Spirituality
03 Dec 09
15 Dec 09
1 edit
Originally posted by Proper KnobQuestion: "Do they have to be crazy to be JWs?"
Yes something ( Satan ) for sure has warped their thinking process to be way off.
How can we have an intelligent discussion with someone who believes that?!
Let me tweak the sentence and it should make more sense.
Yes something ( the Bible ) for sure has warped their thinking process to be way off.
and again.
The physical litle embarassing do you not think?! Not even a 1st grade child would do something that daft!!!
Answer: "No, but it helps..."
15 Dec 09
1 edit
emOriginally posted by Proper KnobI'm not embarassed about anything. The dating technics have been proven unreliable so nothing is proved with your dates.
[b]Yes something ( Satan ) for sure has warped their thinking process to be way off.
How can we have an intelligent discussion with someone who believes that?!
Let me tweak the sentence and it should make more sense.
Yes something ( the Bible ) for sure has warped their thinking process to be way off.
and again.
[i]The physica litle embarassing do you not think?! Not even a 1st grade child would do something that daft!!![/b]
You still have not proved that the flood did not happen so I'd say you have failed in your allegations.
One here on this thread says to keep an open mind. You should take that advice.
15 Dec 09
Originally posted by galveston75But you've said it yourself, Galve, the icesheet of Antarctica appear to be older than 5.000 years, didn't you write that?
I'm not embarassed about anything. You still have not proved that the flood did not happen so I'd say you have failed in your allegations.
One here on this thread says to keep an open mind. You should take that advice.
Then, why does it appear to be older than that? Didn't you have an explanation for that? Would you please repeat your opinion in this matter?
15 Dec 09
Originally posted by galveston75duuuude
I'm not embarassed about anything. The dating technics have been proven unreliable so nothing is proved with your dates.
You still have not proved that the flood did not happen so I'd say you have failed in your allegations.
One here on this thread says to keep an open mind. You should take that advice.
focus for fuk's sake
sit back and relax and then try and really get that haunted house you call a brain working again.
in case you are still reading i will explain what he meant.
he means you used a source to disprove his claim. a source you didn't read. a source you now dismiss. well what is it? do you dismiss it or not? do you think part of it is true? and in that case how can you quote someone you think is wrong on an issue? why would he be right on the issue that concerns you(proving there was a flood)
i don't think he still thinks you could be convinced of the stupidity of an universal flood. i think he and me would be content to just point you inconsistencies in your thinking process.
15 Dec 09
Originally posted by galveston75There's a big difference between showing there is a debate among professionals regarding some specific dating techniques in a specific environment and claiming ALL dating techniques are unreliable.
I'm not embarassed about anything. The dating technics have been proven unreliable so nothing is proved with your dates.
You still have not proved that the flood did not happen so I'd say you have failed in your allegations.
One here on this thread says to keep an open mind. You should take that advice.
It would be like me claiming ALL religions are flawed because the Christians can't agree on the trinity. Illogical nonsense.
You still have not proved that the flood did not happen so I'd say you have failed in your allegations.
The burden of proof lies with you. You asked many threads ago to point out one factor which could disprove the flood story, i chose ice core samples and you floundered for many posts and came up with nothing. I could pick many more but only one was needed.
16 Dec 09
Originally posted by Zahlanziit keeps crashin. Its still under warranty and blah,blah. Hopefully the guy can fix it. Just means I cant give my full attention to my posts for a bit.
yup
or so the heretic me claims. galveston disagrees.
but then again, he thinks catholics and orthodox and protestants are also lesser christians so who knows. i know i don't qualify for the 144000 spots in heaven nobility so from the start i am a lower class christian
whats wrong with your computer?
Y'know I know a few christians who you wouldn't know were christians, and some others that just blab about Jesus non-stop.
I like the former ones.
In my view you should only go there if the debate calls for it.
No doubt Jaywill would disagree...
16 Dec 09
2 edits
G-75 I think I lean towards an old earth. One reason is the whole star/galaxies issue. These objects are so far out that their light is older than the earth. At least that the universe is very old. I guess it can be argued that the earth was created later. I don't think God created the earth with apparent age already in it that would seem deceptive. I was thinking one argument for a young earth or at least man on the earth is written language. Why did it appear 5000 years ago or so? If we were around for 1000's of years? That does not make sense to me. Maybe someone can explain that. What is the oldest known writings of man? Why would it have taken 1000's of years for us to develop written language?
Manny
16 Dec 09
Originally posted by menace71yeah it makes sense. humans were migratory and coexisted in small tribes. when two tribes met they would mostly be hostile and simply walk in different direction since neither would want to share a hunting ground. so small tribes living isolated developed different languages.
I was also thinking why is our language divided? I know the bible talks about the tower of babel. I guess this is a whole different subject.
Manny
even nowadays isolated communities develop their own dialect.
does a redneck sound like a brittish?
16 Dec 09
Originally posted by ZahlanziLOL Good point. Almost 700. Yeah even the Brits have different dialects that's something R.C. could expound on for us. There kinda isolated on an island.
yeah it makes sense. humans were migratory and coexisted in small tribes. when two tribes met they would mostly be hostile and simply walk in different direction since neither would want to share a hunting ground. so small tribes living isolated developed different languages.
even nowadays isolated communities develop their own dialect.
does a redneck sound like a brittish?
Manny
16 Dec 09
Originally posted by menace71what i meant was that even with communication being the way it was in the 18th century (compared to what was when the tower was built), australians, americans and british managed to get to sound different.
LOL Good point. Almost 700. Yeah even the Brits have different dialects that's something R.C. could expound on for us. There kinda isolated on an island.
Manny
there are also other aspects. a comunity would make up their own language to make themselves harder to understand deliberately. (slang comes to mind)
and many other issues. neither of which requires the intervention of god.