More of the Same Rant

I know I preach tolerance and this might come across as extremely hypocritical, but I feel it is something that needs to be said and acknowledged, and that is I hate it when people claim that the world or a country is in decline because of a lack of Christianity –or any other religion, for that matter– and that the best way to revive a society is by having everyone follow this one “superior” religion. I know I said people shouldn’t judge, and I probably should probably take a step back and follow what I preach, but I can’t help but judge people who say those things as narrow-minded. I need to make a few points.

1. Irreligious people are not immoral and completely without virtue. Many of them are very decent people, perhaps kinder and more generous than some religious people.
2. Religion is not God’s word. Religion is human interpretation of God, and there is room for error. Thus each religion has its good points and bad points, and there is no one superior religion which everyone should follow.
3. Difference in religion equals diversity. The only problem is that people refuse to accept difference. If we can learn to accept others for what they are and not try to convert them to our religion and our way of worship, then there is no reason why we can’t all get along.
4. Faith is something which one comprehends with the heart, and not the mind. It cannot be determined by our logic because human logic is too flawed.
5. The truth is out there, but human beings don’t have it. Same reason as that which was stated above.

The Great YouTube Debate 15 (More sporking!)

Ego’s reply: I’m in bold.

On cutting and pasting. Again, it’s moot.. Cutting and pasting is ok, Says Ego and no one else, but since he says it’s all right, it must be all right. He is always right in his own eyes. it’s the critics that don’t think so. And you think critics and scholars are always wrong because some of them don’t share the same dogmatic beliefs as you do. And the amount I quote verses the little you do, who determines that too much pasting is wrong? Plagiarism detectors do. You? I don’t think so. And I have and can ask questions, but don’t think that when you write something it’s all formulated on its own. Of course, my arguments are based on certain facts and theories, but I have my own explanations for them. Google my theories. I don’t think you’ll find them anywhere else. Scientists would not publish them. Yeah, anyone that reads your explanation on evolution knows you are repeating what you have read. If you didn’t read what evolutionist have said concerning any of the theories they argue then you wouldn’t have anything to say. For example.. You know what speciation is about, you know what natural selection is about, and you know that evolution teaches man has common ancestry with humans. Now how do you know this information, because you read it, and you think it makes more sense then the bible? Because of the solid evidence, such as the existence of a culture before the development of Homo sapiens. And that is why I see you as a hypocrite on this issue. Look at the hypocrite calling others hypocrites. At least Ego learned to spell it correctly this time. You accuse me of not being able to formulate an argument, but then you argue and use the same terms evolutionist use. Why not use terms and make up what you are seeing around you instead of letting the evolutionist dictate to you what species means, There is a clear ‘evolutionist’ definition of species which makes total sense. How about you give me the Bible interpretation then? Homo neanderthalensis had their own culture, but we sure can’t breed with them. How do you explain them? Are they still ‘mindless animals’ even if they have burials, cave paintings and the like? How does the Bible interpret Neanderthals? Or are they the same species even though they cannot breed with us? or interpreting the fossil record and you agreeing with them rather then seeing that none of those things were observed changing, Considering evolution takes millions of years, and scientific study has been around for about a thousand, it’s a little hard to observe the changes. However, smaller changes do occur. Note the moths in industrial Britain. they are practicing homology and try to connect the dots with genetics looking for similarities there to say “oh a bacteria evolved into a trilobite” without direct evidence, just a pipe dream. You’re pointing at an indefinite blob and saying that it’s artwork when you insist that the world was created in seven days without direct evidence except the hypothesis that the Bible is solid history; just a ‘pipe dream’, as you said.

Right I’m plagiarizing, no, I’m pasting information that I agree with and have the same exact view on the issue. Here is another example since you have a hard time understanding.

Believers have the Spirit of Christ, the hope of glory within them (Colossians 1:27). Those who walk in the Spirit will show forth daily, moment-by-moment holiness. This is brought about by consciously choosing by faith to rely on the Holy Spirit to guide in thought, word, and deed (Romans 6:11-14). That does not mean that you have Christ’s mind. It’s more like if you truly believe, Christ’s spirit will guide you but not take away your free will. His way will influence your thinking, speech and actions, but He will not take over your body and make you His zombie. To think that you are speaking directly for Christ is blasphemy. I talked to a Southern Baptist about it.

Now where I got this information from is relevant, Of course it is relevant. You have to cite your sources, even if it’s a source about God which I believe is riddled with human error. Just because Paul is blessed doesn’t mean that Christ takes over and makes his free will obsolete. because I agree with this cut and pasted text. It’s exactly how I view the bible. That the verses in question I agree with what is said in the context of who wrote it. There is nothing wrong with that. If an evolutionist explains speciation and I cut and paste it directly from talkorgins, I have not seen one person who is an evolutionist criticize their fellow evolutionist about cutting and pasting material from talkorgins, not once. So it depends on what is being pasted because your people practice double standards. Quote what Richard Dawkins says as dogma, For your information, just because I’m an evolutionist doesn’t mean I like Richard Dawkins. He’s free to believe what he believes, but he commits the atheist version of your crime; ramming his beliefs down people’s throats and insisting that he’s right without enough proof. but when I paste or quote someone as dogma, like Paul, Jesus, or another fellow Believer who is thinking along the same lines.. I’m not thinking for myself. Who are you to judge with your double standards? Considering what I just said, that point is moot. Your augments My what? If I could have augmentation, I would. Five foot one isn’t very tall. for evolution sound exactly like what I have read on evolutionary websites, no different. Oh, you’ll find it quite different. I mention God a bit too much for the standard evolutionist’s liking. If you say ‘God initiated evolution’, most people look at you as if you’re potty because ’Christians’ don’t believe in evolution. That is another stereotype–enforced by your kind, of course. 

Your friends that cut and paste a link for me to read the material they agree with. Someone posted a link giving 15 reasons about the foolishness of creationist arguments, but where is your attack on that? A link is all right. But clogging up someone’s page with the stuff? Why don’t you give me the link to your stuff? It’s all from the AiG website anyway. What’s the difference is they didn’t post the writing in the blog; they just gave me the link to read it. If it makes you happy, I can post the links instead of pasting it here if that helps your mind ease a little. There is no difference, and like I care about your judgement of it.

Yeah.. Again, mocking someone’s spelling rather than understand that you have been corrected on what repentance actually is compared to your way of thinking for yourself. I have not been ‘corrected’ on repentance; rather I have been given another interpretation. I’ll go with my movie, thank you very much. “Holiness is in right action and courage on behalf of those who cannot defend themselves.” ~ the Hospitaller in Kingdom of Heaven. I’ll believe someone is a follower of Christ when they show me through their actions, not through their dogmatic preaching. Tell me to repent all you want, and I’ll tell you to repent and turn to the rational way of thinking.

It’s ok to think and be critical, but don’t come up with something that isn’t what repentance is based on the language of the culture. So where did you get your definition, if not from an English dictionary? Considering your level of English (and English being your native language, unless you’re an immigrant), I’ll bet you don’t know any more Greek than I do. I bet you didn’t know that the word destroy used in certain contexts of Scripture doesn’t mean the same as destroy in English. I have seen critics say that God said he would destroy a nation but when they read about that nation later they assumed that the language of destroy meant to wipe out, but that is due to not understanding Hebrew use of destroy for example.. Just like what you do with defining words using none Hebrew or Greek understanding. And you have understanding of Greek and Hebrew?

Yeah, continue to mock rather than answer the question.. Yeah, that shows a lot about your evasiveness. You’re being sporked; of course I’m mocking you.

On your last nonsense statement: Last? There was a whole lot after that.

You said:
All right, let’s do a poll and see how many people support you. You do realize that the reason why so many people are mocking the Creation Museum, atheist, Christian, Jew and Muslim alike, is because they do believe it is utterly ridiculous?

My reply is in red: Actually, it’s in black…

People mock the Creation Museum because they don’t agree with it, no surprise why would they not mock it? Kind of like me mocking evolution (macro) because I don’t agree with it. And the majority don’t believe in Jesus, what is that suppose to make me second guess what I believe? I don’t think so. And mock atheists? Ok, why would you include the atheist belief in the same context as the groups you mention that believe in Creation? Because there are atheists who don’t believe in evolution; some of them believe that the whole earth is an alien experiment. Of course, those are as nutty as you are, if you ask me.

And I don’t care if people think creation is stupid, So you shouldn’t care if I say you’re stupid, right? there are those that think bacteria can magically become a trilobite without direct evidence is foolish, or that theorization that we came from outer space because attempts at the origin of life experiments failed Those think more or less in the same way as you do. so theorize it came from beyond. So let’s theorize and say that the world was created in seven days because one book said so, and it happens so that many treat every word in it as being real.

This is a post-modern world there are difference of opinions.. No surprise there, why would it be all the same? So why do you insist on ramming your opinions down my throat and then say that you are ‘correcting’ me? Egotistical…fill in your own word here. I’m much too well-bred to say it.

And our popularity opinion poll this is what it’s called in logical thinking the argument you are putting forth about popularity wins. And I’ll add another fallacy you are arguing.

One argument about polls the argument is called: Argumentum ad Populum

The other argument you are using when people call creationism ridiculous it’s called: Fallacy of Composition. And when people call evolution ridiculous, it is also called ‘fallacy of composition’. Of course I can tell you pasted this from somewhere. ‘Fallacy’ is spelled correctly.

You might want to look those up. What pasting those words, means what, that I’m plagiarizing LOL.. Ok… can’t do that. Or can I, since I pasted one line argumentum ad populum so that makes it illogical. Cite sources, always. Otherwise, no matter how little you paste, it’s still plagiarism. Academic culture, this. Of course, considering your level of education, I really can’t expect you to know it, so I’ll let it go this time, eh?

And by the way while I was reading this reply, I noticed you misspelled words and had bad grammar, Evidence? Show me. but I’m not going to make a big deal out of it. Unlike yourself. What do you say to people that I know who write really badly because of dyslexia? And I know of someone with dyslexia who tries so hard that he gets to write a foreword for a book. No, he’s not a fundamentalist like you.

Give an example of me sidestepping orthodoxy. I’m curious because I don’t see your point.

You always say that ‘orthodoxy’ is what you believe. However, you do not believe in the same thing as the Catholic orthodoxy dictates. Catholic orthodoxy has decreed that the Bible is more symbolic than actual history.

And you should read the quote Augustine said and I’ll paraphrase it. He said “in Essentials we have Unity, in Non-Essentials we have Liberty, but in All things Love” We don’t even have unity in essentials, Ego. I don’t believe in your brand of Christianity. Your idea that everyone who isn’t Christian should become Christian rubs me the wrong way. Your idea that Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, atheists and pagans aren’t as good as Christians makes me furious. Your idea that your way is the only way makes me grit my teeth. Your adherence to twelfth century scholasticism makes my jaw drop in incredulity.

So I’m assuming we are disagreeing about non-essentials, but I’ll wait to see what you are talking about sidestepping orthodoxy.

The Great YouTube Debate 14 (Sporking!)

I just have to spork Ego. He’s begging for it. You’ve called me a coward twice, Ego. I’m not letting you off without mocking you to Hell and back. I’m in bold.

 

LOL. your rule. not my rule.. And does that make it any less true? cutting and pasting isn’t a problem only those that don’t like what is pasted contradicts what they say seems to be the biggest problem I have come across. Tut tut; excuses, excuses, Ego. You’re copying and pasting because you cannot write an argument which makes sense. But your people yeah.. they will agree with that. but there are many that see it like I do.. pasting something doesn’t mean someone is losing a debate.. Nope, pasting something means you’re plagiarizing someone’s work. so I guess you better never past anything from scientific america.. Oh, you won’t catching me pasting anything in such huge amounts. I might quote one or two phrases to support my points and put proper citations, but entire passages from the Bible? Ego, do you think you can get God to argue for you? or any statements a scientist who supports evoltuion.. Scientists, Ego, do not support ‘evoltuion’, whatever that is, but they do support evolution. better not quote them.. will you give that same treatment to your friends. I wonder. My friends would never be foolish enough to copy and paste huge chunks of text.
 
(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.)
 
My reply:
 
Lol Is this your favourite word, by the way? Figures. It’s got three letters and two of them are repeated. Seems like it’s the only type of word you can spell correctly. this went way over your head. your comparison of Mohammads repentance to Jesus is watering down what Jesus ment by repentance.. that is my point.. comparing similiar things in different faiths. waters down the message presented in Scripture. but i’m not surprise. Hey, does anyone know where I can get a nonsense translator? I can’t seem to understand what Ego’s saying. Does comparing similar beliefs water down said beliefs?
 
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?
 
My reply:
no that isn’t what repetance means in theology. LOL.. like I said it go’s to show you.. that your lack of theological training shows.
 
1) to change one’s mind, i.e. to repent Okay. Repent, Ego. Change your mind and turn to the rational side!
 
2) to change one’s mind for better, heartily to amend with abhorrence of one’s past sins Yes, Ego. Change your mind for the better and become rational! Well, that might be a bit too much to ask…
 
That’s what repentance means. When people are called to repent it’s not to follow the ten commandments it’s not a works based faith it is recognizing you are a sinner and need of a Holy God in it’s truest sense.. LOL.. and it appears you might not have done this.
 
You said:
You’re now speaking for the millions of Christians on earth? You really are egotistical, aren’t you?
 
My reply:
What a oxymoronic statement. In Debate #12, you said that Christians are shaking their head at me.. and that gives the appearance that 100’s of christians LOL.. that would be your definition of Christian which I would argue isn’t the biblical christians if you are the representation of that.. so don’t call me egotitical when you yourself said Christians are shaking their heads at me.. LOL All right, let’s do a poll and see how many people support you. You do realize that the reason why so many people are mocking the Creation Museum, atheist, Christian, Jew and Muslim alike, is because they do believe it is utterly ridiculous?

 
You said:
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.
 
My reply:
Yeah.. cowards way out.. just say people interpet the Quran as a book of symbols like yourself..Um, Islamic theologians interpret it as a book of symbols. You think they’re taking the easy way out then? when someone has shown you that you are in error for saying or leading people to think that Mohammad consider Christians to be friends.. that is far from the history of Mohammads life.. LOL Do you know anything about Mohammed’s life apart from the fact that he recited the Qur’an and had many wives?
 
You said:
Former’ Muslim, meaning he turned against Islam and therefore would be biased against Islam.
 
My reply:
LOL.. the issue isn’t being bias.. it’s going to a better source of someone who knows more about the faith then yourself who lived in the country, grew up a Muslim, knows more about the context of the Quran then yourself.. no different then going to one of your bias Evolutionary scientist who are bias against supernaturalism.. LOL.. Actually, bias is always an issue. Historians teach you to be careful of sources with potential bias.
 
You said:
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.
 
My reply:
Gave no examples at all.. LOL I don’t care for lip service.
Jews are persecuted by Muslims still to this day.. And Muslims are persecuted by Jews to this day. Palestine, hello? And then there are the Christians who persecute Jews, and the Christians who persecute Muslims… I can go on and on, but it just makes me depressed. anyone can follow the things going on in Jerusalem.. and Muslims.. yeah.. give an example. because people that talk negative about Islam are speaking against the Terrorism.. Terrorism is the result of said persecution. and that isn’t persecuation dear.. Oxymoronic; it’s obvious you hate me.  LOL Muslims are not being persecuted like the Apostles were for following Jesus.. Of course not; the Romans had not invented electrocution yet. or modern day Christians which I gave already an example of people I know who experienced this in this century.. go read
 
Fox’s Book of Martyrs again.. it documents Christian persecution for following Jesus.. that is what we are talking about.. go to http://www.persecution.org/suffering/index.php that talks about modern day persecution. and in America.. LOL. prayer is taken out of schools when this nation was founded on Christian priciples.. where Bible were read in school as a text.. we don’t get the same treatment in america as other faiths do.. I live here and I know that first hand… America being the whole world, right?
 
You said:
And in the rest of the world, Muslims are discriminated against.
 
My reply:
Nothing to back this at all.. no reference to what type of discrimination.. u mentioned what the American Soldiers did.. but that is it… the rest of the world show they are being persecuted for following Mohammad. showing me Muslims dying for being Muslims.. All right, at airports, Muslims are being selected for random security checks. Their TVs are dismantled and quarantined because people think there are bombs in them. People call them names like ‘towelheads’ and draw insulting cartoons of their prophet. Westerners take their land and don’t give a damn if they live in poverty in refugee camps. Abu Ghraib. The ‘terrorists’ in Palestine who are fighting for their brethren. The ‘terrorists’ who are fighting U.S. convoys in Iraq. In his own twisted way, Osama bin Laden and his ilk are martyrs. Misguided, yes, but they believe they are working/dying for a just cause. You know, if he hadn’t decided to take this path, Osama would have been very rich and living in luxury. Now, he’s hiding somewhere in a cave, probably falling ill, and with very little except a position as a figurehead for the Mujahideen and inspiring them to be martyrs for Islam.
 
You said:
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?
 
My reply:
Totally ignored what I said after… LOL.. it debunks your claim that actions get a person into heaven.. no.. having faith in Jesus as the theif on the cross next to Jesus was told he was going to Paradise because of his faith in Jesus.. Hey, the Good Samaritan never professes his faith in Jesus.
 
Are you kidding me.. why did Jesus tell the parable? Why ask me.. like you really care? If you don’t recall, the purpose of the parable was loving your neighbor, showing mercy, etc.. Uh huh…I made that point last time; that is the way to Heaven. You said no way. Jesus told who He was speaking to directly, to go and do likewise. Jesus was teaching the Lawyer that right thinking isn’t the only thing because the Lawyer had to also put that into practice.. Jesus was speaking to a Jew.. so that is what the Jewish Lawyer would have understood.. practice what you preach. But if a person is truely saved.. Fruit would accompany that.. you seem to leave off the rest of the NT. A person doesn’t get into heaven by being good.. in fact let me mentioned another parable that proves that. The parable of the Rich Young Man.. in that parable.. the man thought he was living right by keeping the commandments. but Jesus made it clear.. Mark chapter 10:17.. read it.. anyone who reads that would see that it’s not about how good you are, or the commandments if you keep them..
because if you break one commandment you are guilty of breaking all of them..
 
You said:
Nowhere does it say ‘dogmatic unconditional belief in everything written in the Bible’.
 
My reply:
Yes it does I already gave it.. but you simple explained it away thru your improvising of the text.. You mean you quoted Paul, and not Christ. Jesus told Satan that man lives on every word that comes out of the mouth of God. Any unbiased theologian who have studied the text will tell you that everywhere God speaks, and the people God used you pay attention to what is said. From Moses to the Apostle John, from Genesis to Revelations.. The word of God, not the word of the Bible. I don’t believe that every word in the Bible is the word of God.
 
You obviously need an example.. John wrote John 3:16 quoting what Jesus said.. that He is the only way to Heaven.. that is the Word of God, and if you deny that u are denying how to get to heaven. I suggest you study good theology. Jesus’ way is the only way to Heaven. Fanatical discriminating ways are not.
 
Matthew 4:4
Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.’ ” Already answered.
 
Christians that practice orthodoxy.. Which version? Lutheran? Coptic? Eastern Orthodox? Russian Orthodox? Catholic Orthodox? Syriac Orthodox? Armenian Orthodox? You know, they’re all different. know what I’m talking about.. the bible records things Satan says.. but that isn’t what we are talking about.. but every word that leads people to the God of the Bible, to Jesus or Salvation.. etc.. and if you really knew that, you wouldn’t be confused. Like you said, you grew up as a Chrsitain well, you obviously demonstrate otherwise. I’m kind to others (unless they insult me the way you did) and embrace people of all religions as long as they are good people. That’s a pretty Christian thing to do. I’m following the commandment ‘love your neighbour’. 

 
You said:
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.
My reply:
Great number of christians.. wow.. how many would that be? Your only 19.. The age thing again. Ego, try something else; it’s getting old. I talk a lot and to a lot of people, and I read a lot, unlike you. so yeah.. how many would that be? Hundreds. There are a lot of interesting comments made by Christians about the Creation Museum. Here is what I think about secular humanist rational thinking and scientific evidence (which creationist scientist with the same PH’D would argue differently)
 
18For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, Since I believe in Jesus, this is moot. but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. It seems to me that this is how someone else feels about rational thinking and scientific evidence. I’m sure Ego wasn’t one of the writers of the Bible.19For it is written: In which part of the Bible?
“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; Apparently, Ego, you were one of those ‘wise’.
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.”[c]
20Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Banging their heads in frustration at the stupidity of people like this person who I am sporking. Where is the philosopher of this age? Hiding in an underground bunker waiting for natural selection to do away with said stupidity.  Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? According to Ego, yes. 21For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, Indeed, many Christians like Ego do not seem to know God, and they think they are wise when they are indeed fools. God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached Like the foolishness of what this little girl preaches, according to Ego. to save those who believe.
 
And the majority argument is a fallcy.. And the majority of Ego’s argument is…I’ll leave you to fill in the space with the word of your choice. I’m much too well-bred to voice my opinion on this matter. just because a great number of people believe something doesn’t make it ok. Many Christians believe that other religions aren’t as good as their own. That’s not okay. If the majority believes it’s ok to say Jesus is a myth, what am I suppose to believe, that the majority is right? Of course not, but I’m biased. You’re talking to a Christian. However, if the majority tells me that creationism is right, am I supposed to believe? You’re implying that no, I’m not supposed to believe anything as long as the majority believes it.If the majority says it’s ok, to get drunk and I know a lot of people that says its ok, what shall I do then, ignore where it says drunkness is a sin? Give me a break, the Word of God supercedes everything. But how can you prove every word of the Bible was set down by God? Science says Supernaturalism doesn’t happen.. Actually, Science admits that there are a lot of strange phenomenon which can’t be explained through scientific reasoning. they say that because it’s not a regular occurance something they can measure but that doesn’t rule it out.. and the Apostles saw Jesus do Supernatural things, and even Jesus’ enemies.. what should I believe a secular humanist b/c science can’t measure it.. go talk to some unprepared person who doesn’t think outside of the box as we are accused of doing. Science is not an ultimatum; it presents you with a number of theories and then asks you to decide after you have weighed the evidence.
 
You said:
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.

My reply:
You see this is what I have a problem with.. you really don’t understand what we mean when we say literally word for word, that isn’t what theology says. We take the Bible as literally true.. but you don’t take where Jesus said “gouge out your eye if it causes you to sin” there is a literal truth behind what He is saying when you read the whole context.. if you read everything around it.. Have read everything around Genesis, and looked at all the fossil evidence, the counter arguments, Christ’s word, and then decided that Genesis is one big metaphor. Jesus is saying that if something causes you to sin, cut it out of your life, deal with it harshly, even if you have to run from it, lke Joseph ran from Potiphar’s Wife. However that doesn’t mean that you take Genesis and say it’s the same language used with the example I gave.. you need to understand literal truth where somethings are used as teaching tools for the imagery involved to when it’s literally talking about real people, places and events. Anyone who reads the first 5 books will find that archeology has backed many things… And refuted many others. no one said you believe every word as a literal word. That
is dangerous if you don’t understand that literal truth is communicated but you have to know the literary style. What you are doing is taking Genesis, and saying it’s symbolic, and applying a text that is a teaching text to apply it to a historical text. And we already talked about what Jesus said.. we disagree.. Jesus talked about Adam in a real personal sense, God is Great (Allahu akbar! Elohim Gadol!) and beyond the undertanding of us mere mortals.  and you are denying that. You sound just like a atheist..You seem very keen on proving that I’m an atheist so you can give me the finger. and I’m wondering if you have been reading atheistic material. I’ve read atheist stuff, Catholic stuff, Lutheran stuff, Muslim stuff, pagan stuff, Buddhist stuff…I can’t be all of those things at once.
 
where did this idea come from.. what books did you read. How much time have you got, Ego? I read about three books a week. I’m getting an education, after all. because you obviously have been influenced by something else for sure. Forget the books, you want to know what makes me tick? Go watch Kingdom of Heaven. It’s written by a Christian.
 
You said:
In the beginning, there was little oxygen, but lots of anaerobic algae
My reply:
Here is the problem. the rocks or this planet formed b/4 any algae. So here is where i have a problem with your free thinking. Oxygen, where did it come from? How was it produced? There was little oxygen, not none. Did you fail English reading comprehension along with science, Ego?  At what point did the algae come into play? When God created life. The rocks show that they were formed in an oxygen rich environment? How much is rich? You know, we need a heck of a lot of Oxygen to survive, while other animals don’t need as much. Rocks formed before planet life I don’t think planets have developed lives of their own yet. did it not? And from what I have quoted from an evolutionary source, oxygen was present when the first cell (algae) existed so how could it evolve or come to exist? These are questions I want answered.. so with your free thinking mind, I’m sure you can tell me all these things. I did mention that I believe God created the world, life, and then initiated evolution, didn’t I? And you are speaking from an evolutionary worldview.. I don’t believe they were the first things alive, or in the evolutionary timescale. You want me to take the worldview of science which denies Supernaturalism and God.. LOL. how is that? No, I want you to embrace the world view where science and God are compatible, and everyone is equal.
 
You said:
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.
My reply:
LOL.. the fossil record doesn’t support what you are saying.. there is no evidence that single celled ever evolved to multi-celluar organisms.. There is a strata where evidence of single celled organisms were found, and then the next strata, they found some multi-cellular organisms. From logic, it is possible to deduct that these single-celled organisms evolved into multi-cellular organisms. you and many secular humanist evolutionist have a hard time admitting this is an assumption. How about you show me the Creationist point of view then? What, did the first wave of the Flood bury only the single-celled organisms, and then the second wave buried the other single-celled organisms and the multi-cellular organisms?
 
And God didn’t use the evolutionary model of bacteria to man.. because again they contradict. I stand on the Bible as Adam and Eve were created.. and the Bible says birds were created b/4 dinosaurs.. which contradicts the bible.. so we have been over that one b/4.. it’s moot.. i don’t operate in that non-sense assumption basd fatih Are you trying to write Arabic here? I love Arabic! of evolution. And I don’t accept dogmatic fanatical faith.
 
You said:
The west opressed Muslims
My reply:
In what way?

 

 

 

 

Look at Palestine and the situation of common people in all the Middle Eastern countries. Look at the Revolution in Iran, when they overthrew the Shah, who was an American puppet. Look at the Saudi royals who bow to America and exploit their own people because the Americans can benefit, and thus they benefit. Look at the racism.  
 
You said:
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.
My reply:
Who said I thought that way. I know that pagans had a belief in evolution. You assume I believed that way. I also know pagans who don’t believe in evolution, but they don’t believe in the Bible’s way either.
 
You said:
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.
 
My reply:
Yeah, you show that very well you don’t back up what you are saying, it’s pretty much your improvising ways…. so if you say that there are people living on another planet, it’s all backed up by brain power, yeah.. ok.. Look, improvisation is a sign of intelligence and quick thinking. At least I passed high school; that’s something you don’t seem to have done.
 
And I’m not an evolutionist I don’t view genetic material the same as an evolutionist.. sorry, preach that to your fellow believers.. If they already believe, then I would be wasting my breath preaching to the converted. i’m not one. You are very adept at pointing out the obvious, Ego. I’m impressed.
 
Your last comment isn’t worth answering. I’ll leave it to Scripture
 
Proverbs 26:4
Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you will be like him yourself. Answer him only with the supposed Word of God, for then he will be convinced of his folly and repent.
Proverbs 26:3-5 (in Context) Proverbs 26 (Whole Chapter) What, no more quoting?
Proverbs 26:5
Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes. Hey, Ego, maybe I should be more condescending towards you. Otherwise, you’ll think you’re smart.

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 12

Ego-eimi replied to me on his own comment thread. Is the guy really too stupid to post his argument in a blog post? Possibly; he still hasn’t learned how to spell. Here’s his reply:

Tel.. LOL.. i owe you an apology.. first off, I was engaged like I have to keep explaining with others… you decided to butt in.. and I have called people neo’s because that is what is presented todayd.. is neo-darwinism.. a phliosophical faith.. so I owe no one apologies..

And i’m not going to ask you to apologize for mocking me.. and pretending to not misspell words.. you came off as someone who didn’t make those mistakes then when I find the post where you in fact made it.. then you pretend it’s not a big deal. You were hypocritical in attacking my spelling.. when you in fact did it yourself.

You choose to engage me while I was engaging others on the issues.. I didn’t ask you for it.. Just like this forum, it’s no different tag teaming comes with neo’s and you have shown yourself to be no different.. and claiming to represent a faith that you deny.. so save it.. just deal with proving the question I asked earlier about your bat problem of where they evolved from in the myth of evolution.

And let me give you a word of advice.. since you don’t use the bible as your foundation.

The bible says love is not easily angered.. love does not return evil for evil but always overcomes evil with good.

So when you admit you basically retailated.. well that speaks for itself.. not acting in love.

If i’m not acting in love.. then I will apologize.. i have no problems doing so.. but you better check yourself.. because it’s you that is denying the bible and are acting contrary to scripture and what Jesus taught.. and calling genesis a non-literal truth.. yeah.. you have bigger problems then worriying about me.. i’m not leading people away from the authority of scripture you are… and it would be better like Jesus said that you tie a millstone around your neck.

And if you think that i’m apologizing for what you think that I misstreated you.. i’m not.. because i see nothing about calling someone what they are.. if you are a neo.. u are a neo.

And if you are trying to get out of answering questions.. using this as a way out.. just leave it alone.. you don’t have to engage a conversation any longer.. your choice..

It’s harder to prove the myth of evolution then anything.. you need a tag teaming team to do it.. and if you want to follow my youtube profile page.. i’m engaging.. wy.. whom you think I was avoiding… if you want to follow that one.. your choice.. just giving you an invitation..

LOL.. Christianity was defined by Jesus.. and those He left as the only Apostles there will ever be.. the Super Apostles were the foundation of the Church and Christ was and still is the Cornerstone…

So looking at your link and them defining the Church.. sorry, the Church was already defined.

Bible clearly declares that Christ is the foundation of the Christian church, insisting that “no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. 3:11).

Paul declared that in this sense the church is “built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone” (Eph. 2:20). Indeed, the early church continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine [not just Peter’s]” (Acts 2:42). Even “keys of the kingdom” given to Peter (Matt. 16:19) were also given to all the apostles (cf. Matt. 18:18).

So I suggest you come with Scripture using that website showing that they defined Christianity.. i would disagree.. it was defined by Christ and the Apostles who established the church.. and denominationlism.. is the followers of Jesus’ fault.. because Jesus prayed for the Apostles that there would be unity.. and that problem started even during the Apostles time.. of division.. lack of Unity shows lack of Love…

So sorry, but your link doesn’t define Christanity or the Church.. that was during the time of Christ.

Tel.. I’ll leave you with the comment of the Apostle you love to hate.. The Apostle Paul spoke it well.. I don’t believe I cross the line when it came to first meeting you.. my mind is clear on the issue….

Paul said….”2Now it is required that those who have been given a trust must prove faithful. 3I care very little if I am judged by you or by any human court; indeed, I do not even judge myself. 4My conscience is clear, but that does not make me innocent. It is the Lord who judges me.”

I feel as he did… when people were trying to judge him being an Apostle.. you can judge that I was being rude all you want to.. calling you a neo… when that is what you hold to.. is the neo darwinian concepts of bacteria to man theology.. i have to call it like I see it.

Just like you had no problem calling me a hypocrit.. without a foundation… i have been up front presenting myself as a bible believing Christian who doesn’t beleive in the myth of eovlution… i have never changed from that… when it flat out calls the God of the Bible a liar and genesis a myth..

And here is the link to my youtube front page.. so you can’t use the same old line that i’m afraid to engage my attackers.

http://www.youtube.com/user/egoeimi3

At this very moment he is trying to think of an answer to the oxygen problem that debunks the very foundation of macro-evolution. I hope you know that evolutionist once thought the earths beginnings had very little if not any oxygen in it.. to show how that very first cell over millions of years came together.. and you get to us the most advance creatures on the earth.. but it just so happens that geology has shown oxygen has always existed which causes a huge problem for your presious bacteria and those other single celled organisms shouldn’t have existed because anything that lives in a environment that has oxygen has to have the ability to not oxyidized.. if you want futher proof, I can quote what science says about the orgins of that first living single celled organism..

So have a good one if you continue to engage.. great.. if not.. I pray that God really does show you that you can not lead people away from Him and call yourself a follower… Jesus is due 100% of your dedication no exceptions.

I posted this in reply:

As I said, I’m not ‘Tel’ to you. It’s T. Rulz. I never said I loved you, did I? I have very little patience for intolerance. As for butting in–it’s a public forum, dude. Butting in is what people do. If you can’t deal with more than one person at a time, then you shouldn’t be posting.

I offered you truce; you refused. Therefore, I will continue to ‘mock’ your spelling and your complete lack of understanding of anything rational and scientific. I pray that you do not contaminate others with your man-made religious fanaticism.

You’re the type of ‘Christian’ who makes all other Christians shake their heads and look down in embarrassment.

By the way, you think I was angry at you calling me a neo? I was referring to the ‘arrogant’ part, as well as the ‘cowardly’ part. If being a ‘neo-darwinist’ means being rational, then go ahead, call me a ‘neo’ all you want. But if you use terms like ‘arrogant’ and ‘cowardly’ with people, don’t expect them to love you.

So, I definitely will be going over to his YouTube page and posting. I’ll keep everyone updated over here as well, if you can’t be bothered going over.

Edit-I posted this on Ego-eimi’s YouTube page. If he continues to call me ‘Tel’, I might start as well start shortening his name, or tweaking it.

So, over on WordPress, you claimed that evolutionists believe that there was no oxygen on earth. That shows you know nothing about evolution and evolutionists. We know there was oxygen on earth from the very beginning, just not in great amounts. There are anaerobic cells, and they do not need oxygen to survive. These became the first plant forms which then created enough oxygen so that aerobic organisms can evolve.

Yes, I am still mocking you over on WordPress. Probably won’t stop either. http://telcontarrulz.wordpress.com/

Went to Ego-eimi’s page again. He deleted the comment above. I posted another nastier one for him.

Well, well. I see you deleted my comment. Didn’t want some little girl to look better than you because she happens to know more science? Tut tut; there is debating protocol, Ego-eimi, and deleting comments is not part of it. A man should face his adversaries head on and not slink away like a beaten dog with tail between the legs.

Still mocking you. http://telcontarrulz.wordpress.com

The Great YouTube Debate 11

Ego-eimi’s reply can be seen in the comment thread of The Great YouTube Debate 9. He was answering that post.

First of all, Ego-eimi, the people following this discussion probably do care, or else they wouldn’t be reading it. As for Jesus telling people to repent, do you think other religions don’t say that as well? Mohammed told his followers to turn away from sin and superstition and submit themselves to God and His laws. ‘Islam’ means ‘Submission’. Jesus did tell us to be nice and peaceful; He told us to ‘love one another as I have loved you’. If everyone was that loving, then by logic, the world would be a very peaceful place indeed. In that way, He told us to be peaceful. I don’t know about other churches, but during our church services, we have to wish each other peace. And didn’t Jesus say ‘Peace be with you’ when He greeted His disciples after the Resurrection? So in that way, it can be seen that peace is the key. All the Ten Commandments point to a peaceful existence. The only way to Heaven to repent is to see what you’ve done in the past to violate the commandments of peace, and do what you can to rectify it.

I know nothing of your relationship with your wife, but if a man tried to make me follow and he hasn’t got any reason for me to do so other than because he is a man and I am a woman, then I’d scorn him. It’s that simple.

As for Muslims hating Christians…no. Not true. Mohammed himself told his followers to respect the People of the Book (meaning Christians and Jews) because they were the ones who received the Word of God before the Muslims did. The majority of Muslims do not agree with what Osama bin Laden believes. Bin Laden is part of a new Islamic movement, called Wahabism; that’s a form of extreme militant Islam, and it’s only about a century or so old. It’s also a minority. Most Muslims prefer to live peacefully alongside their neighbours. Although the Crusaders and the Muslims fought, the Muslims never really thought of it as Jihad until fifty years after the Crusaders first appeared, and they respected the Christians enough not to slaughter them or destroy their holy places. The one place that did get destroyed, the Holy Sepulchre, got rebuilt by a Sultan because he was ashamed of what had been done.

Do you also think that Protestants aren’t guilty of religious discrimination? They barred Catholics from owning land in Ireland, kept them poor in England, and forbade them to practise their religion in the open. Anyone found practising Catholicism was fined or imprisoned. Catholic priests were hung, drawn and quartered. Religious discrimination is not just a thing of Islam and the Catholic church.

However, in this modern world, Christians are not as persecuted as, say, Muslims are. At least there aren’t four million Christians living in squalor in refugee camps.

Did Jesus ever say that worshipping in a different way was wrong? No, he didn’t. I think you would know the parable of the Good Samaritan well. It’s one of my favourite parables because it illustrates how actions, and not beliefs or status, can get a man into the Kingdom of Heaven. It is the Samaritan who will go to Heaven, despite worshipping in the wrong way and in the wrong place, because he is the one who showed love and mercy to the man who had been beaten by robbers.

The Jews might not have incorporated pagan practices into their religion, but the early Christians sure did. You have Christmas presents and Christmas trees, right? That’s a Christianized pagan practice. The Pagans celebrate a festival called Yule, and they had trees and exchanged presents. You know how it was snowing in Bethlehem when Jesus was born? That shows that Jesus was born in late October, not December. Why is Christmas held in December? Because that was when Yule was held. All Souls Day is also incorporated from Pagan practices. The Pagans have a festival called Samhain. That’s the day when the barrier between the world of the living and the world of spirits either weakens or disappears altogether, and souls can go back and visit their families. That’s why we have All Saints Day and All Souls Day. It was easier to give a Christian theme to these pagan festivals than abolish them altogether. Mos of this happened in Europe, where this brand of Paganism was practised. Purgatory is another pagan idea, for the Pagans had a place for the souls of people who weren’t bad, but who weren’t very good either. There are also Roman influences in Christian doctrine after Constantine made it the official religion of the Roman Empire. Whether Constantine was truly a Christian is debatable, for after his conversion, there are coins of him showing him being portrayed as Apollo and honouring the sun god.

The Adam, Eve and Sin argument; Didn’t I mention that on YouTube? I said that the ‘Fall’ symbolized the fact that humans evolved to be intelligent enough to develop morals, and that they realized that some things they did were wrong, but they did them anyway. Knowing that something is wrong but doing it anyway is sin. Before the evolution of a big enough brain which could develop morals, proto-humans were completely ignorant, so they weren’t sinning because they didn’t know that what they were doing was wrong. That’s what you’re saying in this passage: (of course, you would deny the whole evolution part, but you just proved that to sin, you need to know what you’re doing.)

When they sinned their eyes were opened like the text says, they became aware of sin, they knew they did wrong. Prior to that they didn’t know what disobdience was, or what lying was or what stealing was, or what adultery was you get the point. So any of their offspring after the Fall as it’s called in theological circles their off spring as they mature have the ability to recognize sin (lying, or stealing).

Um, Santa Claus was actually a historical figure. We know him as Saint Nicholas. Saint (Santa) NiCHOLAS (Claus). What I’m saying is that God made a covenant with all human beings, but in the Bible, it is written as God made a pact with Adam because Adam is symbolic of all human beings. After the Resurrection, the Covenant was renewed and changed.

I find Jesus and Christianity  to be different things. You’ll find Jesus’ teachings in many religions. However, you only find Christian teachings in Christian churches. Yes, Jesus is the only way, but there are many ways to go about doing things in Jesus’ way, because he gave us many broad definitions. Human beings are the ones who insist on making things so specific. Jesus was a universalist in his own way; He embraced the Jews, the Samaritans and everyone else who would have otherwise been excluded. That is an example for how a follower of Jesus should behave. One should embrace all the others who would otherwise be excluded because of differences in religion, culture, and so on and so forth.

I don’t give a damn about how you believe I am damned because of my views. God will judge me, not you. Just because you say that my kind will all go to Hell doesn’t mean that it will happen.

***

I posted this on Ego-eimi’s comment thread:

Ego-eimi, you insulted me personally from the very start. If you hadn’t called me an arrogant neo, then I would have been kinder, and perhaps overlooked your spelling. But you first called me an arrogant neo, and then you called me a coward. That made it personal. As for calling someone arrogant not being an insult, you can look at that definition you provided again. Every single thing mentioned there was negative. ‘Coward’ is an insult in any language.

You want this to become neutral again? Then you owe me an apology. I’ll admit that I have shown you my worse side, but until you apologize, I have no regrets about behaving in such a hostile manner. Should you apologize, we can agree to disagree or continue this debate in a detached professional manner. It’s up to you. But if you don’t, then I sure won’t let someone insult me and get away with it. You made it personal first, Ego-eimi, and it’s now up to you to make it impersonal. 

And while you’re at it, I believe you might owe some other people apologies as well.

The Great YouTube Debate 10

Ego-eimi has not replied to me directly, but he did write this on his own comment thread:

Oh.. come on. is a synonym to offend. Check Webster’s Dictionary. And really it’s not a big deal to me, but since you people have a condensendingway of talking to someone, I will not approve anymore of your comments if you are going to continue to be condensending any further.

LOL. You again over look the point. When you said “You’re on a platform with people who know how to write here, not a bunch of kids on textspeak.”

That is my point about common courtesy. You lack it when you flat out come off with a condesending tone. and textspeak, it is more like text speak. So even in that you contradict people knowing how to write here LOL there is no such word as textspeak, it’s text speak when you google it.

LOL.. u knew what I was saying concerning writing error, I’m sure of it.. since you said “unless you mean error”

LOL.. I was speaking to one person, on her blog engaged in a specific conversation. If you want to comment fine, but dontturn your attention towards me again talking aboutmy spelling errors or grammatical habits.. comments about what is being said as far as not agreeing fine.. but don’t turn to my spelling, again, you say that isn’t ad hom.. yeah it is, when you direct it to something personally I’m doing rather than the argument about the subject at hand. So we disagree on weather it’s ad hom or not.

LOL.As theology is not a science, I’d take any attempt at such dating with a good pinch of salt.

I’ll let you keep guess then… if you think that theologians don’t speak or talk to Christian Scientist on the geological records and learning how far back that go’s.

LOL. Who did Cain mate with.

Cain married his sister (or possibly a niece). The Bible says Adam “begot sons and daughters’’ (Gen. 5:4). In fact, since Adam lived 930 years (Gen. 5:5), he had plenty of time for plenty of children! Cain could have married one of his many sisters, or even a niece, if he married after his brothers or sisters had grown daughters. In that case, of course, one of his brothers would have married a sister.

And when it comes to Ad Hom.

Argumentum ad Hominem (abusive). This is argument by character assassination. “Reject whatever he says because he is a bad person.” Literally, the fallacy’s name means “argument against the man.” It is not an attack on the proposition, but against the person. It is like a lawyer standing up and saying, “We have no case, your honor; but certainly you’re not going to believe the alcoholic, El Sleazo, ambulance chaser that the plaintiff hired.”
Geisler, N. L., & Brooks, R. M. 1990. Come, let us reason : An introduction to logical thinking . Baker Book House: Grand Rapids, Mich.

So it would be saying, don’t pay attention to him because he first needs to learn how to write. In fact, Tel said in our conversations that if I want to win an argument, I first need to learn how to spell. So you are doing nothing any different.

Ego-eimi, you know what protocol in blogosphereis? Write in language that people can understand, receiveall non-spam comments graciously or keep to yourself if you can’t deal with constructive criticism. Criticizing your spelling and language skills and giving you suggestions on how to improve them is constructive criticism, I assure you.

Yes, to win an argument, you need to learn how to use language properly. Your spelling mistakes, as I’ve said before, make your posts hell to read. A debate is best presented when your opponent does not get bleeding eyes from your grammatical, spelling and punctuation mistakes.

As for ‘ad hom’ attacks, you’re doing the same thing, both to me and to others on YouTube. “They’re atheists, so whatever they say will be wrong.” Isn’t that your attitude? I’ll refer you back to the screenshot in this post: http://telcontarrulz.wordpress.com/2008/11/21/the-great-youtube-debate-7/You were just going to dismiss my arguments as total crap because I believed in something different from you, and therefore was a damned person who knew nothing worth knowing. Isn’t that right? You’re ignoring wysiwyg666 on YouTube despite his/her reasonable well thought outarguments just because s/he is an evolutionist. That’s ‘ad hom’; you can’t point your finger at anybody. So get your act together and take that plank out of your eye before you point out the splinter in anyone else’s, for how can you see a tiny little splinter with that great big thing blocking your vision like blinkers on a horse?

By the way, the name is Telcontar Rulz. I’ve not given you permission to shorten my name. If it’s too hard to type correctly, then it’s ‘T. Rulz’. ‘Tel’ is reserved for friends only.

As for the argument about Cain marrying his sister/niece, see ArianneG’s comment here:

That’s an interesting point Assentia brought up. Incest is a sin in the sight of God, one deserving of utter damnation; yet if Genesis is to be believed, the only humans around would’ve been Adam, Eve and their children. Unless you’re telling me that those children mated with each other, which would be a huge SIN–there’s no one else around that doesn’t come under the laws on consanguinity. (I am NOT even going to go near the other idea such a thought provokes!) Also, if the third generation of humans were that inbred, genetic problems would’ve ensured that the human race died out extremely soon, not survive to the present. Inbreeding genetic abnormalities and inbreeding depression are documented fact, I should say.

Four individuals are not enough to propagate a new species through sexual means. I’m not considering the lower eukaryotes or protists, bacteria, other unicellular organisms, etc.–those aren’t germane to the current discussion as most of those reproduce by asexual means.

So unless you’re telling me that God created other human couples besides Adam and Eve and let them loose on the Earth, which if I recall rightly Genesis does not say and seems to regard Adam and Eve as the only human couple around bearing offspring at the time, humankind springing from the union of a single couple doesn’t make any sense to me. However, Adam and Eve standing as symbols for the fall and eventual hope of reconciliation between God and man? Makes a whole lot more sense.

NB: Agree with Assentia on all points: if you’re going to putup stuff in public, then you can certainly take disparaging comments in good grace. Or simply closeyourself off from comments, and remain in your own little world. Theology is not a science, and its findings should be considered suspect without further concrete evidence from other branches of human knowledge, since it can only deduce its findings from what it believes to be fact, but may not necessarily be so.

As to your spelling and grammar: Get Firefox, and use its inbuilt spelling checker. Better yet, type your responses in MS Word or OpenOffice Writer with auto spell-check on. Everyone taking the time to read the debate will thank you profusely for it. Minor spelling errors are fine; I will not claim infallibility on that issue: butposting lengthy, dragging comments that look as though they came from a semi-illiterate, with mistake upon mistake piling one on top of the other simply says you’re lazy and gives you a bad image, in that you seemingly can’t be bothered what anyone else thinks of you.

You have obviously studied the Bible with great effort to defend it with zeal–could you not turn a minute part of that same devotion to presenting yourself as one of God’s people with a little more decorum? Remember that your language while posting is a reflection of the person you are out of cyberspace. Debates are smoother when everyone understands rightly what the parties are trying to say and don’t feel insulted by perceived lack of respect.

The Great YouTube Debate 9

N/B: Ego-eimi’s replies to my last post can be seen in the comments of The Great YouTube Debate 8.

Ego-eimi: First thing first, must you insist in clogging up my inbox with nineteen posts? You could have put all of those in one post, and then directed me to your blog. It saves your time and mine. Secondly, one or two typos are all right. Your number of spelling mistakes…sorry, I don’t do text language, not even on my mobile phone. Call me a stuck up arrogant little girl if you want, but I’m all for proper English. Right, so to save your time, I’ll summarize my points and probably will leave out the less important ones.

Now, I’ve looked over your stuff. I’m sorry you took two hours to type it all up because it was tedious to read. About your answer concerning the marine animals. That was not an answer. Yes, some died while giving birth, but not that many. If that many had died, they would have all gone extinct long ago. So what really happened? The Old Earth theory is the one that can explain it.  

No, I do not believe that a woman should be subject to a man’s authority, nor should she need to follow a man. There is a reason why I admire Eleanor of Aquitaine. She was never subject to any man. She had the power. Her first husband divorced her and lost most of his kingdom. Jesus never said women were inferior. Have you noticed? It was the women who were the most devoted of His disciples. They were better than the twelve because they dared to be present during His passion. I also don’t believe in social hierarchies. Respect is earned. I won’t respect someone more just because he is a man or she is a woman or he is older than me or whatever.

I believe that God judges us by our actions. So it doesn’t matter what you believe as long as you abide by His laws and make the world a better place by bringing peace. Jesus came to bring peace. Jesus is Peace. And by bringing peace, we are following His way. Those who claim to be Christians and yet spread dissension amongst others by saying that they are better just because they are baptized are not doing what Christ advocated. I would die for peace, but not for religion.

As for Osama bin Laden, I see where his anger is coming from. While he’s transformed it into religion, it’s actually national pride. Look at the Middle East. You see Americans controlling the Saudi royals, Americans controlling the oil, Americans controlling everything worth controlling. Western companies exploit the poor of the Middle East. They wreak havoc, and they don’t care how many people they hurt as long as they get rich. Look at Blackwater. Look at Palestine. Bin Laden is angry on behalf of the poor and the exploited. He wants to be free of the western yoke. The West has always been associated with Christianity, so in his mind, the right thing to do, if he was to liberate his people, was to declare the lesser Jihad. Do you know how many people look at him as the modern Saladin? They need hope and someone to lead them to it. People without hope do dangerous things.

Now look at you. Are you persecuted and exploited so that you have no food on the table? No, you’re not. Do people put Bibles on toilet seats like the soldiers in Abu Ghraib did with the Qur’an? I don’t think so. If they do, believe me, I would be just as angry. Are your brethren shot for no reason? No. Osama has a reason to be angry. I call him a fanatic and I call him delusional, but since I can see the cause, I feel pity for him.

As for all the laws of the Old Testament, do you follow them? Do you eat pork? Apparently, God said not to eat pork, snails, snakes, anything that crawls etc. Would the French and the Chinese and most people in the world be cursed then? If the Old Testament with all its laws were truly that reliable, then we would be following them all, instead of cherry-picking, as you like to say. The segregation of lepers, let me tell you, is something that most people in the ancient world, pagan or otherwise, did. The Hebrews simply incorporated it into their religion and gave it religious justification because it felt wrong to ostracize someone who was already ill and suffering. However, they believed leprosy was contagious because they mixed it up with syphilis and they feared catching leprosy/syphilis, so they made segregation compulsory by incorporating it into religious law. It made them feel better about doing it. In Psychology, this is called the theory of cognitive dissonance.

Here’s the passage concerning Moses and the Midianites.

I’ll let the text speak for itself.

I used the question of adultery as an example. Do I inherit the sins of my ancestors? No, I don’t. I have my own sins, but they’re different from those of my ancestors. In that same way, I do not inherit the sins of Adam and Eve (and I believe they are symbolic, so it is moot.) Why would the Bible then say that people inherited the original sin? Because the ancients believed that children carried the sins of their parents. That was why illegitimate children were ostracized. All people are born with a clean record, but with the potential to sin. That does not mean that they are born with sin. The potential to get a PhD, for example, does not make me a holder of a PhD.

Racial discrimination is discrimination. Religious discrimination is also discrimination. Would you say that Jews worship the wrong way? There is no right way of worship. Many would say that Protestants worship the wrong way, and others would say that Catholics worship the wrong way. Coptic Christians, Syriac Christians, Armenian Christians, Greek Orthodox Christians, Cathars, Hussites, Sunni Muslims, Sevener Shi’ite Muslims, Twelver Shi’ite Muslims, Wahabis, Sufis; we all worship in a different way. You cannot say that someone worships the wrong way just because they don’t worship the way you do. To say that they are wrong would be narrowminded. Do you know why there was an Albigensian crusade? Certain Christians believed that other Christians weren’t worshipping Christ correctly and that they weren’t believing in the right doctrines, and they went down and massacred them or forcefully converted them to the ‘right’ way of worship. What about the Spanish Inquisition? They burned Jews and Protestants just because they weren’t Catholics. That’s discrimination. You might think that your little bit of religious discrimination won’t do much, but it builds up. I don’t want another holocaust, and I’m sure you don’t either.

Adam is a symbol for all human beings, meaning that God made the covenant with all human beings. How does that not make sense?

I’ll tell you something; I was seduced by your way of life once. I once read a novel called Sedona Storm and it discriminated against the occult as well as other forms of more lenient Christianity. The authors were devout Christians, and they took the Bible very literally. The book told of how the Holy Spirit spoke directly to one of the characters. It was an exciting read, and to my childish mind, it made so much sense. I needed God’s presence in my life and I thought that perhaps this book had the answers. I went to church every week, but I did not feel God. So I took up this pious lifestyle of prayer and denounced anything that went against the Bible, except evolution because it still made so much sense. Guess what? I didn’t feel God either. The more I looked, the more artificial this sort of lifestyle became. Then along came another story, about an agnostic and depressed man who finally finds God. Yes, I’m talking about Kingdom of Heaven. You should see it sometime; it can teach you a lot of things. The moment I understood the film was the moment I found God. I didn’t find Him in scripture, I didn’t find him in prayer; I found him in this story which advocated peace and goodness, and nothing else. It was from then onwards that I understood that advocating peace and love was the only way to God and to salvation.

Fighting and dying for religion; we’ve been through all that. Look at the Holy Land. It was once the Kingdom of Heaven. The oranges of Jaffa, the fabrics of Damascus and Mosul; it was rich, it was vibrant. It was prosperous and heavenly. Coptic Christians, Syriac Christians, Armenian Christians, Jews and Muslims lived in harmony alongside each other, sharing festivals, doing trade. They even shared the same temples. The church of St. John the Baptist in Damascus once had a Christian end and a Muslim end, and even though the Muslims have long since bought the church and converted it into a mosque, there is still a niche for St. John’s head. Then along came the Crusaders, who believed that the only way to God was their way, much as you believe, Ego-eimi. They fought for God on that soil. They’re still fighting for God over there, so now it’s Hell on earth.

So open your mind to other religions and beliefs. Let them be, and don’t try and say that you’re better than them because of what you believe. Such pride is unbecoming of anyone, let alone a self-proclaimed devout follower of Christ. Jesus was humility personified.

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

 

 

 

Another Religious Rant

I’m getting really really sick of strict fundamentalist religious views. Actually, they’re getting me overexcited and pumping me full of adrenaline so that I want to scream and hit something. I cannot believe that this day and age, there are still people who believe in the twelfth century way of looking at the world, namely, scholasticism, which states that ‘God revealed Truth to Man through religion (Christianity was the only proper religion to them), and religion can be proved by reason. However, if religion and reason contradict each other, then reason is obsolete.’ I’d thought that we had progressed beyond that. Apparently, I was very very wrong, and much too optimistic. Just a note to people who believe this way of looking at the world; if you are arguing with people who don’t believe it, quoting the Bible is not going to change their mind, so just don’t bother unless you can come up with concrete factual scientific evidence to go with it. Vague paintings in caves which look like they can be vertebrates and which some claim are depictions of dinosaurs do not count.

Extremist Christian views have even infiltrated into the atheist literature forum which I frequent. Of course I couldn’t help myself and had to defend every other religion which the extreme Christian was attacking. Islam is not wrong; merely different. Hinduism might range from polytheistic to monotheistic, but it still has some very applicable and legitimate philosophies. Atheism, while it promotes godlessness, also promotes rational thinking which is not confined by some guy’s interpretation of God. And face it; it’s always some guy’s interpretation of God, and not some girl’s.

There is a strange belief that the Bible has been passed down, unchanged, for six thousand years. Surely there must be a few human errors in there by now, through all the translations, Hebrew propaganda (admit it; every culture has its own brand of propaganda to justify their bad deeds and to make it look better than everyone else’s.), Roman propaganda, and everything else the Bible has gone through. I mentioned that to a Christian who took the Bible word for word, and s/he replied, “Show me the proof. The manuscripts don’t say so.”

So I said, “You do know that the first manuscripts of the Bible would have disintegrated into dust by now, don’t you?” There was another point I forgot to mention: early Hebrews had an oral culture.

I also told them that I believe the Bible is a book of symbols, and used the example about forgiving people seventy seven times, and they said, “You’re not a Christian! You’re an atheist!”

To which I replied, “I’d be a pretty odd atheist; I believe in God.” Some people need to learn the true meaning of words.

There were several other points in my argument: The Bible cannot be taken literally because it was written by men. Even Moses and St. Paul were men, and therefore, fallible. Therefore, I cannot take their word as the word of God.

A Crisis of Faith (part 2)

So I believe that I’ve finally found the truth, but what do I believe in really? And even now, I’m still discovering what I truly believe, but the basis of all my beliefs is that we do not have the right to judge; that right belongs to God and God alone. We have no right to say that someone will go to Hell just because they believe in the ‘wrong’ religion. What is right and what is wrong? Can we, as mere humans, really be so certain? The world is not black and white, as we have often been told.

Many people have found my beliefs rather strange, almost atheist in nature, or at least agnostic. I do not believe institutionalized religion. They have been corrupted by the greed of men (and women). So many doctrines can be traced back to certain people. For example, the Catholic ban on contraceptives goes back to Augustine of Hippo, the fifth century theologian who believed that a good marriage was one with a bunch of kids. It is interesting to note that he was a celibate churchman in an age where Catholic priests were permitted to marry. The notion of Purgatory goes back to Pope Urban II who made it up in the eleventh century so that he could use it to blackmail people into going crusading by telling them that if they went to the Holy Land to fight the infidels, they would have to spend less time in Purgatory when they died. The idea that a Catholic must go to confession goes back to Pope Innocent III in the thirteenth century, who used this as a tool to maintain the Church’s presence in Christendom. During that time, the Church was having a power dispute with the Holy Roman Emperor.

A Crisis of Faith (part 1)

I’ve been thinking about religion a lot lately, ever since I rewatched Kingdom of Heaven and then had to go to church. This is very central to who I am, and I feel it is important. Bear with me, for I have a lot to say, but it is not structured. (I have never been very good at organizing anything.)

I was born into the Roman Catholic Church, so I didn’t really have a say about what religion I participated in. My earliest memories include memories of being told to be quiet during mass, and also of washing my hair in holy water (I was a kid, and kids like to play with water; what can I say?).

When I was fourteen, I read a book called Sedona Storm which managed to convince the impressionable me that all non-Christians were bad and easily tempted by evil, and I got very worried for my friends, who were mostly atheists. I also wondered about God. It was said that God guided Christians, but I didn’t feel a lot of guidance at all. I was confused. If God was such a loving entity, then why would he condemn people to Hell just because they weren’t Christian?

With You, I’ll Be Only Sibylla (Part 11)

Disclaimer: All the characters and events of Kingdom of Heaven belong to Sir Ridley Scott and William Monahan, and, of course, History. I’m just borrowing them and writing my own interpretation.

 

The walls and hangings muffled the sounds from outside. Many candles burned, but they did nothing to dispel the shadow which was falling over the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem. It took a while for Sibylla’s vision to adjust to the darkness of the king’s chamber. It had been so long since she had set foot in here. The scent of incense could not conceal the underlying smell of decay which permeated the room.

 

She approached the bed where her brother lay; a pitiable and wasted figure. One bandaged hand rested on his chest. The other arm was outstretched; it was in the same position which the physician had left it. The silver mask was still in place, however. It was the same cold emotionless face which he showed the world; the face which was supposed to hide weakness.

 

With a shaking hand, the princess reached out and rested it on her brother’s bandaged one, unsure of whether he would feel it or not. Baldwin stirred, and with what seemed like a great effort, opened his eyes. “Hello,” he said. His voice was breathy and weak, but Sibylla’s heart lurched at the sound of that benevolent tone. It was the same one which he had used with her all those years ago, before he had put on the silver mask.