"this argument says nothing of its nature"

"At least you admit there are things that are unexplainable and we cannot know..."

If you're a young guy, then you certainly are a dumbass. Go back to school.

I was just refuting Karl's conjecture in regards to Jesus not mentioning Noah etc.,

When I look at the teaching of Jesus, I see a lot of emphasis on tolerance, non-judgement and loving your enemies,... and none on believing in the biblical creation story, noah's ark and so forth.

and yet some folks who follow Jesus insist on debating with fervor the merits of making scientific history out of scripture while ignoring the teachings that Jesus actually made a big deal of.

Take a deep breath and look again, within especially

PEace

Karl

I entered this web site when RokJox was having an all out war over the posting of a large picture of a nuke bomb, LEB and Fish were raging, locker had recently been reinstated after a forced hiatus having something to do with not so subtle nudity.......................etc.


This place has never been decent as far as I know. And digging back to 3 or 5 years- I'd say t he Wild West days of the Taco are a bygone era.

With an answer like "both", I would then assume that:

1) you got called contradicting yourself and had no real answer

or

2) you are a hypocrite

I'm not posting to start waves or create animosity, just trying to clarify where your thought process is coming from.

"It is pointless for me to get involved in these explosive debates."

Especially insofar as you misunderstand science and then use this misunderstanding in the promotion of traditional Christian religion. -Which then just fires up the defenders of science, science education.

"...that all this energy and matter somehow randomly came into existence and defied the laws of thermodynamics to produce conscious beings then so be it. You are truly the ignorant ones."

We don't know what created the universe and set things up for evolution to occcur. We just don't know, was it God, was it an accident, was it inevitable? We don't know, you can claim all you want there is God or there is no God behind it all, but we don't know. So I for one allow people to believe what they want as long as they don't force it on me or my posterity.

But to claim people have always existed in their present form is wishful thinking and allegiance to a falsehood. It is refuted by all reasonable evidence.

"So I for one allow people to believe what they want as long as they don't force it on me or my posterity."

The Fet wrote-
"So I for one allow people to believe what they want as long as they don't force it on me or my posterity."

That's it right there.

Or force it on the laws of this country.

I am a theistic evolutionist.

Dave, what show was that? I missed that one, I'll check it out online in the archives.

What will it take?

Bhagavad-gita As It Is - Macmillan 1972 Edition: introduction:

"The English word "religion" is a little different from sanātana-dharma. Religion conveys the idea of faith, and faith may change. One may have faith in a particular process, and he may change this faith and adopt another, but sanātana-dharma refers to that activity which cannot be changed.

For instance, liquidity cannot be taken from water, nor can heat be taken from fire. Similarly, the eternal function of the eternal living entity cannot be taken from the living entity.

Sanātana-dharma is eternally integral with the living entity."

the eternal function of the eternal living entity cannot be taken from the living entity.

" ...there is no eternal living entity, there is no eternal function to take away."

What physical evidence would be deemed worthy enough to prove the existance of GOD to most Agnostics and Atheists?

I'm just wondering. If you are an Agnostic or Atheist please say what it would take. What will it take?

Perhaps it exists and you haven't asked.

I'm am always amazed how everyone gets on their high horses around here acting like they can explain everything. The fact is science and religion both include some amount of necessary faith.

Nature -- "The scientist I respect are the ones that admit they know nothing."

It is very real, although temporary.

Nature -- "We know so very little."

gets on their high horses around here acting like they can explain everything

"essentially nothing"

Without water you eventually dry up. Can I prove any of that? Again, no.

And thus nothing is provable.

Theistic evolution is not a theory in the scientific sense, but a particular view about how the science of evolution relates to religious belief and interpretation. Theistic evolution supporters can be seen as one of the groups who reject the conflict thesis regarding the relationship between religion and science – that is, they hold that religious teachings about creation and scientific theories of evolution need not contradict.

Ed Hartouni:
can you define "truth"?


brotherbbock; I am a Theistic Evolutionist Ed.

How many times do I need to say what my personal truth is in one thread?????




Ed: you never learned the difference between "use" and "mention" either, apparently...




brotherbbock: What is this???? Get the last degrading remark in the thread game???

In that case your beard looks like a rat's nest of muons and gluons.

I know what he was refering to Wandf*#ka.

If "God" is "wholly other" and as some imply, proving god's existence/non-existence is a real conundrum. I think people should continue to persue their own paradigms and see where they lead.......

http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/k/kjv/kjv-idx?type=DIV1&byte=4760421

John.1:1-18 (KJV)
[1] In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
[2] The same was in the beginning with God.
[3] All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
[4] In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
[5] And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
[6] There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
[7] The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.
[8] He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.
[9] That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.
[10] He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
[11] He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
[12] But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
[13] Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
[14] And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
[15] John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me.
[16] And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace.
[17] For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.
[18] No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

13 “You shall not murder.

"And well you should not! For my ally is the Force. And a powerful ally it is. Life creates it, makes it grow. The Force surrounds us and binds us. Luminous beings are we not this crude matter. You must feel the Force around you. Here, between you, me, the tree, the rock...everywhere! Even between the land and the ship." -- Yoda to Luke Skywalker

Klimmer, et al....

Have you studied bible history (as opposed to "biblical history")? The texts were written by men - the apostles, etc. Not "GOD". Some were published in the bible, others were rejected as "heresy." Not very God-like, if some GOD-written texts were rejected by men, eh?

The book of John was the most radical example of a book that was in line with the views the Christians. It's tone is much different than Matthew, Mark, and Luke.

Example for 10 points - Who was Constantine?

For 20 points - If the biblical texts (the writings of the apostles) are the word of God, why are some of them not in the bible?

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work. (2 Timothy 3:16)