This is a placeholder text
Group text
by Shtal on 02 August 2013 - 04:08
Moons wrote: I totally disagree.
You've not learned anything about me after all this time have you.
I say nature is what it is, if you can't see that, then you go ahead and keep on thinking what you like.
Just because it is amazing and you can't figure it out doesn't prove a creation.
I totally disagree as well:
Smart book (Bible) says!
1 Corinthians Chapter 2
14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
You've not learned anything about me after all this time have you.
I say nature is what it is, if you can't see that, then you go ahead and keep on thinking what you like.
Just because it is amazing and you can't figure it out doesn't prove a creation.
I totally disagree as well:
Smart book (Bible) says!
1 Corinthians Chapter 2
14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
by Hundmutter on 02 August 2013 - 05:08
Shtal : you do NOT 'debate' with us atheists, you just go on
regurgitating and repeating the illogical assertions of other people,
like Hovind. The fact you never come up with a rational original
statement is precisely why some of us oppose your posts so
much. You are 'a little bit hard on' evolutionists precisely because
you failed to convince us, and 'win' us.
And I think your use of Nazis as an 'example' ( ? which it ain't !)
is just SICK.
regurgitating and repeating the illogical assertions of other people,
like Hovind. The fact you never come up with a rational original
statement is precisely why some of us oppose your posts so
much. You are 'a little bit hard on' evolutionists precisely because
you failed to convince us, and 'win' us.
And I think your use of Nazis as an 'example' ( ? which it ain't !)
is just SICK.
by Shtal on 02 August 2013 - 05:08
Hundmutter, my dear, you still have a right to believe that you evolved 4.6 billion years ago, you miss understood me, I am not here to change your mind, that is not my job.
I wish you well
Revelation Chapter 3
20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.
I wish you well
Revelation Chapter 3
20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.
by Carlin on 02 August 2013 - 08:08
Shtal, you said that the atheists are "in your way" as you engage in "your debates". That's a little confusing to me because, as a Christian, people ought not be viewed as obstacles in the way.
by vonissk on 02 August 2013 - 10:08
Good posts Hund and Carlin. I agree Hund about the Nazi comments. If a new believer came along and read crap like this they would run the other way.............And Shtal you are very very wrong to call people names and say they are worthless because they don't believe in your god. Evidently you are confused about the definition of athiest, which is a person that believes in none of that. I am not an athiest. I believe in a Creator, it just ain't the one you believe in. So I am sure I'll be a pagan before this is over. I don't care because I think you are crazy as a loon. And I'll tell you something else--you can carry on all you wish and post all those videos but you really need to stop calling people names. I know you don't like me because I am way too smart and educated for you and I challenge you--so, but watch the name calling. I know I am neither worthless or an athiest and I don't have to prove that to anyone,much less you...........I don't call you names. And if you are what you say you are better get in that Bible and the part where it says Judge not lest ye be judged.............that's the true Christian way...........In other words Practice what you preach and be a good steward.
by Two Moons on 02 August 2013 - 13:08
The smart book....?
Is that what you call the bible a smart book?
I gotta tell you, your no bible scholar by any stretch of the imagination.
I would get onto Adam and Eve, Jesus and Moses, but this is about the Ark and Noah from whom we all decended?
All based on a vision.
God didn't save the Jew from the Nazi, American and Russian troops saved them.
Is that what you call the bible a smart book?
I gotta tell you, your no bible scholar by any stretch of the imagination.
I would get onto Adam and Eve, Jesus and Moses, but this is about the Ark and Noah from whom we all decended?
All based on a vision.
God didn't save the Jew from the Nazi, American and Russian troops saved them.
by Shtal on 02 August 2013 - 14:08
Carlin wrote: you said that the atheists are "in your way" as you engage in "your debates". That's a little confusing to me because, as a Christian, people ought not be viewed as obstacles in the way.
Sorry Carlin, I meant to say little bit something else there, I just word it incorrectly in that sentence, it was confusing.
Your brother in Christ,
Shtal.
Sorry Carlin, I meant to say little bit something else there, I just word it incorrectly in that sentence, it was confusing.
Your brother in Christ,
Shtal.
by Two Moons on 02 August 2013 - 15:08
Seems like it's all a bit confusing to you.
by Shtal on 03 August 2013 - 23:08
Moons wrote: Seems like it's all a bit confusing to you.
I want to be the most honest with you Sir. We have the same facts, the same physical evidence as it were; we have same science, why then do we draw such different conclusion about the past and the answer is we have a different starting point and different world view; different way of thinking about things which like it mental glasses, those of you who wear glasses you know that if you have them off the world looks fuzzy, put those glasses on the world snaps into focus and you see things as they are. And I like to think of the Bible like corrective lenses; you think about things from the prospective Biblical history, you see the world as it is. I like to think about evolution like red glasses, you put on red glasses the world looks red, not that the world is red but that’s what you see, you see it as biased because of your glasses you wearing. Now I realize of course evolutionist’s will say oh no we are the once wearing corrective lenses you are the one wearing the red glasses and I have to argue for that, my point here are simply that we are all here wearing mental glasses, we are all have a world view, we all come to evidence with certain preconceptions, with certain believes how is the evidence should be interpreted. Some people might say ooh no not me, I don’t have a world view; I believe I come to the evidence naturally and objectively, guess what? That is the believed about how to interpret evidence. See the philosophy that we should come to evidence without philosophy is its self-philosophy; it’s just very bad one because it’s self-refuting.
I want to be the most honest with you Sir. We have the same facts, the same physical evidence as it were; we have same science, why then do we draw such different conclusion about the past and the answer is we have a different starting point and different world view; different way of thinking about things which like it mental glasses, those of you who wear glasses you know that if you have them off the world looks fuzzy, put those glasses on the world snaps into focus and you see things as they are. And I like to think of the Bible like corrective lenses; you think about things from the prospective Biblical history, you see the world as it is. I like to think about evolution like red glasses, you put on red glasses the world looks red, not that the world is red but that’s what you see, you see it as biased because of your glasses you wearing. Now I realize of course evolutionist’s will say oh no we are the once wearing corrective lenses you are the one wearing the red glasses and I have to argue for that, my point here are simply that we are all here wearing mental glasses, we are all have a world view, we all come to evidence with certain preconceptions, with certain believes how is the evidence should be interpreted. Some people might say ooh no not me, I don’t have a world view; I believe I come to the evidence naturally and objectively, guess what? That is the believed about how to interpret evidence. See the philosophy that we should come to evidence without philosophy is its self-philosophy; it’s just very bad one because it’s self-refuting.
by Felloffher on 04 August 2013 - 10:08
Shtal,
Have a look around on the internet and please provide the source of Sir Arthur Keith's quote. Best of luck.
In order to see the world through your eyes I would need beer goggles, not a bible.
Have a look around on the internet and please provide the source of Sir Arthur Keith's quote. Best of luck.
In order to see the world through your eyes I would need beer goggles, not a bible.
Contact information Disclaimer Privacy Statement Copyright Information Terms of Service Cookie policy ↑ Back to top