The Religion Discussion

[bluefete]

so you are saying that religious texts twist the word of God in translation, yet you keep quoting from the bible.

Note that God does not discriminate among his children.

so why do some people have disabilities?

Boss - Hear dis nuh. "Religious texts do not twist the word of God in translation". People twist the word of God for their own ends.

To answer your next question - "Why do some people have disabilities?" -

"And as Jesus passed by, he saw a man which was blind from birth. And his disciples asked Him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind? Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him." John 9:1-3

bluefete do you listen to yourself?

in one post you say it was God's will for the People's Partnership to win the election.
Then in another post you say man has free will, even to go against God's will.
Then in another post you say that "God does not discriminate among his children."
Then right after that you say that inequalities in men are the work of God.

So at which point do you plan to show us some coherence?

Does God discriminate? I used to think so at one point in time. But then God helped me to understand that we are all given different gifts. Even the blind have gifts that the sighted cannot see!!

There are times when man's will and God's will combine. Did we not have one of those times? If we had voted to put the PNM back into office, where do you think we would have ended up?

[sMASH]

what the scientists show us, that when the sperm go into the egg, and fertilize it, it becomes one cell. then that cell divides and forms more cells, to form a cluster of cells.
then, it develops, in time to form all kinds or animals.

most beings we encounter, in their wide varied forms, start of visually identical. put the little clusters of cells side by side, and u cannot tell one from the other.

so, from one aesthetic form of cells, u can get so many different forms of organisms.

evolution can explain diversity.

what ur 'bible' cannot explain is why your deeds need to be judged when is either u goin to hell or u goin to heaven, based on if u believe (not say) that jesus christ is god or the son of god (depending on which christian u encounter)

[bluefete]

wait, angels have free will? hmmn, which are better, angels or humans?

and i disagree with ur point, because of christian logic about we having to account for our earthly deeds.
gathered from christian logic, the only way u goin to heaven is by believing that jesus christ is the son of god. and the only way to go to hell is not believing that jesus christ is the son of god.

..."believe in the lord ur god jesus christ and have all you sins washed away, in the blood of the lamb"
therefore there is nothing to account for.

..."reject the lord ur god jesus christ, and suffer eternal damnation in the fires of h'ellllllllll"
therefore there is nor reason to give an account

sMASH: "For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God. So then everyone of us shall give account of himself to God." Romans 14:11-12

"For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that everyone may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad." 2 Corinthians 5:10-11

"And I saw the dead, small and great stand before God: and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works... and they were judged every man according to their works." Revelation 20:12-13

[bluefete]

what the scientists show us, that when the sperm go into the egg, and fertilize it, it becomes one cell. then that cell divides and forms more cells, to form a cluster of cells.
then, it develops, in time to form all kinds or animals.
Are you for real???? Are you saying that a rat evolved from a human cell??? Or a human evolved from a rat cell?? What??? Is this how evolution works?? No wonder so many people try to dump God for evolution!!! Certainly makes sense to me, now!!
most beings we encounter, in their wide varied forms, start of visually identical. put the little clusters of cells side by side, and u cannot tell one from the other.

so, from one aesthetic form of cells, u can get so many different forms of organisms.

evolution can explain diversity. No, it definitely cannot, if it claims that all life evolved from a unicellular organism. Try again.

what ur 'bible' cannot explain is why your deeds need to be judged when is either u goin to hell or u goin to heaven, based on if u believe (not say) that jesus christ is god or the son of god (depending on which christian u encounter)

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

Does God discriminate? I used to think so at one point in time. But then God helped me to understand that we are all given different gifts. Even the blind have gifts that the sighted cannot see!!

here we go back to page 1 of this thread. What gifts does the baby born with HIV and other diseases having to live with deformities in squalor have?

There are times when man's will and God's will combine. Did we not have one of those times? If we had voted to put the PNM back into office, where do you think we would have ended up?

Saying it was God's will for one party to win an election is like praying to God that you win a fight or a war. What if the other side was praying too?

you are not making any sense

[sMASH]

oh srry
what i meant was that for a certain animal, it it starts off as one cell, which then develops eventually
into what it supposed to be, and that other animals start off the same way, and are visually indistinguishable from the start cluster of any other animals.

if so many different looking things can start off lookin so similarly,
then, there are so many different variations of people. height, complexion, wight, shape, abilities, personalities,,,, and they all start biologically similar. if from the same type of cells, u can get so many variations of humans as the outcome then u see how one cell can have so many possible outcomes.
and he did not mean that every thing come out from one cell at the same time
what he means is that the off springs from one being, had variation from its predecessor, and that over time, the successive off spring evolved, e v e n t u a l l y

[sMASH]

oh yeah, the pnm had a greater proportion of christian supporters than the uncop, which had a greater proportion of hindus. if so, jesus fire bun he own crew.

[megadoc1]

oh yeah, the pnm had a greater proportion of christian supporters than the uncop, which had a greater proportion of hindus. if so, jesus fire bun he own crew.

read the old testament and see what god did to his people when they turned from him


and smash check out this site http://www.carm.org/ I think this guy answered every question you ever asked....... and then some http://www.carm.org/dialogue-guy-who-claimed-be-god.............enjoy

[Chimera]

oh yeah, the pnm had a greater proportion of christian supporters than the uncop, which had a greater proportion of hindus. if so, jesus fire bun he own crew.

Hindu Gods > Jesus

I mean come on, his big miracle was turning water into wine.

Hindu Gods does move mountains and slay demons

[Razkal]

bluefete, the theory of evolution through the mechanism of natural selection IS the explanation for the biodiversity from one primordial ancestor. don't ask me to "answer you one question" if you refuse to even display coherence and insist quoting the bible is evidence enough. i don't quote animal planet to defend my beliefs or protect the theory of evolution.

i won't elaborate on it further because honestly, i can't stand another nonsensical display of irrelevant scripture!! it's insane how deluded you and megadoc are.



the simplest vid i can find..check it out and educate yourself a bit, i mean really.

[Chimera]

Jesus say videos are blasphemy and a work of the devil ^^^

[megadoc1]

bluefete, the theory of evolution through the mechanism of natural selection IS the explanation for the biodiversity from one primordial ancestor. don't ask me to "answer you one question" if you refuse to even display coherence and insist quoting the bible is evidence enough. i don't quote animal planet to defend my beliefs or protect the theory of evolution.

i won't elaborate on it further because honestly, i can't stand another nonsensical display of irrelevant scripture!! it's insane how deluded you and megadoc are.



the simplest vid i can find..check it out and educate yourself a bit, i mean really.

I heard Darwin repented became a christian on his death bed
how you missed that?
how do you feel about that?
http://www.carm.org/secular-movements/evolution/did-darwin-become-christian-his-deathbed

anyways you can chill out here a bit http://www.carm.org/evolution

[MG Man]

I hear jesus used to bull this chick Mary and had a love child with her

[Picasso]

Professor G. G. Simpson, one of the elite spokesmen for evolution, writes about multiple, simultaneous mutations and reports that the mathematical likelihood of getting good evolutionary results would occur only once in 274 billion years! And that would be assuming 100 million individuals are reproducing a new generation Every Day! He concludes by saying, "Obviously, such a process has played no part whatever in evolution." The Major Features of Evolution, page 7.

Does this sound sort of confusing to you? They say mutation is necessary to make the changes required by their theory, yet they have to confess that it is scientifically impossible for mutation to make the changes. This is too typical of the puzzling twists and turns made by our evolutionist friends in their efforts to uphold an exploded theory. So the second point of contradiction with true science has been established.

Mutations, of course, do affect minor changes within the basic kinds, but those changes are limited, never producing a new family. They can explain many of the varieties of both plant and animals, but can never explain the creation of basic kinds as required by evolution.

The "common ancestor" that evolution demands has never existed. He is not a "missing link." He is a link who never was. Man and monkeys are supposed to stem from the same animal ancestry. Even chimpanzees and many monkey groups vary tremendously. Some are smart, others dumb. Some have short tails and some long. Some have no tails at all. Their teeth vary in number. A few have thumbs and others do not. Their genes are different. Their chromosomes do not jibe. Interestingly enough, apes only breed with apes, chimpanzees with chimpanzees, and monkeys with monkeys.

But when we start comparing humans with monkeys we get even more impossible differences than those between the simian types. In fact, these differences constitute another unanswerable support for the Bible rule of "after its kind." The fact that some monkeys can be trained to smoke a pipe, ride a scooter, or even hoist a test tube in a laboratory does not prove that scientists are evolved animals, or that monkeys are retarded, developing humans.

It has already been stated that evolutionists expected the fossil record to support their theory of species change. Their doctrine demanded vast numbers of scaly reptiles transforming the scales into feathers and their front feet into wings. Other reptiles, supposedly, should be changing into fur-bearing quadrupeds. Did they find those thousands of multi-changing creatures? Not one! No matter what particular strata they sifted through, all the fossils were easily recognized and classified within its own family, just as God decreed. If the evolutionary doctrine were true, the strata would be teeming with hundreds of millions of transition forms with combination features of two or more species. Not only so, but there would have to be millions upon millions of observable living links right now in the process of turning into a higher form. Darwin confessed: "There are two or three million species on earth. A sufficient field one might think for observation; but it must be said today that in spite of all the evidence of trained observers, not one change of the species to another is on record." Life and Letters, Volume 3, page 25.

How interesting! Then why insist that it had to be that way? This is one of the marvels of those who cling to a traditional theory. Even the most ancient fossil forms in the lowest fossil beds have stubbornly retained the same features of their modern counterparts, and it is amusing to listen to the exclamations of surprise by the evolutionists. The creationist is not surprised at all. His Bible told him it would be that way, and he has not been forced to puzzle over contradictory evidence.

Another frustration for the poor evolutionists is the strange case of the empty strata. Let me explain. As one digs deep into the earth, one layer or stratum after another is revealed. Often we can see these layers clearly exposed in the side of a mountain or roadbed cut. Geologists have given names to the succession of strata which pile one on top of another. Descending into the Grand Canyon, for example, one moves downward past the Mississippian, Devonian, Cambrian, etc., as they have been tagged by the scientists.

Here is the perplexity for the evolutionists: The Cambrian is the last stratum of the descending levels that has any fossils in it. All the lower strata below the Cambrian have absolutely no record of life, period. Why not? The Cambrian layer is full of all the major kinds of animals found today. In other words, there is nothing primitive about the structure of these most ancient fossils known to man. Essentially they compare with the complexity of current living creatures. But the big question is, "Where are their ancestors? Where are all the evolving creatures that should have led up to these highly developed fossils?" According to the theory of evolution, the pre-Cambrian strata should be filled with more primitive forms of those Cambrian fossils, in the process of evolving upward.

Darwin confessed in his book, Origin of the Species: "To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system I can give no satisfactory answer ... the case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained." Page 309.

How amazing! Darwin admitted having no way to defend his theory, but he still would not adjust his theory to meet the unanswerable arguments against it. Many other evolutionary scientists have expressed similar disappointment and frustration. Dr. Daniel Axelrod of the University of California calls it "one of the major unsolved problems of geology and evolution."

Dr. Austin Clark of the U.S. National Museum wrote concerning the Cambrian fossils, "Strange as it may seem ... mollusks were mollusks just as unmistakenly as they are now." The New Evolution: Zoogenesis, page 101.

Drs. Marshall Kay and Edwin Colbert of Colombia University marveled over the problem in these words: "Why should such complex organic forms be in rocks about 600 million years old and be absent or unrecognized in the records of the preceding two billion years? ... If there has been evolution of life, the absence of the requisite fossils in the rocks older than Cambrian is puzzling." Stratigraphy and Life History, page 102.

George Gaylord Simpson, the Crown Prince of Evolution, summarized it: "The sudden appearance of life is not only the most puzzling feature of the whole fossil record, but also its greatest apparent inadequacy." The Evolution of Life, page 144.

Best post in this thread thus far..

*claps*

Now can someone lock dis dam ched.. some kant gonna make a stupid statement to raise the ants nest and it's gonna be all fight down again.

[illumin@ti]

^^^ picasso ,, seriously chill out.. its a debate. Now are you going to contribute or brown-nose?

[megadoc1]

I hear jesus used to bull this chick Mary and had a love child with her

I heard that too cool story and that is all to it

[Picasso]

^^^ picasso ,, seriously chill out.. its a debate. Now are you going to contribute or brown-nose?

Brown-nose ?

Bleh! I eh have a religion..

I believe we die and turn into clouds

[Chimera]

I hear jesus used to bull this chick Mary and had a love child with her

I heard that too cool story and that is all to it

Yes, thats what the bible is.

A cool story, and nothing more.

[megadoc1]

I hear jesus used to bull this chick Mary and had a love child with her

I heard that too cool story and that is all to it

Yes, thats what the bible is.

A cool story, and nothing more.

can you prove it ? else your statement is just that(a statement ) and nothing more

[Razkal]

doubt and uncertainty are wholly ingrained into the scientific process, scientists doubt and reevaluate data, theories and findings. not-knowing and the process to relieve that absence of knowledge is the essence of science.

no scientist has the ego or audacity to claim full and correct knowledge of the origin of species on earth, but the theory of evolution STILL offers the most viable explanation and logical train of thought for this pervasive question. with all the mathematical/statistical disproofs and lack of a complete, perfectly preserved (rolls eyes completely out of head btw) fossil record; evolution still isn't disproved.
what would disprove it however, is finding just ONE fossil in a geologic strata that it does not belong in (eg, an amphibian type creature in strata BELOW/before fishes left the oceans). such a finding has not yet occurred and i welcome you to go searching yourself. please do actually.

i find it appalling that 'evolutionists' are required to 'find and present' all linkable fossils and evidence indicating slow and gradual change in the species record (when the process by which natural selection works does not require a fossil to be found for each intermediate, but gives an understanding that they would have existed for present observations to be made)...when (for eg.) bible thumpers can't find a gigantic ark somewhere in a european mountain range, but everyone is supposed to believe a catastrophic, world encompassing flood occurred, and believe it occurred without question or evidence. evidence, that if present at all, is frivolous at best in real scientific light. THAT is blasphemy of the doctrine of logic!


Bertrand Russel once said: The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. So very true.

he also acknowledged the fact that realizing the extent of his own ignorance was the mark of an educated person.

picasso, please don't elongate the page by quoting long messages just to cheer in support. join the discussion if anything. this may count as my stupid statement, so call me a kant and consider the ants nest raised again.

[illumin@ti]

Alright ... lets revisit this. for the many ppl that just jump in a ched to post.

I can bet that many reading this might not have even looked at the first 10 pages.

Nor do they know that the ched title was changed a total of 5 times now by the OP.

Bluefete, really? now at page 77 ur telling me that the will of god extends to that of political motives?... You started the thread seeking to explain the presence of god through inexplicable occurrences that made clear in one's mind the presence of a supernatural deity with a guiding hand. You then, when questioned about the unfairness in the distribution of his grace (e.g. child disability and disease) you basically came up blank......Later on after a title change yuh came back and said that all these natural disasters that taking a lotta lives are the works of god.... on a deserving flock.... when asked how that could be so, how can he mete out that punishment so broadly and catch so many undeserving people in the same net you just shrugged and offered no real explanation save a flurry of cut and pastes and not your own words, why?

we went everywhere in this thread and you and others that act like bandwagonists just never cease to amaze...... if any one single thing to me in this whole thread stood out to me like a 2 pound floater in a porcelain bowl, refusing to go down, is the assertion that 'god' had anything to do with the PNM losing the election. What you are telling me is literally now and conveniently so - that Vox populi, vox dei is a valid concept u hold.. or rather that u misinterpret conveniently and quote conveniently...

the voice of the people is the voice of god? and that now god say fire bun manning?

how bout we not take just the cool lil quote and expand upon where it came from and in the context that it was originally meant - THEN debate the validity of such;

Nec audiendi qui solent dicere, Vox populi, vox Dei, quum tumultuositas vulgi semper insaniae proxima sit.

which means in its entirety:

And those people should not be listening to those who keep saying the voice of the people is the voice of God, since the riotousness of the crowd is always very close to madness.
this reference to the expression is in a letter from Alcuin to Charlemagne in 798, although it is believed to have been in earlier use.

point is, that context plays a great part in the meaning of something. So now, tell me please... with no spiritual quotes, no wiki/google/bing .... in yuh own words , from your own mind, how is it that you believe that the election result is a direct reflection of god's will

[Razkal]

I hear jesus used to bull this chick Mary and had a love child with her

I heard that too cool story and that is all to it

Yes, thats what the bible is.

A cool story, and nothing more.

can you prove it ? else your statement is just that(a statement ) and nothing more

go read: The Fall And Decline Of The Roman Empire by Edward Gibbon and see for yourself the vile nature of christianity.

I wish i co-authored the bible...it would have been mandatory to gyrate ecstatically at the end of prayer instead of droning amen, you see, painting the ridiculous an even brighter shade of red may have provoked some independent thought...

[megadoc1]

razkal they claim to have found Noah's ark wouldn't that corrupt your argument a bit?
illumin@ti where do you stand in all this?

[megadoc1]

I hear jesus used to bull this chick Mary and had a love child with her

I heard that too cool story and that is all to it

Yes, thats what the bible is.

A cool story, and nothing more.

can you prove it ? else your statement is just that(a statement ) and nothing more

go read: The Fall And Decline Of The Roman Empire by Edward Gibbon and see for yourself the vile nature of christianity.

I wish i co-authored the bible...it would have been mandatory to gyrate ecstatically at the end of prayer instead of droning amen, you see, painting the ridiculous an even brighter shade of red may have provoked some independent thought...

tell me what the roman empire have to do with christ ?
and can you post your findings so I can look it up

and can your findings discredit articles posted here ? http://www.carm.org/
or would you at least compare their sources with yours?

[slick]

the voice of the people is the voice of god?

quoting panday dey...lol

[Razkal]

razkal they claim to have found Noah's ark wouldn't that corrupt your argument a bit?
illumin@ti where do you stand in all this?

they haven't found noah's ark. i'm not asking you, i'm telling you.

i am LOLing uncontrollably at "WHAT THE ROMAN EMPIRE HAVE TO DO WITH CHRIST?"

you don't deserve intelligent responses my good man. enjoy your sunday!

[illumin@ti]

razkal they claim to have found Noah's ark wouldn't that corrupt your argument a bit?
illumin@ti where do you stand in all this?

funny that you would pick now of all times to ask me this... seeing that yuh have meh classed already in your own mind.

its simple, i believe in reason and not blind inexplicable faith. you can feel free to believe in whatever you may.

[illumin@ti]

the voice of the people is the voice of god?

quoting panday dey...lol

boy ,, Bas tote dat line,,, he bite it from Eric.... George chambers did try it... Patos perfect it...... and now its seems, according to Bluefete - it bit him in the arse

[megadoc1]

razkal they claim to have found Noah's ark wouldn't that corrupt your argument a bit?
illumin@ti where do you stand in all this?

they haven't found noah's ark. i'm not asking you, i'm telling you.
columbus never live i'm not asking you, i'm telling you.
can you spot the difference between my statement and your statment?

i am LOLing uncontrollably at "WHAT THE ROMAN EMPIRE HAVE TO DO WITH CHRIST?"
you never answered I asked you a simple question
"WHAT THE ROMAN EMPIRE HAVE TO DO WITH CHRIST?"

you don't deserve intelligent responses my good man. enjoy your sunday!
nice cop out .... enjoy your sunday too

[megadoc1]

razkal they claim to have found Noah's ark wouldn't that corrupt your argument a bit?
illumin@ti where do you stand in all this?

funny that you would pick now of all times to ask me this... seeing that yuh have meh classed already in your own mind.

its simple, i believe in reason and not blind inexplicable faith. you can feel free to believe in whatever you may.

so how will i know if your belief in reason is the way?