Originally posted by RJHindsFor most of us, some god throwing twinkle dust about and then:
Why? It seems more logical to me than the theory of evolution, which
needs an intelligently designed program for adaptation to even appear
to be valid.
*-'~_ Abracadabra _ ~'-* A cat is created
*-'~_ Hocus-pocus _ ~'-* A zebra is created
*-'~_ Shellar _ ~'-* A tiger is created
.
.
.
does not represent science.
Originally posted by RJHindsBecause it doesn't follow scientific principles.
Why?
It seems more logical to me than the theory of evolution, which
needs an intelligently designed program for adaptation to even appear
to be valid.
Whether or not something seems logical to you does not decide whether or not it is science. In fact, you would probably find most science illogical. (Remember that you dispute many of the major findings of most major branches of science.)
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFMy response is that trying to atone for a "sin" is pointless. How can someone atone for harming another? Put another way, if you murder someone how many years of good deeds will atone for that said crime? Under your own power you cannot make up for such a transgression.
I wasn't asking you to speak for Dasa. I was asking you to speak for yourself and to explain your beliefs on the matter, especially in light of what you said to him in your response to his OP.
Then again, who cares if it is a "sin"? The question is only pertinent if one has to answer to a higher authority at some point. Some people even look upon murder as virtuous, kinda like murdering a "brutal" dictator.
Of course there are other "lesser" sins catagorized in our minds. What of them? Then again, this is only from our perspective. If it is only from our perspective, again, who cares? It only matters if we have to answer to a higher authority. It then only matters what the verdict is from that authority.
Originally posted by wolfgang59I don't need straighting out. I am already straight as a arrow that hits the
You continually redefine words and use bizarre grammar and logic so it is important that the rest of us fully understand your mad ramblings.
Then we can try and straighten you out.
bulleye on the target.
1 edit
Originally posted by AgergThere was no twinkle dust. God created with the sound waves from
For most of us, some god throwing twinkle dust about and then:
*-'~_ Abracadabra _ ~'-* A cat is created
*-'~_ Hocus-pocus _ ~'-* A zebra is created
*-'~_ Shellar _ ~'-* A tiger is created
.
.
.
does not represent science.
His voice as He said, "Let there be .......".
P.S. This is science beyond your small minds ability to understand.
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadIt sure does follow scientific principles.
Because it doesn't follow scientific principles.
[b]It seems more logical to me than the theory of evolution, which
needs an intelligently designed program for adaptation to even appear
to be valid.
Whether or not something seems logical to you does not decide whether or not it is science. In fact, you would probably find most science illogical. (Remember that you dispute many of the major findings of most major branches of science.)[/b]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=YO7gV41PNcA
P.S. The last video in the series of 7 given below concludes that
the scientific method proves intelligent design.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=Cj3PWUF7zAw
2 edits
Originally posted by RJHindsRJHinds, you don't have the credibility to be talking about any small minds other than your own.
There was no twinkle dust. God created with the sound waves from
His voice as He said, "Let there be .......".
P.S. This is science beyond your small minds ability to understand.
Originally posted by RJHinds".... with sound waves ...." trying to add a bit of science?
There was no twinkle dust. God created with the sound waves from
His voice as He said, "Let there be .......".
P.S. This is science beyond your small minds ability to understand.
Laughable!
Why would god speak with no one about to hear?
And why now, with people about to listen, he is silent?
Originally posted by whodeyYou've written three paragraphs about something else altogether, which is your prerogative of course. However, if you'd like to address the question I asked, then here it is again:
My response is that trying to atone for a "sin" is pointless. How can someone atone for harming another? Put another way, if you murder someone how many years of good deeds will atone for that said crime? Under your own power you cannot make up for such a transgression.
Then again, who cares if it is a "sin"? The question is only pertinent if one has t ...[text shortened]... er to a higher authority. It then only matters what the verdict is from that authority.
If there's nothing sinful or immoral about the way Dasa leads his life, and - indeed - he lives it in a virtuous way, with compassion and mercy and kindness, are you saying - as a Christian, and within the terms of reference of your own chosen religion, that God, as you see Him, will send Dasa to hell regardless?
Originally posted by RJHindsMy questions show that I dont know the answers -
These questions of yours just show how ignorant you are, nothing else.
apparently neither do you.
You continually spout nonsense but when challenged or asked to justify your statements conspicuously change the subject, go off at a tangent or resort to personal attacks.
And you calling anyone ignorant is really quite comical.