No, we are amazing and full of potential.
"Empty vessels" is just an example of the kind tedious cliches that some believers enjoy using to demean our humanity.
No, we are amazing and full of potential.
"Empty vessels" is just an example of the kind tedious cliches that some believers enjoy using to demean our humanity.
4 years ago i posted a series of articles here.
i am always willing to share what i know and help people at the same time.. i feel honored when people say it has helped them as many of you have.
and in an odd way i suppoe it is an honor to have someone think what i write is good enough to post somewhere else.. but i want to know where it is going and what it is being used for and i want my name attached to it either as lady lee or lee marsh.. i just discovered that somebody named david_aaron_phillips took something i wrote along with over 500 pages of things other people wrote, put it altogether into one huge document and posted it on the web.
What's the beef with Bergman?
Bergman is an object much derision in the scientific world he claims to inhabit.
You can read a review of his debate with PZ Myers here...
4 years ago i posted a series of articles here.
i am always willing to share what i know and help people at the same time.. i feel honored when people say it has helped them as many of you have.
and in an odd way i suppoe it is an honor to have someone think what i write is good enough to post somewhere else.. but i want to know where it is going and what it is being used for and i want my name attached to it either as lady lee or lee marsh.. i just discovered that somebody named david_aaron_phillips took something i wrote along with over 500 pages of things other people wrote, put it altogether into one huge document and posted it on the web.
Have you got a link?
Personally I wouldn't want my name anywhere near Jerry Bergman's - that would be enough reason to object alone
the concept that "god is love" comes, for christians, from the letters of john.. on another thread p sac.
said "god is love, reconcile that with...(the matter being discussed in the thread, babies in hell) and then get back to me".. my question is, was john saying that the god of scripture is "love" , for that is mighty hard to "reconcile", or was he saying that when we humans "love" we have found the divine ?.
SA, who realizes that you don't really "know" me and so a lot of your comments to/about me are, well, way off base, actually...
Actually nothing in that post was about you Shelby.
The following is about you however - Your arrogance in the way you dismiss everybody except yourself as a true christian is astonishing.
the concept that "god is love" comes, for christians, from the letters of john.. on another thread p sac.
said "god is love, reconcile that with...(the matter being discussed in the thread, babies in hell) and then get back to me".. my question is, was john saying that the god of scripture is "love" , for that is mighty hard to "reconcile", or was he saying that when we humans "love" we have found the divine ?.
why did he let one of his bad angles tempt his own creation
Was it an obtuse angle?
the concept that "god is love" comes, for christians, from the letters of john.. on another thread p sac.
said "god is love, reconcile that with...(the matter being discussed in the thread, babies in hell) and then get back to me".. my question is, was john saying that the god of scripture is "love" , for that is mighty hard to "reconcile", or was he saying that when we humans "love" we have found the divine ?.
In my experience christians play silly games with definitions of words like love. They assert that "god is love" and then abandon all reasonable understanding of what love means.
Since god ordered the genocide of at least 14 million Canaanites, including the cold blooded murder of thousands of babies then in some way we can't understand that must be "loving".
Since god will send millions to eternal torture in hell that too must be an act of "love".
Words can mean anything we want them to mean - If god is "love" then I have not got the faintest idea what the word means; except I do know - and the god of the bible does not fit any sensible definition.
Conversely christians who buy into the horrors of the bible do not "love" god - they have a bad case of the Stockholm Syndrome
first of all, let me say that i do think this excuse of a religion is on a downward spiral, which will only accelerate.. as a born in, i always read comments here about how dedicated and hard-line we are.
most of the born ins (who stayed) develop a casual attitude toward everything.
even if you believe it, hearing about armageddon, constantly, doesn't excite you as much when it's the 1,000th time you've heard it.
Hi Red Piller I agree with some of your observations. I think another significant difference though may be the cost of leaving the borg. A convert is more likley to have links outside the borg that could help with the transition. They may also have skills and education to fall back on.
The only problem I see for born-ins, if it s a problem at all is that we all go to athieism after we leave. We grow up pointing out the errors in all other false religions we have none to turn to. - sharpie
I was an evangelical for 9 years post-borg. I wish I had not wasted those additional 9 years, I think you have identified a potential benefit rather than a problem.
evolutionists always claim that the reason why they believe in evolution and reject creation is due to "evidence".
they frequently use the opposite term "no evidence" in relation to any type of intelligent design, or creation, (and especially to genesis creation and flood history !).
their advocated beliefs always tend to include whatever is necessary to believe in to intellectually "explain" the existence of the universe, world, and its creatures without needing god).
I dont think proving the age of the earth which always ends up being disputed is as comercially viable as figuring out how biological systems develop and work. - Jaguarbass
Interesting that you should idedntify the one area that in fact has the greatest commercial value. All over the world thousands of geologists are employed to find precious resources beneath the earth.
The oil industry is the most obvious example but the same applies to precious metals and minerals. Dr Snelling that you refered to is a consulting geologist who works on uranium mineralisation. None of these men and women could do thier job without first understanding the process of millions of years that resulted in the strata in which they search. No flood geologist could work in the oil industry without first rejecting flood geology- they would never find oil in the real world.
So yes proving the age of the earth and each of its geological layers is worth billions of dollars - no wonder Snelling denies all of his young earth views when he does his day job.
.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4gv-w93-oy.
.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4gv-w93-oy.