3 edits
Originally posted by PinkFloydConsidering that it must have been within the power of an all-powerful God to devise a punishment for the wicked that didn't involve the suffering of giraffes (for example, by turning all the wicked into pillars of salt), do you think it is right that he chose a method of punishment that did bring undeserved suffering upon giraffes?
Yes.
Originally posted by PsychoPawnNo. And you have no evidence to the contrary.
Hilariously ridiculous.
Do you have any evidence at all that a fertilized egg has any power to think?
Furthermore, I don't have to provide evidence or proof of anything. I've never asked you for any; you should extend the same respect others show you. Or is that anti-sciebtific?
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesThe rights of animals, and consideration of their suffering, occupies approximately 0% of my time. I can't speak for God. As to right & wrong, I can only say his ways are not our ways. But I do believe that His determination of what "suffering of the innocents" is far different from mine, or yours.
Considering that it must have been within the power of an all-powerful God to devise a punishment for the wicked that didn't involve the suffering of giraffes (for example, by turning all the wicked into pillars of salt), do you think it is right that he chose a method of punishment that did bring undeserved suffering upon giraffes?
Originally posted by sonhouseAnd I would never criticize you for it, nor try to dissuade you from velieving it 🙂 {which by the way seems to set me apart from some members of this forum}
That's my story and I am sticking to it🙂[/b]
And, I have said before that I do not hold to the "young earth" belief that the earth is only 6000 years old. I'm on board with the 4.5 billion for the estimated age of earth.
Originally posted by PinkFloydI do. Thought is correlated with advanced nerve tissue (a brain) and electrical activity within it. Embryos lack these things.
No. And you have no evidence to the contrary.
Furthermore, I don't have to provide evidence or proof of anything. I've never asked you for any; you should extend the same respect others show you. Or is that anti-sciebtific?
Originally posted by PinkFloydAnd you have no evidence to the contrary.
No. And you have no evidence to the contrary.
Furthermore, I don't have to provide evidence or proof of anything. I've never asked you for any; you should extend the same respect others show you. Or is that anti-sciebtific?
Actually, there IS evidence to the contrary. We know a lot about what allows people to think and we know a lot about the make up of embryos. None of this suggests what you are claiming is anything but bunk.
Furthermore, I don't have to provide evidence or proof of anything.
You're right, you don't. I didn't say you HAD to.
I've never asked you for any; you should extend the same respect others show you.
You think it's an act of disrespect to ask for evidence to back your claim?? It's not.
It's your choice to ask me or not ask me for evidence of claims that I may make. I don't see that as an act of respect or disrespect.
If you are so sensitive that you think me asking you a question about where you draw your conclusions from or whether you have any evidence to back your claims is an insult or is disrespectful then with all due respect, you are just too sensitive.
Asking for evidence is normal and rational in a discussion when people make claims.
Or is that anti-sciebtific?
Technically it's anti-scientific to make claims you can't back up with evidence, but I didn't say anything about something being scientific or not. This is you bringing this up, not me.
Originally posted by PsychoPawn
At what point can a gestating human embryo start rejecting or worshipping the one true god?
Originally posted by PinkFloyd
Conception.
What justification can you offer for this belief? I offer as my rebuttal for this belief the knowledge
that the ability to worship/accept or reject God requires the capacity to evaluate the value of
x versus y (that is a brain) something a newly-conceived zygote lacks.
Nemesio
Originally posted by whodeyIf you think Iraq was about Oil then you are the moron. Left wing kool aid drinker you are, but to get back to the point of this thread...Palin was speaking to ministry students and was referring to the fact that they should be praying for God's plan, whatever that may be.
Be careful there son, truth such as this is a little dangerous on this here forum.
"Our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God," she said. "That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that plan is God's plan."
God has a plan for everything and she wants them to pray that his will be done...not sure how you lefties can make anything out of that--without taking it out of context. Everytime dems attack Palin McCain gets more votes. So thank you all!
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesActually, the story about the fig tree was originally about a sheep. It grew wool only in patches, so Jesus cursed the sheep and it never grew wool again. But then, after the Bible came out, PETA protested and the story was re-written.
Do you think Jesus ever threw rocks at the neighborhood sheep to torment them?