Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

God Vs. "science"


Thumbelina

Recommended Posts

"A "science" professor begins his school year with a lecture to the students, 'Let me explain the problem science has with religion.' The atheist professor of" "science" philosophy pauses before his class and then asks one of his new students to stand.

 

'You're a Christian, aren't you, son?'

'Yes sir,' the student says.

 

'So you believe in God?'

'Absolutely.'

 

'Is God good?'

'Sure! God's good.'

 

'Is God all-powerful? Can God do anything?'

'Yes.'

 

'Are you good or evil?'

'The Bible says I'm evil.'

 

The professor grins knowingly. 'Aha! The Bible!' He considers for a moment. 'Here's one for you. Let's say there's a sick person over here and you can cure him. You can do it. Would you help him? Would you try?'

'Yes sir, I would.'

 

'So you're good...!'

'I wouldn't say that.'

 

'But why not say that? You'd help a sick and maimed person if you could. Most of us would if we could. But God doesn't.'

 

The student does not answer, so the professor continues. 'He doesn't, does he? My brother was a Christian who died of cancer, even though he prayed to Jesus to heal him. How is this Jesus good? Hmmm? Can you answer that one?'

The student remains silent.

'No, you can't, can you?' the professor says. He takes a sip of water from a glass on his desk to give the student time to relax.

 

'Let's start again, young fella. Is God good?'

'Er...yes,' the student says.

 

'Is Satan good?'

The student doesn't hesitate on this one. 'No.'

 

'Then where does Satan come from?'

 

The student falters. 'From God'

 

'That's right. God made Satan, didn't he? Tell me, son. Is there evil in this world?'

'Yes, sir.'

 

'Evil's everywhere, isn't it? And God did make everything, correct?'

'Yes.'

 

'So who created evil?' The professor continued, 'If God created everything, then God created evil, since evil exists, and according to the principle that our works define who we are, then God is evil.'

Again, the student has no answer.

 

'Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible things, do they exist in this world?'

 

The student squirms on his feet. 'Yes.'

 

'So who created them?'

The student does not answer again, so the professor repeats his question.

'Who created them?' There is still no answer. Suddenly the lecturer breaks away to pace in front of the classroom. The class is mesmerized.

 

'Tell me,' he continues onto another student. 'Do you believe in Jesus Christ, son?'

 

The student's voice betrays him and cracks. 'Yes, professor, I do.'

 

The old man stops pacing. 'Science says you have five senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Have you ever seen Jesus?'

'No sir. I've never seen Him.'

 

'Then tell us if you've ever heard your Jesus?'

'No, sir, I have not.'

 

'Have you ever felt your Jesus, tasted your Jesus or smelt your Jesus? Have you ever had any sensory perception of Jesus Christ, or God for that matter?'

'No, sir, I'm afraid I haven't..'

 

'Yet you still believe in him?'

'Yes.'

 

'According to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says your God doesn't exist. What do you say to that, son?'

 

'Nothing,' the student replies. 'I only have my faith.'

 

'Yes, faith,' the professor repeats. 'And that is the problem science has with God. There is no evidence, only faith.'

 

The student stands quietly for a moment, before asking a question of His own. 'Professor, is there such thing as heat?'

'Yes,' the professor replies. 'There's heat.'

 

'And is there such a thing as cold?'

'Yes, son, there's cold too.'

'No sir, there isn't.'

 

The professor turns to face the student, obviously interested. The room suddenly becomes very quiet. The student begins to explain. 'You can have lots of heat, even more heat, super-heat, mega-heat, unlimited heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat, but we don't have anything called 'cold'. We can hit up to 458 degrees below zero, which is no heat, but we can't go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold; otherwise we would be able to go colder than the lowest -458 degrees.'

 

'Every body or object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits energy, and heat is what makes a body or matter have or transmit energy. Absolute zero (-458 F) is the total absence of heat. You see, sir, cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat we can measure in thermal units because heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it.'

 

Silence across the room. A pen drops somewhere in the classroom, sounding like a hammer.

 

'What about darkness, professor. Is there such a thing as darkness?'

'Yes,' the professor replies without hesitation. 'What is night if it isn't darkness?'

 

'You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is not something; it is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light, but if you have no light constantly you have nothing and it's called darkness, isn't it?

 

That's the meaning we use to define the word. 'In reality, darkness isn't. If it were, you would be able to make darkness darker, wouldn't you?'

 

The professor begins to smile at the student in front of him. This will be a good semester.. 'So what point are you making, young man?'

 

'Yes, professor. My point is, your philosophical premise is flawed to start with, and so your conclusion must also be flawed.'

 

The professor's face cannot hide his surprise this time. 'Flawed? Can you explain how?'

 

'You are working on the premise of duality,' the student explains. 'You argue that there is life and then there's death; a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, science can't even explain a thought.'

 

'It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one.

 

To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing.

Death is not the opposite of life, just the absence of it.'

 

'Now tell me, professor. Do you teach your students that they evolved from monkey?'

 

'If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, young man, yes, of course I do.'

 

'Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?'

 

The professor begins to shake his head, still smiling, as he realizes where the argument is going. A very good semester, indeed.

 

'Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you now not a scientist, but a preacher?'

 

The class is in uproar. The student remains silent until the commotion has subsided.

 

'To continue the point you were making earlier to the other student, let me give you an example of what I mean.'

 

The student looks around the room. 'Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the professor's brain?' The class breaks out into laughter.

 

'Is there anyone here who has ever heard the professor's brain, felt the professor's brain, touched or smelt the professor's brain? No one appears to have done so. So, according to the established rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science says that you have no brain, with all due respect, sir.'

 

'So if science says you have no brain, how can we trust your lectures, sir?'

 

Now the room is silent. The professor just stares at the student, his face unreadable.

 

Finally, after what seems an eternity, the old man answers. 'I guess you'll have to take them on faith.'

 

'Now, you accept that there is faith, and, in fact, faith exists with life,' the student continues. 'Now, sir, is there such a thing as evil?'

 

Now uncertain, the professor responds, 'Of course, there is. We see it everyday. It is in the daily example of man's inhumanity to man. It is in the multitude of crime and violence everywhere in the world. These manifestations are nothing else but evil.'

 

To this the student replied, "'Evil does not exist sir, or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil [sin] emphasis mine . Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God's love present in his heart. It's like the cold that comes when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when there is no light.'

 

The professor sat down."

 

........

lol. That philosophy professor just had to use his philosophy class to promote his beliefs huh?!

The boy should have told the professor: "When you make people think they are thinking, they will love you. But when you make them THINK, they will hate you”.

 

Sorry my friends, the above jokes were not meant to be condescending to anyone OK? It was just meant to show that evolutionists cannot be dogmatic about an evolutionary theory of origins; just like belief in God, it too is based on faith.

Actually, if the bible did not have the prophecies it would have been merely a philosophical book.

 

Here's a little bit of trivia (seemingly), to the objective amongst you who won't mind playing God's advocate;) lol ; based on the above joke, why would this song : Michael Jackson - We Are the World Lyrics

be utterly evil in the sight of God? (Hint, hint read Luke 4:1-13)

 

 

P.S. Yeah yeah I know some of you would claim to be "common ancestors" with the darn monkeys. But c'mon admit it, we're waaaay cuter than monkeys.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 60
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Ouroboros

    9

  • Phanta

    8

  • Purple

    3

  • Shyone

    3

P.S. Yeah yeah I know some of you would claim to be "common ancestors" with the darn monkeys. But c'mon admit it, we're waaaay cuter than monkeys.

We have a common ancestral species with the monkeys.

 

Man, you're ignorant. Your story's bullshit too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Silly story.

 

And I think you're both wrong, unless I'm not remember this correctly, we have a common ancestor with the apes. :woohoo:

 

So evil is the absence of God? Hell is evil, God created Hell, God is the source of evil creation. Blame God, not humans.

 

The absolute view of relational things is just so yesterday...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BDP,

 

Good and True Christians™ never read Snopes. They just make up shit, or they resend shit they heard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thumby, you and Kathleen need to exchange e-mail addresses and cute story each other into ectasy.woohoo.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Our earliest primate ancestor would be classified as a monkey (presence of a tail). Remember Ida? Of course, you can go all the way back to the single celled organisms and cyanobacteria that gave rise to the presence of oxygen on this planet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry my friends, the above jokes were not meant to be condescending to anyone OK?

Uh-huh.

 

It was just meant to show that evolutionists cannot be dogmatic about an evolutionary theory of origins; just like belief in God, it too is based on faith.

This would be more meaningful if I were convinced you knew diddly-squat about evolution. A belief based on faith is based on ignorance. I used to have faith that God existed and that evolution was a lie. When I learned more about my religion and about the universe, I found my faith was mere ignorance. If I may wax poetic, my faith dissipated like a rising fog under the light of reason. I ate of the fruit of the tree of knowledge and my eyes were opened, and I became as God, knowing good and evil.

 

I am convinced now that evolution is a real process and that we accurately know a good deal about it because I've examined the evidence. I've looked at the maps of human and chimpanzee chromosomes, I've seen photographs of fossils of feathered dinosaurs and fish with necks, I've read the compilations of data used to construct phylogenetic trees, and I've seen the evidence for evolution of new genes. Can you claim the same? Has your study of evolution led you any further than an introductory bio class and Answers in Genesis?

 

P.S. Yeah yeah I know some of you would claim to be "common ancestors" with the darn monkeys. But c'mon admit it, we're waaaay cuter than monkeys.

Unless you think you were a monkey in a past life and reincarnated as a human, the proper terminology is that humans and monkeys share a common ancestor. And we do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator

That does it. You're an idiot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am rendered speechless by how utterly idiotic this is...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"A "science" professor begins his school year with a lecture to the students, [crap deleted]

 

Another morontheist tries to mask the emptiness of its claims with looooooooonng inflated babblings.

 

I'm sooooooooo surprised.

 

Not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Valkyrie0010

I would call you a liar, but then I realized how you probably genuinely believe the lies.

All I got to say is

 

its stupid the entire thing

 

about the only thing you have a argument in imo is the consciousness thing. And I can't say I know enough to way in on that one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thumby, you and Kathleen need to exchange e-mail addresses and cute story each other into ectasy.woohoo.gif

Yeah, no doubt. They could have a threesome with their imaginary boyfriend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always find it curious when Christians hinge their arguments on these premises:

 

 

Evolution......

 

 

Like, who cares ? Even if and when we absolutely prove that humans and apes share a common ancestor, Christianity will adapt, and say it's all part of "God's Plan". Just like they had to adapt to the fact that the Earth is not the center of the Universe, as well as adapt to every other aspect of reality now established by science and education.

 

 

Science vs God.....

 

 

Really ? The Bible has absolutely nothing to say about the NATURAL world. Nothing at all. It doesn't discuss electricity, gravitational forces, magnetism, or even suggest that most diseases and illnesses are caused by tiny bugs we can't see. Spiritualism and faith are not "scientific" in the first place, and I laugh at the whole idea that empirical study of our natural world is somehow "in conflict" with Faith.

 

 

Fancy arguments are fine; but I'm afraid that the OP's story does not reflect the realities involved with religion. Religion sooner or later must rely on faith, and not being able to prove (any of it) religious things, whereas science asks only that one examine the evidence, and verify it's findings by repeated experimentation.

 

 

I'm more annoyed by the lack of understanding about what science really is these days, by faith-based people who think that they need to oppose it, or fight it, than by any other aspect of the subject.

 

Nobody converts to Christianity because they "lost faith" in "science". This is absurd, and displays the bankrupt nature of current fundamentalist and Bible brainwashed thinking. One of the major things that some of my Christian friends have to defend against these days is.....embarrassment. It's getting crazier and crazier these days with these people; evolution and personal lifestyle freedoms have replaced witchcraft and heresy as the new imaginary "evils" to be dealt with.

 

I see a religion that's about to take a major fall within the next generation or two.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Neat. Someone has now decided to post their spam emails here...let's take a look:

 

'Is God good?'

'Sure! God's good.'

Define one "god" as being "good." Done.

 

'Are you good or evil?'

'The Bible says I'm evil.'

Define one "student" as being "evil." Done. Remember this for later.

 

'Let's start again, young fella. Is God good?'

'Er...yes,' the student says.

 

'Is Satan good?'

The student doesn't hesitate on this one. 'No.'

Make sure that "god" is still "good." Yep.

 

Drag "satan" into this for no reason? Why not. He's not "good."

 

'That's right. God made Satan, didn't he? Tell me, son. Is there evil in this world?'

'Yes, sir.'

Define "the world" as "evil." Done.

 

'Evil's everywhere, isn't it? And God did make everything, correct?'

'Yes.'

 

'So who created evil?' The professor continued, 'If God created everything, then God created evil, since evil exists, and according to the principle that our works define who we are, then God is evil.'

Again, the student has no answer.

Define "evil" as existing "everywhere." Done.

 

To be honest if this "principle" was ever defined I missed it in this long mess of a story. So, okay, accept the premise it doesn't matter.

 

'Now, you accept that there is faith, and, in fact, faith exists with life,' the student continues. 'Now, sir, is there such a thing as evil?'

 

Now uncertain, the professor responds, 'Of course, there is. We see it everyday. It is in the daily example of man's inhumanity to man. It is in the multitude of crime and violence everywhere in the world. These manifestations are nothing else but evil.'

 

To this the student replied, "'Evil does not exist sir, or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil [sin] emphasis mine . Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God's love present in his heart. It's like the cold that comes when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when there is no light.'

Kid now nails professor! Gotcha Prof!

 

Or, rather, kid proved there was no god. How? There is evil. It is everywhere. A "god" must be present, by his own argument, for there to be "good" in the world. No good means no god. Thank you kid! Remember when I said "Remember this for later?" Well, kid even admits that he is "evil" which means he, himself, is an atheist even though he proclaims otherwise. He must have a "god" to be "good" by his own argument. Kid is "evil" so he is without any "god." Kid argued himself and the universe to the point of atheism. Or, at least, wherever humans are present there is no "god."

 

Thanks for posting stupid email.

 

mwc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thumbelina, I don't get it. What's your point? What are you trying to make me see? Could you please speak plainly instead of posting passive aggressive fiction?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The student stands quietly for a moment, before asking a question of His own. 'Professor, is there such thing as heat?'

'Yes,' the professor replies. 'There's heat.'

 

'And is there such a thing as cold?'

'Yes, son, there's cold too.'

'No sir, there isn't.'

 

Any professor who understands his or her physics would not have answered this way. He or she would have given the same answer as the student: cold is the absence of heat.

 

 

The professor turns to face the student, obviously interested. The room suddenly becomes very quiet. The student begins to explain. 'You can have lots of heat, even more heat, super-heat, mega-heat, unlimited heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat, but we don't have anything called 'cold'. We can hit up to 458 degrees below zero, which is no heat, but we can't go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold; otherwise we would be able to go colder than the lowest -458 degrees.'

 

 

[snip]

 

'What about darkness, professor. Is there such a thing as darkness?'

'Yes,' the professor replies without hesitation. 'What is night if it isn't darkness?'

 

Again, any knowledgable professor would have said darkness is the absence of light.

 

 

'You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is not something; it is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light, but if you have no light constantly you have nothing and it's called darkness, isn't it?

 

That's the meaning we use to define the word. 'In reality, darkness isn't. If it were, you would be able to make darkness darker, wouldn't you?'

 

 

[snip]

 

'You are working on the premise of duality,' the student explains. 'You argue that there is life and then there's death; a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, science can't even explain a thought.'

 

 

The professor would respond that duality works in some cases but certainly not all, and would explain that not everything is polar or duality based.

 

 

 

'Now tell me, professor. Do you teach your students that they evolved from monkey?'

 

'If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, young man, yes, of course I do.'

 

Again, a professor worth his tenure would not say this. He or she would say that man and monkeys have a common ancestor.

 

 

'Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?'

 

The professor begins to shake his head, still smiling, as he realizes where the argument is going. A very good semester, indeed.

 

 

The professor, if not a biologist, might say that he or she has not personally observed evolution, but would say that it has been observed in bacteria that have become resistant to antibiotics through the evolutionary process.

 

 

 

 

'Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you now not a scientist, but a preacher?'

 

The professor would say that evolution has been observed as mentioned above.

 

 

 

 

The class is in uproar. The student remains silent until the commotion has subsided.

 

'To continue the point you were making earlier to the other student, let me give you an example of what I mean.'

 

The student looks around the room. 'Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the professor's brain?' The class breaks out into laughter.

 

'Is there anyone here who has ever heard the professor's brain, felt the professor's brain, touched or smelt the professor's brain? No one appears to have done so. So, according to the established rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science says that you have no brain, with all due respect, sir.'

 

The professor would say, "To the contrary, my brain can be measured and observed with instruments, and should I wish to submit to surgery, it can be physically touched, smelled and measured. It can also be changed through surgical techniques such as lobotomy and commissurotomy.

 

 

 

 

'So if science says you have no brain, how can we trust your lectures, sir?'

 

The professor would say that science can, in fact, prove that he has a brain through empirical and independently verifiable examination.

 

Now the room is silent. The professor just stares at the student, his face unreadable.

 

Finally, after what seems an eternity, the old man answers. 'I guess you'll have to take them on faith.'

 

The professor would say that his lectures can be checked by looking at the tangible, testable, verifiable evidence.

 

 

 

'Now, you accept that there is faith, and, in fact, faith exists with life,' the student continues. 'Now, sir, is there such a thing as evil?'

 

Now uncertain, the professor responds, 'Of course, there is. We see it everyday. It is in the daily example of man's inhumanity to man. It is in the multitude of crime and violence everywhere in the world. These manifestations are nothing else but evil.'

 

To this the student replied, "'Evil does not exist sir, or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil [sin] emphasis mine . Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God's love present in his heart. It's like the cold that comes when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when there is no light.'

 

 

The professor would say that the student is now criticizing on the basis of a duality-based argument, a position which the student previously dismissed. He would then say that if the student's position is correct and evil is the absence of God, then by the same logic presented by the student the presence of God equals good, which cannot be valid because of the overwhelming evidence of death, misery and destruction in a world supposedly controlled by God.

 

 

 

 

[The board software says I've reached the limit of the number of quote blocks. The OP is in quote marks and my responses are in italics.]

 

 

 

 

"Actually, if the bible did not have the prophecies it would have been merely a philosophical book."

 

 

Prophecy can be debunked with statistical probability. I prophecy that, if you live long enough, you will get cancer. Look at that statement: "if you live long enough." If you do not get cancer, then you have not lived long enough. It may take thousands or even millions of years, but I prophesy that eventually, you will get cancer.

 

 

 

 

" P.S. Yeah yeah I know some of you would claim to be "common ancestors" with the darn monkeys. But c'mon admit it, we're waaaay cuter than monkeys."

 

 

Not so sure. Monkeys do not commit wholesale slaughter against those with whom they disagree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Opposing Thumbelina thinks that science is the enemy of religion, and scientific ideas threaten the faith, then perhaps it's time to repost St. Augustine's warning:

 

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion. [1 Timothy 1.7]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"'Evil does not exist sir, or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil.

 

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. Isaiah 45:7

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am ashamed to say I used to use this same chain email as an argument for god... :Doh: I am no science major but unlike heat and light, god is supposedly omnipresent so there is no absence, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is definitely conclusive of your post, Thumbelina, is that once again, religion uses stories to make a point, stories which can be misinterpretated, manipulated, quote mined, etc. etc., forming a stark contrast between reliable, emperical science, which only publishes results that have gone through the rigorous scientific method, which makes sure they are free of bias, and can be accurately replicated. As someone mentioned before, no real qualified science teacher would define 'darkness' or 'cold' as something that can be measured. In science, we only measure heat and light, not cold and darkness, and this story is just another example of religion manipulating the story to suit their view.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry my friends, the above jokes were not meant to be condescending to anyone OK?

 

Bullshit. They were condescending to their very core. If you'd not meant to be condescending, you would have chosen some other way of presenting your thoughts.

 

And no, it's not okay. You owe us all an apology for being an arrogant twat and insulting our intelligence with your drivel.

 

It was just meant to show that evolutionists cannot be dogmatic about an evolutionary theory of origins; just like belief in God, it too is based on faith.

 

Also bullshit. If you'd meant to show that, you could have simply said so plainly without resorting to a crappy glurge story scraped from the bottom of the Christian smugness barrel.

 

Oh, and next time you think about posting anything about evolution, go out and learn something about it first. Education is a wonderful thing and you're clearly in need of a great deal of it.

 

Actually, if the bible did not have the prophecies it would have been merely a philosophical book.

 

Given how little you know about evolution, I don't think I'll trust your knowledge of the Bible, either.

 

P.S. Yeah yeah I know some of you would claim to be "common ancestors" with the darn monkeys. But c'mon admit it, we're waaaay cuter than monkeys.

 

No one here would claim to be a common ancestor with monkeys. Except maybe you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thumb, first off, Snopes. Look it up, before you post any bullshit chain stories to make your point.

 

Then again, fraud's okay if it's pious fraud, isn't it? Winning souls, you know, that's what matters. Doesn't matter what you do to do so, does it?

 

Given that you're using this kind of thing, you're also obviously ignorant about many things, including your religion. High probability of an unexamined life. I'm also willing to bet that you never seriously challenged your faith, i.e. actually questioned it and were willing to lose it, in other words, you never really questioned it, nor do you have the character to do so. Judgemental, yes. However, this is also the profile of the multitudes I've seen like you before, and the multitudes I'll see again when you leave the big meanies here.

 

 

Here's a free tip: do some reading on a site before you open your pie-hole and see what's gone on there before, no matter the "burden" on your heart (aren't you *speshul*). You're less likely to become flamebait, and people may actually consider taking you something resembling seriously.

 

But, hey, apparently you're not stupid, just severely intelligence impoverished, as demonstrated by your actions here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thumbelina, I don't get it. What's your point? What are you trying to make me see? Could you please speak plainly instead of posting passive aggressive fiction?

 

I kinda asked her this directly, in private message, mor about her first topic though. I got snark back and then silence. Silence of responce seems to be the rule now with her, so I might be done, maybe, not sure yet.

 

 

I do wish though, just once, one of the edgey, sarcastic christians would explain to me how being snarky falls in line with their religion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.