Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth?

[Checkmate]

I have some questions for you Xians out there, who expect me to believe everything you (or your bible) preaches. Feel free to deal with any, or all of my queries. (Or just duck them altogether as I'm sure many of you will.)

 

(I apologize in advance if I dredge up subjects already covered in other posts.)

 

-- Why do the churchES of Christ disagree on what the bible says?

 

-- If the bible is the “rule book” for living, inspired by God himself, WHY do so many Xians find it impossible to agree on its meaning and content?

 

-- If god’s Holy Spirit is dwelling within EACH believer, then WHY do you all disagree about his revealed word? Why so many conflicting “interpretations”?

 

-- If god's word is "unchanging" and infallible, then why do Xians find it necessary and even possible to create newer and "better" versions/translations of "god's word"?

 

(IS god the author of confusion? Or are Xians simply liars?)

 

-- Do Xians have the ability (free will) to nullify the Holy Spirit’s leading, and thus disagree with what god has written?

 

-- If that is so, then what is the point in being a “new creature” made in the image of Christ, (who was obedient even to the point of death)?

 

-- If the bible is inspired by god, and delivered in such a simple fashion that ANY CHILD can read it and understand it, then WHY does the church require men to be educated in seminaries and bible colleges? Why do you need theologians to explain the Greek and Hebrew and Aramaic to you? Why must the text be exegeted and harmonized? Why must bible scholars be able to use hermenuetics? Why so much mental gymnastics IF the bible is SO “easy” to read?

 

(What CHILD is so “gifted”?)

 

-- If being “a house divided” is SO wrong, then WHY is the church divided on everything from baptism to women preachers to gifts of the spirit? (Even though the bible speaks “clearly” concerning these important issues.)

 

-- Why don’t the thousands of Xian denominations set aside their differences (as proposed by the Evangelicals and Catholics Together Treaty) and become ONE body of believers? Why are so many non-signers of this treaty so hostile to any proposed unity and oneness?

 

-- If Xians can’t agree with themselves, then why do they expect the watching world of non-believers to believe anything they have to say?

 

 

 

I say you so-called “followers of Christ” should just go away, and leave the rest of the world alone, until you can clean up your own house, and get your affairs in order.

 

Until you can agree on what “god” has spoken, then don’t waste your time (and mine) preaching “his word” to the rest of us. I, for one, don’t need such “clarification”.

 

Thank you. I await all of your efforts to set me straight on this perplexing issue.

[invictus1967]

Why do scientists disagree on where life came from?

 

If science is the “rule book”, why do so many scientists disagree on what it is showing us?

 

If science is an inspired natural entity dwelling inside us all, why do so many nonbelievers hide behind the phrase “open-mind” as a euphemism for “do NOT know”?

 

If science is “unchanging and infallible” why is anything within the scientific world that attempts to explain its origins based on constantly “evolving” theories that cannot be proven by the science it tries to explain?

 

Is science the author of confusion?

 

If atheists have the “free will” to use euphemisms for “don’t know”, what is the point of being so “open-minded” that all of your knowledge leaves through the openings?

 

If science is inspired by easily observable nature, why must science use theories that cannot be proven or observed to explanation the origins of what it is observing?

 

Why must science divide the origin of life from the evolution of life? Even science speaks clearly on the fact you must have building blocks.

 

Why don’t the thousands of scientist set aside their differences and become one body of “open-minded” euphemistic nonknowers, err… nonbelievers?

 

If nonbelievers can’t agree with themselves, why should anyone believe anything they have to say?

 

If you so-called “open-minded” nonbelievers would let the knowledge gained stay in your mind, maybe you could get your science in order.

 

Until you can agree on what science says, don’t waste your time and mine preaching on unobservable observations. I for one don’t need such clarification.

 

Thank you. I await all of your efforts to set me straight on this perplexing issue.

[Vixentrox]

Science is not unchanging or infailable. It has built in corrections where things can be brought to date as new discoveries are made.

[Reach]

If science is an inspired natural entity dwelling inside us all, why do so many nonbelievers hide behind the phrase “open-mind” as a euphemism for “do NOT know”?

 

If science is “unchanging and infallible” why is anything within the scientific world that attempts to explain its origins based on constantly “evolving” theories that cannot be proven by the science it tries to explain?

 

Invictus, you're killing me. That post is not worth a response.

[Vigile]

Why do scientists disagree on where life came from?

 

.

 

What, you can't answer his questions so you create a red herring? You are the one with the burden of proof here. Put up or shut up.

[Kryten]

Why do scientists disagree on where life came from?

 

If science is the “rule book”, why do so many scientists disagree on what it is showing us?

 

If science is an inspired natural entity dwelling inside us all, why do so many nonbelievers hide behind the phrase “open-mind” as a euphemism for “do NOT know”?

 

If science is “unchanging and infallible” why is anything within the scientific world that attempts to explain its origins based on constantly “evolving” theories that cannot be proven by the science it tries to explain?

 

Is science the author of confusion?

 

If atheists have the “free will” to use euphemisms for “don’t know”, what is the point of being so “open-minded” that all of your knowledge leaves through the openings?

 

If science is inspired by easily observable nature, why must science use theories that cannot be proven or observed to explanation the origins of what it is observing?

 

Why must science divide the origin of life from the evolution of life? Even science speaks clearly on the fact you must have building blocks.

 

Why don’t the thousands of scientist set aside their differences and become one body of “open-minded” euphemistic nonknowers, err… nonbelievers?

 

If nonbelievers can’t agree with themselves, why should anyone believe anything they have to say?

 

If you so-called “open-minded” nonbelievers would let the knowledge gained stay in your mind, maybe you could get your science in order.

 

Until you can agree on what science says, don’t waste your time and mine preaching on unobservable observations. I for one don’t need such clarification.

 

Thank you. I await all of your efforts to set me straight on this perplexing issue.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

OMG! You have proven science doesn't exist!! Wow- I am crushed...

But I still have lingering doubts about electricity, space exploration, television, computers, medicine, plastics, photography, spectral analysis, and all of the other technological advances created by science. Are those only myths??

 

I hope you aren't just blowing smoke up our asses and are just a big hypocrite and USING the fruits of that evil field science. Please don't give Satan a foothold on your life-- you must stop using the internet and computers!! No, really, please. Please stop using the internet. Do it now. Run from science and all its evil fruits. Please. Stop. Today. Don't support Satan by using science.

[Checkmate]

Until you can agree on what science says, don’t waste your time and mine preaching on unobservable observations. I for one don’t need such clarification.

 

Thank you. I await all of your efforts to set me straight on this perplexing issue.

 

Thank you for proving my point.

 

YOU have no answers, therefore you reply with sarcasm and scorn. Typical of Xians when confronted with the errors of their ways.

 

Now, do us all a favor and go away. Allow someone with integrity and knowledge to respond seriously to my post.

[white_raven23]

Thank you for proving my point.

 

YOU have no answers, therefore you reply with sarcasm and scorn.  Typical of Xians when confronted with the errors of their ways.

 

Now, do us all a favor and go away.  Allow someone with integrity and knowledge to respond seriously to my post.

 

You started the post. You asked the question.

 

Leave it to a close-minded christian to think answering a question with a question is a perfectly relevant way to debate.

 

The only thing boggling my mind is how people like this manage to function successfully enough to make it from day to day, blessed ignorance intact, and not get weeded out by either natural selection, or their own stupidity.

[white_raven23]

Are you talking about God or Invictus??

 

Biblical reference "Job".  Could it be that God himself is in our presence?

 

Good point.

 

But if invictus is god, then I shall go outside and hope to be bitten to death by squirrels.

[Vigile]

Good point.

 

But if invictus is god, then I shall go outside and hope to be bitten to death by squirrels.

 

What? He's worse than biblegod?

[Mr. Neil]

I would like to thank Invictus for showing us, yet again, his contempt for the cognitive ways by which we learn things. Clearly, if people can't get it right the first time, it must be wrong.

 

Yeah, fuck you. You might as well ask why the Wright Brothers didn't just build a 747. Why didn't they get it right the first time, Invictus?! Now, don't let that burn up those two synapses you got firing in that head of yours, because I'm going to tell you the answer.

 

The reason is because science is progressive, and like all sciences, the science of biochemistry has to start in an infancy stage, just like aerodynamics did with the Wright brothers. As scientists gain more knowledge, they'll be able to provide more information, and eventually, we won't have to have fairy tales about magic ghosts creating life, because we'll know how life really came to be.

 

For you to come here and get really snotty about science is hypocritical, because after all, you're using an instrument of science to communicate with us. Science is everywhere, dumbass. It's in your computer, your car, the architecture of your home, the plastic cup you're drinking out of, etc. Science is the way of the future. Theism is a tattered relic of primative minds that, for some reason, won't go away.

 

Now, if you're going to continue ranting about science, please start a new topic.

 

Or if you really want, you can actually answer this post and give us some idea why an infalible book is incapable of conveying a consistant message. And don't give us any crap like, "Humans are infallible," because that won't work. If God's book in infallible, then it should be able to get past man's imperfection.

 

After all, this is God we're talking about. He can do anything. He can write a book that speaks to everybody. Yet, for some reason, it seems to be entirely consistant with a book that was written by scientifically illiterate people. Now why do you suppose that is?

 

[chefranden]

Nice post, Evicted.

 

You should have made it a new thread parallel to this one. Then it would have be legit, sort of. As it is you have just stuck your head up your ass all the way to your naval. But please don't think that is bad. I admire your flexibility.

 

chef

[Kryten]

I am soooo loving Kryten today!  LOL!!  That post made me laugh and laugh when I really needed a good laugh. 

_____________________________________

Aahhh! Words of affirmation. I humbly thank you Madame...

[Vigile]

   

 

You're obviously referring to the evil diseased squirrels that dear Amanda brought up as a hypothetical to the kitty drowning issue, aren't you?

 

 

You're kidding! I have to run back through that thread. I didn't see how she answered Zoe.

[Ouroboros]

Invictus is on my iggy list, and I don't count his answers as valid for any viewpoint of interest. I'm still waiting for some Christians with some spine to stand up and defend the questions made in the topic header.

 

...

 

Come on... Christians! Where are the answers?

[white_raven23]

Eh, Iggy isn't a bad idea.

 

I kind of like it when the invictuses of the world come in though. Sort of amusing to see someone make that big of an ass of themselves.

 

Even funnier trying to picture such twits successfully contributing to the gene pool.

 

Picture this guy on a blind date with a real woman.

 

Or in a job interview.

 

Or accidentally walking into a gay bar.

 

Or trying not to flunk science classes required for their major at a normal college.

 

I find it a marvel that folks like this are able to fuction in life without some sort of special concession like the stickers for the cars of handicapped people.

 

Can you imagine it? Funde-Mental as an actual disorder? And treated as such?

[Vigile]

Eh, Iggy isn't a bad idea.

 

I kind of like it when the invictuses of the world come in though. Sort of amusing to see someone make that big of an ass of themselves.

 

Even funnier trying to picture such twits successfully contributing to the gene pool.

 

Picture this guy on a blind date with a real woman. 

 

Or in a job interview. 

 

Or accidentally walking into a gay bar. 

 

Or trying not to flunk science classes required for their major at a normal college. 

 

I find it a marvel that folks like this are able to fuction in life without some sort of special concession like the stickers for the cars of handicapped people.

 

Can you imagine it? Funde-Mental as an actual disorder? And treated as such?

 

 

Oooo... You just added another jewel to his crown which he will receive when he arrives at the pearly gates.

 

"Oh the persecution I have endured in your name oh lord."

[white_raven23]

Oooo...  You just added another jewel to his crown which he will receive when he arrives at the pearly gates. 

 

"Oh the persecution I have endured in your name oh lord."

 

When it comes to this nutter.....I don't mind. Maybe he'll get so weighted down with jewels, he'll just fall right through heaven's fluffy clouds and make a crater here on earth we can name Invictus Grande Doofus.

[Ouroboros]

You've inspired me to do the same, he is unworthy.  I have another that is almost ready to go on mine but I'm holding out hope.

I can call him Igno'R'Us... that's more fun!

 

I got so tired (I admit, even my patience runs out) with his twisting words and meanings back and forth just to try to squeze in some points or whatever reason.

 

The iggy list makes me see that he made a post, but not the contents, and I can still see what he said in quotes in other peoples responses. I just don't care what he say anymore.

 

He basically believe that science can prove science to be wrong, and then use ID or Creationism to replace science, and then reject the same scientific arguments against ID and Creationism.

 

Invictus resoning:

1. Science proves Big Bang, Autogenesis, Evolution are wrong

2. Replace the lost theories with the hypothasis of ID or Creationism

3. Reject any Scientific arguments against ID or Creationism

 

And also:

1. Bring up names of questionable scientists as proof of his viewpoint

2. Later bring up statistics showing 10 scientists of 4000 are questionable, to prove science is bad

[Mr. Neil]

Don't forget about nuclear fission. Nobody's ever seen neutrons bombarding atoms. In fact, no one's ever seen neutrons and atoms.

 

The Hiroshima bomb was clearly just a big firecracker.

 

We say that our world is made of atoms, but what are atoms made of? What is an atom? Just a bunch of protons, nuetrons, and electrons? Pssshh... what are those things made of? And how do we know these things? No one's ever seen them. Atomic theory is incomplete.

 

[Fweethawt]

This would be a prime time for everyone to read my signature.

 

 

 

Oh crap! Never mind.

 

I forgot that I changed it.

[white_raven23]

This would be a prime time for everyone to read my signature. 

Oh crap! Never mind. 

 

I forgot that I changed it. 

 

Actually it's the first time I've read the new one.

 

I like it.

[Fweethawt]

   

 

Actually it's the first time I've read the new one.

 

I like it.

 

So do I.

I had that sent to me as a 'thought for the day' e-mail.

 

 

My last sig was an actual quote from Neil, but I forget what it said exactly.

[Mr. Neil]

It had to do with the term, "evolutionist", and how that's really an inaccurate term, as there's no such thing as an "evolutionist". That's just a word that creationists made up to describe people who accept scientific theories that run counter to the Bible, which include, but are not limited to, evolution, abiogenesis, and the big bang theory.

 

The quote was something like, "If you really want a term by which to refer to us who accept such theories, perhaps you should use the term 'educated'."

 

That's not an exact quote, but it's pretty darn close.

[Fweethawt]

The quote was something like, "If you really want a term by which to refer to us who accept such theories, perhaps you should use the term 'educated'."

 

That's not an exact quote, but it's pretty darn close.

 

It was something about using the term 'educated' to refer to those who accept science over the biblical world-view.