|
“I Am No One Else”
Since: Apr 12
Seattle
|
Please wait...
Well, I must take a nap. Bringmedinner, ponder the questions and answers a bit. I recommend discussing it with a Catholic priest if you have one to talk to. He may be able to help you out a bit. Or a nun, usually they can be just as helpful.
|
|
Bringmedinner
San Jose, CA
|
KittenKoder wrote: <quoted text>
No, the first question was that DNA was "god's way," the second was if we discovered "god's way" through science. You did not answer the second one that I saw. So I will assume that it's a yes.
So, DNA is god's way, we understand how DNA works, the mechanisms, mutation effecting the traits to create the variance between offspring and parents. Now, DNA is how life is defined, so how did life become so varied?
Before you answer, the bible is very vague on this matter in reality, as vague as it was on how the Earth existed, calling space a "sea of water" and the sky a "solid dome." These could be considered primitive descriptions of what really is, ignoring for the sake of civility the flat Earth claim.
So what was god's way of making every life form? What you see, or don't see is your issue. The Bible is not vague to those studying it with seriousness. Since God took DNA from Adam to create the first female Jew to be a reproductive companion like those He had created before to hunt and gather as predators only, His inclination to varied life is shown therein and within His creation of wild animals and animals capable of being domesticated, etc. If we had an understanding equal to God's, we'd be able to do the same thing. Understanding mechanics is different than applying mechanics. Man's primitive state at the time of God sharing what He chose to share would certainly have primitive man describing what he didn't understand in primitive ways. Thus, God's vehicle from one of His eleven, or so, dimensions would be described in terms of a very rudimentary oxcart, e.g. His complete lack of knowledge concerning any previous history would be described in one sentence shared from God saying something about a "world that was", or something "became void and without form." The question atheist evolutionists should be asking instead of how life became varied is how life became stagnant in terms of not having constant and multi-level representations of any inter-species occurrences, because evolution by definition is ongoing backward, forward, sideways and inter-dimensional. God created life to be varied and adaptable. He also included segments of DNA not understood yet, that insure crossing a donkey with a horse gives you a sterile mule (in one of the few instances where even intra-species cross breeding is somewhat functional. Semmelweiss in the 18th century tried to convince people there was such as germs. Early on, God told people how to stay clean and what to eat... applied knowledge to dumb-ass people.
|
|
“Life may be sweeter for this”
Since: Nov 08
Fennario
|
Please wait...
Atheist Liberal wrote: Since atheists believe that this is the only life they get, why are so many of them wasting it here? Hour after hour...day after day...week after week...and on and on. Wasting time? Repeatedly kicking your church in the nuts until it shrivels up and goes away is not wasting time. Good riddance. It would be wasting time if I were Tweeting instead. Or watching American Idol. Helping to midwife secularism into its rightful place as the dominant paradigm in American culture is an honor. What else can anybody do at this point for that obviously god forsaken country? So, yes. It is time well spent on that basis alone. I haven't even mentioned all that's in it for me, which sweetens the pot substantially.
|
|
Bringmedinner
San Jose, CA
|
Judged:
1
I should add... Applied knowledge to dumb-ass people, who even today refuse to apply the simple basic truths God directed to stay healthy. Instead, atheist influences develop biological warfare and same sex diversions from His Wisdom. I, too, am out of here. Have a good day, all.
|
Since: Mar 11
St. Croix valley
|
Please wait...
Judged:
1
Bringmedinner wrote: <quoted text>
There were very few "European" slave traders. The slaves were brought to the ships by Blacks. There were no European armies, nor navies supporting the few traders, who just showed up off shore and occasionally came ashore to work with the African Kings and their Black slaves to build dispersal enclaves. Their were likely some of the traders claiming to be Christians and effectively they were supporting Christian principles in saving and improving the lot of the slaves brought to them. Otherwise, instead of Black King throne rooms paved with slave skulls, there might have been highways.
As to your "large numbers"... certainly not 80 Million. Ahhh. we're back to the "Anyone doing evil is not a christian, as christians don't do evil" thread of 'logic'. always stick with the classics...
|
|
wolverine
Greeley, CO
|
It aint necessarily so wrote: <quoted text>
Wasting time? Repeatedly kicking your church in the nuts until it shrivels up and goes away is not wasting time. Good riddance.
It would be wasting time if I were Tweeting instead. Or watching American Idol. Helping to midwife secularism into its rightful place as the dominant paradigm in American culture is an honor. What else can anybody do at this point for that obviously god forsaken country?
So, yes. It is time well spent on that basis alone. I haven't even mentioned all that's in it for me, which sweetens the pot substantially. LOL....And That Rathole You Live In Is Better ?? Give Me A Break O'le Hippy....You Couldnt Usher In The Cat....Let Alone Your Brand Of Socialism.
|
|
wolverine
Greeley, CO
|
Judged:
1
1
KittenKoder wrote: <quoted text>
Actually, I am considered a Libertarian Moderate. I Consider Libertairians, Balless Liberal Socialists. You Gotta Love Those Wackadoodles
|
|
“Life may be sweeter for this”
Since: Nov 08
Fennario
|
Please wait...
Ebeasley wrote: By "definition Christians believe pretty much the same thing". What definition? I have never heard one. Here's a functional or operational definition of a Christian in America: If your vote is determined by what you believe your god thinks about abortion, you might be a Christian. If you think that every school child, no matter its family's beliefs, should recite "under god" every morning because you think Jesus would want it, you're a Christian to me. If you think that a god said Adam and Eve, nor Adam and Steve, or Madam and Eve, and you object to gay marriage on that basis, then you're a part of the problem. If you give money to a church or other Christian organization, you're a Christian to me. Unbelievers define Christians differently than believers, because we don't care about your beliefs, which is what you use. We care about your behavior. If you promote Christianity in any way, you're a Christian to me, even if you don't believe Jesus was a god. I realize that you probably won't agree or approve. Noted. Ebeasley wrote: to say that Christians "demanded" that "In God we Trust" be on our money is assumed. Who says they "demanded" it? It might have been suggested and approved with very little objection at the time. "Demanded" is over stated and assumed. You're really down to absolutely nothing worthwhile with which to argue if you bothered with that. Of course your people demanded. When do they ever just ask when they have the power to compel? Never. Not ever. None of you Christians on this thread has expressed any other attitude, either. You don't just ask for anything that you can compel, which is why most of you want to recriminalize abortion. Who do you think you're fooling? We know what your church is even if you don't.
|
|
|
|
wolverine
Greeley, CO
|
Who do you think you're fooling? We know what your church is even if you don't.
Who Is "We "
You Got A Mouse in Your Pocket, Doc ?
|
|
Since: Mar 11
St. Croix valley
|
Please wait...
wolverine wrote: Who do you think you're fooling? We know what your church is even if you don't.
Who Is "We "
You Got A Mouse in Your Pocket, Doc ? We = rational people?
|
|
“Life may be sweeter for this”
Since: Nov 08
Fennario
|
Please wait...
Bringmedinner wrote: <quoted text>
That must be why there are so many atheist charities in the world, or do you count gulags as charities? Charities are neither atheists nor theists. Like governments, they are abstractions, and thus can neither accept nor reject god claims. We call such things secular, meaning not based on or promoting religious principles. Got it? LOL. Just kidding. Of course you don't. You'll be making this mistake again in five minutes, and for the rest of your life. So, although no charities are atheists, most charities in the world are secular, just like most schools and hospitals. Incidentally, I don't consider contributions that go toward building cathedrals or supporting an unproductive, parasitic priestly class" charitable." Charity has to help the needy, not the church. I'd bet a published audit of a hundred churches chosen at random would be shocking. Betcha. Really. I bet your church would shock you. If you think I'm wrong, offer to underwrite a professional audit of the church for them. That means counting collection plates, and reviewing deposit slips, cancelled checks, and tax returns. If they're honest and responsible stewards, that could only help them. If they're robbing you blind, you'll have more trouble getting past them than a pork chop thrown at a coyote. Betcha. Ask them.
|
|
wolverine
Greeley, CO
|
woodtick57 wrote: <quoted text>We = rational people? Now Your Stretching It....... "You" As In "We " Are Products Of Philosophy And Drug Based Theology. You Cannot See That Which You Have Been Purposely Blinded To. I Dont MInd You Believing As You Do....I Mind That You Chastise Others For Their Beliefs, And Demand That They Stop Following The Traditions That This Country Was Founded On.
|
|
wolverine
Greeley, CO
|
It aint necessarily so wrote: <quoted text>
Charities are neither atheists nor theists. Like governments, they are abstractions, and thus can neither accept nor reject god claims. We call such things secular, meaning not based on or promoting religious principles.
Got it? LOL. Just kidding. Of course you don't. You'll be making this mistake again in five minutes, and for the rest of your life.
So, although no charities are atheists, most charities in the world are secular, just like most schools and hospitals.
Incidentally, I don't consider contributions that go toward building cathedrals or supporting an unproductive, parasitic priestly class" charitable." Charity has to help the needy, not the church.
I'd bet a published audit of a hundred churches chosen at random would be shocking. Betcha. Really. I bet your church would shock you. If you think I'm wrong, offer to underwrite a professional audit of the church for them. That means counting collection plates, and reviewing deposit slips, cancelled checks, and tax returns. If they're honest and responsible stewards, that could only help them. If they're robbing you blind, you'll have more trouble getting past them than a pork chop thrown at a coyote.
Betcha. Ask them. LOL....Now Your An Authority And Sit In Judgement Of Whats Considered Charity ? While I Agree With Your Thoughts On Churches Waste And Fraud Of Peoples Charity..... Religious Folks In America Are The Most Charitable People On Earth
|
|
“Life may be sweeter for this”
Since: Nov 08
Fennario
|
Please wait...
Ebeasley wrote: Stupid? You sure get upset enough at all these so called "stupid" people. They seem to get you going don't they? Transparent, passive aggressive manipulation. You gently coax us to be less assertive, less critical and less candid. Um, no. I think most of us intend to be as "upset" with your religion until it's gone from view. FYI, this approach can only work for you if you're not so obvious about it. It's not too subtle calling every critical skeptic a bitter and angry person with an unhappy childhood, just before calling for politeness. You provoke people to do the opposite if they see what you're doing.
|
|
Since: Mar 11
St. Croix valley
|
Please wait...
It aint necessarily so wrote: <quoted text>
Charities are neither atheists nor theists. Like governments, they are abstractions, and thus can neither accept nor reject god claims. We call such things secular, meaning not based on or promoting religious principles.
Got it? LOL. Just kidding. Of course you don't. You'll be making this mistake again in five minutes, and for the rest of your life.
So, although no charities are atheists, most charities in the world are secular, just like most schools and hospitals.
Incidentally, I don't consider contributions that go toward building cathedrals or supporting an unproductive, parasitic priestly class" charitable." Charity has to help the needy, not the church.
I'd bet a published audit of a hundred churches chosen at random would be shocking. Betcha. Really. I bet your church would shock you. If you think I'm wrong, offer to underwrite a professional audit of the church for them. That means counting collection plates, and reviewing deposit slips, cancelled checks, and tax returns. If they're honest and responsible stewards, that could only help them. If they're robbing you blind, you'll have more trouble getting past them than a pork chop thrown at a coyote.
Betcha. Ask them. I think a lot of people confuse charity with tax-deductible giving. if I donate to my local art museum, it may be tax-deductible, but is it really charity? it is me paying for something i use and enjoy. some of the tithes to church's may go to charity. better yet to give to some church sponsored organizations that use a far greater amount of their donations to actual charity.
|
|
Heretic
Chattanooga, TN
|
Judged:
2
Bringmedinner wrote: <quoted text>
What you see, or don't see is your issue.
The Bible is not vague to those studying it with seriousness. Since God took DNA from Adam to create the first female Jew to be a reproductive companion like those He had created before to hunt and gather as predators only, His inclination to varied life is shown therein and within His creation of wild animals and animals capable of being domesticated, etc. If we had an understanding equal to God's, we'd be able to do the same thing. Understanding mechanics is different than applying mechanics.
Man's primitive state at the time of God sharing what He chose to share would certainly have primitive man describing what he didn't understand in primitive ways. Thus, God's vehicle from one of His eleven, or so, dimensions would be described in terms of a very rudimentary oxcart, e.g. His complete lack of knowledge concerning any previous history would be described in one sentence shared from God saying something about a "world that was", or something "became void and without form."
The question atheist evolutionists should be asking instead of how life became varied is how life became stagnant in terms of not having constant and multi-level representations of any inter-species occurrences, because evolution by definition is ongoing backward, forward, sideways and inter-dimensional. God created life to be varied and adaptable. He also included segments of DNA not understood yet, that insure crossing a donkey with a horse gives you a sterile mule (in one of the few instances where even intra-species cross breeding is somewhat functional.
Semmelweiss in the 18th century tried to convince people there was such as germs. Early on, God told people how to stay clean and what to eat... applied knowledge to dumb-ass people. There's the racist we know and loathe.
|
|
Since: Mar 11
St. Croix valley
|
Please wait...
Judged:
2
wolverine wrote: <quoted text>
Now Your Stretching It.......
"You" As In "We " Are Products Of Philosophy And Drug Based Theology.
You Cannot See That Which You Have Been Purposely Blinded To.
I Dont MInd You Believing As You Do....I Mind That You Chastise Others For Their Beliefs, And Demand That They Stop Following The Traditions That This Country Was Founded On. i could care less what you believe as long as it doesn't interfere with my rights. our country was not founded on any religious traditions, it is a secular government.
|
|
wolverine
Greeley, CO
|
woodtick57 wrote: <quoted text>i could care less what you believe as long as it doesn't interfere with my rights.
our country was not founded on any religious traditions, it is a secular government. Again, You Are Very Wrong. This Country Was Founded On Religious Freedom....Not Freedom From Religion....And Its A Republic That Has Suffered Secularism. Please Educate Yourself.
|
|
“Life may be sweeter for this”
Since: Nov 08
Fennario
|
Please wait...
Atheist Liberal wrote: To have a PHD in psychiatry is to have a PHD in other people's opinions...nothing more. I'm sure by now that EBeasley has told you how little you know about medicine and medical specialties, right EB? I´m sure that his comment is just a few posts ahead of yours that I'm answering, and that I'll see it before I leave this page. Oh, and PHD is Pentacostal hair-do. The degree is spelled Ph.D., or PhD if you prefer. It's a college thing, and we know how you conservative Christian loathe universities.
|
|
wolverine
Greeley, CO
|
2 Timothy 3
King James Version (KJV)
3 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.
6 For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts,
7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
|
|
Tell me when this thread is updated:
(Registration is not required)
Add to my Tracker
Send me an email
|
Pisces
