I remember one of my first lectures in anatomy at uni, the lecturer was talking about the palmaris longus and how it was commonly used as a climbing muscle, but as we evolve further away from apes, fewer and fewer humans have this muscle as we just don't use it anymore. The lecturer said "so all you religious, creationist nuts out there - do this test to see if you have it or not, and try and tell me evolution isn't real HA-HA-HA" heaps forcefullyOriginally Posted by snake
OK
Agree.
Why does it matter to some people, if somebody they've never met and never will meet, marries another bloke/or lady(Put away that lesbian porn while you're at it...). Marriage isn't monopolised by religion anymore. I went to a wedding recently, not a single mention of God, no priests, no churches. I'm not saying let them get married in a church, but let them be legally recognised.
Can a homosexual be forgiven for being gay?
Probably my most favourite course at uni, tbh.I remember one of my first lectures in anatomy at uni, the lecturer was talking about the palmaris longus and how it was commonly used as a climbing muscle, but as we evolve further away from apes, fewer and fewer humans have this muscle as we just don't use it anymore. The lecturer said "so all you religious, creationist nuts out there - do this test to see if you have it or not, and try and tell me evolution isn't real HA-HA-HA" heaps forcefully
Guys, guys, guys..
Take a breath.. Relax, cause I've got some news for you..
Griff is the only true God..
Michael Caine says otherwise. (think the monologue starts here) go to 1:30:25Guys, guys, guys..
Take a breath.. Relax, cause I've got some news for you..
Griff is the only true God..
Yes.
I admit I didn't know the context to that quote, I saw it in an article and thought it went well with the point. I will do more research before blindly quoting in the future.
Also what makes me a Christian fundamentalist?
This isn't a term that I see used very often and my limited research on it doesn't see it as a position that I align myself with
Also you have made many posts about Quantum mechanics and I have done some reading to get to grips with some of the basics but can you explain to me how it disproves God like you said in one of your earlier posts
I like the video as well. The guy makes some very good points some of which I had heard before and some of which I hadn't and expresses the them in a simple yet profound way. I have never said I am against evolution or science
Of the gospels (first 4 books of NT, those that tell the story of Jesus life, death and resurrection). The dating varies a fair amount sources such as this http://carm.org/when-were-gospels-written-and-by-whom propose earlier dates written and sources but to take Wikipedia which proposes later dates with sources:
- Matthew is written in the last quarter of the first century (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_...tting_and_date)
- Mark - between 63-70AD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Mark#Composition)
- Luke - late 1st century or early second (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_...rship_and_date)
- John - near end of 1st century (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_John#Date)
So its not long enough that everyone who knew Jesus would have been dead
I heard that there were more manuscripts from someone who was discussing the historical evidence of the bible. This site has a simple table showing there were more copies: http://carm.org/manuscript-evidence
also an extract from that same article raises a valid point about your issue of correction:
"Almost all biblical scholars agree that the New Testament documents were all written before the close of the First Century. If Jesus was crucified in A.D. 30., then that means the entire New Testament was completed within 70 years. This is important because it means there were plenty of people around when the New Testament documents were penned--people who could have contested the writings. In other words, those who wrote the documents knew that if they were inaccurate, plenty of people would have pointed it out. But, we have absolutely no ancient documents contemporary with the First Century that contest the New Testament texts."
I couldn't find exact figures on literacy rates but this article shows that there was a decent enough level of literacy - http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/re.../1573658/posts
This is another article that I found on how the text would have been changed over time - http://www.str.org/articles/is-the-n...ble#.VJjdIjABg
I am going to do some further research about the accuracy of original texts compared to actual events.
But one last thing is that there were 9 different authors of the NT and no archaeological evidence has been found to contradict the claims of the NT that I am aware of. It's not as if people could have successfully conspired together for something like this (http://carm.org/new-testament-writer...-and-influence)
I agree if the bible is false that Jesus existence means nothing.sure, jc probably existed. how does that support the supernatural claims though? answer = it doesn't.
Christians believe that Jesus is God and thus he can be not limited by what is impossible for humans.how did he turn water into wine? what's the energy release for nucleosyntheis of the carbon for the alcohol from the water?
hint: you will need to use scientific notation to reasonably express this number.
The way I phrased my response did show my misunderstanding and naivity to use the words that I did. But still where does the difference in morality and intelligence between animals and humans come from? Why haven't more intelligent species involved to a near intelligence to that of humans?the phrase "survival of the fittest" is a bit unfortunate in that it is readily misunderstood, as is your case here. the fittest doesn't just mean strongest or fastest, which is where the confusion arises. selection is any action by which on average your genes become more common in a population on account of there being more copies made. for natural selection, this usually comes down to breeding success. what you are asking is how can altrustic behaviour favour your breeding success, given that it helps others (including competitors). i'll give you one simple mechanism, but there are others. when animals become more intelligent and social, it helps to cooperate since the team is stronger than the sum of its individual parts. obviously, your team also carry many of the same genes as you, so altuistic behaviour increases the chances of a gene becoming more common.
now, what if you try and do all the leaning and none of the lifting (thanks tones). well, others in the community will know and you will be shunned. this has been observed in animals other than homo-sapiens.
Last edited by joel31; 23-12-2014 at 05:51 PM.
What was life expectancy back in 34-199 AD?
If jc was about 30 when crucified, and gospels written 70 yrs later, would those around at his time of living were still alive 70 years later.
Social media didn't exist, massive rates of illiterate populations would make it possible for almôst anything to be written and not neccusarily challanged. Particularly with the way any dusts enters would have been dealt with by the 'justice' system.
Last edited by GazFish35; 23-12-2014 at 05:51 PM.
If the bible is true which is what most of my claims are made according to. The bible clearly says Jesus is both the son of God and God. If he wasn't one of these things then the rest of the story would not really mean anything or be true and thus having faith in Jesus at all would be pointless.
It wasn't written hundreds of years after, it was all written within a hundred years. I agree that literacy levels were not at what they were today but they would have still been sufficient for people to enough people to know enough of the stories to correct inaccuracies (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/re.../1573658/posts).Happy to be corrected but wasn't the NT largely written a few hundred years after.... Except some of the early stuff..... And if the timeframe you suggest is accurate, it'd be pretty easy to explain an inability to have things edited by way of rates of illiteracy and the literates being the ones in power.
I agree but the bible claims that after Jesus died, he rose again and was seen by his disciples and multiple disciples became martyrs because of what they saw. But even if you were pretty gullible after much torture and large times in prison, surely you would just say what I claimed was wrong and spared yourself of more torture or spared your life unless you were 100% convinced that it was worth it to die for this personI'm sorry, but the "his disciples believed him and were willing to die" can be pretty easily argued against by looking at some modern day cults that saw leaders convince their followers that they too were some heavenly incarnation and many followers being willing to die in their name too.
I'm still to be convinced these early documents, and their translation/interpretation where not massively subject to political grabs for power and control of populations either by the church or whatever feudal/democratic system may have existed at any period of time, and is still happening today.Those in power at the time didn't like Jesus, it wasn't them who wrote the bible. The bible hasn't been greatly re-written or changed by those in power as the earliest manuscripts when translated are very similar to the modern bibleHumans are largely two things, gullible or greedy, as we've become more literate and educated as a species the influence of the church has wained..... I'm not calling anyone of faith to be gullible, you have listed a number of points I've not got an answer to, I suppose what I am saying is that I can't help but think the greed of those in power has always played on the gullibility of the masses of populations they sought to control and all religious texts are being written, interpreted and re-written by power hungry people wanting to remain in power.
Last edited by joel31; 23-12-2014 at 06:20 PM.
According to my googling just then it Is very low around 28 and most men wouldn't make it to 45
So potentially two generations later. You can understand how non-believers can be sceptical about the accuracy of these texts. Hey I get that it's a matter of "faith" in believing these stories. But to me by using that logic any story can be true if you have faith in it. Why for example are scientologists considered crazy for believing what they believe, it was written down after all. Yet it's apparently not as crazy to believe a dude walked on water, turned water into wine, fed 4-5k people with a few loaves of bread/couple of fish and came back from the dead. What I'm saying is, let's say I'm a potential religious convert, what makes one religion more legitimate then another (genuine question)?
Psalm 90:10 for **** sake what kind of Christian are you ?
"The days of our years are threescore years and ten; and if by reason of strength they be fourscore years, yet is their strength labour and sorrow; for it is soon cut off, and we fly away"
70-80!
Wow.
Before the fall life expectancy was infinite.
"in the day that you eat of it you shall die" Genesis 2:17
In the pre-diluvian times [after the fall and before the flood ]900 years or so was the life expectancy.
Then Labour got into power, ****ed the hospital system and Medicare over then people started dying in their 70's.
Rather disturbing the hypocrisy from the law in this country.
Couple of blokes go hang outside a mosque hurling abuse at those going in and they get arrested.
Bloke who is involved in 40 odd claims of sexual misconduct is allowed bail probably because he is a Muslim and we can not offend Muslims and allowed to walk the streets and get a gun and inflict terror on the country.
Also poignant to note with the anti christian sentiment going on in this thread how that is tolerated by the law yet criticism of Islam is apparently a crime.
Leftist apologetic nutters have a lot to answer for
Rather off topic (but actually on topic) how is the John Rovertdon news.
I mean he was seriously unelectable but to be rissoled for essentially forwarding a letter to help a bloke see his kids on fathers day is weak as piss.
for the record, I reckon Islam is stupider than Christianity
not that I'm left wing but I find the logical backflips you hear from that side of politics about Islam is ridiculous
judge Islam by the same standards you judge Tony Abbott - he might be a sexist moron but at least he's not mutilating your lady bits
It was only a matter of time before the Member made a video explaining his position.
Can we also all agree that the Scientologists are the most batshit?
**** those people.
Loons.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote