|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Earle Jones
Guest
|
 Posted: Sun May 11, 2008 1:44 am Post subject: Re: Evolution is not a fact |
 |
|
In article <QKydnWaOZ9EuWYXVnZ2dnUVZ8uednZ2d@bt.com>,
"Tiny Bulcher" <alycidon9@btinternet.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
Thus cwaeth Caranx latus :
snip
But, Ray, don't you say precisely the same things about atheists that
johnethompson2 said about you? Why then are *you* not controlled by
Satan for treating *us* like Jesus?
Because even Satan has standards.
|
*
"I have no special regard for Satan; but I can at least claim that
I have no prejudice against him. It may even be that I lean a
little his way, on account of his not having a fair show... We have
none but evidence for the prosecution and yet we have rendered the
verdict. To my mind, this is irregular."
--Mark Twain
earle
* |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Earle Jones
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun May 11, 2008 1:55 am Post subject: Re: Evolution is not a fact that Ray Martinez can grasp |
|
|
In article <WidSj.509$17.154@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net>,
"Suzanne" <shiloh7@flash.net> wrote:
| Quote: |
"Mitchell Holman" <Noemail@comcast.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9A90E372AE7DAta2eene@216.196.97.131...
Ray Martinez <pyramidial@yahoo.com> wrote in news:96efd51b-3266-49d5-bbee-
c7a8118da799@1g2000prg.googlegroups.com:
On Apr 30, 9:48 am, RAM <RAMather...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Apr 30, 11:33 am, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
snip and more snip below
If the Bible contains just one false claim I would agree. But I have
never seen even one.
If you actually read and understood the Bible you would see plenty.
Two can play your childish games. Isn't it fun. You say something
stupid and I agree that you say something stupid. I win this time.
Ray
RAM
The belief that the Bible contains contradictions is an illusion
caused by the fact that the Bible is extremely complex.
Gen 1:11-12, Trees were created before man was created.
Gen 2:4-9 Man was created before trees were created.
This is simple. Genesis 1 is an overall picture of Creation.
It extends into about verse 3 of chapter 2. Then the account
goes back to the creation of man and woman, and shows the
details of what went on when he was created. As it goes
back and tells the details of the creation of Adam and Eve,
the details of the Garden are also told. There is a proof text
in chapter 5. It puts the creation of Adam and the creation of
man as being the same thing:
Genesis 5:1-2:
1. "This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day
that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;
2. Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and
called their name Adam, in the day when they were created."
--
Gen 1:20-21, 26-27 Birds were created before man was created.
Gen 2:7, 19 Man was created before birds were created.
These are not consecutively the reverse of Genesis 1.
The writer jumps around as he does in this passage:
Gen. 2:7: man formed, God breathed into nostrils and
man became a living soul.
verse 8: "And the LORD God planted a garden eastward
in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed."
OK...he made Adam, then created the Garden and then
put Adam in the Garden he already created. Then in the
next verse, God continues to Create the Garden. Well...
it says he already created it, right? So then it says "Out of
the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is
pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also
in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of
good and evil." OK...now verse 8 says that God put the
man in the garden, then the garden grows and it grows
and it grows. Then in verse 15, God puts man in the
garden (again?).
Gen. 2:15:
"And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the
garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it."
But he had already put man into the garden. So what is
going on, is that the writer is telling the facts, then
expounding upon the facts, then going back and repeating
the onset that he put man into the garden.
--
Now, this does not make any sense unless you read it in
Hebrew. And if you do that, you see that the way it is
written, it's like a song with a refrain that keeps
repeating. I did not realize this until I wrote it down in
Hebrew, looked up the pronunciation, etc. and translated
it myself to look at it. Then I understood the form it was
in. Notice, for example that some of the phrases repeat
from the beginning.
Gen. 1:27-28:
"So God created man in his own image, in the image of
God created he him; male and female created he them.
And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be
fruitful and multiply..."
--
Gen. 5: 1b-2a:
"...in the likeness of God made he him; Male and female
created he them; and blessed them..."
Gen 1:24-27 Animals were created before man was created.
Gen 2:7, 19 Man was created before animals were created.
Same here, not consecutive, but flipping back and forth to
highlight a certain event. Just like man being put in the garden
and then the garden forms and grows and then man is put in
the garden - again. It's a refrain as in a poem or song. It is called a
Creation Hymn because of this form, most probably.
Gen 1:26-27 Man and woman were created at the same time.
Gen 2:7, 21-22 Man was created first, woman sometime later.
Genesis 5:1-2 confirm that man and woman were created
the same day that man of Genesis 1 is created, and that
woman was created the same day as Adam was created.
You can only know this by putting all the verses together.
Ecc 1:4, 3:14 The earth was established forever.
Matt 24:35, Mark 13:31, The earth will someday perish.
2 Peter 3:10 elaborates on this. It says
the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the
elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also
and the works that are therein shall be burned up."
The Revelation 21:1 says:
"And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first
heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there
was no more sea."
--
This does sound like the earth is replaced entirely when
you just glance at it. But notice that it says the sea is
taken away. If the sea is taken away and you can see that
detail then you will still see the same earth, but minus
the sea. Because of passages like this one, theologians
think this means that it's only the topography that passes
away of the earth. Now for example, this says the sea
is taken away, but when the heavenly created comes to
rest on the earth, it says that there will be a glassy sea
replacement in Rev. 4:6.
1Sam 31:4-6 Saul killed himself by falling on his sword.
2Sam 1:2-10 Saul was slain by an Amalekite.
This says that the Amalekite said "So I stood opon him,
and slew him, because I was sure that he could not live
after that he was fallen: " But what does this mean? He
could have fallen on Saul when Saul was killing himself
so that Saul would complete the job, couldn't it? Why
else would he stand on Saul? By his own words and
choice he asked the Amalekite "Stand I pray upon me
and slay me..."
If you read it in a modern version, you find out that
Saul is already leaning on his spear. He sees the
Amalekite and tells him he is in terrible pain, and
to come and put him out of his misery, and that he
wants to die. It sounds to me like Saul tried to
kill himself and was in agony not doing a very good
job of it, and then he asks this person to come and
put his full weight on him and finish the job. So both
could be true. This is like when Judas hanged himself.
One version says he hanged himself and another says
that he fell over a cliff and burst assunder. Well, he
evidently did both. He hanged himself and then his
body fell over the cliff.
2Sam 21:12 Saul was killed by the Philistines on Gilboa.
1Chron 10:13-14 Saul was slain by God.
The passage in 2 Sam. 1 says that the enemy was closing
in on him to take him, and that enemy was brought by
God because when Saul went to the Witch of Endor,
through the prophet Samuel, whom God really sent
when the fake witch pretended to conjure up Samuel,
told Saul that the Lord would slay him. In other words,
God set up the circumstances that would cause Saul
to die.
Matt 1:16 Jacob was Joseph's father.
Luke 3:23 Heli was Joseph's father.
Heli was Mary's father, and in the records, the husband
was listed as the son of a woman's father. Hence it says
that Joseph is "the son of " Heli in Mary's genealogy,
instead of saying the term "son-in-law." Luke 3:23 is
the genealogy of Mary. Matthew is Joseph's genealogy.
Matt 5:17-19, Jesus underscores the permanence of the law.
Deut 14:3-21 The law distinguishes between clean and unclean foods.
Mark 7:14-15, Jesus says that there is no such distinction.
This is answered by the next one below.
Matt 5:17-19, Jesus did not come to abolish the law.
Eph 2:13-15, Jesus did abolish the law.
Jesus said that he did not come to do away with
the law, but to fulfill it. Jesus is the fulfillment
of the law. For example, the Passover the Jews
observed since the time they were to leave
Egypt, pointed to the Messiah when he would
come. They sacrificed a lamb to keep the death
angel away, by putting the lamb's blood symbolically
on the top and sides of the doorposts. John the
Baptist pointed to Jesus and said "Behold the Lamb
of God that taketh away the sins of the world."
--
Jesus was the one that all the other sacrifices pointed
to. Because he was sinless, when he died on the
cross, he paid for the sins of the whole world, that
if a person receives that, his righteousness is
imputed onto that person and their sins are
covered by their faith in having put their trust in
him and what he did for them. So there is no more
sacrifice needed for sin if someone receives him
on that basis.
Matt 7:21 We are justified by works, not by faith.
Romans3:20-26 We are justified by faith, not by works.
Matthew 7:21 is not just any works. He specifically
says here that the person that will be saved is "he that
doeth the will of the Father." A person can't know
what the Father's will is, unless he has the Father
(in the form of the Holy Spirit) living inside of him.
If he has that, then he will hear and know what the
will of the Father is. So doing the will of the Father
is not known by a person unless he has by faith
received the Lord to be his Savior and Lord. So both
are actually by faith.
Matt 1:18-21 Annunciation occurred after Mary had conceived Jesus.
Luke 1:26-31 It occurred before conception.
Luke gives the account of the angel coming to
Mary to tell her that she would carry the baby
that is God's child. Matthew account shows
Joseph's receiving the information about the
fact that Mary already is expecting a baby,
since it was 3 months after conceiving that
Mary came back to town. As soon as she did
conceive in the Luke account, she went to see
John the Baptist's mother which is her relative.
When she approached the house, the Bible says
--
that in John the Baptist's mothers womb, the
baby lept for joy in the presence of the unborn
baby Jesus. Joseph was not told about this
until after Mary came back and was already
expecting a baby, so there is no conflict in
these two passages at all. You see, you may
also need to know something else. In the
Jewish wedding in those days, it was the
tradition that a man would become engaged
--
to the woman, but that engagement was
not the kind of engagement that we have
today. It was more binding. It was like a
marriage contract that already had been
legally completed. But the wife would not
go live with the husband immediately until
she knew him better, since some marriages
were arranged. That's why it says that they
were espoused to one another, but Mt. 1:18
makes it clear that they had not yet come
--
together. The angel told Joseph to not be
afraid to take Mary "his wife" to wife. In
other words he could take her to live with
him because it was legal, but this makes it
clear that the marriage was not consumated
until after the birth of her son, Jesus. At that
time, it was probably a private decision.
Others probably thought they had a normal
marriage beginning. When the living together
part began, the woman was told to always
be ready for her groom to come and get her,
--
for she didn't know when he would do that.
Then he would tell all the relatives when he
decided to do this, and all but Mary would
know. So then they had the wedding ceremony
even though on paper it already was legal, and
then they would go off together to live together
and begin the marriage.
Suzanne
|
*
Suzanne: It is certainly good that we have in our midst someone who
understands Biblical complexity and can explain the apparent conflicts
that those of us with ordinary skill don't seem to dig. How exactly do
you know all these answers? How do you know what those angels told Mary?
You even know the details of how Saul was killed. Amazing!
And it is good to know that the earth won't really perish, in spite of
Mark 13:31, "The earth will someday perish."
Tell us how you go about it, won't you?
earle
* |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Suzanne
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun May 11, 2008 7:15 am Post subject: Re: Evolution is not a fact |
|
|
"Shane" <remarcsd@Netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1tspkt9p4bm7x.1qoy80v2wluaj$.dlg@40tude.net...
| Quote: |
On Thu, 8 May 2008 03:54:37 -0500, Suzanne wrote:
"Shane" <remarcsdNOSPAM@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:4491in67po3j.gfuo2bpgddk9$.dlg@40tude.net...
On Wed, 7 May 2008 22:19:06 -0500, Suzanne wrote:
[...]
My contention is, and nothing you have suggested leads me to
conclude otherwise, is that if Helen Keller grew up in
Saudia Arabia, she would have become a Muslim. Note that she
did not come to jesus independently, she had to have help in
identifying who theis mystical entity was, yet the name is
considered so important and seems to be the one thing that
jesus cannot do.
Of course, Helen was born in Alabama, in the USA.
The Bible verse that says that no one can come to
the Father unless the spirit draws them, should settle
that idea.
Why? it's a completely unsupported assertion that is
unprovable.
You didn't ask for me to prove it. You just asked for an
example, and you end up still asking just for an example.
Someone's testimony is not proveable. It's hearsay, it's
what they claim. I don't doubt that Helen Keller's
testimony is true, but you evidently do. This about what
you are saying. How are you going to prove what
someone does spiritually? What? Are you going to shine
gamma rays on them and then dust them with whoofle
dust to see if they glow? : D
No, I merely expect that someone who does accept such
stories and realises the unprovableness of them does not
then go on to suggest that the stories alone are enough to
"settle it."
Are you this much trouble at home? : )
???
It means lighten up. You sound like you are |
trying to sink a battleship. I'm not "at sea."
I'm on the earth.
| Quote: |
There have been people who were born in
Saudi Arabia who did become Christians even though
they were submerged in another culture and religion.
Without any contact at all with a bible, a christian or a
means of communicating with one?
Uh...you said it differently before. You said what if
Helen Keller was born in Saudi Arabia to Muslim
people. You didn't say anything about her not coming
in contact with someone who tells her about Christ.
Then you need to go back a little bit further and re-read
where that is my premise all along. Also note that I
specifically said she had to have human help in identifying
the source of her feelings.
Shane, her testimony says that she knew him, she just
didn't know his name.
Then her testimony is contradictory. She didn't know him, she knew a
feeling that she later had identified to her bat another person.
I don't agree. She said she knew him. After she could |
communicate and when Annie went with her to some
place where someone was telling all about Jesus, and
after she had learned to speak, Annie was spelling into
Helen's hand what the speaker was saying. Suddenly,
Helen jumped up and outloud exclaimed "I knew him!
I knew him! I just didn't know his name!" What the
person was describing was the description of Jesus'
nature. It sounds to me and to others that she really
did know him - personally - as a very real presence in
her heart and mind.
| Quote: |
How can anything be any
clearer?
It is very clear. You are reading more into her testimony than is
actually there.
Quite the contrary, it's the opposite... |
I'm just going by what she actually said. I have no
opinion further than what she said. Since she said
that she knew him, that's enough for me.
| Quote: |
No one could communicate with her when
this happened. During that time, she didn't know how
to communicate, and the people around her also did
not know how to get through to her. But eventually
Annie Sullivan did, but that took a long time. You
sound like you don't know her life story.
You appear like you are seeing only what you want to and not what is
there. As further evidence of this we will examine, a little further
down, your refusal to see the plain words of the Koran.
No, I'm not seeing only what I want to see. I'm seeing |
only what she verbally and literally said. The K. has nothing
to do with it.
| Quote: |
Also, the Lord would have been the reason that any
people bore the message of his Son to others. He
would have sent those people. Helen's testimony is
that she knew the Lord before she found out about
him from others. I'm quite sure that she found out
more about him from others later.
That is your self serving interpretation that is not
supported by her words. She claims she knew something, and
only after contact with another christian did she put an
identity to the feeling. Thus she may have misidentified and
never knew it.
I have no motive at all to be "self-serving," to simply
supply Helen Keller as an answer to what you had
posed earlier.
But her example is not an answer unless you impose your own
thinking on her experience hence the self serving tag. If HK
had arrived at Allah as the source of her feelings, you
would undoubtedly disparage both her and her feelings as
being somehow less than your own, yet the feelings may in
fact be identical.
Shane, no. Allah does not have a Holy Spirit that he
places in a person who puts their trust in God.
How do you know, and further how could you possibly know, this?
OK...now listen to me and I will put a spotlight |
on my thoughts concerning the verse that you
said the K. says. This is exactly what went through
my mind concerning this..
As I read the Koran, the Holy Spirit "spoke" to me
about it. That means that he brought thoughts into
my mind that were from him. He reminded me of the
biblical word "love" and what it means. He brought
to my mind what I did express already to you about
the word "love" as it was used in the K. about what
A. was to have said, and that is that he would love
someone *if* they followed him. The Lord through
the Holy Spirit then brought to mind that Satan
said the same thing nearly to Jesus at the "Temptation."
He said to Jesus "All the kingdoms of the world will
I give you, if you will bow down and worship me."
A. is claiming "I will love you *if.*" The Lord then
brought thoughts into my mind that he loves us
unconditionally and with a selfless kind of love, which
is an agape kind of love. Agape is the ultimate form
of the word love in the Greek. The biblical kind of love,
which God has for us is the Agape kind. Ergo, although
the K. says that A. *will* love you *if*...that is not
what the Bible describes as love. It also shows that
A. is not the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and the
God the Father, whose son is Jesus Christ.
| Quote: |
Why do you think in such negative
terms about people?
Well for a start, you have demonstrated elsethread that you
play fast and loose with the truth and that you move
goalposts. Those sorts of thing tend to colour my judgement
of people somewhat.
I have not moved any goal posts, you have. You say
one thing, then you add to it later. You said you'd like
to know of a person that the Lord got through to that
had not been told about him by another person. HK is
such a person.
Here is my second response to you in this thread. Note it includes what
you ignore, the appeal for the person to also know the name of jesus
without any outside influence--something the HK story fails to provide.
I think that what she said does show what you |
asked for and I think it shows it very well. I'm
sorry that you don't understand her words which
I believe were so clear.
| Quote: |
----------------------
So how come there is not one extant story of a native christian
preceding a bible or a missionary into a newly discovered country?
The story of Helen Keller does fill the bill for this |
example. She was not in a foreign country, but she
was completely in a darkened world completely
enclosed and not able to comprehend the people
around her at all, for years.
| Quote: |
Why
does it seem that Jesus manifests himself only to those previously or
newly exposed to the bible/christianity.
I don't think it's true that he does that. However, |
when possible he expects people who are his
children to tell others about him, as Peter does
in Acts, chapter 2, to the people present at
Pentecost that were not believers. He leads some
to be missionaries, so he wants us to take part in
sharing the gospel with the whole world.
| Quote: |
Whilst I am familiar with the
thinking behind your response, you have comprehensively failed to answer
my questions.
I answered you. You just didn't accept what |
things I've said to you.
| Quote: |
What about the experience would lead someone who has never heard of
Jesus, the bible or christianity to conclude that certain events inAt
their life were designed to lead them to someone they have never heard
of?
I think that probably what would lead a person |
who had never heard of Jesus would be the
presence of the Holy Spirit, knocking at the door
to their heart simultaneously at the same time as
they were hearing a testimony, or even just reading
it. I think a person would notice this, normally.
| Quote: |
Why has no explorer, it seems, ever recorded a homegrown christian
from a newly discovered native population? And why, even in the unlikely
event of someone amongst those untouched by any sort of familiarity with
jesus/bible/christianity, feeling that jesus is the answer when they
finally hear about him, has jesus been signally unsuccessful in
communivcating his name to them, when his name is all so important to
the whole salvation process?
It seems that would normally be a difficult thing |
to find out. How many people would report to
some location and swear in a testimony as being
previous to the arrival of a missionary?
| Quote: |
Acts 2:21: And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the
name of the Lord shall be saved.
Accts 4:12: Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none
other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.
For example in South America, is there, apparently, not even one
recorded instance of anyone knowing anything about Jesus prior to the
advent of christians going in and telling people about him?
------------------------------------
Please indicate where the goal posts have shifted.
You spoke of someone finding out about Jesus |
before a person spoke to them, such as if the person
was in a foreign country, submerged in a foreign
religion, etc. I offered the example from Helen Keller's
own words. You did not believe them, I guess, and tried
to attribute what she said to just being a "feeling," when
what she said was that she KNEW him. Then you said
that I didn't answer your questions when in fact that
example did...but you just didn't receive it. After that
you started saying that she didn't know his name, like
that cancelled out everything that she had previously
said before she knew his name was Jesus. Now, you
may have had that in mind, but you did not express it.
That's why it sounded/s to me that you "moved the
goal posts." Because you added a new twist on it, that
you now are wondering about them not knowing his
name.
| Quote: |
Or are you conveniently forgetting where you said,
emphatically, that the Koran does not say that Allah loves
people, and when I posted a surah? from the Koran that uses
those exact words, you both denied it again and then
goalpost shifted to say the Koran does not "teach" that
Allah loves people.
A. does not love people. A. says that if they follow
him, then he will love them.
Do you not see the massive contradiction in what you just wrote?
Read what I wrote below this sentence. You ignored it.
That's not love. Love is what
God did. He loved people while they were yet in their sins,
and he came to earth and died on the cross in their place.
Allah never did that. According to what verse you came up
with, it is obvious that what he calls love is conditional.
It's not Agape love.
But you did not specify Agape love, bringing that up is merely another
goal post shift on your part.
I was clarifying what you did not understand. What A. says |
is conditional (which I said), and what God the Father says
in the Bible is unconditional (love). Agape is a later explanation
to what you say that you didn't understand. It had nothing to do
with goal posts. The goal posts were set by you when you spoke
in the first place about how you thought that no one ever heard
of Jesus apart from someone's telling them about him. What
brought that up in the first place is a wondering on your
part about God being fair even to that person that lives far
from any one or anyplace that would let him hear about
Jesus.
| Quote: |
But lets contrast the two deities shall we? It is your contention that
god loves everyone, even sinners. and Allah loves only those that follow
him.
Yet scripture indicates that the end result of the two deities is the
same, either toe the line or die. One, apparently, comes right out and
says it, the othe, apparently pussy foots around and tries to package it
nicely but in the end, its toe the line or die. either in this life or
in the afterlife judgement. please do feel free to explain how, at the
end of it all, there is any difference.
The end result of A. is not the same as the end result from |
God the Father. God doesn't say "toe the line or die."
God says, that he is willing to receive people as sinners
and that if they come to him, he forgive their state of sin,
and it says HE will cleanse them from all unrighteousness.
It does not say that you have to cleanse yourself of that.
He does this by imputing righteousness (right standing)
upon them, through his Son, Jesus who died for people's
sins and paid the price for them already. He then considers
their sinful state, which kept them from entry into Heaven,
to be wiped clean. The Holy Spirit then is sealed to you
unto redemption.
| Quote: |
Now, as indicated above, lets examine your blindness shall we? (note I
have manipulated the indent level for clarity as this excerpt covers
three rounds of posts.
----------------------------------
Suzanne makes a bold, emphatic statement.
The Koran does not
tell a person that God loves them.
Shane asks for her credentials to make such a statement, to ascertain if
she knew this first hand or from another source.
Have you read it?
Suzanne says she has read it, thus implying that she has not found any
statment in the Koran that suggsts that Allah loves a person.
Yes, I have.
Shane after two minutes of googling found this surah.
From:
http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/k/koran/koran-idx?type=DIV0&byte=72808
[3.31] Say: If you love Allah, then follow me, Allah will love you and
forgive you your faults, and Allah is Forgiving, MercifuL
Suzanne in response to the plain words of the Koran, both ignores the
plain words of the sura that exactly fulfill what she emphatically
stated does not exist and changes the position of the goalposts to now
say *teach* where before she said *tell*.
No, Shane, it does not teach in the Koran that Allah loves
y ou. What I said was that the Bible teaches that God loves
us .
Now you can do a faux doube take or whatever manoeuvre that you like to
do now. but when you posted this you set a very low level of honesty.
Making sure that someone does not call something |
love that is not love, is not being dishonest, it's
someone trying to communicate in all sencerity.
Saying that someone is posting with a very low
level of honesty because they are trying to clarify
terms only, is a cheap way to speak to someone
that has tried to accomodate your lack of
understanding.
| Quote: |
No, she did not say she knew "something," she said about
Jesus, "I knew him, I just didn't know his name." That's
what I originally reported to you.
But she did not know "him" until another person gave her a
name.
Prior to that she knew an unidentified something, that
was awaitng a person to supply a name. The name came from
the society she was exposed to.
Shane, when a person becomes a Christian, they
barely know who the Savior is, and they learn who
he is more ane more until they die and go to heaven
and meet him face to face. Helen said she already
knew him. She later learned more about him, of course.
But her testimony is that she already knew him.
but she didn't know his name, which in spite of your protests that I
have shifted the goalposts is part of my original claim. Note that you
still have not offered any way of telling that what she felt was Jesus,
is in fact Jesus.
I don't need to elaborate on what Helen said. She |
made what she said very clear. I also don't need
to explain to you how anyone would know that
she was meaning Jesus, since I told you that
she was hearing Jesus being described, as Annie
spelled the words into her hand that the speaker
was speaking.
| Quote: |
Er, no, as she did not know the identity until after another
person told her. If she lived in Saudia Arabia and that
person had been a Muslim, she would, almost without a
doubt--based on what is well known, that children usually
follow the religion of their parents--have identified that
feeling as Allah.
You are being dishonest.
What part of my statement is dishonest. Don't just make the
accusation, be specific in pointing out the dishonesty.
Are you saying that Helen Keller knew the name of Jesus
before someone told her?
Shane, what part of "I knew him, I just didn't know his
name" do you not understand? I guess all of it. : \
I am merely trying to find out what prompted your accusation that I was
dishonest out of the two subjects raise din my statement.
Apparently I was not dishonest in this part.
You are being dishonest to try to make out what she said |
in a different way than what she said. You change what
she said. You did not take what she said at her word. She
said I KNEW HIM. What does his name mean, Shane?
What is his name anyway? His name means Salvation.
It's not even the English "Jesus." It's Yeshua in Aramaic.
It's spelled Jesus in Spanish, but it is pronounced there
"Hey-Soos." It's spelled and pronounced differently in
many languages. So why are you insisting that she didn't
know him because she didn't know his name in English
since she didn't even speak English or any langauge in
her dark world?
| Quote: |
And/or
that children generally do not follow the religion of their
parents/society?
I know a girl who was raised a Buddhist, and she
is a Christian. I know a Muslim that became a
Christian. In fact I know a few of them. I know
children raised in Christian homes who are not
anything and never became a Christian.
And the overwhelming majority of christians alive today had christian
parents, and the overwhelming majority of muslims alive today had muslim
parents, and the overwhelming majority of baptists alive today had
baptist parents. ditto catholics, buddhists, confucianists,
zoroatrianists, sikhs, shinotists, sunnis shiites etc. etc. etc.
You still haven't pointed out where I was dishonest?
Yes I have and I've answered it several times above.
However, why do you not want the story
of God's son to be spread by people?
I don't. I would just like to see even a halfway unequivocal
story of someone who came to identify jesus without any
external help from either a bible or another person.
I gave you one. You threw it back in my face and
said I was "self-serving." So, you would not believe
anyone who showed you someone like that.
Nope, your story said that HK only identified Jesus *after*
someone told her about him. Prior to that it was just an
unidentified feeling. This stems from an earlier point that
I made that said that Jesus seems to be not particularly
capable in inspiring people with his name, in spite of the
supposed importance of that name.
This is what you are being dishonest about,
Where dishonest. I mentioned it in the second post I made in response to
you. Dishonest how, exactly.
You deny that she could not have known him if she didn't |
know his name - in English! She didn't even speak English.
She didn't even speak a language that anyone would know.
When I explained to you that I believed her, you said that
I was reading more into what she said than was there. I
replied that I was taking her at her word and no further.
| Quote: |
Shane.
And, no, that's not what took place.
So you are now saying HK knew the name of Jesus before she heard of him
through any other physical source? Does this not contradict what you
posted above, when you wrote this:
"Shane, what part of "I knew him, I just didn't know his name" do you
not understand? I guess all of it. : \"
Please do try and keep your story straight.
Whether his name is "Whaaaawahhhhaahhh," |
or "Jesus," or "Yeshua," or "Yehoshuah," or
"Ieosus," or "Yeshua," or "Yehshuwah," or
"Yashua," or "Yahshuah," or "Word," or
"Adonai," or "Hey-soos," or "Yeowha," or
"Yevah," or "Yeohwah," Helen did not know
his name (in English). I don't think she even
knew yet that there was such a thing as lanuage.
| Quote: |
Each Christian
has the Holy Sprit living inside of them and he
motivates the people to tell them about the Lord's
Son's having died for their sins. The Holy Spirit takes
over from there and works in that person to draw them
unto himself.
Which makes a mockery of your earlier quotation. It seems
that even you admit that that way it actually works is that
no-one can come to the Father ubless the spirit draws them
from the pool of people already predisposed by contact with
a christian person or christian society. This is rather less
astounding that what you said was the case.
You are remarkably dense.
Now there's a nice christian attitude for you.
Are you under the impression that someone that is
a Christian is an angel? I'm a sinner saved by the
grace of God. Watch it, kid.
No, I merely commented that said words do not display what I understand
to be a christian attitude. You may care to analyse why you are perhaps
a little touchy about this.
You think that because I said you were remarkably |
dense, that this was a wrong attitude? I'm surprised
at that. I said that in jest. I don't really think that you
are dense at all, and I don't think anyone listening to
you thinks that, either. I think that most of us
understand that you are probably just trying to give
me a hard time.
| Quote: |
My testimony that I gave
demonstrated that the Holy Spirit was working in my
heart and leading me through a series of events that
resulted in my understanding that he was desiring to
communicate with me about how to be saved. I have
no mockery in what I said, but if you wish to think so,
there is not a lot that I can do about it, but I can say
that you have an awful chip on your shoulder.
How does your testimony identify to me, or even you, that it
is the HS who you are dealing with. This is where the
preconditioning of society/parents comes in. Because
society/parents/spiritual advisor tells you that certain
feelings are the result of the HS/Jesus etc. you have no
reason to believe otherwise, especially if that matches your
preconceived ideas about what is going on. I have no doubt
that your feelings identify something within you, but it is
entirely subjective what that something is.
Are you seriously suggesting that the same feelings in a
person in Muslim society do not normally lead that person to
Allah?
Shane, I don't know why you even introduced the subject
of the Moslem faith in the subject that we have been
discussing,
Becaue it is germane to the discussion. If your contention is that
certain feelings are indicative of one thing only, you should be able to
defend that contention against people who ask how do you know, and why
can't they be indicative of this similar thing? The fact that you either
choose not to or cannot so defend has, of course, a number of possible
explanations, but the obvious one is the most likely.
I don't have any need to defend anything, Shane. All |
that I did was try to think of a circumstance to show
that God is fair to people, even when they have not
had the chance to hear about Jesus. Helen's testimony
speaks for itself.
| Quote: |
but I was not posting to you in order to
say anything against another religion.
Usenet goes where it will. Heat, kitchens and all that.
I understand President Harry S. Truman's statement. |
I even heard him say it. : )
| Quote: |
If you don't yet
understand the things that I've told you, it's OK. Thanks
for listening anyway.
Happy to do so.
God bless you, Shane.
Suzanne |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Shane
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun May 11, 2008 7:46 am Post subject: Re: Evolution is not a fact |
|
|
On Fri, 09 May 2008 06:46:35 -0400, John Vreeland, wrote:
| Quote: |
On Thu, 8 May 2008 22:15:30 +1000, Shane <remarcsd@Netscape.net
opined:
On Thu, 8 May 2008 03:54:37 -0500, Suzanne wrote:
|
[...]
| Quote: |
My testimony that I gave
demonstrated that the Holy Spirit was working in my
heart and leading me through a series of events that
resulted in my understanding that he was desiring to
communicate with me about how to be saved. I have
no mockery in what I said, but if you wish to think so,
there is not a lot that I can do about it, but I can say
that you have an awful chip on your shoulder.
How does your testimony identify to me, or even you, that it
is the HS who you are dealing with. This is where the
preconditioning of society/parents comes in. Because
society/parents/spiritual advisor tells you that certain
feelings are the result of the HS/Jesus etc. you have no
reason to believe otherwise, especially if that matches your
preconceived ideas about what is going on. I have no doubt
that your feelings identify something within you, but it is
entirely subjective what that something is.
Are you seriously suggesting that the same feelings in a
person in Muslim society do not normally lead that person to
Allah?
Shane, I don't know why you even introduced the subject
of the Moslem faith in the subject that we have been
discussing,
Becaue it is germane to the discussion. If your contention is that
certain feelings are indicative of one thing only, you should be able to
defend that contention against people who ask how do you know, and why
can't they be indicative of this similar thing? The fact that you either
choose not to or cannot so defend has, of course, a number of possible
explanations, but the obvious one is the most likely.
but I was not posting to you in order to
say anything against another religion.
Usenet goes where it will. Heat, kitchens and all that.
If you don't yet
understand the things that I've told you, it's OK. Thanks
for listening anyway.
Happy to do so.
Hypothetically, what does Susanne think her religion would be if she
had been born in Saudi Arabia to Muslim parents?
|
I think it is quite clear that she believes she would be a christian.
She, apparently, believes that the feelings she has are real and are the
result of a real entity instilling them within her. She seems to further
believe that the exact same feelings in a muslim are either not real and
thus nothing to do with any real entitiy, or are somne counterfeit put
there by the adversary of her entity. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Shane
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun May 11, 2008 7:53 am Post subject: Re: Evolution is not a fact |
|
|
On Fri, 9 May 2008 09:26:00 +0100, Steve O wrote:
| Quote: |
"Suzanne" <shiloh7@flash.net> wrote in message
news:hdzUj.13679$GE1.11729@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com...
"Shane" <remarcsdNOSPAM@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:4491in67po3j.gfuo2bpgddk9$.dlg@40tude.net...
On Wed, 7 May 2008 22:19:06 -0500, Suzanne wrote:
"Shane" <remarcsdNOSPAM@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:kcgia560wh2f.w2h3cp5v17fq.dlg@40tude.net...
On Wed, 7 May 2008 09:55:35 -0500, Suzanne wrote:
"Shane" <remarcsdNOSPAM@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:12c8zra1yme5.1e5o0ftn7rp1.dlg@40tude.net...
On Sun, 4 May 2008 23:35:54 -0500, Suzanne wrote:
"Shane" <remarcsd@Netscape.net> wrote in message
news:c16qw3b6vosk$.v79mw5cytfyp.dlg@40tude.net...
[...]
So how come there is not one extant story of a native christian
preceding a bible or a missionary into a newly discovered country?
Why
does it seem that Jesus manifests himself only to those previously
or
newly exposed to the bible/christianity. Whilst I am familiar with
the
thinking behind your response, you have comprehensively failed to
answer
my questions.
What about the experience would lead someone who has never heard of
Jesus, the bible or christianity to conclude that certain events in
their life were designed to lead them to someone they have never
heard
of? Why has no explorer, it seems, ever recorded a homegrown
christian
from a newly discovered native population? And why, even in the
unlikely
event of someone amongst those untouched by any sort of familiarity
with
jesus/bible/christianity, feeling that jesus is the answer when
they
finally hear about him, has jesus been signally unsuccessful in
communivcating his name to them, when his name is all so important
to
the whole salvation process?
I can think of just such an answer as you are saying
you want. Do you know who Helen Keller is/was?
She died a few years back, of course. But you know
she was deaf, blind, and was this wild, unruly little
girl that a teacher, Annie Sullivan taught sign language
to. Little Helen could not make the connection from
the letters Annie formed with her fingers with her
hand pressed into Helen's hand, to what the real thing
was that the fingers spelled. The story goes that one
day as they were pumping some water, Helen caught on,
as it is so vividly portrayed in the movie "The Miracle
Worker." Once Helen understood that all that time,
Annie was not playing a game, and that the words that
she had taught Helen to spell, had meaning, the whole
world opened up to that little girl. Years later, after
she had become a Christian, someone asked her about
what it was like to get to know Jesus. She replied that
she already had known him. She said, "I just didn't
know his name." Apparently in her dark world, the Lord
had made his presence known to her.
My contention is, and nothing you have suggested leads me to
conclude otherwise, is that if Helen Keller grew up in
Saudia Arabia, she would have become a Muslim. Note that she
did not come to jesus independently, she had to have help in
identifying who theis mystical entity was, yet the name is
considered so important and seems to be the one thing that
jesus cannot do.
Of course, Helen was born in Alabama, in the USA.
The Bible verse that says that no one can come to
the Father unless the spirit draws them, should settle
that idea.
Why? it's a completely unsupported assertion that is
unprovable.
You didn't ask for me to prove it. You just asked for an
example, and you end up still asking just for an example.
Someone's testimony is not proveable. It's hearsay, it's
what they claim. I don't doubt that Helen Keller's
testimony is true, but you evidently do. This about what
you are saying. How are you going to prove what
someone does spiritually? What? Are you going to shine
gamma rays on them and then dust them with whoofle
dust to see if they glow? : D
No, I merely expect that someone who does accept such
stories and realises the unprovableness of them does not
then go on to suggest that the stories alone are enough to
"settle it."
Are you this much trouble at home? : )
There have been people who were born in
Saudi Arabia who did become Christians even though
they were submerged in another culture and religion.
Without any contact at all with a bible, a christian or a
means of communicating with one?
Uh...you said it differently before. You said what if
Helen Keller was born in Saudi Arabia to Muslim
people. You didn't say anything about her not coming
in contact with someone who tells her about Christ.
Then you need to go back a little bit further and re-read
where that is my premise all along. Also note that I
specifically said she had to have human help in identifying
the source of her feelings.
Shane, her testimony says that she knew him, she just
didn't know his name. How can anything be any
clearer? No one could communicate with her when
this happened. During that time, she didn't know how
to communicate, and the people around her also did
not know how to get through to her. But eventually
Annie Sullivan did, but that took a long time. You
sound like you don't know her life story.
Also, the Lord would have been the reason that any
people bore the message of his Son to others. He
would have sent those people. Helen's testimony is
that she knew the Lord before she found out about
him from others. I'm quite sure that she found out
more about him from others later.
That is your self serving interpretation that is not
supported by her words. She claims she knew something, and
only after contact with another christian did she put an
identity to the feeling. Thus she may have misidentified and
never knew it.
I have no motive at all to be "self-serving," to simply
supply Helen Keller as an answer to what you had
posed earlier.
But her example is not an answer unless you impose your own
thinking on her experience hence the self serving tag. If HK
had arrived at Allah as the source of her feelings, you
would undoubtedly disparage both her and her feelings as
being somehow less than your own, yet the feelings may in
fact be identical.
Shane, no. Allah does not have a Holy Spirit that he
places in a person who puts their trust in God.
Why do you think in such negative
terms about people?
Well for a start, you have demonstrated elsethread that you
play fast and loose with the truth and that you move
goalposts. Those sorts of thing tend to colour my judgement
of people somewhat.
I have not moved any goal posts, you have. You say
one thing, then you add to it later. You said you'd like
to know of a person that the Lord got through to that
had not been told about him by another person. HK is
such a person.
Or are you conveniently forgetting where you said,
emphatically, that the Koran does not say that Allah loves
people, and when I posted a surah? from the Koran that uses
those exact words, you both denied it again and then
goalpost shifted to say the Koran does not "teach" that
Allah loves people.
A. does not love people. A. says that if they follow
him, then he will love them. That's not love. Love is what
God did. He loved people while they were yet in their sins,
and he came to earth and died on the cross in their place.
Allah never did that. According to what verse you came up
with, it is obvious that what he calls love is conditional.
It's not Agape love.
No, she did not say she knew "something," she said about
Jesus, "I knew him, I just didn't know his name." That's
what I originally reported to you.
But she did not know "him" until another person gave her a
name.
Prior to that she knew an unidentified something, that
was awaitng a person to supply a name. The name came from
the society she was exposed to.
Shane, when a person becomes a Christian, they
barely know who the Savior is, and they learn who
he is more ane more until they die and go to heaven
and meet him face to face. Helen said she already
knew him. She later learned more about him, of course.
But her testimony is that she already knew him.
And whilst I cannot know for sure that she would have
ascribed that feeling to Allah if she had met a Muslim
before a Christian, the general experience of the world is
that is what would have been the case. Similarly you cannot
know either that Allah would have matched the feeling better
than Jesus would have.
Acts 2:21: And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on
the
name of the Lord shall be saved.
Accts 4:12: Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is
none
other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.
For example in South America, is there, apparently, not even one
recorded instance of anyone knowing anything about Jesus prior to
the
advent of christians going in and telling people about him?
snip irrelevancy
But the thing is, what we are supposed
to be concentrating on is telling the living, and
leaving the things we can't do anything about up
to the Lord. God doesn't need us to spread the
faith. He wants us to share with him in that.
But it seems that he does need us, as the faith is not
spread without people, you have not presented any example of
someone coming to jesus, specifically, without any influence
from society, other christians or a bible.
I think that I did give you an example in Helen Keller,
and from her own testimony, which I think is very
reasonable.
Er, no, as she did not know the identity until after another
person told her. If she lived in Saudia Arabia and that
person had been a Muslim, she would, almost without a
doubt--based on what is well known, that children usually
follow the religion of their parents--have identified that
feeling as Allah.
You are being dishonest.
What part of my statement is dishonest. Don't just make the
accusation, be specific in pointing out the dishonesty.
Are you saying that Helen Keller knew the name of Jesus
before someone told her?
Shane, what part of "I knew him, I just didn't know his
name" do you not understand? I guess all of it. : \
And/or
that children generally do not follow the religion of their
parents/society?
I know a girl who was raised a Buddhist, and she
is a Christian. I know a Muslim that became a
Christian. In fact I know a few of them. I know
children raised in Christian homes who are not
anything and never became a Christian.
However, why do you not want the story
of God's son to be spread by people?
I don't. I would just like to see even a halfway unequivocal
story of someone who came to identify jesus without any
external help from either a bible or another person.
I gave you one. You threw it back in my face and
said I was "self-serving." So, you would not believe
anyone who showed you someone like that.
Nope, your story said that HK only identified Jesus *after*
someone told her about him. Prior to that it was just an
unidentified feeling. This stems from an earlier point that
I made that said that Jesus seems to be not particularly
capable in inspiring people with his name, in spite of the
supposed importance of that name.
This is what you are being dishonest about, Shane.
And, no, that's not what took place.
Each Christian
has the Holy Sprit living inside of them and he
motivates the people to tell them about the Lord's
Son's having died for their sins. The Holy Spirit takes
over from there and works in that person to draw them
unto himself.
Which makes a mockery of your earlier quotation. It seems
that even you admit that that way it actually works is that
no-one can come to the Father ubless the spirit draws them
from the pool of people already predisposed by contact with
a christian person or christian society. This is rather less
astounding that what you said was the case.
You are remarkably dense.
Now there's a nice christian attitude for you.
Are you under the impression that someone that is
a Christian is an angel? I'm a sinner saved by the
grace of God. Watch it, kid.
My testimony that I gave
demonstrated that the Holy Spirit was working in my
heart and leading me through a series of events that
resulted in my understanding that he was desiring to
communicate with me about how to be saved. I have
no mockery in what I said, but if you wish to think so,
there is not a lot that I can do about it, but I can say
that you have an awful chip on your shoulder.
How does your testimony identify to me, or even you, that it
is the HS who you are dealing with. This is where the
preconditioning of society/parents comes in. Because
society/parents/spiritual advisor tells you that certain
feelings are the result of the HS/Jesus etc. you have no
reason to believe otherwise, especially if that matches your
preconceived ideas about what is going on. I have no doubt
that your feelings identify something within you, but it is
entirely subjective what that something is.
Are you seriously suggesting that the same feelings in a
person in Muslim society do not normally lead that person to
Allah?
Shane, I don't know why you even introduced the subject
of the Moslem faith in the subject that we have been
discussing, but I was not posting to you in order to
say anything against another religion. If you don't yet
understand the things that I've told you, it's OK. Thanks
for listening anyway.
Suzanne
Shane, ten out of ten for trying to explain this to Suzanne, but it is
abundantly clear that she cannot, or is completely unable to understand what
you are trying to tell her, no matter how well you explain it- her mind set
simply does not allow it.
(But don't worry - we know exactly what it is you are trying to get at!)
|
Thanks, I realise the probable futility of the task, but you never know
where and when the right word may actually start someone thinking for
themselves. That you followed my arguments is gratifying for the more I
read here, the more I realise that I need to structure and phrase them
in a clearer manner--which is another reason for responding to those
such as Suzanne. She also remained polite, which is always deserving of
the same response, which usually allows for an interesting dialogue. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon May 12, 2008 1:07 am Post subject: Re: Evolution is not a fact that Ray Martinez can grasp |
|
|
On May 5, 7:39 am, Roger Pearse <roger.pea...@googlemail.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
On 4 May, 00:41, Vernon Balbert <vbalb...@gmail.nospam.com> wrote:
On 5/3/2008 3:57 PM, Ray Martinez went clickity clack on the keyboard
and produced this interesting bit of text:
Many people here, including me, have said it's foolish to place trust in a
book that has writings from as late as 100 AD (or so) and as early as
1500 BC that have been translated through various languages several
times.
Um, which languages might that be?
And why do you think it better to base your life on hearsay culled
from whatever some journalist in ABC thinks would suit him for you to
know?
Not only that, but it's been abridged several times. Just take
a look at the Council ofNicea.
The ignorance of those who attack the bible about its history never
ceases to amaze me. You'll have to tell us what you imagine, in your
ignorance, the First Council of Nicaea has to do with this. You'll
have to produce evidence of the bible being 'abridged' several times,
before you go any further.
And again, while producing all these excuses for ignoring "Thou shalt
not commit adultery", you might like to explain why just believing
whatever those who control the climate of opinion in your little
country and period of history is a rational way to behave instead?
After all, those who can't articulate a rational alternative don't
deserve a hearing, do they?
Where are the missing books which are mentioned in the old testament?
Which missing books? Document their history, etc. <smile
You've been wriggling around with so many excuses it's comical.
Not half as amusing as watching you pratfall so many times on simple
matters of fact that any google search would correct.
First you say that the book of Genesis should be taken literally ...when
you've been trying to tell us that it's the divine word of God and is
absolute.
Yeah, better to just do what the TV says, eh? :-)
I guess he is obtaining revenge on creationists who he perceives to
have misrepresented complex evolutionary theory the same way. These
observations explain his Biblical misrepresentations.
Revenge? REVENGE? You're killing me, Ray! The words that come out of
your mouth are hilarious! Are you for real? Do you REALLY believe what
you type here?
Hmm. An evasion! What dirty little secret are you hiding, I wonder?
Any fool can vituperate. But this sort of low-rent atheist excuses
for drink and fornication went out with the ark. Argue rationally for
whatever religious position you live by (but can't discuss), or get
off the floor. No-one is much interested in hearing 'clever' fault-
finding.
All the best,
Roger Pearse
|
??? Vernon didn't mention drink or fornication at all, let alone try
to excuse it! What is going on between your ears? Your whole post is
a bunch of irrelevant non-sequiturs.
Eric Root |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Desertphile
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon May 12, 2008 5:29 am Post subject: Re: Evolution is not a fact |
|
|
On Fri, 09 May 2008 01:00:02 GMT, Kelsey Bjarnason
<kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
[snips]
On Mon, 05 May 2008 09:20:57 -0700, Robert Weldon wrote:
Robert: we are well aware of Atheist ideology and philosophy, what is
the point?
The point you are desparately avoiding is: What the bible says about
physical reality is irrelevant.
PMFJI, but... there's an atheist ideology and philosophy? Hmm, I've been
an atheist 40 years now, and this is news to me. Suppose someone could
point out what it is?
|
I was born an atheist (like everyone else), but was not born with
any ideology and philosophy. HOLYSMOKE! I feel left out.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Roger Pearse
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon May 12, 2008 8:33 am Post subject: Re: Evolution is not a fact that Ray Martinez can grasp |
|
|
On 12 May, 02:07, er...@swva.net wrote:
| Quote: |
On May 5, 7:39 am,Roger Pearse<roger.pea...@googlemail.com> wrote:
On 4 May, 00:41, Vernon Balbert <vbalb...@gmail.nospam.com> wrote:
On 5/3/2008 3:57 PM, Ray Martinez went clickity clack on the keyboard
and produced this interesting bit of text:
Many people here, including me, have said it's foolish to place trust in a
book that has writings from as late as 100 AD (or so) and as early as
1500 BC that have been translated through various languages several
times.
Um, which languages might that be?
And why do you think it better to base your life on hearsay culled
from whatever some journalist in ABC thinks would suit him for you to
know?
Not only that, but it's been abridged several times. Just take
a look at the Council ofNicea.
The ignorance of those who attack the bible about its history never
ceases to amaze me. You'll have to tell us what you imagine, in your
ignorance, the First Council of Nicaea has to do with this. You'll
have to produce evidence of the bible being 'abridged' several times,
before you go any further.
And again, while producing all these excuses for ignoring "Thou shalt
not commit adultery", you might like to explain why just believing
whatever those who control the climate of opinion in your little
country and period of history is a rational way to behave instead?
After all, those who can't articulate a rational alternative don't
deserve a hearing, do they?
Where are the missing books which are mentioned in the old testament?
Which missing books? Document their history, etc. <smile
You've been wriggling around with so many excuses it's comical.
Not half as amusing as watching you pratfall so many times on simple
matters of fact that any google search would correct.
First you say that the book of Genesis should be taken literally ...when
you've been trying to tell us that it's the divine word of God and is
absolute.
Yeah, better to just do what the TV says, eh? :-)
I guess he is obtaining revenge on creationists who he perceives to
have misrepresented complex evolutionary theory the same way. These
observations explain his Biblical misrepresentations.
Revenge? REVENGE? You're killing me, Ray! The words that come out of
your mouth are hilarious! Are you for real? Do you REALLY believe what
you type here?
Hmm. An evasion! What dirty little secret are you hiding, I wonder?
Any fool can vituperate. But this sort of low-rent atheist excuses
for drink and fornication went out with the ark. Argue rationally for
whatever religious position you live by (but can't discuss), or get
off the floor. No-one is much interested in hearing 'clever' fault-
finding.
All the best,
Roger Pearse
??? Vernon didn't mention drink or fornication at all, let alone try
to excuse it! What is going on between your ears? Your whole post is
a bunch of irrelevant non-sequiturs.
|
Don't be cute; we all know what and why atheists are.
All the best,
Roger Pearse |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
hersheyh
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed May 14, 2008 10:57 pm Post subject: Re: Evolution is not a fact Chez Watt |
|
|
[snip]
| Quote: |
You were offensive when you intruded into an atheist newsgroup and started
telling people they would be burn in hell if they didn't believe in the sane
rubbish that you do.
[snip] |
Perhaps she is merely telling them that they will go to heaven if they
believe in the *insane* rubbish she believes in? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu May 15, 2008 2:20 am Post subject: Re: Evolution is not a fact |
|
|
On May 10, 10:15 pm, "Suzanne" <shil...@flash.net> wrote:
(snip)
| Quote: |
It also shows that
A. is not the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and the
God the Father, whose son is Jesus Christ.
|
Not true. He very specifically _is_ the God of Abraham, etc. "Allah"
is just the Arabic word for "God," used by all Arabs, whether
Christian, Jewish or Muslim. It is just as dumb to say Allah isn't
God as it is to say Deo or Gott isn't God.
Also, Muslims believe that Jesus was the son of God, just not that he
was _identical_ with God.
Eric Root |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Steve O
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu May 15, 2008 4:54 am Post subject: Re: Evolution is not a fact Chez Watt |
|
|
"hersheyh" <hersheyhv@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:e70f24d5-e85c-4527-b1ae-b04da96847a9@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: |
[snip]
You were offensive when you intruded into an atheist newsgroup and
started
telling people they would be burn in hell if they didn't believe in the
sane
rubbish that you do.
[snip]
Perhaps she is merely telling them that they will go to heaven if they
believe in the *insane* rubbish she believes in?
|
Oops, my typo!
> |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
John Wilkins
Guest
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
