The bible is a fairy tale!

[Dexter Sinister]

Well, I see there have been some deletions here. Was that you Ron? Probably a good idea, so thanks to you or whoever it was, it was a pretty pointless exchange and I lost my temper a bit, which I rarely do, but some people just.... well, never mind, none of it was worth preserving. And for those of you who missed it, you didn't miss anything, it was just an escalating exchange of insults. Some of them were pretty good though...

 

[Ron in Regina]

Yep...That was me, & I'm off to bed.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Good night my friend, and bless you for your rationality and calm good sense.

 

[gerryh]

Screw ya's both

 

[Goober]

Religion doesn't get off the hook that way. Religion is often a powerful driver for the way people behave, and to the extent that a religion and its leaders tell people to do bad things, the religion is responsible. Religion isn't some abstract Platonic ideal separate from the people who practice it, it IS the people who practice it; without them it wouldn't exist.

So when someone twists a philosophy for their own shall we say nefarious interests - Then the philosophy and the Philosopher are then guilty.

 

[gerryh]

So when someone twists a philosophy for their own shall we say nefarious interests - Then the philosophy and the Philosopher are then guilty.

of course

 

[Goober]

of course not

 

[AnnaG]

His proof, that you accept as fact, is based on a written theory, no facts were ever involved yet you and he claim there is 'proof' that has been introduced.

Even if that were true, it is no different than what you offer except it is more rational.

One would think the Jews of the time of Jesus would have been celebrating all those verse being fulfilled rather than them still being part of the 70 weeks prophecy.

And someone else would think something else. So?

Logic is a concept,

Wrong. It is a tool.

it is not concrete.

Nope, it isn't. Neither is faith.

Using only the words from Daniel is more logical when trying to piece together what the prophecies mean that Daniel was given. That 'understanding also has be in the same context as the other references to the same events. What you find to be 'logical' is subject to being in error.

It's possible but unlikely.

"even in troublous times" covers the whole period of the 69 weeks. Given the choice God is going to write about the bruise to Christ's heel over some skirmishes that have zero effect on anything that the Bible considers important.

8O The Bible thinks?

So asking two questions that are about the use of the same terms, 'end of sacrifice' and 'covenant', is a ridiculous question(s)?

I didn't specify. But since you want to make a specific case from a general statement: it would depend upon the questions whether they were ridiculous or not.

I hope you are meaning 'everything I know about the Bible' or can we expand this topic to include every topic I have ever posted on as being in error because I believe in the Bible so I must be mentally deficient in all matters? That is a statement and a question.

Then it is rhetorical and not requiring an answer. I'd be stating the obvious.

I read everything he presented more that 10 years ago. The article was much better than Dex's explanation that was down to the numbers that dies in each of the battles mentioned in Da:11. They couldn't fit it in without introducing a 'magical' time jump where none is indicated. Having those things in your theory means you should not give up looking for a better explanation.

lol Funny you brought up the idea of magic. He isn't prone to relying on some magic to support his case. You are.

Why do you think they have a new reference number every 20 words or so, it is to help look things up because that is what you need to do to understand the prophecies. For OT family ties it should be a straight read.

look, all I am saying is that the book was written in a backasswards manner. Someone should rewrite it so the same topics are in the same chapter.

2Tm:3:16:
All scripture is given by inspiration of God,
and is profitable for doctrine,
for reproof,
for correction,
for instruction in righteousness:

Modern English please. Or at least an intelligible version of your own.
Speaking of inspiration, though, I've been inspired by a lot of things to write about a lot of things. However, I would never be foolish enough to assume it was mystical and divine. lol

Since you have never posted even one verse from the Bible

See? I told you that you ignore things and cherry pick for stuff you think you can handle.
You're wrong. I have posted quite a few excerpts from the Bible.

you must be the highest authority on the Bible on this thread, using your logic that is.

Again, you cannot grasp what my logic is because you've just based your silly comment about my expertise on an error.

I'm going to stick with something a little closer to the words that can be found in the Bible.

Yeah, we know you are stuck in it.

I would head for the theology dept when the Bible is the topic. Your whole argument revolves around physical proofs about God existing or not.

You missed something. That's not my argument at all. That's Dex's argument. My argument is that if there are gods, they don't give a half a crap about humans. And the evidence for that is the day to day events around the globe.

The prophecy discussion do not involve that aspect, it is piecing together the actual word in print, to do that you have to open the book. That is where we part company, if Dex won't answer those two little question the why don't you clear up the matters? Both can be as simple as a 'yes or no', how hard is that really?

Because I am not interested. Prophecies are fool's play, IMO. The only thing I can see any use for prophecies of this kind is simply to satisfy a curiosity. And seeing as the premise behind the Bible is extremely nebulous, my curiosity is quite minimal.

God told one story (prophecies) but the dictation took centuries. That is why it is broken up into 'pieces'. That part is explained by God also so all I am doing is reading,

Sorry, but I disagree. Humans told stories and suggested they had "divine guidance" by a god. It reminds me of David Berkowitz. It also makes me thing of a movie called "Pro-life" with Ron Perlman.

Isa:28:9:
Whom shall he teach knowledge?
and whom shall he make to understand doctrine?
them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts.
Isa:28:10:
For precept must be upon precept,
precept upon precept;
line upon line, line upon line;
here a little,
and there a little:

Translation into modern English please.

If you don't like the fact that God referenced the term 'day of the Lord' some 20 times in the OT Prophecies and they are all for one event that will unfold as being the day the 7th trump sound in Revelation 11 then you are not paying attention to all the words in those references,

It isn't that. I don't think any gods reference anything. Humans reference stuff and pretend it comes from gods.

I doubt you or Dex have even read them or you would be able to state which time is the most 'questionable' when context is the issue.

I don't care what you doubt. I know I have read the Bible cover to cover (in modern English to eliminate some doubt as to meaning). In my case, the last time was long ago and my memories are not permanent.

The same person who wrote that verse was also in the verse below so it was an eye-witness account from start to finish.

Eye-witness accounts are the feeblest of evidence. Ask any cop.

How can you misunderstand what the verse says? Is every writer of Scripture a liar also?

:roll: Oh, no, they are all divinely inspired, right? None would ever lie and none could ever be mistaken, right? lol

Joh:1:35:
Again the next day after John stood,
and two of his disciples;
Joh:1:36:
And looking upon Jesus as he walked,
he saith,
Behold the Lamb of God!

He, who? John? Your god?

Joh:1:37:
And the two disciples heard him speak,
and they followed Jesus.

Him who? John? Your god? The barber from across the road?

1Jo:1:1:
That which was from the beginning,
which we have heard,
which we have seen with our eyes,
which we have looked upon,
and our hands have handled,
of the Word of life;

The beginning of what?

The 3 times cover the brusie to the seed of Eve and the bruise to Satan's head and the aftermath when both bruises are complete. That helps you sort out the various prophecies as they all pertain to one of those 3 events.

Eve's seed? From the apple? An apple fell on Satan's head while he was a snake? Bruises become complete? Jeeeez. You even speak as obscurely as the Bible. I think you spend too much time with it.

Lu:3:6:
And all flesh shall see the salvation of God.

1Co:15:39:
All flesh is not the same flesh:
but there is one kind of flesh of men,
another flesh of beasts,
another of fishes,
and another of birds.

But all the flesh will "see" the salvation of god? I'm guessing by "flesh" it means creatures.

So does Daniel and Revelation and you are talking about a book that one author wrote over the space of a year or so compared to 100's of years. Hebrews 12 and Isaiah 65 are one passage, I doubt you understand the full meaning of the words. This is a prophecy given that has yet to run it entire course.

So? IMO, any and all prophecies have yet to run their courses. The only thing giving prophecies truth is the retrospective rationalising.

De:4:30:
When thou art in tribulation,
and all these things are come upon thee,
even in the latter days,
if thou turn to the LORD thy God,
and shalt be obedient unto his voice;

I think it'd help in the first place if the idea of gods itself and the arrogant idea that they'd be actually interested in us wasn't so far-fetched.

You need to open it and read if you are going to have an 'opinion' or like Dex you can borrow one with no questions asked or left hanging.

I have a few versions. besides, it's available on the net.

About your short term memory, very impressed but you have some distance to go before you can get a prescription.

And about your selectiveness supporting your delusion, you should have a prescription now.

I read then all, yours and Dex's are pure disapproval yet I reply to the questions so your post is a lie basically.

Yet you never acknowledge that anyone else may have a point or have even proved you wrong at times. It cannot be a lie if I am convinced of its truth.

I thought is was your trip for the tea that made you lose your train of thought.

Quit thinking then, because I didn't lose my t4rain of thought.

It would be a bit more complicated than that, perhaps a whole vehicle would be more apt.

A whole vehicle perhaps, but it's pretty useless with a maybe battery. One can sit in it and find it can't start. Then one can either get out and use another form of locomotion or else stay there and pretend one is going somewhere, like the faithful.

Once it evaporated and once it was past Neptune you can rest assured that all earth's water will be found only in the form of ice. Are you suggesting that those small crystals have enough mass to make the collect into a series of large ice balls before the enter the next solar system that it becomes a part of.

I can assure you that once Earth's water leaves Earth, it won't take til Neptune to freeze.

All the while claiming it already is based on 'all the facts' which would be a claim that no revisions will ever be needed.

You just love basing your foolish comments on erroneous assumptions, don't you?

Science rarely, if ever says it has ALL the facts. Which is why occasionally it has to amend its observations and conclusions.

At the moment you believe the science to have the facts yet you hesitate to put a number on how many times those 'facts' are in error.

Here it seems as if you cannot even grasp what a fact is. Facts just are. There's no such thing as a false fact.

Keep it that way.

What is "it"?

Remember the game 'Clue', you were given various clues that you used to solve a mystery. Would you increase you chances of getting it right is you fired up a game of "Risk' at the same time?

huh? Modern English please.

Are you following along, the question has been asked a long time ago and he did not reply, it was beneath him.

Judging by your selectiveness in what posts you refer to, he may have answered and you skipped it or misread it or misunderstood it.

One practical use would be to spot a deception for those who would try and claim they were the God of the Bible and as such 'own everybody'.

lmao Are you serious? I can't think of anyone that gullible (short of maybe a small child).

There are certain 'tasks' that have to be completed that shows in physical proof that the hand of God is at work rather than the hand of man wanting to be God.

I bet there are. And I bet those tasks are just as unachievable as you holding your breath for a week without ill-effects.

That is why all the perversions that start to say 12 verses about how a long dead body is brought back to physical life is not about resurrection of the body it is about a spiritual awakening. The spiritual awakening takes the form of this reference.

Or at least that's your take on it, right?

Joe:2:28:
And it shall come to pass afterward,
that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh;
and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy,
your old men shall dream dreams,
your young men shall see visions:
Joe:2:29:
And also upon the servants and upon the handmaids in those days will I pour out my spirit.

WOOT! His "spirit" is a hallucinogen! Cool.

The Bible uses that last term quite often to describe 'enlightenment' the other reference is to a body that will live long enough to make use of being 'enlightened'.

oooooooooo k

If it does happen while you are alive you can start counting the number of days before all of mankind faces judgment.

The odds against that "if" are astronomical.

Somebody took the time to add up all the generations, last I checked it was at 4,004 BC that Adam and Eve left the Garden. All scripture was written before 100AD so I am using a date similar to that even though the actual time where the sun could cast a shadow on the earth could have been some time earlier, The end of day was 4,004,000,000. The beginning of that day would have been when the first portion of the heavens was first created. Today that is as much as 10 billion years earlier than a day/night cycle on this planet.

huh?

You mean when humans could still change the number of chromosomes we carry.

Humans could never and still cannot change the numbers of chromosomes we have.

Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes and other great apes have 24 pairs of chromosomes.

Right. What does that have to do with this goofy arrangement of dates you are trying to pawn off?

45,000 was the end date for day 6, what if Adam was created at the beginning of day 6, 450,000 years ago and Eve was created at the close of that day.

I think the Bible should let science explain scientific things and it should stick to mysticism.

Are you sure you could have a child by a man from that time period? If not then you are promoting the species jump theory again.

WTF are you babbling about? I'm married. Les is enough for me, so no, I couldn't have a child by another. If you are speaking of different species giving birth to offspring. It happens and has happened throughout history. Where do you think mules and pizzlies came from? Someone lately discovered good evidence that modern humans (cro-magnon) and neanerthalensis actually interbred.

The seas for the sharks started to form by the end of day 2, 450,000,000 years ago. They were completed by the end of day 6', when plants and trees first appeared they did not have to fill the earth before the next day began, they were completed by 40,040 BC.

BS Sharks showed up between 560 million years ago and 490 million years ago. Surface waters showed up about 3.8 billion years ago. The first plantlife showed up about the same time.

Ge:1:31:
And God saw every thing that he had made,
and,
behold, it was very good.
And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

Yup. That's what it says alright. So?

Everything came from other places, some day science might even tackle where that nothing came from that created a big bang. lol

Nothing can come from nothing. Nothing literally is no thing, not anything.

That's fine as the length of day 3 was from 400,400,000 - 40,04,000 years. Moisture was available as early as 4,004,000,000 years ago and the plants of day 3 were seed bearing plants, plants that used other methods could have been there as soon as there was moisture in the air.. "herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself"

Straight out bullshyte.

There is still a window of 'error' that is in play.

No shyte, Sherlock! Your errors are counted in hundreds of millions of years.

It also depends what stage the solar system was in when the starting point is determined.

Can you name the stages of solar system development?

Foe Genesis it is the first time the earth was in light and shadow.

Yeah. Got that part when I was about 4 (some 4 decades ago). :roll:

That 150M year variance is very close to the time it took for the crust of our Oceans to form (180M)

More bullshyte.

Where does it say that the '6 steps' followed a rigid set of time based on what our world experiences.

Probably the same place you are getting your dates of creation from: imagination.

Creation was already in day 4 before our time was defined by giving the sun and moon names and duties. Mark the passage of the days, the seasons and the years.

Uhuh And I was born 4 zillion years ago give or take a few zillion years.

The seriousness of being 'out of step' means salvation comes to them one day latter (when using God's definition of the 1,000 years that people are dead and/or in hell. I would think the complaint would be valid if there was no salvation from death or hell after that date. lol

I think this whole discussion would be valid if gods actually gave a damn. lol

2Pe:3:8:
But,
beloved,
be not ignorant of this one thing,
that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years,
and a thousand years as one day.

Yup. All that says is that humans cannot understand god-time; for all intents and purposes, it's gibberish.

2Pe:3:9:
The Lord is not slack concerning his promise,
as some men count slackness;
but is longsuffering to us-ward,
not willing that any should perish,
but that all should come to repentance.

Or at least that's what people would like to think.

Cliffy

Where we disagree is that you confuse a person actions ( Massacres, Wars etc) with their so called belief in religion and i do not.

That is why I stated what I did. It is not the religion it is the person.

I don't think so. I think sometimes people make religion to be what they want. So the religion can start out screwed up in the first place. Adding people to the equation either exascerbates the issue or makes it better as they develop the screwed up religion into something better.

Screw ya's both

You offer that a lot. I bet you don't get any, though. At least not from anything human.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

So when someone twists a philosophy for their own shall we say nefarious interests - Then the philosophy and the Philosopher are then guilty.

I don't think philosophy's the word you want there. Ideology's the word. So, no. Marx isn't responsible for Stalin's excesses, any more than Jesus is responsible for Christianities excesses. When you turn a philosophy into an ideology and the people who claim to speak for it, and are acknowledged as legitimate in that role by other adherents, urge bad things upon their followers, then yes, the ideology, its institutions, and its people, are responsible.

 

[GreenFish66]

Mapleone - "The Bible is A Fairy Tale "

It doesn't surprise me in the least that you would compare the Bible to a fairy tale ... Only proves your limited understanding of Good ancient literature...

The Bible has staying power...

Maple one ..Have you ever read the Bible?

What is your favorite Fairy Tale?

Mine was Chicken little , When I was three..

I am not a religious person, but I do appreciate a good book ...

Has anyone read any good books lately? ...

I just finished another Great book Called "The Lightness of Being" By Frank Wilczek.. It was very, well, enlightening/Illuminating and I would recommend it to anyone that has an education level past Preschool

When I am asked ..Do I believe in Big G ...I always answer ..."Yes" ...Too negative to say no ..And if your not careful ...iITt.'ll ZAP YA! ..Especially on Sunday's ...

Now it's time to rest..

L8R

Peace...

 

[taxslave]

When I am asked ..Do I believe in Big G ...I always answer ..."Yes" ...Too negative to say no ..And if your not careful ...iITt.'ll ZAP YA! ..Especially on Sunday's ...
I, unfortunately cannot tell a lie so I must say no. So far no zap. Not even a tingle.
If YJ can ever find his god and bring her around for tea I will have to change my opinion.

 

[GreenFish66]

Sorry TaxSlave you will have to go there...But no tea for you ..only p p...lol...

 

[Goober]

I don't think philosophy's the word you want there. Ideology's the word. So, no. Marx isn't responsible for Stalin's excesses, any more than Jesus is responsible for Christianities excesses. When you turn a philosophy into an ideology and the people who claim to speak for it, and are acknowledged as legitimate in that role by other adherents, urge bad things upon their followers, then yes, the ideology, its institutions, and its people, are responsible.

And you then would also condemn those that opposed such acts as to you they are one and the same. Now how does that fit into your philosophy. The reason i use philosophy is that many adhere to it as such. Including the belief in a Creator - It does not meet the standards of an ideology as there as so many variants to Christianity.
Now Marxism is an ideology and i would agree with you that it is..

Condemn all by belief or association. Sounds fair and reasonable to me. Eh.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

And you then would also condemn those that opposed such acts as to you they are one and the same.

Beats me how you got to that conclusion from what I wrote. No I would not, they are not one and the same.

 

[Goober]

Beats me how you got to that conclusion from what I wrote. No I would not, they are not one and the same.

I took what you had written to mean all of Christianity - I apologize for misinterpreting what you had written. Except for the ideology portion as it does not fit the description of an ideology, in my opinion.

I do agree that people do at times, some times to many it appears, do use Religion and twist and turn it to fit their particular view or their political ideology, warping and demeaning the philosophy to turn it more toward an ideology and that as we know leads to wars, hate, genocide. -
A minority in some countries in my opinion. But still a threat to all that disagree.


don't think philosophy's the word you want there. Ideology's the word. So, no. Marx isn't responsible for Stalin's excesses, any more than Jesus is responsible for Christianities excesses. When you turn a philosophy into an ideology and the people who claim to speak for it, and are acknowledged as legitimate in that role by other adherents, urge bad things upon their followers, then yes, the ideology, its institutions, and its people, are responsible.

 

[MHz]

Even if that were true, it is no different than what you offer except it is more rational.

If you and Dex and many others wants to reject the words "keeping the covenant" and "confirm the covenant" that appear in the same passage as not having any connection fly at it, I don't see it as being rational and I'm certainly under no compulsion to accept something that is is conflict with itself. That is only one of many examples.

And someone else would think something else. So?

Perhaps they didn't see any connection to prophecies the way you and Dex are promoting.

It's possible but unlikely. 8O The Bible thinks?

I question you knowledge about the Bible when you repeatidly ask the questions that have answers that are very easy to find/remember.

Isa:55:8:
For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways,
saith the LORD.
Isa:55:9:
For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways,
and my thoughts than your thoughts.

If you don't understand that the different prophetic passages have to mesh together before you have a 'sound doctrine' then you have a larger margine in error, oh wait, you only read others works. Feel free to keep batting 1,000 when avoiding the questions about specific verses. Like this example, what place are the children going to be returning from in this verse that is prophetic to the event that starts with the sound of the 7th trump in Re:11.
Jer:31:15:
Thus saith the LORD;
A voice was heard in Ramah,
lamentation,
and bitter weeping;
Rahel weeping for her children refused to be comforted for her children,
because they were not.
Jer:31:16:
Thus saith the LORD;
Refrain thy voice from weeping,
and thine eyes from tears:
for thy work shall be rewarded,
saith the LORD;
and they shall come again from the land of the enemy.
Jer:31:17:
And there is hope in thine end,
saith the LORD,
that thy children shall come again to their own border.

One more example just because it's you. What did this fulfillment start?

M't:26:56:
But all this was done,
that the scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled.
Then all the disciples forsook him,
and fled.

I didn't specify. But since you want to make a specific case from a general statement: it would depend upon the questions whether they were ridiculous or not.

So far there were two questions in the last post that you must have determined as being 'ridiculous' as they received no reply. The 'covenant' question from Da:9 and the 'end of sacrifice' question from the 8th and 9th chapters. Now you have two more to let slip away. Can't ever imagine why I would want to ask you anything more difficult.

Then it is rhetorical and not requiring an answer. I'd be stating the obvious.

A trait I wasn't all that up to speed on before I came to this site, you do get high marks in some social categorizes, that's a fact.

lol Funny you brought up the idea of magic. He isn't prone to relying on some magic to support his case. You are.

At least He states what the magic does, ie 22ft of rain in 40 days and the 150 days with before the run-off starts. God didn't put any magic into Daniel 11, it is Satan killing a few billion people, this chapter focuses on the deception involved in the 'fake wars'. No magic at all, it goes for it's set duration and then it's over. The Bible even tell you how long that 'over part' takes. Something tells me you and Dex can agree that God got this part wrong also, you logic will pick a 'time' that is anything but one day. lol

Re:18:8:
Therefore shall her plagues come in one day,
death,
and mourning,
and famine;
and she shall be utterly burned with fire:
for strong is the Lord God who judgeth her.
Zec:3:9:
For behold the stone that I have laid before Joshua;
upon one stone shall be seven eyes:
behold,
I will engrave the graving thereof,
saith the LORD of hosts,
and I will remove the iniquity of that land in one day.
Zec:14:7:
But it shall be one day which shall be known to the LORD,
not day,
nor night:
but it shall come to pass,
that at evening time it shall be light.

look, all I am saying is that the book was written in a backasswards manner. Someone should rewrite it so the same topics are in the same chapter.

That comes with the 2nd edition, this one is like a broken cup, it only hold water if you put it back together properly. Type in the word 'grace' in the NT and you should get a list that gives you a previews about the topic of grace. Once you read those those you go and read all the passages and then you search for the word 'mercy' in both Testaments. Once you do that you have a pretty good understanding about what the Bible has to say about that term. For the feast of the men that Christ's sword kills is also a term that be used to find information on the last time there are any men killed by war. So far I think you should remain a reader and you could sane some time by trying to verify something promoted before you accept that doctrine. What sounds good on page 2 might not still hold true when you read a rebuttal to the validity of that version being what the Bible promotes.

Modern English please. Or at least an intelligible version of your own.

All the verses come from the same author so the references that are there are meant to be there.

Speaking of inspiration, though, I've been inspired by a lot of things to write about a lot of things. However, I would never be foolish enough to assume it was mystical and divine. lol

You might also want to have some prior knowledge before you start lecturing. (which is slightly different from asking questions)

See? I told you that you ignore things and cherry pick for stuff you think you can handle.

Any in this thread?

You're wrong. I have posted quite a few excerpts from the Bible.Again, you cannot grasp what my logic is because you've just based your silly comment about my expertise on an error. Yeah, we know you are stuck in it.

Any in this thread?

my curiosity is quite minimal.

I am aware of that, I'm not trying to alter that. lol

Translation into modern English please.

Each topic covered is not in one place, you will find a line here and a line in another place but the subject is fully covered to the extent that God desired.

I know I have read the Bible cover to cover (in modern English to eliminate some doubt as to meaning). In my case, the last time was long ago and my memories are not permanent.

So why even visit the threads that are themed on the Bible, not this thread in particular.

Eye-witness accounts are the feeblest of evidence. Ask any cop.:roll: Oh, no, they are all divinely inspired, right? None would ever lie and none could ever be mistaken, right? lol

Ask him when the last time a judge kicked him out of court because of the unbelievable testimony he was giving? No thanks. They weren't baptized by the Holy Spirit after the cross. The witness part was before the cross.

He, who? John? Your god?
Him who? John? Your god? The barber from across the road?
The beginning of what?

The witnessing by the one who became to be known as the beloved Disciple.

Eve's seed? From the apple? An apple fell on Satan's head while he was a snake? Bruises become complete? Jeeeez. You even speak as obscurely as the Bible. I think you spend too much time with it.

That must be quite the translation you read, we can pick this up again after you have read the KJV1611 Edition a few times. I don't want to confuse you anymore.

But all the flesh will "see" the salvation of god? I'm guessing by "flesh" it means creatures.

Why guess, the 2nd verse posted had the answer and on that note our Bible Study program has come to an end.

I think it'd help in the first place if the idea of gods itself and the arrogant idea that they'd be actually interested in us wasn't so far-fetched.

He can't break the rule of changing prophecy, too bad if His plan doesn't meet your approval. Think how pissed you would be if there was no plan.

Yet you never acknowledge that anyone else may have a point or have even proved you wrong at times. It cannot be a lie if I am convinced of its truth.

I just acknowledged that you had a point about it could have been a Jew ask the question to Mr. Dawkins, so you memory or acknowledgment is missing. So far any Bible related topics are not in error.

I can assure you that once Earth's water leaves Earth, it won't take til Neptune to freeze.

I never said it would, I said it would stay in crystal form and not collect into a large snowball after it had left out solar system.

You just love basing your foolish comments on erroneous assumptions, don't you?

Science rarely, if ever says it has ALL the facts. Which is why occasionally it has to amend its observations and conclusions.Here it seems as if you cannot even grasp what a fact is. Facts just are. There's no such thing as a false fact.

You have lies presented as facts, like climate-gate data, it was intentionally skewed to push a specif agenda. That deception at it's finest.

Judging by your selectiveness in what posts you refer to, he may have answered and you skipped it or misread it or misunderstood it.

Or none of the above.

Right. What does that have to do with this goofy arrangement of dates you are trying to pawn off?

You didn't have a clue as to what old earth creation was about, lol, you still don't apparently.

WTF are you babbling about? I'm married. Les is enough for me, so no, I couldn't have a child by another. If you are speaking of different species giving birth to offspring. It happens and has happened throughout history. Where do you think mules and pizzlies came from? Someone lately discovered good evidence that modern humans (cro-magnon) and neanerthalensis actually interbred.

Having a sterile offspring is not the key to becoming a 'new' species.

More bullshyte.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

I took what you had written to mean all of Christianity .

Yeah, I kind of thought so, and I think that's too broad a brush. I was thinking of things like the Westboro Baptist Church, for instance. These are the people who disrupt funeral services carrying signs like "God Hates Fags." They're nominally Christian, but what they've really done is twisted Christianity's core message into an ideology of fear and hatred of things they don't--and don't want to--understand. Christianity in general is not responsible for their foulness, but the institution of the Westboro Baptist Church, its leaders, and followers, is, and their feet should be held to the fire for it.

But still, sometimes the broad brush is the appropriate one. We could talk about things like the Inquisition, for instance, for which the Catholic church is solely and entirely responsible, or the Crusades, or witch burnings, or two thousand years of vicious anti-Antisemitism, or a thousand other calamities caused by religious belief. Actually I don't think any contemporary Christian church really understands Jesus' message correctly, you just have to look at what people like the Pope and the Archbishop of Canterbury say about current events like the Danish newspaper cartoons about Mohamed that caused riots all over the Muslim world. They were about censorship and political correctness, not reality or freedom or human rights or anything else I could support. I think Richard Dawkins is right, that religion is a dangerous delusion, and Christopher Hitchens is right, that religion poisons everything, and Victor Stenger is right, that religion is a failed hypothesis, and Sam Harris is right, and Daniel Dennett is right, and John Allan Paulos is right, and Bertrand Russell is right, etc. I think atheism, or more specifically anti-theism (which means I think theism should be actively criticized and resisted, not merely not believed in) is the only position that makes sense.

 

[Cliffy]

I think atheism, or more specifically anti-theism (which means I think theism should be actively criticized and resisted, not merely not believed in) is the only position that makes sense.

I agree that fundamentalism in any religion is dangerous to our basic rights. They actively seek to impose their will in the political arena so it becomes incumbent upon anybody who values freedom to actively resist their activities. But I also realize that a great number of people are sheep that need to be led. It is unfortunate that it seems those who wish to lead them are not generally very high on the morality scale.

 

[taxslave]

I agree that fundamentalism in any religion is dangerous to our basic rights. They actively seek to impose their will in the political arena so it becomes incumbent upon anybody who values freedom to actively resist their activities. But I also realize that a great number of people are sheep that need to be led. It is unfortunate that it seems those who wish to lead them are not generally very high on the morality scale.

That would be both preachers and politicians wold it not?http://forums.canadiancontent.net/images/icons/icon7.gif

 

[Cliffy]

That would be both preachers and politicians wold it not?http://forums.canadiancontent.net/images/icons/icon7.gif

You bet!