Top Ten Signs You're a Fundamentalist Christian!!!

Posted in the Christian Forum

Comments (Page 27)

Showing posts 521 - 540 of849
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Job

Cupertino, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#537
Mar 8, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Big Al wrote:
<quoted text>
I am an agnostic. I don’t necessarily accept Thomas Paine’s “God” either, but his “incomprehensible creator” makes a lot more sense than your “medieval tyrant creator”. His god concept comes about through reason not revelation.
"It is only by the exercise of reason that man can discover God.”- Thomas Paine
"...the religion of Deism is superior to the Christian Religion....Its creed is pure, and sublimely simple. It believes in God, and there it rests." - Thomas Paine
"If horses had gods, they would look like horses." - Xenophanes (4th century BCE)
You have a preference for Paine's concept. I don't dispute that, and it doesn't surprise me. He used the 'enlightenment' which is a very popular word because it promotes the idea that man has ascended to a higher level. Now we know how to destroy the entire world with a push of some buttons.

In my opinion, Paine had an understanding of the divine nature of God the Creator. His seemed to have an understanding that God has control, and is in essence taking care of us. His view was along the lines of "Mother Nature" taking care of us, which is a popular view as well. I think instinctively you have a belief that something is taking care of us. Something is preventing us from annihilation. You may attribute it to balance of power, the will to live, that prevents nuclear annihilation; but I think many have just fallen into this subconscious security in spite of such a weak foundation of security to place confidence in. In reality, enlightened man will destroy the planet in a heartbeat without the 'divine'.

And what is that divine? Paine had his own view based on his personal view of what he thought a would/should be like. The question is, what is God really like? Does God have a say as to whether or not He just gave us only nature as a means of communication to man, and just smiles on everything including murder, genocide, racism, sexual exploitation, etc.

The whole "enlightenment" theme/mother nature theme is a "Brady Bunch" version of reality. It was a popular TV series depicting a nice family, nice neighborhood, nice kids. But in that fairytale land similar to the idea that is man is enlightened, there was no mention of murder, genocide, racism, sexual exploitation, etc.
Job

Cupertino, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#538
Mar 8, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Big Al wrote:
1. <quoted text>
No I am only suggesting the possibility that growing up in a large city like Chicago which has had its share of racial unrest over the years may have been the source of his offensive comments. That doesn’t mean I claim to know that he is a racist.

2. <quoted text>
The comments of creationists are certainly nowhere near as offensive as Watson’s comments but they are just as baseless.
<quoted text>

3. "The story of the redemption will not stand examination. That man should redeem himself from the sin of eating an apple by committing a murder on Jesus Christ, is the strangest system of religion ever set up." - Thomas Paine
<quoted text>

4. Superstitious people in the Middle Ages thought the Plague was caused by the Devil. Rational thinking people rejected that idea and discovered the cause was germs carried by the fleas on rats.
1. How do you know his comments derived from "personal prejudices"?

2. And what is the strong base in evolution?

3. The first thing to consider is whether or not Paine thought, or anyone today thinks, man is in need of redemption. If one doesn't believe man is in need, then it really doesn't matter what their position is on Christ's sacrifice. Do you think it possible that man needs redemption provided by a divine creator? Do you think only 'some' may need redemption? Those that are particularly, by human standards, obviously evil?

4. And medical science was able to do something about the problem. Medical science however has only been able to incarcerate those that need spiritual help, and keeping them in a drugged state. If enlightened man actually goes through with human extermination that has been discussed (and practiced), they will probably be included.
Job

Cupertino, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#539
Mar 8, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Big Al wrote:
<quoted text>
Creationists can “only” suggest that the science is flawed because creationists have no scientific evidence to support their claims. They did the same thing to Galileo.
“By denying scientific principles, one may maintain any paradox [absurdity].”- Galileo Galilei
Only by denying valid science can creationists maintain their absurdities.
Galileo didn't present any absurdities. He wasn't in a battle against Creationism. He didn't promote/perpetuate evolutionary hoaxes. He didn't bother high school girls who wanted to express their love for God, etc.
Job

Cupertino, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#540
Mar 8, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Big Al wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Incorrect!
A literal interpretation is generally a misinterpretation.
Martin Luther said,“…sacred Scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth".

2. "The only Bible-honoring conclusion is, of course, that Genesis 1-11 is the actual historical truth, regardless of any scientific or chronologic problems thereby entailed.”– Henry M. Morris, founder of the Institute for Creation Research

3. Luther says Joshua commanding the sun to stand still is the literal truth and Morris says Genesis is the literal truth. I see no difference between the two.
1. I have no idea what you're talking about here. A literal interpretation of 'what' is generally a misinterpretation? Any written literature? Just the Bible? What exactly are you talking about?

2. Evolutionists firmly believe in naturalism in spite of problems within the Big Bang theory. They can only make speculations as to how different regions that are too great in distance to have made contact, have the same temperature. But...they place their faith in "naturalism". They believed this happened, by faith, through 'natural' means.

3. Probably because Morris is not advocating a particular 'doctrine'. The incident in the book of Joshua is not in question. It's not a 'parable'. What's in question is what actually happened. The Bible does utilize 'hyperbole'. The event was no doubt an unusual,'supernatural' by human standards, event. But it makes no suggestion that the Sun revolves around the Earth. What actually happened, we don't know.

Here is an historic event that cannot be explained, but the only logical explanation is given in the Bible:

Isa 37:33-38 "Therefore thus says the LORD concerning the king of Assyria:'He shall not come into this city, Nor shoot an arrow there, Nor come before it with shield, Nor build a siege mound against it. By the way that he came, By the same shall he return; And he shall not come into this city,' Says the LORD.'For I will defend this city, to save it For My own sake and for My servant David's sake.'" Then the angel of the LORD went out, and killed in the camp of the Assyrians one hundred and eighty-five thousand; and when people arose early in the morning, there were the corpses--all dead. So Sennacherib king of Assyria departed and went away, returned home, and remained at Nineveh."

http://www.bible-history.com/empires/prism.ht...

This is one of the Bible's unusual supernatural events. How this would actually appear if we were to have witnessed it is hard to imagine, just as the event in the book of Joshua.

But again, in spite of what Luther said, even though he is a highly respected patriarch/theologian, the Bible event does not state that in this event, the Sun revolves around the Earth.

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#541
Mar 8, 2013
 
socci wrote:
>"The only reason religion no longer hinders science to the degree it did in the past because it no longer has the political power it had in the past."
-
Marxist spin. Religion never hindered science - Rome did.
"We must war against all prevailing ideas of religion, of the state, of country, of patriotism. The idea of God is the keynote of a perverted civilization. It must be destroyed." - Karl Marx
Big Al is a rabid marxist who are responsible for the deaths of millions since 1775.
Marxism
www.youtube.com/watch...
Oddly enuff marxism was created by Rome's Jesuits and crusading masonic Templars, and that is who continues their world revolution today, e.g. Obama & Rockefeller's CFR.
No truth in marxism, it is just political. Bible is truth.
Bible right again!
Obama and Rockefeller are Marxist Jesuit crusading Roman Masonic Templars ???

A little paranoia is a good thing if they're out to get you.

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#542
Mar 8, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Job wrote:
<quoted text>
1. I have no idea what you're talking about here. A literal interpretation of 'what' is generally a misinterpretation? Any written literature? Just the Bible? What exactly are you talking about?
2. Evolutionists firmly believe in naturalism in spite of problems within the Big Bang theory. They can only make speculations as to how different regions that are too great in distance to have made contact, have the same temperature. But...they place their faith in "naturalism". They believed this happened, by faith, through 'natural' means.
3. Probably because Morris is not advocating a particular 'doctrine'. The incident in the book of Joshua is not in question. It's not a 'parable'. What's in question is what actually happened. The Bible does utilize 'hyperbole'. The event was no doubt an unusual,'supernatural' by human standards, event. But it makes no suggestion that the Sun revolves around the Earth. What actually happened, we don't know.
Here is an historic event that cannot be explained, but the only logical explanation is given in the Bible:
Isa 37:33-38 "Therefore thus says the LORD concerning the king of Assyria:'He shall not come into this city, Nor shoot an arrow there, Nor come before it with shield, Nor build a siege mound against it. By the way that he came, By the same shall he return; And he shall not come into this city,' Says the LORD.'For I will defend this city, to save it For My own sake and for My servant David's sake.'" Then the angel of the LORD went out, and killed in the camp of the Assyrians one hundred and eighty-five thousand; and when people arose early in the morning, there were the corpses--all dead. So Sennacherib king of Assyria departed and went away, returned home, and remained at Nineveh."
http://www.bible-history.com/empires/prism.ht...
This is one of the Bible's unusual supernatural events. How this would actually appear if we were to have witnessed it is hard to imagine, just as the event in the book of Joshua.
But again, in spite of what Luther said, even though he is a highly respected patriarch/theologian, the Bible event does not state that in this event, the Sun revolves around the Earth.
"So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day."

There is no ambiguity in this verse aside from the length of a day. Taken as a whole, Biblical cosmology demonstrates the Hebrew scribes didn't have a clue what was really going on in the universe.

Though the Elohist author of Genesis 1 did not make the connection between daylight and sunlight it appears the scribe of Joshua did.
Big Al

Hibbing, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#543
Mar 8, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Job wrote:
<quoted text>
I can only hope you're joking. You don't think people are threatened on the internet who give out too much information for expressing their views (Facebook, Blogs, etc.)?
Why 'do' you think they left their names out? People often want to make a name for themselves, and when they remain anonymous, it's either out of humility (which I doubt is the case in this case), or for personal protection.
I’ve been misunderstanding you.

You are saying that people who were offended by Watson’s comments (not necessarily scientists) would do physical harm to those contributing editorials to the journal suggesting that Watson’s comments were a scientific hypothesis. I think you are also assuming that those editorials were written by reputable scientists. Editorial in a Journal are articles they are merely letters to the editor.

That fact that they don’t seem to understand what a scientific hypothesis is leads me to believe that they were not reputable scientists. Also that fact that they mistakenly referred to Watson’s comments a scientific hypothesis does not mean that they agreed with those comments.

My point is that people who send editorials to a Journal that are mistaken about the definition of a scientific hypothesis do not have to fear physical harm from the scientific community for their lack of knowledge.
Big Al

Hibbing, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#544
Mar 8, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Job wrote:
<quoted text>
You have a preference for Paine's concept. I don't dispute that, and it doesn't surprise me. He used the 'enlightenment' which is a very popular word because it promotes the idea that man has ascended to a higher level. Now we know how to destroy the entire world with a push of some buttons.
In my opinion, Paine had an understanding of the divine nature of God the Creator. His seemed to have an understanding that God has control, and is in essence taking care of us. His view was along the lines of "Mother Nature" taking care of us, which is a popular view as well. I think instinctively you have a belief that something is taking care of us. Something is preventing us from annihilation. You may attribute it to balance of power, the will to live, that prevents nuclear annihilation; but I think many have just fallen into this subconscious security in spite of such a weak foundation of security to place confidence in. In reality, enlightened man will destroy the planet in a heartbeat without the 'divine'.
And what is that divine? Paine had his own view based on his personal view of what he thought a would/should be like. The question is, what is God really like? Does God have a say as to whether or not He just gave us only nature as a means of communication to man, and just smiles on everything including murder, genocide, racism, sexual exploitation, etc.
The whole "enlightenment" theme/mother nature theme is a "Brady Bunch" version of reality. It was a popular TV series depicting a nice family, nice neighborhood, nice kids. But in that fairytale land similar to the idea that is man is enlightened, there was no mention of murder, genocide, racism, sexual exploitation, etc.
“We know nothing about [God, the world] at all. All our knowledge is but the knowledge of schoolchildren. Possibly we shall know a little more than we do now. But the real nature of things, that we shall never know, never.”- Albert Einstein
Big Al

Hibbing, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#545
Mar 8, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Job wrote:
<quoted text>
1. How do you know his comments derived from "personal prejudices"?{/QUOTE]
I told you before I don’t know if the man is a racist or why he said what he said because I don’t know the man personally. I’m merely speculating about possibilities. I’ll leave all of the judging to those who think they have divine knowledge.
[QUOTE who="Job"]2. And what is the strong base in evolution?
…the scientific evidence.

"The fossil record is the primary factual evidence for evolution in times past, and evolution is well documented by further evidence from other scientific disciplines, including comparative anatomy, biogeography, genetics, molecular biology, and studies of viral and bacterial diseases." -- The Paleontological Society (representing paleontologists from 40 countries)
Job wrote:
3. The first thing to consider is whether or not Paine thought, or anyone today thinks, man is in need of redemption. If one doesn't believe man is in need, then it really doesn't matter what their position is on Christ's sacrifice. Do you think it possible that man needs redemption provided by a divine creator? Do you think only 'some' may need redemption? Those that are particularly, by human standards, obviously evil?
No…redemption is a myth from your holy book. To my way of thinking the idea that an all-powerful being that has demonstrated a tendency for violence against human beings (the flood, the first born of the Egytians) would accept the murder of “His” own son as retribution for offenses agasinst “Him” is absurd.
Job wrote:
4. And medical science was able to do something about the problem. Medical science however has only been able to incarcerate those that need spiritual help, and keeping them in a drugged state. If enlightened man actually goes through with human extermination that has been discussed (and practiced), they will probably be included.
Medical science has not figured out how to cure all types of cancer or all types of mental illness. However, a lot of progress has been made because they refuse to accept the supernatural as the cause.
Big Al

Hibbing, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#546
Mar 8, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Job wrote:
<quoted text>
Galileo didn't present any absurdities. He wasn't in a battle against Creationism. He didn't promote/perpetuate evolutionary hoaxes. He didn't bother high school girls who wanted to express their love for God, etc.
Reread the quote from Galileo.

“By denying scientific principles, one may maintain any paradox [absurdity].”

He was saying that those that did not accept his scientific evidence that the Earth revolved around the Sun could only support their Geocentric theory by denying his scientific evidnece
Big Al

Hibbing, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#547
Mar 8, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Job wrote:
<quoted text>
1. I have no idea what you're talking about here. A literal interpretation of 'what' is generally a misinterpretation? Any written literature? Just the Bible? What exactly are you talking about?
A literal interpretation of the Bible.
Job wrote:
2. Evolutionists firmly believe in naturalism in spite of problems within the Big Bang theory. They can only make speculations as to how different regions that are too great in distance to have made contact, have the same temperature. But...they place their faith in "naturalism". They believed this happened, by faith, through 'natural' means.
I assume by “naturalism” you mean the Laws of Nature. You are absolutely correct; science is based on the search to discover the Laws of Nature.

"If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end in doubts, but if he will content to begin with doubts, he shall end in certainties." - Francis Bacon

Religion begins with certainties and science begins with asking questions.
Job wrote:
3. Probably because Morris is not advocating a particular 'doctrine'. The incident in the book of Joshua is not in question. It's not a 'parable'. What's in question is what actually happened. The Bible does utilize 'hyperbole'. The event was no doubt an unusual,'supernatural' by human standards, event. But it makes no suggestion that the Sun revolves around the Earth. What actually happened, we don't know.
We know, today, that passages in the Bible referring to the motion of the Sun cannot be taken literally. The people in Copernicus’ and Galileo’s day and the days of the Old Testament did not know that because not only did the Bible say the Sun moved but also the fact they could see its apparent motion with their own eyes every day. It was the scientific methods of Copernicus and Galileo that taught us the truth not the Bible.
Job wrote:
Here is an historic event that cannot be explained, but the only logical explanation is given in the Bible:
Isa 37:33-38 "Therefore thus says the LORD concerning the king of Assyria:'He shall not come into this city, Nor shoot an arrow there, Nor come before it with shield, Nor build a siege mound against it. By the way that he came, By the same shall he return; And he shall not come into this city,' Says the LORD.'For I will defend this city, to save it For My own sake and for My servant David's sake.'" Then the angel of the LORD went out, and killed in the camp of the Assyrians one hundred and eighty-five thousand; and when people arose early in the morning, there were the corpses--all dead. So Sennacherib king of Assyria departed and went away, returned home, and remained at Nineveh."
http://www.bible-history.com/empires/prism.ht...
This is one of the Bible's unusual supernatural events. How this would actually appear if we were to have witnessed it is hard to imagine, just as the event in the book of Joshua.
Do you really believe that it is literally true that and a supernatural emissary of your all loving and forgiving “God” killed 185,000 people for political reasons?
Job wrote:
But again, in spite of what Luther said, even though he is a highly respected patriarch/theologian, the Bible event does not state that in this event, the Sun revolves around the Earth.
It is absolutely amazing that to me that Copernicus figured out that the Earth and planets revolved around the Sun simply observing and recording the motions of the 5 planets visible to the naked eye at that time, which were different than the motion of all the other stars.
Big Al

Hibbing, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#548
Mar 8, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

socci wrote:
<quoted text>
You are not ready for cosmology theories until you prove the age of the earth with science facts, and 'big bangism'.
Start here on earth and prove your theories about the age of the earth and 'caveman' before moving into space theories.
Do you believe the little river formed the Grand Canyon?
Do you believe there was a big bang to form everything including You and I?
Do you accept the scientific evidence that the Earth revoles around the Sun?
mztza

Mesa, AZ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#549
Mar 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Lordofnuts wrote:
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.
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.
8 - You laugh at polytheists, but you have no problem believing in a Trinity of Gods.
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!
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
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?
first of all, your the one whose attacking
if you want to believe and worship in man made statues made in the image of a man, woman even of animals
go for it, no one will stop you
you want to believe that there is a god living in a stream or mountain, go for it
you believe that a hindu god is a true god and should be worshipped, go for it
you want to worship a rock, go for it
GOD gave us free choice, to believe or not, take it or leave it
i wkuld rather believe and woship our GOD who created the universe and us,
i won't worship a monkey as a god, who scratches his behind and has fleas
i won't worship idols, that can't create any thing
i won't worship a stream of water as a god, when the animals and humans pee in it and polluted by man
i'm not offended by you rejecting our LORD, this has nothing to do with me
this is between you and our LORD, you see i don't know whats in your heart, only GOD knows where your coming from
i can't judge you, so don't judge me or do you know what is in my heart ?
good luck in your journey

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#550
Mar 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

15th Dalai Lama wrote:
<quoted text>
Obama and Rockefeller are Marxist Jesuit crusading Roman Masonic Templars ???
A little paranoia is a good thing if they're out to get you.
One thing is certain - Satan cannot ask for a better representative and spokesman than Pres. Obama. By the time you figure out how he destroyed America, it will be too late. The misery has just started.
Job

Cupertino, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#552
Mar 11, 2013
 
Big Al wrote:
1. <quoted text>
I’ve been misunderstanding you.
You are saying that people who were offended by Watson’s comments (not necessarily scientists) would do physical harm to those contributing editorials to the journal suggesting that Watson’s comments were a scientific hypothesis. I think you are also assuming that those editorials were written by reputable scientists. Editorial in a Journal are articles they are merely letters to the editor.

2. That fact that they don’t seem to understand what a scientific hypothesis is leads me to believe that they were not reputable scientists. Also that fact that they mistakenly referred to Watson’s comments a scientific hypothesis does not mean that they agreed with those comments.
My point is that people who send editorials to a Journal that are mistaken about the definition of a scientific hypothesis do not have to fear physical harm from the scientific community for their lack of knowledge.
1. I made no assumptions about them whatsoever. I merely pointed out a point they made, one that you actually agree with.

2. And my point had nothing to do with having to fear anything from the scientific community.

Here's the problem in a nutshell:

We have a situation where a highly acclaimed scientist stated his opinion on a highly politically 'sensitive' issue. An issue that can 'literally' cause riots, not just nationwide (anymore), but more global (mostly western nations). Scientists who represent a field that's supposed to be 'neutral' as far as social ethics are concerned (which is probably why Watson felt that he could make the suggestions he did), appoint their representatives to make a public chastening of one of their own, based on a violation 'of' social/political ethics.

What science representatives were trying to do was point out scientific error, and balancing it out with social ethics. That doesn't fly. What they (and yourself) are trying to allude to, is that Watson wrongfully touched on a hyper-sensitive issue, that supposedly would be completely okay had he presented undeniable scientific evidence. Then supposedly (if evidence suggested this) this hyper-sensitive social issue can somehow be removed from society. That everyone would supposedly have to bow down to the conclusions drawn by the 'majority' of scientists.

What you've claimed is that if Watson proved that those of African and Aboriginal descent are less intelligent than all other races, they would be foolish to object.

It is of my opinion that Watson's suggestion is a violation of God's principle of bestowing wisdom on man irregardless of race. Race is not a factor. Man can choose to be foolish, or ask for wisdom. The outcries made against Watson's suggestion derive from an inward understanding originating from God that all men are equal.
Job

Cupertino, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#553
Mar 11, 2013
 
Big Al wrote:
<quoted text>
“We know nothing about [God, the world] at all. All our knowledge is but the knowledge of schoolchildren. Possibly we shall know a little more than we do now. But the real nature of things, that we shall never know, never.”- Albert Einstein
There's always the present problem that what God may reveal, man doesn't like. And if man doesn't like it, and is not forced to receive it, man can continually make claims that we know absolutely "nothing" about Him.

The Bible does indicate that we know very little. Our knowledge of being like school children is absolutely correct. But school children receive knowledge based on what they can handle. They are not 'completely' void of knowledge. And neither are we. We are given enough knowledge necessary.

Man's need for redemption is a thorn-in-the flesh. It's not what we want to hear from God.
Job

Cupertino, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#554
Mar 11, 2013
 
Big Al wrote:
1. <quoted text>
…the scientific evidence.

2. "The fossil record is the primary factual evidence for evolution in times past, and evolution is well documented by further evidence from other scientific disciplines, including comparative anatomy, biogeography, genetics, molecular biology, and studies of viral and bacterial diseases." -- The Paleontological Society (representing paleontologists from 40 countries)
<quoted text>

3. No…redemption is a myth from your holy book. To my way of thinking the idea that an all-powerful being that has demonstrated a tendency for violence against human beings (the flood, the first born of the Egytians) would accept the murder of “His” own son as retribution for offenses agasinst “Him” is absurd.
<quoted text>

4. Medical science has not figured out how to cure all types of cancer or all types of mental illness. However, a lot of progress has been made because they refuse to accept the supernatural as the cause.
1. Is this is in response to my question concerning Watson, or my question concerning the foundation for evolution?

2. Whether it's the flaws concerning the Big Bang (light years discrepancy), or fossil records (missing geologic time, etc.), it's generally Creation scientists that are able and willing to point out evolution's "flaws". Liberal theologians, which can be anything from a professed Christian to an atheist are more apt to give in to the pressures from a domineering institution, because they don't have the scientific knowledge to understand/address these flaws. Like I said, roughly 95% of biologists from the National Academy of Sciences are agnostics and atheists. What you address the most (historic European theocracy), we're seeing it's controlling counter-part today. To claim there's no religious bias among biologists is absurd.

http://www.discovery.org/a/10171

3. And yet man is helpless in the face of what is obviously uncontrollable evil. Would you agree that there is, and always have been indescribable evil (genocide, torture, etc.)?

4. Fortunately, man is particularly sensitive to "Cancer". There's a lot of humanitarian effort to remove Cancer which is commendable. It's not quite the same with "mental illness". When a celebrity gets cancer, they get their rightful place of honor in the media (high profile magazines, etc.). When a celebrity is reported to suffer from mental illness, they are more likely to end up in a tabloid. Cancer patients (fortunately) are not locked up and forgotten (generally speaking).
Job

Cupertino, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#555
Mar 11, 2013
 
Big Al wrote:
<quoted text>
Reread the quote from Galileo.
“By denying scientific principles, one may maintain any paradox [absurdity].”
He was saying that those that did not accept his scientific evidence that the Earth revolved around the Sun could only support their Geocentric theory by denying his scientific evidnece
Copernicus, and Galileo had balls (I would say). They had no problem confronting the controlling power. My opinion is that if they were alive today, they would confront the ruling power called the "National Academy of Scientists".

And once again, the issue with the Earth revolving around the Sun is not the same thing as the orchestrated world-view controlled institution called 'evolution'.

I'm convinced more than ever that evolution is controlled by anti-theistic bias. Unlike Galileo's presentations, alleged evolutionary facts are controlled by a naturalistic theme. I don't think Copernicus and Galileo were controlled by such a theme. For one, they weren't atheists or agnostics.

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#556
Mar 11, 2013
 
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Is this is in response to my question concerning Watson, or my question concerning the foundation for evolution?
2. Whether it's the flaws concerning the Big Bang (light years discrepancy), or fossil records (missing geologic time, etc.), it's generally Creation scientists that are able and willing to point out evolution's "flaws". Liberal theologians, which can be anything from a professed Christian to an atheist are more apt to give in to the pressures from a domineering institution, because they don't have the scientific knowledge to understand/address these flaws. Like I said, roughly 95% of biologists from the National Academy of Sciences are agnostics and atheists. What you address the most (historic European theocracy), we're seeing it's controlling counter-part today. To claim there's no religious bias among biologists is absurd.
http://www.discovery.org/a/10171
3. And yet man is helpless in the face of what is obviously uncontrollable evil. Would you agree that there is, and always have been indescribable evil (genocide, torture, etc.)?
4. Fortunately, man is particularly sensitive to "Cancer". There's a lot of humanitarian effort to remove Cancer which is commendable. It's not quite the same with "mental illness". When a celebrity gets cancer, they get their rightful place of honor in the media (high profile magazines, etc.). When a celebrity is reported to suffer from mental illness, they are more likely to end up in a tabloid. Cancer patients (fortunately) are not locked up and forgotten (generally speaking).
2) Ninety-five percent of professional biologists don't buy into your superstitious mumbo jumbo. What's so mysterious about that?
Job

Cupertino, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#557
Mar 11, 2013
 
Big Al wrote:
1. <quoted text>
A literal interpretation of the Bible.
<quoted text>

2. I assume by “naturalism” you mean the Laws of Nature. You are absolutely correct; science is based on the search to discover the Laws of Nature.
"If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end in doubts, but if he will content to begin with doubts, he shall end in certainties." - Francis Bacon
Religion begins with certainties and science begins with asking questions.

3. <quoted text>
We know, today, that passages in the Bible referring to the motion of the Sun cannot be taken literally. The people in Copernicus’ and Galileo’s day and the days of the Old Testament did not know that because not only did the Bible say the Sun moved but also the fact they could see its apparent motion with their own eyes every day. It was the scientific methods of Copernicus and Galileo that taught us the truth not the Bible.

4. <quoted text>
Do you really believe that it is literally true that and a supernatural emissary of your all loving and forgiving “God” killed 185,000 people for political reasons?

<quoted text>
It is absolutely amazing that to me that Copernicus figured out that the Earth and planets revolved around the Sun simply observing and recording the motions of the 5 planets visible to the naked eye at that time, which were different than the motion of all the other stars.
1. Can you please elaborate? What message do you think the authors were trying to convey? Do you think that all words written in the Bible, even if presented as historic fact, were parables? What do you think that particular passage in Joshua was about if not literal?

2. By "naturalism", I mean the assumption that our existence came about by some other means than intelligent design. There was no divine creator involved.

3. What we 'do' know is more about the language of that time. And it wouldn't really matter since the passage does not suggest geocentricity.

4. What exactly do you mean by political? And, what would your explanation be for this historical event recorded on Sennacherib's Prism?

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 521 - 540 of849
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

27 Users are viewing the Christian Forum right now

Search the Christian Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
Stealing the Keys to Heaven (Dec '12) 5 min paganbirdkeeper666 77,446
Who Believes The Planet Is 6000 Years Old? 11 min Campbell 29
Who or what is the Son of Man 39 min Big Al 485
Speaking in tongues 1 hr Barnsweb 66
Was Paul a False Apostle? (May '08) 1 hr Barnsweb 1,197
The King James Bible Still Remains 2 hr Shiachah 14
Mormons are cool 4 hr Thinking 43
Does God exist? (Aug '11) 5 hr Mr Ironhart 5,879
•••
•••
•••
•••