Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
Customize
User Settings
Styles:
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:

Regularly scheduled events

User information for bangersnmash

Real Name bangersnmash   
Search for:
 
Sort results:   Ascending Descending
Limit results:
 
 
 
Nickname None given.
Email Concealed by request
ICQ None given.
Description
Homepage http://
Signed On Mar 22, 2004, 13:10
Total Comments 29 (Suspect)
User ID 20422
 
User comment history
< Newer [ 1 2 ] Older >


News Comments > Out of the Blue
99. Re: No subject Feb 5, 2005, 16:18 bangersnmash
 
Tango here is a verse that seemed appropriate, which I think sums up everything we have talked about very well.

Isaiah 29:16 "Surely you have things turned around! Shall the potter be esteemed as the clay; For shall the thing made say of him who made it, "He did not make me"? Or shall the thing formed say of him who formed it, "He has no understanding"?"

Another...

Isaiah 45:9-10 "Woe to him who strives with his Maker! Let the potsherd strive with the potsherds of the earth! Shall the clay say to him who forms it, 'What are you making?' Or shall your handiwork say, 'He has no hands'? Woe to him who says to his father, 'What are you begetting?' Or to the woman, 'What have you brought forth?'"

There are 3 verses in the Bible that are almost identical to this. The interesting part is, it shows created beings that don't reject the fact that there is a God, but whether God made what was created.

For JM, hope you're feeling better. In regards to the fossil record, dating methods are setup with assumptions based on a belief from the beginning of an old age earth. It depends on your starting assumptions to where this will lead. Carbon dating for instance assumes an equilibrium of carbon in the atmostphere over time. We can only assume that this may be true, as there were no recorded measurements of carbon millions of years ago.

The Bristlecone Pine example is given because the pines are still alive. Meaning they can live longer than 4000 years, but so far we don't know how much longer.

"Well, touching on my original question about the nature of God, how did God become creative?"

I know exactly what you are asking here. Job questioned God when he was put under trial. To cut a long story short God answered Job, Job 38:4-6 "Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Tell Me, if you have understanding. Who determined its measurements? Surely you know! Or who stretched the line upon it? To what were its foundations fastened? Or who laid its cornerstone..."

God has always been. Something that is almost impossible for humans to comprehend is eternity, whether it be looking into the past or looking into the future. God is outside of time. Why question the things of heaven, when we cannot yet understand the things of earth?

"So to me then, it is not unsurprising that rhythm in sound is something that "clicks" with the human mind. Our world is filled with rhythms, not just musical."

For myself, this is perfect evidence for a creator. It's an example of perfect order which ranges not through a small window of tones, but is infinite.

"I made a deliberate effort to "find God" as it were. However, it never happened and not through lack of trying on my part. "

Matthew 7:7-11 "7 "Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened. Or what man is there among you who, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will he give him a serpent? If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask Him!"


This comment was edited on Feb 5, 17:18.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Out of the Blue
96. Re: No subject Feb 3, 2005, 18:24 bangersnmash
 
Tango, I believe in the Bible literally for a couple of reasons. At first I could not swallow a literal interpretation, as it seemed too simple for me to grasp. But after studying for some time, the evolution/creation amalgam started to break down IMO (break me down? ). The Old Testament genealogy seemed devoid of any cryptic or spiritual interpretation by others and myself. To me it seemed it could only be literal.

If the genealogy is literal, that would mean a very young age earth could be investigated. Almost embarrassing to admit before, but now I couldn't care less.

Take the flood for example. If Biblical genealogy is correct, the flood must have occurred some 4000 years ago. The Bristlecone Pines are the oldest living organisms today at around 4000 years old. The oldest recorded at 4,700 years of age. http://www.sonic.net/bristlecone/intro.html
Quite close to a Biblical age in reference to a flood. A small evidence, but evidence nonetheless. It is these small evidences that build up over time to produce a stronger faith.

" So my question is, how is God any more of a satisfactory explanation for the world around us than chance happenings?"

Take my opinions with a grain of salt, as I am sure you will in any case. A lot of people ask about the passage that man was created in the image of God. As I believe God to be a creator and not simply a third party observer to His own mechanism, we as humans are also creative. This is what seperates us from animals. A chimpanzee may use a rock to break open a nut, but only humans can paint something purely for the sake of beauty. Or create something musically only for entertainment. Music to me is one of the largest stumbling blocks to a natural origin of the universe. I'm a musician at heart (albeit not a very good one) but it is one of the areas that is always looked at with doubt in my mind to have arisen naturally.

Creativity is something I think is very difficult to explain when we talk about raw chemicals and their random evolutionary path. Take Bach, Haendel, Beethoven, Van Gogh, Da Vinci or any of the classical artists/musicians and apply this to random chance - for me it is very difficult to understand, not only believe. It doesn't add anything to survival of the fittest theories.

Unfortunately since it is getting late and I need to work in the morning, it is time to simplify. All I can suggest is that you choose one area to look at. Whether it be an animal, an organ of the human body or even a plant (or part of a plant like a "simple" leaf). Anything. Look for information as to how that could have been created and then go back to those evolutionary sites to find the counter evidence. Go back and forth a few times and eventually you will reach a conclusion. What that is I do not know. It's all up to you.

" However, the nature of God is never addressed. To me, God is just a word and it explains nothing."

This is unfortunate, because it is what makes Christianity unlike a normal religion. Religion is nothing more than a set of rules or traditions on their own. Something you perform on a daily or weekly basis. Christianity is a relationship with God. Sounds a little extreme I know.

edit: I realise these answers may not be what you were expecting. They were certainly not what I was expecting to give either.
This comment was edited on Feb 3, 18:32.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Out of the Blue
94. Re: No subject Feb 3, 2005, 14:39 bangersnmash
 
Well it's quite nice to see civil replies on the topic. I usually expect much more hostile replies. JM, you didn't offend me, I was just pointing out some things you said. I would expect you to do the same for myself. Like I said, I usually expect much more hostile reactions. It's something that goes with the territory.

After I watch this movie I will write a reply to those questions that you and Tango asked. Whether you come back to read them or not is another story, but anyhow things like this take time to gather information on.

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Out of the Blue
89. Re: No subject Feb 2, 2005, 18:35 bangersnmash
 
"Sure. Being a Nobel Prize winner does not make you infallible."

Yes I agree, but the way you worded it was that anyone who believes in creation is nothing more than an uneducated moron.

"There is ample cosmological, geological, and biological evidence showing that humanity (much less Earth or the solar system) hasn't been around long enough for all of this. "

Likewise with galaxies that have not had enough time to form into spirals (the youngest galaxies visible by the Hubble telescope). These are merely interpretations through different glasses. Evolutionary or creationist.

" have been shown in theory."

Sure. Anything can be shown "in theory". Demonstrable fact is another thing entirely.

"Yes. Unsurprisingly."

Condescending behaviour which isn't surprising from the boldness of the evolutionist. There has been no answer to the question of what occured before the big bang or why it even occured in the first place. Romans 1:18 "For God's wrath is revealed from heaven against all godlessness and unrighteousness of people who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth, since what can be known about God is evident among them, because God has shown it to them. From the creation of the world His invisible attributes, that is, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what He has made. As a result, people are without excuse. For though they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God or show gratitude. Instead, their thinking became nonsense, and their senseless minds were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools."

"My guess is that he's considerably more conversant with the Bible than you are."

Well one can guess. This is no point of pride on my part, but more a disappointment on the part of someone as influential as Billy Graham. Before I answer that, read on...

"Give a siting in the Bible rather than some vague statement like this. Genesis, chapter 3, states that Adam will return to dust (Gen 3:19), and that he will not live forever (Gen 3:22). There is no implication that death did not exist previously -- simply that Adam would not be allowed to eat from the Tree of Life and thus live forever "

Genesis 2:17 "...but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for on the day you eat from it, you will certainly die." This is pretty clear and the first warning by God that the disobedience of Adam will result in his death. Romans 6:23 "For the wages of sin is death". Romans 5:12 "By one man sin entered the world, and death by sin, and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned". Another clear example.

"Of course, you could say that it was all created to look really old already, but then you believe in a capricious God who is setting you up for a fall by planting false evidence."

2 Thessalonians 2:9-11 "The coming of the lawless one is based on Satan's working, with all kinds of false miracles, signs, and wonders, and with every unrighteous deception among those who are perishing. They perish because they did not accept the love of the truth in order to be saved. For this reason God sends them a strong delusion so that they will believe what is false, so that all will be condemned-those who did not believe the truth but enjoyed unrighteousness.

What this means is that there are some people, no matter how much evidence is put before them, that will never believe in God. While doing this he is giving a test to his true followers of faith. Can they stand against the majority and still remain faithful?

Edit: someone pointed out a reference to ages was incorrect.

This comment was edited on Feb 3, 19:13.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Out of the Blue
88. Re: No subject Feb 2, 2005, 17:41 bangersnmash
 
"Maybe I'm missing something, but isn't that the basic premise behind creationism - that through sheer force of will, God created man and everything else in the universe in just under a week? So how is that any less magical than a waive of the hands? "

You are missing something You said I had already made my mind up and didn't have an open mind and yet you used sarcastic language to demonstrate that you were also no different. You have made your mind up also.

I'm asking you how this view of a creator can be any more laughable than believing that nothing exploded and created everything without intervention.

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Out of the Blue
87. Re: No subject Feb 2, 2005, 17:38 bangersnmash
 
"Nor do you deal with the minor issue that, even for the New Testament, there are hundreds of different versions stemming from different translations or interpretations of words."

The link posted before http://www.carm.org/evidence/textualevidence.htm has a very clear explaination of this. Though there are many translations, the distinctions between them are very small. Of course the original text is what we should always stick to, as do most of the translations. Only very recently have translations (one that I know of) been modified to be politically correct and only the commentary does this. The MCC (Metropolitan Community Churches) have influenced a version of the Bible that has footnotes or commentary that waters down the original text, only for their purposes. The text itself however remains untouched. Cross referencing is available to anyone today.

" There are simply too many unknown variables to make that statement accurately."

Good. We are on the same page then, as evolutionary science claims such erroneous figures more frequently than any creation information outlet.

"As for the web page you reference... what a joke. I don't deny that Jesus Christ fulfilled various prophecies, but some of the prophecies listed on that page are patently absurd. Here's the first one:

Gal.4:4 But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law. (Luk.2:7; Rev.12:5)

Wow! Born of a woman? How rare! Born under law? Whoa... that never happens in civilization. Clearly He was the only one who ever fulfilled that prophecy.


I understand that not everyone reads the Bible on a regular basis. It's pretty easy to mock something when you haven't studied it in some form. But only to one's detriment.

The verse you are referring to is actually from the New Testament book Gslatians, written after Christ. Not an Old Testament prophecy. The page is setup as giving an Old Testament prophecy that relates to Christ and then gives a New Testament verse that correlates with it. Unless you study this in it's entirety, you will have nothing more than half the picture and therefore no weight to the discussion. Here is a more basic list.

http://www.konig.org/messianic.htm

"Except that evolution is provable. "

Well the questions I have asked till now have still not been answered. So I guess there will be no answer if I were to question this statement. Belief in evolution is faith. Christian faith and evolution (on a macro scale) are at opposite ends more than you can imagine. I'm guessing you didn't read the other reply on Genesis. Evolution and the biblical view of creation are only compatible in one area. Both require a form of faith to believe in them.

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Out of the Blue
83. Re: No subject Feb 2, 2005, 14:05 bangersnmash
 
"No. There are various kooks"

Nobel Prize winning kooks?

"The first, in a strict biblical reading of creationism, can be disproven. Repeatedly."

Evidence?

"Again, it becomes a matter of faith. "

So you concede that both evolution and creation are guided by faith? Interesting since that is the point I have been trying to make all along.

"Sorry, but you're wrong. Plain and simple. The laws of thermodynamics do not apply in this manner, and it's pretty damn sad to see creationists misstate the basic principles of thermo like this."

Now apply this same thinking to organs which are irreducibly complex and you have a serious problem on your hands. Even gradual increase of information cannot account for such examples.

"However there are two fallacies to your statement. First, you presume that the random generator must produce the entire source code in one go, with no intermediary steps, no testing, no feedback. Second, you presume that there was a predistened goal -- in this case the source code for HL2. Both beliefs do not apply to evolution. "

Ok lets apply the random code generator in this way. It is programmed to randomly produce sequences of code and then save them out at random intervals to produce these intermediary steps. Now the probability becomes even greater and thus a larger problem.

The predestined goal is not necassarily rigid. It's simply used as an example of our own universe and how complex it is. It could be anything with order and of a complexity as such. Compare the HL example to the human genome's complexity and it will pale in comparison. See it's not just the code, but the functions of the code that are important. To produce all that code randomly with subsystems like AI which work with the other subsystems in unison is far too great to occur by chance.

"As to the second, sorry, but the first strands of DNA didn't go "woohoo! We're 0.000001% toward homo sapiens! Good going amino acids!". There was no plan, just chance."

Which is partially my point. This greatly reduces the probability.

"but if so then it was still accomplished via evolution, and it's not provable or disprovable."

This is a contradiction in terms. You are making a statement of fact and then conceding that it can be true or not. Or did I misunderstand you here?

" (generation of new species), has been observed in nature? "

Examples.

" But the Bible does not preclude science -- including evolution."

It does not preclude science at all, but evolutionary science it does. Completely. Even Billy Graham has stated that evolution is compatible with the Bible, but it seems he hasn't been reading it.

There is a description of why God cursed the world with death and it is because of mans sin (disobedience). If man came along later (after the dinosaurs) then there must have been sin before death and therefore the Bible is incorrect. The 2 are mutually exclusive.

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Out of the Blue
82. Re: No subject Feb 2, 2005, 13:36 bangersnmash
 
"It's absolutely hilarious that you accuse others of being close-minded and brainwashed. To envision the universe to exist as you believe to be, you have to be blind, plain and simple. "

So then can you answer my question as to what came before the big bang? Is that any less hilarious?

"The stories in the Old Testament were an oral tradition passed down from generation to generation before being committed to paper. We're talking about a translation of a translation of a translation that you are taking as literal, viseral truth."

The New Testament is proven beyond a shadow of doubt for it's accuracy by weight of evidence. You believe someone when they quote Caesar that the text is accurate yes? Compare the numbers. http://www.carm.org/evidence/textualevidence.htm

The Old Testament is shown to be accurate through the prophecies that Jesus fulfilled.

"George Heron, a French mathematician, calculated that the odds of one man fulfilling only 40 of those prophecies are 1 in 10 to the power of 157."
http://biblia.com/jesusbible/prophecies.htm

Now we are partially delving into the realm of faith. But no more so than we did when discussing the faith of evolutionists.

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Out of the Blue
79. Re: No subject Feb 2, 2005, 12:42 bangersnmash
 
Let me know what is more improbable first and then I will show you the evidence. What is more improbable?

1. That nothing exploded and created everything on it's own including man.
2. That an intelligent creator made the universe and everything in it.

""being" waved his hands magically and created man"

Interesting that you previously asked me to keep an open mind when you yourself have quite clearly made up your own.

edit: " (by the vast majority), "

By this you assume the vast majority is right. Remember Germany in the late 30's? The vast majority there thought the doctrine of National Socialism was right also. Did that make it so? Of course not.
This comment was edited on Feb 2, 13:20.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Out of the Blue
77. Re: No subject Feb 2, 2005, 12:22 bangersnmash
 
"Also, how can you reasonably compare the relatively short period of time spent on the human genome project to millions of years of evolution?"

Quite easily. Combining intelligence and CPU power to just map out this vast amount of information (without knowing what it does), demonstrates that not even millions of years of chance can produce this. It would have taken much longer without the aid of computers to map this information out. Read about mutations by scientists that have won nobel prizes on the subject and you will find that they too admit that no new information can arise by mutations. This leaves evolutionary theory with nothing.

I have made my mind up just as many others have. Does this demonstrate ignorance? No. It requires the study of both sides in order to reach a conclusion. It's actually the same technique used by scientists. Yet the article in the NY Times boldly states that evolution has been proven beyond doubt. This simply isn't true. Here are a couple of pages with interesting quotes by scientists. If creation was so implausible and untrue, why are so many highly intelligent scientists in support of it?

Here are a couple of samples...

"The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein... I am at a loss to understand biologists' widespread compulsion to deny what seems to me to be obvious." (Sir Fred Hoyle)

"Evolution [is] a theory universally accepted not because it can be proven by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible."
(Professor D.M.S. Watson, leading biologist and science writer of his day.)

"My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed.....It is not even possible to make a caricature of an evolution out of paleobiological facts...The idea of an evolution rests on pure belief."
(Dr. Nils Heribert-Nilsson, noted Swedish botanist and geneticist, of Lund University)"

http://www.aboundingjoy.com/scientists.htm
http://www.myfortress.org/evolution.html


This comment was edited on Feb 2, 12:39.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Out of the Blue
75. Re: No subject Feb 2, 2005, 11:15 bangersnmash
 
"Why are you so scared of the word "scientific"? Because that's what they are, not "naturalistic". "

I'm not afraid of the word at all. In fact it's used time and again to show that creation does have evidence going for it. I mean 'natural' as opposed to an intelligent creator. Both can be scientific. But it is not always scientific research that is used to prove evolution. Ernst Haeckel's fraud is a prime example. No science was involved.

"Such as? "

The fact that information cannot arise by chance mutations. The human genome project took many years (with the help of computers to process the huge amounts of information) to just map out human DNA. Now they have to sort through it all to find out what does what. If it is taking intelligent beings years to find out exactly what this information does, it certainly cannot have risen by chance. There must have been intelligence behind it. Mutations are a loss of information or a recombination of it. No new information can come from this process.

Nobody would assume that if you created a random character generator and left it on for centuries, that eventually Half Life 2 would be magically generated. At first thought it may appear possible, but when you think of the function and design behind it, it becomes purely unreasonable. Silly example, but you get my point.

" If you refute evolution, then -- by your own statements above -- you're also refuting large portions of biology, chemistry, physics, cosmology, astronomy, mathematics (not even a science!), geology, and various other scientific and non-scientific disciplines. "

Yes. I would be refuting the portions that try to confirm evolution is true. Try not to confuse Christianity with total ignorance (though I know with some people it can be hard). The subjects you mentioned are nothing more than areas of study. They can be looked at through either evolutionary perspectives or otherwise. Mathematics is simply one 'tool' to do this with.

"there are bigger fish to fry."

Such as?

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Out of the Blue
72. Re: No subject Feb 2, 2005, 09:26 bangersnmash
 
Cosmic evolution, chemical evolution and biological evolution are related. They are all naturalistic explainations for the existence of everything we know. There are just as serious holes in biological evolution as there are in any form.

Science and religion are not mutually exclusive - obviously. But evolutionary science and biblical christianity are.

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Out of the Blue
70. No subject Feb 2, 2005, 08:39 bangersnmash
 
"There is no credible scientific challenge to the idea that all living things evolved from common ancestors, that evolution on earth has been going on for billions of years and that evolution can be and has been tested and confirmed by the methods of science."

Really? First I've heard. So what "tested and confirmed" evidence does evolutionary science have for what happened before the big bang? Lst time I checked they had no idea.

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Out of the Blue
141. Re: Books vs Movies Jul 29, 2004, 14:25 bangersnmash
 
By the way, I'm amazed at the level of mild temper here which is a refreshing change. Normally posts such as these stir up much more aggressive replies. Very cool on the part of those involved.

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Out of the Blue
140. Re: Books vs Movies Jul 29, 2004, 14:15 bangersnmash
 
NSi

“This is what I believe happened with the story of a man named Jesus. An obviously smart guy (if in fact he did exist as a single person)…”

It’s well known among historians that Jesus’ existence is fact. What is up for question is his deity.

“Sadly, this *has* happened not one, but hundreds of times throughout history, from roman emperors and pharaos declaring themselves sons of god and later gods themselves…”

This may be the case, but did any of these previous frauds have such an impact, that the dating system as we know it today is measured around their death? Or that the Bible itself is the most widely distributed and sold book in the history of mankind? Or that there are a total of only 10 physical copies recording Caesar’s writings, yet there are approx. 22,000 copies of the New Testament (the most abundant of all historical manuscripts)? It seems to me something is different here that is worth investigating, simply due to the scope. An amazing book that goes into more detail is “More Than A Carpenter”. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0842345523/104-0190255-9018330?v=glance

“don't think any of you believe in Jesus because of Jesus, but because of a bunch of rambling or scheming middle eastern guys invented this whole thing a LONG time ago and this got pushed into everyone's brain with a hammer for thousands of years in the name of centralizing power for a few people with no one to answer to.”

Well unfortunately the Catholic Church has a great deal to answer for and many of their practices are far from Christianity. As you rightly point out, it is partially to do with power.

I choose to believe because of the experiences I have had throughout life and after having “sought” I have found. In effect, God shows you his presence over time. This may sound like non-sense also, but it’s very hard to describe unless you experience it.

Nin

“Not because he's trying to deceive us or mislead us, but because he wants to see what parts of these books we follow to the letter, and what parts we causally toss aside if it doesn't match our own agenda in life.”

I think without a guide, on our own we are very much at danger. I believe God has sent us his word; it’s up to us to find it.

Warpig
“Here's a question to our Christian Bluesies out there: If you had happened to be born to Jewish, Muslim, or Buddhist parents, do you really think you would still believe in what you now believe is "The Truth"?”

I cannot comment on an alternate universe which doesn’t exist but think of it this way... There are many, many Chinese Christians that do not exactly grow up in a Christ centered environment. Likewise there are other Christians in Iraq, Saudi Arabia and other countries with no solid basis in Christianity.

“I just can't help but think that if there were a one true God that he could have and would have been able to make it crystal clear to everyone what's really going on instead of watching us kill each other over different interpretations of an ancient book.”

Romans 20-21 "Ever since God created the world, his invisible qualities, both his eternal power and his divine nature, have been clearly seen; they are perceived in the things that God has made. So those people have no excuse at all! They know God, but they do not give him the honor that belongs to him, nor do they thank him. Instead, their thoughts have become complete nonsense, and their empty minds are filled with darkness."

Basically this says it is mans fault that we stepped away from God. Remember there is an enemy out there also which distorts truth and truth isn’t relative despite what some people may tell you. You may hear some say “that may be true for you” or other such comments. This is a self defeating belief.

A perfect book for this… http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0801058066/qid=1081867046/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-0190255-9018330?v=glance&s=books

Also read the review from Andrew Doerksen a little over half way down the page on this link. It sums up very quickly, criticizing another persons review how far detached from logical thought this belief is. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/customer-reviews/0801058066/ref=cm_cr_dp_2_1/104-0190255-9018330?%5Fencoding=UTF8&me=ATVPDKIKX0DER

Tron

“honestly, i have no idea why faith is such an important thing for God to require of us. it's a mystery to me. maybe someone else in here can shed some light?”

Hebrews 11:6 "But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him."

Or just read the whole chapter. http://bible.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?word=John+3§ion=0&version=nkj&new=1&oq=&NavBook=heb&NavGoto=Go+To%3A&NavGo=11&NavCurrentChapter=3

as some of y'all may know, i've been out of work for 2 months now - but i just got off the phone with someone with a *great* job opportunity... wish me luck!

Good luck I also found the topic heading interesting.

This comment was edited on Jul 29, 14:19.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Out of the Blue
120. Well Jul 28, 2004, 13:10 bangersnmash
 
The US founding fathers contained Freemasons, which are very far removed from Christianity. Also, anyone who believes Bush is a Christian has been thoroughly deceived. There are numerous examples given throughout the New Testament of why. Here is one. This verse also ends the tired old argument that Christians killed in the crusades. They only claimed to be Christian.

"For though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does. The weapons we fight with are not weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds. We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ." 2 Corinthians 10:4,5

Jesus changed the old ways because a price always needed to be paid for sin. Mostly by death. “The wages of sin is death”. He changed this by offering himself as the final sacrifice, so the old ways have passed away with him. This is probably nonsense to someone who doesn’t believe it, but if you study it well enough it makes more sense than you can imagine.

Back to Bush, alternatively look at his quotes on Islam. http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/ramadan/islam.html

tron "...but God never had any problem smiting those who offended or defied him."

Are we worthy of anything else? Would you consider yourself perfect and deserving of any rewards? That is one of the first things people learn when becoming a Christian. "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" Romans 3:23 I think as creator of the universe he has all the right in the world to do that

athlonseven "Secondly, to the Christians out there. Realize this. Jesus was an incredible revolutionary political and religious teacher, but he was purely a man. His deity was decided upon and introduced into Christianity some 200 years after his death."

Read these and you will see at least the textual evidence after his death and resurrection. This does not touch the prophecies that were written hundreds of years before his birth and his fulfilling of them all.

http://www.carm.org/evidence/textualevidence.htm
http://www.missiontoamerica.org/history.html

"For instance, if one looks at geolical evidence you can see the earth is billions of years old, and that life evolved. This is emperical, proven fact."

Actually there is an abundance of material that says quite the opposite. It depends on what you believe before examining the evidence, but believe me, there are very grave problems when it comes to evolution (macro evolution).

"When you ask a Christian about this, they say, no, we accept Genesis on faith. But they have NOTHING to back it up! There is NOTHING to suggest that we are different from other life other than our remarkable evolved language, culture, and intelligence."

You state that apart from language, culture and intelligence we are no different. These are absolutely monumental differences between animals. It is clear (at least to me) that we are made in the creator’s image, since creation for the sake of art or aesthetics (and many more) are entirely absent from the animal kingdom. Read a book called “Darwin’s Leap of Faith”. It brings up many points against all forms of evolution from biological to cosmological. To me it seems scary that forms of it still exist in today’s universities.

thontor "I myself, do not take the Bible literally.. many of the old testament stories like the creation etc are written to promote a certain reaction from a certain audience.. they were written so that people of the time thousands of years ago could relate and understand.."

God asked Job, "Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?" In other words, who are we to question how he created the world and in how long? If you do a little research you will find an abundance of evidence for creation. This does not contradict faith either. Faith is still required, but even then we receive faith by grace, given to us even though we do not deserve it. Eph 2:8-9 "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not from you; it is the gift of God; it is not from works, so no one may boast."


 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Out of the Blue
188. Re: $0.02 Apr 17, 2004, 12:30 bangersnmash
 
Moog

Historical Accuracy? Unless you saw the Jesus that was stolen from a nativity scene in I believe Tennesee, not one of those scenes depicts Jesus as having dark brown skin; he was either Arab or Black, and that is a fact historians both Christian and sane agree on.

It’s becoming clear you do not know what you are talking about here. Sorry, but it’s quite clear from the Bible (which if you had read the sites on textual accuracy of the New Testament would know) that Jesus was a Jew, certainly not an Arab.

“"God told me to strike at Osama. I did that. God told me to strike at Saddam..." -George Walker Bush” If this quotation isn't clear evidence that your president is marrying church and state in a straight ceremony...

I wonder which “god” he is talking about here.

Sane Side "The bible has been rewritten many times throughout history, and is not an accurate historical document". My comment was that getting "evidence" supporting the christian viewpoint from mumbo-pocus websites isn't compelling in an argument.

It does not matter that these sites are Christian, the information is accurate. If the information from these sites were not accurate, there would be sites that provide a counter to the information provided there. But you can ask any historian and they will tell you the same thing. The accuracy of the New Testament cannot be denied. Only by those that are explicitly trying to deny the Christian God.

Jedi
If a Christian wants to stand outside of a synagogue and preach at people about converting, is that his free exercise? Or is he infringing on someone else's free exercise? I don't think it's necessarily anyone's right to have a giant neon sign outside of their house so that cars on nearby high ways can see their beliefs.

Well if that is the case, then perhaps gays shouldn’t parade their beliefs in celebrations like the Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras in Sydney or other such celebrations in other cities? The thing is, we are getting involved in the free speech issue again. Which way would you rather it be?

Tango
On our quest to prove the accuracy of the bible, we mustn't forget all four gospels were written after the event, by people that never met Jesus, and at best were relying on third hand information. They skimp on facts we (think we) know now - the Pilate story is the most obvious example to have recently come to light.

Here is another completely incorrect piece of information. The New Testament was written by several of the apostles who had first hand experience with Jesus himself. If they ever "skimped" on information, it was because it was irrelevant.

We'll also forget that they were translated, retranslated, and translated again before they got to where they are now. Try a simple sentence in Babelfish into French, back to English, into German, and back to English. I'm obviously not suggesting that they are that far off the originals, especially given we can retranslate from the old documents now, but they have been rewritten many times, by many different interests.

I am guessing you didn’t read the links that I posted. Cross-reference of the documents that we have today is the way you verify the accuracy of the New Testament.

http://www.carm.org/evidence/textualexample.htm


 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Out of the Blue
183. Re: $0.02 Apr 16, 2004, 08:29 bangersnmash
 
"Restricting people's soliciting of their religion is not necessarily restricting their "free exercise.""

Actually, unfortunately it does. I think what we are confusing here is the right of government to impose or make laws in respect to religion, down to the individual’s right to exercise it. The individual should always have the right to solicit his or her own beliefs. As much as I dislike Mormons coming to my home, it is their right. There is no law against it. I like that fact actually, since it means I am free to do the same if I wish, whether that be knocking on someone’s door or simply discussing it in a forum like this one.

On the point of the constitution, since governments around the world are madly signing away their sovereignty to the UN, it may explain why the government is now stepping into religion.

United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights:

"Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion... Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others."

I like the “benign” department name. Sarcasm aside, compare it to the constitution.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" Constitution

Now compare it again to an extract of the previous clause.

"Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law..."

It basically means the UN is overriding the constitution, which is quite nasty stuff if you think about it. Sure, the full chapter mentions things like the sake of public safety etc. But what is this clause on morals? That’s just a little too vague for me. If I claim that the Bible says that homosexuality is wrong in God’s eyes and a homosexual says that is immoral of me to do so, where do we go from there? Suddenly I will be in breach of law, so you can see how nasty vague little clauses like this can be.


Just go to http://www.overlawyered.com to see where vagueness gets people.

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Out of the Blue
170. Re: $0.02 Apr 15, 2004, 12:26 bangersnmash
 
""The government is getting involved in your religion? How? By not taking taxes from you? WTF are you referring to? Your government is getting involved in Islamic religion, and muslim religions very directly, but I don't see them making laws to echo the scripture of the quran. Please elucidate as to how they are getting involved in your religion, and how that gives you (christians) a right to get involved in government.

Any government that starts imposing laws in the realm of religion is automatically stepping over the mark. The Canadian government is on its way and the U.S. has been doing the same recently. Look at this mans run in with the government.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=32743

Also, Bush’s love affair with Muslims is a bad example. It strengthens the argument that he is by far someone that shouldn’t be mentioned in the same sentence as Christianity. http://www.bushrevealed.com

What about ongoing attempts to secularise Christmas? Meanwhile other religious festivities are left alone.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,103650,00.html

This is straight up wrong. If they should not be involved in religion or imposing it on others, then they should let those who believe in a certain thing, go about their own life and not interfere with them on this level.

On slaves...
Ephesians 6:9 "And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him."

Colossians 4:1 "Masters, provide your slaves with what is right and fair, because you know that you also have a Master in heaven."

Clearly not the "shackled, beaten" slaves you talk about.

"The other thing you do not understand is that the bible has been rewritten to the whim of French kings, Spanish Kings, Romans, and the list goes on "

Another misconception. Read the following pages and you will see the Bible is actually the most accurate historical document on earth. People quote Plato and nobody questions the writings right? Compare these numbers.

The date these manuscripts from Plato were written somewhere between 400BC-347BC.
The New Testament was written in the 1st century.
The earliest physical copy is 900AD for Plato.
New Testament? 2nd century.
Time span between original and copy for Plato-1200 years.
Time span between original and copy for the New Testament? Less than 100 years.
Number of copies for Plato-7.
For New Testament manuscripts-5600 in Greek alone with another 19,000 copies in various other languages. Check the table on the first link below.

http://www.carm.org/evidence/textualevidence.htm
http://www.missiontoamerica.org/history.html


 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Out of the Blue
164. Re: $0.02 Apr 14, 2004, 16:59 bangersnmash
 
Tango

[i"No, it's not. I understand your reasoning, but paedophilia is a disorder, whether genetic or circumstantial. Homosexuality is not a disorder,"

I guess it is kind of misunderstood. I meant that morals change in today’s society to put it in it's most simple terms.

"I hope that doesn't imply you think gays need forgiveness, because that is just so fucking stupid."

Why not? They need forgiveness just as much as you and I

JediLuke

You are preaching to the choir. I realise the problems today with the points you mention. My point it that those problems may not be problems tomorrow.

"Again, the Bible contains references to slavery; if I used the Bible to argue for my right to own slaves, or stone to death those whose behavior offended me, or to regard women as second-class citizens, is that not hate speech?"

Slaves are no different to the average worker today. In essence our employers buy us for a wage per week. We do their bidding and they provide us with what we "need". The Bible has particular rules when it comes to the treatment of "slaves", telling "masters" they should treat their slaves (workers) with respect.

"You can't generalize Christian behavior. You may apply Christian doctrine in a way that you see as loving, but there are many who do not do so. "

Exactly. This means that those that do not practice this are certainly not Christians. Like the tired old argument that Moog uses (Moog, don't take that offensively, it truly is over used), of the crusaders and people that claimed to be Christians. These people obviously did not read their Bible. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". "Love your neighbour as yourself etc etc. We know they were not practicing these rules.

Moog

In stating why should government get involved in religion is especially my point. They are getting involved in mine. While saying there should be free speech they are limiting that of Christian believers.

""bi-product of Darwinism"???? Dude, whatever you Christians are smoking, it is a hell of a lot better than the pot I get. Darwinism has nothing to do with systematically slaying an entire race because it is "less evolved""

Actually we are no different. I used to smoke so much weed you would never have guessed. I also dabbled in a little ecstasy and speed. But hey, nobody is perfect and I never claimed to be. Anyway, back to the point (even if it is getting a little side tracked).

"The surviving Tasmanians were rounded up from their territory and put in a special settlement. They were homesick there, and more died. The last man died in 1865. The last full-blooded Tasmanian of all was Truganini, shown here in her old age. She died in 1876, begging that her body would not be given to scientists for examination, as others had been. 'Don't let them cut me up, bury me behind the mountains.' " Luling, Virginia. Aborigines. Morristown, N.J.: Macdonald Educational Ltd. (1979); pg. 37.

Her state funeral was farcical as the coffin was empty. Her body had been already buried in the chapel in the Hobart jail. Two years later it was exhumed and boiled and reduced to a skeleton that was stored in a wooden crate in the museum. Years later, during a clean-up at the museum, the crate was about to be thrown out. Suddenly someone realised it contained the bones of ?the last Tasmanian?. These bones were then assembled and put on display in the Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery.When I was a child I saw that skeleton. It seemed to me to be incredibly tiny, a waif of a skeleton in a glass case. It was taken off display in 1947.

""Many of the early settlers of Australia considered the Australian Aborigines to be less intelligent than the ‘white man,’ because aborigines had not evolved as far as whites on the evolutionary scale. In fact, the Hobart Museum in Tasmania [Australia] in 1984 listed this as one of the reasons why early white settlers killed as many aborigines as they could in that state."—Ken Ham, Evolution: The Lie (1987), p. 86."

Back to the master of evolution, Darwin himself...

"Darwin said " The more civilized so-called Cauc races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existance. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the LOWER RACES will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world." Sound like Hitler? Does to me.

To someone else who I do not have time at the moment to mention, yes I did quote a biased web site, but the information contained was pure. That is, it was from my view point. There is no reason for me to repeat everything that was mentioned there so it is natural to quote something that is "biased".

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i3/culture.asp
http://evolution-facts.org/c19b.htm


 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
29 Comments. 2 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 ] Older >


footer

Blue's News logo