Why Should Jesus Love Me?

“ Ah see's lanlubbers Cap'n BT!”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#489284 Feb 16, 2013
Knowledge wrote:
<quoted text>
I had company this morning, as soon as they left, I got right back at it. I found myself I could not put it down till I finished. Wow. I am glad you got me wondering. I was amazed that I could get it all on the net for free. Now, I have to study it, not just read it, I really enjoyed it.......Thanks again!
Be careful with what you have learned. Many in the churches will burn you simply for it's mention. Sometimes it is better to realize its relevance in silence as you ponder the knowledge, and slowly introduce it to those who would misinterpret your intent, and consider you as an enemy. Let your Jesus be your example.

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#489285 Feb 16, 2013
Skombolis wrote:
For most people the words are interchangeable
But even going by your usage then proof would be a higher standard correct?
So if someone believes it is possible creator gods exist (just as they think many things are possible), what would be wrong about saying someone would require proof before they would believe in them?
It clearly is an accurate statement unless IANS is going to say he believes its possible creator gods exist but proof wouldn't convince him
And the context of this conversation was my making the point that if it is possible creator gods exist then he can't say for a fact (like he has many times) that even if God exists that Jesus does not. By his own admission it is possible and he can't rule it out
But because he didn't want to admit that instead he simply replied "Nope. I'm not going to continue to correct you any more."
Of course that makes it look like he is denying he said creator gods exist. But because he didn't want to concede the point I was making he made a blanket denial without bothering to say it was because I used the term proof not evidence. I had to ask him half a dozen times before he would come out and say this was the reason because he knew he was using a technicality to give an impression that was false.
Just like he is trying to say he wasn't slamming the character of Christians but rather a doctrine that would allow Christians with bad character to use a loophole. It is the same thing since his statement implied all Christians and he made no attempt to qualify "some"
Honest people don't have to use technicalities and synonyms as excuses to deny something they said. A good comparison would be the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. In the spirit of honesty he is lying by not saying he is denying he said it based on the use of a synonym. And in the letter of the law he is just plain lying when he says he didn't imply Christians lack empathy for those they hurt
Adults shouldn't have to play these games but I guess when someone's pride is so great that they will stoop to any low before conceding a point that is what they do. He has been called on it by other posters as well. He has done it in here quite a few times including with Juicy saying she had him all wrong saying all or most Christians are indoctrinated and then went on to say Christians think how they do because of what their church teaches them
If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck and so on. IANS is not honest and as far as I am concerned anyone who is can see the difference between honesty and semantic games.
I'm honest, and it looks to me like you're trying to get away with calling someone a liar and bigot using your own deluded version of that person that you see inside your brain.

The strawman version of IANS that you project is your enemy.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#489286 Feb 16, 2013
Grace Walker wrote:
Hi Ians.. You DO realize that you are just as judgemental as the Christians who are judging you..right??
I certainly hope so.
Grace Walker wrote:
There isn't a whole lot of difference between you and believers except the aspect of God.
I think that there is.
Grace Walker wrote:
What kind of Doctor are you?
Retired internist and hospice medical director.
Grace Walker wrote:
Do you care what peoples beliefs are when you are examining them or whatever it is that you do as a doctor.
No.
Grace Walker wrote:
Have you ever had a patient ask you if you believe in God?
Yes. I've had them leave me religious tracts.
Grace Walker wrote:
Would you work harder to save somebody if they were not a Christian?
No.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#489287 Feb 16, 2013
G_O_D wrote:
<quoted text>
I want my students to have the opportunities that my daughter was denied and that she later rejected.
It is ultimately a selfish pursuit.
Whatever makes you improve the education of young people and the education system itself is positive. If you gain selfish pleasure from helping others achieve education, I really can't call that selfish!
dr Shrink

Baltimore, MD

#489288 Feb 16, 2013
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Hence I provided a definition of species based on genes rather than culturally constructed categories. I wrote that a species is more accurately seen as a loosely bounded gene pool that can be invaded by foreign genes. Gene pools are dynamic. Over time they change as novel genes arise from mutation and insertion events. Once you understand species this way, speciation makes a lot more sense.
foreign genes from RUSSIA ENTER AMERICAN GENES ATHEISTIC SPECIES CREATING GENES AS DYNAMIC,IN THE TIME THEY CHANGE UNDER USA INDIAN APACHE ENVIROMENT AS NOVEL GENES +MUTATIONS AND CREATE PLANET OF MONKEY

Once you understand this process,for sure you jump on the palm tree in searching for bananas eating them,throw skin on the ground causing bacteria developing during 1 milions years mutation of new generations bananas,
spiecies look like human only head they have yellow like banana skin
and brain inside is essence of banana fruit
ALSO YOU TOOK DIRECT INVOLVEMENT IN THE BIRTHDAY OF NEXT GENERATION EVOLUTIONARY SPECIES, HALF BANANA HALF HUMAN MISSING LINK OF ATHEIST LIKE YOU,MONKEY ON THE TREE

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#489289 Feb 16, 2013
Black Thunder 42 wrote:
<quoted text> Sorry HFY. I seldom converse with you, and have disagreed with some of that which you may have stated at times about historical timeline, but never felt it was worth hard argument. You have been a positive objective contributor to these threads.
That being said, you have upset me by making such the foolish statement that you are a loser. You are NOT!
Thank you for your contributions.
That is all I wish to say.
BT42
Very kind of you - thanks.

Uhm, what did I get wrong? My last timeline about how same sex sexuality has changed in Western culture was pretty loose, I'll admit.
dr Shrink

Baltimore, MD

#489290 Feb 16, 2013
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm honest, and it looks to me like you're trying to get away with calling someone a liar and bigot using your own deluded version of that person that you see inside your brain.
The strawman version of IANS that you project is your enemy.
FART
exist not cyber enemies you dumb a....le
also smell my FART

“"None shall pass"”

Since: Jul 11

There

#489291 Feb 16, 2013
Serah wrote:
<quoted text>...
A couple of questions; obviously bees have been around for a long long time ~ why do they still die after stinging someone? Surely their evolutionary process would have changed their stings weakness of many millions of years? And why are they not evolving into some much stronger type of bee that would be able to outlive what ever is happening to the bee world now?
If the bee did move on from the wasp, as suggested, why don't wasps die when they sting people? Why did the bee create a weakness in itself instead of strength? But, in saying this, bees are amazing with their abilities!!
They still die after stinging because it doesn't affect the survival of the species. If it did, they would have changed or gone extinct.

The lack of change does more to demonstrate evolution than negate it.

Evolution is not a process of improvement, it is a process of surviving to reproduce.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#489292 Feb 16, 2013
trifecta1 wrote:
<quoted text>?
Now you talking about things that not concern me.
Whatever claims you talking about, that responsibility of YHWH God through Jesus Christ. Demonstrating [claims] to you is nowhere in a Jesus follower job description in the bible.
All I can do on is demonstrate claims to myself and to tell others on the billboard about claims Jesus made and that Jesus can verify those claims to them.
beyond that, I no responsible for nothing else on the billboard. I no responsible for who become part of the body of Jesus Christ, that up to God and I glad that not up to me.
That's my point. For you, your deity is real. The Christian pantheon is subjectively real to you.

Are you able to understand that for others, their deities are equally subjective real for them?

Likewise, for me, no deities are subjectively real. Hence, I conclude, perhaps incorrectly, that deities are not objectively real. Otherwise, why would your subjective experience differ from a Buddhists or mine?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#489293 Feb 16, 2013
scaritual wrote:
<quoted text>
I've been reading along with interest during this exchange, and it comes to mind that what you point out is something you and I and others have discussed at times - over on the atheist thread.
As a matter of fact, here's something I posted a while back and it speaks to this "state" seen in theism, and Christianity more specifically than most.
....
This relates to this mentality fostered within theism. The mentality that the believer is only responsible to the god(S) for whatever they do, whether in the name of the god, or not.
Ultimately, under most theistic beliefs you can only be good with the help of the perfect god, and bad because of the trickster gods help. According to believers, we are incapable of no more or less without the intervention of the god(S).
The perfect god(S) and trickster god(S) are given credit for what we do all by ourselves.
This is a flawed and escapist sort of reasoning used by theists. They are able to avoid being truly accountable to their fellow man, and, depending on the circumstance, will claim a type of immunity by divine authority or forgiveness by that divinity, or claim being manipulated by the evil agent, expecting sympathy and leniency due to either circumstance.
Some, even being so bold as to not need to be absolved on any material level since they've been forgiven by the perfect god, and have no need of mans involvement at all.
It negates morals, even those morals claimed by the theist to have been given by the particular deity. A person, whether practicing the religion "correctly", or, "incorrectly", can obtain absolution at all times. No matter the circumstance.
Ultimately, within that framework of skewed theistic moral view and responsibility, no one need ever know about crimes or transgressions. Those things can remain "dirty little secrets". That's not a good thing for a society. Or civilization.
That mentality is dangerous. It amounts to a person muttering under their breath a prayer of forgiveness to the ceiling fan whirring overhead and it's forgiven and forgotten. The ceiling fan will tell no one. The silence of the fan is its acknowledgement of your prayer.
Fortunately, the deity always says it's okay, always~/.
You are forgiven. Right?
Where is the morality in that type of system?
Good post.

It's very possible that it or one like it was instrumental in helping me come to my own position. We teach one another.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#489294 Feb 16, 2013
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL
That's your claim?
That you denied it because I said "proof" not evidence"?
Here is the definition of "evidence"
n
1. ground for belief or disbelief; data on which to base proof or to establish truth or falsehood
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/evidence
If you had the evidence you would have proof. It is the same thing in that context. I can see where IANS jr gets his differences between "jab" and "slam"
Here is the first word listed as a synonym for evidence.. PROOF
evidence
&#8194;Main Entry:
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: proof
http://thesaurus.com/browse/evidence
man are you a liar!
Actually, if you have the evidence, you have "the grounds for proof" but not proof itself, according to your definition.

Hence, science doesn't deal in proof.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#489295 Feb 16, 2013
G_O_D wrote:
<quoted text>
Like most people, you do not know th difference between apology and ammemds.
If I burn down your house and say "I am sorry"; that is an apology.
Ammends occurs when I build you a new house.
I really don't think I can build you a new house, despite that I'm apologetic.

How about a puppy? Or a kitten? HL has lots lying around!

“"None shall pass"”

Since: Jul 11

There

#489296 Feb 16, 2013
simplyput wrote:
Gun control is not going to work--anyone that wants to get their hands on a gun will figure out how to do it.....
I can make you a machine gun in a day in a machine shop. Do you prefer 9MM or .45 Cal.?

An atomic bomb is easer to build but weapons grade fissionable material is tough to get hold of.

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#489297 Feb 16, 2013
Skombolis wrote:
Edit 2 Catcher; meant to add if he believes it is possible creator gods exist but would require evidence then obviously an even higher standcard such as proof would be enough.It would be diff if it was inverted and I was saying he would believe based on evidence when he said he would require proof. If anything the use of the synonym 'proof' raised the bar on what he would require to his benefit. He had no reason to reject that statement or make it appear as if he didnt say it other than to avoid conceding if it is possible creator gods exist than he cant rule out the creator God Christians believe in also exists. It is no accident I had to ask him so many times what he was denying or why he didnt respond to how he could question Juicy when he made a statement saying just that or when reminded he originally claimed I had it wrong about where he wanted to reduce the church's influence. These are calculated things he does, avoiding the times when caught when he cant try to use a technicality. Have a good one
Are you actually trying to convince your "stalker"?

Hilarious.

The pertinent point, is that IANS used the word "evidence" on purpose, because he did not mean "proof", because in this context, they are worlds apart.

I think I can speak for IANS on this. He is careful about the words he chooses to use, because he cares about communicating his thoughts accurately and effectively. You may not. But for someone who does, like myself, it is incredibly insulting to have someone come along and paraphrase you using words that were rejected during the writing process.

That's bad enough, but then you use your versions as evidence to justify insulting the people who you are misrepresenting.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#489298 Feb 16, 2013
Serah wrote:
<quoted text>We were having a discussion on bees yesterday;
***A honeybee will sting when it perceives a threat to its hive, but when it’s away from the hive foraging, it will rarely sting unless someone steps on it or handles it roughly. And when it does sting, it dies. A honeybee’s stinger is made of two barbed lancets. When the bee stings, it can’t pull the stinger back out. It leaves behind not only the stinger but also part of its digestive tract, plus muscles and nerves. This massive abdominal rupture is what kills the bee.
http://earthsky.org/earth/why-do-bees-die-aft... ***
***Many people think of bees simply as a summertime nuisance. But these small and hard-working insects actually make it possible for many of your favorite foods to reach your table. From apples to almonds to the pumpkin in our pumpkin pies, we have bees to thank. Now, a condition known as Colony Collapse Disorder is causing bee populations to plummet, which means these foods are also at risk. In the United States alone, more than 25 percent of the managed honey bee population has disappeared since 1990.
http://www.nrdc.org/wildlife/animals/files/be... ***
*** Bee fossil, DNA generate a buzz
The discovery coincides with the publication of the genetic blueprint of the honeybee, which reveals surprising links with mammals, including humans.
The ancient insect, trapped in tree sap, is at least 35-45 million years older than any other known bee fossil.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/608... ***
A couple of questions; obviously bees have been around for a long long time ~ why do they still die after stinging someone? Surely their evolutionary process would have changed their stings weakness of many millions of years? And why are they not evolving into some much stronger type of bee that would be able to outlive what ever is happening to the bee world now?
If the bee did move on from the wasp, as suggested, why don't wasps die when they sting people? Why did the bee create a weakness in itself instead of strength? But, in saying this, bees are amazing with their abilities!!
They die after stinging someone for multiple reasons - we need to look at this at different levels of analysis.

First: you did a great job summing up the proximate reasons bees die after stinging someone. Their organs needed for survival have been ejected. So they die.

Let's now look at the ultimate level of explanation, in terms of adaptive. Your real question here is "how is adaptive for bees to die after stinging?"

1. Other than the queen and the special drones (male), worker bees don't reproduce. They are going to live and die entirely without reproducing - so their deaths involve no genetic loss. No genetic loss means no evolutionary impact.

2. However, their lives can include net genetic gain. They "trade" their ability to reproduce in so that they can contribute to the queen and their sisters (all workers are female; each one is 75% related to their sisters).

3. So the most important thing about bees is that they contribute to their sisters and the hive. The least important thing is about their death.

4. Their stingers are designed to be the ultimate weapon a bee can deliver. It maximizes everything about damaging another creature - and, because it is so maximized, the bee cannot survive without it. Bee stings are like Olympic racers who die at the end of a race. They've given everything b/c that's the only way of maximizing their contribution to the hive. Take out the enemy.

So bee stings kill bees for evolutionary reasons.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#489299 Feb 16, 2013
dr Shrink wrote:
it waas skombolis error to admit about his prison term before
SCUMBAGS LIKE YOU,
Actually, I didn't demean him for it like you did.

"skombolis is a same cyber ghost,and clown claiming to be politician,great christian ... his frog fingers,fingers of crimianl mind,tracheouery, lies, and defamation ... this disquisting spiritual and earthly criminal,deffending gays, and children,but selling drugs to them on the streets-for which he was in prison,and now on parole,without of changed his criminal mind-damaging noraml folks around "
http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/T2LK4SO...
dr Shrink wrote:
YOU ARE WORSE CRIMINAL FROM SKOMBOLIS, BECAUSE YOU COVER YOUR WICKEDNESS AND MURDEROUS DESIRES TO STICK KNIFE IN SOMEONE BACKS, IN THIS CASE YOU USING SKOMBOLIS SINCERELITY TO HIT HIS IN HIS BACK
Your pants are down. Pull them up.
dr Shrink wrote:
Not having guts to chalenge discussions with dr Shrink
Discussion with you, Balki? You're vulgar, illiterate and substance-free.
dr Shrink wrote:
I AM SURE DR SHRINK AFTER ONE DEBATE WITH YOU SCUMBAG,WOULD MAKE FROM YOU AND YOUR POST JUST BUNCH OF TRUSH FULL OF VERMITS AND WHITE MAGGOTS FERMENTING YOUR PRIMITIVE POSTS AND YOUR BRAIN?
Probably. I expect you do that to everything.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#489300 Feb 16, 2013
G_O_D wrote:
"Mother Earth will swallow you, lay your body down."
"We are stardust. We are golden. We are billion year old carbon"

I love these kinds of pop cultural references. Please keep them coming.

“"None shall pass"”

Since: Jul 11

There

#489301 Feb 16, 2013
Knowledge wrote:
<quoted text>
I had company this morning, as soon as they left, I got right back at it. I found myself I could not put it down till I finished. Wow. I am glad you got me wondering. I was amazed that I could get it all on the net for free. Now, I have to study it, not just read it, I really enjoyed it.......Thanks again!
Now that you have broken the "banned book" barrier, here is a quick read for you:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/thomas.htm

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#489302 Feb 16, 2013
G_O_D wrote:
<quoted text>
Agreed.
Don't tell her I said that. <smile>
I'm glad to see you and Hiding getting along. You are two people that I like and admire.

“~ Prince of Peace~”

Since: Apr 08

~ And the greatest is LOVE~

#489303 Feb 16, 2013
Testing...Testing

One...Two...Three

Is this thing on??

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.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 1 min nanoanomaly 48,851
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 11 min Joe Fortuna 971,714
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 20 min Steve III 646,682
opinions needed 48 min mannersmom 1
Play "end of the word" part 2 (Dec '15) 1 hr WasteWater 2,072
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 1 hr Pegasus 281,267
How to solve racism (and sexism) once and for all 1 hr A human being 1
Poll Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 1 hr Just Think 105,632
More from around the web