Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 > "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message > > news:Jason-1006071822330001@66-52-22-1.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > If it was a rural area of a state in the Bible Belt--the jury would rule > > that Cheryl was telling the truth. So basically you're calling the people from the Bible Belt a bunch of ignorant Godbots. How nice of you. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 On Jun 13, 1:54 am, "Ralph" <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > If there was a court case related to this issue, Cheryl > > Prewitt could produce her medical records (eg X-Rays). All of medical > > staff that were present when a doctor removed two inches of a leg bone > > would testify. They would testify to the fact that she was a liar. I would LOVE to see that. This is exactly why sje "preaches to the converted", ie to the naive and stupid. Martin Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 In article <598u63h6roisvahm7r403qevrl451fr95v@4ax.com>, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 10:24:29 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > <Jason-1206071024300001@66-52-22-95.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >In article <5d7uaoF331s2lU2@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" > ><witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: > > > >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in > >> > >> snip > >> > > >> > Martin, > >> > If I provided physical evidence that indicates that her leg bone grew 2 > >> > inches, would you believe that God healed her leg? > >> > Jason > >> > >> Of course not. Most importantly, you'd have to prove that your god exists > >> and does anything. > > > >That's the reason that I did not try to find the information on the web. > > > Because you know that you cannot provide any evidence that your God > exists. > > Despite that, you reject actual evidence. Why? Who taught you to be so > dishonest? I do not reject all evidence. You reject evidence (testimony) that Cheryl's leg bone grew 2 inches. I accepted the evidence related to natural selection. I rejected abiogenesis and common sense due to the lack of evidence. It's mainly based on speculation. I already know that you disagree with me. Jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 In article <mb8u63pc8tjpo22m7t75i54t0e8j7oh1cr@4ax.com>, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 10:30:51 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > <Jason-1206071030510001@66-52-22-95.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >In article <1181644398.763698.134870@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, > >gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: > > > >> On 12 Jun., 02:37, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > ... > > >> > Insurance companies blame God for all natural disasters. Perhaps there > >> > reasoning is that God is responsible since those natural disasters would > >> > not have happened if God had not created the world. > >> > >> Gosh, do you think that might be it? > > > >One of the positive things about it is the insurance companies (unlike > >yourself) are acknowledging that God created the earth. > > > No, Jason, that is not true. I was told that at least one insurance company no longer uses the term "acts of God". Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 "Martin Phipps" <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1181691449.474813.233740@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 13, 1:41 am, "Ralph" <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message >> >> news:Jason-1206071021200001@66-52-22-95.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> >> >> >> >> >> > In article <1181646992.799917.21...@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, >> > gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: >> >> >> On 12 Jun., 02:47, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >> > In article <1181601347.999940.35...@r19g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, >> >> > Martin >> >> >> > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> > > > In article >> >> > > > <Jason-1006071559590...@66-52-22-36.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>, >> >> >> > > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >> > > > > She has >> >> > > > > witnessed to thousands of people. >> >> >> > > Wow. She's lied to a lot of people then. I find that completely >> >> > > and >> >> > > utterly morally reprehensible. It is also typical Godbot >> >> > > behaviour. >> >> >> > > Martin >> >> >> > the alternative is "she told the truth to a lot of people then." >> >> >> For which you have absolutely no objective evidence. You have even >> >> pretty well made it clear that you believe it because you want to. If >> >> one is a rational being, objective evidence is something that has to >> >> be accepted, whether we like what it supports or not; but you believe >> >> because you want to and, supposedly, reject evidence that does not >> >> support what you like. This makes you irrational and dishonest. >> >> > Do you have objective evidence that time and physics did not exist >> > prior >> > to the Big Bang? >> >> Mathematics says it didn't. > > It's more than mathematics. The big bang apparently happened and > inflationary theory explains how it happened. Even without > inflationary theory we have the second law of thermodynamics which > tells us that the big bang was the beginning of time. Even with all > this, it is still reasonable to suppose that it wasn't a "first cause" > in that one would suppose that there had to be existing preconditions > that made the big bang possible in the first place. I understand what was involved. I just don't intend to waste my time and a willful fool like Jason. >> > Do you have objective evidence that these are two of the steps involved >> > in >> > the evolution of mankind: >> > STEP 1 Single cell (example: bacteria) >> > STEP 2 Single animal cell (with DNA nucleus capable of sexual >> > reproduction). >> >> Those aren't the steps of evolution. Why do you continue to be so >> ignorant? > > Okay, look, I have to say that it is a bit ironic for you to claim > that the gradual change over several generations of a bacteria like > cell into an ameoba like cell is not evolution in action. Simple Martin, because it wasn't STEP 1 and STEP 2. Quote
Guest John Baker Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 16:53:45 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >In article <598u63h6roisvahm7r403qevrl451fr95v@4ax.com>, Free Lunch ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 10:24:29 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> <Jason-1206071024300001@66-52-22-95.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >In article <5d7uaoF331s2lU2@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" >> ><witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: >> > >> >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in >> >> >> >> snip >> >> > >> >> > Martin, >> >> > If I provided physical evidence that indicates that her leg bone grew 2 >> >> > inches, would you believe that God healed her leg? >> >> > Jason >> >> >> >> Of course not. Most importantly, you'd have to prove that your god exists >> >> and does anything. >> > >> >That's the reason that I did not try to find the information on the web. >> > >> Because you know that you cannot provide any evidence that your God >> exists. >> >> Despite that, you reject actual evidence. Why? Who taught you to be so >> dishonest? > >I do not reject all evidence. You reject evidence (testimony) that >Cheryl's leg bone grew 2 inches. This isn't evidence. It's a claim, made by you, that you have thus far not supported. You've lied about so many other things, I think it's safe to assume you're most probably lying about this as well. >I accepted the evidence related to >natural selection. I rejected abiogenesis and common sense due to the lack >of evidence. It's mainly based on speculation. I already know that you >disagree with me. >Jason > Quote
Guest John Baker Posted June 13, 2007 Posted June 13, 2007 On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 16:55:03 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >In article <mb8u63pc8tjpo22m7t75i54t0e8j7oh1cr@4ax.com>, Free Lunch ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 10:30:51 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> <Jason-1206071030510001@66-52-22-95.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >In article <1181644398.763698.134870@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, >> >gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: >> > >> >> On 12 Jun., 02:37, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >> ... >> >> >> > Insurance companies blame God for all natural disasters. Perhaps there >> >> > reasoning is that God is responsible since those natural disasters would >> >> > not have happened if God had not created the world. >> >> >> >> Gosh, do you think that might be it? >> > >> >One of the positive things about it is the insurance companies (unlike >> >yourself) are acknowledging that God created the earth. >> > >> No, Jason, that is not true. > >I was told that at least one insurance company no longer uses the term >"acts of God". Jason, you're living proof that there's no God. No god worthy of the name would ever create anything so fucking stupid. > Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 13, 2007 Posted June 13, 2007 "John Baker" <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote in message news:dtcu639b8tcvo5mlumodtdgtgc4di4im6f@4ax.com... > On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 16:55:03 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >>In article <mb8u63pc8tjpo22m7t75i54t0e8j7oh1cr@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> >>> On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 10:30:51 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism >>> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >>> <Jason-1206071030510001@66-52-22-95.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >>> >In article <1181644398.763698.134870@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, >>> >gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: >>> > >>> >> On 12 Jun., 02:37, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>> >>> ... >>> >>> >> > Insurance companies blame God for all natural disasters. Perhaps >>> >> > there >>> >> > reasoning is that God is responsible since those natural disasters >>> >> > would >>> >> > not have happened if God had not created the world. >>> >> >>> >> Gosh, do you think that might be it? >>> > >>> >One of the positive things about it is the insurance companies (unlike >>> >yourself) are acknowledging that God created the earth. >>> > >>> No, Jason, that is not true. >> >>I was told that at least one insurance company no longer uses the term >>"acts of God". > > > Jason, you're living proof that there's no God. No god worthy of the > name would ever create anything so fucking stupid. Ain't that a fact. I think it is strange that Jason believes god created some animals and some plants. It would appear to me that his faith is weak. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 13, 2007 Posted June 13, 2007 On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 15:01:42 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-1206071501420001@66-52-22-111.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <opc3k4-7or.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason ><kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > >> [snips] >> >> On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 10:42:26 -0700, Jason wrote: >> >> > Yes, that is true. If I provided physical evidence which indicated that >> > her leg bone grew 2 inches--how would you explain how it happened? >> >> Honestly, by stating the cause - if any, you haven't validated even this >> much yet - simply isn't known yet. >> >> "I don't know" is not the same as "Yes, there really is a super being who, >> of all the thousands of such beings described, just happens to match this >> particular one and he really does heal people, but does it magically >> without leaving any evidence he did it - or even that he exists." >> >> You see how those differ? Maybe, some day, you'll let it sink in. > >Have you considered that God is giving you evidence that he exists by >healing people? Maybe, some day, you'll let it sink in. > So we must conclude that you worship the Lord of the Flies, because your god causes so much harm to people, but, every once in a while, in a completely random fashion, he heals someone. What a silly religion you preach. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 13, 2007 Posted June 13, 2007 On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 15:09:13 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-1206071509130001@66-52-22-111.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <31d3k4-7or.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason ><kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > >> [snips] >> >> On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 13:03:44 -0700, Jason wrote: >> >> >> It's easy to find people who will tell us what a blasphemous infidel you >> >> are for saying that the 9/11 Jihadists were not pleasing Allah with >> >> their actions. >> > >> > You already know that millions of people in America agree that the actions >> > of those men were not pleasing to Jehovah. >> >> "in America"? Oh, wonderful. Now someone's religion is invalidated >> simply by where they live . > >I mentioned America since those 3000 people were killed in America. >Millions of people in other countries also realize that the actions of >those men were not pleasing to Jehovah. So you say. Apparently you never read the Old Testament. Jehovah was a pretty bloodthirsty tyrant. He might love the murders of 9/11 and the wars that happened afterward. >What is your opinion about those men that killed 3000 people on 9/11? They are evil. But I don't have to defend the evil acts that people do in the name of God. Remember, they worship the same God you do. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 13, 2007 Posted June 13, 2007 On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 11:31:58 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-1206071131590001@66-52-22-95.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <1181649634.232900.8560@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, Martin ><phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> On Jun 12, 1:00 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> > In article <1181614412.939840.97...@g37g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> > > On Jun 12, 9:39 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> > > > In article <kkor63tinbmus479tfljt5ib6lmn7o9...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >> > >> > > > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> > > > > On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 17:31:38 -0700, in alt.atheism >> > > > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> > > > > <Jason-1106071731380...@66-52-22-97.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> > >> > > > > ... >> > > > > >Bramble, >> > > > > >I agree with many of the points you made. When God created >mankind, he >> > > > > >gave us free will. He did not create robots that were >programmed to do >> > > > > >only good things. As a result of free will, people can decide >to do great >> > > > > >and wonderful things or can use their free will to decide to commit >> > > > > >criminal acts. >> > >> > > > > >God is indirectly responsible since he created the solar system and >> > > > > >created life--including mankind. However, when people end up in >prison >> > > > > >it's not God's fault. It's the fault of the person that was >> > exercising his >> > > > > >or her free will. >> > >> > > > > >Do you see my point? >> > >> > > > > Man came about as a result of evolution. That is what the >evidence shows >> > > > > us. If God created man, He used evolution. You refuse to accept that >> > > > > fact. You prefer lies to the truth, ignorance to knowledge. You call >> > > > > your God a liar. >> > >> > > > > Why? >> > >> > > > The first chapter of the book of Genesis states that God >> > >> > > You keep talking about your imaginary friend as if he were real. You >> > > need to be commited for psychiatric observation. >> >> > They will have to build a lot of mental hospitals. According to the 2005 >> > Time Almanac, there are 1.9 billion Christians in the world. (page 359). >> >> Yes, the rational people of the world have a lot of work to do. You >> don't think we know that? >> >> Martin > >Martin, >They place Christians in prisons and mental hospitals in communist >countries. Do you want the government to do the same thing in America? You are a humorless fool. >A Christian in Viet Nam was recently murdered by prison guards. Christianity, Buddhism and other religions are tolerated in Vietnam. Many in Vietnam are both Catholic and Buddhist, so the murder, if it happened, wasn't motivated merely because the prisoner was a Christian. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 13, 2007 Posted June 13, 2007 On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 21:53:55 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-1106072153560001@66-52-22-96.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <utqr63he40hh9n29rh2c80f0p1v05gj976@4ax.com>, Free Lunch ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 18:39:16 -0700, in alt.atheism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> <Jason-1106071839160001@66-52-22-97.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >In article <kkor63tinbmus479tfljt5ib6lmn7o9kv7@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >> ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> > >> >> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 17:31:38 -0700, in alt.atheism >> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> >> <Jason-1106071731380001@66-52-22-97.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >> >> >> ... >> >> >Bramble, >> >> >I agree with many of the points you made. When God created mankind, he >> >> >gave us free will. He did not create robots that were programmed to do >> >> >only good things. As a result of free will, people can decide to do great >> >> >and wonderful things or can use their free will to decide to commit >> >> >criminal acts. >> >> > >> >> >God is indirectly responsible since he created the solar system and >> >> >created life--including mankind. However, when people end up in prison >> >> >it's not God's fault. It's the fault of the person that was exercising his >> >> >or her free will. >> >> > >> >> >Do you see my point? >> >> >> >> Man came about as a result of evolution. That is what the evidence shows >> >> us. If God created man, He used evolution. You refuse to accept that >> >> fact. You prefer lies to the truth, ignorance to knowledge. You call >> >> your God a liar. >> >> >> >> Why? >> > >> > >> > >> >The first chapter of the book of Genesis states that God created mankind, >> >some plants and some animals. >> >> So what? You know there's no evidence that the Bible came from God or is >> scientifically accurate. You also know that there is evidence that many >> of the stories in Genesis are scientifically in error. >> >> > I believe that evolution kicked in after the >> >creation process was finished. >> >> I don't care. You have already demonstrated that your opinion in this >> area is worthless. >> >> >It's my opinion, after reading the last >> >paragraph of Darwin's book, that Darwin agrees that God created life on >> >this planet. >> >> Even if he did, he does not agree with your false doctrine. >> >> >I read the last chapter of his book which was posted on a >> >website and Darwin used the term CREATOR at least once in that chapter. In >> >other words, the founder of evolution theory agrees that an intelligent >> >designer was involved and actually "breathed [life] into a few forms or >> >into one." >> >> He had very little evidence to go on, so there was no reason for him to >> speculate about what happened. We have far more, so it is foolish to >> continue to refer to the God of the Gaps. >> >> If God exists, He must hate you for telling so many lies about what He >> did. > >Imagine how God feels about atheists. > I never make any claims in His name and He never says anything, if He exists. I haven't told lies about Him. That is what you do. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 13, 2007 Posted June 13, 2007 On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 11:22:07 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-1206071122070001@66-52-22-95.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <UGwbi.623$ma.483@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" ><mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >> news:Jason-1106072153560001@66-52-22-96.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> > In article <utqr63he40hh9n29rh2c80f0p1v05gj976@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >> > <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> > >> >> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 18:39:16 -0700, in alt.atheism >> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> >> <Jason-1106071839160001@66-52-22-97.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >> >In article <kkor63tinbmus479tfljt5ib6lmn7o9kv7@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >> >> ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 17:31:38 -0700, in alt.atheism >> >> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> >> >> <Jason-1106071731380001@66-52-22-97.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >> >> >> >> >> ... >> >> >> >Bramble, >> >> >> >I agree with many of the points you made. When God created mankind, >> >> >> >he >> >> >> >gave us free will. He did not create robots that were programmed to >> >> >> >do >> >> >> >only good things. As a result of free will, people can decide to do >> >> >> >great >> >> >> >and wonderful things or can use their free will to decide to commit >> >> >> >criminal acts. >> >> >> > >> >> >> >God is indirectly responsible since he created the solar system and >> >> >> >created life--including mankind. However, when people end up in >> >> >> >prison >> >> >> >it's not God's fault. It's the fault of the person that was >> >> >> >exercising his >> >> >> >or her free will. >> >> >> > >> >> >> >Do you see my point? >> >> >> >> >> >> Man came about as a result of evolution. That is what the evidence >> >> >> shows >> >> >> us. If God created man, He used evolution. You refuse to accept that >> >> >> fact. You prefer lies to the truth, ignorance to knowledge. You call >> >> >> your God a liar. >> >> >> >> >> >> Why? >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >The first chapter of the book of Genesis states that God created >> >> >mankind, >> >> >some plants and some animals. >> >> >> >> So what? You know there's no evidence that the Bible came from God or is >> >> scientifically accurate. You also know that there is evidence that many >> >> of the stories in Genesis are scientifically in error. >> >> >> >> > I believe that evolution kicked in after the >> >> >creation process was finished. >> >> >> >> I don't care. You have already demonstrated that your opinion in this >> >> area is worthless. >> >> >> >> >It's my opinion, after reading the last >> >> >paragraph of Darwin's book, that Darwin agrees that God created life on >> >> >this planet. >> >> >> >> Even if he did, he does not agree with your false doctrine. >> >> >> >> >I read the last chapter of his book which was posted on a >> >> >website and Darwin used the term CREATOR at least once in that chapter. >> >> >In >> >> >other words, the founder of evolution theory agrees that an intelligent >> >> >designer was involved and actually "breathed [life] into a few forms or >> >> >into one." >> >> >> >> He had very little evidence to go on, so there was no reason for him to >> >> speculate about what happened. We have far more, so it is foolish to >> >> continue to refer to the God of the Gaps. >> >> >> >> If God exists, He must hate you for telling so many lies about what He >> >> did. >> > >> > Imagine how God feels about atheists. >> >> I would imagine he holds them in higher esteem than lying creationists that >> make him look bad :-)). > >I disagree. King Saul was a servant of God during the early years of his >life. God protected him and blessed his life. During the last several >years of his life, he turned his back on God--he became an atheist. What utter rubbish. >He even visited a witch in order to ask questions. The end result was that >God no longer protected him or blessed his life. He was killed during a >battle. >During the early years of his life, he was involved in many battles and >God kept him from being harmed or killed during those battles. It appears that your heart has been hardened against the truth and you have been forbidden to gain any more knowledge. Too bad for you. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 13, 2007 Posted June 13, 2007 On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 22:06:25 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-1106072206250001@66-52-22-96.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article ><DipthotDipthot-9E058D.18284311062007@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>, >655321 <DipthotDipthot@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote: > >> In article >> <Jason-1106071747150001@66-52-22-97.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>, >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >> > the alternative is "she told the truth to a lot of people then." >> >> If that were the case, reliable corroborating evidence would be >> plentiful. >> >> You, being so determined to demonstrate the veracity of this little >> story, should be able to provide same. >> >> You cannot; ergo, there's no reason to believe you. > >Several have told me they would not believe that she was healed by >God--regardless of the physical evidence. So--why should I waste my time >finding physical evidence. I already know that she was healed by God so I >don't need to find physical evidence. Once again, you are lying to us. We will accept evidence that she was as severely impaired as you say and that she was healed. We will not accept your unsubstantiated assertion that this healing, if it happened, came from God. You need to provide evidence of the healing AND you need to provide evidence that the healing came from God. You haven't made the slightest attempt to provide such evidence. Why not? Is it because you know that you have absolutely no evidence that God had anything to do with it? -- "Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn." -- Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 13, 2007 Posted June 13, 2007 On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 16:53:45 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-1206071653450001@66-52-22-63.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <598u63h6roisvahm7r403qevrl451fr95v@4ax.com>, Free Lunch ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 10:24:29 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> <Jason-1206071024300001@66-52-22-95.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >In article <5d7uaoF331s2lU2@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" >> ><witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: >> > >> >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in >> >> >> >> snip >> >> > >> >> > Martin, >> >> > If I provided physical evidence that indicates that her leg bone grew 2 >> >> > inches, would you believe that God healed her leg? >> >> > Jason >> >> >> >> Of course not. Most importantly, you'd have to prove that your god exists >> >> and does anything. >> > >> >That's the reason that I did not try to find the information on the web. >> > >> Because you know that you cannot provide any evidence that your God >> exists. >> >> Despite that, you reject actual evidence. Why? Who taught you to be so >> dishonest? > >I do not reject all evidence. I said that you reject actual evidence. Still, all evidence is a very good approximation of what you reject. >You reject evidence (testimony) that Cheryl's leg bone grew 2 inches. It's not evidence. All I have is your hearsay about what you claim she said. >I accepted the evidence related to >natural selection. I rejected abiogenesis and common sense due to the lack >of evidence. It's mainly based on speculation. I already know that you >disagree with me. Yes, I know you reject common sense. You also reject common descent, even though the evidence for it is powerful. The evidence for common descent is not speculative. That is just another one of the lies that you learned to repeat from Gish, a man deserving no respect from any Christian because he is such a liar. Don't continue to be taken in by him. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 13, 2007 Posted June 13, 2007 On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 23:38:49 -0000, in alt.talk.creationism Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote in <1181691529.495499.305700@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>: >On Jun 13, 1:42 am, "Ralph" <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message >> news:Jason-1206071036370001@66-52-22-95.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > >> > Have any experiments been done that has indicated that it is possible for >> > a single cell (bacteria) can be induced to evolve into a single animal >> > cell (with DNA nucleus cabable of sexual reproduction)? >> >> > If possible, provide a yes or no answer. >> >> No one has that. I'm not even sure that it is possible. I think you might >> have forgotten a few steps. > >It's possible. It happened billions of years ago. > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viral_eukaryogenesis I wouldn't try to guess what Jason means by his distinction between bacteria and single celled animals with a DNA nucleus capable of sexual reproduction. I doubt that Jason does. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 13, 2007 Posted June 13, 2007 On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 16:14:12 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-1206071614120001@66-52-22-63.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <GkEbi.5712$K8.1225@bignews7.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" ><mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >> news:Jason-1206071501420001@66-52-22-111.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> > In article <opc3k4-7or.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason >> > <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> >> [snips] >> >> >> >> On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 10:42:26 -0700, Jason wrote: >> >> >> >> > Yes, that is true. If I provided physical evidence which indicated that >> >> > her leg bone grew 2 inches--how would you explain how it happened? >> >> >> >> Honestly, by stating the cause - if any, you haven't validated even >> >> this >> >> much yet - simply isn't known yet. >> >> >> >> "I don't know" is not the same as "Yes, there really is a super being >> >> who, >> >> of all the thousands of such beings described, just happens to match this >> >> particular one and he really does heal people, but does it magically >> >> without leaving any evidence he did it - or even that he exists." >> >> >> >> You see how those differ? Maybe, some day, you'll let it sink in. >> > >> > Have you considered that God is giving you evidence that he exists by >> > healing people? Maybe, some day, you'll let it sink in. >> >> If he is he needs to advertise. Why is it that "god" is always so secretive? >> His 'inerrant' word is full of errors and nonsense. His works are always >> done by man. That's right, god can't do anything for himself. Almost like >> man invented him, isn't it. Have you considered that, Jason? > >The healings that I mentioned were done by God and not by man. God may be >secretive to you but not to everyone. We see evidence of his power on a >regular basis. When I seen the Grand Canyon, I could see the evidence of >his power. And _proof_ that there was no global flood. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 13, 2007 Posted June 13, 2007 On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 18:50:33 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism Martin <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote in <1181613033.399853.282900@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com>: >On Jun 12, 7:48 am, Matt Silberstein ><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > >> And, yet, you know that when Christians pray and things happen it is >> because they pray. But somehow when Muslims pray and things happen it >> is not because God did it. > >Not Yahweh anyway. Of course it is. Judaism, Christianity, Islam and Bahai all agree that they worship the same God, the God of Abraham. Sure, they all tell different stories and claim the others are wrong, but they're all pretty clear that they worship the same God. If there is a God, it appears that He enjoys the confusion, because He's made no effort to clear it up. Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 13, 2007 Posted June 13, 2007 On Jun 13, 3:07 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > Questions for Evolutionists > > BlueBar > > 1. Where did the space for the universe come from? The space for the universe presumably started as a singularity that expanded in an inflationary manner. > 2. Where did matter come from? Presumably the total energy of the universe adds up to zero because gravitational potential energy is negative. An excess of baryons over anti-baryons were created due to some kind of symmetry breaking process. > 3. Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)? Presumably the four forces (gravity, electromagnetism and strong and weak nuclear forces) are a single force at the temperature scale of the big bang and they separated out as the universe cooled: it was a kind of phase transition. Inertia is really the conservation of momentum and is due to the symmetry of space which results in the laws of physics being the same everywhere. > 4. How did matter get so perfectly organized? Who says it is organized? It sounds like you're assuming an organizer? The truth is that matter is attracted to other matter because of gravity. > 5. Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing? Gravitational potential energy. > 6. When, where, why, and how did life come from dead matter? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_world_hypothesis "The RNA world hypothesis is a theory which proposes that a world filled with RNA (ribonucleic acid) based life predates current DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) based life. RNA, which can store information like DNA and catalyze reactions like proteins (enzymes), may have supported cellular or pre-cellular life. Some theories as to the origin of life present RNA-based catalysis and information storage as the first step in the evolution of cellular life." > 7. When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_sex "The most primitive organisms known to reproduce sexually are protists (primitive unicellular eukaryotes) such as those that cause malaria. "Organisms need to replicate their genetic material in an efficient and reliable manner. The necessity to repair genetic damage is one of the leading theories explaining the origin of sexual reproduction. Diploid individuals can repair a mutated section of its DNA via genetic recombination, since there are two copies of the gene in the cell and one copy is presumed to be undamaged. A mutation in an haploid individual, on the other hand, is more likely to become resident, as the DNA repair machinery has no way of knowing what the original undamaged sequence was.[18] The most primitive form of sex may have been one organism with damaged DNA replicating an undamaged strand from a similar organism in order to repair itself.[19] "Another theory is that sexual reproduction originated from selfish parasitic genetic elements that exchange genetic material (that is: copies of their own genome) for their transmission and propagation. In some organisms, sexual reproduction has been shown to enhance the spread of parasitic genetic elements (e.g.: yeast, filamentous fungi). [20] Bacterial conjugation, a form of genetic exchange that some sources describe as sex, is not a form of reproduction. However, it does support the selfish genetic element theory, as it is propagated through such a "selfish gene", the F-plasmid.[19] "A third theory is that sex evolved as a form of cannibalism. One primitive organism ate another one, but rather than completely digesting it, some of the 'eaten' organism's DNA was incorporated into the 'eater' organism.[19] "A comprehensive 'origin of sex as vaccination' theory proposes that eukaryan sex-as-syngamy (fusion sex) arose from prokaryan unilateral sex-as-infection when infected hosts began swapping nuclearized genomes containing coevolved, vertically transmitted symbionts that provided protection against horizontal superinfection by more virulent symbionts. Sex-as-meiosis (fission sex) then evolved as a host strategy to uncouple (and thereby emasculate) the acquired symbiont genomes.[21]" > 8. With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce? Bacteria today are capable of swapping DNA. This would have been the first step. > 9. Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kind > since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of > survival? (Does the individual have a drive to survive, or the species? > How do you explain this?) It is an instinct that allows the genes to survive even as the parent organism eventually dies. > 10. How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any > new, improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce > Chinese books.) Ah but if you knew any linguistics then you would know the fallacy of this argument: written language has indeed evolved over time. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_language ) > 11. Is it possible that similarities in design between different > animals prove a common Creator instead of a common ancestor? There are no similarities in "design" because no designer exists. Gorillas and chimpanzees share genetic traits because they are genetically related to mankind. > 12. Natural selection only works with the genetic information > available and tends only to keep a species stable. This is a lie. Mutations do occur. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation ) > How would you explain > the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occurred if > evolution were true? Mutations occur. Natural selection selects out the harmful mutations. It is that simple. > 13. When, where, why, and how did: a) Single-celled plants become > multicelled? (Where are the two- and threecelled intermediates?) No. There were colonies first. > b) > Single-celled animals evolve? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viral_eukaryogenesis "Viral eukaryogenesis is the hypothesis, proposed by Philip Bell in 2001, that the cell nucleus of eukaryotic life forms evolved from a large DNA virus in a form of endosymbiosis within a mycoplasma cell. The theory has gained support as large complex DNA viruses capable of protein biosynthesis (such as Mimivirus) have been discovered. "A number of precepts in the theory are possible. For instance, a helical virus with a bilipid envelope bears a distinct resemblance to a highly simplified cellular nucleus (ie: a DNA chromosome encapsulated within a lipid membrane). To consider the concept logically, a large DNA virus would take control of a bacterial or archaeal cell. Instead of replicating and destroying the host cell, it would remain within the cell. With the virus in control of the host cell's molecular machinery it would effectively become a "nucleus" of sorts. Through the processes of mitosis and cytokinesis, the virus would thus hijack the entire cell-an extremely favourable way to ensure its survival." > c) Fish change to amphibians? The fossil record does have fish with lungs. > d) Amphibians > change to reptiles? Quite simply, mass extinctions would have resulted in those who could live on land preferably surving. > e) Reptiles change to birds? (The lungs, bones, eyes, > reproductive organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering, etc., are > all very different!) How did the intermediate forms live? The fossil record does have reptiles with feathers. As you point out, a reptile is very different from a bird so it wasn't a bird. > 14. When, where, why, how, and from what did: a) Whales evolve? The fossil record does have whales with legs. And we still have seals. > b) Sea > horses evolve? You're joking, right? A seahorse is a type of fish. It only _looks_ like a horse. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seahorse ) > c) Bats evolve? >From mice. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bat and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_mouse ) > d) Eyes evolve? Eyes are essentially light sensitive sensors attached to the brain. They have improved over billions of years, starting with fish eyes. > e) Ears evolve? Ears are essentially sound sensitive sensors attached to the brain. They have improved over billions of years, starting with fish ears. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fish#Sensory_and_nervous_system "Fish have well-developed nervous systems that organize around a central brain, that is divided into different parts. The most anterior, or front, end of the brain are the olfactory bulbs, which are involved in the fish's sense of smell. Unlike most vertebrates, the cerebrum of the fish primarily processes the sense of smell rather than being responsible for all voluntary actions. The optic lobes process information from the eyes. The cerebellum coordinates body movements while the medulla oblongata controls the functions of internal organs. Most fishes possess highly developed sense organs. Nearly all daylight fish have well-developed eyes that have color vision that is at least as good as a human's. Many fish also have specialized cells known as chemoreceptors that are responsible for extraordinary senses of taste and smell. Although they have ears in their heads, many fish may not hear sounds very well. However, most fishes have sensitive receptors that form the lateral line system. The lateral line system allows for many fish to detect gentle currents and vibrations, as well as to sense the motion of other nearby fish and prey." > f) Hair, > skin, feathers, scales, nails, claws, etc., evolve? These were all evolutionary advantages. Note that only mammals have hair and only birds have feathers. Your "almighty God" didn't choose to create an animal that was part bird and part mammal. > 15. Which evolved first (how, and how long, did it work without the > others)? a) The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, > the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the body Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 13, 2007 Posted June 13, 2007 On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 04:25:04 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism gudloos@yahoo.com wrote in <1181647504.431996.43770@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com>: >On 12 Jun., 04:00, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote: >> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 14:40:21 -0700, John <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> >> wrote: >> - Refer: <1181598021.541237.169...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com> >> >> >On Jun 1, 8:37 pm, Arturo Magidin <magi...@math.berkeley.edu> wrote: >> >> "Given everything we know, the only viable alternative to the Theory >> >> of Evolution is PWF: the Practice of Willful Ignorance." >> >> >What is the Theory of Evolution and where was it established and by >> >whom? Darwin used Theory of Natural Selection >> >36 times and Theory of Evolution only once. >> >> So what? >> >> -- > >He wants you to know that he can count all the way to 36. No, he wants you to know that he can repeat what he's told by his religious leaders. Jason never read The Origin of Species. Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 13, 2007 Posted June 13, 2007 On Jun 13, 4:03 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <Xns994D94878C66Ffreddyb...@66.150.105.47>, Fred Stone > > > > > > <fston...@earthling.com> wrote: > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >news:Jason-1206071222580001@66-52-22-95.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net: > > > > In article <5d83hcF31q6f...@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" > > > <witchy...@broomstick.com> wrote: > > > >> "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message > > >>news:Jason-1206071128330001@66-52-22-95.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > >> > In article <1181649884.050718.194...@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, > > >> > Martin <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > >> >> On Jun 12, 1:22 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > >> >> > In article > > >> >> > <1181611488.232237.92...@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, > > >> >> > Martin > > > >> >> > <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > >> >> > > On Jun 12, 8:31 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > >> >> > > > God > > > >> >> > > God doesn't exist. > > > >> >> > > created mankind, he > > >> >> > > > gave us free will. > > > >> >> > > Free will doesn't exist. > > > >> >> > > You're 0 for 2. > > > >> >> > I disagree--Free Will does exist. Once a person understands free > > >> >> > will, many Bible doctrines and even issues related to life; > > >> >> > sociological and psychological issues--make sense. For example, > > >> >> > I now understand why some > > >> >> > people do wonderful thing such as doctors that spend a month > > >> >> > each year in > > >> >> > third world countries. I also understand why some people do > > >> >> > terrible things such as becoming murderers or rapists. > > > >> >> Are you still telling us that you would be capable of killing ten > > >> >> people a day if you didn't believe in God? What about the men who > > >> >> killed 3000 people on September 11th because they believed in > > >> >> their god? > > > >> >> Martin > > > >> > Martin, > > >> > Those people that do such things are not pleasing to God. > > >> > They may believe or think that their actions are pleasing to > > >> > God--but they are wrong. You can find many cases in history where > > >> > people done terrible things that they believed were pleasing to > > >> > God--but were not pleasing to God. > > > >> Who are you to judge? > > > > It's easy to judge the actions of the men that killed 3000 people on > > > 9/11. > > > It's easy to find people who will tell us what a blasphemous infidel you > > are for saying that the 9/11 Jihadists were not pleasing Allah with > > their actions. > > You already know that millions of people in America agree that the actions > of those men were not pleasing to Jehovah. We'd let Jehovah and Allah fight it out amongst themselves if either of them existed. By the way, Genesis 1 says "El" created the universe and mankind but Genesis 2 says it was "Yahweh". Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 13, 2007 Posted June 13, 2007 On Jun 13, 6:01 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > Have you considered that God is giving you evidence that he exists by > healing people? Maybe, some day, you'll let it sink in. Have you considered that God is giving you evidence that the evolution of man took place by having all these skeletons of early man in the ground? Maybe, some day, you'll let in sink in. Your next step would be to let it sink it that God doesn't even exist. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 13, 2007 Posted June 13, 2007 On Jun 13, 7:14 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <GkEbi.5712$K8.1...@bignews7.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > > > > > > <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message > >news:Jason-1206071501420001@66-52-22-111.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > > In article <opc3k4-7or....@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason > > > <kbjarna...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> [snips] > > > >> On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 10:42:26 -0700, Jason wrote: > > > >> > Yes, that is true. If I provided physical evidence which indicated that > > >> > her leg bone grew 2 inches--how would you explain how it happened? > > > >> Honestly, by stating the cause - if any, you haven't validated even > > >> this > > >> much yet - simply isn't known yet. > > > >> "I don't know" is not the same as "Yes, there really is a super being > > >> who, > > >> of all the thousands of such beings described, just happens to match this > > >> particular one and he really does heal people, but does it magically > > >> without leaving any evidence he did it - or even that he exists." > > > >> You see how those differ? Maybe, some day, you'll let it sink in. > > > > Have you considered that God is giving you evidence that he exists by > > > healing people? Maybe, some day, you'll let it sink in. > > > If he is he needs to advertise. Why is it that "god" is always so secretive? > > His 'inerrant' word is full of errors and nonsense. His works are always > > done by man. That's right, god can't do anything for himself. Almost like > > man invented him, isn't it. Have you considered that, Jason? > > The healings that I mentioned were done by God Who? Ah, right, your imaginary friend. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 13, 2007 Posted June 13, 2007 On Jun 13, 7:27 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <Xns994DB0A6F64ABfreddyb...@66.150.105.47>, Fred Stone > > > > > > <fston...@earthling.com> wrote: > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >news:Jason-1206071509130001@66-52-22-111.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net: > > > > In article <31d3k4-7or....@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason > > > <kbjarna...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> [snips] > > > >> On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 13:03:44 -0700, Jason wrote: > > > >> >> It's easy to find people who will tell us what a blasphemous > > >> >> infidel you are for saying that the 9/11 Jihadists were not > > >> >> pleasing Allah with their actions. > > > >> > You already know that millions of people in America agree that the > > >> > actions of those men were not pleasing to Jehovah. > > > >> "in America"? Oh, wonderful. Now someone's religion is invalidated > > >> simply by where they live . > > > > I mentioned America since those 3000 people were killed in America. > > > Millions of people in other countries also realize that the actions of > > > those men were not pleasing to Jehovah. > > > > What is your opinion about those men that killed 3000 people on 9/11? > > > The question is how you can be sure that you know what God's opinion > > is. And right now it looks like you're going by opinion polls. > > Fred, > One of the commandments is related to this subject--Thou shall not Murder. > Those men murdered 3000 people on 9/11. They violated one of God's > commandments. Jesus Jesus never existed. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 13, 2007 Posted June 13, 2007 On Jun 13, 7:29 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <Xns994DB060B8F89freddyb...@66.150.105.47>, Fred Stone > > > > > > <fston...@earthling.com> wrote: > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >news:Jason-1206071303440001@66-52-22-41.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net: > > > > In article <Xns994D94878C66Ffreddyb...@66.150.105.47>, Fred Stone > > > <fston...@earthling.com> wrote: > > > >> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > >>news:Jason-1206071222580001@66-52-22-95.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net: > > > >> > In article <5d83hcF31q6f...@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" > > >> > <witchy...@broomstick.com> wrote: > > > >> >> "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message > > >> >>news:Jason-1206071128330001@66-52-22-95.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > >> >> > In article > > >> >> > <1181649884.050718.194...@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, > > >> >> > Martin <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > >> >> >> On Jun 12, 1:22 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > >> >> >> > In article > > >> >> >> > <1181611488.232237.92...@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, > > >> >> >> > Martin > > > >> >> >> > <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > >> >> >> > > On Jun 12, 8:31 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > >> >> >> > > > God > > > >> >> >> > > God doesn't exist. > > > >> >> >> > > created mankind, he > > >> >> >> > > > gave us free will. > > > >> >> >> > > Free will doesn't exist. > > > >> >> >> > > You're 0 for 2. > > > >> >> >> > I disagree--Free Will does exist. Once a person understands > > >> >> >> > free will, many Bible doctrines and even issues related to > > >> >> >> > life; sociological and psychological issues--make sense. For > > >> >> >> > example, I now understand why some > > >> >> >> > people do wonderful thing such as doctors that spend a month > > >> >> >> > each year in > > >> >> >> > third world countries. I also understand why some people do > > >> >> >> > terrible things such as becoming murderers or rapists. > > > >> >> >> Are you still telling us that you would be capable of killing > > >> >> >> ten people a day if you didn't believe in God? What about the > > >> >> >> men who killed 3000 people on September 11th because they > > >> >> >> believed in their god? > > > >> >> >> Martin > > > >> >> > Martin, > > >> >> > Those people that do such things are not pleasing to God. > > >> >> > They may believe or think that their actions are pleasing to > > >> >> > God--but they are wrong. You can find many cases in history > > >> >> > where people done terrible things that they believed were > > >> >> > pleasing to God--but were not pleasing to God. > > >> >> > Jason > > > >> >> Who are you to judge? > > > >> > It's easy to judge the actions of the men that killed 3000 people > > >> > on 9/11. > > > >> It's easy to find people who will tell us what a blasphemous infidel > > >> you are for saying that the 9/11 Jihadists were not pleasing Allah > > >> with their actions. > > > > You already know that millions of people in America agree that the > > > actions of those men were not pleasing to Jehovah. > > > Is your religion a popularity contest? > > No--what is your opinion about those men that killed 3000 people on 9/11? They're typical theists. Martin Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.