<quoted text> .. the sweet lady from KY has not personally been insulted, her belief system, her God, has been insulted. She then personalizes the interaction, responds in anger or frustration and indulges in name-calling .. .. because we are human and respond emotionally, learning to separate a concept from a personal attack is difficult, especially when it comes to belief systems .. .. neither Peace Warrior, Epi or Sereh indulge in name-calling, their posts reflect an emotional maturity. Hot heads go into warrior mode and begin the personal attacks, a sure sign of emotional and spiritual immaturity .. .. your rebuttal is valid because many people respond from a gut level instead of detaching from the resentment and anger, focusing on the meat of the argument and refuting their foe ..
Well here we go LW, and at the price of my own crucifixion for speaking with you - which I have been thru anyway long before topix land, so no worse harm there ~~smile~~ and there goes another bullet just for that! Wow … such is life in the pw's fast lane.'Your words...“Hot heads go into warrior mode” Not sure if a real one can afford to be a hot head, otherwise all perspective of healthy balance and opinion would be lost to their own emotions... tho I know one who would disagree as quickly as he has contempt... and still will... while polishing his own crown.
Facts are Jesus never chose a saint to be a disciple, and the only one who stood up for him in reality was a woman. Others got sacred when the heat was on. Ho hum... what's new? But thanx. I do see you, and have leaned more about some things - many actually - since being in here. Not a single being on the planet can know it all, but what I do, I testify to... and therefore share. That said... don't throw no devil at me when shouting any abuse, or I might just turn him loose on you in return as I did just once to demonstrate that posters own reflection![ now what the sparks fly in retaliation to that comment.]
Thanx too for caring about NAOP.
Happy Lesbo wrote:
Name appears on post wrote: <quoted text> .. Name Appears has autism. Please have a little common courtesy and compassion.
<quoted text> Being "born" homosexual is not celibacy when you engage in sexual acts with the other person, and no one is "born" that way.
Brother... I have had quite a few come to me thru time with real problems here, and with God's Love, have done my best to stand by them. There but for the Grace of God go any of us. The genuine cases who are born 'differently'.
“Intersex people in society History
Intersex people are treated in different ways by different cultures. In some cultures, such people were included in larger "third gender" or gender-blending social roles along with other individuals. In most societies, intersex people have been expected to conform to either a female or a male gender role. Surgeons pinpointed intersex babies as an emergency once they were born. The parents of the intersex babies were not content about the situation. Psychologists, sexologists, and researchers had a theory that it was better if the baby's genitalia were changed when they were younger than when they were a mature adult. The scientist thought that helped with the confusion.
“Whether or not they were socially tolerated or accepted by any particular culture, the existence of intersex people was known to many ancient and pre-modern cultures.”
"Since the rise of modern medical science in Western societies, some intersex people with ambiguous external genitalia have had their genitalia surgically modified to resemble either female or male genitals. Since the advancements in surgery have made it possible for intersex conditions to be concealed, many people are not aware of how frequently intersex conditions arise in human beings or that they occur at all. Contemporary social activists, scientists and health practitioners, among others, have begun to revisit the issue. Awareness of the existence of physical sexual variation in human beings has increased.“
I do not with for a long debate about 'homosexuality'- nor any other practices - but this fact of physical can and does happen... and we should not judge. Some I met, their parents didn't even tell them, and they only found that medical condition thru tests done. Other grow up knowing their birth, and must live with mistakes made by parents.
If you can do nothing else for them, then please just consider such a physical plight.
Rebut something with sound facts is good, but ridicule tends to just get the other person's back up and then they just react to what we have said to them rather than respond to the rebuttal with their own 'sound' facts.
That's fine. I'm not looking for anything from the believer, so I don't need to behave solicitously. The ridicule is not for their benefit.
We've both been at this long enough to know that the Christians are not really interested in dialectic, and there is no future in reasoning with them or in trying to keep them happy.
It seems kind of human nature that when we are personally attacked we deal with the personal attack rather than the subject being discussed.
The ridicule that I am advocating is of ideas and institutions, not persons. If people choose to take it personally, they are free to do that.
It is hard to break that, but the best way is to not play the same game that they want to play.
Ridicule is most definitely NOT the game that they want to play.
 "If religion contained any truth, it could be ridiculed, insulted, even defiled, without being diminished in any way. Its truth would shine through: undimmed, unblemished, shaming those who abused it into silence. But that’s not how things are. Religion is prickly. It’s intolerant. It’s ultra-defensive precisely because it’s brittle and fragile. It’s about as substantial as a meringue. It’s all froth and no substance. It’s had thousands of years to make its case and all it’s produced is sophistry, violence and a raft of morals that would shame a rattlesnake." - Pat Condell
“Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus." -Thomas Jefferson
 "I think religion should be treated with ridicule, hatred and contempt, and I claim that right." – Christopher Hitchens
The exchange you ask about apparently took place some time ago. I do not recall the context, so I am guessing about what I meant by responding with, "Lord. I hope not," to the question, "Do you believe Jesus Christ did the things said of him in the bible?"
I assume I meant I would not want be so gullible, not to mention there was no Jesus Christ, only a probable historical Jesus.
<quoted text> <quoted text> Did you consider this a clear and unambiguous affirmation of your claim? It's not. It's not. Thank you for your opinion. <quoted text> Once again, what you fervently wish were true is of little interest to other people however strongly you believe it - only what you know and can demonstrate. What you have demonstrated here is that these comments of yours cannot be supported, and are only your opinions. <quoted text> But you've shown me nothing.
If you genuinely seek truth from your heart and spirit you will have understanding and a revelation will occur if God is willing.
I understand you have an opinion and a choice to recieve or reject the truth.
You imply that your added attention gives you a better understanding of the bible, and that when our opinions differ, yours trumps mine. I disagree.
if I were to read a neuroscience book if be just as good at debating it as a seasoned neuroscientist that has studied it for decades? Is it really that simple?
No and no.
But your bible is nothing like neuroscience. Your bible is just a collection of vague, erroneous and self-contradictory claims. Studying it generates no useful knowledge. Consider the recent discussions on the dome/vault and the flat earth. What have you or Nick been able to offer us from this book for all of your study? Nothing at all but fluff.
A book on neuroscience is radically different. It will describe the connections that comprise the human nervous system, knowledge of which can lead to a partial understanding of how the body works, and can be used to preserve and restore health to whatever degree is possible. I have learned this architecture, and can tell you by examining a patient approximately where his lesion is.
Just last night, a buddy was telling me that he once had thought that he had had ALS (amyotrophic lateral sclerosis) based on some clumsiness in his right hand and a foot drop in his right leg, plus a limited understanding of some neuroscience that he had read. It was obvious to me that that was impossible, since ALS is a symmetric disease of upper and lower motor neurons of the central nervous system, and his symptoms were purely lower motor neuron disease.
This knowledge also ruled out a stroke or other cerebral process like brain tumor. In fact, his symptoms could only be explained as two separate lesions in the peripheral nerves of his limbs. I told him this as he was telling me his story and he confirmed that I was right. He was amazed that such things could be deduced from so little information and no exam at all. That's the benefit of studying neuroscience.
You can't do anything like that studying the bible. It's just nonsense. And that doesn't change however long you pore over it.
Recently, we have twice seen you attempt to pull rank and overturn unbelievers' takes on your bible's cosmology, once over domes and vaults, and again over a flat earth. But in neither case could you produce anything definitive - nothing unambiguous nor contradicted elsewhere - to rebut those reads.
Quote the contrary, I offered historical evidence, biblical evidence and most importantly - common sense.
What historical evidence did you offer? What historical evidence could there be of what the bible says? All evidence for that would be in the bible.
You also offered zero biblical support for your opinions. You insisted that you had some kind of extra knowledge based on your study of the bible that could establish your understanding of biblical cosmology as factual, but produced nothing.
And common sense works against you. You can't establish that the bible authors thought that the earth was spherical with common sense. You need scriptures that say so unambiguously and without contradiction elsewhere in the same bible. Common sense tells us that the bible authors thought that the earth was flat, since they reported that it could be seen in it its entirety from above, and was firmly anchored from below
<quoted text> this would be true if i didn't take refuge in THE BLOOD OF JESUS. those who do not are just plain out there on their own and will get everything from God that they deserve, from the shedding of the righteous blood of Abel to the Son of God Himself and everyone since then who's been persecuted for loving God in this world. good luck with that!
In an equitable system, those who don't participate should fare far better than those who do and shame the belief system.
By the way, you are persecuted at all. You are ridiculed. And you are ridiculed primarily because you are you, not your religion.
<quoted text> Wow!! Thanks!! That guy had so many hugs!! And thanks for your hug, also!! And I love the prank call!! And those crows are so special. I love the awareness and intelligence that non-humans possess. One of my toads, when she was too small to climb in the water bowl, always would wait for the big toad she lived with to start climbing into the water first, and every time he began climbing in that direction of the water bowl, she would jump on his back so that he would carry her. And when he was finished absorbing the water to get a drink, he would begin climbing out, and ALWAYS she would make sure she climbed on his back again in order to get out of the bowl with him. I love all the creatures! And surely they will go to Heaven, I just know it. God wouldn't create something with the capacity to think and feel, only to serve a purpose temporarily. They have to have souls. What would Heaven be without your crows and my toad children?
We spent 5 years in a camper-van, when my husband wanted to start showing me a lot of Australia. They call it Oz. It's a big place, with population now 27 million. But for 2 years of that 5 we stayed in Queensland. It's full of cane toads with the wet tropics, but we didn't know them. When at night they gathered in a ring round a tap in the light, we just loved watching them close up. We were told the next day we were silly... they were a pest! A friend had to go to hospital and asked if for 3 months we could stay in his farmland home. It was real aboriginal territory. The loo [ toilet,] had a resident b-i-g green frog, so made him a great pool and fern rockery under the wash basin. Even if we carried him outside, he would find his way back, to under a closed lid! But he insisted, and was NOT going to move his water house! So we had to learn to cover him with clean toilet paper so he wouldn't watch - and on the flush - I think he thought he was in a paradise water fall hanging on like glue. Found out the owner had a little hole under the door like a doggy door for him... and so he literally lived there as his pet. Creatures in heaven my friend? Well they were in paradise, and everyone of them as tame pets, so cannot imagine any place called paradise would be any different. God did create all with mankind as their guardian, so there's a lot to answer for with all the cruelty. But it is good to see those pockets of a better life for many, and their welfare outside of zoos too. Little wing - our crow - is doing well here, and we are very attached. Love hurts, hey? God Bless.
Name appears on post wrote:
Instead of leaving a big red X on my post, could you tell me WHY you disagree, whomever you are?
Don't worry both those things. A bit like being a kid in class and getting a star, but think we've grown up by now, and only kids still use them. We all get judged, good, bad and ugly sometimes by them, so don't feel alone there, OK? A few smiles to finish off...
We're discussing "vault" and "dome", well the "vault" of heaven is a crucial concept. The word “firmament” appears in the King James version of the Old Testament 17 times, and in each case it is translated from the Hebrew word raqiya, which meant the visible vault of the sky, which is space - the universe, that bible calls it "the heavens".
You forgot to cite your source, which I stumbled onto at http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/febible.htm , and which contradicts you. Where does your bible say clearly and unambiguously that it is not referring to a physical dome or vault? Nowhere. But it does do the opposite, as your own source attests:
"If these verses are about a mere illusion of a vault, they are surely much ado about nothing ... Other passages complete the picture of the sky as a lofty, physical dome. God “sits throned on the vaulted roof of earth ...[Isaiah 40:22].”... Job 22:14 says God “walks to and fro on the vault of heaven [chuwg].” In both verses, the use of chuwg implies a physical object, on which one can sit and walk."
Here's more evidence against your position :
Genesis 1:6 says, "And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters."
Job 37:18 says, "Have you with him spread out the sky, which is strong, and as a molten mirror?"
Sorry, but you're wrong. Your bible does not support your claim that the vault or dome referred to in it is not a physical structure.
And as we just saw, all of your extra study of it has produced no knowledge. Your pronouncements of what it means are your opinions, and not very good ones at that.
You can think I'm wrong about the scriptures all you want, just remember that I'm not the one reading them like a novel, you are.
You read them as if they are correct. That's a confirmation bias, and an error.
"Foundations of the earth", for example, is not a literal foundation of brick, mortar, concrete and rebar. I can't fathom why you would think it's literal. You do the same with the "pillars of the earth", and the illustration you posted showed your mental image of literal pillars, a literal dome and a literal foundation
Your bible supports a belief that there is a physical dome across the sky, and that the earth sits on pillars.
The fact that the same bible might be used to argue the opposite does not mean that you have any extra understanding of it, or that people who choose to believe the opposite of your beliefs are definitely wrong.
That claim indicates that you do not understand your bible.
It's your inability to understand the bible that makes us not care what you think or post.
"When I first became interested in the flat-earthers in the early 1970s, I was surprised to learn that flat-earthism in the English-speaking world is and always has been entirely based upon the Bible."
There you go. Your bible can be used to argue that the earth is flat. And you have produced nothing definitive that shows that they are wrong to interpret the bible that way. Science has, but you and your self-proclaimed superior knowledge of the scriptures have not.
Your interpretation of your bible is simply wrong. Your years of extra study have yielded nothing.
Oh c'mon, man... That verse is about Satan speaking with Jesus and you wanna lower it to a natural, literal state. You don't get to change the meaning as you see fit. The word 'kingdoms' does not refer to geographical places, it's a metaphor for earthly powers.
None of your bible's mythology is literally true. The god in it is a fiction representing the laws of nature as understood by primitive men, and it's resurrection and rebirth are well known metaphors for spring and the return of growth.
Tell me when this thread is updated:(Registration is not required)