Logical fallicies in the bible

Hey, Mark, I just ran across a new one yesterday: gid. It's a canine tapeworm infestation of the brains of sheep. Nasty sounding stuff. Fallen sheep only, though, I'm sure.

LOL. Are you sure? Maybe it only affects goats ?[This message has been edited by Yaro, 09-01-2003]

Love ya Mike but gotta share the following for your edification. You'll need to work these into your philosophy somehow. Yes?------------------
"I was very unwilling to give up my belief." Charles Darwin.

still off topic mike:"I can't prove creationism, but they can't prove evolution. It is [also] a religion, so it should not be taught....
(the also meaning "in addition to creationism")and"I can't prove creationism, but they can't prove evolution. It is a religion, so it should not be taught....
(the absence of an also meaning ONLY evolution)mean 2 different things. the first goes on to be a hypocritical statement, while the second is not. adding the also implies that he acknowledges that creationism is a religion. leaving the also out implies that he does not acknowledge creationism as a religion.to me it looks like you're putting words (a word) in his mouth... unless you shortened something he said with the [also]. does anyone else see this?

It looks to me like the "also" clarifies his statement that Evolution is "also" a religion. When the "also" is omitted it becomes kind of vague. Is he talking about creationism being a religion and therefor shouldn't be taught? Or is he refering to evolution being a religion as well as creationism? Or is he saying evolution vice creationism is a religion and shouldn't be taught? The "also" clarifies the context he was placing evolution in.

Mike, All you have to do to go to heaven is accept Jesus et al. Possibly repent as well. The point being, that if you do that, then you do NOT need to pay for murder, but someone who doesn't do these things gets cast in the pit for all eternity, despite living their lives doing good things. Utterly irrelevant.You're completely missing the point. Why get angry at Satan? God could snuff the bastard out of existence, he could have not made him with the capacity for evil in the first place. God should have a sign on his desk that says, "The butt stops here".Someone made syphilus, & according to the bible, God created all life. You do the math.Mark------------------
"I can't prove creationism, but they can't prove evolution. It is [also] a religion, so it should not be taught....Christians took over the school board and voted in creationism. That can be done in any school district anywhere, and it ought to be done." Says Kent "consistent" Hovind in "Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution Chapter 6."

TheoMorphic, Works for me. Kent Hovind wants creation taught in schools, he claims evolution is a religion & should not be taught. The statement clearly tries to place creationism & evolution at the same level. You can't have one taught & not the other without hypocrisy, no?Mark

You seem to miss the point of what Jesus said. That he, himself, had come to bring that war, that fire, that division. That was neither a warning nor a call to repentance. It was an expressed opinion as to what should be done with them. Billions of peoples lives have been changed alright, but not through peace and love. Rather by torture and death. Please see the history of the Christian Church.------------------
"I was very unwilling to give up my belief." Charles Darwin[This message has been edited by doctrbill, 09-02-2003]

Why are you so angry at a man you obviously do not know? I mean Christ, not myself as I am a woman. I have stated my believe that The Bible is subjective. Give the same bible quotes to 15 different people and you will get 15 different observations. Can't you see it is doing exactly what it was intended to do? Bring thoughtful, intelligent conversation about God. It excites me that the idea of God can do this. I'm not hear to preach but rather to share and to listen. And about me studying the History of the Christian Church, I am still paying for that education.

If anyone wants to discuss Mark's signature could they please open a new thread for this, thanks.I think the discussion about God's requirement for salvation is ON topic as there does appear to be to be problems with the logic of this requirement.AdminBrian

Mark24 writes:
"All you have to do to go to heaven is accept Jesus et al. Possibly repent as well."This is true.Mark24:
"The point being, that if you do that, then you do NOT need to pay for murder. . ."This is where you go wrong. If someone murders another person, BUT they have accepted Christ, they will not pay for murder in Heaven (like you said). They WILL, though, have serious secular consequences (of course these are meaningless compared to going to Heaven, but. . .).Mark24:
". . .but someone who doesn't do these things gets cast in the pit for all eternity, despite living their lives doing good things."Everyone has done "these things." Yes, on earth, murder or rape is a far greater crime than, say, lusting or swearing, but sin is sin. Also, Matthew 5:21 says, "You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.' But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment." So, while you have not committed murder in a worldly sense, you have in a spiritual sense (we all have). There is a similar passage for adultery as well.My point here is that some may seem to be be leading "better" lives than others (i.e. doing more good things, doing less bad things), but we all miss the mark. It's like a batting average: if I go 3 for 3, but then on my fourth at bat, I strike out, I can never again have a 1.000 batting average. I could go 200 for 200 after this (and have a better batting average than any other player ever) but I will still never have a perfect batting average. And sans Jesus, only perfection is allowed into Heaven.

But the logical fallicie still persits, why should the child molester, who rapes a dozen chilldren, never gets caught, repents on his deathbed go to heaven.Yet some amazon indian.... pre-columbus! Who never hurt a fly, go to hell?If we can do no right, then what is the point of life? What is the point of this world? Is it some sort of spirituall lottery?Hmmm.... this brings me to a logical fallicie, why this world? Why life? What is the point of this world, if nothing we do in it can gain us heaven? Why the lottery, what's the purpose of it?Certainly god can make a dozen worlds, why didn't he just can this one and make a perfect one? Why the pain? Not only that, but why this futile dice game with soul selection?It seems like candyland, you ever play that boardgame? You just draw cards at random and advance your pice, no strategy, just pure luck. It's like god made the world, gave us all varying ideas of what's right and wrong, put one right answer "jesus", then just watches to see whos lucky enugh to figure it out. Sounds like a silly game to me.

Noah did not have to get the animals. God brought them to him (Gen. 6:20, "shall come to thee"). -Dr DinoThe animal problem for the Ark many people think of wasn't a problem at all.------------------
Psalm 14:1
The Fool says in his heart, "There is no God."
They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good.

ok...SO the animals came to Noah....How did the two toad sloth of madagascar come to noah from madagascar? Sloths are very slow, and the two toed variety have a very speciffic tree dwelling diet. Ho was such a creature able to cross thousands of miles from the east cost of affrica, across baren deserts (the sahara) to the middle east?After the flood, how did the two toed sloth make it's way back?The same question can be asked about other creatures, the Kangaroo for example, the north american prerie dog, the armadillo, the Cuban Anolie, the south american howling monkey, the koala bear, amongst countless others.I have seen creationits propose that Pangea (the supercontinent) existed durring the time of Noah, even if this is the case, animals crossing such vast distances and thrugh such varied ecosystems is absurd. Animals need certain conditions to survie, you can't expect a mudskipper, or frog, to cross the sahara desert. Such animals need wet climet, and subsist on certain diets.The proposition that the Animals came to the ark is ridiculous.

Yaro,You must be too young to know how magic works (ala "Bewitched")
God twitched his nose and the animals all magically transported to Mesopotamia then the next year he twitched them back again.Wait...maybe the TV series I'm thinking of is Star Trek...."Beam me up Scotty"------------------
Asgara
"An unexamined life is not worth living" Socrates via Plato[This message has been edited by Asgara, 09-02-2003]