hee hee 2

[Abongil]

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." John 1:1


I feel that this verse along with others are correct in God's word. The reason is I can't explain it, but I feel God when I read His word. I feel Him in the words, telling me what I should do, and what I should learn. That is why God's word has such an effect on people's lives.

What if it is actually Satan?

 

[Mayflower1]

The sheep know the voice of its shepherd. Satan has fooled many individuals but God's word is not that. If that was the case, satan would have never wrote all of the parts on goodness and righteousness. It is what he despises. He is all evil, and God is all good.

 

[Abongil]

The sheep know the voice of its shepherd. Satan has fooled many individuals but God's word is not that. If that was the case, satan would have never wrote all of the parts on goodness and righteousness. It is what he despises. He is all evil, and God is all good.

But deception is an act of evil. What if he made all the parts about goodness and righteousness to deceive you??

 

[Ryal Kane]

The sheep know the voice of its shepherd. Satan has fooled many individuals but God's word is not that. If that was the case, satan would have never wrote all of the parts on goodness and righteousness. It is what he despises. He is all evil, and God is all good.

From where did you find out this character trait of Satan?

 

[Skaloop]

The sheep know the voice of its shepherd. Satan has fooled many individuals but God's word is not that. If that was the case, satan would have never wrote all of the parts on goodness and righteousness. It is what he despises. He is all evil, and God is all good.

If Satan is all evil, and therefore unable to write about goodness and righteousness, then why is God, who is all good, able to write about evilness and sinfulness?

 

[Mocca]

they haven't the slightest clue as to how life formed - but they are ABSOLUTELY POSITIVE that God didn't do it. The diligent search for truth and knowledge -- er "science" you say?

Provide support for your assertion that the scientists are absolutely positive that "God didn't do it."

 

[TheBear]

The sheep know the voice of its shepherd.

Sheep. Yeah. That's a good description.

 

[awstar]

Provide support for your assertion that the scientists are absolutely positive that "God didn't do it."

My support for the assertion that the scientists are absolutely positive the "God didn't do it"

1 MR. ROTHSCHILD: Good morning, Your Honor.
2 My co-counsel and I represent eleven parents who are
3 challenging the Dover Area School District's change to
4 its biology curriculum. That change to the biology
5 curriculum, which is displayed on your monitor and on
6 the screen, singles out the scientific theory of
7 evolution, among all the scientific concepts taught to
8 Dover High School students, as being suspect and
9 promotes the religious proposition of intelligent
10 design as a competing scientific theory.
11 Eighteen years ago, the United States
12 Supreme Court, in Edwards versus Aguillard, held that
13 public schools could not teach students creation
14 science because that proposition's core concept of a
15 supernatural creator is religious, not scientific, and
16 therefore violates the establishment clause of the
17 First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
18 The Court recognized that the teaching of creation
19 science was motivated by a religious and cultural
20 agenda, not the improvement of scientific education.
21 What we will prove at this trial is that the
22 Dover board policy has the same characteristics and
23 the same constitutional defects as the creation
24 science policy struck down in Edwards. You will hear
25 testimony from members of the Dover community, these
Page 5
1 parents, teachers, administrators, and board members,
2 about how this change to the curriculum came to be.
3 Board members announced their interest in
4 the topic of evolution in starkly religious terms.
5 They looked for a book that could provide a religious
6 alternative to evolution, and they found one in Of
7 Pandas and People.
8 They changed the science curriculum to
9 advance a specific religious viewpoint, and in doing
10 so, they ignored accepted scientific knowledge, failed
11 to avail themselves of the advice of established
12 scientific organizations, and ignored their own
13 science teachers who opposed the change to the science
14 curriculum.
15 They did everything you would do if you
16 wanted to incorporate a religious topic in science
17 class and cared nothing about its scientific validity.
18 And we will show that the members of the school board
19 that passed this policy expressed their desire to
20 teach creationism over and over and over again.
21 That's their word, "creationism."

The above is the opening transcript from the Dover Trial

What if the school board just wanted to introduce a more plausible explaination of life and its origin? No can do -- because the high priests of the atheistic religion who invoke the name of SCIENCE are in control of our judicial system and they are ABSOLUTELY POSITIVE God didn't do it. All other points of view, no matter how obvious, will not be tolerated.

 

[corvus_corax]

What if the school board just wanted to introduce a more plausible explaination of life and its origin?

MORE plausible?
Provide objcective empirical eveidence that "Goddidit" is more plausible
Do it
Now
Dembski and Behe couldnt do it.
Perhaps you can do so
Perhaps you are more intelligent than Dembski and Behe. Perhaps your are more intelligent than they.

No can do -- because the high priests of the atheistic religion who invoke the name of SCIENCE are in control of our judicial system

No they are not
Your statement is, of course, a lie.
The scientists are not in control of the judicial system
They are subject to it (regarding the debate at hand)
You are nothing more than a conspiracy theorist, and your statement belies that fact.
Provide objective empirical evidence to demonstrate me wrong.

and they are ABSOLUTELY POSITIVE God didn't do it. All other points of view, no matter how obvious, will not be tolerated.

Provide a quote from a scientisit (besides Dawkins) that states that God (by any definition) could not have had anything to do with the state of the universe as we know it

Do so now

 

[Mayflower1]

God writes how we can fight evilness, and what will happen to the wicked. He doesn't tell us how to be evil, He lists out the things that are evil.

Satan wouldn't describe how to be good, how to have salvation, how to pray. Where do I find His character traits? Just as I feel God when I pray, I feel Satan when I sin. I feel the burden on me. He wouldn't write a righteous book like that...

 

[vitodabona]

God writes how we can fight evilness, and what will happen to the wicked. He doesn't tell us how to be evil, He lists out the things that are evil.

Satan wouldn't describe how to be good, how to have salvation, how to pray. Where do I find His character traits? Just as I feel God when I pray, I feel Satan when I sin. I feel the burden on me. He wouldn't write a righteous book like that...

This is a simplistic and naive argument. If the sole purpose of Lucifer the Light Bringer the first and most beautiful of all angles (Satan's title added for emphasis) is to deceive this would is exactly what he would do. All the great evils through out history have been done in the name of some good, by zealous "righteous men". Naked misdeeds, those without the guise of good, truth, etc. are not evil; they are simply misdeeds and are apparent to all. True evil needs a veil of goodness, just as lie need a veil of truth. This is one of the main symbolic lessons that can be gleaned from your faith's stories and characters, as from the stories of many other ancient culture's, that evil and lie are beautiful to behold, that's how they work their "magic".

 

[Mayflower1]

God wouldn't allow something like that though. Without the Bible, we wouldn't even know about God and Satan. God is more powerful then Satan and He cares about us. He would want to get to us first and then give us a free will to choose.

 

[Abongil]

God wouldn't allow something like that though. Without the Bible, we wouldn't even know about God and Satan. God is more powerful then Satan and He cares about us. He would want to get to us first and then give us a free will to choose.

How do you know God really exists? Maybe Satan and God are one in the same, a schizophrenic God, which would explain why God has not destroyed Satan if he is "more powerful".

 

[Abongil]

My support for the assertion that the scientists are absolutely positive the "God didn't do it"




The above is the opening transcript from the Dover Trial

What if the school board just wanted to introduce a more plausible explaination of life and its origin? No can do -- because the high priests of the atheistic religion who invoke the name of SCIENCE are in control of our judicial system and they are ABSOLUTELY POSITIVE God didn't do it. All other points of view, no matter how obvious, will not be tolerated.

SCIENCE DOES NOT DEAL WITH GOD!!!!!!! How many times do we have to say it???? Science only deals with real life, not the supernatural, so of course God is not allowed in science because it cannot be tested!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Abongil]

God writes how we can fight evilness, and what will happen to the wicked. He doesn't tell us how to be evil, He lists out the things that are evil.

Satan wouldn't describe how to be good, how to have salvation, how to pray. Where do I find His character traits? Just as I feel God when I pray, I feel Satan when I sin. I feel the burden on me. He wouldn't write a righteous book like that...

How do you know? I suspect Satan is VERY intelligent, and would realize that by writing a "righteous holy book" that actually describes how to reach him would be a good idea.

 

[vitodabona]

God wouldn't allow something like that though. Without the Bible, we wouldn't even know about God and Satan. God is more powerful then Satan and He cares about us.

If evil exsists then God lets evil exsist, or Satan would be no more. What I described is the very nature of evil and lies.

He would want to get to us first and then give us a free will to choose.

He would, but in order for free will, he would need evil to operate without boundary (hence be evil and not naked misdeed).

 

[Gracchus]

"Evil" is a problem for us to solve. It is a problem for the individual and for society. Perhaps God could solve it for us. But then we would not learn to deal with our problems.

God is fond of atheists. They aren't always begging for stuff.

 

[Abongil]

I hope so, I have never asked "God" for one thing.