Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • World
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor
  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Collapse
Code Project
CODE PROJECT For Those Who Code
  • Home
  • Articles
  • FAQ
Community
  1. Home
  2. Other Discussions
  3. The Back Room
  4. Evolution works in mysterious ways

Evolution works in mysterious ways

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved The Back Room
htmlcomannouncement
286 Posts 22 Posters 27.8k Views 1 Watching
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • M Matthew Faithfull

    Thomas George wrote:

    I will accept it as the current scientific model until the broad scientific community accepts that the model is flawed beyond usefulness.

    Unfortunately much of that broad 'scientific' community now believes in this theory as a matter of religious principle and will not abandon it in the face of mere contradictory evidence.

    Thomas George wrote:

    There must be other theories that have the same level of problems that theory of evolution has,

    There are and where I come accross them I stick the boot in just as vigorously. Basic Cosmology for example is entirely based on circular reasoning, redering it bunkum. Geology where it clings to Lyle's dictum is an aggregation of error based on error. I'm not picky believe me.

    Thomas George wrote:

    it is perceived as a threat to religion in some way.

    No, evolution is not a threat to religion it is a threat to science and to society as I've explained in previous threads. The broken thinking and false view of humanity it engenders is destructive in a extraordinarily far reaching set of fields.

    Thomas George wrote:

    You, despite not being a biologist, are interested in *disproving* a theory that is accepted now.

    Precisely because the scientists who should be doing so are not, they are accepting the theory as fact and relying on it, resulting in bad science.

    Thomas George wrote:

    Even graduates and post-graduates do not go around discrediting theories without research.

    No they go around discrediting theories based on research, often other peoples research, and argument as I have tried to do.

    Thomas George wrote:

    A similar level of insecurity was shown by the Church regarding Physics in the time of Galileo.

    There is no insecurity here as I've said how can a false, failed, discredited theory be a threat to the Church? The case of Galileo is sad and oft repreated but utterly irrelevant. It was power and politics plain and simple and nothing to do with the the Church, only a political organisation set up by and filled with fallable men, i.e. the Vatican.

    "The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage." Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)

    L Offline
    L Offline
    Lost User
    wrote on last edited by
    #159

    There is only one way to discredit any scientific theory. Do research, and publish findings in a reputed journal. I think that acceptance of broader scientific community is essential. Garnering public opinion has no bearing on this.

    Matthew Faithfull wrote:

    how can a false, failed, discredited theory be a threat to the Church?

    If the broad scientific community does not accept that, it is neither failed nor discredited from a scientific view point. I see this current bout of "evolution versus creation" as a war to get them young. The whole issue stems from the fact that those supporting creation want it (or at least Intelligent Design) to be taught as science. There is a lot of insecurity in religion these days. Things like the Da Vinci Code has attracted too much negative attention from the Church. Harry Potter also was considered a problem. You would also accept that none of these had any potential to challenge the mass following of Christianity, and did not deserve the attention showered on it.

    Matthew Faithfull wrote:

    It was power and politics plain and simple and nothing to do with the the Church, only a political organisation set up by and filled with fallable men, i.e. the Vatican.

    which is the primary problem. True religious belief can only be personal, not organized. The current issues are also about power and politics, at least in my eyes.

    M I 2 Replies Last reply
    0
    • M Matthew Faithfull

      John Davids wrote:

      So are you saying that everything started of as being Perfect?

      Yes.

      John Davids wrote:

      Every organism at the beginning of time (whenever that is supposed to be), was as good as it could possibly be?

      Yes, God, who's standard is perfection, examined what he had made and declared that it was good.

      John Davids wrote:

      Other that God putting them there,

      There is no other.

      John Davids wrote:

      And does that mean we are getting more and more sickly, unhealthy, weaker etc.... as the years go on because we lose certain parts of our dna making us less human so to speak?

      Yes. We are less than our ancestors and if we were to continue as a species for a very long time we would be much less. The diminishing is mitigated to an extent by massive population growth preserving genetic information by duplication but in the end entropy will have its way.

      "The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage." Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)

      A Offline
      A Offline
      Al Beback
      wrote on last edited by
      #160

      Matthew Faithfull wrote:

      Yes, God, who's standard is perfection, examined what he had made and declared that it was good.

      Yeah, good. Mosquitoes are great. Diseases are wonderful. Tornadoes are cool. Adam and Eve's children having incest is neat. But people's ability to be coerced into believing in magic tops them all.

      - Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent. - Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. - Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil? - Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? Epicurus

      M O 2 Replies Last reply
      0
      • P Paul Watson

        Matthew Faithfull wrote:

        You precisely and definitively do need God to be good. All good proceeds from God and without him there is no good.

        Horribly arrogant. How do you expect to do good amongst the people when you think so little of the people?

        Matthew Faithfull wrote:

        Fortunately he has made that possible.

        Through?

        regards, Paul Watson Ireland & South Africa

        Fernando A. Gomez F. wrote:

        At least he achieved immortality for a few years.

        M Offline
        M Offline
        Matthew Faithfull
        wrote on last edited by
        #161

        Paul Watson wrote:

        Horribly arrogant. How do you expect to do good amongst the people when you think so little of the people?

        Has nothing to do with what I think. 'All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God'. That includes me and you.

        Paul Watson wrote:

        Through?

        Through the incarnation, life, sacraficial death, glorious resurection and eternal life of his son Jesus Christ. In Christ God is revealed and we can know him. Through his atoning death all the sin which stands between us and God can be removed, he has taken it on himself. Our relationship with God can be restored and he can place his spirit in us as guide, comforter and deposit gaurenteeing our eternal inheritance. I don't expect much of that to make sense to you but there it is. Ask yourself the question 'Who is Jesus Christ?' When you've got that answer the rest may follow.

        "The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage." Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)

        P 1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • L Lost User

          There is only one way to discredit any scientific theory. Do research, and publish findings in a reputed journal. I think that acceptance of broader scientific community is essential. Garnering public opinion has no bearing on this.

          Matthew Faithfull wrote:

          how can a false, failed, discredited theory be a threat to the Church?

          If the broad scientific community does not accept that, it is neither failed nor discredited from a scientific view point. I see this current bout of "evolution versus creation" as a war to get them young. The whole issue stems from the fact that those supporting creation want it (or at least Intelligent Design) to be taught as science. There is a lot of insecurity in religion these days. Things like the Da Vinci Code has attracted too much negative attention from the Church. Harry Potter also was considered a problem. You would also accept that none of these had any potential to challenge the mass following of Christianity, and did not deserve the attention showered on it.

          Matthew Faithfull wrote:

          It was power and politics plain and simple and nothing to do with the the Church, only a political organisation set up by and filled with fallable men, i.e. the Vatican.

          which is the primary problem. True religious belief can only be personal, not organized. The current issues are also about power and politics, at least in my eyes.

          M Offline
          M Offline
          Matthew Faithfull
          wrote on last edited by
          #162

          Thomas George wrote:

          True religious belief can only be personal, not organized.

          Agreed. I do not agree with intelligent desing being taught as science because it is not falsifiable. Being taught as fact simply because it is I have no problem with. As to the rest I ask you this, 'with what falsehood would you challenge the ultimate truth'? When you look at it like that you see that there is no such things as a viable threat to the Church, only to the stumbling unbelief of the wavering masses who do not really believe but like to pretend that they are the same as those who do.

          "The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage." Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)

          L 1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • M Matthew Faithfull

            Paul Watson wrote:

            Horribly arrogant. How do you expect to do good amongst the people when you think so little of the people?

            Has nothing to do with what I think. 'All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God'. That includes me and you.

            Paul Watson wrote:

            Through?

            Through the incarnation, life, sacraficial death, glorious resurection and eternal life of his son Jesus Christ. In Christ God is revealed and we can know him. Through his atoning death all the sin which stands between us and God can be removed, he has taken it on himself. Our relationship with God can be restored and he can place his spirit in us as guide, comforter and deposit gaurenteeing our eternal inheritance. I don't expect much of that to make sense to you but there it is. Ask yourself the question 'Who is Jesus Christ?' When you've got that answer the rest may follow.

            "The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage." Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)

            P Offline
            P Offline
            Paul Watson
            wrote on last edited by
            #163

            Matthew Faithfull wrote:

            Who is Jesus Christ?

            He was a good man who lived roughly 2008 years ago. He tried to help people live good lives and lived as good as life as he could. Sadly he was either used by the Church to promote its teachings or in his senility took on dellusions of grandeur. Either way he was just a man. As for the rest of your post my dislike of your faith is summed up by quoting "Has nothing to do with what I think." You should think for yourself.

            regards, Paul Watson Ireland & South Africa

            Fernando A. Gomez F. wrote:

            At least he achieved immortality for a few years.

            M 1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • A Al Beback

              Matthew Faithfull wrote:

              Yes, God, who's standard is perfection, examined what he had made and declared that it was good.

              Yeah, good. Mosquitoes are great. Diseases are wonderful. Tornadoes are cool. Adam and Eve's children having incest is neat. But people's ability to be coerced into believing in magic tops them all.

              - Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent. - Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. - Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil? - Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? Epicurus

              M Offline
              M Offline
              Matthew Faithfull
              wrote on last edited by
              #164

              I think you should read Genesis 3 before critisizing the sate of a once perfect creation brought about by our own kind. One point to note, incest was not forbidden in the beggining, no doubt as it carried no dangers for those with such superior genes. Later on after death and decay had entered the world it was banned.

              "The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage." Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)

              1 Reply Last reply
              0
              • M Matthew Faithfull

                Fisticuffs wrote:

                Stop talking about things you have no idea about.

                I suggest you follow your own advice, at least until you can handle basic addition and percentages. :rolleyes:

                "The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage." Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)

                L Offline
                L Offline
                Lost User
                wrote on last edited by
                #165

                Matthew Faithfull wrote:

                I suggest you follow your own advice, at least until you can handle basic addition and percentages.

                Uh huh. Show me your numbers, little bitch, or STFU.

                - F

                1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • P Paul Watson

                  Matthew Faithfull wrote:

                  Who is Jesus Christ?

                  He was a good man who lived roughly 2008 years ago. He tried to help people live good lives and lived as good as life as he could. Sadly he was either used by the Church to promote its teachings or in his senility took on dellusions of grandeur. Either way he was just a man. As for the rest of your post my dislike of your faith is summed up by quoting "Has nothing to do with what I think." You should think for yourself.

                  regards, Paul Watson Ireland & South Africa

                  Fernando A. Gomez F. wrote:

                  At least he achieved immortality for a few years.

                  M Offline
                  M Offline
                  Matthew Faithfull
                  wrote on last edited by
                  #166

                  Paul Watson wrote:

                  Either way he was just a man.

                  Sadly while you remain wrong about that you are without reason for hope.

                  Paul Watson wrote:

                  You should think for yourself.

                  Is that the beggings of a religous creed I see before me? :laugh: Anyway I have thought for myself and still do and have found one whose thinking is better than mine and whose gentle guidance greatly improves my thinking when I listen to it. I hope you will also turn to him and find what I have found. If I can say with Paul, 'It is no longer I that live but Christ living in me' and 'for me to live is Christ and to die is gain' then I will be all that I can be and more and better than any human can achieve unaided. That is my choice, freely made.

                  "The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage." Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)

                  P 1 Reply Last reply
                  0
                  • M Matthew Faithfull

                    Paul Watson wrote:

                    Either way he was just a man.

                    Sadly while you remain wrong about that you are without reason for hope.

                    Paul Watson wrote:

                    You should think for yourself.

                    Is that the beggings of a religous creed I see before me? :laugh: Anyway I have thought for myself and still do and have found one whose thinking is better than mine and whose gentle guidance greatly improves my thinking when I listen to it. I hope you will also turn to him and find what I have found. If I can say with Paul, 'It is no longer I that live but Christ living in me' and 'for me to live is Christ and to die is gain' then I will be all that I can be and more and better than any human can achieve unaided. That is my choice, freely made.

                    "The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage." Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)

                    P Offline
                    P Offline
                    Paul Watson
                    wrote on last edited by
                    #167

                    Matthew Faithfull wrote:

                    you are without reason for hope.

                    Jesus wouldn't like that. He was all about hope.

                    regards, Paul Watson Ireland & South Africa

                    Fernando A. Gomez F. wrote:

                    At least he achieved immortality for a few years.

                    M 1 Reply Last reply
                    0
                    • P Paul Watson

                      Matthew Faithfull wrote:

                      you are without reason for hope.

                      Jesus wouldn't like that. He was all about hope.

                      regards, Paul Watson Ireland & South Africa

                      Fernando A. Gomez F. wrote:

                      At least he achieved immortality for a few years.

                      M Offline
                      M Offline
                      Matthew Faithfull
                      wrote on last edited by
                      #168

                      Paul Watson wrote:

                      He was all about hope.

                      Indeed, he was and is the hope and if you do not know him you do not have reason to hope. He said 'I am the way, the truth and the life.' Was he telling the truth or was he mad, saying this publically in a society where such a claim was pretty certain to get you executed? I'm afraid saying he was good man, just a good man doesn't cut it. He was either who he said he was or he was stark raving bonkers. I know which I believe.

                      "The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage." Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)

                      P 1 Reply Last reply
                      0
                      • L Lost User

                        There is only one way to discredit any scientific theory. Do research, and publish findings in a reputed journal. I think that acceptance of broader scientific community is essential. Garnering public opinion has no bearing on this.

                        Matthew Faithfull wrote:

                        how can a false, failed, discredited theory be a threat to the Church?

                        If the broad scientific community does not accept that, it is neither failed nor discredited from a scientific view point. I see this current bout of "evolution versus creation" as a war to get them young. The whole issue stems from the fact that those supporting creation want it (or at least Intelligent Design) to be taught as science. There is a lot of insecurity in religion these days. Things like the Da Vinci Code has attracted too much negative attention from the Church. Harry Potter also was considered a problem. You would also accept that none of these had any potential to challenge the mass following of Christianity, and did not deserve the attention showered on it.

                        Matthew Faithfull wrote:

                        It was power and politics plain and simple and nothing to do with the the Church, only a political organisation set up by and filled with fallable men, i.e. the Vatican.

                        which is the primary problem. True religious belief can only be personal, not organized. The current issues are also about power and politics, at least in my eyes.

                        I Offline
                        I Offline
                        Ilion
                        wrote on last edited by
                        #169

                        Thomas George wrote:

                        There is only one way to discredit any scientific theory. Do research, and publish findings in a reputed journal. I think that acceptance of broader scientific community is essential. Garnering public opinion has no bearing on this.

                        One can also discredit a "sceintific" "theory" via *reason* You "Science" worshippers are such a hoot!

                        L S 2 Replies Last reply
                        0
                        • M Matthew Faithfull

                          Paul Watson wrote:

                          He was all about hope.

                          Indeed, he was and is the hope and if you do not know him you do not have reason to hope. He said 'I am the way, the truth and the life.' Was he telling the truth or was he mad, saying this publically in a society where such a claim was pretty certain to get you executed? I'm afraid saying he was good man, just a good man doesn't cut it. He was either who he said he was or he was stark raving bonkers. I know which I believe.

                          "The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage." Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)

                          P Offline
                          P Offline
                          Paul Watson
                          wrote on last edited by
                          #170

                          Matthew Faithfull wrote:

                          He was either who he said he was or he was stark raving bonkers.

                          Does this mean you believe in the literal truth of the Bible? I just want to see what kind of Christian I am talking to hear. I can tolerate the Jesus kind but have great difficulty respecting those who treat the Bible as modern day literal truth.

                          regards, Paul Watson Ireland & South Africa

                          Fernando A. Gomez F. wrote:

                          At least he achieved immortality for a few years.

                          M 1 Reply Last reply
                          0
                          • L leckey 0

                            No, I prefer someone who is unbiased.

                            CP Offenders: Over 50 offenders and growing! Current rant: "Me thinks CP needs an application process!" http://craptasticnation.blogspot.com/[^]

                            I Offline
                            I Offline
                            Ilion
                            wrote on last edited by
                            #171

                            leckey wrote:

                            No, I prefer someone who is unbiased.

                            You're such a hoot! More importantly, you don't even know what you mean when you claim "I would maybe listen to someone who claims evolution never happened if they were atheist" because you don't know what you mean by "evolution."

                            1 Reply Last reply
                            0
                            • M Matthew Faithfull

                              Oakman wrote:

                              So there are errors?

                              No there are not, none that I can spot, or those much cleverer and more knowledgable than myself. Anyway it would be better to discuss what's in the book than if the number of queryable translations is 4 or 5 or things no one understands is 10 or 11. How much have you read?

                              "The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage." Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)

                              O Offline
                              O Offline
                              Oakman
                              wrote on last edited by
                              #172

                              Matthew Faithfull wrote:

                              No there are not, none that I can spot,

                              You just said there were :confused: Do I need to go back and quote you again?

                              Matthew Faithfull wrote:

                              How much have you read?

                              New Testament: 3 times, 2 KJV 1 RSV; Old testament 1 KJV. I am licensed as a Lay Preacher by the Methodist Church - though I haven't set my foot inside of one for many a year. Now that I have told you how big mine is, how about answering the question? ;)

                              Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

                              M 1 Reply Last reply
                              0
                              • M Matthew Faithfull

                                That's what we call common grace but of course you're not allowed to believe in that :laugh:

                                "The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage." Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)

                                I Offline
                                I Offline
                                Ilion
                                wrote on last edited by
                                #173

                                Well, you know, you really can't reason with these people: reason to 'atheists' is like kryptonite to Superman. And then, you personally have the double constraint that you yourself tend to embrace un-reason and anti-reason. :sigh:

                                M P 2 Replies Last reply
                                0
                                • P Paul Watson

                                  Matthew Faithfull wrote:

                                  He was either who he said he was or he was stark raving bonkers.

                                  Does this mean you believe in the literal truth of the Bible? I just want to see what kind of Christian I am talking to hear. I can tolerate the Jesus kind but have great difficulty respecting those who treat the Bible as modern day literal truth.

                                  regards, Paul Watson Ireland & South Africa

                                  Fernando A. Gomez F. wrote:

                                  At least he achieved immortality for a few years.

                                  M Offline
                                  M Offline
                                  Matthew Faithfull
                                  wrote on last edited by
                                  #174

                                  Paul Watson wrote:

                                  Does this mean you believe in the literal truth of the Bible?

                                  Yes. Does that mean that I believe whatever you or someone else thinks some small part of it taken out of context means? No.

                                  Paul Watson wrote:

                                  modern day literal truth

                                  As far as I know modern day truth is exactly the same as it always been? Did someone rewire the universe while I was on lunch?

                                  Paul Watson wrote:

                                  I can tolerate the Jesus kind but have great difficulty respecting those who treat the Bible

                                  How can there be any contradiction between the two as the Bible is the source for everything the non-believer can know about Jesus. "All scripture is God breathed and good for teaching." This is either true or false. If its false the whole book is worthless, if it's true the whole book is true.

                                  "The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage." Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)

                                  P 1 Reply Last reply
                                  0
                                  • I Ilion

                                    Thomas George wrote:

                                    There is only one way to discredit any scientific theory. Do research, and publish findings in a reputed journal. I think that acceptance of broader scientific community is essential. Garnering public opinion has no bearing on this.

                                    One can also discredit a "sceintific" "theory" via *reason* You "Science" worshippers are such a hoot!

                                    L Offline
                                    L Offline
                                    Lost User
                                    wrote on last edited by
                                    #175

                                    Ilíon wrote:

                                    One can also discredit a "sceintific" "theory" via *reason*

                                    You have made a basic assumption that reason plays no part in doing research and publishing it in a journal. There are no absolute truths in science. It is just a means to create models that explain observed phenomena. Those models last only until someone observes something that cannot be explained by the theory. Anyone who considers any theory absolute truth does not understand science at all. Of course, you can discredit a theory just for your satisfaction and then peddle it on 'Soapboxes' on the Internet, or you can publish your findings somewhere that is accepted under the current norms. Why are you so upset with science? Is it because we live longer than our previous generations, have better living conditions, more conveniences? I find it hard to understand the specific part of the accepted process that you object to. If you have evidence or reasoning that disproves evolution or any other accepted scientific theory, you owe it to society that you put that for peer scrutiny on an appropriate forum. After all, all the conveniences that you enjoy have been the result of scientific process.

                                    I 1 Reply Last reply
                                    0
                                    • M Matthew Faithfull

                                      "The platypus genome is extremely important, because it is the missing link in our understanding of how we and other mammals first evolved," Err no, the missing link in our understanding is that we didn't evolve, first last or otherwise. We are though de-evolving and at a rate that makes arbitrary numbers like 170 million a complete joke. :rolleyes:

                                      "The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage." Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)

                                      V Offline
                                      V Offline
                                      Vincent Reynolds
                                      wrote on last edited by
                                      #176

                                      Q: Are we not men? A: We are DeVo!

                                      1 Reply Last reply
                                      0
                                      • I Ilion

                                        Well, you know, you really can't reason with these people: reason to 'atheists' is like kryptonite to Superman. And then, you personally have the double constraint that you yourself tend to embrace un-reason and anti-reason. :sigh:

                                        M Offline
                                        M Offline
                                        Matthew Faithfull
                                        wrote on last edited by
                                        #177

                                        Ilíon wrote:

                                        you personally have the double constraint that you yourself tend to embrace un-reason and anti-reason.

                                        Something you have thrice failed to evidence. The time is coming when I will have to call you on that.

                                        "The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage." Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)

                                        I 1 Reply Last reply
                                        0
                                        • M Matthew Faithfull

                                          The Church is and always will be full of fallable human beings. The difference that is hard to get accross to non-believers is that the Church is not the human institution which owns buildings and elects Popes and collects riches and pays taxes and the rest. The Roman Catholic church, centered in the Vatican is an example of one such institution but that is not the Church. The Church is defined as the people of God, those he has redeemed from every tribe and tounge and nation. Only God gets to say who is in the Church and who is not and its mapping onto and relation to human organisations is a complex and tricky affair. Their are many churches but only one Church. Sometimes you get a church that doesn't contain very much of the Church at all and bad things tend to result, from Waco to the Spanish Inquisition. The Church does not do such things though some genuine believers may get mixed up in them.

                                          "The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage." Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)

                                          O Offline
                                          O Offline
                                          Oakman
                                          wrote on last edited by
                                          #178

                                          Matthew Faithfull wrote:

                                          difference that is hard to get accross to non-believers

                                          try me.

                                          Matthew Faithfull wrote:

                                          The Church is defined as the people of God, those he has redeemed from every tribe and tounge and nation

                                          Normally thats called Christendom. Back where I come from (said the Wizard to Dorothy) you had to be able to say "Credo in Deum Patrem omnipotentem, Creatorem caeli et terrae. Et in Iesum Christum, Filium Eius unicum, Dominum nostrum, qui conceptus est de Spiritu Sancto, natus ex Maria Virgine, passus sub Pontio Pilato, crucifixus, mortuus, et sepultus, descendit ad ínferos, tertia die resurrexit a mortuis, ascendit ad caelos, sedet ad dexteram Dei Patris omnipotentis, inde venturus est iudicare vivos et mortuos. Credo in Spiritum Sanctum, sanctam Ecclesiam catholicam, sanctorum communionem, remissionem peccatorum, carnis resurrectionem, vitam aeternam. Amen," in order to belong to the Church.

                                          Matthew Faithfull wrote:

                                          Only God gets to say who is in the Church and who is not

                                          So Christ lied to Peter, eh?

                                          Matthew Faithfull wrote:

                                          The Church does not do such things though some genuine believers may get mixed up in them

                                          Convenient. Kinda reminds me of my kids. They gladly took credit for anything that went right, but "Not me" was the one who did anything wrong.

                                          Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

                                          M 1 Reply Last reply
                                          0
                                          Reply
                                          • Reply as topic
                                          Log in to reply
                                          • Oldest to Newest
                                          • Newest to Oldest
                                          • Most Votes

                                          • Login
                                          • Don't have an account? Register
                                          • Login or register to search.
                                          • First post
                                            Last post
                                          0
                                          • Categories
                                          • Recent
                                          • Tags
                                          • Popular
                                          • World
                                          • Users
                                          • Groups