|
Post by atheiess on May 4, 2009 13:24:07 GMT -5
All I can say is there have been some seriously misguided leaders throughout history. It isn't just that there were a few misguided leaders. It was the status quo of the Christian church for centuries to slay people who disagreed with them. Just recently Bush waged war on Iraq and wasn't discrete about his religious priorities, and most fundies support Bush to this day. Then there is the whole other thread on waterboarding... Do you think Jesus would approve of torture?
|
|
|
Post by Julian on May 4, 2009 13:37:06 GMT -5
Of course. Shellfish wasn't permitted under Leviticus. Those are the OT laws, we do not live under OT laws, we live in the age of grace and have since the resurrection. Christ did away with many of the old laws. It should also be mentioned that they didn't have refrigeration in those days and eating shellfish shipped over great distances was a risky proposition. Oh man, thanks for the laugh! Jesus did NOT override that. Peter did in Acts when he was hallucenating and hungry and decided HE wanted to eat pork. So with your delightful refridgeration theory. Any idea why the bible used the phrase 'salt of the Earth'? Doesn't look like it. Any idea why apparently scaled fish could then be transported over long distances while shellfish couldn't? While we're at it (you making fanciful shit up), any idea why rabbits eating their own dung made them biblically classed as a ruminant?
|
|
|
Post by Vene on May 4, 2009 13:40:25 GMT -5
If you are referring to Darwinism, it was good science in Darwin's time but it's crap now. We know it's impossible for a single cell to morph into a living creature because modern science has shown just how specialized cells are, they are not the generic building blocks Darwin proposed. We also know that there is no evidence that any living thing has ever morphed into a different living thing with different DNA. Darwinism is in serious need of reevaluation. Oh goody, science time. I just love it when people misrepresent my field as if they have a clue what they're talking about. First off, a single cell is alive. Hell, aren't you the people that say life starts at conception, you know, a single cell? I don't know why you're assuming something must be multicellular to be alive considering there is an entire field of biology devoted to single celled organisms called microbiology. I didn't really think that the existence of bacteria was that foreign, but hey, go ahead and prove your ignorance to us. Second, morphing? No biologist says anthing about organisms morphing into something with different DNA. There's development, like say, metamorphosis. You know, caterpillar to butterfly, stuff a 7 year old would know. Evolution (NOT Darwinism, it's been refined a lot since the mid 19th century), states that there are changes that accumulate as generations pass. In fact, the swine flu is a perfect example of evolution as it is a new strain. Here is a good source that describes exactly how viruses like the swine flu and bird flu evolved. I can even give multicellular examples of speciation (as in, new species that cannot produce fertile offspring with the original population). An easy one is Culex pipiens or the London Underground mosquito. It only lives in, as its name suggests, the London underground. A population of mosquitos became isolated down there and because mosquitoes have short generations, built up enough mutations to become reproductively isolated (link).Oh, and cells do start as generic building blocks. They are called stem cells (do you even watch the news?). The point is that they are not differentiated yet. All of our cells have all the genes required to form any cell in our body. An adipocyte has the genes for the Ca 2+ channels of a neuron and an epithelial cell has the genes for phosphofructokinase which is much more active in hepatocytes. The difference is that different cells turn on and off different genes. In fact, with tumors they revert back to stem cells and grow continuously. It's even possible for them to redifferentiate. Which is why a tumor in the peritoneal cavity can have teeth inside of it.
|
|
|
Post by crazalus on May 4, 2009 13:42:57 GMT -5
Of course. Shellfish wasn't permitted under Leviticus. Those are the OT laws, we do not live under OT laws, we live in the age of grace and have since the resurrection. Christ did away with many of the old laws. It should also be mentioned that they didn't have refrigeration in those days and eating shellfish shipped over great distances was a risky proposition. But Jesus said that everyone was still going to be held to the Laws of Moses... which means none of them have been done away with. So, do you eat shellfish? Oh, and shipping them great distances? They were sold where they were caught, when they were caught! Where's the risk there? Can anyone do something different to what God has seen? If yes, he hasn't seen everything... if no, then we DON'T have free will since we are without any choice in the matter. Besides, isn't everything being done according to God's Plan? Seems like it's just how he set it all up... again, no free will. And around 150 years of re-evaluation later...? If you want to refer to "Darwinism", then do so... we refer to Evolution. It's not the same thing at all... no matter what you "think". None so blind as those that will not see... should we pull out quotes from RR that are seathing in hate and anger at anyone homosexual? Should we pull out ones that are blatent in their fear of Atheism and Islam? You forget... there are over 62000 quotes that have been submitted, and many of them are from RR... and about 20% are all hate/anger/fear/"kill them beacuse they're not Christan" Do you really want us to pull out quotes that show just how much of a lie you just said? What? Just the RCC? Nothing from the other sects of Christianity? But, never mind the leaders... what about those who followed them? All those "mis-guided" who've followed the mis-guided leaders... (like Bush... a seriously mis-guided leader if there ever was one) No... it's not the leaders that's the problem... without large numbers following them, they are nothing. Look to those who give the leaders power... THOSE are the ones who are the issue. And cursing a fig tree because it wasn't carrying figs out of season is the right time and place? Or is it more a temper tantrum...? More to the point... they say they are INCAPABLE of being angry... you're saying they are and it can be acceptable... Which is right? You, or them?
|
|
|
Post by Julian on May 4, 2009 13:45:27 GMT -5
If turtle in the thread isn't lurking for quotes, this is blinding with it's astonishing anti-reality.
You'd almost have to nominate it for Newton's Turd Law. For every fact, there is an equal and opposite fiction.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why would you ask anything of someone who is intellectually dishonest and willingly ignorant of the truth? Do you really think you would get an honest answer?
|
|
|
Post by Sigmaleph on May 4, 2009 14:02:48 GMT -5
Questions... Why do you believe in God? and If someone dies having never heard of Jesus, what happens to them in the afterlife?
|
|
|
Post by Dr. Waldorf X on May 4, 2009 14:04:43 GMT -5
God exists outside of time, so He sees everything past, present and future. You are doing what you want to do and He has given you the free will to do it without intervention. He observes you, but He doesn't control you. That's the difference. But if he already knows what we're going to do, then we cannot make a choice different than what choice he knows we're going to make and therefor, no free will.
|
|
|
Post by The Lazy One on May 4, 2009 14:10:38 GMT -5
Hello, rrvisitor. Nice to meet you. And thank you for answering my questions! I asked my question because I seem to remember some very angry RR posts about how atheists and Muslims were part of an evil conspiracy to kill Christians and that if they didn't have the grace of god they'd be very scared. I'll go see if I can dig it up. I also asked the gay question based on this: To be clear- it seems more paranoia than outright hatred, but I'm sure I can dig up some more quotes. After all, I have the FSTDT search function and a good memory. I'm sure if I jaunt over to RR now I can find several examples.
|
|
|
Post by atheiess on May 4, 2009 16:47:26 GMT -5
Of course. Shellfish wasn't permitted under Leviticus. Those are the OT laws, we do not live under OT laws, we live in the age of grace and have since the resurrection. Christ did away with many of the old laws. It should also be mentioned that they didn't have refrigeration in those days and eating shellfish shipped over great distances was a risky proposition. I was just reading the Rules and Guidelines over at RR for the first time. Not only was I blown away by the number of rules and the dictatorial tone of them, but I really enjoyed this little gem: If every word of the Bible is perfect and you must obey, how can you pick and chose which laws to follow? Don't tell me that "this book undoes what was done in that book" because it is all the word of God, and you can only use personal interpretation when you chose which laws to follow. Who cares which laws came first and which ones came last when you argue that God exists outside of time? It also says: The only difference between the Bible and the apocrypha is that the books that made it into the Bible were put there by one of those "misguided" Christians (Constantine I) that wage war in the name of Jesus. Constantine was also a heretic who worshiped other gods simultaneously. Would you really only want to follow the books of a misguided man?
|
|
|
Post by doomie 22 on May 4, 2009 18:59:04 GMT -5
I have a question. Do you see the pointlessness of a discussion board where one way of thinking is not only promoted, but actively enforced by the moderating staff? I understand that Buzzardhut had a right to run his forum however he likes but you must realize that on a board where no one is allowed to disagree with the admin real discussion is very difficult, if not impossible.
|
|
|
Post by antichrist on May 4, 2009 19:21:39 GMT -5
I have a question. Do you see the pointlessness of a discussion board where one way of thinking is not only promoted, but actively enforced by the moderating staff? I understand that Buzzardhut had a right to run his forum however he likes but you must realize that on a board where no one is allowed to disagree with the admin real discussion is very difficult, if not impossible. Well that seems to be the only rule that really counts over there. You see people breaking the rules all the time, but as long as it's about the great godly GOP and them ebil demoncrats, it's all good.
|
|
|
Post by insanedesigner on May 4, 2009 19:24:08 GMT -5
If God knows everything that will ever happen, is happening and has happened, then why does He get so angry? If He was so displeased with his creation, why didn't He just see ahead of time that sin was going to enter the world? But if God doesn't know everything that will ever happen, then what verse are they getting this crap from? D:
Or...
Can God time-travel? If so, if He went into the past, could He meet Himself before He left? (I'm tired of all the capitalizing...)
|
|
|
Post by CtraK on May 4, 2009 20:21:39 GMT -5
Surely, unless every verse of every chapter of all 66 books is written in totally clear, utterly unambiguous language that can only possibly have one clear meaning, they're always open to interpretations.
And given that Christianity isn't centralised in one denomination, this probably means RR's rule on this can only be bullshit.
|
|
|
Post by anonymous on May 4, 2009 22:56:46 GMT -5
Why are you so interested in buttsecks??? Because, quite honestly, I NEVER think about gay sex unless some fundie brings it up. So WHY are you so fascinated with what gay people are doing between the sheets/on the kitchen table/in the shower/behind your hedges? ;D
|
|
|
Post by antichrist on May 4, 2009 23:12:10 GMT -5
Why does Genesis have to be taken literally word by word.
But all that nice hippy shit Jesus went on about, that's open for interpretation.
|
|