Does everything ought to be explained? Can we provide logical explanation for every event/emotion we feel. Everything we experience, Should intuition and faith have to affirm to reason. Is there a limit to the extent of our understanding?

Is there a chance that what seems absurd as of now would seem obvious at some other point of time. Is there a chance that so-called science enthusiasts and even religious folks have a tendency to believe whatever their IDOLS have to say and whether the leader is truly ENLIGHTENED or not doesnt matter. The use of the word enlightened should not be considered in its strictest sense.

i beleive in my own mind we will have all the answers we need when we perish.

i'm a very curious person myself, curious about everything, often taken back at the sheer insanity that is reallity..wtf is it? lol

don't think about it too much or your mind will crack.

In order for reason to be universally applicable, that would mean that all things that exist must exist in the realm of sense--or perception. So basically, you're asking, are the things I can see/touch/taste/hear/smell the only things that are real? Or, is there something beyond my standard physical senses that is equally true that I feel intuitively--as a hunch, instinct, insight, faith, etc?

If you ask me, the mere fact that man yearns for something more suggests something more. When you feel a certain sensation in your stomach, you realize that you are hungry. When you realize you are hungry, you don't say, "Hmmm...interesting. I wonder if there is something I am meant to put in to my stomach to satisfy this craving? Nah...I'm crazy."

You would never reason that this strange "hunger" is just some weird arbitrary thing that man is cursed with. Yet, when it comes to the longing for meaning, we're supposed to believe that there is none....it's some weird, silly quirk that nature put in man because it likes to torture its creations.

There is something, and you are meant to find it, and your hunger confirms as much.

If doubt and confusion and fear were your natural condition, you would be comfortable in it.

this is church.

Faith and Reason are incompatible.

And just because you can't understand something doesn't mean you have to resort to faith in some absurd man-made fantasy as the explanation.

A lot of illogical responses from the anti-churchie bandwagon. I assume they're responding to me and I'm not even advocating anything religious though they've made such a bold assumption.

As for resorting to "fantasies" to understand something, I agree = stupid. However, resorting to default accepted scientific doctrine or saying "can't think about, makes me crazy" = equally stupid.

There is a popular philosophy that says, "When in doubt, trust whatever science has arrived at so far" which smells suspiciously like something called "faith".

Jihad yerself

ttt

i dont know exactly where all my values or beliefs of right and wrong come from but id say it is probably a mix of what has been passed on, my own life experiences and common sense.

like for example...
"treat others like you wish to be treated"
"if the shoe fits, wear it"
"aint nothing to it but to do it"
"nice guys finish last"

im the type of person that trys to go with the flow, and naturally i take peoples feelings into concideration. maybe even too nice/caring at times and i can be lazy as well so i constantly remind myself of the last 2.

ttt
+1

I think you must have reasons and proof for faith. This is what differentiates Christianity from all world religions. There is much proof for Christianity, even atheists acknowledge that Christ existed. They may not accept His diety, but they acknowledge that He is a real person of history. Then it comes down to who is He? That's where most non-believers stop. They do not want to find that out, but instead avoid that.

Faith and reason can be cmpatible, but people of faith tend to linger from reason more so than people who don't have faith. For an example check out the "How did you become religious" thread. If you look in that thread you'll see myself(among others) use logic and reasoning to come to a conclusion. You'll also see xcept68 use logic, but as the conversation thickens and the questions become harder he relies less on reason and more on faith. Which in turn makes his answers illogical to someone not of his faith.

I can understand where you are coming from, however my reasons may seem more illogical to you because of your lack of understanding of the Bible and what God wants for us. I would like to see what your views are and I can point out the massive amount of faith without reason or proof out of them. There is one reality, either you are on compliance with it or you are in conflict with it.

I can understand where you are coming from, however my reasons may seem more illogical to you because of your lack of understanding of the Bible and what God wants for us. I would like to see what your views are and I can point out the massive amount of faith without reason or proof out of them. There is one reality, either you are on compliance with it or you are in conflict with it.

No they are illogical when applied to reason, I'm sure when applied to the Bible they make perfect sense as I am trusting your interpretation of it.

My views? Well I'm an Agnostic so there is no real faith in my views.

No they are illogical when applied to reason, I'm sure when applied to the Bible they make perfect sense as I am trusting your interpretation of it.

My views? Well I'm an Agnostic so there is no real faith in my views.

So my views make sense when applied to the Bible.. okay that's cool with me. I can receive that. Yes but tell me more about what you believe as being agnostic. I would like to know more about your belief.

So my views make sense when applied to the Bible.. okay that's cool with me. I can receive that. Yes but tell me more about what you believe as being agnostic. I would like to know more about your belief.

Ok, I believe that science and religion have an equal chance of being correct. Thus putting me in the middle neither side has the upper hand in evidence so I am a 50/50 Agnostic. If you want to know more of my beliefs ask me about a specific one.

alright. I believe that science supports the Bible, and doesn't contradict it. Do you believe that Jesus was born here on earth of a heavenly father and earthly mother and that He died on the cross for our sins and rose again on the 3rd day?

alright. I believe that science supports the Bible, and doesn't contradict it. Do you believe that Jesus was born here on earth of a heavenly father and earthly mother and that He died on the cross for our sins and rose again on the 3rd day?

No

okay. fair enough. But you do not believe this because you have researched it and found it to be false, or just because that's what you choose to believe.

Last question concerning this, we can go back to our regularly scheduled debates or discussions.

I don't mean to pry, I'm just very interested in how you can be agnostic and have such an interest in religious debates with someone like myself? I mean this is an MMA forum afterall. It's not exactly at Christian blog at all. Meaning you are taking away from time of being in here discussing the current packed month of fights to instead debate your beliefs with me.

I don't? Please show me the evidence that Jesus was born here on earth of a heavenly father and earthly mother and that He died on the cross for our sins and rose again on the 3rd day. As I can't prove a negative the burden of proof is on you.

I have many interests MMA only being one. So do others that's why this board has so many sub-forums.

okay. Firstly, we know that the Bible indeed exists as an accurate historical document, it's the only work that has fulfilled prophecy within it. Many experts in their various fields of study would verify that the dates, names, and timeframes of the events indeed happened when the Bible states that they did. So here we have a document that has withstood the test of time and scrutiny for almost 2,000 years.

Even atheist scholars will admit that Jesus was a real person and existed during the point in history that He did. Even other religious works such as the Koran states much about Christ.

The Bible makes statements from witness accounts as to Christ's death upon the cross and resurrection. The disciples were cowering in a room, until they saw Him in person that He had risen. At this point their lives were no longer important and only the preaching of the Gospel. Meaning there would have had to be some severe change for them to go from hiding into the open public to proclaim Christ as the resurrected Jesus. The facts speak for themselves. If Jesus wasn't who He said He is, then the apostles wouldn't have followed him after his being crucified. Christianity would have died out then and there.

okay. Firstly, we know that the Bible indeed exists as an accurate historical document, it's the only work that has fulfilled prophecy within it. Many experts in their various fields of study would verify that the dates, names, and timeframes of the events indeed happened when the Bible states that they did. So here we have a document that has withstood the test of time and scrutiny for almost 2,000 years.

Even atheist scholars will admit that Jesus was a real person and existed during the point in history that He did. Even other religious works such as the Koran states much about Christ.

The Bible makes statements from witness accounts as to Christ's death upon the cross and resurrection. The disciples were cowering in a room, until they saw Him in person that He had risen. At this point their lives were no longer important and only the preaching of the Gospel. Meaning there would have had to be some severe change for them to go from hiding into the open public to proclaim Christ as the resurrected Jesus. The facts speak for themselves. If Jesus wasn't who He said He is, then the apostles wouldn't have followed him after his being crucified. Christianity would have died out then and there.
:gives:

what does all this have to do with the thread topic?

faith and reason... presenting reasons for the faith. I think it goes along with the topic pretty well.

okay. Firstly, we know that the Bible indeed exists as an accurate historical document, it's the only work that has fulfilled prophecy within it. Many experts in their various fields of study would verify that the dates, names, and timeframes of the events indeed happened when the Bible states that they did. So here we have a document that has withstood the test of time and scrutiny for almost 2,000 years.

Even atheist scholars will admit that Jesus was a real person and existed during the point in history that He did. Even other religious works such as the Koran states much about Christ.

The Bible makes statements from witness accounts as to Christ's death upon the cross and resurrection. The disciples were cowering in a room, until they saw Him in person that He had risen. At this point their lives were no longer important and only the preaching of the Gospel. Meaning there would have had to be some severe change for them to go from hiding into the open public to proclaim Christ as the resurrected Jesus. The facts speak for themselves. If Jesus wasn't who He said He is, then the apostles wouldn't have followed him after his being crucified. Christianity would have died out then and there.

We know there was a Jesus, but there is no evidence that he was the son of God or that he was resurrected.

You know if people didn't believe L Ron Hubbard then after his death Scientology would've died out.

There is much proof for Christianity, even atheists acknowledge that Christ existed.

Noone disputes that Christianity exists. What is in dispute is that historical Jesus existed.

http://www.jdstone.org/cr/files/nohistoricalevidenceofjesus.html

http://home1.gte.net/deleyd/religion/appendixd.html

He exists, and still exists. the onus is on you making the claim that he doesn't exist. So back up your claim. I disputed your references in another topic. So please present evidence for your claim. Thanks

He exists, and still exists. the onus is on you making the claim that he doesn't exist. So back up your claim. I disputed your references in another topic. So please present evidence for your claim. Thanks

This makes no sense. As Blevuny patiently explained, one cannot provide proof of a negative. If you insist, then the evidence is that he's not right over there - he must not exist. YOU must be the one to PROOVE where he is if you are the one making the claim that he exists.

David Koresh and Ron Hubbard were real existing people at one time too - that does not make them anymore or less of a dieity than Christ.

One more point about the bible. It is a work of several people cobbled together throughout several hundreds of years and translated and retranslated and reprinted and republished. Of course there are historical facts present in a lot of the text - most added after the fact. The problem that this presents is that many want to assume that everything in the book must be taken as fact since some of it has been proven. The ironc thing to me is that the bible that so many people swear by today in this country is VASTLY different in content to the ones that our forefathers brought to this country when they were fleeing the religious opression of Europe.

If 1/100th of the people knew about the actual history of the bible and how many versions have been created and lost contained withing, then they might not accept the "history" contained within so blindly.

This makes no sense. As Blevuny patiently explained, one cannot provide proof of a negative. If you insist, then the evidence is that he's not right over there - he must not exist. YOU must be the one to PROOVE where he is if you are the one making the claim that he exists. Actually I'm not proving (or PROOVING) as you put it, a negative. The Bible states who Christ is, it's been verified by qualified historians for ages. I'm not the origin of the claim at all. He is the origin of the claim. He's stating there is no proof of the historical Jesus. Sure there is, in the Bible, which is an historical document with it's own evidence. So if you notice, I'm not making the original claim, you are claiming that Christ didn't exist in history at all. Unfortunately for you to do such would mean you would have to discredit the Bible. I will not banter about this topic with you any longer because until you prove why you claim such, then your point is invalid.

David Koresh and Ron Hubbard were real existing people at one time too - that does not make them anymore or less of a dieity than Christ. dumb example.

One more point about the bible. It is a work of several people cobbled together throughout several hundreds of years and translated and retranslated and reprinted and republished. prove it. Prove your statement, give me references on this. Prove what you say, don't just utter words. Let's see some fact. Of course there are historical facts present in a lot of the text - most added after the fact. PROOVE this too. The problem that this presents is that many want to assume that everything in the book must be taken as fact since some of it has been proven. The ironc thing to me is that the bible that so many people swear by today in this country is VASTLY different in content to the ones that our forefathers brought to this country when they were fleeing the religious opression of Europe. Too bad you are making up all this rhetoric, and don't have any facts to back it up. Your problem is that the Bible conflicts with your views and therefore you hate it. PROOVE it once again, so we can all believe.

If 1/100th of the people knew about the actual history of the bible and how many versions have been created and lost contained withing, then they might not accept the "history" contained within so blindly.

Versions... oh do you mean like the King James, NIV, NASB, ASB... they are all the same thing. There hasn't been revisions like you think there are revisions. It's unfortunate that you stepped into a conversation that you know nothing about and are attempting to make yourself look more foolish than we already think you are. I'd like to see your proof other than your utterances on here. I've already shot down everything you've stated in this post. So go search out some more information and rhetoric.

Actually I'm not proving (or PROOVING) as you put it, a negative. The Bible states who Christ is, it's been verified by qualified historians for ages. I'm not the origin of the claim at all. He is the origin of the claim. He's stating there is no proof of the historical Jesus. Sure there is, in the Bible, which is an historical document with it's own evidence. So if you notice, I'm not making the original claim, you are claiming that Christ didn't exist in history at all. Unfortunately for you to do such would mean you would have to discredit the Bible. I will not banter about this topic with you any longer because until you prove why you claim such, then your point is invalid.

You can't prove something never existed. For example there is an invisible tea pot floating in outer space prove me wrong.

dumb example.

How is that a dumb example? Koresh claimed to be the Messiah, there is no evidence that he wasn't.

You can't prove something never existed. For example there is an invisible tea pot floating in outer space prove me wrong.



How is that a dumb example? Koresh claimed to be the Messiah, there is no evidence that he wasn't.

The Bible exists... Jesus is the word made flesh and walked among us.

Koresh is dead. He didn't rise again. So yeah, he isn't the messiah.

Firstly, a tea pot is a physical item with mass, unlike air or wind, which isn't visible to our eyes. We know that a physical item cannot be invisible, especially not a man made object such as a tea pot. We also know that based upon the historical account of space travel, that there is no record of anyone dispatching a tea pot into space. I proved your negative.

The Bible exists... Jesus is the word made flesh and walked among us.

Koresh is dead. He didn't rise again. So yeah, he isn't the messiah.

Firstly, a tea pot is a physical item with mass, unlike air or wind, which isn't visible to our eyes. We know that a physical item cannot be invisible, especially not a man made object such as a tea pot. We also know that based upon the historical account of space travel, that there is no record of anyone dispatching a tea pot into space. I proved your negative.

Where in the old testament does it say the Messiah would rise three days later?

No you didn't it's an invisble tea pot it wasn't made by man. It's just always existed.

Actually I'm not proving (or PROOVING) as you put it, a negative. The Bible states who Christ is, it's been verified by qualified historians for ages. I'm not the origin of the claim at all. He is the origin of the claim. He's stating there is no proof of the historical Jesus. Sure there is, in the Bible, which is an historical document with it's own evidence. So if you notice, I'm not making the original claim, you are claiming that Christ didn't exist in history at all. Unfortunately for you to do such would mean you would have to discredit the Bible. I will not banter about this topic with you any longer because until you prove why you claim such, then your point is invalid.

dumb example.

prove it. Prove your statement, give me references on this. Prove what you say, don't just utter words. Let's see some fact. PROOVE this too. Too bad you are making up all this rhetoric, and don't have any facts to back it up. Your problem is that the Bible conflicts with your views and therefore you hate it. PROOVE it once again, so we can all believe.



Versions... oh do you mean like the King James, NIV, NASB, ASB... they are all the same thing. There hasn't been revisions like you think there are revisions. It's unfortunate that you stepped into a conversation that you know nothing about and are attempting to make yourself look more foolish than we already think you are. I'd like to see your proof other than your utterances on here. I've already shot down everything you've stated in this post. So go search out some more information and rhetoric.

Nice, starting out a response by pointing out a typo when you completely misread my view - I never stated that JC did not physically exist in a historical capacity. I'll not even bother reading the rest of what I am sure is also garbage in your long winded response. Sorry that I work from home during the day and more of my concentration is being devoted to the tasks I am being paid for.

That's what I get for trying to enter a debate with another brainwashed victim. I'll leave Blevunly to TRY to talk sense to you.

Nice, starting out a response by pointing out a typo when you completely misread my view - I never stated that JC did not physically exist in a historical capacity. I'll not even bother reading the rest of what I am sure is also garbage in your long winded response. Sorry that I work from home during the day and more of my concentration is being devoted to the tasks I am being paid for.

That's what I get for trying to enter a debate with another brainwashed victim. I'll leave Blevunly to TRY to talk sense to you.

oh don't get your panties in a bunch, I was merely messing with you about the typo. It isn't really even a big one at that. I apologize for using it over and over. Come back when you are more prepared for an ass whippin. Your just as brainwashed as you think I am.

oh don't get your panties in a bunch, I was merely messing with you about the typo. It isn't really even a big one at that. I apologize for using it over and over. Come back when you are more prepared for an ass whippin. Your just as brainwashed as you think I am.
I thought you were a good Christian bro. Behave yourself or you'll rot in hell. Why all the hate. What about goodness of heart?

Actually I'm not proving (or PROOVING) as you put it, a negative. The Bible states who Christ is, it's been verified by qualified historians for ages. I'm not the origin of the claim at all. He is the origin of the claim. He's stating there is no proof of the historical Jesus. Sure there is, in the Bible, which is an historical document with it's own evidence. So if you notice, I'm not making the original claim, you are claiming that Christ didn't exist in history at all. Unfortunately for you to do such would mean you would have to discredit the Bible. I will not banter about this topic with you any longer because until you prove why you claim such, then your point is invalid.

dumb example.

prove it. Prove your statement, give me references on this. Prove what you say, don't just utter words. Let's see some fact. PROOVE this too. Too bad you are making up all this rhetoric, and don't have any facts to back it up. Your problem is that the Bible conflicts with your views and therefore you hate it. PROOVE it once again, so we can all believe.



Versions... oh do you mean like the King James, NIV, NASB, ASB... they are all the same thing. There hasn't been revisions like you think there are revisions. It's unfortunate that you stepped into a conversation that you know nothing about and are attempting to make yourself look more foolish than we already think you are. I'd like to see your proof other than your utterances on here. I've already shot down everything you've stated in this post. So go search out some more information and rhetoric.

Okay, I admit - I read the rest of your response. Now that I have washed my eyes out with lemon juice I will confirm my initial suspicions and add to them that you are not a very nice person, and not very smart either.

Have fun with balancing the pompous and ignorant thing you got going on there - it takes a special kind of jerk to pull it off with as much success as you're having.

Now go ahead and tell me to PROOVE it again and prove to everybody who can read this thread how much of an ass you are.

Peace.

I thought you were a good Christian bro. Behave yourself or you'll rot in hell. Why all the hate. What about goodness of heart?

He is just another hypocrite, Aman, and a discredit to the deity he claims to represent.

Where in the old testament does it say the Messiah would rise three days later?

Hosea 6:2
After two days will he revive us; in the third day he will raise us up, and we shall live in his sight.

There are over 300 fulfilled prophecies in the old testament of Christ's birth, life, death and resurrection. hmmm... something to ponder.

No you didn't it's an invisble tea pot it wasn't made by man. It's just always existed.

Well we know that the universe hasn't always existed. So that also disproves your tea pot as well.

I'd soften my stance now that I see he apologized, however I am sure he is reading my response now and furiously banging out a response!

Postcrosspwnt.

He is just another hypocrite, Aman, and a discredit to the deity he claims to represent.
I used to curse myself coz I feel like an arse when I read his posts. 'twas like one of us just have to be retarded. Glad to see i'm not the one.

You think I'm retarded because you disagree with my viewpoint on the truth of God? I really haven't seen your viewpoint, please post it so we can see just how inaccurate you are with your worldviews.

I'd soften my stance now that I see he apologized, however I am sure he is reading my response now and furiously banging out a response!

Postcrosspwnt.

back for more punishment... good to hear!

Hosea 6:2
After two days will he revive us; in the third day he will raise us up, and we shall live in his sight.

There are over 300 fulfilled prophecies in the old testament of Christ's birth, life, death and resurrection. hmmm... something to ponder.



Well we know that the universe hasn't always existed. So that also disproves your tea pot as well.

It's not even talking about the Messiah in those passages.

HOSEA 6 1-3
Come and let us return unto the Lord: for he hath torn, and he will heal us; he hath smitten and he will bind us up

After two days will he revive us; in the third day he will raise us up and we shall live in his sight

Then shall we know, if we follow on to know the Lord; his going forth is prepared as the morning; and he shall come unto us as the rain, as the latter and former rain unto the earth.

Just cause the universe hasn't always existed doesn't mean the tea pot hasn't. When did I say it was even in this universe? all I know is it's in outer space.

hey xcept68 I'll discuss religion with ya fer a second....my ancestor Lillith, says for you to eat me!!!
oh yeah, unless you know your bible back to front, you will need to google her.

You think I'm retarded because you disagree with my viewpoint on the truth of God? I really haven't seen your viewpoint, please post it so we can see just how inaccurate you are with your worldviews.

I am glad that I do not see your posting in the asylum or the mma forum. You are most likely ignorant on MMA as well and I can tell that your ass would get raped in the asylum as your debate and reasoning skills are non existent.

On second thought, you could be a nice replacement for Jason though...

I am glad that I do not see your posting in the asylum or the mma forum. You are most likely ignorant on MMA as well and I can tell that your ass would get raped in the asylum as your debate and reasoning skills are non existent.

On second thought, you could be a nice replacement for Jason though...

he is not so lucky; he was foolish enuf to enter the asylum - he didn't like the "3rd grade classroom" nor the nude pics, he was toast...

I am glad that I do not see your posting in the asylum or the mma forum. You are most likely ignorant on MMA as well and I can tell that your ass would get raped in the asylum as your debate and reasoning skills are non existent.

On second thought, you could be a nice replacement for Jason though...

So inviting me somewhere where you have more positive reinforcements? Can't handle talking in here? Bring all your friends over then? I don't mind going to your home turf to discuss with you. Not at all. See you on Monday.

he is not so lucky; he was foolish enuf to enter the asylum - he didn't like the "3rd grade classroom" nor the nude pics, he was toast...

since I've already schooled you, you haven't wanted to address me directly. I hope there is any one single person here that can put up an adequate fight with me? Are there none? None to challenge me?

since I've already schooled you, you haven't wanted to address me directly. I hope there is any one single person here that can put up an adequate fight with me? Are there none? None to challenge me?

You're very boastful. I think I've put up more than an adequate fight, I'll make a poll to find out.

since I've already schooled you, you haven't wanted to address me directly. I hope there is any one single person here that can put up an adequate fight with me? Are there none? None to challenge me?

whenever i have wanted to address you, i have; in this instance, this was ABOUT you, not TO you. i decided to wear your shoes for one post...

in order for us to engage in dialogue, you will first need to grow a backbone. i jis don't see that happenin in my lifetime.

BTW, the bible is not ACCURATE as you keep telling all - it is a compilation of texts (hand-chosen by men of theology). if all the books that were written WERE ACTUALLY inclluded well, who knows...

xcept68 getting delusional. nobody bought your stupid bible bullshit, dumbass.

You're very boastful. I think I've put up more than an adequate fight, I'll make a poll to find out.

That is where I was going with the whole ignorance/arrogance thing earlier. It is impossible to have an intelligent discussion with someone whose tactic is to put their fingers in their ears and just keep yammering that they are right.

You tried as hard as one could be expected to have an intelligent discussion with this guy. I suffer fools much less - especially ones who revel in their ignorance and wear it as a badge of honor.

hey xcept68 I'll discuss religion with ya fer a second....my ancestor Lillith, says for you to eat me!!!
oh yeah, unless you know your bible back to front, you will need to google her.

There are un-Biblical legends that Adam had a wife before Eve who was named Lilith. The legends vary significantly, but they all essentially agree that Lilith left Adam because she did not want to submit to him. According to the legends, Lilith was an evil, wicked woman who committed adultery with Satan and produced a race of evil creatures. None of this is true. There is no Biblical basis whatsoever for these concepts. There is no one in the Bible named Lilith.

The passage most often pointed to as evidence for Lilith is Isaiah 34:14, which in the NRSV reads, "there too Lilith shall repose." This is a poor translation. Every other major translation of the Bible reads something to the effect of "night creature" or "screech owl." Even if "demon monster named Lilith" was the proper translation of the Hebrew word, Adam is nowhere even hinted at in this passage or its context. Whatever the Lilith was, it is not given any connection whatsoever to Adam or Creation.

Another commonly used support for Lilith is the differing Creation accounts in Genesis chapters 1-2. Some claim that the woman in Genesis 1 was Lilith, with the woman in Genesis 2 being Eve. This is completely ludicrous. Rather, Genesis chapter 2 is a "closer look" at the creation of Adam and Eve as recorded in Genesis chapter 1. The Bible specifically says that Adam and Eve were the first human beings ever created (Genesis 1:26-28; 2:18-25). This "Lilith" myth is popular in some radical feminist movements because Lilith is an example of a woman refusing to submit to male headship. While there are myths outside of the Word of God regarding Lilith, her complete absence from Scripture demonstrates that she is nothing more than a myth.

whenever i have wanted to address you, i have; in this instance, this was ABOUT you, not TO you. i decided to wear your shoes for one post...

in order for us to engage in dialogue, you will first need to grow a backbone. i jis don't see that happenin in my lifetime.

BTW, the bible is not ACCURATE as you keep telling all - it is a compilation of texts (hand-chosen by men of theology). if all the books that were written WERE ACTUALLY inclluded well, who knows...



Sure the Bible is accurate. Even the Smithsonian inst states its more accurate than any other ancient historical text or manuscript.

You're very boastful. I think I've put up more than an adequate fight, I'll make a poll to find out.

I love that I schooled you in our debate. 2 people agree with me on this... and considering the fact that everyone in this debate other than myself is a non-beleiver, I would say that's a pretty good victory on my part.

OH and I LOVE the avatar!!!! It's awesome!

I love that I schooled you in our debate. 2 people agree with me on this... and considering the fact that everyone in this debate other than myself is a non-beleiver, I would say that's a pretty good victory on my part.

OH and I LOVE the avatar!!!! It's awesome!
I'ma believer. And people get alienated when they see bad examples. And you might be setting a bad example bro.... No offence.

I love that I schooled you in our debate. 2 people agree with me on this... and considering the fact that everyone in this debate other than myself is a non-beleiver, I would say that's a pretty good victory on my part.

OH and I LOVE the avatar!!!! It's awesome!

Oh yeah you schooled me with your question dodging skills, or maybe it was the fact that you couldn't rationalize anything I said and had to revert back to preaching. You are so over the top that I still think you might be a gimmick. You're so immature with how you claim victory after every post and how you constantly have to delude yourself with how great you think you are. You are by far the most vain egotist to ever grace this sub-forum.

Btw I didn't give you the AV, but it is rather nice.

I love that I schooled you in our debate. 2 people agree with me on this... and considering the fact that everyone in this debate other than myself is a non-beleiver, I would say that's a pretty good victory on my part.

OH and I LOVE the avatar!!!! It's awesome!


:suicide:

I love that I schooled you in our debate. 2 people agree with me on this... and considering the fact that everyone in this debate other than myself is a non-beleiver, I would say that's a pretty good victory on my part.

OH and I LOVE the avatar!!!! It's awesome!

this is the kinda dude that thinks what happens here actually matters in real life

I love that I schooled you in our debate. 2 people agree with me on this... and considering the fact that everyone in this debate other than myself is a non-beleiver, I would say that's a pretty good victory on my part.

OH and I LOVE the avatar!!!! It's awesome!


2 Peter 2:18 (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=2 Peter+2:18&version=51) (Whole Chapter) (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=2 Peter+2&version=51)
They brag about themselves with empty, foolish boasting. With an appeal to twisted sexual desires, they lure back into sin those who have barely escaped from a lifestyle of deception.


James 4:16 (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=James+4:16&version=49) (Whole Chapter) (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=James+4&version=49)
But as it is, you boast in your arrogance; [1 Cor 5:6] all such boasting is evil.

I'ma believer. And people get alienated when they see bad examples. And you might be setting a bad example bro.... No offence.

aman, yer one of many who exhibit a sincere and devout interest in religion, and I commend you for your faith. Though i do not indulge, i am verry happy for those that have found solitude, peace, and seek answers for their spiritual enlightenment. i hope you and those like you do not take offense at any of my posts on this topic.

my sig sums me up very well. we are all a one-of-a-kind creation and should be able to live our lives as we deem fit, not in accordance with others' beliefs.

aman, yer one of many who exhibit a sincere and devout interest in religion, and I commend you for your faith. Though i do not indulge, i am verry happy for those that have found solitude, peace, and seek answers for their spiritual enlightenment. i hope you and those like you do not take offense at any of my posts on this topic.

my sig sums me up very well. we are all a one-of-a-kind creation and should be able to live our lives as we deem fit, not in accordance with others' beliefs.


I is agreed. And I do have doubts. A lot of 'em.

since I've already schooled you, you haven't wanted to address me directly. I hope there is any one single person here that can put up an adequate fight with me? Are there none? None to challenge me?

Is anyone else reminded of the Black Knight from Monty Python and the Holy Grail?

HAHA yea

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/leEsz9ci5XE&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/leEsz9ci5XE&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

Is anyone else reminded of the Black Knight from Monty Python and the Holy Grail?

Just a flesh wound... come and fight me!

There are un-Biblical legends that Adam had a wife before Eve who was named Lilith. The legends vary significantly, but they all essentially agree that Lilith left Adam because she did not want to submit to him. According to the legends, Lilith was an evil, wicked woman who committed adultery with Satan and produced a race of evil creatures. None of this is true. There is no Biblical basis whatsoever for these concepts. There is no one in the Bible named Lilith.

The passage most often pointed to as evidence for Lilith is Isaiah 34:14, which in the NRSV reads, "there too Lilith shall repose." This is a poor translation. Every other major translation of the Bible reads something to the effect of "night creature" or "screech owl." Even if "demon monster named Lilith" was the proper translation of the Hebrew word, Adam is nowhere even hinted at in this passage or its context. Whatever the Lilith was, it is not given any connection whatsoever to Adam or Creation.

Another commonly used support for Lilith is the differing Creation accounts in Genesis chapters 1-2. Some claim that the woman in Genesis 1 was Lilith, with the woman in Genesis 2 being Eve. This is completely ludicrous. Rather, Genesis chapter 2 is a "closer look" at the creation of Adam and Eve as recorded in Genesis chapter 1. The Bible specifically says that Adam and Eve were the first human beings ever created (Genesis 1:26-28; 2:18-25). This "Lilith" myth is popular in some radical feminist movements because Lilith is an example of a woman refusing to submit to male headship. While there are myths outside of the Word of God regarding Lilith, her complete absence from Scripture demonstrates that she is nothing more than a myth.

WOW, You've mastered the cut & paste. Goo..ooo..ooo..oood sheep

Just a flesh wound... come and fight me!

whaaaa....so now you think you're the archangel Michael? Puleeeeze you're just killing me here, lol

I is agreed. And I do have doubts. A lot of 'em.
as well you should. if we had all the answers, what would we have need to discover? i can offer a few sites if you'd like. i don't purport to know what you are seeking, but i'll share with you some of the places i've searched for info and such.

as well you should. if we had all the answers, what would we have need to discover? i can offer a few sites if you'd like. i don't purport to know what you are seeking, but i'll share with you some of the places i've searched for info and such.


Yup yup. Do me me the stuf.

whaaaa....so now you think you're the archangel Michael? Puleeeeze you're just killing me here, lol

Someone didn't see the Monty Python movie the knight at the bridge?

Well certainly need to get out more right??? yesh

WOW, You've mastered the cut & paste. Goo..ooo..ooo..oood sheep

You've mastered the beleiving fairy tales ! Good sheep!!

Someone didn't see the Monty Python movie the knight at the bridge?

Well certainly need to get out more right??? yesh

Nope not me, maybe yourself? I tell ya what I DO need though..........MORE COWBELL!