1 2 3 >  Last ›
 
   
 

BRING IT ON ATHEISTS

 
Anonymous
 
Avatar
 
 
Anonymous
Total Posts:  2890
Joined  02-12-2004
 
 
 
09 March 2005 14:02
 

If there really is no God, give us some proof that the earth just CAME TO BE!......There is no possible way that we could have popped out of no where. If you use SCIENCE!!! you will see just how fragile our enviroment is.. ok…here are some known FACTS for all of you ( including beleivers of the most high God…)

The earth is only 93 million miles away from the sun. If we were less than 1 million miles closer, we would burn to a crisp, and nothing would survive because of extreme heat(the earth would be a fireball). If we were less than 1 million miles farther away, we would all freeze to death, and nothing would survive because of the extreme chill factors( it would be a freakin ice cube)....

The earth is 78% nitrogen 21% oxygen, 0.9% argon, 0.03% carbon dioxide, and trace amounts of other gases….Nitrogen is the most dangerous in this whole mix. if it was 77% nitrogen, no one plant,animal, human being..ANYTHING would survive, if it were 79%!! the same thing would happen….How can that be chance?

Every plant breaths Carbon-Dioxide. If the plants stop, you would be dead in five minutes. There must be a higher power holding all of this together…There is no way this can happen by what you call "chance" or "big bang"...

Really the biggest way you should be able to tell that there is a God holding all of us together is….The body…It's much to complex to have "happened by chance"

We are born with over 300 bones, as you get older and become an adult they grow together, and then you have 206 bones when your older….If they didnt grow together, we would end up looking like picasso people, and there is no doubt we wouldnt live…

Even the simplest living cell is an incredibly complex machine. It must be capable of detecting malfunctions, repairing itself, and making copies of itself. Man has never succeeded in building a machine capable of these same functions. Yet most scientists accept the belief that life arose from non-life (in spite of the evidence clearly indicating that it did not and could not happen). This incredible belief is as absurd as the finding a complex chemical manufacturing facility on Mars and assuming that it built itself.

There is MUCH more from where i come from, if you choose to argue with me. Do so if you want, but i am prepared. If any of you want to know more, or have any other questions please ask me…This is just a mere paragraph compared to what should be said about my amazing God…. He truly is awesome…And if one of you can give me PROOF that this all ( the universe, us, laws, principals) just happened by chance, then im up for the challenge. But, good luck getting your evidence, cuz there is no way science supports the beleif of the "big bang" theory. Unless your scientist happens to be Britney Spears or Jessica Simpson or someone like that…And, if thats the case, your screwed….

Well, i guess i should add myself to this group now, so i see what yaw say about my "new topic"....Post anything you want about it, i honestly dont care…Ask questions, whatever you want…Or contact me at my myspace..

God bless, and take care, every single one of you…Have a great day…

~Stev-0~

 
Anonymous
 
Avatar
 
 
Anonymous
Total Posts:  2890
Joined  02-12-2004
 
 
 
09 March 2005 16:05
 
umm yeah thought so..
 
Anonymous
 
Avatar
 
 
Anonymous
Total Posts:  2890
Joined  02-12-2004
 
 
 
09 March 2005 16:48
 

Don’t worry, they’ll be bringing it soon. But just beware, they come at you from all angles. So better have your p’s and q’s lined up and ready. grin

 
Tom
 
Avatar
 
 
Tom
Total Posts:  36
Joined  07-03-2005
 
 
 
09 March 2005 17:38
 

Hey folks,
Sure hope you’re having a dandy doodley do da day.  My isn’t it quiet round here!  :o
Mmmmmm yah!  The Lord sure has blessed us with a beautiful evening here in Christ’s lovely Chapel Hill.  Why even the crickets are singing his praises.  Chip Cherp Cheet.  :D
Ha ha, perty little shiney things, these crickets.

Ya know, I just heard Pastor Jeremy Stevens found a $5 bill out in the parking lot of the chapel. Anyone know whose it might be?  If ya do, give Bonnie a call.  Mat. 12: 23,24

I saw on the TV tonight some man, not on the Lord’s channel, an he said they found “evidence” in DNJ that we Sons of God have less, half as much,  DNJ than the rice plant.  How silly.  Why our Lord would never give us anything less than the rice plant.  We just must have more DNJ.  Next thing you know they’ll be trying to combinical that DNJ with unborn babies and try to make frog clones.  And look how complicated I am, a wonder of His creation.  I don’t think that DNJ means nothing!  and those scientists will be in the hot seat before long, roastin away.

Why I just can’t stop smiling this big ol smile the Lord has blessed me with.  I try ta be serous, but here comes dat big ol fat grin filling up my face.  My heart is just bursting with joy tonight over the gracious blessings I’ve gotten lately.  The Lord just takes such good care of us! Praise Jesus!  JEEEEESUS!  Ha!  There you are!  Wait!  Not in there!

Well bye!

 
Cody
 
Avatar
 
 
Cody
Total Posts:  195
Joined  05-03-2005
 
 
 
09 March 2005 19:57
 

Hello Stevo,

I’m by no means the scientist of the bunch, but here’s my brief take on the subject(s).

First, on the process of reasoning itself.  A good scientist does not set out with an agenda.  He/she goes where the evidence, ALL the evidence, leads.  You shouldn’t be starting out with a “bring it on” attitude.  You can “prove” anything if you cherry-pick your evidence.

On the subject of chance—accepting random chance by no means requires relinquishing the concept of a higher power.  What is random for us would not be random for he/she/it. 

What it does rule out is magic and supernatural forces, which is basically what you’re getting into here.  You can’t use science to prove magic, or any more elegant-sounding synonym thereof (“miracle”, “divine intervention”, “Creation”, ect)  If you’re going to invoke science, then you should stay within its boundaries.

If everything has a cause, then what caused God?  Y’see, you can play this game of infinite regression forever.  We could just as easily say, but without invoking the supernatural, that the universe took its present form at a certain point in our past; but the matter that composes it could’ve existed infinitely long before in a different form. 

So existence itself is not proof of a God; certainly not a specific god.  And definitely not the one that did everything in 6 days and made Man in his own image, complete with useless nipples.

The “Mars” analogy doesn’t really apply… it’s basically a variation on the old “747” thing… you’re implying a conscious design in nature, but you’re saying the chemical plant would be a conscious design in contrast to… nature?  It’s a self-defeating analogy.

I would ask you to consider, too, that the idea “There must be a Designer” is more about imposing human expectations on an indifferent universe than scientific pursuit.  We all crave meaning and purpose, and random chance is a threat to that.  Hence the “God has a plan” notion that many people cling to in times of crisis.  “There must be a Designer” may just be a similar response.

As for the placement of the earth… remember that there are over 100 billion stars in our galaxy alone.  The odds that at least a few planets wouldn’t be ideally placed for the formation of life, via a process of solar radiation interacting with chemical processes over many billions of years, are pretty slim when seen from a cosmic scale.

And of course, even if you somehow settled the question of “a god”, then you’ve got the problem of deciding on “THE god”.  You mentioned “your god”—by what means did you determine his validity over all the others?  (I’m assuming you’re Christian, which means you’ve picked the one that asserts the universe began with a talking snake and a magic tree.  Does the Big Bang make less sense than this?)

Here is some reading on the subjects of evolution, the Big Bang, abiogenesis, and the validity of Christianity.

http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/m_m_mangasarian/truth_about_jesus.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/

http://cassfos02.ucsd.edu/public/tutorial/BB.html

http://astron.berkeley.edu/~mwhite/darkmatter/bbn.html

http://home.cwru.edu/~sjr16/advanced/cosmos_bigbang.html

 
Tom
 
Avatar
 
 
Tom
Total Posts:  36
Joined  07-03-2005
 
 
 
09 March 2005 23:34
 

I don’t think these fundamentalists are asking these questions out of anything even close to rational inquiry.  Their rules of engagment are completely different from ours.  It may be I’m speaking too soon for the guest that started this post, but Champion has made it very clear exactly what he is doing. 

He is winning the approval of his heavenly lord by bearing witness to his faith and causing disruption.  If we could actually take him out to a dig site and show him fossils demonstrating evolution he would think those bones were a test from the devil.  Its like trying to explain what blue looks like to a blind man. 

The only thing I think we can do is try to get explanations for claims of heavenly and moral superiority.  I left my faith because the god I was being taught to love was a horror.  I have asked repeatedly for an explanation of the logic and love in the “justice” of torturing souls after a mere 70 years of sin for an eternity and how his mind and heart deal with it.  He hasn’t touched the subject.

So I’ve taken to the childish, mocking posts that at least keep me entertained, but prolly aren’t all that constructive…
Hmmm, sorry folks.

 
psiconoclast
 
Avatar
 
 
psiconoclast
Total Posts:  882
Joined  23-02-2005
 
 
 
10 March 2005 00:16
 

How the earth just came to be:

The method by which stars and planets are formed is fairly well understood.  There is every evidence that particulate matter in the universe is drawn together by gravity, and that it forms stars and planets.  Because this process fits with what we have observed to be true (gravity for instance), then it seems reasonable to consider that this is likely the way that our planet was formed.  If one wishes to claim that the Earth was created by the special intervention of an intelligent external source, then evidence must be found to support that claim.

The better question, perhaps, is why is there anything at all?  Clearly, there is a universe which we live in.  Why does it exist at all?  Whatever event or cause that one can offer up as an explanation only restarts the fundamental question, which is why is there anything as opposed to nothing?

I suppose that means that all honest people must concede that the likelyhood is that something came from nothing at some point.

My question is this:  If we assume that something came from nothing, why is it any more logical to assume that this event produced a god as opposed to simply producing the universe that we see?  In point of fact, it is less logical, because although we see plenty of evidence for a material universe that behaves in a particular way, we do not encounter evidence of anything else.  The laws of gravity don’t get suspended from time to time for no reason.

The “unique” particulars of planet Earth for sustaining life:

Of course life on Earth requires the conditions that Earth provides, it evolved to take advantage of those conditions!  There is no conclusive evidence that life could not exist in radically different environments, and there is at least some evidence that it might.

Also, you are quite wrong with regards to the sensitivity of life to the concentrations of different chemicals in the air.  People can survive quite well breathing oxygen rich (and by extension, nitrogen poor) air.  Many plants would do much better if there were higher levels of CO2.  It is clear that the atmospheric concentrations of these gasses changes over time.  People are contributing to this process right now.

The complexity of life:

Why is it so “insane” for me to believe that mankind was produced by evololution, but completely “sane” for you to believe that God, who just sprang into being, made us instead?

Summation:

Presumably, something can come from nothing, as is evidenced by the fact that the universe exists. 

If something can come from nothing, then why is it more probable for it to be God instead of particulate matter?

Once particulate matter exists, and is flying around, it is only a matter of time before gravity makes it start to clump together.

Once particles start clumping together, it is only a matter of time before some of them form clumps big enough to collapse into a fusion reaction, thus forming stars.

It is only a matter of time and chance before one of these stars winds up with a planet orbiting it at a distance which, in combination with the planet’s chemistry, is conducive for some form of self replicating chemistry to arise.

As that self replicating chemistry is assaulted by radiation, lightning, meteor strikes, and the like, it will, inevitably, fail to replicate precisely in all situations.  Most of the time, the failed copies will not be able to replicate, but some of the time, they will.  Some of these variants will turn out to be even better at replication than the original strain.  This process will repeat itself, over and over again.

Eventually, some of this self replicating chemistry will form “collectives” which will convey additional benefits to the members with regards to reproduction.

All of this is not pie in the sky wishful thinking by people who simply don’t want to believe in gods.  This is the result of observations of the world we live in.  Multiple disciplines, from biology to cosmology to physics to information theory all converging on an increasingly clear picture of how we came to be.  The constituent parts of this picture are well tested scientific theories which have successfully described the real world, made usefull predictions about it, and allowed working things to be built.

If you want to add gods, or God, or anything else of a divine nature to a scientific discussion about origins, then the burden of proof is on you!  I’ll even help you out by providing a template by which you can get started on the proof:

Hypothesis:  I hypothesize that God exists, and that he created the universe, and everything in it as a special act of creation some number of years ago.  Furthermore, because he is a personal God, who intercedes for those who believe in him when they pray, I hypothesize that, from time to time, the natural order of events (IE those predicted with relative certainty by the known laws of the physical universe) will be disrupted by this divine intervention.

Experiment:  Because of the special act of creation, there should be observable phenomena which defy explanation by natural means.  A catalogue of such phenomena shall, therefore, be useful in determining, in a broad manner, certain data pertaining to these divine interventions..

Experiment part 2:  Armed with this provisional model of divine intervention, I should now be able to devise an experiment in which certain laws of the physical universe will be tested over and over again, and I should be able to predict a statistically meaningful deviation from the expected results given the known laws of the physical universe.

Conclusion:  Based upon the collected data. . .

For any creationsists still reading, that is what a scientific proof of the divine might look like.  Not this absolutely asinine, “Well, can you explain THAT?  No?  Well, it must be God!”, kind of reasoning.  If inexplicable things were proof of God then the behavior of my last girlfriend would be all the proof anyone would need.

So, until a compelling reason to believe in the divine is presented, I will continue to assert that adding it to the mix does not help us to better understand our world.

-Matt

 
Anonymous
 
Avatar
 
 
Anonymous
Total Posts:  2890
Joined  02-12-2004
 
 
 
10 March 2005 02:35
 

[quote author=“Anonymous”]
God bless, and take care, every single one of you…Have a great day…

~Stev-0~

Um, Stev-0, it would really be nice if you could answer this one question.  It is not intended to be offensive, and it is something that truly puzzles me.

You have never taken a single math or science course, and yet in less than five minutes of thinking you came up with all these reasons why the entire structure of science is false.

Scientists, on the other hand, have spent their entire lives pondering exactly these issues.  They have large amounts of education, they are on the whole pretty intelligent guys and gals, and they know the slightest mistake in their work will be gleefully pounced on by their peers, so they tend to be pretty careful.

How does it happen that the hundreds of thousands of the world’s scientists have gone so far wrong?  Yet you were so easily able to spot the truth? 

This mystifies me.  I would be ever so grateful if you could explain it. 

PS even as a Guest you are allowed to use a screen name.

 
Iisbliss
 
Avatar
 
 
Iisbliss
Total Posts:  1182
Joined  22-12-2004
 
 
 
10 March 2005 05:16
 

I think you miss a point.

I will grant you that as far as we now know, something came from nothing at some point.

Even if you grant that a higher intelligence was critical to this, which I don’t, but if you do….you still havent proven the existance of “God” as defined by Judism, Christianity, nor Islam, nor any other religion.

You have proven no image of God, all religions tend to personalize God as human much like people do their pets.  However, in a short run, this is probably insulting to God, and extremely limited thinking.  While I agree our consciousness makes us spiritiual, I dont think humanities MULTITUDE of VARIOUS spiritual experiences and explanations of those experiences should be overlooked by saying “This is the RIGHT god, the only god, look I found him”.  You found him for YOU, and yet all religions puport that ONLY their spiritual experiences are valid.  How can this be?

In other words, if you speculate that there is an intelligent first cause, then you must allow that ALL religions that EVER existed are valid, in as much as “God” created all humanity with the same spiritual needs.

You prove no fables, fairy tales or myths from the Bible, nor from the Koran, nor the Vishnas, nor the Talmud, nor the Vedas, nor the Illiad, you prove nothing, and you have the exact same hole left right where science has it…

You dont know what the first cause was, you only believe you do.

Secularists are more honest, admitting that they dont know and they believe they dont know.

 
global village idiot
 
Avatar
 
 
global village idiot
Total Posts:  368
Joined  07-02-2005
 
 
 
10 March 2005 06:12
 

Stev-O,

Clearly, it is you who feels he has something to prove. Why don’t YOU do so? As it stands, all your post proves right now is that you are an arrogant, presumptuous twit.

Assuming you are a creationist (please correct me if I’m wrong on this point), here are a series of questions to help you refine your position and better define it for us. (These are borrowed from Talk.Origins.org .) If you do not answer ALL of these questions the first time, then you deserve only to be ignored.
————————————————————————-
Many people find that the most important part of a theory is a clear description of what the theory says and does not say.

(1) Give a comprehensive statement of creationism. (There are questions below about conventional science, so please restrict your discussion here to the positive aspects of creationism.) This is the one question of over-reaching importance, so much so that you might consider many of the following questions merely asking for certain details of what makes up a comprehensive statement of creationism. It should be noted that many people prefer quantitative details where appropriate.

It is often a great help to communication if each party understands what the other means by certain critical expressions.

(2) Define technical terms and other words or expressions that are likely to be misunderstood.

(3) Include the evidence for creationism (please remember that merely finding problems with conventional science does not count as support for creationism, as there may be other theories which differ from both conventional science and creationism). A good example of evidence for creationism would be some observation which was predicted by it. That is much better support than merely giving an explanation for observations which were known before it was formulated. Far less convincing is evidence which has an alternative explanation.

In order to decide between conflicting theories, it is important that not only must the conflicting theories be well described, and that the evidence supporting the conflicting theories be proposed, but also that there be established some rules for deciding between the theories and evaluating the evidence.

(4) Can you suggest principles for so deciding and evaluating?

There are many alternatives to creationism. Some of the alternatives are: theistic evolution and old-earth creationism.

(5) Distinguish your theory of creationism from some of these alternatives and give some reasons for it rather than the others.

Many people find a theory which is open to change in the face of new evidence much more satisfying than one which is inflexible.

(6) Describe features of creationism which are subject to modification. Another way of phrasing it is: is there any kind of observation which, if it were seen, would change creationism? Is it open to change, and if so, what criteria are there for accepting change?

It is helpful in any discussion that both sides understand what the other is talking about. In answering the questions above, you have helped us in understanding your theory. Often communication is helped if each participant explains what he thinks the other person is saying. It should also help those who support conventional science to clarify their exposition. These questions are in a sense parallel to the questions asked before about creationism.

(7) Explain what you think some of the terms used in conventional science mean. Here are some which seem to lead to misunderstanding:

  * evolution
  * primitive
  * natural selection
  * theory

(8) It would also be helpful if you could give a brief description of your understanding of conventional science. Please do not state here what your objections are to conventional science - that can be talked about later. Just say what conventional science says.

(9) It might be helpful if you explain why you think that conventional science came to its present position, and why people hold to conventional science. (And once again, please restrict this to a description, as debate can come later.)

Many people who support conventional science feel that those who oppose it do so because of unwelcome consequences.

(10) What are the consequences of accepting conventional science?

In answering the earlier questions, you have described your theory and given us evidence for it. Now we ask for your opinions on the evidence for conventional science.

Many people hold to conventional science because they believe that it has been developed over centuries, driven by discoveries. They wonder how any person could explain the evidence any other way. Here is a very brief list of questions about evidence which many people find convincing.

(11) Why is there the coherence among many different dating methods pointing to an old earth and life on earth for a long time - for example: radioactivity, tree rings, ice cores, corals, supernovas - from astronomy, biology, physics, geology, chemistry and archeology? These methods are based on quite distinct fields of inquiry and are quite diverse, yet manage to arrive at quite similar dates. (This is not answered by saying that there is no proof of uniformity of radioactive decay. The question is why all these different methods give the same answers.)

(12) Explain the distribution, seemingly chronological, of plant and animal fossils. For example, the limited distribution of fossils of flowering plants (which are restricted to the higher levels of the fossil record). Here we are considering the distribution which conventional science explains as reflecting differences in time - the various levels of rock.

(13) In the contemporary world, different animals and plants live in different places. Why is there the present distribution of animals and plants in the world? For example, how is it that marsupials are restricted to Australia and nearby islands and the Americas, monotremes to Australia and nearby islands, and few placental mammals are native to Australia? Or why are tomatoes and potatoes native to the Americas only? (This is not a question merely of how they could have arrived there, it is also of why only there.)

(14) There is a large body of information about the different species of animals and plants, systematically organized, which is conventionally represented as reflecting genetic relationships between different species. So, for example, lions are said to be more closely related to tigers than they are to elephants. If different kinds are not genetically related, what is the explanation for the greater and less similarities between different kinds of living things? That is to say, why would special creation produce this complex pattern rather than just resulting in all kinds being equally related to all others?

It is the impression of many people who support conventional science that many people who are creationists are so because of religious reasons. This is puzzling to people who consider themselves to be religious, yet accept the findings of conventional science.

For example, some people feel that it is necessary to give naturalistic explanations for the wondrous events described in the Bible. Other people are curious as to why there should be a search for naturalistic explanations for these events, rather than acceptance of these events as signs from God, outside of the normal.

(15) If you feel that the events of the Bible must be explained as the normal operation of natural phenomena, please explain why.

Some people who believe in God find it difficult to accept that God would mislead people by giving evidence for conventional science.

(16) Why is there all the evidence for an earth, and life on earth, more than 100,000 years old, and for the relationships between living things, and why were we given the intelligence to reach those conclusions?

 
Anonymous
 
Avatar
 
 
Anonymous
Total Posts:  2890
Joined  02-12-2004
 
 
 
10 March 2005 06:27
 

GVI, you set the Guest straight by giving him channels and corrals in which to deposit his answers. (I thought you would do so, Guest was all over the map on this-of course, I agree with his premise, grin).

Tom…TOM….TOM…at least you admit your folly in posting obnoxious posts.

In support of Guest, and a shot a Tom, I got a question. WHERE ARE THE BONES?

“The evolutionist has a serious problem with this same question. If man has really been here for millions of years there should be many thousands if not millions of fossils of their bones like we have of the animals. The “where are the bones?” question is really a question for the evolutionist to answer if he expects all the taxpayers to support his religion in the school system.”

No bones, no evolution, ....all you evolutionary scientists spent your entire life working on a lie…ha ha. It’s just too ironic. Don’t worry though, God still loves you too! grin

 
global village idiot
 
Avatar
 
 
global village idiot
Total Posts:  368
Joined  07-02-2005
 
 
 
10 March 2005 07:51
 

[quote author=“TheChampion”]
“The evolutionist has a serious problem with this same question. If man has really been here for millions of years there should be many thousands if not millions of fossils of their bones like we have of the animals. The “where are the bones?” question is really a question for the evolutionist to answer if he expects all the taxpayers to support his religion in the school system.”

No bones, no evolution, ....all you evolutionary scientists spent your entire life working on a lie…ha ha. It’s just too ironic. Don’t worry though, God still loves you too! grin

Lie. Big fat blatant willful lie.

There are samples of the fossilized bones of our hominid ancestors in practically every university anthropology department on the planet… containing the DNA to prove it.

You are a liar.

 
Tom
 
Avatar
 
 
Tom
Total Posts:  36
Joined  07-03-2005
 
 
 
10 March 2005 08:05
 

You still have not answered my question.  You have not even aknowledged it. How can torturing someone for billions of years=justice and how does that resonate with your heart? 

Can’t you see the irony in your claim:

God still loves you too!

Torturing me forever with the worst imaginable pain would not be done by someone who loves me.  I love my 7 year old son.  Would holding his hand over a burning stove even for a minute as punishment be acceptable in your eyes?  Now imagine if I did that till his hand caught fire and burned to a crisp.  Would anyone in their right mind call this justice?  Would anyone immediately conclude I loved him?  Does that sound like the behavior of someone evil or righteous?

Again! How can torturing someone for billions of years=justice and how does that resonate with your heart?

If you can convince me this is superior and loving justice, I’ll join your church, love Jesus and believe like you do.
Answer the question you coward!

 
global village idiot
 
Avatar
 
 
global village idiot
Total Posts:  368
Joined  07-02-2005
 
 
 
10 March 2005 08:58
 

I want an answer to Tom’s question, too. Bring it on, Christians!

If you do not answer the question, you are dishonest cowards.

 
Anonymous
 
Avatar
 
 
Anonymous
Total Posts:  2890
Joined  02-12-2004
 
 
 
10 March 2005 11:04
 

(I just love that line, but probably not appropriate for this post….)

global village idiot: sounds like we hit your button. That is the first time you actually called me a liar. But no, there is a lack of bones. You guys always get a fragment of bone and build a skeleton around it. It’s a stretch my friend. But if it makes you feel better in the short run, by all means. But do think about it.

Tom: excellent question, one of the best and most challenging I’ve seen on this forum (maybe the best). But, I must say that your question is that tried and true liberal circular argument, which has been used to erode the values of our wonderful society. No wonder the USA is become a cesspool of moral filth! And that argument is this, am I not responsible for my own sin?

This is how the liberals fracture the moral balance within society. Nobody is really responsible for their behavior and no one is allowed to condemn them for it. Anything can be done and it is wrong to suffer the consequences. I totally reject this argument!

Tom, the question really is, does mankind have a choice? You are a secularist, a liberal, you folks drum the beat of giving society choices. Well, God has said that sin corrupts and its final result is eternal death. Knowing this, you are well aware of the consequences. And you only have to blame yourself if you end up in the wrong place. God has done so much to provide the choice, sending his only begotten son to suffer and die in your place for the sin. All you have to do is reach out to him and your sin is blotted out, forever.

If you are so concerned with people ending up in the wrong place. Why don’t you join me and lets work together to get the message out about God’s love and the offer of salvation.

You were born into sin. You’ve sinned in word, deed, and thought, you’ve sinned sins of ommission, commission, etc. You’re sin will condemn you. But here is the good news. You’re sin can be erased! You can be redeemed, but only by the blood of Christ. Don’t allow his sacrifice to go to waste in your life. The choice is yours. God is holy, he is offering you redemption and a way of escape. He has sent people in your path time and time again to alert you. Don’t blame him, when its your choice.

My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world. 1 John 2:1-2

But when the kindness of God our Savior and His love for mankind appeared, He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior. Titus 3:4-6

AMEN…to God be the glory.

 
global village idiot
 
Avatar
 
 
global village idiot
Total Posts:  368
Joined  07-02-2005
 
 
 
10 March 2005 13:05
 

[quote author=“TheChampion”]global village idiot: sounds like we hit your button. That is the first time you actually called me a liar. But no, there is a lack of bones. You guys always get a fragment of bone and build a skeleton around it.

Either you are consciously being untruthful—in which case, you are a liar—or you are blindly relying on sources who lie to you—in which case, you are a fool. Either way, though, this claim is completely false.

And this isn’t the first time I’ve called you a liar, either. I called you on your dishonesty in defending the contradictory genealogies of Joseph in the NT. You claimed one was for Mary and the other for Joseph, in complete contradiction to the actual words that appear in the text. By making that claim, you lied about what the Bible says. Just as you are now lying about fossils.

 
 1 2 3 >  Last ›