Evolution? How?

Quote:

Momma Angel wrote:
[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.

Yes...my opinion of your god...that pathetic murderous barbarian does offend people...and, YES, I am going to mention it anyway.

If you see that as a problem...deal with it...because it is your problem.

Quote:

That, to me is intent to inflict at the very least, emotional turmoil for someone.

That's funny. I would call it telling the truth.

Youl want to be able to call this god of yours a "loving god"...but you do not want me to have the right to describe it the way I see it.

It ain't gonna work.

Quote:

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.

My guess is the reason you don't want to be agnostic...is that you do not want to acknowledge you don't KNOW many of the things you claim to know.

Quote:

You ARE busted! This is my last post concerning this.

Wanna bet!

Quote:

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.

Hey, you are welcome.

And I will start another thread in a bit.

Thank you for suggesting it.

Oh, by the way...you know when you mentioned earlier that I have called you "deluded" "sheep" "dense" "stone-headed"...

...well...to me you do appear to be deluded. And you certainly are sheep...but you do call yourselves that, so no big deal.

As for "dense" and "stone-headed"...well...I'll just have to leave that to others to decide if that should be considered as insulting or truthful. I think I've been truthful...if at times a bit insensitive.

Some of you people have been much worse in your depictions of me.

We all have to bear up to what comes our way in these forums.

0 Replies

Here is a link to my new thread.

I hope you all stop by to contribute.

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1613580#1613580

0 Replies

Momma wrote:

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.

I am really surprised, Momma. I think that you are painting with a very broad brush. Frank has a certain style of writing, which can be, shall we say, abrasive. He cuts right to the chase, with no embellishments. Obviously, you are not happy with the way he communicates his thoughts, which is your right. You believe that he does not care about others.

So now you are lumping all agnostics into a category of people who don't care about others. Since you believe that caring for others is a positive value, therefore, you can now comfortably discount anything that an agnostic says.

IMO, that sounds rather closed minded, and rather prejudiced to me. I would expect better of you.

0 Replies

Phoenix32890 wrote:

Momma wrote:
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.

I am really surprised, Momma. I think that you are painting with a very broad brush. Frank has a certain style of writing, which can be, shall we say, abrasive. He cuts right to the chase, with no embellishments. Obviously, you are not happy with the way he communicates his thoughts, which is your right. You believe that he does not care about others.

So now you are lumping all agnostics into a category of people who don't care about others. Since you believe that caring for others is a positive value, therefore, you can now comfortably discount anything that an agnostic says.

IMO, that sounds rather closed minded, and rather prejudiced to me. I would expect better of you.

I have to agree with you on this, Phoenix. Momma seems to be writing in response to her displeasure with Frank. I am sure that, upon contemplation, she will realize that to paint all agnostics with this brush is both unfair and even harsh. The fact that one is an agnostic does not reflect on their attributes as a human being.

0 Replies

Phoenix32890 wrote:

Momma wrote:
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.

I am really surprised, Momma. I think that you are painting with a very broad brush. Frank has a certain style of writing, which can be, shall we say, abrasive. He cuts right to the chase, with no embellishments. Obviously, you are not happy with the way he communicates his thoughts, which is your right. You believe that he does not care about others.

So now you are lumping all agnostics into a category of people who don't care about others. Since you believe that caring for others is a positive value, therefore, you can now comfortably discount anything that an agnostic says.

IMO, that sounds rather closed minded, and rather prejudiced to me. I would expect better of you.

Phoenix,

Well, I can't disagree with a single thing you just stated. Yes, if all agnostics were like Frank, that would be different.

And, I should have stated that much differently and I really do appreciate you pointing that out to me. I do not want to be misunderstood here.

Let's see, how to say this the right way. If the way Frank portrays himself in these posts was the way all agnostics were, then I would definitely not want to act that way. I don't care if he's agnostic or what. I don't want to act that way.

But, there are those in these threads that do disagree with me on most things that have been open, honest, civil, and respectful of me as a human being. If all agnostics were as these, I think those that believe would have an even bigger 'fight' on our hands.

And everyone, I do apologize for making the statement the way I did. I in no way believe that all of anyone is any certain way.

And Phoenix, I really do thank you for pointing that out. I can't fix it if I didn't catch that I broke it!

0 Replies

snood wrote:

Eorl:

Quote:
(but just to clarify...I don't think your "father" is a phony piece of crap...I simply don't think he is anything....why would he?....where is he?...what makes you think he is there at all??? apart from a lifetime habit of trusting your feelings ahead of the data and believing stuff that other people told you must be accepted as true.....and that people who don't accept it are evil.....etc...etc?)

That was a belittling assumption - that the reason for my faith is simple blind ignorance and acceptance. You can't get even exchanges of ideas when you do that, Eorl.

I believe in God because I have had several things happen to me in life that I cannot explain except for the intercession of a loving higher power. I believe in God because there have been at least two occasions when I felt the presence, down to the innermost fibers of my being, of a being full of love and comfort - felt it so strongly that I have never after questioned its existence.

You are right, snood. I apologize for the belittling assumption.

Thankyou for responding sincerely despite my rudeness.

I can't help but ask you now, why do you think your feelings outweigh any objective measurements?

It's very difficult to convince a schizophrenic that what they know to be true is not....how can you be certain you are not equally self-deluded?

Why did you give yourself the authority to decide never to question those experiences?

0 Replies

Well, I noticed that everyone is talking about evolution so I thought I would add something.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-1811332,00.html

0 Replies

xingu,

Where the verses are listed under true and untrue in this article, can you tell me your feelings on this?

0 Replies

In defense of Frank's, and others, viewpoint of the Biblical God, which coincides with mine, here is a prominent Bible thumper telling us of God's current round of slaughter. Now I'm not accusing any of the Christians on this thread of believing this crap but the Bible is what gives people like Pat Robertson the justification to say such things, as Frank and others points out.

Quote:

Recent natural disasters point to return of Jesus Christ: US evangelist Robertson
Sun Oct 9, 3:00 PM ET
Prominent US preacher Pat Robertson said that recent natural disasters around the world point to the end of the world and the imminent return of Jesus Christ.
"These things are starting to hit with amazing regularity," Robertson told CNN, remarking on the coincidence of a major earthquake that killed thousands in Asia Saturday and recent killer hurricanes slamming the United States.
Those disasters come less than a year after a massive tsunami levels huge portions of South Asia, killing more than 31,000 people and leaving some a million left homeless.
Devout Christians believe that the "last days" will be marked by political and geological upheaval, and Roberts said recent events show that those days might have arrived.
Citing scripture from the Bible, the conservative Christian broadcaster said the latter days would be marked by "the birth pangs of a new order, and for anybody who knows what it's like to have a wife going in labor, you know how these labor pains begin to hit."
"What was called the Blessed Hope of the Bible is that one day Jesus Christ would come back again, start a whole new era, that this world order that we know would change into something that would be wonderful that we'd call the millennium," Robertson said.
"And before that good time comes there will be some difficult days and there will be likened to what a woman goes through in labor just before she brings forth a child."
Asked if the world was reaching this moment, Robertson said: "It's possible. I don't have any special revelation to say it is but the Bible does indicate such a time will happen in the end of time. And could this be it? It might be."
Hurricane Katrina has left more than 1,200 people dead in the United States, while nearly 20,000 people have died in the South Asian earthquake disaster this weekend.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/us-preacher-links-quake-to-second-coming/2005/10/10/1128796443827.html

0 Replies

The bible does not give them justification. They justify themselves in the guise of Christianity.

0 Replies

Intrepid is correct. THEY may try to use the Bible as THEIR justification but THEY are the ones doing the justifying. Not the Bible.

0 Replies

Hey Momma,

(and others)

I have a quick question for you. (perhaps more relevant to that other thread, but relevant here too)

Who do you think has the correct interpretation of the bible?

You?
Frank?
The pope?
Priests of some religious orders?
Priests of all religious orders?
Priests of just one religious order?
All adherents of just one religious order?
Everybody interprets it correctly for themselves?
Nobody?

0 Replies

Eorl wrote:

Hey Momma,

(and others)

I have a quick question for you. (perhaps more relevant to that other thread, but relevant here too)

Who do you think has the correct interpretation of the bible?

You?
Frank?
The pope?
Priests of some religious orders?
Priests of all religious orders?
Priests of just one religious order?
All adherents of just one religious order?
Everybody interprets it correctly for themselves?
Nobody?

I would imagine that the only truly correct interpretation of the Bible is known by God alone.

0 Replies

Eorl:

Quote:

I can't help but ask you now, why do you think your feelings outweigh any objective measurements?

It's very difficult to convince a schizophrenic that what they know to be true is not....how can you be certain you are not equally self-deluded?

Why did you give yourself the authority to decide never to question those experiences?

There's a difference in our way of looking at things. I don't see it as "giving myself authority" - anymore than a clay urn could give itself authority to question its potter. And I know a little about breaks with reality - all things being equal, I think I know my own mind well enough to tell when I'm operating cogently. A big part of this whole debate is the disconnect between those who are willing to believe in something they cannot smell, taste, see, touch or hear, and those who are not willing. It takes willingness, and I know that isn't an easy thing for a self-sufficient, intelligent person to do, because it involves a possible admission that we may not be in control. I think the whole 'faith' deal involves a certain humility that can accept that there are things our minds can't encompass totally.
And although I'm 100% for the free exchange of ideas about the subject, I think some aspects of it are akin to trying to explain the taste of a banana to someone who has never tasted fruit. For that reason, I will pray for guidance about how to engage people who have no faith, in a productive, bile-free way.

0 Replies

So you are just hoping your view is closer to reality than everybody elses?

Do you think it's likely you adopt the things you like about the bible and ignore the stuff you don't?

0 Replies

Quote:

Where the verses are listed under true and untrue in this article, can you tell me your feelings on this?

First let me say I don't, at this time, have the opportunity to devote as much time to this forum as others so I don't want to get involved in a lengthy debate. Come Jan. I will be retiring and will be able to spend more time on the computer.

In answer to your question, I agree with the Church's viewpoint on Genesis but not on the nature of Christ. The Church is doing what I have noticed other Christians do in past debates; they write the Bible. That is they decide what passages God wrote and what he didn't. I have had some tell me they reject the OT because the God in those books do not agree with their idea of what God is. They do, however accept the NT. And some of those even rejected Revelations.

I believe Jesus was a real person, a Jew, and as such would never proclaim himself a God. A God in human form is paganism, not Judaism. He was executed for his attack on the vendors in the Temple during Passover. Of his numerous Jewish followers many of them did not believe him to be a God. But the pagans would because a God in human form is indigenous to their religion.

By the way, did Jesus live a sinless life?

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcsi2.htm

0 Replies

(my last post meant for Momma, not snood)

0 Replies

Eorl Wrote:

Quote:

So you are just hoping your view is closer to reality than everybody elses?

Do you think it's likely you adopt the things you like about the bible and ignore the stuff you don't?

I don't ignore anything the Bible says. Some things I believe are to be taken literally and some are not. It is definitely not a book you can pick up and start reading and understand each and every word. It takes study, reflection, and a lot of thinking. But, I do believe it has in it what God intends for man to do and how man should be.

0 Replies

Momma, surely you can see that this means that each person who reads the bible can justify anything and everything they want as thier own subjective gods' will?

How can you imagine for a moment that you are the one making the correct assumptions about what it means?

I've seen the bible used by christians to demonstrate that heaven is real...and by other christians to prove the complete opposite.

Surely we need to get to the bottom of what is true and what is not before we can start making all these crazy assumptions?

0 Replies

Eorl wrote:

Momma, surely you can see that this means that each person who reads the bible can justify anything and everything they want as thier own subjective gods' will?

How can you imagine for a moment that you are the one making the correct assumptions about what it means?

I've seen the bible used by christians to demonstrate that heaven is real...and by other christians to prove the complete opposite.

Surely we need to get to the bottom of what is true and what is not before we can start making all these crazy assumptions?

Eorl,

You questions are very intriguing. And, what you say does happen. It's very hard sometimes to put your faith and beliefs into words. You know in your heart (figurative) when something is right to you or not, correct? It's kind of the same way with the Bible. Now, I definitely know that going out and flying airplanes into buildings for God is NOT what God intended. But yes, unfortunately, there are those that will twist the words of the Bible to be used for their own gain.

It's a rather fine line sometimes. But, you have to let your conscience guide you, along with some common sense, and a good question to always ask is What Would Jesus Do? I know that may seem overly simple, but, if you stick to His teachings, you can't go wrong IMO.

Unfortunately Eorl, I don't think we will ever get to the bottom of what is and what is not (I am going to use the word literal here). I believe someday we will know. I believe some day all the answers to all the questions will be there.

I hope this helped and I appreciate your interest and the civil way you ask questions.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know