100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Evolution Is it Compatible With THE BIBLE? | |
|---|---|
|
Edited by
ImGary
on
Thu 02/12/09 09:28 PM
|
|
First you slam me for responding to a post that was earlier in the thread and not current. I never slammed you personally. I didn’t care either way about it. It was a couple other people who were annoyed by it. Now you slam me for not reading all of the old posts. I am not slamming you. The Theory of Evolution is a complicated topic so I merely suggested (second time now) that you back up and read some of what we have been discussing. Or if you feel you can jump in, go for it. Why should I read the old posts if as you state it upsets you and several other unnamed individuals when someone responds to an old post? They aren’t unnamed. Inkracer was one. He was wondering why in the hell the topic had gone from evolution to a quote about Jesus. It was because you grabbed my quote form page one. That is an interruption. Yes, you did slam me, anyone reading the last two pages would agree. And I don't buy the a couple of other people were annoyed statement. Are you and others conspiring in secret? Are you the Figurehead of this tableau vivant? Well as I have said already to prevent further interruption and you and Inkracer from wondering why the thread is off topic I am respectfully proposing that we get back on topic. Why is evolution not compatible with the Bible? Checkmate again. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you had read the thread, you would know.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you had read the thread, you would know. If you think it is proven already that evolution is not compatible with the Bible then why are you still monitoring the thread? Could you please stay on topic? Why is Evolution not compatible with the Bible? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you had read the thread, you would know. If you think it is proven already that evolution is not compatible with the Bible then why are you still monitoring the thread? Could you please stay on topic? Why is Evolution not compatible with the Bible? It’s been proven to my satisfaction. As stated you would know if you read the thread. Or any part of the thread. It is incompatible with the bible because the bible states that humans were created from mud and that is not true. You can prove this statement to be false if you like. We are waiting. Jump in. Go ahead. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
ImGary
on
Thu 02/12/09 09:36 PM
|
|
If you had read the thread, you would know. If you think it is proven already that evolution is not compatible with the Bible then why are you still monitoring the thread? Could you please stay on topic? Why is Evolution not compatible with the Bible? It’s been proven to my satisfaction. As stated you would know if you read the thread. Or any part of the thread. It is incompatible with the bible because the bible states that humans were created from mud and that is not true. You can prove this statement to be false if you like. We are waiting. Jump in. Go ahead. It's been disproven to my satisfaction. I have nothing to lose in my belief- you do. If I am wrong, what do I lose? Nothing. IF you are wrong what do you lose? Everything. Logically deduce your way out of that one. I will pray for you. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's been disproven to my satisfaction. And how would you know if you refuse to read the thread? I have nothing to lose in my belief- Really? Aren’t you a Christian? Seems like you would have quite a bit invested in this. you do. I do? But isn’t that what non-believers are constantly being accused of? Having nothing invested in anything except science and reason? If I am wrong, what do I lose? Your entire belief system if you are a Christian. IF you are wrong what do you lose? Well nothing according to you. Logically deduce your way out of that one. Boy that was easy and I didn’t even need to put my thinking cap on. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Also FYI the horse still has always been a horse....a donkey a donkey and put the two together and you get a mule....but they are all still within the same species....You have a wolf, who created all the dog species we know....but never did they come from a elephant or a cat. Find another animal that shares 96%deoxyribonucleic acid identity with homo sapien. Actually it can now be said that it is 100%. 96% was due to the infamous missing pair of chromosones!!! In the past couple of years, human chromosone #2 was proven to have 'fused': the couple of #2 chromosones fused with the #??? (thought to be until now, missing couple of chromosones). It is now a 'fused' 100% MATCH !!! Voile; I've heard contrary information to that "fact". There are numerous inconsistances with Human DNA and Chimpansee DNA, and despite the fact that we share a large number of Chromo's - the physical structure of those Chroo's is radically different. It's no where near a one to one match - and, there's no way to prove that the "fused" chromo is actually directly compatable to the extra chromo that chimps have, as the genomes are not consistant in structure. At least this is what my research has shown. As to your larger post - which I see no need to repost... I am not in disagreement with the manner in which the scientific community and the church views science or philosophy. I do not see one having much to do with the other - until it comes down to the claim of origin of the species - which is NOT scientifically demonstrable. We can examine DNA and plot the genomes - but I find it difficut to assume there is much "fact" when the observable data of today is extrapolated back into the past with no means to verify it. For this reason I feel that the biblical account of the Bible and the account of Darwin - and what it has transformed into - stands on equal ground - and is only true as a matter of faith - and how this relates to one's world view. I don't see any problem with a qualified scientist mapping out the DNA genome of a fossil if their world view is Atheistic - or Fundamentalist Christian, or if they believe we got here by aliens. What I find difficulty with - is the conclusions drawn that what they observe today has any basis in fact or reality about what occured on the planet 2,000; 4,000 or 4 billion years ago. This is not the purpose of science to determine this as fact - because every scientist knows that we do not exist in a state of uniformitism. So - Creationism and Evolution are mere theories. Their credibility rests solely within one's world view. Until the day that scientists can prove God in a laboratory, or simulate the big bang and get life from a rock or star - it's all a matter of faith.... Is it not? OK 'Eljay', I'm not going to work on this one, I might have you at a disadvantage, and I don't enjoy taking advantage of a friend. Watch this video for starters. It might please you to know that Ken Miller, the guest presenter in front of a Univertsity audience, is a devout christian whom admirably distinguishes the fine line between his faith and religion, and science and his professional scientific and teaching occupations. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXdQRvSdLAs&feature=related In this video, when and where it mattered, ID and any other 'creationist' types had no credible rebuttal whatsoever for the #2 fused chromosone. Maybe they are working on one, but to date, nothing. And that is the point I am trying to make with you here: ... our personal world views matter little in this matter. Neither you nor I invented our 'world views'!!! 'World Views' for all of us, come from those whom sweat bullits at forging 'ORIGINAL THOUGHTS' which contributes to the body of thoughts already accumulated over the ages. Not a popularity contest. Those people must articulate their original thesis' and present them to their respective community peers for accreditation: (publishing, presenting, publishing, presenting, etc.) And that is where you and I don't quite agree here. While you claim all sorts of dissent for the theory of evolution, none of it can be traced back where it might count. The personnal opinion of a scientist, is no more no less then yours or mine. If this scientist has a dissenting opinion on a given acceptied notion or theory, there are very straight forward pocesses for that scientist to have his/hers dissenting arguments accredited officially!!! That's the beauty about science!!! It LOVES dissent!!! But it hates unsupported, hairy fairy dogma. Watch the video, and tell me what you think. There is a lot more about Ken Miller, and lots more about the discover of the fused chromosone #2, should you be interested. I will. I've got classes all weekend - I'll get to it on monday. For now, I'm off. 6:00 am comes WAY too early for me. Okay - I can now operate an aerial lift without killing myself (See Boston Globe for tradgedy of accident on Saturday. Right after my class - this happened less than a ile away) Now... The video. I have two problems with this agrument about #2 Chromosone - one being what was said, the other with what has been conviently not stated. The difficulty with what was said is that it asks the question "IF we shared common ancesters we should be able to solve the cromo' issue". Well, alright - that's a given. Of course there are a lot of other dissimilarities which need to be adressed - but let's just examine "THIS ONE". The explination is almost plausable - except it does not explain why the fusion of the #2C took place, and why it only happened once! Also - how does this now not explain that we are directly discendent from the Ape - for how else can one justify that there was a previous "common" ancester that puts man "side by side" on the evolutionary tree, and not a direct descendant? What are the presumed characteristics of the Genome of this mysterious common anscester that does not indicate that the #2 chromosone SPLIT and that apes are not directly discendant from man? None of this is even asked - yet, how can I see this as a clear question to ask, yet those in the field who spend their life studying this not? Also - what is not adressed is that there are more than just the difference in the number of Chromo's that need to be adressed... There is an obsevable difference in the size of the end markers as well. What is the explination for this occurance - as there is no effect on the information caused by this difference - yet it is there. Shouldn't this difference be explained by cuasation - rather than occurance. Sorry Voile - I'm not convinced. This video is a clear example of circular reasoning to attempt to explain what occured with no reasoning behind the why. I know that science is not about the why, but science also tells us that we share lots of things with other animals. Similarities are - two eyes, two arms, two legs, ears, a nose, a heart, lungs... the list goes on. I would be suprised to see that we don't have NUMEROUS similarities with everything that walks on the planet - including those that don't (those that crawl - plant's - single celled whatever's) Yet - it would seem that just a single difference is enough to indicate that every "like kind" is unique unto itself through the generations, and nothing is definitive in the reverse extrapolation into the past - unless it can be demonstrated by repeating it - something that the science of Evolution (and I use that term science loosley) has yet to demonstrate, and likely never will. With all due respect 'eljay', I think you completely missed the point of the video. See I would never pass myself as an expert whom could offer an expert opinion on the subject of evolution, or a whole lot of other subjects we could choose to debate on these forums. Likewise, I wouldn't think for one moment that you would dare pass yourself as an 'expert', whose personnal opinion could be offered on these forums, with the authority of a credible 'expert'. If that were the case, we would both be very busy delivering our expert speeches, and presenting our expert opinions in front of numerous court hearings across the country on this hot SOCIAL topic. In short, my personnal opinion, or your personnal opinion matter very little in the realm of moving world concensus. That you or I are convinced or not about an issue, changes absolutely nothing in establishing world concensus. That is why I provided the Ken Miller link. The video explains in great detail, the state of US consensus with respect to 'creationism'. I warned you that it gave a summary of a recent 'down' verdict of a state court (if you wish I'll get it for you, along a long list of other 'down' verdicts from other state courts, as well as the Supreme Court 'down' judgment judging 'creationism' unconstitutional. At that very conference where Ken Miller (a devout christian) spoke, they had been planning a debate between the Evolution side (Ken Miller), and the Creationist side. I can't put names of the creationist guest experts because they never showed up. Worse, they cancelled at the last minute, causing some degree of panick with the organizers, whom had turned to Miller, whom in turn graciously agreed to sum up the results of the hearings he and creationist experts had participated in. Now, your opinion and my opinion do not matter much, as I pointed out earlier. But there are people out, whom are considered creationist experts, whom were invited to present their case AGAINST THE FUSION OF CHROMOSE #2, and THEIR OPINION WOULD HAVE MATTERED. Unfortunately for your side, the creationist experts were at the hearings, they had been informed about the chromose #2 session months ahead, and yet, deliberately chose to present NO COUNTER ARGUMENT. The hearings official offered them more time to provide a rebuttal! They replied that they had 'nothingm of peritnent substance' to add, or to counter with, on that specific topic. That was the point I underlined to you before you viewed the video, and you missed it. Your side's experts had NOTHING TO SAY, OR ADD. That where it MIGHT HAVE MATTERED 'eljay'. Not what you or I are convinced of, or refuse to believe in. The STATE OF THE UNION on creationism, is that every efforts, whether through the scientific community, or the judicial sytem, are being debunked or judged INEPT TO BE TAUGHT IN SCHOOL AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. So, until the creationists experts come up with a rebuttal, or counter proposition that either the ...SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY ... or the JUDICIAL can make sense of, THE EVOLUTION ARGUMENT IN THE CASE OF CHROMOSONE #2, AND ANY OTHER EVOLUTION ARGUMENT OF YOUR CHOICE, STAND AS THE CURRENT SCIENTIFIC, AS WELL AS CONSTITUTIONAL REALITY OF THIS COUNTRY. ... and I understand and respect that your personnally are not convinced... I never claimed to be an expert in this particular disciline - but I'm not unfamiliar with it either. I spent a great deal of time studying chemistry in my youth - and have a degree in Math with emphasis on logic - so I have a fairly good idea when I'm asked to accept an premise that screams fallious reasoning. As is the case with the dating methods extrapolating fossils back millions of years ago. I remain unconvinced, and this is not due to my not being an expert in this field. It's due to reasoning and a gross lack of empirical evidence for the claim. Oh - one day there may be major demonstratable evidence - but it's not there. So - while I don't dispute the intelligence of these men, I do doubt their "theories", and don't accept them as proof. Just "viable idea's". This is the same reasoning that I use to accept the testimonies of the 1st disciples and their day to day walk with Jesus. I have no reason to doubt that they heard what they heard, and saw what they saw. When there is logical evidence to cause me to doubt this - I will. But usually, I find that those who cry "liars" - haven't even examined the text for themselves. Including the "experts". So - I do examine all of these contrary video's, and I generally study the flow of logic that brings about their concluisns - but they aren't any stronger than the logic that they're trying to refute. We're discussing theories here. Evolution (theory) and Creation (theory) The evidence I have witnessed supports either one without contradiction. There's no argument against a God creating species in their kind, and establing the ability of them to evole. Contrary to what scietists think - it makes more sense that he would have established the creation in this manner than it would have been to create every variance of species all at the same time. Why not let the creation exand in this way? We see the universe expanding as a perfect parallel to this very concept. Does not the consistancy make one stop and marvel? Cher 'Eljay', So far, your comments have shown clear confusion between ... YOUR personnal opinion, ... or anyone else's for that matter, ... including creationists who might happen to be scientists, AND, ... the POSITION OF THE SCIENCE as expressed by the few whom are publicly recognized as the 'CREDIBLE EXPERTS' representing the scientific community position, and the CREDIBLE EXPERTS from the creationist side, presenting or NOT PRESENTING scientifically accepted or newly acceptable proof (if there were such), about their respextive claims in this 'evo-crea' debate. That was the point of my earlier post 'eljay', that I repeat here. It will be kind of difficult to explore this further if you keep missing the point altogether. Whatever you or I would have to say about our personnal research, our personnal diplomas and our personnal convictions, would be totally impertinent and missing the point of this exchange altogether. You see 'ELJAY', neither you nor I have been invited to present the position 'for' or 'against' the evolution and creation sides in front of the numerous judicial hearings that have taken place in the past couple of decades (past hundred years, understandably we couldn't have anyway). Some people in both camps are publically credible and known out there as the one's representing their respective camp. They are the ones whom are instrumental in forging the infamous 'World View' you refer to often lately, or generally accepted consensus, giving us, mere mortals, a particular reality, or THE world view against which all other world views are measured, whether one agrees with it or not. And you see 'Eljay', ... when it comes to your legitimate right to 'believe' in the 'bible-inerrant' notions of creationism, ... and however much you might not agree with the theory of evolution, because YOU are not personnally convinced with the evidence of this particular 'world view', ... the scientific and judicial experts on the other hand, after more than 100 years of hearings, where claims against evolution have been presented, and yet none of these CREATIONIST CLAIMS HAVE EVER BEEN PRESENTED WITH ANY SCIENTIFIC FACT THAT MIGHT HAVE CAST AS MUCH OF A SHADOW ON THE PROOF OF THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION. Ironically, fundamentalist-creationists are reinforcing the reality, or 'Meta World View' of the Theory of Evolution with their repeated and endlessly unsubstantiated claims: '... that evolution is false!!! ...' Very much like, '... what doesn't kill you, makes you stronger ...' (an evolution based evidence. This evolution reality is everywhere!!!) So that leaves us with a false debate so far, where false claims have been made and new unsubstantiated claims are peeking, without ever impacting reality, FROM A JUDICIAL PERSPECTIVES : ... where 'creationism' has been judged UNCONSTITUTIONAL by the SUPREME COURT, OR FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF SCIENCE ... which has NEVER been presented with any form of testable proof that would invalidate the theory of evolution. The fundamentalists-creationists may never quit. That is their constitutionally protected freeomof religion and freedom of speech privilege. But the debate has been relegated to a stricly 'personnal belief' arena. Whether yours, mine or the creationist whom happens to hold a science degree, personnal beliefs or opinions alone, whatever the mass, will never change the 'Meta World View' or consensus on reality. The Meta World View once was that we existed on an earth centric universe, again out of a bible-inerrancy fundamentalist perspective. Of course the reality of our universe(s) is not bible-inerrant today, in spite the legitimate belief of some die-hards. So it is with Evolution. The Meta World View or reality we live within today is clearly 'evolutionary', in spite of a few 'bible-innerant' believers, whom hold onto a 'bible-inerrant human being centric' exclusive subordinated or junior world view, that is both scientifcally unproven, and judicially unconstitutional (creationism in schools). Is the point clearer with this additionnal information 'ELjay'? I would appreciate if you could respond to the point made here, in a specific manner: '... credible expert opinion, and scientifically accepted theories-proof, ... shaping judicial reality and impacting a 'meta world view', or consensus on reality, ... as opposed to personnal opinions and beliefs impacting only one's view, but not the consensus on reality.' 0,00262% of the world's christian population, arguing as lound as they could, ... WILL NOT A WORLD REALITY GIVE!!! Here - let's adress my primary issue. Macro-Evolution is unverifyable. Period. I have never once claimed Macro-Evolution to be false - I claim it is NOT possibly verifyable. It is NOT science. Oh, we can observe the evolution within species - but that has NO BEARING on the discussion. Just as one experiencing a miricle today can no more justify it as evidence that God parted the Red Sea for Moses, or Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead. So too with the events of Biology, or Geology. We can observe the effects of erosion caused by a quick flowing river - but that does nothing to verify our knowing how the Grand Canyon came about. Does one need a doctorate to understand this? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's been disproven to my satisfaction. And how would you know if you refuse to read the thread? I have nothing to lose in my belief- Really? Aren’t you a Christian? Seems like you would have quite a bit invested in this. you do. I do? But isn’t that what non-believers are constantly being accused of? Having nothing invested in anything except science and reason? If I am wrong, what do I lose? Your entire belief system if you are a Christian. IF you are wrong what do you lose? Well nothing according to you. Logically deduce your way out of that one. Boy that was easy and I didn’t even need to put my thinking cap on. Me having nothing to lose means that if I am wrong I have still had a more satisfying life(you will twist this I am sure) by living by Christian principles and would hypothetically end up as mud instead of starting as mud as you believe(nothing to lose)if I am wrong. My investment is faith. You having everything to lose means that if you are wrong you are going to Hell(everything to lose). It has nothing to do with investments. I didn't know you had a thinking cap. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Krimsa
on
Thu 02/12/09 10:06 PM
|
|
I have nothing to lose in my belief- Really? Aren’t you a Christian? Seems like you would have quite a bit invested in this. Me having nothing to lose means that if I am wrong I have still had a more satisfying life(you will twist this I am sure) Why do you think I will twist? I quote you and it is your own words. I merely pointed out that you were a Christian which means that you should have at least something invested in this. It’s your god after all, not mine. I think most Christians would feel strongly but maybe you just don’t care. by living by Christian principles And what are those principles? We know historically they have meant death, oppression, torture and imprisonments for millions. I don’t drink, I don’t smoke, I don’t hardly even use foul language. I don’t believe for one minute that Christians have corned the market on moral behavior. My investment is faith. I thought you said you had nothing invested in this. You having everything to lose means that if you are wrong you are going to Hell I don’t believe in hell and even if it were true, oh well. I’m not afraid of something like that. It has nothing to do with investments. You JUST stated you had FAITH INVESTED. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
ImGary
on
Thu 02/12/09 10:32 PM
|
|
I have nothing to lose in my belief- Really? Aren’t you a Christian? Seems like you would have quite a bit invested in this. Me having nothing to lose means that if I am wrong I have still had a more satisfying life(you will twist this I am sure) Why do you think I will twist? I quote you and it is your own words. I merely pointed out that you were a Christian which means that you should have at least something invested in this. It’s your god after all, not mine. I think most Christians would feel strongly but maybe you just don’t care. by living by Christian principles And what are those principles? We know historically they have meant death, oppression, torture and imprisonments for millions. I don’t drink, I don’t smoke, I don’t hardly even use foul language. I don’t believe for one minute that Christians have corned the market on moral behavior. My investment is faith. I thought you said you had nothing invested in this. You having everything to lose means that if you are wrong you are going to Hell I don’t believe in hell and even if it were true, oh well. I’m not afraid of something like that. It has nothing to do with investments. You JUST stated you had FAITH INVESTED. Try to remember you said you weren't afraid of Hell. You say that you don't twist but you state that I don't care. Thats twisting Krimsa. Thanks for proving my point. Its good that you don't smoke, drink or use foul language but it won't get you into Heaven. By the way you might want to change your profile where you state that you drink "occasionally" before you claim that you never drink. My having Faith invested is the underlying premise of my salvation and the downfall of yours so I have no idea why you point this out. Please clarify on current torture, imprisonment and oppression for millions as in regards to Christian principles. You might want to dust of your thinking cap for this. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Try to remember you said you weren't afraid of Hell. I’ve never acknowledged that hell exists. I never will acknowledge it exists. People create their own hells on earth and they are very good at it. You say that you don't twist but you state that I don't care. Thats twisting Krimsa. Thanks for proving my point. You said so yourself in your last post. You have nothing to lose. Its good that you don't smoke, drink or use foul language but it won't get you into Heaven. I don’t want to go to heaven. I don’t believe in that either. My having Faith invested is the underlying premise of my salvation I find it odd that you keep contradicting yourself from one post to the next. First you have nothing to lose and now you have a lot of faith riding on the bible being true. Pick one and go with it. Either you care or you don’t. I have no idea why you point this out. Because it’s funny.  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
ImGary
on
Thu 02/12/09 10:25 PM
|
|
Try to remember you said you weren't afraid of Hell. I’ve never acknowledged that hell exists. I never will acknowledge it exists. People create their own hells on earth and they are very good at it. You say that you don't twist but you state that I don't care. Thats twisting Krimsa. Thanks for proving my point. You said so yourself in your last post. You have nothing to lose. Its good that you don't smoke, drink or use foul language but it won't get you into Heaven. I don’t want to go to heaven. I don’t believe in that either. My having Faith invested is the underlying premise of my salvation I find it odd that you keep contradicting yourself from one post to the next. First you have nothing to lose and now you have a lot of faith riding on the bible being true. Pick one and go with it. Either you care or you don’t. I have no idea why you point this out. Because it’s funny. I have not contradicted myself at all. I can not seem to get you to understand something very simple. Me having nothing to lose as I have already explained means that if I am wrong in my Christian beliefs then I lose nothing because I have lived a better life by living by those principles even if I am wrong and end up as mud in the end instead of starting as mud as the Bible states. What is so hard to understand here. You know what I know you understand, you just enjoy twisting things around like a bad attorney until the truth means nothing. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You forgot to add your comments.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
ImGary
on
Thu 02/12/09 10:27 PM
|
|
You forgot to add your comments. I see you found your thinking cap. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Krimsa
on
Thu 02/12/09 10:36 PM
|
|
I have not contradicted myself at all. What do you call claiming you have faith and then stating you have nothing to lose? Me having nothing to lose as I have already explained means that if I am wrong in my Christian beliefs then I lose nothing because I have lived a better life by living by those principles But in a historical context, when looking back upon Christianity we know that not to be the case. even if I am wrong and end up as mud in the end instead of starting as mud as the Bible states. Well if it ends up there is nothing after death, as the Atheists seem to feel, then it won’t matter to you or I correct? What is so hard to understand here. You are the one who can't make up your mind. You know what I know you understand, you just enjoy twisting things around like a bad attorney until the truth means nothing. I have sat through a lot of trials. Witnesses ALWAYS break down. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
ImGary
on
Thu 02/12/09 10:43 PM
|
|
I have not contradicted myself at all. What do you call claiming you have faith and then stating you have nothing to lose? Me having nothing to lose as I have already explained means that if I am wrong in my Christian beliefs then I lose nothing because I have lived a better life by living by those principles But in a historical context, when looking back upon Christianity we know that not to be the case. even if I am wrong and end up as mud in the end instead of starting as mud as the Bible states. Well if it ends up there is nothing after death, as the Atheists seem to feel, then it won’t matter to you or I correct? What is so hard to understand here. You are the one who can make up your mind. You know what I know you understand, you just enjoy twisting things around like a bad attorney until the truth means nothing. I have sat through a lot of trials. Witnesses ALWAYS break down. I have also set through lots of trials and Attorneys always lie. Case in point- you state four posts ago that you do not drink, smoke or use foul language. You might want to change your profile which states that you drink "occasionally" before you claim to never drink. Perjury is punishable even in the Agnostic belief system. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
MorningSong
on
Thu 02/12/09 10:48 PM
|
|
Hopefully I may be able to help clarify the misinderstanding going on here : Ok...in a nutshell.... Krimsa said that Gary brought up the off topic in the thread.... Gary says no....he didn't start or bring up the off topic.... NOW.... What Krimsa SHOULD have SAID INSTEAD, was this: "Gary brought up the topic AGAIN in the thread. AGAIN!!! Meaning.... Gary RESSURRECTED an already sleeping off topic discusssion, that was quietly laid to rest already... early on in the thread!!!  AMAZING.....how leaving out just ONE WORD , can create a major miscommunication problem.  
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have not contradicted myself at all. What do you call claiming you have faith and then stating you have nothing to lose? Me having nothing to lose as I have already explained means that if I am wrong in my Christian beliefs then I lose nothing because I have lived a better life by living by those principles But in a historical context, when looking back upon Christianity we know that not to be the case. even if I am wrong and end up as mud in the end instead of starting as mud as the Bible states. Well if it ends up there is nothing after death, as the Atheists seem to feel, then it won’t matter to you or I correct? What is so hard to understand here. You are the one who can make up your mind. You know what I know you understand, you just enjoy twisting things around like a bad attorney until the truth means nothing. I have sat through a lot of trials. Witnesses ALWAYS break down. I have also set through lots of trials and Attorneys always lie. Case in point- you state three posts ago that you do not drink, smoke or use foul language. You might want to change your profile which states that you drink "occasionally" before you claim to never drink. Perjury is punishable even in the Agnostic belief system. I dont drink. I can drink if I want. If I stated that i never drink, I dont think thats even an option, then it woudl be a lie. I might have a beverage with a meal. I dont drink to the point of intoxication. I love the taste of red wine. It would be a lie if I claimed I never drink. I do not purchase alcohol in the grocery store. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have not contradicted myself at all. What do you call claiming you have faith and then stating you have nothing to lose? Me having nothing to lose as I have already explained means that if I am wrong in my Christian beliefs then I lose nothing because I have lived a better life by living by those principles But in a historical context, when looking back upon Christianity we know that not to be the case. even if I am wrong and end up as mud in the end instead of starting as mud as the Bible states. Well if it ends up there is nothing after death, as the Atheists seem to feel, then it won’t matter to you or I correct? What is so hard to understand here. You are the one who can make up your mind. You know what I know you understand, you just enjoy twisting things around like a bad attorney until the truth means nothing. I have sat through a lot of trials. Witnesses ALWAYS break down. I have also set through lots of trials and Attorneys always lie. Case in point- you state three posts ago that you do not drink, smoke or use foul language. You might want to change your profile which states that you drink "occasionally" before you claim to never drink. Perjury is punishable even in the Agnostic belief system. I dont drink. I can drink if I want. If I stated that i never drink, I dont think thats even an option, then it woudl be a lie. I might have a beverage with a meal. I dont drink to the point of intoxication. I love the taste of red wine. It would be a lie if I claimed I never drink. I do not purchase alcohol in the grocery store. You did claim you never drink. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I said I dont drink and I dont smoke and I rarely use foul language. If I were to go out to dinner and there was a bottle of wine I could have a glass if I wanted. I do not drink to the point of intoxication. If I stated that I never drank on my profile, and a man approached me who was a recovered alcoholic, that would be misleading to him because I CAN drink. This is a dating site after all.
|
|
|
|
|
