made up the thermometer.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

Momma Angel wrote:
Does it matter how many times it says hypocrite in the Bible?

The important thing is the message, not just the one word.

Intrepid tried to make a point...and I once again showed him to be wrong.

I understand that you are more sympathetic and in tune with Intrepid's message than with mine...but, respectfully as possible, please allow me the space to make whatever points I want to make...without having to justify it to you.

You have shown the point of all this. That being... Frank always has to be right. He cannot bear to be wrong even when he is. I didn't try to make a point..YOU did. I have come to the realization that it is fruitless to even try to converse with you, Frank. You only seem to be happy when you can jab at someone or call them names. You were probably one of those spoiled children who owned all the toys and took them away from the other kids and went home when you did not get your way. You have my sympathy.

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

Perhaps my biggest problem with this discussion is it seems like those wanting scientific proof cannot tell me what constitutes scientific proof. First it's proof, then it's theory.

I can see how that can be frustrating. For the record, my definition of scientific proof would be just about anything from theories to conjectures based on known facts to the facts themselves. The facts being something that has been studied, disected, whatever and who's properties are known.

Quote:

Today's science has dispelled theories (which were accepted as proof at the time) of yesterday's science. So, science makes mistakes. If it makes mistakes how are you supposed to know when it is absolute proof or not?

Absolute proof is very hard to come by, it's true. However, conjecture based upon known facts (gravity, mass etc) is considered to be 100% more reliable than faith. They are two completely seperate entities, faith and proof. Thus my point that you can't really provide "facts" based on something you have "faith" in. It's simply impossible. If you had facts, you wouldn't have faith.

Quote:

What I can't seem to get across to those that do not believe is this, it is not each individual word of the Bible that is what should be focused on. It is the message itself. The message itself has not, does not, and will not change.

The message has changed, and will change. Just with the latest two versions of the bible you can see a large difference in wording, and sentence structure. This is how things get muddled. What means something to one translator, can have a completely different meaning for the person reading and trying to discern the meaning of the text.

Quote:

Science changes because man changes.

And for that matter, proof is a word that man came up with, just like man came up with water freezes at 32 degrees. He could have said it freezes at 100 degrees if he's the one that made up the thermometer.

Sorry, but that doesn't mean much. Of course man came up with it. Who else would? God apparently didn't bother. Man must have methods to quantify his surroundings. This is how understanding is reached.

However, since this debate is being conducted by man, using words that man came up with about a book which uses the exact same words . . . .

0 Replies

Intrepid wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
Momma Angel wrote:
Does it matter how many times it says hypocrite in the Bible?

The important thing is the message, not just the one word.

Intrepid tried to make a point...and I once again showed him to be wrong.

I understand that you are more sympathetic and in tune with Intrepid's message than with mine...but, respectfully as possible, please allow me the space to make whatever points I want to make...without having to justify it to you.

You have shown the point of all this. That being... Frank always has to be right. He cannot bear to be wrong even when he is. I didn't try to make a point..YOU did. I have come to the realization that it is fruitless to even try to converse with you, Frank. You only seem to be happy when you can jab at someone or call them names. You were probably one of those spoiled children who owned all the toys and took them away from the other kids and went home when you did not get your way. You have my sympathy.

I see...so you think a person should occasionally say that you are right...even though you seem to have a penchant for being wrong?

You indicated that there were only three instances of Jesus using "hypocrite"....and actually challenged me by writing:

Quote:

Do you consider 3 instances to be "quite often"?

I then produced over a dozen other instances....and now you are resorting to feigning indignation because "Frank always has to be right" ... and ... "He cannot bear to be wrong even when he is. "

(I'm sure at some point you are actually going to show where I was wrong in this short discussion!)

Then you actually wrote: "I didn't try to make a point..YOU did. "

Intrepid...WE ARE BOTH TRYING TO MAKE A POINT...AND SEVERAL OF THEM.

C'mon. Stop with this kind of nonsense.

Be a man. Show some integrity.

You were wrong twice now...and you apparently are not man enough...nor do you have enough integrity to simply own up to it without all the bull.

You wrote: "I have come to the realization that it is fruitless to even try to converse with you, Frank. "

Well...then don't converse with me.

But don't pretend that it is because I am being nasty...because you are being much more nasty...and you are not willing to acknowledge when you are wrong.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know