It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

evolution, where is the evidence???!!! I see none

page: 13
6
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 12 2005 @ 02:19 PM
link   
O.K why is everyon saying there is no proof for evolution. There is so much undiniable evidence for it. The virus is one proof but what about inherited characteristics that over many generations can create new species (wot is this guy talking about?) Well look at cats and dogs- at one time there was only one species of each, not the great many there are now. BUt man interbred some with special characteristics like long ears and the like ans this created the many species we have now.




posted on May, 12 2005 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by James the Lesser
All christians have is chanting "KILL KILL KILL, RAPE RAPE RAPE, KILL KILL KILL, RAPE RAPE RAPE."


Hm, I don't remember saying this. Please provide a copy/paste of my quote including the post number so I can review.

Also, being a Christian who follows Christ, could you provide the verse in the Bible Jesus commands his people to do this?




posted on May, 12 2005 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shenroon
There is so much undiniable evidence for it.


If there is undeniable evidence, then we would not be discussing it. If there was undeniable evidence, then the books provided to us written by Professors X, Y, Z and Universities A - Z would have something substantial to where people like myself who've studied it at length would not have so many fundamental questions on the erroneous foundation that has been constructed, revised and reconstructed many times over a century and a half. There is not undeniable evidence or I would have no choice but to accept it. By the way, this has nothing to do with Christianity so let's not go there again. It makes no difference to Christians. God can work through science or outside our understanding of science so carpet-bombing someone because of Christianity is a diversion tactic. It has everything to do with the science.

[edit on 12-5-2005 by saint4God]



posted on May, 12 2005 @ 02:36 PM
link   
.
This fact seems very insightful.

Researchers found up to 10 million virus and virus-like particles in one millilitre of sea water!!
www.uib.no...
The ocean is obviously loaded with DNA/RNA chunks and organic forms designed to insert them.

Maybe the logical question is "Why didn't evolution happen faster?"
.



posted on May, 12 2005 @ 02:39 PM
link   
If you put all the parts to a motorcycle and put them in a bag and shook it even for a million years you would never have a fully operational motorcyle. Someone had to engineer it and put the working parts and pieces together. Life is much more complicated and it's absurd for people to think creation was an accident. Even how the moon is perfectly placed in relation to Earth and the Sun is proof someone had a purposeful design for life.



posted on May, 12 2005 @ 02:43 PM
link   
Purposeful design, there is this thing could chance and after like 4 billion years i would guess thate verything would be pretty muchj in the 'perfect' place or would be smashed to pieces by each other



posted on May, 12 2005 @ 03:08 PM
link   
Saint, Here is your Lord and Savoir ordering kids to be killed....

4) Jesus criticizes the Jews for not killing their disobedient children according to Old Testament law. Mark.7:9-13 "Whoever curses father or mother shall die" (Mark 7:10 NAB)

5) Jesus is criticized by the Pharisees for not washing his hands before eating. He defends himself by attacking them for not killing disobedient children according to the commandment: “He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.” (Matthew 15:4-7)

6) Jesus has a punishment even worse than his father concerning adultery: God said the act of adultery was punishable by death. Jesus says looking with lust is the same thing and you should gouge your eye out, better a part, than the whole. The punishment under Jesus is an eternity in Hell. (Matthew 5:27)

Or for over a thousand years the christian response to anyone not bowing down to the pope was death. Well, unless you said you were wrong and it was satan, then they put you under house arrest.

Or just for the hell of it, let's go kill a few million people.

Or hey, we want this land, they have it, we never did, but lets kill them for it anyways.

Gee, they have proof we are wrong, slaughter the whole city.(several times this happened)

The christian response to ANYTHING is "KILL KILL KILL, RAPE RAPE RAPE." Never have they just gone. "Gee, you right, sorry." No, they always, everytime, kill anyone who disagrees until finally they say oops, you "interpreted" the bible wrong, we are right, we aren't flat.(Huh? Wait, I said we weren't.....Too late, dead)

Anyways, more christian BS.

I deal with Christian lies on a daily basis. These lies range from the myth that Einstein was a theist, to the claim that there is conclusive evidence for Jesus’ existence. I had to make this page so that I could collect some common lies told and present the truth behind the matter. There are hundreds of things I feel compelled to discuss but I shall limit it to a top five list. The top five lies Christian’s tell:

Darwin recanted on his deathbed. This is completely fabricated and has no foundation in truth whatsoever. A woman named “Lady Hope” spoke to a church group shortly after the death of Charles Darwin. She claimed that she was at Darwin’s bedside on the day of his death. She also claimed that Darwin recanted on evolution and accepted Jesus on his deathbed. Her claims are not only unsupported, but are directly opposed by Darwin’s daughter, Henrietta. Henrietta stated “I was present at his deathbed, Lady Hope was not present during his last illness, or any illness. I believe he never even saw her, but in any case she had no influence over him in any department of thought or belief. My father never recanted any of his scientific views, either then or earlier. I am upset that the U.S. Christians have fabricated this conversion nonsense. The whole story has no foundation whatever.” February 23, 1922.

Evolution has been proven false (is only a theory). Evolution can be divided into two parts, macro and micro. Micro evolution is a fact, where as macro evolution remains a theory due to debates on the exact steps of the evolutionary process. EVOLUTION DID HAPPEN we simply can’t trace the exact evolutionary steps of the of the 3 trillion plus species on earth. Considering there is no way that we can even prove if we have located all the species on earth, this may always remain a theory. We can prove though, beyond a doubt, that humans have evolved. We can trace it back conclusively 3.6 million years. 97% of all scientists accept evolution (so does the Catholic Church). Christians have spread lies about this excessively, they especially like to say evolution preaches that Humans evolved from monkeys. Evolution does not state that humans evolved from monkeys, that idea is completely absurd. Science states that monkeys and humans evolved from a shared forefather and are hence relatives, (all primates are) but we are in no way direct descendants of them.


More Here....www.evilbible.com...

Sorry Saint, you are one of the very very rare few people who don't answer a quetion with death to the asker. Man, know how many billions would be alive if they were like you for the past 1800 years? No crusades, no inquisitions, no trials, no genocide of Indians, no genocide of Africa today. But you being the rare 7.2%, not gonna happen.



posted on May, 12 2005 @ 03:20 PM
link   
So where is the evidence for creation. The bible? There are many religious texts as old and older. Actually that is the only bit of evidence for creationism. All the rest points to evolution.

Dinosaurs...


Have you ever heard of thermoluminesence dating. A bit more effectve than C14 and can go back a lot further too.

I dont think there is much need to go on any further.



posted on May, 12 2005 @ 03:22 PM
link   
.
MauiStacey,

It isn't a single set of motorcycle parts in a bag.

It is trillions of sets of motorcycle parts in a bag.

And First the parts came together to form a skooter.
The skooters got together and made new little skooters.
Then skooter with a bell
Then skooter with a little fan. [and bell]
Then the fan became a power drive
Then you get the motor cycle [with headlights
]

DNA is conservative [cheap to save].
It retains old forms that work with from time to time.

Human beings were not the first product of evolution. Some kind of slime mold was more likely.
.



posted on May, 12 2005 @ 04:00 PM
link   
Just my two cents on the evolution/creation debate. I had posted this earlier so forgive me if you had read it before. In my opinion the evolution of humans does not fit into the theory of evolution as the other species do. Our lack of protection from the elements seems to indicate this. Our intelligence greatly aids us in our ability to survive in the environment of this planet, but if our intelligence evolved wouldn’t there have been a time that we wouldn’t have had the ability to create such things as fire, weapons, and clothes? It would have been necessary for evolving humans to rely on natural protection to cope and compete for survival. Some scientists propose that once acquiring intelligence environmental protection was no longer needed. Unfortunately, evolutionary adaptation occurs when it is beneficial to a species as a whole. This allows life to cope and compete to changing situations. What would have influenced an already adapted species to evolve away from existing conditions that allow it to survive within its environment? This is unique in humans. We have regressed away from the most basic of daily needs; ones that helped us cope with the changing climate, exposure to ultraviolet light, competition with other species and even the effects of gravity. These changes seem to oppose the laws of natural evolution. I don’t doubt evolution; we do have remmanents of common features to other species. We have evolved, but perhaps we were also influenced by some outside factor. I might be wrong on some of my ideas as they are collections of my memories of books and conversations that I have been exposed to. So are my ideas wrong? Why can't creationist an evolutionist just work hand in hand to come to a conclusion?



posted on May, 12 2005 @ 06:15 PM
link   
You're right that our ancestors once relied on means other than fire, weapons, and clothing to stay alive.

However, I don't understand what you mean by us losing our natural ability to cope. We've lost the ability to easiliy hide in the trees, we've lost some speed, our fur, but I can't think of anything overly significant.

The idea is that we lost all those things after we gained new technology. Those who wielded the technology more skillfully were so successful that they outlived those who didn't. We adapted to new skills and ways of living after acquiring them.

But please elaborate on your problem.



posted on May, 12 2005 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by James the Lesser
Well, except he never existed. According to the real world there never were any Jewish/Hebrew slaves. Yep, according to history/science/facts/real world, no hebrew slaves. No evidence, written or archeology wise. Egypt was huge on the writting thing, and a few hundred thousand slaves leaving would have been written about. Yet nope, none. Also, a few hundred thousand slaves wandering the desert would have left evidence behind, but none is there. So, throw out Exodus completely.


Ummmm....Where did you draw your conclusions from? Here is an article that seeks to disprove Exodus but even it concludes there were slaves in Egypt and their identities were not revealed

www.ohiodominican.edu...



No archaeological evidence is available to show that the Israelites were in Egypt or that the Exodus occurred, Doermann said. "On the other hand, you wouldn't find much archaeological evidence for a slave people," he said. Some of the projects slaves were working on under Ramses II, the Egyptian king often cited as Exodus' pharaoh, are documented, but the identity of such slaves is not, he said. Consequently, there's no proof the slaves were or weren't Israelites, he said. "Some would deny the Exodus altogether," Doermann said. "They want to make the people in the land peasants who rose up against some of the leaders they were working for and started their own communities."



Originally Posted by James the Lesser
If the bible is soooooo wrong on that, how the hell can it be right on anything else? Not to mention the world flood that never happened. Or the whole flat earth that the church killed people for, along with center.


Proof the World Flood never happened please?
Proof the Church killed people for the Flat Earth Idea Please. People were however killed during the inquisition for beleiving in Copernican Theory of the planets rather than a geocentric view most notably Giordano Bruno. I think you are trying to draw conclusions here based on the fact the inquistion killed based on Copernican Theory.




Originally Posted by James the Lesser
Or Earth 6,000 years old. BS!!!!! Sorry, but not true. All christians have is chanting "KILL KILL KILL, RAPE RAPE RAPE, KILL KILL KILL, RAPE RAPE RAPE." while scientists have evidence. Hell, Oil, Fossils, real world, all prove it to be BS.

Or when christians use something wrong. Carbon Dating 14 is not used for dating something millions of years old by scientists, only something that is around 300-10,000 years old. But what do christians do? They CD-14 a snail or something and get some messed up answer and use this to prove that science/real world wrong.


What the heck are you talking about KILL and RAPE? And how do you know for sure how old the earth is? Because some scientists tells you how old the earth is thats why you assume its 4 billion years old. Why not be a critical thinker and find the answer for yourself? For example one of the main ways scientists date the earth and fossils is with Radiometric dating of one form or another which is highly inaccurate. All dating methods are based on 3 unprovable and questionable assumptions:

1) That the rate of decay has been constant throughout time.

2). That the isotope abundances in the specimen dated have not been altered during its history by addition or removal of either parent or daughter isotopes

3) That when the rock first formed it contained a known amount of daughter material


A perfect example of this is the dating performed on lava flows from Mount Nguaruhoe in New Zealand. One flow occured in 1949, three in 1954, and one in 1975. However when dated the rocks dated between 270,000 years to 3.5 Million years

Ref:

A.A. Snelling, The Cause of Anomalous Potassium-argon ‘Ages’ for Recent Andesite Flows at Mt. Nguaruhoe, New Zealand, and the Implications for Potassium-argon ‘Dating,’ Proc. 4th ICC, pp.503-525, 1998


Also Carbon-14 Dating is used to date items up to 50,000 years so your claim about christians using it wrong is complete BS.

science.howstuffworks.com...

Another problem is that according to science after 50,000 years all the C-14 in an item should be released. So Science has Carbon dated many items to test this. Coal is an obvious candidate because the youngest coal is supposed to be millions of years old, and most of it is supposed to be tens or hundreds of millions of years old. Such old coal should be devoid of Carbon 14. It isn't. No source of coal has been found that completely lacks Carbon 14.

Ref:

D.C. Lowe, Problems Associated with the Use of Coal as a Source of 14C Free Background Material, Radiocarbon, 31:117-120, 1989.

[edit on 12-5-2005 by BlackJackal]



posted on May, 12 2005 @ 06:24 PM
link   
I've thought about and think I understand you problem better. It is why do we evolve if we are already well adapted? (I hope that's right)

The reason is that throughout all of history, very few organisms have been so well adapted that none of them died before reproducing. At the moment, I beleive we have reached such a point, and as a result our natural evolution has probably slowed significantly. Crocodiles are the same way too, I beleive. Their form is adapted enough that they have changed very little over millions of years.

But most organisms are not such, and our ancestors weren't an exception. Lots of arboreal pre-humans probably died from harsh winters, or snake bites, or predatorial cats, or cought a common cold and had trouble hunting. Their lifestyle relied on a day to day finding food, water, and avoiding sickeness if possible. But when they could not find food for a weak, or the nearby water dried up, or they got sick--they were doomed.

Some of them mastered fire (probably moreso through luck and trial/error rather than intelligence). If you live in a cave and can make fire, you are much safer from the elements, you can use it to scare off predators (sometimes), and its easier to store food. Overall, they have a better chance to live to the age of reproductive maturity.



posted on May, 12 2005 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThehorrorofAtlantis
Have you ever heard of thermoluminesence dating. A bit more effectve than C14 and can go back a lot further too.



Yes, I have heard of Thermoluminescence dating.

It is a dating method that is in its infancy. The dating mathod is used for the dating of Rocks, Lava, Burnt Flint, Clay, and layers of sediment and is based on the storage of information about the absorbed radiation energy in inorganic crystals ( making this dating method useless for dating fossils). Basically the age it can predict is between 10 and 230,000 years.

However, it is only 15% accurate for a single sample and between 7% and 10% for a suite of samples.

www.mnsu.edu...



posted on May, 12 2005 @ 08:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaknafein

But most organisms are not such, and our ancestors weren't an exception. Lots of arboreal pre-humans probably died from harsh winters, or snake bites, or predatorial cats, or cought a common cold and had trouble hunting. Their lifestyle relied on a day to day finding food, water, and avoiding sickeness if possible. But when they could not find food for a weak, or the nearby water dried up, or they got sick--they were doomed.


So what do you think the mortality rate would have been? I have this image of humans running like buffalo, hoping to not get killed so they can breed. What I don't understand is the time frame, how long has homo sapien man been around? And how long did it take to evolve to that? So during that time why would we get rid of our natural protection from the weather? The sun? And at the same time our night vision? Just seems funny to me. Yea furs are cool but warmer when they are yours, ask a dog. And I bet it got cold during that ice age. Sorry I have so many questions and no answers.



posted on May, 12 2005 @ 08:05 PM
link   
It's an interesting ancient question: where do we come from? Who are we?

Nobody in this thread or probably planet has the whole answer.
It definitely isn't a literal view of creatism aka the bible.
It most definitely isn't Darwinian evolution.
It is something else, but what? That's the question I don't have the answer to.
Intelligent design isn't a bad theory, but again it's still incomplete.

What is the purpose of the human race? Is it just to work, # , eat and reproduce?
Where are we going? Where do we want to go?

My theory and I am being fairly serious here, is that we are on galactic TV on the comedy channel 24/7. I can't see any other purpose as of yet.
There are far too many inadverdant comedians and characters that I have met and heard about to make me seriously suggest this. I mean, look at Hitler, what a hoot! Look at yourself! I believe the administers tweek a few knobs now and again on the population, both macro and micro, to make sure everyone in the galaxy has a good laugh. I think there is definitely a hidden hand involved at certain interjections.

Have you ever thought where your ideas and desires come from? For all you know they could be beamed into you from an orbiting spaceship. They could come from God itself. If I was God I would be on the floor constantly laughing, Earth is that good.

So there's my theory: We are bred for entertainment.
Can anyone prove me wrong?



posted on May, 13 2005 @ 02:21 AM
link   
To James the Lesser

Once again, I feel i should address you.

Now, I am curious, were you once a Christian or a Catholic? I know a lot of athiests, not personally but by web, and it is a repeating trend that most were Christians or Catholics who had some type of "experience" that really soured them toward religion.

You have such a hatred for Christians, and I was just wondering why.

Most of the time, that type of strong emotion doesn't just come about by chance, something usually initiates it.

So.......?



posted on May, 13 2005 @ 02:31 AM
link   
To james once again


I think it funny how you seem to forget that Jesus also preached love and forgiveness. He welcomed beggars, thieves, and the human scum of his time, the notorious tax collectors (no offense to all the wonderful tax collectors out there today, te he
.) He is the one who changed the idea that God was an overbearing dictator into the idea that he is a loving and caring father, and we are all his children.

Yes, just like all fathers, God does have anger and he wreaks out punishments. But, if there is a God, he created all, and I think he has a right to be angry when we do things against his will.


You are very good at taking what you want out of the Bible and twisting it to suit you. Of course, if i wanted to, I could do the same. However, you need to look at all of it, not just the parts that stick out to you because they justify and back up your idea that religion is evil, bad, preaches hate and condmenation. Remeber, Jesus taught tolerance for sinners, but he was intolerant of hypocrites (namely the Jewish Pharisees *did I spell that right?*)


Christians these days do seem to take the Bible and slap it in your face at times. Their arguments on morality and life are always ended and begun with "The Bible says...." and sometimes what they are saying just seems so heartless and wrong. But, that is a human trait, and should not be held against the religion in general. I love the Catholic religion, but that doesn't mean I necessarily like the people who run it or who are in it. Don't condemn religion just because of its followers.

You should take a look at the original biblical scripts, because remeber, this book has been translated many times, and from what I've heard, many of the words and phrases are incorrect in the English translation.


[edit on 13-5-2005 by seraph5]



posted on May, 13 2005 @ 07:27 AM
link   
Good morning James, hope you're looking forward to this weekend as much as I am. It's been a rough week for me. Okay, on to business. Let's see what we've got today.


Originally posted by James the Lesser
Saint, Here is your Lord and Savoir ordering kids to be killed....

4) Jesus criticizes the Jews for not killing their disobedient children according to Old Testament law. Mark.7:9-13 "Whoever curses father or mother shall die" (Mark 7:10 NAB)

5) Jesus is criticized by the Pharisees for not washing his hands before eating. He defends himself by attacking them for not killing disobedient children according to the commandment: “He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.” (Matthew 15:4-7)


These two are parts the same story in two different places, so the good news for me is I only have to address it once. Sorry you had to the extra work. Okay, if you read the whole story in either (I prefer the Matthew version myself), then he explains in full that the issue here is that the child is not allowed to 'honor his father' as commanded, therefore by the same laws the Pharisees said they followed, they nullified the first half of that law (which you've conveniently omitted) "Honor your father and mother". Taking one line out of the Bible and attaching a claim to it isn't evidence of anything. You have to read the whole chapter. Sometimes several chapters. What I'm saying may make sense to you and I but anyone else would have to look it up to see what we're saying I'm sure. It's a story of hypocrisy of the Pharisee priests and how they only use half the law, thereby nullifying the other half. It's the same way with people quoting half a sentence or chapter, then saying they understand what it represents.



6) Jesus has a punishment even worse than his father concerning adultery: God said the act of adultery was punishable by death.


And Jesus said, "Let you who is without sin cast the first stone." Hm... who then has the power to punish a person by death? Certainly not any of us. Again, using only part of the chapter only tells us a part of the story.



Jesus says looking with lust is the same thing and you should gouge your eye out, better a part, than the whole.


That's right. Better to lose an eye than spend an eternity in Hell. Makes sense to me. He did not say this is easy. Now, personally I'd rather fix my mind, my thoughts and train in self-discipline instead of losing an eye so that's the route I took. The Book talks a lot about self-discipline and fixing your eyes on God, how to do it, why you should do it, and the benefits thereof. It's chuck full of information and explanation. It's not merely a book of laws, rather how to think so that you do not have to keep track of an infinite amount of laws, situations, and decisions.



The punishment under Jesus is an eternity in Hell. (Matthew 5:27)


The punishment under God is an eternity in Hell. Jesus was the messenger.



Or for over a thousand years the christian response to anyone not bowing down to the pope was death. Well, unless you said you were wrong and it was satan, then they put you under house arrest.

Or just for the hell of it, let's go kill a few million people.

Or hey, we want this land, they have it, we never did, but lets kill them for it anyways.

Gee, they have proof we are wrong, slaughter the whole city.(several times this happened)

The christian response to ANYTHING is "KILL KILL KILL, RAPE RAPE RAPE."


I cannot speak on what isn't commanded by God, taught by Jesus, nor not written in the Book. It's obvious to me the people who took part in this were not hearing the word of God.



Never have they just gone. "Gee, you right, sorry." No, they always, everytime, kill anyone who disagrees until finally they say oops, you "interpreted" the bible wrong, we are right, we aren't flat.(Huh? Wait, I said we weren't.....Too late, dead)


They weren't "interpreting" the Bible at all. They were misusing it to forward an agenda for money, power, and land. If you're looking for an apology, then I'll start if it hasn't been done before. I am sorry there were people who, under the name of God called "Christians", did not follow the word of God, killed people, raped, and otherwised cause massive crimes against humanity. As a person who does work to follow God's word, talks to Him, and studies the Book He has set before me, I will testify that this is not His way and will show in every possible way that this is the case.



Anyways, more christian BS.

I deal with Christian lies on a daily basis. These lies range from the myth that Einstein was a theist, to the claim that there is conclusive evidence for Jesus’ existence. I had to make this page so that I could collect some common lies told and present the truth behind the matter. There are hundreds of things I feel compelled to discuss but I shall limit it to a top five list. The top five lies Christian’s tell:

Darwin recanted on his deathbed. This is completely fabricated and has no foundation in truth whatsoever. A woman named “Lady Hope” spoke to a church group shortly after the death of Charles Darwin. She claimed that she was at Darwin’s bedside on the day of his death. She also claimed that Darwin recanted on evolution and accepted Jesus on his deathbed. Her claims are not only unsupported, but are directly opposed by Darwin’s daughter, Henrietta. Henrietta stated “I was present at his deathbed, Lady Hope was not present during his last illness, or any illness. I believe he never even saw her, but in any case she had no influence over him in any department of thought or belief. My father never recanted any of his scientific views, either then or earlier. I am upset that the U.S. Christians have fabricated this conversion nonsense. The whole story has no foundation whatever.” February 23, 1922.

Evolution has been proven false (is only a theory). Evolution can be divided into two parts, macro and micro. Micro evolution is a fact, where as macro evolution remains a theory due to debates on the exact steps of the evolutionary process. EVOLUTION DID HAPPEN we simply can’t trace the exact evolutionary steps of the of the 3 trillion plus species on earth. Considering there is no way that we can even prove if we have located all the species on earth, this may always remain a theory. We can prove though, beyond a doubt, that humans have evolved. We can trace it back conclusively 3.6 million years. 97% of all scientists accept evolution (so does the Catholic Church). Christians have spread lies about this excessively, they especially like to say evolution preaches that Humans evolved from monkeys. Evolution does not state that humans evolved from monkeys, that idea is completely absurd. Science states that monkeys and humans evolved from a shared forefather and are hence relatives, (all primates are) but we are in no way direct descendants of them.


More Here....www.evilbible.com...


Other Christians should not be a concern. No-one ever found God by going to other people. If you want the truth and God, then go to God. As Christians, we are to represent Him the best way possible. There are, however, "Christians" who wear the label but don't know what it means. Jesus himself rebukes people for doing so. God has rebuked me for sitting silently when I otherwise had opportunities to listen, learn and act. That is a part of growth though. We mess up. But, the difference is we know how to say we're sorry, learn, and discard those evil ways. Will mistakes happen again? Perhaps, but we've gotta fight to do that which is right.



Sorry Saint, you are one of the very very rare few people who don't answer a quetion with death to the asker.


Thank you...and at the time I feel sorry for those who do answer a question with death. This is not what God tells people. This is what anger, hate, and pride tells people. God is just and each of us will get what we give out (reap what we sow).



Man, know how many billions would be alive if they were like you for the past 1800 years? No crusades, no inquisitions, no trials, no genocide of Indians, no genocide of Africa today. But you being the rare 7.2%, not gonna happen.


The road is wide the but gate is narrow? There is much corruption in the world under every label and under every flag. Pick a label and call yourself it, and I will show you the hypocrites who sit beside you that tarnish that name. Christians need people to challenge them, pointing out hypocrisy when we stop listening to God and reading what He says, because that's when we start to get selfish and lazy. We always hear about the bad "Christians" of those days, but how many good Christians existed during those days? We'll never know because they were not the ones committing crimes. When I die, where will my name be in the history books? Surely nowhere. That's perfectly fine with me though, because I'm hoping my name is in another book in a place a bit more pleasant than planet Earth.


[edit on 13-5-2005 by saint4God]



posted on May, 13 2005 @ 07:44 AM
link   
I think you have a lot of really good things to say seraph5, which is why I wanted to address a point you'd brought up here:


Originally posted by seraph5
You should take a look at the original biblical scripts, because remeber, this book has been translated many times, and from what I've heard, many of the words and phrases are incorrect in the English translation.


If you can read original Hebrew and Greek, great! But as far as 'changes over time', the New International Version was translated by over 200 scholars from original Hebrew and Greek texts. Now, getting that many life-long researchers to agree must have been a true challenge but I think the work follows amazingly close to the original from what I've heard from people who have, in fact, read the original.





[edit on 13-5-2005 by saint4God]



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join