Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-27-2019 4:41 AM
20 online now:
Tangle (1 member, 19 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: ooh-child
Post Volume:
Total: 854,844 Year: 9,880/19,786 Month: 2,302/2,119 Week: 338/724 Day: 1/62 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
45
6
78
...
11Next
Author Topic:   If we are all descended from Noah ...
nos482
Inactive Member


Message 76 of 165 (17682)
09-18-2002 10:31 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by Mammuthus
09-18-2002 9:51 AM


He'll probaby try to turn it around, or say that they are afraid to admit, that they are heretics, or some other such nonsense. You are banging your head against the dense wall of a TRUE believer. Absolutely nothing will get through to him. He's in too deep and a lost cause.

If this were the "good old days" of the Dark Ages when the Church was the strongest he would be the one conducting your "interview" before the Inquisition, or lighting the fire under the stake you would be tied to. If he were a Muslim he would be crashing airplanes into buildings..


This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Mammuthus, posted 09-18-2002 9:51 AM Mammuthus has not yet responded

Wordswordsman
Inactive Member


Message 77 of 165 (17686)
09-18-2002 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by nos482
09-17-2002 2:45 PM


quote:
Originally posted by nos482:
You are irrelevant and a non-person. You don't exist from this point on.

[This message has been edited by nos482, 09-17-2002]


WS: You have all the earmarks of a person suffering delusion. Please get checked out by a physician. Non-persons can't post here. I don't think they've come out with computer programs or processor speeds sufficient to generate auto responses like humans can. It certainly appears you qualify to believe wholeheartedly in evolution, since you tend to lean toward believing things non-existent have a reality, though not more than "irrelevant" in your estimation. If somethng is irrelevant, it must exist, maybe being but neither weakly relevant or strongly relevant (interesting word). Hence my concern for your mental state.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by nos482, posted 09-17-2002 2:45 PM nos482 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Mammuthus, posted 09-18-2002 11:58 AM Wordswordsman has not yet responded
 Message 81 by nos482, posted 09-18-2002 12:18 PM Wordswordsman has not yet responded

Me
Inactive Member


Message 78 of 165 (17689)
09-18-2002 11:50 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by Wordswordsman
09-17-2002 5:33 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Wordswordsman:
/B]

I am amazed! Does your church not follow ALL the the Divine-Inspired requirements for salvation? My friend, you have fallen victim to the blandishments of a false religion. Repent, and change your ways, lest you be sucked into the Eternal Damnation that surely awaits those equivocators who pick and choose at the Holy Words which God Himself has taught us. You are truly 'Error-Ridden' - on what basis do you presume to choose to ignore Holy Commandment?

quote:
[Bold]
WS: Contrarily, the more people become "educated" in the secular, the farther they seem to go away from God. Education has value, but too much of it results in exposure to unbelief and a washing away of subtle truths. Peole become distracted, mired down in the affairs of life, missing the quiet voice of the Spirit.

[/b]

See? Even you understand the need to return to a simpler life, though you 'see through a glass, darkly'.
It is obvious that the culture of the ancient Middle-East produced a truer, more holy existence. Why else would God chose to reveal Himself to Man only at this time? We have been seduced by the devil ever since, and are falling into the Pit from which there will be no relief, only Everlasting Fire and Torture (see Revelations).

[This message has been edited by Me, 09-18-2002]

[This message has been edited by Me, 09-18-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Wordswordsman, posted 09-17-2002 5:33 PM Wordswordsman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by Wordswordsman, posted 09-19-2002 7:52 PM Me has not yet responded

Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 4648 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 79 of 165 (17691)
09-18-2002 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by Wordswordsman
09-18-2002 11:45 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Wordswordsman:
quote:
Originally posted by nos482:
You are irrelevant and a non-person. You don't exist from this point on.

[This message has been edited by nos482, 09-17-2002]


WS: You have all the earmarks of a person suffering delusion. Please get checked out by a physician. Non-persons can't post here. I don't think they've come out with computer programs or processor speeds sufficient to generate auto responses like humans can.

Please get your head examined, you believe in mythology blindly.

It certainly appears you qualify to believe wholeheartedly in evolution, since you tend to lean toward believing things non-existent have a reality, though not more than "irrelevant" in your estimation.

Did you learn english in Don King high school?
Besides, since you don't even know what evolution is you don't know what you are against....and as for things non-existant...you believe in god and demons..LOL!!! you have as much evidence for either as I have that the Tooth Fairy rigged the last election in Indonesia. Meanwhile, the support for evolution has been generated by thousands of independent researchers of different faiths and backgrounds.

If somethng is irrelevant, it must exist, maybe being but neither weakly relevant or strongly relevant (interesting word). Hence my concern for your mental state.


Given the reasoning in your last sentence you might want to lower your prozac dose or seek electroshock therapy.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Wordswordsman, posted 09-18-2002 11:45 AM Wordswordsman has not yet responded

Wordswordsman
Inactive Member


Message 80 of 165 (17692)
09-18-2002 12:05 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by Mammuthus
09-18-2002 9:51 AM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mammuthus:
[B]Oh yeah, and regarding your poll numbers about evolution here is the first hit I got from google (your preferred reference source) with the topic "poll evolution creationism"

Looks like you are the on the fringe

Public Wants Evolution, Not Creationism, in Science Class, New National Poll Shows...

WS: "People For the American Way Voters Alliance was formed in 1998 as a political action committee that will work to hold candidates to account, organize to get voters out to the polls and work to fight the Right." from www.pfaw.org

They are not qualified to speak for all Americans- maybe justthose opposed to the political right. Notice the unnamed pollster and lack of pollling information, and the obvious conclusion they would not publish otherwise.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Mammuthus, posted 09-18-2002 9:51 AM Mammuthus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Mammuthus, posted 09-18-2002 12:19 PM Wordswordsman has responded

nos482
Inactive Member


Message 81 of 165 (17693)
09-18-2002 12:18 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Wordswordsman
09-18-2002 11:45 AM


What's that smell??? Did someone fart?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Wordswordsman, posted 09-18-2002 11:45 AM Wordswordsman has not yet responded

Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 4648 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 82 of 165 (17694)
09-18-2002 12:19 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by Wordswordsman
09-18-2002 12:05 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Wordswordsman:
[B]
quote:
Originally posted by Mammuthus:
Oh yeah, and regarding your poll numbers about evolution here is the first hit I got from google (your preferred reference source) with the topic "poll evolution creationism"

Looks like you are the on the fringe

Public Wants Evolution, Not Creationism, in Science Class, New National Poll Shows...

WS: "People For the American Way Voters Alliance was formed in 1998 as a political action committee that will work to hold candidates to account, organize to get voters out to the polls and work to fight the Right." from www.pfaw.org

They are not qualified to speak for all Americans- maybe justthose opposed to the political right. Notice the unnamed pollster and lack of pollling information, and the obvious conclusion they would not publish otherwise.


***************************************************+

LOL!!!
That was just the first (not the only) poll I found in direct contradiction to your bogus numbers.

You are in absolutely no position to speak for all Americans either by the way.

But then you will only accept polls that support your view and dismiss all others obviously. I guess that limits you to polling creationists as to whether they believe in creationism....back to your the bible supports the bible cuz the bible supports the bible...mantra repeats...drool dribbles out side of mouth..fundie in trance

Hey nos482...you called it right on the money...he did exactly like you said...stimulus response...stimulus response


This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Wordswordsman, posted 09-18-2002 12:05 PM Wordswordsman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by nos482, posted 09-18-2002 1:02 PM Mammuthus has not yet responded
 Message 94 by Wordswordsman, posted 09-19-2002 8:26 PM Mammuthus has responded

nos482
Inactive Member


Message 83 of 165 (17705)
09-18-2002 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by Mammuthus
09-18-2002 12:19 PM


Originally posted by Mammuthus:

LOL!!!
That was just the first (not the only) poll I found in direct contradiction to your bogus numbers.

Want to hear something funny? I was just watching a show on the religious channel here and they used the same poll to prove that most Americans WANT creationism in schools as well. They also used the "It's only fair" arguement. As well as the "evolution is a religion" assertion. And the "scientist are afraid to tell the whole truth about evolution and its gaps..." conspiracy nonsense.

Though, this is scary as well because it tricks so many unknowing people into thinking that what they are saying is in anyway valid.

Also, everytime I hear some say that evolution is about how life got started I want to SCREAM. It has nothing at all to do with how life, or the universe got started at all. Darwin's book was the Origine of Species, not life...

Hey nos482...you called it right on the money...he did exactly like you said...stimulus response...stimulus response

His "kind" are so predictable. They have no real depth to them at all.

[This message has been edited by nos482, 09-18-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Mammuthus, posted 09-18-2002 12:19 PM Mammuthus has not yet responded

Me
Inactive Member


Message 84 of 165 (17711)
09-18-2002 1:33 PM


[QUOTE][B]
Whatever is taught in the New Testament is part of the gospel of Christ, though some is clearly cultural accomodation that can be omitted, such as modes of dress and transportation.
[/quote]

[/b]

Has no-one noticed this point? See 78 above. Wordswordsman rejects the Good Book! He thinks things 'can be omited', based on his view of what a proper culture is (American Mid-West, I presume). Surely he is dammed by his own words?


Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by John, posted 09-18-2002 2:43 PM Me has responded

John
Inactive Member


Message 85 of 165 (17715)
09-18-2002 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by Me
09-18-2002 1:33 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Me:
[QUOTE][B]
Whatever is taught in the New Testament is part of the gospel of Christ, though some is clearly cultural accomodation that can be omitted, such as modes of dress and transportation.
[/quote]

[/b]

Has no-one noticed this point? See 78 above. Wordswordsman rejects the Good Book! He thinks things 'can be omited', based on his view of what a proper culture is (American Mid-West, I presume). Surely he is dammed by his own words?


That is a very good point. However, your reaction is due to a mis-understanding of holy doctrine. When Christian speak of salvation, what they mean is that Jesus saved them from all the nit-picky cultural stuff outlined in the OT. Dietary laws, for example. Or worship on the Sabbath. Or not working on the Sabbath. Or killing women who touch men's pee-pee's. Or not touching a menstruating woman or anything she touches. Or settling a rape case by paying off the family of the victim (and keeping the girl)

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Me, posted 09-18-2002 1:33 PM Me has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Me, posted 09-18-2002 3:48 PM John has responded

Me
Inactive Member


Message 86 of 165 (17718)
09-18-2002 3:48 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by John
09-18-2002 2:43 PM


quote:

Whatever is taught in the New Testament is part of the gospel of Christ, though some is clearly cultural accomodation that can be omitted, such as modes of dress and transportation.
...

...your reaction is due to a mis-understanding of holy doctrine. When Christian speak of salvation, what they mean is that Jesus saved them from all the nit-picky cultural stuff outlined in the OT. Dietary laws, for example. Or worship on the Sabbath. Or not working on the Sabbath. Or killing women who touch men's pee-pee's. Or not touching a menstruating woman or anything she touches. Or settling a rape case by paying off the family of the victim (and keeping the girl)


Sorry - this is a field I know little about. I was intrigued by the reference to transportation!

I think you might be wrong about Worship on the Sabbath - I think that not turning up to church still sends you to hell. But who decides which of the inerrant words of God can be ignored due to 'cultural' reasons? I would have thought that this drives a bit of a hole through fundamentalism?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by John, posted 09-18-2002 2:43 PM John has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by nos482, posted 09-18-2002 4:00 PM Me has not yet responded
 Message 88 by John, posted 09-18-2002 5:27 PM Me has not yet responded
 Message 95 by Wordswordsman, posted 09-19-2002 8:45 PM Me has not yet responded

nos482
Inactive Member


Message 87 of 165 (17719)
09-18-2002 4:00 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by Me
09-18-2002 3:48 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Me:

Sorry - this is a field I know little about. I was intrigued by the reference to transportation!

I think you might be wrong about Worship on the Sabbath - I think that not turning up to church still sends you to hell. But who decides which of the inerrant words of God can be ignored due to 'cultural' reasons? I would have thought that this drives a bit of a hole through fundamentalism?


As far as I'm concerned they either have to accept the entire bible as the literal inerrant word of their god and obey all of it, or not at all. There is no middle ground with something like this. There are far too many Cut&Paste Christians around who only follow the good parts and ignore all of the nasty bits.

[This message has been edited by nos482, 09-18-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Me, posted 09-18-2002 3:48 PM Me has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Wordswordsman, posted 09-19-2002 9:04 PM nos482 has responded

John
Inactive Member


Message 88 of 165 (17731)
09-18-2002 5:27 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by Me
09-18-2002 3:48 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Me:
I think you might be wrong about Worship on the Sabbath - I think that not turning up to church still sends you to hell. But who decides which of the inerrant words of God can be ignored due to 'cultural' reasons? I would have thought that this drives a bit of a hole through fundamentalism?

The point about the Sabbath is that the OT specifies that the seventh day is the day of rest. This is Saturday, as reckoned by the Jews have been tracking it since before the rise of Christianity and upon whose religion Christianity is supposedly founded. Yet nowhere does the bible change the day of worship to Sunday. I don't have time to look it up right now, but I believe this change was made by the Romans when Christianity was adopted as state religion, to align the Christian holy day with certain pagan holy days.

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Me, posted 09-18-2002 3:48 PM Me has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Mammuthus, posted 09-19-2002 4:26 AM John has responded
 Message 98 by Wordswordsman, posted 09-19-2002 9:23 PM John has responded

Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 4648 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 89 of 165 (17752)
09-19-2002 4:26 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by John
09-18-2002 5:27 PM


quote:
Originally posted by John:
quote:
Originally posted by Me:
I think you might be wrong about Worship on the Sabbath - I think that not turning up to church still sends you to hell. But who decides which of the inerrant words of God can be ignored due to 'cultural' reasons? I would have thought that this drives a bit of a hole through fundamentalism?

The point about the Sabbath is that the OT specifies that the seventh day is the day of rest. This is Saturday, as reckoned by the Jews have been tracking it since before the rise of Christianity and upon whose religion Christianity is supposedly founded. Yet nowhere does the bible change the day of worship to Sunday. I don't have time to look it up right now, but I believe this change was made by the Romans when Christianity was adopted as state religion, to align the Christian holy day with certain pagan holy days.


*********************************************

I still have to side with Me on this issue. If Wordswordsman claims that the bible is inerrant and has to be taken as the literal word f god...how can he claim that you can just ignore "cultural accomodations"? The bible is either consistent or it is in conflict. I think it is an important issue since he claims that the RCC is not mainstream christian and basically that only his sect is correct. However, he conveniently snips out the parts of the bible he does not like....makes for a nice convenient shifting of ethical standards.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by John, posted 09-18-2002 5:27 PM John has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by John, posted 09-19-2002 11:58 AM Mammuthus has not yet responded

John
Inactive Member


Message 90 of 165 (17780)
09-19-2002 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by Mammuthus
09-19-2002 4:26 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Mammuthus:
quote:
Originally posted by John:
quote:
Originally posted by Me:
I think you might be wrong about Worship on the Sabbath - I think that not turning up to church still sends you to hell. But who decides which of the inerrant words of God can be ignored due to 'cultural' reasons? I would have thought that this drives a bit of a hole through fundamentalism?

The point about the Sabbath is that the OT specifies that the seventh day is the day of rest. This is Saturday, as reckoned by the Jews have been tracking it since before the rise of Christianity and upon whose religion Christianity is supposedly founded. Yet nowhere does the bible change the day of worship to Sunday. I don't have time to look it up right now, but I believe this change was made by the Romans when Christianity was adopted as state religion, to align the Christian holy day with certain pagan holy days.


*********************************************

I still have to side with Me on this issue. If Wordswordsman claims that the bible is inerrant and has to be taken as the literal word f god...how can he claim that you can just ignore "cultural accomodations"? The bible is either consistent or it is in conflict. I think it is an important issue since he claims that the RCC is not mainstream christian and basically that only his sect is correct. However, he conveniently snips out the parts of the bible he does not like....makes for a nice convenient shifting of ethical standards.


I'm with Me on this issue as well. It does make for conveniently flexible ethics.

The NT has Jesus saying something to the effect that 'I have not come to destroy the old law but to fulfill it.' This is represented by some as an out for dismissing things like dietary laws. But the consequence is that one gets to decide what to keep and what to not keep, because exactly what Jesus meant by that statement isn't clear.

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Mammuthus, posted 09-19-2002 4:26 AM Mammuthus has not yet responded

Prev1
...
45
6
78
...
11Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019