A Buddhist monk once stopped his prayers because he was hungry. So he went to get a hot dog from a vendor.
"What do want on it?" asked the vendor.
"Make me one with everything," came the predictable reply.
The vendor made him one with everything, and handed him the loaded hotdog. The Buddhist monk gave him a twenty dollar bill. The vendor kept the change.
"Hey," said the monk. "Where is my change?"
"Change must come from within," replied the vendor.
Originally posted by MetamorphosisLOL
A Buddhist monk once stopped his prayers because he was hungry. So he went to get a hot dog from a vendor.
"What do want on it?" asked the vendor.
"Make me one with everything," came the predictable reply.
The vendor made him one with everything, and handed him the loaded hotdog. The Buddhist monk gave him a twenty dollar bill. The vendor ...[text shortened]... said the monk. "Where is my change?"
"Change must come from within," replied the vendor.
Originally posted by Nemesio
I was disappointed to discover that the 'brother of Jesus' part was discovered to be
a forgery. The 'James bar Josef' part, however, seems authentic.
I'm not criticizing, just observing.
Nemesio
I know what you mean. I was dissapointed to discover Darwin didn't stick to his guns, but instead renounced the theory of evolution on his deathbed.
Sadly you need not be dissapointed, just make more effort to read your sources.
Keall serves as a senior curator at the Toronto Royal Ontario Museum, where the ossuary was displayed last year.
"The studies we conducted have convinced us that the ossuary and its inscription are genuinely ancient and not a modern forgery," he writes.
Keall argues that the weathering has "occurred at a uniform rate" and that the inscription "has weathered naturally, at the same rate as the adjacent parts of the ossuary."
Spreading the good news.
Originally posted by pcaspianI'm going to do something that I am shocked at. I am going to direct you to the Answers In Genesis website regarding your claim that Darwin renounced the theory of evolution.
I know what you mean. I was dissapointed to discover Darwin didn't stick to his guns, but instead renounced the theory of evolution on his deathbed.
[/b]
He did no such thing. Darwin died an agnostic.
For the Christian viewpoint (if you can call Creationists, Christians) see: http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i1/darwin_recant.asp
Originally posted by Maustrauser
I'm going to do something that I am shocked at. I am going to direct you to the Answers In Genesis website regarding your claim that Darwin renounced the theory of evolution.
He did no such thing. Darwin died an agnostic.
For the Christian viewpoint (if you can call Creationists, Christians) see: http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i1/darwin_recant.asp
Hehe, who would know a Christian's sarcasm could cause an athiest to visit AnswersInGenesis 🙂
Originally posted by pcaspianI'm a regular visitor to AiG. It afterall was an Australian company originally (called the Creation Science Foundation) before it moved to the USA, and therefore I have a good working knowledge of AiG. It was AiG who make me an atheist incidentally.
Originally posted by Maustrauser
[b]I'm going to do something that I am shocked at. I am going to direct you to the Answers In Genesis website regarding your claim that Darwin renounced the theory of evolution.
He did no such thing. Darwin died an agnostic.
For the Christian viewpoint (if you can call Creationists, Christians) see: http: ...[text shortened]... e, who would know a Christian's sarcasm could cause an athiest to visit AnswersInGenesis 🙂
At school I had a geology teacher who persistently gave me Ds and Es on my paleontolgy essays as I didn't mention 'the flood' or used the AiG resources given to me. This annoyed me so I contacted the local university. They were most helpful in debunking the AiG 'science'. The teacher was sacked. He eventually moved to the USA where I believe he is happily teaching.
Did you read the article about Darwin? I could have given you lots of other sites that gave you the same information, but I thought a Christian would prefer their own...
Originally posted by Maustrauserhere's the best version of the Flood , since its the source of the bible one
I'm a regular visitor to AiG. It afterall was an Australian company originally (called the Creation Science Foundation) before it moved to the USA, and therefore I have a good working knowledge of AiG. It was AiG who make me an atheist incidentally.
At school I had a geology teacher who persistently gave me Ds and Es on my paleontolgy essays as I d ...[text shortened]... er sites that gave you the same information, but I thought a Christian would prefer their own...
http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/section1/tr174.htm
Originally posted by Maustrauser
I'm a regular visitor to AiG. It afterall was an Australian company originally (called the Creation Science Foundation) before it moved to the USA, and therefore I have a good working knowledge of AiG. It was AiG who make me an atheist incidentally.
I would expect one's faith in God to be dependent not on man, but God.
At school I had a geology teacher who persistently gave me Ds and Es on my paleontolgy essays as I didn't mention 'the flood' or used the AiG resources given to me. This annoyed me so I contacted the local university. They were most helpful in debunking the AiG 'science'. The teacher was sacked. He eventually moved to the USA where I believe he is happily teaching.
Very odd. Other than a massive flood in Europe 6 000 years ago, I would not have expected a sylabus to cover a Biblical flood. My you truely have a strange teacher. Having said that I got a D in geography for no reason other than I found it more difficult than maths. Good friend of mine got a low B yet 90% + in maths and science. It's a tough subject.
Did you read the article about Darwin? I could have given you lots of other sites that gave you the same information, but I thought a Christian would prefer their own...
Sorry, let me explain. I was being sarcastic regarding that claim was Darwin refuted his claim re evolution. My statement was in response to Nemesio's fallacious claim re: the authenticity of the ossuary. I fully believe Darwin to have despised Christians, we know his bulldog certainly did 🙂
Originally posted by frogstomp*sigh*, it's a shame that around 4 billion people disagree with you. It's also a shame that that is extremely unlikely since the Jews might have mentioned if they got the Laws from a group of men rather than a single guy called Moses. Or did one generation conveniantly forget in a culture obsessed with memorization?
Moses was a construct , build from the story of Sargon
To get to your estimate, then you also must be counting all the dead Jews and Christians.
From adherents.com:
List of the world's religions by number of adherents:
Christianity: 2 billion
Islam: 1.3 billion
Hinduism: 900 million
Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist: 850 million
Buddhism: 360 million
Chinese traditional religion: 225 million
primal-indigenous: 150 million
African Traditional & Diasporic: 95 million
Sikhism: 23 million
Juche: 19 million
Spiritism: 14 million
Judaism: 14 million
Baha'i: 6 million
Jainism: 4 million
Shinto: 4 million
Cao Dai: 3 million
Tenrikyo: 2.4 million
Neo-Paganism: 1 million
Unitarian-Universalism: 800 thousand
Rastafarianism: 700 thousand
Scientology: 600 thousand
Zoroastrianism: 150 thousand
Originally posted by Darfiusbesides that being a logical fallacy . The isrealites might have mentioned they got their god from the Sumerians too, but they didn't . the Isrealites had the same bull god as the Canaanits did. and that god originally was a Sumerian god named An .
*sigh*, it's a shame that around 4 billion people disagree with you. It's also a shame that that is extremely unlikely since the Jews might have mentioned if they got the Laws from a group of men rather than a single guy called Moses. Or did one generation conveniantly forget in a culture obsessed with memorization?
Convience would explain a lot .