Originally posted by rwingettNope. Not the same. Evolutionists say personality evolved from no personality, mind from no mind, consciousness from no consciousness, thought from thoughtless material,.
GENESIS 2:7 then the Lord God formed man of [b]dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.
Sounds like a Gospel of Dirt to me. But that ain't Darwin talkin'.[/b]
Sure Genesis 2 says man's body was formed from the dust of the ground. Too bad for you that's only one verse about the making of man.
You conveniently ignored Genesis 1:26, 27 about God creating man in His own image and according to His own likeness.
So life randomly evolving from material is not the same as God forming man's body from the dust of the ground and creating man in the image of God.
2 edits
Originally posted by rwingettIt's the Gospel of Dust not dirt you filthy blasphemer. And Dust is much cleaner and thus more morally perfect than dirt.
So god is made from dirt too? It is a Gospel of Dirt after all.
EDIT: Here's a little poem about Genesis 1:
The Legend of the Dust Gods
That was Bayonne years and years ago,
or maybe Paterson, not William's Paterson
but a Paterson collaborated on by Giger and Bosch
with credit for inspiration going to Harlan Ellison
and his angry, sad, snarky smile.
In those days dark clouds thick with
dark prophecy mated with exhausted gray slums
and turned into people, people with cleft
eyes and bloodshot palates and snakeskin
souls, dry souls rustling in the smoggy breeze.
Most of us were carnivores then, jolly
cannibals and Hannibals, grave
Casanovas wooing the Reaper; the
Reaper was such a sexy bitch, we just couldn't
keep our hands from roaming up her skirts.
The super-heroes didn't fight crime
in those cities, they were too afraid,
they wasted away at the Lion, a local
bar and traded tips on logos and
how to get stains out of a cape.
We loved it, truly we did, and we
gave thanks to the dust gods, the
dust gods made it all possible, they
carried us in clenched fists and let us
mainline love and smoke eros for a kiss.
Absolution, abolition, it all looked good
to a suburban white boy, a whole hell of
a lot better than hanging out, dead stare
sucking on a bottle of Pepsi, pissing a young
life away in the parking lot of a 7-11.
Once in a while the dust gods would
stir, Lovecraftian, epic, they rose
and surveyed and lilies for the dead
blossomed in their eyes, bursting soil
and tenements, jackhammer stamen, blasphemy pistil.
The dust gods, ancient as childhood and
more tender than a fascist dream marching
through the skull of a lonely young man,
subjugation to a more profound violation, these
gods were our gods and the jackboots rang their song.
Everything came together in their maw
and the super-heroes told tales of their
"Golden Age" and shambled home to sleep it off;
it went down in Bayonne or maybe Paterson
and we all woke up next to the Reaper
some as lovers
some as mere tricks.
ropescorner.com/chris02.html
Originally posted by jaywillGenesis 2:7 says man was made from dirt (dust).
So? So, you decide to not read and understand.
So you decide to ignore Genesis 1:26,27 and a host of other passages on man being made according to God.
Genesis 1:26,27 says that man made in god's image and after his likeness.
Therefore, if man is made from dust and if he is made in god's image, we can reasonably conclude that god is also made from dust.
6 edits
Originally posted by rwingettAre you an atheist?
Genesis 2:7 says man was made from dirt (dust).
Genesis 1:26,27 says that man made in god's image and after his likeness.
Therefore, if man is made from dust and if he is made in god's image, we can reasonably conclude that god is also made from dust.
I wonder because I notice that one of the first traits I see in atheists is that they think they are very clever.
You use phrases like "reasonably conclude". Sounds good. But from what I see your intention with the Bible is not to reasonably conclude but to labor as hard as possible at misunderstanding.
Besides, I suspect that you will soon fall back on your other unsubstantiated excuse from the other thread - that we don't know what was really written by the prophet.
Remember? The gospels don't really represent Christ's teaching. You defended that bogus argument with a "Yawn" and an escape to the Saturday Ball Game. Now you come over hear flaunting that you desire to "reasonably conclude" something from the Bible.
I think it is a prevailing characteristic of atheists that they deem themselves as very clever.
By the way "gospel of dirt" used to discribe scott's religion of Darwinism is accurate. Darwin's doctrine was "good news" (gospel) to the athiest. Darwin's chief contribution was not to science. It was that he provided the atheist with a somewhat plausible alternative to the popular "Argument from Design" by Paley.
This furnishing of atheism with an alternative explanation to intelligent design in creation has been received by atheists with glee ever since. So it was a gospel to them. It provided a possible, if not tenable, explanation to an intelligent Creator.
And as demonstrated on this Forum it has become a strong religion pretending to be scientific certainty about history which no one witnessed or can duplicate in the lab.
The Genesis 1:26,27; 2:7 I think I will hold discussion on that. Perhaps someone else could honestly bring it up. I think your desire is not to understand but to misunderstand the Bible as extensively, as often, and as much as possible.
Its Saturday. Don't miss your ball games.
Originally posted by jaywillOne of the first traits I see in fundamentalist christians is that they seem to take pride in their stupidity. Almost as though it's a badge of honor, frequently used in conjunction with with a strong martyr complex. After all, if they were clever, like they frequently accuse the atheists of being, then they wouldn't be 'persecuted' nearly as often. And as we all know, there's nothing that a fundie likes more than to imagine he's being persecuted in the service of the Lord.
Are you an atheist?
I wonder because I notice that one of the first traits I see in atheists is that they think they are very clever.
You use phrases like "reasonably conclude". Sounds good. But from what I see your intention with the Bible is not to reasonably conclude but to labor as hard as possible at misunderstanding.
Besides, I suspect tha ...[text shortened]... often, and as much as possible.
Its Saturday. Don't miss your ball games.
As for the previous thread, Vistesd seems to have given you more examples of what I was talking about than you could handle. Why didn't you pursue the topic further with him? Or is Vistesd too 'clever' for you? When I try to discuss passages from the bible, you accuse me of being clever and trying to misunderstand things. But my point is a valid one. If we are made of dust and we are also made in god's image and likeness, then does it not follow that god is also made of dust? I bring up a specific bible passage for serious discussion and all you do is evade the topic.
Although there are several promising "ball games" on TV again today, I may be able to fit in a few more posts dealing with god's dusty composition. But perhaps god's dust is not of the normal kind relegated for human use. Maybe god is composed of magical Pixie dust, or something. Who knows?
Originally posted by rwingettso if you think christians are stupid then you think you are smart, like jaywill said and you just proved his point. also, christians are not martyrs. youre the more likely one to be a martyr, you read the bible which is probably the biggest book ever made and you dont even believe in it, now that is just a cry for attention.
One of the first traits I see in fundamentalist christians is that they seem to take pride in their stupidity. Almost as though it's a badge of honor, frequently used in conjunction with with a strong martyr complex. After all, if they were clever, like they frequently accuse the atheists of being, then they wouldn't be 'persecuted' nearly as often. And as ...[text shortened]... r human use. Maybe god is composed of magical Pixie dust, or something. Who knows?
Originally posted by EcstremeVenomWhat point of Jaywill's did I prove? That christians are stupid and atheists are smart? OK, I'll go with that. But he didn't say 'smart', he said 'clever'. Clever seems to be a pejorative term to the fundamentalist crowd.
so if you think christians are stupid then you think you are smart, like jaywill said and you just proved his point. also, christians are not martyrs. youre the more likely one to be a martyr, you read the bible which is probably the biggest book ever made and you dont even believe in it, now that is just a cry for attention.
In addition to reading the bible, I've also read The Epic of Gilgamesh, The Lord of the Rings, and The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I don't 'believe' in any of those either, but they're entertaining nonetheless. Besides, if I'm going to criticize the bible, it would behoove me to have read it first. This is unlike the fundamentalists who criticize Darwin at length without ever having read a single page of The Origin of Species.
Originally posted by rwingettjaywill said you THINK you are clever, not that you really are. and your whole life seems to revolve around criticizing christians which is really pathetic. so, you read the whole bible just to criticize it. that is the stupidest thing ive ever heard.
What point of Jaywill's did I prove? That christians are stupid and atheists are smart? OK, I'll go with that. But he didn't say 'smart', he said 'clever'. Clever seems to be a pejorative term to the fundamentalist crowd.
In addition to reading the bible, I've also read The Epic of Gilgamesh, The Lord of the Rings, and The Gospel of the ...[text shortened]... n at length without ever having read a single page of [i]The Origin of Species.
4 edits
Originally posted by rwingett======================
One of the first traits I see in fundamentalist christians is that they seem to take pride in their stupidity. Almost as though it's a badge of honor, frequently used in conjunction with with a strong martyr complex. After all, if they were clever, like they frequently accuse the atheists of being, then they wouldn't be 'persecuted' nearly as often. And as r human use. Maybe god is composed of magical Pixie dust, or something. Who knows?
One of the first traits I see in fundamentalist christians is that they seem to take pride in their stupidity. Almost as though it's a badge of honor, frequently used in conjunction with with a strong martyr complex. After all, if they were clever, like they frequently accuse the atheists of being, then they wouldn't be 'persecuted' nearly as often. And as we all know, there's nothing that a fundie likes more than to imagine he's being persecuted in the service of the Lord.
=======================
Talking to you I do not consider “persecution” at all. Don’t flatter yourself.
When you evade questions with “Yawn” and can’t point out the authentic from the non-authentic teachings of Jesus, but reason that the whole New Testament is compromised, I couldn’t dignify such stupidity with the term “persecution.”
============================
As for the previous thread, Vistesd seems to have given you more examples of what I was talking about than you could handle. Why didn't you pursue the topic further with him?
============================
Really now !? Maybe I have too many discussions going.
I have yet to read anything on this Forum as a serious challenge to the authenticity of the Bible and the impact of Christ.
Of course the one about the Invisible Pink Unicorn is ALWAYS a real tough one to debate. That and the Tooth Fairy crack have historically been the major contributions of third rate atheists like yourself to the dialogue.
====================
Or is Vistesd too 'clever' for you?
=====================
LOL! Yea man. You and vistesd are too smart boy. I mean he’s got nothing on you.
I mean “Yawn” is a really deep argument. LOL!
==============================
When I try to discuss passages from the bible, you accuse me of being clever and trying to misunderstand things. But my point is a valid one. If we are made of dust and we are also made in god's image and likeness, then does it not follow that god is also made of dust? I bring up a specific bible passage for serious discussion and all you do is evade the topic.
======================
I enjoy discussing passages with any thinking person who shows some mutual respect.
I’ll even put up with a little jollying for a while. But when pushed a bit beyond my limits, you get the same trashing back, and in spades. Tit for tat.
It is the attitude. And your “Yawn” puts you in the contemptible catagory. Don’t come back now pretending to be interested in serious dialogue.
Any challenges left unanswered to Vistesd or anyone else here is probably due to the fact of time limitation. Actually I have no problem with telling people flat out “That question is too hard for me.” I don’t mind admiting when I don’t know something or how to answer something. You see, I know I walk by faith and don’t have all the answers. I started out with that understanding from the very start.
=====================
Although there are several promising "ball games" on TV again today, I may be able to fit in a few more posts dealing with god's dusty composition. But perhaps god's dust is not of the normal kind relegated for human use. Maybe god is composed of magical Pixie dust, or something. Who knows?
============================
See? There you go again.
Why dignify such rot with serious discussion? The scribblings on the inside of some boy’s room toilet booth of some junior high school is more your arena for exchanging ideas on these important matters.