Pastor attempts to walk on water, eaten by crocodiles

atlkvb

All-Conference
Jul 9, 2004
80,033
1,972
113
Jesus, and by default his disciples, didn't leave any options for their belief/disbelief: Did exist. Jesus either is as stated in the Bible, or is the biggest liar ever to lived, and should be thought of worse than Hitler. His disciples would be the second biggest liars, including John. But yet, those disciples believed in His cause enough to be martyred for it. That's another one of my apologetics topics. Forgot about that.

A day shouldn't be taken literal because it can't. We know a day as 24 hours, based on the revolution of earth on its axis. Daytime is known as the time we on earth point towards the sun. When the sun doesn't exist yet, what is a day? Those situations, which are very few (I haven't really researched it, haven't needed to) where it can't be taken literally is the only time it shouldn't be.

Yes, people lived to 100's of years old. Our DNA base is devolving, not evolving, as time goes by(Idiocracy). In addition, there were environmental factors protecting them.

To further illustrate your excellent points here it is hard for us to imagine a time when we weren't in Sin, yet the Bible specifically instructs us that such a time did indeed exist.
(Eden)

It doesn't specify how long Adam & Eve lived in that State, it also doesn't specify exactly at what time or place these events occurred. That is where Faith comes in. However there can be no doubt that such a place did indeed exist, (as does Heaven & Hell) and it also suggests a time and a place where it will be reconfigured along with our sinless state or nature.

How or when all of that is going to happen, I'm honestly clueless. Yet, through Faith (the evidence of things unseen) I 100% believe every word of it.
 

bamaEER

Freshman
May 29, 2001
32,435
60
0
We aren't smarter than we were previously. We're more technologically advanced. Big difference.
Genetically, we are more advanced now than ever before. Histone complexes, immune function, and a whole lot of metabolic activities, all continue to improve through generational genetic enhancement. Vestigial things like our tailbone will continue to fade away through genetics.
 

atlkvb

All-Conference
Jul 9, 2004
80,033
1,972
113
No, it's not bad. In fact, it's necessary.

It's OK to laugh at what he did, but I suspect many non believers are also laughing at Faith or at least Christianity as a result.

What's really funny though is belief that all there is to Life is what we can only actually "see". Or that it all just "appeared" out of nowhere on its own?

Now that's hilarious!
 
Last edited:

atlkvb

All-Conference
Jul 9, 2004
80,033
1,972
113
Genetically, we are more advanced now than ever before. Histone complexes, immune function, and a whole lot of metabolic activities, all continue to improve through generational genetic enhancement. Vestigial things like our tailbone will continue to fade away through genetics.

What "genes" have we (Man) created bamaEER? If we are capable of such a thing (gene creation) Where are the DNA strands that mark individuals who we're manufacturing?

What do those folks look like?
 

bamaEER

Freshman
May 29, 2001
32,435
60
0
What "genes" have we (Man) created bamaEER? If we are capable of such a thing (gene creation) Where are the DNA strands that mark individuals who we're manufacturing?

What do those folks look like?
Man's contribution has only been to modify existing sequences.
 

TarHeelEer

Redshirt
Dec 15, 2002
89,286
37
48
Genetically, we are more advanced now than ever before. Histone complexes, immune function, and a whole lot of metabolic activities, all continue to improve through generational genetic enhancement. Vestigial things like our tailbone will continue to fade away through genetics.

First sentence, there are environmental reasons why those are adapting. Tailbone is gonna be tailbone, there's no pressure for it to change. Mental capability and life expectancy, no external pressures on those. Just stating something will change just because isn't evolution.

Natural selection and Adaptation - Link
 

bamaEER

Freshman
May 29, 2001
32,435
60
0
Have we altered the eye color gene yet? I want old gold and blue eyes.
That would be a tough one. First, we've have to have identified the DNA which codes for a human gold eye, a color that's not normally found in man. Second, you'd have to develop and add a sequence to color eyes differentially. Our sequence only codes for one eye color.

Might be easier to just pop in a gold contact lens.
 

atlkvb

All-Conference
Jul 9, 2004
80,033
1,972
113
Man's contribution has only been to modify existing sequences.

OK...but you were suggesting in post #42 that we're more advanced genetically and I understood you to suggest we have improved on our existing genes or replaced them with better models?

If you're not suggesting that then I suppose things like the human genome experiments are capable of adaptations to existing structures which over time I'd suppose in theory could evolve into entirely new configurations.

However we lack the ability to "create" genes themselves. Just as you suggested, all we can do is modify existing sequences which if to cure disease or other genetic anomalies I'm not opposed to.

However Man has proven devious throughout history either trying to destroy creation, or replace it. I'm suspicious of the genetic experiments at cloning and such that are nothing more than attempts to make other folks....other beings.

The Bible also does warn us about that (says don't do it) for in that day we attempt to be like God...the real one is going to put a stop to it all.
 

bamaEER

Freshman
May 29, 2001
32,435
60
0
OK...but you were suggesting in post #42 that we're more advanced genetically and I understood you to suggest we have improved on our existing genes or replaced them with better models?
Yes
However we lack the ability to "create" genes themselves. Just as you suggested, all we can do is modify existing sequences which if to cure disease or other genetic anomalies I'm not opposed to.
No clue what you mean here. The reason we've improved crops or animals (bigger, heartier, faster harvest, earlier reproduction, etc) is because we've identified DNA sequences in other crops/animals that code for those things and included them in the program.
 

atlkvb

All-Conference
Jul 9, 2004
80,033
1,972
113
Yes

No clue what you mean here. The reason we've improved crops or animals (bigger, heartier, faster harvest, earlier reproduction, etc) is because we've identified DNA sequences in other crops/animals that code for those things and included them in the program.

OK...then we're talking about the same thing. Just wanted further clarification that you weren't suggesting we can actually "create" new or different unique genes.
 
Last edited:

dave

Senior
May 29, 2001
60,573
756
113
I'm sure he does, poor fella is infatuated with me. Every evening when he gets the chance to log on here after a hard day of dropping cones, he quotes me about a dozen times.
Poor cuntry. Tough day at the mall?
 

dave

Senior
May 29, 2001
60,573
756
113
No offense, but that is one of the dumbest posts I've seen in a long, long time.

Atheism, or maybe more appropriately, agnosticism, basically says "show me some evidence to consider before I have faith or a belief in something. My belief is based on some credible evidence."
You dont even know what agnosticism is apparently but you tried using big words.
 

bornaneer

Senior
Jan 23, 2014
30,211
842
113
The reason we've improved crops or animals (bigger, heartier, faster harvest, earlier reproduction, etc) is because we've identified DNA sequences in other crops/animals that code for those things and included them in the program.
Are you aware that many of your liberal friends want to outlaw all this progress?
 

Bulya

Senior
May 29, 2001
10,579
471
0
Now that's funny.

No pics, but the irreverent humor on display here is on the level of @PriddyBoy. I said he was sick, now he's infectious.

Still very funny post...made me belly laugh!

Priddy Boy not sick he is an idiot plain and simple. He proves it over and over with every post he makes.
 

atlkvb

All-Conference
Jul 9, 2004
80,033
1,972
113
Priddy Boy not sick he is an idiot plain and simple. He proves it over and over with every post he makes.

Well Bulya my Man you certainly are entitled to your opinion (especially on an OT message board) but I think @PriddyBoy is maybe the funniest poster I read on here. It's between him and @El~Scronko over on Blue Lot as the two who usually cause me to go run and pee after reading something they've posted. (Wal-Mart fan is crazy funny)

Maybe you don't get Priddy's humor, but I'm to the point now where I simply can't read one of his posts (especially with one of his stupid pix) without bursting out in laughter.

I know he makes fun of the Left and that's probably why you don't care for him but that Dude is sick (and funny)
 

WhiteTailEER

Sophomore
Jun 17, 2005
11,534
170
0
Class 1 starts out with something like: I'm not here to prove the existence of God to you. Noone can do that. I will give you many arguments against today's science, and many arguments for the God of the Christian Bible's existence. This won't be proof either way. It will be up to you to take this information, and make a decision for yourself. I can't give you the right answer. My pastor believes in old earth. My associate pastor believes in youth earth. I used to believe in youth earth, but now I'm in the "I don't know how He did it" category.

Some topics covered:
  • comparison of worldviews (including postmodern humanitarianism (you proscribe to this)
  • history of science, starting with Charles Lyell, Nicolaus Steno, and Darwin.
  • Overview and arguments against Big Bang
  • Charles Lyell, Nicolaus Steno, Geologic Column, and Darwin
  • Overview and arguments against Evolution
  • The many mistakes over time by science with fossils
  • Dinosaurs
  • US History starting in 1950's
  • DNA - proof beyond a reasonable doubt of a creator

Here's the thing about science ... they are looking for answers, and readily admit they are looking for the answers ... they don't have them all.

Religious people try to convince everybody beyond any shadow of a doubt that they KNOW something that is unknowable.

The latter is faith ... the former is not.

Has popular science always had all of the answers? Of course not, they did the best they could based on the knowledge they had and the evidence they were able to collect. And it's what we still do. If they did have all the answers, there would be no need for science anymore. The scientists still say "theory" it's other people that run with that and say it's proven fact, which is fallacious.
 

TarHeelEer

Redshirt
Dec 15, 2002
89,286
37
48
Here's the thing about science ... they are looking for answers, and readily admit they are looking for the answers ... they don't have them all.

Religious people try to convince everybody beyond any shadow of a doubt that they KNOW something that is unknowable.

The latter is faith ... the former is not.

Class 1 starts out with something like: I'm not here to prove the existence of God to you. Noone can do that. I will give you many arguments against today's science, and many arguments for the God of the Christian Bible's existence. This won't be proof either way.

Yeah, scratching my head here. I don't do that.

Has popular science always had all of the answers? Of course not, they did the best they could based on the knowledge they had and the evidence they were able to collect. And it's what we still do. If they did have all the answers, there would be no need for science anymore. The scientists still say "theory" it's other people that run with that and say it's proven fact, which is fallacious.

I don't disagree with this statement.
 

atlkvb

All-Conference
Jul 9, 2004
80,033
1,972
113
Here's the thing about science ... they are looking for answers, and readily admit they are looking for the answers ... they don't have them all.

Religious people try to convince everybody beyond any shadow of a doubt that they KNOW something that is unknowable.

The latter is faith ... the former is not.

Has popular science always had all of the answers? Of course not, they did the best they could based on the knowledge they had and the evidence they were able to collect. And it's what we still do. If they did have all the answers, there would be no need for science anymore. The scientists still say "theory" it's other people that run with that and say it's proven fact, which is fallacious.

I don't see it that way at all. Science I'd agree with you tries to explain the unexplainable or understand the unknown. However in my opinion it is often used to debunk claims of Faith, which it cannot do.

Faith on the other hand assumes what we do not know or cannot know as fact, and leaves it up to the believer to decide if the claims to explain what we don't know or don't understand are valid. Faith doesn't invalidate Science, because it doesn't pretend to answer all that is unknown.

Faith simply requires belief in what has been revealed. Science can either confirm or deny revealed Truth, but it can never substitute for ultimate Faith as ultimate Truth.

Faith remains true until either non belief kills it, or revealed Truth confirms it.(in other words it remains True until proven otherwise by other facts)
 

WhiteTailEER

Sophomore
Jun 17, 2005
11,534
170
0
Jesus, and by default his disciples, didn't leave any options for their belief/disbelief: Did exist. Jesus either is as stated in the Bible, or is the biggest liar ever to lived, and should be thought of worse than Hitler. His disciples would be the second biggest liars, including John. But yet, those disciples believed in His cause enough to be martyred for it. That's another one of my apologetics topics. Forgot about that.

A day shouldn't be taken literal because it can't. We know a day as 24 hours, based on the revolution of earth on its axis. Daytime is known as the time we on earth point towards the sun. When the sun doesn't exist yet, what is a day? Those situations, which are very few (I haven't really researched it, haven't needed to) where it can't be taken literally is the only time it shouldn't be.

Yes, people lived to 100's of years old. Our DNA base is devolving, not evolving, as time goes by(Idiocracy). In addition, there were environmental factors protecting them.

You brought up Hitler ... but I'll note that thousands believed in his cause enough to die for it too.

To me the Bible sounds like complete fantasy, or stories that were hugely embellished. If the Christian God is the only God and Christianity is the only religion that should be followed, then why wouldn't something that powerful just make things the way he wanted them to be and leave it at that? A God that requires total devotion and everything else over people that he gave free will seems like a pretty vengeful and spiteful being. Narcissistic even. None of it makes any sense.

If such a God exists, I really don't think any of our religions are what he had in mind ... and he certainly didn't want us killing each other over them. And if he didn't want it, he could just make it go away ... supposedly he can heal and provide fortune and whatever else people believe he can do, but he can't/won't remove wickedness? Just can't buy all of that.
 

WhiteTailEER

Sophomore
Jun 17, 2005
11,534
170
0
Yeah, scratching my head here. I don't do that.



I don't disagree with this statement.

No you don't do that ... and I frequently make the mistake of encompassing you in statements in which I don't intend to.

"Many" religious people do what I said ... you haven't and you don't.
 

atlkvb

All-Conference
Jul 9, 2004
80,033
1,972
113
You brought up Hitler ... but I'll note that thousands believed in his cause enough to die for it too.

To me the Bible sounds like complete fantasy, or stories that were hugely embellished. If the Christian God is the only God and Christianity is the only religion that should be followed, then why wouldn't something that powerful just make things the way he wanted them to be and leave it at that? A God that requires total devotion and everything else over people that he gave free will seems like a pretty vengeful and spiteful being. Narcissistic even. None of it makes any sense.

If such a God exists, I really don't think any of our religions are what he had in mind ... and he certainly didn't want us killing each other over them. And if he didn't want it, he could just make it go away ... supposedly he can heal and provide fortune and whatever else people believe he can do, but he can't/won't remove wickedness? Just can't buy all of that.


It's because we have free will WhiteTailEER. If the God you don't believe in had the power to do as you suggest (force his will onto everyone without their permission) what kind of Love would that be?

Suppose everyone was like you, or wanted to be like you and just not believe? That would be pure Hell being "forced" to accept rules of a lifestyle against your wishes wouldn't it be?

We are given freedom. To choose. Freedom, to worship. Freedom to decide.

We are warned of the consequences in choosing opposite of the plans, guidleines, and rules laid out for us to live happily. Just like you have an owner's manual which tells you how operate or put together what you've just purchased. Follow the directions, and it usually works as designed. Don't follow the rules, and it probably screws up or at least it doesn't work correctly as designed.

We have an "owner's manual". It's called the Bible. It explains in easy to understand terms how we are to live, how we are by nature, and what we have to do in order to keep from destroying ourselves, and dying Spiritual Deaths...because we are in essence Spirits. (something Science cannot explain)

We cause our own misery, and in those cases where bad things happen that we don't control (floods, famine, disease, etc) enough good happens opposite that to balance things out. For instance we don't suddenly spin out of control on our rotational axis relative to the Sun and fry like bacon or freeze to death. We are kept perfectly at the right aperture to live and thrive...all automatically.

So it really comes down to what you choose to believe. You are given Freedom of choice, and consequences behind each decision. You never escape choices & consequences.

It's really about the most fair way to do it if you really think about it.
 
Last edited:

TarHeelEer

Redshirt
Dec 15, 2002
89,286
37
48
If such a God exists, I really don't think any of our religions are what he had in mind ... and he certainly didn't want us killing each other over them. And if he didn't want it, he could just make it go away ... supposedly he can heal and provide fortune and whatever else people believe he can do, but he can't/won't remove wickedness? Just can't buy all of that.

You're right, He doesn't have any of our religions in mind. We exist for His pleasure. He evidently didn't find pleasure in mind-numbed robots. Out of the gate he gave us choice, and we screwed it up. He offers us forgiveness and grace, and we still screw it up. He doesn't want us to think we need to follow rules for Him to be pleased in us, but He wants a relationship with each of us.

He could make it all go away, and eventually will, and replace it. Wickedness is our own doing. He allows it, it separates the wheat from the chaff.

Work calls. Sorry can't add more now.
 

CAJUNEER_rivals

Redshirt
May 29, 2001
72,872
44
0
No offense, but that is one of the dumbest posts I've seen in a long, long time.

Atheism, or maybe more appropriately, agnosticism, basically says "show me some evidence to consider before I have faith or a belief in something. My belief is based on some credible evidence."
The reason you think the post is dumb is because you don't know there is a difference between agnosticism and atheism. That's dumb of you...no offense.
 

CAJUNEER_rivals

Redshirt
May 29, 2001
72,872
44
0
You brought up Hitler ... but I'll note that thousands believed in his cause enough to die for it too.

To me the Bible sounds like complete fantasy, or stories that were hugely embellished. If the Christian God is the only God and Christianity is the only religion that should be followed, then why wouldn't something that powerful just make things the way he wanted them to be and leave it at that? A God that requires total devotion and everything else over people that he gave free will seems like a pretty vengeful and spiteful being. Narcissistic even. None of it makes any sense.

If such a God exists, I really don't think any of our religions are what he had in mind ... and he certainly didn't want us killing each other over them. And if he didn't want it, he could just make it go away ... supposedly he can heal and provide fortune and whatever else people believe he can do, but he can't/won't remove wickedness? Just can't buy all of that.
The historicity of the Bible is easily demonstrable.
 

WhiteTailEER

Sophomore
Jun 17, 2005
11,534
170
0
The historicity of the Bible is easily demonstrable.

Uh ... no ... it isn't.

You have your beliefs and I don't mean to denigrate them ... so this should be taken as an explanation as to why I don't believe it ... not why you shouldn't.

You can't prove anything in genesis. You can't demonstrate Adam and Eve and the snake and the Apple. The best anybody can do and say "there's no other explanation, so it has to be God" ... no, it doesn't. There have been thousands and thousands of things that man didn't understand that were attributed to God or "Gods" that have later been explained.

You can't demonstrate that a 300 year old man built an ark and gathered all the animals in the world. You can't demonstrate that God shipwrecked Jonah and then allowed him to live 3 days inside a fish (is it a fish or a whale, because a whale isn't a fish ... so apparently Christians don't know the difference between fish and mammals, but I'm supposed to believe they know how everything got here) and then had the fish spit him out where he wanted him to be.

Then you have supposedly two different events in which Jesus fed thousands by multiplying loaves of bread and fish ... two events that are eerily similar but slightly different ... so it really seems like a different retelling of the same event ... and if the details differ in the telling of the same event, then how does anybody know what really happened?

God loves us all ... but if you don't swear your undying devotion to him then he'll cast you to hell for eternity? Uh, no. Supposedly murderers and rapists can "find" God in their last months and be forgiven ... but a person that lives a kind and generous life without "finding" God goes to hell? Uh, no.
 

WhiteTailEER

Sophomore
Jun 17, 2005
11,534
170
0
But an atheist is certain it wasn't God who created time, space, and matter. That takes incredible faith, no to mention hubris, to have that kind of certainty.

I would say the same about Christians.

And as an atheist ... I'm not certain of anything ... I just don't think there's a "God" responsible for it all, and if there was one, I don't think any of our religions portray whatever his wishes would be.
 

TarHeelEer

Redshirt
Dec 15, 2002
89,286
37
48
I would say the same about Christians.

And as an atheist ... I'm not certain of anything ... I just don't think there's a "God" responsible for it all, and if there was one, I don't think any of our religions portray whatever his wishes would be.

So you're agnostic, not atheist.
 

CAJUNEER_rivals

Redshirt
May 29, 2001
72,872
44
0
Uh ... no ... it isn't.

You have your beliefs and I don't mean to denigrate them ... so this should be taken as an explanation as to why I don't believe it ... not why you shouldn't.

You can't prove anything in genesis. You can't demonstrate Adam and Eve and the snake and the Apple. The best anybody can do and say "there's no other explanation, so it has to be God" ... no, it doesn't. There have been thousands and thousands of things that man didn't understand that were attributed to God or "Gods" that have later been explained.

You can't demonstrate that a 300 year old man built an ark and gathered all the animals in the world. You can't demonstrate that God shipwrecked Jonah and then allowed him to live 3 days inside a fish (is it a fish or a whale, because a whale isn't a fish ... so apparently Christians don't know the difference between fish and mammals, but I'm supposed to believe they know how everything got here) and then had the fish spit him out where he wanted him to be.

Then you have supposedly two different events in which Jesus fed thousands by multiplying loaves of bread and fish ... two events that are eerily similar but slightly different ... so it really seems like a different retelling of the same event ... and if the details differ in the telling of the same event, then how does anybody know what really happened?

God loves us all ... but if you don't swear your undying devotion to him then he'll cast you to hell for eternity? Uh, no. Supposedly murderers and rapists can "find" God in their last months and be forgiven ... but a person that lives a kind and generous life without "finding" God goes to hell? Uh, no.
To have this conversation you would have to understand "historicity." Historicity means a historical document has names, geography, culture, etc., consistent with the time period about which it purports to report. Where those items are know independent of the Bible the Bible proves consistent with those items. So the story of Jonah is not found independent of the Bible but the names, geography and culture are consistent with what can be independently verified.

Speaking of Jonah, to speak of Jonah not knowing the difference between fish and sea mammal is to speak anachronistically. It would be 2,000 years later before anyone would not consider a whale a type of fish. Besides...

"Wherefore he had no fancy for lowering for whales after sun-down; nor for persisting in fighting a fish that too much persisted in fighting him. For, thought Starbuck, I am here in this critical ocean to kill whales for my living, and not to be killed by them for theirs; and that hundreds of men had been so killed Starbuck well knew."--Chapter 26, Moby Dick.

What an ignorant sort that Herman Melville was.

The two stories of Jesus feeding multitudes are similar but not the same and are included for different purposes. Jesus, after performing many miracles in demonstration of God's power in him, teaches the people of Israel on a mountainside in Galilee, west of the Sea of Galilee. After teaching them Jesus take two fish and five loaves and feeds the 5,000 from the twelve tribes of Israel. The leftovers fill up twelve baskets full. Then Jesus goes to the east side of Galilee where the seven nations of the Canaanites settled, but only one person, a demoniac, is there to greet Jesus. There he heals the demoniac. The demons in the man leave and go into pigs which rush down the mountainside and drown in the sea. The now former demoniac comes to full health, but the Canaanites see this and ask Jesus to leave region because they are frightened. The former demoniac asks Jesus if he can come with Jesus. Jesus tells him to stay and tell others what he did for him. Jesus leave and then returns. This time 4,000 from the seven nations of the Canaanites are there waiting on him. The demoniac was the key to reaching the region. Jesus teaches them and then feeds them. This time the leftovers fill seven baskets full. In the Old Testament God is call El Shaddai--the God who is more than enough. Jesus feeds the twelve tribes of Israel and there are twelve baskets full leftover. Jesus demonstrated he is El Shaddai, the God who is more than enough for the Jews. Jesus feeds the seven Canaanite nations and there are seven baskets full leftover. Jesus demonstrated he is El Shaddai and more than enough for the Gentiles. The lesson is clear--God is more than enough for your every need no matter who you are.

As to your conclusions on heaven and hell and what God is looking for, read Mark 12:28-34, then get back to me.
 
Last edited:

CAJUNEER_rivals

Redshirt
May 29, 2001
72,872
44
0
I would say the same about Christians.

And as an atheist ... I'm not certain of anything ... I just don't think there's a "God" responsible for it all, and if there was one, I don't think any of our religions portray whatever his wishes would be.
How would you know no religion portrays what God wishes?
 

BoremanSouth

Redshirt
Jul 28, 2016
1,715
0
0
There is only one true God.