Hey, MDS, your involved with that 'report' stuff arn't you?
Posts by Zep
-
6"Partial Knowledge"--Have We Progress...
by MDS in"partial knowledge" -- have we progressed beyond it?
the bible reveals that first century christians possessed a "partial knowledge" of scripture and prophecy.
this being the case, we may then properly ask, have we today, as modern-day christians, progressed beyond this "partial knowledge" thus far?.
-
-
-
54
Should Christians Fear Evidentialism?
by dunsscot inarguments from natural theology are at times needed when christians defend the faith against atheological attacks.
yet, for the christian, such apologetic maneuvers are not required in and of themselves, for christians know that they are not in a relationship with a force or an abstract superlative entity devised by human adroitness.
no, christians heed the sensus divinitatis and the confirmatory evidence that god provides to those who love him.
-
-
Zep
I think its time the nurse upped your medication duns.
BTW, forget all this existentialism and 2+2 not equalling 4. The big question everyone wants to know is: How do you actually manage to type when your arms are strapped behind your back?
-
17
What is Important in Your Life?
by DougKelley inwhat things in life are the most important to you individually?.
please rank the following in order of importance to you.
i realize that several things may rank close to, or exactly the same, but please rank them in order.. if you wish to remain anonymous, please email your answers to [email protected].
-
-
Zep
What is most important to me is my Mind. The ability to think clearly. Wisdom - as opposed to knowledge-. If my mind is in good shape it just seems to optimize everything else. Everything else flows from it.
-
2
MURDER BY GOD
by Zep inmurder by god (a 30-second play).
act 1, scene 1 [setting: young pregnant woman found dead in a parking lot, struck by lightning.
cop : looks like lightning hit her on the head.
-
-
Zep
Yeah hi Seven...long time no post huh. I would have put the above in your never ending joke thread but i think www.jehovahs-witness.com has only so much band-width. I see you and Waiting are still with that wacky sense of humour, very good, no use letting shit get you down. I Liked the Queen with finger up her nose jpg he he...but be careful, she is stiiillll our head of state down here.
-
2
MURDER BY GOD
by Zep inmurder by god (a 30-second play).
act 1, scene 1 [setting: young pregnant woman found dead in a parking lot, struck by lightning.
cop : looks like lightning hit her on the head.
-
-
Zep
MURDER BY GOD (A 30-SECOND PLAY)
Act 1, Scene 1 [Setting: Young pregnant woman found dead in a parking lot, struck by lightning.]Cop : Looks like lightning hit her on the head. Guess it was the will of God.
Detective: It's the work of God all right, and I'm gonna make sure he goes up the river for this one.
Detective's narration: Ever since I started this beat, God had been responsible for putting more people six feet under the ground than any other thug in the city. They had all been written off as natural causes, but I knew better. And now he was getting sloppy. The lightning was his personal trademark.
WES ANDERSON
-
42
Dearest Pomegranate... may I ask you...
by AGuest inand you answer me, please, at what point did my lord ever 'sin'?
sin, dear one, is disobedience... to the commands of my father... whether given through the law covenant... or through holy spirit... yes?.
if then, the bible says of my lord that he was 'without sin' and 'learned obedience from the things he suffered', for which he was made 'perfect'... tell me, please... if you know... when did he sin?.
-
-
Zep
May I ask you, then, dear 'Pom... did our Lord ever 'lie'... to ANYONE? Note, now, that I said 'lie'... and not 'deceive'. And yes, there is a BIG difference.
Well, he lied when he claimed to be the 'son of god'. In reality he was just some quack. How do i know that he lied?. Well, he decieved a lot of people with a fair few false prophecies, so he obviously wasn't the son of God. But, then again, maybe he was just delusional when he claimed he was the 'son of god'.So, technically he didn't lie; he was just plain mad; he believed his own fantasies.
-
8
Watchtower Study - July 29
by hippikon indo not become forgetful hearers .
unlike the israelites in the wilderness, je-hovahs people today enjoy gods approval.
they have become forgetful hearers.
-
-
Zep
Hey Hip, why bother posting all that WT biblical crap. You know, Awake contains some good cooking recipes, why not post them instead. Why only last year there was a great recipe for hungarian goulash or something. Well o.k., they got that wrong too, it wasn't really a recipe for goulash, it was a recipe for soup (see 'questions from readers)...but, hey, who's counting all the errors: 1925, 1914, 1920, 1975, goulash thats really soup....what does it matter now!
-
25
Ahimelech, Jesus and Inerrancy
by Simon inapologies for plagurism.
i don't know where i originally got this from so can't give due credit.... how much did jesus know about the bible?
not having a handy edition around, he had to rely on his memory.
-
-
Zep
Hi waiting, i'm fine, pretty good actually. Only been back on the net for a month or so...but i'm good. Got all that Religious voodoo nonsense out of my system. The only thing that worries me now is trying to get my damn golf game below 95.
Sure have missed your wit and sarcasm
Well thanks. But i think this board can do without some my dribble. I'm happy to stay in the background now, let the heavy-weights who know what they are talking about go for it. This board has sure moved on, its seems to have overtaken h20...
-
50
Evolution Anyone???
by Steve Josef ini read alot of posts and it seems that though you all (or most) have left the kh, you still believe in a "father" or a "jesus" that created everything.
since i too and one that left the kh, i have delved into science and have come the conculsion that god does not exist in a spirit form, but is life itself.
the "creator" of all things is evolution.
-
-
Zep
2bfound,
Rightly again you show the great variety of dogs, clearly the result of an evolutionary process (not macro). But here is where you err. All these varieties of dogs came about as a result of INTELLIGENT causes. In other words a superiorly intelligent being intervened to acquire these results, and that is the whole contention of creationism.
I'll just try and deal with what you say here. The variety of dogs has been the result of SELECTIVE BREEDING by humans.What happens is this: For example, if a breeder wants a taller dog then he selects the offspring of certain dogs that seem to be taller than the rest. He then allows these taller dogs to breed with each other, and then their taller offspring to breed after that, and so on. Eventually it ends up that you get a much taller dog than original. God didn't create the variety of dogs. Man took an intial wild dog and has just selectivily bred it for thousands of years. He has done this to the point where we get dogs like the Britsh bulldog which cant give birth without human aid and all sorts of other dog breeds with genetic disease. We have done this to the point of going from a wild dog like the wolf to breeds like a Pekinese. Take a look at a pekinese dog. Its a BIG change we have managed to bring upon the dog world. From wolf to pekinese over a few thousand of years. Theoretically it seems quite sensible that we could go further and move even further away from the wolf. The only difference between Artifical seletion and Natural selection is that the former is done by human whim, in that man selects what he likes and lets those selected animals breed. Whereas in the case of Natural selection it is those dogs that are fittest that breed that continue. Both are the same process essentially, just with a different acting pressure. Artifical selection is very strong evidence for evolution i feel.
-
50
Evolution Anyone???
by Steve Josef ini read alot of posts and it seems that though you all (or most) have left the kh, you still believe in a "father" or a "jesus" that created everything.
since i too and one that left the kh, i have delved into science and have come the conculsion that god does not exist in a spirit form, but is life itself.
the "creator" of all things is evolution.
-
-
Zep
2bfound, Ok our definitions of macro-evolution/micro evolution are a little different here. What i meant by macro-evolution is that things evolve from single celled organisms to complex things like us (still via small mutational steps and not necessarily huge jumps). What i meant by micro-evolution is that evolution is confined within a 'kind'(whatever a kind is?). For example Bats can evolve, but only to a certain degree, they "still remain bats" as a creationist would put it. I'm not sure that these are the correct definitions of micro/macro evolution, but this is what i was thinking of.
BTW, i believe the definition of a species is: that which breeds within nature. Bats are not a species since not all bats breed with each other within nature. There are thousands of different kinds of bats, with as much difference between certain ones as there is between man and chimp. Some creationsts will tell you however that all bats are to be grouped into one 'kind'. But if they do that then they should also group man and chimp into one 'kind'. They of course wont do it for obvious reasons. They are being inconsistent with their reasoning. To me it doesn't make sense to group the huge array of different bats into one kind and not do it for chimp and man, simple as that. But also, to me it's obvious that all bats are related, to try and separate different bats into different kinds seems silly, and i dare say it would be impossible to do. It would be just too arbitrary and convenient. I maintain that Creationists can't clearly define a 'kind', its just too vague an idea and something nature resists.
Basically for me, Dawkin's said it. We have gone from Wolf to a whole host of different dogs in only a few thousand years. You have the dingo, poddle, you have all sorts of wild dogs, the british bulldog etc. The variety is huge now, and will only get larger as you allow more time. With more time allowed we could theoretically move so far away from the wolf, or even the poodle for that matter, that it wouldn't be funny. But creationists tell me that a 'dog' is still a 'dog'. To me, this is just playing with words. I just cant dismiss the theoretial implications of Artifical selection (selective breeding), that being that if we can go from Wolf to whatever --greyhound, poddle, all sorts of weird dogish creatures--, then you can go a hell of a lot further provided you allow more time, even to the point where this future theoretical creature starts looking more like a cat. After all, Cat and Dog arn't as dissimilar as you would think.
BTW "Darwin on Trial" has been on my want to read list for a while now since i first saw it over at commentarypress. And i have checked out your links, thanks.