The Great YouTube Debate 13

Ego can’t help himself (and since he continues to call me ‘Tel’, I’ve decided I can’t be bothered typing out his full name either); he simply has to reply, using the whole works—copying and pasting, posting links, using bad grammar and spelling. Here’s his reply on the comments of the Great YouTube Debate 12.

“http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1a.asp

This is a reply to the thigns scientific america wants to argue.. LOL.. read it if you choose.. ArrianneG.. but speciation and natural selection do not explain it.. it’s faith based and full of assumptions..

Like Tel likes to say.. think for yourself.. in your own words..

Without the help of Scientific America.. because without knowing anything a evolutionary scientist says, and this go’s for Tel also, you can’t even explain in your own words how natural selection makes a bacteria evolved to something of a non-bacteria over time.

In your own words.. i doubt you can explain how speciation can cause a bacteria to become a non-bacteria..

So in your own words, leave the articles and propoganda you have read to explain it.. without that, I’m skeptical you can explian how those to theorizations can explain it.

Just like I think for myself.. i see that the lowest layer in the fossil record is bedrock.. you will find bacteria there.. then the next layer up, you have triolobites which are multi-celluar and far advance over a bacteria, I see that there are no fossils leading up to it.. and there is nothing in the record that shows how a triolobite can even evolved to that position.. being neutral, anyone who looks at that knows it’s a leap of faith.. you have no evidence.. it’s an assumption that it can change in that direction..

So how does natural selection, or speciation change a bacteria into a multi-cellular orgainism like a triolobite. because that is what the record shows.. bacteria.. and those are not the only things in that layer of bedrock, there are some other things, but they are simple cell.. like bacteria.. not multi-cellular like triolobite.

so I await in your own words, i have read ad hoc explinations about this.. but what’s you take… and you don’t have to argue with me.. now do you?

Others Christians are shaking their heads..

LOL.. Like I’m going by your definition of a Christian.

There are anaerobic cells, and they do not need oxygen to survive

(these became plants.. really.. LOL.. how far of a strecth of the imagination is this? Show in the fossil record this happened? Lowest layer you have bacteria.. then the next layer you have very complex triolobites.. where are the plants at? show me with this very fine logic that these anaerobic cells formed into plants.. .. oh.. let me guess.. this is evolutionary propoganda read somewhere on an evolutionist website.. this isn’t something that a free thinker just thought up on their own.. LOL.. I bet free thinkers didn’t know that the geologic column in text books doesn’t match what you see at the grand cayon.. oh’ that’s ok.. make it fit.. )

And by the way.. I’m not looking for love in a blog space.. and if you commented on my front page.. when? I don’t remember you commenting on my front page LOL…

And by the way.. the fossil record is interpetation. One worldview says one thing.. the other says this.

Polystra fossils are ad hoc explained away, when they go thru several of the layers that suppose to have formed over millions of years.. but I have heard crazy ad hoc things to explain poly’s away. So what evolutionary propoganda will be repeated on this page?

When someone refutes this polystra fossils, give the link to the page you read it from word for word.. so I can see people don’t really think for themselves.

Logically when I see a fossil that go’s thru several layers (poly meaning many) thru layers that suppose to have taken millions of years.. I say, hey that falsifies forming over millions of years. But if you read evolutionary propoganda, well, it can happen.. yeah.. OK!

This guy is telling us not to repeat arguments. All right, let’s look at this:

Rule #1.. when someone is losing a debate they focus on spelling mistakes. (Actually, when you start copying and pasting, it’s a sign you’re losing a debate majorly.)

So here I go with this very well spoken blog.. LOL. NOT!

Oh.. Mohammad told people to repent.. means what that Jesus’ speaking of repentance doesn’t mean anything.. nice evasive move. (Did I say that Jesus’ teachings don’t mean anything? I most certainly did not. Of course, considering Ego’s level of English language, it’s easy for him to misinterpret things.) And give the verses in the Quran saying it.. not your comment because I don’t believe someone who improvises as they speak.

Quote the bible on repetance and what it means. Or will there be improvising on that as well.. Repentance means ‘turn away from sin and back to the laws of God’. Very simple. The laws of God are the Ten Commandments and the commandment to love one another. I don’t quote the Bible when I know the idea off the top of my head. Of course, given your very twisted understanding of Christ’s teachings, I’m sure you have a different understanding of the word ‘repentance’, don’t you, Ego?

Recite what? the commandments. that easy.. but again.. total improvising again, nothing interpeted correctly. The Ten Commandments need interpreting? Doesn’t ‘Thou shalt not kill’ mean exactly what it says. So you’re saying that the Bible actually can’t be taken literally, and that the Ten Commandments are symbolism? Yeah.. all one has to be is peaceful and they can go to heaven.. yeah.. If Heaven is a place for fanatics like you, I guess a lot of people will be seeking to avoid it, including me. Spending eternity with you and your kind would be Hell. I guess ignoring Scripture is the only important think that neo’s do. Bring the neo way of life and do the same with Scripture.. yeah.. ok.

Yeah… no answer, on my relationship because we practice the faith You practise a form of faith; doesn’t sound much like the one Christ preached., and there are no problems. my wife isn’t a slave that is what I wanted to bring out, and you can’t combate I’ve never ‘combated’ anything. something that millions of real Christians practice as obedience to the example set forth by those Jesus left in charge. You’re now speaking for the millions of Christians on earth? You really are egotistical, aren’t you?

On Mohammad.. LOL.. more improvising. Mohammad changed his position on respecting the “people of the book” Here is what the Quran says about how Mohammad felt.

“O ye who believe! Take not the Jews And the Christians For your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors To each other” (5:54) The Qur’an says a lot of things. People interpret it as a Book of Symbols. For your information, even devout Muslims obeyed Mohammed’s first command to respect the people of the book. Usama ibn Munqidh thought that the Christians were a barbaric lot, but he still had Christian friends.
Geisler, N. L., & Saleeb, A. 2002. Answering Islam : The crescent in light of the cross (2nd ed.) . Baker Books: Grand Rapids, Mich.

And Saleeb a former Muslim would know more than yourself. The Quran speaks for itself in Sura 5:54. ‘Former’ Muslim, meaning he turned against Islam and therefore would be biased against Islam.
But logically I dont’ expect free thinking people who claim that to realize that they are in error. Not quoting from the Quran and improvising is what is done best here.

More improvising without knowledge.. If people don’t want to read what I’m saying then don’t. But again, I have to repeat myself to very young minds. I know people personally that are persecuted. Here is a link for anyone to see that thru out the history of Christianity Christians are persecuted and still are today in Muslim countries, http://www.ccel.org/f/foxe/martyrs/home.html.

Muslims and Jews are persecuted too. Don’t think that Christians are special. As for martyrs like Eulogius, they wanted to die. One does not stand in a Muslim city, call Mohammed a devil-worshipper in public, do it multiple times after multiple warnings, and expect to live.

And it happens today, still in Iraq, Iran, pakistan, Lebanon which I have friends that are from there could tell you that Christians are hated.. And in the rest of the world, Muslims are discriminated against.

LOL.. the Parable.. there is more imporvision.. yet again. That’s why when someone doesn’t know what they are talking about when it comes to the Bible it shows. Actions don’t get you into heaven.. but beleif.. or faith in Christ. So the Good Samaritan won’t get to Heaven because he doesn’t believe in the right thing? So why did Jesus tell the parable? I’ll give two examples. because I have to go to youth group.

first example the thieves on the cross.. belief.. gets you into heaven.. placing your faith in Jesus..

39One of the criminals who hung there hurled insults at him: “Aren’t you the Christ? Save yourself and us!”

40But the other criminal rebuked him. “Don’t you fear God,” he said, “since you are under the same sentence? 41We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong.”

42Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.[f]”

43Jesus answered him, “I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise.”

And the classic example.. Epe. 2:8-9 8For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9not by works, so that no one can boast.

LOL.. i’ll answer the rest of this improvising when I get back..”

Proving that he cannot even paraphrase, for he copies and pastes things, complete with bad formatting. Oh yes, when you run out of arguments, do quote the Bible. It’s going to win any argument. (Well, considering Ego’s level of debating skills, that might just work. The Gospels are a lot more eloquent than anything he can write.)

My Reply

Ego, here’s the Oxford English Dictionary’s definition of a Christian:

Christian– based on or believing the teachings of Jesus Christ.

Nowhere does it say ‘dogmatic unconditional belief in everything written in the Bible’. Now, this definition given by the Oxford English Dictionary seems to be much broader than yours. I have spoken to a great number of Christians in my time, and I’ve met two, including you, who seem to think that the Bible must be believed unconditionally, contrary to all rational thinking and scientific evidence. Even our local bishop says that evolution makes more sense that creationism. This shows that your brand of ‘Christianity’ reflects only the attitude of a small minority of Christians in the world, and many others do not agree with you, and even despise your views. Indeed, they are shaking their heads at your dogmatic ways.

Of course, as a Christian, I place my faith in Jesus, but you believe in a whole lot of things that Jesus did not say, for example, the Bible must be taken literally word for word. He never said it, so I won’t take the Bible literally word for word.

Scientists found evidence of anaerobic single-celled organisms which photosynthesize to produce oxygen. Even you have heard of algae, I assume. In the beginning, there was little oxygen, but lots of anaerobic algae. They produced enough oxygen for aerobic organisms to evolve from anaerobic organisms. It is very simple, but perhaps I’m being much too optimistic in hoping that your fanatical irrational mind will understand this, because you are holding onto the twelfth century belief that ‘God has revealed the Truth through religion. Reason can be used to prove the Truth, but if reason contradicts religion, then reason is obsolete’. We all know what sort of wonderful people the twelfth century produced; Reynald de Chatillon, the robber baron, ’Saint’ Bernard of Clairvaux, who preached the killing of Muslims, Gerard de Ridefort, the religious fanatic who put an end to the Christian Kingdom of Jerusalem with his fanaticism, and so on and so forth. You seem rather keen on joining their ranks, and they would certainly welcome you.

As for unicellular organisms becoming multicellular, that happens when these single celled organisms join together in a mass and survive better. They are more like a ’society’, if you like, than a single organism at the moment. However, these cells evolved to rely on one another, and some evolved their own specific adaptations. These ‘masses’ of cells started to form simple multicellular organisms, like jellyfish. Miraculous, but possible; nothing is beyond God, as I said, and I believe that God initiated evolution.

Like the majority, you take the wide road in ostracizing your Muslim brothers and sisters. I would not take that path; instead, I would take the narrow path and welcome all religions. Of course, I could never welcome fanatics such as yourself; that is much too hard, and beyond my human abilities. God would have more pity for you and your misguided ways.

Christianity, as I’ve said before, is associated with the west and western oppression. Considering how badly the Muslims have been oppressed by the west in the past century or so, I’m not surprised that they harbour hostilities towards the west, and Christianity by association. I don’t approve of it, of course, but I can see the reasoning behind it.

Ego, you told me not to generalize. However, you generalize a lot more than I ever can. Did you know that there are people who don’t believe in the Bible but don’t believe in evolution either? What do you call them? They are certainly not ‘neos’. These people I speak of are the Pagans, the people who believe we are an experiment being conducted by aliens and so on and so forth. Follow your own advice and don’t generalize. There are many people who don’t believe in the Bible, and not all of them are like me.

I don’t need a link to back up my arguments. Some people do own a brain and did pass high school, you know. For fossils that can be found in a number of stratas, all you can say is that they survived for a long time because of their genetic advantages. Look at sharks; they are some of the longest surviving species around. Why? Early on, they evolved streamlined bodies which made them faster than blunt-headed armoured fish, and they could catch more prey even if they did die more easily. More food means better reproduction. They evolved the ability to replace teeth continually, meaning that they could always catch their food. They evolved tough scales for protection from other predators, which made them even better suited to survival. This is natural selection.

Of course, I could stop arguing with you, but then I would miss my daily laughs, my biology revision, and I would also cease having something to remind me why sex scenes written by hormone driven fourteen year olds aren’t really so bad after all.

 

The Great YouTube Debate 8

Egoeimi replied, and you can read his reply in the comments for The Great Youtube Debate 7. If you can’t be bothered reading it in full, because it is extremely long, I will be summarizing his points.

Charge number 1: I have not been answering all his questions, and he expects me to because I expect him to, so I must do it to him too.

Ego-eimi, I expect you to answer my points and questions, yes, but you never fully answer mine. Remember that question about marine reptiles? Well, I’ll refresh your memory. I asked you, if dinosaur fossils were formed when the Great Flood covered them with mud, then how come the fossils of the marine reptiles are found in the same strata? Those two groups went extinct at the same time, and if the Flood caused the great number of dinosaur deaths, did it cause the deaths of all those marine reptiles too? Did those sea creatures also drown in the flood? You told me to ask someone who knew a bit more about them. That is not an answer.

Charge number 2: My claims that Paul and the apostles could be wrong are unfounded, because Christ promised them that the Holy Spirit would refresh their memories.

Perhaps the Holy Spirit would refresh the memories of the apostles and remind them of what Christ has taught them. However, Paul is more often doling out advice. Jesus never said anything about how women should behave, yet Paul says that a woman must submit herself to her husband. Then you say that the Old Testament is also the absolute truth. This is unfounded. In it, it says that ”Anyone who is discovered to have leprosy must tear his clothes and let his hair grow in wild disarray, and cover his upper lip and call out as he goes, ‘I am a leper, I am a leper’ [which means that he is unclean] As long as the disease lasts, he is defiled and must live outside the camp.’ (Leviticus 13:45-46) However, leprosy is not highly infectious, and quarantine is not necessary, as most people are immune to it. God must have known it, and He would not cause those people to suffer so by forcing them to be isolated. This shows the human influence in the Bible.   

You say that those ordained by God cannot be wrong. However, Moses himself said this. “Why have you let all the [Midianite] women live? These are the very ones who followed Balaam’s advice and cuased the people of Israel to worship idols on Mount Peor, and they are the cause of the plague that destroyed us. Now kill all the boys and all the women who have had sexual intercourse. Only the little girls may live; you may keep them for yourselves.” Here is a chosen one of God ordering massacres and paedophilia, for what do you think would happen to those little girls kept by the soldiers? How can you say that Moses was acting in God’s name here? The Old Testament is a history of the Hebrew people, yes, but not every word of it is the word of God, unless you take it into context, in which case, God would not have told the ancients about evolution and genetic mutation because they simply would not have understood it. Nor would he have spoken of continental drift, the millions of years of natural history, and so on and so forth.

You say that Jesus would accept everything that Paul said. How about this?  “And that is why a woman who publicly prays or prophesies without a covering on her head dishonours her husband [for her covering is a sign of her subjection to him]. Yes, if she refuses to wear a head covering, then she should cut off all her hair. And if it is shameful for a woman to have her head shaved, then she should wear a covering…So a woman should wear a covering on her head as a sign that she is under man’s authority, a fact for all the angels to notice and rejoice in.” Would Jesus approve of such double standards and inequality? I doubt He would. This sort of thing was not what he preached, and he never said anything about women’s dress codes.

Charge number 3: Jesus refuting the handwashing was symbolic of him making the old rules and traditions obsolete.

Exactly, so that means Jesus Himself knows that the Old Testament was not all correct, and therefore we must treat the Old Testament with some skepticism, including the Book of Genesis. Elijah might have told people to accept all or nothing when it came to religion, but he was one of those old prophets. If Jesus refuted the old laws and ways, then perhaps Elijah’s warning might not have been correct either.

Ego-eimi wants to know how I think people can find salvation.

One is saved by doing the right thing, which means following God’s commandments. There are the ten, and there is that special one; “Love one another as I have loved you.” To be saved, you must be brave and upright. You must speak the truth, and not bury your conscience behind convenience. You must never blame your mistakes on someone else, even if they did tell you to make such a mistake, because your mind, your body and your conscience are your own. You must safeguard the helpless and defend those who cannot defend themselves. You must make the world a better place by bringing peace and prosperity to everyone, not just your own kind. Yes, I paraphrased that from the movie Kingdom of Heaven, but that is only because I agree with it. Note that I did not quote directly from it.

He also want to know whether I would die for Christ.

As for whether I would die for Jesus, I honestly don’t know, and I hope that God will not put me to the test. However, I would die for peace, for that is what I truly believe in. The type of discrimination which you practise, Ego-eimi, can only lead to war. It already has led to war; the Crusades are a very good example. The Christians believed themselves to be better than the Muslims, and more deserving of the Holy Land, and vice versa.

He wants to know whether I believe in the Resurrection.

Yes, and I’ve answered it before.

The Canaanite question.

Of course some of them fought back. If someone invaded the U.S., would you not fight back? Defense of one’s country is not a sin. Rather, it is an honourable thing to do. Killing the defenders is something that a human might do, but even the more honourable human commanders would let their honourable adversaries live. See Saladin and his adversary, Balian of Ibelin. Killing the defenders was something that the Israelites wanted to do, so they put it down in the holy book as a divine order.

I’d rather not get into an argument about Al-Qaeda, for while I don’t agree with Osama bin Laden, I pity him and I can see where he’s coming from.

Have you seen Atheists going around handing out flyers and magazines, trying to convert people? I don’t think so. I’ve seen lots of Christians do it though. This sort of evangelization is called ramming beliefs down people’s throats. As for Jesus saying that “He is the only way”, I believe that he meant His teachings are the only way to Heaven. That’s fine, because Mohammed preached the same things as Jesus did; peace, unity, justice and love. Those are the things which lead people to God, and that makes Mohammed a prophet. That is what the Qur’an is supposed to be; God’s word, in Arabic. God doesn’t only speak Aramaic and Greek, you know. Mohammed did lead his people to God. They call their god Allah, which means ‘The One God’, and they recognize that Allah is also the God of the Christians and of the Jews. Which in turn means that they believe in the same God as we do. Looking down on Muslims because you believe they worship the wrong way is discrimination, and that leads to war. That is not what a Christian is supposed to do.

Also, have you realized that not all Christians have the same doctrines and beliefs?

You know what, I think you like being persecuted because it makes you feel holy. You feel like you’re a warrior for your faith. No one is persecuting the Christian way of life. The atheists only want you to keep your beliefs to yourselves.

I’m not saying that the theologians don’t know what they’re talking about. They know what they’re talking about. I just don’t agree with them. From my readings, I’ve made my own decisions about certain things in life and I’ve formulated my own opinions. 

As for genetic mutations, it’s been observed. Look at Downs Syndrome, for example. People have been able to create new organisms through changing the DNA structure and artificially inserting gene sequences into other gene sequences. Therefore, evolution is not a faith, but a scientific theory. A theory is an idea which is reasonable, but still has mistakes.

“These creatures use this light for communicating with each other and identifying others of their own species, since most other sea creatures cannot detect such a light, which is important for their survival.”

Scientists have observed that light is used by different organisms for communication. One can incorporate prove facts into their arguments to back it up. Quoting opinions, however, just means you are too lazy. By the way, that was not a quote. It’s not a fault to be able to write better than you. If you’d read enough scientific stuff, you would realize that sentence is not a very good sentence. No one in their right mind would publish something written like that.

As I’ve said, evolution is a theory, which means it still has room for presumptions and guesses. However, it makes a lot more sense than ‘The world was created in seven days and you’d better believe it or else you’re going to burn in hell.’

Here’s a quote from ArianneG which explains evolution:

“Look at the fruit fly experiments, and things like Down’s syndrome and Angelman’s syndrome! Evolution happens all around us; our genes are changing from generation to generation. Jut because said mutations are ’silent’ (non-expressed mutations) doesn’t mean that they aren’t there, or that they can’t produce great effects within a single generation. Whenver genetic content changes, whether radically or minor fashion, evolution and change is ongoing.”

No, I do not believe in original sin. Just because an illegitimate child’s parents are guilty of adultery does not mean that the child also carries that sin. And I don’t even believe in Adam and Eve. I believe all people are born with clean records, and it is what they do that makes them wicked or good. So, yes, I think baptism is obsolete. I was never ‘conversted’ or rather, converted. I was born into the faith, and have been raised as a Christian.

I asked about sin b/4. Sin is a real thing, it’s disobedience to God. Adam sinned, it’s a fact that it’s taught that Sin came thru one man Adam.. but the Second Adam which is Jesus dealt with Sin and defeated it for us who are being Saved. Jesus talked about Adam and Eve when the Divorce issue came up.. that isn’t symbolic people… and I said b/4, if sin didn’t come thru real people but symbolic people then that means sin doesn’t really exist so why would we need Jesus? The Adamic Covenant was insituted with Adam… that isn’t made to symbolic people.

As I don’t believe in original sin, arguing about the fact is moot. Yes, Jesus did come to save us from sin, however, because He showed us how to live correctly, and that is by loving each other as He has loved us. How many times do I have to repeat it? That is the only way to salvation and that is the only rule a Christian, or anyone else, needs to follow.

As I believe that Adam represents all human beings, that covenant was made to us all. It was not made to a symbolic person because we are not symbolic. Adam, however, is.

And is writing in proper English too much to ask? If you really took an entire hour to write this reply, then you would at least make the effort to write ‘because’ instead of ‘b/c’ and ‘before’ instead of ‘b/4′.

The Great YouTube Debate 7

Ego-eimi’s got his own blog and he’s posting his replies there; I thought I’d paste his response here to make things easier and to add to the continuity:

ok I’m here so lets get it on.. before I get into talking about Genesis.. I guess I need to address these comments you made in the Great Debate. 

 

You said:

 

You were the one who first called me ‘arrogant’. Yes, you were judging my character when you’d only met me on the internet once, and I was naught but a name witha message beneathit. So, in fact, you are saying, “Don’t judge me, but I’m free to judge you all I want because it’s the right judgement.” Yeah, that shows you’re a truly born again Christian with the mind of Christ.

 

My Reply:

 

The defining the different meanings of arrogance first:

 

arrogant implies a claiming for oneself of more consideration or importance than is warranted <a conceited and arrogant executive>. haughty suggests a consciousness of superior birth or position <a haughty aristocrat>. lordly implies pomposity or an arrogant display of power <a lordly condescension>. insolent implies contemptuous haughtiness <ignored by an insolent waiter>. overbearing suggests a tyrannical manner or an intolerable insolence <an overbearing supervisor>. supercilious implies a cool, patronizing haughtiness <an aloof and supercilious manner>. disdainful suggests a more active and openly scornful superciliousness <disdainful of their social inferiors>.

 

When I see #1.. evolutionist attacking Christians for their belief in creation when #1, they don’t have to believe it.. just state way you don’t believe it.. but don’t start insulting people and think that you are more superior an individual that is arrogance.  If you notice the video is an evolutionist attacking the idea of the Creation Museum.. if neo’s were simple saying why without resorting to saying we are ignorant, etc, etc.. then I wouldn’t call them arrogant… If you had been around awhile, every neo faith believe has always, always 100% resorted to name calling, saying someone is ignorant, stupid, a moron, and the list go’s on and on.. for what?  You have shown that you are no different. 

 

 

 

You said:

 

 

You are so certain that every word of the Bible is the word of God. Have you any proof? You say our theoretical proof for evolution isn’t proper proof, so where’s your proper proof that the Bible was actually dictated to humans by God? You have no such proof. You must think the ancient world was Utopia, Ego-eimi, where people didn’t lie and didn’t use God to justify their evil acts. Did God really tell the Israelites to massacre the Canaanites, down to the very last child? I doubt it, especially he’d just given them that simple commandment which said, ‘Thou shalt not kill.’

 

My reply:

 

I can’t believe you claim to be a Christian when you ask how do we know that God dictated the what He wanted said to those who followed Him.

 

#1.. Let me quote what Peter said:  2 Peter 1:16

We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

 

#2 Let me quote more of what the Apostle Paul said in his letters to the Apostle Timothy: 

 

1 Timothy 4:7

Have nothing to do with godless myths and old wives’ tales; rather, train yourself to be godly.

 

IN Titus:

 

13This testimony is true. Therefore, rebuke them sharply, so that they will be sound in the faith 14and will pay no attention to Jewish myths or to the commands of those who reject the truth. 15To the pure, all things are pure, but to those who are corrupted and do not believe, nothing is pure. In fact, both their minds and consciences are corrupted.

 

Now if you look at that text.. if doesn’t prove nothing yet.. but I will add.. based on the science of archeology… it’s a fact the bible is a historical text.. King Herod verified… the pool of Besadaalong with thsi also

 

Jesus would be born of a virgin Isaiah 7:14, “Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.”

Fulfilled in Matt. 1:18,25, “This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: His mother Mary…was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit… But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.”

 

To not take up more and more space.. I ask you.. Peter. .was an eyewitness of what Jesus did.. it’s a fact that people they mentioned in the Gospels existed.. the Apostles recorded what Jesus said about Scripture.. Paul wrote that All Scripture is God breathed.. Jesus told them not to lie.. the Prophecies which I only mentioned one.. the fact that archeology has never contradicted the bible and has only continued to verify it.. that proves that it’s inspired, because they witnesses the Jesus that you are suppose to believe and have faith in.. so my premise is simple

 

1.  Jesus existed

2.  Jesus preformed miracles

3.  Jesus had eyewitnesses to the miracles

4.  Even Jesus enemies saw the miracles and didnt’ write against it as false

5.  Jesus said and talked about the Word of God and living by the Word of God

6.  Therefore the Bible is the Word of God

 

Because Jesus Himself.. demonstrated who he was in front of real people.. told them to go and preach the Gospel.. and validated them by giving them power to do miracles just like the pattern has been thru out the bible OT Prophets and Apostles were given power to demonstrate..

 

So u tell me how it’s not Inspired when they witnessed the one prophecied about.. saw Him do miracles as was prophesied that Jesus would do, they died for it.. when they simply could have denied all of it to live, and Jesus Himself gave them Authoirty, which u think ordaination means nothing.. well when Jesus does to someone, it suppose to mean something…

 

You said..

 

If the words of every prophet was actually written down correctly and validated by God, then perhaps I should believe every single word of the Qur’an as well, because Mohammed was a prophet.

 

 

My reply:

 

No Mohammed isn’t a prophet by biblical standards.. and u are suppose to know this.. how long have u been a Christian?  The rules for a Prophet are laid out in Scripture.

 

OT Prophets.. this is another thing that validates them as speaking the very words of God, and I already gave you an example u didn’t address.. If a Prophet said anything that God said would happen if Israel for example didn’t repent.. if it didn’t come true 100% they didn’t hear from God, but if it did then they did speak the words of God.  The prophecies about Jesus like His virgin birth, Jesus was born of a virgin, His mother was looked upon as unclean because she was preganant before marriage.. and Jesus was called a bastard if you don’t know what is said in Jewish history.  And how do we know she was a virgin.. well it’s simple.. it was prophecied coupled with Jesus’ miracles.. if Jesus wasn’t born of a virgin, that would make God a liar which the bible says God can’t do.. and the miracles validate that He was indeed the one.. and people friends and foes saw Jesus doing the miracles… so what am I suppose to reject it.. give me a good reason to reject it.. again, when there were eyewitnesses to the miracles which validate Jesus and if He wasn’t virgin born, then He would be invalidated as the Messiah..

 

So to say.. Mohammad wasn’t a Prophet.. not by the biblical standards He didn’t do Miracles like the Apostles.. and the Quran speaks against Jesus as Resurrected.. therefore why would u a so called Christian even try to use it to make your point against the Bible?

 

You said:  How do you know that every single prophet spoke the absolute truth and that they didn’t somehow misinterpret information?

 

My reply:

 

Already addressed it.. if they spoke for God it had to happen 100%, if they didn’t it was false.  Anyone who exams the Scripture the Dead Sea Scrolls and see the verses mentioned in Isiah about Jesus.. knowing those things were written hundreds of years prior and they happened the way God said it.. then it’s from God.. and if you read the OT and what the Prophets said.. it’s consitent all the way thru..  God doesn’t change.. how He validates people…

 

You said:

You must think the ancient world was Utopia, Ego-eimi, where people didn’t lie and didn’t use God to justify their evil acts. Did God really tell the Israelites to massacre the Canaanites, down to the very last child? I doubt it, especially he’d just given them that simple commandment which said, ‘Thou shalt not kill.’

 

 

My reply:

 

I never said people don’t use God to justify their behavior.. why didn’t u quote so everyone could see the verse I quote about people thinking they were doing things in the name of the Lord when we were talking about the Crusades?  Why did u leave that out?  You give the appearance that I didn’t address that in your forum..

 

About Moses ordingthe Israelites to go to war with the Canaanites.  Yes God would order that.. remember.. God sent the Flood that killed more people than that.. so why would I not think that?  Second.. the people of the day like Israel lived under a ban.. which means that when they went to war in those times tribes would often kill who villiages.. and secondly from what I have studied about the Cutlureof the day Jewish people.. God always gave nations time to repent.. God never, ever sent Israel to war without giving a nation a chance.. and thirdly, you don’t know either that.. the only ones killed when it says Israel killed all.. it’s not talking about all in the sense u are thinking.. it’s all those who choose to fight Israel.. you do realize that woman and young children went withIsrael.. but also that children there are also several views.. some see those children as of fighting age the ones that died. some see it as if God chooses He can take life at any age, b/c He created it..my view is there were woman and very young children who were not corrupted were spared and lived as aliens with Israel.. ever heard of Rahab?  A non-Jew… God took in those that accepted Him. and those that rejected Him in that time period when Israel was going to the Promised Land.. that was that time period..

 

And why are you trying to defend God.. God is well aware of what People would say reading the Old Testament?  God needs no defending.. the Gospel message is offensive… and that needs no defense.. so if you are trying to say your God is mercyful, not Vengiful, then you are ignoring a whole lot of what is to happen on Judgement day.. when God will judge the wicked.. I”m not worried about what people think of God and what God ordered.. why are you?

 

 

 

You said:

 

Jeremiah might have been telling the truth, but would every prophet be like him and tell the absolute truth? And Paul was simply writing down his views. They could be wrong. How can you prove anything? Are you going to say that you know Paul was completely right because you have the mind of Christ, and since you think he’s right, then Christ must surely agree with you? Just because someone is ordained doesn’t mean that they don’t make mistakes. They’re still human.

 

My reply:

You are making an assumption which you can.. asking question that could have someone been wrong.. of course.. but when it comes to God telling those who He selects as when they Prophecied.. or said what God will do if someone doesn’t repent.. that isn’t wrong but truth as long as if it happened as they said God said it.. that eleminates error.  Same thing with Paul it applies, if he said anything that God said, it has to happen 100%, that is how you eliminate the Jim Jones and the David Koresh’s.  And I didn’t say Paul was completely right.. Paul got into arguments with other Apostles they had disputes.. but that doesn’t remove the fact that God can use ordinary people, and it is you that sounds like an unbeliever lacking faith in God’s abilities to use people?  Do you doubt God can use people since you have claimed to be a Christian?  Can God exercise the use of people if they are willing to be used by Him?

 

and yeah.. ordaintion doesn’t eliminate make a sinful mistake.. why do you think 1 John 1:9 is there for all Christians to see?  Peter denied Jesus 3 times.. but Jesus still used Him.. your problem seems to be that yes we are mistake prone.. but that doesn’t mean we can’t communicate God’s truth, one has nothing to do with the other.. it doesn’t mean just because you tell a lie at one moment that you can’t ever speak truth…. God commanded repentance, but God also commanded being truthful to your neighbor, and they were truthful when it came to communicating things about Jesus, God, Faith, the Holy Spirit.. why would they lie about Jesus? Why would they lie about God?  When there is warnings of misleading people like Jesus said about misleading children?  There is a consiquence.

 

 

 

You said:

 

If Christianity means discriminating against people of other beliefs, and universalism means getting along with everybody and spreading peace, then I’ll gladly be a universalist, Ego-eimi

 

My reply:

 

Then what are you going to say or what would you say to Jesus when He clearly said that He is the truth, the way and the Life, no one comes to the Father except thru Him?  Are you going to say John lied then about what Jesus said, when John was an eyewitness to Jesus?  Does that mean Jesus is a bioget?  Does that mean Jesus isn’t peaceful?  No.. but Jesus Himself, said He came to bring division, do you know where that is even written in the Bible?  Jesus came to seperate the sheep from the goats.. meaning the wicked from the richteous, Jesus came to get those who will and are willing to repent.. that is what it is weater I like it or not.  But what would you say to Him, because Jesus isn’t a universalilst.. and that makes me question your faith, why would you go against Jesus. unless you are going to call people lies without justification, u are assuming that Prophets or Apostles lied, withproving it.. so why don’t you prove John lied.. I believe John told the truth about Jesus being the only way to Heaven, because He too witnessed miracles done by Jesus so what’s the justification for lying?

 

 

 

You said:

 

A religion which spreads dissension, discrimination and hatred is not one which I want to be part of. And how is your attitude spreading Christ’s love?

 

My reply:

 

LOL.. if society was all atheistic, guess what there will still be dissension, discrimination and hatred.  Look you have got to be kidding if you think that Christianity is the cause of any of those things.. you can look to the late communist country of Russia, and see that there was dissenstion in that country.  I have been discriminated against for several reasons, by non-religouspeople… so if you are saying you don’t want to be a part of a faith because of those things, then where are you giong to go live?  Because those things weather a person is white, black, green, a Muslim, a Buddist, an Atheist, there will always be someone out there with a population of 6.5 billion people that is non-religousthat will do one of those things.. heck, I’m married, and me and my wife have experience dissension between each other.. i had that withmy sister growing up, u can’t avoid it, and faithsometimes or not has nothing to do with it.

 

 

 

You said:

 

Yes, I’m a broken record for declaring that evolution makes more sense than creationism. However, I’m at least not quoting anyone, and adding my own arguments as to why I believe that evolution actually happened and is compatible with religion. Which brings me to the ‘correct way’ to interpret historical texts, whether they are secular or  religious. Just because someone has a Ph’D doesn’t mean they’re smarter than me. If we all just deferred to people with Ph’Ds, then no one would ever get new ideas. We’d still be living in the dark ages, believing that ”God has revealed the truth through religion. Reason can be used to prove the truth. However, if reason contradicts religion, then reason is obsolete.” Wait, you still believe that twelfth century teaching, don’t you? 

 

My reply:

 

Are you serious.. just because someone has a Ph’D doesn’t mean they’re smarter than you?  Really.. so does that mean that a Doctor who has a Ph’d in cardiology isn’t smarter than you in that context?  How about oncology?  You need to make a comment when it comes to Ph’d’s in proper context.. yes they are smarter than you which ever the context.. Yes an evolutionary Ph’d in genetics is smarter than me.. that’s why I quote a ph’dcreationist with the same degree from a major university against it.

 

But I do come up with my own ideas and see that creation makes more sense than evolution.  I asked you the other day a question you didn’t even answer based on your own words that you like to think for yourself, but you didn’t address in the context of evoution of why it’s explained in the context of it better then creation.  So I’ll ask again.. explain in your own terms how red bioluminescent light isn’t seen prior to what we see today which it’s something an animals has to have deep in the ocean where there is no light.. explain to me. how it survived, what was it’s way of getting food while this was developing,, where is the animal it came from that had this feature in development.. if you are going to walk the walk, then talk the talk and explain to me how evoution explains this better than evolution?

 

 

 

What 12th century teaching are you speaking of?

 

And if that is how you interpet historical text.. then that is why you are in much error.. about Genesis.

 

You say Adam is symbolic.. or that Genesis is symbolic when it comes to creation.

 

Ok..

 

Then tell me how this is symbolic when there is no appearance of symbolic language used and I’ll quote several verses and by the way.. u didn’t address the sin question… If Adam is a symbolic person, then that means sin is symbolic, and Jesus had no reason to die for sins.. or do you not know why Jesus came?

 

Here are some verses:

Adam named his wife Eve, because she would become the mother of all the living.

 

The LORD God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them.

 

Adam lay with his wife Eve, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Cain. She said, “With the help of the LORD I have brought forth a man.”

 

I quoted a few verses referencing to Adam.. now how is it that Adam lay with his wife symbolic?  It’s the same Adam that God created in the verses preceding it.. Why would God makes garments for a symbolic person?  ARe you going to call Moses a liar without justification?  Adam named his wife Eve, how is that symbolic language compared to your misuse of Jesus answering Matt. question about seventy times seven in the proper context of forgivness which they were talking about..

 

And in ending..

 

What is your purpose.. to entertain yourself.. I notice that your comment in the end and I quote

 

“So come on, defend your faith. You said in your last reply that you’re never a coward when it comes to defending what you believe. So come and defend it now, or you will be a coward in front of the world. I won’t even have to say it.”

 

What?  is this a game to you?  A teenager having fun?  Seeing how many people will jump on your bandwagon?  See how many people like it has been as I have read some comments from onlookers the same old thing of mocking a Christian for believing in the Bible which that is what a Actual Christian does in comparison to you which you are misleading people away from the bible, which there is warnings against. 

 

I didn’t come here to show the world I”m not afraid.. i’mnot. but if someone gets some help, weather it be one person that turns to Jesus.. I’m happy withthat.. because I already been there and done that.. being mocked and laughed at makes my faithstrong, because I’m experiencing what those who put their faith in Jesus prior the same thing.. Jesus said to rejoice and if you are not being persecuted for your stand for Jesus.. then what does that make you?

 

 

First, I thought that the Creation Museum was misleading even when  I first heard of it in 2007; my brother and I laughed ourselves silly over it. Since the video was correcting the scientific mistakes…well, I can hardly attack the video maker for that. I might not agree with her views entirely, but she wasn’t attacking Christ, simply those who claim to follow him but fail to exercise their common sense and then try to force others to believe exactly what they believe as well. I told you to read more information, as it was pretty obvious by then that you knew nothing about evolution (not that you know anything now).

 

At any rate, as that screenshot proves, you were simply judgemental and assumed I was arrogant after I told you to read more.

 

You think calling someone arrogant is not an insult? Conceited, condescension, intolerable insolence; those terms were from the definitions you posted. How are those not insulting? Forget the science textbooks. You’d be better off with a dictionary. Once you’ve managed to figure out what words you can use and what words you can’t in a certain situation, then you can argue.

 

Must you resort to quoting? Firstly, Peter was human. His memory could have been faulty, and although he was an eyewitness to Jesus’ miracles and teachings, Jesus often refuted the teachings of the Old Testament. Remember the handwashing incident? So, as ArianneG summed up nicely, I believe in what came out of Christ’s mouth, not Paul, Peter, James, Timothy etc. If they can make up the idea of Purgatory to get people to go and fight in the Crusades, then they can make up a lot of other stuff.

 

You’re right, the Bible is a historical text, and as a history student, we’re taught to treat every text with some degree of skepticism. I, for one, do not believe that the God of Love told the Israelites to massacre the Canaanites. How do you justify that, Egoeimi? You keep on telling me that my interpretation of the Bible is wrong. So tell me, how can God, who had just given the commandment ‘Thou shalt not kill’, tell His people to massacre the Canaanites, down to the very last child?

 

No, perhaps an atheist society wouldn’t be all that peaceful, but you are using your religion to say that you are better than others. That simply spreads more dissension amongst us, and I tell you this; we don’t need it. As I’ve said over and over again, I don’t care what a person believes as long as they don’t ram their beliefs down my throat and can respect me for what I am. Maybe by your standards, Mohammed was not a prophet, but since he turned the whole of Arabia to God, I say he is. I might disagree with him on some aspects, but I respect him and the religion that he set up for God.

 

I used to believe that Mohammed was not a prophet, but then I changed my mind after reading about and studying Islam. I’ve been brought up with the Christian faith, but it doesn’t mean I have to accept everything that my elders tell me. Jesus never accepted all the traditions.

 

No, a person with a PhD might be more knowledgeable, but knowledge does not equal wisdom or intelligence. I have the potential to get a PhD. Just because I haven’t gotten one yet doesn’t mean I am less intelligent. It just means I have less experience in the area. Once again, I recommend a dictionary with clear concise definitions.

 

In evolutionary terms, the red bioluminescent light might have developed because of mutations in the creatures’ DNA, which caused some changes in their chemical production. These creatures use this light for communicating with each other and identifying others of their own species since most other sea creatures cannot detect such a light, which is important for their survival. Perhaps the creature with the best light gets the best mates, thus passing on good genes for the next generation. The lights can also attract prey that can detect the red light, and that aids the survival of the species as well. This feature evolved because the first one to show this mutation in its phenotype managed to survive and mate with others of its species, thus passing on the beneficial mutant gene onto the next generation. It might not have shown up immediately in the next generation, as the gene could have been recessive, but over a great many years, more of the creatures with bioluminescent red light in their phenotype (meaning that, if the gene for red light was a recessive gene, they were homogenous), more and more of their offspring began to show this trait in the phenotype, and the ones without the red light now have an evolutionary disadvantage, so they began to die out because they couldn’t compete with their counterparts with red light. Give it a few million years, and every single creature of the species has inherited the gene for red light.  

There, I hope you understood that, Egoeimi, because that’s the sort of answer a high school student has to write for their biology exam, and it might be too confusing for you.

 

I believe in free will. All the prophets are free to choose what they want to say and do. They might have to live with the consequences afterwards, but they made choices. They weren’t God’s puppets. You do know that ‘different beliefs’ does not automatically make someone wicked, right? The ‘proper’ beliefs don’t automatically make someone a good person either. It’s what you do that counts. I don’t see how the sheep and goats lecture has anything to do with our present topic.

 

The way Adam lay with his wife is symbolic of marriage and what happens after it. This is God saying that such an activity is right for a man and a woman who are completely committed to each other, and that people should reproduce for the sake of the species’ survival. There were those who believed in abstinence in those days, and that was not good for survival. Or, it could be a Hebrew myth.

 

You think I have not been persecuted for my beliefs? Look in the mirror. There stands one of my persecutors. I practise the Christ’s teachings of rationality, love and acceptance, and people persecute me for that.

 

And here are some random quotes from Egoeimi: I’m in bold.

  

 

Experimental Observations Only Yes, Egoeimi. And since creationism cannot be proven by experimentation, what exactly are you trying to say?
    ”Some lame defenders of evolutionism claim that one needs a degree in biology to refute the origins of life by chance.
    All evolutionists need to do is demonstrate how life can naturally come from non-life. Ambiogenesis is not evolution. Get it through your head! That’s why I’ve always said that God created life, and then let the living organisms evolve into the organisms we see today. But only experimental observations please. Leave your imaginations and dreams at the door.” Yes, Egoeimi. Leave your daydreams at the door.

Patrick D. McGuire, From an amazon.com review of ‘Not by Chance: Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution’ by Lee M. Spetner

The Big Bang and Guano
    ”On July 12, an abandoned ranger headquarters at Tahquamenon Falls State Park blew sky-high, sending debris a hundred feet into the atmosphere and alarming campers fourteen miles away.
    
    The explosion now has been traced to bat manure that for decades had been generating methane gas until in mid-July it became highly volatile and – kaboom!
    
    Scientists believe that a similar cataclysm 15 billion years ago gave us the beginnings of the universe, though even scientists cannot account for those early bats, There are possible explanations for how the bat evolved. It was a land mammal to start off with. Mutation created a gene for webbed fingers. This gene got enhanced over millions of years and now code for the wings you see today. and for those of a religious disposition a world created by bat dung is too depressing to contemplate.” You know, no one ever said the world was created by bat dung. What is this argument trying to say?

‘The American Spectator’, Sept. 1993, pp. 8,9

 

 

Ego-eimi, are you still trying to say that you have your own opinions? This random quoting makes you look:

a) too lazy to formulate your own arguments

b) lack the language to formulate your own arguments

c) love the copy and paste function or

d) all of the above

 

 

 

The Great YouTube Debate 7

Egoeimi replied, and it’s even more laughable than usual. He seems to love ‘LOL’ a lot. Maybe he thinks it makes him look cool?

You said:

I did tell you how to comment on my blog entries. It was in that message which you didn’t bother to read.

My response:

I didn’t bother to read futher because of the put downs about my spelling as you continue as it appears to do so…. who cares.. I looked at Amazon.com the other day and read some reviews on a product I was thinking about buying and there were all kinds of spelling errors or grammactical mistakes.. but I’m not going to email a person.. to be critical of their spelling.. their not my responsibility LOL neither is it yours.

You said:

And I can tell you that you cannot be certain that God is on your side. For all you know, He could be on my side, or He could be watching us both with disapproval. You simply cannot know. As for truly reborn Christians having the mind of Christ? Well, all I can say is that you’re most definitely not truly reborn. You’re just under the illusion that you are. You might think that you think the same way as Jesus does. I beg to differ, for Jesus was never so rude as to call someone arrogant on their first exchange, nor does he say anything along the lines of ‘if you don’t completely believe in the Bible, despite all reason, then you’re not my follower and I shun you’. You’re just a fanatic, as I’ve said.

My reply:

You are making a huge assumption.. either you are a christian or not. you should know that God supports those that support Him.. God backs those who speak for Him.. not those who speak against Him. God validated the Apostles and the OT Prophets.. (The Off-Topic Prophets? What the hell are those?) not once will u find in the Bible God not supporting those who support Him. In fact God told Abraham He would curse those who cursed Abraham.. or bless those who blessed Abraham. Because Abraham after all is the father of faith who demonstrated his faith in God.. so God is on the side of those who demonstrate faith in Him.. that is Scriptural. God isn’t supporting those that disagree with what is already reveal in the Bible which we will be debating your support for Evolution and man evoling rather than God created man.

And your mistatement of reborn.. no it’s Born Again.. and you obviously don’t pay attention to the warning given in the Bible about something you can’t judge.. First off.. u can’t judge that because u are not around me.. ask people that are my closeest friends and those that knew me prior to my converstion.. u can question if u choose. like I question your converstion when u appear to support universalism, and evolution to name a few things..not to mention casting doubt on the bible exactly like the Atheist do..

You also said:

I beg to differ, for Jesus was never so rude as to call someone arrogant on their first exchange, nor does he say anything along the lines of ‘if you don’t completely believe in the Bible, despite all reason, then you’re not my follower and I shun you’. You’re just a fanatic, as I’ve said

My response:

If you call my abrasiveness rude… no that’s not being rude because I challenge and disagree with you and do it with a sarcastic tone.. God has and demonstrated that He can and will be sarcastic at times to make a point.. no one is going to call God arrogant.

And about the bible.. Jesus said and I”ll paraphrase it.. or I’ll get the text for you and I quote “man doesn’t live on bread alone but off of every word that percedes out of the mouth of God”

That means that everywhere God speaks thru the people He ordained.. weather it be Moses, Paul, Peter, James, Isiah, Amos, Solomon.. and the list go’s on.. u are suppose to pay attention to. Many people like athiest and u are demonstrating the same thing.. that man wrote the bible and therefore it’s not God speaking.. well u would do well to learn that Christ has made it clear and thru out the bible if u really have studied it.. uses people and their words are acutally the words of God.. For example.. God made it clear to the Prophet Jeremiah that He would put His words in Jeremiah’s mouth.. did u know that.. when Jeremiah prophecied against I believe it was Judah.. about God’s judgements they came true 100%.. that is an example and God did that will all those He selected to speak for Him.. weather it be a Prophet (OT) or Apostle (NT). Weather u agree or not isn’t my problem. but that is how God used people when it comes to that dispensation.

You said:

You know, there is no ‘proper way’ to interpret literature and historical texts. Any new approach is appreciated, if you’re a scholar. If I kept on looking at things from the same angle, then I would be regurgitating what others have already said. That’s not interpreting; that’s called being a broken record. My approach shows that I’m actually thinking, and not just using other people’s arguments. Just because someone has a Ph’D doesn’t mean that their view is more valid than mine. I can choose not to believe them, and come up with my own views.

My response:

I disagree.. there is a correct and wrong way to interpret literature and historical texts. There are people who study the language and cultures of the day and that is where theologians come in.. and it’s acutally Scriptual that God gifts people to be teachers.. because anyone that gets saved.. they are babes and need to be taught until they mature. LIke I have observed many times.. people will pretext the bible without understanding the culture of the day, or the language differences.. Like I said.. in my country i can say “its raining cats and dogs outside”. I can use that figure of speech to communicate a truth about raining very hard outside.. but to someone in Korea.. they wouldn’t have a clue.. and I see that as your approach when I post on your forum we will go back and forth.. u either will listen or u wont.

And are u willing to say that u are sounding like a broken record for repeating what evolutionary scientist say about evolution being true? Repeating something is ok.. as long as its true.. I will continue to repeat what Jesus says.. and that isn’t a broken record.. u are applying that to perhaps things u disagree with that people bring up.. but it’s hardly a broken record depending on who it is.. LOL Paul, Peter many of the Apostles repeated things Jesus said.. that isn’t a broken record.

About Ph’d.. yes it does mean their view is more valid then yours.. because u would be hypocritical if u say that a ph’d evolutionist in genetics view is more valid then mine.. are you? Of course not.. so watch what u say.. anyone that has a Ph’D means they have more advance study in what ever the subject. and if u are not learned in Hebrew, Greek, or Aramiac.. then u have to look at what those that studied and went to school for it.. they do hold weight. but if u are going to fly by the seat of your pants then of course u can come up with anything and pretext.. because u are not paying attention to what the culture understood what was being said…

And yeah. it’s obvious that u have come up believing what u choose and rejecting sound interpetation of the language of the day.

And u mentioned that I don’t think for myself.. well I do.. I have asked for example evolutionist to explain to me the evolution of red biolumeniscents in sea creatures where there is no light.. and none have explained it.. evolution teaches that things evolved over millions of years. but u won’t find that in any animals prior to what we see today… do u care to give it a shot then.. since I after all DON’T THINK FOR MYSELF.

You said:

Well, I’ll see you at the blog then, and if you don’t mind, I’d rather you didn’t try and use Paul’s teachings on me. I doubt him the way I doubt any theologian, and see him as more of a scholar than a messenger of God. Although, I must say, he argues a lot more eloquently than you do.

My reply:

Anyone is fair game if they are speaking truth.. God choose Paul, like Peter, James or any of the other Apostles.. so you should have a problem with God.. after all.. Paul wrote more in the NT then any other Apostle.. and he is an messenger of God.. to the Gentiles.. Paul is well know to be the Aposlte to the Gentiles and Peter was the Apostle to the Jews.. they had two groups that they were telling the Gosple to.. and Paul was choosen by Jesus.

And if you doubt those that studied the text..and language and culture of the day… then why are u listening to Ph’D scientist who believe in evolution? Why are u believe in those who are well educated about genetics when they argue for evolution of man? It’s quite hypocritical that you will accept the arguments and repeat those arguments about evolution being true but won’t listen to the people God ordained?

If that is the case.. then why would u want to debate, if u are not going to listen to sound ;understanding of the text?

Just face it, Ego-eimi, you’re afraid of me because I’m the wee child who can make you look like an utter fool. You’re a coward if you can’t even fight in virtual public.

You are a hypocrite, I’ll say that again. You say I can’t judge you because I don’t know you. Fair enough. However, you wrote this on our first exchange, when I told you to read a bit more before you tried to refute evolution:

You were the one who first called me ‘arrogant’. Yes, you were judging my character when you’d only met me on the internet once, and I was naught but a name with a message beneath it. So, in fact, you are saying, “Don’t judge me, but I’m free to judge you all I want because it’s the right judgement.” Yeah, that shows you’re a truly born again Christian with the mind of Christ.

“we will be debating your support for Evolution and man evoling rather than God created man.”

I will be arguing for the evolution of human beings, thank you very much, not just man.

You are so certain that every word of the Bible is the word of God. Have you any proof? You say our theoretical proof for evolution isn’t proper proof, so where’s your proper proof that the Bible was actually dictated to humans by God? You have no such proof. You must think the ancient world was Utopia, Ego-eimi, where people didn’t lie and didn’t use God to justify their evil acts. Did God really tell the Israelites to massacre the Canaanites, down to the very last child? I doubt it, especially he’d just given them that simple commandment which said, ‘Thou shalt not kill.’

If the words of every prophet was actually written down correctly and validated by God, then perhaps I should believe every single word of the Qur’an as well, because Mohammed was a prophet. How do you know that every single prophet spoke the absolute truth and that they didn’t somehow misinterpret information? You don’t; it’s leap of faith, and I’m not willing to take that leap without some serious rational analytical thinking. Jeremiah might have been telling the truth, but would every prophet be like him and tell the absolute truth? And Paul was simply writing down his views. They could be wrong. How can you prove anything? Are you going to say that you know Paul was completely right because you have the mind of Christ, and since you think he’s right, then Christ must surely agree with you? Just because someone is ordained doesn’t mean that they don’t make mistakes. They’re still human.

If Christianity means discriminating against people of other beliefs, and universalism means getting along with everybody and spreading peace, then I’ll gladly be a universalist, Ego-eimi. A religion which spreads dissension, discrimination and hatred is not one which I want to be part of. And how is your attitude spreading Christ’s love?

Yes, I’m a broken record for declaring that evolution makes more sense than creationism. However, I’m at least not quoting anyone, and adding my own arguments as to why I believe that evolution actually happened and is compatible with religion. Which brings me to the ‘correct way’ to interpret historical texts, whether they are secular or  religious. Just because someone has a Ph’D doesn’t mean they’re smarter than me. If we all just deferred to people with Ph’Ds, then no one would ever get new ideas. We’d still be living in the dark ages, believing that ”God has revealed the truth through religion. Reason can be used to prove the truth. However, if reason contradicts religion, then reason is obsolete.” Wait, you still believe that twelfth century teaching, don’t you?  

I say other people’s views are more valid than yours because they can argue and defend their views properly. As a friendly person told me (thanks for this, Assentia), Language and thought processes go hand in hand. Inability to use language properly shows that your thought processes are malfunctioning. If you have to resort to arguments such as ‘I’ve got the mind of Christ’ and ‘God is on my side’, then your views are probably not very valid. As I’ve said, use the evidence for evolution and turn it against evolution. But I think it might take someone with more brain power to do it. It won’t be very pleasant to hear the someone’s head exploded because they were thinking too hard and their brain just couldn’t deal with it.

So come on, defend your faith. You said in your last reply that you’re never a coward when it comes to defending what you believe. So come and defend it now, or you will be a coward in front of the world. I won’t even have to say it.

The Great YouTube Debate 6

Egoeimi replied, showing that while he might be hopeless at forming his own arguments, he’s an expert at quoting, and he’s quite ready to show off this skill.

You said:

Don’t be so sure that God is on your side. The Spanish said that God was on their side when they sent an armada to attack England. The Crusaders said it. All three popes who declared crusades on each other said it. They all thought they were interpreting Scripture correctly. They all lost in the end. Apparently, God was not on their side after all, contrary to their claims. We are naught but mere mortal humans. Don’t claim to understand God, because you don’t; you’re just another religious fanatic amongst many. You have not even skimmed the surface of the greatness that is God. No one understands God. That’s why He is God, the Almighty.

My reply:

21″Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’ 23Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’ This is what Jesus said about those doing things in His name.. they either have fruit or they don’t.. those that operated in the Crusades who cares many take on the name of being a Christian but it doesn’t mean they were sent by God.

on your statement “no one understands God”

14The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. 15The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man’s judgment:
16″For who has known the mind of the Lord
that he may instruct him?”[d] But we have the mind of Christ.

Yes.. a Christian if they are truely born again, do have the mind of Christ.

Adding more support to that also. The sinful person or those without the Holy Spirit: they

7the sinful mind[f] is hostile to God. It does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so.

But those that do have the Holy Spirit they:

9You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ

So I don’t agree with you… a person who has the Holy Spirit has the mind of Christ, and therefore they take on the same things that displeased Jesus, not the other way around.

You said:

I’ll be honest and say this; it was not nice talking to you, even though it was entertaining at first to see how badly an adult can write. Yes, I have high standards. You could have done something about that spelling; you could have put it through spellcheck; you could have taken out those extra unnecessary periods; you could have edited your writing the way anyone with the least bit of courtesy and humility does before posting anything on the internet. There are free spellcheck programs on the internet. However, you chose not to do any of those things and insisted on posting illiterate agrammatical trash. Therefore, my mockery was valid. Debating means using language which the opposition can understand. You’ve failed on that point.

My reply… yeah I could have taken it to spell check.. but that is for me to judge weather I want to do so, not someone elses. I don’t care what people are critical about when it comes to my spelling, i really don’t. But as far as the Christian attitude I’ll let Scripture speak for itself.. Scripture says this about our attitude which I questions yours:

4Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. 1 cor chapter 13:4-7.

Gods love is demonstrated in not being proud, it’s not rude. So to mock my writing style or lack of, isn’t part of Christian Character, but prayer would have been in order. And also about a Christian Attitude Scripture says this:

3For by the grace (unmerited favor of God) given to me I warn everyone among you not to estimate and think of himself more highly than he ought [not to have an exaggerated opinion of his own importance], but to rate his ability with sober judgment, each according to the degree of faith apportioned by God to him.

All those that are claimig to be Christian are not to have an over exaggerated attitude about ourselves including myself.

And if you think I’m judging u.. guess what.. we can judge anothers Christians attitude, it’s called rebuking, and it’s in Scripture, and if u follow that, u should know that.. and saying I’m fanatical.. well that makes Jesus fanatical then, because He is the one that says we our to follow His Commanments, in fact to acutally make Him more important then your own Mother, or Father, that u are to Love Him more.. so how is that for being very fanatical about following.

You said this:

Take my views to a national level on American national radio? Don’t be so arrogant and think that everyone is American. I’m not. However, if someone was to challenge me to such a debate, I would not back down the way you have. I really do think you are afraid of me. I threw down the gauntlet and challenged you to debate in public on my blog, with no word limit; you refused to take up the challenge. Who’s the coward now?

I didn’t say u were an american, u already made that known that you were not.

As far as debating on your forum.. I asked u to tell me how I post on your forum.. and I would be glad to take the challenge about your pretexting of the bible.. yeah.. lets see how well versed u are when it comes to understanding biblical hermentics.. u are not a theologian, that’s obvious with the apporach u take by saying the bible is a book of symbols.. yeah.. tell me how to post on your forum.. we’ll start in Genesis.. and your mis-use of the seventy times seven Jesus spoke about. I’m not a coward by far when it comes to defending my faith.

And if you were to debate some well know theologians, u wouldn’t stand a chance trust me.. because u admitted already u are not a theologian.. so u are not even interpeating the text in a proper approach.

You said:
For your information, there has been proof that mutation can add extra information. Downs Syndrome is such a situation; the person has three versions of chromosome twenty-one instead of two like normal people. During genetic mutations, genes can be deleted, inserted, switched around or repeated. Most genetic mutations don’t do anything, but some do, and they can either have good or bad effects. That’s how evolution works.

Mutations don’t add information in the direction of taxon.. that is what is argued from Creationist point of view. That is what you and neo-darwinians are trying to make the public think. Experienmetns on fruit flies in the past they exposed them to conditions to cause them to mutate, but they didn’t develop features to becomea a non-fruit fly, that is what creationist with the same ph’d’s in genetics argue.. where neo’s that u are adhering too is suggesting that an ameoba millions of years ago can become a non-ameoba, that is not true, and that isn’t even observable, that is based on non-observation which science is based on observation. You are suppose to be able to test that claim, that even in the past you can’t test.. u can’t repeat that… it’s assume.

And if we were to talk about the pre-cambrian explosion to the cambrian… if we got into detail your would see how silly it is. the Geologist that preach millions of years for those layers to be put down… yeah.. their blanket excuse for poly which means many.. polystra fossils contradict that.. and the answers I have gotten to explaim is sad.. talkorigins and other neo’s think they can explain it away they can’t, and neither can you.. and there are plenty of things that we can address about evolution back and forth. I don’t take evolutionary order of events over the biblical order of events. Your attack on the very faith that u claim to represent is obvous. I will and can post the order of theistic evolution verses biblical creation. Your own way around that like neo’s and atheist claim is that genesis isn’t a literal real even, or that it’s fantasy, or whatever.. that is what I will argue against, when u show me how to post on your forum..

You said:

Choosing to mock me about my age is just ridiculous, for being young is not a fault. Rather, it is a fact, and it is nothing to be ashamed of, nor does it make my arguments any less valid. Jesus Himself said, “Blessed are the children, for theirs is the Kingdom of God.”

My reply is you mocked my age and my writing sytle so I would see that being quite hypocritical. You can mock me.. but when I return it to say that u haven’t even gotten an adult mind yet I’m some how mocking, but u are not?

And where Jesus said “Blessed are the children, for theirs is the Kingdom of God” lets look at it in it’s full context.. of who its’ talking about shall we.

Guess, what.. there is nothing that Jesus said what u said. “Blessed are the chirden, for theirs is the kingdom of God” where is that in the Scripture. Here are all the Beatitudes

3″Blessed are the poor in spirit,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
4Blessed are those who mourn,
for they will be comforted.
5Blessed are the meek,
for they will inherit the earth.
6Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
for they will be filled.
7Blessed are the merciful,
for they will be shown mercy.
8Blessed are the pure in heart,
for they will see God.
9Blessed are the peacemakers,
for they will be called sons of God.
10Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
11″Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. 12Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

Where in all of that shows Jesus saying ” “Blessed are the children, for theirs is the Kingdom of God.”

Where. There is none.. and this is how it seems that u approach not only Genesis to make it say something it doesn’t.. but all of the text.

Let me ask you.. how and when did you get saved.. and you should be able to tell me without researching it.. I mean after all, u are claiming to be a Christian which I question very much when u accept all faiths.. which so I don’t put words into your mouth.. are u talking about universalism, or what?

So when I get a reply from you about how to post on your forum and where I need to go, we can get the debate going, I have no problems with that, I’m sure.

I forgot to put this in my reply to Egoeimi:

About my age: I’m not ashamed of being nineteen, and I certainly don’t think just because I’m younger means my arguments are less valid. Being young is a fact which I can’t change. Your illiteracy is something which you can change, and I expect an adult resident of the United States to write better English than that. At the moment, I’ve seen teenaged French speaking people write better English than you. Mock me about something else, if you must mock, like my lack of understanding of the Bible, my misinterpretation of scripture, my complete inability to argue Physics and Chemistry, my lack of knowledge about what evolution is or something like that. Mocking me about my age just shows that age does not equal maturity. I don’t know if you’re aware, but you sound like a grumpy fourteen year old. And I’ll say this first; if you post illiterate stuff here, I will mock it first before I reply. It’s what I do; I’m a sporker.

As for me not being a Christian because I accept and respect all faiths; how is that un-Christian? I’m practising love and respect here. I won’t shun someone just because they’re of a different religion, and I won’t force them to change. I’m proud of being able to get along with people of different faiths. Are you saying that because I don’t isolate myself from non-Christians, I’m not a Christian? You know, you’re more extreme than the Crusaders, who befriended Muslims. At least some of them did. Discrimination causes hatred, Ego-eimi, and hatred causes war, which in turn creates Hell on earth. That’s not what being a Christian is about.

I did not understand your argument about mutation and evolution, so I will wait patiently for you to explain what exactly it is that you meant before I reply. However, you did mention one thing: Scientists exposed fruit flies to a number of different conditions, and yet they did not stop being fruit flies. You say that it shows that evolution did not happen. I’ll tell you now that evolution takes millions of years. Any change in those fruit flies would be minuscule, even on a genetic level, and unobservable. You can’t disprove evolution just like that.

Here’s the reply I actually sent:

I did tell you how to comment on my blog entries. It was in that message which you didn’t bother to read.

Underneath the title of each entry, there will be something which says ‘no comment’ or ‘1 comment’ or 2 comments’ or whatever. Click on that, and you will get the full blog entry. Scroll to the bottom, and there will be a window for commenting. Similarly, click on entry’s title, and scroll to the bottom. It will get you the same thing.

It’s common courtesy to write in proper English, by the way. If you were humble, you would have taken the effort. Do you think I just type out everything and then just post it? No, I double check spelling and grammar, change wording, make sure that my meaning is completely clear, and that I haven’t missed any important words.

“Love is patient, love is kind”, so scripture says. I’d be lying if I said that I loved you, because I really don’t. That’s why I’m not patient with your spelling and your rudeness. I once corresponded with another person who could not write good English. The difference between you and that other person is that he apologized for his bad English, and hoped that I could understand it. He also said that if I couldn’t, I should tell him and he would rewrite it. That person earned my respect, even if we had to agree to disagree. Not once did I chew him up about his language problems because he recognized them and was humble. That’s how a real Christian should behave.

And I can tell you that you cannot be certain that God is on your side. For all you know, He could be on my side, or He could be watching us both with disapproval. You simply cannot know. As for truly reborn Christians having the mind of Christ? Well, all I can say is that you’re most definitely not truly reborn. You’re just under the illusion that you are. You might think that you think the same way as Jesus does. I beg to differ, for Jesus was never so rude as to call someone arrogant on their first exchange, nor does he say anything along the lines of ‘if you don’t completely believe in the Bible, despite all reason, then you’re not my follower and I shun you’. You’re just a fanatic, as I’ve said.

You know, there is no ‘proper way’ to interpret literature and historical texts. Any new approach is appreciated, if you’re a scholar. If I kept on looking at things from the same angle, then I would be regurgitating what others have already said. That’s not interpreting; that’s called being a broken record. My approach shows that I’m actually thinking, and not just using other people’s arguments. Just because someone has a Ph’D doesn’t mean that their view is more valid than mine. I can choose not to believe them, and come up with my own views.

Well, I’ll see you at the blog then, and if you don’t mind, I’d rather you didn’t try and use Paul’s teachings on me. I doubt him the way I doubt any theologian, and see him as more of a scholar than a messenger of God. Although, I must say, he argues a lot more eloquently than you do.

The Great YouTube Debate 5

I replied to Egoeimi:

I’ll take a page from your book and quote someone: “I put no stock in religion. By the word ‘religion’, I’ve seen the lunacy of fanatics of every denomination be called the will of God.”

Don’t be so sure that God is on your side. The Spanish said that God was on their side when they sent an armada to attack England. The Crusaders said it. All three popes who declared crusades on each other said it. They all thought they were interpreting Scripture correctly. They all lost in the end. Apparently, God was not on their side after all, contrary to their claims. We are naught but mere mortal humans. Don’t claim to understand God, because you don’t; you’re just another religious fanatic amongst many. You have not even skimmed the surface of the greatness that is God. No one understands God. That’s why He is God, the Almighty. 

I’ll be honest and say this; it was not nice talking to you, even though it was entertaining at first to see how badly an adult can write. Yes, I have high standards. You could have done something about that spelling; you could have put it through spellcheck; you could have taken out those extra unnecessary periods; you could have edited your writing the way anyone with the least bit of courtesy and humility does before posting anything on the internet. There are free spellcheck programs on the internet. However, you chose not to do any of those things and insisted on posting illiterate agrammatical trash. Therefore, my mockery was valid. Debating means using language which the opposition can understand. You’ve failed on that point.

You think I should not care about your level of literacy, and yet you refuse to read beyond the first paragraph of my ‘baby talk’ (which is a lot more eloquent than what you write, I might add, because the language usage, at least, was correct). Here’s hypocrisy in the flesh, Ego-eimi. If you have children, I fear for their morality.

Take my views to a national level on American national radio? Don’t be so arrogant and think that everyone is American. I’m not. However, if someone was to challenge me to such a debate, I would not back down the way you have. I really do think you are afraid of me. I threw down the gauntlet and challenged you to debate in public on my blog, with no word limit; you refused to take up the challenge. Who’s the coward now?

For your information, there has been proof that mutation can add extra information. Downs Syndrome is such a situation; the person has three versions of chromosome twenty-one instead of two like normal people. During genetic mutations, genes can be deleted, inserted, switched around or repeated. Most genetic mutations don’t do anything, but some do, and they can either have good or bad effects. That’s how evolution works.

Choosing to mock me about my age is just ridiculous, for being young is not a fault. Rather, it is a fact, and it is nothing to be ashamed of, nor does it make my arguments any less valid. Jesus Himself said, “Blessed are the children, for theirs is the Kingdom of God.”  

Can’t wait to see how he responds. Then again, he might be too cowardly, because even though I told him he was free to comment as much as he liked on my blog, he hasn’t. No matter; if he responds by private messaging, I’ll simply post it here. It’s an extra step, but worth it. At least I’m getting my daily dose of laughter.

The Great YouTube Debate 4

Egoeimi replied to my challenge, like this:

You know what.. it’s go’s to show your age.. after reading the first paragraph.. i don’t have time for children.. when it comes to you.

You are so busy comparing yourself.. to another person as the superior grammatical king, and spelling champion.. go right ahead.. let your head continue to swell.. I don’ t have time for childs play if that is the issue..

Look little girl as you so clearly called yourself.

Like the Catholic Church is the authority on evolutoin…

LIke I said.. take your debate to a national level.. you do know that your evolutionary scientist are not debating publicly…. don’t u?

I wonder why.. do I need to quote what is know that evolutoinist do not debate in public format to much these days. because they fall under the pressure of counter questions… like Dawkins did when he was asked to give an example of increase in information.. LOL.. he choked. and I bet in a public debate you would to.

I don’t and will not take time to read thru all of the mess and baby talk about my spelling… so I”m done. Post then on your forum for propoganda.. LOL… and yeah.. God is on my side because I choose to correctly understand the text in the theological setting, not a childs play game of interpetation that is applied by your and your girlfriend.

nice talking to ya.. but even that last line will be mocked….

Looks like someone’s afraid of something to me. Look Egoeimi, for the last time. I’m not an American. To phone your national radio station would take me too much money. It would be more of an international level than a national level. Don’t think that everyone is American like you are. That’s called arrogance and ignorance. However, if someone did challenge me to a public debate, do you really think I’d back down the way you did? No, I wouldn’t. I’d also prepare better than you have, by reading up on all the material, and I would not start off by calling my partner ‘arrogant’. And no, I would not choke if someone asked me whether there could be extra information. I would point out things like Downs Syndrome, where there is an extra chromosome. Experiments have proven that mutation can happen in many different ways. Genes could be swapped around, deleted, repeated, or a few extra ones can be inserted for no understandable reason. There you go.

You mock me for my age; that shows how low you’ve gotten. I would be better to mock me for my less than conventional phrasing, my lack of knowledge in certain areas, such as physics and chemistry, because I did make a mistake in one of my arguments: I said that humans had argon in our bodies, but as an after thought, I’m pretty sure we don’t. However, you choose to mock me for something which is not a fault, but rather a fact. Yes, I have mocked your spelling, but that is worth mocking. You could have run your arguments through spell check. You could have eliminated those extra periods. You could have spelled ‘You’ in full, instead of just writing ‘u’. But you didn’t; instead, you chose to type too fast for your mind to register what you actually want to say, and post things which make people’s eyes bleed.

It’s not a great victory, Egoeimi, but I’ll say this all the same, because I am just a child: I win.

P.S. I think being a child is a great thing, and not an insult in anyway, for Jesus himself said, “Blessed are the little children, for theirs is the Kingdom of God.”

The Great YouTube Debate 1

So someone took to calling me a coward on the discussion thread for this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kkiyc0joHO8  (yes egoeimi3, I mean you) and I’m not standing for it. They posted this: (I will be sporking it; I’m in bold)

That forum offers more room to respond then this forum.. Dear computer illiterate. This is a private message, not a forum. but that is a cope-out What’s a cope-out? Is that like…a cop out? and a cowards way out. No, I just want you to summarize your argument so it doesn’t take up ten pages. U obviously live to have strenght Um…what? in numbers.. And you obviously live to ignore spellcheck. which I expected.. so i’m glad u can’t carry yourself without your buddies… My buddies? That’s odd. I’m a loner. like they say “birds of a feather flock together”… And ellipses seem to have flocked together here.

And future agreement.. believe me there won’t be any.. Wow, look at the optimism. and tell your own people The Chinese? The Kiwis? The Orlando Bloom fangirls? The dreamers? The historians? What do you mean by ‘my people’? that when they say I’m arrogant it’s funny how doublestand u can be like the others.. total silence on what Math said the other day. That can mean agreement. You called me arrogant first; just returning the favour, pal.

Why did they call me a coward? I refused to wade through more illiterate crap like what this person writes. At least on YouTube’s public forums, there is a character limit. Then, they switched to private messaging (no, egoeimi3, it’s not a ‘forum’. A forum is where multiple people discuss things in public.) and that has no limit, so he can write as much crap as he wants, going around in circles and bringing up all sorts of quotes from not-so-reliable sources.

This is the flame I sent him, in response to him calling me a coward. By then, all constraint was gone, and I’ll admit I was being a total uber-bitch:

Calling me a coward is the last straw. I am not afraid of your arguments, only of your atrocious grammar and spelling, which makes you look like a dyslexic thirteen year old. As if I don’t see enough teenaged girls who can’t spell trying to write. At least on the comment threads, you are limited to five hundred characters, which limits the amount of unintelligible illiterate trash I have to decipher before I can get to your argument.

 

I must wonder why you decided to take the debate to private messaging. Were you afraid of looking like an idiot on public forums? Reasonable, considering how well you performed.

 

You have yet to learn how to effectively persuade someone that they might be wrong, nor have you learned not to push the other debater…towards the opposite point of view. And you’re thirty-five? Please, teenaged girls under the influence of hormones can argue more eloquently.  You think quoting makes you look learned? It doesn’t; it makes you look as if the only opinions you’ve got are the ones which have been spoon-fed to you.

 

I didn’t say anything about Mathenaut’s comment because I agree with it. You are arrogant; there it is. Every time I reply to someone else, you think the comment is for you, even though you probably did not receive the message in your inbox. I said ‘thanks’ to Mathenaut. You thought I was thanking you; how self-centered and arrogant is that? Why would I have *any* reason to thank you? I’m done with politeness, since you hardly showed any to me, calling me an arrogant neo right from the start, and now calling me a coward. Let’s just hope that your fellow believers aren’t like you, because that would give your cause a really bad look.

 

I’m glad I’m Catholic, because you are as backward as that of sixth century Europe. At least I won’t be tainted with the stigma of irrationality which sticks to you and your fellow sheep. If you represent the future of your country, then I’m not surprised you’re going into recession. I just pity the rest of the rational Americans who have to deal with you. God save the world from religious fanatics, and I’m not just talking about Al-Qaeda.

 

You may reply, but I won’t answer. I’ve got a novel to write, and honestly, there are better debate partners to be found. Literate ones.

I’ll give another example of how egoeimi3 writes:

Reading some of the things you said, this will be a better form.. What’s with the two random fullstops? to debate you which I surely don’t have a problem with it. because your logic is flawed.. let me quote what u said in one of your articles. Points, egoeimi3. I would hardly call something that has about a hundred words an ‘article’.

“Okay, let’s say that the world was created in seven days. Jesus said to forgive your enemies ‘not seven times, but seventy-seven times’. Does that mean I keep a tally, and stop forgiving people after I’ve done it seventy-seven times? Of course it doesn’t. What Jesus meant was that we had to keep on forgiving people over and over again. We have to forgive an infinite number of times. So if seventy-seven stands for ‘infinity’, then by logic, the seven days of creation, while they are shorter than infinity, actually means ‘a great number of days; too great to count.’”

I’m sure you know what pretexting is correct.. I thought pretexting was a bad thing? why did u pretext here using which I’m sure u know inproper interpetation and I’m sure u have heard of the art and science of interpetation.. Sorry, I have yet to learn to interpret what you are saying. being a literary writer doesn’t mean u are all of a sudden a theologian Never claimed I was. because u yourself have admitted u don’t know Aramaic, Hebrew or Greek, yet I see how easiy u are aplliing your understanding of lanugage use in your culture to the bible along with other presuppostions.. I wouldn’t dare to apply language use in my culture to anything, considering I can write about four words of Chinese. but I’m asking u to break this down properly that the “SEVEN DAYS” talked about in Genesis is the same style of writing mented in Jesus talking about ‘FORGIVENESS”. Egoeimi3, have you ever noticed that there are many styles of allegorical writing, and each writer has their own style?

Because here is the problem..

I know u are not saying that when someone mentions Jerusalam Jerusalem, unless you’re using some medieval form which I have not yet seen in the manuscripts. in the text. u won’t call that symbolic and not the real Jerusalam, Yes I would; don’t predict what I will say. so your blanket statement that the bible is a book of symbols isn’t logical.. Considering what I just said, your point is moot. u are cherry picking what is symbolic and what is not.. This point is moot too. without showing how the text u cherry pick and compare it to another is the same style of writing. Different writers have different styles of writing; get that through your head.

And u are doing this without know Aramiac, Hebrew, and or Greek.. And you do? just adding your own meanings to the words used without showing how it was understood to the culture and audience being spoken to. I have shown how the audience might have understood it. You just didn’t read those bits, I gather, or you didn’t understand them. (refer back to previous points I made on the discussion thread)

Easy example.. If I said “it’s raining cats and dogs out side” that doesn’t mean anything to a person who doesn’t know anything about the meaning I’m appliying to it. unless they know something about my culture and how we use that phrase.. and the same thing go’s for the biblical text.. u can quote Jesus, and Moses, but u have to show what the meanings are in that language not your languauge.. You know, those people who translated the Bible would have had to see to it that they did not write some sort of Pig-Latin, in other words, translate word for word, because not only would it not make literal sense, it would also not make any grammatical sense. They would make sure that the meaning was preserved, and that includes the symbolism.

That is what theologians are for.. because if that is the cause then u tell me the meaning of this. And as a free-thinking person, I have the right to doubt what theologians say.

but Esau I have hated, and I have turned his mountains into a wasteland and left his inheritance to the desert jackals.” Mal 1:3. Did it ever occur to you that perhaps the person who wrote this didn’t like Esau’s descendants and justified this discrimination by saying ‘God willed it’?

Tell me it’s context, it’s meaning, what is being said.. break it down.. show me with your masterful literary expertise what this means….

And i’m interested in seeing ;your logics work when it comes to the biblical text.. if u are that good as u put forth.. then we need to set up a natiaonl debate with Hank Hanegraff, Who? which he will debate you.. so that will be the second step, and don’t back down like everyone that i have asked in the forum to debate their equals.. u don’t even have to waste your phone mins.. if u are willing to debate on national radio.. I’m all the way in the South Pacific, dude. I can hardly debate on U.S. national radio. Not everyone lives in the U.S., you know. all u have to do is call the toll free number and get it on.. Not toll free for me. but that is secondary to what I want to hear about your explination of how u compared to two verses to make Genesis sound like it is allogorical language by using another verse as u see it.. which is not proper in a theoloigal sense because they dont’ cross reference each other… If anyone can translate this sentence and explain it to me, I’ll be very grateful. It’s a bit hard to argue with someone when you can’t even understand what they’re saying because of language problems.

I’ll be posting more as time goes on, but I need to sort out which argument was in response to what, and so on and so forth. Egoeimi, feel free to comment as much as you like, but it’s only common courtesy to write in English, and not whatever strange mix of text language and something else that you like to throw at me.

World created in seven days: True or False?

Recently, I’ve stumbled upon a video of the interior of the infamous Creation Museum, which promotes the idea that the world was created in seven days, and that the earth is only six thousand years old. As a Christian, I found it absurd, as their arguments are full of holes. I see the Bible as a book of symbols which should not be taken literally. For me, the seven days of creation simply mean a very long time. There are those who dispute that, saying that the Bible is God’s Word and there is no symbolism in it.

Okay, let’s say that the world was created in seven days. Jesus said to forgive your enemies ‘not seven times, but seventy-seven times’. Does that mean I keep a tally, and stop forgiving people after I’ve done it seventy-seven times? Of course it doesn’t. What Jesus meant was that we had to keep on forgiving people over and over again. We have to forgive an infinite number of times. So if seventy-seven stands for ‘infinity’, then by logic, the seven days of creation, while they are shorter than infinity, actually means ‘a great number of days; too great to count.’

I’ve got other points along the same line, and will post them later.

Here’s the video I was talking about at the beginning of the post.