Creation vs. Evolution page 26

763 posts

Flag Post

FWW
Well, G-d is NOT claimed to have a HUMAN BODY – quite the CONTRARY.
I just find the above topic ridiculous.
Cheers, end of topic – it’s turning towards religious offenses.
And I don’t want to make those…

 
Flag Post

Hehehe, religious offenses! Sounds like fun.
Come on Somebody613, we all tell each other what we really feel.
Tell me what you really feel about Christians and atheists.

We’re all big boys and girls! We can handle it.
This is a serious discussion.

 
Flag Post

FWW
I kinda DID.
The main points anyways.
Funny (NOT), but that’s how I feel when someone starts “proving” to me “how stupid I am for being religious”. :D
Didn’t want others to FEEL that way, but still wanted to SAY the main points.

 
Flag Post
Well, G-d is NOT claimed to have a HUMAN BODY – quite the CONTRARY.

God did claim to have a human body
-→ “made of the seed of David according to the flesh, … declared to be the Son of God” (Rom 1:3,4, Heb 2:14-18)
-→ John 14:9, “… he that hath seen me hath seen the Father.”
-→ And he asked them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” — Matthew 16:15-16
-→ John 1:3: “All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.” In the context of these verses, the Word made flesh is identical with the Word who was in the beginning with God, being exegetically equated with Jesus.

So, here it is claimed that God indeed did have a body, and the body was Jesus.

 
Flag Post

FWW
Should I show you your MAIN mistake in the last post?
The same way Muslims claim that it was Ishmael who was nearly killed.
(Aka, look at the root, when grafting a plant. “CRYPTIC JOKE” achievement unlocked…)

 
Flag Post

There are no mistakes in my claim. These are all proofs that Christians have that lead them to believe that God manifested himself in human form as Jesus.
They are all valid arguments and proofs if we go by your standard of proofs.
Absolutely nothing wrong here…but if you can give me a clear and coherent debunk, I’m all ears. (You know I’m not religious so it should be quite easy for you to debunk these for me if you just use logic.)

 
Flag Post

FWW
Like I said, Muslims believe that it was Ishmael up there with Abraham (not Isaac like in the original).
Source – Koran.
Reliability – Muslim-only. :DDDDD
Similarly with your post. :DDD
Clear now?
(If not – try finding a proof in the JEWISH sources, so I can debunk them. Yours are too Christian-bound for that.)
Why do I fell like deja vu? O_o

 
Flag Post

The bibles and sacred books of many religions are often skewed by those who don’t understand it. Flabby, John 1:3 seems to be more of a creationist proving quote rather than proof that god was human to me…

 
Flag Post

Yup, pretty much agree on both points.

 
Flag Post

Religious people often obscure bible verses to mean whatever they want.

That’s why, even in a given church or amongst the abrahamic religions, no one agrees on anything. They’re all arguing over things that no one knows about, as if there’s an answer somewhere in there. I find it interesting that you can’t identify why your answer is better than anyone else’s, but you certainly think it is.

 
Flag Post

BSG, EVERYBODY that quotes the bible to make a point can obscure the meaning, and it’s not just the religious people that do it.

 
Flag Post

Yet it’s the origin for a deep seated belief you hold.

 
Flag Post

Hm whatever.

This is going a little bit off topic here, we should go back to the argument about evolution and creationism.

 
Flag Post

BSG
I want my Triceratops… Whaaaaah..! :DDDDD
An example:
Should a gold-medal sprinter strive for being a world champion in chess?
He could, theoretically, but why would he WANT to do it?
Same about someone (ANYONE) who has found his answers in ANY religion.
There’s no NEED for him to look for “better options” – he has a working one already.

 
Flag Post

Somebody, what the heck does you wanting a Triceratops have to do with what you just said.

 
Flag Post

Since when were Creationism & evolution mutually exclusive?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by MoonlaughMaster:

Since when were Creationism & evolution mutually exclusive?

I was just beginning to wonder that myself… :S

 
Flag Post

Dar
A lot.
As in “science knows it all” and “religion is bull”.
So, give me a live dino!
You can’t?
So who said science IS right – if you can’t prove it FIRST-HAND?
Cause I don’t accept this as an EXCUSE to ditch religion.
(Ehem, I already said, that evolution COULD be true, although “virtual-world-style”. But the question here is about the past in general.)

Moon
Since some jerks want it to be so…
On both sides.

 
Flag Post

Interesting, but I’m still not sure about how creationism cancels out evolution and vice-versa.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by MoonlaughMaster:

Since when were Creationism & evolution mutually exclusive?

When creationists decided that God wanted Earth antiqued.

 
Flag Post

Dar
It doesn’t.
Unless someone wants to use evolution as a pretext to ditch religion.
Check my posts somewhere on this forum, I ended up with a COMBO of evolution and religion – mature created Earth aka time can be wrong. :DDD
And got attacked by those who use the topic as a pretext – cause otherwise they’d be happy with my solution…

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by somebody613:

BSG
I want my Triceratops… Whaaaaah..! :DDDDD
An example:
Should a gold-medal sprinter strive for being a world champion in chess?
He could, theoretically, but why would he WANT to do it?
Same about someone (ANYONE) who has found his answers in ANY religion.
There’s no NEED for him to look for “better options” – he has a working one already.

Please learn how to use the quote post button. It really helps the readability of your posts.

Originally posted by TheBSG:

Religious people often obscure bible verses to mean whatever they want.

That’s why, even in a given church or amongst the abrahamic religions, no one agrees on anything. They’re all arguing over things that no one knows about, as if there’s an answer somewhere in there. I find it interesting that you can’t identify why your answer is better than anyone else’s, but you certainly think it is.

This holds true for anything that doesn’t hold a clear cut meaning. You can have just as deep a conversation about the eyes of Dr. T.J. Eckleburg in The Great Gatsby as you can about the parables of Jesus Christ. The only difference is that one is used as the guidelines for a culture.

On the subject of bias: everyone has it, and it’s impossible to avoid. Why do you think people are willing to have such impassioned arguments over genres of music, a completely subjective form of art, in which there is no such thing as a “worse genre”? Again, the same sort of thing is happening here. People grow comfortable with a certain way of seeing the world, and therefore view things in ways that agree with their biases.

 
Flag Post

Moon

Please learn how to use the quote post button. It really helps the readability of your posts.

OK, though your example didn’t require quoting.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by somebody613:

Moon

Please learn how to use the quote post button. It really helps the readability of your posts.

OK, though your example didn’t require quoting.

It wasn’t an example, simply the way I format posts. If I am replying to someone, regardless of where their post is, I quote it.

 
Flag Post

I don’t disagree with anything you just said Moon, and it is pretty much exactly how I view religion. I quite love studying religion for the values I gain from those exact discussions. It’s when a theist attempts to compel me that these things and parables they have discerned must be true, and satisfy all the laws of physics and evolution. It just isn’t necessary.