|
Post by curlywurlysammagee on Sept 9, 2019 13:19:20 GMT -5
Most of the world has a fairly good standard of education these days so there is no excuse for believing such stone age nonsense such as found in Hovind videos.
|
|
|
Post by Ed on Sept 9, 2019 13:25:20 GMT -5
David Berlinski has credentials in philosophy and math but not in the "science of cosmology". It seems Hawking has no credentials in philosophy, but he is smart enough to admit -
"We are not able to make cosmological models without some admixture of ideology." -Stephen Hawking and George Ellis
- which some materialists have trouble understanding. For everyone on the board who worships science, and rejoices with the 'knowledge' that science has claimed to refute God, you probably won't like what Berlinski writes. You probably wouldn't like what Socrates and other philosophers have written either. And, you can immediately discount their work because they aren't scientists and don't have the science degrees or peer-reviewed articles that give you so much comfort.
Your religiosity is showing.
Here's a scientist who respects philosophy:
"It is inconceivable that inanimate, brute matter should, without the mediation of something else, which is not material, operate upon, and affect other matter without mutual contact, as it must be if gravitation, in the sense of Epicurus, be essential and inherent in it. And this is one reason why I desired you would not ascribe innate gravity to me. That gravity should be innate, inherent, and essential to matter, so that one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum, without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity that I believe no man who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking can ever fall into it."
-Isaac Newton
|
|
|
Post by Ed on Sept 9, 2019 13:33:21 GMT -5
Here's another;
“Has anyone provided proof of God’s in-existence? Not even close. Has quantum cosmology explained the emergence of the universe or why it is here? Not even close. Have our sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life? Not even close. Are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anything so long as it is not religious thought? Close enough. Has rationalism and moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is good, what is right, and what is moral? Not close enough. Has secularism in the terrible 20th century been a force for good? Not even close, to being close. Is there a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy in the sciences? Close enough. Does anything in the sciences or their philosophy justify the claim that religious belief is irrational? Not even in the ball park. Is scientific atheism a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt? Dead on.”
-David Berlinkski, The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions
|
|
|
Post by curlywurlysammagee on Sept 9, 2019 13:35:07 GMT -5
It is interesting that you mention gravity. Some say it is the weakest of the four forces but its effect is always positive and its effect is felt the furthest away from the source. Our moon is held in place by the gravity of the earth and the earth is held in place by the sun, as are all the planets. The sun is held in place by the gravitational effect of the rest of our galaxy. Our sun, planet and moon were all formed because of gravity causing accretion.
|
|
|
Post by Ed on Sept 9, 2019 13:44:10 GMT -5
Ineluctable. Look that one up. “It is a simple ineluctable truth that virtually all members of a biota remain basically stable, with minor fluctuations, throughout their durations.” -Niles Eldredge, PhD Paleontologist Postulate about transitional forms all you want but creation scientists aren't the only ones pointing out the missing evidence. Reasonable Faith
|
|
|
Post by Ed on Sept 9, 2019 13:53:16 GMT -5
Curly, I also find gravity amazing for its effect on time. Not many people realize that time is not a constant; the rate of time change is effected by the force of gravity.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Sept 9, 2019 14:39:12 GMT -5
“In this case, since most are not familiar with the presenter, in is not an ad hominem attack but simply informing them of his background, education, other areas of study, etc. which are additional points upon which the readers (viewers in most of the cases) can base their conclusions. “ And just like the workers have done against their emenies for about a century, THE ONE on here who claims familiarity with the presenter focuses on the NEGATIVE - that he was put in prison (deserve it or not is not mentioned), not his “education, other areas of study, etc.” And no doubt while in prison Kent Hovinnd, being a strong believer, used that opportunity to share the Biblical gospel with prisoners, at least until he was released from prison early. Evidently you are still unfamiliar with his “education, other areas of study, etc. “ AND his significant monetary offer to YOU for just one of your 'proved' evolutionary "data." So, PLEASE be sure to let us all know when you TRY to collect that reward.No, I am familiar with Kent's educational information: High School: East Peoria Community High School, Illinois. Undergraduate: Illinois Central College transferred to Midwestern Baptist College (unaccredited Bachelor of Religious Education in 1974. Master's degree: Patriot University (correspondence and unaccredited) Master of Christian Education Doctorate: Patriot University (correspondence and unaccredited) Doctor of Christian Education More to the point, Answers in Genesis was critical of Hovind's claims. Removed many of his publications from their site. When Answers in Genesis claims there is a problem with the creationist information being given out one should step back and consider the source. Before people waste their time on discredited information they should be informed. As to the $250,000 - it was so restrictive that no one could ever collect. It was withdrawn. Once again, even Answers in Genesis was not behind that challenge. But you could collect $250,000 simply by proving that the Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM) was not the father of Jesus. The offer has not been in place for over a decade.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Sept 9, 2019 15:06:26 GMT -5
“So your accusation that other people are "playing a game" only indicates just another excuse for your not really knowing what you are talking about but only quoting other people who also don't know what they are talking about! “ That has quotation marks and is a quotation of the words of the poster who provided the admission. But nonetheless, since my post is now completed while several have been playing the “fool” past it: this particular seminar of the group of seminars , in light of the “game” being “played” might be a good repeat on this thread. It is obvious that some non-believing posters on here who claim worker-past-influences on THEM, similarly do no not recommend that visitors to this board watch these videos – even the usual 2x2 type ad hominem is used against the presenter – that I trust the kids among the visitors will do what kids usually do with prohibitions placed upon them and take a peek at what they are being so strongly discouraged to even look at by the “game” “players.” The Kent Hovind Creation Seminar (5 of 7): The Dangers of Evolutionwww.youtube.com/watch?v=WN31FCcUlLk&list=PL6-cVj-ZRivqKeqAklhYfFFmmAdvwcnCT&index=5 “So your accusation that other people are "playing a game" only indicates just another excuse for your not really knowing what you are talking about but only quoting other people who also don't know what they are talking about! “
That has quotation marks and is a quotation of the words of the poster who provided the admission. But nonetheless, since my post is now completed while several have been playing the “fool” past it: this particular seminar of the group of seminars , in light of the “game” being “played” might be a good repeat on this thread. It is obvious that some non-believing posters on here who claim worker-past-influences on THEM, similarly do no not recommend that visitors to this board watch these videos – even the usual 2x2 type ad hominem is used against the presenter – that I trust the kids among the visitors will do what kids usually do with prohibitions placed upon them and take a peek at what they are being so strongly discouraged to even look at by the “game” “players.” The Kent Hovind Creation Seminar (5 of 7): The Dangers of Evolutionwww.youtube.com/watch?v=WN31FCcUlLk&list=PL6-cVj-ZRivqKeqAklhYfFFmmAdvwcnCT&index=5 I really had a difficult time trying to unravel that post of yours, Gartu!
I think that you are trying to say that those of us who do not believe the "pseudoscience" of "creationism" are acting like worker's did when they told people to not read or listen to something that they didn't want them to know. ' Have I "de-coded" you post properly? Is that what you meant and have interpreted your post correctly, -then you are completely misinformed.
Because it is just the opposite, I would urge visitors and their children to investigate the biological evolution of life and then compare the "pseudoscience" of "creationism" to what they learned.
Best way would be take a course in your local community college in the life sciences.
PS: If you are trying to say that I used a "2x2 type ad hominem is used against the presenter" (Hovind) -then everything I said about him was true.
Ken Hovind DID get his "college degree" from a mail order house. I use to have the picture of the actual place a ranch type house. Ken Hovind DID go to federal prison on tax evasion charges.
Just stating the facts about someone is NOT an ad hominem attack!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 9, 2019 15:20:12 GMT -5
“In this case, since most are not familiar with the presenter, in is not an ad hominem attack but simply informing them of his background, education, other areas of study, etc. which are additional points upon which the readers (viewers in most of the cases) can base their conclusions. “ And just like the workers have done against their emenies for about a century, THE ONE on here who claims familiarity with the presenter focuses on the NEGATIVE - that he was put in prison (deserve it or not is not mentioned), not his “education, other areas of study, etc.” And no doubt while in prison Kent Hovinnd, being a strong believer, used that opportunity to share the Biblical gospel with prisoners, at least until he was released from prison early. Evidently you are still unfamiliar with his “education, other areas of study, etc. “ AND his significant monetary offer to YOU for just one of your 'proved' evolutionary "data." So, PLEASE be sure to let us all know when you TRY to collect that reward.No, I am familiar with Kent's educational information: High School: East Peoria Community High School, Illinois. Undergraduate: Illinois Central College transferred to Midwestern Baptist College (unaccredited Bachelor of Religious Education in 1974. Master's degree: Patriot University (correspondence and unaccredited) Master of Christian Education Doctorate: Patriot University (correspondence and unaccredited) Doctor of Christian Education More to the point, Answers in Genesis was critical of Hovind's claims. Removed many of his publications from their site. When Answers in Genesis claims there is a problem with the creationist information being given out one should step back and consider the source. Before people waste their time on discredited information they should be informed. As to the $250,000 - it was so restrictive that no one could ever collect. It was withdrawn. Once again, even Answers in Genesis was not behind that challenge. But you could collect $250,000 simply by proving that the Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM) was not the father of Jesus. The offer has not been in place for over a decade. Sorry indeed – I watched the videos which seemed to me to be valid in tight of Scripture and quotations of evolutionists within them. I have deleted my posts – with my thanks for the heads up with actual check-out info to substantiate your claims this time.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Sept 9, 2019 15:30:33 GMT -5
Curly, I also find gravity amazing for its effect on time. Not many people realize that time is not a constant; the rate of time change is effected by the force of gravity. Something to think about: Imagine a 100KM road connecting point A and point B. A vehicle traveling at 50 KM/hour makes the trip in 2 hours. Now imagine that the road is made from rubber. The road is pulled to one side to make a curve so that the road connecting A and B is stretched to be 110 KM long. The same vehicle traveling at 50 KM/hour makes the trip in 2 hours and 12 minutes. Has time been effected?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Sept 9, 2019 15:36:21 GMT -5
Sorry indeed – I watched the videos which seemed to me to be valid in tight of Scripture and quotations of evolutionists within them. I have deleted my posts – with my thanks for the heads up with actual check-out info to substantiate your claims this time. Had you taken the time to look into the other posts I have made in regards to the creationist links you have been posting ou would have discovered that most were backed up with references. No need to delete them. All references can serve a purpose even if it is to show an example of a dishonest presentation.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Sept 9, 2019 15:54:18 GMT -5
Not all workers did say that. I respected many of the workers. But when I had some pretty serious questions about the OT the workers I asked about it told me it was my lack of faith etc. I would have taken 'I don't know' and respected that. But to be told to just have a stronger faith and quit questioning God's word, that didn't sit well with me. I quit professing and the rest as they say is history. I was definitely at a crossroad because I couldn't understand how the God of the bible, that I was told was all loving and merciful, could have commanded what he did of the Hebrews when attacking the Amelikites. I decided that having faith was not an option. It wasn't right to worship an entity that would do that. I was afraid because I still believed in that God and I still believed that if I quit professing I was going to hell, but I couldn't worship that God anymore. That's why I asked the workers about it so I could resolve it and still worship the Christian God. But they couldn't explain it and just told me I didn't have enough faith. "Remember what Amalek did to you on the way as you were coming out of Egypt, how he met you on the way and attacked your rear ranks, all the stragglers at your rear, when you were tired and weary; and he did not fear God" (Deuteronomy 25:1-18). They attacked the Hebrews first and became God's enemies, so I call it self-defense.
Self defense would be killing the warriors that were attacking them. Killing women, children and animals, everything but the female virgins, is not self defense. It's genocide that is particularly disgusting in that they had to make sure the girls were virgins. There was only one way to make sure a female was a virgin.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 9, 2019 15:58:37 GMT -5
Sorry indeed – I watched the videos which seemed to me to be valid in tight of Scripture and quotations of evolutionists within them. I have deleted my posts – with my thanks for the heads up with actual check-out info to substantiate your claims this time. Had you taken the time to look into the other posts I have made in regards to the creationist links you have been posting ou would have discovered that most were backed up with references. No need to delete them. All references can serve a purpose even if it is to show an example of a dishonest presentation. Checking out the usual posts opposing mine in months have taught me that most are either not checkable, and/or are just repeated baseless opposition (come mere hatered) to "creationists" and "creationist sites" - this time you gave me some easily checkablw info that is in layman's English. And YES it is ABSOLUTELY necessary by my own standards to delete my posts based upon initial checking from your info, even though the contents of the videos seem both Biblical and accurate portrayal of evolutionist's statements. I may continue to check those quotations when I have the time to do so because if those quotations are accurate I may post the whole group of videos a second time. I don't and won't spend a lot of time condemning good messages due to legal actions against a fellow believer - because NONE of us are faultless and workers are a great example of some who might find themselves behind bars for financial fraud soon enough - to me, the honesty in a preacher's messages can leave any sin such preachers commit completely between such preachers and God - but it seems to me that atheist have cut off all such grace towards their fellow human beings.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Sept 9, 2019 16:04:46 GMT -5
Here's another; “Has anyone provided proof of God’s in-existence? Not even close. Has quantum cosmology explained the emergence of the universe or why it is here? Not even close. Have our sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life? Not even close. Are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anything so long as it is not religious thought? Close enough. Has rationalism and moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is good, what is right, and what is moral? Not close enough. Has secularism in the terrible 20th century been a force for good? Not even close, to being close. Is there a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy in the sciences? Close enough. Does anything in the sciences or their philosophy justify the claim that religious belief is irrational? Not even in the ball park. Is scientific atheism a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt? Dead on.” -David Berlinkski, The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions The universe supports the life you see. It wasn't fine tuned to make us. We are only the product of what the universe can support. We aren't special. we are made of the same components the rest of the universe if made of. Science does not claim they know everything. Religion does. Since many things the Christian religion states are not the way the natural world actually works, your religion is just placing unverified statements in where they don't know what happened. It's far more honest to say, I don't know yet, then to state things that have no proof as true. The bible did the best it could with the understanding they had. It's outdated and science has proven that many things they used to believe aren't valid. That's the nice thing about science. When we disprove an earlier finding, we are able to accept the new finding. Religion doesn't allow for progress in our understanding of the natural world, but rather makes it's adherents stay stuck, having to believe things that have now been shown to be inaccurate. What's the point of that? I see no value in denying new findings.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Sept 9, 2019 17:26:40 GMT -5
David Berlinski has credentials in philosophy and math but not in the "science of cosmology". It seems Hawking has no credentials in philosophy, but he is smart enough to admit - "We are not able to make cosmological models without some admixture of ideology." -Stephen Hawking and George Ellis - which some materialists have trouble understanding. For everyone on the board who worships science, and rejoices with the 'knowledge' that science has claimed to refute God, you probably won't like what Berlinski writes. You probably wouldn't like what Socrates and other philosophers have written either. And, you can immediately discount their work because they aren't scientists and don't have the science degrees or peer-reviewed articles that give you so much comfort. Your religiosity is showing. Here's a scientist who respects philosophy: "It is inconceivable that inanimate, brute matter should, without the mediation of something else, which is not material, operate upon, and affect other matter without mutual contact, as it must be if gravitation, in the sense of Epicurus, be essential and inherent in it. And this is one reason why I desired you would not ascribe innate gravity to me. That gravity should be innate, inherent, and essential to matter, so that one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum, without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity that I believe no man who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking can ever fall into it." -Isaac Newton First of all, Mr Ballard, you state that "you (I) probably won't like what Berlinski writes. You probably wouldn't like what Socrates and other philosophers have written either."
You have no idea what I "like" or "dislike" or even have any knowledge of.
BTW, -Perhaps you didn't know this; but Socrates never wrote anything
"Socrates didn't write things down as he thought that writing would make people lazy.
If you wrote things down you wouldn't have to remember them, making argument impossible as you wouldn't remember all of the citations you'd use for your premise."
www.quora.com/Why-did-neither-Socrates-nor-Jesus...
But I have read Plato who tells us the thoughts of Socrates as well as some others philosophers.
My daughter has a degree in philosophy from the University of Chicago and we have some very in depth discussions.
Next; -Steven Hawking's work is in cosmology. David Berlinski has credentials in philosophy.
Third;- you say that "(my) Your religiosity is showing."
I am not sure how you got to that conclusion as I have stated many times here that I do not see any evidence for ANY god or gods., -so I'm not sure how I could have any "religiosity to "show."
However, David Berlinski's "religiosity" certainly is showing!
He is critic of the theory of evolution and Berlinski is a Senior Fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture,* -a Seattle-based think tank that is a hub of the "intelligent design"** movement.
As for your statement that those "who worships science, and rejoices with the 'knowledge' that science has claimed to refute God," -you seem to be mixed up in your understanding of both what constitutes "science" and what those that rely on "science" believe.
The work of science is not to determine whether there is or is not any supernatural being called a deity.
Therefore it would be rather difficult for anyone to "worship" science!
definition of worship(feeling or expression of reverence and adoration for a deity)!
As for what Berlinski writes as a philosopher, -I would listen & evaluate his work but when he gets out of his field and starts commenting on a subject outside of his expertise, such as life science and cosmology, -then why should I listen to him?
footnotes
*Center for Science and Culture is part of the Discovery Institute (DI), a conservative Christian think tank in the United States.
The CSC lobbies for the inclusion of creationism in the form of intelligent design (ID) in public-school science curricula as an explanation for the origins of life and the universe while trying to cast doubt on the theory of evolution.]
These positions have been rejected by the scientific community, which identifies intelligent design as pseudoscientific neo-creationism, whereas the theory of evolution is overwhelmingly accepted as a matter of scientific consensus.
**Intelligent design (ID) is a pseudoscientific argument for the existence of God, presented by its proponents as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins".
Proponents claim that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."
ID is a form of creationism that lacks empirical support and offers no testable or tenable hypotheses, so it is not science.
The leading proponents of ID are associated with the Discovery Institute, a fundamentalist Christian and politically conservative think tank based in the United States. from wiki
|
|
|
Post by intelchips on Sept 9, 2019 17:52:55 GMT -5
What think ye all if we just left it at Philo's view?
Philo's view of God. For example, he maintained that the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible and additional books) and Jewish law (which was still being developed by the rabbis in this period) are a blueprint for the pursuit of individual enlightenment.
Buts here's the problem is it possible from our current point of view to actualize a God of the Septuagint? I just don't see how anyone can except that idea. Now on the other hand if one of you asked me what could you except then I would respond perhaps there is a God like intelligence out there somewhere but so far he has keep IT distance. And its possible humans haven't the gear to detect or communicate with it.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Sept 10, 2019 0:10:59 GMT -5
Ineluctable. Look that one up. “It is a simple ineluctable truth that virtually all members of a biota remain basically stable, with minor fluctuations, throughout their durations.” -Niles Eldredge, PhD Paleontologist Postulate about transitional forms all you want but creation scientists aren't the only ones pointing out the missing evidence. Reasonable Faith Not sure why you bring Niles Eldredge into your arguent but it seems you are not unlike many others I have known who look for pieces of quotes that do not really express what scientists say. I have encountered may of those before. Here is a full report on what Niles Eldredge has said on the subject of evolution of life.
Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould proposed punctuated equilibria in 1972. Punctuated equilibrium is a refinement to evolutionary theory. It describes patterns of descent taking place in "fits and starts" separated by long periods of stability.
Eldredge went on to develop a hierarchical vision of evolutionary and ecological systems. Around this time, he became focused on the rapid destruction of many of the world's habitats and species. In his book Unfinished Synthesis (1985), he proposed an extended evolutionary synthesis.
Throughout his career, he has used repeated patterns in the history of life to refine ideas on how the evolutionary process actually works. Eldredge is proponent of the importance of environment in explaining the patterns in evolution.
Eldredge is a critic of the gene-centered view of evolution. His most recent venture is the development of an alternative account to the gene-based notions of evolutionary psychology to explain human behavior.
He has published more than 160 scientific articles, books, and reviews, including Reinventing Darwin, an examination of current controversies in evolutionary biology, and Dominion, a consideration of the ecological and evolutionary past, present, and future of Homo sapiens. Since 2013, Eldredge has been listed on the Advisory Council of the National Center for Science Education.So you see, just posting one quote from someone DOES NOT show the whole of their position on a subject. Niles Eldredge does not repute evolution.
The very fact that Niles Eldredge has also been listed on the Advisory Council of the National Center for Science Education* further indicates his position.
footnote: * The National Center for Science Education (NCSE) is a not-for-profit membership organization in the United States whose stated mission is to educate the press and the public on the scientific and educational aspects of controversies surrounding the teaching of evolution and climate change, and to provide information and resources to schools, parents, and other citizens working to keep those topics in public school science education. Based in Oakland, California, it claims 4,500 members that include scientists, teachers, clergy, and citizens of varied religious and political affiliations. The Center opposes the teaching of religious views in science classes in America's public schools; it does this through initiatives such as Project Steve. The Center has been called the United States' "leading anti-creationist organization". The Center is affiliated with the American Association for the Advancement of Science. from wiki
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 10, 2019 3:00:16 GMT -5
Had you taken the time to look into the other posts I have made in regards to the creationist links you have been posting ou would have discovered that most were backed up with references. No need to delete them. All references can serve a purpose even if it is to show an example of a dishonest presentation. Checking out the usual posts opposing mine in months have taught me that most are either not checkable, and/or are just repeated baseless opposition (come mere hatered) to "creationists" and "creationist sites" - this time you gave me some easily checkablw info that is in layman's English. And YES it is ABSOLUTELY necessary by my own standards to delete my posts based upon initial checking from your info, even though the contents of the videos seem both Biblical and accurate portrayal of evolutionist's statements. I may continue to check those quotations when I have the time to do so because if those quotations are accurate I may post the whole group of videos a second time. I don't and won't spend a lot of time condemning good messages due to legal actions against a fellow believer - because NONE of us are faultless and workers are a great example of some who might find themselves behind bars for financial fraud soon enough - to me, the honesty in a preacher's messages can leave any sin such preachers commit completely between such preachers and God - but it seems to me that atheist have cut off all such grace towards their fellow human beings. This is to show that I agree with you on this, rational - but probably on completely different grounds. As stated I see nothing wrong with Kent Hovind's videos that I deleted until I could do some checking. And in so far as I could check the quotations of evolutionists that are within those videos in a short time, I have found those quotes accurate. But what I did discover along the way is his unBiblical performance -- i.e., Jesus was asked if the Jews should pay taxes and He sent one to retrieve a coin, asked whose inscription was on the coin and told them very plainly to "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto God that which is God's -- Jesus DID NOT condone tax protests. So those videos will remain deleted, and the only reason I bother writing this notice of decision and why is BECAUSE my posts containing links to a couple of those videos were full copied by another poster - who will now hereby bear responsibility for any continued posting of those videos that I cannot delete. Edit - From the research I have done so far on the very muddied 'waters' surrounding Kent Hovind and the legal system, Kent, as shown in his videos STRONGLY opposed paying taxes for public schools to teach everyone's kids ONLY evolution. It is not very clear in what records I found whether Kent actually went overboard in his opposition to paying teachers to teach kids the secular religion to the exclusion of all others. But there is little question that he did speak out loudly against funding the secular religion on taxpayer's backs. For me, the controversy surrounding Kent makes it impossible to in good conscience post links to any of his videos - but the copies of my former postings of two of them remain outside of my control to the time of this edit. And one of those copies is perhaps his strongest opposition to that secular religion on the basis of its dangers to humanity - that copy in particular I would have wiped off this board if I could based solely on the controversy.
|
|
|
Post by intelchips on Sept 10, 2019 5:12:33 GMT -5
"render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's
Not in your wildest dream did the real Jesus every say anything like that. In fact he and his brothers were all about removing foreign rule and cleansing the Temple. They believed that unless they were pure and clean the angels would not come down and help them fight off the Romans and Herodians. But then you already know this because I have written corpus amounts on this same topic elsewhere on these forums.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Sept 10, 2019 8:19:58 GMT -5
Are you sure Paul was the boogie man? Why didn't they just name him? The liar is specifically said to teach straying from the law, to remove the boundary markers which the ancestors had set down, to lead people astray in a trackless waste and to deny the law in the midst of the whole community. Nothing can be a better example of what Paul does in both the Jerusalem conference and in his writing. This is academic for you. Paul wasn't for gay marriage.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Sept 10, 2019 8:21:52 GMT -5
"Remember what Amalek did to you on the way as you were coming out of Egypt, how he met you on the way and attacked your rear ranks, all the stragglers at your rear, when you were tired and weary; and he did not fear God" (Deuteronomy 25:1-18). They attacked the Hebrews first and became God's enemies, so I call it self-defense.
Self defense would be killing the warriors that were attacking them. Killing women, children and animals, everything but the female virgins, is not self defense. It's genocide that is particularly disgusting in that they had to make sure the girls were virgins. There was only one way to make sure a female was a virgin. We argued about this. No you didn't have to play doctor or rape them.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Sept 10, 2019 9:30:10 GMT -5
Self defense would be killing the warriors that were attacking them. Killing women, children and animals, everything but the female virgins, is not self defense. It's genocide that is particularly disgusting in that they had to make sure the girls were virgins. There was only one way to make sure a female was a virgin. We argued about this. No you didn't have to play doctor or rape them. I'm curious - how, even today, could prove a woman was a virgin?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Sept 10, 2019 9:31:50 GMT -5
The liar is specifically said to teach straying from the law, to remove the boundary markers which the ancestors had set down, to lead people astray in a trackless waste and to deny the law in the midst of the whole community. Nothing can be a better example of what Paul does in both the Jerusalem conference and in his writing. This is academic for you. Paul wasn't for gay marriage. That is what everyone thought about McKrae Game as well.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 10, 2019 9:36:10 GMT -5
"render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's Not in your wildest dream did the real Jesus every say anything like that. In fact he and his brothers were all about removing foreign rule and cleansing the Temple. They believed that unless they were pure and clean the angels would not come down and help them fight off the Romans and Herodians. But then you already know this because I have written corpus amounts on this same topic elsewhere on these forums. Mark 12:17
|
|
|
Post by intelchips on Sept 10, 2019 10:36:08 GMT -5
The liar is specifically said to teach straying from the law, to remove the boundary markers which the ancestors had set down, to lead people astray in a trackless waste and to deny the law in the midst of the whole community. Nothing can be a better example of what Paul does in both the Jerusalem conference and in his writing. This is academic for you. Paul wasn't for gay marriage. Sorry Lee usually I understand your posts very clearly but this one has me banging my head on the desk cause I'm sure there is something I'm missing in my understanding. Also did you see what Nathan said about John using a code word for Rome? If you allow Nathan to skate on that then why not accept that the people surrounding James also did the same when trying to be covert.
|
|
|
Post by intelchips on Sept 10, 2019 10:40:26 GMT -5
"render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's Not in your wildest dream did the real Jesus every say anything like that. In fact he and his brothers were all about removing foreign rule and cleansing the Temple. They believed that unless they were pure and clean the angels would not come down and help them fight off the Romans and Herodians. But then you already know this because I have written corpus amounts on this same topic elsewhere on these forums. Mark 12:17 Oh dear gratu whatever does your obtuse answer mean to a redneck like me with an 8th grade education? You know I actually failed first grade and then total skipped third grade. Well, actually I was in third for about 5 days when the teacher went to he principal and told him "this student doesn't have a reading problem, he has read every comic book at the drugs store and I tested his understanding, he just doesn't like reading grammar books."
|
|
|
Post by rational on Sept 10, 2019 11:35:19 GMT -5
"render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's Not in your wildest dream did the real Jesus every say anything like that. In fact he and his brothers were all about removing foreign rule and cleansing the Temple. They believed that unless they were pure and clean the angels would not come down and help them fight off the Romans and Herodians. But then you already know this because I have written corpus amounts on this same topic elsewhere on these forums. Mark 12:17 You can't accept everything in the Gospel as gospel. Please note the play on words...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 10, 2019 11:41:34 GMT -5
|
|