davewhite04
Valued Senior Member
Who's fault is it to get the urge to look at someone lustfully? God's fault obviously.
A world with a loving God.
- Thread starter Xelasnave.1947
- Start date
Who's fault is it to get the urge to look at someone lustfully? God's fault obviously.
davewhite04
Valued Senior Member
Do you think love is an emotion?
davewhite04
Valued Senior Member
The soul is connected to your heart. Some people actually have no brains, or half brains and are highly functional. I can xray people, this is how I found the no brain situation. If you have no brain or half a brain you will have memory problems. Nothing serious, just people with brains have better memories. No brains means 100% soul.
davewhite04
Valued Senior Member
What was the point?
In which biology book?
davewhite04
Valued Senior Member
What is your task?
davewhite04
Valued Senior Member
Is it an exclusionary thing? Do people with 50% brains have 50% souls, and so on?
Ah, so it's fiction. Maybe you should read... a book.
davewhite04
Valued Senior Member
Yes.
EDIT: Sorry misread you. If people use 50% of their brain, the rest is 50% soul. So people who don't use their brain much, say 20%, tend to be endearing in most cases.
Last edited:
davewhite04
Valued Senior Member
lol never heard that
Yes. Soul is divine.
Kids who have autism for example used at leats 80% of their brain most of the time. That's why it's an illness.
So that's what I have been doing wrong all these years!
Borrowing from a recently-attempted parable—(never mind)—I might try a parental metaphor.
Who will kill the child for having a temper tantrum?
Who will chain the child to the radiator for smarting off?
Who will strike off the offending hand because the child is a little wanker?
This isn't difficult.
• • •
Remember that critics of religion at Sciforums, generally speaking, don't know a whole lot about what they criticize; also keep in mind that some of them actually think they don't need to know about what they criticize. The result of this is that critics try to box in what they criticize, and shape it so they might dress it up to fit their criticism.
Meanwhile, there is also the point that you're you. We had occasion to consider that last year↗, in the discussion about criticism. Toward the present question, parhaps it is possible your pabulum evangelization fails to distinguish itself.
Just for instance, back then: DaveWhite04 commented↗ on something about your discourse, including the statement that, "If you don't know what you are defending or talking about you look false", and your response↗ was to ask, "What is it that makes me look false?"
More toward your question to Wegs, between Christianism as the predominant focus of disbelief, around here, and your indistinct, often contrarian evangelization, it probably doesn't occur to many that you should be assessed outside that framework.
This actually happened with someone else, recently, in another thread, and, in truth, the nearest thing to surprising about that occasion was how easily the critic walked into it. The way it worked, the one should have noticed the other wasn't saying anything affirmative about their own beliefs; it wasn't a complex ruse, just two-bit contrarianism to run around the mulberry bush.
You'll find that sometimes people are a little too anxious, but, really, most simply wouldn't notice the difference because that's where the discussion is, they're just not that into it, and you're not exactly known for your communicative prowess.
For His creatures.
I believe Jesus is like God, but not God.
I’m not evangelising. I’m responding to questions, from a theistic point of view.
I figure everyone here argues from their point of view. So I’ve decided to.
That’s a fair question. He had to let me know what he means.
Most of the time they’re not in a discussion with me. They automatically try to counter anything I say. To do that, it seems they must misquote what I write, on purpose. Then they argue against their own concoction.
It seems to be what they do.
They’re gate-keepers. Arguing against anything that threatens their worldview.
I think I’ve been the most communicative person in this thread, since I posted my first response. I think you’ll find that my posts are actual, proper responses. To questions posed.
You don’t have to like or agree with them, but they are there.
Everybody accepts evolution.
Most people don’t accept Darwin’s theory.
It is the rejection of that, that gets these guys goats.
I am a monotheist.
I believe in the One God, The Supreme Cause of ALL Causes, Who Himself is not caused.
The creator of gods, and all creatures.
These are weasel words. When Jan says he accepts "evolution", he doesn't mean the kind of evolution that scientists accept. Jan probably means the sort of Creationist version of evolution in which there are pre-set "kinds" and animals are only allowed to "evolve" within the boundaries of the "kind". Under this view, a wolf might conceivably "evolve" into a dog, but there's zero chance of a fish eventually evolving into a human being. And, of course, it goes without saying that under this mangled view of "evolution", no ape could ever "evolve" into a human being. Creationists require a definite line of demarcation between the "special" human beings and "mere" animals like chimpanzees or gorillas. The idea that the "lower" animals are anything like us is anathema, despite the fact that we share 98% of our DNA with chimpanzees, say.
Science accepts that natural selection is one of the important mechanisms of evolution. Evolution by natural selection is what Jan is referring to when he says he doesn't believe in "Darwin's theory". However, when push comes to shove, the religious rule against speciation is a much more important one than the arguments about natural selection. For some religionists, natural selection is permissible, but always only within a "kind".
What religious people like Jan don't know is that there are no fixed "kinds" in nature.
Don't believe Jan when if he tells you he "accepts evolution". When he uses scientific terms, by the time he is done redefining them to suit his own purposes they don't really mean anything other than whatever it is that Jan wants them to mean. The only evolution that Jan accepts is his own bastardised version of what he thinks evolution entails.