Evolution? How?

Gee Frank, let's see.

How about?

1) That is not how I perceive the God to be?
2) We have differing viewpoints?
3) We all have the right to our own views?

Try those just for a start, Frank. We ALL KNOW what you think about God Frank. You make that clear every chance you get.

I believe that by stating it over and over and over and over and over....... is your way of just ignoring what we are telling you about how offensive we find your presentation.

We have feelings Frank. If you were to call one of my relatives the things you call my God I wouldn't like it much either. I highly doubt you would like anyone speaking to your wife in such a manner, or would you care?

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

Intrepid wrote:

It is not your take on things that we have disdain for. It is the manner in which you present them.

And of course, MA immediately came to second this comment.

I think it is utter nonsense.

How would I present my opinion that the god of the Bible is a slug...what I perceive to be a fictional being with almost no redeeming qualities...and an abundance of disgusting ones...in a manner for which you would have no disdain, Intrepid and MA?

How would I say that, in my opinion, the god of the Bible is a vengeful, jealous, petty, vindictive, quick-to-anger slow-to-forgive, comically tyrannical, murderous barbarian...in a manner for which you would have no disdain?

You really don't get it. Do you, Frank. Your comprehension leaves something to be desired if this is what you think our disdain is for. The manner in which you present is offensive because of the names, innuendos, mud slinging you direct at us just because we honour God.

Although, we do not like or agree with your adjectives as they pertain to God, we realize that you have the right to your personal believes. We can understand that you do not believe in, or accept God. However, we can understand that in regular English. The wise-cracking adjectives against God and against us do nothing to further your opinions and, indeed, your cause. Your cause, as you have said many times is to rid the planet of Christianity. You are fighting a losing battle, my friend. You can continue your battle, but you will never win.

0 Replies

MA; I print Frank's posts and CI's metoos and show them to my friends in the English department for laughs. Don't let them stop. Laughing

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

Gee Frank, let's see.

How about?

1) That is not how I perceive the God to be?
2) We have differing viewpoints?
3) We all have the right to our own views?

HOW DOES ANY OF THOSE THREE THINGS SAY WHAT I HAVE TO SAY???

Why are you allowed to read this book called the Bible...and shout to the world that it is the word of god...and that the god in it is kind, compassionate, and loving of mankind.

How can you assert in every post you make that this god "loves the world"...and yet deny me the right to tell what I think of the god and how I feel about whether or not the god loves the world???????????

Quote:

Try those just for a start, Frank.

Why? How do those things say what I intend to say?

Quote:

We ALL KNOW what you think about God Frank. You make that clear every chance you get.

One...you do not know what I think about God, MA....all you know is what I think about that piece of garbage pretending to be a god that is described in the Bible.

And even that...I do not make clear every chance I get.

But we ALL do KNOW what you think about the god of the Bible, MA...and you make that clear EVERY SINGLE SOLITARY post you make.

Quote:

I believe that by stating it over and over and over and over and over....... is your way of just ignoring what we are telling you about how offensive we find your presentation.

You repeat what you want to about the god every single post you make, MA. What is wrong with my mentioning it often?

And you are not offended by my presentation...because my presentation simply states what I feel about the god. You are bothered by what I feel...not by the fact that I present what I feel exactly as I feel it.

Quote:

We have feelings Frank.

Fine. I'm sure you do. And I try to be as solicitous of your feelings as possible, MA. Remember, I love you.

But that does not include pretending I do not feel as strongly and as negatively as I feel about the god of the Bible.

Quote:

If you were to call one of my relatives the things you call my God I wouldn't like it much either. I highly doubt you would like anyone speaking to your wife in such a manner, or would you care?

I would hate it.

But this is an Internet forum section devoted to discussing what each of us feels about religious and spiritual things.

I have a right...an obligation...to speak my mind on these things.

Why are you telling me that I shouldn't...just because what I have to say bothers you?

0 Replies

snood wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
Intrepid wrote:

It is not your take on things that we have disdain for. It is the manner in which you present them.

And of course, MA immediately came to second this comment.

I think it is utter nonsense.

How would I present my opinion that the god of the Bible is a slug...what I perceive to be a fictional being with almost no redeeming qualities...and an abundance of disgusting ones...in a manner for which you would have no disdain, Intrepid and MA?

How would I say that, in my opinion, the god of the Bible is a vengeful, jealous, petty, vindictive, quick-to-anger slow-to-forgive, comically tyrannical, murderous barbarian...in a manner for which you would have no disdain?

If you gotta ask, you are probably already saying it in the best way you know how.

I had not actually considered that, Snood. Perhaps you are right. This is the only way that Frank can convey his message.

0 Replies

Neo,

You are such a hoot! Oh, I doubt that anyone could make them stop! Laughing

Like I always say, you can learn something from anyone, even if it is just how NOT to act!

0 Replies

snood wrote:

[If you gotta ask, you are probably already saying it in the best way you know how.

YES...and in the most honest way I know.

Thank you, Snood.

Finally...someone who understands.

0 Replies

No, no, no, Intrepid. Apisa's mission is not just to rid the world of Christianity; he wants to free the poor ignorant masses from their blindness and liberate them with his way of thinking. All in all, very reasonable and sober ambitions. I mean, he's not, like, deluded or anything....

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

snood wrote:
[If you gotta ask, you are probably already saying it in the best way you know how.

YES...and in the most honest way I know.

Thank you, Snood.

Finally...someone who understands.

http://web4.ehost-services.com/el2ton1/console.gif

I understand too, Frank.

http://web4.ehost-services.com/el2ton1/rofl.gif

0 Replies

Thanks for the refresher, Snood. :-)

Actually, I think I would prefer to stay the way that I am as one of the poor ignorant masses that is blind and unliberated. Going to Frank's way of thinking is beyond anything that I would want to experience in this world, or any other.

0 Replies

Intrepid wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
Intrepid wrote:

It is not your take on things that we have disdain for. It is the manner in which you present them.

And of course, MA immediately came to second this comment.

I think it is utter nonsense.

How would I present my opinion that the god of the Bible is a slug...what I perceive to be a fictional being with almost no redeeming qualities...and an abundance of disgusting ones...in a manner for which you would have no disdain, Intrepid and MA?

How would I say that, in my opinion, the god of the Bible is a vengeful, jealous, petty, vindictive, quick-to-anger slow-to-forgive, comically tyrannical, murderous barbarian...in a manner for which you would have no disdain?

You really don't get it. Do you, Frank. Your comprehension leaves something to be desired if this is what you think our disdain is for. The manner in which you present is offensive because of the names, innuendos, mud slinging you direct at us just because we honour God.

I don't do that...Intrepid...or at least, I do not do it as much as you do, for instance.

Look at what you have accused me of here.

Why do you do that?

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

MA; I print Frank's posts and CI's metoos and show them to my friends in the English department for laughs. Don't let them stop.

We are both getting a big kick our of this thread...why would I stop.

I am really, really happy that you are enjoying it as much as I am.

Twisted Evil

0 Replies

Frank,

This is a go nowhere thing with you (IMO). If you cannot understand how you stating your take on things in the manner that you do it might offend someone, then you just don't understand and obviously, nothing any of us say to try to get you to understand is making a difference. If you cannot understand the difference between us telling you we feel God is loving and your calling Him an idiot and a barbaric murderer, then perhaps you are the one with blinders on? Very simply put, Frank. You speak words of hate. We do not.

Frank, I have no problem with you feeling the way you feel about God. That is between you and God.

And let me ask you something Frank. Weren't you the one that got upset because you perceived we were calling you a baby killer? And yet, those words never came from our posts? Can you see our point now?
And Snood and Intrepid, count in me that poor ignorant mass if it means I can stay happy as I am!

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

Frank,

This is a go nowhere thing with you (IMO). If you cannot understand how you stating your take on things in the manner that you do it might offend someone....

Wake up, MA.

I do know that I state things that will offend people like you....but it is what I am saying...not the way I am saying it...that is offending you.

You want the right to look at the god of the Bible...and talk about how the god loves us...and loves humanity.

I want the right to look at the god of the Bible...and talk about the fact that it is a murderous barbarian.

You apparently are offended that I consider the god to be a murderous barbarian.

I cannot state that any other way.

Intrepid is saying that he doesn't care if I think the god of the Bible is a murderous barbarian...he is bothered that I am hurling insulting remarks toward you people.

But for the most part...I am not insulting you...and most assuredly, I am not insulting any of you nearly as much as you people throw insults my way.

Some of you have made a career out of mocking me and insulting me.

I am not doing that kind of thing anywhere near as much as some of the people in this thread are doing it.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

mesquite wrote:
real life wrote:
mesquite wrote:
real life wrote:
Actually I am fascinated by science and enjoy it immensely.

If you were the head of a scientific research project, and Sir Isaac Newton applied for a position it would be quite an interesting interview, I think.

Would you hire him after he told you he literally believed that God created the world and all that is in it?

Considering the amassed information that was available to Isaac Newton during his time I do not see it as unusual at all that he believed a God created it all.

If however he had knowledge and access to the amassed information of today and then stated that he believed in a literal translation of Genesis, then he would have to have a lot better arguments than I have seen presented here before I hired him for a scientific research project.

Such a belief would to me indicate a lack or reasoning ability which is crucial to scientific work.

It would seem to me that Newton's scientific track record speaks for itself. If you can't recognize the value of what Newton contributed to science , then who has a lack of reasoning ability?

Is your reading comprehension that bad, or is it deliberate that you completely mischaracterize my comment?

If your position is that you would not hire Sir Isaac Newton due to his literal belief in God as the Creator (because that is the question I asked, unless you are mischaracterizing my post) even after seeing his track record of scientific accomplishment then you are not reasoning clearly, my friend.

Let's try this another way.

You asked if I would hire him "after he told you he literally believed that God created the world and all that is in it?"

That question is a bit vague about time, God, and creation belief.

I attempted to refine it with my answer,"If however he had knowledge and access to the amassed information of today and then stated that he believed in a literal translation of Genesis, then he would have to have a lot better arguments than I have seen presented here before I hired him for a scientific research project.

If that is still too vague for you let me pin it down more. By "literal translation of Genesis" I mean Genesis as the first book of the Bible, and by "belief in a literal translation" I mean a literal belief in the six day creation, the Eden story with talking snake, the Noah story of a worldwide flood that killed all life on earth except for ark passengers, and other attendant folklore.

So yes, if Sir Isaac Newton were alive today, and if he still subscribed to the above fantasies over and above the accumulated scientific knowledge of today, then I would deem him unfit for my scientific research project.

That said however, I suspect that if he were alive today, and being an inquisitive and observant person, that he would not not subscribe to a literal Genesis version of creation.

0 Replies

Frank,

I have not called you dense! I have not called you a deluded sheep! I have not called you stone-headed! I have not told you that you have problems (mental problems as I assume you meant)! I have called you nothing of these kinds.

And Frank, it's not even so much that you do these things we say. And I am so glad you finally pointed it out, because I had my suspicions about it.

"I do know that I state things that will offend people like you....but it is what I am saying...not the way I am saying it...that is offending you. "

Actually Frank, it is the fact that YOU DO KNOW IT WILL OFFEND AND YOU OBVIOUSLY DON'T GIVE A FLYING FLIP! You do it just to irritate and offend. Thank you for being honest enough to finally admit it.

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

Frank,

I have not called you dense! I have not called you a deluded sheep! I have not called you stone-headed! I have not told you that you have problems (mental problems as I assume you meant)! I have called you nothing of these kinds.

And Frank, it's not even so much that you do these things we say. And I am so glad you finally pointed it out, because I had my suspicions about it.

"I do know that I state things that will offend people like you....but it is what I am saying...not the way I am saying it...that is offending you. "

Actually Frank, it is the fact that YOU DO KNOW IT WILL OFFEND AND YOU OBVIOUSLY DON'T GIVE A FLYING FLIP! You do it just to irritate and offend. Thank you for being honest enough to finally admit it.

Get under control, MA.

When I spoke of the "offending people"...you know doggone well I was talking about what Ihave to say about the god of the Bible.

Get back under control.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

Momma Angel wrote:
Frank,

I have not called you dense! I have not called you a deluded sheep! I have not called you stone-headed! I have not told you that you have problems (mental problems as I assume you meant)! I have called you nothing of these kinds.

And Frank, it's not even so much that you do these things we say. And I am so glad you finally pointed it out, because I had my suspicions about it.

"I do know that I state things that will offend people like you....but it is what I am saying...not the way I am saying it...that is offending you. "

Actually Frank, it is the fact that YOU DO KNOW IT WILL OFFEND AND YOU OBVIOUSLY DON'T GIVE A FLYING FLIP! You do it just to irritate and offend. Thank you for being honest enough to finally admit it.

Get under control, MA.

When I spoke of the "offending people"...you know doggone well I was talking about what Ihave to say about the god of the Bible.

Get back under control.

Frank,

You're busted. You know you're busted. We all know you are busted. You said it yourself. You know you offend others and you do it anyway. That, to me is intent to inflict at the very least, emotional turmoil for someone.

As far as I am concerned, that reason I just stated, is a very good reason for me to not be an agnostic. Not caring about other people's feelings (especially when they have talked to you about it over and over again) (IMO) is a total disregard for that person in general.

You ARE busted! This is my last post concerning this. We have held up this evolution thread long enough. If you would care to start another one on the topic, I'd be the first to jump in with both feet. You have made my faith stronger and deeper than it even was before. So for that, I do thank you.

0 Replies

mesquite wrote:

real life wrote:
mesquite wrote:
real life wrote:
mesquite wrote:
real life wrote:
Actually I am fascinated by science and enjoy it immensely.

If you were the head of a scientific research project, and Sir Isaac Newton applied for a position it would be quite an interesting interview, I think.

Would you hire him after he told you he literally believed that God created the world and all that is in it?

Considering the amassed information that was available to Isaac Newton during his time I do not see it as unusual at all that he believed a God created it all.

If however he had knowledge and access to the amassed information of today and then stated that he believed in a literal translation of Genesis, then he would have to have a lot better arguments than I have seen presented here before I hired him for a scientific research project.

Such a belief would to me indicate a lack or reasoning ability which is crucial to scientific work.

It would seem to me that Newton's scientific track record speaks for itself. If you can't recognize the value of what Newton contributed to science , then who has a lack of reasoning ability?

Is your reading comprehension that bad, or is it deliberate that you completely mischaracterize my comment?

If your position is that you would not hire Sir Isaac Newton due to his literal belief in God as the Creator (because that is the question I asked, unless you are mischaracterizing my post) even after seeing his track record of scientific accomplishment then you are not reasoning clearly, my friend.

Let's try this another way.

You asked if I would hire him "after he told you he literally believed that God created the world and all that is in it?"

That question is a bit vague about time, God, and creation belief.

I attempted to refine it with my answer,"If however he had knowledge and access to the amassed information of today and then stated that he believed in a literal translation of Genesis, then he would have to have a lot better arguments than I have seen presented here before I hired him for a scientific research project.

If that is still too vague for you let me pin it down more. By "literal translation of Genesis" I mean Genesis as the first book of the Bible, and by "belief in a literal translation" I mean a literal belief in the six day creation, the Eden story with talking snake, the Noah story of a worldwide flood that killed all life on earth except for ark passengers, and other attendant folklore.

So yes, if Sir Isaac Newton were alive today, and if he still subscribed to the above fantasies over and above the accumulated scientific knowledge of today, then I would deem him unfit for my scientific research project.

That said however, I suspect that if he were alive today, and being an inquisitive and observant person, that he would not not subscribe to a literal Genesis version of creation.

Hi Mesquite,

The question is quite specific. A creationist is one who believes that God literally created the world.

(Not all creationists believe in the Flood of Noah, original sin as depicted in the Garden of Eden, and other Bible doctrines --although many do.

Your objections regarding a "talking snake" and the ark are just a little odd, to say the least. These things were in the Bible when Newton was alive, but you act as if he might have been unaware of new evidence[/b] that might disprove them, or that some new scientific discovery[/b] made a "talking snake" less believable in our day than in his. Can you name one?

He was, (in addition to being inquisitive and observant,) very familiar with the entire Bible, having written an extensive treatise also on Biblical prophecies to define his belief in their accuracy in great detail. )

You attempted to "refine" my specific question by mischaracterizing my post (the thing you accused me of.

My question has to do specifically with his qualifications (in your eyes) as a scientist when seen along with his belief that God created the world.

Now if you can answer the original question, (since the story of Creation as recorded in Genesis has not changed from that day to this): Does Sir Isaac Newton qualify as a scientist in your view, since he believed God literally created the world? Would you hire him?

(This is a trick question so if you would like to punt, since you have already fumbled it so badly, I'll understand.)

0 Replies

real, my answer was quite clear. If you would like to get back to technical discussion of evolution, I will try to keep up. If you want to continue with meta-discussion, I decline. There is enough of that already in this thread.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know