last night a young man in a bar struck up a conversation with me.
our town is having our pride parade soon and he brought it up, the bible and how it's against the bible.
me being me, i said that i couldn't care less that it was against the bible and that it was a horrible guide for morality anyway.
I'm sure that the person who was at the bar with Viviane was a liberal.
Oh, no no no. Southern Baptist.
I am not saying all Christians are ignorant of the Bible or that most Christians don't. However, there is a very large percentage, perhaps and I think probably a majority, that don't.
last night a young man in a bar struck up a conversation with me.
our town is having our pride parade soon and he brought it up, the bible and how it's against the bible.
me being me, i said that i couldn't care less that it was against the bible and that it was a horrible guide for morality anyway.
Dear Lady, where did you get the idea that to refer to a Biblical story is to believe it literal?
So Jesus didn't believe it? You're saying Jesus was claiming as real false stories? You're saying Jesus didn't transfigure? Rise from the dead? Ascend to heaven? Believe in Noah?
Interestingly, when referring to the Flood of Noah's day and men marrying and women given in marriage Jesus said nothing about angels come down to have sex with women.
Jesus also never talked about having to poop. Are you saying Jesus therefore didn't poop? Jesus didn't mention masturbating. Are you saying people therefore don't masturbate?
He did not subscribe to that erroneous teaching.
Ah, well then simply show me the scripture where he says that. Otherwise, you are simply making things up so you can deny Jesus words and deeds. Technically, that makes you an anti-Christ.
last night a young man in a bar struck up a conversation with me.
our town is having our pride parade soon and he brought it up, the bible and how it's against the bible.
me being me, i said that i couldn't care less that it was against the bible and that it was a horrible guide for morality anyway.
You can believe in the inspiration of the Bible without believing it is all literal.
Jesus believed it was. Are you saying Jesus was wrong? If it isn't literal, then there literally is no point to any of it.
last night a young man in a bar struck up a conversation with me.
our town is having our pride parade soon and he brought it up, the bible and how it's against the bible.
me being me, i said that i couldn't care less that it was against the bible and that it was a horrible guide for morality anyway.
Christians don’t know the bible ( we know there is a group of people out there who really know the bible ).
Nope, never said that. Try again.
She claims we are still under the law of moses ( I think ) according to the bible.
Nope, never said that. Try again.
The law of Christ didn’t replace the old convanent.
Nope, never said that. Try again.
Again I must state I am not exactly sure what her theological stance of what the old covenant and new covenant are . It’s almost like she is trying bambozal us with all kinds of fancy jibbler jabber.
Sorry, I didn't mean to bamboozle you. I was just relating a funny story, sorry if it hit a nerve or described you exactly.
Repressed much ?? You can take the dub out of the hall but it is harder to take the hall out dub
Repressed? Jdub? What in the world are you talking about? Are you even trying to use your words or make a cogent thought?
richard dawkins admitted that information inside of dna, and the origin of life on earth, might point to intelligent designers, perhaps extraterrestrials.
(see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boncjbrrdq8 )richard dawkins further admitted, in a debate with francis collins for time magazine, that science might point to a creator existing, but that this creator might not be anything like yahweh:.
time: "could the answer be god?
If someone were to ask: Is Richard Dawkins an agnostic or an atheist? How would one respond?
And please, friends, do not direct me to a book. Just a simple answer would suffice and I will go my way off this thread.
Ask Richard Dawkins. Or read a book.
richard dawkins admitted that information inside of dna, and the origin of life on earth, might point to intelligent designers, perhaps extraterrestrials.
(see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boncjbrrdq8 )richard dawkins further admitted, in a debate with francis collins for time magazine, that science might point to a creator existing, but that this creator might not be anything like yahweh:.
time: "could the answer be god?
I quoted Richard Dawkins and posted a video of Richard Dawkins?
Where did I say anything?
Well, first you said you had not written commentary and then you did and now we don't know.
The point is, we've got some trouble with your veracity. We need tor straighten that out.
richard dawkins admitted that information inside of dna, and the origin of life on earth, might point to intelligent designers, perhaps extraterrestrials.
(see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boncjbrrdq8 )richard dawkins further admitted, in a debate with francis collins for time magazine, that science might point to a creator existing, but that this creator might not be anything like yahweh:.
time: "could the answer be god?
Perhaps you could actually try listening to that little video in the OP, since my comments were a summary of exactly what Richard Dawkins said in the video?
FT, you claimed you made no commentary, now you say you did. Which is it? We can get to the truth of your commentary (or lack thereof) once we determine which of your statements is true.
richard dawkins admitted that information inside of dna, and the origin of life on earth, might point to intelligent designers, perhaps extraterrestrials.
(see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boncjbrrdq8 )richard dawkins further admitted, in a debate with francis collins for time magazine, that science might point to a creator existing, but that this creator might not be anything like yahweh:.
time: "could the answer be god?
I believe that Richard Dawkins meme theory fuels the militancy of militant atheists. It probably also fuels his own militancy.
You've not shown us how studying science has anything to do with memes. Try again.
You also still owe us the evidence that what FT wrote is an accurate representation of what Dawkins said.
one or two of you have noticed that i use derogatory terms when talking about matters religion.
i offer no apology.
you do, however, deserve an explanation.. my father, bless him and now dead, was a survivor of belsen, the german concentration camp.
When he gets called a bully, he thinks it's terrible and says...
What a vile, evil, low-life.
But, when he is playing at being a bully, we get this...
You really don't wanna know what I would call christards if I wasn't on a public forum.
And then the bragging starts...
Yes, I have a business.
Yes, it is profitable - very - because I have put in an enormous amount of effort in order to be the very best that I can be.
Poor guy. He just needs attention and doesn't know how to get it. Being a bully doesn't get it, so he tries being a victim. When that doesn't work, tell us how awesome he is.
What you, 8?
richard dawkins admitted that information inside of dna, and the origin of life on earth, might point to intelligent designers, perhaps extraterrestrials.
(see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boncjbrrdq8 )richard dawkins further admitted, in a debate with francis collins for time magazine, that science might point to a creator existing, but that this creator might not be anything like yahweh:.
time: "could the answer be god?
viv, thats a pretty good description of your own tactics. you and cofty - both of you doing the same thing
And now you're doing PeeWee Herman to attempt to pretend others are guilty of your shortcomings.
