455 replies to this topic

[markdohle]

bones101proof, on 10 August 2012 - 09:19 PM, said:

My question is where is hell exactly? And do other planets have a local hell also, or is it interplanetary? How about for animals? You know, like bad dogs that chew your new shoes and get into the trash can while you're out on a sinful gluttonous fast food run? Did they ever mention that part?

Hell is what you can become by choices freely made, so hell like like the kingdom of God is within, not without.

Peace
mark

[catch-me-if-you-can]

SpiritWriter, on 21 August 2012 - 01:47 AM, said:

All bodies go into the ground
in the center it is glowing
Life carries on, it is what rises.

There is such a thing as repentance to sin.
Sin = Death

Wait a second, all bodies go in the ground? What about cremation?

[SpiritWriter]

cremation = your particles fly in the wind, then land on the ground

or you wait until your urn crumbles

[calvaryoakville]

Jesus is the only way... John 14:6

[Arbitran]

calvaryoakville, on 04 October 2012 - 05:01 AM, said:

Jesus is the only way... John 14:6

I take it you don't have any actual evidence of this? And no, the Bible doesn't count as evidence; not unless you can demonstrate that it's anything more than fiction. Not trying to be antagonistic here, just realistic.

[Jinxdom]

calvaryoakville, on 04 October 2012 - 05:01 AM, said:

Jesus is the only way... John 14:6

Naw when it comes to Jesus and God I'd rather follow the don't worship false idols bit but thanks for trying.

[Harsh86_Patel]

The evil will find their heaven in hell.
The evil will find their hell in heaven.
The good will find their hell in hell.
The good will find their heaven in heaven.

If you agree with the above statements then the surest way to go to heaven is by being 'Evil'.

[Ben Masada]

calvaryoakville, on 04 October 2012 - 05:01 AM, said:

Jesus is the only way... John 14:6

If you mean, the only way to get salvation, he spoke as part of the Jews and not as a private person, because he said that salvation comes from the Jews. (John 4:22) And he said "from the Jews" and not from one among the Jews.

Ben

[Ben Masada]

Harsh86_Patel, on 04 October 2012 - 10:51 AM, said:

The evil will find their heaven in hell.
The evil will find their hell in heaven.
The good will find their hell in hell.
The good will find their heaven in heaven.

If you agree with the above statements then the surest way to go to heaven is by being 'Evil'.

This sounds like the Po Li concept of Chineese Taoism.

Ben

[Gummug]

Arbitran, on 27 September 2012 - 10:10 PM, said:

No, the scientific world has wholesale rejected creationism/intelligent design, as I've said. You've been lied to, I'm afraid.

Nobody created this world. And the origin of the eye is a very well-understood process.

The origin of the eye is a well understood process??!! Could you provide a link/documentation for that? Even Darwin said that thinking of the eye gave him nightmares, or something to that effect.

[Arbitran]

Gummug, on 13 October 2012 - 12:07 AM, said:

The origin of the eye is a well understood process??!! Could you provide a link/documentation for that? Even Darwin said that thinking of the eye gave him nightmares, or something to that effect.

Darwin's references to the eye have been misrepresented far too many times. All he ever said was that common sense at that time would seem to have rejected his theory, and the eye was one of the primary examples he gave of something which would seem to defy the logic of evolutionary theory. We have since overturned the antiquated paradigms of Darwin's day however, and the evolution of the eye is no more miraculous or difficult to explain than any other evolutionary development (that is to say, it is very easy to explain).

[Hasina]

Gummug, on 13 October 2012 - 12:07 AM, said:

The origin of the eye is a well understood process??!! Could you provide a link/documentation for that? Even Darwin said that thinking of the eye gave him nightmares, or something to that effect.

http://en.wikipedia....tion_of_the_eye

[Gummug]

Arbitran, on 13 October 2012 - 12:13 AM, said:

Darwin's references to the eye have been misrepresented far too many times. All he ever said was that common sense at that time would seem to have rejected his theory, and the eye was one of the primary examples he gave of something which would seem to defy the logic of evolutionary theory. We have since overturned the antiquated paradigms of Darwin's day however, and the evolution of the eye is no more miraculous or difficult to explain than any other evolutionary development (that is to say, it is very easy to explain).

In that video clip "irreducible complexity cut down to size" I found some of his arguments almost fatuous. As an example, he said something like "it hardly challenges evolution if an object we all agree didn't evolve couldn't have evolved". The reason I think that is because the principle is the same...the mousetrap is inorganic (except for the wooden base) and animals and plants are organic, but why does that invalidate the principle? The principle is that each of the component parts is useless by itself, so in order to be of use to the organism they would all have to come together at the same time. The mousetrap is merely an illustration of that principle, so that the fact that the mousetrap can't evolve (although somehow animals and plants can) doesn't seem to me to be a true refutation of the principle.

[Arbitran]

Gummug, on 13 October 2012 - 12:51 AM, said:

In that video clip "irreducible complexity cut down to size" I found some of his arguments almost fatuous. As an example, he said something like "it hardly challenges evolution if an object we all agree didn't evolve couldn't have evolved". The reason I think that is because the principle is the same...the mousetrap is inorganic (except for the wooden base) and animals and plants are organic, but why does that invalidate the principle? The principle is that each of the component parts is useless by itself, so in order to be of use to the organism they would all have to come together at the same time. The mousetrap is merely an illustration of that principle, so that the fact that the mousetrap can't evolve (although somehow animals and plants can) doesn't seem to me to be a true refutation of the principle.

The principle however, is unfounded. As was demonstrated very clearly in the video (why is it that everybody seems to get hung-up on the mousetrap?), evolution has no end-goal in mind, ergo, though the eye is the current product of natural selection, its predecessors would have been perfectly beneficial in their own right. Just because we happen to think that an eye couldn't function without certain features doesn't mean that a model with fewer or alternative features couldn't be perfectly useful as well; it simply would have a different function. And in the case of the human eye in particular, there happens to be a great deal of evolutionary baggage. This video illustrates a number of these features (and in a thoroughly-enjoyable way; albeit less serious and professional than the others).

[Gummug]

lozaleibou, on 26 September 2012 - 10:30 PM, said:

Can you seriously say, whether you believe in a Divine entity or not, that you think that He would tell His people to behead anyone who didn't agree with believers, that sex with children was perfectly ok, that disfiguring or killing their wives is perfectly ok if they have somehow dishonored you maybe by cooking something you didn't like for dinner, and that murder of a non believer was not murder at all, but a duty??????? Ok, so now who sounds silly???  

I knew the Quran was bad, but I didn't know it was THAT bad!