no1nose said:
Now don't be silly. Find me a paper in a journal or somewhere about evolution that is anything but descriptive. Otherwise, retract your claim or look foolish.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
no1nose said:You are stating your opinion as fact. Which it isn't.
no1nose said:When I wrote earlier that evolution was sick this is the sort of thing I meant. A person who refuses to accept the consequences or responsibility of their actions is defined as being psychopathic. Scientists cannot avoid the responsibility or consequences of their belief system.
Niels Bohr and other great scientists have proven beyond a doubt there are no neutral observers in any system. All participants affect an outcome whether they call themselves amoral or not. I think that it is absurd that you have taken it upon yourself to define evolution to whoever - like you really could.
A gangster may call himself a businessman but most of the rest of us know better. Like it or not evolution is bad news, and the reasonability for the consequences of this belief system will rest with people who have promoted it whether they like it or not.
no1nose said:[font="]I dont believe that you can isolate evolution to just a definition. For example Pol Pot he acted out a evolutionary world view when he destroyed schools and hospitals, and people with glasses.[/font]
mark kennedy said:About the Witch Hunts of Salem Village in 1692 I have read quite a bit on the subject and there is nothing for Christians to be embarassed about. It started when three teenage girls were practicing occultic rituals. They became, in my opinion, demonically possesed. They became the accusers in these trails along with something called 'spectral analysis' which is dream interprutation. There was a minister hanged along with Rebbeca Nurse who's family had had land disputes with Samuel Parris (father to one of the girls and uncle to two). Rebecca Nurse testified that she was a Gospel woman (Christian) and was aquitted but because of the frenzied testimony of the deranged teenagers she was subsequently hanged.
The thing you have to realize about the Crusades was that it was largely a matter of political conflict and spoils. There was no inherently religious aspect other then the fact that they were largely Christian.
The Inquisition was started after Pope Innocent the Bull issued an edict that property of heretics could be seized. Fifty years before and after this edict there was no Inquistion and that was the leading cause of the debauchary that insued. It had nothing to do with Christian faith, it was about political power and ethinic tensions. The first people that they went after were the Moors of Spain who were the descendants of Muslim invaders.
no1nose said:When I wrote earlier that evolution was sick this is the sort of thing I meant. A person who refuses to accept the consequences or responsibility of their actions is defined as being psychopathic. Scientists cannot avoid the responsibility or consequences of their belief system.
Niels Bohr and other great scientists have proven beyond a doubt there are no neutral observers in any system. All participants affect an outcome whether they call themselves amoral or not. I think that it is absurd that you have taken it upon yourself to define evolution to whoever - like you really could.
A gangster may call himself a businessman but most of the rest of us know better. Like it or not evolution is bad news, and the reasonability for the consequences of this belief system will rest with people who have promoted it whether they like it or not.
no1nose said:[font="]I dont believe that you can isolate evolution to just a definition. For example Pol Pot he acted out a evolutionary world view when he destroyed schools and hospitals, and people with glasses.[/font]
The Lady Kate said:Actually, I lean more towards the ergot theory of the Salem trials... Ergot is a fungus which grows on grain in the area... the chemicals in it are natural version of LSD... if the girls in question got into some bad grain, accidentally or on purpose, then they would've have had hallucinations and seizures... pretty much the same as what most people then and now would call "demonic posession."
Actually, I lean more towards the ergot theory of the Salem trials... Ergot is a fungus which grows on grain in the area... the chemicals in it are natural version of LSD... if the girls in question got into some bad grain, accidentally or on purpose, then they would've have had hallucinations and seizures... pretty much the same as what most people then and now would call "demonic posession."
Project 86 said:Do you believe there is ever real demonic possession?
The Lady Kate said:I've always been skeptical on that... Especially since I once saw my friend's brother suffer an epileptic seizure. It looked and sounded exactly what someone would expect a posession to be like. Probably one of the most frightening things I've ever witnessed.
Now, seeing as how epilepsy has been around long before people knew what it was, I can certainly understand how people would write this up as something supernatural because there was no known natrual cause... which I believe is precisely what happened at Salem.
Is posession real? If it is, it wouldn't be the head-spinning, body-levitating type we see in Hollywood... There are plenty of personal testimonies and eyewitness accounts, but really no way of telling the difference between a seizure and a demon. So I'm skeptical on that.
What I can't understand about the idea of demonic posession is... what's in it for the demon? If Satan's goal is to lead people into eternal damnation, then what does he or his minions gain by snatching a body while it's still alive?
no1nose said:You have some interesting things to say. But it is becoming harder to take you seriously - I hope that you will not take offence if I don't.
Project 86 said:Thank you for answering me Kate. I find your answer interesting. I think the Bible clearly shows there certainly has been demon possession. Jesus certainly thought so.
(Matthew 8:28-32) When He had come to the other side, to the country of the Gergesenes, there met Him two demon-possessed men, coming out of the tombs, exceedingly fierce, so that no one could pass that way. And suddenly they cried out, saying, "What have we to do with You, Jesus, You Son of God? Have You come here to torment us before the time?" Now a good way off from them there was a herd of many swine feeding. So the demons begged Him, saying, "If You cast us out, permit us to go away into the herd of swine." And He said to them, "Go." So when they had come out, they went into the herd of swine. And suddenly the whole herd of swine ran violently down the steep place into the sea, and perished in the water.
I would argue that your using personal experience and views of the majority in science today to form your worldview.
A worldview I would argue that goes against scripture.
I ask that you don't get offensive because of my post and just sit back and think about it. Think why you believe what you believe.
mark kennedy said:About the Witch Hunts of Salem Village in 1692 I have read quite a bit on the subject and there is nothing for Christians to be embarassed about. It started when three teenage girls were practicing occultic rituals. They became, in my opinion, demonically possesed.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?