Where are all the Christians?

Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the Earth

I can see a sort of story-book reason to it. If the big chappies blow each otehr up, the little people scurry out of the caves and they're the only ones left. *shrug* Not my problem.

However, if it comes down to me and the meek, I'm going to kick their arses. :)

Just kidding. Meek and inheritance should have nothing to do with it. There's more than enough world to go around (oh, world, go around, kinda makes sense, eh?). If we ever get past capitalism, greed, classes, divisions of humanity such as tribal squabbles and religions and such, everyone will get what they need, not just those meek bastards. Screw a religion that says one particular class of people will get the world.
 
*Originally posted by Adam
that's a nice christian attitude you've got there, making fun of peoples problems.
*

Who's making fun?
Justagirl said she was dyslexic, and I'm agreeing with her.

Besides, God can heal dyslexia as well, and admitting that one has dyslexia is a step in the direction of dealing with it.

Dyslexia is a name.

Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:
That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

(Philippians 2:9-11, KJV).

*Originally posted by Master of Illusion
you are not blessed.
*

Sorry, dude, I am, but take care when you say things like that.

And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.
(Genesis 12:3, KJV).

I made my choice...

I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:
(Deuteronomy 30:19, KJV).

I choose life and blessing.

*an obnoxious self centred ignoramus.
best regards,
MOI
*

You're initials are pretty indicative of self-centeredness, but I'm sure that's just an unfortunate coincidence.

*Originally posted by Xev
theory is testable and tested speculation.
*

Of course, the question is whether any of that testing is valid.
So far, no one has established the validity of any testing performed in the name of science.
Kind of a huge omission, don't you think?

*I have not been to the sort of bordellos you seem to frequent.*

Chuckle, chuckle.
You are really stretching it to manufacture such lame sarcasm.
You seem to have missed the point in your rush to create such a Frankensteinian "bon mot."

What's the point of being "moral," if you're broke and starving?
Try not to stray to the point where I'll have to ask "what's the point of being healthy and wealthy if you have to toss your integrity?"

*You are referring to radiometric dating, which is not the only way we use to date rocks. *

I realize that guesswork plays a huge part in the scientific method, but the question remains, "how does that qualify as reason?"

*Fossilized cases of speciation, evidence of microevolution, genetic resemblence between all living things, all fits together. *

What fossilized cases of speciation?
Don't tell me that you fell for the "pile of similar looking skeletons presented as speciation" trick.

Besides, how is microevolution, i.e. change, proof of evolution, which also means "change" but is used to mean "all species evolved from the dirt?"

In any case, genetic resemblance is hardly what one would expect if life evolved in different places at different times and in response to different conditions.
Genetic resemblance is what you would expect from intelligent design.

*The Bible is not responsible for every war ever fought. *

I realize that it would be like eating deep-fried crow, but you are probably going to have to admit that the Bible isn't responsible for "most" wars, either.

*I enjoy using my mind. If I didn't, I would be out at another god-forsaken boring-ass frat party getting hammered rather than working tonight. *

It's good that you aren't completely wasting your life, but I was kind of getting at what the point is of arguing for science if you're going to die anyway, and science isn't going to lift a finger to help.

*according to Tony, we are all strung out on hash while we post.*

Now, now, you know perfectly well that I quote a person's name and a brief statement that I actually respond to.
I realize that you are the center of the known universe and that every statement ever posted on the internet is personally directed at you, but tiassa is actually the one most likely to be strung out on hash or some other THC-based narcotic.

*Looks like he healed every sickness and every disease that the people had.*

OK, I'll let you take the credit for paraphrasing my earlier comment.
I'm glad that you can see that's what it says.
 
Where are all the christians?

Sorry, you've come to the wrong forums, these boards are not dedicated to christianty (for the most part, pretty much the opposite actually). I would recommend you do a search on a popular forum service like Webboard, YABB, CoolBoardz, etc....
 
Of course, the question is whether any of that testing is valid.
So far, no one has established the validity of any testing performed in the name of science.
Kind of a huge omission, don't you think?

Que? Does not such testing garner results?

What's the point of being "moral," if you're broke and starving?

There is no rational reason. Perhaps some intellectual satisfaction, but morality is axiomatic.

It is a choice I would make.

Don't tell me that you fell for the "pile of similar looking skeletons presented as speciation" trick

Straw man. Yes I did. And it is no 'trick'.

Besides, how is microevolution, i.e. change, proof of evolution, which also means "change" but is used to mean "all species evolved from the dirt?"

Microevolution leads to macroevolution over time.

In any case, genetic resemblance is hardly what one would expect if life evolved in different places at different times and in response to different conditions.

Actually it is exactly what you would expect if life evolved from a common ancestor, but you are right about ID. It cuts both ways.

I realize that it would be like eating deep-fried crow, but you are probably going to have to admit that the Bible isn't responsible for "most" wars, either.

No, it isn't.

It's good that you aren't completely wasting your life, but I was kind of getting at what the point is of arguing for science if you're going to die anyway, and science isn't going to lift a finger to help.

What's the point in not arguing for science then?

*Shrugs* I will die, and that will be the end of me. Life will go on.

What am I going to do about it, cry?

OK, I'll let you take the credit for paraphrasing my earlier comment.
I'm glad that you can see that's what it says.

No, that's what the passage says. You are correct though.
 
*Originally posted by Clarentavious
these boards are not dedicated to christianty (for the most part, pretty much the opposite actually).
*

This IS the religion forum, where one might actually find Christians.

*Originally posted by Xev
Does not such testing garner results?
*

Oh, Xev, Xev, Xev.
Results aren't what count.
VALID results are what count.

So far, all of science has gotten to where you are now, namely, to the point of thinking that results are what count.
However, valid results are all that count.
Didn't they mention that to you in school?

*There is no rational reason. Perhaps some intellectual satisfaction, but morality is axiomatic.

It is a choice I would make.
*

I see that you say that, and that you might actually believe that you would do that.

However, in reality, morality is good thing, and so are health and wealth.
In fact, all of those good things are blessings.
Blessings come from God alone.

Thus, if you are moral, then you will be healthy, wealthy, wise and blessed all around.

Here's your problem.
You aren't in a relationship with God, so none of those blessings are your lot in life.
IOW, you won't actually be moral, but you will be broke and starving, if not in actuality, then relatively speaking.

The way to fix that is to choose life and blessing.

I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:
(Deuteronomy 30:19, KJV).

*Yes I did. And it is no 'trick'. *

It IS a trick, and here's how the trick works...
1. assemble a bunch of skeletons that look similar.
2. arrange them in order of size or whatever characteristic you wish to identify as changing over time
3. tell people that the skeletons having less of the characteristic are older and the others newer
4. don't bother proving that, merely repeat it over and over

*Microevolution leads to macroevolution over time.*

That's what Lamarck argued, and evolutionists, no less, have repeatedly stated that Lamarckianism does not happen.
That leaves open the question as to what DOES happen, but given the fertile imaginations of evolutionists worldwide, I'm sure that any day now, some actual mechanism for evolution will be proposed.

*Actually it is exactly what you would expect if life evolved from a common ancestor, but you are right about ID.*

That common ancestor thing creates a problem, though.
That theory assumes that all life "evolved" from a single whatever.
From that single whatever, life would have to have spread around the globe in remarkable fashion.
In addition, a common ancestor brings Haldane's dilemma into play with a vengeance, meaning that 4.5 billion years isn't anywhere near enough time to evolve man.

*No, it isn't. *

All that for this?
Why were you arguing for "most" wars if you turn around and recant this quickly?

*What's the point in not arguing for science then?
*Shrugs* I will die, and that will be the end of me. Life will go on.
What am I going to do about it, cry?
*

I see, you argue for science because you're going to die anyway, so who cares?

No need to cry, since a person could rejoice instead.
The interesting thing about atheist vs Christian debates is that the atheist almost always ends up arguing for some mythical third choice between life and death or between blessing and cursing.

The point is not that you are to avoid crying, the point is that you could be rejoicing but you're not.
The point is not that you are to avoid cursing, but to have blessing.
 
mcflytrap,

Posted by Clarentavious:
Sorry, you've come to the wrong forums, these boards are not dedicated to christianty (for the most part, pretty much the opposite actually). I would recommend you do a search on a popular forum service like Webboard, YABB, CoolBoardz, etc....

Go to where there is not lots of Christians...
The world needs doctors of souls...
Go where the people are sick. ;)

Love,
Nelson
 
Tony:
So far, all of science has gotten to where you are now, namely, to the point of thinking that results are what count.
However, valid results are all that count.

Correct. I meant 'valid'.

Actually, my real point (I apologize for not making this clear) was that science proves its usefulness through the technology we create through its use.

However, in reality, morality is good thing, and so are health and wealth.
In fact, all of those good things are blessings.
Blessings come from God alone.

Indeed they are. But there is no God. Most likely.

That's what Lamarck argued, and evolutionists, no less, have repeatedly stated that Lamarckianism does not happen.
That leaves open the question as to what DOES happen, but given the fertile imaginations of evolutionists worldwide, I'm sure that any day now, some actual mechanism for evolution will be proposed.

No, Lamarck thought that characteristics aquired in life were passed on 'genetically' (of course, he didn't put it that way). Modern evolutionary theory claims that random mutations lead to speciation, over time and under natural selection.

Yes, there is a simularity between the two theories.

From that single whatever, life would have to have spread around the globe in remarkable fashion.
In addition, a common ancestor brings Haldane's dilemma into play with a vengeance, meaning that 4.5 billion years isn't anywhere near enough time to evolve man.

I don't see how (if you accept Haldane's dilmma as a dilemna) a common ancestor would amplify the effect.

And I think 3 billion years is quite enough time for life to spread around the globe.

The interesting thing about atheist vs Christian debates is that the atheist almost always ends up arguing for some mythical third choice between life and death or between blessing and cursing.

No. I am going to die eventually. Death is final, and there is no 'morning after'.

Choice between life and death? There is no choice.
 
Such as?

The interesting thing about atheist vs Christian debates is that the atheist almost always ends up arguing for some mythical third choice between life and death or between blessing and cursing.
Such as? I'm sure that, knowing atheists as well as you do, you have a plethora of examples at hand. I mean, almost always? That's quite a bit. If you've got one atheist in your sample, it's all of them. If you've got a hundred ... maybe eighty of them? I'm curious as to what these frequent alternatives are.

Looking forward to the data,
Tiassa :cool:
 
However, in reality, morality is good thing, and so are health and wealth.
In fact, all of those good things are blessings.
Blessings come from God alone.


Kind of odd then isn't it tony? That God would give us these blessings through the 'evil' sciences.

1. assemble a bunch of skeletons that look similar.
2. arrange them in order of size or whatever characteristic you wish to identify as changing over time
3. tell people that the skeletons having less of the characteristic are older and the others newer
4. don't bother proving that, merely repeat it over and over


Ah, the boy who cried wolf. Would you actually care to give us a specific example of this kind of thing? Or are you simply spouting useless propeganda again? Really tony, claims like those must be supported with evidence, otherwise you are doing exactly what you accuse science of doing, ie. you're being a hippocrite.
 
Xelios...

.....Sorry to interupt this thread, i have just recieved your message, could you explain all that ISBN stuff:confused: +

Love.

Jan Ardena.
 
Back
Top