online dating service
REGISTER | MAIL/PROFILE | HELP | NOW ONLINE | SEARCH | RATING | FORUMS | SUCCESS STORIES

 

     
Posted In Forum:
Home   login   MyForums  
Show ALL Forums  
 
 Author Thread: If Jesus sits at the right hand of god who sits on the left?
 Angel_Robertson
Joined: 2/3/2006
Msg: 5 (view)
 
If Jesus sits at the right hand of god who sits on the left?
Posted: 8/16/2006 11:21:01 AM
Didn't Lucifer Used to sit at Gods right hand before he was cast down?

I pretty sure that in the Old Testament, it was Gabriel that sat on Gods left, but if you go by some of the stuff that was left out, (Jewish stuff and apocrypha and that sort of thing) then no one sat on either side of God as he/she/it sat alone, only Raziel was able to hear or see God as he sat on the border between the universe and the outside (the outside being God).
 Angel_Robertson
Joined: 2/3/2006
Msg: 22 (view)
 
Poll: Christians 'addicted to porn'; 50% of men, 20% of women.
Posted: 8/16/2006 11:11:48 AM

I'm giving you the definition from the Supreme Court.


No you are not, the definition from the Supreme Court is over 10 pages long and dose not at any point mention Penetration, clear or otherwise. Obscene is a term that aplies to the entire spectrum of produced artworks, including audio and litterary works, that is why "Lady Chasterlys Lover" was banned in the 1930's. Obscene dose not refer to anything with a sexual content but with a content that could be considered extreem and unseteling, such as the film footage of troops in Iraq being exicuted.


Most of the material out there is obscenity and should be prosecuted.


By the definition of Obscene provided by the Supreme Court, there is almost no material curently avaliable that would fall within the parameters.

But now i'm digressing from the subject. The question is "What does this say about regular church going people?"

I would say that it shows they are still human. They sin, they strugle with acceptance of certain biblical verses or church cannon. Even the clergy and most devout christians admit to falling into this particualr sin. To me that shows that it is a difficult sin to avoid.

But the wording of the questions and the poll, show also that it is thought to be a larger problem that it actualy is. The questions are loaded and the poll itself is squed. It redifines certain things such as Addiction and even pornography in order to fit the poll. For example thier term for addict is "use on an ongoing bassis", so dose that meen we are addicted to driving, or to watching telly? by thier definition we are all addicted to many difrent things, but by the medical definition only a small percentage of the population are addicted to anything.

The next thing I am suppriesed about in that poll is...

60% of the women who answered the survey confessed having "significant struggles
with lust."

This supprises me, I would have thought it would be around 98 or 99%. Or do the other 40% not strugle with thier lust and just give in to it?
I do not know a single woman who dose not get horny from time to time, particularly at that time of the month.
 Angel_Robertson
Joined: 2/3/2006
Msg: 20 (view)
 
Poll: Christians 'addicted to porn'; 50% of men, 20% of women.
Posted: 8/16/2006 8:15:03 AM

By the way, the legal definition of obscenity is "penetration clearly visible" (pcv). If it has "PCV" in it, it is illegal to . You can go to prison for viewing that material.


Sorry, but you are wrong. VERY WRONG.


For something to be "obscene" it must be shown that the average person, applying contemporary community standards and viewing the material as a whole, would find (1) that the work appeals predominantly to "prurient" interest; (2) that it depicts or describes sexual conduct in a patently offensive way; and (3) that it lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.


That is the Legal definition of Obscene in the United States of America, your definition would make most of the Legal Pornograpic industry and even some mainstream films, completely illegal.

It is perfectly legal to "make, distribute, or own" most "PCV" (the correct term is hardcore pornography by the way) materials.


A lot of the men who have problems with porn developed the problem looking at their fathers' Playboy magazines as they were growing up.


Do you have any sort of evidence of this beyond your own hearsay and conjecture? I personaly find that none of the men I know have a problem with porn, they all enjoy it as just another part of thier lives, no difrent to watching soap operas. Most of the men I have met never even knew thier fathers had pornographic literature (by the way, through your definition playboy is not obscene.) untill they were fully grown, 20 upwards.


Women who get caught up in porn are enticed by the "romance" in the story.


Again not true. I myself am enticed by seeing a nice hard c*ck. The "romance" dosen't bother me, if I want to look at pornography, then I look for something that will make me horny, not make me feel all lovey!


The porn industry tries to lure women in chat rooms over into porn sites.


They do the same thing to men too you know, its called addvertising and its not always ethical but some companies will try anything to give themselves an edge over thier competetors, just look at the way MacDonalds and Coke work. The simple solution to "Women being lured to porn sites" is to do exactly what the men who have no intrest do and ignore the adverts!


Even reading too many romance novels can lead a woman to have a problem with porn.


And just what would that problem be exactly? That they can't find any thats romantic enough perhaps? I realy do not see how Mills & Boon, leads to hardcore fisting? Do they include mutch BDSM in thier stories, I can't say I ever noticed?




There has been porn since people could draw, and porn will always exist.


People could carve before they could draw, and even then they were making pornographic images and carving sex toys. I've always wondered why the Church is so openly against Pornography, yet is very quiet on its stance about Dildos and Vibrators? Surely the Church would think sex toys to be WORSE than Porn, so why dose it never talk about them?
 Angel_Robertson
Joined: 2/3/2006
Msg: 30 (view)
 
Abortion: The Celtic Faith's view
Posted: 6/4/2006 10:35:16 AM
I don't belive there are any scrolls of ulster or anywhere else in ireland for that mater. How can you know anything about Celtic abortions when there is no evidence for such things in writen history?
 Angel_Robertson
Joined: 2/3/2006
Msg: 23 (view)
 
armagedon,...are we close?
Posted: 5/30/2006 9:43:43 AM
...it would actually be neat to post some of the movements that started out of a belief that the end days were coming.


Movers, Shakers, and Quakers, would be some more. (those names always amuse me! :D)

then you have all the silly cults like the Ralieans and the Scientologists and those ones who worshiped Hale-Bop.

For some odd reason, even perfectly rational sane and ordinary people seem to suffer from the soothsayer doomsday virus, that problem that inflicts the mind of many and makes them think that were all doomed!

Personaly i'm looking forwards to a much happier (due to wonderfull new technolgies such as the internet) much safer (satalite tracking and the star wars program stop me worying about killer asteroids) and much warmer (yahy global warming, millions of homes may end up flooded but mine will just get warmer, less heating bills at least!) future. I can't wait for the future, it looks so fun!


.
Oh yes, and can i politely point out that Armagedon is a place in Jerusalem.
However for a good laugth, go to.... http://www.countdown.org/
 Angel_Robertson
Joined: 2/3/2006
Msg: 6 (view)
 
Biochips:Real threat to privacy or urband legend?
Posted: 5/2/2006 10:25:42 AM
Biochips are just another piece of technology, it is not inherently good or bad. What iis important is the way it is used. Atomic energy for example, is very usefull, but carries inherant risks, so we take precautions to safegaurd that technology.

I can not see any government instituting a system where its citizens can be tracked by satalite, due to forieghn security fears, just think of the kinds of things a terorist cell could use that information for. No government would want to put its people at that kind of risk without extreamly good reason.

But we sould also think of the benifits, fraud protection, protection of children, ect, the benifits could be enormous as long as the technology is ussed responsibly.
 Angel_Robertson
Joined: 2/3/2006
Msg: 11 (view)
 
What are your Beltane plans?
Posted: 4/29/2006 10:38:56 AM
HeHe. My blood sacrifice is going to be.... An 8" oz sirloin stake.

As for cattle, I don't have any, and I don't think my cats would take kindly to being walked through fires.

But none of that is actually of my religion anyway, Its all about sacrificing fruits and swords and people, but we don't do the latter two anymore cause its a bit to difficult to get a bronze sword and its a bit a cruel to kill someone and chuck them in a bog.

I don't know what my religion is actually called. It was just called the old ways to me by my family. It doesn’t involve five elements, just three, plant, rock, animal. water and fire are part of the otherworld, as is the sky.

Its not even Beltane I’m celebrating, but I do not have another name for it, to me its was just called pasture time. In my tradition, we had, the dark time, hunting time, planting time, pasture time, sowing time, and slaughter time. (and occasionally brewing time depending on if my dad had any hops! loll )

We also do not use the dates to judge our season, we use the signs of nature. You know its Pasture time, because the yellow and red flowers start to bloom. (Dog Roses for example, or Broom.) We just use the dates of some of the Pagan festivals as they are more convenient.
 Angel_Robertson
Joined: 2/3/2006
Msg: 9 (view)
 
What are your Beltane plans?
Posted: 4/29/2006 6:50:41 AM
I have started already, tonight I will be meeting friends for a Cake and Mead party, lighting a bonfire and keeping it lit till the 1st. tomorrow night we are going to a large stone circle nearby and getting drunk/stoned/naked and cavorting raucously with food and song.
Finally on Monday we will be initiating a newbie with blood and fruit sacrifices and stepping through a portal then we will be walking the coals and taking home the embers to light our own fires at home.
 Angel_Robertson
Joined: 2/3/2006
Msg: 147 (view)
 
Is there Life on other Planets?
Posted: 4/20/2006 8:17:41 AM
God so loved the world that he gave his ONLY Son ...... so it would be imposible!!!! (to have life on other planets.)


Note the word SON there. God could have a Daughter if she wanted, or any other form of being. It is possible that life on other planets will not have the same gender definitions that we have, so god could easily have only one SON yet still have a messiah on every planet, because the messiahs on other plants were not males and so not sons.


The chances of there not being life on other planets are so incredible I just can't figure them anymore. Someone once did an essay for a math class on statistical probability, and figured out that statistically, the chances of life visiting this planet are astronomical, so much so, that is statistically likely that an alien has won the lottery by now.
Now of course I do not believe that an alien has won the lottery, the point is that statistics can manipulated and used to prove any point, even contrary points, so they just do not count as valid for the sake of arguments really.

Incidentally, how would you even begin to calculate something that you do not even know the rules off. Life could be forced to develop along the exact same lines as those on earth, or it could be comparable of devolving in any conditions as long as there is water, or it may not even need water just the right temperature, or maybe temperature is not important but pressure is, ect ect. Life may not even knead carbon to develop.

To sum up, it is impossible to say what the chances of life developing anywhere are, but I prefer to believe that life can develop anywhere.
 Angel_Robertson
Joined: 2/3/2006
Msg: 221 (view)
 
Abortion
Posted: 4/20/2006 6:15:44 AM

Lighten up folks, there's a third way here, that says nada about abortion. It's an option called ADOPTION. It allows the woman to carry the baby to term without having the burdens of being a single parent. It also gives a couple who is yearning to have a child the ability to add a baby to the family. ADOPTION ROCKS!!!!


There are thousands of unwanted children in adoption and care homes in every country there is, the demand for Adoption is only a tiny fraction of the supply of children up for adoption. Are you willing to pay the extra tax to support a massive increase in care facilities I wonder?


And Late(tm), excelent post, well done. You would make a good lawyer
Just thought I would also add that the maternal death rates in some countries are not a minor amount, in Afganistan at present, the maternal death rates are 1.7 to every 100 live births.
"Illegal abortion is one of the major direct causes of maternal death. 44% of
women in the developing world (outside of China) live in countries where
abortion is allowed only to save the mother's life. Another 10% live in
countries where abortion is totally prohibited. Sadly, millions of women
unable to obtain a legal abortion on the basis of life-threatening
circumstances have subsequently died from the complications of an illegal
abortion."

So as is evidenced by the numbers, Abortion is not just a morality issue, it is very much a health issue.

"Three groups of women face the highest risk of pregnancy-related deaths --
those at either end of their reproductive cycle, those who bear children in
rapid succession, and those who have more than four children. Due to
biological factors, women under 19 and over 35 are susceptible to
complications of pregnancy. Women giving birth to children spaced less than a
year apart are twice as likely to die from preganancy-related causes than
those who have children two or more years apart."

http://www.holysmoke.org/fem/fem0230.htm
 Angel_Robertson
Joined: 2/3/2006
Msg: 160 (view)
 
Abortion
Posted: 4/17/2006 8:43:03 AM
All I can say is, thank god we live in Britain where we do not have to worry about Zealots taking away our rights.

But it is still true in the open and tolerant society of Britain today, an unwed mother will suffer discrimination and abuse from friends and family AND the government and work-sector. trying to find a job as a mother, married or not, is next to impossible, even if you have a husband and knead no day-care, most employers will not look twice at a woman with a young child. So what’s are all the mothers with no husband supposed to do? The government is perfectly willing to let them starve or go homeless, as it will only provide enough money to house OR to feed them, not both. Just think about how you would feel, if you had a child, then your partner walked out on you, leaving you to raise a child by yourself. the stigma you would receive for being a single parent, the difficulty in balancing work and family, the lack of support from any official body OR religious body. If you had the chance to prevent yourself from becoming a parent in this situation without abortion, would you take it? Now what if abortion was the only way to prevent yourself from entering this situation?




I for one was far too pregnant and emotional to debate,


lol
 Angel_Robertson
Joined: 2/3/2006
Msg: 114 (view)
 
Abortion
Posted: 4/8/2006 1:06:33 PM

Angel, is there any point when a foetus becomes of any value? When does it become a human life with a soul? Do you feel that partial birth abortion is ok as long as the woman doesn't want (or can't financially support) the baby?


To be honest, I really don't know. It’s not something I have yet ad to deal with. I've had to help out in a case where a woman’s life was at risk from an entopic pregnancy but the surgeons involved did not want to operate (For medical reasons rather than moral ones.), but I do not know if the foetus at 2 months of development, really is a human life or not. It doesn’t look human, and it can’t live without leaching nutrients from its mother, but for all I know, despite having no semblance of human life yet, it could have a soul, I just do not know.
I trust the medical professionals and the informed lawyers to make those judgments and to inform the mother of all of the possibilities, but I have also seen cases where people have not been informed about what was actually going on. I have not aided in, but know of cases where women were giving almost no information about what would happen to them and also what stage of development the unborn foetus was in.

My personal belief, is abortion is only valid for reasons other than social (for example, having enough children already or not being able to financially support one.), i.e., where a woman’s health (physical or mental) is at severe risk.

Judge Easterbrook's had this to say on Partial birth abortion, but I think it stands for most cases.


The Hope Clinic, et al. v. James E. Ryan, Attorney General of Illinois, et al., No. 98-1726 (7th Cir., October 26, 1999)

"It is always difficult for a court of appeals to predict how Justices of the Supreme Court will apply a phrase with as much plasticity as "undue burden." But our best estimate is that "undue" rather than "burden" is the key word, and that "undue" means not only "substantial" (a small cost or inconvenience is not "undue") but also that the burden must be undue in relation to the woman's interests, rather than undue in relation to the court's assessment of society's interests. Plaintiffs' (implicit) argument that every regulation of a medical procedure is "undue" fails because many regulations create small burdens. The physician-only rule was one; a prohibition of D&X is another. Even for the class of women who seek late-second-trimester abortions, there is always one or more other safe methods of abortion in addition to D&X. Let us return to the natural experiment now under way. Plaintiffs do not contend that in any of the states where a partial-birth-abortion law is in effect, even one woman has been injured or denied an abortion because of the law.




Thank you late, yes. These are the basic facts of life in a legal standing. The rights as set out by the constitution of the country and any declaration, treatise or agreement also sighed up to by that country.


The right of a citizen of a constitutional democracy inclusive of rights to self-determination; regarding ones physiology, to autonomy over their own body, and freedom from religious oppression, intolerance, and bigotry.

These are indeed the key rights in the issue, both for the mother and the foetus. For example the right to autonomy over ones own body is a right that can be waived if there is valid and sufficient reason to do so (A person suffering a mental compulsion to harm themselves for example.) Freedoms from oppression intolerance and bigotry has its obvious applications in regard to the mothers rights, but again can be waived if there is valid reason to do so.
Human rights are not automatically granted, they are earned and can be rescinded under certain conditions if the rights of others or health of the individual is at risk.




Again, not true. There are plenty of divisions in the medical community in regards to abortion. There are plenty of physicians who are against terminating Zygotes.


Sorry, you are correct, I should know by now to be more careful with my wording. What I meant to say was that, "Amongst those experts in the field, there is unity in one belief, the belief that it is presently impossible to determine when egg and sperm become a human life." It is possible to determine when they begin to develop brain tissue or when the heart starts to beat on its own or various other factors, but there is no way to yet determine what factors make a life human, perhaps it dose start with conception, or perhaps its not until the foetus can live independently of its mother. I can not say, so I will leave it up to those better informed than us to continue to strive to find out.


The most basic fact of life is a cell. Killing bacteria is not murder because bacteria are not human.


You do realise this is a contradictory statement don't you? Bacteria ARE cells.
But besides that fact, I am talking about life in the legal sense, not the biological sense, there are differences.
Bright one did make the distinction that murder is the premeditated and unlawful taking of another human life, and he also pointed out that the start of a human life is difficult to pinpoint. If the experts can not decide when human life actually begins, then why do any of us with less information believe that we can?


They were not designed to become human beings. A human zygote is alive, and it is human, hence “human life.” To terminate it is to kill a person.


And if you knew a little bit more biology you would know that this is not true. Granted a human zygote is alive, but it is not certain to become human (and I will not even go into the design argument), many embryos do not develop because they are incapable of doing so. Some can develop but will not get past certain stages of development due to not having the right genetic information. As I am not a cell biologist, I can not really go into the details of how or why, all I can say for certain is that fertilisation dose not mean that a human life will definitely be born.
 Angel_Robertson
Joined: 2/3/2006
Msg: 106 (view)
 
Abortion
Posted: 4/7/2006 4:30:02 AM
Killing a plant is not the same thing.

If you kill a plant, you do not weep over it. (Well most people don't anyway.)
If you kill an insect, you don't have self doubts becuase of it.
And as bright one said, if you kill the collection of cells that are attached to a scab, you don't think twice, nor do you think twice about having a wash and killing the bacteia on your body.
Those are all living things, but they are not given the same value as a human life. The question bright one asked is when dose a collection of cells become a human life? And that is the question that is the most important when it comes to determining the law on abortion.

Tell me something, how many of you other women have taken birth controll pills? Because some of those self same pills that most women take, have the exact same efect as an abortion, they remove the lining from the woumb and take an embryo that might have just implanted itself along with it.

If you are going to campaign against abortion because it is the death of a few undiferentiated cells, then you should campaign against almost every single medical technology we have as they almost all cause a minor amount of cell death. The medical comunity and the legal comunity are united on one front however, trying to decide when a few cells become a human life. Anyone who belives that humanity begins at the point of conception, has no understanding of the most basic facts of life.
 Angel_Robertson
Joined: 2/3/2006
Msg: 32 (view)
 
When science proves that religion is true
Posted: 4/7/2006 4:16:33 AM
Personaly I find it a bit cruel and petty that god would scater humanity and cause all of the suffering and strife that misscomunications cause, just because he thought a few people were being presumptious. all they wanted to do was to talk to god better, so why did he cause them such hardship and trouble?

But to steer back to the point now
Science can never prove religion to be true. Religion is in the realm of the psyche and science can not mesure that. It can give numbers and statistics and means and averages, but it can not tell you how the person sat next to you pericieves god.

Nor would it want to. If it was a living thing, I think science would be as unconcerened with the concept of god, as the proverbial ants. Science is only a method we use to objectivly mesure the world around us and explain the phenomena we see.

what dose wory me though, is why would you want science to prove religion anyway? religion requires faith, proof dose not, if you need proof, then you must not have enought faith. I don't meen to seem judgmental on that, but perhaps you think, "if you need proof, then why do you need proof" before you go looking for that proof.
 Angel_Robertson
Joined: 2/3/2006
Msg: 104 (view)
 
Abortion
Posted: 4/6/2006 1:54:34 PM
Meat is Murder!

Abortion is a difficult thing to do, without having zelous lunatics attach thier dogmas to a person who strugles to make the hardest choice of her life.

Tell me something, is drinking camomile tea murder? Or taking the pill, or the morning after pill? The morning after pill and camomile tea and other natural chemicals prevent the Gamete from attaching itself to the uterus and devoloping into a life or even causing the fetus to abort.

If a women takes these chemicals without knowing that they will harm her baby and it is aborted, dose that make her a murder?

If a man sells a person a gun and that gun is ussed to kill someone, is the sales person a murder?

There have been excptions to murder throught history. That is why there is a court system, to determin someones guilt.

How can any of you deny, that extream circumstances happen? If it puts a womens life at risk, then abortion is a legitimate choice for a woman to make. If you had a parasite in your gut that was killing, you wouldn't hessitate to have it removed before you died.

Murder is always murder, but a death caused by another person is not always murder. Now go away and learn a little bit about the law before you talk again.
 Angel_Robertson
Joined: 2/3/2006
Msg: 6 (view)
 
Srangest way someone has tried to witness to you..
Posted: 3/23/2006 3:04:00 AM
I had a guy witness to me in bed once.

We met at a friend’s party and I liked him, so I took him home. One thing led to another and we spent four hours having several great sex sessions. Then, whilst lying there relaxing, he suddenly asked if I beloved in god and started witnessing to me! I was understandably a bit shocked!
 Angel_Robertson
Joined: 2/3/2006
Msg: 22 (view)
 
How do you know if your faith is built on Rock or Sand?
Posted: 3/13/2006 6:04:08 PM
If someone "steps all over it" and leaves footprints on it, then it must be sand... either that or its molten rock! In eaither case, then its time to pack up and move on if you want to have firm foundations, (of course thats only if you do whan to have firm foundations).
 Angel_Robertson
Joined: 2/3/2006
Msg: 38 (view)
 
Catholics are Lazy, Buddhists are not.
Posted: 3/7/2006 11:18:59 AM
GreenEyesAndHam (I will not eat them Sam I Am.)

the problem with your anolgy would be that Chatholism would not be considered lazzy if Buddhism were true, and Buddhism would not be considered preferable if Catholism were true. It only holds if the respective religion is held to be true.

For example, if Chalism is true, then Buddhists are not doing the lords work and will go to hell for eternity. 0 work compared to 100 years of work is a definate difrance.
If Buddhism is held to be true then Catholics are likely increasing thier bad Karma and so are making more work for themselves in the next life.

Analagy are only good up to a point then they fall apart, no anolgy is ever perfect... just keep working on it!
 Angel_Robertson
Joined: 2/3/2006
Msg: 28 (view)
 
Since Man Was Created First, Why Did God Give Man Nipples?
Posted: 3/7/2006 11:06:48 AM

According to biology, the only organ with the sole purpose of pleasure is clitoris.


Thats debatable realy, the clitoris dose only provide pleasure, but that plesure leads to orgasm and orgasm drasticaly increases the chance of becoming pregnant, so you could say that ithe clitoris is there to help us concive... if you can find it!

As for male nipples, I have another question... why do mamals have nipples and no other creature? If god gave men nipples purely for plesure, then why did he give male dogs nipples and why did he not give male iguanas nipples or male sharks, do they not deserve plesure just as much as dogs and pigs and men?
 Angel_Robertson
Joined: 2/3/2006
Msg: 3557 (view)
 
Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 3/7/2006 9:40:48 AM
until you become an america citizen it will mean a lot


Its nice to know that you disregard my rights unless I am an American. Fortunately the law makes provision for anyone who is not a US citizen to still have legal rights, that means that everyone has legal status in the US and can bring or defend actions in the courts despite thier citizency. Or are you forgeting about the countles numbers of brits who have brought actions against American companies in American courts? My standing in any court in America is just as great as yours.


thank god we have the constitution over there head the constitution akways comes first!!


The constituion is PART of the legislaturew of ALL american instatutions and so is not "over thier heads" but at thier core.


if the courts deem it religious the school must cease, period.


At what point did I ever say this was not the case? You seem to be ussing the words Religious and Religion interchangeably. They are not the same thing.


there will be no christian bible studies in schools, i'm pretty sure of that.


Why not? Schools grounds are not part of the state. Go reread that diffinition of the state that you posted and tell me where in that it explains that state is defined by its property?

School grounds are property, not instatutions, and therefore are free for the use of all, the situation only becomes contrary to the establishment clause when the school bodie as an instatuion of the state becomes involved, so long as they are not involved there is no contradiction.


see ya sweetheart


Do not call me sweetheart. I have a name. Please stop ussing derogitory and sexist remarks when you talk to me, I will not be belittled by anyone.


ID case laws


Thank you for everything from there down as it just confirms what I have previously stated. Either you did not actualy read any of it, or your K&U of legal text is not very good because all of that supports my earlier posts, go back and reread if you like.

I have to appologise for not citing many examples of prior cases by the way, it is not easy easy to get hold of casenotes from America when you are in Scotland and I refuse to use the internet as a primary source.
 Angel_Robertson
Joined: 2/3/2006
Msg: 28 (view)
 
What really gets me about people with strong opinions on the Bible
Posted: 3/6/2006 4:55:43 PM
Its not just the christian types that do door to door cult sales. I have had Messianic Jews, Buddhists, Muslims and Wiccans!
None of them have been teribly convincing as they all seem to come in pairs and neither of the pairs fully agrea with themselves.

I had a pair of Messianic Jews telling me about Christ the prophet who did not seem to understand that the Christ can not be the savoiur the he claimed to be as it would go against the Torah (what with him not be a decendant of David).

I've had Muslims at the door many times, and not once have they been able to tell me why the hell they are witnessing when it dose not say anything in the Quran about doing so (to my knowldge).

The wiccans were "only" selling cadles, incence and jewlery, but it felt like a conversion atempt. They were very forward in asking about my belifs and then stating what thiers were without realy listening to me. If they had they might have noticed that I had been slatting Gardner, Crowly and Silver Ravenwolf the entire time.

The buddhists were the nicest though. They came down and invited me to an introductory seison they were running, but had originay just stoped to let me know they were telling everyone in the comunity they were there and had just moved into the area. They just wanted to keep the comuntiy abreast of new information and be neighbourly and welcoming.

But after the first vissit they kept coming back to my door asking for handouts of food to spare for the temple. When I chalenged them on this, they said that it was part of their religion for monks to live only of the kindness of others, but they did not like it when I pointed out that badgering people for food is not living of off charity!
 Angel_Robertson
Joined: 2/3/2006
Msg: 3551 (view)
 
Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 3/6/2006 3:16:05 PM

please give me a few examples where public schools are allowed to have prayer or to be taught religion. Please be exact.


I at no point said that Public Schools are allowed to lead prayers. That is misrepresentation of my words.

I did however say that it is acceptable for public schools to teach ABOUT religions. (Notice the word about in the sentence here).

1968, Epperson vs. Arkansas and 1987, Edwards vs. Aguillard. These two cases stated clearly that any teachings that were primarily religious in nature were contrary to the Establishment Clause, but they go further than that. Both Judges ruled that teachings that are not primarily religious in nature are not contrary to the Establishment Clause and as such should be left in the curriculum. Therefore teaching about religion is acceptable as long as you are teaching about that religion for a reason other than to persuade pupils to join that religion, thus it is ok to teach about the religions of ancient Rome and Egypt in history classes.

These are not my interpretations but the rulings of Two Supreme court Justices


sweetheart (the use of this term is protected under amendment 1, us constitution, freedom of speech, and don't forget you defending to the death to protect my rights)


Actually it is not, rights or the individual can be waived when they seriously impinge on the rights of another. You are free to use derogatory terms like the word sweetheart or even niger, but you are not free to refer to an individual or group with those derogatory terms as to do so seriously impinges on their rights.


please give me examples of "lies and disinformation".


Kitzmiller v Dover, 2005.

U. S. District Judge John E. Jones issued a 139-page findings of fact and decision in which he ruled that the Dover mandate was unconstitutional. Judge Jones's decision was surprisingly broad. He concluded that "ID is not science," but rather is a religious theory that had no place in the science classroom. Jones found three reasons for his conclusion that intelligent design was a religious, and not a scientific, theory. First, he found ID violated "the self-imposed convention" of the scientific method by relying upon a supernatural explanation for a natural phenomenon, rather that the approach favoured in science: testability. Second, ID is based on the same "contrived dualism" as creation science, namely its suggestion that every piece of evidence tending to discredit evolution confirms intelligent design. Jones found ID's "irreducible complexity" argument to be "a negative argument against evolution, not proof of design." Finally, Jones concluded that the expert testimony offered by the defendants in support of ID had been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers.


Are you going to join the military to defend to the death so others may have there rights?


No as this was a term of speech and not literal, It would be impossible for me to defend to the death your rights whilst in the army wherein I would have my rights striped down. The army is not there to defend your rights; it is there to defend your interests such as property and home range, and to defend your life and person. Your liberties are guaranteed by the government’s rule of law, not by the army.


I view it as a legal document which inhibits the government absolute any involvement of religion and gives the people complete religious freedom, but outside federal institutions. Is this a dichotomy, no. It does take thought. Public schools are institutions which fall under Federal law. In short, federal law requires these institutions to be void of religion, period.


However that is not what the law actually states. The law states that congress shall make no law regarding OR PROHIBITNG the freedom of expression. The law dose not require the schools themselves to be void of religious teaching. The law requires that the school bodies do not teach religion. This is an important difference as it means that prayer is acceptable at school, so long as it is not taken by the school bodies (i.e. teachers, headmasters, ect.). Bible study groups can have space allocated to them, just as music groups can, because space on school grounds is not part of the school bodies, only premises. But unlike music groups they can not receive school funding as to do so could be seen as an endorsement by the school bodies.


As I have pointed out above, public schools are state institutions. It is a clear example of "separation of church and state".


The separation of church and state is not a literal one; it is a separation of the institutions of the church and the institutions of the state. There is to be no law passed by church, and there is to be no religion in the mandatory of the state. But the church may use state grounds such as schools, jails and courts. In most court houses, hospitals and jails there is a place set aside for religious activity such as prayer that can be used freely by anyone. The law is not against the use state premises being used for religious activity, it is against state legislature contain religious worship.
I would also like to point out that worship and teaching is not the same thing. It is possible to teach about something without worshiping something.


What do her not being an American have anything to do with it except maybe she doesn’t live with it in her heart.


My not being American has no bearing on this discussion at all. It’s just interesting that’s all.


anyone 3 miles off our coast lines, or cross a border, has no standing in American Law, period, get it!


Really? So the fact that I have spent years learning US legislature makes no difference at all, I’m not American and therefore MUST be ignorant and thick? What about US citizens on holiday, do they no longer count as American when they go abroad?


the points she got wrong I pointed out, hence she belittles us Americans and she distributes false laws to unassuming America readers of her so called logic. Those who read her posts should also review her profile.


At no point have I attempted to belittle anyone, nor have I spread false laws. I have explained clearly the law as set out in the US constitution, as any American lawyer would follow.


My school was null of religion except in assembly and only in song, My understanding today is it has been stopped many years ago.


Did you not receive any education in history at all then? It is impossible to teach over half of the history of Britain or America without religion being involved. Or was the Holocaust just never mentioned in your school?


First bit of illogical thinking. States must follow federal law when it comes to federal institutions such as public schools, hereafter mention as school, court house, states and their institutions.


I'm afraid the poor grasp of logic is on your sides. Schools, court houses, ect, are the foundations in which Public institutions are housed, not the institutions themselves. The institution consists of its peoples and its legislature, not its property.


the down side is she confused individual rights with federal law on its institutions including state law to comply with federal law,


No I did not. The sections of amendment 5 and 14 that I posted are further support to amendment 1. Individual rights to worship and to be taught what they chose are part of the debate and can not be ignored. The state must respect the rights of individuals to worship as they chose as is stated in amendment 5 and 14. The state must also allow the citizens to be taught in an atmosphere free from religious persecution and allow the citizens to be taught what they chose. The state can not deny its citizens the right to chose their education.

In other words, the state can not force you to learn about god, nor can it deny you the right to learn about god. This is personal freedom, as guaranteed under amendments 5 and 14. That is why I included them.


About using the word sweetheart, I then read her profile and saw the photo she posted. I kind of understand why she blasted off as she did. It wasn't impressive. I used the word twice and another male follower stepped in


Well to each their own.

“Are you disrespecting me? Do I look bovered?”
 Angel_Robertson
Joined: 2/3/2006
Msg: 717 (view)
 
What do you hate most about being single?
Posted: 3/5/2006 10:09:47 AM
A complete lack of sex.

That and no one to hold you at night. No one to cuddle when youve had a hard day. No one to tell you you look great in the morning, even when you look like $#!+.
 Angel_Robertson
Joined: 2/3/2006
Msg: 3538 (view)
 
Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 3/5/2006 9:46:55 AM
I should probably point out that I do not wish to see Creation taught in school as it is lies and disinformation, but whilst I may object to your right to expound religious doctrine, I will defend to the death your right to do so, for that is what the law is about. It is not to take sides, but to be fare and equal to all, no matter their beliefs and viewpoints.

I completely disagree with the idea that creation could ever be taught as science, there is no evidence to support such a position, but creation can be taught as a valid religious viewpoint outside of science class rooms, and as such I will always defend the right of any public institution to teach it outside of science class rooms.

Isn’t it ironic that the secularist is arguing that it should be allowed to be taught in school and the Christian is arguing that it should not!
 Angel_Robertson
Joined: 2/3/2006
Msg: 3537 (view)
 
Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 3/5/2006 9:34:35 AM
passportcharlie, Do not ever call me “Sweetheart”. Address me with the proper decorum that I show you, by using either my online handle or by using my actual name (which you will find is also my online handle).

Also, YOU need to go further into constitutional amendments to read the clarification of article 1, article 5 and article 14.
The case you are citing was not one concerned with the teaching of religion, but was concerned with the freedom of worship. This is cited in clause 5 and 14 and protected under those, rather than under clause 1. This case has no bearing on ruling over the teaching of religion in public institutions.

But as you are "OBVIOUSLY" (insert sarcasm here) better versed in the US constitution than I am how about we settle this fairly with a mock court. I will put forwards my case and you can counter my arguments with valid case citations and precedence, then you can put forwards your case and I will respond with valid case citations and precedence. Then the jury of those reading this thread can vote on who is correct.

Either that or you could just admit that you were wrong to assert that clause 1 “separation of church and state”, has any bearing on weather or not religion can be taught about in school.
 Angel_Robertson
Joined: 2/3/2006
Msg: 3519 (view)
 
Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 3/4/2006 12:24:28 PM

The law forbids religion to be taught in schools. There are no arguments for religion.


How many times dose it need to be pointed out that you are wrong on this point, before it gets through to you! Stopping flogging that horse, its dead already!

I can't speak for the science side of things, but others are doing a perfectly good job of that, but as someone who spends their entire working life with their nose in the law, I can tell you FOR A FACT, that the law states the ENDOSMENT of religions will not be tolerated in US schools, but it dose not forbid the teaching of religion in anyway. It is not just the first amendment though, the fifth and fourteenth also support the right to religious freedom.

" Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

" nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; "

" No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. ............
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."

Thus by US law, it is clear that no law can be made restricting or endorsing Religious freedoms and the right of any state to teach of religion so long as they do not actively endorse that religion.

Why dose it fall to a foreigner to point out that teaching creation as religion is not unconstitutional, but teaching it as science is?
 Angel_Robertson
Joined: 2/3/2006
Msg: 30 (view)
 
Before Christianity
Posted: 2/20/2006 9:37:06 AM

Their first three children were Cain, Abel, and Seth: all sons. But Genesis tells us they had other sons and daughters.


Please note that in the first few books of the bible there is no acount of the women born. the ansestry came down through the male and so only the males of each generation were recorded.

As for heaven and hell before christ, the covenant god made with his children was from the time of Adam onwards. Jesus came to absolve all of sin, but those from before Jesus could still ask god for absolution. All that happened with the heven hell situation after Jesus came was that it was Easier to gain gods favour. God mellowed out a lot when he had a son.
 Angel_Robertson
Joined: 2/3/2006
Msg: 40 (view)
 
The tree of Life
Posted: 2/17/2006 10:14:56 AM

and it would make humans like gods


I think the important word here Rio, is that they will become LIKE gods, it dose not say they will become gods, just like gods, so there must be some other aspect to godlieness that knowldge of good and evil, and imortality, dose not take into acount.
 Angel_Robertson
Joined: 2/3/2006
Msg: 2 (view)
 
Jesus the one son of God? Something doesn't add up.
Posted: 2/15/2006 11:02:44 AM
Some people belive that Jesus is but one son of god, one who knew gods love clearer than all others. And we are all sons of god with the ability to be like Jesus in life if we only know grace.

Others belive that god was incarnate as Jesus, so we are the spitiual children of god, but Jesus was his form manifest.

There are many difrent views on this, but my view is that Jesus was but one son of god, and we are all gods children. He is our Godfather! :)
 Angel_Robertson
Joined: 2/3/2006
Msg: 6 (view)
 
Does God change his mind and repent his actions?
Posted: 2/15/2006 10:53:26 AM
KJV Gen 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

 Angel_Robertson
Joined: 2/3/2006
Msg: 6 (view)
 
The tree of Life
Posted: 2/15/2006 10:52:58 AM
KJV Gen 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

 Angel_Robertson
Joined: 2/3/2006
Msg: 2 (view)
 
Does God change his mind and repent his actions?
Posted: 2/15/2006 8:23:01 AM
(just posted this in another thread but its relevant here)

God lied to Adam. He tells Adam that if he eats from the fruit of the tree of knowldge of good and evil, that he will die on the same day. Yet as you know he did not, he lived a good 800 years after that day outside of the garden of Eden.

Either god lied, or he changed his mind. But the bible clearly states that god can not lie, and also that god dose not ever change his mind.
 Angel_Robertson
Joined: 2/3/2006
Msg: 3 (view)
 
The tree of Life
Posted: 2/15/2006 8:21:12 AM
You will also find that god lied to Adam. He tells Adam that if he eats from the fruit of the tree of knowldge of good and evil, that he will die on the same day. Yet as you know he did not, he lived a good 800 years after that day.

Another thing to consider, Adam and eve were sin free and naked before eating the fruit, then they gained knowledge of sin and covered their bodies, which displeased god. So if we are ignorant of sin, dose that mean we are free of sin? And dose god want us to live in ignorance of sin?

Personaly I think what god was woried about, was that if Adam had knowledge of good and evil, and would live for ever, then he would no longer nead god. He would know how to maintain the gardens of the world in a good way for all, and would have no fear of death and so would nead no promise of a paradise afterlife.
 Angel_Robertson
Joined: 2/3/2006
Msg: 3477 (view)
 
Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 2/15/2006 8:13:00 AM
Why do so many non-Americans know Aamerican law beter than the Aamericans?

Two clauses in the First Amendment guarantee freedom of religion. The establishment clause prohibits the government from passing legislation to establish an official religion or preferring one religion over another. It enforces the "separation of church and state."

The free exercise clause prohibits the government, in most instances, from interfering with a persons practice of their religion.

This makes no mention of preventing the teaching of religion, in fact it states that as no religion is prefered over another, all religions and religious viewpoints are given equal status.

The law dose not prevent religion being taught in school, only religion being taught as science.
 Angel_Robertson
Joined: 2/3/2006
Msg: 41 (view)
 
Christianity an offshoot of pagan. or a mix of this and that???
Posted: 2/15/2006 8:00:46 AM
I would just like people to understand that they are not alone in the world. They do not have to fight against others beliefs. If you treat others as you would have them treat you, then the world would be a caring place.

Sadly this will never happen, men are want to hate. It's the nature of humanity.

I would also like for people to understand where thier holidays come from. Almost every religious holiday is based in anchient practice and comes from inportant non-religious days.

Christmas for example is the winter solicstice. Easter is the Spring equinox. Valentines day is the officail start of Spring and also the time that many animals, such as sheep and boar, start mating.
 Angel_Robertson
Joined: 2/3/2006
Msg: 10 (view)
 
Is Hell Eternal?
Posted: 2/14/2006 1:34:51 PM

"Is hell exothermic or endothermic? Support your answer with proof."

Most students wrote proofs of their beliefs using Boyle's Law or some variant. One student, however, wrote the following:

"First, We postulate that if souls exist, then they must have some mass. If they do, then a mole of souls can also have a mass. So, at what rate are souls moving into hell and at what rate are souls leaving? I think we can safely assume that once a soul gets to hell, it will not leave.

Therefore, no souls are leaving. As for souls entering hell, let's look at the different religions that exist in the world today. Some of these religions state that if you are not a member of their religion, then you will go to hell. Since there are more than one of these religions and people do not belong to more than one religion, we can project that all people and souls go to hell. With birth and death rates as they are, we can expect the number of souls in hell to increase exponentially.

Now, we look at the rate of change in volume in hell. Boyle's Law states that in order for the temperature and pressure in hell to stay the same, the ratio of the mass of souls and volume needs to stay constant. Two options exist:

If hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which souls enter hell, then the temperature and pressure in hell will increase until all hell breaks loose.
If hell is expanding at a rate faster than the increase of souls in hell, then the temperature and pressure will drop until hell freezes over.
So which is it? If we accept the quote given to me by Theresa Manyan during Freshman year, "that it will be a cold night in hell before I sleep with you" and take into account the fact that I still have NOT succeeded in having sexual relations with her, then Option 2 cannot be true...Thus, hell is exothermic."
 Angel_Robertson
Joined: 2/3/2006
Msg: 3473 (view)
 
Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 2/14/2006 1:27:31 PM

Anyhow, evolution is a THEORY. It's never been proven to be fact.


It has been explained in this thread many, many times (it took me two full days to read this thread! ) Evolution is a fact, The theory part is the mechanism by which Evolution works, namely Natural Selection.


Things of the earth did not just magically appear out of nowhere with such vast design without divine intervention. That is just not logical.


Evolution and Abiogenisis do not claim this though. They claim that things came about slowly, changing from simple forms to more complex forms untill we have the world we see around us. Only Creation claims the world sprang into existance as is, in all its complexity.
 Angel_Robertson
Joined: 2/3/2006
Msg: 673 (view)
 
Why is smoking pot a crime?
Posted: 2/10/2006 3:10:22 PM

Imagine the money and manpower that would be saved that could be better utilized going after real crime and harder more harmful illegal drugs.


Not only that, but if you legalise, you can do what every government loves to do, and TAX it. IMAGINE how much tax you could get from pot. It would also benifit the economy, as it would then be posible to grow it commercialy and domesticaly, thus proiding jobs for farmers, security gaurds, processers, dealers, ect ect. It could also be sold as medicine for a variety of aliments and would boost drug research.

It would be very good for the economy in that respect, but of course there is also a flipside. It would take money away fromthe drugs copanies as VIABLE alternatives to thier meddices would be avaliable at last. It would put America in a severly compromised position with regards to thier foregien policy. It would pave the way for other drug lobists including the tobaco camp, to appeal. It would lower the Perceptions of other countries towards America.

All of these things would be far more detrimental to the economy than the benifits, so it remains illeagal.


Plus, no politicain wants to be known as the one who legalised pot!
 Angel_Robertson
Joined: 2/3/2006
Msg: 672 (view)
 
Why is smoking pot a crime?
Posted: 2/10/2006 2:57:48 PM

We all know alcohol and tobacco which are legal and governement sanctioned are safe,don't we?


Well Britain is working very hard to rectify half of that... It willbe Illeagle to smoke anything at all in public places as of june. So people can only smoke in thier homes from then on. And also the legal age for purhcase will go up to 18, or 21 in some areas.
It was very dificult to achieve, because ever time the govenment tried to pass laws to restrct the sale and use of cigaretts, they got sued by big American companies triying to protect thier interests.

But they are letting themselves down by making it easer to buy alcohol with 24 hour drinking licenses. Aparently it will reduce the amount of drinking, but I don't see how. They do at least have plans inplace for making drinking alcohol much more dificult and expensive, but I don't know the details of those couldn't be bothered reading that office memo cause I was drunk! lol
 Angel_Robertson
Joined: 2/3/2006
Msg: 20 (view)
 
Stories about weird stuff falling from the sky (the end is nigh)
Posted: 2/10/2006 1:42:09 PM
Its important to note, that only water creatures, fruits, nuts or hay are dropped in these kinds of showers.

The explanation is very simple, a string upwell creates a vortex. The vortex travels over an orchard, hayfield or body of water, and sucks up the fruit/nuts (and leaves), haystacks or water (including anything in the water).

Evidence for this kind of ocourance dose exist, with orchards that have been striped bare overnight and ponds empted without any evidence of tampering. There is even an eyewitnes acount of a man who saw a haybail take of and fly across a field before raining down on a small village.

Once born aloft, the objects travel untill the updraft weakens enogth to drop the objects.

As a chestnut is heavier than a chestnut leaf, the cestnuts are droped a long time before the leaves. With frogs, the heaviest objects would be droped first, most likely the plants, then the fish or frogs then finaly the water. But because the objects are moving throught the air, they would each be droped in a difrent place.

Its not realy suppernatural, just rare and odd.

Dose anyone remeber the story about a diver found dead in the middle of a forest, who was supposedly picked up by a water helicopter and droped on the fire. An american TV program called Mythbusters proved that it was simply imposible for him to have been picked up by a water helicopter as they have safegaurds against that kind of risk. So the fact of his death can only be explained by two posobilities. Either a man in a diving suit, flipers, mouth pice, gogles, diving tank and weights was walking through the forset, miles away from the nearest water source... or he was picked up by a tornado and droped over the area (lightniong fom the thudercloud beairing the tornado could posibly have started the fire as well).
 Angel_Robertson
Joined: 2/3/2006
Msg: 68 (view)
 
There are no similaries, just drone's repeating the same ficticious history
Posted: 2/9/2006 9:13:08 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mithraism#Mithraism_in_early_Rome

http://altreligion.about.com/library/weekly/aa052902a.htm

http://altreligion.about.com/library/graphics/bl_savior11.htm

http://altreligion.about.com/library/graphics/bl_savior18.htm

That should help you out with finding evidence of conections between Catholism and other Sol-Invictus cults.


(edit)

I finaly found this after a hard search. An archaeological record and explination of the temple beneathe the vatican WITH photographic proof of the claims made earlier by SFL about both the inscription and the names of Mithras.

http://www.ostia-antica.org/regio2/8/8-6.htm
 Angel_Robertson
Joined: 2/3/2006
Msg: 62 (view)
 
Archaeology and the Bible!
Posted: 2/9/2006 8:32:49 AM
Oh right, well thats harldy the same thing now is it realy. You gave the impresion we all went around rubbing out gravestaones. (But the impresion we are all money grubing bigots is probly a bit closer to the truth! lol ) Of course, nowerdays, they could find out for certain who is who with DNA, but that would require DESECRATING all of the graves!
 Angel_Robertson
Joined: 2/3/2006
Msg: 65 (view)
 
There are no similaries, just drone's repeating the same ficticious history
Posted: 2/9/2006 8:26:10 AM

And you've probably heard it before, but it's easier to prove the existence of Jesus than of Napoleon.


Realy? Because I have been to Paris and seen where Napoleons body is burried, but I would love to see where Jesus body is even more!


Sure, there are many web sites, but every single one of them are based on fewer people than you have fingers on one hand! I need to see some non-biased history. A book which neither defends nor attacks Christianity would be fine.


Try a few of these, they have extensive information on historical fact without any religious bias.

Bahn, Paul., and Colin Renfrew. Archaeology: Theories, Methods and Practice. London: Thames and Hudson Ltd, 1991.

Robbins, Lawrence H. Stones, Bones and Ancient Cities. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1990.

Stiebing, William. Uncovering the Past. Buffalo, New York: Prometheus Books, 1993.

Halstead, Paul and John M. O'Shea1982 A friend in need is a friend indeed: social storage and the origins of social ranking. In Ranking, resource, and exchange. Colin Renfrew and Stephen Shennan, eds. Pp. 92-99. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lesure, Richard G. and Michael Blake 2002 Interpretive Challenges in the Study of Early Complexity: Economy, Ritual, and Architecture at Paso de la Amada, Mexico. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 21(1):1-24.


And those only took a few seconds to find. Imagine how many THOUSANDS of books you could find if you actualy bothered to LOOK for them!


Claims of similarities with the sun god and such. All these claims of similarities...they're just not there.


Realy? Try a search for Cuchulain and Archaeology and you should find something prety quickly. These stories were not made up just 50 years ago to discreadit Christianity, my grandmother rembers hearing them from her mother (who was from Ulster).

If you are going to argue against something, at least check out your sources first.
 Angel_Robertson
Joined: 2/3/2006
Msg: 60 (view)
 
Archaeology and the Bible!
Posted: 2/9/2006 7:47:09 AM

in Scotland they erase names on gravestones


Realy??? Thats news to me, all these graveyards I have been to and I never realised I was just imagining the names on them.
 Angel_Robertson
Joined: 2/3/2006
Msg: 9 (view)
 
Dinosaurs and the Bible!
Posted: 2/7/2006 11:20:22 AM
Bronze and Iron in the days of the bible were EXTREAMLY rare, they were never made into very large objects as the technology was not avaliable, so it is EXTREAMLY unlikely they were talking about size when refering to the properties of the behomoths bones. I would sugest they were referiung to things that bronze and iron were most known for, strength. but that dose not sugest dinosaur, elephant, rhino and hippo bones are extreamly strong, enougth that you can build houses from them.

I do not think there is any mention of dinosaurs in the bible as they did not know about such things back then.
 Angel_Robertson
Joined: 2/3/2006
Msg: 54 (view)
 
Faith the size of a Mustard seed..
Posted: 2/7/2006 11:14:00 AM

Considering I haven't heard of any recent mountain movings...


They move mountains in Japan because they belive its posible... ok so they use realy big digers and lots of them, but still, Jesus never said HOW you would be able to move the mountain, just that if you have faith, then you will.


Its like trying to get 30 gallons of love. Love is not a physically measurable object so the goal is impossible.


Are you sure about that? I'm sure Ive had more than 30 gallons of love so far! LMFAO! (cou;dnt resist that one )
 Angel_Robertson
Joined: 2/3/2006
Msg: 30 (view)
 
Similarities with other Gods and Jesus
Posted: 2/7/2006 10:53:14 AM
To say what religions predate Abraham, you nead to answer one thing.

When was Abraham?

Unless he dated back 10 to 15 thousand years ago, he certainly did not predate the oldest known religion in Scotland. We know little about the religion itself, mainly that the people worshiped a pregnant idol, which is known as the mother cult, over 10,000 years ago. We know that their worship included the use of water, from the sites they used, we also know that used geometry and the nomber 12 crops up a lot in the structure of thier worship sites. Its not known how any of this relates to thier religion if at all, but it dose show a cominality of theames. I somehow doubt that you will find any evidence that there was an Abraham from before or even around that time.
 Angel_Robertson
Joined: 2/3/2006
Msg: 251 (view)
 
Does god exist?
Posted: 2/7/2006 10:36:14 AM

Science tells us that matter cannot come from just light and heat, and therefore could not have come from the singularity that had no matter in it, just light and heat.


Not true at all, you have read the special theory of relitvity have you?

Let me sum up the most important point. Energy equals Mass, times the squared Speed of Light. or E=MC'2

This means that mater, motion, and energy are a carefull ballence, mass can be created from eneryg and motion. By reducing one, to keep the balance either the other must be increased, or mass must be created. This is why mass can not reach the speed of light, to do so would require infinte energy.

What I am saying is that mass can be created by energy because Einstein prooved it. The universe could similarly be created from no mass without the nead for a god to start things off. All that is required, is for energy or the speed of light to be eternal and as far as we know they are, they will remain the same after the end of the universe and as far as hypothetical phsics go, were the same before the start of the universe.

The phisical constraints of this world, do NOT REQUIRE a god to start them, and they also do NOT PROCLUDE a god from doing so. there is no way to know, so it is simply a mater of faith and nothing more.
 Angel_Robertson
Joined: 2/3/2006
Msg: 42 (view)
 
Miracles VS Magic & Tricks
Posted: 2/6/2006 12:35:32 PM

By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God,


Dose that mean that as long as a spirit claims it is sent by god, that it is and so comuning with it and any foresight gained is prohetic????
 Angel_Robertson
Joined: 2/3/2006
Msg: 10 (view)
 
Similarities with other Gods and Jesus
Posted: 2/6/2006 12:28:16 PM

you seem to forget that the original story of Jesus is supposed to have been told long before he was supposed to have been born and supposed to have lived on the earth. It is therefore just as conceivable that the numerous other "gods" were created out of the original prophecies of Jesus by those impatient and unwilling to wait for the real one to show up.


What about those that predate the original stories of Jesus?

The Torah is the originator of the bible and the place in which Jesus is Prophosised. The Torah dose not date back more than 4000 years, but the Virgin Isis (Eset) story dates back 6000 years and the Diuja/Pajawo of Mycenaean dates back 4000 years at least. These stories are synonymous with the story of Jesus.

The ting is, they are bound to have comonalities in them. Origin stories and such like are an essential part of religious understanding, and all come from the same basic needs in mankind. so they will have comonaliteies in them even though they are not related or evn aware of each other. Look at the number of pyramid like buildings around the world despite the difrent cultures never meeting one another.
 
Show ALL Forums