so if the afterlife is an eternal ordeal, would that not make us ...

Discussion in 'The Sanctuary' started by Nu'maaN, Apr 1, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. breathlesss

    breathlesss Registered Sex Offender

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2011
    Messages:
    1,600
    Then, reject 90% of the historical bible accounts
    test
  2. TheBigPayback

    TheBigPayback God Particle

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2010
    Messages:
    11,469
    Because that was how long we are capable of living granted we can straighten out vaccations for diseases and such.
    test
  3. breathlesss

    breathlesss Registered Sex Offender

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2011
    Messages:
    1,600
    Oorrr, were there highly advanced passesld cultures actually capable of medical longevity that lived faarr before eggptians and hindus even atarted recording data consistently?
    test
  4. TheBigPayback

    TheBigPayback God Particle

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2010
    Messages:
    11,469
    Also the end days is said to have many commanalities to noahs day. And in that time there were a few distinctions that set it apart. People were in a spirtual state of sleep so to speak. People lived hundreds of years old. There were 'giants in the land'. There were signs in the heavens and earth And noah was warning the people of a flood, that no one believed because it had never rained prior.


    Id say were likely to see all of those in some way shape or form.

    Life extension/tranhumanism - long life
    Enviornment/sun flares/ earthquakes/ tornados/ hirricanes/ valcanos/ earth rotation/ - signs
    Giants- possibly aliens
    Warnings of a coming event- rapture perhaps
    test
  5. breathlesss

    breathlesss Registered Sex Offender

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2011
    Messages:
    1,600
    Never rained before... seriously?...
    Ok then
    test
  6. reggie jax

    reggie jax Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2006
    Messages:
    1,351
    nonsense. i'm 100% certain that if genesis said god made man evolve from lower animals you would take no issue with modern biology.
    test
  7. TheBigPayback

    TheBigPayback God Particle

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2010
    Messages:
    11,469
    I dont take issue with modern biology. I take issue with theory maqurading as fact in the world of science. And confident in my rejection of it also because the bible doesnt say that.
    test
  8. reggie jax

    reggie jax Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2006
    Messages:
    1,351
    modern biology is built on evolution. therefore you take issue with modern biology or you don't take issue with evolution.

    but if you wanna split hairs and use semantics to dodge my point, then allow me to reword my post so that you can address the actual content:

    test
  9. TheBigPayback

    TheBigPayback God Particle

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2010
    Messages:
    11,469
    thats likely. but ud probably tell me something to the effect "who would believe God created humans from monkeys" thats stupid. ya right science never proved nothing like that its a theory u imbicile.

    lol
    test
  10. reggie jax

    reggie jax Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2006
    Messages:
    1,351
    err, no. i don't reject science when it might happen to agree with the bible/quran/whatever. you see, it isn't a problem for me if these books say something accurate about the world. it has no effect on my beliefs. you on the other hand can't believe in evolution. so you should stop pretending like it has anything to do with a lack of evidence and just own up to the fact that it's based on genesis.
    test
  11. TheBigPayback

    TheBigPayback God Particle

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2010
    Messages:
    11,469
    Right. But u wont ever see it confirmed like anything else the bible disagrees with being the case. If u ever do say they actually prove 100% that it were the case and it was no bullshit no agenda then it would be right that i question.

    Im not with believing lies either and God doesnt expect you to.
    test
  12. TheBigPayback

    TheBigPayback God Particle

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2010
    Messages:
    11,469
    The bible says to have faith that it is the truth or have faith becausr it is true, not have faith because it may be true or it may be false.
    test
  13. reggie jax

    reggie jax Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2006
    Messages:
    1,351
    lol. you believe without question that people used to live 500 years without the slightest shred of evidence. if archaeologists ever happened upon a set of human bones that they said appeared to have lived for hundreds of years you'd probably take that as 100% proof of the biblical narrative and make a thread about it.

    yet you have a massive fossil record and multiple other scientific disciplines that overwhelmingly support evolution and you say it proves nothing cause it doesn't happen to agree with a literal interpretation of scripture.

    this is what i call an extreme case of selective reasoning and confirmation bias. but of course, god doesn't want you to 'believe lies.'
    test
  14. TheBigPayback

    TheBigPayback God Particle

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2010
    Messages:
    11,469
    Thats because scientists want things always to have an answer they can explain. Creation implies a creator amongst a slew of other things. Evolution is their choice by default because the only other option is God. I mean whens the last time uve heard of them trying to research actual biblical accounts, they dont. And when they do find something that proves the bible its circumstantial, a technicality. Something they stumbled upon by accident in the course of looking for something else.
    test
  15. breathlesss

    breathlesss Registered Sex Offender

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2011
    Messages:
    1,600
    That's because the historical proof of bible events has nothing to do with modern archeoligical discovery, they are digging to find everything, not proove what happened
    If they wwere looking for sites don't you think that would yield biased "results" just like how the athiest scientists try to line up their work with darwin and einstein' s "theories"
    Humor aside, regardless tho, a lot of the histroriacl cities of the bible have been discovered and proven
    not a lot of skeletons with 500 years of bone aging have been discovered, no means of how they would've lived that long was reported. And anyway, there's like what? Three sentences that talk about a couple people living that long? Here's something to think about...
    Switch the amount of years to months ('cause its probably what was originally wrote) and you have an age of around 50 years...
    you are proven wrong with simple math and logic, fuck whatthe bible says a couple obscure times
    Really tho, something that remarkable, don't you think they'd talk a little more about it?
    test
  16. UnbrokeN

    UnbrokeN Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2001
    Messages:
    22,569
    creation created itself. it does not need a creator.

    if there was a creator, then again you would ask yourself, who created the creator? when you accept that creation created itself out of ever existing energy, that is all you need. there is no need for a Creator being when you realize that creation itself is the creator. it is energy, and it always has been, and it always will be. its form may change, but we are all part of that same energy.
    test
  17. NightmareEx

    NightmareEx The Beast

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2003
    Messages:
    5,134
    :funny:

    so, I see you still suck at using your brain effectively.

    Carry on.
    test
  18. M-theory

    M-theory Saint Esprit

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2001
    Messages:
    38,468
    Yes, THEY DO. Finding those answers (the right answers) is their life's work. You sit around in a technologically driven world and have to concede that science is what gives us these incredible capabilities - not your religion, not an ancient book.

    Yes, "creation" IMPLIES things about the universe. What does the universe imply about creation? Let's worry about that.

    Evolution is not just a choice, nor is it the default choice because of some other option. And I would love to hear WHY you say GOD is the ONLY other option?

    Evolution is a natural process, understood by evidence and its ability to make predictions. That's what all science gives us. There is no competing theory yet available that gives us accurate predictions. This is why the Book of Genesis is useless to science, it has no predictive power. The Genesis account of creation makes no accurate predictions.

    You do realize that throughout most of the world's history, scientists were of the belief that God had created the world? Many accepted the biblical accounts. If the creation accounts had any power whatsoever, it would probably be accounted for.

    I'm not saying that new evidence cannot lead us toward a belief in creation. I'm just saying that the biblical accounts are entirely useless in that process. I think some of the arguments being made for intelligent design are better suited for the job, like the fine-tuning of the universe and what not - although I don't find it to be a particular strong argument it's at least something to be said.

    I'm not sure what you're meaning to say here. There isn't any evidence that proves the biblical account of creation. That's an entirely different issue than say, finding archaeological evidence of biblical times. No one disputes the fact that the religion existed in the distant past. I'm not sure if I'm addressing what you're talking about.
    test
  19. reggie jax

    reggie jax Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2006
    Messages:
    1,351
    indeed. though i feel like i need to point out just for clarity that 'intelligent design' typically refers to a faction of the anti-evolution religious movement that attempt to disprove evolution through highlighting biological systems which they deem 'irreducibly complex,' which in their mind somehow by default proves an intelligent designer.

    that form of rhetoric might use scientific structures to support their arguments, but it in itself is not science. it's the scientific equivalent of saying 'i give up.'
    test
  20. M-theory

    M-theory Saint Esprit

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2001
    Messages:
    38,468
    You prompted me to go to Wikipedia. I was not aware that irreducible complexity was the main argument at the forefront, or that it was a term coined from within it (Behe).
    test
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Users Viewing Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 0)