Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

1…217218220222223…232

Comments

  • #6572
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,392 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    J C wrote: »
    Its long ages evolution that the unfossilised blood-filled Dinosaur collagen is blowing out of the water!!:)

    No it is not. Simplistic misinterpretation of fact isn't argument or rebuttal. I've presented you with various different pieces of research and you have offered no science whatsoever in return. At best, you offered a few random articles that you obviously hadn't bother to read as they actually supported evolution.

    So, those pesky dinosaurs?


  • #6573
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,550 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    J C wrote: »
    Laws of Biogenesis

    There is no law concluded upon by man which is immutable. A law is considered a law only to the extent it is found to hold up.

    When it is observed not to hold up in all circumstances (such as Newton's Law of Motion, F=ma) then it is the law, not the observed reality which has to step aside. Laws are tentative in science.

    That Law of Biogenesis does not render illogical or unreasonable, the hypothesis that simple life arose from precursor non-life, not in light of ToE, which holds that great complexity arose from former simplicity. The law bars not at all, an investigation aimed at finding evidence and mechanisms of same.


    It doesn't matter than you think ToE is baloney. What matters is that the law isn't immutable and cannot be cited as a bar on investigation which might transgress it.

    Yet you continuously cite the Law as if it is immutable. As if scientists are a massed collection of dullards (at best) for not to realizing the law is immutable.


  • #6574
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,550 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    Professor Moriarty wrote: »
    .. you offered a few random articles that you obviously hadn't bother to read as they actually supported evolution.


    I've begun to notice that myself: articles which, if you just took the headline, give a nod in the direction of what JC holds to be the case. But as soon as you delve into it, it actually counters what JC holds to be the case.

    It's a common internet forum phenomenon: the quality of a persons posts is inversely proportional to the quantity a person posts.

    Given the aha-ha, ho-ho-ho, and a couple off la-di-da's manner in which JC (insultingly, in my view) approaches more specific challenges, I wonder would it be better to cut off the air supply to this thread.

    JC obviously has an agenda - one in which actual engagement need not be a constituent part. He's clearly not going to convince those who are presenting the challenges and can't be aiming for same.

    So what is it? Is the idea is to entice the unwary / undecided. A recruitment-to-the-YEC view perhaps? It's like those fellows on the God channel 'machine-gunning' swathes of gullible believers down "in the Spirit" whilst delivering a "sow your money" message. They don't care how ludicrous their "theology" is. They don't mind mangling scripture to suit their book. The aim isn't truth or accuracy. The aim is focused at a narrow section of Christianity to fulfill own ends.

    Mere engagement with them suits perfectly since "all publicity is good publicity"

    What do folk think?


  • #6575
    Safehands
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,348 ✭✭✭Safehands


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    I've begun to notice that myself: articles which, if you just took the headline, give a nod in the direction of what JC holds to be the case. But as soon as you delve into it, it actually counters what JC holds to be the case.

    It's a common internet forum phenomenon: the quality of a persons posts is inversely proportional to the quantity a person posts.

    Given the aha-ha, ho-ho-ho, and a couple off la-di-da's manner in which JC (insultingly, in my view) approaches more specific challenges, I wonder would it be better to cut off the air supply to this thread.

    JC obviously has an agenda - one in which actual engagement need not be a constituent part. He's clearly not going to convince those who are presenting the challenges and can't be aiming for same.

    So what is it? Is the idea is to entice the unwary / undecided. A recruitment-to-the-YEC view perhaps? It's like those fellows on the God channel 'machine-gunning' swathes of gullible believers down "in the Spirit" whilst delivering a "sow your money" message. They don't care how ludicrous their "theology" is. They don't mind mangling scripture to suit their book. The aim isn't truth or accuracy. The aim is focused at a narrow section of Christianity to fulfill own ends.

    Mere engagement with them suits perfectly since "all publicity is good publicity"

    What do folk think?
    I think he is just playing a game. Nobody could ignore facts so easily. JC is having a great time playing devil's advocate with us. He's enjoying watching us come up with really good arguments, then he throws in a spurious fact to get us going.
    He probably agrees with all of us but just loves a good old argument.


  • #6576
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,550 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    Safehands wrote: »
    I think he is just playing a game. Nobody could ignore facts so easily. JC is having a great time playing devil's advocate with us. He's enjoying watching us come up with really good arguments, then he throws in a spurious fact to get us going.
    He probably agrees with all of us but just loves a good old argument.

    I hadn't considered his actually agreeing. Could be, but he wouldn't be enjoying an argument since there isn't any argumentation going on. Rather, it'd be a benign sort of trolling

    Why do you think it is people continuously attempt to assemble argument only to see it ho-ho-ho'd away? Strikes me as strange to continue attempting to engage the unengage-able.

    I know I've done it myself over a few posts but there clearly is no profit to be had.


  • Advertisement
  • #6577
    PopePalpatine
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,165 ✭✭✭✭PopePalpatine


    Safehands wrote: »
    I think he is just playing a game. Nobody could ignore facts so easily. JC is having a great time playing devil's advocate with us. He's enjoying watching us come up with really good arguments, then he throws in a spurious fact to get us going.
    He probably agrees with all of us but just loves a good old argument.

    Yeah, I think that's plausible. I had that suspicion about a thankfully-long-departed poster who used to troll these parts...but unlike J C, he sometimes ventured outside of the religion subforums and occasionally into some threads dedicated to admiring beautiful celebrities/models. I imagined that he must have gotten into some heated arguments with the most stereotypical "Internet Atheists" imaginable, and from then on dedicated himself to trolling his fellow unbelievers.


  • #6578
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,392 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    I like JC. Also, the thread wouldn't exist without him. He hasn't a hope of convincing me of anything he believes in but responding to his posts causes me to educate myself while researching. It's an interesting bit of fun.


  • #6579
    Safehands
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,348 ✭✭✭Safehands


    Professor Moriarty wrote: »
    I like JC. Also, the thread wouldn't exist without him. He hasn't a hope of convincing me of anything he believes in but responding to his posts causes me to educate myself while researching. It's an interesting bit of fun.

    I agree 100% with that. I kinda like him too, but he sure is frustrating, in a harmless way.


  • #6580
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,392 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    Safehands wrote: »
    I agree 100% with that. I kinda like him too, but he sure is frustrating, in a harmless way.

    Exactly.


  • #6581
    drdidlittle
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 401 ✭✭drdidlittle


    JC genuine question. When did rapid evolution stop and why?


  • Advertisement
  • #6582
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    PopePalpatine wrote: »
    Yeah, I think that's plausible. I had that suspicion about a thankfully-long-departed poster who used to troll these parts...but unlike J C, he sometimes ventured outside of the religion subforums and occasionally into some threads dedicated to admiring beautiful celebrities/models. I imagined that he must have gotten into some heated arguments with the most stereotypical "Internet Atheists" imaginable, and from then on dedicated himself to trolling his fellow unbelievers.
    I have ventured out into the A & A ... and posted in all kinds of threads over there ... and when they found that they had no answers to my posts (on the many different topics that they hold dear) ... they started (like the past few posts here) blaiming the messenger (me) ... instead of concentrating on my messages.
    ... and they have asked me to not post in any threads (other than a thread on Evolution/Creation) over there.
    Being the gracious and mannerly person that I am, I have acceeded to their wishes on this issue.

    Guys, the simple fact is that there is neither logic nor evidence for the spontaneous generation of life ... nor pondkind to mankind evolution.
    ... so it probably is a waste of Evolutionist's time trying to prove something that never happened ... but I'm certainly not going to try and stop them ... free speech and all that.

    However, it is well worth my time pointing out why pondkind to mankind evolution (PTME) never happened ... because the unfounded belief in PTME is the main reason, for the decline in the well-founded belief in God ... that is so prevalent in the Western World at present.
    It has turned out to be a zero sum situation ... as belief in PTME rises there is a direct correlation with the decline of belief in the God of the Bible.

    From the unfounded belief that we are 'glorified Apes', unaccountable to anybody ... but ourselves ... flows all kinds of evil ... from the state-sanctioned killing of unborn children in procured abortion ... through to the killing of the old and infirm in euthenasia ... and the general lack of respect for Human life in our society.

    An unfounded belief in PTME can obviously do some very strange things to the values and moral priorities of a society.
    For example, whilst state-sanctioned killing of unborn Human children is rapidly becoming a norm ... they wouldn't dare sanction the killing of unborn Great Apes ... such is the current state of secular 'ethics'.
    Even Frog Spawn is protected with more legal vigour and enforcement, than the lives of unborn Human children are, in many countries today.


  • #6583
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,550 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    J C wrote: »
    From the unfounded belief that we are 'glorified Apes', unaccountable to anybody ... but ourselves ... flows all kinds of evil ... from the state-sanctioned killing of innocent children in procured abortion ... through to the killing of the old and infirm in euthenasia ... and the general lack of respect for Human life in our society .

    Er.. might I point you to the Old Testament?


  • #6584
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,550 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    J C wrote: »
    when they found that they had no answers to my posts (on the many different topics that they hold dear) ... they started (like the past few posts here) blaiming the messenger (me) ... instead of concentrating on my messages.

    This is a bit hypocritical JC. You ho-ho-ho your way past legitimate challenge, rarely, if ever (I've not seen it at least) facing directly into the specific issue in order to demonstrate there's some depth to your view.

    By way of example, you can deal with my post on the Law of Biogenesis. There are specific points made which you can ho-ho-ho past, or deal with.

    I'll bet bottom dollar you'll either ignore the points or dodge around them.


  • #6585
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Er.. might I point you to the Old Testament?
    You could ... and Jesus predicted that the exact same evils will prevail before His Second Coming ... as prevailed in Old Testament Times.

    Gen 6:5-8
    5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

    6 And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

    7 And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

    8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord.

    Matthew 24:37
    But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.


  • #6586
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    By way of example, you can deal with my post on the Law of Biogenesis.
    What was your point on the Law of Biogenesis?


  • #6587
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    drdidlittle wrote: »
    JC genuine question. When did rapid evolution stop and why?
    Rapid evolution (within Kinds) continues today ... using the pre-existing genetic diversity that is still present in most Kinds. That is why, for example, that plant and animal breeders can still produce unique new breeds of plants and animals. Equally, Natural Selection can select for adaptations to environmental change very rapidly indeed.

    https://answersingenesis.org/natural-selection/speciation/rapid-evolution-an-account/

    The issue that Creation Scientists have with 'evolution', isn't the well demonstrated ability of natural/sexual/artificial selection ... to select ... its the source of the complex functional specified genetic diversity (CFSGD) from which it selects, that they have a divergence of opinion on, with evolutionists.
    Creation Scientists know that CFSGD could only be intelligently generated and spontaneous mechanisms are simply incapable of doing so.


  • #6588
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,550 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    J C wrote: »
    You could ... and Jesus predicted that the exact same evils will prevail before His Second Coming ... as prevailed in Old Testament Times.

    I was thinking about the 'state sponsored' killing of innocent children, where the state was Israel.

    I wouldn't lay the blame on man's propensity for cruelty on lil 'ol ToE. Indeed, you're not going to progress very far pointing the finger at ToE when even the most ordinary of men can wave the slaughter of the OT in your face. Like, when Christians find it hard to reconcile a merciful, loving God with what appears in the OT, then what chance ordinary-man using "common sense"


  • #6589
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,550 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    J C wrote: »
    What was your point on the Law of Biogenesis?



    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=105738841&postcount=6573

    edit: wrong post linked. Post 6573 above


  • #6590
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    I was thinking about the 'state sponsored' killing of innocent children, where the state was Israel.

    I wouldn't lay the blame on man's propensity for cruelty on lil 'ol ToE. Indeed, you're not going to progress very far pointing the finger at ToE when even the most ordinary of men can wave the slaughter of the OT in your face. Like, when Christians find it hard to reconcile a merciful, loving God with what appears in the OT, then what chance ordinary-man using "common sense"
    Yes, state-sponsored killing has been going on since states were first formed ... and so it continues today.
    However, in the past, state-sponsored killing was largely confined to wars with other states (with varying degrees of right on each side) ... but now it is increasingly directed towards their own people (unborn and infirm) ... and it is mostly done in clinical settings in hospitals and such like.
    In Old Testament Times some of the people groups were irredeemably evil and implaccable enemies of the People of God ... and they suffered accordingly.
    Equally, just before the Flood everyone, except Noah and his immediate family, were implaccably and irredeemably evil.

    Gen 6:5
    5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

    This is something which everyone should bear in mind ... there comes a point when God abandons people who are implaccably opposed to Him, to the the full effects of their own evil ... He allows them to 'stew in their own (self-produced) evil juice' !!!


  • #6591
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=105738841&postcount=6573
    Thanks for the link ... here are my answers:-

    antiskeptic wrote: »
    There is no law concluded upon by man which is immutable. A law is considered a law only to the extent it is found to holdup.
    True.
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    When it is observed not to hold up in all circumstances (such as Newton's Law of Motion, F=ma) then it is the law, not the observed reality which has to step aside. Laws are tentative in science.
    Newtons First Law is only valid in inertial frames of reference but it remains valid as such.
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    That Law of Biogenesis does not render illogical or unreasonable, the hypothesis that simple life arose from precursor non-life, not in light of ToE, which holds that great complexity arose from former simplicity. The law bars not at all, an investigation aimed at finding evidence and mechanisms of same.
    The Law of Biogenesis, no more than any other Law of Science, doesn't bar scientific investigations aimed at invalidating it ... but to date, all of the many investigations aimed at invalidating it haven't succeeded in doing so.
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    It doesn't matter than you think ToE is baloney. What matters is that the law isn't immutable and cannot be cited as a bar on investigation which might transgress it.
    I have never said the it bars investigations ... just that the Law of Biogenesis currently invalidates all theories on the spontaneous generation of life.
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Yet you continuously cite the Law as if it is immutable. As if scientists are a massed collection of dullards (at best) for not to realizing the law is immutable.
    So far it is immutable ... and all evidence to date indicates that it will remain immutable ... but good luck trying !!:D


  • Advertisement
  • #6592
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Please pray for Donald Trump ... who is under unprecedented attack ... just listen to this video with an open mind.

    He is a man of his word ... who will return power back to the ordinary man and woman in the street.




  • #6593
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,851 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    J C wrote: »
    Equally, just before the Flood everyone, except Noah and his immediate family, were implaccably and irredeemably evil.
    Including newborn infants? And did the implacable and irredeemable evil of these newborns justify murdering them in a flood?
    J C wrote: »
    Please pray for Donald Trump ... who is under unprecedented attack ... just listen to this video with an open mind.

    He is a man of his word ... who will return power back to the ordinary man and woman in the street.

    He's a demonstrated pathological liar who has used his position to enrich himself and his family; he is a racist demagogue; he has so far only managed to increase the gap between the ordinary man and woman in the street and his billionaire cronies; and he is clearly mentally unstable.

    But I guess the most important thing from your perspective is that he's anti-science, so everything else is acceptable.


  • #6594
    Leroy42
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,098 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    JC, you think a god that can interfere with man to such an extent that praying for a person can makes things better for them as you are alluding to with Trump, you think that the best way for that God to intervene is to make the life of a multimillionaire white man, living in the US and currently the POTUS is the best way for him to interact?

    Not the babies dying in hospitals around the world, or the people starving, not the women suffering abuse, or men in slavery, or the sick, or those suffering from mental health problems.

    Or those that have lost their families, or friends? Or those other religions that haven't yet seen the truth?


  • #6595
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Including newborn infants? And did the implacable and irredeemable evil of these newborns justify murdering them in a flood?
    We don't know if newborns were actually drowned in the Flood ... but we do know that unborns are being killed now.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    He's a demonstrated pathological liar who has used his position to enrich himself and his family; he is a racist demagogue; he has so far only managed to increase the gap between the ordinary man and woman in the street and his billionaire cronies; and he is clearly mentally unstable.
    Looking at all the unfounded slurs on the man ... that the 'psuedo-liberal' media churn out, you'd think he was head of a 'tin pot' failed state ... rather than the freely elected president of 'The Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave' ... so lets look at just one of the claims above, that he is a 'racist demagogue', no less !!!:eek:
    ... and the source of this allegation ...
    Quote:-
    "The New York Times is reporting that Donald Trump made some horrifically racist statements. The newspaper describes an Oval Office meeting in June which found President Trump infuriated at the number of foreigners who had been allowed into the US since his inauguration:

    More than 2,500 were from Afghanistan, a terrorist haven, the president complained.

    Haiti had sent 15,000 people. They “all have AIDS,” he grumbled, according to one person who attended the meeting and another person who was briefed about it by a different person who was there.

    Forty thousand had come from Nigeria, Mr. Trump added. Once they had seen the United States, they would never “go back to their huts” in Africa, recalled the two officials, who asked for anonymity to discuss a sensitive conversation in the Oval Office."

    ... and the sources are anonamous people speaking anonamously ... The New York Times really must do better!!!
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    But I guess the most important thing from your perspective is that he's anti-science, so everything else is acceptable.
    He is pro-science and pro-God ... they're not mutually exclusive, you know.:)
    Yes, Trump is a straight talker who tells us exactly what he is thinking ... and whether we like to hear it, or not ... he is a refreshing change from the 'professional' politicians, talking for hours and saying nothing ... that many people have come to reject.


  • #6596
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Leroy42 wrote: »
    JC, you think a god that can interfere with man to such an extent that praying for a person can makes things better for them as you are alluding to with Trump, you think that the best way for that God to intervene is to make the life of a multimillionaire white man, living in the US and currently the POTUS is the best way for him to interact?

    Not the babies dying in hospitals around the world, or the people starving, not the women suffering abuse, or men in slavery, or the sick, or those suffering from mental health problems.

    Or those that have lost their families, or friends? Or those other religions that haven't yet seen the truth?
    All of these things are important, in their own right.
    Praying that the most powerful man on Earth does the right thing ... and is allowed to do the right thing, on all issues facing him, is a legitimate use of prayer.

    It doesn't stop us praying for sick babies and babies killed in their mother's wombs ... nor does it stop us praying for people who are starving, people who are suffering abuse or any other person who is 'in a bad place' in this fallen world.


  • #6597
    Leroy42
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,098 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    J C wrote: »
    We don't know if newborns were actually drowned in the Flood ... but we do know that unborns are being killed now.

    So are you suggesting that for, lets say a year, that no babies were born prior to the flood? Funny cause none of that is written about? You do know that newborns were murdered, along with everyone else but you can't even bring yourself to acknowledge that.
    J C wrote: »
    All of these things are important, in their own right.
    Praying that the most powerful man on Earth does the right thing ... and is allowed to do the right thing ... on all issues facing him is a legitimate use of prayer.

    It doesn't stop us praying for sick babies and babies killed in their mother's wombs ... nor does it stop us praying for people who are starving, people who are suffering abuse or any other person who is 'in a bad place' in this fallen world.

    Yet you felt it important to put up a post asking for people to pray for Trump and not the other cases. Based on your belief that God already interacts with the world, surely Trump has already been given every possible advantage by God. To then ask God to intervene yet again to help him, whilst ignoring all the others seems bizarre.


  • #6598
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Leroy42 wrote: »
    So are you suggesting that for, lets say a year, that no babies were born prior to the flood? Funny cause none of that is written about? You do you know that new borns were murdered, along with everyone else but you can't even bring yourself to acknowledge that.
    The Bible simply says that "the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually."
    Sounds like 'Hell on Earth' at the time.
    There are a number of things of note in the passages that follow:-
    1. The 'sons of God' (who were fallen angels that had taken physical form at that time) were attempting to monopolised sexual relations with all Human women ... and they produced a hybrid race of people who were irredeemably evil, like the fallen angels who fathered them.
    2. It seems to have reached the point where the very existence of the Human Race was in the balance ... and the only Humans not contaminated genetically and spiritually was Noah, his sons and their wives.
    3. God made up His mind to bring all of the evil to a halt ... by wiping out all life outside the Ark.

    Genesis 6;1-6 King James Version (KJV)
    1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,

    2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

    3 And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.

    4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

    5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

    6 And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

    Leroy42 wrote: »
    Yet you felt it important to put up a post asking for people to pray for Trump and not the other cases. Based on your belief that God already interacts with the world, surely Trump has already been given every possible advantage by God. To then ask God to intervene yet again to help him, whilst ignoring all the others seems bizarre.
    Like I have already said, praying that the most powerful man on Earth does the right thing ... and is allowed to do the right thing ... on all issues facing him, is a legitimate use of prayer.

    It doesn't stop us praying for sick babies and babies killed in their mother's wombs ... nor does it stop us praying for people who are starving, people who are suffering abuse or any other person who is 'in a bad place' in this fallen world.

    I didn't 'ignore' other people ... I simply asked for prayer for one person (who has the power to make the lives of many of the people you and I are concerned about, much better) ... I didn't ask people to not pray for anybody else.


  • #6599
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,851 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    I'd forgotten that it's more intellectually rewarding and less psychologically damaging in the long run to repeatedly bang my head against a wall than to attempt to have an intelligent conversation with someone who reads the Bible literally. Silly me.

    I should probably unsubscribe from this thread before I waste any mental energy on trying to figure out which is the more bug-eyed insane: claiming that every living thing on the planet is descended from the contents of a boat four thousand years ago, or claiming that Donald Trump is anything other than a malignant narcissist and a dribbling idiot.


  • #6600
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    I'd forgotten that it's more intellectually rewarding and less psychologically damaging in the long run to repeatedly bang my head against a wall than to attempt to have an intelligent conversation with someone who reads the Bible literally. Silly me.
    I think that the following Bible Passage may possibly describe your position and mine:-

    1 Corinthians 1:18King James Version (KJV)
    18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    I should probably unsubscribe from this thread before I waste any mental energy on trying to figure out which is the more bug-eyed insane: claiming that every living thing on the planet is descended from the contents of a boat four thousand years ago, or claiming that Donald Trump is anything other than a malignant narcissist and a dribbling idiot.
    When you have no answers, I suppose, the next best thing is to engage in Ad Hominems against me and The Donald.

    Life is amazingly tenaceous ... and it can re-colonise destroyed areas very rapidly.

    Just starting with two people and producing only 3 children per couple would only take 55 generations to reach the current world population of 7.4 billion people. At an average generation length of 30 years this could be achieved in only about 1900 years.
    Even, with a marginal above replacement rate of 2.5 children per couple, 7.4 billion people would be achieved in less than 3,500 years.
    ... so all those great ages with which Evolutionists confuse themselves with, aren't needed in the Real World to explain how we have come to be.

    ... and nobody is saying that Donald Trump is perfect ... indeed many people like him, despite his all-too-human weaknesses, because he is a man of his word, who will make America great again (and the rest of the World as well) ... if he is let get on with it !!
    Give the man a break ... and stop continually tearing him down.

    A 'rising Trump tide' ... will raise all boats ... including the pseudo-liberal ones!!:)

    All they need to do ... is to close their eyes, lie back ... and think of America !!!:D


  • Advertisement
  • #6601
    Leroy42
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,098 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    J C wrote: »
    The Bible simply says that "the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually."
    Sounds like 'Hell on Earth' at the time.
    There are a number of things of note in the passages that follow:-
    1. The 'sons of God' (who were fallen angels that had taken physical form at that time) were attempting to monopolised sexual relations with all Human women ... and they produced a hybrid race of people who were irredeemably evil, like the fallen angels who fathered them.
    2. It seems to have reached the point where the very existence of the Human Race was in the balance ... and the only Humans not contaminated genetically and spiritually was Noah, his sons and their wives.
    3. God made up His mind to bring all of the evil to a halt ... by wiping out all life outside the Ark.

    Genesis 6;1-6 King James Version (KJV)
    1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,

    2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

    3 And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.

    4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

    5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

    6 And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

    Wow, quite a climbdown. Only a few posts ago you were making the assertion that we don't know if newborns were murdered, trying to say that todays man is more evil. And now it because they were better off! So God did kill innocent new born babies on nothing more than their parents had committed sin. So much for free-will!


    J C wrote: »
    Like I have already said, praying that the most powerful man on Earth does the right thing ... and is allowed to do the right thing ... on all issues facing him, is a legitimate use of prayer.

    It doesn't stop us praying for sick babies and babies killed in their mother's wombs ... nor does it stop us praying for people who are starving, people who are suffering abuse or any other person who is 'in a bad place' in this fallen world.

    I didn't 'ignore' other people ... I simply asked for prayer for one person (who has the power to make the lives of many of the people you and I are concerned about, much better) ... I didn't ask people to not pray for anybody else.

    But surely you must think that God was already involved in getting him to be to the most powerful man on earth? Why do you think that you praying is going to make any difference to Gods plan?

    Why would God allow a person to get to that point if they weren't there for good, I mean if you believe he actually can interfere in the first place. Why didn't he stop evil happening before?


Advertisement