100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Throw down - part 2 | |
|---|---|
|
|
 and a watermelon and the human body are 98% water. hhmm.....  There is a differance between fluids of which all mammals consist of and DNA, deoxyribonucleic acid, that carries the genetic instructions for making a chimp, a human, a tulip or an amoeba. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That silly idea is probably taught so that people will be inspired to rush out and become missionaries and preach the gospel to everyone and get new members to their church so the church will make more money. Propaganda programming. It is also a good excuse as to why they are still waiting for Jesus to come back. According to Tribo, and scripture he quoted, Jesus already came back and all of the prophecies have been fulfilled already. This is the time when satan (aliens of the red dragon cult) rule the earth. The return of the white dragon is coming soon to dethrone the red dragon. Women will rule the earth probably. And they are pissed. It won't be a pretty sight. Pat Robertson look out. Your prophecy is at hand. JB (_E=mc2_)  your right though, women will rule!! thats a good thing not a bad one haaha, that is as long as they dont go trying to run it like man has - 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Krimsa
on
Mon 08/11/08 10:18 AM
|
|
I don’t think it has anything to do with "who will come out on top" I hope not anyway. You would have to imagine that there were plenty of male Pagans prior to Christianity and they weren't fussing. The evidence points to a much more egalitarian society where this form of religious expression was flourishing especially Crete which was a culture and civilization heavily steeped in Goddess ritual and belief. That was about 1600 BCE. There are others of course but I’m not going to bring all that into it if it will just be met with a lot of anger and resentment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(_E=mc2_) your right though, women will rule!! thats a good thing not a bad one haaha, that is as long as they dont go trying to run it like man has - 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
hinkypoepoe
on
Mon 08/11/08 11:14 AM
|
|
Is this what you want to say???????
Depech mode. Play the song it goes right along with the dancing Bananas!!! John the Revelator Put him in a elevator Take him up to the highest high Take him up to the top where the mountains stop Let him tell his book of lies John the Revelator He's a smooth operator It's time we cut him down to size Take him by the hand And put him on the stand Let us hear his alibis By claiming God as his only rock He's stealing a god from the Israelite Stealing a god from a Muslim, too There is only one god through and through Seven lies, mulitplied by seven, multiplied by seven again Seven angels with seven trumpets Send them home on the morning train Well who's that shouting? John the Revelator! All he ever gives us is pain Well who's that shouting? John the Revelator! He should bow his head in shame Bye-bye Bye-bye Bye-bye Bye-bye Seven lies, mulitplied by seven, multiplied by seven again Seven angels with seven trumpets Send them home on the morning train Well who's that shouting? John the Revelator! All he ever gives us is pain Well who's that shouting? John the Revelator! He should bow his head in shame Bye-bye Bye-bye John the Revelator Bye-bye John the Revelator Bye-bye John the Revelator |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Besides Feral, everyone has a right to their own belief in creationism. I lean towards evolution and anthropogenesis. JB seems to be mixing it up a bit and even allows for some of your faith driven beliefs such as Adam and Eve to enter into the picture. She is giving you MUCH more leeway than I as I don’t accept that at all. I feel it was a symbolic story and interpretation made by men of the period. and hmmmmm this is supposed to surprise me.....not in the least.....But no matter what you may think....I did not fall from a floosom of nothingness into the water, turning into a tadpole, frog, crawled out, turned into a monkey, then an ape and then me.....no sir re Bob..... No, it’s not intended to surprise you. You are well aware of my take on how man came to exist as Homo sapien on earth now. It’s not even my take. It’s a scientific interpretation of how this might have occurred. I just happen to buy into it. We did NOT evolve from apes. Where would the great apes be today if this was the case? The term "human", in the context of human evolution, refers to the genus Homo, but studies of human evolution usually include other hominins, such as the australopithecines. The Homo genus diverged from the australopithecines about 2 million years ago in Africa. Several typological species of Homo, now extinct, evolved. These include Homo erectus, which inhabited Asia, and Homo neanderthalensis, which inhabited Europe. Think of it in this way if it helps. There was a tree, with large branches reaching outwards. Apes and monkey were on one branch and so were what would become Homo sapiens. This branch extended outward and the species shared their genetic make up for a period of time until one diverged. This would continue on another branch from the same trunk. The great apes would also continue down their own branch. I don’t know if that makes sense but its one way to help people understand the concept a little better with kind of a creative visualization if you prefer. This is also supported by genetic factors in modern day chimpanzees and humans. There is a high degree of genetic similarity between humans and chimpanzees. Presumably, the 95-99% overlap of DNA sequences indicates that humans and chimpanzees arose from a common ancestor in the relatively recent past (about 6 million years ago). ok well you just have fun with that.....interesting though science is theory and no where is it written that God, Jesus or the Bible is a theory. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
and a watermelon and the human body are 98% water. hhmm.....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ok well you just have fun with that.....interesting though science is theory and no where is it written that God, Jesus or the Bible is a theory. Of course not. It does not have enough evidence or proof to rank as high as a theory. That is because is it a faith based religion. It is neither fact, or theory or accurate history. JB Many people believe it You believe it They believe it Hundreds believe it. But it is still based on pure faith because it can't be proven as either fact or even a theory. JB |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ok well you just have fun with that.....interesting though science is theory and no where is it written that God, Jesus or the Bible is a theory. Of course not. It does not have enough evidence or proof to rank as high as a theory. That is because is it a faith based religion. It is neither fact, or theory or accurate history. JB Many people believe it You believe it They believe it Hundreds believe it. But it is still based on pure faith because it can't be proven as either fact or even a theory. JB It is historically backed JB....there is no denying that. and the uncovering of the dead sea scrolls is just one of the historical facts.......the shroud....another.....the uncovering of many many artifacts......I could pull up the thread I did that shows all the historical facts......... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ferel Writes:
I guess 4 times answering this same question is just not good enough...Maybe you should just answer it the way you see fit.... And on at least 4 occasions I have refuted what Feral has written,only to receive a rebuttle of either insufficient, or inept quality, or merely one of two throught processess "WRONG WRONG WRONG" or "ANSWERED" I have post the several rebuttles in this very thread, asking more questions - with no responce. What we have learned in this exercise it that the law, the jury and the judge can not be in disagreement when all the roles are played by the same person. Deb - do keep us posted on that seminary thing. It would be very interesting to hear about what you learn there. I currently have two cousins in the beginning of that journey. Writing on-line may be kind of like doing homework. We could make comparisons and then we would all see what they teach seminary students. Go for it, I really think you should. You would fly through the courses, after all you already have this huge headstart. Go Deb go! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ok well you just have fun with that.....interesting though science is theory and no where is it written that God, Jesus or the Bible is a theory. Of course not. It does not have enough evidence or proof to rank as high as a theory. That is because is it a faith based religion. It is neither fact, or theory or accurate history. JB Many people believe it You believe it They believe it Hundreds believe it. But it is still based on pure faith because it can't be proven as either fact or even a theory. JB It is historically backed JB....there is no denying that. and the uncovering of the dead sea scrolls is just one of the historical facts.......the shroud....another.....the uncovering of many many artifacts......I could pull up the thread I did that shows all the historical facts......... Not to mention the signs & wonder, & miracles. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Feral
ok well you just have fun with that.....interesting though science is theory and no where is it written that God, Jesus or the Bible is a theory. JB Of course not. It does not have enough evidence or proof to rank as high as a theory. That is because is it a faith based religion. It is neither fact, or theory or accurate history. Well put JB Feral It is historically backed JB....there is no denying that. and the uncovering of the dead sea scrolls is just one of the historical facts.......the shroud....another.....the uncovering of many many artifacts......I could pull up the thread I did that shows all the historical facts......... We have had this discussion on a few occasions. Of course the end result comes out the same, because, just as in this thread when the same person take on the role of the law, the jury and the judge, guess who will win? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Redykeulous
on
Mon 08/11/08 11:34 AM
|
|
ABRA WROTE:
These people who think they are "servants of God" and give really lame answers to questions that clearly show that they don't even grasp the true meaning of the issues really need to get a life. Running around acting like they speak the final word for God is truly disgusting. Arrogance is not humble. Moreoever, that whole mindset is compeltely against the tenets of Christianity. The actual religion states that only the Holy Spirit can speak for God. Nowhere does the religion suggest that Christains are to speak for Jesus, or for the Holy Scriptures. The very idea that people are so pompous to imply that they have the only correct interpretation of the Holy Scriptures is arrogance gone mad. It totally flies in the face of what that religion supposedly stood for at one time. It's no wonder that the religion is falling apart so rapidly. But that's a good thing, I'm sure that at its current rate of decay it's highly unlikely that it will even be recognized as a valid religion by the end of this millenium. Very well stated. Short and true, no frills, just a statement from knowledge, experience and observation. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ABRA WROTE: These people who think they are "servants of God" and give really lame answers to questions that clearly show that they don't even grasp the true meaning of the issues really need to get a life. Running around acting like they speak the final word for God is truly disgusting. Arrogance is not humble. Moreoever, that whole mindset is compeltely against the tenets of Christianity. The actual religion states that only the Holy Spirit can speak for God. Nowhere does the religion suggest that Christains are to speak for Jesus, or for the Holy Scriptures. The very idea that people are so pompous to imply that they have the only correct interpretation of the Holy Scriptures is arrogance gone mad. It totally flies in the face of what that religion supposedly stood for at one time. It's no wonder that the religion is falling apart so rapidly. But that's a good thing, I'm sure that at its current rate of decay it's highly unlikely that it will even be recognized as a valid religion by the end of this millenium. Very well stated. Short and true, no frills, just a statement from knowledge, experience and observation. WOW! Talk about dogma!!!!! You all just reduced God to nothing. That coudn't be farther from the truth. Talk about hypocrisy! I can see it's people like yourselves who want to stomp on other's freedoms to know God. A very SAD legacy indeed. What's up Redy???? you seem to like to attack FC like a pit bull. You seem to totally bypass God's very divinity yet demand answers of "intellect," mere human limited wisdom that leads to nowhere. You stay down in the mud...the rest of us want more than the crumbs you all are throwing out there girlie. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Mon 08/11/08 11:47 AM
|
|
Feralcat said: It is historically backed JB....there is no denying that. and the uncovering of the dead sea scrolls is just one of the historical facts.......the shroud....another.....the uncovering of many many artifacts......I could pull up the thread I did that shows all the historical facts......... The Bible is NOT historically backed. The myths and fables were set inside of real events and a few real people that is all. That does not give credibility to the lies and the myths therein. There has been a disparate attempt to find artifacts that support the Biblical picture because it is falling apart in the face of scientific inquiry. But you cannot hide the truth forever. It will prevail. “The New Testament, the Church and Christianity, were all the creation of the Calpurnius Piso (pronounced Peso) family, who were Roman aristocrats. The New Testament and all the characters in it - Jesus, all the Josephs, all the Marys, all the disciples, apostles, Paul, John the Baptist - all are fictional. The Pisos created the story and the characters; they tied the story to a specific time and place in history; and they connected it with some peripheral actual people, such as the Herods, Gamaliel, the Roman procurators, etc. But Jesus and everyone involved with him were created (that is fictiotional!) characters.” Ref: The True Authorship Of The New Testament by Abelard Reuchlin, first printed in the United States in 1979 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I. The Secular Sources and How Historians View Them.
A. Several Extra-Biblical records 1)Skeptics will often alledge that "no extra biblical evidence for Jesus' existence exists." This is far from the truth. All of these following historians, of first and early second century, mention Jesus of Nazareth as a historical figure who existed in the first century CE, or they mention Christ. * Thallus (c. 50-75AD) *Phlegon (First century) * Josephus (Antiquities of the Jews, c.93) * Tacitus (Annals, c.115-120) * Suetonius (Lives of the Caesars, c. 125) * Galen (various writings, c.150) * Celsus (True Discourse, c.170). * Mara Bar Serapion (pre-200?) * Talmudic References( written after 300 CE, but some refs probably go back to eyewitnesses) *Lucian (Second century) *Numenius (Second cent.) *Galerius (Second Cent.) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The major argument here presented by many skeptics is that Jesus never existed. When real scholars of the Bible talk about "the historical Jesus" they don't' just examine the issues pertaining to his existence, they all assume he existed. But, this view that he never existed has become very fashionable on the Internet, which is very odd since no academic, or scholar, or anyone off of the Internet takes it seriously. Yet, it is growing in popularity on the discussion boards thanks to a whole host of sites which tout this absurd nonsense. The basic argument is merely an argument from silence, and is based upon the lack of very many extra-Bblical sources about Jesus from his own time. The arguments says "If Jesus really existed, worked miracles and rose form the dead, the whole world would know about him. Historians of his own day would have written volumes about him." Of course they also add that there are no official records of his existence, no birth certificate and so on. This is merely absurd because they didn't' have birth certificates and we have very few records of any individuals in that time. There were many, in fact a host, of "healers" and "wonder workers" running around all over the Roman world of that day, so to single out this one guy in Palestine just because his followers made claims about him is absurd.
Now Skeptics will often charge "you cannot prove that Jesus really existed..." But wait! This is not the believer's burden to prove! No academic scholar or real historian takes the Jesus-Myth theory seriously, and no historian can 'prove' that anyone existed. All history is basically a matter of probablitliy based upon best guess from documentary sources. The existence of Jesus has been accepted by history for centuries. IT is the skeptic's burden to overturn that presumption and prove that Jesus didn't exist! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Redy - this caught my eye.
To get caught up in the dogma of an unchanging religion, is to deny yourself all the experiences that the gift of having this life has offered. It’s a matter of degrees, the deeper you go into the dark the more you MUST believe because you have wasted so much time already believing. The only way to get back any of the ‘wasted’ time, is to hope you are given eternity. This puzzles me. I adressed this question to Abra, and never got a response, as he made this statement as well. My question is this: What are these "experiences" that the gift of life has to offer - do you assume I am missing out on? Due to my faith in God and Jesus - what have I missed in my life these past 20+ years? I ask this in sincerity - because your statement leads me to believe that you know something that I do not. Otherwise - you are extremely far off in your assessment, and could quite possibly be a victim of your own assumptions. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ferel Writes: I guess 4 times answering this same question is just not good enough...Maybe you should just answer it the way you see fit.... And on at least 4 occasions I have refuted what Feral has written,only to receive a rebuttle of either insufficient, or inept quality, or merely one of two throught processess "WRONG WRONG WRONG" or "ANSWERED" I have post the several rebuttles in this very thread, asking more questions - with no responce. What we have learned in this exercise it that the law, the jury and the judge can not be in disagreement when all the roles are played by the same person. Deb - do keep us posted on that seminary thing. It would be very interesting to hear about what you learn there. I currently have two cousins in the beginning of that journey. Writing on-line may be kind of like doing homework. We could make comparisons and then we would all see what they teach seminary students. Go for it, I really think you should. You would fly through the courses, after all you already have this huge headstart. Go Deb go! Yes - I noticed that you'd read all the way up to page 47 of the other thread on the questions of Leviticus, yet you never once referenced anything I wrote. Only what Deb wrote - and I'd responded numerous times to the questions before Deb even entered the thread. I was just curious about that. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The major argument here presented by many skeptics is that Jesus never existed. When real scholars of the Bible talk about "the historical Jesus" they don't' just examine the issues pertaining to his existence, they all assume he existed. But, this view that he never existed has become very fashionable on the Internet, which is very odd since no academic, or scholar, or anyone off of the Internet takes it seriously. Yet, it is growing in popularity on the discussion boards thanks to a whole host of sites which tout this absurd nonsense. The basic argument is merely an argument from silence, and is based upon the lack of very many extra-Bblical sources about Jesus from his own time. The arguments says "If Jesus really existed, worked miracles and rose form the dead, the whole world would know about him. Historians of his own day would have written volumes about him." Of course they also add that there are no official records of his existence, no birth certificate and so on. This is merely absurd because they didn't' have birth certificates and we have very few records of any individuals in that time. There were many, in fact a host, of "healers" and "wonder workers" running around all over the Roman world of that day, so to single out this one guy in Palestine just because his followers made claims about him is absurd. Now Skeptics will often charge "you cannot prove that Jesus really existed..." But wait! This is not the believer's burden to prove! No academic scholar or real historian takes the Jesus-Myth theory seriously, and no historian can 'prove' that anyone existed. All history is basically a matter of probablitliy based upon best guess from documentary sources. The existence of Jesus has been accepted by history for centuries. IT is the skeptic's burden to overturn that presumption and prove that Jesus didn't exist! I would consider myself a skeptical person by nature. Not just where dogmatic religions are concerned but just in general when it comes to many subjects. I won’t just take things at face value or believe because I'm supposed to believe. Now that could be a character flaw within me. I’m sure some of the Christians would consider it to be. However it is what it is and if people never dared question the existence of god, then we may choose to never question anything and simply rely on faith. If god created humans, then he obviously designed them to be an inquisitive bunch. Why would he mind a couple questions about him, his laws, his writings (that we are supposed to live by) and anything else? I never once claimed that Jesus Christ did not exist. Maybe another person on thread did? I’m uncertain. What I put forth was that Jesus was a human male; he never rose from the dead but was nailed to a cross by the Romans. Mary had sex with someone in order to become pregnant and that god is still a questionable entity to me at best. |
|
|
|
|
