Do you belive in god?

[Corey Darling]

WhiteVitz
Dinosaurs?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...-the-dinosaurs

I'm sry... but did you post that link just so we could better inform ourselves to their view, or do you share it as well?

Because that site's description of history is pretty skewed...

In my opinion, its stuff like that which doesn't help authenticate our religious myths, and hampers their quest to reinforce belief in a god.

Completely discredits their religion - however it doesn't discredit the possibility of god's existence - because i view the two subjects to be completely separate.

"Many people think the Bible is just a book about religion or salvation. It is much more than this. The Bible is the History Book of the Universe and tells us the future destiny of the universe as well."

"If one begins with an evolutionary view of history (for which there were no witnesses or written record), then this way of thinking will be used to explain the evidence that exists in the present. Thus, we have the evolutionary explanation for dinosaurs above.

But if one begins with the biblical view of history from the written record of an eyewitness (God) to all events of history, then a totally different way of thinking, based on this, will be used to explain the same evidence. Thus, we have the biblical explanation given above."

Ah huh - That is a massive claim to be making without any kind of proof - that god is an eyewitness

Anothing thing - i've found most of the passages from that site are from the NEW king james version of the bible - which was written only 30 years ago....

From wiki:

Language style

One major criticism[by whom?] of the NKJV is that it is rendered in a language format that has never been spoken. By maintaining much of the Elizabethan structure and syntax of the KJV (an intentional effect on the part of the revisers, who intended for a reader to be able to follow along in one version as the other version is read aloud), the NKJV at times has been criticized[by whom?] for putting modern words into archaic orders. Unlike the Revised Version of 1881-85 and American Standard Version of 1901, which sought to take advantage of modern scholarship but left the overall text worded in archaic Jacobean language, the NKJV sounds neither Jacobean nor particularly modern[citation needed]. Also many of the double meanings in many of the verses have now been lost[citation needed].

[edit] Underlying texts

A second major criticism[by whom?] involves the fact that it is based, as noted above, solely upon the ancient texts available during the time of King James and not on earlier manuscripts and documents which have since been discovered[citation needed]. Since these manuscripts, most of which - for the NT - reflect an Alexandrian text-type, are argued by most of today's biblical scholars[who?] to be more reliable, the NKJV's adherence to the Majority Text (which has ties to the Textus Receptus) seems to many to violate the spirit of open scholarship and open inquiry, and to ascribe a level of perfection to the documents available to the 17th century scholars that they would not have claimed for them[2].

However, not all textual critics[who?] agree that the earliest manuscripts are the most accurate. Alternative readings based on other texts do appear as footnotes in the New King James Version, and unlike other translations (such as the New International Version), the NKJV does not contain value comments like "the best manuscripts add, etc." Instead, the footnotes simply state which manuscript sets do not contain the passage (similar to the approach previously taken by the New World Translation). However, this is unlikely to placate those[who?] who feel that the "Johannine Comma" (at 1 John 5:7), for example, is not a legitimate portion of scripture and should not be treated as such[citation needed].

[edit] King James Only belief

Believers[who?] in the "King-James-Only Movement" see the New King James Version as something less than a true successor to the KJV. In their view[who?], the NKJV makes significant changes to the meaning of the KJV translators[citation needed]. For example, Acts 17:22, in which Paul in the KJV calls the men of Athens "too superstitious"[3], is interpreted in the NKJV to have Paul call them "very religious"[4].

At the same time, many churches and evangelical groups[who?] have embraced the NKJV as an acceptable compromise between the original KJV and a Bible that uses a more modern syntax

[+Kardboard+]

The NKJV wasn't written 30 years ago, it's a new translation of the existing Bible. Nothing's really changed, although there are some versions which add more or take some stuff out. Those can't really be considered proper Bibles, but of course, some think they are.

[Corey Darling]

Here's a GREAT example of how convoluted the bible is:

http://bible.cc/isaiah/40-22.htm

This shows all the parallel translations of the verse Isaiah 40:22. Which is what the Answersingenesis site claim as proof that the bible knew the earth was round.

We knew the earth was round long before the jesus story came about.

[+Kardboard+]

LOL that's supposed to proof that the Earth is round?

Sorry, but if there's one thing I learned about the Bible is that you never take verses out of context. The purpose of that verse, if you read a bit before and a bit after, is that it puts God into perspective and how big he is.

I wouldn't call it convoluted, but it is definitely hard to understand if you don't read it in the right light and if you read it without curiosity and thoughtfulness.

[welfare]

supposedly, the chinese knew earth was round over 3000 years ago

[Corey Darling]

^^ I can't find any info on when the chinese discovered it after a quick search.. but in western culture "Eratosthenes of Cyrene, head of the Great Library of Alexandria" calculated the circumference of the earth (quite accurately) in ~250 BC

http://www.eranet.gr/eratosthenes/html/eoc.html

[1exotic]

Originally Posted by 03aspec

^ very true, religion is also just a business. its all about the $$$$$$$$ y'all

no, it aint bout dah chedda, itz bout what a shawty believe in wen he openz his eyes in da mornin, kno i mean mang

Originally Posted by welfare

supposedly, the chinese knew earth was round over 3000 years ago

what?

[cool moe D]

Yeah the noah's ark story is pure bs. 2 of each animal, sure ok, so each pair have children and then what? Inbreed? And then the world is repopulated with retards. Win

[Alphamale]

Originally Posted by cool moe D

Yeah the noah's ark story is pure bs. 2 of each animal, sure ok, so each pair have children and then what? Inbreed? And then the world is repopulated with retards. Win

What? So the world isn't populated with RETARDS?!

That's bullshit, I know too many of them. Doesn't help that I work in mental hospital, though.

Anyways, this thread reeks of sheep and cattle. Too bad it's not the edible kind unless you're a cannibal.

[cool moe D]

Haha
Seriously though, have you seen inbred dogs? They are physically deformed and in most cases die young

[Alphamale]

I wonder what "God" thinks about inbreeding and it's morbid out comes, LOL. That guy is one sick and twisted bastard.

[[j]nBk]

everytime an atheist post pisses me off there's an equally unreasonable and highly imbecilic christian response to make the score even. and then after that an atheist tops it by saying "see! god doesn't exist because you can't fit that many animals in a boat. ha!"

if you're a religious person who really thinks god told a guy to pack animals into one boat then my pity is yours. if you're an "enlightened" atheist who says god doesn't exist simply because people who believe in him are being unreasonable, then you get twice my pity since you're supposed to be enlightened.

this is like two groups of people, one who believe in dragons and one who don't, who BOTH agree that the best way to prove each other wrong is by finding seven dragon balls to see if a dragon really appears to grant a wish.

with the arguments that both sides are using here, you are both going on journeys to finding those damned red balls.



good luck!

[Alphamale]

Originally Posted by [j]nBk

everytime an atheist post pisses me off there's an equally unreasonable and highly imbecilic christian response to make the score even.

if you're a religious person who really thinks god told a guy to pack animals into one boat then my pity is yours. if you're an "enlightened" atheist who says god doesn't exist because "people who believe in god thinks a guy put all animals in one boat,haha, that's so stupid", then you get twice my pity since you're supposed to be enlightened.

this is like two groups of people, one who believe in dragons and one who don't, who BOTH agree that the best way to prove each other wrong is by finding seven dragon balls to see if a dragon really appears to grant a wish.

with the arguments that both sides are using here, you are both going on journeys to finding those damned red balls.



good luck!

So after spewing all that shit from your mouth, you still haven't told anyone where you stand. Are you the pitied religious zealot or the double pitied atheist? Your post is nothing but garbage because it tells us nothing but - you guessed it - GARBAGE, mothafuckaaaaaa.

[[j]nBk]

Originally Posted by Alphamale

So after spewing all that shit from your mouth, you still haven't told anyone where you stand. Are you the pitied religious zealot or the double pitied atheist? Your post is nothing but garbage because it tells us nothing but - you guessed it - GARBAGE, mothafuckaaaaaa.

are your parents the two sibling donkeys that came out of the ones noah brought into his ark? cuz you sure sound like a fucking retard.

if you've read any of my past posts you would've prevented the disclosure of your bloodline.

[Alphamale]

I didn't know you thought so highly of me. Regardless, as much as I *heart* RS and everyone on here, I've never paid any special attention to your previous posts nor does your insightful praise of my bloodline warrant me to go and look into it. Thanks for playing.

[[j]nBk]

Originally Posted by Alphamale

I didn't know you thought so highly of me. Regardless, as much as I *heart* RS and everyone on here, I've never paid any special attention to your previous posts nor does your insightful praise of my bloodline warrant me to go and look into it. Thanks for playing.

then save yourself from being a jackass by not replying to my posts.

[AzNightmare]

Originally Posted by [j]nBk

...finding those damned red balls.



good luck!

Aren't they orange? They look orange to me.

[Alphamale]

Originally Posted by AzNightmare

Aren't they orange? They look orange to me.

For someone who strongly believes in the bible, you sure are looking into the details!

[welfare]

Originally Posted by WilsonSo13

Christian but have doubts so.....but LOL on these

Woman created from mans rib?
Talking snake?
Dinosaurs?
Noahs Ark all the animals in 1 boat?
Virgin Mary?

i think the idea is that when you are believing that there is an "almighty being", you are believing that anything is possible.
which is not too far from the truth, IMO.
whether you believe the answer to be yes, or believe it to be no. you are basing your answer on a feeling or sense or instinct rather than fact. if that sense or instinct is believed to be true by yourself 100%, then you are right. in our incredible being, who's to say that fact is more damning than that instinct. facts have been proven to be disproved over time. it's hard to explain, but there is no right or wrong answer. everyone is equally right and wrong. there can be no answer when there is no question. before you can even ASK the question: do you believe in god?, you have to answer the question: what is god?
because there will never be a definitive answer to that first question, the second can not exist, respectfully.
here's my best stab at an answer to the first question, though of course, it will be no more right or wrong than anybody else:
god is not an entity. god is infinitely everything and everywhere, yet can still be contained in the cup of coffee i'm drinking. the cigarette i'm smoking. the keyboard i'm using to type this with. we are all god. everyone and everything around us. it means nothing yet means everything at the same time. it's all connected yet separated.
my answer was not corrupted by a teaching yet it was, as we are all naturally teachers and students from birth. my answer is not based on fact, but it is one that i can still say i hold to be true to myself 100%. it explains a lot in my mind, and gives me a sense of mental freedom and appreciation for everything around me. yet it still explains nothing because it is only based on imagination rather than fact. but who's to say that that isn't more credible than any fact ever uncovered
once you have an answer yourself and you genuinely feel it to be 100% true in your mind, you will know how i feel.
the beautiful thing about it is that it can not be proven or disproved. as i'd stated prior, as long as it is 100% true to yourself, it is the "right" answer

[In_MODeration]

videos been taken off

[welfare]

though this thread has long since died, i felt it beneficial to post this video which i'd stumbled across. though we have made enormous leaps forward to understanding how it all works, it has only opened up new chapters to the infinitely unexplainable world around and inside us.
enjoy
http://www.ninjavideo.net/video/8752

[Jason00S2000]

God is a lie and religion is just a system of control

[Meowjin]

Originally Posted by Jason00S2000

God is a lie and religion is just a system of control

women are a lie and porn is a system of control

[welfare]

Originally Posted by Jason00S2000

God is a lie and religion is just a system of control

as i'd said before, it's not completely ethical to call something a lie when there is no determination of what it actually is. religion, on the other hand, is much more defined and therefore not as difficult to hold an intelligent debate over. i think one of the problems is that we associate religion and god so closely that they are perceived as one and the same

Originally Posted by MajinHurricane

women are a lie and porn is a system of control

ahhh, right you are, ken. control at will though

[matter]

on the topic of Dinosaurs - I always found it really weird that we can find MULTIPLE complete skeletons of some T-rex that just so happened to die by random chance in a perfect spot to be fossilized from 65 million years ago, yet we can only find a frickin piece of jawbone of some neandrathal from 10 million years ago. THe most complete skeleton of any early hominid is maybe 80% complete and only 1. Who took some anthropology and can shine some light on this for me?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...lution_fossils