"Microevolution"

[Delphiki]

Until you guys can build a machine that can do this...

2 Kings 6:17 And Elisha prayed, and said, LORD, I pray thee, open his eyes, that he may see. And the LORD opened the eyes of the young man; and he saw: and, behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha.

... I'll take your accusation of myopia with a grain of calcium chloride.

I already have a while back.. But since I don't feel like looking for the thread, I'll just do the same thing again:

It's called an AH-64 Apache. It's one of many kinds of flying machines called "helicopters". It can fly up to mountains and had lots of fire power.

Of course, I have no idea what you think that bible passage is actually saying. If it's something you're taking literally, then what would be the point in making firey, horse-drawn, chariots that can climb mountains?

Additionally, I don't see how this is in any way related to the conversation. Nice non sequitur.

Actual universe > bible universe.

 

[Tiberius]

No, sir, I sure don't -- it's called faith.

There are many other religions, and adherants of all of them have faith just as strong as yours. Just goes to show that faith can be wrong, doesn't it, AV?

 

[AV1611VET]

There are many other religions, and adherants of all of them have faith just as strong as yours. Just goes to show that faith can be wrong, doesn't it, AV?

When the object of the faith is wrong, yes, the faith can be wrong.

Technically, the word is 'vain' -- meaning 'empty'.

1 Corinthians 15:14 And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.

 

[MoonLancer]

When the object of the faith is wrong, yes, the faith can be wrong.

Except you must have faith that the object of the faith is the right object ;p

Just like other people on the other side of the world.

Your just like them and equally wrong.

 

[Greg1234]

There are many other religions, and adherants of all of them have faith just as strong as yours. Just goes to show that faith can be wrong, doesn't it, AV?

Who said they were wrong? Dawkins came and claimed that if you believe in one god you cannot believe in another not realizing what God is. The goal is not to match religious practices or names, but to reach god, and they serve that purpose. The rest are minor details and is not a problem to study except in the case of materialism. Added to that, segregation breeds only when Darwinian principles are implemented.

 

[Tiberius]

Who said they were wrong? Dawkins came and claimed that if you believe in one god you cannot believe in another not realizing what God is. The goal is not to match religious practices or names, but to reach god, and they serve that purpose. The rest are minor details and is not a problem to study except in the case of materialism. Added to that, segregation breeds only when Darwinian principles are implemented.

So then, if both Christianity and Hinduism are paths to God, does that m ean that the B ible is wrong about all that Jesus stuff?

 

[knowledgeIsPower]

So then, if both Christianity and Hinduism are paths to God, does that m ean that the B ible is wrong about all that Jesus stuff?

Must be. I don't recall Jesus mentioned as a prominent figure by any of my Hindu friends.

 

[Greg1234]

So then, if both Christianity and Hinduism are paths to God, does that m ean that the B ible is wrong about all that Jesus stuff?

You first have to understand what is the Christ.

 

[knowledgeIsPower]

You first have to understand what is the Christ.

Could you point out the Christ in here?

Is it Vishnu?

 

[Tiberius]

Must be. I don't recall Jesus mentioned as a prominent figure by any of my Hindu friends.

Then any part of any holy text that is not shared by all other holy texts is not that important then?

 

[knowledgeIsPower]

Then any part of any holy text that is not shared by all other holy texts is not that important then?

I don't know you'd have to ask Greg. He started this idiocy.