Evolution works in mysterious ways

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.

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)

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!

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.

Ilion

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."

Oakman

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

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:

Matthew Faithfull

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)

Lost User

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.

Vincent Reynolds

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

Matthew Faithfull

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)

Oakman

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

Oakman

Al Beback wrote:

Adam and Eve's children having incest is neat. But people's ability to be coerced into believing in magic tops them all.

Al, Adam and Eve didn't have any daughters. :)

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

Matthew Faithfull

Oakman wrote:

You just said there were

I did not. Quote away, but read first to avoid embarassment.

Oakman wrote:

how about answering the question?

If you mean the same question then the answer is all of it in the NIV at least once. Most of it more than 3 times and although I don't keep records the majority of it 10 or more times, and if you count thousands of hours of sermons I've been pretty well taught. If you are as you claim a thoroughly read Methodist Lay Preacher then what on earth are you doing attacking me and siding with evolutionists, you clearly know better.:confused:

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

Paul Watson

Matthew Faithfull wrote:

How can there be any contradiction between the two as the Bible is the source for everything the non-believer can know about Jesus.

Actually there are writings of Jesus outside of the Bible. Some suppressed by the Church, others part of the histories of other nations and peoples who came into contact with Jesus. The Romans obviously also wrote of him.

Matthew Faithfull wrote:

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?

Apologies, I wrote poorly. I meant that some people believe the Bible to be literally true but they claim it only pertains to the life and times in which the events happened. e.g. pork being an unclean food is patently untrue in this day and age but was true back in ancient times. Then you get people who think that everything written in the Bible holds as true today as when it was written. e.g. don't eat pork, ever.

regards, Paul Watson Ireland & South Africa

Fernando A. Gomez F. wrote:

At least he achieved immortality for a few years.

Oakman

CataclysmicQuantum wrote:

I need a girl young, at least not fat, good looking

And all you've ever gotten is your hand. I wonder why.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

73Zeppelin

Oh please. His level of mathematical sophisticaion is comparable to that of a 4 year old child starting junior kindergarten. It's also poorly reasoned and in some cases just plain wrong. No wonder his last name is "Gitt".

Paul Watson

Ilíon wrote:

reason to 'atheists' is like kryptonite to Superman.

Cute. Reason is what we base everything on. I do admit atheists can be difficult to reason with however as we tend to have been quoted the Bible as valid points against our arguments. We grow weary with scripture and do not always give enough time and respect to every Jesus freak who comes along. No offense, you are just boring.

regards, Paul Watson Ireland & South Africa

Fernando A. Gomez F. wrote:

At least he achieved immortality for a few years.

Brady Kelly

Sushi?

Pits fall into Chuck Norris.

73Zeppelin

No wonder we don't get along. I'm from Orkney.