Coreece 190 #151 April 22, 2011 Quote Quote Quote Some more hate... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kw1TGpUElb4 That's funny...just not reality, tho. No shit...they're singing about a god!! Damn it Babin...I'm gonna kick your ass man!Has anyone told you that you look like David Morse?Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
stevebabin 0 #152 April 22, 2011 Yes, I've heard that before...makes me feel sorry for the poor bastard. "Science, logic and reason will fly you to the moon. Religion will fly you into buildings." "Because figuring things out is always better than making shit up." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Coreece 190 #153 April 22, 2011 OMG...LMAO! Here is every SC debate on christianity summed up in 3 minutes 56 seconds!http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQak6ng0RXQ&feature=grec_index Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Coreece 190 #154 April 22, 2011 Hahahaha...That is the most precious thing I've heard in years! Seriously...listen to it a few times. Brilliant! "Yes, that's right....sorry, you are? Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Coreece 190 #155 April 22, 2011 "He would zap him!" "That's can't be true!" "He wouldn't zap him, cause polar bears are extinct!" "Sorry, I didn't mean to uspset you." Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Coreece 190 #156 April 22, 2011 AH, hahahahahah... look at the black dude's expression toward the little girl at 0:49. I'm sorry...I just love this whole sketch! Magnificent! Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Coreece 190 #157 April 22, 2011 "Um...oh my goodness, I've just realized thet there are other people that I must speak to." OMG...LMAO...the truth, finally the truth! Sorry...I just find this video most fascinating. The resemblences are uncanny! Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Coreece 190 #158 April 22, 2011 "He wouldn't zap him, cause polar bears are extinct!" "No they're not, they're endangered... Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,257 #159 April 22, 2011 QuoteThe resemblences are uncanny! Indeed, the christian without any answers is done to a tee!Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Coreece 190 #160 April 22, 2011 QuoteQuoteThe resemblences are uncanny! Indeed, the christian without any answers is done to a tee! Well, he is a catholic...but perhaps you noticed the ridiculous questions that aren't even worthy of an answer? Granted, they're children...but what's your excuse?Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
frequentfaller 0 #161 April 22, 2011 QuoteQuoteThe christian religion is very inconsistent. Like all religions, it is man made. Finding God and the spiritual meaning of life through the work of Jesus and His disciples is not. Bravo...There is definately a fine line between legalism and licentiousness, and learning to walk it is an amazing experience. The best of both worlds if you will. sorry had to look the words up. fine line between regular sex and freaky sex? that is the best of both worlds! li·cen·tious/s/ Adjective: Promiscuous and unprincipled in sexual matters. le·gal·ism/m/Noun 1. Excessive adherence to law or formula. 2. Dependence on moral law rather than on personal religious faith.Born ok 1st time. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,257 #162 April 22, 2011 Quote Well, he is a catholic...but perhaps you noticed the ridiculous questions that aren't even worthy of an answer? Granted, they're children...but what's your excuse? I don't believe I've ever brought up polar bears in a discussion. Your faith is unsupportable and deluded. Any one of the unanswered question posed in this thread make a mockery of your twisted, self contradictory hodge-podge of myths. Put them all together and it's no wonder your only option is to dodge them altogether. Hell, pretty much any of the questions asked by those kids still makes more sense than what you actually believe. Even the ones about zapping. But enough of this, we should catch up on other things: how's your imaginary wife?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jaybird18c 4 #163 April 22, 2011 QuoteForget about flat earth for a moment and address heliocentric theory instead. There's no question that the Church set back astronomy for centuries by banning books that dare to suggest the earth was not the center of the universe, by threatening (or worse) scientists who promote it. So how is this notion ill founded, exactly? Firstly, you shouldn't take a quote from an article intended to discuss the false claim that the widespread believe of Christians has ever been in keeping with the concept of a flat earth and then apply it to your next question concerning heliocentricity. Secondly, I guess we've shown that the whole "flat earth" attack is simply unfounded. Thirdly, the Bible is not a science book. That was never its design or purpose. However, wheverever statments are made in it that touch on scientific subjects, it is entirely accurate. Now, with regard to your question, we have to determine whether the bible even hints at the idea of heliocentricity. The answer is no. The Church (of which the Roman Catholic Church is a major culprit) throughout history has misused, distorted, and undermined the authority of scripture. Taken from it ideas which are not there and applied them to its purposes. Long story short, the Bible is neither geocentric or heliocentric regardless of what the Roman Catholic tradition has done with it. "Sola Scriptura!" "Some creationists believe that the scientific assault on the Bible did not begin with biological evolution, but with the acceptance of the heliocentric (or more properly, geokinetic) theory centuries ago. These people believe that the Bible clearly states that the Earth does not move, and hence the only acceptable Biblical cosmology is a geocentric one. Modern geocentrists use both Biblical and scientific arguments for their case. We examine these arguments, and find them poorly founded. The Scriptural passages quoted do not address cosmology. Some geocentrists draw distinctions that do not exist in the original autographs or even in translations. In short, the Bible is neither geocentric nor heliocentric. While geocentrists present some interesting scientific results, their scientific arguments are often based upon improper understanding of theories and data. Much of their case is based upon a misunderstanding of general relativity and the rejection of that theory. While geocentrists are well intended, their presence among recent creationists produces an easy object of ridicule by our critics." http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i2/geocentrism.asp Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,257 #164 April 22, 2011 QuoteThirdly, the Bible is not a science book. That was never its design or purpose. However, wheverever statments are made in it that touch on scientific subjects, it is entirely accurate. Says the guy who (apparently) believes in young earth creationism. Sorry dude, that's as unscientifically stupid as it gets!Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jaybird18c 4 #165 April 22, 2011 QuoteQuoteThirdly, the Bible is not a science book. That was never its design or purpose. However, wheverever statments are made in it that touch on scientific subjects, it is entirely accurate. Says the guy who (apparently) believes in young earth creationism. Sorry dude, that's as unscientifically stupid as it gets! Scientific theory can change. The Word of God does not. I base my life on a firm foundation. That does not mean, I am anti-science. Not by any means. I just start from a different presupposition than you. Scientists (until the enlightenment period of the 17th century) used to do the same (and many still do; just not the majority). Now...as before...man wants to be like God. It's not the first time. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,257 #166 April 22, 2011 QuoteI just start from a different presupposition than you. Yes, a presupposition you will stick to despite any and all evidence to the contrary. Seriously, if you believe in creationism you are anti science.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jaybird18c 4 #167 April 22, 2011 QuoteYes, a presupposition you will stick to despite any and all evidence to the contrary. Seriously, if you believe in creationism you are anti science. Are all these people anti-science? http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/bios/default.asp Interesting to note the earlier ones around the 17th century. Was Francis Bacon (scientific method) "anti-science?" Added: You atheists really need to come up with some new material for your cause. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,425 #168 April 22, 2011 >The Word of God does not. You've admitted that it does! That commandment about not working on Saturday? Safe to disregard it now. Most of Leviticus? No longer applies. God's stance on interracial marriage? Apparently that's changed too. There's nothing wrong with that, BTW. Society changes and the interpretation of the Bible (and what it says about the Word of God) does too. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jaybird18c 4 #169 April 22, 2011 QuoteYou've admitted that it does! That commandment about not working on Saturday? Safe to disregard it now. Most of Leviticus? No longer applies. God's stance on interracial marriage? Apparently that's changed too. There's nothing wrong with that, BTW. Society changes and the interpretation of the Bible (and what it says about the Word of God) does too. You need a theology and biblical interpretation course Billvon (really) and not just a cursory easy-reading of the Bible. You need to understand hermaneutical rules of interpretation. One rule is that you can't apply 20th or 21st century understanding of a particular thing to a Hebrew understanding at that time. You've got to try and understand it from their perspective and not the other way around. Added: I don't mean that to be insulting. I'm being serious. It's the same reason cults exist today. they either center their entire theology around a particular verse or they read it and apply their modern concept of it...or both. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,257 #170 April 22, 2011 QuoteQuoteYes, a presupposition you will stick to despite any and all evidence to the contrary. Seriously, if you believe in creationism you are anti science. Are all these people anti-science? http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/bios/default.asp Interesting to note the earlier ones around the 17th century. Why is that interesting? Prior to that time there was very little of anything in the way of ordered, evidence based science. Myth and magic was pretty much all there was. You, on the other hand, have no excuse. The evidence is freely available to you, but instead you choose to let a bunch of liars and lunatics lead you about by the nose. QuoteAdded: You atheists really need to come up with some new material for your cause. Oh really? Let's just think about the validity of that statement, shall we? On the one hand we could take, say, evolution, one of the most well researched and supported scientific theories ever developed, which simply would not work if the earth was young, which is being further researched, refined and supported with every passing day. You, on the other hand, have just appealed to Francis Bacon. From the 17th century. Are you aware of even the faintest scent of irony?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,425 #171 April 22, 2011 >You need a theology and biblical interpretation course Billvon (really) I had four years of them. But they were pretty good, not the "just read answersingenesis.com" sort. >One rule is that you can't apply 20th or 21st century understanding of a particular >thing to a Hebrew understanding at that time. I agree 100%. Taking the Bible literally, and claiming that its interpretation does not change, is a mistake - society changes, and our understanding of the Bible changes as a result. (BTW you don't have to go back to biblical times to see that change in understanding. The Bible was used as justification for banning interracial marriage in the 1950's.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
maadmax 0 #172 April 22, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteThirdly, the Bible is not a science book. That was never its design or purpose. However, wheverever statments are made in it that touch on scientific subjects, it is entirely accurate. Says the guy who (apparently) believes in young earth creationism. Sorry dude, that's as unscientifically stupid as it gets! I have noticed life is full of paradoxes. Some with a genuine spiritual knowledge and relationship with God can be lacking in the latest science. As some with the latest information on scientific theories can be totally lacking in the knowledge of God. ... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jakee 1,257 #173 April 22, 2011 Quote Quote Quote Quote Thirdly, the Bible is not a science book. That was never its design or purpose. However, wheverever statments are made in it that touch on scientific subjects, it is entirely accurate. Says the guy who (apparently) believes in young earth creationism. Sorry dude, that's as unscientifically stupid as it gets! I have noticed life is full of paradoxes. Some with a genuine spiritual knowledge and relationship with God can be lacking in the latest science. As some with the latest information on scientific theories can be totally lacking in the knowledge of God. Well, you see a paradox, I see cause and effectDo you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jaybird18c 4 #174 April 22, 2011 QuoteI had four years of them. But they were pretty good, not the "just read answersingenesis.com" sort. I don't usually post my resume but I have post graduate seminary education (and not from answers in genesis). My undergraduate degree is unrelated. But that is beside the point. If you had all those years of philosophical education, I would think you'd understand something of biblical interpretation. QuoteI agree 100%. Taking the Bible literally, and claiming that its interpretation does not change, is a mistake - society changes, and our understanding of the Bible changes as a result. I'm not saying that biblical interpretations do not change. That's got nothing to do with my literal reading of the Bible. My interpretation of a particular thing could be wrong. That's why, if my interpretation of a particular thing doesn't match up in any way with what it's always been understood to be, then I'm probably wrong. If it matches up, I'm probably on track. That's not to say that interpretations haven't changed in history. For example, false interpretations that had made its way into the Roman Catholic Church around the time of the Reformation (e.g. purgatory, etc.). It wasn't until then that the Catholic Church (during the Counter-Reformation) brought in the Apocryphal books and included them into their canon of scripture. Then, when Protestants asked where the scriptural support for these things was, they could point to their bible and say "there, it's in the bible." (Not to mention, that Jerome (early church father; Roman Catholic) in his Latin Vulgate (Latin translation of the Bible) did not include the Apocryphal books). The point being, the early church fathers never included those teachings. Neither should have the Catholic Church. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,425 #175 April 22, 2011 >If you had all those years of philosophical education, I would think you'd >understand something of biblical interpretation. It is possible (unlikely, but possible) that people other than yourself understand Biblical issues, but disagree with your reasoning. >That's why, if my interpretation of a particular thing doesn't match up in any way with >what it's always been understood to be, then I'm probably wrong. Until it changes again - at which point you become right? That's the problem. "What it's always been understood to be" changes. And again, that's not a bad thing; heck, it keeps theologians around the world employed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next Page 7 of 14 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
jakee 1,257 #173 April 22, 2011 Quote Quote Quote Quote Thirdly, the Bible is not a science book. That was never its design or purpose. However, wheverever statments are made in it that touch on scientific subjects, it is entirely accurate. Says the guy who (apparently) believes in young earth creationism. Sorry dude, that's as unscientifically stupid as it gets! I have noticed life is full of paradoxes. Some with a genuine spiritual knowledge and relationship with God can be lacking in the latest science. As some with the latest information on scientific theories can be totally lacking in the knowledge of God. Well, you see a paradox, I see cause and effectDo you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jaybird18c 4 #174 April 22, 2011 QuoteI had four years of them. But they were pretty good, not the "just read answersingenesis.com" sort. I don't usually post my resume but I have post graduate seminary education (and not from answers in genesis). My undergraduate degree is unrelated. But that is beside the point. If you had all those years of philosophical education, I would think you'd understand something of biblical interpretation. QuoteI agree 100%. Taking the Bible literally, and claiming that its interpretation does not change, is a mistake - society changes, and our understanding of the Bible changes as a result. I'm not saying that biblical interpretations do not change. That's got nothing to do with my literal reading of the Bible. My interpretation of a particular thing could be wrong. That's why, if my interpretation of a particular thing doesn't match up in any way with what it's always been understood to be, then I'm probably wrong. If it matches up, I'm probably on track. That's not to say that interpretations haven't changed in history. For example, false interpretations that had made its way into the Roman Catholic Church around the time of the Reformation (e.g. purgatory, etc.). It wasn't until then that the Catholic Church (during the Counter-Reformation) brought in the Apocryphal books and included them into their canon of scripture. Then, when Protestants asked where the scriptural support for these things was, they could point to their bible and say "there, it's in the bible." (Not to mention, that Jerome (early church father; Roman Catholic) in his Latin Vulgate (Latin translation of the Bible) did not include the Apocryphal books). The point being, the early church fathers never included those teachings. Neither should have the Catholic Church. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,425 #175 April 22, 2011 >If you had all those years of philosophical education, I would think you'd >understand something of biblical interpretation. It is possible (unlikely, but possible) that people other than yourself understand Biblical issues, but disagree with your reasoning. >That's why, if my interpretation of a particular thing doesn't match up in any way with >what it's always been understood to be, then I'm probably wrong. Until it changes again - at which point you become right? That's the problem. "What it's always been understood to be" changes. And again, that's not a bad thing; heck, it keeps theologians around the world employed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
