Question for Dustin...and all other Christians [Archive]

PDA

View Full Version : Question for Dustin...and all other Christians

Pages : [1] 2

jesus_freak

11th June 2007, 10:32 PM

Complexity

11th June 2007, 10:53 PM

:duel

Fundie vs. Fundie

Who wins?

Who cares?

jesus_freak

11th June 2007, 10:59 PM

Well you see, the difference between two Christians having a discussion and fighting are quite different...I have no intentions of "fighting"

The Great Hairy One

11th June 2007, 11:02 PM

:duel

Fundie vs. Fundie

Who wins?

Who cares?

:catfight:

:popcorn1

Cheers,
TGHO

Apathia

11th June 2007, 11:10 PM

jesus_freak

11th June 2007, 11:12 PM

yes

The Atheist

11th June 2007, 11:16 PM

I am also an Evangelical Christian and would argue that the Word of God has no contradictions and IS to be taken litterally.

I'm not interested in debating any of it with, but I'm just checking...

By "literally" are you meaning literally correct, word for word? i.e. the earth is 6011 years old [-ish], that the god of the bible is a genocidal god who was quite happy to murder little children on many occasions to further his goals of Jewish domination, and that Jonah literally lived three days inside a whale, great fish, or other beastie. Accordingly, you would obviously recognise that the earth as we walk on it, even today, is actually Satan's dominion?

Can you just confirm that that's the type of literalist you are, or let me know in what ways you differ from it.

Thanks

gtc

11th June 2007, 11:28 PM

As an example, Jesus overturned several of the Mosaic laws.

For another, Romans chapter 4 seems to contradict James 2:14.

kurious_kathy

11th June 2007, 11:53 PM

Dustin, I read in an ealier post of yours that you do not feel the Bible is to be taken litterally...Can you please explain...Any other Christian that feels the same please, let me know what parts you think are not to be taken litterally...I am also an Evangelical Christian and would argue that the Word of God has no contradictions and IS to be taken litterally. Thanks in advance and may God bless you!
Hi JF, What about the parables? These teachings go beyond the literal to the obscure, and the hidden meanings can only be interpreted by people who are filled with the Holy Spirit.

I was just sharing with my neice yesterday on this one...
Matt 25:1-13
Parable of Ten Virgins
1"Then the kingdom of heaven will be comparable to ten virgins, who took their lamps and went out to meet the bridegroom.
2"Five of them were foolish, and five were prudent.

3"For when the foolish took their lamps, they took no oil with them,

4but the prudent took oil in flasks along with their lamps.

5"Now while the bridegroom was delaying, they all got drowsy and began to sleep.

6"But at midnight there was a shout, 'Behold, the bridegroom! Come out to meet him.'

7"Then all those virgins rose and trimmed their lamps.

8"The foolish said to the prudent, 'Give us some of your oil, for our lamps are going out.'

9"But the prudent answered, 'No, there will not be enough for us and you too; go instead to the dealers and buy some for yourselves.'

10"And while they were going away to make the purchase, the bridegroom came, and those who were ready went in with him to the wedding feast; and the door was shut.

11"Later the other virgins also came, saying, 'Lord, lord, open up for us.'

12"But he answered, 'Truly I say to you, I do not know you.'

13"Be on the alert then, for you do not know the day nor the hour.

Oil is symbolic and representative of "The Holy Spirit" in scripture and this teaching speaks much about people not being ready or caught off guard when Christ returns. So what does this speak to you?

PixyMisa

11th June 2007, 11:54 PM

Ooh! Pass the popcorn, someone!

The Great Hairy One

12th June 2007, 12:01 AM

Oil is symbolic and representative of "The Holy Spirit" in scripture...

Uh, sure. Looks to me like the oil mentioned there is simple lamp oil.

Cheers,
TGHO

kurious_kathy

12th June 2007, 12:16 AM

Uh, sure. Looks to me like the oil mentioned there is simple lamp oil.

Cheers,
TGHO
Have you read the Bible? There are other references like this one in
Hebrews 1:9...
"YOU HAVE LOVED RIGHTEOUSNESS AND HATED LAWLESSNESS;
THEREFORE GOD, YOUR GOD, HAS ANOINTED YOU
WITH THE OIL OF GLADNESS ABOVE YOUR COMPANIONS."

The Atheist

12th June 2007, 12:17 AM

KK, have you met JF?

I believe you're single, and JF appears to be a bloke...

What could be more faith-affirming than meeting your true christian soulmate at an atheist-dominated board?

The Great Hairy One

12th June 2007, 12:18 AM

Have you read the Bible? There are other references like this one in
Hebrews 1:9...
"YOU HAVE LOVED RIGHTEOUSNESS AND HATED LAWLESSNESS;
THEREFORE GOD, YOUR GOD, HAS ANOINTED YOU
WITH THE OIL OF GLADNESS ABOVE YOUR COMPANIONS."

Which has nothing to do with Matt 25:1-13. Unless you're suggesting that the holy spirit can be burnt in a lamp, bought from a merchant and runs out over time.

:newlol

Cheers,
TGHO

Dustin Kesselberg

12th June 2007, 12:32 AM

Dustin Kesselberg

12th June 2007, 12:35 AM

By "literally" are you meaning literally correct, word for word? i.e. the earth is 6011 years old [-ish]

Supposedly 6010 years old right now. Would be 6011 at 9:00 A.M. on 23rd of this coming October.

Hokulele

12th June 2007, 12:35 AM

TGHO, can you please pass the salt?

The Great Hairy One

12th June 2007, 12:37 AM

TGHO, can you please pass the salt?

Sure! Ocean or chilli?

;)

Cheers,
TGHO

The Atheist

12th June 2007, 12:47 AM

Supposedly 6010 years old right now. Would be 6011 at 9:00 A.M. on 23rd of this coming October.

Oh really? You can be that accurate? Outstanding work, mate.

Is there a party? Should be a helluva bash, Not everyday you get to celebrate an entire planet's birthday. You even know what time, that's pretty cool.

Hey, I've been meaning to ask, you are the same Dustin who wrote this post but a mere four months ago, are you not?

America(and other countries i'm sure) is rotting from the inside out due to overall stupidity, credulity and ignorance.

Those of us who have any intelligence and moral standards cringe when we hear about discrimination against those who are non-religious, we cringe when see attempts by creationists who are trying to subvert scientific teachings and replace them with mythology, we cringe when we see demonstrations of overall ignorance by everyday people in everyday life....

........To my amazement there are many schools that simply don't even teach evolution and have school prayer. These are public schools and the only reason they are allowed to continue doing these things is because none of the parents happen to be offended by this blatant disregard for the constitution. I have spoken to dozens of people who live throughout the south and who attend public schools who say that they frequently have organized prayer in school rooms.

Not only that but the majority of people (probably 95%) I have spoken to not only don't believe in Evolution but also don't even know how to define it. In most of theses cases they're simply too stupid to remember being taught Evolution in school and in some cases they never were taught it. I've even spoken to a few people who thought Evolution was illegal to teach!

Some more personal examples of disregard for the constitution include my uncle who was recently jailed and was prohibited from reading any books in his cell other than the Bible. These sort of things happen all throughout America and happen much more often than you can probably imagine.

No wonder you changed your name.

Dustin Kesselberg

12th June 2007, 12:53 AM

Oh really? You can be that accurate? Outstanding work, mate.

Is there a party? Should be a helluva bash, Not everyday you get to celebrate an entire planet's birthday. You even know what time, that's pretty cool.

I'd imagine some people hold parties then. I've never heard of it though.

Hey, I've been meaning to ask, you are the same Dustin who wrote this post but a mere four months ago, are you not?

No wonder you changed your name.

Yes. I used to be an Atheist before I found out how deluded I was.

skeptifem

12th June 2007, 02:30 AM

the bible is full of contradictions. hell 'judge not' vs 'stone everyone who ____" is contradictory enough for me to ignore it completely.

The Atheist

12th June 2007, 03:02 AM

Yes. I used to be an Atheist before I found out how deluded I was.

Damn, that must hurt.

All those years of following Unter around demanding "evidence" for fairies and all the time, the answer was that all the science text books were rubbish and the facts were somewhere between Loch Ness and the Cottingley fairies.

Top effort, you must be glad you got that out of the way.

The Atheist

12th June 2007, 03:03 AM

the bible is full of contradictions. hell 'judge not' vs 'stone everyone who ____" is contradictory enough for me to ignore it completely.

Strange coincidence. When I used to commit adultery a lot, I'd always end up getting stoned.

Dustin Kesselberg

12th June 2007, 03:44 AM

Damn, that must hurt.

All those years of following Unter around demanding "evidence" for fairies and all the time, the answer was that all the science text books were rubbish and the facts were somewhere between Loch Ness and the Cottingley fairies.

Top effort, you must be glad you got that out of the way.

Have you ever been swimming and were deep under water, so deep that you needed air but would have to wait to swim to the surface? You're struggling and you are suffering without oxygen and then finally get to the surface and breath the air into your lungs and are instantly relieved. That's how it feels for me to finally convert to Jesus, a breath of fresh air suddenly entering my lungs that have long been deprived of oxygen. It's like suddenly walking out of the fog and seeing the clear landscape in it's pristine beauty. You have no idea.

PixyMisa

12th June 2007, 04:08 AM

Have you ever been swimming and were deep under water, so deep that you needed air but would have to wait to swim to the surface?
No.

That's how it feels for me to finally convert to Jesus, a breath of fresh air suddenly entering my lungs that have long been deprived of oxygen. It's like suddenly walking out of the fog and seeing the clear landscape in it's pristine beauty. You have no idea.
Funny, that sounds rather like my moment of realisation that all religion was baseless nonsense. Just, Oh, yeah. Okay then. And I could get on with my life unburdened.

andyandy

12th June 2007, 05:43 AM

you know i can't shake the notion that Dustin may be a very clever sockpuppet - a parody strawman for everyone to pile into and knockdown, and now what with this sudden conversion to evangelical Christianity it's almost too good....

motives;

R and P has been without any robust christians since Hunter left - a new god-botherer is sorely needed

most threads in which dustin participates in, spiral on and on and on - thus significantly increasing JREF web traffic

suspects

Someone close to the forum

Someone who has been noticably absent recently

Conclusion

Dustin is Darat! You can come out now Darat - the game's up :D

rikzilla

12th June 2007, 05:58 AM

jesus_freak

12th June 2007, 07:08 AM

Genesis 1 and 2 for example uses metaphorical language and is used to convey a message that isn't literal but poetic and allegorical. Another example is Noah's flood, it's full of allegory and metaphor. God saw sin on the earth and was going to destroy the world with water but decided to give it another chance using Noah and the ark. He flooded the world and cleansed it of sin and then restored it promising never to flood it again. None of this is of course possible, there's not enough water in the world to cover the entire world, every species (or even every 'kind') couldn't fit on a boat that size including food. Genetics prohibit them from breeding due to inbreeding as well. The story of the flood is allegorical and is meant to convey a message of Gods mercy. He saw the world was full of sin and then decided to cleanse it of sin using of course water.

I also believe in Evolution.

OK, this is awesome...I always wanted to talk to someone who believes in evolution and still is Christian...I think that there is still enough water in the oceans today to cover the earth more than enough ( I think 40 feet deep) to destroy it...and it has been proven time and time again that the ark COULD fit all animals on it...Again I am not picking a fight but I think that after you read and study the Bible more and more you really will see how amazing it is.

Dustin Kesselberg

12th June 2007, 07:21 AM

OK, this is awesome...I always wanted to talk to someone who believes in evolution and still is Christian...I think that there is still enough water in the oceans today to cover the earth more than enough ( I think 40 feet deep) to destroy it...and it has been proven time and time again that the ark COULD fit all animals on it...Again I am not picking a fight but I think that after you read and study the Bible more and more you really will see how amazing it is.

1. How could the water on earth cover the earth 40 feet deep? Where is all of that extra water now? Also, Weren't mountains covered during the flood?

2.How many "Kinds" were on the ark exactly?

Beerina

12th June 2007, 07:30 AM

Yes. I used to be an Atheist before I found out how deluded I was.

Is a god who would throw you into Hell because someone else (Satan, athiests, dumbasses) succeeded in deluding you deserving of worship? :confused:

Beerina

12th June 2007, 07:36 AM

1. How could the water on earth cover the earth 40 feet deep? Where is all of that extra water now? Also, Weren't mountains covered during the flood?

In the cosmology of the time, "Earth" was a hollowed out poc in the great waters of chaos, held open by the land, holding back the waters below, and the "vault", a solid firmament, holding back the waters above.

When it "rained for 40 days and 40 nights", that was only part of it. God also opened holes in the vault above to let the water thru, and broke up the fonts holding back the waters below, so water also flooded up from below.

This derived from an earlier mythology wherein Yahweh slays Leviathan, the great chaos dragon, and splits his body in two, the upper half forming the vault, and the lower half, the land. But as the "Yahwists" were turning Yahweh's pantheon into a true monotheistic pantheon of size=one, they redacted Leviathan from Genesis, though they goofed and left in references to Yahweh's great fight with Leviathan in Psalms.

But in any case, based on what's in the Bible, the solid vault and land holding back the waters above and below is solid to believe in. How space ships can get through it without crashing into it, I don't know.

Foster Zygote

12th June 2007, 07:38 AM

OK, this is awesome...I always wanted to talk to someone who believes in evolution and still is Christian...I think that there is still enough water in the oceans today to cover the earth more than enough ( I think 40 feet deep) to destroy it...and it has been proven time and time again that the ark COULD fit all animals on it...Again I am not picking a fight but I think that after you read and study the Bible more and more you really will see how amazing it is.

You think this. Do you have any evidence to support these assertions? Can you show mathematically and geologically how the oceans could cover the whole surface of the Earth? Could you provide some numbers for the volume of the ark as well as the total volume of a breeding pair of every terrestrial animal on Earth plus food and drinking water? And while you're at it could you provide the thrust/drag ratio of Santa's sleigh?

andyandy

12th June 2007, 07:41 AM

1. How could the water on earth cover the earth 40 feet deep? Where is all of that extra water now? Also, Weren't mountains covered during the flood?

glad to help on your journey to fundie-land....

If the Greenland ice sheet melted completely, it would raise global sea levels by about 7m.

and if the Antarctic were to melt it would raise global sea levels by about 60 metres....

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/412.htm#tab113

that's about a 210ft increase....

of course, that doesn't equate to a covering of the whole earth - but maybe you can fudge some data elsewhere for that :)

PixyMisa

12th June 2007, 07:48 AM

You'd only need (calculate calculate) five billion cubic kilometres of extra water.

No worries.

Cleon

12th June 2007, 08:09 AM

OK, this is awesome...I always wanted to talk to someone who believes in evolution and still is Christian

That would be most Christians. Unless you never leave your enclave of fundamentalists, you're bound to have contact with a Christian "believer" in evolution sooner or later.

...I think that there is still enough water in the oceans today to cover the earth more than enough ( I think 40 feet deep) to destroy it

Wrong.

...and it has been proven time and time again that the ark COULD fit all animals on it

Wrong.

I'm glad I could clear this up for you.

PixyMisa

12th June 2007, 08:21 AM

I think that there is still enough water in the oceans today to cover the earth more than enough ( I think 40 feet deep) to destroy it
Just back on this point - what do you mean, exactly?

If the surface of the Earth were pounded flat, then yes, it would be covered to a depth quite a bit greater than 40 feet. Something like 8,000 feet, I think.

Are you suggesting that the surface of the Earth was indeed pounded flat at the time of the flood?

Darth Rotor

12th June 2007, 08:44 AM

H'ethetheth

12th June 2007, 08:53 AM

...And while you're at it could you provide the thrust/drag ratio of Santa's sleigh?I'll take that one. At constant velocity it's exactly 1, or did you want a flight envelope?

TheAntiLuddite

12th June 2007, 10:03 AM

...and it has been proven time and time again that the ark COULD fit all animals on it...

Plus, they even had room left over for a case of SPAM and Noah's 8-track collection of Tibetan throat-singers!

By whom has this Biblical urban legend been "proved" exactly? The fact that believers continually trot this ridiculous assertion out again and again is simply astounding. So you believe that this passage is literal? That Noah and his family sat around while the deity rounded up two (seven in some tales) of every animal on the planet and stuffed them all together on a boat? Since you don't believe in evolution, that means that every animal that exists today was also on the ark (unless you rationalize by claiming that the deity causes distinct species to pop into and out of existence periodically). So polar bears and wombats, giraffes and capybaras, hippos and lemurs, tapirs and puffins, etc, etc. not to mention lions, tigers and bears (oh, my!) were stacked in the ark along with a forty day food supply and they coexisted peacefully whilst being tossed around during a global flood.

I know, I know...

[A deep voice speaketh...]

"Yea, verily, through the Lord, who is your God, all things are possible."

I don't like to sound so harsh, but this is a childrens' fairy tale. As an adult, if you truly, truly believe this actually happened, you are either mentally impaired, a credulous arse, violently abusing your intellect or (most commonly) you are trying to squeeze reality through your theological keyhole.

Worship however you'd like, just don't expect rational people to accept your supernatural, delusional thinking as sound evidence for your particular theology.

[...]

There is one question I would like an answer to, however, one that's plagued me for some time:

Were BigFoot and the Chupacabra also on the ark?

I've always assumed they were since they don't appear to be aquatic animals (as far as we know). I'm sure Nessie just swam around the boat.

TAL

Bob Klase

12th June 2007, 10:04 AM

Oil is symbolic and representative of "The Holy Spirit" in scripture and this teaching speaks much about people not being ready or caught off guard when Christ returns. So what does this speak to you?

I've always wondered about the "virgins". Are they symbolic? What are they doing with the bridegroom? Were they still virgins afterwards?

geni

12th June 2007, 10:19 AM

Dustin, I read in an ealier post of yours that you do not feel the Bible is to be taken litterally...Can you please explain...Any other Christian that feels the same please, let me know what parts you think are not to be taken litterally...

Well the Book of Revelation with all those digs at rome would be a fairly clear example.

I am also an Evangelical Christian and would argue that the Word of God has no contradictions and IS to be taken litterally. Thanks in advance and may God bless you!

What happened to the pillars the earth is meant to sit on?

Azure

12th June 2007, 10:55 AM

:duel

Fundie vs. Fundie

Who wins?

Who cares?

Go away if you don't care.

Azure

12th June 2007, 10:57 AM

Cleon

12th June 2007, 11:12 AM

I am also an Evangelical Christian and would argue that the Word of God has no contradictions and IS to be taken litterally.

?אתה מדבר עברית

Foster Zygote

12th June 2007, 11:18 AM

I am also an Evangelical Christian and would argue that the Word of God has no contradictions and IS to be taken litterally. Thanks in advance and may God bless you!

What about Matthew 1:6-16 and Luke 3:23-31?

Ladewig

12th June 2007, 11:35 AM

glad to help on your journey to fundie-land....

If the Greenland ice sheet melted completely, it would raise global sea levels by about 7m.

and if the Antarctic were to melt it would raise global sea levels by about 60 metres....

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/412.htm#tab113

that's about a 210ft increase....

of course, that doesn't equate to a covering of the whole earth - but maybe you can fudge some data elsewhere for that :)

There really is no need to perform calculations like this one. A God powerful enough to melt all land-locked ice in 40 days and powerful enough to re-freeze it in a matter of months, is powerful enough to make water out of nothing at all. Conservation of matter and conservation of energy are not laws that the God of the Fundies have to follow.

It is impossible to build a wooden ark of Noah's dimensions and have it float in open water. It will simply break up. But that fact does not have to be a problem for the truly faithful because they can simply say that God's precious hands held it together.

PixyMisa

12th June 2007, 11:37 AM

All true, of course.

But when they claim that the flood is scientifically plausible, it is our duty to point and laugh.

Ladewig

12th June 2007, 11:43 AM

All true, of course.

But when they claim that the flood is scientifically plausible, it is our duty to point and laugh.

I'll buy that.

...and it has been proven time and time again that the ark COULD fit all animals on it...

Do you have a source for this laughably absurd claim that the ark COULD fit all the animals?

I assume you are not suggesting that God shrunk them all to 1/17 their actual size or anything like that.

fuelair

12th June 2007, 11:54 AM

Uh, sure. Looks to me like the oil mentioned there is simple lamp oil.

Cheers,
TGHO
No, for verily and some truly I bespeak myself that the oil was the Oil of Lubrication so that whenst the five wise virgins went in they were prepared for the Holy Rod of the Bridegroom and so passed the night Well Rodded. But the five foolish virgins, having not the Oil of Lubrication, were not meant to Behold and Betake the Holy Rod and Lo they were kept out by the Holy Bouncer and were Not Rodded.
:D

The Great Hairy One

12th June 2007, 03:58 PM

No, for verily and some truly I bespeak myself that the oil was the Oil of Lubrication so that whenst the five wise virgins went in they were prepared for the Holy Rod of the Bridegroom and so passed the night Well Rodded. But the five foolish virgins, having not the Oil of Lubrication, were not meant to Behold and Betake the Holy Rod and Lo they were kept out by the Holy Bouncer and were Not Rodded.
:D

No porn like holy porn!! :p

Cheers,
TGHO

Complexity

12th June 2007, 04:27 PM

Go away if you don't care.

You're mistaken - I care a great deal.

I enjoy watching fools do battle with each other - there will be less to clean up when they are done.

Actually, I love this world and more than pissed off at what these creatures presume to do to it, to their fellows, and to me.

Kariboo

12th June 2007, 05:48 PM

let me know what parts you think are not to be taken litterally...I am also an Evangelical Christian and would argue that the Word of God has no contradictions and IS to be taken litterally. Thanks in advance and may God bless you!

Excellent! Let me know when you are done with these and I'll dig up a few new ones
:popcorn1

God good to all, or just a few?
PSA 145:9 The LORD is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works.
JER 13:14 And I will dash them one against another, even the fathers and the sons together, saith the LORD: I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy them.

War or Peace?
EXO 15:3 The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name.
ROM 15:33 Now the God of peace be with you all. Amen.

Who is the father of Joseph?
MAT 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
LUK 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.

Who was at the Empty Tomb? Is it:
MAT 28:1 In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.
MAR 16:1 And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.
JOH 20:1 The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.

Which first--beasts or man?
GEN 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
GEN 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
GEN 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
GEN 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

How many stalls and horsemen?
KI1 4:26 And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen.
CH2 9:25 And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen; whom he bestowed in the chariot cities, and with the king at Jerusalem.

Is it folly to be wise or not?
PRO 4:7 Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding.
ECC 1:18 For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.
1 Cor.1:19: "For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and wil bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent."

The sins of the father
ISA 14:21 Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers; that they do not rise, nor possess the land, nor fill the face of the world with cities.
DEU 24:16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.

Righteous live?
Ps.92:12: "The righteous shall flourish like the palm tree."
Isa.57:1: "The righteous perisheth, and no man layeth it to heart."

Matt.5:1,2: "And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him: And he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying...."
Luke6:17,20: "And he came down with them, and stood in the plain, and the company of his disciples, and a great multitude of people...came to hear him.. And he lifted up his eyes on his disciples and said..."

Jesus' last words
Matt.27:46,50: "And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, "Eli, eli, lama sabachthani?" that is to say, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" ...Jesus, when he cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost."
Luke23:46: "And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, "Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit:" and having said thus, he gave up the ghost."
John19:30: "When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, "It is finished:" and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost."

Moved David to anger?
II SAMUEL 24: And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Isreal and Judah.
I CHRONICLES 21: And SATAN stood up against Isreal, and provoked David to number Israel.

The GENEALOGY OF JESUS?
In two places in the New Testament the genealogy of Jesus son of Mary is mentioned. Matthew 1:6-16 and Luke 3:23-31. Each gives the ancestors of Joseph the CLAIMED husband of Mary and Step father of Jesus. The first one starts from Abraham(verse 2) all the way down to Jesus. The second one from Jesus all the way back to Adam. The only common name to these two lists between David and Jesus is JOSEPH, How can this be true? and also How can Jesus have a genealogy when all Muslims and most Christians believe that Jesus had/has no father.

God be seen?
Exod. 24:9,10; Amos 9:1; Gen. 26:2; and John 14:9
God CAN be seen:
"And I will take away my hand, and thou shalt see my backparts." (Ex. 33:23)
"And the Lord spake to Moses face to face, as a man speaketh to his friend." (Ex. 33:11)
"For I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." (Gen. 32:30)
God CANNOT be seen:
"No man hath seen God at any time." (John 1:18)
"And he said, Thou canst not see my face; for there shall no man see me and live." (Ex. 33:20)
"Whom no man hath seen nor can see." (1 Tim. 6:16)

Tempts?
"And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham." (Gen 22:1)
"Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God; for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man." (James 1:13)

Judas died how?
"And he cast down the pieces of silver into the temple and departed, and went out and hanged himself." (Matt. 27:5)
"And falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all of his bowels gushed out." (Acts 1:18)

What was Jesus' prediction regarding Peter's denial?
Before the cock crow - Matthew 26:34
Before the cock crow twice - Mark 14:30

Who bears guilt?
GAL 6:2 Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ.
GAL 6:5 For every man shall bear his own burden.

Do you answer a fool?
PRO 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.
PRO 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.

How many children did Michal, the daughter of Saul, have?
SA2 6:23 Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death.
SA2 21:8 But the king took the two sons of Rizpah the daughter of Aiah, whom she bare unto Saul, Armoni and Mephibosheth; and the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul, whom she brought up for Adriel the son of Barzillai the Meholathite:

How old was Jehoiachin when he began to reign?
KI2 24:8 Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months. And his mother's name was Nehushta, the daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem.
H2 36:9 Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem: and he did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD.

Did those with Saul/Paul at his conversion hear a voice?
ACT 9:7 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.
ACT 22:9 And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.

Should we kill?
Ex. 20:13 Thou shalt not commit murder.
Ex. 32:27 Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, put every man his sword by his side...and slay every man his brother...companion..neighbor.(See also 1 Sam. 6:19; 15:2,3; Num. 15:36)

Ex 20:5 "...for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God..." (see also Ex 34:14, Deut 4:24, Josh 24:19, and Nah 1:2)
Gal 5:19-20 "Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are...jealousy..." (See also 2 Cor 12:20)

Should we tell lies?
Ex. 20:16 Thou shalt not bear false witness.(Prov. 12:22; Rev. 21:8)
1 Kings 22:23 The Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the Lord hath spoken evil concerning thee. (II Thess. 2:11; Josh. 2:4-6 with James 2:25)

Should we steal?
Ex. 20:15 Thou shalt not steal. (Lev. 19:13)
Ex. 3:22. And ye shall spoil the Egyptians. (Ex. 12:35-36; Luke 19:29-33)

Shall we keep the Sabbath?
Ex. 20:8 Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy. (Ex. 31:15; Num. 15:32,36)
Is. 1:13 The new moons and the Sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with; it is iniquity. (John 5:16; Matt. 12:1-5)

Shall we make Graven images?
Ex. 20:4. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven...earth...water. (Lev. 26:1)
EX. 25:18 And thou shalt make two cherubims of gold, of beaten work shalt thou make them.

Are we "saved" through works?
Eph. 2:8,9 For by grace are ye saved through faith...not of works. (Rom. 3:20, 28; Gal. 2:16)
James 2:24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.(Matt. 19:16-21)

Should good works be seen?
Matt. 5:16 Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works. (I Peter 2:12)
Matt. 6:1-4 Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them...that thine alms may be in secret. (Matt. 23:5)

Should we own slaves?
Lev. 25:45-46 Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy...and they shall be your posession...they shall be your bondmen forever. (Gen. 9:25; Ex. 21:2,7; Joel 3:8; Luke 12:47; Col. 3:22)
Is. 58:6 Undo the heavy burdens...break every yoke. (Matt. 23:10)

Does God change his mind?
Mal. 3:6. For I am the Lord; I change not. Num. 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent. (Ezek. 24:14; James 1:17)
Ex. 32:14. And the Lord repented of the evil which he had thought to do unto his people. (Gen. 6:6; Jonah 3:10; Sam. 2:30-31; II Kings 20:1-6; Num. 16:20-35)

Are we punished for our parent's sins?
Ex. 20:5 For I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generations. (Ex. 34:7)
Ezek. 18:20 The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father.

Is God good or evil?
Psa. 145:9. The Lord is good to all. (Deut. 32:4; James 1:13)
Is. 45:7 I make peace and create evil. I the Lord do all these things. (Lam 3:38; Jer. 18:11; Ezek. 20:25)

Is God Peaceable?
John 14:27 Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you. (Luke 2:14; Acts 10:36)
Matt. 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth, I came not to send peace, but a sword. (Matt. 10:35-37; Luke 22:36)

Was Jesus trustworthy?
John 8:14 Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true.
John 5:31 If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true.

Shall we call people names?
Matt. 5:22 Whosoever shall say Thou fool, shall be in danger of hellfire.
Matt. 23:17 (Jesus said) Ye fools and blind.

Has anyone seen God?
John 1:18 No man hath seen God at anytime. (Ex 33:20; Tim. 6:16; John 6:46; I John 4:12)
Gen. 32:30 For I have seen god face to face. (Ex. 33:11, 23; Is. 6:1; Job 42:5)

How many gods are there?
Deut. 6:4 The Lord or God is one Lord.
Gen. 1:26 And God said, let us make man in our image.(Gen. 3:22; I John 5:7)

Are we all sinners?
Rom. 3:23 For all have sinned. (Rom. 3:10; Psa.14;3)
Job 1:1 There was a man... whose name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright. (Gen. 7:1; Luke 1:5-6)

When was Jesus crucified?
Mark 15:22 and it was the third hour, and they crucified him.
John 19:14-15 And about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King! But they cried out...crucify him!"

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=Mdv&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=contradictions+in+the+bible&spell=1

kurious_kathy

12th June 2007, 07:54 PM

KK, have you met JF?

I believe you're single, and JF appears to be a bloke...

What could be more faith-affirming than meeting your true christian soulmate at an atheist-dominated board?
Hun? Have you forgotten my testimony already Atheist. Jesus reconciled me with my husband (CD) while I thought I was getting a divorced from him. It was only by the grace of God I am with my husband and walking in the light of God's truth again. See miracles do happen, God changed my heart and continues to do a good work in me!

How about you, ready for a new heart and life yet? God can do for us what we cannot do for ourselves, it just takes a little bit of faith sometimes.

Darth Rotor

12th June 2007, 08:18 PM

How about you, ready for a new heart and life yet? God can do for us what we cannot do for ourselves, it just takes a little bit of faith sometimes.

A pint of Guinness doesn't hurt either, to lubricate the friction of life, Faith, and chance. ;)

DR

athon

12th June 2007, 08:19 PM

There really is no need to perform calculations like this one. A God powerful enough to melt all land-locked ice in 40 days and powerful enough to re-freeze it in a matter of months, is powerful enough to make water out of nothing at all. Conservation of matter and conservation of energy are not laws that the God of the Fundies have to follow.

Which is ultimately what really pisses me off about many such of the 'faithful'.

If it was simply a matter of faith, no justification is required. There is no need to count up a list of facts, no need to point out where scientific discoveries match with biblical testimony. Faith is belief without question. Each step towards justifying it is one step away from pure faith. It is why religion and science are completely incompatible - the former relying on belief without criticism, the latter relying on believing for as long as a criticism remains unsubstantiated.

To mix together these two things is to create a stillborn chimaera. It might look alive, but it does nothing useful. Science which demands a faith without question becomes full of gaping holes where truth and speculation are indistinguishable. Faith which demands science is no longer about believing without question and opens one to needing to pick and choose what continues to support their needs and what would make it fall apart.

I have greatly more respect for people who close their eyes to everything out of a need for having faith than those who have faith and constantly demonstrate using a form of disabled science why they have to be correct.

To open to the possibility that god is ominopotent is to close the doors to any need for scientific validation. 'Just because he could' is sufficient and at least without the pretence of having any form of critical analysis behind it.

Athon

wolfgirl

12th June 2007, 09:16 PM

Do you have a source for this laughably absurd claim that the ark COULD fit all the animals?

I assume you are not suggesting that God shrunk them all to 1/17 their actual size or anything like that.Getting millions of animals on an ark is only the beginning of the impossibilities of the ark fable.

How did he get the animals from all points of the globe? How did he put them back? Penguins in Antarctica, platypus in Australia, etc.?

How did the salt-water creatures live in the drastically desalinated water? How did the fresh-water creatures live in the drastically more salinated water?

Where did all that water come from? Where did it go?

What did the animals eat for all that time (not just 40 days, you'll remember)? Many of them have to eat meat, so they would have needed lots of prey animals to eat in addition to the prey animals that had to be saved for repopulating the Earth.

How could the Earth be repopulated with such a small gene pool of two of each species?

And on and on and on...

Kopji

12th June 2007, 10:21 PM

If being a Christian just meant feeling all warm and fuzzy inside and going forth in peace to take care of the widows and orphans, probably none of us would be here.

I understand jesus_freak's pov a little better than I understand how Dustin holds onto his.

Simple question - Bible literal or not, why couldn't Jesus be a metaphor? The redeemer archetype is much like Moses, Noah, or Joseph in the OT. Is it just because that's not what you believe?

Susan Gerbic

13th June 2007, 08:02 AM

<<Getting millions of animals on an ark is only the beginning of the impossibilities of the ark fable.

How did he get the animals from all points of the globe? How did he put them back? Penguins in Antarctica, platypus in Australia, etc.?

How did the salt-water creatures live in the drastically desalinated water? How did the fresh-water creatures live in the drastically more salinated water?

Where did all that water come from? Where did it go?

What did the animals eat for all that time (not just 40 days, you'll remember)? Many of them have to eat meat, so they would have needed lots of prey animals to eat in addition to the prey animals that had to be saved for repopulating the Earth.

How could the Earth be repopulated with such a small gene pool of two of each species?

And on and on and on..>>

Guess we will just have to wait until the movie comes out! That should enliven the Noah's ark discussions.

On another note....I was raised a Southern Baptist but can always remember having issues with these stories. I wanted more than anything for someone to find real proof. Our church didn't focus on these older stories but more on the New Test but still I was aware of the Genesis stories and how amazing they were. The stories of "finding Noah's Ark" were all over the place during the 70's the only reason they couldn't bring home the evidence was because of America's relations with Turkey. As I grew up, I became more worldly and couldn't understand why these "discoveries" weren't front page headlines. My need for evidence grew and finally I discovered boys and the like and my interest in Noah's ark wained.

Not sure what my point is here, but this discussion and the previews of this Noah's ark movie coming out have made me remember my fascination with the Ark stories.

Susan

Mr Clingford

13th June 2007, 08:33 AM

Ladewig

13th June 2007, 09:56 AM

...I am also an Evangelical Christian and would argue that the Word of God has no contradictions and IS to be taken literally.

Jesus never says, "this wine is symbolic of my blood, drink that you may have everlasting life." He says "this is my blood." I know Roman Catholics argue that that reference is literal and during communion the wine actually transubstantiates into Christ's blood. I thought that all evangelicals interpret that reference as symbolic. So the question remains: how do you know which parts are symbolic and which parts are strictly literal?

Ladewig

13th June 2007, 10:14 AM

Jesus reconciled me with my husband .... God can do for us what we cannot do for ourselves,

And yet, whenever we ask for examples of what God can do that we cannot do ourselves, the fundies always give examples of things that we can do ourselves (e.g. reconciling with a spouse).

. . . . . . . . . . .
I was thinking about K_Kathy and how ***** awesome the world would be if the God that she believes in were real. Can you imagine looking out your living room window and saying "that tree blocks my view of the river. Tree, I command you to be uprooted and thrown into the sea." How amazing would that be? Or if the neighborhood kids were teasing you, then you could call on God to send some bears to devour the kids. Man, if the God of the Bible would do stuff like that then every single person in the world would be a Christian.

Yeah, Kathy, you have a great religion in theory, but it practice it come up a bit wanting.

Kariboo

13th June 2007, 03:20 PM

So Jesus-freak

A lot of questions in this thread already, not many answers yet

When are you going to get back to us????

kurious_kathy

13th June 2007, 08:30 PM

What about phrases such as 'If your eye causes you to sin pluck it out', likewise for the hand, and 'Unless you hate your father and mother you can't follow me'? Sounds like hyperbole to me.
You forgot to mention Matt 5-30...If your right hand makes you stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to go into hell.

It's to be taken literally and more. The whole passage reveals we are to take these sins very seriously and repent or pay the penalty. It's better to enter heaven with one less eye than not at all!

And many families have been divided by the gospel. To this day Muslims want to kill professing Christians even if they are their own family members. If they hate Jesus they hate us, his followers.

kurious_kathy

13th June 2007, 08:36 PM

And yet, whenever we ask for examples of what God can do that we cannot do ourselves, the fundies always give examples of things that we can do ourselves (e.g. reconciling with a spouse).

. . . . . . . . . . .
I was thinking about K_Kathy and how ***** awesome the world would be if the God that she believes in were real. Can you imagine looking out your living room window and saying "that tree blocks my view of the river. Tree, I command you to be uprooted and thrown into the sea." How amazing would that be? Or if the neighborhood kids were teasing you, then you could call on God to send some bears to devour the kids. Man, if the God of the Bible would do stuff like that then every single person in the world would be a Christian.

Yeah, Kathy, you have a great religion in theory, but it practice it come up a bit wanting.

I may not have the strongest understanding of theology, but I do love Jesus, so what's wrong with that?

And your example of what I or anyone should ask God to do is very bad. None of that is something I or anyone would want to pray for.

The best prayer is the Lords prayer, do you still remember that one?
Matt. 6:9-13
"Pray, then, in this way:
'Our Father who is in heaven,
Hallowed be Your name.
Your kingdom come
Your will be done,
On earth as it is in heaven.
'Give us this day our daily bread.
'And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors.
'And do not lead us into temptation, but deliver us from evil. [For Yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen.]'

Kopji

13th June 2007, 08:53 PM

2 Kings 2:
23 And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head.

24 And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.

12 And on the morrow, when they were come from Bethany, he was hungry: 13 And seeing a fig tree afar off having leaves, he came, if haply he might find any thing thereon: and when he came to it, he found nothing but leaves; for the time of figs was not yet. 14 And Jesus answered and said unto it, No man eat fruit of thee hereafter for ever. And his disciples heard it.
Mark 11:12-13

It's the 'Beth' towns that get God pissed off.
Bethel, Bethany...

Why would we need to pray for God to not lead us into temptation? Sheesh, as if life is not hard enough all on its own. Perhaps atheists are a temptation that God led you to. But you prayed and yet you are still here. So what's with that? Oh, maybe atheists are doing a vital service for God. Or maybe, atheists are here to provide opportunities for you to witness. But maybe not, maybe the proper response would be to turn away from temptation.

gtc

14th June 2007, 12:12 AM

[For Yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen.]'

Do you know why this bit is in square brackets?

I have read that this is because it is not included in Luke's Gospel nor in the earliest versions of Matthew's Gospel.

How do you reconcile this with the idea that the Bible is literally the word of God?

jesus_freak

14th June 2007, 12:42 AM

Excellent! Let me know when you are done with these and I'll dig up a few new ones
:popcorn1

God good to all, or just a few?
PSA 145:9 The LORD is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works.
JER 13:14 And I will dash them one against another, even the fathers and the sons together, saith the LORD: I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy them.

War or Peace?
EXO 15:3 The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name.
ROM 15:33 Now the God of peace be with you all. Amen.

Who is the father of Joseph?
MAT 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
LUK 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.

Who was at the Empty Tomb? Is it:
MAT 28:1 In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.
MAR 16:1 And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.
JOH 20:1 The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.

Which first--beasts or man?
GEN 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
GEN 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
GEN 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
GEN 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

How many stalls and horsemen?
KI1 4:26 And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen.
CH2 9:25 And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen; whom he bestowed in the chariot cities, and with the king at Jerusalem.

Is it folly to be wise or not?
PRO 4:7 Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding.
ECC 1:18 For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.
1 Cor.1:19: "For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and wil bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent."

The sins of the father
ISA 14:21 Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers; that they do not rise, nor possess the land, nor fill the face of the world with cities.
DEU 24:16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.

Righteous live?
Ps.92:12: "The righteous shall flourish like the palm tree."
Isa.57:1: "The righteous perisheth, and no man layeth it to heart."

Matt.5:1,2: "And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him: And he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying...."
Luke6:17,20: "And he came down with them, and stood in the plain, and the company of his disciples, and a great multitude of people...came to hear him.. And he lifted up his eyes on his disciples and said..."

Jesus' last words
Matt.27:46,50: "And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, "Eli, eli, lama sabachthani?" that is to say, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" ...Jesus, when he cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost."
Luke23:46: "And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, "Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit:" and having said thus, he gave up the ghost."
John19:30: "When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, "It is finished:" and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost."

Moved David to anger?
II SAMUEL 24: And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Isreal and Judah.
I CHRONICLES 21: And SATAN stood up against Isreal, and provoked David to number Israel.

The GENEALOGY OF JESUS?
In two places in the New Testament the genealogy of Jesus son of Mary is mentioned. Matthew 1:6-16 and Luke 3:23-31. Each gives the ancestors of Joseph the CLAIMED husband of Mary and Step father of Jesus. The first one starts from Abraham(verse 2) all the way down to Jesus. The second one from Jesus all the way back to Adam. The only common name to these two lists between David and Jesus is JOSEPH, How can this be true? and also How can Jesus have a genealogy when all Muslims and most Christians believe that Jesus had/has no father.

God be seen?
Exod. 24:9,10; Amos 9:1; Gen. 26:2; and John 14:9
God CAN be seen:
"And I will take away my hand, and thou shalt see my backparts." (Ex. 33:23)
"And the Lord spake to Moses face to face, as a man speaketh to his friend." (Ex. 33:11)
"For I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." (Gen. 32:30)
God CANNOT be seen:
"No man hath seen God at any time." (John 1:18)
"And he said, Thou canst not see my face; for there shall no man see me and live." (Ex. 33:20)
"Whom no man hath seen nor can see." (1 Tim. 6:16)

Tempts?
"And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham." (Gen 22:1)
"Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God; for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man." (James 1:13)

Judas died how?
"And he cast down the pieces of silver into the temple and departed, and went out and hanged himself." (Matt. 27:5)
"And falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all of his bowels gushed out." (Acts 1:18)

What was Jesus' prediction regarding Peter's denial?
Before the cock crow - Matthew 26:34
Before the cock crow twice - Mark 14:30

Who bears guilt?
GAL 6:2 Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ.
GAL 6:5 For every man shall bear his own burden.

Do you answer a fool?
PRO 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.
PRO 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.

How many children did Michal, the daughter of Saul, have?
SA2 6:23 Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death.
SA2 21:8 But the king took the two sons of Rizpah the daughter of Aiah, whom she bare unto Saul, Armoni and Mephibosheth; and the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul, whom she brought up for Adriel the son of Barzillai the Meholathite:

How old was Jehoiachin when he began to reign?
KI2 24:8 Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months. And his mother's name was Nehushta, the daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem.
H2 36:9 Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem: and he did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD.

Did those with Saul/Paul at his conversion hear a voice?
ACT 9:7 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.
ACT 22:9 And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.

Should we kill?
Ex. 20:13 Thou shalt not commit murder.
Ex. 32:27 Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, put every man his sword by his side...and slay every man his brother...companion..neighbor.(See also 1 Sam. 6:19; 15:2,3; Num. 15:36)

Ex 20:5 "...for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God..." (see also Ex 34:14, Deut 4:24, Josh 24:19, and Nah 1:2)
Gal 5:19-20 "Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are...jealousy..." (See also 2 Cor 12:20)

Should we tell lies?
Ex. 20:16 Thou shalt not bear false witness.(Prov. 12:22; Rev. 21:8)
1 Kings 22:23 The Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the Lord hath spoken evil concerning thee. (II Thess. 2:11; Josh. 2:4-6 with James 2:25)

Should we steal?
Ex. 20:15 Thou shalt not steal. (Lev. 19:13)
Ex. 3:22. And ye shall spoil the Egyptians. (Ex. 12:35-36; Luke 19:29-33)

Shall we keep the Sabbath?
Ex. 20:8 Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy. (Ex. 31:15; Num. 15:32,36)
Is. 1:13 The new moons and the Sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with; it is iniquity. (John 5:16; Matt. 12:1-5)

Shall we make Graven images?
Ex. 20:4. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven...earth...water. (Lev. 26:1)
EX. 25:18 And thou shalt make two cherubims of gold, of beaten work shalt thou make them.

Are we "saved" through works?
Eph. 2:8,9 For by grace are ye saved through faith...not of works. (Rom. 3:20, 28; Gal. 2:16)
James 2:24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.(Matt. 19:16-21)

Should good works be seen?
Matt. 5:16 Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works. (I Peter 2:12)
Matt. 6:1-4 Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them...that thine alms may be in secret. (Matt. 23:5)

Should we own slaves?
Lev. 25:45-46 Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy...and they shall be your posession...they shall be your bondmen forever. (Gen. 9:25; Ex. 21:2,7; Joel 3:8; Luke 12:47; Col. 3:22)
Is. 58:6 Undo the heavy burdens...break every yoke. (Matt. 23:10)

Does God change his mind?
Mal. 3:6. For I am the Lord; I change not. Num. 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent. (Ezek. 24:14; James 1:17)
Ex. 32:14. And the Lord repented of the evil which he had thought to do unto his people. (Gen. 6:6; Jonah 3:10; Sam. 2:30-31; II Kings 20:1-6; Num. 16:20-35)

Are we punished for our parent's sins?
Ex. 20:5 For I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generations. (Ex. 34:7)
Ezek. 18:20 The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father.

Is God good or evil?
Psa. 145:9. The Lord is good to all. (Deut. 32:4; James 1:13)
Is. 45:7 I make peace and create evil. I the Lord do all these things. (Lam 3:38; Jer. 18:11; Ezek. 20:25)

Is God Peaceable?
John 14:27 Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you. (Luke 2:14; Acts 10:36)
Matt. 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth, I came not to send peace, but a sword. (Matt. 10:35-37; Luke 22:36)

Was Jesus trustworthy?
John 8:14 Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true.
John 5:31 If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true.

Shall we call people names?
Matt. 5:22 Whosoever shall say Thou fool, shall be in danger of hellfire.
Matt. 23:17 (Jesus said) Ye fools and blind.

Has anyone seen God?
John 1:18 No man hath seen God at anytime. (Ex 33:20; Tim. 6:16; John 6:46; I John 4:12)
Gen. 32:30 For I have seen god face to face. (Ex. 33:11, 23; Is. 6:1; Job 42:5)

How many gods are there?
Deut. 6:4 The Lord or God is one Lord.
Gen. 1:26 And God said, let us make man in our image.(Gen. 3:22; I John 5:7)

Are we all sinners?
Rom. 3:23 For all have sinned. (Rom. 3:10; Psa.14;3)
Job 1:1 There was a man... whose name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright. (Gen. 7:1; Luke 1:5-6)

When was Jesus crucified?
Mark 15:22 and it was the third hour, and they crucified him.
John 19:14-15 And about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King! But they cried out...crucify him!"

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=Mdv&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=contradictions+in+the+bible&spell=1

How about you pick your one major contradiction and I will roll with that...I am not going to waste my time and energy answering all of these when in reality you don't care about the response.

athon

14th June 2007, 01:34 AM

How about you pick your one major contradiction and I will roll with that...I am not going to waste my time and energy answering all of these when in reality you don't care about the response.

En contraire, I think most of us care very much about the response. These are blatant contradictions in the bible. Fine, perhaps a couple of these could be explained with complicated reference to context and some assumptions of how the mind of God might vary with the situation...but most are straight forward, obvious differences which should not occur in a book written by the hand of an omnipotent figure.

Try:

How many stalls and horsemen?
KI1 4:26 And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen.
CH2 9:25 And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen; whom he bestowed in the chariot cities, and with the king at Jerusalem.

The GENEALOGY OF JESUS?
In two places in the New Testament the genealogy of Jesus son of Mary is mentioned. Matthew 1:6-16 and Luke 3:23-31. Each gives the ancestors of Joseph the CLAIMED husband of Mary and Step father of Jesus. The first one starts from Abraham(verse 2) all the way down to Jesus. The second one from Jesus all the way back to Adam. The only common name to these two lists between David and Jesus is JOSEPH, How can this be true? and also How can Jesus have a genealogy when all Muslims and most Christians believe that Jesus had/has no father.

When was Jesus crucified?
Mark 15:22 and it was the third hour, and they crucified him.
John 19:14-15 And about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King! But they cried out...crucify him!"

These three I picked randomly from those which offer objective descriptions. There is no subjective context to any of them, nothing which could allow for variation in interpretation given the occasion.

We'll look at the others after you've addressed these three.

Athon

skeptifem

14th June 2007, 02:26 AM

How about you pick your one major contradiction and I will roll with that...I am not going to waste my time and energy answering all of these when in reality you don't care about the response.

OH we've been down this road before. you managed to rationalize conflicting NUMBERS of things in the bible, a few different times. Conflicts about a persons age, about pi, about the number of soldiers at a certain event, and so on. Nothing will convince you that the bible has conflicting stories in it.

Darat

14th June 2007, 02:40 AM

...snip...

These three I picked randomly from those which offer objective descriptions. There is no subjective context to any of them, nothing which could allow for variation in interpretation given the occasion.

...snip...

Wanna' bet? :)

athon

14th June 2007, 03:19 AM

Wanna' bet? :)

I'm thinking of an analogy of fitting an elephant into a pair of size 6 sneakers...

If jf wants to try to squeeze such objective comments as the difference between forty thousand and four thousand into a 'subjective' category, then he can pretend all he likes. But that elephant just won't fit.

Likewise, Christ being crucified at three hours in, and then the Jews crying out for him to be crucified six hours in...again, squeeze away. But it doesn't change the fact that these are contradictions of an objective nature that share the same contexts.

Athon

Diamond

14th June 2007, 03:28 AM

Kariboo

14th June 2007, 04:31 AM

How about you pick your one major contradiction and I will roll with that...I am not going to waste my time and energy answering all of these when in reality you don't care about the response.

No, you asked:

let me know what parts you think are not to be taken litterally...I am also an Evangelical Christian and would argue that the Word of God has no contradictions and IS to be taken litterally.

I have provided some for you

That you don't want to answer sais a lot. Plus there are a lot of other posters who have asked ONE question, that you also haven't responded to.

Also: You don't know what I do or do not care about, since I do care for the response. The fact that there are so many contradictions in the bible is not my fault.

Feel free to pick a subset out of the ones that I have provided

kmortis

14th June 2007, 04:52 AM

You forgot to mention Matt 5-30...If your right hand makes you stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to go into hell.

It's to be taken literally and more. The whole passage reveals we are to take these sins very seriously and repent or pay the penalty. It's better to enter heaven with one less eye than not at all!

And many families have been divided by the gospel. To this day Muslims want to kill professing Christians even if they are their own family members. If they hate Jesus they hate us, his followers.
So does that explain your misspellings? You're typing with stumps? Or you are still learning to use your Braille screen after plucking out your eyes?

I guess that since, ultimately, it's the brain that causes you to sin, you've had a brainectomy? That would explain a lot about your posts.

You've mentioned that you're a mother of teens, so have you taken them to the town gates when they're disrespecting you so they can be stoned to death? If they turn from your god, will you disown them, in accordance with Jesus?

Ladewig

14th June 2007, 05:15 AM

I may not have the strongest understanding of theology, but I do love Jesus, so what's wrong with that?

There is nothing wrong with loving Jesus. You have a constitutionally protected right to practice any religion you want. I will even defend your right to be a Christian.

The part I take issue with is when you claim silly things on this board. For instance, you claimed that God can do things for us that we cannot do ourselves and then gave an example of being reconciled with your husband. Every day hundreds, maybe thousands, of people are reconciled with their spouses. There is no reason to claim that that is something beyond what we can do for ourselves.

And your example of what I or anyone should ask God to do is very bad. None of that is something I or anyone would want to pray for.

Kopji beat me to it, but I'll repeat the point for emphasis. Those two examples are taken from the Bible. God did send bears to destroy children who were mocking a man's baldness. Kopji even included the chapter and verse numbers so you can look it up. Jesus did say that if you have the faith of a mustard seed you can say to a mountain, "be uprooted and thrown into the sea" and it will be done.

Ladewig

14th June 2007, 05:19 AM

How about you pick your one major contradiction and I will roll with that...I am not going to waste my time and energy answering all of these when in reality you don't care about the response.

I'd still like to know whether evangelicals believe that communion wine is the blood of Christ or is symbolic of the blood of Christ (see post #60) and more importantly how do you decide which verses are metaphors and which are literal?

Dustin Kesselberg

14th June 2007, 05:33 AM

Jesus_Freak, Can you answer my questions about Noah's flood? Also tell me why you don't believe in Evolution.

andyandy

14th June 2007, 07:36 AM

Jesus_Freak, Can you answer my questions about Noah's flood? Also tell me why you don't believe in Evolution.

Tell me why you believe you've proved God.

Still waiting for a justification of your ontological argument :)

Darth Rotor

14th June 2007, 08:51 AM

Its a shame that God doesn't.
Why would God need to "believe" what He already knows? ;)

DR

Solus

14th June 2007, 08:55 AM

:duel

Fundie vs. Fundie

Who wins?

Who cares?

I'd care If I could make a bet. :p But there will be no winner fundies don't often change.

Dustin Kesselberg

14th June 2007, 09:06 AM

I'd care If I could make a bet. :p But there will be no winner fundies don't often change.

I changed. I used to be an Atheist before Jesus revealed himself to me.

PixyMisa

14th June 2007, 10:07 AM

I changed. I used to be an Atheist before Jesus revealed himself to me.
In the form of a shower of logical fallacies, apparently.

jesus_freak

14th June 2007, 10:24 AM

Quote:
How many stalls and horsemen?
KI1 4:26 And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen.
CH2 9:25 And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen; whom he bestowed in the chariot cities, and with the king at Jerusalem.

The GENEALOGY OF JESUS?
In two places in the New Testament the genealogy of Jesus son of Mary is mentioned. Matthew 1:6-16 and Luke 3:23-31. Each gives the ancestors of Joseph the CLAIMED husband of Mary and Step father of Jesus. The first one starts from Abraham(verse 2) all the way down to Jesus. The second one from Jesus all the way back to Adam. The only common name to these two lists between David and Jesus is JOSEPH, How can this be true? and also How can Jesus have a genealogy when all Muslims and most Christians believe that Jesus had/has no father.

When was Jesus crucified?
Mark 15:22 and it was the third hour, and they crucified him.
John 19:14-15 And about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King! But they cried out...crucify him!"

Q:How many stalls and Horsemen?
A:Honestly I don't see any contradiction at all...it is quite obvious to me that there were 40,000 horses in 4,000 stalls, and it says so right there!
KI1 4:26 And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen.
CH2 9:25 And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen;

Q:The geneology of Jesus
A: Again quite obvious...One geneology was Mary's and the other was Joseph's

Q:When was Jesus crucified?
A:He was actually on the cross about six hours. It takes much longer than that for someone to be crucified. Days in fact.
And it is Mark 15:25 not Mark 15:22 fyi

There I think those are all very valid reasonings to your supposed contradictions...but again let me guess, not a one you will accept any.

jesus_freak

14th June 2007, 10:25 AM

I changed. I used to be an Atheist before Jesus revealed himself to me.
I too was an atheist.

andyandy

14th June 2007, 10:29 AM

I changed. I used to be an Atheist before Jesus revealed himself to me.

people get locked up for that sort of thing....

is that what God's been reduced to - sending his only son to flash his knackers at unsuspecting atheists?

dirty jesus! :D

Ladewig

14th June 2007, 10:32 AM

Q:The geneology of Jesus
A: Again quite obvious...One geneology was Mary's and the other was Joseph's

So even though both geneologies mention Joseph and neither mentions Mary, you are asserting that one was Mary's. I guess the only response to that is to ask: which one was Mary's.

jesus_freak

14th June 2007, 10:42 AM

Jesus_Freak, Can you answer my questions about Noah's flood? Also tell me why you don't believe in Evolution.

Sorry I must of missed your question among all the others...I believe your question was "None of this is of course possible, there's not enough water in the world to cover the entire world, every species (or even every 'kind') couldn't fit on a boat that size including food. Genetics prohibit them from breeding due to inbreeding as well. The story of the flood is allegorical and is meant to convey a message of Gods mercy. He saw the world was full of sin and then decided to cleanse it of sin using of course water."
1. Not enough water in the world to cover the entire earth.
I believe you can find the answer to that in Psalm 104
After the waters covered the mountains (verse 6), God rebuked them and they fled (verse 7); the mountains rose, the valleys sank down (verse 8) and God set a boundary so that they will never again cover the earth (verse 9)[ (http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-floodwater.html#1)
the water is still here in the oceans and seas...this gives us the indication that the earth was much more flat before the flood and then after the mountains rose and the valleys sank down.

2.not enough room on the ark for that many animals.
There was more than enough room for 40,000 animals most of which wereyoung because they were smaller more durable and would live longer after the flood to repopulate.

3. What about food for all the animals?
All animals were vegitarian before the flood and for sometime after, and also during a storm that severe for that long would cause a majority of the animals to go into a hibernation like state. Again if they animals were young and hibernating they would need to bring very little food on the ark for them.

One very common misconception is that Noah would of brought adult elephants, and bears and yes dinosaurs on the ark...think about it what sense would that make.

4.What about inbreeding?
I think that the inbreeding is a very logical answer for the different traits that we see among the animals today and eventually all the differnt species that we have today.

Cleon

14th June 2007, 10:47 AM

?אתה מדבר עברית

I note the question remains unanswered.

Oualawouzou

14th June 2007, 10:50 AM

Sorry I must of missed your question among all the others...I believe your question was "None of this is of course possible, there's not enough water in the world to cover the entire world, every species (or even every 'kind') couldn't fit on a boat that size including food. Genetics prohibit them from breeding due to inbreeding as well. The story of the flood is allegorical and is meant to convey a message of Gods mercy. He saw the world was full of sin and then decided to cleanse it of sin using of course water."
1. Not enough water in the world to cover the entire earth.
I believe you can find the answer to that in Psalm 104
After the waters covered the mountains (verse 6), God rebuked them and they fled (verse 7); the mountains rose, the valleys sank down (verse 8) and God set a boundary so that they will never again cover the earth (verse 9)[ (http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-floodwater.html#1)
the water is still here in the oceans and seas...this gives us the indication that the earth was much more flat before the flood and then after the mountains rose and the valleys sank down.

2.not enough room on the ark for that many animals.
There was more than enough room for 40,000 animals most of which wereyoung because they were smaller more durable and would live longer after the flood to repopulate.

3. What about food for all the animals?
All animals were vegitarian before the flood and for sometime after, and also during a storm that severe for that long would cause a majority of the animals to go into a hibernation like state. Again if they animals were young and hibernating they would need to bring very little food on the ark for them.

One very common misconception is that Noah would of brought adult elephants, and bears and yes dinosaurs on the ark...think about it what sense would that make.

4.What about inbreeding?
I think that the inbreeding is a very logical answer for the different traits that we see among the animals today and eventually all the differnt species that we have today.

AKA "Goddidit".

jesus_freak

14th June 2007, 10:52 AM

AKA "Goddidit".
aka I dont't care how much the answers make sense I will continue to send you down rabbit trails and when all have been answered I will start back at the begining.

Oualawouzou

14th June 2007, 11:13 AM

God materialized water out of nowhere (just where was all that water hidden before the flood anyway?), then he raised mountains and lowered plains. God did it.

Noah managed to find a pair of viable vegetarian young offsprings ready for hibernation of every species living in the entire world in a few days. Either God helped him achieve this feat, or Noah lied and brought onboard only what few creatures any human, even in this day of modern technology and travel, could gather on such short notice. Either Noah lied, and the Bible is therefore inaccurate, or God did it.

Heck, I won't even touch the "insta-hibernation" and "all vegetarian" points. Only God could do this. God did it.

So, in summary: Goddidit. It doesn't matter if something doesn't fit with anything we know about the Universe. Remember: "If it doesn't fit, God did it!"

Foster Zygote

14th June 2007, 11:15 AM

Q:The geneology of Jesus
A: Again quite obvious...One geneology was Mary's and the other was Joseph's.

Luke 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,

3:24 Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph,

3:25 Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge, etc. etc.

Matthew 1:13 And Zorobabel begat Abiud; and Abiud begat Eliakim; and Eliakim begat Azor;

1:14 And Azor begat Sadoc; and Sadoc begat Achim; and Achim begat Eliud;

1:15 And Eliud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar begat Matthan; and Matthan begat Jacob;

1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

Both genealogies are clearly claimed to be those of Joseph.

Dustin Kesselberg

14th June 2007, 11:32 AM

Jesus_Freak is making a lot of sense actually.

Darat

14th June 2007, 11:33 AM

Complexity

14th June 2007, 11:35 AM

Dustin - making sense to you is not the same as making sense.

Dustin Kesselberg

14th June 2007, 11:38 AM

Dustin - making sense to you is not the same as making sense.

Coming from a guy who jumps through hoops to avoid answering basic questions about baseless accusations he makes? :rolleyes:

Jesus_Freak knows his bible and as I, realizes that most of the confusion comes from mistranslation of Hebrew and Greek to English. Many times when you see these so called "contradictions" they are nothing more than mistranslations from Hebrew or Greek to English which can easily be explained if one uses concordances to read the actual passages.

PixyMisa

14th June 2007, 11:40 AM

Jesus_Freak is making a lot of sense actually.
The bit about the inbred hibernating vegetarian baby dinosaurs? Yes, I can see how that would appeal to you.

PixyMisa

14th June 2007, 11:42 AM

Jesus_Freak knows his bible and as I, realizes that most of the confusion comes from mistranslation of Hebrew and Greek to English. Many times when you see these so called "contradictions" they are nothing more than mistranslations from Hebrew or Greek to English which can easily be explained if one uses concordances to read the actual passages.
Yes, the Bible is riddled with mistranslations and other errors - not just in the translation to English, but in earlier translations in the source documents as well.

How exactly does this explain the two contradictory versions of Genesis? The two contradictory genealogies of Jesus himself?

volatile

14th June 2007, 11:43 AM

Jesus_Freak is making a lot of sense actually.

Now we *know* you're trolling... ;)

Tricky

14th June 2007, 12:01 PM

Jesus_Freak is making a lot of sense actually.
You really think so? Then I'm afraid, Dustin, that you will never beat your Mom at Jeopardy. The first science category you get and you'll be way into the negative numbers.

Dustin Kesselberg

14th June 2007, 12:04 PM

You really think so? Then I'm afraid, Dustin, that you will never beat your Mom at Jeopardy. The first science category you get and you'll be way into the negative numbers.

She passed away.

skeptifem

14th June 2007, 12:04 PM

In the form of a shower of logical fallacies, apparently.

wait that was a change?

Tricky

14th June 2007, 12:25 PM

She passed away.
I'm very sorry. I know you loved her a lot.

VulcanWay

14th June 2007, 12:36 PM

3.What about food for all the animals?
All animals were vegitarian before the flood and for sometime after, and also during a storm that severe for that long would cause a majority of the animals to go into a hibernation like state. Again if they animals were young and hibernating they would need to bring very little food on the ark for them.

One very common misconception is that Noah would of brought adult elephants, and bears and yes dinosaurs on the ark...think about it what sense would that make.

My problem with this is that the way I understand things, biblically speaking, the changes in the world came directly after The Fall and beyond that point in time things (animals and what have you) remained in a static form. So at the time of The Fall, suddenly things started wanting to eat us and each other, poisonous things sprung into existence, and what have you due to humanity's fall from grace and bringing sin into the world. Noah occurs after The Fall.

We can look at an animal's digestive tract and teeth and tell what type of diet its biology allows for. Carnivores can only be carnivores. The whole Noah thing happening post-Fall, so carnivores were carnivores then. A tiger would not sit around munching ferns and survive. So I don't see how carnivores munching on ferns and surviving is possible, unless they underwent some evolution since that time. Where does it say that all animals were herbivores at that time, anyway?

Also, not many animals have the capability to hibernate. Animals that find themselves with a lack of food that can't hibernate are more likely to get rowdy and find themselves some food.

I suppose to have a misconception of something, there has to be something that it in evidence but misunderstood. What biblical passage says that the animals were youngsters?

And then there is the cleaning of the stalls. Noah and his family would be knee-deep in it before long.

Ladewig

14th June 2007, 02:28 PM

I don't care how much the answers make sense I will continue to send you down rabbit trails and when all have been answered I will start back at the begining.

So, you are saying that defending a literal interpretation of the Bible is nothing but a fool's errand. I knew we'd find common ground if the thread lasted long enough.

Hokulele

14th June 2007, 02:31 PM

aka I dont't care how much the answers make sense I will continue to send you down rabbit trails and when all have been answered I will start back at the begining.

JF, some months ago, we had an agreement to read two books, one on evolution and one on creationism. Just for the record, do you intend to honor this agreement? I can bump the thread back up if you would like.

Kariboo

14th June 2007, 02:33 PM

Q:When was Jesus crucified?
A:He was actually on the cross about six hours. It takes much longer than that for someone to be crucified. Days in fact.
.

I don;t understand what you are saying here: Jezus wasn't crucified in 6 hours? Or even within 1 day?

athon

14th June 2007, 02:35 PM

Q:How many stalls and Horsemen?
A:Honestly I don't see any contradiction at all...it is quite obvious to me that there were 40,000 horses in 4,000 stalls, and it says so right there!
KI1 4:26 And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen.
CH2 9:25 And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen;

That might be somewhat acceptible if it was reveresed - forty thousand stalls for horses and four thousand stalls of horses. But to have four thousand for your horses and forty thousand stalls of horses is a direct contradiction. You can't have x places for one thing and then claim to have 1000x places containing that thing.

So, close, but no cigar.

Q:The geneology of Jesus
A: Again quite obvious...One geneology was Mary's and the other was Joseph's

Nope. Both are Jospeph's lineage and it says as much. You're just plain wrong here.

Q:When was Jesus crucified?
A:He was actually on the cross about six hours. It takes much longer than that for someone to be crucified. Days in fact.

Ah, the word play. I knew you'd twist something like that.

Crucifiction is the act of crucifying somebody, which is the act of putting somebody on the cross. You don't cry 'crucify him' when they're already up there, regardless of their state of death.

So why would a mob cry six hours in for Jesus to be crucified if he is already undergoing the process? Even if I was over generous and allowed your perversion of the word to be correct, it still makes no sense. It's like a crowd screaming 'hang him' as a guy is dangling from a rope.

There I think those are all very valid reasonings to your supposed contradictions...but again let me guess, not a one you will accept any.

I'll accept those which are valid. I would have conceded the first one if it was the other way around, after all.

That was a rather sloppy attempt, JF. I'm disappointed - I figured you for better.

Athon

Kariboo

14th June 2007, 02:45 PM

There was more than enough room for 40,000 animals most of which were young because they were smaller more durable and would live longer after the flood to repopulate.

All animals were vegitarian before the flood and for sometime after, and also during a storm that severe for that long would cause a majority of the animals to go into a hibernation like state. Again if they animals were young and hibernating they would need to bring very little food on the ark for them.

What are your biblical references for these statements?

Kariboo

14th June 2007, 02:59 PM

So what about these?

Who is the father of Joseph?
MAT 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
LUK 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.

Tempts?
"And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham." (Gen 22:1)
"Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God; for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man." (James 1:13)

Judas died how?
"And he cast down the pieces of silver into the temple and departed, and went out and hanged himself." (Matt. 27:5)
"And falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all of his bowels gushed out." (Acts 1:18)

How many children did Michal, the daughter of Saul, have?
SA2 6:23 Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death.
SA2 21:8 But the king took the two sons of Rizpah the daughter of Aiah, whom she bare unto Saul, Armoni and Mephibosheth; and the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul, whom she brought up for Adriel the son of Barzillai the Meholathite:

Did those with Saul/Paul at his conversion hear a voice?
ACT 9:7 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.
ACT 22:9 And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.

Are we punished for our parent's sins?
Ex. 20:5 For I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generations. (Ex. 34:7)
Ezek. 18:20 The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father.

Foster Zygote

14th June 2007, 03:03 PM

There was more than enough room for 40,000 animals most of which wereyoung because they were smaller more durable and would live longer after the flood to repopulate.

Where do you get 40,000? That's 20,000 species, yes? There are over 1,500,000 named species right now and this is known to be only a fraction of existing species.

Darth Rotor

14th June 2007, 03:10 PM

Are we punished for our parent's sins?
Ex. 20:5 For I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generations. (Ex. 34:7)
Ezek. 18:20 The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father.
Well, since I got a long nose and my dad had a big nose, yes to the first, but since his other iniquity was a sensitive stomach, and I have an iron gut, lucky me.

DR

wolfgirl

14th June 2007, 04:50 PM

2.not enough room on the ark for that many animals.
There was more than enough room for 40,000 animals most of which wereyoung because they were smaller more durable and would live longer after the flood to repopulate.Where do you get 40,000 from? There are LOTS more than 20,000 different kinds of animals in the world. And I ask again, how did Noah get them from all points on Earth (Antarctica, Australia, Galapagos, etc.) and then get them back there afterwards? This fits much more with the idea of the bible being written by people of the time who had no knowledge of all of these other animals in all of these other places, in fact, didn't even know there were other places, nor could they have even imagined or dreamed that so many places and types of animals existed. People with that limited knowledge would find it plausible that two of each animal they knew about could get on a boat. People with today's knowledge should know better...

3. What about food for all the animals?
All animals were vegitarian before the flood and for sometime after, and also during a storm that severe for that long would cause a majority of the animals to go into a hibernation like state. Again if they animals were young and hibernating they would need to bring very little food on the ark for them.Many species of animals are incapable of being vegetarians. They will die without animal protein. It's the way their bodies function. Where did you get this from, anyway? I'm no biblical scholar, but I don't think it says that anywhere, does it? Or is it just another excuse made up after the fact when people realized this couldn't have worked? Also, most animal species are incapable of hibernation.
[4.What about inbreeding?
I think that the inbreeding is a very logical answer for the different traits that we see among the animals today and eventually all the differnt species that we have today.If a species has too few numbers, it is almost impossible for it to continue because of the small gene pool. Even with modern technology, we find it very, very difficult to bring a species back from the brink of extinction if there are less than a certain number of individuals (certainly more than two) left to breed. A small gene pool would mean fewer variations, not more.

Kariboo

14th June 2007, 05:09 PM

Many species of animals are incapable of being vegetarians. They will die without animal protein. It's the way their bodies function. Where did you get this from, anyway? I'm no biblical scholar, but I don't think it says that anywhere, does it? Or is it just another excuse made up after the fact when people realized this couldn't have worked? Also, most animal species are incapable of hibernation..

I didn't think so either so I dug up my bible, turns out there actually is something like that in the bible.

Now I'm quoting from a non English; popular translation but: Gen 1 ;29-30 The birds and animals on the land both big and small I will give leaves and grass to feed, t(his includes people only eating veggies and seeds)

Gen 9; 3 God sais to Noa after he flood: Besides plants you can also eat meat. All the animals I will give you to eat

In JF and friends mind this will almost certainly translate to god not only saying that to Noa but also to the animals

Especially the latter is far fetched but I gues that is where they find it.

Nothing about the fish in there..weird

lolurigeller

14th June 2007, 10:05 PM

I changed. I used to be an Atheist before Jesus revealed himself to me.

according to what you've written you should believe the rest of us are going to get sent to hell because we don't believe in some random arbitrary belief that Jesus is a smiting god that will punish the unbelievers.

On top of that it seems you indirectly state that you believe Noah's Ark is a literary fact?

Looks like someone decided to get a lobotomy.

Dustin Kesselberg

14th June 2007, 10:27 PM

according to what you've written you should believe the rest of us are going to get sent to hell because we don't believe in some random arbitrary belief that Jesus is a smiting god that will punish the unbelievers.

On top of that it seems you indirectly state that you believe Noah's Ark is a literary fact?

Looks like someone decided to get a lobotomy.

Who are you to judge me? I was once just as you are right now. I was skeptical of God, not only skeptical, in total denial of the existence of a God. I hope you don't go to hell, personally. I have been reading into the prophecies of Revelation but I have also been reading into Intelligent Design and Creationism and I am starting to see many flaws in Darwinism. As I look closer at Darwinism, like a cheap fabric, I can see the errors in the seams and I can see where the entire fabric is falling apart piece by piece. I'm not even sure I believe in Evolution to tell you the truth. Not in "Macro-Evolution" at least, Evolution on or above the level of Genus that is. I'm continuing to do research into Evolution and I am learning more about it each day and the more I learn, the more I am becoming very weary of it.

jesus_freak

14th June 2007, 10:32 PM

according to what you've written you should believe the rest of us are going to get sent to hell because we don't believe in some random arbitrary belief that Jesus is a smiting god that will punish the unbelievers.

Maybe you don't totally understand here...no one is going to Hell because they don't believe in Jesus...they are going to hell because they have sinned!

jesus_freak

14th June 2007, 10:46 PM

Where do you get 40,000? That's 20,000 species, yes? There are over 1,500,000 named species right now and this is known to be only a fraction of existing species.
For the last time please tell me where it says that he took each species!?!?!?!?!
Heres a clue it doesn't....He brought each kind! kind is different than species....and guess what some of the kinds were fish, no need to bring fish or other creatures that live in water on a boat during a flood...Man it really gets old answering the same stupid arguments over and over and over...40,000 is actually a very high estimate of the number of animals on the ark.

Dustin Kesselberg

14th June 2007, 10:51 PM

athon

14th June 2007, 10:53 PM

I changed. I used to be an Atheist before Jesus revealed himself to me.

I find it interesting how Christians always use the same sort of language to describe their Christian affairs. It's rarely 'I've taken to believing in Jesus', but more often 'I've let Christ into my heart' or 'Jesus revealed himself to me'. The phrases are always so alike with very vague, poetic meaning.

Athon

athon

14th June 2007, 10:56 PM

Maybe you don't totally understand here...no one is going to Hell because they don't believe in Jesus...they are going to hell because they have sinned!

But the way into Heaven is through Christ, right? To not believe that he is the way to eternal salvation means you won't be saved, hence will essentially remain on earth when it becomes Hell at the end of days.

So not believing in Christ means you're going to Hell.

Athon

athon

14th June 2007, 11:03 PM

For the last time please tell me where it says that he took each species!?!?!?!?!
Heres a clue it doesn't....He brought each kind! kind is different than species....and guess what some of the kinds were fish, no need to bring fish or other creatures that live in water on a boat during a flood...Man it really gets old answering the same stupid arguments over and over and over...40,000 is actually a very high estimate of the number of animals on the ark.

I notice you ignored the other points, and focussed on these ones. Convenient.

Fine; what is the definition of 'kind'? Is it the equivalent of 'genus'? Family? Order? Or is it your own invention of categorisation? If the latter, what denotes its parameters? It's easy to state that a dog and a cat are different 'kinds', but is it only when they are named different things? What of a horse and a zebra? A hare and a rabbit? A llama and a camel?

Were all kinds represented in the ancient middle east at the time? What is your evidence for this? Even if you attribute fossilisation to the deluge, it doesn't back you up on it.

As I said earlier, if you want to close your eyes and just say 'because I want to believe', then nobody can argue. It's faith. But to abuse science in this manner really makes you look like you don't have a clue.

BTW, what of those contradictions? Or are you ignoring them?

Athon

noblecaboose

14th June 2007, 11:27 PM

I find it interesting how Christians always use the same sort of language to describe their Christian affairs. It's rarely 'I've taken to believing in Jesus', but more often 'I've let Christ into my heart' or 'Jesus revealed himself to me'. The phrases are always so alike with very vague, poetic meaning.

Athon

Or, if you've got a mind like mine, they make Jesus sound like kind of a perv. If anyone who didn't die on a cross for your sins "revealed himself" to you, believe me, you would not go around telling everyone about it. You'd probably report it to the local authorities and make sure he wasn't let within 100 yards of a school or playground. :covereyes

Hokulele

15th June 2007, 12:39 AM

JF, some months ago, we had an agreement to read two books, one on evolution and one on creationism. Just for the record, do you intend to honor this agreement? I can bump the thread back up if you would like.

Right. I am taking your silence as a "No" then. I am sorry JF, but I have now lost a lot of respect for you.

Achán hiNidráne

15th June 2007, 01:24 AM

I changed. I used to be an Atheist before Jesus revealed himself to me.

I too was an atheist.

Yeah... right. You'll forgive me that, given your tendency to twist the truth to suit your superstitions leads me to think otherwise.

In other words, I think you're both liars.

andyandy

15th June 2007, 02:29 AM

I have also been reading into Intelligent Design and Creationism and I am starting to see many flaws in Darwinism. As I look closer at Darwinism, like a cheap fabric, I can see the errors in the seams and I can see where the entire fabric is falling apart piece by piece. I'm not even sure I believe in Evolution to tell you the truth. Not in "Macro-Evolution" at least, Evolution on or above the level of Genus that is. I'm continuing to do research into Evolution and I am learning more about it each day and the more I learn, the more I am becoming very weary of it.

We're seeing the evolution of a fundy right here. :)

andyandy

15th June 2007, 02:36 AM

Cleon

15th June 2007, 04:21 AM

That's right. I'm so sick of people saying Noah took 2 of every species.

Dogs, Wolves, Coyotes, they are all one "kind".

Cats, Tigers, Lions, all one "kind".

Dinosaurs are also all one "kind".

Noah needn't take every species that ever existed on the Ark. Simply every "Kind". 2 Cat kinds, 2 Dog kinds, 2 Dinosaur kinds, etc.

Ooh, nice try, it really is. An old apologist bit to try and cram too many animals in not enough space. (The "vegetarian" bit is hilarious!)

However, there's one slight kink in your story:

The Bible doesn't say a thing about "kinds."

Genesis 7:8-9:

8 Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth,
9 There went two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah.

"Every thing that creepeth upon the earth." No "kinds." "Kinds" is an invention by apologists who are trying to make an impossible concept possible.

So to make the story work, you have to change it slightly from what the Bible actually says. The irony is that for you to take the story "literally," you have to take a non-literal interpretation.

Because when you take an actual literal interpretation, it's fairly evident that it is talking about every species of critter: "Every thing that creepeth upon the earth."

Darat

15th June 2007, 04:25 AM

Oh Cleon - please everyone knows it was seven pairs of animals not two! ;)

PixyMisa

15th June 2007, 04:39 AM

Paul

15th June 2007, 04:41 AM

For the last time please tell me where it says that he took each species!?!?!?!?!
Heres a clue it doesn't....He brought each kind!
Here's a clue, this is what the KJV says:
Gen 6:19 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Gen&chapter=6&verse=19&version=kjv#19) And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every [sort] shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep [them] alive with thee; they shall be male and female.
Gen 6:20 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Gen&chapter=6&verse=20&version=kjv#20) Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every [sort] shall come unto thee, to keep [them] alive.
Gen 6:21 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Gen&chapter=6&verse=21&version=kjv#21) And take thou unto thee of all food that is eaten, and thou shalt gather [it] to thee; and it shall be for food for thee, and for them.
Gen 7:2 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Gen&chapter=7&verse=2&version=kjv#2) Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that [are] not clean by two, the male and his female.
Gen 7:3 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Gen&chapter=7&verse=3&version=kjv#3) Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth.
Gen 7:8 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Gen&chapter=7&verse=8&version=kjv#8) Of clean beasts, and of beasts that [are] not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth,
Gen 7:9 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Gen&chapter=7&verse=9&version=kjv#9) There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah
You'll notice that there are 'helpful' interpretive additions made to the text, but, as Cleon points out, no 'kinds'.

So that's all the food for all the creatures and people plus 14 of every clean beast and all fowls, plus 2 of everything that creepeth upon the earth.

It clearly says "fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind", indicating there are different kinds of fowl and cattle.

Cleon

15th June 2007, 04:48 AM

Oh Cleon - please everyone knows it was seven pairs of animals not two! ;)

Hah!

The funny part is that this kinda of biblical word-twisting is purely a Christian thing. You just don't see it among Jews--who, I might add, prefer to read the bible in the original language. (As opposed to Christians who try to word-parse their preferred English translation--which is, of course, superior to the other English translations. Somehow.)

Even Jewish biblical "literalists" don't bother with this kind of stuff. If the Torah says two of every animal, it means two of every animal. How was it possible? Well, it's God--he can do whatever the **** he wants.

Christians alone seem to have this neurotic need to make the impossible parts of the Bible possible.

PixyMisa

15th June 2007, 04:56 AM

I'm not even sure I believe in Evolution to tell you the truth. Not in "Macro-Evolution" at least, Evolution on or above the level of Genus that is.
Ooh, snap!

You just asserted that only one pair of catkinds had to be taken onto the ark because all present-day cats evolved from those.

Cats are represented by the family Felidae. This includes in the sub-family Felinae the genus Felis, representing the domestic cat and several species of small wildcat; the genus Prionailurus, representing several species of small asian cats; the genus Puma, consisting of cougars and jaguarundi; the genus Acinonyx, which contains only one species, cheetahs; the genus Lynx, which contains several species of lynx; the genus Leopardus, which contains several species of small South American cats; the genus Leptailurus, containing servals; the genus Caracal, containing caracals; and the genuses Profelis, Catopuma and Pardofelis, each containing species of small wildcats; and in the sub-family Pantherinae the genus Neofelis, for the two species of clouded leopard; the genus Panthera which includes the best-known big cats, lions, tigers, leopards and jaguars; and the genus Uncia, for the snow leopards.

How did that happen?

andyandy

15th June 2007, 06:46 AM

volatile

15th June 2007, 06:51 AM

you have become a YEC! - my that was quick. What's next? A refutation of the Copernican model? All steam ahead on the fundy train.....:)

From "atheist" through "believer" all the way to Creationist in a few weeks? This is mind boggling...

Susan Gerbic

15th June 2007, 08:07 AM

Because when you take an actual literal interpretation, it's fairly evident that it is talking about every species of critter: "Every thing that creepeth upon the earth."

Don't forget all the little birdies....they have nothing to land on so they must ride on the roof of the Ark. Imagine that! Do they fly off so they can take a poop into the water, God must be amazing if he can arrange that. But then why are statues covered with it now? It seems if Noah's fowl were trained to poop only over water then fowl today would do the same.

If they just pooped where ever, they would slide off the roof of the ark. Great visuals huh?

Susan

mylfmyhnr

15th June 2007, 08:45 AM

Complexity

15th June 2007, 09:10 AM

Who are you to judge me? I was once just as you are right now.

You have never been as I am now.

Complexity

15th June 2007, 09:17 AM

Foster Zygote

15th June 2007, 09:35 AM

For the last time please tell me where it says that he took each species!?!?!?!?! Heres a clue it doesn't....He brought each kind! kind is different than species....
Please show me specifically where the Bible states that a "kind" is not the same as a "species". A species is a group or groups of organisms that have the ability to interbreed and produce fertile offspring. If you are saying that the 5300 or so known species of frogs are the descendants of just two generic frogs from the ark then you are in fact an evolutionist.

Man it really gets old answering the same stupid arguments over and over and over...
I couldn't help but notice that you completely ignored the responses showing you that the genealogies in Matthew and Luke both specifically state that they were giving the male ancestry of Joseph. I also couldn't help but notice that you didn't actually know what the Bible said when you replied that one was the line to Mary and the other to Joseph. I'm sorry if you are frustrated, but calling us stupid isn't going to hide the weaknesses of your own arguments.

40,000 is actually a very high estimate of the number of animals on the ark.
It's also a very, very low estimate of the number of breeding pairs that would be required to repopulate the Earth with the known diversity of genetically distinct species.

Dr Adequate

15th June 2007, 09:36 AM

Magyar

15th June 2007, 09:40 AM

That's how it feels for me to finally convert to Jesus, a breath of fresh air suddenly entering my lungs that have long been deprived of oxygen. It's like suddenly walking out of the fog and seeing the clear landscape in it's pristine beauty. You have no idea.

Heroin junkies say the same thing about when they start shooting up.
I'm still not going to start to mainline. Heve fun with your addiction.

Foster Zygote

15th June 2007, 09:44 AM

Foster Zygote

15th June 2007, 09:54 AM

I'm not even sure I believe in Evolution to tell you the truth. Not in "Macro-Evolution" at least, Evolution on or above the level of Genus that is.

Yet you claimed that all dinosauria are one "kind" so that there would be only two dinosaurs on the whole ark. If it was intended that they should repopulate the Earth with the pre-flood diversity (just like those two cats must have branched into the numerous species of the family felidea that we see today) then they would have to evolve beyond the level of genus to account fro the two orders of dinosaurs.

Dr Adequate

15th June 2007, 09:57 AM

Yet you claimed that all dinosauria are one "kind" so that there would be only two dinosaurs on the whole ark. If it was intended that they should repopulate the Earth with the pre-flood diversity (just like those two cats must have branched into the numerous species of the family felidea that we see today) then they would have to evolve beyond the level of genus to account fro the two orders of dinosaurs.Now, pay attention. These creatures are clearly all the same "kind":

http://internt.nhm.ac.uk/resources/nature-online/life/dinosaurs/dino-directory/drawing/thumb/styrac.gifhttp://internt.nhm.ac.uk/resources/nature-online/life/dinosaurs/dino-directory/drawing/thumb/kentro.gifhttp://internt.nhm.ac.uk/resources/nature-online/life/dinosaurs/dino-directory/drawing/thumb/parasaur.gifhttp://internt.nhm.ac.uk/resources/nature-online/life/dinosaurs/dino-directory/drawing/thumb/Procompsognathus.gif

whereas these creatures must be totally unrelated:

http://etc.usf.edu/clipart/23500/23591/skeletons_23591_md.gif

kmortis

15th June 2007, 10:41 AM

Now, pay attention. These creatures are clearly all the same "kind":

http://internt.nhm.ac.uk/resources/nature-online/life/dinosaurs/dino-directory/drawing/thumb/styrac.gifhttp://internt.nhm.ac.uk/resources/nature-online/life/dinosaurs/dino-directory/drawing/thumb/kentro.gifhttp://internt.nhm.ac.uk/resources/nature-online/life/dinosaurs/dino-directory/drawing/thumb/parasaur.gifhttp://internt.nhm.ac.uk/resources/nature-online/life/dinosaurs/dino-directory/drawing/thumb/Procompsognathus.gif

whereas these creatures must be totally unrelated:

http://etc.usf.edu/clipart/23500/23591/skeletons_23591_md.gif

Dr. A,
You SO have to have that printed as a poster.

Y'all ever get the idea that Dustbin decided that since he couldn't sell his "might makes right" philosophy, so he's trying on the mantle of a nut-job fundy?

Personally, I think Cleon has the only question that Jesus_freak, Dustbin and KK need to answer
?אתה מדבר עברית

Well? Inquiring minds want to know.

andyandy

15th June 2007, 11:04 AM

Personally, I think Cleon has the only question that Jesus_freak, Dustbin and KK need to answer

Well? Inquiring minds want to know.

אני לא מבין
אתה מדבר אנגלית

:D

joobz

15th June 2007, 01:09 PM

Now, pay attention. These creatures are clearly all the same "kind":

http://internt.nhm.ac.uk/resources/nature-online/life/dinosaurs/dino-directory/drawing/thumb/styrac.gifhttp://internt.nhm.ac.uk/resources/nature-online/life/dinosaurs/dino-directory/drawing/thumb/kentro.gifhttp://internt.nhm.ac.uk/resources/nature-online/life/dinosaurs/dino-directory/drawing/thumb/parasaur.gifhttp://internt.nhm.ac.uk/resources/nature-online/life/dinosaurs/dino-directory/drawing/thumb/Procompsognathus.gif

whereas these creatures must be totally unrelated:

http://etc.usf.edu/clipart/23500/23591/skeletons_23591_md.gif
Well of course. You see, on the arc we only had the dozen or so "kinds" and after the flood, those "kinds" evolutioned the hell of each other to create the multitude of species we see today. After this period of evolutioning, this process stopped. Thereby preventing any further speciation and development. And obviously, during this whole time, humans didn't evolve. We are seperate from the animal kingdom and have absolutely nothing in common with them. Except of course, genetic and proteomic homology, but that of course is merely a coincidence. God was conserving resources.

skeptifem

15th June 2007, 01:15 PM

Morrigan

15th June 2007, 01:28 PM

From "atheist" through "believer" all the way to Creationist in a few weeks? This is mind boggling...
Isn't it clear that he's a troll now? Notice how he says there are "flaws" in "evolutionism", but doesn't list any. He's just using creationist rhetoric as some sort of attention whoring game.

Now, pay attention. These creatures are clearly all the same "kind":

[pic of dinos]

whereas these creatures must be totally unrelated:

[pic of apes and humans]

:newlol :newlol :newlol Nominated.

noblecaboose

15th June 2007, 01:36 PM

slingblade

15th June 2007, 01:38 PM

Yes, NB, and I think I've spotted more than one sock....at least a pair....

ImaginalDisc

15th June 2007, 01:44 PM

Where do you get 40,000? That's 20,000 species, yes? There are over 1,500,000 named species right now and this is known to be only a fraction of existing species.

There would be a least 700,000 beetles. (http://www.fond4beetles.com/)

Cleon

15th June 2007, 01:51 PM

There would be a least 700,000 beetles. (http://www.fond4beetles.com/)

I just pictured 200,000 Paul McCartneys, and I suddenly realized what Hell was all about...

Foster Zygote

15th June 2007, 02:11 PM

I'm pretty convinced now that Dustin is only "becoming" a creationist to piss us all off. My guess is that when he was a "hard atheist" he was doing that to piss off religious people. His simplistic, knee-jerk rebellion makes me think that maybe he doesn't really care what we think as long as it upsets us and makes him look like he's being persecuted for his beliefs.

Also, does anyone suspect a bit of sock puppetry going on?

As recently as yesterday he was sure of the reality of evolution. Apparently he did a lot of thorough research since then and is now a young Earth creationist. He also went from challenging JF's "kinds" argument to completely agreeing with it in a very short time.

Madalch

15th June 2007, 02:12 PM

Do you answer a fool?
PRO 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.
PRO 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.

Judging by the number of replies KK and JF get, obviously.

slingblade

15th June 2007, 06:23 PM

Maybe you don't totally understand here...no one is going to Hell because they don't believe in Jesus...they are going to hell because they have sinned!

Then no one goes to heaven, ever.

For all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of god. Romans 3:23

That plainly means, according to you, that everyone, including you, goes to hell. Bummer.

Dustin Kesselberg

15th June 2007, 06:43 PM

Ooh, nice try, it really is. An old apologist bit to try and cram too many animals in not enough space. (The "vegetarian" bit is hilarious!)

However, there's one slight kink in your story:

The Bible doesn't say a thing about "kinds."

Genesis 7:8-9:

8 Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth,
9 There went two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah.

"Every thing that creepeth upon the earth." No "kinds." "Kinds" is an invention by apologists who are trying to make an impossible concept possible.

So to make the story work, you have to change it slightly from what the Bible actually says. The irony is that for you to take the story "literally," you have to take a non-literal interpretation.

Because when you take an actual literal interpretation, it's fairly evident that it is talking about every species of critter: "Every thing that creepeth upon the earth."

That's from the KJV. NIV says it as:"Take with you seven of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and two of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate".Gen7:2

Dustin Kesselberg

15th June 2007, 06:47 PM

you have become a YEC! - my that was quick. What's next? A refutation of the Copernican model? All steam ahead on the fundy train.....:)

Two questions [plucked from a plethora], given your new found fundamentalism;

1) what is your opinion on homosexuality?

2) what is your opinion on stem cell research?

Firstly, Patronizing tone noted.*

Secondly, My views on homosexuality? Homosexuality is a sin. It always has been and it always will be. However I don't believe we should literally prevent homosexuals from doing what homosexuals do since the old law as I mentioned earlier has been repudiated by Jesus. Right now Homosexuals are sinners as are ALL HUMANS. Every human sins because the bible says we all fall short. However the bible tells us that ALL sins are equal in the eye of God. Homosexuals are as equally sinful in the eye of God as are my sins of jealously of some stranger with a Ferrari. It's all equal.

"And the person who keeps every law of God, but makes one little slip, is just as guilty as the person who has broken every law there is" James 2:11

Dustin Kesselberg

15th June 2007, 06:56 PM

Could you explain your rationale for this claim? Couldn't one claim that all mammals are one "kind"? After all, claiming that all dinosaurs are one "kind" is equivalent to claiming that all mammals are one kind. How about all vertebrates. If we say all eukaryotes are a "kind" then Noah could have gotten by with a small Zodiac.

Firstly, The scientific classification of life is a man-made classification that is totally different today than it was 4,000 years ago. The bible authors had a totally different perception of life and classifications than we do today.

Secondly, "Dinosauria"(Which dinosaurs belong to) is a Superorder of animals while "Mammal"(which we belong to) is a "class" of animals. The "Class" is more encompassing than the superorder is. Dinosaurs belonged to the class of "Sauropsida" which modern reptiles belong to.

Yet you claimed that all dinosauria are one "kind" so that there would be only two dinosaurs on the whole ark. If it was intended that they should repopulate the Earth with the pre-flood diversity (just like those two cats must have branched into the numerous species of the family felidea that we see today) then they would have to evolve beyond the level of genus to account fro the two orders of dinosaurs.

See above.

Hokulele

15th June 2007, 06:56 PM

"And the person who keeps every law of God, but makes one little slip, is just as guilty as the person who has broken every law there is" James 2:11

Darn it, if no one is allowed to make small slips, what on earth will I wear under a skirt?

Dustin, what is your opinion of stem cell research?

Complexity

15th June 2007, 06:58 PM

Dustin - I'm not a sinner, for there is no sin.

Are you going to keep prosyletizing in your posts?

Have you become nothing more than a clone of kk?

Dustin Kesselberg

15th June 2007, 07:03 PM

Now, pay attention. These creatures are clearly all the same "kind":

whereas these creatures must be totally unrelated:

All life on earth is related, sharing commonality with it's single creator.

I'm pretty convinced now that Dustin is only "becoming" a creationist to piss us all off. My guess is that when he was a "hard atheist" he was doing that to piss off religious people. His simplistic, knee-jerk rebellion makes me think that maybe he doesn't really care what we think as long as it upsets us and makes him look like he's being persecuted for his beliefs.

Also, does anyone suspect a bit of sock puppetry going on?

I don't understand what you're even implying.

Firstly, Being "persecuted" for my beliefs? This is basically an Atheist forum (though not officially) and if I post opinions that differ from the majority I'm obviously going to be treated differently, treated worse, than if I just agreed. People seem to take things too personally here.

Secondly, "Sock puppetry"? As in I have other names? Who do you suspect me of being? I'm very curious.

As recently as yesterday he was sure of the reality of evolution. Apparently he did a lot of thorough research since then and is now a young Earth creationist. He also went from challenging JF's "kinds" argument to completely agreeing with it in a very short time.

I'm not a 'YEC' and I never endorsed Jesus_Freaks assertions about the age of the earth!!! I'm continuing to do research into radiometric dating and common scientific methods for determining the age of the earth however I don't agree with Archbishop James Ussher's age. I believe that Science is very accurate on the 4.4 billion year age of the earth and I do not believe this contradicts Genesis.

grayman

15th June 2007, 07:05 PM

Right now Homosexuals are sinners as are ALL HUMANS. Every human sins because the bible says we all fall short.[/B]

I am not a sinner.

You say I am because a book of mythology you've chosen to believe as fact tells you so.

I do not believe, therefor, I do not sin.

In my opinion you not a sinner, just unpleasant.

Dustin Kesselberg

15th June 2007, 07:06 PM

Dustin, what is your opinion of stem cell research?

I support federal funding stem cell research.

Dustin Kesselberg

15th June 2007, 07:10 PM

I am not a sinner.

You say I am because a book of mythology you've chosen to believe as fact tells you so.

I do not believe, therefor, I do not sin.

In my opinion you not a sinner, just unpleasant.

Let me ask you a few questions. Answer "Yes" or "No" to them.

Do you frequently take things that don't belong to you? Irregardless of their value.
Do you ever "lust" after some people you see? I'm assuming women. Do you ever lust after attractive women?
Do you ever judge people prior to knowing anything about them?
Have you ever voted for anything other than republican?
Do you believe there is a meaning to life?
Is your only justification for doing good to others (assuming you do good to others) simply a pragmatic decision for what's "best for society" or a personal choice based on empathy?

Hokulele

15th June 2007, 07:10 PM

I support federal funding stem cell research.

Thank you. Which sources of stem cells do you approve of?

Cleon

15th June 2007, 07:15 PM

That's from the KJV. NIV says it as:"Take with you seven of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and two of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate".Gen7:2

Another good try.

However, the NIV version of the chapter I quoted is thus:

8 Pairs of clean and unclean animals, of birds and of all creatures that move along the ground,
9 male and female, came to Noah and entered the ark, as God had commanded Noah.

So "every thing that creepeth upon the earth" has morphed into "all creatures that move along the ground," and still nothing about this concept of "kinds" which creationists have invented to defend their supposedly "literal" reading of the Bible.

But it is promising that you've unearthed yet another one of the Bible's contradictions. Was it seven, or two? First it says seven of every kind of clean animal and two of every "unclean," then it says "pairs of clean and unclean animals, of birds and of all creatures that move along the ground."

thaiboxerken

15th June 2007, 07:18 PM

I support federal funding stem cell research.

Today you do, but a few more days and you'll be against it because jesus told you to be against it.

I mean, c'mon, Dunstin. In the last two weeks, you went from a venomous atheist that made fun of fundies and creationists to a venomous fundie-creationist that's making fun of atheists. What game is this you're playing?

D'rok

15th June 2007, 07:20 PM

Thank you. Which sources of stem cells do you approve of?

You might want to ask again tomorrow. He's decided against evolution overnight. Who knows what he has in the script for tomorrow.

thaiboxerken

15th June 2007, 07:22 PM

It won't be too long and he'll be saying that he believes in all of the other kinds of woo as well. I think he's playing a game, myself. If not, then he's losing his sanity.

skeptifem

15th June 2007, 07:26 PM

the skeptics annotated bible had this to say:

Noah kills the "clean beasts" and burns their dead bodies for God. According to 7:8 this would have caused the extinction of all "clean" animals since only two of each were taken onto the ark. "And the Lord smelled a sweet savor." After this God "said in his heart" that he'd never do it again because "man's heart is evil from his youth." So God killed all living things (6:5 (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/gen/6.html#5)) because humans are evil, and then promises not to do it again (8:21 (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/gen/8.html#21)) because humans are evil. The mind of God is a frightening thing. 8:20-21 (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/gen/8.html#20)

along with a bunch of other hilariously absurd things about the noahs ark story

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/abs/long.htm

Foster Zygote

15th June 2007, 07:27 PM

Firstly, Patronizing tone noted

Methinks 'tis like a weasel.

Dustin Kesselberg

15th June 2007, 07:35 PM

Thank you. Which sources of stem cells do you approve of?

I don't believe we need to kill humans to save humans. That's what Embryonic stem-cell research does basically. Newer studies are coming out showing the possibility for pluripotency of adult stem-cells extracted from adult humans.

Another good try.

However, the NIV version of the chapter I quoted is thus:

8 Pairs of clean and unclean animals, of birds and of all creatures that move along the ground,
9 male and female, came to Noah and entered the ark, as God had commanded Noah.

So "every thing that creepeth upon the earth" has morphed into "all creatures that move along the ground," and still nothing about this concept of "kinds" which creationists have invented to defend their supposedly "literal" reading of the Bible.

But it is promising that you've unearthed yet another one of the Bible's contradictions. Was it seven, or two? First it says seven of every kind of clean animal and two of every "unclean," then it says "pairs of clean and unclean animals, of birds and of all creatures that move along the ground."

1 The LORD then said to Noah, "Go into the ark, you and your whole family, because I have found you righteous in this generation. 2 Take with you seven of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and two of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, 3 and also seven of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth. 4 Seven days from now I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights, and I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made."

Pairs of clean and unclean animals, of birds and of all creatures that move along the ground, 9 male and female, came to Noah and entered the ark, as God had commanded Noah. 10 And after the seven days the floodwaters came on the earth.

13 On that very day Noah and his sons, Shem, Ham and Japheth, together with his wife and the wives of his three sons, entered the ark. 14 They had with them every wild animal according to its kind, all livestock according to their kinds, every creature that moves along the ground according to its kind and every bird according to its kind, everything with wings. 15 Pairs of all creatures that have the breath of life in them came to Noah and entered the ark. 16 The animals going in were male and female of every living thing, as God had commanded Noah. Then the LORD shut him in.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%207;&version=31;

Not only does this specify "Kinds" it also clarifies that when it re-mentions the sorts of animals on the ark it doesn't contradict itself.

Hokulele

15th June 2007, 07:36 PM

You might want to ask again tomorrow. He's decided against evolution overnight. Who knows what he has in the script for tomorrow.

Hmm, good idea. We can do a sort of compare and contrast exercise.

Hokulele

15th June 2007, 07:39 PM

I don't believe we need to kill humans to save humans. That's what Embryonic stem-cell research does basically. Newer studies are coming out showing the possibility for pluripotency of adult stem-cells extracted from adult humans.

Would you abandon existing stem cell lines as well? By your argument, they would have been developed by killing humans.

grayman

15th June 2007, 07:41 PM

Let me ask you a few questions. Answer "Yes" or "No" to them.

Okay.

1. Do you frequently take things that don't belong to you? Irregardless of their value.

No.

2. Do you ever "lust" after some people you see? I'm assuming women. Do you ever lust after attractive women?

Depends on the definition of "Lust". I do find many women (and an occasional male) attractive in an artistic sense. I may find their beauty to be desirable but not necessarily in a sexual or sensual manner. There are people that I find myself wanting to be near just because they are pleasurable in an emotionally comforting way.

I do have a tendency to chase after the wife on occasion, but I think she's cool with that.

So I'll give you a nebulous Yes.

3. Do you ever judge people prior to knowing anything about them?

Yes, it's called profiling and it's a human trait. We notice people and within seconds we have created an opinion based on that individual's gender, race, speech, dress, mannerisms and so forth.

If I see a black male teenager wearing baggy clothes and sideways ball cap I will make assumptions based on stereotypical beliefs I've learned over the years much as I would make differing assumptions should I see a middle-aged women dressed smartly carrying a briefcase across a university campus.

4. Have you ever voted for anything other than republican?

Yes.

5. Do you believe there is a meaning to life?

If I am to believe Monty Python, yes.

Actually I try to give my life meaning rather than expect life to have meaning for me.

6. Is your only justification for doing good to others (assuming you do good to others) simply a pragmatic decision for what's "best for society" or a personal choice based on empathy?

This is not a yes/no question. I'll answer it though.

I try to treat those who treat me well, better.

I treat those who treat me bad, worse.

As to whether something I do is based on "best for society" or "empathy', it's a situational decision. I don't litter because it harms the environment (society) and because I don't like folks that litter (empathy).

I hope these answers satisfy you. For the record, I don't hate you nor do I wish you to stop posting.

Dustin Kesselberg

15th June 2007, 07:42 PM

Would you abandon existing stem cell lines as well? By your argument, they would have been developed by killing humans.

No. Abandoning them wouldn't prevent anyone harm so I see no problem with using them.

Dustin Kesselberg

15th June 2007, 07:47 PM

Depends on the definition of "Lust". I do find many women (and an occasional male) attractive in an artistic sense. I may find their beauty to be desirable but not necessarily in a sexual or sensual manner. There are people that I find myself wanting to be near just because they are pleasurable in an emotionally comforting way.

I do have a tendency to chase after the wife on occasion, but I think she's cool with that.

So I'll give you a nebulous Yes.

"Lust" as in think about in sexual ways.

This is not a yes/no question. I'll answer it though.

I try to treat those who treat me well, better.

I treat those who treat me bad, worse.

As to whether something I do is based on "best for society" or "empathy', it's a situational decision. I don't litter because it harms the environment (society) and because I don't like folks that litter (empathy).

It was a "Yes or No" question. The question was whether the justifications I listed were your justifications or not.

Would you stop and help an old lady who's having trouble in a grocery store even if you don't work there? Help her reach something? If Yes, Why? I can fathom no reason why this would help society as a whole. Is your only reason for doing it your personal 'empathy'? That you would "feel bad" had you not done it? Altruism? Is this your only justification for doing it?

Hokulele

15th June 2007, 07:49 PM

No. Abandoning them wouldn't prevent anyone harm so I see no problem with using them.

Which lines would you approve the continued use of?

grayman

15th June 2007, 07:53 PM

Noah kills the "clean beasts" and burns their dead bodies for God... "And the Lord smelled a sweet savor."

Thus Noah created the first barbecue.

And the Lord looked down and it was good.

Noah passed the ribs to God.

And it was good.

The Lord spake unto Noah and said, "I am pleased, for thou hast provided an abundance of baked beans, coleslaw, potato salad and corn on the cob as a side".

Then the Lord brought forth the brewskis from the cooler attended by a host of angels.

And the Lord and Noah kicked back and watched NASCAR, for it was SUNDAY! SUNDAY! SUNDAY!

Dustin Kesselberg

15th June 2007, 08:02 PM

Which lines would you approve the continued use of?

The "use" of or "federal funding" of? I would support the use of all lines that currently exist already and the federal funding of all lines that are already being federally funded.

Ducky

15th June 2007, 08:03 PM

Let me ask you a few questions. Answer "Yes" or "No" to them.

Do you frequently take things that don't belong to you? Irregardless of their value.
Do you ever "lust" after some people you see? I'm assuming women. Do you ever lust after attractive women?
Do you ever judge people prior to knowing anything about them?
Have you ever voted for anything other than republican?
Do you believe there is a meaning to life?
Is your only justification for doing good to others (assuming you do good to others) simply a pragmatic decision for what's "best for society" or a personal choice based on empathy?

Are you now or have you ever been a member of the communist party?

Have you stopped beating your wife?

What a ridiculous set of loaded questions. Are you saying, Dustin, that you consider it a sin not to vote republican?

RecoveringYuppy

15th June 2007, 08:03 PM

Has anyone seen God?
John 1:18 No man hath seen God at anytime. (Ex 33:20; Tim. 6:16; John 6:46; I John 4:12)
Gen. 32:30 For I have seen god face to face. (Ex. 33:11, 23; Is. 6:1; Job 42:5)
I always liked Exodus 33 where God moons Moses.

Cleon

15th June 2007, 08:04 PM

Not only does this specify "Kinds"

You're picking and choosing which part to take that from. In any event, the reality remains that the "kinds" concept as invented by the creationists is literally rejected by the Bible when it says "every creature that creepeth upon the earth."

it also clarifies that when it re-mentions the sorts of animals on the ark it doesn't contradict itself.

Yes, it does. In one place, it says two. In one place, it says seven. Literally.

You are using a non-literal interpretation. Again.

RecoveringYuppy

15th June 2007, 08:06 PM

How did the salt-water creatures live in the drastically desalinated water? How did the fresh-water creatures live in the drastically more salinated water?
Well, the Bible actually says that the flood destroyed all flesh so those creatures didn't live. They had to be on the ark too.

Hokulele

15th June 2007, 08:07 PM

The "use" of or "federal funding" of? I would support the use of all lines that currently exist already and the federal funding of all lines that are already being federally funded.

Why is federal funding only acceptable for certain lines and not others?

Morrigan

15th June 2007, 08:08 PM

What a ridiculous set of loaded questions. Are you saying, Dustin, that you consider it a sin not to vote republican?
:newlol I thought I was the only one who noticed the implication. Come on, you can stop trolling now, Dustin. That one gave it away. It's over.

Dustin Kesselberg

15th June 2007, 08:08 PM

You're picking and choosing which part to take that from. In any event, the reality remains that the "kinds" concept as invented by the creationists is literally rejected by the Bible when it says "every creature that creepeth upon the earth."

That's Gen7:13-16 where it's summing up what happened without specifics. It says: "They had with them every wild animal according to its kind, all livestock according to their kinds, every creature that moves along the ground according to its kind and every bird according to its kind, everything with wings." This is referring to "every kind" specifically as was clarified in Gen 7:2-3. It's not a contradiction!!!

Yes, it does. In one place, it says two. In one place, it says seven. Literally.

You are using a non-literal interpretation. Again.

Two of every "clean" kind and seven of every "Unclean" kind.

Dustin Kesselberg

15th June 2007, 08:10 PM

Why is federal funding only acceptable for certain lines and not others?

Frankly, We should ban any new embryonic from being made and then federally fund experiments all existing lines currently federally funded or not.

Foster Zygote

15th June 2007, 08:27 PM

Firstly, The scientific classification of life is a man-made classification that is totally different today than it was 4,000 years ago. The bible authors had a totally different perception of life and classifications than we do today.
Yes, but how do you know what classification the authors of the Noah myth were using. How do you know that they defined all species of the family felidae as a "kind"? Did lions and tigers and cheetas exist as species prior to the flood or was there only one "generic cat" species? If not, which species of felidae was selected to represent all felidae and how did its descendent evolve into the current variety of species? Where does the Bible define "kind"?

Secondly, "Dinosauria"(Which dinosaurs belong to) is a Superorder of animals while "Mammal"(which we belong to) is a "class" of animals. The "Class" is more encompassing than the superorder is. Dinosaurs belonged to the class of "Sauropsida" which modern reptiles belong to.
That's some fine Googeling but it does not address the issue. One might even describe it as "weaseling". If the dinosauria are one "kind" as described in the Noah myth then there is no need to bring the felidae at all is there? We may as well go up to that suborder as well and simply include a single breeding pair to represent all of the laurasiatheria. That would certainly simplify things for Noah. With a single pair of shrews he's take care of all of the following:

Erinaceomorpha: hedgehogs and gymnures
Soricomorpha: moles, shrews, solenodons (cosmopolitan)
Cetartiodactyla: cosmopolitan; includes former orders Cetacea (whales, dolphins and porpoises) and Artiodactyla (even-toed ungulates, including pigs, hippopotamus, camels, giraffe, deer, antelope, cattle, sheep, goats).
Pegasoferae:
Pholidota: pangolins or scaly anteaters (Africa, South Asia)
Chiroptera: bats (cosmopolitan)
Carnivora: carnivores (cosmopolitan)
Perissodactyla: odd-toed ungulates

There's no longer any need to bring along any pigs, hippopotamus, camels, giraffe, deer, antelope, cattle, sheep, goats, bats, anteaters, hedgehogs, moles, horses, zebras, donkeys, tapirs, rhinoceroses, lions, tigers, bears, wolves, dingos, coyotes, housecats, red pandas, mongooses, hyenas, leopards, badgers, smilodons, skunks, martens, otters, raccoons, meercats, cheetahs, linsangs, or weasels.

Of course this is a very short list of but a small fraction of the varieties of life that could arise from two small, easily cared for shrews after the flood waters receded. What was that problem you had with evolution again?

Dustin Kesselberg

15th June 2007, 08:35 PM

Yes, but how do you know what classification the authors of the Noah myth were using. How do you know that they defined all species of the family felidae as a "kind"? Did lions and tigers and cheetas exist as species prior to the flood or was there only one "generic cat" species? If not, which species of felidae was selected to represent all felidae and how did its descendent evolve into the current variety of species? Where does the Bible define "kind"?

I don't. Nor do you.

That's some fine Googeling but it does not address the issue. One might even describe it as "weaseling". If the dinosauria are one "kind" as described in the Noah myth then there is no need to bring the felidae at all is there? We may as well go up to that suborder as well and simply include a single breeding pair to represent all of the laurasiatheria. That would certainly simplify things for Noah. With a single pair of shrews he's take care of all of the following:

Erinaceomorpha: hedgehogs and gymnures
Soricomorpha: moles, shrews, solenodons (cosmopolitan)
Cetartiodactyla: cosmopolitan; includes former orders Cetacea (whales, dolphins and porpoises) and Artiodactyla (even-toed ungulates, including pigs, hippopotamus, camels, giraffe, deer, antelope, cattle, sheep, goats).
Pegasoferae:
Pholidota: pangolins or scaly anteaters (Africa, South Asia)
Chiroptera: bats (cosmopolitan)
Carnivora: carnivores (cosmopolitan)
Perissodactyla: odd-toed ungulates

There's no longer any need to bring along any pigs, hippopotamus, camels, giraffe, deer, antelope, cattle, sheep, goats, bats, anteaters, hedgehogs, moles, horses, zebras, donkeys, tapirs, rhinoceroses, lions, tigers, bears, wolves, dingos, coyotes, housecats, red pandas, mongooses, hyenas, leopards, badgers, smilodons, skunks, martens, otters, raccoons, meercats, cheetahs, linsangs, or weasels.

Of course this is a very short list of but a small fraction of the varieties of life that could arise from two small, easily cared for shrews after the flood waters receded. What was that problem you had with evolution again?

I won't postulate on how the ancient bible authors classified living creatures!

Foster Zygote

15th June 2007, 08:37 PM

Are you now or have you ever been a member of the communist party?

Have you stopped beating your wife?

Are you going to eat that?

Have you ever seen a grown man naked?

Pardon me boy, is this the Transylvania station?

Foster Zygote

15th June 2007, 08:43 PM

I don't. Nor do you.
But you are the one making a specific claim. You've already stated:
That's right. I'm so sick of people saying Noah took 2 of every species.

Dogs, Wolves, Coyotes, they are all one "kind".

Cats, Tigers, Lions, all one "kind".

Dinosaurs are also all one "kind".

Noah needn't take every species that ever existed on the Ark. Simply every "Kind". 2 Cat kinds, 2 Dog kinds, 2 Dinosaur kinds, etc.

I won't postulate on how the ancient bible authors classified living creatures!
But you already have.

slingblade

15th June 2007, 08:49 PM

Pardon me boy, is this the Transylvania station?

Ja, ja! Track 29. Oh; can I give you a shine?

Cleon

15th June 2007, 08:51 PM

That's Gen7:13-16 where it's summing up what happened without specifics. It says: "They had with them every wild animal according to its kind, all livestock according to their kinds, every creature that moves along the ground according to its kind and every bird according to its kind, everything with wings." This is referring to "every kind" specifically as was clarified in Gen 7:2-3. It's not a contradiction!!!

Two of every "clean" kind and seven of every "Unclean" kind.

You can have as creative interpretation as you like.

But if you take a literal view, it most certainly is a contradiction. Further, the bit about "kinds" is not supported by a literal reading of the Bible.

Dr Adequate

15th June 2007, 08:53 PM

All life on earth is related, sharing commonality with it's single creator. You do know what the definition of a "kind" is, right? It involves common descent, not common manufacture by a magic sky-fairy.

Steven Howard

15th June 2007, 09:18 PM

Have you ever voted for anything other than republican?

Careful. You're awfully close to breaking kayfabe here.

Steven Howard

15th June 2007, 09:20 PM

You might want to ask again tomorrow. He's decided against evolution overnight. Who knows what he has in the script for tomorrow.

I'm waiting for him to become a Scientologist. That'll be hilarious!

Dr Adequate

15th June 2007, 09:22 PM

D'rok

15th June 2007, 09:53 PM

I'm waiting for him to become a Scientologist. That'll be hilarious!

Oh he is so ripe for Scientology. Wait until he finds out that Jesus was an Incident II implant.

Waddya say Dustin. Scientology in Act III of your performance?

grayman

15th June 2007, 10:02 PM

Well Dustin, I answered your six questions honestly although you've yet to fully explain their significance.

Allow me to ask you six questions:

1) Why do you believe that Jesus is the truth?

2) Have you ever had thoughts of a homosexual nature?

3) Do you believe it is ever justifiable to take another human being's life?

4) Do you believe the world would be a better place if all worshiped one religion only?

5) Are all created equal?

6) If Jesus was to appear in human form today, would you recognize him?

Dr Adequate

15th June 2007, 10:06 PM

Hey, Dustin, here's another C. S. Lewis quote for you:

"The ultimate question is whether the doctrine of the goodness of God or that of the inerrancy of scripture is to prevail when they conflict. I think the doctrine of the goodness of God is the more certain of the two. Indeed, only that doctrine renders this worship of Him obligatory or even permissable."

Solus

15th June 2007, 10:46 PM

I changed. I used to be an Atheist before Jesus revealed himself to me.

In all seriousness, god revealed himself to me too Dustin. in fact I thought I was a proxy of god, that I had transcended being human. In my cause it was caused by a manic episode. My brain was so out of control, my logic left me and all that was left was emotion. I'll should start a thread about it soon. From what I've read of the great religious leaders they all show sign of mental illness.

Now tell me this if god is real... Why did the feelings stop, the connection stop when I took medication? God isn't powerful enough to keep me as his proxy, to keep showing me the signs? He must surely be more powerful than a mere anti psychotic. I could feel god fully in my mind, the world was going to be saved. I take pills and that all ends, guess god didn't really care about saving the world.

Religion is just a feeling in the brain nothing more. Tell your god to openly reveal himself to millions. in fact just have Jesus just show up at the JREF for testing and win the million. All the JREFers here and even randi will convert then I assure you.

Beleth

16th June 2007, 12:01 AM

I'm waiting for him to become a Scientologist. That'll be hilarious!
That's what's so ironic. By his own words, he's already keyed out Clear; he just needs to be shown the real truth.

(wink wink nudge nudge)

ImaginalDisc

16th June 2007, 01:10 AM

That's from the KJV. NIV says it as:"Take with you seven of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and two of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate".Gen7:2

Congratulations on being able to read a book scribbled by ancient nomads who penned it to, in the words of Luis Black, "distract them from the fact that they didn't have air conditioning." Now, in the real world, that never happened.

Paul

16th June 2007, 02:37 AM

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%207;&version=31;

Not only does this specify "Kinds" it also clarifies that when it re-mentions the sorts of animals on the ark it doesn't contradict itself.Again, how about this(KJV):
Gen 6:19 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Gen&chapter=6&verse=19&version=kjv#19) And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every [sort] shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep [them] alive with thee; they shall be male and female.
Gen 6:20 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Gen&chapter=6&verse=20&version=kjv#20) Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every [sort] shall come unto thee, to keep [them] alive.
Gen 6:21 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Gen&chapter=6&verse=21&version=kjv#21) And take thou unto thee of all food that is eaten, and thou shalt gather to thee; and [I]it shall be for food for thee, and for them.
Gen 7:2 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Gen&chapter=7&verse=2&version=kjv#2) Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that [are] not clean by two, the male and his female.
Gen 7:3 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Gen&chapter=7&verse=3&version=kjv#3) Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth.
Gen 7:8 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Gen&chapter=7&verse=8&version=kjv#8) Of clean beasts, and of beasts that [are] not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth,
Gen 7:9 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Gen&chapter=7&verse=9&version=kjv#9) There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah
Gen 7:14 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Gen&chapter=7&verse=14&version=kjv#14) They, and every beast after his kind, and all the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind, and every fowl after his kind, every bird of every sort.
Gen 7:15 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Gen&chapter=7&verse=15&version=kjv#15) And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein [is] the breath of life.
Gen 7:16 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Gen&chapter=7&verse=16&version=kjv#16) And they that went in, went in male and female of all flesh, as God had commanded him: and the LORD shut him in.

Quite plain, all the kinds of cattle and all the kinds of birds and every creeping things and all the food for them.

So, no hibernating because they needed to take food for the animals, and no superkinds to avoid the overcrowding issue because there were different kinds of cattle and fowl and birds. In case you haven't noticed, it even specifically mentions two different birds by name, Gen 8:7-8.

Dustin Kesselberg

16th June 2007, 04:51 AM

You do know what the definition of a "kind" is, right? It involves common descent, not common manufacture by a magic sky-fairy.

"Kind" is defined that way? :confused:

Well Dustin, I answered your six questions honestly although you've yet to fully explain their significance.

Allow me to ask you six questions:

1) Why do you believe that Jesus is the truth?

1. Because it makes the most sense.
2. Because it works best in my life.
3. Because Jesus revealed himself to me personally.

2) Have you ever had thoughts of a homosexual nature?

Do you mean have I ever been sexually attracted to another man? No.

3) Do you believe it is ever justifiable to take another human being's life?

Yes.

4) Do you believe the world would be a better place if all worshiped one religion only?

I believe it would be a better place if we all accepted Jesus and tried to limit our sins.

5) Are all created equal?

Yes.

6) If Jesus was to appear in human form today, would you recognize him?

Physically? No.

athon

16th June 2007, 05:37 AM

Why do you choose the NIV over the KJV?

Athon

Dustin Kesselberg

16th June 2007, 05:44 AM

Why do you choose the NIV over the KJV?

Athon

I don't. Most reputable translations have something to offer. All translations have errors and it's required to use other versions to makeup for the errors in one.

athon

16th June 2007, 05:52 AM

I don't. Most reputable translations have something to offer. All translations have errors and it's required to use other versions to makeup for the errors in one.

How do you know what are errors and what aren't?

Athon

Dustin Kesselberg

16th June 2007, 05:54 AM

How do you know what are errors and what aren't?

Athon

Strong's concordance.

volatile

16th June 2007, 05:58 AM

Strong's concordance.

Has all this *really* happened in a couple of months? You've read and digested more than one translation of the Bible, read enough evolutionary biology to decide it has "holes" and completely turned your worldview on its head? Really?

PixyMisa

16th June 2007, 06:00 AM

And you read Strong's Concordance when? Tuesday?

Dustin Kesselberg

16th June 2007, 06:03 AM

Has all this *really* happened in a couple of months? You've read and digested more than one translation of the Bible, read enough evolutionary biology to decide it has "holes" and completely turned your worldview on its head? Really?

Basically. Though I'm still reading daily. At least an hour per day right now I am reading Behe's book almost done and then I will move onto the "Dawkin's delusion" next. I haven't read all translations of the Bible, let alone a few, however I do know that reputable translations have something to offer. As asll as that all translations have errors and it's required to use other versions to makeup for the errors in one.

And you read Strong's Concordance when? Tuesday?

I read it Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, yesterday and I'm reading it as well today. I'm looking at it right now.

PixyMisa

16th June 2007, 06:10 AM

And you read Behe's book at the same time?

Never mind, you answered that.

volatile

16th June 2007, 06:12 AM

Basically. Though I'm still reading daily. At least an hour per day right now I am reading Behe's book almost done and then I will move onto the "Dawkin's delusion" next. I haven't read all translations of the Bible, let alone a few, however I do know that reputable translations have something to offer. As asll as that all translations have errors and it's required to use other versions to makeup for the errors in one.

You know Behe is utterly, utterly wrong about irreducible complexity, right?

RQQ7ubVIqo4

Are you reading anything that isn't skewed creationist propaganda?

athon

16th June 2007, 06:17 AM

And you read Behe's book at the same time?

Never mind, you answered that.

I don't think Dustin gets out much. I knew a guy once who actually read car and engine manuals. Knew all there was to know about engines, makes and models.

Couldn't drive, though. And once I asked him how to fix something on my car, and he couldn't do more than tell me the names of the parts and where I could get them from.

There's an analogy in there. ;)

Athon

PixyMisa

16th June 2007, 06:22 AM

Dustin, I have this recommendation to you: Pick up a copy of Steven Jay Gould's Wonderful Life (http://www.amazon.com/Wonderful-Life-Burgess-Nature-History/dp/039330700X). Some of the science is outdated now, but it remains one of the best stories of evolutionary research ever written.

Dustin Kesselberg

16th June 2007, 06:24 AM

I don't think Dustin gets out much. I knew a guy once who actually read car and engine manuals. Knew all there was to know about engines, makes and models.

Couldn't drive, though. And once I asked him how to fix something on my car, and he couldn't do more than tell me the names of the parts and where I could get them from.

There's an analogy in there. ;)

Athon

I'm about to go do voluntary work with my new congregation today. How often do you volunteer?

Darat

16th June 2007, 06:29 AM

Dustin you've not mentioned when you were baptised, was that yesterday?

(To save you having to Google for something here's a quick link you can crib your answer from: http://www.beliefnet.com/story/16/story_1643_1.html)

D'rok

16th June 2007, 06:33 AM

You know Behe is utterly, utterly wrong about irreducible complexity, right?

RQQ7ubVIqo4

Are you reading anything that isn't skewed creationist propaganda?

I love the part where he says "that's not evidence, that's just an argument". Then he goes on to show the observations that lead to the evidence that proves the argument.

Our little autodidact should pay attention.

athon

16th June 2007, 06:34 AM

I'm about to go do voluntary work with my new congregation today. How often do you volunteer?

Every weekend, Wednesday evenings and most Mondays, depending on the week. Weekends are either community radio or a local youth group (some, like this weekend, is both), Wednesdays is a debating competition, and Monday afternoons I sometimes swing by a local old folks home in the area which is linked with the local Catholic parish. I don't do it for religious reasons, obviously, but rather I enjoy it. All of it.

I used to volunteer back in Queensland to do tutor work at something called a 'flexi school', which was a last chance educational facility (running on a governement grant...barely!) for kids who went off the rails.

The Xmas before last I spent in a homeless shelter in London serving food. One of the best Christmases I've ever had, to be honest. And I didn't see a single friend or family member all day.

And finally...wtf has it to do with anything, other than once again you demonstrating your arrogance and flouting your 'charity' with boastful pride born of religious pomposity?

Athon

RecoveringYuppy

16th June 2007, 06:34 AM

Strong's concordance.
And how do you know Strong's is accurate? I know I've suspected it of Christian bias on a few occasions.

kinkymagic

16th June 2007, 07:09 AM

Do you ever judge people prior to knowing anything about them?

How could you logically judge someone without knowing anything about them?

Surely if you knew nothing about them then you would be unaware of their existence, and so it would be rather hard to come up with an opinion of them.

volatile

16th June 2007, 07:13 AM

#217, Dustin?

Dustin Kesselberg

16th June 2007, 07:25 AM

Are you reading anything that isn't skewed creationist propaganda?

Sure, I read the "Talk origins" site often.

Foster Zygote

16th June 2007, 07:32 AM

Foster Zygote

16th June 2007, 07:38 AM

I'm about to go do voluntary work with my new congregation today. How often do you volunteer?

You're starting to sound like David Jay Jordan now. Some people (even atheists) actually do charitable works out of a desire to help others. Many of them don't talk about it because they aren't doing it to impress anyone. Since you're a Christian now you must be familiar with the Pharisees, yes? They were admonished for their "holier than thou" attitude and using their religion in an attempt to impress others.

andyandy

16th June 2007, 07:45 AM

My views on homosexuality? Homosexuality is a sin. It always has been and it always will be. However I don't believe we should literally prevent homosexuals from doing what homosexuals do since the old law as I mentioned earlier has been repudiated by Jesus. Right now Homosexuals are sinners as are ALL HUMANS. Every human sins because the bible says we all fall short. However the bible tells us that ALL sins are equal in the eye of God. Homosexuals are as equally sinful in the eye of God as are my sins of jealously of some stranger with a Ferrari. It's all equal.

"And the person who keeps every law of God, but makes one little slip, is just as guilty as the person who has broken every law there is" James 2:11

hang on, so banging one's thumb with a hammer and shouting "Christ!" is an equal sin to a cold blooded murder in which the dead body is humped, dismembered and then consumed? It's all equal?

The trouble with your reply is that homosexuality is not something that someone can "control" any more than one can "control" being a heterosexual - why should genetic consequence be labeled a "sin"?

The bible teaches to ask forgiveness of one's sins - should a homosexual be required to ask forgiveness for his sexuality, whereas a heterosexual does not need to?

I find this kind of weasel word prejudice pretty disgusting.

andyandy

16th June 2007, 07:48 AM

Sure, I read the "Talk origins" site often.

seeing as you're voraciously reading loads of tosh, how about reading something decent?

I can recommend The Ancestor's Tale and The Selfish Gene. Both by Dawkins - doing what Dawkins does best - evolutionary biology.

PixyMisa

16th June 2007, 07:58 AM

Sure, I read the "Talk origins" site often.
Do you indeed?

So what do you make of the fact that that site utterly demolishes every aspect of Behe's work?

Hokulele

16th June 2007, 10:31 AM

Whoa, wait a minute!

I don't believe we need to kill humans to save humans. That's what Embryonic stem-cell research does basically. Newer studies are coming out showing the possibility for pluripotency of adult stem-cells extracted from adult humans.

3) Do you believe it is ever justifiable to take another human being's life?
Yes.

If "killing a human" to potentially save many is not justifiable, what is?

Note, I do not agree that stem cell harvesting is "killing humans", just accepting that it is so in Dustin's mind to see if he is holding onto a major contradiction here.

Dr Adequate

16th June 2007, 11:48 AM

"Kind" is defined that way? Yes. What a creationist means by "baramin" or "created kind" or just "kind" is a group of species which he is willing to admit are related.

slingblade

16th June 2007, 12:23 PM

hang on, so banging one's thumb with a hammer and shouting "Christ!" is an equal sin to a cold blooded murder in which the dead body is humped, dismembered and then consumed? It's all equal?

It's what I was taught, when I was a Fundy. A lie is as bad as a rape, as a murder....a lie about whether you stole a cookie from the jar is equally as reprehensible as raping a baby.

You could either look at it as:

"Gee, I don't want to rape a baby! I'd better not steal a cookie,"

or "Stealing a cookie is so petty! I might as well rape a baby, since it's the same thing."

Nice mind-set, yes?

I don't believe Dustin's conversion. He's just chain-yanking, as always.

joobz

16th June 2007, 12:27 PM

It's what I was taught, when I was a Fundy. A lie is as bad as a rape, as a murder....a lie about whether you stole a cookie from the jar is equally as reprehensible as raping a baby.

You could either look at it as:

"Gee, I don't want to rape a baby! I'd better not steal a cookie,"

or "Stealing a cookie is so petty! I might as well rape a baby, since it's the same thing."

Nice mind-set, yes?

I don't believe Dustin's conversion. He's just chain-yanking, as always.
Is chain-yanking a sin? I know monkey spanking is....but....

slingblade

16th June 2007, 01:01 PM

Ere you tryin' to sneak evilution in on us here, Joobz? Talkin' 'bout monkeys and stuff....Ah think you's tryin' to say something 'bout that Darwin feller, and Ah'm tellin' you, Ah ain't a-havin' none of it, y'hear?

(oh, ed, someone help me stuff her back in her box...DO NOT let the Fundie out! AAAAAGH!)

:D :D :D

Foster Zygote

16th June 2007, 01:10 PM

slingblade

16th June 2007, 01:21 PM

I have a question: If it's a sin to lust after someone to whom you aren't married, then is it a sin to lust after someone prior to a marriage? Are we required to feel not the slightest sexual attraction to someone until we are married? I started having dirty thoughts about my wife before we even had our first date. Is that sin of lust still a sin or was it retroactively legitimized after we said "I do"?

Nope. Lust is bad. Before marriage, all sexual behavior is called fornication, and it can happen in your mind (or your hand) as easily as anywhere else.

After marriage, lust is adultery.

It never gets legitimized. All you can do is ask to be forgiven, and then it's as if it never happened. Even though Jesus already died for all your sins, including the ones you've yet to commit. You still have to ask. I guess God is big on manners, too. But once you ask, God's memory becomes convenient.

Sex is bad, mmmkay?

Dustin Kesselberg

16th June 2007, 01:25 PM

hang on, so banging one's thumb with a hammer and shouting "Christ!" is an equal sin to a cold blooded murder in which the dead body is humped, dismembered and then consumed? It's all equal?

The trouble with your reply is that homosexuality is not something that someone can "control" any more than one can "control" being a heterosexual - why should genetic consequence be labeled a "sin"?

The bible teaches to ask forgiveness of one's sins - should a homosexual be required to ask forgiveness for his sexuality, whereas a heterosexual does not need to?

I find this kind of weasel word prejudice pretty disgusting.

Firstly, You're confusing what "lords name in vein" actually means.

Secondly, I'm not prejudice against homosexuals. Homosexuals are sinners and heterosexuals are sinners. All people are sinners. Homosexuals can control their natural sins. Become celibate and try not to think about sex. However, as i've mentioned, all sins are equal. If homosexuals don't want to attempt to control their natural sins then it's their personal choice and I won't judge them for it because I am also a sinner as is everyone else.

Dustin Kesselberg

16th June 2007, 01:27 PM

Whoa, wait a minute!

If "killing a human" to potentially save many is not justifiable, what is?

Note, I do not agree that stem cell harvesting is "killing humans", just accepting that it is so in Dustin's mind to see if he is holding onto a major contradiction here.

I would NEVER support killing 1 human to save a thousand. I have no right to take the life away from that one person just to save the thousand. The only time I believe killing is justified is in self-defense matters, to prevent someone from destroying you. In most cases I would simply turn the other cheek, however if it came down to me vs them and they are the aggressors then I would defend my life.

Dustin Kesselberg

16th June 2007, 01:29 PM

I have a question: If it's a sin to lust after someone to whom you aren't married, then is it a sin to lust after someone prior to a marriage? Are we required to feel not the slightest sexual attraction to someone until we are married? I started having dirty thoughts about my wife before we even had our first date. Is that sin of lust still a sin or was it retroactively legitimized after we said "I do"?

That's a good question for which I do not know the answer. If you plan on marrying the person then 'lust' for them is probably justified but sex isn't. Though that's not in the Bible. It's very possible in my opinion not to lust after someone until the wedding night.

thaiboxerken

16th June 2007, 01:35 PM

Killing humans is ok, killing human beings is not ok.

D'rok

16th June 2007, 01:44 PM

Nope. Lust is bad. Before marriage, all sexual behavior is called fornication, and it can happen in your mind (or your hand) as easily as anywhere else.

After marriage, lust is adultery.

It never gets legitimized. All you can do is ask to be forgiven, and then it's as if it never happened. Even though Jesus already died for all your sins, including the ones you've yet to commit. You still have to ask. I guess God is big on manners, too. But once you ask, God's memory becomes convenient.

Sex is bad, mmmkay?

Damn. I guess I committed adultery about a dozen times at the beach this afternoon. Better not mention that to my wife. Stupid bikini-fish. Someone should force them to put on burkhas or something.

It's very possible in my opinion not to lust after someone until the wedding night.

Denial ain't just a river in Egypt.

andyandy

16th June 2007, 01:49 PM

Firstly, You're confusing what "lords name in vein" actually means.

Secondly, I'm not prejudice against homosexuals. Homosexuals are sinners and heterosexuals are sinners. All people are sinners. Homosexuals can control their natural sins. Become celibate and try not to think about sex. However, as i've mentioned, all sins are equal. If homosexuals don't want to attempt to control their natural sins then it's their personal choice and I won't judge them for it because I am also a sinner as is everyone else.

the lord's name in vein? Is that some new-fangled intravenous worship? :)

you're still exhibiting prejudice though aren't you? Homosexuals have to become celibate and not think about sex in order to not be "sinners" - whereas heterosexuals can marry and have sex with god's a-ok. Prejudice plain and simple.

slingblade

16th June 2007, 01:53 PM

To have a prejudice is to be prejudiced. There's a "d" on the end of that word. Gads.

(not you, Andy.)

andyandy

16th June 2007, 01:56 PM

Damn. I guess I committed adultery about a dozen times at the beach this afternoon. Better not mention that to my wife. Stupid bikini-fish. Someone should force them to put on burkhas or something.
.

Don't pretend you have sunbathing beaches in Canada! You have polar bears and snow :D

Foster Zygote

16th June 2007, 02:07 PM

It's very possible in my opinion not to lust after someone until the wedding night.

The self flagellation really helps in that regard.

D'rok

16th June 2007, 02:12 PM

Don't pretend you have sunbathing beaches in Canada! You have polar bears and snow :D

Well, you can still get a pretty good tan from the sun reflecting off of all that snow. We just toss out a couple of seals to keep the polar bears busy. It's these damn tempestuous young women....they just won't keep their parkas on and stay inside the igloos like god commands!

Foster Zygote

16th June 2007, 02:12 PM

Don't pretend you have sunbathing beaches in Canada! You have polar bears and snow :D

Canadian beachwear.