Christians need not be stupid
-
Originally posted by Larryteo:
Worst part was that he spoke as though evolution was a scientific fact when it is only a theory. What arrogance.
You are too stupid to know what is the best of the alternatives? Evolution comes with logic, evidence, and is compliant with known physical laws of the universe.
What is the alternative for the christians? Creationism that comes from the imagination, from delusions with no evidence whatsoever (and struck down by the US courts) and is non compliant with the known laws of the universe.
see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District
Why would anyone want to delude those that call themselves christians?
For 10% of their monthly salaries. hahahaha....
-
Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:
You are too stupid to know what is the best of the alternatives? Evolution comes with logic, evidence, and is compliant with known physical laws of the universe.
What is the alternative for the christians? Creationism that comes from the imagination, from delusions with no evidence whatsoever (and struck down by the US courts) and is non compliant with the known laws of the universe.
see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District
Why would anyone want to delude those that call themselves christians?
For 10% of their monthly salaries. hahahaha....
Very curious, what is your religion? Free thinker? -
Originally posted by laurence82:
i can confirm nelstar is a clone
kekekeke
Stop exposing ourselves.
-
Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:
You are too stupid to know what is the best of the alternatives? Evolution comes with logic, evidence, and is compliant with known physical laws of the universe.
What is the alternative for the christians? Creationism that comes from the imagination, from delusions with no evidence whatsoever (and struck down by the US courts) and is non compliant with the known laws of the universe.
see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District
Why would anyone want to delude those that call themselves christians?
For 10% of their monthly salaries. hahahaha....
What makes you so upset with people donating 10% of their salaries to Churches?
Because you are not at the receiving end?
-
Originally posted by Nelstar:
Stop exposing ourselves.
Am i your clone?
Are you my clone?
Are we clone?
Are they our clone?
-
Originally posted by laurence82:
Am i your clone?
Are you my clone?
Are we clone?
Are they our clone?
Actually shinta is your clone.
-
Originally posted by Nelstar:
Actually shinta is your clone.
wey wey wey
not true
i say fireice is my clone!
-
Originally posted by laurence82:
wey wey wey
not true
i say fireice is my clone!
FireIce is Jason's clone la.
-
Originally posted by Nelstar:
FireIce is Jason's clone la.
not true
Jason is Joyce's clone
-
Originally posted by Nelstar:
What makes you so upset with people donating 10% of their salaries to Churches?
Because you are not at the receiving end?
More like the money is not used for a good cause. The poor and the needy are not receiving any aid from the sum of money. -
Originally posted by laurence82:
not true
Jason is Joyce's clone
I thought Joyce is greengoblin's clone?
-
Originally posted by Nelstar:
I thought Joyce is greengoblin's clone?
not true
nellie is a chio bu though
woo
-
Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:
More like the money is not used for a good cause. The poor and the needy are not receiving any aid from the sum of money.to think jesus in the bible cure lepers and feed the poor
whether or not he can conduct miraculous acts is secondary, what is important is the act of charity
i dont think it mean people donate money to church and ultimately to pastors pocket
-
Originally posted by laurence82:
to think jesus in the bible cure lepers and feed the poor
whether or not he can conduct miraculous acts is secondary, what is important is the act of charity
i dont think it mean people donate money to church and ultimately to pastors pocket
Not really, what is important is that religion must never divide the society. -
Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:
You are too stupid to know what is the best of the alternatives? Evolution comes with logic, evidence, and is compliant with known physical laws of the universe.
What is the alternative for the christians? Creationism that comes from the imagination, from delusions with no evidence whatsoever (and struck down by the US courts) and is non compliant with the known laws of the universe.
see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District
Why would anyone want to delude those that call themselves christians?
For 10% of their monthly salaries. hahahaha....
Sorry but just because it is compliant with physical laws of the universe does not mean it is totally correct. And with the physical laws of the universe, I presume you are saying the actual age of the universe.And for your info, evolution does not come with evidence but also imagination like how you stated creationism is. Those evolutionists only find a small bone in the sand resembling that of a human's and claim it is human's ancestor bones, while in the musuem, they make up the whole body of the animal with their imagination.
And please read this before you even start calling others stupid, which is quite ironic since you yourself is stupid.
In the early 1800s, some observers in Western Europe noticed that certain fossils are usually preserved in sedimentary rock layers that, when traced laterally, typically lie above somewhat similar fossils. Decades later, after the theory of evolution was proposed, many concluded that the lower organism must have evolved before the upper organism. These early geologists did not realize that a hydrodynamic mechanism, liquefaction, helped sort organisms in that order during the flood. [For an explanation, see pages 172–183.]
Geologic ages were then associated with each of these “index fossils.” Those ages were extended to other animals and plants buried in the same layer as the index fossil. For example, a coelacanth fossil, an index fossil, dates its layer at 70,000,000 to 400,000,000 years old. [See Figure 29.] Today, geologic formations are almost always dated by their fossil contenta—which, as stated above, assumes evolution. Yet, evolution is supposedly shown by the sequence of fossils. Because this reasoning is circular,b many discoveries, such as living coelacanths,c–g were unexpected. [See “Out-of-Place Fossils” on page 13.]
Figure 29: 70,000,000-Year-Old Fish? Thought to have been extinct for 70,000,000 years, the coelacanth (SEE-la-kanth) was first caught in 1938, deep in the Indian Ocean, northwest of Madagascar. Rewards were then offered for coelacanths, so hundreds were caught and sold. In 1998, they were also found off the coast of Indonesia.c How could two groups of coelacanths, separated by 6,000 miles, survive for 70,000,000 years but leave no fossils?
Before coelacanths were caught, evolutionists incorrectly believed that the coelacanth had lungs, a large brain, and four bottom fins about to evolve into legs.d Evolutionists reasoned that the coelacanth, or a similar fish, crawled out of a shallow sea and filled its lungs with air, becoming the first four-legged land animal. Millions of students have been incorrectly taught that this fish was the ancestor of all amphibians, reptiles, dinosaurs, birds, and mammals, including people. (Was your ancestor a fish?)
J. L. B. Smith, a well-known fish expert from South Africa, studied the first two captured coelacanths, nicknamed the coelacanth “Old Fourlegs” and wrote a book by that title in 1956. When dissected, did they have lungs and a large brain? Not at all.e Furthermore, in 1987, a German team filmed six coelacanths in their natural habitat. They were not crawling on all fours.f
Before living coelacanths were found in 1938, evolutionists dated any rock containing a coelacanth fossil as at least 70,000,000 years old. It was an index fossil. Today, evolutionists frequently express amazement that coelacanth fossils look so much like captured coelacanths—despite more than 70,000,000 years of evolution.g If that age is correct, billions of coelacanths would have lived and died. Some should have been fossilized in younger rock and should be displayed in museums. Their absence implies that coelacanths have not lived for 70,000,000 years.
And I guess AndrewPKYap is too stupid to even google arguments against the theory of evolution. As I said, go lick a monkey's arse if you like them so much as to think they are your ancestors.
-
Originally posted by laurence82:
to think jesus in the bible cure lepers and feed the poor
whether or not he can conduct miraculous acts is secondary, what is important is the act of charity
i dont think it mean people donate money to church and ultimately to pastors pocket
Actually if those Christians actually understand the new testament, tithe is inconsequential.
2 corinthians 9:7-9:7
Each of you must give as you have made up your mind, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.
-
how come first testament god is portrayed as angry, petty, vengeful and spiteful?
second testament portrayed god as merciful, compassionate etc?
was god finally seeing the folly of its own actions and be good from now on?
-
Originally posted by Rooney9:
how come first testament god is portrayed as angry, petty, vengeful and spiteful?
second testament portrayed god as merciful, compassionate etc?
was god finally seeing the folly of its own actions and be good from now on?
If you are a historian, you will understand how people translates unknown.
When science didn't prevail, the wise will use simple and yet effective answers.
Example : Why did the volanco erupt? Why did (enter your own natural disaster) occur?
Ans : God is angry for all the wrongdoings of human and is punishing them.
Example : What happened to the boy who went missing at night?
Ans : (Ghosts/Trolls/Monsters/enter your own horror that appears at night) comes out at night and snatches little boys. So it is best to keep your child at home when the sun falls.
-
Originally posted by Nelstar:
If you are a historian, you will understand how people translates unknown.
When science didn't prevail, the wise will use simple and yet effective answers.
Example : Why did the volanco erupt? Why did (enter your own natural disaster) occur?
Ans : God is angry for all the wrongdoings of human and is punishing them.
Example : What happened to the boy who went missing at night?
Ans : (Ghosts/Trolls/Monsters/enter your own horror that appears at night) comes out at night and snatches little boys. So it is best to keep your child at home when the sun falls.
yes quite true when you imagine the society then, 2000 years ago, where science were basic and rudimentary. there were also religions that worshipped the god of sun, moon, wind etc. cos people then were not able to understand the natural phenomenon unlike now, where we are given the benefit of the doubt.
does it mean that the present era we are living, is the end of religions, where all these myths were all being dispelled once and for all?
so the bible was after all written, translated and authored by man in different eras, from the ones writing the first testament to the ones writing the second testament. well this seem to be a plausible explanations provided.
-
Originally posted by Rooney9:
how come first testament god is portrayed as angry, petty, vengeful and spiteful?
second testament portrayed god as merciful, compassionate etc?
was god finally seeing the folly of its own actions and be good from now on?
This is my answer from my opinion :D
Well, IF he did exist, humans are probably new to him[old testament], and there was a Satan wrecking havoc with humans. Of course as a father, he would be pissed off to see his children being stupid and serving Satan, and would of course unleash his anger on humans. And he also has to bear with Satan so that humans can make a choice to follow God or Satan in their lives, thus, he cannot harm Satan until after judgement day.
While in the new testament, God came down himself as a human to understand how is it like to be his own creation, and he probably understood how Satan uses his weapons against humans, thus, the love and compassion from him came about, and also the mercy.
-
Originally posted by Larryteo:
This is my answer from my opinion :D
Well, IF he did exist, humans are probably new to him[old testament], and there was a Satan wrecking havoc with humans. Of course as a father, he would be pissed off to see his children being stupid and serving Satan, and would of course unleash his anger on humans. And he also has to bear with Satan so that humans can make a choice to follow God or Satan in their lives, thus, he cannot harm Satan until after judgement day.
While in the new testament, God came down himself as a human to understand how is it like to be his own creation, and he probably understood how Satan uses his weapons against humans, thus, the love and compassion from him came about, and also the mercy.
ya as expected different replies and explanations to this question.
-
Originally posted by Rooney9:
ya as expected different replies and explanations to this question.
Different replies and different explanations, but mine is the best of course :P
-
Originally posted by Larryteo:
Different replies and different explanations, but mine is the best of course :P
it just goes to show the inconsistencies and paradoxes even more.
-
Originally posted by Rooney9:
it just goes to show the inconsistencies and paradoxes even more.
Too bad for you then.
-
Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:...You might think that the way to approach religion is for it to be as "provable" and "logical" as science and philosophy.
Rubbish. Stupid.
That only degrades your god.
Read the bible as trying to describe something that is indescribable and mysterious.
Don't ever read the bible as a science text book and what is written in there as scientific truth. It need not be conflicting. It can be complementary.
The present scientists are doing religious people a big favor by pointing out the inaccuracies (scientifically speaking) of the religious texts. If religious people take that as offensive, they are just stupid.
I agree totally. Religious teachings and science can complement each other, but to explain perfectly; as in merely using each other's terminologies and concepts, would only lead to more doubts, confusion and prolonged frustration for some. Religious teachings cannot totally replace the role of science and vice versa.
Science is continuous human learning in inconceivable time and space - direct human observation, experimentation and experience with nature and sensually-perceivable or describable phenomena. But religious teachings can have concepts which transcend beyond what is humanly possible to experience, at least on a mass scale (at least more than say 80% of the world population) with one's limited lifespan.
For example, how many people can see infra-red light with their eyes, without the use of any special visual aid or equipment?
A female gynaecologist may be the expert on female birth methods and so on, but if she has not been pregnant or given birth before, what she knows, feels or has observed through many deliveries is still indirect experience at the core.
