Top Ten Signs You're a Fundamentalist...
Job

Santa Clara, CA

#384 Mar 3, 2013
Big Al wrote:
1. <quoted text>
I will repeat what I previously wrote…
“Certainly the magnitude of the response by the scientific community was affected by the socially and politically offensive nature of the comments but the lack of scientific evidence was the determining factor in the unanimity of the rejection of them.”
<quoted text>

2. I think Dr. Watson’s comments were certainly racist in character. I don’t know Dr. Watson personally and I can’t judge him a racist or not a racist simply on the basis of those comments. I don’t know what his background is and he may well have been raised in a racist environment which still affects his thinking to this day. He obviously wasn’t thinking too clearly when he made those statements.
He was treated exactly as he should have been for making unsupported very offensive comments.

3. <quoted text>
Dawkins is a scientist (PhD evolutionary biologist) which makes him eminently qualified to comment on evolution. You don’t have to be a theologian or be qualified in any way to hold the personal opinion that the Bible is “just plain weird”.
<quoted text>

4. weird (adj)- odd: strange or unusual, supernatural – The Bible is weird.
Witches and demons exist only in human imagination.
<quoted text>

5. The “God” that I consider to be a possibility wouldn’t be so unintelligent as to expect rational thinking people to believe in a talking snake.

6. <quoted text>
What does any of that have to with your comment that people who referred to Dr. Watson’s comments as hypotheses would need personal protection? Your comment was humorous.
<quoted text>
…because it was extremely offensive and unsupported.
1. How do know that? You're talking about a broad range of 'individuals' affected differently. There may be some who agree with Watson for all we know, and are just going with the flow. I'm sure there are also those who place more emphasis on the 'offense' than evidence.
The dichotomy and contradiction here between 'offense' and 'evidence' is painfully obvious.

2. In the U.S., the Federation of American Scientists said it was outraged that Watson "chose to use his unique stature to promote personal prejudices that are racist, vicious and unsupported by science."

Again, a contradiction. You claim you don't know that he is racist, yet fully support those who apparently do, or claim to. And certainly the quote I provided does not suggest lack of evidence having precedence over offense. If anything, the opposite. It should be understood, these counter quotations are hand selected to appease to different audiences with different levels of emotion on the issue. The demands of an apology were widespread, and the scientific community needed to appease to those the most offended by using terms like 'racist', and lesser suggestions to that effect like "lacking evidence",'unscientific', etc., for those not quite as emotionally effected.

3. I wasn't talking about evolution. And yes, he has a right to any opinion he wants on the Bible. It doesn't mean he's qualified to make statements he knows nothing about. And again,'weird' does not equal 'untrue'. I had a 'weird' thing happen to me the other day. And 'really' happened. It wasn't my imagination.

4. Dan Barker's comments are akin to false advertising. If someone never read the Bible before hearing his description, they would think the Bible had witches flying on brooms, etc. The Bible addresses the fact that there were witches just like there are today. Do you want to tell a Wiccan witch that she doesn't exist? And how do you know that demons are just part of man's imagination?

5. You mean a god made in 'your' personal image of how a god 'should' be.
Again, could a creator of the universe cause a snake or donkey to speak if He so chose to?

6. All I'm suggesting is that they chose to remain anonymous for personal protection (threats of physical harm, harassment, etc.).

7. And what do you think would happen if it was supported?
Job

Santa Clara, CA

#386 Mar 3, 2013
Big Al wrote:
1. <quoted text>
…because it was extremely offensive and unsupported.
<quoted text>

No

<quoted text>
Not being a bible scholar I don’t claim to have inerrant knowledge of everything. I readily admit there are a lot of things that I am unsure of and a lot of things I don’t know. One of the things I admit that I don't know is whether or not there is a "God".
1. It sure sounds as if "offensive" is the ruling theme over "unsupported".

2. If this doesn't sound like politics, I don't know what does. Why would 'naturalist' scientists be concerned about 'tabloids"?

"We consider the interpretation of the tests of identification markers (heretofore used only for analysis in criminal investigations) to 'verify racial purity' not only to be sheer nonsense from a scientific perspective, but also, in today's era of the tabloidization of most media outlets, to be a very dangerous precedent which could harm genetics as a scientific discipline," said the General Director of Genomac, RNDr. Marek Minárik, Ph.D.

And it appears that 'ethics' play a part as well. Why would 'naturalist' scientists be concerned about ethics 'within' science? A number of people here seemed to have claimed that science is not associated with morality and ethics.

RNDr. Lucie Benešová, Ph.D., Director for Research and Services at Genomac, said: "For many years we have been pointing out that privately-owned and publicly-owned genetics laboratories should uphold elementary principles of ethics, both in the areas of performing, promoting and publicizing genetic testing, and in the area of interpreting test results. We presented our first draft of an ethical codex for genetic testing to the professional world in 2005."

RNDr. Lucie Benešová, Ph.D., Director for Research and Services at Genomac, said: "For many years we have been pointing out that privately-owned and publicly-owned genetics laboratories should uphold elementary principles of ethics, both in the areas of performing, promoting and publicizing genetic testing, and in the area of interpreting test results. We presented our first draft of an ethical codex for genetic testing to the professional world in 2005."

And again, do you agree with this comment?

There is no place for the "moralistic fallacy" that reality must conform to our social, political, or ethical desires."
Job

Santa Clara, CA

#387 Mar 3, 2013
Big Al wrote:
<quoted text>

Not being a bible scholar I don’t claim to have inerrant knowledge of everything. I readily admit there are a lot of things that I am unsure of and a lot of things I don’t know. One of the things I admit that I don't know is whether or not there is a "God".
But then how would you know what God 'would' or 'wouldn't' do?'Why' wouldn't He for instance, on 2 specific occasions, cause an animal and reptile (as far as we know of what the 'serpent' actually was) to talk?
Job

Santa Clara, CA

#388 Mar 4, 2013
Big Al wrote:
1. <quoted text>
Allude to what? If somebody is alluding they have to be alluding to something.
<quoted text>

2. I will repeat…
“The scientific evidence shows that the Earth was not created in 6 literal days, and that animal and human life developed over millions of years and did not appear suddenly, and that there has never been any scientific evidence of a talking snake.”

3. <quoted text>
"The principles of evolution have been tested repeatedly and found to be valid according to scientific criteria." - American Anthropological Association
<quoted text>

4. It seems to me science has done an excellent job of explaining natural phenomenon without invoking the supernatural.
“However, before we come to creation [supernatural], which puts an end to all discussion: I think we should try everything else.”— Johannes Kepler

5. <quoted text>
The “God” that I consider to be a possibility wouldn’t be so unintelligent as to expect rational thinking people to believe in a talking snake.

6. <quoted text>
"In all science, error precedes the truth, and it is better it should go first than last." ~Hugh Walpole
1. What I meant was, after rereading the quote, I realized I was wrong, and that 'Genesis' would probably be included in the person's reference (although the book of Genesis was not mentioned).

2. Yes, from a 'naturalist' standpoint, assuming that there was either no Creator involved, or the creator used evolution as a process. But even Hawking admits that we cannot prove that a Creator was not involved. All he, and evolutionist scientists can do is provide an 'alternative' to consider as far as how we came into being. Evolutionists do not really know 'how' came into existence.

3. This doesn't change the fact that this comes from a 'naturalist' perspective. Again, when referring to biological scientists, we're talking about 95% atheists and agnostics who have a 'bias'.

4. All that is referenced here is an 'alternative'. And quite frankly, it's not the alternative ideas that I consider defective, it's the insistence that it represents "absolute fact". There's a difference between proposing ideas on how we came into existence 'without' supernatural means, and claiming that supernatural means had no part. But then again, God creating the universe is really only
supernatural to us.

5. Do you you think a Creator of the universe could if He so chose to, cause a snake and donkey to talk?

6. I agree.
Job

Santa Clara, CA

#389 Mar 4, 2013
Big Al wrote:
1. <quoted text>
"The historical fact of evolution...and the concepts used to study evolutionary change in living systems, provide the unifying theme for all biological knowledge.”- Society of Systematic Biologists
<quoted text>

2. There are many different claims of divine revelation. They all require faith because they cannot produce any scientific evidence. The Theory of Evolution is not revelation it is science, therefore no faith is required. The proof of evolution came about through the hard work of digging up fossils and doing experiments. Scientists don’t just sit there waiting for a revelation from “God”.
<quoted text>

3. There’s no reason for any scientist including Dawkins to care what anybody’s personal beliefs are unless they try to interject them into objective science.

4. <quoted text>
Galileo
"It vexes me when they would constrain science by the authority of the Scriptures…”- Galileo Galilei
1. All you've done so far is quote what 'others' have said. And again, those who represent a majority of atheists and agnostics.

2. How do you know that there's no scientific evidence of a Creator? As far as revelation, ironically according to scripture, there is a demand to do "hard work" as opposed to merely waiting for revelation. Yes, there 'are' different claims of revelation. What many 'naturalists' tend to do is rather than investigate to see which may be true, they dismiss them all. A common theme is to believe that since they contradict each other, none of them could hold the ultimate truth. The funny part is that many who promote extensive "study", also suggest that God should make things easy by just making a grand appearance to everyone.

3. You're talking about a person who wants to dictate what schools of faith need to include in their curriculum, and is part of an organization that took cheerleaders to court for putting scriptures on signs at a high school football game.

Now I'll admit that Dawkins is powerless. There's not a whole lot he can do except use his media presence to make absurd suggestions. But he is 'not' merely focused on science, that appears to be quite evident.

4. This isn't 'revelation. This was a scientific theory promoted by Claudius Ptolemy of Alexandria.
Job

Santa Clara, CA

#390 Mar 4, 2013
Big Al wrote:
1. <quoted text>
The point is that he admitted he had no scientific evidence to support his statement.
<quoted text>

2. Freedom of speech has nothing to do with it. He was not arrested and put in jail. You don’t have freedom of speech in relation to your job. If your boss doesn’t like what you are saying to him or the public you get fired.
I will repeat…
“Certainly the magnitude of the response by the scientific community was affected by the socially and politically offensive nature of the comments but the lack of scientific evidence was the determining factor in the unanimity of the rejection of them.”
1. He made observations based on test scores, and opinions from employers, as well as probably other observations. As I said, the contradiction and dichotomy is painfully obvious. I'm not implying that his reprimand was unjust, but that it contradicts the principles of 'naturalism' where theoretically ethics, morality, sentiment, and passion should not dictate exploration that may result in 'offenses'. If I were a 'naturalist', the right approach for me would be to disagree with no reprimand, and/or look into the 'claims' further in case I'm wrong.

2. This is contradictory. You're now claiming that the demand from the scientific community is akin to the rights of an employer to fire an employee based on "dislike". And how do you know that scientific evidence was the determining factor?

Koku Adomdza, director of the black equality pressure group The 1990 Trust, labelled Dr Watson a “complete dinosaur” and pressed him to apologise to “Africa and all people of African origin”.
He said:“Dr Watson is really a relic of the oldest stock and deserves to be made to account for his extremely offensive and ignorant remarks.
“His very poisonously racist opinions put students and the unsuspecting public at serious risk.”

We're talking about someone who was subject to a demand made 'public' to apologize to an entire continent, and racial group.

Do you really think that if scientists began to rethink their position on racial intelligence, that blacks are less intelligent, that they will just come out and publicly admit it?'Theoretically' and 'naturalistically' speaking, this 'would' be possible.
Big Al

Grand Rapids, MN

#391 Mar 4, 2013
socci wrote:
<quoted text>
While we would all like objective unbiased science the fact is 'science' today is part of marxist world revolution that includes an irreligion agenda resulting in censorship of anything that proves the Bible. This has been the case since the French Revolution.
Admittedly so...
Atheism: The NWO Lie
http://atheists.org/The_Enlightenment,_Freema...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_Reason
www.creationism.org/books/TaylorInMindsMen/in...
www.youtube.com/watch...
Also see the Royal Society + Freemasonry -- this is where the peer-review censors science. The Darwins were members.
• Pagan Roots of Evolution Theories
with professor Paul James-Griffiths
http://edinburghcreationgroup.org/video/31
This is a sourced power-point lecture.
http://creation.com/evolution-ancient-pagan-i...
www.resurrectisis.org/PaganEvolution.htm
“Paranoia strikes deep Into your life it will creep…”– Buffalo Springfield
Big Al

Grand Rapids, MN

#392 Mar 4, 2013
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
1. How do know that? You're talking about a broad range of 'individuals' affected differently. There may be some who agree with Watson for all we know, and are just going with the flow. I'm sure there are also those who place more emphasis on the 'offense' than evidence.
The dichotomy and contradiction here between 'offense' and 'evidence' is painfully obvious.
Dr. Watson’s comments were offensive and unsupported. The fact that those comments were offensive is what accounted for the intensity of the reaction. You seem to be trying to argue that an intense reaction to offensive comments proves that science is controlled by political and social forces. Nothing could be further from the truth.
The science community’s reaction to those comments simply proves that the science community does not bend to the authority of past accomplishments be it Dr. Watson, Martin Luther or Moses; it bends only to the authority of the scientific evidence.
Job wrote:
2. In the U.S., the Federation of American Scientists said it was outraged that Watson "chose to use his unique stature to promote personal prejudices that are racist, vicious and unsupported by science."
Again, a contradiction. You claim you don't know that he is racist, yet fully support those who apparently do, or claim to. And certainly the quote I provided does not suggest lack of evidence having precedence over offense. If anything, the opposite. It should be understood, these counter quotations are hand selected to appease to different audiences with different levels of emotion on the issue. The demands of an apology were widespread, and the scientific community needed to appease to those the most offended by using terms like 'racist', and lesser suggestions to that effect like "lacking evidence",'unscientific', etc., for those not quite as emotionally effected.
You keep bringing up Dr. Watson’s comments and it’s not helping your argument.
Job wrote:
3. I wasn't talking about evolution. And yes, he has a right to any opinion he wants on the Bible. It doesn't mean he's qualified to make statements he knows nothing about. And again,'weird' does not equal 'untrue'. I had a 'weird' thing happen to me the other day. And 'really' happened. It wasn't my imagination.
4. Dan Barker's comments are akin to false advertising. If someone never read the Bible before hearing his description, they would think the Bible had witches flying on brooms, etc. The Bible addresses the fact that there were witches just like there are today. Do you want to tell a Wiccan witch that she doesn't exist? And how do you know that demons are just part of man's imagination?
A Wiccan is an ordinary human being just like you or I with an overactive imagination just like yours. There is exactly the same amount of evidence for the existence of Elves as there is for Demons.
Job wrote:
5. You mean a god made in 'your' personal image of how a god 'should' be.
You have a mental construct of a creator that is very similar to a medieval tyrant, I try not to allow my human imagination construct an artificial image of an unimaginable thing.

“Infinities and indivisibles transcend our finite understanding…”– Galileo Galilei
Job wrote:
Again, could a creator of the universe cause a snake or donkey to speak if He so chose to?
I think the possibility that the “force” which supports the laws of physics and nature allowed the formation of one snake with vocal chords, a tong, lips and a brain capable of human speech is about equal to possibility that “force” created one flying horse, Pegasus of Greek mythology.
Job wrote:
6. All I'm suggesting is that they chose to remain anonymous for personal protection (threats of physical harm, harassment, etc.).
Mean old scientists probably get the thumb screws out of the museum for people like that.

“theholychristian church.com”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#393 Mar 4, 2013
Lordofnuts wrote:
Top Ten Signs You're a Fundamentalist Christian

Can I get an Amen?
Top Ten Signs You're a Fundamentalist Christian

10 - You vigorously deny the existence of thousands of gods claimed by other religions, but feel outraged when someone denies the existence of yours.
- First part is correct, second depends on the person: would be inacceptable hehaviour.

9 - You feel insulted and "dehumanised" when scientists say that people evolved from other life forms, but you have no problem
with the Biblical claim that we were created from dirt.

- Not correct. They can't feel insulted if they are fundie christians and they would let science believe what it wants.
They will know they can't a win a battle against science on the subject, for they belie the intangible.

8 - You laugh at polytheists, but you have no problem believing in a Trinity of Gods.
False: they do not.

7 - Your face turns purple when you hear of the "atrocities" attributed to Allah, but you don't even flinch when hearing about how
God/Jehovah slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in "Exodus" and ordered the elimination of entire ethnic groups in "Joshua" including women, children, and trees!

- ABSOLUTELY CORRECT! And the reason they do not FLICH is that God is almighty and if he kills or orders to kill then so it is: he cannot murder!

6 - You laugh at Hindu beliefs that deify humans, and Greek claims about gods sleeping with women, but you have no problem believing that the
Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, who then gave birth to a man-god who committed suicide while praying to himself for help,
came back to life and then ascended into the sky.

- Moking makes you look like a FOOL!

5 - You are willing to spend your life looking for little loopholes in the scientifically established age of Earth (few billion years), but you find nothing
wrong with believing dates recorded by Bronze Age tribesmen sitting in their tents and guessing that Earth is a few generations old.

- Only fools do this, not Christians. No fundie will win the batle against the tangible proof science provides us! Christians believe in the intangible!
That which is only proven to individuals, personally, and they then preach it!

4 - You believe that the entire population of this planet with the exception of those who share your beliefs -- though excluding those in all rival sects
- will spend Eternity in an infinite Hell of Suffering. And yet consider your religion the most "tolerant" and "loving."

- They quote the Gospel! This is what Jesus said: Repent and baptize in the name of Jesus or else perish - in short.

3 - While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot rolling around on the floor
speaking in "tongues" may be all the evidence you need to "prove" Christianity.

- False: the fundies do not believe this. Speaking in tongues only happened to the Apostles, so that they could preach to other languages.

2 - You define 0.01% as a "high success rate" when it comes to answered prayers. You consider that to be evidence that prayer works.
And you think that the remaining 99.99% FAILURE was simply the will of God.

- Your claim is true that the so-called christians do not get prayers answerd as they should be for christians.
And very nice that they let us know: so we know they are jokers!

1 - You actually know a lot less than many atheists and agnostics do about the Bible, Christianity, and church history - but still call yourself a Christian.
Can I get an Amen?

a) all Chrsitians have to know is how to repent and baptize: not hing else. No history, NOTHING! And all this is in the Gospel.
b) the atheist and agnost know just as little about the book as the so-called chrisitans.

One should know that people doing any of the above are not christians.

You do not get an Amen: this is only reserved for those who quote without error. Like when Jesus quoted the below.

“theholychristian church.com”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#394 Mar 4, 2013
BORN AGAIN
JOH 3: 3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
JOH 3: 4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?
JOH 3: 5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
JOH 3: 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
JOH 3: 7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

MAT 18: 3 And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.
JOH 3: 3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
JOH 3: 7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
PE1 1: 23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

ONE BAPTISM NO MORE REMISSION FOR SIN
HEB 10: 26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,
HEB 10: 27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.

LUKEWARM HOT COLD- JESUS SPEAKING TO A CHURCH
http://www.theholychristianchurch.com/cgi-bin ...
REV 3: 15 I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.
REV 3: 16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.

Jazybird58

“Reality bites”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#395 Mar 4, 2013
Cliff09 wrote:
BORN AGAIN
JOH 3: 3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
JOH 3: 4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?
JOH 3: 5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
JOH 3: 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
JOH 3: 7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
MAT 18: 3 And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.
JOH 3: 3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
JOH 3: 7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
PE1 1: 23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
ONE BAPTISM NO MORE REMISSION FOR SIN
HEB 10: 26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,
HEB 10: 27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.
LUKEWARM HOT COLD- JESUS SPEAKING TO A CHURCH
http://www.theholychristianchurch.com/cgi-bin ...
REV 3: 15 I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.
REV 3: 16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.
This is from your link.

Forbidden
You don't have permission to access /cgi-bin/ on this server.

Additionally, a 404 Not Found error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.

shit is broken

“theholychristian church.com”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#396 Mar 4, 2013
Here is the link, scroll down on page
http://www.theholychristianchurch.com/cgi-bin...

Jazybird58

“Reality bites”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#397 Mar 4, 2013
Cliff09 wrote:
Here is the link, scroll down on page
http://www.theholychristianchurch.com/cgi-bin...
Oh I found your website. What is wrooooooong with you?

“theholychristian church.com”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#398 Mar 4, 2013
Jazybird58 wrote:
<quoted text>Oh I found your website. What is wrooooooong with you?
Well, it's that I can read and understand: and I am really sorry about that.
Big Al

Grand Rapids, MN

#399 Mar 4, 2013
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
But then how would you know what God 'would' or 'wouldn't' do?'Why' wouldn't He for instance, on 2 specific occasions, cause an animal and reptile (as far as we know of what the 'serpent' actually was) to talk?
You have a mental construct of a creator that is very similar to a medieval tyrant, I try not to allow my human imagination construct an artificial image of an unimaginable thing.

I think the possibility that the “force” which supports the laws of physics and nature allowed the formation of one snake with vocal chords, a tong, lips and a brain capable of human speech is about equal to possibility that “force” created one flying horse, Pegasus of Greek mythology.

Jazybird58

“Reality bites”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#400 Mar 4, 2013
Cliff09 wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, it's that I can read and understand: and I am really sorry about that.
So can I, that is some kinda whack job church you belong to. Whats with the womans avatar Cliff?

“theholychristian church.com”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#401 Mar 4, 2013
Jazybird58 wrote:
<quoted text>So can I, that is some kinda whack job church you belong to. Whats with the womans avatar Cliff?
I make the statement: WOMAN ARE ALLOWED TO PREACH.

Proven by Paul quoting 'we are all one in christ jesus' and Jesus never prohibiting woman to preach.

“theholychristian church.com”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#404 Mar 4, 2013
notreally wrote:
<quoted text>Do you have an actual churchwith a congregation or are you just a web site?
Those they of ours reading is a rare GIFT.

This site is not the online home of a Church. It is a site that explains what 'The Church' truly is.
The False, Impostor-Christian Churches are Mass Murderers: they call and lead millions to death.

http://www.theholychristianchurch.com/index.h...

“theholychristian church.com”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#406 Mar 4, 2013
These days of ours reading is a true GIFT and understanding is a rare GIF.

READ THE PAGE:

This site is not the online home of a Church. It is a site that explains what 'The Church' truly is.
The False, Impostor-Christian Churches are Mass Murderers: they call and lead millions to death.


READ:

It is not 'your church', Nor the mountain: It is you and the Gospel, in Spirit and in Truth!
The Church is the constitution of Christ; and all those who follow it are 'The Church'.
If nobody would follow 'The Church', then it would still exist as a ' Constitution'.
The Church is not a worldly building or on organization named 'Church'.

READ:

If it is up to me, all churches would be shut-down today and all persons from the age of 10 years, would receive a free bible, so that they can read the truth. No assembly of Christians that included people whom refer to their person as 'Pastor, Priest, Teacher etc.' would be allowed, safe these persons be under the strictest 'Government Watch' to see that they follow the commandments of God, not living excessive luxury lifestyles, fornicating etc., but walking in the commandments, preaching exactly what is written and nothing else, and this by pain of a severe penalty and the confiscation of their church, including funds, would they transgress.

http://www.theholychristianchurch.com
Big Al

Grand Rapids, MN

#407 Mar 4, 2013
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
1. All you've done so far is quote what 'others' have said. And again, those who represent a majority of atheists and agnostics.
I quote those who by way of their education, training and experience have studied and gathered objective evidence and theby acquired knowledge of the science of biology. I like the fact that they don’t tell me I have to believe what they say or I’ll go to hell. They simply say look at the evidence. There is no doubt in my mind that their statements about biology are more accurate than yours or Moses’.
Job wrote:
2. How do you know that there's no scientific evidence of a Creator?
I never said there wasn’t evidence of a creator. As Thomas Paine says that the world around us that we can see, hear, feel taste and touch is evidence of a creator and I agree. But there is no proof of a creator as Hawking says if the universe if the universe had no beginning, "What place, then, for a creator?".
Job wrote:
As far as revelation, ironically according to scripture, there is a demand to do "hard work" as opposed to merely waiting for revelation. Yes, there 'are' different claims of revelation. What many 'naturalists' tend to do is rather than investigate to see which may be true, they dismiss them all. A common theme is to believe that since they contradict each other, none of them could hold the ultimate truth. The funny part is that many who promote extensive "study", also suggest that God should make things easy by just making a grand appearance to everyone.
Those that accept revelation never consider the possibility their particular revelation could be wrong because there are always consequences for a lack of faith. Science has advanced our knowledge of the world around us not by pursuing claims of divine revelation written in holy books but by simply examining the real world that is all around us.
Job wrote:
3. You're talking about a person who wants to dictate what schools of faith need to include in their curriculum, and is part of an organization that took cheerleaders to court for putting scriptures on signs at a high school football game.
Now I'll admit that Dawkins is powerless. There's not a whole lot he can do except use his media presence to make absurd suggestions. But he is 'not' merely focused on science, that appears to be quite evident.
“I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world.”- Richard Dawkins

Dawkins would have had no problem with the religious school I attended. As I previously mentioned I was taught science (evolution) in Science class and Religion in Religion Class. Dawkins objects to religion only in so far as it hinders science. He and Galileo would be in agreement.

"It vexes me when they would constrain science by the authority of the Scriptures…”– Galileo Galilei
Job wrote:
4. This isn't 'revelation. This was a scientific theory promoted by Claudius Ptolemy of Alexandria.
I wrote,“Revelation has no place in science.”

You responded,“Says who?”

I responded,“Galileo….’It vexes me when they would constrain science by the authority of the Scriptures…’”- Galileo Galilei

What does any of that have to do with Claudius Ptolemy of Alexandria?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Christian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Bible says Satan will be Destroyed, Not Live Fo... (Apr '10) 2 hr Jones 760
Early Christianity (Dec '16) 2 hr 2all 2,876
Gambler's Abyss: Deuteronomy 3 hr AlertChristians 3
Are Your Beliefs TRUE? 5 hr ZDF 608
jesus will never return 7 hr ZDF 499
Why has God stop communicating with man? 20 hr horror girl 219
Why did Christ come to Earth? (Oct '16) 20 hr horror girl 1,611
More from around the web