| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Budikka666" |
| Date: |
20 Jan 2005 05:37:17 PM |
| Object: |
Creationism Ratted Out - Again |
Given tats are already helping us diagnose TB:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3486559.stm
It comes as no surprise to find out that they're wired for speech:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/01/09/speech.rats.reut/index.html
A year or so ago the rat genome was read and it turned out
unsurprisingly to be just like mice. It also turned out to be just
like humans - a fact that surprised no one but the creationists, who
were desperately hoping for something to bolster their absurd
"immutable kinds" lie.
It was only two years prior to the rat genome giving up its secrets
that the mouse genome had been read. That genome demonstrated that
mice have 80% of our DNA (or we theirs) with each species having only
some 300 genes that the other didn't have.
That means that since the mouse and ourselves split from our common
ancestor, we each have diversified only 300 genes. Maybe these are new
genes or maybe we lost some that the mouse didn't and vice versa. But
the one thing that has the creationists on their backs with their legs
in the air like dead bugs on a window ledge is that such
diversification is completely plausible.
Let's make it tough on evolution and say that our common ancestor had a
basic set of genes and in order for it to become a mouse or a human, it
had to "grow" 300 new genes. Is that a tall order? No - not for
evolution!
We know there were critters not dissimilar to mice running around in
the finale to the dinosaur era. So let's set a starting point 60
million years ago and say this is where we and mice took off. We each
had to grow 300 new genes in 60 million years.
Creationists like to say that a gene has, on average, 100,000 base
pairs, so let's use that number. 100,000 base pairs times 300 genes
means we had to grow 30 million new base pairs in 60 million years.
That's one new base pair every two years! How hard is that?
Especially given the breeding rate of mice and other small mammals!
What mechanism prevents it? **N-O-T-H-I-N-G**!! The creationists can
offer not one single argument against it! And this is the worst
possible case they can throw at evolution - the worse case and they
cannot argue a single thing against it! That's how pathetic their
position is.
Of course, evolution doesn't work in this simple, straight-forward
mathematical mode, but then neither do you need to grow every new gene
from scratch, given the wealth of pseudogenes and junk DNA the genome
has for mutation to play with, so it evens out. This is just a
demonstration of a concept, simplified so that even creationists can
grasp it. It takes the worst case scenario and the creationists lose.
No surprises there.
Budikka
.
|
|
| User: "Raymond Griffith" |
|
| Title: Re: Creationism Ratted Out - Again |
25 Jan 2005 08:19:01 PM |
|
|
in article DbyJd.35772$Qb.27330@edtnps89, Grendel at
wrote on 01/25/05 3:43 PM:
eBataitis wrote:
Grendel wrote:
eBataitis wrote:
(Cascade snip)
Raymond, at the beginning of creation before sin entered, it
was perfect. The creation was perfect. That is what the
Bible teaches.
No it doesn't. That is just your personal interpretation. Death
was a part of Genesis before sin. Read Genesis 1:29.
Seeds and plants are not included. And yes there are many
reasons why and countless examples. Bible 101 down the hall Elmer.
Ahhh, so single celled and even multiple celled life forms were
not included in things that die??? Perhaps you can answer why
Adam and Eve even needed food.
Why would you want to know that? and if I answered would it
change your mind. I doubt it.
Hey believe what you want but don't claim there's any logical
reason for doing so.
It's consistent with what scripture teaches, that's good enough for me.
And the amazing thing to me is that you think this is a valid answer.
Scripture does not teach anything. Is is *you* that interpretes what
scripture means for *you*.
That is just not true.
So how does an inanimate object "teach" anything? Please explain this
process.
The inanimate object teaches nothing. The words or information contained
on the pages teaches us as the information is read off the page and
processed by our brain. God put what He wanted us to know and lean
about him on the pages by various writers.
Scripture teaches us how we sinful beings can have a relationship with
a holy God.
Scripture does not teach anything. Is is *you* that interpretes what
scripture means for *you*.
No don't be silly. Is there someone interpreting what I am putting down
here? No. There is not.
You do not figure that out for yourself in your own personal
interpretation.
Oh come on, that's all *anyone* does! No one else runs your brain!
No, but information can be conveyed as to make it clear of what the
intended meaning is.
There is only one way. And God told us exactly what it is.
God did not write the bible.
Yes he did. Through the hands of men.
The initial design was perfect.
That's not what Genesis says. It says, "very good", not "perfect".
Very good implies and is logically consistent with a perfect
environment that did not include death or suffering or disease.
Well certainly death happened to those seeds and plants, or are
you maintaining that seeds and plants are not living things?
Scripture defines plants very differently from animals.
So reality is constrained by scripture????? Amazing.
No, plants nd animals are distinguished differently.
So, are plants alive or not?
Not in the same way non-plants are.
Well then tell us, what *is* the difference between plants, animals and
rocks?
They were all created differently. They did not evolve, God made them
uniquely different.
We do this all the time Elmer. Step on a seed, or a plant...some
grass perhaps.
It's much much different than stepping on a bug or running over a cat.
It is? Exactly *how* is the death of a plant different from the death
of an animal???
Are you saying that the Bible teaches plants and animals are the same?
No. It is what reality and biology and science clearly demonstrates -
plants and animals are living breathing beings, made of DNA, that need
food, need to reproduce and are ALIVE. When a plant is eaten, it dies
and supplies nutrients to the ingestor so that the ingestor's cells
won't die. Clearly death preceded the fall in Genesis.
Death of plants is not regarded the same as death of animals.
One such problem relates to the nature of plants and the "lower"
animals. The Bible teaches that in the original creation, there was to
be no death. Yet God also instructed Adam and Eve, as well as the
animals (Genesis 1:29-30) to be plant eaters. Would not the eating of
plants constitute death?
The answer to this seeming problem lies in a Biblical understanding of
"life," or "living." Note that the Bible makes a sharp distinction
between plants and animals. During Day Three of Creation Week, God
commanded the inanimate earth to "bring forth plants" (Genesis 1:11,12),
while on Day Five, He "created...every living creature that moveth" (v.
21). At this point, and on Day Six to follow, He instituted the concept
of giving "life" (Hebrew nephesh) to non-living matter‹something He did
not do for plants. This required supernatural creation, and the
resultant living animal kingdom was something new and different from all
that had gone on before.
The Bible never refers to plants as living. They may "grow," or
"flourish," but they do not "live." Neither do they "die."
KJV. "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the
ground and die, it abideth alone; but if it die, it beareth much fruit."
John 12:24.
1 Corinthians 15:36 "Thou fool, that which thou soweth is not quickened,
except it die."
The Bible
teaches that they may "wither," or "fade," but not "die," since they are
not "alive," having neither "life" (nephesh), nor breath of life"
(ruach), nor "blood" (i.e. "the life of the flesh is in the blood"
[Leviticus 17:11]). This state may be analogous to lack of
consciousness, so that, while biologically alive, plants are therefore
not Biblically "living." A similar argument can be made for some of the
"lower" animals (perhaps some types of worms, sponges, etc.), and
certainly for protozoans and viruses. Their "death" would not constitute
death of truly living organisms.
http://www.icr.org/pubs/btg-b/btg-033b.htm
Try reading this for some context.
Why I rejected Œtheistic evolution¹
by David A. DeWitt, Ph.D.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/0112rejected.asp
And he makes the exact same mistake you do, viz: thinking the words
of men about God and God's words are *exactly* identical. That's
simply not so.
It's your choice to believe it or not.
So, reality is just a "choice"???
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Creationism Ratted Out - Again |
24 Jan 2005 08:31:12 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 21:29:15 GMT, Grendel <jistnothin@trynot.com> said
in alt.atheism:
eBataitis wrote:
Grendel wrote:
The initial design was perfect.
That's not what Genesis says. It says, "very good", not "perfect".
Very good implies and is logically consistent with a perfect environment
that did not include death or suffering or disease.
"Very good" is also consistent with death, suffering and disease.
It's better than something worse than death, suffering and disease.
--
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived."
- Isaac Asimov
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Grendel" |
|
| Title: Re: Creationism Ratted Out - Again |
25 Jan 2005 08:56:00 AM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 21:29:15 GMT, Grendel <jistnothin@trynot.com> said
in alt.atheism:
eBataitis wrote:
Grendel wrote:
The initial design was perfect.
That's not what Genesis says. It says, "very good", not "perfect".
Very good implies and is logically consistent with a perfect environment
that did not include death or suffering or disease.
"Very good" is also consistent with death, suffering and disease.
That is silly. Very silly. Could you now equate what i just said with
smart, intelligent or clever?
It's better than something worse than death, suffering and disease.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Creationism Ratted Out - Again |
25 Jan 2005 04:10:35 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 14:56:00 GMT, Grendel <jistnothin@trynot.com> said
in alt.atheism:
Al Klein wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 21:29:15 GMT, Grendel <jistnothin@trynot.com> said
in alt.atheism:
Very good implies and is logically consistent with a perfect environment
that did not include death or suffering or disease.
"Very good" is also consistent with death, suffering and disease.
That is silly.
No, it just means that 'very good' isn't as good as 'even better', let
alone 'almost perfect' or 'perfect'.
--
"They laughed at Newton, they laughed at Einstein, but they also laughed at
Bozo the Clown."
- Carl Sagan
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Grendel" |
|
| Title: Re: Creationism Ratted Out - Again |
25 Jan 2005 04:34:30 PM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 14:56:00 GMT, Grendel <jistnothin@trynot.com> said
in alt.atheism:
Al Klein wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 21:29:15 GMT, Grendel <jistnothin@trynot.com> said
in alt.atheism:
Very good implies and is logically consistent with a perfect environment
that did not include death or suffering or disease.
"Very good" is also consistent with death, suffering and disease.
That is silly.
No, it just means that 'very good' isn't as good as 'even better', let
alone 'almost perfect' or 'perfect'.
No, it means no inherent evil. Meaning there is no more good to add.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Creationism Ratted Out - Again |
25 Jan 2005 07:21:42 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 22:34:30 GMT, Grendel <jistnothin@trynot.com> said
in alt.atheism:
No, it just means that 'very good' isn't as good as 'even better', let
alone 'almost perfect' or 'perfect'.
No, it means no inherent evil. Meaning there is no more good to add.
Then evil came from ... oh, your god introduced it somehow.
--
"Christianity has already had the chance to govern
the world according to its own ethical standards.
It was called the "Dark Ages".
- Bill, The Avender
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Grendel" |
|
| Title: Re: Creationism Ratted Out - Again |
25 Jan 2005 09:39:33 PM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 22:34:30 GMT, Grendel <jistnothin@trynot.com> said
in alt.atheism:
No, it just means that 'very good' isn't as good as 'even better', let
alone 'almost perfect' or 'perfect'.
No, it means no inherent evil. Meaning there is no more good to add.
Then evil came from ... oh, your god introduced it somehow.
God did not introduce it. He had knowledge of it yes, but that does not
mean He introduced it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "eBataitis" |
|
| Title: Re: Creationism Ratted Out - Again |
25 Jan 2005 11:12:51 PM |
|
|
Grendel wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 22:34:30 GMT, Grendel <jistnothin@trynot.com> said
in alt.atheism:
No, it just means that 'very good' isn't as good as 'even better', let
alone 'almost perfect' or 'perfect'.
No, it means no inherent evil. Meaning there is no more good to add.
Then evil came from ... oh, your god introduced it somehow.
God did not introduce it. He had knowledge of it yes, but that does not
mean He introduced it.
Who the heck do you claim made *everything* that exists?
How is evil not a subset in *everything* that exists??
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Creationism Ratted Out - Again |
25 Jan 2005 10:56:38 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 03:39:33 GMT, Grendel <jistnothin@trynot.com> said
in alt.atheism:
Al Klein wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 22:34:30 GMT, Grendel <jistnothin@trynot.com> said
in alt.atheism:
No, it just means that 'very good' isn't as good as 'even better', let
alone 'almost perfect' or 'perfect'.
No, it means no inherent evil. Meaning there is no more good to add.
Then evil came from ... oh, your god introduced it somehow.
God did not introduce it.
Since he created all things, and all is his will, of course he did.
You DO know what 'all' means, yes?
--
I cannot conceive of a god who rewards and punishes his creatures
or has a will of the kind that we experience in ourselves. Neither
can I nor would I want to conceive of an individual that survives
its physical death; let feeble souls, from fear or absurd egotism,
cherish such thoughts. I am satisfied with the mystery of the eter-
nity of life and a glimpse of the marvelous structure of the exist-
ing world, together with the devoted striving to comprehend a
portion, be it ever so tiny, of the Reason that manifests itself in
nature.
- Albert Einstein, as quoted in _Billions and Billions_, Carl Sagan.
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Grendel" |
|
| Title: Re: Creationism Ratted Out - Again |
26 Jan 2005 12:34:08 AM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 03:39:33 GMT, Grendel <jistnothin@trynot.com> said
in alt.atheism:
Al Klein wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 22:34:30 GMT, Grendel <jistnothin@trynot.com> said
in alt.atheism:
No, it just means that 'very good' isn't as good as 'even better', let
alone 'almost perfect' or 'perfect'.
No, it means no inherent evil. Meaning there is no more good to add.
Then evil came from ... oh, your god introduced it somehow.
God did not introduce it.
Since he created all things, and all is his will, of course he did.
No he did not.
You DO know what 'all' means, yes?
Yes. But in this case it does not mean sin.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Creationism Ratted Out - Again |
26 Jan 2005 03:03:25 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 06:34:08 GMT, Grendel <jistnothin@trynot.com> said
in alt.atheism:
Al Klein wrote:
Since he created all things, and all is his will, of course he did.
No he did not.
So you're saying that he created all things, except ...?
You DO know what 'all' means, yes?
Yes. But in this case it does not mean sin.
Citation? Or are you just making it up?
--
"I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the
type of which we are conscious in ourselves. An individual who should survive his
physical death is also beyond my comprehension,...; such notions are for the fears or
absurd egoism of feeble souls."
- Albert Einstein
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Grendel" |
|
| Title: Re: Creationism Ratted Out - Again |
26 Jan 2005 03:13:56 PM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 06:34:08 GMT, Grendel <jistnothin@trynot.com> said
in alt.atheism:
Al Klein wrote:
Since he created all things, and all is his will, of course he did.
No he did not.
So you're saying that he created all things, except ...?
Yes. He had knowledge of of it yes. That does not not imply or mean he
committed sin nor created it. Simple logic here.
You DO know what 'all' means, yes?
Yes. But in this case it does not mean sin.
Citation? Or are you just making it up?
Having knowledge about and committing are completely separate.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Creationism Ratted Out - Again |
26 Jan 2005 07:01:41 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 21:13:56 GMT, Grendel <jistnothin@trynot.com> said
in alt.atheism:
Al Klein wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 06:34:08 GMT, Grendel <jistnothin@trynot.com> said
in alt.atheism:
Al Klein wrote:
Since he created all things, and all is his will, of course he did.
No he did not.
So you're saying that he created all things, except ...?
Yes.
Chapter and verse?
You DO know what 'all' means, yes?
Yes. But in this case it does not mean sin.
Citation? Or are you just making it up?
Having knowledge about and committing are completely separate.
No citation, so you must be making it up.
--
"If anyone comes to me, and does not hate his father, mother, wife, brothers, and sisters and even himself, he cannot be my disciple."
Luke 14:26
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Creationism Ratted Out - Again |
24 Jan 2005 07:25:45 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 18:01:22 GMT, Grendel <jistnothin@trynot.com>
wrote:
Raymond Griffith wrote:
in article 41f31d38@duster.adelaide.on.net, le ténébreux at
prince.d'aquitaine@tour.abolie wrote on 01/22/05 10:22 PM:
[]
Ahhh, a *personal* anthropomorphism! Thinking about God in terms of ones
self!
and when I start on a new
project I don't start completely from scratch - I build the
program using various classes that I have designed beforehand.
These classes in turn have been designed for flexibility so
they can handle whatever situation they might end up in.
That sounds awfully good. Except that there is still this issue of poor
design.
It's more like an issue of poor understanding of what the Bible teaches.
Christians have that tendency, yes.
God as a direct designer should be *perfect*. If He did not let nature take
its course, then the initial design of every creature should have no flaws.
Raymond, at the beginning of creation before sin entered, it was
perfect. The creation was perfect. That is what the Bible teaches.
It also teaches bats are birds, rabbits chew their cud, people can
live in the belly of a whale for three days, eternal torture is just,
rapine is good, and more.
The initial design was perfect. Sin wrecked it all.
No. The perfect design was to wreck it all. There was no 'sin.'
According to the christian mythology, everything that occurred was
part of the 'Divine Plan(tm).'
'God' could have put the 'magic trees' outside the 'Garden,' but
didn't. 'God' was fully aware the mythical couple had no concept of
'right' and 'wrong.' They didn't get that until after they ate the
'magic apple.'
You are illogically saying "look at the junk yard of cars" "they all
must have had bad designers" That is nonsense of course.
So, why did you write it?
This is not to say that there would be no variation -- but the fact that
there are so many things that go wrong tends to point to a less than perfect
program.
For example, a relative of mine was born with a birth defect. Now since God
is the perfect programmer, and in the Scripture He takes all credit for the
way He has created us, then why inflict this constant pain upon my relative?
Sin Raymond. And it is absolutely astonishing that a supposed Christian
of your alleged length of time would ask such a naive and nonsensical
question.
It's a clear and relevant question. To sane people, inflicting a
lifetime of pain via part of a missing brain stem is not a sign of
'love.'
<snip rest of gross biblical mis-understanding>
Yes, you don't understand your bible.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: Creationism Ratted Out - Again |
25 Jan 2005 02:28:43 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 17:25:45 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 18:01:22 GMT, Grendel <jistnothin@trynot.com>
wrote:
Raymond Griffith wrote:
in article 41f31d38@duster.adelaide.on.net, le ténébreux at
prince.d'aquitaine@tour.abolie wrote on 01/22/05 10:22 PM:
[]
Ahhh, a *personal* anthropomorphism! Thinking about God in terms of ones
self!
and when I start on a new
project I don't start completely from scratch - I build the
program using various classes that I have designed beforehand.
These classes in turn have been designed for flexibility so
they can handle whatever situation they might end up in.
That sounds awfully good. Except that there is still this issue of poor
design.
It's more like an issue of poor understanding of what the Bible teaches.
Christians have that tendency, yes.
God as a direct designer should be *perfect*. If He did not let nature take
its course, then the initial design of every creature should have no flaws.
Raymond, at the beginning of creation before sin entered, it was
perfect. The creation was perfect. That is what the Bible teaches.
It also teaches bats are birds, rabbits chew their cud, people can
live in the belly of a whale for three days, eternal torture is just,
rapine is good, and more.
The initial design was perfect. Sin wrecked it all.
No. The perfect design was to wreck it all. There was no 'sin.'
According to the christian mythology, everything that occurred was
part of the 'Divine Plan(tm).'
'God' could have put the 'magic trees' outside the 'Garden,' but
didn't. 'God' was fully aware the mythical couple had no concept of
'right' and 'wrong.' They didn't get that until after they ate the
'magic apple.'
You are illogically saying "look at the junk yard of cars" "they all
must have had bad designers" That is nonsense of course.
So, why did you write it?
This is not to say that there would be no variation -- but the fact that
there are so many things that go wrong tends to point to a less than perfect
program.
For example, a relative of mine was born with a birth defect. Now since God
is the perfect programmer, and in the Scripture He takes all credit for the
way He has created us, then why inflict this constant pain upon my relative?
Sin Raymond. And it is absolutely astonishing that a supposed Christian
of your alleged length of time would ask such a naive and nonsensical
question.
It's a clear and relevant question. To sane people, inflicting a
lifetime of pain via part of a missing brain stem is not a sign of
'love.'
<snip rest of gross biblical mis-understanding>
Yes, you don't understand your bible.
He doesn't understand much of anything else, either. While the "new
and improved" Jist may be better natured than before, he's obviously
no better educated.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Grendel" |
|
| Title: Re: Creationism Ratted Out - Again |
25 Jan 2005 09:20:14 AM |
|
|
John Baker wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 17:25:45 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 18:01:22 GMT, Grendel <jistnothin@trynot.com>
wrote:
Raymond Griffith wrote:
in article 41f31d38@duster.adelaide.on.net, le ténébreux at
prince.d'aquitaine@tour.abolie wrote on 01/22/05 10:22 PM:
[]
Ahhh, a *personal* anthropomorphism! Thinking about God in terms of ones
self!
and when I start on a new
project I don't start completely from scratch - I build the
program using various classes that I have designed beforehand.
These classes in turn have been designed for flexibility so
they can handle whatever situation they might end up in.
That sounds awfully good. Except that there is still this issue of poor
design.
It's more like an issue of poor understanding of what the Bible teaches.
Christians have that tendency, yes.
God as a direct designer should be *perfect*. If He did not let nature take
its course, then the initial design of every creature should have no flaws.
Raymond, at the beginning of creation before sin entered, it was
perfect. The creation was perfect. That is what the Bible teaches.
It also teaches bats are birds, rabbits chew their cud, people can
live in the belly of a whale for three days, eternal torture is just,
rapine is good, and more.
The initial design was perfect. Sin wrecked it all.
No. The perfect design was to wreck it all. There was no 'sin.'
According to the christian mythology, everything that occurred was
part of the 'Divine Plan(tm).'
'God' could have put the 'magic trees' outside the 'Garden,' but
didn't. 'God' was fully aware the mythical couple had no concept of
'right' and 'wrong.' They didn't get that until after they ate the
'magic apple.'
You are illogically saying "look at the junk yard of cars" "they all
must have had bad designers" That is nonsense of course.
So, why did you write it?
This is not to say that there would be no variation -- but the fact that
there are so many things that go wrong tends to point to a less than perfect
program.
For example, a relative of mine was born with a birth defect. Now since God
is the perfect programmer, and in the Scripture He takes all credit for the
way He has created us, then why inflict this constant pain upon my relative?
Sin Raymond. And it is absolutely astonishing that a supposed Christian
of your alleged length of time would ask such a naive and nonsensical
question.
It's a clear and relevant question. To sane people, inflicting a
lifetime of pain via part of a missing brain stem is not a sign of
'love.'
<snip rest of gross biblical mis-understanding>
Yes, you don't understand your bible.
He doesn't understand much of anything else, either. While the "new
and improved" Jist may be better natured than before, he's obviously
no better educated.
Hey John, why do you insist on yelling taunts from behind mommy
kill-files skirt. You must be following Raymond's example.
C'mon out, I promise to go easy on ya.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Creationism Ratted Out - Again |
25 Jan 2005 05:37:50 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 08:28:43 GMT, John Baker <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 17:25:45 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 18:01:22 GMT, Grendel <jistnothin@trynot.com>
wrote:
Raymond Griffith wrote:
in article 41f31d38@duster.adelaide.on.net, le ténébreux at
prince.d'aquitaine@tour.abolie wrote on 01/22/05 10:22 PM:
[]
For example, a relative of mine was born with a birth defect. Now since God
is the perfect programmer, and in the Scripture He takes all credit for the
way He has created us, then why inflict this constant pain upon my relative?
Sin Raymond. And it is absolutely astonishing that a supposed Christian
of your alleged length of time would ask such a naive and nonsensical
question.
It's a clear and relevant question. To sane people, inflicting a
lifetime of pain via part of a missing brain stem is not a sign of
'love.'
<snip rest of gross biblical mis-understanding>
Yes, you don't understand your bible.
He doesn't understand much of anything else, either. While the "new
and improved" Jist may be better natured than before, he's obviously
no better educated.
I don't remember it.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Grendel" |
|
| Title: Re: Creationism Ratted Out - Again |
25 Jan 2005 09:17:34 AM |
|
|
stoney wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 18:01:22 GMT, Grendel <jistnothin@trynot.com>
wrote:
Raymond Griffith wrote:
in article 41f31d38@duster.adelaide.on.net, le ténébreux at
prince.d'aquitaine@tour.abolie wrote on 01/22/05 10:22 PM:
[]
Ahhh, a *personal* anthropomorphism! Thinking about God in terms of ones
self!
and when I start on a new
project I don't start completely from scratch - I build the
program using various classes that I have designed beforehand.
These classes in turn have been designed for flexibility so
they can handle whatever situation they might end up in.
That sounds awfully good. Except that there is still this issue of poor
design.
It's more like an issue of poor understanding of what the Bible teaches.
Christians have that tendency, yes.
Are you a Christian?
God as a direct designer should be *perfect*. If He did not let nature take
its course, then the initial design of every creature should have no flaws.
Raymond, at the beginning of creation before sin entered, it was
perfect. The creation was perfect. That is what the Bible teaches.
It also teaches bats are birds, rabbits chew their cud,
No no no. My, you have rally been lied to about what the bible teaches.
Have you looked at those passages...do any study on them at all?
I can answer them for you if you like.
people can
live in the belly of a whale for three days, eternal torture is just,
rapine is good, and more.
There are answers, are you willing to listen?
The initial design was perfect. Sin wrecked it all.
No. The perfect design was to wreck it all.
No, the original creation was perfect.
There was no 'sin.'
According to the christian mythology, everything that occurred was
part of the 'Divine Plan(tm).'
No, sin was not part of the plan. Knowledge of sin was, but that is not
the same.
God's plan is that all will come to know him. All of us start with our
names on the guest list of Heaven, you must activley choose to have
yours removed.
'God' could have put the 'magic trees' outside the 'Garden,' but
didn't.
Then he would be stacking the deck. A perfectly just God would not do that.
'God' was fully aware the mythical couple had no concept of
'right' and 'wrong.' They didn't get that until after they ate the
'magic apple.'
That's right, and it was by their own choice.
You are illogically saying "look at the junk yard of cars" "they all
must have had bad designers" That is nonsense of course.
So, why did you write it?
Write what? I may have typed something, you must be a bad designer of
sentences.
This is not to say that there would be no variation -- but the fact that
there are so many things that go wrong tends to point to a less than perfect
program.
For example, a relative of mine was born with a birth defect. Now since God
is the perfect programmer, and in the Scripture He takes all credit for the
way He has created us, then why inflict this constant pain upon my relative?
Sin Raymond. And it is absolutely astonishing that a supposed Christian
of your alleged length of time would ask such a naive and nonsensical
question.
It's a clear and relevant question. To sane people, inflicting a
lifetime of pain via part of a missing brain stem is not a sign of
'love.'
Good point, then why does it seem obvious that that is exactly what you
are doing?
<snip rest of gross biblical mis-understanding>
Yes, you don't understand your bible.
It's a safe bet that I forgot more about the Bible than you know.
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Creationism Ratted Out - Again |
25 Jan 2005 05:53:52 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 15:17:34 GMT, Grendel <jistnothin@trynot.com>
wrote:
stoney wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 18:01:22 GMT, Grendel <jistnothin@trynot.com>
wrote:
Raymond Griffith wrote:
in article 41f31d38@duster.adelaide.on.net, le ténébreux at
prince.d'aquitaine@tour.abolie wrote on 01/22/05 10:22 PM:
[]
Ahhh, a *personal* anthropomorphism! Thinking about God in terms of ones
self!
and when I start on a new
project I don't start completely from scratch - I build the
program using various classes that I have designed beforehand.
These classes in turn have been designed for flexibility so
they can handle whatever situation they might end up in.
That sounds awfully good. Except that there is still this issue of poor
design.
It's more like an issue of poor understanding of what the Bible teaches.
Christians have that tendency, yes.
Are you a Christian?
Of course not. I have morals. I can also read verbage for what is
stated rather than what I would prefer.
God as a direct designer should be *perfect*. If He did not let nature take
its course, then the initial design of every creature should have no flaws.
Raymond, at the beginning of creation before sin entered, it was
perfect. The creation was perfect. That is what the Bible teaches.
It also teaches bats are birds, rabbits chew their cud,
No no no. My, you have rally been lied to about what the bible teaches.
So "God's Word(tm)" can't be relied on? There goes that 'Eternal
Life(tm)' you were counting on.
Have you looked at those passages...do any study on them at all?
Of course, I was fully indoctinated into the RCC and Lutheran
superstitions until almost fully through high school.
I can answer them for you if you like.
Handwaving, tapdancing, might makes right, special pleading and the
rest of the rubbish aren't answers.
people can
live in the belly of a whale for three days, eternal torture is just,
rapine is good, and more.
There are answers, are you willing to listen?
Not to handwaving, tapdancing, might makes right, special pleading and
the rest of the rubbish
The initial design was perfect. Sin wrecked it all.
No. The perfect design was to wreck it all.
No, the original creation was perfect.
A perfect stage of malevolence and depravity.
There was no 'sin.'
Yes there was. The 'sin' was "God," which is good.
According to the christian mythology, everything that occurred was
part of the 'Divine Plan(tm).'
No, sin was not part of the plan.
Yes it was, the Bible says so.
Knowledge of sin was, but that is not the same.
And the scripting of all events.
God's plan is that all will come to know him. All of us start with our
names on the guest list of Heaven, you must activley choose to have
yours removed.
Thank you for demonstrating you don't know your own 'holy tome.'
'God' could have put the 'magic trees' outside the 'Garden,' but
didn't.
Then he would be stacking the deck. A perfectly just God would not do that.
The deck was stacked by your 'perfectly just god.'
'God' was fully aware the mythical couple had no concept of
'right' and 'wrong.' They didn't get that until after they ate the
'magic apple.'
That's right, and it was by their own choice.
<blink>
Did you have to study to become an idiot or is it natural talent?
You are illogically saying "look at the junk yard of cars" "they all
must have had bad designers" That is nonsense of course.
So, why did you write it?
Write what? I may have typed something, you must be a bad designer of
sentences.
Obviously, the nonsense directly above my "So, why did you write it?"
question. You could at least try to keep up.
This is not to say that there would be no variation -- but the fact that
there are so many things that go wrong tends to point to a less than perfect
program.
For example, a relative of mine was born with a birth defect. Now since God
is the perfect programmer, and in the Scripture He takes all credit for the
way He has created us, then why inflict this constant pain upon my relative?
Sin Raymond. And it is absolutely astonishing that a supposed Christian
of your alleged length of time would ask such a naive and nonsensical
question.
It's a clear and relevant question. To sane people, inflicting a
lifetime of pain via part of a missing brain stem is not a sign of
'love.'
Good point, then why does it seem obvious that that is exactly what you
are doing?
What are you drooling about now?
<snip rest of gross biblical mis-understanding>
Yes, you don't understand your bible.
It's a safe bet that I forgot more about the Bible than you know.
You've got to read the thing first.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Creationism Ratted Out - Again |
24 Jan 2005 04:58:33 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 18:01:22 GMT, Grendel <jistnothin@trynot.com> said
in alt.atheism:
Raymond, at the beginning of creation before sin entered
Your god created sin. He says so in your bible.
The initial design was perfect. Sin wrecked it all.
So why, knowing that sin would "wreck it all", did he create sin? A
perfect god created the seeds of destruction of his creation? That
makes no sense, unless he intended for us to sin, which would make him
a monster for punishing us for sinning.
--
"religion did for *****, what Stonehenge did for rocks"
- The World Famous Tink
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Grendel" |
|
| Title: Re: Creationism Ratted Out - Again |
25 Jan 2005 09:06:34 AM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 18:01:22 GMT, Grendel <jistnothin@trynot.com> said
in alt.atheism:
Raymond, at the beginning of creation before sin entered
Your god created sin. He says so in your bible.
No it does not. Knowing about it and commiting it are very different.
The initial design was perfect. Sin wrecked it all.
So why, knowing that sin would "wreck it all", did he create sin?
He did not create sin. During my drive home ***** I know it is possible I
might be in a car crash. That knowledge does not make me guilty of a
car crash. Nor can you say I created the car crash.
A
perfect god created the seeds of destruction of his creation?
No, see above.
That
makes no sense, unless he intended for us to sin, which would make him
a monster for punishing us for sinning.
It is entirely your choice. He is not holding a gun to your head. You
are choosing, it is his will that all come to him freely.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Creationism Ratted Out - Again |
25 Jan 2005 04:21:44 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 15:06:34 GMT, Grendel <jistnothin@trynot.com> said
in alt.atheism:
Al Klein wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 18:01:22 GMT, Grendel <jistnothin@trynot.com> said
in alt.atheism:
Raymond, at the beginning of creation before sin entered
Your god created sin. He says so in your bible.
No it does not. Knowing about it and commiting it are very different.
He didn't say he knew about it, he said he created it. He used the
word for 'create'.
So sad that a supposed Christian doesn't know the Christian holy book
as well as an atheist who's never been a theist does.
The initial design was perfect. Sin wrecked it all.
So why, knowing that sin would "wreck it all", did he create sin?
He did not create sin.
Either your bible is a load of crap, he lies or you're wrong. Want to
choose one? You've already committed blasphemy, so it doesn't matter
what you say or do now.
During my drive home ***** I know it is possible I
might be in a car crash. That knowledge does not make me guilty of a
car crash. Nor can you say I created the car crash.
But if your god says, in the book that's supposed to be his word, that
he created sin, who are you to say that he didn't create it and that
he doesn't say it in your bible?
Isn't that both bearing false witness and blasphemy? Whether you did
it deliberately or you didn't know you were doing it?
And doesn't blasphemy ensure that you're going to burn in hell for all
eternity, regardless of anything you may do from now on?
(Hint: The answer to all 3 questions is "Yes", since you claim to
know what your god said better than he did, meaning that you're
claiming to be better than he is.)
A
perfect god created the seeds of destruction of his creation?
No, see above.
Why should I accept the word of a blasphemer?
That
makes no sense, unless he intended for us to sin, which would make him
a monster for punishing us for sinning.
It is entirely your choice. He is not holding a gun to your head.
I am, according to your beliefs, what he created me to be. I had no
choice. So, yes, he *IS* 'holding a gun to my head', metaphorically,
at least.
You are choosing, it is his will that all come to him freely.
Except those he created so as to not be able to believe the words of
blasphemers like yourself. We, unless your religion is totally
schizoid, get a free pass.
Oh, BTW, you, being a believer, DON'T.
--
"religion did for *****, what Stonehenge did for rocks"
- The World Famous Tink
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Grendel" |
|
| Title: Re: Creationism Ratted Out - Again |
25 Jan 2005 04:43:33 PM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 15:06:34 GMT, Grendel <jistnothin@trynot.com> said
in alt.atheism:
Al Klein wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 18:01:22 GMT, Grendel <jistnothin@trynot.com> said
in alt.atheism:
Raymond, at the beginning of creation before sin entered
Your god created sin. He says so in your bible.
No it does not. Knowing about it and commiting it are very different.
He didn't say he knew about it, he said he created it. He used the
word for 'create'.
No. Post the verse.
So sad that a supposed Christian doesn't know the Christian holy book
as well as an atheist who's never been a theist does.
I am certainly willing to learn more about the Bible, even from you.
Please, post the verses and show me.
The initial design was perfect. Sin wrecked it all.
So why, knowing that sin would "wreck it all", did he create sin?
He did not create sin.
Either your bible is a load of crap, he lies or you're wrong. Want to
choose one? You've already committed blasphemy, so it doesn't matter
what you say or do now.
Interesting term. But , I am afraid you have been lied to. Sorry.
During my drive home ***** I know it is possible I
might be in a car crash. That knowledge does not make me guilty of a
car crash. Nor can you say I created the car crash.
But if your god says, in the book that's supposed to be his word, that
he created sin, who are you to say that he didn't create it and that
he doesn't say it in your bible?
He did not create it. Post the verses please.
Isn't that both bearing false witness and blasphemy? Whether you did
it deliberately or you didn't know you were doing it?
Are you smokong crack right now?
And doesn't blasphemy ensure that you're going to burn in hell for all
eternity, regardless of anything you may do from now on?
Would you mind please fro moment putting your crack pipe down and
typing n coherent sentance. Thanks.
(Hint: The answer to all 3 questions is "Yes", since you claim to
know what your god said better than he did, meaning that you're
claiming to be better than he is.)
It looks like you just agreed with what you typed and now seem very
proud to have done that. Weird.
A
perfect god created the seeds of destruction of his creation?
No, see above.
Why should I accept the word of a blasphemer?
Put down the crack pipe and pay attention.
That
makes no sense, unless he intended for us to sin, which would make him
a monster for punishing us for sinning.
It is entirely your choice. He is not holding a gun to your head.
I am, according to your beliefs, what he created me to be. I had no
choice. So, yes, he *IS* 'holding a gun to my head', metaphorically,
at least.
No, you have a choice. As you are demonstrating right now.
You are choosing, it is his will that all come to him freely.
Except those he created so as to not be able to believe the words of
blasphemers like yourself. We, unless your religion is totally
schizoid, get a free pass.
Oh, BTW, you, being a believer, DON'T.
Please, stop the crack habit.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Creationism Ratted Out - Again |
25 Jan 2005 07:29:56 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 22:43:33 GMT, Grendel <jistnothin@trynot.com> said
in alt.atheism:
Al Klein wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 15:06:34 GMT, Grendel <jistnothin@trynot.com> said
in alt.atheism:
Al Klein wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 18:01:22 GMT, Grendel <jistnothin@trynot.com> said
in alt.atheism:
Raymond, at the beginning of creation before sin entered
Your god created sin. He says so in your bible.
No it does not. Knowing about it and commiting it are very different.
He didn't say he knew about it, he said he created it. He used the
word for 'create'.
No.
Yes - don't call your god a liar.
Post the verse.
Isaiah 45:7
So sad that a supposed Christian doesn't know the Christian holy book
as well as an atheist who's never been a theist does.
I am certainly willing to learn more about the Bible, even from you.
But why is it that I, who've never been a Christian, know YOUR bible
better than YOU, who claim to be a Christian, do?
The initial design was perfect. Sin wrecked it all.
So why, knowing that sin would "wreck it all", did he create sin?
He did not create sin.
Either your bible is a load of crap, he lies or you're wrong. Want to
choose one? You've already committed blasphemy, so it doesn't matter
what you say or do now.
Interesting term. But , I am afraid you have been lied to. Sorry.
Lied to by your bible? Interesting bit of blasphemy there, calling
your god a liar.
During my drive home ***** I know it is possible I
might be in a car crash. That knowledge does not make me guilty of a
car crash. Nor can you say I created the car crash.
But if your god says, in the book that's supposed to be his word, that
he created sin, who are you to say that he didn't create it and that
he doesn't say it in your bible?
He did not create it.
You're still calling him a liar.
Isn't that both bearing false witness and blasphemy? Whether you did
it deliberately or you didn't know you were doing it?
Are you smokong crack right now?
No, I'm merely saying that calling your god a liar can't exactly be
good for the health of your soul.
And doesn't blasphemy ensure that you're going to burn in hell for all
eternity, regardless of anything you may do from now on?
Would you mind please fro moment putting your crack pipe down and
typing n coherent sentance. Thanks.
You're calling the beliefs of Christianity incoherent? (Not that I'd
disagree if you were, mind you.)
(Hint: The answer to all 3 questions is "Yes", since you claim to
know what your god said better than he did, meaning that you're
claiming to be better than he is.)
It looks like you just agreed with what you typed and now seem very
proud to have done that. Weird.
Why? Do you DISAGREE with what you type?
A
perfect god created the seeds of destruction of his creation?
No, see above.
Why should I accept the word of a blasphemer?
Put down the crack pipe and pay attention.
I think you're the one not paying attention. Blasphemy is a BAD thing
for you to do.
That
makes no sense, unless he intended for us to sin, which would make him
a monster for punishing us for sinning.
It is entirely your choice. He is not holding a gun to your head.
I am, according to your beliefs, what he created me to be. I had no
choice. So, yes, he *IS* 'holding a gun to my head', metaphorically,
at least.
No, you have a choice. As you are demonstrating right now.
How is this post a demonstration that I can be other than what your
god created me to be?
--
I cannot conceive of a god who rewards and punishes his creatures
or has a will of the kind that we experience in ourselves. Neither
can I nor would I want to conceive of an individual that survives
its physical death; let feeble souls, from fear or absurd egotism,
cherish such thoughts. I am satisfied with the mystery of the eter-
nity of life and a glimpse of the marvelous structure of the exist-
ing world, together with the devoted striving to comprehend a
portion, be it ever so tiny, of the Reason that manifests itself in
nature.
- Albert Einstein, as quoted in _Billions and Billions_, Carl Sagan.
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Grendel" |
|
| Title: Re: Creationism Ratted Out - Again |
25 Jan 2005 09:52:33 PM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 22:43:33 GMT, Grendel <jistnothin@trynot.com> said
in alt.atheism:
Al Klein wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 15:06:34 GMT, Grendel <jistnothin@trynot.com> said
in alt.atheism:
Al Klein wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 18:01:22 GMT, Grendel <jistnothin@trynot.com> said
in alt.atheism:
Raymond, at the beginning of creation before sin entered
Your god created sin. He says so in your bible.
No it does not. Knowing about it and commiting it are very different.
He didn't say he knew about it, he said he created it. He used the
word for 'create'.
No.
Yes - don't call your god a liar.
Post the verse.
Isaiah 45:7
The Hebrew word translated here is calamity or distress.
Try again.
Bible 1
Scoffer 0
So sad that a supposed Christian doesn't know the Christian holy book
as well as an atheist who's never been a theist does.
I am certainly willing to learn more about the Bible, even from you.
But why is it that I, who've never been a Christian, know YOUR bible
better than YOU, who claim to be a Christian, do?
So far, you are not living up to your self proclaimed reputation
The initial design was perfect. Sin wrecked it all.
So why, knowing that sin would "wreck it all", did he create sin?
He did not create sin.
Either your bible is a load of crap, he lies or you're wrong. Want to
choose one? You've already committed blasphemy, so it doesn't matter
what you say or do now.
Interesting term. But , I am afraid you have been lied to. Sorry.
Lied to by your bible? Interesting bit of blasphemy there, calling
your god a liar.
No, you are calling my God a liar. And I have already pointed out it is
you who is in error and lack understanding.
During my drive home ***** I know it is possible I
might be in a car crash. That knowledge does not make me guilty of a
car crash. Nor can you say I created the car crash.
But if your god says, in the book that's supposed to be his word, that
he created sin, who are you to say that he didn't create it and that
he doesn't say it in your bible?
He did not create it.
You're still calling him a liar.
Your on crack again.
Isn't that both bearing false witness and blasphemy? Whether you did
it deliberately or you didn't know you were doing it?
Are you smokong crack right now?
No, I'm merely saying that calling your god a liar can't exactly be
good for the health of your soul.
Crack head.
And doesn't blasphemy ensure that you're going to burn in hell for all
eternity, regardless of anything you may do from now on?
Would you mind please fro moment putting your crack pipe down and
typing n coherent sentance. Thanks.
You're calling the beliefs of Christianity incoherent? (Not that I'd
disagree if you were, mind you.)
(Hint: The answer to all 3 questions is "Yes", since you claim to
know what your god said better than he did, meaning that you're
claiming to be better than he is.)
It looks like you just agreed with what you typed and now seem very
proud to have done that. Weird.
Why? Do you DISAGREE with what you type?
Slowly now, I disagree with you.
A
perfect god created the seeds of destruction of his creation?
No, see above.
Why should I accept the word of a blasphemer?
Put down the crack pipe and pay attention.
I think you're the one not paying attention. Blasphemy is a BAD thing
for you to do.
That
makes no sense, unless he intended for us to sin, which would make him
a monster for punishing us for sinning.
It is entirely your choice. He is not holding a gun to your head.
I am, according to your beliefs, what he created me to be. I had no
choice. So, yes, he *IS* 'holding a gun to my head', metaphorically,
at least.
No, you have a choice. As you are demonstrating right now.
How is this post a demonstration that I can be other than what your
god created me to be?
Your obvious defiance of any rational reasoning.
.
|
|
|
| User: "cactus" |
|
| Title: Re: Creationism Ratted Out - Again |
26 Jan 2005 02:36:03 AM |
|
|
Grendel wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 22:43:33 GMT, Grendel <jistnothin@trynot.com> said
in alt.atheism:
Al Klein wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 15:06:34 GMT, Grendel <jistnothin@trynot.com> said
in alt.atheism:
Al Klein wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 18:01:22 GMT, Grendel <jistnothin@trynot.com>
said
in alt.atheism:
Raymond, at the beginning of creation before sin entered
Your god created sin. He says so in your bible.
No it does not. Knowing about it and commiting it are very different.
He didn't say he knew about it, he said he created it. He used the
word for 'create'.
No.
Yes - don't call your god a liar.
Post the verse.
Isaiah 45:7
The Hebrew word translated here is calamity or distress.
Try again.
Bible 1
Scoffer 0
My translation (Davka) has:
Who forms light and creates darkness, Who makes peace and creates evil;
I am the Lord, Who makes all these.
My Jerusalem Bible has pretty much the same. What I can make of the
Hebrew bears this out.
So sad that a supposed Christian doesn't know the Christian holy book
as well as an atheist who's never been a theist does.
I am certainly willing to learn more about the Bible, even from you.
But why is it that I, who've never been a Christian, know YOUR bible
better than YOU, who claim to be a Christian, do?
So far, you are not living up to your self proclaimed reputation
The initial design was perfect. Sin wrecked it all.
So why, knowing that sin would "wreck it all", did he create sin?
He did not create sin.
Either your bible is a load of crap, he lies or you're wrong. Want to
choose one? You've already committed blasphemy, so it doesn't matter
what you say or do now.
Interesting term. But , I am afraid you have been lied to. Sorry.
Lied to by your bible? Interesting bit of blasphemy there, calling
your god a liar.
No, you are calling my God a liar. And I have already pointed out it is
you who is in error and lack understanding.
During my drive home ***** I know it is possible I might be in a car
crash. That knowledge does not make me guilty of a car crash. Nor
can you say I created the car crash.
But if your god says, in the book that's supposed to be his word, that
he created sin, who are you to say that he didn't create it and that
he doesn't say it in your bible?
He did not create it.
You're still calling him a liar.
Your on crack again.
Isn't that both bearing false witness and blasphemy? Whether you did
it deliberately or you didn't know you were doing it?
Are you smokong crack right now?
No, I'm merely saying that calling your god a liar can't exactly be
good for the health of your soul.
Crack head.
And doesn't blasphemy ensure that you're going to burn in hell for all
eternity, regardless of anything you may do from now on?
Would you mind please fro moment putting your crack pipe down and
typing n coherent sentance. Thanks.
You're calling the beliefs of Christianity incoherent? (Not that I'd
disagree if you were, mind you.)
(Hint: The answer to all 3 questions is "Yes", since you claim to
know what your god said better than he did, meaning that you're
claiming to be better than he is.)
It looks like you just agreed with what you typed and now seem very
proud to have done that. Weird.
Why? Do you DISAGREE with what you type?
Slowly now, I disagree with you.
A
perfect god created the seeds of destruction of his creation?
No, see above.
Why should I accept the word of a blasphemer?
Put down the crack pipe and pay attention.
I think you're the one not paying attention. Blasphemy is a BAD thing
for you to do.
That
makes no sense, unless he intended for us to sin, which would make
him
a monster for punishing us for sinning.
It is entirely your choice. He is not holding a gun to your head.
I am, according to your beliefs, what he created me to be. I had no
choice. So, yes, he *IS* 'holding a gun to my head', metaphorically,
at least.
No, you have a choice. As you are demonstrating right now.
How is this post a demonstration that I can be other than what your
god created me to be?
Your obvious defiance of any rational reasoning.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Creationism Ratted Out - Again |
26 Jan 2005 03:05:10 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 08:36:03 GMT, cactus
<baldemar.malnariz@ubadlands.edu> said in alt.atheism:
Grendel wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
Post the verse.
Isaiah 45:7
The Hebrew word translated here is calamity or distress.
Try again.
Bible 1
Scoffer 0
My translation (Davka) has:
Who forms light and creates darkness, Who makes peace and creates evil;
I am the Lord, Who makes all these.
My Jerusalem Bible has pretty much the same. What I can make of the
Hebrew bears this out.
Christianity uses a different Hebrew for Is 45:7. It's part of the
Sacrament of Winning Arguments by Redefining Words.
--
"Every sensible man, every honest man, must hold the christian sect in horror. 'But what
shall we substitute in its place?' you say. What? A ferocious animal has sucked the
blood of my relatives. I tell you to rid yourselves of this beast and you ask me what
you shall put in its place?" - Voltaire
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "cactus" |
|
| Title: Re: Creationism Ratted Out - Again |
26 Jan 2005 05:11:31 PM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 08:36:03 GMT, cactus
<baldemar.malnariz@ubadlands.edu> said in alt.atheism:
Grendel wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
Post the verse.
Isaiah 45:7
The Hebrew word translated here is calamity or distress.
Try again.
Bible 1
Scoffer 0
My translation (Davka) has:
Who forms light and creates darkness, Who makes peace and creates evil;
I am the Lord, Who makes all these.
My Jerusalem Bible has pretty much the same. What I can make of the
Hebrew bears this out.
Christianity uses a different Hebrew for Is 45:7. It's part of the
Sacrament of Winning Arguments by Redefining Words.
Christianity has a long, sordid record of mistranslating Tanach to suit
its polemical needs.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Creationism Ratted Out - Again |
26 Jan 2005 07:06:36 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 23:11:31 GMT, cactus
<baldemar.malnariz@ubadlands.edu> said in alt.atheism:
Al Klein wrote:
Christianity uses a different Hebrew for Is 45:7. It's part of the
Sacrament of Winning Arguments by Redefining Words.
Christianity has a long, sordid record of mistranslating Tanach to suit
its polemical needs.
And of telling Judaism what it REALLY meant when it said ....
--
"Atheism is the world of reality, it is reason, it is freedom. Atheism is
human concern, and intellectual honesty to a degree that the religious mind
cannot begin to understand. And yet it is more than this. Atheism is not an
old religion, it is not a new and coming religion, in fact it is not, and
never has been, a religion at all. The definition of Atheism is magnificent in
its simplicity: Atheism is merely the bed-rock of sanity in a world of
madness."
[Atheism: An Affirmative View, by Emmett F. Fields]
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Grendel" |
|
| Title: Re: Creationism Ratted Out - Again |
26 Jan 2005 03:17:45 PM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 08:36:03 GMT, cactus
<baldemar.malnariz@ubadlands.edu> said in alt.atheism:
Grendel wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
Post the verse.
Isaiah 45:7
The Hebrew word translated here is calamity or distress.
Try again.
Bible 1
Scoffer 0
My translation (Davka) has:
Who forms light and creates darkness, Who makes peace and creates evil;
I am the Lord, Who makes all these.
My Jerusalem Bible has pretty much the same. What I can make of the
Hebrew bears this out.
Christianity uses a different Hebrew for Is 45:7. It's part of the
Sacrament of Winning Arguments by Redefining Words.
No, it's called proper and accepted exegesis.
Bible 2
Scoffer 0
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
