in your face god

Originally posted by RJHinds
My new thread "Spirit vs Matter" is good evidence of how little scientists know and how far they are from claiming to be equal with God. 😏

you seem pleased to point out how little scientists know. why is that? you believe in your god 100% so science offers no threat to you. so why take pleasure from our lack of scientific knowledge (of course we have no idea how much there is to know, so its impossible to judge how little we know).

Originally posted by stellspalfie
you seem pleased to point out how little scientists know. why is that? you believe in your god 100% so science offers no threat to you. so why take pleasure from our lack of scientific knowledge (of course we have no idea how much there is to know, so its impossible to judge how little we know).

My estimate is that scientists know less than 1% of all there is to know. Once they know that 1% then I would say they know a lot. 😏

Originally posted by stellspalfie
neither did rock music, babies, books, australian shiraz, cheeses on toast, steam trains, the 1980's, moon landings, wonder-bras, sesame street, abs breaks, ikea, fish in a tin, pet dogs, bbq's, northern soul, bingo, freezer clips, tea bags, french kissing, photos, families, football or carbonated drinks.


it doesnt mean that any of these are caused by sin does it?.............except maybe the 1980's!!

I'd add in ikea and fish in a tin.

Oh yeah, and maybe bingo.

(I like the list though, it's surprisingly diverse. 🙂 )



But you see, you're twisting your argument. Your first list was overwhelmingly bad things. Yes, sin causes bad things. Your second list was mostly good things, and sin doesn't cause good things.

Originally posted by Suzianne
I'd add in ikea and fish in a tin.

Oh yeah, and maybe bingo.


But you see, you're twisting your argument. Your first list was overwhelmingly bad things. Yes, sin causes bad things. Your second list was mostly good things, and sin doesn't cause good things.

i didnt twist the argument. ive not queried where sin came from. i was querying the mechanics of sin effecting people. if we can predict using a set of known variables that a child is going to grow up violent and sin is not one of the variables - then where does sin come into the picture?

my point regarding the list of mainly good things was purely to indicate that some thing coming into existence after an event does not prove that the event caused it. or that it other things tenuously considered similar are connected (this is probably a whole different sin debate).


(you are right about ikea, but tinned fish is the closest i come to believing in god...i thank you jesus for tuna in brine............tuna in oil is the work of satan)

Originally posted by stellspalfie
i didnt twist the argument. ive not queried where sin came from. i was querying the mechanics of sin effecting people. if we can predict using a set of known variables that a child is going to grow up violent and sin is not one of the variables - then where does sin come into the picture?

my point regarding the list of mainly good things was purely t ...[text shortened]... ieving in god...i thank you jesus for tuna in brine............tuna in oil is the work of satan)

Where violence is involved, sin is usually a cause, whether right now, or somewhere in history (genes).

But yes, logically, you're right. But Faith is not logic. Nor derived from logic, by definition.





(Hmmmm, tinned fish is altogether nasty over here, although it does have its adherents. Maybe your tinned fish over there is more fresh? I would hope so.)

(Oh, wait a minute. Do you mean canned fish, like in tuna we get from the market? I was assuming tins of fish meant like sardines or anchovies, something like that, you know, the smaller tins opened with a key of some kind. Regular canned tuna is alright over here, although currently Chicken-of-the-Sea and Bumblebee tunas have a recall going on for improperly sealed cans. But I agree that tuna in water is far and away better than tuna in oil (shudder). In America we are also cautioned about eating too much tuna over concerns of mercury in the fish.)

Originally posted by Suzianne
Where violence is involved, sin is usually a cause, whether right now, or somewhere in history (genes).

But yes, logically, you're right. But Faith is not logic. Nor derived from logic, by definition.





(Hmmmm, tinned fish is altogether nasty over here, although it does have its adherents. Maybe your tinned fish over there is more fresh? I w ...[text shortened]... America we are also cautioned about eating too much tuna over concerns of mercury in the fish.)

Grilled Salmon steaks are my favorite.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Grilled Salmon steaks are my favorite.

Salmon is good for you, too. Plenty of omega-3's.

I used to eat swordfish, but that's now a no-go over mercury concerns also.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Where violence is involved, sin is usually a cause, whether right now, or somewhere in history (genes).

But yes, logically, you're right. But Faith is not logic. Nor derived from logic, by definition.





(Hmmmm, tinned fish is altogether nasty over here, although it does have its adherents. Maybe your tinned fish over there is more fresh? I w ...[text shortened]... America we are also cautioned about eating too much tuna over concerns of mercury in the fish.)

Where violence is involved, sin is usually a cause, whether right now, or somewhere in history (genes).

But yes, logically, you're right. But Faith is not logic. Nor derived from logic, by definition.


phew!!! thank you, you see what im trying to say. ive been trying to explain to sonship for days with no joy.

taking your example of sin entering through genes, how does new sin occur? we end up with a chicken and egg situation, did a person become bad because of their sin effected genes or did the genes become sin effected because of a bad person. the only way to resolve that is to take all sin back through to adam and eve (which i guess is the point) but this would then mean that all families should have the same sin/gene issues as we all stem from adam and eve.

this then takes us back to a new sin/gene effecting a person. their parents didnt have it so they must have been good. the child hasnt been bad (yet) so why did they get the sin/gene?

there may not be a logic to it, but there has to be a process otherwise it would be random and we would see randomness in its physical manifestation.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Where violence is involved, sin is usually a cause, whether right now, or somewhere in history (genes).

But yes, logically, you're right. But Faith is not logic. Nor derived from logic, by definition.





(Hmmmm, tinned fish is altogether nasty over here, although it does have its adherents. Maybe your tinned fish over there is more fresh? I w ...[text shortened]... America we are also cautioned about eating too much tuna over concerns of mercury in the fish.)

we tend to call all fish that comes in a metallic container 'tinned fish', because of our inherent british sense of fairness we do not like to discriminate between the natural, fresh tastiness of tuna chunks in brine and evil puke inducing sardines and their creepy uncle in corner that youve been warned about 'mackeral in tomato sauce'.

we get warned about the mercury but ill take my chances. i hoping that if i eat enough ill be able to use my thingy as a thermometer.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
[b]Where violence is involved, sin is usually a cause, whether right now, or somewhere in history (genes).

But yes, logically, you're right. But Faith is not logic. Nor derived from logic, by definition.


phew!!! thank you, you see what im trying to say. ive been trying to explain to sonship for days with no joy.

taking your example of s ...[text shortened]... process otherwise it would be random and we would see randomness in its physical manifestation.[/b]

taking your example of sin entering through genes, how does new sin occur? we end up with a chicken and egg situation, did a person become bad because of their sin effected genes or did the genes become sin effected because of a bad person. the only way to resolve that is to take all sin back through to adam and eve (which i guess is the point) but this would then mean that all families should have the same sin/gene issues as we all stem from adam and eve.

Congratulations, you're getting a grip on what we call 'original sin'. Can you see the issue now?

To answer the first question, new sin happens all the time. It's pervasive.

this then takes us back to a new sin/gene effecting a person. their parents didnt have it so they must have been good. the child hasnt been bad (yet) so why did they get the sin/gene?

Well, the parents did have it. Remember, this is the idea of original sin. The child gets it from the parents. This is why sin is SO pervasive. All new sin comes from old sin in this way. If one were sinless, he/she would never sin.

there may not be a logic to it, but there has to be a process otherwise it would be random and we would see randomness in its physical manifestation.

It's not random because everyone has it. The degree to which it manifests makes it seem random. People have varying degrees of self-control.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
we tend to call all fish that comes in a metallic container 'tinned fish', because of our inherent british sense of fairness we do not like to discriminate between the natural, fresh tastiness of tuna chunks in brine and evil puke inducing sardines and their creepy uncle in corner that youve been warned about 'mackeral in tomato sauce'.

we get warned ...[text shortened]... ake my chances. i hoping that if i eat enough ill be able to use my thingy as a thermometer.

Okay, I thought so. We call these metallic containers 'cans' while you call them 'tins', I knew this. But the smaller containers used for these other fish seems a lot more 'tinny' (i.e. softer metal) than our normal 'cans'. Yes, the mackerel is bad too. I always doubted if it was actual mackerel. I've even seen 'sardines in mustard sauce'... ewww.

Inspector: What about this one? "Crunchy Frog". Am I to understand there's a real frog in it?
Proprietor: But of course! We use no artificial ingredients of any kind!
Inspector: Well, don't you even take the bones out?
Proprietor: If we took the bones out, it wouldn't be crunchy, would it?

Originally posted by Suzianne
[quote]taking your example of sin entering through genes, how does new sin occur? we end up with a chicken and egg situation, did a person become bad because of their sin effected genes or did the genes become sin effected because of a bad person. the only way to resolve that is to take all sin back through to adam and eve (which i guess is the point) but t ...[text shortened]... e to which it manifests makes it seem random. People have varying degrees of self-control.

Well, the parents did have it. Remember, this is the idea of original sin. The child gets it from the parents. This is why sin is SO pervasive. All new sin comes from old sin in this way. If one were sinless, he/she would never sin.


you mentioned in an earlier post that sin enters through the genes. if all sin stems from original sin then we would all have the sin-potential, we would all be equally likely to grow up violent. we know that people are not equally likely to grow up violent. so we know that we dont all have the same sin-potential. so we are back to asking - where did the new sin-genes enter humans, it must be after the fall. that then forces the question why did it enter a person and effect their genes and were they good before that? if we say they were bad before due to the original sin in there genes, then we are back to saying all people would have the new sin/gene because we all had the original sin.
so when do new (after the fall) sin-genes kick in, why do they only effect some of us? are they drawn by original sin.

if a violent person is violent because of sin in there genes and they have a child who they beat and are neglectful to, your theory would dictate the child was bad anyway as it is a genetic issue. or does the violent gene only kickstart after the child has been abused?

Originally posted by stellspalfie
[b]Well, the parents did have it. Remember, this is the idea of original sin. The child gets it from the parents. This is why sin is SO pervasive. All new sin comes from old sin in this way. If one were sinless, he/she would never sin.


you mentioned in an earlier post that sin enters through the genes. if all sin stems from original sin th ...[text shortened]... it is a genetic issue. or does the violent gene only kickstart after the child has been abused?[/b]

Nobody can explain how it all works, so your questions are meaningless. 😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
Nobody can explain how it all works, so your questions are meaningless. 😏

'questions are meaningless if we dont know the answer' do you know how dumb that is rj?

Originally posted by RJHinds
My estimate is that scientists know less than 1% of all there is to know. Once they know that 1% then I would say they know a lot. 😏

how did you arrive at the figure of less than 1%