Smells funny in here.
Is somebody cooking some crack?
Is somebody cooking some crack?
-
Howdy! Welcome to our community of more than 130.000 members devoted to web hosting. This is a great place to get special offers from web hosts and post your own requests or ads. To start posting sign up here. Cheers! /Peo, FreeWebSpace.net
Just got baptized
- Thread starter Darknight
- Start date
I'm not an atheist. And Atheists on the general, if you watch that video, only pressure your believes because people always stick them in their faces, so they want to have a discussion to understand why you believe what you do, to give them another perspective.
Watch the video.
I have no problems with religious people, if they keep it to themselves, don't impose it on my lifestyle, don't discriminate, or try to pass judgment or moral values from it onto others and society. Sadly religion does. [and I mean just religion, not people who believe in a god, but not a religion].
Watch the video.
I have no problems with religious people, if they keep it to themselves, don't impose it on my lifestyle, don't discriminate, or try to pass judgment or moral values from it onto others and society. Sadly religion does. [and I mean just religion, not people who believe in a god, but not a religion].
Last edited:
This would be true, but if you look, who started the big argument?
I did not force veiws, just said what I have done.
Its all you that are forcing views in this thread.
You say these things but they are just gibberish!
Last edited:
No one started the argument apart from you [by being a smart --- towards sarmth about her "beliefs" being "scientific fact"], then Meksilon added to the very small flint spark and turned it into a fire.
I've not forced my views on anyone, please find the evidence of that, if not anything else.
Plus, watch the video! I still think you're trolling though, you said your last few threads have been troll attempts, apart from the dieing children or whatever.
I've not forced my views on anyone, please find the evidence of that, if not anything else.
Plus, watch the video! I still think you're trolling though, you said your last few threads have been troll attempts, apart from the dieing children or whatever.
Nice try to twist it like that, cute.
I actually just replied to Sarah being a smart as about someone else's beliefs, if you look closely!
You would be a good match with my ex, twisting everything to suit your own deluded mind!!!
Seraphim
Active Member
Incidentally I actually can explain the bible in a way that makes sense.
The bible at it's core, is science for the uneducated. How else would you convince an ancient sheep farmer that it's bad to eat uncooked pork, or that they shouldn't sleep around? Make it so that failing to obey will incure divine wrath, and really bad things will happen.
Nowdays we have science and education standards, so people can see why they should and should not do certain things. And it just so happens that large portions of the lifestyle detailed in scripture agrees with what we now know scientifically. Especially the whole pork thing. In Moses' time, they didn't know to cook it first to kill the tapeworm. This was learned by the time of Jesus, thus Christians can have pork while Jews cannot.
So try that one out- the 'rules' of god agree with scientific and medical facts. But these things were known centuries before we had the science to explain them the way we do now. Doesn't that mean either the ancient civilization were far more advanced than we thought? Or could it be that there was someone that told them these things- someone who they would have revered as a god.
The bible at it's core, is science for the uneducated. How else would you convince an ancient sheep farmer that it's bad to eat uncooked pork, or that they shouldn't sleep around? Make it so that failing to obey will incure divine wrath, and really bad things will happen.
Nowdays we have science and education standards, so people can see why they should and should not do certain things. And it just so happens that large portions of the lifestyle detailed in scripture agrees with what we now know scientifically. Especially the whole pork thing. In Moses' time, they didn't know to cook it first to kill the tapeworm. This was learned by the time of Jesus, thus Christians can have pork while Jews cannot.
So try that one out- the 'rules' of god agree with scientific and medical facts. But these things were known centuries before we had the science to explain them the way we do now. Doesn't that mean either the ancient civilization were far more advanced than we thought? Or could it be that there was someone that told them these things- someone who they would have revered as a god.
Last edited:
I believe I've made the most on-the-point post in this thread.
Yes I may have started a fire, but I'm still waiting for this claim to be backed up:
Good luck. I have fought many religious people whom have tried to force their beliefs onto me, and basically, they questioned their own existence once I got through with them(Not to say that you are forcing your beliefs onto me at this point)
<3 you =]
Here we go again. The Bible is not a book of science, if it was a book of science it would today be outdated, since even today's science books will all be outdated in the future. This is what you get when you try to read something as being something that it is not...
Jewish people would take offence to that; their religion never, used threats as a means of obedience; rather blatent disobediance was delt with directly.
Last edited:
Iv never lost a debate to an atheist
I dont see how you could ever win..
Have you seen god? No.
Has god ever spoken to you? No
If Yes ( Have you ever spend time in a loony bin? Well, there was that one time...)
Debate over.
That's not a debate Richard, that's an opinion. Most historians know that it's difficult to fault any part of the Bible on its history, there are a few verses here and there that raise questions - but none too difficult to be considered clearly wrong. Given that, we then get the claim - from Atheists - that the supernatural events described in the Bible are "wrong" or "mythical" even though the history is correct; where's the logic behind that reasoning? God's name - Jehovah; Hebrew "YHWH"/"IHVH"; appears in the Old Testament over 6,000 times. Now consider, there are 27,570 verses in the OT and 1,074 chapters. Therefore there should be well over 1,000 individual historic events for you to scrutinize; yet you'll sit there and tell me that on HISTORY it isn't wrong, but on Spirituality and on God and on Supernatural events it is wrong? Why would it be correct on ONE thing and incorrect on another? Please explain that to me.
You seem to believe that your line of "rational" reasoning is new. It isn't. Here it is applied by a Jewish sect in Luke 20:
There came to him some Sadducees, those who deny that there is a resurrection, and they asked him a question, saying, "Teacher, Moses wrote for us that if a man’s brother dies, having a wife but no children, the man must take the widow and raise up offspring for his brother. Now there were seven brothers. The first took a wife, and died without children. And the second and the third took her, and likewise all seven left no children and died. Afterward the woman also died. In the resurrection, therefore, whose wife will the woman be? For the seven had her as wife."
The Sadducees actually rejected part of the Jewish canon, they mostly focused on the Torah, they did not believe in an afterlife and didn't believe God was concerned with good and evil in the world! They may as well have been Atheists as their views were so radically different from Judaism.
Nevertheless they compiled a "rational" argument that would disprove the possibility of resurrection: Re-Marriage. Their argument is this; seven men have died the husband to this woman, then the woman died, a woman can never have more than one husband - therefore there can be no resurrection because all seven would be married to her in the afterlife!
Now obviously we don't know whether this story is actually true or something the Sadducees simply made up in order to prove that there isn't a resurrection, regardless it doesn't matter, it would have worked just as well with only two brothers as with seven. Their line of reasoning was flawed as was proven in the response given by Jesus.
The Sadducees were believed to have ceased to exist around the time of the fall of Jerusalem (70AD). Isn't it interesting how contemporary non-Christian "scholars" believe all the Gospels were written c 100-120AD or later; and that many of the stories were myths or made up or modern events who "Jesus" is credited for; yet Luke includes a story containing a Jewish sect that no longer existed? If he'd written it in 120AD would his audience have know who the Sadducees were?
If you can actually hold up a debate Richard, I'm all ears, and I'm happy to respond. But to come in and claim "my deductive reasoning means the debate is over" is both juvenile and pointless, you've proven nothing!
Have I spoke to your mum? no. has your mum ever spoke to me? no.
She must not exist then! your crazy because you think she is real and she speaks to you and you to her!
You are saying stupid things so I will to!
Translation
Clones!!!!!!!!!!
