General
02 Feb 16
02 Jul 16
Originally posted by sonhouseWell, I'd like to respond to all that, but since it's just your own personal religious opinion, and, since as you say "are whatever the individual says they are", then discussing it, according to your opinion on the matter, is meaningless.
belief systems are not loss and accounting. They are whatever the individual says they are. If someone worships bearded dragons then for that person bearded dragons is that person's god.
It is not his loss that he doesn't believe in your belief system.
Isn't it interesting almost every religion thinks their religion is THE religion while all others ...[text shortened]... d human attributes and then wars are fought over these attributes.
Pretty sick if you ask me.
Your perspective renders the purpose of debate nil and void. That's sad.
"ALL manmade so each religion gives their god human attributes and then wars are fought over these attributes."
That's the saddest thing of all. You know why? Because it's false.
But what's even sadder is having a mind so convinced it's right that there's no room for the possibility of being wrong, that there is a creator, and that 98% of all human beings don't know who God is, or how to know Him.
Wars are fought not because of religious differences, but because of the lack of the knowledge of the truth.
03 Jul 16
Originally posted by josephwYou apparently have accepted creationism as fact. Please tell us how you arrived at that conclusion.
But what's even sadder is having a mind so convinced it's right that there's no room for the possibility of being wrong, that there is a creator, and that 98% of all human beings don't know who God is, or how to know Him.
03 Jul 16
Originally posted by HandyAndy"Please tell us...?" What is this, an audience? lol
You apparently have accepted creationism as fact. Please tell us how you arrived at that conclusion.
It's spiritual. Not of human origin. How could it be otherwise if indeed God really does exist? Follow what I'm saying?
You're asking me how I arrived at the conclusion that God created all that exists. In a nut shell, because I believed God.
But there's a deeper longer story. There were other "conclusions" I had arrived at before I believed God.
But I think you're being disingenuous. You've made up your mind, and you're set in your ways. Unless you're not exactly sure of yourself and are questioning the meaning and purpose of your own existence, and in doubt of the validity of your position on the issue of the existence of a creator God, and are aware of the fatal flaw inwardly, and are seeking its resolution, why bother asking?
Do you really want to know? Or are you just bored with yourself today and found something in the general forum you can toy with for your amusement?
I can't stand phonies. Are you a phony?
03 Jul 16
Originally posted by josephwWhich just goes to prove my point. "Wars are fought not because of religious differences, but because of the lack of the knowledge of the truth."
Well, I'd like to respond to all that, but since it's just your own personal religious opinion, and, since as you say "are whatever the individual says they are", then discussing it, according to your opinion on the matter, is meaningless.
Your perspective renders the purpose of debate nil and void. That's sad.
[b]"ALL manmade so each religion gives t ...[text shortened]... ght not because of religious differences, but because of the lack of the knowledge of the truth.
You illustrate my point that only YOUR truth is THE truth.
The same would be said in Islam or Judaism or Hinduism or any other ism but from their perspective, thus leading to religious wars.
My point: A deity capable of bringing in an entire universe would have no enemies as depicted in the bible, because any such enemy could also make entire universes and as such, they would only just make a universe of their own design, negating the need to engage such a deity in OUR universe.
Therefore it is clear the whole myth is just that: Myth, made up by men just as the 7 day creation myth was first written in ancient Egypt, far older that Judaism.
That is not truth. That is plagiarism.
03 Jul 16
1 edit
Originally posted by josephwMy question is perfectly on topic as I am responding to what you posted - how can it be off topic 😕
Learn how to ask a salient question succinctly. And maybe even try to stay on topic.
The question which you now seem to be deliberately avoiding is separately parragraphed in the bottom have of my post which is the third one down on Page 77.
03 Jul 16
Originally posted by sonhouseYour point illustrates the absurdity of your point. You make the absurd claim that God is a man made thing, then go on to invent ideas about what a God, if there was one, would do.
Which just goes to prove my point. "Wars are fought not because of religious differences, but because of the lack of the knowledge of the truth."
You illustrate my point that only YOUR truth is THE truth.
The same would be said in Islam or Judaism or Hinduism or any other ism but from their perspective, thus leading to religious wars.
My point: A ...[text shortened]... rst written in ancient Egypt, far older that Judaism.
That is not truth. That is plagiarism.
Which proves my point. There is only one God, and He defines Himself.
That's not MY truth. I didn't make it up. But your absurd argument is all man made. You made it up. It's YOUR truth, not THE TRUTH.
03 Jul 16
Originally posted by josephwYou still don't get it. You are living in the universe you created where your deity is THE TRUE deity and everyone else's deity is false.
Your point illustrates the absurdity of your point. You make the absurd claim that God is a man made thing, then go on to invent ideas about what a God, if there was one, would do.
Which proves my point. There is only one God, and He defines Himself.
That's not MY truth. I didn't make it up. But your absurd argument is all man made. You made it up. It's YOUR truth, not THE TRUTH.
THAT is my point.
03 Jul 16
Originally posted by divegeesterBefore you post something you should make sure you have things strait. You don't have a post on page 77.
My question is perfectly on topic as I am responding to what you posted - how can it be off topic 😕
The question which you now seem to be deliberately avoiding is separately parragraphed in the bottom have of my post which is the third one down on Page 77.
I found this on page 87 though. Is this the question you're referring to that's got you all upset?
"It is written as through there are others who could have established this but not attempted it or who don't have the power to. Is it just a surperfluous suffix of waffly grandstanding added on to provide some sort of legitimacy to the primary statement, or is there some sort backhanded way of saying the are those on other worlds who could somehow mix the the will of God and man?"
That's just odd. Hate to say it, but what else can I say? Here, I'll dismantle it for you so you can see what I mean.
"It is written as through there are others who could have established this but not attempted it or who don't have the power to."
No it's not. Just ask Freaky what he meant by "it". That assertion is void of context.
"Is it just a surperfluous suffix of waffly grandstanding added on to provide some sort of legitimacy to the primary statement,.."
Talk about "waffly"! That statement is light years from the topic, contributes nothing to the subject and serves as nothing less than an obfuscation void of content or meaning.
"...or is there some sort backhanded way of saying the are those on other worlds who could somehow mix the the will of God and man?"
Jesus, I'd hate to be in your head when you made that one up! Just bizarre.
03 Jul 16
2 edits
Originally posted by josephwOK OK page 87.
Before you post something you should make sure you have things strait. You don't have a post on page 77.
I found this on page 87 though. Is this the question you're referring to that's got you all upset?
[b]"It is written as through there are others who could have established this but not attempted it or who don't have the power to. Is it just a surpe ...[text shortened]... God and man?"
Jesus, I'd hate to be in your head when you made that one up! Just bizarre.[/b]
The question is not bizarre, your, or to be fair FreakyKBH's original statement is bizarre.
I'm really not that bothered and I think you know exactly what I'm getting at and are just avoiding responding, so I'll just let it go.
Peace.
03 Jul 16
Originally posted by RBHILLAre you kidding? They don't WANT to be proven one way or the other. They want to keep selling flatasss books that keeps them rich.
With some flat earthers that have lots of money I am surprised that there has not been a reality show made of people going to the South or North pole yet to prove it once and for all.
The last thing they would do would be to mount an expedition to Antarctica. Besides, it has already been done in 1947 by a joint US/French naval fleet, circumnavigating Antarctica.
They have no choice but to dis every space going nation, saying it is some kind of huge international conspiracy because there are literally thousands of images from space clearly showing both the curvature of Earth and a complete image of Antarctica from space, which is pretty hard because most orbits are within about 30 degrees of the equator, and don't get close to the south pole so it takes a special craft in a polar orbit way up, like 10,000 miles up or so over the poles to get full pictures but it has been done and of course the flatassers just deny deny deny which is just too bad too bad too bad. They lost all their credibility when they dissed the entire world space program, firmly putting the whole outfit in the extreme far outness and none of their so-called arguments amount to a hill of beans. More like a hill of fluff that comes out of clothes dryers.