Can you be religious and pro science and technology?

[Divine Wind]

I'll certainly keep all this in mind if I ever feel compelled to justify my religious beliefs to you and request your approval. I doubt it will happen, but I suppose it's technically possible I could sustain a severe head injury of some sort.

Your straw man argument is lame. You don't need my approval anymore than I need yours. I have Freedom of Speech just as you do. Do I need your opinion to speak my mind to you or anyone else? Of course not since you have the same freedom, so feel free to take your straw man and use it as a scarecrow, burn it or rub it on your hurt spot. Whatever you desire, sweetie, since it's still a free country until the fucking assholes take over imposing their beliefs on everyone else....of course I'll go down shooting.

 

[Andylusion]

I'll certainly keep all this in mind if I ever feel compelled to justify my religious beliefs to you and request your approval. I doubt it will happen, but I suppose it's technically possible I could sustain a severe head injury of some sort.

Your straw man argument is lame. You don't need my approval anymore than I need yours. I have Freedom of Speech just as you do. Do I need your opinion to speak my mind to you or anyone else? Of course not since you have the same freedom, so feel free to take your straw man and use it as a scarecrow, burn it or rub it on your hurt spot. Whatever you desire, sweetie, since it's still a free country until the fucking assholes take over imposing their beliefs on everyone else....of course I'll go down shooting.

Her point is, when you attack people over their religious views.... we don't care. If you want to go down shooting, that's fine. Go down shooting. I'm going to Heaven. So of course I'll do as I please, and I don't care if you are offended by that or not.

 

[ding]

Christians care about the ENTIRE Bible. Publishers offer copies of just the NT because there are people who want it for various reasons. You can also buy copies of just the OT, just the Gospels, just the individual books, just the ministry of Christ . . .

1) You say that like you speak for all denominations of Christianity.

2) So you agree adultery should be a death penalty offense? Do you avoid eating pork and shellfish?

Isn't this an example of you cherry picking out of context?

 

[Divine Wind]

Her point is, when you attack people over their religious views.... we don't care. If you want to go down shooting, that's fine. Go down shooting. I'm going to Heaven. So of course I'll do as I please, and I don't care if you are offended by that or not.

Interesting that you believe that so firmly, you being so "in" with God and all.

 

[Divine Wind]

Christians care about the ENTIRE Bible. Publishers offer copies of just the NT because there are people who want it for various reasons. You can also buy copies of just the OT, just the Gospels, just the individual books, just the ministry of Christ . . .

1) You say that like you speak for all denominations of Christianity.

2) So you agree adultery should be a death penalty offense? Do you avoid eating pork and shellfish?

Isn't this an example of you cherry picking out of context?

That's the point. Cherry picking the OT isn't righteous. It's just cherry-picking. Either you accept it all or you accept Christ's message. Which do you think is correct?

 

[ding]

Christians care about the ENTIRE Bible. Publishers offer copies of just the NT because there are people who want it for various reasons. You can also buy copies of just the OT, just the Gospels, just the individual books, just the ministry of Christ . . .

1) You say that like you speak for all denominations of Christianity.

2) So you agree adultery should be a death penalty offense? Do you avoid eating pork and shellfish?

Isn't this an example of you cherry picking out of context?

That's the point. Cherry picking the OT isn't righteous. It's just cherry-picking. Either you accept it all or you accept Christ's message. Which do you think is correct?

Sure, but in the proper context. I'm saying yours wasn't.

 

[Andylusion]

Her point is, when you attack people over their religious views.... we don't care. If you want to go down shooting, that's fine. Go down shooting. I'm going to Heaven. So of course I'll do as I please, and I don't care if you are offended by that or not.

Interesting that you believe that so firmly, you being so "in" with God and all.

Yes. 100%. No doubt in my mind at all.

 

[Andylusion]

Christians care about the ENTIRE Bible. Publishers offer copies of just the NT because there are people who want it for various reasons. You can also buy copies of just the OT, just the Gospels, just the individual books, just the ministry of Christ . . .

1) You say that like you speak for all denominations of Christianity.

2) So you agree adultery should be a death penalty offense? Do you avoid eating pork and shellfish?

Isn't this an example of you cherry picking out of context?

That's the point. Cherry picking the OT isn't righteous. It's just cherry-picking. Either you accept it all or you accept Christ's message. Which do you think is correct?

What part of the OT are we ignoring?

 

[Mudda]

It's completely absurd to claim the bible is true because other books may or may not be true. Each books must be taken on its own worth. You therefore have no proof, just alternate facts.

By all means, promote your claim to any major university you want. Take video. Let's see how that plan of your works. We'll see what all the experts of the world have to say is absurd. By all means. I will enjoy the show.

You're a fucking doofus if you think you can prove the veracity of the bible by pointing to another book and saying "Look! That book is true, so the bible is true as well!" Go ahead, take that (non-)logic to a university and see what they say.

I don't think that was the original claim. At least not the claim I was arguing against.

The claim was that we can't trust that the Bible we have, is the Bible that was written.

If you want to argue that what was originally written is wrong... then that's a different argument.

But as far as suggesting that the Bible we have, is somehow drastically modified from what was the foundational basis of the early Christian church, and early Christian beliefs, that argument is false.

Take Homer’s Iliad for example. Is any part, or all of Homer's Iliad true? We could debate that. But is Homer's Iliad the real deal? Is it, what was originally written?

Well, people who study these ancient texts, have standards and requirements, by which they determine authenticity.

The standards by which they have proven the authenticity of Homer's Iliad, and numerous other ancient texts, the Bible not only meets all of them, but exceeds them many times over.

There is no question, no doubt, no debate by anyone of any authority, that the Bible we have today, is in fact the exact same text that was written 2,000 years ago.

You think what was written was wrong. And you have the right to be wrong about that. But short of blatant intellectual dishonesty, you can not argue the Bible has in any significant or meaningful way, changed from that which was written by the Authors.

In order for you to say that the Bible we have, isn't the same as the Bible that was written nearly 2,000 years ago, you would have to say that all ancient texts of the world, are frauds, and all the scholars, and Ph.d of academic study of these ancient texts, are also all frauds.

And that would make you a larger fool than you have claimed I am, by many times over... but it would still make a great youtube video to see you try and make that claim at a university.

Ok, time for you to move the goalposts, no problem.
It doesn't really matter to me if the bible has stayed the same or not (the King James version sure didn't), but if you agree that it's a book of fiction, then we're on the same page.

If anyone changed the goal post, that would be you. The comment I responded to, was that the 4th Century Bible is not the same as the versions before it.

Of course it's not fiction. It is literal, and true. I'm a Christian. You're a pagan. We're not ever going to be on the same page. I'm ok with that. Unless you become a Christian... but clearly that isn't happening any time soon.

So how did Noah get roos from Oz and back? You said you have no clue. So the bible can't be literal if you can't even explain what happens in it.

 

[Mudda]

Andy, here's a small test to see if the bible is true: how did Noah get kangaroos from Australia and then back again after the flood?

Don't know. Is anything impossible for an all powerful G-d? He created the entire universe. Getting a couple of animals from A to B, to him, is much easier than Amtrak getting people from LA to Seattle.

So you have no plausible theory, so you simply attribute all the nonsense in the bible to magic? Brah, you need to up your critical thinking game.
So if there's an all-powerful god looking out for us, why doesn't he cure cancer? Deformed babies? ...

There was no cancer to cure prior to us screwing up his design. Read the Bible dude. IT explains it pretty clearly. Creation was perfect and sinless. When we screwed up the world by rebelling against G-d, we tainted creation.

Believe it or not, G-d is not obligated to fix what you break.

And neither is he obligated to meet your demands to know how he did everything.

When I was growing up in my parents home, I had no idea how that home was built, or how they paid for it. It never occurred to me that until they explained it, I would refuse to accept my parents existence or authority.

And by the way... G-d will explain everything, and fix everything in the end. Read Revelations.

Of course that doesn't apply to you... Only the people who accept the Lord, will be in the recreated paradise. Where you'll be, I don't know. Depends on your choices before you die.

So if I don't obey a book, I won't get the rewards the book promises to give. Man, you're even more gullible than dingbat.

PS I'll accept "the Lord" when I get some solid proof that such a being exists, can't be any fairer than that. And I'm not falling for the "I read it in a book" proof, that's nonsense.

 

[ding]

Andy, here's a small test to see if the bible is true: how did Noah get kangaroos from Australia and then back again after the flood?

Don't know. Is anything impossible for an all powerful G-d? He created the entire universe. Getting a couple of animals from A to B, to him, is much easier than Amtrak getting people from LA to Seattle.

So you have no plausible theory, so you simply attribute all the nonsense in the bible to magic? Brah, you need to up your critical thinking game.
So if there's an all-powerful god looking out for us, why doesn't he cure cancer? Deformed babies? ...

There was no cancer to cure prior to us screwing up his design. Read the Bible dude. IT explains it pretty clearly. Creation was perfect and sinless. When we screwed up the world by rebelling against G-d, we tainted creation.

Believe it or not, G-d is not obligated to fix what you break.

And neither is he obligated to meet your demands to know how he did everything.

When I was growing up in my parents home, I had no idea how that home was built, or how they paid for it. It never occurred to me that until they explained it, I would refuse to accept my parents existence or authority.

And by the way... G-d will explain everything, and fix everything in the end. Read Revelations.

Of course that doesn't apply to you... Only the people who accept the Lord, will be in the recreated paradise. Where you'll be, I don't know. Depends on your choices before you die.

So if I don't obey a book, I won't get the rewards the book promises to give. Man, you're even more gullible than dingbat.

PS I'll accept "the Lord" when I get some solid proof that such a being exists, can't be any fairer than that. And I'm not falling for the "I read it in a book" proof, that's nonsense.

I sympathize with you.

 

[Divine Wind]

Christians care about the ENTIRE Bible. Publishers offer copies of just the NT because there are people who want it for various reasons. You can also buy copies of just the OT, just the Gospels, just the individual books, just the ministry of Christ . . .

1) You say that like you speak for all denominations of Christianity.

2) So you agree adultery should be a death penalty offense? Do you avoid eating pork and shellfish?

Isn't this an example of you cherry picking out of context?

That's the point. Cherry picking the OT isn't righteous. It's just cherry-picking. Either you accept it all or you accept Christ's message. Which do you think is correct?

Sure, but in the proper context. I'm saying yours wasn't.

Again, that's the point. An example of cherry-picking asking about someone filling their fat face with BBQ pork sammiches and Shrimp Po'boys while declaring "homosexuality is an abomination! The Good Book says so!"

 

[Divine Wind]

Her point is, when you attack people over their religious views.... we don't care. If you want to go down shooting, that's fine. Go down shooting. I'm going to Heaven. So of course I'll do as I please, and I don't care if you are offended by that or not.

Interesting that you believe that so firmly, you being so "in" with God and all.

Yes. 100%. No doubt in my mind at all.

Fascinating that you do God's judgment for him.

 

[ding]

Christians care about the ENTIRE Bible. Publishers offer copies of just the NT because there are people who want it for various reasons. You can also buy copies of just the OT, just the Gospels, just the individual books, just the ministry of Christ . . .

1) You say that like you speak for all denominations of Christianity.

2) So you agree adultery should be a death penalty offense? Do you avoid eating pork and shellfish?

Isn't this an example of you cherry picking out of context?

That's the point. Cherry picking the OT isn't righteous. It's just cherry-picking. Either you accept it all or you accept Christ's message. Which do you think is correct?

Sure, but in the proper context. I'm saying yours wasn't.

Again, that's the point. An example of cherry-picking asking about someone filling their fat face with BBQ pork sammiches and Shrimp Po'boys while declaring "homosexuality is an abomination! The Good Book says so!"

What is the Biblical context of eating pork?

What is the Biblical context of homosexual sex?

 

[Mudda]

What is the Biblical context of homosexual sex?

God tossed Adam out of Eden for banging the girl, instead of staying in (homo) heaven with Him.

 

[ding]

What is the Biblical context of homosexual sex?

God tossed Adam out of Eden for banging the girl, instead of staying in (homo) heaven with Him.

Thanks, but I'm not that interested in your opinion. No offense.

 

[Andylusion]

By all means, promote your claim to any major university you want. Take video. Let's see how that plan of your works. We'll see what all the experts of the world have to say is absurd. By all means. I will enjoy the show.

You're a fucking doofus if you think you can prove the veracity of the bible by pointing to another book and saying "Look! That book is true, so the bible is true as well!" Go ahead, take that (non-)logic to a university and see what they say.

I don't think that was the original claim. At least not the claim I was arguing against.

The claim was that we can't trust that the Bible we have, is the Bible that was written.

If you want to argue that what was originally written is wrong... then that's a different argument.

But as far as suggesting that the Bible we have, is somehow drastically modified from what was the foundational basis of the early Christian church, and early Christian beliefs, that argument is false.

Take Homer’s Iliad for example. Is any part, or all of Homer's Iliad true? We could debate that. But is Homer's Iliad the real deal? Is it, what was originally written?

Well, people who study these ancient texts, have standards and requirements, by which they determine authenticity.

The standards by which they have proven the authenticity of Homer's Iliad, and numerous other ancient texts, the Bible not only meets all of them, but exceeds them many times over.

There is no question, no doubt, no debate by anyone of any authority, that the Bible we have today, is in fact the exact same text that was written 2,000 years ago.

You think what was written was wrong. And you have the right to be wrong about that. But short of blatant intellectual dishonesty, you can not argue the Bible has in any significant or meaningful way, changed from that which was written by the Authors.

In order for you to say that the Bible we have, isn't the same as the Bible that was written nearly 2,000 years ago, you would have to say that all ancient texts of the world, are frauds, and all the scholars, and Ph.d of academic study of these ancient texts, are also all frauds.

And that would make you a larger fool than you have claimed I am, by many times over... but it would still make a great youtube video to see you try and make that claim at a university.

Ok, time for you to move the goalposts, no problem.
It doesn't really matter to me if the bible has stayed the same or not (the King James version sure didn't), but if you agree that it's a book of fiction, then we're on the same page.

If anyone changed the goal post, that would be you. The comment I responded to, was that the 4th Century Bible is not the same as the versions before it.

Of course it's not fiction. It is literal, and true. I'm a Christian. You're a pagan. We're not ever going to be on the same page. I'm ok with that. Unless you become a Christian... but clearly that isn't happening any time soon.

So how did Noah get roos from Oz and back? You said you have no clue. So the bible can't be literal if you can't even explain what happens in it.

Are you crazy? Do you know how many scientific theories existed for years and years before they could be explained? Do you know how many scientific law we have right now, that we can't explain?

Take gravity. Simple, easy, gravity. We know it exists. We know how it works. We know it's effect. And you can read reports a dozen pages long describing it.

What causes gravity? Mass? Ok.... but what causes the mass to create gravity?

You don't know. So obviously the entire theory is bunk, according to your own standards. Go to any university and tell them that.

"gravity can't be a literal truth, because I can't explain it" -Some moron on an internet forum somewhere.

Hey if you want to believe stupid things, that's fine. Whatever floats your boat man.

 

[Andylusion]

Andy, here's a small test to see if the bible is true: how did Noah get kangaroos from Australia and then back again after the flood?

Don't know. Is anything impossible for an all powerful G-d? He created the entire universe. Getting a couple of animals from A to B, to him, is much easier than Amtrak getting people from LA to Seattle.

So you have no plausible theory, so you simply attribute all the nonsense in the bible to magic? Brah, you need to up your critical thinking game.
So if there's an all-powerful god looking out for us, why doesn't he cure cancer? Deformed babies? ...

There was no cancer to cure prior to us screwing up his design. Read the Bible dude. IT explains it pretty clearly. Creation was perfect and sinless. When we screwed up the world by rebelling against G-d, we tainted creation.

Believe it or not, G-d is not obligated to fix what you break.

And neither is he obligated to meet your demands to know how he did everything.

When I was growing up in my parents home, I had no idea how that home was built, or how they paid for it. It never occurred to me that until they explained it, I would refuse to accept my parents existence or authority.

And by the way... G-d will explain everything, and fix everything in the end. Read Revelations.

Of course that doesn't apply to you... Only the people who accept the Lord, will be in the recreated paradise. Where you'll be, I don't know. Depends on your choices before you die.

So if I don't obey a book, I won't get the rewards the book promises to give. Man, you're even more gullible than dingbat.

PS I'll accept "the Lord" when I get some solid proof that such a being exists, can't be any fairer than that. And I'm not falling for the "I read it in a book" proof, that's nonsense.

Why is that surprising? Have you never worked even the most simple and lame of jobs? If you do nothing but deliver papers, if you don't deliver the papers you don't get the reward of a paycheck, and spending money, and a chance at being promoted.

Why would you expect G-d to reward people who hate him, and refuse to follow his rules? If I come into your house, track mud all over the place, make a mess, refusing to follow the rules of your home, and at the same time start telling your wife she's ugly, and you, that your an idiot..... will you reward me?

Why would you expect G-d to act differently than you would?

As for you waiting for proof... G-d meets people where they are in their attitude. I have no idea what your attitude is. But if a person really wants to meet G-d, he'll show up. What G-d doesn't do, is show up for people who think they are 'owed' some proof, and demand it. He's not a Genie in a bottle, that obeys your command, or feels the need to prove himself to you.

 

[BreezeWood]

You're a fucking doofus if you think you can prove the veracity of the bible by pointing to another book and saying "Look! That book is true, so the bible is true as well!" Go ahead, take that (non-)logic to a university and see what they say.

I don't think that was the original claim. At least not the claim I was arguing against.

The claim was that we can't trust that the Bible we have, is the Bible that was written.

If you want to argue that what was originally written is wrong... then that's a different argument.

But as far as suggesting that the Bible we have, is somehow drastically modified from what was the foundational basis of the early Christian church, and early Christian beliefs, that argument is false.

Take Homer’s Iliad for example. Is any part, or all of Homer's Iliad true? We could debate that. But is Homer's Iliad the real deal? Is it, what was originally written?

Well, people who study these ancient texts, have standards and requirements, by which they determine authenticity.

The standards by which they have proven the authenticity of Homer's Iliad, and numerous other ancient texts, the Bible not only meets all of them, but exceeds them many times over.

There is no question, no doubt, no debate by anyone of any authority, that the Bible we have today, is in fact the exact same text that was written 2,000 years ago.

You think what was written was wrong. And you have the right to be wrong about that. But short of blatant intellectual dishonesty, you can not argue the Bible has in any significant or meaningful way, changed from that which was written by the Authors.

In order for you to say that the Bible we have, isn't the same as the Bible that was written nearly 2,000 years ago, you would have to say that all ancient texts of the world, are frauds, and all the scholars, and Ph.d of academic study of these ancient texts, are also all frauds.

And that would make you a larger fool than you have claimed I am, by many times over... but it would still make a great youtube video to see you try and make that claim at a university.

Ok, time for you to move the goalposts, no problem.
It doesn't really matter to me if the bible has stayed the same or not (the King James version sure didn't), but if you agree that it's a book of fiction, then we're on the same page.

If anyone changed the goal post, that would be you. The comment I responded to, was that the 4th Century Bible is not the same as the versions before it.

Of course it's not fiction. It is literal, and true. I'm a Christian. You're a pagan. We're not ever going to be on the same page. I'm ok with that. Unless you become a Christian... but clearly that isn't happening any time soon.

So how did Noah get roos from Oz and back? You said you have no clue. So the bible can't be literal if you can't even explain what happens in it.

Are you crazy? Do you know how many scientific theories existed for years and years before they could be explained? Do you know how many scientific law we have right now, that we can't explain?

Take gravity. Simple, easy, gravity. We know it exists. We know how it works. We know it's effect. And you can read reports a dozen pages long describing it.

What causes gravity? Mass? Ok.... but what causes the mass to create gravity?

You don't know. So obviously the entire theory is bunk, according to your own standards. Go to any university and tell them that.

"gravity can't be a literal truth, because I can't explain it" -Some moron on an internet forum somewhere.

Hey if you want to believe stupid things, that's fine. Whatever floats your boat man.

.

Do you know how many scientific theories existed for years and years before they could be explained? Do you know how many scientific law we have right now, that we can't explain?

the truth is your 4th century book did not have the wherewithall to properly portray and explain the parable of Noah, a failing throughout its text and why the proper revisions to their inaccuracies need to be made.

 

[Andylusion]

I don't think that was the original claim. At least not the claim I was arguing against.

The claim was that we can't trust that the Bible we have, is the Bible that was written.

If you want to argue that what was originally written is wrong... then that's a different argument.

But as far as suggesting that the Bible we have, is somehow drastically modified from what was the foundational basis of the early Christian church, and early Christian beliefs, that argument is false.

Take Homer’s Iliad for example. Is any part, or all of Homer's Iliad true? We could debate that. But is Homer's Iliad the real deal? Is it, what was originally written?

Well, people who study these ancient texts, have standards and requirements, by which they determine authenticity.

The standards by which they have proven the authenticity of Homer's Iliad, and numerous other ancient texts, the Bible not only meets all of them, but exceeds them many times over.

There is no question, no doubt, no debate by anyone of any authority, that the Bible we have today, is in fact the exact same text that was written 2,000 years ago.

You think what was written was wrong. And you have the right to be wrong about that. But short of blatant intellectual dishonesty, you can not argue the Bible has in any significant or meaningful way, changed from that which was written by the Authors.

In order for you to say that the Bible we have, isn't the same as the Bible that was written nearly 2,000 years ago, you would have to say that all ancient texts of the world, are frauds, and all the scholars, and Ph.d of academic study of these ancient texts, are also all frauds.

And that would make you a larger fool than you have claimed I am, by many times over... but it would still make a great youtube video to see you try and make that claim at a university.

Ok, time for you to move the goalposts, no problem.
It doesn't really matter to me if the bible has stayed the same or not (the King James version sure didn't), but if you agree that it's a book of fiction, then we're on the same page.

If anyone changed the goal post, that would be you. The comment I responded to, was that the 4th Century Bible is not the same as the versions before it.

Of course it's not fiction. It is literal, and true. I'm a Christian. You're a pagan. We're not ever going to be on the same page. I'm ok with that. Unless you become a Christian... but clearly that isn't happening any time soon.

So how did Noah get roos from Oz and back? You said you have no clue. So the bible can't be literal if you can't even explain what happens in it.

Are you crazy? Do you know how many scientific theories existed for years and years before they could be explained? Do you know how many scientific law we have right now, that we can't explain?

Take gravity. Simple, easy, gravity. We know it exists. We know how it works. We know it's effect. And you can read reports a dozen pages long describing it.

What causes gravity? Mass? Ok.... but what causes the mass to create gravity?

You don't know. So obviously the entire theory is bunk, according to your own standards. Go to any university and tell them that.

"gravity can't be a literal truth, because I can't explain it" -Some moron on an internet forum somewhere.

Hey if you want to believe stupid things, that's fine. Whatever floats your boat man.

.

Do you know how many scientific theories existed for years and years before they could be explained? Do you know how many scientific law we have right now, that we can't explain?

the truth is your 4th century book did not have the wherewithall to properly portray and explain the parable of Noah, a failing throughout its text and why the proper revisions to their inaccuracies need to be made.

The story of Noah, and the Ark, is way older than the 4th century. Moreover, the fact that cultures around the world have similar origin stories, most of which include a great flood, suggests that there is accuracy in the story. After all, if there was a world wide flood, we would expect all ancient nations to have similar stories. And they do.