Axis & Allies .org Forums
    • Home
    • Categories
    • Recent
    • Popular
    • Users
    • Register
    • Login
    1. Home
    2. dIfrenT
    3. Posts
    D
    • Profile
    • Following 0
    • Followers 0
    • Topics 4
    • Posts 64
    • Best 0
    • Controversial 0
    • Groups 0

    Posts made by dIfrenT

    • RE: The Origins of X-Mas

      Okay. I try not to post huge, long reproductions of texts, but I found that I could not summarize this one to my satisfaction, so here goes.

      SANTA CLAUS

      Santa Claus is that jolly old fellow who appears once a year, and then only to do good by bringing toys and games to “good little children.” Is that ALL there is to “Santa?” No, my Christian friend [oh, btw, did I forget to mention I took this from the tract “Is Christmas Christian?” written for Christians? :wink: ], it is not.
      Although you may not believe in “evolution,” [again, evidence of the tract I took it from :) ] Santa, as we know him today, is a product of evolution. Let us trace his origin from the ancient times.
      In Egypt, where the mother and child were worshipped, the “father-god” was know as “Khons” or “Khonos.” the name means “huntsman,” or “god of the chase,” and scholars have identified him as the “Nimrod” of Genesis 10, “the mighty hunter,” and the builder of “Babel” (or Babylon). (Pagan gods are always deified humans, but that is a story far too long for this small book). He is represented in both Babylon and Egypt as a half-man and half-bull, and also half-man and half-horse (the centaur of mythology), usually with wings, and he is called “Baal-abirin,” or “the winged one.” He is called “the omnipotent one,” and also “the unknown one,” giving him the unknowable qualities that left him in the background. He would be “THE UNKNOWN GOD” worshipped in Athens in Acts 17:23.
      Over the centuries, his images evolved into more human form, usually clothed in a leopard skin, signifying his hunting prowess over the swiftest of animals. This spotted garment became a mark of kings and priests in Africa and Asia. the priests of “Bacchus” in Greece were clothed in leopard skins, later adopting the spotted skin of a young fawn or dyeing their robes to look like a spotted skin.
      The “spotted deer” seems to have been adopted as combining both the spots of the leopard and the bull (or calf) of idol worship. In Ninevah, the capitol of Assyria, statues of Nimrod (Baal) show him wearing a spotted deer skin, or in some cases, carrying a spotted deer, AND NOW WE ARE GETTING CLOSE TO “SANTA CLAUS!”
      In the drawing of Nimrod, above left, [unfortunately, I do not know how to reproduce this drawing] the similarity to “Santa Claus” can be seen in the long, flowing, white beard, the ornate dress, the “reindeer,” the fir tree (the “Christmas” tree!), and the wings, giving him power to “fly through the air!”
      The drawing (above right) [please see my previous excuse :D] is of the Greek “Bacchus” and the similarity is certain. He does not carry the spotted deer but has a spotted robe, the tree of uncertain origin, and the “cup,” the symbol of drunken revelry, so great a part of “Christmas.” [although personally, I associate drunkenness (is that how you spell it?) with New Year’s]

      Everything in caps and italics for emphasis in there was the author’s doing. my only input was the comments within the brackets and i change the word “deified” so it would be spelled correctly. i can’t stand finding spelling errors in stuff i read or stuff i write. silly pet peeve. oh well. I won’t accept this as ABSOLUTE fact, but it is an interesting theory. i find it harder to accept as fact because i don’t agree with other stuff in the booklet. namely is aversion to ham because the Bible forbids it. that’s old testament. in the new testament, God tells Peter that all the animals are good for food.
      Anyway, sorry about the tangent. The Christmas tree is mentioned in Jeremiah 10:3-4, but not as a “Christmas” tree. Well, here I go again. I promise not to make this a habit.

      For the customs of the people are vain: for one cutteth a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe. They deck it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers, that it move not.

      The tree was the people’s idol.
      Well, I’m pretty sure this is the longest post I’ve ever made. Hopefully, they won’t always be like this. It amkes it hard to get to reading the rest of the new posts.

      posted in General Discussion
      D
      dIfrenT
    • RE: Newfoundland bans cellphones while driving

      By your reasoning, nobody should be allowed to talk to another person while in a car…

      Exactly what I was thinking. I voted no, but I won’t shoot you if you try it. I will put up a fuss though. Hands-free phones should be allowed. That’s about all I have to say.

      posted in General Discussion
      D
      dIfrenT
    • RE: We should not attack Iraq

      All I can say is, “This is amazing.” I can’t help but chuckle. :lol:

      posted in General Discussion
      D
      dIfrenT
    • RE: 9/11 over rated?

      This country does spend quite a bit on defense. I’ve been reading books for my term paper, and I’ve found out that the Pentagon is always pushing for more while it’s losing money on the factories and things that they have. I agree that the politicians are

      wasting my money on the lazy bum down the street who could care less whether he got a job.

      I also beleive that these same politicians are the cause of losing money and all the while they are complaining that strengthening defense is bad and a waste of money. It would cost less if they would stop standing in the way.
      The three major manufacturers of arms try to pander the politicians good will by setting up their plants in certain senators’/congressmen’s states, but they politicians in other states become unhappy and slow things down. Then these same manufacturers work together so they don’t have to compete for the government’s business, so the cost is driven sky-high. Then the government doesn’t charge rent on the buildings they let the manufacturers use. Before, the rent charge would be added to the cost of the arms. But recently (before the war on terrorism and after the end of the Cold War), the government wasn’t buying most of the arms these manufacturers were turning out. They were mostly going to foreign (albeit friendly) countries. So the government could have charged rent and not suffered the backlash. Anyway, they’re all in the wrong even though the politicians are blamed in general.
      Anyhow, that was mostly to help me remember that for my term paper. Sorry if it was confusing or flawed. :)

      posted in General Discussion
      D
      dIfrenT
    • RE: Ever wanted to hold an office?

      Well, TM, not all of us in CA fit the stereotype. Besides, I wasn’t born here anyway. :P BTW, sorry it’s taken so long to post anything to topic I created. I have a term paper where I have do debate both sides of the issue of disarmament (demilitarization).

      posted in General Discussion
      D
      dIfrenT
    • Ever wanted to hold an office?

      just wondering if anyone else ever wanted to hold office. i’ve wanted to be president.

      posted in General Discussion
      D
      dIfrenT
    • Ok, here goes

      Well, a few of you said you would help me learn how to play, so here I am. What do I need to get? Do I need to download A&A? And how do I actually put in my moves and stuff. I’m completely clueless on this. Thanks for offering to teach me. :)
      BTW, TM, I don’t think a face-to-face game would work out. I’d rather not give my location anymore than I already have.

      posted in Player Help
      D
      dIfrenT
    • RE: The end of the world

      i doubt that most of the students would ever be disruptive again. :D

      posted in General Discussion
      D
      dIfrenT
    • RE: The end of the world

      basically, yeah. just leave us alone for anywhere up to 24 hours, everything should be fine. :)

      posted in General Discussion
      D
      dIfrenT
    • RE: Females playing A&A

      thanks! :D that would be cool!

      posted in General Discussion
      D
      dIfrenT
    • RE: We should not attack Iraq

      how can you reach equal opportunity, when money buys amon other things education, better lawyers, less taxes to pay …and did i mention education?

      if money buys it, go earn it. over here we have plenty of opportunities to get money. and most, if not all, of our colleges give applicants a chance to get money toward their education by way of work-study, scholarships/grants, and loans. and there are plenty of places to find work…if you’re not too lazy to go find it.

      Not really. What you describe is what most people have been told to believe about socialism.

      oh really? then please tell me what it actually is.

      Well, to get back to the dwarf and the apple tree:
      equal opportunity is not saying the dwarf and the giant have equal opportunity in reaching the apples: they just have not. It would be, if oyu gave the dwarf a ladder. If there is no ladder around, then the giant should give half his apples to the dwarf, who should give half of whatever he can pick that the giant can’t reach in exchange….

      let the dwarf get is own ladder. if he doesn’t have money for one he can either make one, or go earn some money to buy one. maybe he could ask to borrow one. he has too many opportunities to get one for me (or anyone else) to be mandated to give him one. if the giant wants to give half or however much of the apples to the dwarf, fine. that’s good, and that’s the way i think it should be. let him want to give it, not be forced to give it. and if they want to trade, very good. but don’t make them trade. that’s taking away their ability to choose it. and frankly, when someone takes my choice in the matter away (especially for something i would do anyway, without the command) i get pretty upset. needless to say, my parents taught me independence, initiative, and the ability to think for myself.

      as for “fairness,” that’s an argument that never ends. it just goes on in endless circles. first man A without some object say it’s not fair that man B has X amount of this object. man B should have to give man A some of the object. man B says it’s not fair that he should give some to man A when man A can find a way to get his own.
      obviously, IMO, if man A is too lazy to get off his butt to earn his own stuff, he’s out of luck.

      posted in General Discussion
      D
      dIfrenT
    • RE: The end of the world

      At the same time, there is mention in the OT of a different aspect of God (Daniel - “the son of Man”, also references to Malchezedik - Emugod? Any comments about him?), as well as references to “the Spirit of the Lord”. These are all in the OT as well as in the NT - showing different aspects to the “Godhood” while still being true to the One God concept.

      Melchizedek was the only king and priest (at the same time) of the Hebrew nation. He was mentioned again in the NT in reference to Jesus. Jesus is the King and Priest of the Kingdom of Heaven therefore His role is “after the order of Melchisedec.” In the OT it’s spelled Melchi_z_ede_k_, in the NT it’s spelled Melchi_s_ede_c_ due to the writings being in different languages. Melchizedek is mention in Genesis 14:18 and Psalm 110:4 of the OT. And he is mentioned again several times in Hebrews 5, 6, and 7.

      posted in General Discussion
      D
      dIfrenT
    • RE: Females playing A&A

      yeah, i am a girl, but i don’t play A&A cuz i don’t know how. i’d like to learn, but i wouldn’t be a challenge for you all to play against and you all would probably find it boring to teach me. i’ll get some of my real-time friends to teach me. i post here because i like to find other people’s views on topics, and get some of my own out there.

      posted in General Discussion
      D
      dIfrenT
    • RE: The end of the world

      As for your second quote from the Bible, it does not contradict the first one. The time for killing could be interpreted as during war-time. In war, you must defend yourself even if that means killing.

      I’m sorry if I wasn’t clear on this. That’s exactly what I was trying to say in my post. And I was pointing out that to some people, the passage may seem contradictory. War-time is what I was talking about, but maybe I should have said this specifically. I’ve thought this through because I am considering a career in the U.S. Air Force.

      As for your references to the Old Testament, please call it the Bible, as some of us here do not believe in the New Testament.

      I do believe in the New Testament, obviously, and since I believe that it’s part of the Bible, I have to differentiate when I talk about it. I’m sorry it offends you, but the people on this forum are bound to have their differences. Quite frankly, I can’t see any way around it.

      Why should I go to hell for not being a Christian? I worship God as do many other Jews and Muslims do too. Just because they dont accept Jesus, doesn’t mean they should go to hell. Also, why would people go to hell for not believing in God? Perhaps that’s one of hte major points that our two religions, Judaism and Christianity, disagree on. My religion teaches that the non-Jews do not necessarily go to hell for not believing in God, but they might if they commit horrible crimes against one another such as theft or murder. My religion also teaches that people do not go to hell forever, yet only until their soul is cleansed of their misdeeds, after which they come to heaven. Since when is not believing in Jesus a sin?

      Jesus said in John 14:6, “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” Jesus is the only Way to Heaven. You cannot reject Him and expect to get there. People go to hell for not believing in God because of sin. God won’t tolerate sin, and that’s why Jesus came to pay the punishment for us. And hell is forever. It’s written so many times in the Bible (Old and New Testament).

      i have to disagree with you here. I think that you’re going to unreasonable lengths to make the war-hawkish “christians” look right when they’re not. Under no circumstances are Christians told to kill, or even attack someone (word or deed).

      I’m not trying to justify “war-hawkish ‘christians.’” Again, my point for my post is that killing in war-time is not un-Christian. I’m not trying to justify murder. I was just trying to correct the interpretation of a verse that is commonly taken out of context.

      So, killing out of cold blood (without being angry or hate) is different from a hot-blooded killing… and what qualifiers for a reason to kill? AFAIR being homosexual is enough reason to be killed.
      So… if all the “non-killing” refers to personal affairs, but homosexuals can be killed on sight, then sexuality is not a personal affair…
      What do you prefer to do in bed? You can tell me, it is nothing personal, but of interest for the whole community, and maybe you have to be killed for whatever you say now. If you don’t answer, then -of course- i must assume that you defy the needs and laws of the community…

      i’m sorry. i was assuming that most, if not all, of murders stemmed from some sort of anger or hate. the “qualifier”: killing is only justified in war-time or self-defense (i.e., when someone is coming after you with a knife, gun, or some clear intent to kill). Being homosexual is not a good reason to kill. There’s no justification for it. I don’t agree with the lifestyle, but I would not murder someone because of it. That usually comes from hate. These cases are personal, they’re not on a national level. No matter how much they try to say it’s for the community, it comes from their own problems.
      Now I feel like I’m repeating myself, and I’m tired of it. Bottomline, only reasons for killing: war-time and self-defense. The verse that is taken out of context deals with problems that boil down to personal affairs. Even personal issues with anyone who doesn’t believe the same as they do, no matter how much they try to say otherwise. I don’t know how else to say it, but you’ll try to twist my words however you want no matter what I say.

      Well, i am sorry. I believe what i learnt from talking with muslims: JC is a special prophet, because he will come back to lead the armies of god in the last battle. This unique feature makes him one of the most important prophets in Islam.

      thanks for telling me. i didn’t know that. however, they still don’t believe that He is God, so their religion is not a second update.

      It is funny, that you claim that. Some of our jewish members claim that Islam is based on Judaism only, any you claim directly the opposite.

      i believe that there are similarities because both Israelites and Arabs (the main followers of Islam) both trace their lineage back to Abraham. there are bound to be likenesses.

      posted in General Discussion
      D
      dIfrenT
    • RE: The end of the world

      So, when i die (and go to heaven or hell or whereever), i have chosen? What about all those poor bastards who died without ever having heard of christianity? Will they all fight for evil in the last battle then?

      unfortunately, i think they go to hell too. there are differences of opinions on this, but the Bible says that God hates sin, the wrong things we do. and that’s why He told the Christians to spread His message, but we haven’t been doing that as well as we should. and only the people who are still alive will “fight for evil.” the ones who are dead don’t come back for the battle.

      So you believe God gave an update (from Judaism to Christianity), but you don’t believe he gave a second update (from Christianity to Islam), right?
      How can you tell that the one update was right, and the second wasn’t one?

      the “update” is from the Old Testament to the New Testament, and it did not actually occur until Christ’s death and resurrection. i know this one is right because the two agree with each other. Christ quoted much of the Old Testament. i don’t believe that islam is an update because it does not agree with the Old Testament.

      You would kill not in the name of god?
      And are you so sure that muslims don’t acknowledge that JC died on a cross and came back from the dead? Ever talked to a muslim about that??

      it’s in their holy book. Jesus was only a prophet, a good teacher. and prophets don’t rise from the dead. Mohammed came after him to “update” the religion, but i, obviously, don’t believe this.
      no, i wouldn’t kill in the name of God because that’s not what He taught.

      But any killing is not christian! If someone slaps you in the face…

      i don’t agree. that particular quote is taken out of context from the rest of the passage (Matthew 5, the Sermon on the Mount). every one of the situations Jesus cited was a personal disagreement. attacks on my country are not strictly personal. the Bible says “Thou shalt not kill.” (Exodus 20:13) But in Ecclesiastes 3:3 it says, “A time to kill, and a time to heal…” Contradictory? Seemingly. But in Matthew 5:21 He cites the verse in Exodus, then explains it in Matthew 5:22 He says, “…whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause [emphasis mine] shall be in danger of the judgment…” and 1 John 3:15 says, “Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer…” to make a long story short, the “slap in the face” deals with personal/private disagreements. thou shalt not kill refers to hating someone, or being angry at someone without a reason. both of those are equated with murder. and note, in Exodus, God tells them not to kill, but later He tells them to take cities and stuff. it goes back to anger/hate without cause.
      check it out for yourself, make sure i’m not taking verses out of context. i’m not being facetious, i mean it.

      posted in General Discussion
      D
      dIfrenT
    • RE: The Existence of God

      thanks CC. i am monotheistic, and i don’t believe in a "polytheistic pantheon of gods. neither do i believe that God has polytheistic names. btw, i am a she. yanny, you asked me to explain the doctrinal difference (btw, i used the wrong terminology. it’s more like complete theological differences). i did so. i’m not trying to establish credibility. that takes more time than i have.

      posted in General Discussion
      D
      dIfrenT
    • RE: The Existence of God

      All good things that Religion has claimed it has done was actually done by good-hearted people who looked into themselves and decided to help their fellow man. They would have done it with or without the Church. However, those who used to Church to corrupt the minds of millions could not of done it without the influence and control of the Church.

      Your problems here seem to be with the “Church.” In my opinion, that “church” has been corrupted. I do not believe that it is true Christianity, but I do think that there are true Christians among the laity, maybe even in the clergy, but that’s a stretch for my mind. Anyway, you don’t know if the were just “good-hearted people” plain and simple or if they were Christians who were good-hearted people. Christians used to be known for their generosity, and local churches for their willingness to help. Unfortunately, this ministry has gone south for the most part, which explains some of the skepticism.

      If one was going to choose a religion, they would most likely choose their parents religion because of the biasness of their parents.

      and I wonder how much of your philosophy comes from your parents. at some point, every relatively mature young adult will learn to think for him/herself (although in these days i think the number of mature young adults is declining). everyone has to choose. i have thought this through, and i’ve come to my decision. it seems you’ve come to yours (though sometimes you sound sort of bitter which makes me wonder what circumstances caused you to make your decision). only one of us has even a remote chaing of changing opinions, and i can guarantee you it isn’t going to be me.

      I’m not here for argueing with Atheism. However, I am argueing against any established religion. Your going to gain a lot more satisfaction with friends and family then spending time praying to some false deity. Established Religion is nothing more than another power struggle in the world. True Religion, like us Agnostics, comes from within.

      fine, i’m against established religion too. that’s when one belief is imposed on the entire country, not when Christians get some form of leadership. that’s not establishing a religion. i think you’re just being paranoid.

      It only makes sense because of a preconceived bias which has been drilled into their minds since birth. Parents are the real problem here, brainwashing their kids into believing a false religion.

      which means your parents/guardians/caretakers are the “real problem~~” too, since they’ve raised you with some sort of preconceived bias.

      One becomes a Non-Believer by common sense and an understanding of history. Religion has always been and will always be the most deadly, horrible, driving force in the world. Those who look to within, and learn to depend upon humans and not gods, are ones who truely prosper. People were caught dead in Pompeii when Mt. Vesuvius erupted because they sat down to pray to their gods. The smart “Athiests” got out alive.

      really? “the most deadly, horrible, driving force in the world”? it’s more like misguided religious people, or ones who just used a religion as their vehicle to mislead thousands, millions of people. i’m sorry you have such a cynical view. believe it or not, there are some good, real Christians out there. and how do you know the ones who got out were atheists? try not to make unfounded assertions. unless you do have something that says that they said they were atheists?

      “Jesus” could have told them, some brilliant scientist like Thales prove the earth was not flat. I think it show us how “human” the bible is, if we look how much it look like a normal book of the time, not a book inspired by an higher being. It just seem like a book of stories, like those about how Zeus rape Hera or those about Belenos… I can understant that when you are christians it seem otherwise, but with a little objectivity, is the book so special ?

      Jesus’ goal wasn’t to prove/disprove science. His goal was to come and die on the cross, and rise again the third day to forgive the sins of those who accept His gift. And that is why the book is so special. Jesus is the only God recorded who humbled Himself by coming to earth as a mere man, and subjecting Himself to death on a cross, which is a horrible way to die.

      Christian (And Jewish/Islaamic) Religious theory is no different from Norse, Hindu, Greek, Egyptian, Chineese, or Aztecian lore.

      Quote:
      there is a difference. you could give some evidence for this instead of offering nothing but a dogmatic statement. you get into some doctrinal differences here, but i know you don’t want to talk about that.

      Go ahead, explain

      Aztecs, Greeks, and Egyptians had many different Gods. Christianity has only one. The Hindus believe that man is a deity himself, and that one is always trying to achieve the highest state of perfection/godhood. Christianity says that man is not God and will never be perfect until the Christian is taken to Heaven and given a new body. Truthfully, I don’t know much about the Norse. I’m not sure if they had many gods or a belief in a self-deity.

      That’s about it. I spend far more time on this one than any other forum, and I’d rather debate/form my view on political threads than on this one any longer. Let me reiterate that there is no way to prove, per se, that God exists. Not in a scientific way where it’s tangibly, visiby, etc. observable. And, again, even if I did convince you that there is a God you would not necessarily believe the Bible. I’ll keep reading till this one peters out. Maybe I’ll say something short later. Frankly, I need a few more years of education to really hold my own in this one. Or maybe get some of my friends to sign up. That probably isn’t gonna happen though. This year is way too busy.~~

      posted in General Discussion
      D
      dIfrenT
    • RE: The end of the world

      Well, you said i was doomed for eternity if i don’t make my mind up now…

      I _did not say that exactly. This is just to make sure my words aren’t misconstrued. I meant that if you don’t “make [your] mind up now” on earth, while you’re still alive to believe in Christ, then you’re “doomed.” so you may still have time to play around with this, but then none of us are really sure just how much time we actually have.

      Give me proof, and i will admit my fault.

      proof for what? the existence of God? (which is a different thread, ya know) scientific proof requires observation. i have never physically observed God, as in touch, see, hear, etc. i’ve never claimed to, and i admit it willingly. so this proof you’re waiting for will come at an unpredictable time. you may not even be here. i will do my best to show you evidence, but that’s all i can show you.

      BTW, as the bible is such a holy book…. do you have a good looking, virgin sister? … Then i could rape her, pay your dad 60 silver, marry her and would not be allowed to divorce her… but maybe that would be worth it… And of course, should a war in Iraq start… will GWB ask them …how many times i forgot… to surrender… and if they don’t, and the US win, slaughter all males, and enslave all children and females as god brought him the victory???
      Do you really believe all that???
      See above… You seem to take the bible literally. Then have a look at one of the books of Moses with all the laws in there… they are too funny to be taken seriously.
      And of course, there is no way to convince you, as you are a dogmatic christian fundamentalist.
      Would you kill in the name of God? Do you think the Crusades were a good thing? Do you think a war against Hussein would be a good thing? Are Jews and Muslims heretics, pagans? If yes: how to deal with them?

      i believe the Bible tells about this,yes. and i believe it literally too, unless it says otherwise. but you are taking this from the Old Testament. key word: Old. God was dealing with the Hebrews then in a system based on the deeds they did. He was trying to show them how they could not live up to His standards on their own. that’s why Moses was given those laws. God does not ask us to kill in His name. He asked Christians to go out and show others the mercy He has shown us. We haven’t done as well as we should with that. In short, no i would not kill in the name of God. If you define “pagan” as anything outside of Christianity (the kind that says Jesus died on a cross and rose again in 3 days, and He is the only way to salvation), then yes the Muslims are pagans. i’m not sure about the Jews. God has always had His own way of dealing with them, and since i don’t know how He thinks, i don’t know for sure whether the Jewish belief system is valid or not. i would not go after Hussein for religious reasons. if he was attacking America, sure i would want to defend my country, but i would never harm someone just because he/she doesn’t share my beliefs.

      as for the sister thing, i don’t really care for this when it gets personal. i do have a sister, so the hypothetical situation was disturbing (for lack of a better word). but if that’s how you have to get your point across, fine._

      posted in General Discussion
      D
      dIfrenT
    • RE: The Existence of God

      Quote:

      Oh, science is based on observation, right? Just clarifying.

      Yes, it is… while faith is based on believing… and i put my trust on seeing approaching cars or no approaching cars before i cross a street… and not on whether i believe there are any or none.

      then please tell me who actually witnessed macro-evolution? has someone watched an ape turn into a human? or a fish turn into a frog? all your “facts” are based on geological evidence that can be interpreted either way.
      and where did the first elements come from? do you assume that they were pre-existent like Creationists say God is? because the only difference between your elements and my God is that my God is supernatural.
      so, in conclusion, your belief in evolution is only faith.

      dIfrenT wrote:

      Microevolution does support my claim. Take the laws of thermodynamics. One of which says that everything is degenerating.

      It does not say that.

      then please enlighten (in slightly simpler terms than you may otherwise use because i always look at this forum when i’m tired from school) me on what it does say.

      But maybe as the bible said the earth is flat we should question that too

      please tell me where it says this, and don’t take the reference out of context.

      Even in a science as far as religion as math I can give you exemple were christians and dogmatic people like Pythagoras (he think he was the son of a god, sound familiar) slow down science.

      please, do give an example.

      You said YOURSELF the bible was not a science book, religion and science should never cooperate as long as religion cannot make a solid argument for the existance of god, and not a little anthropomorphic argument, a deep and logical argument.

      as long as we have to give a deep, logical argument for a pre-existent God, you’re obligated to give us a deep, logical argument for pre-existent elements or whatever it was that evolved into more and more complex organisms.

      Christian (And Jewish/Islaamic) Religious theory is no different from Norse, Hindu, Greek, Egyptian, Chineese, or Aztecian lore. Evolution is unbiased and proven by factual evidence.

      there is a difference. you could give some evidence for this instead of offering nothing but a dogmatic statement. you get into some doctrinal differences here, but i know you don’t want to talk about that.

      Anyway, when i child is growing, he is’nt violating the law of thermodynamic ? (By Creanist standards)

      no. from the time a child is conceived he/she is growing older. his/her system is already developing flaws that will show up sooner or later.

      posted in General Discussion
      D
      dIfrenT
    • RE: The end of the world

      (1) JC will have a hard time in the last battle, if everyone who is not christian has to fight on the other side. And what about that “finding one lost sheep” is much better than “having a hundred”? Don’T you think that in the start of the last days we can drop our ballot for the side we want to join?

      @1. Assuming Christ is God, which I do believe, why would God have a problem with anyone? He’s all-powerful. Those on the other side don’t stand a chance. Yeah, in the start of the last days, you can “drop your ballot for the side [you] want to join”. But I think you’d be too stubborn to do it anyway. You never know. Miracles do happen. (Please excuse this sarcastic remark. even my real world friends find themselves at the end of this. :D) After a while though, you won’t be able to change your mind. I won’t go into this though. You don’t want to hear it cuz you don’t believe the Bible.

      (2) You don’t know much about science, do you? If you really think that our sun could explode, or that its later “less light emitted”, or the greenhouse effect will end the existance of the world……

      @2. Call it sarcasm. I don’t agree that the sun will explode or that greenhouse gases will destroy the earth. I believe it will be darkened because that’s what the Bible says in the book of Revelation. However, since you don’t believe in the Bible, I don’t expect you to agree. From a scientific standpoint, it’s unbelievable. But since we’re dealing with God, “all things are possible”, and unbelievable things do happen with Him.

      I am expecting severe disagreement on this. :wink:

      posted in General Discussion
      D
      dIfrenT
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 2 / 4