|
|
Slapzech
Adventuring Hero
that didn't vote for Kaczynski
|
posted November 05, 2007 10:15 PM |
|
|
Quote:
No, it does not. By your logic, we are an entirely different race than we where 1000 years ago because of physical changes.
WTF?
A period of 1000 Years is too short for evolution process to create even small changes in a species, not to mentioning Speciation.
The argument You gave is utterly random and dumb.
Tell me what are those great changes that happend to human biology and genome after 1000 years?
|
|
roy-algriffin
Supreme Hero
Chocolate ice cream zealot
|
|
posted November 05, 2007 10:32 PM |
|
|
Quote:
The opposite. Luther hated Jews and wanted their synagogues burned. There is not much love in the origins of Protestantism.
Well i dont know if thats a good example. if we started looking we could find quite a few examples of any religion being evil to the jews. And any section of it.
Some people would still kill us because 80 generations ago some idiot went and got jesus killed.
____________
"Am i a demon? No im a priest of the light! THE BLOODY RED LIGHT"
|
|
Lord_Woock
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Daddy Cool with a $90 smile
|
|
posted November 05, 2007 10:37 PM |
|
|
A handful of loosely related points
Evolutionism is very strongly related to all genetics. By saying that 'evolution scientists are corrupt liars who drool over the Church's riches', you discredit all medical achievements reached through genetic research.
Opium has a calming effect on people. Not on the Japanese, though (and perhaps other Asians, but I don't even remember a source at the moment. Surely someone can back me up on this with some more reliable data). Instead, they react with hyperactivity. We know that you think the spreading of immunity over a population is "the nature of bacteria, rats and everything", and not evolution. What about these vastly different chemical reactions?
Another commonly known tidbit:
Go and acquire some data about human DNA, then compare to chimpanzees, dogs, lizards, frogs, fish and amoebas, in that order. Explain why there are so few differences in the genomes of two anatomically similar species, and gradually more as you go down the evolutionary ladder proposed by whom you accuse of blasphemy?
____________
Yolk and God bless.
---
My buddy's doing a webcomic and would certainly appreciate it if you checked it out!
|
|
ZanJerusalem
Disgraceful
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted November 05, 2007 10:43 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Just where in the bible was there ever a word about a pope who is God's substitute on earth? I might be wrong but I never got this, so do explain please.
Peter was the first pope. Now look here:
Matthew 16:18-19: (New Jerusalem Version)
18 So I now say to you: You are Peter [a] and on this rock I will build my community. And the gates of the underworld [b can never overpower it. [c]
19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of Heaven: whatever you bind on earth will be [d] bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth will be [e] loosed in heaven.'
Footnotes:
a. Matthew 16:18 Peter means rock.
b. Matthew 16:18 Or hell
c. Matthew 16:18 Or not prove stronger than it
d. Matthew 16:19 Or have been
e. Matthew 16:19 Or have been
Quote:
But couldn't they have, in theory, chosen scripts that are for their own benefit and for the benefit of the church's position as the rulers? Andd then just said: "Oh but we were guided by the spirit"? In theory, right?
If you believe that, why do you use the scripture at all?
Quote:
He was following the bible as accurarely as he could, that was his goal. He did not. He created the unbiblical teaching Sola Fide, salvation by faith alone. That contradicts Matthew 7:27 (We are saved by good works) and Mark 16:16 (We are saved by Baptism), as I said.
Also he believed in predestination. That means that some people are doomed for hell.
Quote:
Where'd you get this from?
From Wikipedia
Your from Finland? Talar du Svenska?
____________
|
|
Slapzech
Adventuring Hero
that didn't vote for Kaczynski
|
|
posted November 05, 2007 10:52 PM |
|
Edited by Slapzech at 22:52, 05 Nov 2007.
|
|
Reading a discussions about religion can be more entertaining than any game xD Especially when there's a freak negating knowledge and science on the lose. I guess I'll prepare myself a beer and some snacks, then start reading this topic page after page xD
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted November 05, 2007 10:58 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
You still haven't explained what their motivation for lying would be. It certainly isn't economical.
It is economical. Many would like to lay their hands on the Church's riches. Did you know that the Catholic Church is one of the richest organisations in the world? Just think of the treasures in Vatican City, in Rome!
ROFL!! Wow, that's too funny. No, really, I'm LMAO at that one.
Ignoring for the second the centuries of corruption and exploitation that gave rise to the Catholic Church's wealth in the first place, would you mind explaining how, exactly, making up some sort of elaborate (understatement) lie about evolution would give biologists any way of "laying their hands" (pardon the pun) on said riches? I suppose you think cosmologists and astronomers are after the Church's money as well.
Quote:
And Capitalism would clearly benefit from the corruption or destruction of these protestant sects. Jesus told us to not serve mamon, but God.
Don't you think it's ironic that you chastize the alleged liar-scientists for "pursuing mammon" by spending millions of dollars and man-hours every year making up some elaborate lie to steal (in some unclear way) the Church's money, while at the same time thumping your chest at the fact that the Catholic Church is one of the "richest organizations in the world"? If Jesus said that it's a sin to "serve mamon [sic]", and that we should rather spend our time serving God, then shouldn't the Church be POOR? If the Church is one of the richest organizations in the world, you can bet that it took a whole lot of serving mammon to achieve that!
|
|
Lich_King
Honorable
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted November 06, 2007 12:19 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Reading a discussions about religion can be more entertaining than any game xD Especially when there's a freak negating knowledge and science on the lose. I guess I'll prepare myself a beer and some snacks, then start reading this topic page after page xD
That is a direct insult to a member, please refrain yourself from insulting other members of the community or measures will be taken.
____________
|
|
Gallow
Bad-mannered
Known Hero
Avenger
|
|
posted November 06, 2007 12:44 AM |
|
|
Its better if you close this thread if you dont want to listen anymore indirect insults,because this thread is going far...,this is a sensitive theme and that the creator of this shouldnt did it at first time.
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted November 06, 2007 01:36 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Survival of the fittest + Heredity EQUALS Evolution.
No, it does not. By your logic, we are an entirely different race than we where 1000 years ago because of physical changes.
Yes, we are. That is one of the basic premises of evolution. We are different to our ancestors, in many ways.
Just because we are not a new race does not mean we are not different (generally speaking 1000 years is an insanely short amount of time to expect speciation) and there are new races.
For example many more eurasians and other hybrid races.
Quote:
Quote:
Let me ask you Zan: If you fell ill with staphylococcus, would you stay true to your immutable species beliefs and have yourself treated with the medicine that worked when the disease was first discovered, or the medicine designed to combat the multi-strain resistant species it has evolved into since then?
They have not evoluted. They have changed. They have not become an entirely new race; it's just that the strongest of them have survived, just as only the strongest humans survived Black Death.
Change IS Evolution.
Pure creationist view: Species are immutable. They are static, they do not change. All species are exactly same as when they are created.
Darwinist: Species change.
Zan: The species has changed.
 : YOU ARE A DARWINIST! *applause*\
Quote:
Creationist scientist tell the truth. I wish we had one here...
How do you know?
Creationist science is based on what that person thinks 'is a good idea', ie. there is NO evidence. Hence it is not a science.
I think fairies are a good idea. But there is no evidence to support them; hence they should be treated as if they do not exist.
Quote:
It should. It is the literal word of God. It was never meant to be anything else.
Tell me Zan; Have you ever eaten shellfish? Or shrimp? Or crab, lobster, clams, mussels?
If you have, you are an abomination.
Leviticus 11:12 - Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.
So... I'd start repenting.
Quote:
Remember that Jesus Christ told us to judge the False Prophets on their fruits. And what was the fruit of reformations?
Maybe Jesus is a false prophet. What are the fruits of his teachings? Jesus, in founding Christianity, caused alot more deaths than Martin Luther. In fact, you could even claim that if Jesus hadn't come down to spoil God's secrets those millenia ago, Luther and all of those wouldn't even be having these petty quarrels over whose version of the bible is best!
Your logic is flawed, Zan.
Quote:
I think the American Pentecostal-Charismatic’s would have hanged you in the nearest tree for saying that, as would the Westboro Baptists and other groups who actually calls themselves fundamentalists.
No reason to quote this. Just thought I would because it's such a great quote.
Quote:
Those can not coexist. Big Bang and Evolution goes directly against the (holy) Genesis. I'm a friend of science, TRUE science, not liars who want to hurt Christendom with their unproven theories.
God is an unproven theory.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 06, 2007 01:42 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
The Westboro Baptist Church is a joke.
They are? They seem petty serious on their sites:
GodHatesFags.com
GodHatesAmerica.com
GodHatesSweden.com
I mean that it's hard to take them seriously. BTW, they've lost a lawsuit for $11 million a few days ago. They were picketing a soldier's funeral, and the soldier's dad sued them.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Daystar
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Back from the Dead
|
|
posted November 06, 2007 02:32 AM |
|
Edited by Daystar at 02:41, 06 Nov 2007.
|
Quote:
GodHatesFags.com
GodHatesAmerica.com
GodHatesSweden.com
Those websites make me want to go blitskreiging in Dark Messiah. Orcs, watch out.
Also, ZJ, do you watch Buffy? If so, they if you are male then you must love Willow. Does her being a lesbian make her less of a person?
____________
How exactly is luck a skill?
|
|
roy-algriffin
Supreme Hero
Chocolate ice cream zealot
|
|
posted November 06, 2007 05:54 AM |
|
|
God hates sweeden? thats news to me.
Where does he LIKE?
Edit: good god, Theyre praising god that some random people in the country died.
I mean if they had a general name or reason id understand. But just saying "hey they died! Thank you!" is a bit extreme.
____________
"Am i a demon? No im a priest of the light! THE BLOODY RED LIGHT"
|
|
JoonasTo
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
What if Elvin was female?
|
|
posted November 06, 2007 09:09 AM |
|
Edited by JoonasTo at 09:11, 06 Nov 2007.
|
If pope is indeed infallible then protestants and orthodoxes can not be heretics because pope accepts them as christians. They are true christians just following the right way a little differently. Variety is an advantage not a handicap.
You are a Swede and know that Finns speak Swedish? I'm impressed. I know a couple of Finnish-Swedishes and almost every Swede asks them how do they speak so good Swedish. it's like they haven't ever heard that there are half-a-million people here who speak Swedish as their native language.
I think Spectrum lives in Benelux so I don't know if he speaks Swedish though.
Just for the record my Swedish sucks. Maybe because I live in eastern Finland and there are almost no people who speak Swedish as their native language here. Actually there are more of those who speak German as their native language.
____________
DON'T BE A NOOB, JOIN A.D.V.E.N.T.U.R.E.
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted November 06, 2007 09:31 AM |
|
|
Though I have debated this on the side of religion, there is a few things I am going to have to say about this.
First, we are different then we were 1000 years ago. We are physically inferior for one. Mostly because of our environment, which we have 'tamed' for the most part. Now I am not saying that nobody is in amazing health, but as a whole physically we are not near as strong as those who lived 1000 years ago. (Well maybe some roman government officials or some such back then were in worse health lol). Then again that is mentioned in the bible. Weaker but wiser.
My grandmother had one of the OLD bibles. It mentioned things like flying chariots, talking through the air over long distances, and a bunch of other things. In different words it fortold about airplanes, radios, televisions, and much more. Most of that was left out do to 'contriversy' and the Catholic influence. Not that there is anything wrong with Catholics.
Now lets discuss the Crusades a bit. It was started by the Catholic church at the time. How many innocent lives were lost due to this? Sorry, that is wrong no matter WHO you are. Even the God of the bible has done acts that can only be seen as evil. Sodom, Gomora, The flood. People argue that the first two there was no good people left in the town, but it was still pure murder. Also, despite them not listening, are you saying that not 1 good soul drowned in the flood? No God maybe a good being, but I don't buy the perfect bit. Self-contridictory if you take the bible on face value.
I respect the Christian faith, especially those who live more of the New Testament ways then the Old. But even the bible says that no man is perfect, save Jesus. So that automatically means the Pope is not perfect. In fact I prefer to think even Jesus was not perfect. Somebody who is perfect feels no temptation, so resisting temptation is a moot point. Somebody who is not perfect, and resists temptation, has accomplished something.
Your beliefs are your own, and I wish you luck with them. Just remember, you are not the only person who knows scripture. Following some and not all is fine by me, but when you quote scripture I will quote others that say different things back. Mostly on the "Judge not lest you be judged and found wanting" end of the spectrum. Please also note that I support religion, and everybody's right to believe as they see fit. All I ask is that you respect others right to do the same.
____________
Message received.
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
|
posted November 06, 2007 10:15 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Its better if you close this thread if you dont want to listen anymore indirect insults,because this thread is going far...,this is a sensitive theme and that the creator of this shouldnt did it at first time.
Why do u think it isn't possible to discuss serious topics without personal insults? People who "want" to insult others don't need a certain topic to do so, they would even do that in a thread about the teletubbies.
I do agree this is a very sensitive topic, nevertheless everyone should be aware of the rules we have here in this forum and try to express his opinion in a non-insulting way. If someone thinks he/she can't hold back, he/she should stay back from this topic.
But to be honest, sometimes I think theists feel insulted only if someone says: "I do not believe in god!".
Both sides should accept the fact, there is something we don't agree about. Both sides also should accept we are (currently) not able to prove either opinion to be 100% correct.
So instead of trying to demand for evidences for each opinion, we should express why we believe or disbelieve. This gives everyone a small overview why u chose which side.
I really think it is hard to convince anybody from the "other" side. I think this can only happen due to a special experience someone made in his life, and i think this works for both parts. You could either lose your faith due to extreme experiences (a family member died in a "non-" normal way for example), or you could probably change your opinion about God if something opposit happens.
At least this counts for me. I am 100% sure no one can convince me from the existance of god by just talking or reading. 100%!
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
antipaladin
Promising
Legendary Hero
of Ooohs and Aaahs
|
|
posted November 06, 2007 10:46 AM |
|
|
why i dont belive?
i had way to much loses to prove me otherwise.
i dont think it really metters.
and i dont really care. i dont judge people by the religion.
so zan jeruslam,by the high church of nothingness,i condem you,to sitting in the toilet five minuts more then you actually do,by the power of nothingness!
____________
types in obscure english
|
|
Slapzech
Adventuring Hero
that didn't vote for Kaczynski
|
|
posted November 06, 2007 01:11 PM |
|
Edited by Slapzech at 13:14, 06 Nov 2007.
|
Quote:
(...)
But to be honest, sometimes I think theists feel insulted only if someone says: "I do not believe in god!".
Both sides should accept the fact, there is something we don't agree about. Both sides also should accept we are (currently) not able to prove either opinion to be 100% correct.
So instead of trying to demand for evidences for each opinion, we should express why we believe or disbelieve. This gives everyone a small overview why u chose which side.
I really think it is hard to convince anybody from the "other" side. I think this can only happen due to a special experience someone made in his life, and i think this works for both parts. You could either lose your faith due to extreme experiences (a family member died in a "non-" normal way for example), or you could probably change your opinion about God if something opposit happens.
At least this counts for me. I am 100% sure no one can convince me from the existance of god by just talking or reading. 100%!
Imo this should be implemented onto the first post.
Oh, and my 3 cents to this discussion:
The matter of faith is fully subjective. Believing is state based purely upon one's mind. That is exacly the diffrence between knowledge and faith.
Knowledge is born once there are enough evidence to prove that assumed possibility is a fact.
Faith/believing on the other hand takes place when there are no solid proof to a theory. In such situation one presumes a still hypothetical state to be a fact.
"The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence".
And: only the existance of undeniable proof is the proof for undeniable existance.
What about the proofs then?
Answers which are provided by today's means are actually quite clear in the point of proofs of existance of a deity reffered to as a God.
We can observe up to 4% of the actuall mass of the universe. 22% of what we have no chances of observing is dark matter, about which there are lots of theories, but no solid facts. We know only that it's matter. the rest of the universe is what we call dark energy, and we have absolutely no idea about it. None.
Anything can be found in it. Laws of physics which are abstract to ours, things that don't even fit into any category a mind can thought of.
(You can quite easily imagine a deliberaton between a strong theist and atheist now. One will tell there is surely a god, second - that there is absolutely no god. Now think of two babies arguing about what is written on a paper, on the side they do not see.
One of them says: 0. the second says: 1...
...While on the other side of the paper we have printed the picture of Machu Picchu. Got the impression?)
This is why there is no proof for any god's existance, nor for the absence of such a being. One can believe in god or not, but will never know the actual fact.
Thus - why deliberate, when no side have any solid proofs?
And - Here's a riddle for anyone who wants to persuadate others to the religion:
link
|
|
Gallow
Bad-mannered
Known Hero
Avenger
|
|
posted November 06, 2007 01:47 PM |
|
|
|
That one person says "i dont believe.." isnt a insult for me,i will continue with my life,with my girlfriend,i wont live worried about that a person doesnt believes,i dont care.And less in a forum where you cant see the faces,cant hear the voice,i dont know anyone here and i dont care neither,i just live my life,happy and others well believe what they want,i dont care,but something must be clearly,if there is offense or some kind of attack then of course that ill defend myself.
|
|
Spectrum
Famous Hero
Plan B
|
|
posted November 06, 2007 05:56 PM |
|
Edited by Spectrum at 17:57, 06 Nov 2007.
|
Quote:
Now look here
I am looking, it's the only way I keep my eyelids apart. Boom boom! Everyone a Maserati!
Quote:
18 So I now say to you: You are Peter [a] and on this rock I will build my community. And the gates of the underworld [b can never overpower it. [c]
19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of Heaven: whatever you bind on earth will be [d] bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth will be [e] loosed in heaven.'
This means that Peter had that power. Not any person selected by self-righteous humans to be Peter's follower. God never recogized any of them as his substitute, right?
Quote:
If you believe that, why do you use the scripture at all?
Because all the text that were written at the time must be at least correct-ish, I mean they saw it all, right? Or heard it from people who saw it all. That's only one person too much. And the old testament is partly the same as the jew's holy scripts so it must be quite genuine.
Quote:
He did not. He created the unbiblical teaching Sola Fide, salvation by faith alone. That contradicts Matthew 7:27 (We are saved by good works) and Mark 16:16 (We are saved by Baptism), as I said.
Well, Luther also teached and encouraged good works, and as I said, baptism is a part of Lutheraism. So why wouldn't protestants be saved?
Quote:
Also he believed in predestination. That means that some people are doomed for hell.
No he didn't. I'm Lutheran and no one ever tried to teach me that.
Quote:
Your from Finland? Talar du Svenska?
Quote:
I think Spectrum lives in Benelux so I don't know if he speaks Swedish though.
On the countrary, I've done swedish for the last three years and I can understand it quite well. I also speak a bit meself!
____________
Aculias is like the male nipple of HC, TNT being the other one -Baklava
|
|
ZanJerusalem
Disgraceful
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted November 06, 2007 06:13 PM |
|
|
Quote:
This means that Peter had that power. Not any person selected by self-righteous humans to be Peter's follower. God never recogized any of them as his substitute, right?
Someone has to lead the Church. Therefore, Peter gave another these keys to heaven. The one who is holding these keys right now is his latest successor, His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI.
Quote:
Because all the text that were written at the time must be at least correct-ish, I mean they saw it all, right? Or heard it from people who saw it all. That's only one person too much. And the old testament is partly the same as the jew's holy scripts so it must be quite genuine.
So why don't you start reading the Gnostic scriptures on a daily basis? Why don't include them in the Bible.
They are incorrect and corrupted. They go against the trinity and are not synoptic with the four real gospels.
Quote:
Well, Luther also teached and encouraged good works, and as I said, baptism is a part of Lutheraism. So why wouldn't protestants be saved?
The false prophet Luther taught the unbiblical heresy of Sola Fide, salvation by faith alone. That is a lie, you must admit that. We need both Good Works and Baptism to be saved, for so says the bible.
I don't know if thou or ye will be saved, only God will judge.
Quote:
No he didn't. I'm Lutheran and no one ever tried to teach me that.
I'm petty sure he did. But of course the church-of-whatever secular institution would not teach you that, just like the blasphemous "Church" of Sweden. Our Archbishop is female and she does not recognise virgin birth, that heretic, sad that the Holy Inquisition is no longer around here!
Quote:
On the countrary, I've done swedish for the last three years and I can understand it quite well.
Varför är du inte Ortodox? Jag trodde att de flesta kristna Finländare var det? Vi skulle nog förstå varandra bättre då...
____________
|
| |
|
|
This Popular Thread is pages long: 
