And why can't he just let people alone and die in peace?
Why does he have to kill babies? Because the babies refused to come to him? --'
God doesn't kill babies, but us human beings. God created us with free will as satan has. Yes we know that babies doesn't sin, but God permits something to happen even if its bad because worst things might occur. . Explain the quote. Please I like to know under what context it is ok to smash your babies against the rocks. Read the rest of the Bible. Please. No, no. Your interpretation is wrong. I'm sure that even though is says babies, it actually means coconuts. It's a common translation error. |
|
|
|
Do Scotland and Canada love homosexuals so much?
It's about free speech. If they can arrest you now for "hate speech" because you say something that's currently unpopular, then they could arrest you later for speaking in favor of gay marriage. Nobody's safe. So they can arrest you for saying your mind? Not kicking in the heads of people, just saying your mind? I'm not familiar with the laws there but that's just wrong. |
|
|
|
And why can't he just let people alone and die in peace?
Why does he have to kill babies? Because the babies refused to come to him? --'
God doesn't kill babies, but us human beings. God created us with free will as satan has. Yes we know that babies doesn't sin, but God permits something to happen even if its bad because worst things might occur. So when a child dies from a disease or a malformation it's us that kill it? Excellent logic. |
|
|
|
|
So things are only black or white?
"You love Me with all your heart or I will set upon you the most terrible things that come to mind"?
Dude - that's a little extreme.
Then why do we have free will?
It's like the guy that said you can sit on whatever chair you want as long as you stay on this one right here.
It's wrong and makes no sense on too many levels.
Where's the love?
|
|
|
|
|
Do Scotland and Canada love homosexuals so much?
|
|
|
|
|
They can have the same rights every normal human being has.
But not special rights because they are gay.
And not having special pronouns.
And certainly not getting married.
|
|
|
|
|
So there is a reason for all the sorrow, terrible diseases and children dying?
|
|
|
|
...
Stalin's Soviet state was very much committed to the destruction of religion and even went about removing anything related to related to religion: churches, mosques, and temples. The schools also pushed the idea of Atheism and even promoted it as what society should follow. 12-20 million Christians killed as a result.
Soviets had few things that were progressive for their time: gender equality, elimination of racism, education, and yes, atheism. They put emphasis on Math and Science education, so there was no room for religion in school curriculums. Religion was viewed as an ancient relic (which it is). Of course the way they went about destroying religion was brutal and inhumane. They did it because they felt religion cult was in competition with their own cult. Believe it of not, but Stalin's version of communism was like a religion. They had a dogma, they had God like figure to worship etc., any opposition was eliminated or dealt with. Father Stalin was like God to many Soviet citizens. Similar religion/cult is present in North Korea today. So yes, they killed Christians, destroyed churches, but they did it because of Communism, a competing cult. So neither one better than the other. They're all running for power - every which way they can find it. |
|
|
|
I disagree.
First time fell in love with a guy in primary school.
At that age, did you understand that you would never be able to build a family in a monogamous relationship with another boy? Did you have any sense that everyone else's concepts of romantic love, dating, and marriage are all based on the biological facts of where babies come from? Chivalry, romance, and monogamy exist because women are smaller and weaker than men, and because women get pregnant. A father protects his daughter from men who would get her pregnant and then leave her. She needs a man to protect her from other men, because men are generally larger and stronger than her. Then the father gives that responsibility to her husband on her wedding day, as she publicly announces that she's going to let this one man get her pregnant. And it's specifically announced at the wedding that nobody else is allowed to have sex with the bride and groom, because of where babies come from. The father has mixed emotions about giving up his duty and trusting his daughter's safety to someone else, but he looks forward to the joy of having grandchildren. And that is the end goal of romantic love and dating. A father usually would see no need to give his son's protection to another man, since his son can't get pregnant and should be able to defend himself. Some same-sex couples do imitate this mating ceremony even though they can't actually mate, but it usually involves one person pretending to be the opposite gender so people can more easily pretend that it's similar to a normal wedding. nonsense Oh, it makes perfect sense. I understand why you wouldn't get it, or didn't want to get it but still. |
|
|
|
|
I guess no one wants to be rich. Or that God doesn't exist? Hmm, I wonder...
|
|
|
|
I've never seen someone shot where I live. We don't have people roam with guns on the street. Maybe that's something isn't it?
I've never seen a polar bear where I live. But I have heard rumors that some people have seen them where they live. Yes, what I meant is that if people don't have guns, there won't be (as much, if any) gun casualties. You could agree that it works. |
|
|
|
|
Isn't Buddhism the one where they prepare all their lives to get embalmed? I'm not very informed about Buddhism, sorry.
|
|
|
|
All the proof you need is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Million_Dollar_Paranormal_ChallengeSince 1964, the James Randi foundation offered to give anyone $1,000,000 who could provide any scientific evidence for anything supernatural, including religion... In over 50 years, not a single person could provide any legitimate scientific evidence in a controlled setting... In fact, not a single person made it past the preliminary stage, which was much less controlled... Since cause and effect is common scientific law, evolution can't exist except that it was pre-programmed into nature. However, the cause for the universe had to be supernatural. If it weren't, we would see the Programmer.  Please, do go to James Randi, win the 1 million $ prize and donate it to your favorite charity. Then, after reading the proof data I'll believe. It's not like we're stubborn here, I personally would love for God to exist, to live forever, it's just that common sense tells me everything about God is fake, unsubstantiated and contradictory. |
|
|
|
You do realize the staggering amount of incest needed to create a race from 2 people. Theoretically speaking. Because if it were needed to repopulate the earth again it would be needed something like 300.00 people in order to avoid the terrible genetic inbred consequences that would result otherwise.
Which is evidence against the creation story... The theory of evolution does not start with 2 people... it is the continuous progression of small adaptations in a gene pool of a species, that over time add up to large changes... it does not start with 2 people, but a group/herd of people/animals... no incest required for evolution, only creationism... (I suppose BADecker would argue the first 2 amoeba were incestual, but amoeba reproduce asexually, so he'd be wrong as usual) LOL. It would take only few generations to create genetic problems. Look at Mennonite and Amish communities, in less than 300 years they developed genetic diseases that doctors cannot even name. And they are not completely isolated. (and are highly religious people who believe in God the creator). The incest as described in the Bible would end in three or four generations.You think this way because you don't realize the amount of human devolution that has taken place over a mere 6,000 years. as evidenced by? The things that you type. If you are not typing things that you believe, then you are typing lies, which proves your devolution even more. You know, I think I feel like I'm devolving right now talking to you. I better stop and go back to evolving.... The fact that you feel that you are devolving is a sign that you are moving in the direction of truth. Then when you say you are going to evolve, you are right, because evolving has to do with recognizing the truth when you haven't recognized it before. Something does not compile here. devolving is a sign that you are moving in the direction of truth
evolving has to do with recognizing the truth
So. When you are moving towards the truth you are devolving and when recognizing it you are evolving even if you're not moving towards it? |
|
|
|
You do realize the staggering amount of incest needed to create a race from 2 people. Theoretically speaking. Because if it were needed to repopulate the earth again it would be needed something like 300.00 people in order to avoid the terrible genetic inbred consequences that would result otherwise.
Which is evidence against the creation story... multiple generations of incest is detrimental to the gene pool... take a look at the Egyptian Pharaohs for a perfect example The theory of evolution does not start with 2 people... it is the continuous progression of small adaptations in a gene pool of a species, that over time add up to large changes... it does not start with 2 people, but a group/herd of people/animals... no incest required for evolution, only creationism... (I suppose BADecker would argue the first 2 amoeba were incestual, but amoeba reproduce asexually, so he'd be wrong as usual) Of course, you will simply ignore the fact of devolution in humankind. So since Adam and Eve started having sex, humankind started to "devolve"? Not necessarily. They may have had sex before the fall. It was at/after the fall that humankind started to devolve. I'm sorry, I meant to say procreate by incest. |
|
|
|
You do realize the staggering amount of incest needed to create a race from 2 people. Theoretically speaking. Because if it were needed to repopulate the earth again it would be needed something like 300.00 people in order to avoid the terrible genetic inbred consequences that would result otherwise.
Which is evidence against the creation story... multiple generations of incest is detrimental to the gene pool... take a look at the Egyptian Pharaohs for a perfect example The theory of evolution does not start with 2 people... it is the continuous progression of small adaptations in a gene pool of a species, that over time add up to large changes... it does not start with 2 people, but a group/herd of people/animals... no incest required for evolution, only creationism... (I suppose BADecker would argue the first 2 amoeba were incestual, but amoeba reproduce asexually, so he'd be wrong as usual) Of course, you will simply ignore the fact of devolution in humankind. The crazy notions that you claim as fact are quite amusing... Keep going, I'll get some popcorn Go get some popcorn1. You two are like devolved peas in a devolved pod. Sometimes, just like this time, I feel the need to start a new thread just to point out how silly you are. So as not to sully this thread, you understand. |
|
|
|
And since we don't live in ancient times (or Israel), we're safe.
Safe? More devolved than ever. We're "devolved" because we don't follow ancient rules that don't apply to the modern world? Hmm... |
|
|
|
Humans have advanced through the many years, landed on the moon, made test-tube babies, carried out heart transplants, things that wouldn't be even dreamed of in the past, yet they are limited, no scientist today has justified the existence of man and how the planet/earth has come into existence. It means God only created Earth and then human.
Not only this but, humans have declined in humanitarian qualities. How do we know? The way that many of the advancements have been made is to steal other peoples' prosperity by stealing their property through taxation and other methods... methods used to do stupid things like landing on the moon, making test-tube babies, carrying out heart transplants when it would be a whole lot more beneficial to heal the heart, and a whole lot of other stupid things that wouldn't have been dreamed of in the past. Meanwhile, the people who have had their property stolen, live in tent cities and poverty, and their plight is barely reported on by the media. The so-called advancement of mankind is disgusting when you look at the destruction some people do to other people just to advance themselves.  The moon landing is stupid? Going from earth to the Moon itself, one of greatest feats humanity has ever made? A testament to our spirit? Heart transplants? Giving people the chance to live some more? Or people who can't have children the opportunity to do so? And so that you'll not comment: I agree with the taxation part. I'm not against you just because we're carrying a polemic here about some other topic. Yet it is not a great feat in that it helped to bring poverty to Americans an people of many other nations. How did it do this? NASA is based on loans from banks. Banks operate through the debt-money Ponzi scheme. Ponzi's always screw the people at the bottom of the Ponzi. Still, somehow we managed to get past the dome that covers this "flat" world and went beyond it. |
|
|
|
I owe you a beer sir!  |
|
|
|
You do realize the staggering amount of incest needed to create a race from 2 people. Theoretically speaking. Because if it were needed to repopulate the earth again it would be needed something like 300.00 people in order to avoid the terrible genetic inbred consequences that would result otherwise.
Which is evidence against the creation story... multiple generations of incest is detrimental to the gene pool... take a look at the Egyptian Pharaohs for a perfect example The theory of evolution does not start with 2 people... it is the continuous progression of small adaptations in a gene pool of a species, that over time add up to large changes... it does not start with 2 people, but a group/herd of people/animals... no incest required for evolution, only creationism... (I suppose BADecker would argue the first 2 amoeba were incestual, but amoeba reproduce asexually, so he'd be wrong as usual) Of course, you will simply ignore the fact of devolution in humankind. So since Adam and Eve started having sex, humankind started to "devolve"? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
