The Anti-Christian conspiracy

Originally posted by shaunybaby
if that's your ideology or philosophy of life then you're a fool. you're an idiot.

Okay, now this pisses me off. Say what you want about me, but to slam someone against the wall for what they believe is stupid. Speak with a fundamental respect for human life or take your verbal diarrhea elsewhere.

Originally posted by shaunybaby
i could throw in more words but i fear i would probably get another warning for aiming directly at forum members.

I support the 'Clean Air Act'. Go ahead and let's see if the EPA responds. Say what you feel. After all, we're here to deny ignorance, right?

Originally posted by saint4God

Okay, now this pisses me off. Say what you want about me, but to slam someone against the wall for what they believe is stupid. Speak with a fundamental respect for human life or take your verbal diarrhea elsewhere.

maybe if you had bothered to read what the guy actually wrote then your answer to what i wrote may not have sounded so retarded. he wrote that he would believe in god dispite there being no evidence, or if someone gave him evidence to suggest god is false etc. to say that is just plain ignorance. yeah you can have faith etc...but to say you're going to ignore everything else is plain ignorance and i pointed that out. im not saying he has to believe in what i believe, im saying the way he goes about his belief is wrong, its ignorant...as you say we're here to deny ignorance. you might say yeah but why should i be judging him on his views and the way he goes about them?...

well if i said to to you i believe in the big bang and evolution, and you said why? if i said because i just do, you can bring me all the evidence to suggest god is real but i won't care because i'll turn a blind eye and not listen...thats ignorance, which is why i do not do that. when someone has something to say about god i listen, i take it in, and i think to myself could that be true, is it false etc. however, before MankW has even heard an arguement against god etc...he knows he's going to say its wrong...before he's even heard it! he's got an opinion on something before he's even heard what the arguement is. its like political parties and people who support them...im dead against abortion...yeah no abortion, no abortion.... yet they're against something even before they've heard the arguement of why the woman wants an abortion...they dont care, they dont want to hear the arguement because they made their minds up that all abortion is wrong before they even heard the arguement. sure everyones welcome to free speech but it doesnt make it any less ignorant.

you are ignorant of the definition of ignorant. Let me help out:

Main Entry: ig·no·rant
Pronunciation: 'ig-n(&-)r&nt
Function: adjective
1 a : destitute of knowledge or education (an ignorant society); also : lacking knowledge or comprehension of the thing specified (parents ignorant of modern mathematics) b : resulting from or showing lack of knowledge or intelligence (ignorant errors)
2 : UNAWARE, UNINFORMED
www.m-w.com...

As you can see, ignorance is not stubborness, unwilling to yield in thought or idea, conviction,or standing strong to what a person believe to be true, but rather not knowing or having intelligence.

It's interesting in the same breath that Christians are both sheep (doing whatever they're told) AND ignorant (which by your definition is not accepting what they're told). This friends, is an oxymoron:

Main Entry: ox·y·mo·ron
Pronunciation: "äk-sE-'mor-"än
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural ox·y·mo·ra /-'mor-&/
Etymology: Late Greek oxymOron, from neuter of oxymOros pointedly foolish, from Greek oxys sharp, keen + mOros foolish
: a combination of contradictory or incongruous words (as cruel kindness); broadly : something (as a concept) that is made up of contradictory or incongruous elements

Next project in our dictionary words are brought to you by shaunybaby: These are, and I quote

"...you're a fool. you're an idiot".

Notice both are name-calling synonyms. In name-calling is prejudice since you have no real-life knowledge of the person(s) you're attributing these names to. All we can do is read what's written and accept or reject the concepts being presented.

"maybe if you had bothered to read what the guy actually wrote then your answer to what i wrote may not have sounded so retarded."

Also, you've made an assumption that I hadn't "bothered to read what the guy actually wrote" which is not true. I did read it. I just choose not to condemn someone for their beliefs if I disagree. Me being a skeptic, I often wish I required less proofs in my belief, not more because now I know the value of strong faith. Faith worth more than any proof. Then a person such as myself would not feel like a fool for requiring proof in order to love and accept love.

In any case, the words you used are prejudical, unfounded, and intent on causing harm (spiteful). Because of that I hope you can find it within your heart to apologize.


[edit on 17-6-2005 by saint4God]

free speech saint4god, suck it up. i wont apologize, ive done nothing wrong. yeah ok i called him a fool and an idiot because what he said was foolish and in my mind an idiotic thing to say. its not really the fact that its the religious part of it, its just ignorance. thankyou for your definition by the way, yet if whatshisname chooses to ignore evidence...thats ignorance...im not sure how much plainer you want it. its foolish to say 'im going to ignore all evidence to suggest otherwise against my belief/opinion. this doesnt even need to be a religious matter. it can be for any day to day thing. all im saying is its wrong to make up your mind before youve even heard the arguement, because then your opinion is invalid because youve not looked at any evidence to form an opinion. its still your opinion, yet you didnt come to it logically or sensibely because you had already made up your mind.

i think, and also probably most other people think that you should look at both sides of an arguement or different opinions to be fair right. well that guy wasn't and isn't doing that. you should look at both sides so you can see where both sides are coming from and then form an opinion. yet that guy didn't do that. if there are two sides to an arguement, dont ignore one of them and hope it goes away, or choose the most popular one, think it through, form a logical opinion, and in a religious matter if you still choose god then it only strengthens your belief. i cant believe you cant see where im even coming from saint4god.

im no christian. but it didnt stop me reading about jesus, picking up the bible, seeing more what their beliefs are. i very much believe in evolution because i think there's an incredible amount of information out there you can see, and data that you can see...i chose to accept that evidence and believe in evolution. you chose not to after looking at both sides and you chose to believe god's version of events...thats logical, sensible and makes your opinion on god a whole lot more valid, because you haven't just said 'oh i dont know anything about evolution, but i do know its not real'.

can you see at all why it would be wrong to make your opinion without looking at any facts from the other side of the arguement, or evidence from the other side of the arguement?

p.s. im not ignorant because i have knowledge of both your religious views, and my own views...that's in no way ignorance. me pointing out someone elses ignorance does not mean i am ignorant.

Originally posted by shaunybaby
i cant believe you cant see where im even coming from saint4god.

I can, I was there. I wasn't born a saint. I had to make the conscious decision to accept God and Jesus Christ as his one and only son. Unfortunately it took a taste of Hell for me to give up my disposition.

Originally posted by shaunybaby
...i chose to accept that evidence and believe in evolution. you chose not to after looking at both sides and you chose to believe god's version of events...thats logical, sensible and makes your opinion on god a whole lot more valid, because you haven't just said 'oh i dont know anything about evolution, but i do know its not real'.

Thank you for that acknowledgement. I devoted a lot of study and am still paying on the $48,000 it cost me to learn it.

Originally posted by shaunybaby
can you see at all why it would be wrong to make your opinion without looking at any facts from the other side of the arguement, or evidence from the other side of the arguement?

Absolutely.

Originally posted by shaunybaby
p.s. im not ignorant because i have knowledge of both your religious views, and my own views...that's in no way ignorance. me pointing out someone elses ignorance does not mean i am ignorant.

I know for a fact you're not ignorant. I think you used the wrong word to describe people. Ignorant means they didn't know. They did know, they just didn't accept. You're not ignorant about Christianity and I'm not ignorant about evolution. Quite the opposite in fact. We're both stubborn as bricks , but that doesn't mean bricks can't be moved if they're in the wrong spot.

[edit on 17-6-2005 by saint4God]

i very much believe in evolution because i think there's an incredible amount of information out there you can see, and data that you can see...i chose to accept that evidence and believe in evolution.

The only so called evidence for evolution can also be used for the bible. The rest is all guess work and theory. You fill your stomach with a meal of hate and ignorance every morning and then go out into the world to spew it. You cite people on ebay as christian which proves you dont have a clue as to what a christian is.
You are duped. You dont have a clue about God or evolution. You just pick the one you want to 'believe'..and hope your faith is strong enough.

Your only love is the hate you spew. This is indeed a sad life for you.

Originally posted by jake1997
The only so called evidence for evolution can also be used for the bible. The rest is all guess work and theory. You fill your stomach with a meal of hate and ignorance every morning and then go out into the world to spew it. You cite people on ebay as christian which proves you dont have a clue as to what a christian is.
You are duped. You dont have a clue about God or evolution. You just pick the one you want to 'believe'..and hope your faith is strong enough.

Your only love is the hate you spew. This is indeed a sad life for you.

thats quite an assumption to say 'i just pick one at random', i dont think ive ever even said that to someone who's religious, mainly because it just wouldn't make sense. its true i know nothing about 'god', i dont have a relationship with him, he's never spoke to me and so on. 'hope your faith is strong enough'...surely that's a religious concept as well. all a person of christianity is doing is 'hoping' they are right and putting faith in god. is that wrong, because you're saying its wrong if you use that concept to believe in evolution.

this 'so called' evidence for evolution can also be used for the bible?? if its 'so called' evidence then you're saying its 'false' evidence, so why are you saying 'useless/false' evidence can be used for the bible? are you trying to say this 'useless/false' evidence in someway clarifies what the bible says? what would be the point...it'd be pointless.

At least you didnt try to deny half of what is obvious.


As for "evidence for evolution"...take that as a whole. If you are going to examine just one word, the it will be the word "for". Why? Because taking it by itself is as ignorant as taking the others by themselves.

Originally posted by jake1997
You fill your stomach with a meal of hate and ignorance every morning and then go out into the world to spew it.

personal opinion, i cant really argue that because youve already made up your mind. by the by, it is not ignorance i spew, its my two sense...if you dont like it or dont agree with it then thats up to you.

You cite people on ebay as christian which proves you dont have a clue as to what a christian is.

well i thought i did, but apparently stereotyping all christians is wrong. therefore, why are you, a christian, trying to stereotype them yourself, saying that i dont have a clue what a 'true' christian is. but theres so many different christians that you cant say what one is because they all choose a different way to show their faith.

You are duped.

oh s**t, im duped. what will i do. duped by who? if you would care to elaborate rather than randomly mentioning any old comment.

You dont have a clue about God or evolution.

i know about god, i know about jesus, i know about the bible, i know about evolution...nice assumption you made but completly way off the f**king mark.
You just pick the one you want to 'believe'..and hope your faith is strong enough.

Your only love is the hate you spew.

i have strong opinions, i put these across with conviction, doesn't mean i hate anything though.

This is indeed a sad life for you.

so now you think my life is sad?? again a nice assumption based on your own opinions of what you think evolution is and your opinion of me not having a clue about god or evolution.

At least you didnt try to deny half of what is obvious........

i have just denied most of what you say was obvious. i didnt have time earlier. however, theres not too much point in me doing it because youve already made up your mind about evolution, god and so on. youve also made up your mind about me and well i cant change who you think i am, it just shows your ignorance to judge me as a person, that because i believe evolution that i automatically dont have a clue about evolution, god or what a christian is. you assume too much.

it just shows your ignorance to judge me as a person, that because i believe evolution that i automatically dont have a clue about evolution, god or what a christian is. you assume too much.

I don't think Jake is trying to judge you. However, your confrontational style makes its difficult for anyone to hold a civil conversation with you. Kinda like it is in Washington today. Too much finger pointing, and not enough substance.

At least, you have admitted that there are different type of Christians. Previously you were purty much throwing us all in the same apple cart. Oh, by the way, i believe creationism and evolution go hand in hand.

Namaste' and GOD lbess

that is becoming a more popular belief now, to coincide the creationism with evolution beliefs. its a problem when evolution disproves the creationists theory. its a problem if the creationists theory doesn't fit with evolution. put the two together and it seems like its problem solved.

however, for evolution and creationist theories to intertwine like that, you also need to make earth millions, if not billions of years old. yet, this doesn't fit with some popular beliefs that the earth, stars and universe is only a mere 6000 to 10,000 years old. the reason for this is that the family tree back to adam and eve only goes back 10,000 or so years. then you have the whole dinosaur problem. so in a way it might seem good to put evolution with creationism, yet there are many problems surrounding it.

Originally posted by shaunybaby
that is becoming a more popular belief now, to coincide the creationism with evolution beliefs. its a problem when evolution disproves the creationists theory. its a problem if the creationists theory doesn't fit with evolution. put the two together and it seems like its problem solved.

however, for evolution and creationist theories to intertwine like that, you also need to make earth millions, if not billions of years old. yet, this doesn't fit with some popular beliefs that the earth, stars and universe is only a mere 6000 to 10,000 years old. the reason for this is that the family tree back to adam and eve only goes back 10,000 or so years. then you have the whole dinosaur problem. so in a way it might seem good to put evolution with creationism, yet there are many problems surrounding it.

I have to agree that that is one of the Popular beliefs but it is most likely due to a mis-interpetation of the ancient hebrew that was used in the Old Testament. Here is an example, as to the belief that the world was created in "7 Days" the word that was used for days was "Yom". Yom has multiple meanings only one of which is day. There is another way to translate the word Yom and that is "ERA". If you use that interpretation, then yes, ID and evolution can work well together. As Era, can mean to be up to millions of years instead of a 24 hour period.
I for one believe that both the evolutionary theory as well as ID can work with each other and actually support each other.
Whereas the evolutionary theory explores the how, the ID theory explores the why. They are not mutually exclusive.

i dont think these words were misinterpreted...same as the one for 'virgin' the word in ancient hebrew had other meanings such as 'young woman'... the people that translated the bible put in '7 days' and 'virgin' because it was simple, easy to understand, and made better for conversion, hence reinforcing jesus was pure, the birth was spiritual because of the 'virgin' concept, and reinforcing people's belief in mircales and so on, the same with the '7 days' showed god to be even more powerful.

saying words in the bible had double meanings, were mistranslated, such as era (millions of years) or it could have meant days, doesn't help the bible's credibility. how many more mistakes were there, how many more accidental mistranslations were there...

Are you not proving my point?

i dont think these words were misinterpreted...same as the one for 'virgin' the word in ancient hebrew had other meanings such as 'young woman'... t
the people that translated the bible put in '7 days' and 'virgin' because it was simple, easy to understand, and made better for conversion, hence reinforcing jesus was pure, the birth was spiritual because of the 'virgin' concept, and reinforcing people's belief in mircales and so on, the same with the '7 days' showed god to be even more powerful.

You are correct in that the translators may have interpeted the words to make it easier to understand and may even had been done to make God to seem to be even more powerful. It does not exclude the fact that they may well have mis-translated the words. Even if replacing the popular translations though with these others does not preclude the miracles, it does though go to making the biblical text more believable and understandable to today's more "scientific minded" population.

Your belief that these words were not mi-interpeted does not negate the fact that the words have other meanings than what is "populary held.

however, for evolution and creationist theories to intertwine like that, you also need to make earth millions, if not billions of years old. yet, this doesn't fit with some popular beliefs that the earth, stars and universe is only a mere 6000 to 10,000 years old.

Your speaking of the one's who hold a "literal" translation of the Bible. The writer above spoke of the differing translation of words. That is why it is necessary for each Christian to study the Bible independently without teachings from others.

well if the literal interpretation of the bible is wrong then the bible is wrong. the world is either billions of years old, or not. you cant have it both ways. if you're a christian, who believes in evolution, or that god created evolution, then you also have to believe the world is billions or atleast millions of years old. the genology line back to adam and eve is only 10,000 years...so is that wrong? if so, why is the rest of the bible right. if parts of the bible dont make sense, aren't credible (four gospels), then why can any of it be thought to be the 'truth'.

this is where faith comes in. faith isnt something youre born with. you learn it and youre taught it. it becomes 2nd nature. when that faith is so strongly implanted nothing can change your belief however dumb you sound...'noah built a boat that took 120 years, and then there was a world wide flood'...keep your bedtime fairytales to yourselves, keep the faith and quit knockin on my door!

shaunybaby

literal interpretation of the bible

Is the bible true I would say that the message that the bible is trying to teach is.
Instead of saying literal interpretation of the bible you should instead use the Accepted versions / interpetations (remember there are a number of variations of the biblical writtings around. Does incorrect translations or even deliberate editting of the bible discredit the lesson that the bible is trying to represent? No. The basic lessons of the bible are virtually the same in religions around the world. Hindu, Shinto, Moslem, North and South American Indians etc all try to teach a reverence of a supreme being under whatever name. These religions also go to teach that we need to help each other and be good to ourselves as well.

the world is either billions of years old, or not. you cant have it both ways. if you're a christian, who believes in evolution, or that god created evolution, then you also have to believe the world is billions or atleast millions of years old. the genology line back to adam and eve is only 10,000 years...so is that wrong? if so, why is the rest of the bible right. if parts of the bible dont make sense, aren't credible (four gospels), then why can any of it be thought to be the 'truth'.

How do you go from, the mis-translation of a single word as "proving the entire bible is wrong and as such cannot work hand in hand with accepted science? Also, the biblical text referencing the begining of the world and the origions of man are from Genisis which is in the Old Testament not the New.
Your argument does not jive , Sorry.

this is where faith comes in. faith isnt something youre born with. you learn it and youre taught it. it becomes 2nd nature. when that faith is so strongly implanted nothing can change your belief however dumb you sound...'noah built a boat that took 120 years, and then there was a world wide flood'...keep your bedtime fairytales to yourselves, keep the faith and quit knockin on my door!

Ah the faith card, Love that one. ok, lets take a look at this. You are saying that faith is taught (i question that) and that no matter what faith cannot be changed. is that correct? Ok, let me ask you a question., You have faith that science is the way and is not wrong. You have been taught that science is infallible. I do not know your age but when I was in school, they taught us that the atom's structure was similar to the orbits of planets. This was ingrained into us. Now, we know better.
Science has also taught us throught the ages that things like Man can't Fly, That the speed of sound could not be broken and on and on.
We today know that these scientific facts / beliefs were incorrect and we have adjusted our beliefs to fit the new facts.
Why do you deny the same to those who profess a faith in a supreme being? They can adapt just as mankind has adapted science to fit new data.
The addition of new facts or data does not invalidate wither science nor a religion unless the evidence directly negates either file of though. As of this time, there has been no undeniable evidence that disproves the existence of a supreme being nor science.
It is your right to look upon parables and stories in the bible or any other religious text as bedtime fairytales that is your due. I am not trying to convert you nor Knock on your door< allow me the same respect

im saying there are people that call themselves christians, believe in the teachings of jesus christ and so on, yet they believe in evolution and that the world is millions of years old. however, the genology back to adam and eve in the bible only goes back 10,000 or even less years. this means that these certain christians choose not to believe that this genology is real. perhaps even meaning that adam and eve never existed. if you dont believe in these parts of christianity, then why bother believing the rest. that was the point i was trying to make.

It actually maybe more of belief in what organized religion teaches it's congregation, which differs from each other as their own interpetations of the bible leads them. The common christians are not the ones that are "able" to define what is right and what is wrong within biblical text. That "right" belongs solely to hte religion's leaders. They are the ones that say this is so and this is not. As can be proven there are many texts in the bible that have been changed throughout the last 2 centuries so that the bible will better fit the tenets of the "church" (read organized religion).
Also, you note that according to biblical lineage the world would only be about 10,000 years old. One thing that you are forgetting, is that according to the ancient texts, man lived to be around 900 years old. There is no mention that so and so was married at the age of 14 (for example) and thatthey fathered babe 1, 2, 3. If man had the lifespan as described in the Old testament, there is nothing that says that (for example) that Adam did not father Can and Abel until his say 600th year. This goes for the rest of the lineage for the most part.

If you real want to discuss the origions of Man, then you need to reference Genisis itself. You will note that according to Genisis 1:27 -28

So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

Notice, that Man and woman are created at the same time and are told to replenish the world.

Then if you reference Genisis 2:18- 27 you will notice that This is where Eve came into being.

Don't you agree that this presents a slight problem for the churches as the bible itself disagrees with the popular church belief that Adam and
EVE were the first?

Check out:
www.blueletterbible.org...

and

www.blueletterbible.org...

Originally posted by shaunybaby
well if the literal interpretation of the bible is wrong then the bible is wrong. the world is either billions of years old, or not. you cant have it both ways. if you're a christian, who believes in evolution, or that god created evolution, then you also have to believe the world is billions or atleast millions of years old. the genology line back to adam and eve is only 10,000 years.

6000

..so is that wrong? if so, why is the rest of the bible right. if parts of the bible dont make sense, aren't credible (four gospels), then why can any of it be thought to be the 'truth'.

Great post. We agree. You cant pick and choose. Its all or nothing. If your Jesus cant make the earth in 6 days then he cant raise from the dead.
Who will you believe.
Choose this day whom you will follow...

this is where faith comes in. faith isnt something youre born with. you learn it and youre taught it. it becomes 2nd nature. when that faith is so strongly implanted nothing can change your belief however dumb you sound...'noah built a boat that took 120 years, and then there was a world wide flood'...keep your bedtime fairytales to yourselves, keep the faith and quit knockin on my door!

We have the fossils and geologic column to prove it too.

Now if you want to talk about great faith. Start talking about evolution. You have faith that lifeless objects came together by themselves and came alive. Then you have faith for trillions of changes that produced the first animal. Go on from there till you get to humans.
Now that takes tons of faith.

I dont have enough faith to believe in evolution.

If YOU do...then I have a 300 million year old fishing reel that evolved into being. (it is embedded in 300 million year old rock). It is prolly the predecessor to houses or something. They evolved didnt they?