Thread closed?

[fair dinkum]

@fair-dinkum Such an intelligent and well thought out post.

When you get back from advising NASA on their latest space mission, maybe you could lecture us on how you were able to fit so much passive aggressiveness into just three sentences.

Seems like a very logical and reasonable response from someone that cant make a logical and reasonable response on their ever weakening position.

 

[fair dinkum]

Timothy 2:12


"I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, she must be silent."

 

[rustycage]

A God wouldn't put so many good people through some many 9th places.

 

[fair dinkum]

Numbers 31:17-18

"Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man intimately. But all the girls who have not known man intimately, spare for yourselves."

 

[Abraham]

@fair-dinkum Oh so now you decide to write an actual response, instead spewing childish one-liners. Well done.

From what i can make of your reply, you have basically agreed with me re. science that it changes, in opposition to what Mr Gervais says if "we took every science book, and every fact, and destroyed them all, in a thousand years they’d all be back". I never commented on scientific theory, just on Gervais' specific comments that the science books would never change .He didn't elaborate beyond that point, and so neither will I.

The only difference is that your such a miserable human being that you littered it with condescending language and insults. If you need to insult strangers with your keyboard to feel like a big man, then whatever floats your boat, Rambo.

You actually didn't challenge what i said about the Bible either, you just threw in a bunch of unsubstantiated claims and childish insults. Again.

Jesus didn't appear on earth the leave a Bible for us, he came to leave a Church. The Bible was put together as a formal record of these events by church elders (we believe under Divine inspiration), so that these events and teachings would not be altered for future generations. In other words a Historical Record. So if the Bible were shredded, there is still a Church of believers who are left behind.

Your explanation only makes sense if you take it from the basis of atheistic truth. So it is an argument made from bias. Which is what you are argueing about re the Bible. Which kinda makes you look like a ...

Anyway, you didn't understand my analogy. The point is that the Bible is the way people pass-on God's revelation, and destroying the record doesn't destroy the underlying truth. How do you know that God wouldn't come back an re-reveal what He already revealed to us if everything was destroyed? You don't. Unless your taking it from an atheistic viewpoint. And i don't know he would, unless i am taking it from a Theistic view point. And then we go around in circles again.

Just an observation. Why are all the passive aggressive posters in this thread atheist? Do they teach you at atheist summer camp to be the most miserable people in the room, or is it just a coincidence?

 

[Geo]


 

[tigerbalm]

@tigerbalm Help me out then.

What was he implying that i missed ?

I'd imagine a lot to be honest. OK, ill try just once.

Gervais is assuming that in a 1000 years, people will still have the same wonderment on how the universe began, where did we come from, whats it all mean- as we all do now.

In a 1000 years, gravity will still accelerate objects at 9.8m/s on earth. This test can be repeated and verified. The statement is backed with data. This will be a true statement regardless of any oral or written histories. No blind faith or any faith is required to believe that gravity accelerates objects at 9.8m/s.

I dont think Gervais specifically meant gravity but was implying that there are absolute truths in our universe and these will be understood regardless of any prior influences.

I mentioned your analogy because neither WW2 or 9/11 are claiming to be/ or in any way were involved in the creation of the entire universe and in a 1000 years neither event will have any impact on future civilizations trying to understand the creation of the universe. In fact, I would agree with you that if there was no proof, no documents, no archaeological evidence then these people in 1000 years should completely disregard WW2 and 9/11. I mean, with none of that evidence they'd be crazy to just blin...anyways It would have zero impact on the science. It would not in anyway help them understand the future or their place in the cosmos.

 

[Abraham]

Just an observation. Why are all the passive aggressive posters in this thread atheist? Do they teach you at atheist summer camp to be the most miserable people in the room, or is it just a coincidence?

I'd imagine a lot to be honest. OK, ill try just once.

I promise i am not a prophet

Just an acute observer.

 

[fair dinkum]

@fair-dinkum Oh so now you decide to write an actual response, **instead spewing childish one-liners.** Well done.

From what i can make of your reply, you have basically agreed with me re. science that it changes, in opposition to what Mr Gervais says if "we took every science book, and every fact, and destroyed them all, in a thousand years they’d all be back". I never commented on scientific theory, just on Gervais' specific comments that the science books would never change .He didn't elaborate beyond that point, and so neither will I.

The only difference is that **your such a miserable human being** that you littered it with condescending language and insults. If you need to insult strangers with **your keyboard to feel like a big man, then whatever floats your boat, Rambo.**

You actually didn't challenge what i said about the Bible either, you just threw in a bunch of **unsubstantiated claims and childish insults. Again.**

Jesus didn't appear on earth the leave a Bible for us, he came to leave a Church. The Bible was put together as a formal record of these events by church elders (we believe under Divine inspiration), so that these events and teachings would not be altered for future generations. In other words a Historical Record. So if the Bible were shredded, there is still a Church of believers who are left behind.

Your explanation only makes sense if you take it from the basis of **atheistic truth**. So it is an argument made from bias. Which is what you are argueing about re the Bible. **Which kinda makes you look like a ...**

Anyway, you didn't understand my analogy. The point is that the Bible is the way people pass-on God's revelation, and destroying the record doesn't destroy the underlying truth. How do you know that God wouldn't come back an re-reveal what He already revealed to us if everything was destroyed? You don't. **Unless your taking it from an atheistic viewpoint**. And i don't know he would, unless i am taking it from a Theistic view point. And then we go around in circles again.

Just an observation. **Why are all the passive aggressive posters in this thread atheist?** Do they teach you at atheist summer camp to be **the most miserable people in the room, or is it just a coincidence?**

Glass houses.

ill just leave this here to show the character of a good Christian.

God Bless.

 

[fair dinkum]

II Kings 6:28-29

"And the king said unto her, What aileth thee? And she answered, This woman said unto me, Give thy son, that we may eat him to day, and we will eat my son to morrow. So we boiled my son, and did eat him: and I said unto her on the next day, Give thy son, that we may eat him: and she hath hid her son"

 

[Abraham]

@fair-dinkum

My initial response to you was perfectly friendly.

You decided to act like an unhinged big-mouth when dealing with me however.

So you don't get to lecture me on civility.

Enjoy your day and God Bless.

 

[fair dinkum]

Deuteronomy 25:11-1

If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity.

 

[fair dinkum]

@Abraham

Your initial response was delusional and arrogant at best. What seemed to trigger you was when i said your God should know how to reveal himself to CB, of course faced with acknowledging your sky daddy doesnt exist you instead didnt even address the brilliant point that i wrote and instead replied with -

"Such an intelligent and well thought out post. When you get back from advising NASA on their latest space mission, maybe you could lecture us on how you were able to fit so much passive aggressiveness into just three sentences."


I see one doesn't mind lecturing others on civility while being completely oblivious to their own behaviour. Although you do believe in that immoral man made abomination of a book that condones slavery and murder, so i guess, eye for an eye and all that. you know, all those good Christian values.

 

[fair dinkum]

Exodus 21: 7-8

"When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again."

 

[Tiger_Steve]

this is quite unbelievable - this thread is still not closed? - I thought it was going to be closed ALREADY lol

You could call it the eternal thread😂😂

 

[4jtigers]

time to close it I think - I see obnoxiousness aplently

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

@Cultured_Bogan Ok fair enough.

You mentioned you would believe in God if He could be measured in line with the scientific method. Practically speaking though, how does that manifest into something tangible?

So for example, does God need to personally make a physical appearance in front of every person for the rest of eternity? Or does God need to be permanently visible in the sky where we can all see Him at any given moment?

My personal opinion of why God doesn't actually do this, is that we would then be compelled to worship Him out of fear, rather than as an act of love from our own free-will.

A bit of a simplistic notion but in essence yes, something observable enough to be measured.

The idea of Pantheism and Panentheism still even presents its own issues also in that Pantheism is every bit a philosophy in that divinity and reality are one and the same. Pantheism is kind of a each way bet for mine, tying the divine into the natural world so that if the scientific method represents it, it is still proof of the divine if you so believe it to be. But I would also suspect that extinguishes any notion of the supernatural (i.e. ascension after death etc,) which moves away from a standard Abrahamic religious position. Panentheism is a little more straightforward in that is believed that God transcends the universe, so once all avenues of investigation are exhausted, then it would lend credence to external influence if no answer is found.

All just my interpretation of those philosophies of course.

 

[fair dinkum]

II Chronicles 21:14-15

"Behold with a great plague will the LORD smite thy people and thy children, and thy wives, and all thy goods: And thou shalt have great sickness by disease of thy bowels, until thy bowels fall out by reason of the sickness day by day."

 

[Abraham]

@fair-dinkum

Do you have a problem reading english? I already said my first post to you was friendly, everything after that is on you.


 

[4jtigers]

this is quite unbelievable - this thread is still not closed? - I thought it was going to be closed ALREADY lol


You could call it the eternal thread??

lol - I get no joy in seeing supporters fight or argue where no one would really win as they will have different beliefs