Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 [snips] On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 00:27:12 -0700, Jason wrote: >> Historically then El (the creator of the universe) >> and Yahweh (the creator of mankind) were not the same >> god. Judeo-Christian tradition combines the two gods >> into one. It would appear as though Genesis chapter >> one originally spoke about El and Genesis chapter two >> originally spoke about Yahweh. > > In what Bible verse is El mentioned? You know something funny? You're the staunch defender of Christianity, yet it's the blinkin' atheists who know the Bible. How pathetic is it that you live your life by a book and know less about it than those for whom it is something approaching comic relief crossed with tragedy, but entirely fiction? -- If you are an Atheist, then you have already joined their camp of willing slaves. - David Stoddard Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 21:45:55 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-1506072145550001@66-52-22-62.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <760ck4-7cg.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason ><kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: .... >> >> Feel free to trot out this mechanism, we'd all love to see it. > >Kelsey, >Thank you for your well written report. I read the book entitled, >"Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No" by D.T. Gish. As you know, my memory >is poor so I don't recall everything that I read in his book. If you read >the first chapter of the Bible, you will know the basics of creation >science. I summarize it this way: God created mankind; some plants and >some animals. After the creation process was finished, Natural Selection >kicked in. D.T. Gish had all of the above information in mind when he >wrote his fossil book. After discussing lots of different fossils, his >conclusion was that the fossil evidence indicated that abiogenesis was not >how life came to be. His other conclusion was that the fossil evidence >indicated that intelligent design was how life came to be on this planet. >I have never conducted any research related to fossils. I agree with at >least one of your points: I don't believe the fossil evidence reveals what >you call the "mechanism of creation." D.T. Gish does believe the fossils >supports creation science. >Jason > Why do you quote from a known liar like Gish? You know that we all know that Gish is nothing but a con man. Why would you expect us to listen to you when you have such low standards of scholarship and honesty? Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 [snips] On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 23:44:27 -0700, Jason wrote: > No, I don't think that Christians or yourself needs medication. Perhaps, > some of the advocates of evolution do need medication since they seem to > get really angry when someone attacks their precious theory. Which theory? Punk Eek? Saltation? > It's my > opinion that some of the advocates of evolution treat evolution as more of > a religion than as a theory. You did not just call evolution a theory . You couldn't have. After all this time, you still haven't learned the simplest, most basic facts of the matter, despite endless repetition of it? You have in fact just demonstrated you are absolutely ineducable. You are constitutionally incapable of learning or of actual thought. You are, in short, an ambulatory Jell-O, and I for once have already had my dessert. I wash my hands of this moron; may the rest of you fare as well. I'll stick to more profitable things than trying to educate him... teaching rocks to sing, perhaps. -- Would you ever think about letting her watch us? • Debra Murphree, quoteing Jimmy Swaggart asking about her nine year old daughter. (Penthouse magazine, July 1988) Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 01:31:47 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-1606070131470001@66-52-22-62.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <981ck4-7cg.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason ><kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > >> [snips] >> >> On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 23:55:49 -0700, Jason wrote: >> >> > If it really did happen the way the advocates of abiogenesis claim that it >> > happened, scientists should be able to design an experiment to make it >> > happen. Do you think that scientists will ever be able to perform such an >> > experiment? >> >> So let's see if we have this right. >> >> Science demonstrates that, on a small scale, water causes erosion of rock. >> We know water exists, we know rock exists, we know water can erode rock. >> >> By anyone else's standard, this would be sufficient to explain, oh, the >> formation of the Grand Canyon, as long as sufficient time is available for >> the process to work. >> >> According to your standards, we cannot conclude this, as we have all the >> requisite components but we haven't made an experiment that actually >> recreated the Grand Canyon - despite such an experiment requiring >> something on the order of a few million years to carry out. >> >> This, to you, is a sensible requirement is it? >> >> I suspect even you wouldn't think so... yet it is almost exactly what >> you're asking above. We have all the key elements, we have a pretty good >> idea - several, actually - of the steps to go from A to B... but we're >> also quite certain that in the best of cases, it would require hellishly >> long times to duplicate the result. Yet you blithely expect it, as if >> such an expectation made any sense whatsoever. > >I was told that a chemical process was what caused life to develop from >non-life. If that is correct, it seems to me that scientists should be >able to duplicate that process. Why? You don't tell us that 'creation scientists' should be able to reproduce their claim. You make arbitrary demands of science that show how ignorant you are, but then you give the liars in 'creation science' the benefit of the doubt all the time. You are profoundly dishonest. Your behavior is shameful. Scientists have demonstrated that a wide number of possible methods are available. We don't yet know which one happened, because life on earth destroyed the evidence about what earth was like before life began. >If scientists are not able to do it, it means that abiogenesis will >continue to be based more on speculation than on evidence. Did God tell you to remain ignorant? Did God tell you to lie? Did God tell you to believe lies told by religious frauds like Gish? Do you really think you are a Christian? I ask, because all I see when I read your posts is dishonesty and lies, something that I never learned were supposed to be hallmarks of Christianity. Maybe your sect demands dishonesty. I don't know. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 23:13:24 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-1506072313240001@66-52-22-62.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <1181967452.648060.146980@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, >hhyapster@gmail.com wrote: > >> On Jun 16, 9:59 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> > In article <1v3673dt5lsaeeelj2sevnbsmorev24...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> > > On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 15:40:34 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism >> > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> > > <Jason-1506071540340...@66-52-22-20.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> > > >In article <1wCci.267$P8...@bignews8.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" >> > > ><mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> > >> > > >> "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message >> > > >>news:Jason-1506071200360001@66-52-22-34.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> > > ... >> > > >> > We don't know. We are hoping that it will be soon. >> > >> > > >> Well read the damn verses Jason, they say it will be soon. Just >for your >> > > >> information, two thousand years isn't 'soon'. Before you go into a >> > 'we don't >> > > >> know how soon it is in god's time' defense, read the verses and tell >> > me when >> > > >> you think Jesus said he would come. Just one more of literally >> > thousands of >> > > >> reasons to conclude that your god doesn't exist. >> > >> > > >Some of the prophecies related to the last days did not come true until >> > > >the past 10 to 20 years. Here is one of them: >> > > >2 Tim 4:3-5 >> > >> > > >For the time will come when [Christians] will not endure sound doctrine; >> > > >but after their own lusts shall heap to themselves teachers [and >> > > >preachers]. Those [preachers] will teach them not what the truth is but >> > > >instead what they want to hear >> > >> > > >My comment: That prophecy has come true in my life time. There is one >> > > >church in California called Unity Fellowship. The preachers are more like >> > > >psychologists than real preachers. There is a television show that is >> > > >broadcast on Sunday morning called the "Hour of Power". The >preacher never >> > > >discusses Bible doctrines. He teaches messages related to psychology and >> > > >sociology. I have never heard him preach messages from the Bible. >> > > >Jason >> > >> > > Jason, Christians have been claiming that they were in the last days >> > > ever since Christianity began. Your ignorance of history betrays you and >> > > gives you the foolish idea that only recently have these 'signs' been >> > > fulfilled. Once again I have to wonder if you are really a Christian. >> > >> > My father (in the 1950's) believed that he was living in the last days. >> > According to the Bible, the deciples of Jesus hoped Jesus would return >> > during their life times. I have never claimed to be a Bible scholar. I >> > learn new things every time I listen to another sermon.- Hide quoted text - >> >> Jason, >> Don't lie. >> All sermons are the same, you don't learn any thing new. >> And in human studies, we have physics, Chemistry, maths, biology, >> medicine, etc etc The topics are many, the advance is progressive, the >> research is daily, and small discovery(or big one) on each area is >> expected. >> This is the new things that we human are doing whereas you and your >> IDers are just trying fruitlessly to look for a non-existing creator/ >> god/supernatural being. >> >> This is the difference between you and real human. >> What you and your >> > >> > - Show quoted > >Believe it or not, there are Christians that have Ph.D degrees that know >as much about those subjects as you do. Some of them are science >professors at Christian colleges and state colleges. I once talked to a >biology professor that was an advocate of creation science. He knew as >much about evolution as any of the other biology professors that worked at >that college. He understood the difference between evidence and >speculation. > If he was teaching creation science in a biology class, he was a liar. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 23:05:07 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-1506072305070001@66-52-22-62.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <hpk6731d9jbq59bsjeffaplv04tqotjdb3@4ax.com>, Free Lunch ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 18:59:20 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> <Jason-1506071859200001@66-52-22-96.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >In article <1v3673dt5lsaeeelj2sevnbsmorev24hhu@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >> ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> > >> >> On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 15:40:34 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism >> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> >> <Jason-1506071540340001@66-52-22-20.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >> >In article <1wCci.267$P8.79@bignews8.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" >> >> ><mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >> >> >> news:Jason-1506071200360001@66-52-22-34.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> >> ... >> >> >> > We don't know. We are hoping that it will be soon. >> >> >> >> >> >> Well read the damn verses Jason, they say it will be soon. Just >for your >> >> >> information, two thousand years isn't 'soon'. Before you go into a >> >'we don't >> >> >> know how soon it is in god's time' defense, read the verses and tell >> >me when >> >> >> you think Jesus said he would come. Just one more of literally >> >thousands of >> >> >> reasons to conclude that your god doesn't exist. >> >> > >> >> >Some of the prophecies related to the last days did not come true until >> >> >the past 10 to 20 years. Here is one of them: >> >> >2 Tim 4:3-5 >> >> > >> >> >For the time will come when [Christians] will not endure sound doctrine; >> >> >but after their own lusts shall heap to themselves teachers [and >> >> >preachers]. Those [preachers] will teach them not what the truth is but >> >> >instead what they want to hear >> >> > >> >> >My comment: That prophecy has come true in my life time. There is one >> >> >church in California called Unity Fellowship. The preachers are more like >> >> >psychologists than real preachers. There is a television show that is >> >> >broadcast on Sunday morning called the "Hour of Power". The preacher never >> >> >discusses Bible doctrines. He teaches messages related to psychology and >> >> >sociology. I have never heard him preach messages from the Bible. >> >> >Jason >> >> >> >> Jason, Christians have been claiming that they were in the last days >> >> ever since Christianity began. Your ignorance of history betrays you and >> >> gives you the foolish idea that only recently have these 'signs' been >> >> fulfilled. Once again I have to wonder if you are really a Christian. >> > >> >My father (in the 1950's) believed that he was living in the last days. >> >> Which is one example of your claim being wrong. >> >> >According to the Bible, the deciples of Jesus hoped Jesus would return >> >during their life times. >> >> Another example. I see that you don't have the integrity to acknowledge >> your error or tell us that you will make an effort to not make this >> mistake again. >> >> >I have never claimed to be a Bible scholar. >> >> Yet you accept the claims of people you believe are Bible scholars, even >> when they are wrong. >> >> >I learn new things every time I listen to another sermon. >> >> No, I don't think you do. >> >> You would learn something if you followed up on the references that you >> have ignored here. Your ignorance would not be so breathtaking if you >> didn't insist on having opinions on so many subjects that you don't >> understand and refuse to learn about. > >Yes, prior generations believed they were living in the last days. They >were wrong. We could be right. I believe the rapture will happen in this >generation. Do you know that the overwhelming majority of Christians belong to churches that reject rapture doctrines? Of course those churches that believe in rapture can't agree on anything anyway. It's a silly doctrine, quite well suited to you. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 23:33:16 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-1506072333160001@66-52-22-62.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <mc1ck4-7cg.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason ><kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > >> [snips] >> >> On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 02:56:49 -0700, Jason wrote: >> >> > I can't speak for any religions except for Christianity. I do believe that >> > testimony is evidence. >> >> You have the statements - testimony - of several people here that you're >> an idiot. Are you going to now do the honest thing and agree, based on >> the testimony, that you are, in fact, an idiot? >> >> Somehow I think you'll disagree... but wait, you can't , as you yourself >> say that testimony is evidence, and therefore you have overwhelming >> evidence that you are, in fact, an idiot. >> >> So which is it? Are you an idiot? Or do you finally realize that this >> "testimony is evidence" line of yours is complete and utter tripe? > >I served on jury duty and have testified in court. Testimony is evidence. >It's up to the jury members and/or a judge to determine which testimony to >accept and which testimony to reject. In the case of the testimony of >people that called me childest names--I reject that testimony. > Jason, once again you have proven that you ignored anything that would help you understand reality better. Testimony is allowed in court as evidence under certain limited circumstances. Testimony can never be allowed to make a claim that is contrary to physical evidence. Under no circumstance would it be admissible testimony to make any claim about what any god did, though one could refer to a religious story to see what the story said. Science, of course, does not accept testimony as evidence. You are just telling us some hearsay, which, as you must have learned in jury class, is not acceptible under all but rare circumstances. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 In article <bra873tuptej1b6nio0c4q9amov1e7lc57@4ax.com>, Jim07D7 <Jim07D7@nospam.net> wrote: > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) said: > > <...> > > > >I disagree. In my scenario, there was NO physical evidence. However, there > >were 8 witnesses that heard him say, "I'm going to kill that woman." They > >observed him take a gun in the apartment and heard a gunshot. They found > >the man's dead wife. I would have believed the testimony of the witnesses. > >I would have found him guilty. > > > I recommend the movie "12 Angry Men". Juries make mistakes. I believe O.J's jury made a major mistake. I would have found O.J. guilty. Dozens (or perhaps hundreds) of convicts have been released from prison as a direct result of DNA tests that confirmed they were not guilty. That means that lots of juries made incorrect decisions. When I serve on jury duty, my concern is justice for the victim. That is the reason I would find the husband guilty. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 10:36:05 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-1606071036060001@66-52-22-31.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <f50pbf$q7j$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike ><prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > .... >> Who cares what Abraham claimed? > >I now understand the primary reason that atheists refuse to believe that >God healed Cheryl Prewitt. It related to their belief system and the fact >that they don't believe in God. > Why should anyone believe in any gods? There's not a shred of evidence to support any claims about them. You know that. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 13:31:32 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-1606071331320001@66-52-22-19.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <bra873tuptej1b6nio0c4q9amov1e7lc57@4ax.com>, Jim07D7 ><Jim07D7@nospam.net> wrote: > >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) said: >> >> <...> >> > >> >I disagree. In my scenario, there was NO physical evidence. However, there >> >were 8 witnesses that heard him say, "I'm going to kill that woman." They >> >observed him take a gun in the apartment and heard a gunshot. They found >> >the man's dead wife. I would have believed the testimony of the witnesses. >> >I would have found him guilty. >> > >> I recommend the movie "12 Angry Men". > >Juries make mistakes. I believe O.J's jury made a major mistake. I would >have found O.J. guilty. > >Dozens (or perhaps hundreds) of convicts have been released from prison as >a direct result of DNA tests that confirmed they were not guilty. That >means that lots of juries made incorrect decisions. > >When I serve on jury duty, my concern is justice for the victim. That is >the reason I would find the husband guilty. > Because it's more important to find someone guilty than to actually find the right person. You hate our system of justice. Quote
Guest Jim07D7 Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 Jason@nospam.com (Jason) said: >Cheryl's audience is not people like you. Her audience is fellow >Christians. She is not on trial before a court and I do not have to be on >her jury. If so, I would want to see the medical records and hear the >testimony of her doctors and nurses. Instead, my only role was to set in >back of a church and listen to her testimony and listen to her sing her >songs. I had no reason to not believe her testimony. We differ on that. Quote
Guest Jim07D7 Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 Jason@nospam.com (Jason) said: > >No, there was a crowd of people gathered around the table waiting for >Cheryl to show up and sign the books for them. I did not buy a copy. I had >already heard her testimony so saw no reason to read the book. It was >probably her life story--including details about the car accident and >healing. So you don't know if she presents any evidence in the book, for her claims. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 22:13:36 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-1506072213360001@66-52-22-62.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <i5sbk4-7cg.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason ><kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > >> [snips] >> >> On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 12:57:36 -0700, Jason wrote: >> >> > Is a testimony evidence? >> >> No, it's testimony. Nor does your exemplar even qualify; even the people >> involved don't claim to have seen God, or seen how the healings were >> performed; they only assert "God dunnit" with no foundation whatsoever. >> >> Anyone can make claims. Finding someone else making the same claim >> doesn't back it up; it just means there are two people failing to provide >> evidence of their claims. >> >> By your logic, if Free Lunch claimed he was the president of the United >> States and I said the same thing, this is "evidence" that he is, in fact, >> the president. Obviously this is not true, so there's something wrong >> with your logic. Try again. > >I now understand why atheists do not believe Cheryl Prewitt's testimony. >Do you understand why most of the Christians that listen to her testimony >believe her testimony? (Hint: it's related to a person's belief system) > So you will believe any lie that someone tells you as long as they claim to be Christian, but you will reject actual physical evidence if the person telling you about it isn't a Christian. Jesus warned us about you. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 In article <f51ago$cbb$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <981ck4-7cg.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason > > <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> [snips] > >> > >> On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 23:55:49 -0700, Jason wrote: > >> > >>> If it really did happen the way the advocates of abiogenesis claim that it > >>> happened, scientists should be able to design an experiment to make it > >>> happen. Do you think that scientists will ever be able to perform such an > >>> experiment? > >> So let's see if we have this right. > >> > >> Science demonstrates that, on a small scale, water causes erosion of rock. > >> We know water exists, we know rock exists, we know water can erode rock. > >> > >> By anyone else's standard, this would be sufficient to explain, oh, the > >> formation of the Grand Canyon, as long as sufficient time is available for > >> the process to work. > >> > >> According to your standards, we cannot conclude this, as we have all the > >> requisite components but we haven't made an experiment that actually > >> recreated the Grand Canyon - despite such an experiment requiring > >> something on the order of a few million years to carry out. > >> > >> This, to you, is a sensible requirement is it? > >> > >> I suspect even you wouldn't think so... yet it is almost exactly what > >> you're asking above. We have all the key elements, we have a pretty good > >> idea - several, actually - of the steps to go from A to B... but we're > >> also quite certain that in the best of cases, it would require hellishly > >> long times to duplicate the result. Yet you blithely expect it, as if > >> such an expectation made any sense whatsoever. > > > > I was told that a chemical process was what caused life to develop from > > non-life. If that is correct, it seems to me that scientists should be > > able to duplicate that process. > > The lottery balls coming up 2-26-34-39-61-62 are a simple matter of > randomness. Now let's see how long it takes you to have the lottery > machine run to generate those specific numbers. > > Clue-time: just because something can happen doesn't mean we can make it > happen in a short period of time. > > > If scientists are not able to do it, it means that abiogenesis will > > continue to be based more on speculation than on evidence. > > So if scientists can't make a sun, then how the sun works is "based more > on speculation than on evidence"? You changed the subject from chemistry experiments to the creation of the sun. Chemistry experiments are easy to do. The creation of a sun is impossible. There are thousands of colleges that have chemistry labs. Those chemistry professors should consider conducting more experiments related to abiogenesis. Martin referred me to a website that mentioned various chemistry experiments related to abiogenesis. Jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 In article <NdWci.635$W9.404@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message > news:Jason-1606071048390001@66-52-22-31.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > In article <f50ost$p7b$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > > > >> Free Lunch wrote: > >> > On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 15:03:10 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism > >> > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >> > <Jason-1506071503110001@66-52-22-20.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >> > > >> > ... > >> > > >> >> I doubt that is true. Who makes them sign the pledge? > >> > > >> > Ask the ICR, CRS and AIG. > >> > > >> > The ICR tells us that they won't let something as silly as facts get in > >> > the way of their teaching of doctrine: <http://icr.org/home/faq/> and > >> > scroll down a bit. > > > > I visited that site and saw no evidence indicating that people have to > > sign that list of their beliefs. Perhaps the employees of ICR MAY have to > > sign such a pledge but I saw no evidence at that site indicating that > > people that have Ph.D degrees that are advocates of creation science have > > to sign a pledge. > > Unless AIG and the ICR have changed in the last two years they do. Here is > the ICR statement: > (A) PRIORITIES > 1.. The scientific aspects of creation are important, but are secondary in > importance to the proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. > 2.. The doctrines of Creator and Creation cannot ultimately be divorced > from the Gospel of Jesus Christ. > (B) BASICS > 1.. The 66 books of the Bible are the written Word of God. The Bible is > divinely inspired and inerrant throughout. Its assertions are factually true > in all the original autographs. It is the supreme authority in everything it > teaches. > 2.. The final guide to the interpretation of Scripture is Scripture > itself. > 3.. The account of origins presented in Genesis is a simple but factual > presentation of actual events and therefore provides a reliable framework > for scientific research into the question of the origin and history of life, > mankind, the Earth and the universe. > 4.. The various original life forms (kinds), including mankind, were made > by direct creative acts of God. The living descendants of any of the > original kinds (apart from man) may represent more than one species today, > reflecting the genetic potential within the original kind. Only limited > biological changes (including mutational deterioration) have occurred > naturally within each kind since Creation. > 5.. The great Flood of Genesis was an actual historic event, worldwide > (global) in its extent and effect. > 6.. The special creation of Adam (the first man) and Eve (the first > woman), and their subsequent fall into sin, is the basis for the necessity > of salvation for mankind. > 7.. Death (both physical and spiritual) and bloodshed entered into this > world subsequent to and as a direct consequence of man Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 14:05:02 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-1606071405030001@66-52-22-19.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <ZqWci.644$W9.373@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" ><mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: .... >> John Hagee is a joke. As I said I sometimes watch him for laughs. The >> subject under discussion was on textual criticism and you getting the book >> Misquoting Jesus. If you don't read it you can't refute what I say. > >I'm not going to buy the book. No surprise. You are wedded to your ignorance and lies. Why do you think God wants you to be a liar? Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 12:40:49 -0700, in alt.atheism Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote in <1vqdk4-ama.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>: >[snips] > >On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 20:12:49 -0700, Jason wrote: > >> I am convinced that people only believe things that "fit" their belief >> system. > >Actually, that would be you . We, by contrast, believe things which are >backed up with proper evidence. So far, in the Prewitt case, you've >suggested some evidence exists she was healed - and fine, if so, we'll all >merrily agree, she was healed. What you haven't shown is any evidence >that God exists or was involved, and because you haven't provided any >evidence, we rightly reject the claim. > >It's like this. Suppose I throw a rock into the lake, what happens? Lots >of concentric rings form around it, right? > >Now, if you see those rings but missed me throwing the rock - you were >looking elsewhere - would you accept my assertion that invisible aliens >from Tau Ceti transported down to earth and used their Zap-O-Matic ray >guns to create the rings in the water? > >No? You wouldn't? Why not? I gave you the evidence - you can see the >rings for yourself! They prove, absolutely, my claims about the aliens! > >It's crap. The rings prove that there are rings, and that there was some >form of disturbance of the water; they do not prove aliens. > >That's the argument you're giving us, though - the healing (physical >event - rings of water) proves God (claimed responsible entity - aliens). >It doesn't, though, it just proves healing. Jason can't conceive of changing his beliefs to fit reality. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 14:15:10 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-1606071415100001@66-52-22-19.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <5eqdk4-ama.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason ><kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > >> [snips] >> >> On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 16:32:33 -0700, Jason wrote: >> >> >> Let's try this again: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. >> >> If a man told me that space aliens gave him a ride in their spaceship, it >> >> would require a hell of a lot more evidence than his 'testimony'! >> > >> > good point--however--if he had evidence---such an implanted computer chip >> > made out of an element not found on the earth--would you be more likely to >> > believe him? >> >> Somewhat, as he is, in fact, providing evidence of something unusual going >> on... and the only particularly implausible aspects of his story are that >> these beings have broken the lightspeed barrier and they picked him... >> though the latter isn't all that much of a deal, as they would, >> presumably, pick someone and there's a limited selection pool. >> >> Meanwhile, we know that intelligent life exists in the universe - we're >> here. Fundies excepted, of course, but the point remains that we already >> know there are intelligences in the universe; to posit another is hardly a >> significant stretch, meaning the only really difficult part of the story >> is that they got here at all. >> >> > In this case, the evidence is a normal leg that is the same >> > size of the other leg bone--despite an operation that caused two inches >> > of leg bone to be removed. >> >> Which, of course, would be presumed to be simply evidence of fakery of >> some sort unless demonstrated otherwise, and if it is demonstrated to be >> legit, then... >> >> Well, then what? We do not have any evidence that any gods exist, so >> it's not like we're saying "Hey, we have one already, why not another?"; >> rather it is introducing an entirely new, complex and otherwise >> unevidenced form of existence based solely on a rather feeble foundation >> of a leg bone. >> >> It's far too much conclusion from far too little data and it doesn't even >> fit your alien analogy. > >I now understand the reason atheists do not believe that God healed Cheryl >Prewitt's leg bone. It's related to their belief system and the fact that >they don't believe in God. > What evidence do you have that God had anything to do with it? Your answer is that you have no evidence. Why should we worry about it? Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 14:19:29 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-1606071419300001@66-52-22-19.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <n2qdk4-ama.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason ><kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > >> [snips] >> >> On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 13:26:03 -0700, Jason wrote: >> >> > Let's try again: >> > A woman's husband is observed by 8 witnesses going inside their apartment >> > with a gun in his hand and shouting, "I am going to kill that woman." The >> > witnesses hear a gunshot and see the man running from the building. The >> > husband had watched over a hundred episodes of CSI and followed his plan: >> > He was able to get rid of all physical evidence--including the gun. The >> > only evidence at the murder trial is the testimony of the witnesses. The >> > body of the woman is found. >> > >> > If you was on the jury, would you find him guilty? I would >> >> A week later, you find someone has confessed to the murder, and the >> husband, whatever his intentions, didn't do it - he stumbled in on a >> murder in progress, was threatened at gunpoint by the killer and ran off >> to get help, but in a panic ran out of the building instead of to a >> neighbor's apartment. >> >> And the testimony? What did it amount to? We heard a threat, we saw him >> go in, we heard a gunshot, we saw him running. Nobody saw him do it, >> nobody was in the apartment. In the end, their testimony meant nothing as >> it was wrong and they couldn't actually testify to the crime in the first >> place. >> >> You, of course, would find him guilty, despite the fact you haven't got a >> shred of a reason to do so, because you can't tell the difference between >> "could be" and "is". > >I would find him guilty. If it happened the way you say, he would be >released when the new evidence was revealed. Any inmate that is now in >prison can get a new trial if new evidence becomes available. Lots of >inmates have been released as a result of DNA evidence that indicated they >were not guilty. That means those juries made the wrong judgements. > Except that they don't always get a new trial, which is why your cavalier attitude toward justice is so disturbing. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 14:58:52 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-1606071458530001@66-52-22-19.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <lnh873pld6ilv4s6h3smc6pad8v48lcd9n@4ax.com>, Free Lunch ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 23:33:16 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> <Jason-1506072333160001@66-52-22-62.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >In article <mc1ck4-7cg.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason >> ><kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> >> [snips] >> >> >> >> On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 02:56:49 -0700, Jason wrote: >> >> >> >> > I can't speak for any religions except for Christianity. I do >believe that >> >> > testimony is evidence. >> >> >> >> You have the statements - testimony - of several people here that you're >> >> an idiot. Are you going to now do the honest thing and agree, based on >> >> the testimony, that you are, in fact, an idiot? >> >> >> >> Somehow I think you'll disagree... but wait, you can't , as you yourself >> >> say that testimony is evidence, and therefore you have overwhelming >> >> evidence that you are, in fact, an idiot. >> >> >> >> So which is it? Are you an idiot? Or do you finally realize that this >> >> "testimony is evidence" line of yours is complete and utter tripe? >> > >> >I served on jury duty and have testified in court. Testimony is evidence. >> >It's up to the jury members and/or a judge to determine which testimony to >> >accept and which testimony to reject. In the case of the testimony of >> >people that called me childest names--I reject that testimony. >> > >> Jason, once again you have proven that you ignored anything that would >> help you understand reality better. Testimony is allowed in court as >> evidence under certain limited circumstances. Testimony can never be >> allowed to make a claim that is contrary to physical evidence. Under no >> circumstance would it be admissible testimony to make any claim about >> what any god did, though one could refer to a religious story to see >> what the story said. >> >> Science, of course, does not accept testimony as evidence. >> >> You are just telling us some hearsay, which, as you must have learned in >> jury class, is not acceptible under all but rare circumstances. > >Yes, in our jury training, we were told by the judge about the rules of >evidence. > Yet now you say you don't care if you have sent an innocent man to prison. I'm sure you won't care if God sends you to hell. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 In article <IHWci.656$W9.205@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message > news:Jason-1606071306340001@66-52-22-19.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > In article <8WVci.620$W9.297@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > > <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message > >> news:Jason-1606071202060001@66-52-22-31.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > >> > In article <8KadnTbDRc_Jd-7bnZ2dnUVZ_jidnZ2d@sti.net>, "David V." > >> > <spam@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> > > >> >> Kelsey Bjarnason wrote: > >> >> > What defines a "major" mutation? Of the 100-odd mutations > >> >> > each of us is walking around with, which are "major" ones, > >> >> > which are "minor"? How is "major" defined? > >> >> > >> >> That's part of the problem with anti-evolutionists; when they use > >> >> the word "mutation" they always think of an extra leg, two heads, > >> >> or a catfish and a turtle mating to create a swamp monster. > >> > > >> > In order for lower life forms (living cells) to evolve into higher life > >> > forms (mammals)--major mutations would have been required. > >> > > >> > example: Hyracotherium evolving into Equus > >> > >> Hey Jason, where did you copy that? We all know that you haven't a clue > >> as > >> to what you said :-). > > > > National Geographic--November 2004--article entitled, "Was Darwin Wrong". > > Hyracotherium was a "vaguely horselike creature". Equus--"modern genus of > > horse". > > I know what they are Jason and I know you don't. Just wanted to know from > where you plagiarized it :-)). Do you believe it is plagiarism for you to indicate that Hyracotheium evolved into Equus? Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 15:04:49 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-1606071504490001@66-52-22-19.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <c5tdk4-ama.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason ><kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > >> [snips] >> >> On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 23:44:27 -0700, Jason wrote: >> >> > No, I don't think that Christians or yourself needs medication. Perhaps, >> > some of the advocates of evolution do need medication since they seem to >> > get really angry when someone attacks their precious theory. >> >> Which theory? Punk Eek? Saltation? >> >> > It's my >> > opinion that some of the advocates of evolution treat evolution as more of >> > a religion than as a theory. >> >> You did not just call evolution a theory . You couldn't >> have. After all this time, you still haven't learned the simplest, most >> basic facts of the matter, despite endless repetition of it? >> >> >> You have in fact just demonstrated you are absolutely ineducable. You are >> constitutionally incapable of learning or of actual thought. You are, in >> short, an ambulatory Jell-O, and I for once have already had my dessert. >> >> I wash my hands of this moron; may the rest of you fare as well. I'll >> stick to more profitable things than trying to educate him... teaching >> rocks to sing, perhaps. > >Evolution is a theory. I just looked up the word evolution and it states: > >"Evolution: A theory first proposed in 19th century by Carles Darwin...." > Yes, evolution is a theory. It explains the facts of evolution that have been discovered over the past two centuries. This isn't either .. or. It's both .. and. In science the theory of ____ explains the observations about ____. Too bad you don't have any observations about your religion to support a theory about it. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 In article <ZqWci.644$W9.373@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message > news:Jason-1506071822310001@66-52-22-96.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > In article <lYEci.1211$s9.993@bignews6.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > > <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message > >> news:Jason-1506071621450001@66-52-22-20.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > >> > In article <OxDci.291$P8.214@bignews8.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > >> > <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> > > >> >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message > >> >> news:Jason-1506071523550001@66-52-22-20.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > >> >> > In article <GsCci.266$P8.179@bignews8.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > >> >> > <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message > >> >> >> news:Jason-1506071212400001@66-52-22-34.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > >> >> >> > In article <Lsyci.160$W9.143@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > >> >> >> > <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message > >> >> >> >> news:Jason-1406072027180001@66-52-22-82.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > >> >> >> >> > In article <j2t373d3n0dafs1r9ffao27cp6i1hi7qft@4ax.com>, Free > >> >> >> >> > Lunch > >> >> >> >> > <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 19:47:26 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism > >> >> >> >> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >> >> >> >> >> <Jason-1406071947270001@66-52-22-82.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >> >> >> >> >> >In article <e4c37352rsu9akoeoi2jld8sdh7bpn28n3@4ax.com>, > >> >> >> >> >> >Free > >> >> >> >> >> >Lunch > >> >> >> >> >> ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 01:35:14 -0700, in > >> >> >> >> >> >> alt.talk.creationism > >> >> >> >> >> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >> >> >> >> >> >> <Jason-1406070135150001@66-52-22-114.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >> >> >> >> >> >> >In article <0c41731qbu3l8n3j7rhumqe3vmdvf5rvs7@4ax.com>, > >> >> >> >> >> >> >Free > >> >> >> >> >> >> >Lunch > >> >> >> >> >> >> ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 00:22:57 -0700, in > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> alt.talk.creationism > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > <Jason-1306070022570001@66-52-22-83.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >In article > >> >> >> >> > <1181708123.776350.23860@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, Martin > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ><phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Jun 13, 11:59 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > In article > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > <1181695356.967104.238...@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, > >> >> >> >> >> >> >Martin > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ... > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > By the way, Genesis 1 says "El" created the > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > universe > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > and > >> >> >> >> > mankind but > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > Genesis 2 says it was "Yahweh". > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Do you have the verses? El may be one of the many > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > names > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > of > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > God. > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> In fact, Genesis 1 talks about the Elohim, which > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> means > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> "gods", > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> in > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> plural. (e.g. Genesis 6:2, "... the sons of Elohim > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> saw > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> the > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> daughters > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> of men that they were fair; and they took them for > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> wives... > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ,") > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elohim > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Martin > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >This is in reference to the intermarriage among the > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >Cainites > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >and > >> >> >> >> > Sethites. > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >The Cainites were sinful, evil people and the Sethites > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >were > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >devoted and > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >consecrated to God. God became very upset with the > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >Sethites > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >for > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >taking > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >Cainite women as their wives since God wanted them to > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >only > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >marry > >> >> >> >> > Sethite > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >women. > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >I copied most of the above info. from a footnote in my > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >study > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >Bible. > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >Jason > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> The authors of your study bible note were making it up. > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> They > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> have > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> no > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> evidence at all that their claim is correct. > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >Should I believe you or the words of the W.A. Chriswell, > >> >> >> >> >> >> >Ph.D--the > >> >> >> >> >> >> >editor > >> >> >> >> >> >> >of my study Bible or yourself--take a guess on my choice. > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> I know that you would be mistaken to believe those who > >> >> >> >> >> >> make > >> >> >> >> >> >> things > >> >> >> >> >> >> up > >> >> >> >> >> >> like this, but I also know that you have a demonstrated > >> >> >> >> >> >> willingness > >> >> >> >> >> >> to > >> >> >> >> >> >> be led astray by those who tell you what you want to hear. > >> >> >> >> >> >> Chriswell > >> >> >> >> >> >> does not have _any_ evidence that "this is in reference to > >> >> >> >> >> >> the > >> >> >> >> >> >> intermarriage among the Cainites and Sethites." > >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> Deal with facts. > >> >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >I have no reason to doubt Dr. Chriswell. > >> >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> That's because you reject the whole concept of evidence. > >> >> >> >> >> Anyone > >> >> >> >> >> can > >> >> >> >> >> tell > >> >> >> >> >> you any lie as long as they claim God wants it. > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> Still, I wouldn't be surprised if you misrepresented what > >> >> >> >> >> Chriswell > >> >> >> >> >> said, you do have a long track record of misunderstanding > >> >> >> >> >> what > >> >> >> >> >> others > >> >> >> >> >> are trying to tell you and misrepresenting these things to > >> >> >> >> >> others. > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> > Buy or read the Criswell Study Bible and see the evidence for > >> >> >> >> > yourself. > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> I have many books on the study of the bible. I question each and > >> >> >> >> every > >> >> >> >> one > >> >> >> >> when I read them. I then form my own conclusion on what I read. > >> >> >> >> You > >> >> >> >> could > >> >> >> >> use a little objective analysis. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > I have two study Bibles. One of them did not have a footnote > >> >> >> > about > >> >> >> > the > >> >> >> > scripture in question. I have a Bible dictionary but it was > >> >> >> > poorly > >> >> >> > written > >> >> >> > since many words that I have searched for are not in the > >> >> >> > dictionary. > >> >> >> > My > >> >> >> > 1000 page concordance has been really helpful. > >> >> >> > Jason > >> >> >> > >> >> >> What you need are a few books on textual criticism. That'll open > >> >> >> your > >> >> >> eyes. > >> >> >> Well, it would on an ordinary person. > >> >> > > >> >> > I once knew someone that had such a book. He loved to discuss > >> >> > various > >> >> > scriptures that he found in that book. > >> >> > >> >> Why don't you buy a copy of Misquoting Jesus and read it? > >> > > >> > I have no desire to read such a book. A book written by Tom Clancy > >> > would > >> > be more interesting to me. Someone suggested that I read a book related > >> > to > >> > Quantum Physics--that made me laugh. I barely passed the college math > >> > 101 > >> > class. > >> > Jason > >> > >> If you don't care to read 'such a book',then you have no authority to > >> argue > >> with others when it comes to your bible. Don't be ignorant all of your > >> life, > >> do something about it! > > > > You should consider reading this book: "Jerusalem Countdown" by a > > television preacher named John Hagee. > > John Hagee is a joke. As I said I sometimes watch him for laughs. The > subject under discussion was on textual criticism and you getting the book > Misquoting Jesus. If you don't read it you can't refute what I say. I'm not going to buy the book. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 In article <IsWci.645$W9.614@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message > news:Jason-1506071834370001@66-52-22-96.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > In article <lh3673du7ih3djcq80783nt85hl8i6olef@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > >> On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 15:20:45 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism > >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >> <Jason-1506071520450001@66-52-22-20.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >> >In article <4672fa8c$0$20560$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, "Christopher > >> >Morris" <Draccus@roadrunner.com> wrote: > >> > > >> >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message > >> >> news:Jason-1506071227220001@66-52-22-34.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > >> >> > In article <NDyci.165$W9.27@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > >> >> > <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> > Someone was trying to convince me that Allah and Jehovah were the > >> >> > same > >> >> > God. My point was that the Bible clearly states that Israel is the > >> >> > homeland for Jews. The Muslims believe that Israel should be under > >> >> > the > >> >> > control of Muslims. If they had the same God, they would only have > >> >> > one > >> >> > holy book. In this case, they have the Koran and we have the Old > > Testament > >> >> > and the New Testament. > >> >> > jason > >> >> > The > >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> Jason has been pointed out to you Allah is the Arabic word for God > >> >> nothing > >> >> more nothing less. The Jews do not say the name of God at all, and > >> >> Christians just use the generic term God. Both the Christian and the > > Muslim > >> >> are offshoots of Judaism so you both have Jewish roots and all three > > groups > >> >> are in fact worshipping the same God. Furthermore you are also all > >> >> worshiping the same Ultimate God of all other Faiths as well as St. > >> >> Augustine said in "The City of God" the God we worship " is the God > >> >> whom > >> >> Porphyry, the most learned of philosophers, although the fiercest of > >> >> enemy > >> >> of the Christian, acknowledges to be a Great God..." Furthermore, the > > Pagan > >> >> Maximus of Tyre wrote: "In the midst of such contention and strife, > >> >> and > >> >> disagreement you would see in all the earth one harmonious law and > > principle > >> >> that there is one God, king and father of all, and many gods, sons of > >> >> God, > >> >> fellow rulers with God. The Greek says this and the barbarian says it, > >> >> the > >> >> mainlander and the seafarer, the wise and the unwise." > >> > > >> >We have a different point of view related to this subject. I have read > >> >some of quotations from the Quran and found out that there are MAJOR > >> >differences between the Koran and the Bible. Here is just one example: > >> > > >> >From the Quran: > >> >Fight and slay the Pagans wherever you find them, and seize them, > >> >beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every strategem (of war). > >> >Surah 9:5 > >> > > >> >"...cutting off of hands and feet...." Surah 5:33 > >> > > >> >Needless to say, you will not find words like that in the New Testament. > >> > > >> >Jesus said, "Love your neighbor as yourself". Jesus never taught his > >> >followers to cut off the hands and feet of pagans or to slay pagans. > >> >Jason > >> > >> It is clear that you worship your interpretation of the Bible instead of > >> worshipping the God of Abraham. Since that is the case, I agree that > >> Moslems do not worship what you worship. > > > > I worship the God mentioned in the Holy Bible. I don't worship the God > > that is mentioned in the Quran. > > They are one and the same. All are children of Abraham. John Hagee discusses the Quran and Muhammad in his book. The difference between God and Allah are as different as night and day. That is also true in relation to The Bible compared to the Quran and Muhammad compared to Isaiah or John the Revelator. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 15:11:32 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-1606071511330001@66-52-22-19.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <6kh873l6vd2dijsc4nfa7g46mf7kj89k6l@4ax.com>, Free Lunch ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 23:05:07 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> <Jason-1506072305070001@66-52-22-62.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >In article <hpk6731d9jbq59bsjeffaplv04tqotjdb3@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >> ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> > >> >> On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 18:59:20 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism >> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> >> <Jason-1506071859200001@66-52-22-96.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >> >In article <1v3673dt5lsaeeelj2sevnbsmorev24hhu@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >> >> ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 15:40:34 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism >> >> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> >> >> <Jason-1506071540340001@66-52-22-20.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >> >> >In article <1wCci.267$P8.79@bignews8.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" >> >> >> ><mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >> >> >> >> news:Jason-1506071200360001@66-52-22-34.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> >> >> ... >> >> >> >> > We don't know. We are hoping that it will be soon. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Well read the damn verses Jason, they say it will be soon. Just >> >for your >> >> >> >> information, two thousand years isn't 'soon'. Before you go into a >> >> >'we don't >> >> >> >> know how soon it is in god's time' defense, read the verses and tell >> >> >me when >> >> >> >> you think Jesus said he would come. Just one more of literally >> >> >thousands of >> >> >> >> reasons to conclude that your god doesn't exist. >> >> >> > >> >> >> >Some of the prophecies related to the last days did not come true until >> >> >> >the past 10 to 20 years. Here is one of them: >> >> >> >2 Tim 4:3-5 >> >> >> > >> >> >> >For the time will come when [Christians] will not endure sound >doctrine; >> >> >> >but after their own lusts shall heap to themselves teachers [and >> >> >> >preachers]. Those [preachers] will teach them not what the truth is but >> >> >> >instead what they want to hear >> >> >> > >> >> >> >My comment: That prophecy has come true in my life time. There is one >> >> >> >church in California called Unity Fellowship. The preachers are >more like >> >> >> >psychologists than real preachers. There is a television show that is >> >> >> >broadcast on Sunday morning called the "Hour of Power". The >preacher never >> >> >> >discusses Bible doctrines. He teaches messages related to >psychology and >> >> >> >sociology. I have never heard him preach messages from the Bible. >> >> >> >Jason >> >> >> >> >> >> Jason, Christians have been claiming that they were in the last days >> >> >> ever since Christianity began. Your ignorance of history betrays you and >> >> >> gives you the foolish idea that only recently have these 'signs' been >> >> >> fulfilled. Once again I have to wonder if you are really a Christian. >> >> > >> >> >My father (in the 1950's) believed that he was living in the last days. >> >> >> >> Which is one example of your claim being wrong. >> >> >> >> >According to the Bible, the deciples of Jesus hoped Jesus would return >> >> >during their life times. >> >> >> >> Another example. I see that you don't have the integrity to acknowledge >> >> your error or tell us that you will make an effort to not make this >> >> mistake again. >> >> >> >> >I have never claimed to be a Bible scholar. >> >> >> >> Yet you accept the claims of people you believe are Bible scholars, even >> >> when they are wrong. >> >> >> >> >I learn new things every time I listen to another sermon. >> >> >> >> No, I don't think you do. >> >> >> >> You would learn something if you followed up on the references that you >> >> have ignored here. Your ignorance would not be so breathtaking if you >> >> didn't insist on having opinions on so many subjects that you don't >> >> understand and refuse to learn about. >> > >> >Yes, prior generations believed they were living in the last days. They >> >were wrong. We could be right. I believe the rapture will happen in this >> >generation. >> >> Do you know that the overwhelming majority of Christians belong to >> churches that reject rapture doctrines? Of course those churches that >> believe in rapture can't agree on anything anyway. >> >> It's a silly doctrine, quite well suited to you. > >That means those Christians don't believe the Bible since the Rapture is >discussed in detail in 1 Thes. 4:13-18. > That's not about the rapture. It's about the Coming of the Lord and is one of the reasons that most Christian groups reject rapture theology. Maybe you need to actually read it and understand it. Don't just take someone else's word that this is what it says. Read the Bible instead of worshipping it. 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.