A question for all you conservative Christians
May 17, 2019 11:45:22 #
whitnebrat
Loc: In the wilds of Oregon
This will be my final post on this thread.
I should know better than to get involved in the subject of religion. It inevitably winds up in a draw with no minds changed and only positions hardened.
I can neither prove the existence of God and Jesus, nor can I disprove their manifestations. The science of biblical archaeology so far has produced ambivalent results as to the origins and validity of the Bible, and the believers use it to bolster their faith, while the naysayers point to it and see no valid evidence.
There is some conjecture that much of present day religion is based on more ancient stories and myths, such as the seeming correlation of the Biblical story of the Great Flood deriving from an even more ancient Persian story from antiquity.
Even within the followers of Buddha, which originally required that the followers not deify him, it has happened. It is probably human nature to have some entity to pass the responsibility for our human failings up to. Having dug into the original teachings of Buddhism at length, I tend to believe that any religious system has at its roots a system of social behavior (no k**l, no steal, no bonking your neighbor's wife, etc). The system then grows exponentially, depending on whose ox gets gored in the implementation of the system. It can evolve into a priestly class such as the Egyptians and Catholics , or it can become more down-to-earth such as many of the protestant sects. At the extremes it can become the realm of the God-King or just be a philosophical path that makes life easier for those following it.
In any case, while the discussion of religion is sometimes enlightening, for the most part it results in a stalemate. I try to admit when I'm wrong and stick up for what I feel is right … on this subject I can't find a substantive basis for determining what is right or wrong. It is all conjecture and belief with little or no factual basis on which to hang your hat.
You are free to believe in wh**ever structure you wish … but I reserve my right to not believe it with you, nor to have you force-feed your beliefs and morals down my throat by wh**ever means you choose … legislative or otherwise.
It's been enlightening in spite of the occasional troglodyte that tries to k**l the messenger rather than participating in a civil and non-gutter discussion.
Thanks to all who listened and participated.
I should know better than to get involved in the subject of religion. It inevitably winds up in a draw with no minds changed and only positions hardened.
I can neither prove the existence of God and Jesus, nor can I disprove their manifestations. The science of biblical archaeology so far has produced ambivalent results as to the origins and validity of the Bible, and the believers use it to bolster their faith, while the naysayers point to it and see no valid evidence.
There is some conjecture that much of present day religion is based on more ancient stories and myths, such as the seeming correlation of the Biblical story of the Great Flood deriving from an even more ancient Persian story from antiquity.
Even within the followers of Buddha, which originally required that the followers not deify him, it has happened. It is probably human nature to have some entity to pass the responsibility for our human failings up to. Having dug into the original teachings of Buddhism at length, I tend to believe that any religious system has at its roots a system of social behavior (no k**l, no steal, no bonking your neighbor's wife, etc). The system then grows exponentially, depending on whose ox gets gored in the implementation of the system. It can evolve into a priestly class such as the Egyptians and Catholics , or it can become more down-to-earth such as many of the protestant sects. At the extremes it can become the realm of the God-King or just be a philosophical path that makes life easier for those following it.
In any case, while the discussion of religion is sometimes enlightening, for the most part it results in a stalemate. I try to admit when I'm wrong and stick up for what I feel is right … on this subject I can't find a substantive basis for determining what is right or wrong. It is all conjecture and belief with little or no factual basis on which to hang your hat.
You are free to believe in wh**ever structure you wish … but I reserve my right to not believe it with you, nor to have you force-feed your beliefs and morals down my throat by wh**ever means you choose … legislative or otherwise.
It's been enlightening in spite of the occasional troglodyte that tries to k**l the messenger rather than participating in a civil and non-gutter discussion.
Thanks to all who listened and participated.
May 17, 2019 13:25:26 #
Rose42 wrote:
Funny how people will blindly accept a theory but Christ’s message is a ‘rock of offense’ and denied when its there for all to see.
Yes it's very ironic !
May 17, 2019 13:34:24 #
Canuckus Deploracus wrote:
Can one use a device without understanding the underlying scientific principles?
Yep. Happens every day.Can one use a device without understanding the underlying scientific principles?
May 17, 2019 13:38:55 #
whitnebrat wrote:
You should have ended your comments with "I can neither prove the existence of God and Jesus, nor can I disprove their manifestations."This will be my final post on this thread.
I should know better than to get involved in the subject of religion. It inevitably winds up in a draw with no minds changed and only positions hardened.
I can neither prove the existence of God and Jesus, nor can I disprove their manifestations.
I should know better than to get involved in the subject of religion. It inevitably winds up in a draw with no minds changed and only positions hardened.
I can neither prove the existence of God and Jesus, nor can I disprove their manifestations.
May 17, 2019 13:41:10 #
Blade_Runner wrote:
You should have ended your comments with "I can neither prove the existence of God and Jesus, nor can I disprove their manifestations."
May 17, 2019 14:51:37 #
That is a cop out of pure unmitigated ignorance.
If you had read the article, which you didn't, you would know Darwin's theory of Evolution was and is a complete h**x.
Quoting Shakespeare changes that fact not one whit.
As for ridiculing cave dwellers, as one who has had the experience of spelunking limestone caves, they are a ready made shelter, and preferable to a hastily, poorly constructed, overnight lodging of logs, branches and twigs.
Believing yourself superior because you fear facing God, or haven't experienced nature in a way that others have is close minded at best, cowardly at worst.
If you had read the article, which you didn't, you would know Darwin's theory of Evolution was and is a complete h**x.
Quoting Shakespeare changes that fact not one whit.
As for ridiculing cave dwellers, as one who has had the experience of spelunking limestone caves, they are a ready made shelter, and preferable to a hastily, poorly constructed, overnight lodging of logs, branches and twigs.
Believing yourself superior because you fear facing God, or haven't experienced nature in a way that others have is close minded at best, cowardly at worst.
whitnebrat wrote:
"Forsooth, she doth protest too much."
May 17, 2019 15:02:16 #
Zemirah wrote:
And my point is that Evolution is not Science, not now, not ever.
Deflection seems to be one of your favorite buzz words, even when it has no relevance.
I have nothing to deflect from or to, - You?
Deflection seems to be one of your favorite buzz words, even when it has no relevance.
I have nothing to deflect from or to, - You?
Evolution cannot explain the trinity of time, space and matter which had to come into existence at exactly the same time.
Without space where do you put matter, without time when did matter enter space.
The trinity Time. Space. Matter
Each has its own trinity
Space = Height, Depth, Length
Time= Past, Present, Future
Matter = Liquid, Gas, Solid
In the atheist argument God. How does a God in a closed system of time space and matter create the universe
The answer God is not subject to time, space and matter but exist outside of the closed system first being outside created time, space and matter.
Science cannot explain the required spontaneous origin of time, space and matter without a intelligent creator.
God Bless
May 17, 2019 15:28:58 #
Thank you. Jack, for your wisdom and t***h telling.
jack sequim wa wrote:
Evolution cannot explain the trinity of time, spac... (show quote)
May 17, 2019 15:52:32 #
Zemirah wrote:
That is a cop out of pure unmitigated ignorance. b... (show quote)
And if you hadn't presented detailed facts to bolster your observations, you would then be accused of not having enough factual material to make your case. It is a quite typical l*****t tactic..."where are the facts to support your statement", followed by "seems that there is too much information there". Thanks for the factual information you provided...ALL of it.
May 17, 2019 15:58:24 #
Zemirah wrote:
Thank you. Jack, for your wisdom and t***h telling.
I would like to hear what the opposing views have to say...... Crickets.
The greatest scholarly minds of our time that promote evolution, unwilling to accept creation, cannot explain or even respond to spontaneous time, space and matter. No comment is a wise position to those opposing creation and even wiser would be to consider a creator even if they reject the author of the Bible.
May 17, 2019 17:53:05 #
May 17, 2019 18:07:48 #
Blade_Runner wrote:
Yep. Happens every day.
LOL... Thanks Blade...
I thought it was obvious as well
May 17, 2019 18:09:08 #
Zemirah wrote:
That is a cop out of pure unmitigated ignorance. b... (show quote)
You got all that from "forsooth, she doth protest too much"
May 17, 2019 18:26:09 #
jack sequim wa wrote:
I would like to hear what the opposing views have to say...... Crickets.
The greatest scholarly minds of our time that promote evolution, unwilling to accept creation, cannot explain or even respond to spontaneous time, space and matter. No comment is a wise position to those opposing creation and even wiser would be to consider a creator even if they reject the author of the Bible.
The greatest scholarly minds of our time that promote evolution, unwilling to accept creation, cannot explain or even respond to spontaneous time, space and matter. No comment is a wise position to those opposing creation and even wiser would be to consider a creator even if they reject the author of the Bible.
Because evolution doesn't deal with the creation of the universe... Nor does it deal with such things as the nature of time, space and matter...
Why would any evolutionist attempt to debate something that has nothing to do with evolution?
May 17, 2019 18:27:05 #
Lonewolf wrote:
if we evolved from apes why are there apes left
We didn't evolve from apes...
We share a common ancestor....
We have all branched away from each other...
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.