...Do you even believe in Evolution in the first palce? (2)

[EnemyOfReason]

This whole thread has turned into comic relief and I for one couldn't be happier.




.

Well some of us are trying to stay on topic here But my efforts appear to be futile due to the lack of debating potential being displayed. I am just ready to wrought forth the wrath of the mala'ikah on any anti-evolutionist remark.

But sadly this is not happening

 

[durangodawood]

I am strictly "SOLO SCRIPTURA"

http://www.christianforums.com/t7547378-42/
Solo Scriptura and Sola Scriptura...is there a difference?






.

Of course you are the ultimate interpretive authority. Who else makes up your own mind for you?

Even if you choose to delegate the work of interpretation, thats YOUR choice. Not the Bibles. Not God's. And who you delegate to is also YOUR choice.

 

[KWCrazy]

Claiming the events of a holy book as entirely true is not a logical idea.

Pretending a book that is not true to holy is an absolutely stupid idea. If the book is not the word of God, then it's not holy unless you believe God to be a liar.

The Qur'an in most regards is considered the perfected form of the Bible.

Personally, I consider it to be the rantings of a false prophet which is so demonstrably false the violent second half disagrees with the more peaceful first half. Islam IS the second most popular religion in the world, deceiving 23% of the world's population, but that hardly allows for the term "most." The Jehova Witnesses and the Mormans also claim to have the perfected form of the Bible, and I'm pretty sure they don't see Islam's complete rejection of salvation through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ as perfecting Chrit's message.

It is the Bible but in a more simplistic, stylized and poetic form without the integration of texts which hold no authority. Christians have the entire Tanakh which is called the Old Testament and according to most has no authoritative value.

Written by someone with absolutely no understanding of the Old Testament or of the message Jesus delivered. Jesus was not the abolition of the law, but the fulfillment of the law. Because of the intercession of Jesus, man can be saved by grace and does not have to live by the law alone. Jesus affirmed that the Bible was the inspired word of God and that it was 100% accurate. People can reject it if they want, but they are decieving themselves if they call themselves Christians, which means "of Christ," and reject the very things that Christ not only affirmed but by which He lived and died. Jesus spoke of Noah as a real person and of the Great Flood as an actual occurrence. Sadly, many reject His words and call the Bible a book of mythology and lies.

I have no problem with someone whose belief in an old earth can been rooted in their interpretation of the Bible. However, i have yet to find that person. To date everyone I've questioned seems to base their belief in a REJECTION of the Bible. My challenge is simple; provide passages in the Bible to support your claim. For me, the finger of God carving out the Fourth Commandment is pretty solid evidence that the Lord created the world in six days. In 10 years, I've never had anyone bring supporting evidence to the contrary from the Scriptures.

All of these books were written in a time where the concept of god was equivalent to science and was also the core basis for the institution of law.

Completely false. God was NEVER equated with science, from the day of man's creation. Much law was based on God's laws, true, but on moral grounds and on what was best for the society; not an what some scientist claimed about human behavior.

The events in the Qur'an and the Bible are regarded as utter myths to me,

How do you all yourself a Muslim if you admit that Mohammed lied?

What you extract from the stories is the issue.

So in other words, religion is entirely a personal thing and each of us can construe what we choose to believe. Chaos theory meets religion!

Almost all religions have created an empire in their past and thrived with the thanks of their teachings but they have also created periods of darkness and chaos.

People create empires, not religions. If you haven't noticed, most of the early Christians lived hand to mouth and many were murdered for their faith. In the Middle East, they still are.

The rejection of Evolution is the perfect example of this. Religious texts are the word of religious philosophers and poets.

So your religion is a sham because you do not believe in the existence of God? If you believe all religion to be the words of poets, why not call yourself an atheist?
I can answer this. Because if you reject Ilam after affirming Islam the poet/warrior inspired religion dictates that you be stoned for apostacy.

I love your prophets and I love your sages but I do not love the evils that lure heads from the dark insidious pools of ignorance that come from the lower dimensions of our human minds.

That's a flowery way to describe evolution. True foolishness is believing that the laws of the creation supersede the laws of the Creator. "The fool has said in his heart, there is no God."

 

[Dave Ellis]

By the way, IMO, the two best looking jerseys in all sports - Hawks Red and Maple Leafs Blue.

Completely agree

 

[EnemyOfReason]

Pretending a book that is not true to holy is an absolutely stupid idea. If the book is not the word of God, then it's not holy unless you believe God to be a liar.

Holy is a matter of perspective. I view the White House as holy and yes I myself view the Qur'an as holy along with any scientific research or production which has benefited mankind. The word Holy is a subjective term. The Qur'an is a book and within it is vast amounts of knowledge which is soundly constructed together and no where near the contradicting nature of the Bible.
Allah(swt) does not wrestle with his creation like what occurred to Abraham. He does not walk on the earth to find Adam in the Garden of Eden and ask "where are you?". Allah(swt) does not ask questions of his creation because he knows all yet from what is mentioned in the Bible god asks numerous questions.He asks Cain where is his brother is; Jesus is stated to ask many questions as well and even curses a tree for not bearing fruit on the wrong season.

To say that I believe god to be a liar is quite a statement when I have implied no such thing. No book is the "Word of God" because all books are the "Words about God". The very term prophet is nothing but a poet as is custom to Semitic tradition and it is even so in Arab tradition. The whole Qur'an is written in the form of rhythmic poetry for crying out loud as is many Hebrew text.

Samuel 10:10 "When he and his servant arrived at Gibeah, a procession of prophets met him; the Spirit of God came powerfully upon him, and he joined in their prophesying."​

Prophecy is nothing but the act of telling folklore and is you have studied the Vedas and various Hindu texts you will see no different. Prophets in the traditional sense have occurred many times and each spent his life reforming everything around him. All jurisprudence and governmental structure occurs from these people, look at Genghis Khan.
So to say my Qur'an has no "holiness" on the stance that it is written by a man with no understanding of the OT is quite ironic since he was able to not get people confused about the nature of it and have only 1 deity and not 3 .

Personally, I consider it to be the rantings of a false prophet which is so demonstrably false the violent second half disagrees with the more peaceful first half. Islam IS the second most popular religion in the world, deceiving 23% of the world's population, but that hardly allows for the term "most." The Jehova Witnesses and the Mormans also claim to have the perfected form of the Bible, and I'm pretty sure they don't see Islam's complete rejection of salvation through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ as perfecting Chrit's message.

You are aware that Muhammad made war by just existing right? By committing any act of reform to society Muhammad made enemies. There is a reason why most empires have rarely ever touched Arabia and there is a reason.
Read the Qur'an in Arabic then read the narrations and I am not referring to the rejected one either.

Written by someone with absolutely no understanding of the Old Testament or of the message Jesus delivered. Jesus was not the abolition of the law, but the fulfillment of the law. Because of the intercession of Jesus, man can be saved by grace and does not have to live by the law alone. Jesus affirmed that the Bible was the inspired word of God and that it was 100% accurate. People can reject it if they want, but they are decieving themselves if they call themselves Christians, which means "of Christ," and reject the very things that Christ not only affirmed but by which He lived and died. Jesus spoke of Noah as a real person and of the Great Flood as an actual occurrence. Sadly, many reject His words and call the Bible a book of mythology and lies.

Please provide to me proof of his original message because it is not in the Bible or any other book. It is ironic the only people who recorded him significantly were his disciples who glorified him to the point of being a god. There is also much irony in his supposed descent into heaven which occurred almost immediately after his death. Not many even witnessed him after these events.
This sounds like anthropolatry to me. Any book associated with Jesus cannot be conformed as his entire word for word statements. No proof lies in something like this.

I have no problem with someone whose belief in an old earth can been rooted in their interpretation of the Bible. However, i have yet to find that person. To date everyone I've questioned seems to base their belief in a REJECTION of the Bible. My challenge is simple; provide passages in the Bible to support your claim. For me, the finger of God carving out the Fourth Commandment is pretty solid evidence that the Lord created the world in six days. In 10 years, I've never had anyone bring supporting evidence to the contrary from the Scriptures.

Does it look like I care what the Bible says? We are not comparing scriptures and I have 5 Bibles as it is including a Catholic one.
Why would I support my claims in a book I do not even accept? This makes no sense

Completely false. God was NEVER equated with science, from the day of man's creation. Much law was based on God's laws, true, but on moral grounds and on what was best for the society; not an what some scientist claimed about human behavior.

? You do not even understand what I said . This is sad.
I referred to religion being equivalent. Equivalent means to replace or be equal to in form, existence of action.

The Bible said that the earth was flat so many people accepted it as such. The Church also does not have a clean record with accepting science in ancient times and it usually involved the execution of scientist and philosophers. Religion was the functioning form of science in that era.

So please explain how you became confused because the extraction of morals from psychological evaluations did not exist in Biblical times. There is no way you could have confused yourself on this matter.

How do you all yourself a Muslim if you admit that Mohammed lied?

I never said Muhammad lied about anything. He did what was best for Arabia at the time. The rest is not his fault but the fault of backward ideology and propaganda.

So in other words, religion is entirely a personal thing and each of us can construe what we choose to believe. Chaos theory meets religion!

Not chaos theory, it is called Deism and is actually heavily organized on the principles of reason that must be factually validated which of course incorporates science. Science is such a dirty word aint it

People create empires, not religions. If you haven't noticed, most of the early Christians lived hand to mouth and many were murdered for their faith. In the Middle East, they still are.

No, empires have been maintained and justified by religions. You lied about what I said earlier.

You are also dodging the fact that Christians slaughtered their way into Europe to expand Christianity and have been ripping the cultural fibers of primitive countries like Papua New Guinea.

I should also mention that thanks to the influence of pastors like Rick Warren, Uganda wishes to pass a bill advocating execution for homosexuals. I guess you forgot that part along with the fact that many de facto Christian theocracies exist in Africa where witches are killed. Usually immolated I should mention. I would rather be stoned to death them burnt alive honestly

So your religion is a sham because you do not believe in the existence of God? If you believe all religion to be the words of poets, why not call yourself an atheist?
I can answer this. Because if you reject Ilam after affirming Islam the poet/warrior inspired religion dictates that you be stoned for apostacy.

Read Thomas Paine: Age of Reason. Nice book. But god is not exclusive to religion.
Organized religion occurred later in mankind's history. Please explain to me how belief in god cannot exist without religion.

I am an avid worshiper of god and I firmly believe in god. Just because I wish to extract the cores of my theology from Islam does not make me an atheist it just makes me smart.
I am not saying I am smart because I wish to be vain, I am saying such because I believe in factual information and am not afraid to admit it.

I have spent my years as a literalist\ Salafiyyah who feared Allah(swt) and acted like a brainwashed Muslim.

Thankfully I am no longer like this and am not afraid to admit that I am a Deist in an Islamic shell. I can choose what I wish.

That's a flowery way to describe evolution. True foolishness is believing that the laws of the creation supersede the laws of the Creator.

"The fool has said in his heart, there is no God."[/QUOTE]

Thank god I left Christianity because this statement is entirely off. But considering the lies you used for your previous arguments this is not surprising. I love Christians but sooner or later the bad ones will come along.

That statement did not even describe evolution. It was a reference to the rejection of scientific facts.

It seems that your statements about me being an atheist is just insults to mask your own ignorance. You are not debating scientific facts about evolution just dogmatism.

Comparing me to an atheists is really despicable. What is so hard about you believing that god set evolution into order? What is so hard about believing that god did not even have to intervene in his creation. God only had to do one action and that is expand the universe into existence (Big Bang) and out of the infinite odds to occur he got his desired result and let the world set its self into motion as he planned. Essentially my god is smart he makes no mistakes. He does not set a tree in the middle of a garden knowing Adam will eat the fruit. He knows everything int he past and future and by one action alone can calculate the events of his one action leading into the desired effect.

 

[bhsmte]

Pretending a book that is not true to holy is an absolutely stupid idea. If the book is not the word of God, then it's not holy unless you believe God to be a liar.

Personally, I consider it to be the rantings of a false prophet which is so demonstrably false the violent second half disagrees with the more peaceful first half. Islam IS the second most popular religion in the world, deceiving 23% of the world's population, but that hardly allows for the term "most." The Jehova Witnesses and the Mormans also claim to have the perfected form of the Bible, and I'm pretty sure they don't see Islam's complete rejection of salvation through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ as perfecting Chrit's message.

Written by someone with absolutely no understanding of the Old Testament or of the message Jesus delivered. Jesus was not the abolition of the law, but the fulfillment of the law. Because of the intercession of Jesus, man can be saved by grace and does not have to live by the law alone. Jesus affirmed that the Bible was the inspired word of God and that it was 100% accurate. People can reject it if they want, but they are decieving themselves if they call themselves Christians, which means "of Christ," and reject the very things that Christ not only affirmed but by which He lived and died. Jesus spoke of Noah as a real person and of the Great Flood as an actual occurrence. Sadly, many reject His words and call the Bible a book of mythology and lies.

I have no problem with someone whose belief in an old earth can been rooted in their interpretation of the Bible. However, i have yet to find that person. To date everyone I've questioned seems to base their belief in a REJECTION of the Bible. My challenge is simple; provide passages in the Bible to support your claim. For me, the finger of God carving out the Fourth Commandment is pretty solid evidence that the Lord created the world in six days. In 10 years, I've never had anyone bring supporting evidence to the contrary from the Scriptures.

Completely false. God was NEVER equated with science, from the day of man's creation. Much law was based on God's laws, true, but on moral grounds and on what was best for the society; not an what some scientist claimed about human behavior.

How do you all yourself a Muslim if you admit that Mohammed lied?

So in other words, religion is entirely a personal thing and each of us can construe what we choose to believe. Chaos theory meets religion!

People create empires, not religions. If you haven't noticed, most of the early Christians lived hand to mouth and many were murdered for their faith. In the Middle East, they still are.

So your religion is a sham because you do not believe in the existence of God? If you believe all religion to be the words of poets, why not call yourself an atheist?
I can answer this. Because if you reject Ilam after affirming Islam the poet/warrior inspired religion dictates that you be stoned for apostacy.

That's a flowery way to describe evolution. True foolishness is believing that the laws of the creation supersede the laws of the Creator. "The fool has said in his heart, there is no God."

KW,

I think you would agree, that the bible makes some very extraordinary claims.

With that being the case, some people choose to learn about the bible (not just what it says, but the actual history of the bible) because many are telling them to put complete faith in it and they want to understand where those words came from.

When this is done in a historical/biblical scholarship method, the bible starts to have some significant difficulties and those issues have been well established by people who study it for a long long time. it just so happens, many people don't want to hear about that, because they view the bible as; it is the holy book and you don't question it's credibility in any manner.

This would be the equivalent, of a medical professional, writing a book about how to live a healthy life with specific steps to take and no one is allowed to determine the credibility of the claims, whether they are based on evidence and it should be just taken at face value because they deem themselves the ultimate source.

I'm glad we live in a world where people have to back up claims, otherwise, we would have a lot of robotic type people running around that all you had to do was pull a string or two, to get them to act the way you wanted.

 

[EnemyOfReason]

KW,

I think you would agree, that the bible makes some very extraordinary claims.

With that being the case, some people choose to learn about the bible (not just what it says, but the actual history of the bible) because many are telling them to put complete faith in it and they want to understand where those words came from.

When this is done in a historical/biblical scholarship method, the bible starts to have some significant difficulties and those issues have been well established by people who study it for a long long time. it just so happens, many people don't want to hear about that, because they view the bible as; it is the holy book and you don't question it's credibility in any manner.

This would be the equivalent, of a medical professional, writing a book about how to live a healthy life with specific steps to take and no one is allowed to determine the credibility of the claims, whether they are based on evidence and it should be just taken at face value because they deem themselves the ultimate source.

I'm glad we live in a world where people have to back up claims, otherwise, we would have a lot of robotic type people running around that all you had to do was pull a string or two, to get them to act the way you wanted.

Mashna'Allah brother !
This is the reasoning that I desire to see. Anybody can use reasoning based off any sort of subjects or information but to base it solely from PROVEN FACTUAL information is another.

I just wish many Christians and Muslims were like you. I find great value in the Qur'an but I do not except the whole it on the grounds of faith but the majority of it on the grounds of logical reasoning

 

[Strathos]

Does anyone else find it incredibly ironic how AV looks down on theistic evolutionists for supposedly twisting the words of the Bible, yet he believes in so many non-Biblical ideas himself, and he has to constantly twist the words of the Bible to try to support them?

 

[kellhus]

How is it controversial? She was married to Joseph after Christ was born, and they were a normal married couple. She had other sons; James, Joses, Simon and Judas as well as at least TWO sisters; one named Salome. This isn't a problem unless you make up doctrine and say that Mary and Joseph were never a real married couple. There is no support for that premise in the Scriptures.

She did not have other children, this is actually the belief of the majority of Christendom, so I'm a little surprised that you've somehow managed to never hear of it.

 

[EnemyOfReason]

Does anyone else find it incredibly ironic how AV looks down on theistic evolutionists for supposedly twisting the words of the Bible, yet he believes in so many non-Biblical ideas himself, and he has to constantly twist the words of the Bible to try to support them?

Welcome to my nightmare . Debating somebody as unbiblical as me

 

[Blackwater Babe]

Are you tired of repeating false claims?

​

​

 

[KWCrazy]

She did not have other children, this is actually the belief of the majority of Christendom, so I'm a little surprised that you've somehow managed to never hear of it.

So you deny that Mary was ever the wife of Joseph? You deny that the Bible in fact lists the names of His half brothers and sister, bore to His mother? That doesn't make the virgin birth any less sacred, it simply identifies Mary as the woman she was; blessed by God but not herself a god. After the birth of Jesus, her life went on like any other woman's life. She married, had intercourse, and conceived other children. The deification of Mary is cerntral in Catholicism, but it us without basis in the Scriptures.

 

[Blackwater Babe]

The deification of Mary is cerntral in Catholicism, but it us without basis in the Scriptures.

Mary is neither central to, nor deified in, Catholicism. And personally, after debunking this nonsense for the 5th time today, I'm having a hard time not seeing this as an intentional flame.

 

[AV1611VET]

Mary is neither central to, nor deified in, Catholicism.

Not overtly, but isn't she a co-matrix with Jesus Christ?

In other words, when one prays to the Father, do his prayers go to Jesus, Who takes them to Mary, who then takes them to the Father?

 

[Blackwater Babe]

Not overtly, but isn't she a co-matrix with Jesus Christ?

In other words, when one prays to the Father, do his prayers go to Jesus, Who takes them to Mary, who then takes them to the Father?

*eyeroll* OK, 6 times today. No.

 

[KWCrazy]

Holy is a matter of perspective. I view the White House as holy and yes I myself view the Qur'an as holy along with any scientific research or production which has benefited mankind.

If everything is holy, then nothing is Holy. I've seen nothing coming from the White House but corruption, attacks on religion, and attacks on the citizens themselves. If anything, the Whiote House is the antithesis of holiness.

Allah(swt) does not ask questions of his creation because he knows all yet from what is mentioned in the Bible god asks numerous questions.He asks Cain where is his brother is; Jesus is stated to ask many questions as well and even curses a tree for not bearing fruit on the wrong season.

Did Jesus have 15 wives and marry a six year old? I don't think so. The lesson of the fig tree is beyond your comprehension. Let me clarify. The tree was requested by Jesus to bring forth fruit. it did not, and was destroyed. Man is commanded to bring forth good fruit. If he refuses, then he too will die. It's glaringly obvious.

To say that I believe god to be a liar is quite a statement when I have implied no such thing. No book is the "Word of God" because all books are the "Words about God".

So Fifty Shades of Gray is a holy book about God, as is the Penthouse Forum? I gotcha!

The very term prophet is nothing but a poet as is custom to Semitic tradition and it is even so in Arab tradition.

Absolute fabrication. A prophet is one who reveals the messages of God to His people. Mohammed was a false prophet. His messages were never from God, and showed no consistency. He couldn't fortell future events, which is how a prophet demonstrates his connection to God.

Prophecy is nothing but the act of telling folklore and is you have studied the Vedas and various Hindu texts you will see no different.

No, there is a difference between a prophet and a story teller.

All jurisprudence and governmental structure occurs from these people, look at Genghis Khan.

GENGHIS KHAN WAS A PROPHET??

So to say my Qur'an has no "holiness" on the stance that it is written by a man with no understanding of the OT is quite ironic since he was able to not get people confused about the nature of it and have only 1 deity and not 3 .

One deity, three facets of that diety. When Mohammed denied that Jesus was the son of God, he proved that he was not a prophet.

You are aware that Muhammad made war by just existing right?

You are aware that he began as a thief, right, and that taking the goods of others by force was one of his greatest joys.

By committing any act of reform to society Muhammad made enemies.

Jesus taught to love your enemies. Mohammed taught to kill your enemies. Mohammed taught misogyny, racism and slavery. That's hardly a reform. Even the Romans were less barbaric.

There is a reason why most empires have rarely ever touched Arabia and there is a reason.

Yes, until the discovery of oil, the region was worthless. Things don't grow in sand. If not for the Arab Slave Trade and the discovery of oil, the region would still be a wasteland populated by roving tribes.

It is ironic the only people who recorded him significantly were his disciples who glorified him to the point of being a god.

Living a life free from sin, healing the sick, walking on water and raising the dead will get a person's attention.

There is also much irony in his supposed descent into heaven which occurred almost immediately after his death. Not many even witnessed him after these events.

1 Corintians 15:6 "After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep."
Over 500 people at one time is an insignificant number for you? How many people saw Mohammed walking and talking after he died?

Does it look like I care what the Bible says?

No, I think your rejection of God's word is quite evident.

I referred to religion being equivalent. Equivalent means to replace or be equal to in form, existence of action.

They were never equivalent. Science is the study of the creation, religion is the study of the Creator. God's laws have alwayst superseded natural laws.

The Bible said that the earth was flat so many people accepted it as such.

Your statment is completely false. It has been refuted so many times even the atheists have stopped making the claim.

The Church also does not have a clean record with accepting science in ancient times and it usually involved the execution of scientist and philosophers.

The church executed jesus too. What's the point?

Religion was the functioning form of science in that era.

Wrong. Some religious leaders saw the claims of scientists to be blasphemous. That doesn't mean that religion was ever scientific. However, many very learned men studied both.

I never said Muhammad lied about anything.

If he wrote things in the Q'uran that were not true, then he lied.

Not chaos theory, it is called Deism and is actually heavily organized on the principles of reason that must be factually validated which of course incorporates science.

If you think that science can validate the actions of a supernatural God, then you really don't understand either.

Science is such a dirty word aint it

No, it just has its limitations. The study of the natural world cannot explain, validate or invalidate the supernatural world.

No, empires have been maintained and justified by religions. You lied about what I said earlier.

You obviously don't understand the difference between religion and the peopl who practice religions.

You are also dodging the fact that Christians slaughtered their way into Europe to expand Christianity and have been ripping the cultural fibers of primitive countries like Papua New Guinea.

See above. Who did Jesus slaughter??

I should also mention that thanks to the influence of pastors like Rick Warren, Uganda wishes to pass a bill advocating execution for homosexuals.

Homosexuals are executed right now in Iran in accordance with Sharia law. You should be happy. Which homosexuals did Jesus murder, again?

I guess you forgot that part along with the fact that many de facto Christian theocracies exist in Africa where witches are killed.

I missed the verse where Jusus said, "Thou shalt burn witches at the stake and stone homosexuals." Can you point it out to me?

Please explain to me how belief in god cannot exist without religion.

You're the deist that eschews religion, you tell me. Religion is the organized worship of the deity. God requires no such orgnaization to exist.

I am an avid worshiper of god and I firmly believe in god.

Then why not use capital letters if you are refering to God as a personal noun?

Just because I wish to extract the cores of my theology from Islam does not make me an atheist it just makes me smart.

I fail to see how one's choice of religions affect his intelligence so I won't go there. It's interesting, though, that your interpretation of God is different from both Mohammed and Jesus. I guess that when God mande man in His iamge, some men decided they could return the favor.

I am not saying I am smart because I wish to be vain, I am saying such because I believe in factual information and am not afraid to admit it.

I learned a long time ago that bragging about my intelligence is not as effective as demonstrating it.

"The fool has said in his heart, there is no God."
Thank god I left Christianity because this statement is entirely off.

No, it's spot on. The rejection of God is the action of a fool. David nailed it.

I love Christians but sooner or later the bad ones will come along.

In my experience, the bad ones are the ones who don't challenge your sinful beliefs, but let you procede without bothering to point out how they differ from God's word. However, you are free to despise me to your heart's content.

It seems that your statements about me being an atheist is just insults to mask your own ignorance.

""I'm still alive but I'm barely breathing; Just prayin' to a god that I don't believe in..." You must be a fan of The Script.

You are not debating scientific facts about evolution just dogmatism.

This is a thread about beliefs, not scientific proofs. Perhaps you're in the wrong thread.

Comparing me to an atheists is really despicable.

I apologize to the atheists. I never ment to offend.

What is so hard about you believing that god set evolution into order?

The fact that God Himself stated otherwise; unless you don't believe the ten ommandments, either.

What is so hard about believing that god did not even have to intervene in his creation.

The fact that I believe His word; and that He isn't lying.

God only had to do one action and that is expand the universe into existence (Big Bang) and out of the infinite odds to occur he got his desired result and let the world set its self into motion as he planned.

Hey, it's your lie, you tell it. Just don't try to tie it to the God who actually DID create the universe.

Essentially my god is smart he makes no mistakes.

It must be nice to have your own private god.

He does not set a tree in the middle of a garden knowing Adam will eat the fruit.

See above.

He knows everything int he past and future and by one action alone can calculate the events of his one action leading into the desired effect.

Your lack of understanding about God is curious considering your extensive studying on the subject.

 

[AV1611VET]

*eyeroll* OK, 6 times today. No.

QV please: The Virgin Mary as Co-redemptrix, Mediatrix, and Advocate

 

[KWCrazy]

Mary is neither central to, nor deified in, Catholicism. And personally, after debunking this nonsense for the 5th time today, I'm having a hard time not seeing this as an intentional flame.

I have yet to see any passages from the Scriptures to validate your claim, so you haven't de-bunked anything. You've simply stated and re-stated your case. There are passages opf Scripture which have been presented that are contrary to what you claim. Maybe the flame is yours, in making accusations of those who hold a different view and can validate it. I don't flame anyone. I cited verses to support my assertion.

 

[Blackwater Babe]

I have yet to see any passages from the Scriptures to validate your claim, so you haven't de-bunked anything. You've simply stated and re-stated your case. There are passages opf Scripture which have been presented that are contrary to what you claim. Maybe the flame is yours, in making accusations of those who hold a different view and can validate it. I don't flame anyone. I cited verses to support my assertion.

Huh? You want scriptures to validate that Catholics don't worship Mary??? Well, there aren't any. There aren't any scriptural passages about Catholics not worshipping troll dolls either.

 

[Blackwater Babe]

QV please: The Virgin Mary as Co-redemptrix, Mediatrix, and Advocate

Although Mary has been referred to on numerous occasions as co-redemptrix, mediatrix, and advocate, none have the force of an infallible papal declaration.

No. Shes not. Revered, yes. Not worshipped. Get over it.