If Evolution were true...

[Herman Hedning]

Maybe this is what Jesus looked like?

From here: The Real Face Of Jesus - What Did Jesus Look Like? - Popular Mechanics

Well, why not?

 

[Nathan Poe]

As my pastor points out, when Jesus hung on the Cross, He looked like a piece of meat.

Well tenderized -- 39 times.

[You have some distorted idea of what true worship is, don't you?

Consider the sources I get around here -- garbage in, garbage out.

 

[AV1611VET]

Well, why not?

Yes, I'm familiar with science's ventures into areas they teach should be rejected on principle.

Bring a Bible to science class, and you might hear:

Excuse me, please put that Bible away, get out your science book, and let's turn to the study of El Niño.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Among other things, I was talking about evolution.

And nothing but -- a lie by omission is still a lie, AV.

King James wrote it -- that settles it, right?

 

[AV1611VET]

King James wrote it -- that settles it, right?

The Bible says it -- that settles it.

 

[VehementiDominus]

The Bible says it -- that settles it.

Given the Bible's track record, it'd be more accurate for you to say "The Bible says it -- that settles it, I'm wrong.".

 

[Deaver]

Or, alternatively, the gospel authors were not eyewitnesses.

Or they were, in fact, eyewitnesses just as they said and what Jesus looks like isn't important to the message.

 

[Delphiki]

. . .garbage in, garbage out.

You can't explain that.

Sorry.. thought is was funny that's where my mind went when i read that.

 

[selfinflikted]

You can read the biblical account of the “Flood” in Genesis 6-8. As you read this you will notice in Genesis chapter 7, verses 11 and 12 that the rain is almost an afterthought. The first two sources of water for the flood mentioned were “the fountains of the great deep” and “the windows of heaven.” Science has discovered hydrothermal vents at mid-ocean ridges in 1977. So it is easy to imagine “fountains of the great deep” being opened by God, allowing the pressurized water to contribute to the flood. Science has also proposed that the Earth used to have much denser clouds than it has now. Such a “canopy” would create a greenhouse effect, making the climate of the entire world very mild. Fossil finds indicate that not just the dinosaurs, but all animals, plants, and insects were much larger at one time – indicating a superior climate. At the time of the flood, it would have been easy for God to allow this canopy (or a large percentage of it) to fall as water. If almost everything fell at once, it would not have been like rain, it would have been like opening “the windows of heaven.” The crushing splash of water would have quickly drowned all people and animals that found themselves suddenly and unexpectedly immersed in water.

By the way, this could explain the thousands of woolly mammoths that have been found perfectly preserved in polar areas – some with food still in their mouths. Once the protective canopy and its greenhouse effect was gone, the world would have turned cold on the poles, freezing the mammoths in the water that killed them.

Aside from how the flood happened (which was dismantled by a poster already), I have to ask: Where's the phyical evidence that would be left behind by the flood? It should be unmistakably clear that there was a global flood had one actually happened - but there just isn't any such evidence.

 

[Nathan Poe]

The Bible says it -- that settles it.

So, your whole claim of:

Believe me -- no one questions what they hear and read and see more than I.

is garbage.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Do you blame them?

It's not a matter of confusion -- we don't think that's what Jesus looked like in the first place.

What about your "Boolean Standards," AV? I thought you accept something so long as the Bible doesn't contradict it.

Since the Bible says nothng on the subject of what Jesus looked like, your decision to reject a picture of him is based on your own subjective opinion, not "diabolical mimicry."

You're just trying to make God in your own image -- as always.

 

[Tomatoman]

Not in that order.

LOL -- you were just ready to ridicule me for having pictures, now you're ridiculing me for not?

Where was I ready to ridicule you for having pictures?

Actually, it is the magical aspect that you are attributing to the pictures that made me go "blimey".

No, actually -- I find it grotesque.

If not having pictures of "Jesus" in my house is displaying 'primitive superstitions', then so be it.

Iconoclasm. Took me a minute to realise that this is the remains of living breathing English civil war Puritan iconoclasm that I first heard about in history class and that struck me as stupid even then. The churches in England had their pictures and statues smashed in this period and as a result we lost a huge amount of art. Most Churches in England now are very bland inside, either bare stone or whitewashed walls where once the walls were covered in decoration and paintings. All because of the killjoy Puritans. No wonder there was such rejoicing when the Charles II became king.

And here is a bizarre period in English history alive and well in America. AV, you are straight out of the 1640s. Puritanism went to america and stayed in a time warp bubble and made you. Dear god!

 

[AV1611VET]

Since the Bible says nothng on the subject of what Jesus looked like, your decision to reject a picture of him is based on your own subjective opinion, not "diabolical mimicry."

Again -- I have stated why we don't accept pictures:

1. God, in His wisdom, did not give us an image of Him -- (or His Son).
2. The Antichrist will use those pictures to his advantage.

Remember Nehushtan, the brasen serpent on a pole? what does the Bible say happened to it, and why?

You're just trying to make God in your own image -- as always.

LOL -- we don't accept pictures of [a white] "Jesus" in our home, and that's 'making God in our own image'?

 

[AV1611VET]

Where was I ready to ridicule you for having pictures?

Actually, it is the magical aspect that you are attributing to the pictures that made me go "blimey".



Iconoclasm. Took me a minute to realise that this is the remains of living breathing English civil war Puritan iconoclasm that I first heard about in history class and that struck me as stupid even then. The churches in England had their pictures and statues smashed in this period and as a result we lost a huge amount of art. Most Churches in England now are very bland inside, either stone or whitewashed insides where once were paintings and decoration on the walls. All because of the killjoy Puritans. No wonder there was such rejoicing when the Charles II became king.

And here is a bizarre period in English history alive and well in America. AV, you are straight out of the 1640s. Puritanism went to america and stayed in a time warp bubble and made you. Dear god!

-- You guys crack me up.

All this because I don't have pictures of a white, long-haired Jesus in our house.

By the way -- do you?

 

[Tomatoman]

-- You guys crack me up.

All this because I don't have pictures of a white, long-haired Jesus in our house.

By the way -- do you?

I don't go round tearing them out of the bible.

Where do you think your version of religion came from? It's Puritan. Where do you think the baptists came from?

 

[AV1611VET]

I don't go round tearing them out of the bible.

Do you, or do you not, have pictures of Jesus hanging on your wall?

 

[Orogeny]

Do you, or do you not, have pictures of Jesus hanging on your wall?

I have, and it darn sure isn't because I think that picture is an accurate representation of what Jesus actually looked like. The picture is meant to be a reminder about who and what is important in my life, and serves to make me think about Jesus every time I see it. In this way, the picture is no different than any other Christian article, be it art, relic, or otherwise.

There's nothing Satanic about that, and if your first reaction to an image intended to make you think about God is to think of Satan and the antichrist, you've got bigger problems than we can solve here.

 

[Tomatoman]

Do you, or do you not, have pictures of Jesus hanging on your wall?

I don't think so, but I'd have to check. We have a lot of stuff on the walls. There could be one in the dining room, I'm not sure. We used to have a copy of Holman Hunt's The Light Of The World knocking about somewhere but it's in the roof now.

Why?

 

[AV1611VET]

There's nothing Satanic about that, and if your first reaction to an image intended to make you think about God is to think of Satan and the antichrist, you've got bigger problems than we can solve here.

You're not thinking this through, are you?

Rapture ... you're gone ... your house is now an empty lot.

Antichrist ... morphs into pictures on those walls ... people take mark of the beast.

What a price to pay -- just so you can be 'reminded'.

Of course, that is your prerogative -- and -- none of my business.

But I was asked why I don't have pictures of "Jesus" -- and I answered it.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Again -- I have stated why we don't accept pictures:

1. God, in His wisdom, did not give us an image of Him -- (or His Son).
2. The Antichrist will use those pictures to his advantage.

These are both your opinons -- the fact is that the Bible says nothing on the matter, so your "Boolean Standards" have been discarded.