The above is typical of the condescending attitude and dishonesty (remember your dishonest attempt to prove the Bible required slavery?) that makes any constructive discussion with you an impossibilty. Most people are theists. So if they 'practise' or 'position' their theism above whatever you seem to believe should be of higher value, the problem is yours, not that of the majority. Anyway, stu, I have better things to do with my time than waste it with you. Adios.
There you go again,defending your belief now by false accusation and sidestepping rather than reasonable argument . I should think it never crossed your mind how much of a condescending attitude that represents. Most people are Chinese, how would that show what they set as higher value ? I agree, constructing fallacious arguments trying to defend your belief, is wasting your time
I so rarely see arguments from you stu, just statements of opinion. Your statements are not important to me. Yes, you are a persecutor of theists, 4 sure...
Listen close, stu - I was only agreeing with the METHOD of exposing bigotry. Ya know, a little irony in using ones own words against them.... To tell the truth, I think people on both sides of the arguement are narrow minded and rigid. Get it yet?
I listened close as you requested. Now you listen Haroki. Your explanation does not stack one bit. You think it's a METHOD to simply alter names in a bunch of words which then exposes bigoty. OK let's see, So here's ZZz's post above, after being subjected to a METHOD "I so rarely see arguments from you ZZzz, just statements of opinion. Your statements are not important to me. Yes, you are a persecutor of atheists, 4 sure..." Now according to your METHOD Zzz is now a bigot. It's hardly irony. You have simply exposed your predjudice , or your METHOD is just sheer nonsense. Get it at all? oh and btw zzz didn't you know.. All arguments except your own are 'statements of opinion' .
Now you listen Haroki. No, now you listen stu... "oh and btw zzz didn't you know.. All arguments except your own are 'statements of opinion'. Oh, I would comment that the above is an all or nothing logical fallacy, but since it is not part of any argument, just another stuism statement, why bother...
No, to be opposed to one person's view doesn't make him a bigot.... Aw forget it, you fail to see that I'm making no judgement against anyone. ZZ is trying to show that you're a bigot, not me, for I couldn't care less about religion. I just appreciate the irony of using ones' words against them, to make ANY point...
I had early provided a response to an earlier post but it appears it did not make posting. That is fine since this is not my forum, and the revelator of the site is indeed entitled to include or exclude what they wish. Sometimes I can be very forward on my line of thought, and I still need to learn all are entitled to their own opinion. IAlso I would like to note indeed there are a number of user friendly bibles available that do not use the King James version. Although I was weaned on it and find it the most complete of the group. Simply meaning it is a direct translation from the original compilation of the Textus Receptus grouping which included Greek, Hebrew originals. Yes some Latin manuscripts were used but only in confirmation of original text, as I understand it. Latin being the predecessor to the english version, that is why some original KJV's had the catholic apocrypha included...which I have also. But I find most translations have the truth, eventhough some have eliminated a number of words and verses. The Truth according to the old and new testaments, being the revelation of the Saviour of the world. But today's group must deal with a different assault of the pysche. One that has been trained into believing that evolution is not a theory but an actual fact. A challenge to this line of thought would be two simple laws of thermodynamics, one the Law of entropy and the other the law of the conservation of energy. Conservation of energy stating that energy can be neither created nor destroyed. The science writer Isaac Asimov stated that , energy can neither be created nor destroyed, it can only be transferred from one place to another, or transformed from one form to another. In other words, this law states that the whole amount of energy that exists throughtout our universe remains constant and can never change. A nuclear warhead and its accompanying 235 uranium is simply transferred into a release of heat and light energy. Please note this is not theory. Every experiment has confirmed this Law of Conservation of Energy as the most basic fundamental understanding of the way the universe works. This law describes the present state of the universe after its initial creation by God. This means that God said let there be light and there was light...period. It didn't evolve into being ...it was simply made...poof. And all of creation was made into like fashion, including man. This is scientific proof friends...and Hebrews 1:3 says he created all things and is upholding all things by the word of His power. Further of the law of entropy, the 2nd law of thermodynamics states as fact that all systems and elements in the universe tend to disintegrate to a lower order of available energy or organization. So if anything we would be regressing not advancing. You know as well as I, all things turn to dust or rust...from the sword to the castle. Now when you think seriously about this universal principle, evolution becomes fiction. Evolution suggests that all simple systems and elements become increasingly more orgainized and complicated by random or selective random chance. But my rusting truck tells me that all systems and elements over time tend to disintegrate to something less organized and less useful. These two laws confirm that a supernatural force outside the universe created what we have today. Why isn't it perfect then if a perfect God created it? Because the second law states what was created has be runing down like a clock. Scientists today have confirmed that the sun is burning up...it may have 50,000 years to do so...but there will be no replacement or evolution. Darwin himself admitted that millions of "missing links", transitional life forms, would have to be discovered in the fossil record to prove the accuracy of his theory that all species had gradually evolved by chance mutation into new species. Despite the monies spent so far worldwide, not one single missing link has been found.. We should be wading in them over the alleged billions of years of evolution. And I will finish with this. The odds against life evolving by chance on earth are absolutely staggering. It would be impossible to believe that the awesome complexity in the simplest living cell could have happened by chance even over billions of years. Proteins in living creatures are composed of long chains of different amino acids that must be linked together in a precise sequence to allow the protein to live. The evolutionist believes that these complex amino acids simply came together by chance in the exact necessary sequence to allow life to exist. This is mathematically impossible. It has been calculated that the odds against these 500 amino acids lining up in the correct order to produce ONE SINGLE LIVING CELL, let alone the trillions of cells within most living creatures, is equal to one chance in 10 to the power of 200 which is ten followed by two hundred zeros. This number vastly exceeds the total number of atoms within the known universe. In other words, the odds against a single living protein being formed by chance alone is equal to the chance that a blind-folded man could locate a single grain of sand painted gold within a universe composed of fifty billion galaxies of two hundred million stars apiece composed of nothing but sand!!!!! No folks unfortunately I am betting man, but I like still like God's odds better. Just something to think about.....seriously....
Unfortunately we live in a world of both absolutism and relativism. We have on the one hand absolutes or limitations engrained in the very essence of our being and in the world/universe itself. We have for eg. laws of science. We have a gravitational field that limits our mobility on this planet. We have laws of mathemetics. eg. 2 + 2=4 (FOR THOSE OF US THAT CAN ADD) We have laws of nature or physical laws that determine our strengths, weaknesses, life span, etc. Six score and ten is what the bible claims it is more or less. Even with man's so-called advances in medicine and science. He is yet to go much beyond this average lifespan. These are simple fundamental absolutes, governing and restricting our lives. There are universal laws put in motion...purposely and working in harmony with each other. They are not principles open for discussion or debate because they are finite truths put in motion by a Creator, and held in motion by that same Creator. His Name being the name that is above every name. He is the only great "I AM." It is He who said 'I AM THE (ONLY) WAY, I AM THE (ONLY) TRUTH, AND I AM THE (ONLY) LIFE. NO MAN CAN COME TO THE FATHER (ENLIGHTENMENT FOR LACK OF A BETTER WORD) THAN BY ME.' This statement of course has been the offspring of many so-called debates. And rightly so, for if one was to make such a statement he would have to be a lunatic or God himself. Otherwise to call him simply a good or moral teacher, would simply be a form of mockery in light of what He professes himself to be. No and such statements are not open for debate or relative viewpoints or interpretations. They are what they are simply because this claim to be the "I Am" is simply the inerrant truth of scripture. And these words are the predecessors of any alleged claims or writings of all the so-called spiritualists of today or yesterday. But certainly not all religions can be wrong can they? Unfortunately what I have stated eventually requires much study at least for myself, simply because I wanted greater plausible evidence. This final truth eventually was confirmed in a book(among others) written by Josh McDowell, Evidence that Demands a Verdict. Here is a man, a lawyer who in his quest was determined to disprove the existence of Christ, and thereby subsequently did the opposite...he confirmed HIS existence. This is not to say that the Lord Jesus Christ required Josh's help to confirm His existence, the heavens around us and the Word of God do this. But Mr. McDowell was able to confirm in his own mind at least and many of his readers, that Christ did and does exist, and this one-time earthly existence was confirmed through insurmontable secular evidence recorded throughout history. There are some 30,000 manuscripts confirming the authenticity of His life and of the biblical writers. In fact much of the earlier archaelogical work and finds within the Middle East came about through biblical evidence. These findings are not subject to relative views they are fact!!! What is the point of all this? It is simply this, often we can be led astray by some alleged new grail of higher learning, subject to our relative views, that only manage to deprive us of the real truth of ourselves. That truth being, that yes indeed we are spiritual beings on some road to find out why we are here and what our purpose is. Yes some think about it more than others, and some could care less. Does that mean that the truth does not exist? No it is there whether you believe it or not. Some would assert that we just went "poof" (Big Bang theory) and we were here, as goop originally.. And thru billions of years of random mutations we eventually evolved to who we are. To be quite honest with you, none of the great minds ever believed this, based on their scientific evidence. Our own creative abilities only help to confirm creation not disprove it. The very definition of science refers to the acquiring of knowledge. How can knowledge exist if the cosmos started with nothing (no knowledge)? To further advance my line of thought, how could knowledge progress from one lower life form to another higher life form without the higher precursor of knowledge...in other words without the added science. If you were to take a simple mouse trap and removed one part of it...will it work? This is a dead, lifeless object. How much more difficult is it to create life? Do you think by adding a billion zeroes to the lifeline of the universe will help bring it into being? A simple single-celled amoeba with some 52 odd chromosones would be considered the simplest life form, and yet its DNA is more complex and advanced than all the super computers in the world combined. I challenge each of you to indeed look into your very souls, to examine yourselves... the real you. And to be simply honest with yourselves. I think if you are honest with yourself and you sincerely seek God, you will find Him. He has given us a guide book that provides all the answers to life that you will ever need. Because outside of this book, indeed life to each of us is subject to our own interpretation..it is relative, right or wrong. King Solomon who at one time was considered the wisest of all living men on the earth, concluded that "There was nothing new under the sun. And that the reading, and studying of books and sciences was simply vanity upon vanity, and one would never come to the knowledge of THE TRUTH. Man's sole purpose is to exalt and serve God." Unfortunately man has precluded God for the most part. He thinks he can exist without him. It reminds of a joke, "man confronts God and says, God we have determined we don't need you anymore. We can make anyone and anything. And God replies, Is that right? Prove it. Where by man responds, Alright watch this. Let me just pick up this little bit of dirt here and... And God yells, Hey man wait a minute, that's mine... get your own dirt! Hey guys next time your doing dirty laundry, you'll know who to blame. I do all the time...Thankyou Lord. All the best.
First you agree , confim and judge someone a bigot. Then you say you do not, because someone else showed that person to be a bigot. What I don't fail to see, is untruthfullness on your part. According to the "method" used it makes me a bigot, but the same "method" does not make others a bigot. You are simply trying to call your display of predjudice, irony - and are apparently prepared to show your dishonesty whilst doing so