Can God love? (Part 1)
+15
agoodman
tlttf
astra
trevorw2539
Ivan
astradt1
blueturando
sickchip
polyglide
Phil Hornby
Adele Carlyon
bobby
Shirina
oftenwrong
Greatest I am
19 posters
Page 15 of 25
Page 15 of 25 • 
1 ... 9 ... 14, 15, 16 ... 20 ... 25
Can God love? (Part 1)
by Greatest I am Wed Apr 25, 2012 9:40 pm
First topic message reminder :
Can God love?
We are told that the mythical bible God is love or the epitome of love.
Archetypal Jesus said that we would know his people by the love, deeds and actions they showed others.
Jesus gave us examples of the deeds and works. Feed the poor, love all our neighbours, do not sin and many others.
Love then, seems to Jesus, to be something that must be shown by deeds, actions and works to be alive and true love. Love, like faith, without works is dead. Both St. James and Jesus agree on this.
It follows then that if God is not doing something to show this love then the love for man expressed in scriptures is wrong and God cannot love.
You are in the image of God. When you love someone you show them that love by works and deeds. This is how the recipient of that love knows it is there and that allows for reciprocity. You will agree that without reciprocity, true love cannot exist between two individuals. We must do things for each other for true love to exist.
Imagine what those you love would think if you never did anything to express your love. Imagine what you would think of the love of others towards you if they never did anything to show they loved you. See what I mean. Love always must have deeds to be real and true and reciprocity must be at play.
Love then has no choice but to be expressed if it is true love.
We are told that God loved his son so much that he planned to have him sacrificed even before the earth was created. This human sacrifice or any other human sacrifice, voluntary or not, is immoral and the notion that it is good to sacrifice an innocent victim to give the guilty believers a free ride into heaven is a completely self-gratifying notion and is completely immoral. One does not show love for someone by having them sacrificed for the sins of others when God himself stated that we are all responsible for our own salvation and cannot put that responsibility of the shoulders of a scapegoat Jesus.
Does love need deeds and works to be expressed?
Have you seen God express his love for us lately?
Regards
DL
These following speak to this issue if you wish to view them.
[youtube]
Can God love?
We are told that the mythical bible God is love or the epitome of love.
Archetypal Jesus said that we would know his people by the love, deeds and actions they showed others.
Jesus gave us examples of the deeds and works. Feed the poor, love all our neighbours, do not sin and many others.
Love then, seems to Jesus, to be something that must be shown by deeds, actions and works to be alive and true love. Love, like faith, without works is dead. Both St. James and Jesus agree on this.
It follows then that if God is not doing something to show this love then the love for man expressed in scriptures is wrong and God cannot love.
You are in the image of God. When you love someone you show them that love by works and deeds. This is how the recipient of that love knows it is there and that allows for reciprocity. You will agree that without reciprocity, true love cannot exist between two individuals. We must do things for each other for true love to exist.
Imagine what those you love would think if you never did anything to express your love. Imagine what you would think of the love of others towards you if they never did anything to show they loved you. See what I mean. Love always must have deeds to be real and true and reciprocity must be at play.
Love then has no choice but to be expressed if it is true love.
We are told that God loved his son so much that he planned to have him sacrificed even before the earth was created. This human sacrifice or any other human sacrifice, voluntary or not, is immoral and the notion that it is good to sacrifice an innocent victim to give the guilty believers a free ride into heaven is a completely self-gratifying notion and is completely immoral. One does not show love for someone by having them sacrificed for the sins of others when God himself stated that we are all responsible for our own salvation and cannot put that responsibility of the shoulders of a scapegoat Jesus.
Does love need deeds and works to be expressed?
Have you seen God express his love for us lately?
Regards
DL
These following speak to this issue if you wish to view them.
[youtube]
Shirina- Former Administrator
- Posts : 2232
Join date : 2011-10-07
Location : Right behind you. Boo!
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
by Tosh Tue Sep 04, 2012 11:11 am
Tosh, you forget that all the scientists thought they had all the evidence that the world was flat and the earth was the centre of the universe along with many other so called scientifically proven theories all of which turned out to be rubbish, just because a majority think one thing it does not make it a fact.And I reiterate, there is no proof whatsoever that evolution is a fact, in fact there is more proof of creation when probability along with possibility is considered...
You forget I have already rebutted this post on more than one occassion, there was no scientific method employed for and no evidence of a flat earth or earth centricity.
Evolution has more than enough evidence for the scientific consensus to support it and all of it is a product of modern scientific methods.
polyglide, I don't care about your opinions on science or evidence or proof, you are simply not qualified to make these judgements.
Tosh- Posts : 2270
Join date : 2012-08-15
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
by Tosh Tue Sep 04, 2012 11:15 am
.If you do not see the relevance between man and God then God help you.
Anyone's worldview that equates humans to rabid dogs is needing put down.
Tosh- Posts : 2270
Join date : 2012-08-15
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
by Tosh Tue Sep 04, 2012 11:49 am
Now it' your turn to explain the life cycle of the butterfly..
I have never really thought about it and am really not that interested, may I suggest you google it for an explanation, and then you can reject it.
http://www.learnaboutbutterflies.com/Taxonomy%204.htm
What has butterflies got to do with making furniture ?
Why do creationists plug God into every gap in our knowledge as if it is a " Eureka" moment ?
If you are claiming the butterfly disproves evolution then you are in a minority of one, the highest number of evolutionists can be found in biology, this is not a coincidence.
Tosh- Posts : 2270
Join date : 2012-08-15
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
by Tosh Tue Sep 04, 2012 12:15 pm
Does Butterfly Metamorphosis Disprove Evolution?
Statement
Creationists (some of whom have degrees in science, but don't behave as scientists do) cite the life cycle of a butterfly against evolution. They point to the complexity of the complete Metamorphosis the Butterfly goes through - egg, larva, pupa, adult. How could such a process develop by what creationists misleadingly call "random, accidental, evolution?".
This problem shows the difference between creationists and scientists. When creationists see something complex and seemingly impossible to explain, they ascribe it to a divine miracle, saying it's impossible to find a natural explanation. When scientists see something like this, they don't immediately give up as creationists do. They see it as a problem to be solved and set about working on it. It may take many years, and scientists admit when a puzzle has not yet been solved. Creationists quote such admissions out of context, to try to imply that evolutionary scientists doubt whether evolution occurred!
The development of the Metamorphosis process is not as impossible as creationists try to make it sound. The process would not have to randomly, accidentally jump together immediately the way creationists misstate the problem. It would develop by a step-by-step process, going by the laws of physics and chemistry that make the genetic and biological processes. It is possible to trace out a possible scenario of development, to test against the data that is found.
Not all insects go through the Complete Metamorphosis cycle of life. Cockroaches, very ancient insects by fossil standards, hatch as a small version of their adult selves and just grow larger. Other insects that appear later in the fossil record go through Incomplete Metamorphosis , consisting of egg, nymph , adult. Apparently at some point some insect eggs began hatching before they were fully formed. Cockroaches stayed on in their way, having no competitive pressures to change, but for other insects a nymph stage aided their survival and it was added to their life cycle. Eventually at some point a nymph formed a cocoon around itself before maturing to the adult stage. This enabled it to survive a winter and emerge full grown. So, by a long step by step process, the Complete Metamorphosis cycle did arise. This is not absolutely proven. Not every step is preserved in stone and amber insect bodies do not readily fossilize. It is unreasonable to demand every step be preserved. But it does show that life cycle evolution is not impossible, and this is a working hypothesis to compare findings with. By looking for remains of transitional forms, and by making genetic comparisons that show the distance between insect forms, and by examining insect growth processes that have continued today, the development of butterfly growth can be traced.
This is not story spinning, or ad hoc excuse building. It is not taking evolution on faith. It's an attempt to trace a means of solving a problem by logical, step by step means. The problem of how the Complete Metamorphosis life cycle of the Butterfly evolved is not solved. But neither is it impossible as creationists say it is. It is a problem that scientists, using the scientific method and not leaping to proclaim a miracle, are working on solving.
Statement
Creationists (some of whom have degrees in science, but don't behave as scientists do) cite the life cycle of a butterfly against evolution. They point to the complexity of the complete Metamorphosis the Butterfly goes through - egg, larva, pupa, adult. How could such a process develop by what creationists misleadingly call "random, accidental, evolution?".
This problem shows the difference between creationists and scientists. When creationists see something complex and seemingly impossible to explain, they ascribe it to a divine miracle, saying it's impossible to find a natural explanation. When scientists see something like this, they don't immediately give up as creationists do. They see it as a problem to be solved and set about working on it. It may take many years, and scientists admit when a puzzle has not yet been solved. Creationists quote such admissions out of context, to try to imply that evolutionary scientists doubt whether evolution occurred!
The development of the Metamorphosis process is not as impossible as creationists try to make it sound. The process would not have to randomly, accidentally jump together immediately the way creationists misstate the problem. It would develop by a step-by-step process, going by the laws of physics and chemistry that make the genetic and biological processes. It is possible to trace out a possible scenario of development, to test against the data that is found.
Not all insects go through the Complete Metamorphosis cycle of life. Cockroaches, very ancient insects by fossil standards, hatch as a small version of their adult selves and just grow larger. Other insects that appear later in the fossil record go through Incomplete Metamorphosis , consisting of egg, nymph , adult. Apparently at some point some insect eggs began hatching before they were fully formed. Cockroaches stayed on in their way, having no competitive pressures to change, but for other insects a nymph stage aided their survival and it was added to their life cycle. Eventually at some point a nymph formed a cocoon around itself before maturing to the adult stage. This enabled it to survive a winter and emerge full grown. So, by a long step by step process, the Complete Metamorphosis cycle did arise. This is not absolutely proven. Not every step is preserved in stone and amber insect bodies do not readily fossilize. It is unreasonable to demand every step be preserved. But it does show that life cycle evolution is not impossible, and this is a working hypothesis to compare findings with. By looking for remains of transitional forms, and by making genetic comparisons that show the distance between insect forms, and by examining insect growth processes that have continued today, the development of butterfly growth can be traced.
This is not story spinning, or ad hoc excuse building. It is not taking evolution on faith. It's an attempt to trace a means of solving a problem by logical, step by step means. The problem of how the Complete Metamorphosis life cycle of the Butterfly evolved is not solved. But neither is it impossible as creationists say it is. It is a problem that scientists, using the scientific method and not leaping to proclaim a miracle, are working on solving.
Tosh- Posts : 2270
Join date : 2012-08-15
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
by Guest Tue Sep 04, 2012 3:47 pm
Tosh wrote:
Texas,
How old is the earth… ?
I don’t know.
Tosh wrote:
… when was the human species created ?
I don’t know.
Guest- Guest
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
by polyglide Tue Sep 04, 2012 3:52 pm
I do not have to be qualified in anything to have common sense and a realistic approach to the evidence available
I have asked you to look under the doubters of evolution and you will find scientists far more qualified than those who agree with it and have more evidence that evolution is nonsense than those who believe.
It just proves the inability to realise a perfectly fine example of how love can be wrongly recognised.
A rabid dog in the contest to which I refered was an example of how love can be wrongly approached but then I do not think you have the brains to appreciate the implications.
So I will not bother to explain because you would obviously not understand although I try to cater for the normal rather than the experts. See the young angler.
Anyone can reiterate that there is proof of evolution but the facts do not support the statement choose how many times it is repeated, it is pure conjecture and speculation.
You appear tied up in a lot of scientific theories none of which bear any reason in most cases.
Look under scientist cock ups and see just how far wrong these people can be and are when you see the scientist obsevarions that refute all the nonsense regarding evolution.
When it is proven that there is anti matter then everything the scientists have based their ideas on will have to be totally reconsidered and that is the opinion of themselves.
I have asked you to look under the doubters of evolution and you will find scientists far more qualified than those who agree with it and have more evidence that evolution is nonsense than those who believe.
It just proves the inability to realise a perfectly fine example of how love can be wrongly recognised.
A rabid dog in the contest to which I refered was an example of how love can be wrongly approached but then I do not think you have the brains to appreciate the implications.
So I will not bother to explain because you would obviously not understand although I try to cater for the normal rather than the experts. See the young angler.
Anyone can reiterate that there is proof of evolution but the facts do not support the statement choose how many times it is repeated, it is pure conjecture and speculation.
You appear tied up in a lot of scientific theories none of which bear any reason in most cases.
Look under scientist cock ups and see just how far wrong these people can be and are when you see the scientist obsevarions that refute all the nonsense regarding evolution.
When it is proven that there is anti matter then everything the scientists have based their ideas on will have to be totally reconsidered and that is the opinion of themselves.
polyglide- Posts : 3118
Join date : 2012-02-13
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
by Guest Tue Sep 04, 2012 4:01 pm
Tosh wrote:What are you babbling about now my friend…Grammar school-level lesson: A sentence must contain a subject (subject noun/pronoun and its attendant modifiers/delimiters, “who”) and a predicate (verb and its attendant modifiers/delimiters, “what”).
Sound scholarship appears as “babbling to the untrained, inadequately educated ear.
Tosh wrote:
… do you really believe your flatulence is deceiving anyone ?
Do you really believe that your intentional insult is worth typing?
Tosh wrote:The word " who " is a personal or relative pronoun…2. Big Bang, brief exposition: •Who: Incomprehensible, immeasurable power.
Grammar school-level lesson: The term “who” identifies the subject noun(s)/pronoun(s) and its/their attendant modifiers, delimiters, etc. End of lesson.
Tosh wrote:
… it must not be used in every sentence…
Grammar school lesson: A sentence is a complete idea/thought. Every idea/thought requires a subject, “who.” Every sentence requires a “who.” End of lesson.
Tosh wrote:
Person or persons are nowhere to be found in the BB theory…
RockOnBrother wrote:
Re: Can God love?
by RockOnBrother on Wed 29 Aug 2012 - 10:202. Big Bang, brief exposition:
- Who: Incomprehensible, immeasurable power.
Tosh wrote:
… the brief exposition provided is yet another of your fantasies…
Your denial of the brief exposition of the Big Bang Theory affirms your disbelief of the Big Bang Theory.
Tosh wrote:
… it does not exist in the BB exposition…
Once again: (above)
Tosh wrote:You will not find anywhere in the BB theory that the universe came from nothing…Scot, I know that I have found that the Big Bang Theory includes that statement.
The Big Bang Theory concludes that everything came from nothing.
Tosh wrote:
… the universe came from the singularity…
… “prior to” which there is nothing.
Tosh wrote:
… and we do not know how or where it came from.
It came from nothing, according to Big Bang.
Tosh wrote:
If you believe the BB proves the universe came from " nothing " , can you tell me where in the BB theory it proves where the singularity came from and how it came about ?
“Prior to” the singularity, a point, i.e., a location with no dimensions, there is nothing.
Tosh wrote:No thing within " time and space " existed prior to the BB…Big Bang concludes that, “prior to” Big Bang, nothing existed. Nothing is completely unknown.
“Prior to” Big Bang, space/time is nonexistent.
Tosh wrote:
… this is not the same as no thing exists outside our spacetime…
“Prior to” Big bang, our space/time is nonexistent.
Tosh wrote:
… this does not mean coming from nothing.
This means coming from nothing.
Tosh wrote:
As I previously stated what is outside our universe or time and space is " unknown " , and unknown does not mean nothing in any grammar school.
“Nothing” is “unknown.”
Tosh wrote:
Your command of the English language is as proficient as your command of physics…
My command of the English language is exceptional. My command of physics is upper echelon for a “layman.”
Tosh wrote:
… you are contradicting yourself.
I am confounding you.
Tosh wrote:
I still await both your proof…
Proof of what?
Tosh wrote:
… and your apology…
Proclamation of truth requires no apology.
Tosh wrote:
… where did I deny the BB ?
Right there where you denied its “who”, for a start.
Tosh wrote:
Tick...tock...tick...tock.
As time ticks by, there remains truth.
Guest- Guest
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
by polyglide Tue Sep 04, 2012 4:13 pm
Shirina, your logic or lack of it is beyond belief.
If an animal had to be protected through a winter it would have died out long before it could evolve any protection.
As for fossils, we are totally unable to know from this medium that which we think we can.
There has been much on earth that we know nothing about, we have coal more that a mile underground and we know that this was formed from wood, what we have no idea is how it got there in the first place and what the vegitation and possible animal life was at that time nor prior to that time.
There could have been many forms of animal life that left no trace whatsoever and the method of calculating the time factor could be millions of years adrift, what we should concentrate on is that which we actually know.
We know all the animal life we have at present or most of it and we know like only breeds like, we should be aware that you only need one example that proves evolution to be beyond the number accepted as impossible to have to look elsewhere for the answer and the only other possibility is creation. There are many examples beyond that which is acceptable as possible.
And this method is scientifically accepted, in fact devised by scientists.
If an animal had to be protected through a winter it would have died out long before it could evolve any protection.
As for fossils, we are totally unable to know from this medium that which we think we can.
There has been much on earth that we know nothing about, we have coal more that a mile underground and we know that this was formed from wood, what we have no idea is how it got there in the first place and what the vegitation and possible animal life was at that time nor prior to that time.
There could have been many forms of animal life that left no trace whatsoever and the method of calculating the time factor could be millions of years adrift, what we should concentrate on is that which we actually know.
We know all the animal life we have at present or most of it and we know like only breeds like, we should be aware that you only need one example that proves evolution to be beyond the number accepted as impossible to have to look elsewhere for the answer and the only other possibility is creation. There are many examples beyond that which is acceptable as possible.
And this method is scientifically accepted, in fact devised by scientists.
polyglide- Posts : 3118
Join date : 2012-02-13
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
by Tosh Tue Sep 04, 2012 4:56 pm
I do not have to be qualified in anything to have common sense and a realistic approach to the evidence available
polyglide,
Are you suggesting the global scientific consensus lacks common sense and has an unrealistic approach to evidence ?
What qualifications or knowledge do you possess to make this unsupported bare assertion ?
I am starting to think you are a wind up troll, no one can be this irrational.
Last edited by Tosh on Tue Sep 04, 2012 6:27 pm; edited 1 time in total
Tosh- Posts : 2270
Join date : 2012-08-15
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
by Tosh Tue Sep 04, 2012 5:02 pm
We know all the animal life we have at present or most of it and we know like only breeds like, we should be aware that you only need one example that proves evolution to be beyond the number accepted as impossible to have to look elsewhere for the answer and the only other possibility is creation. There are many examples beyond that which is acceptable as possible.And this method is scientifically accepted, in fact devised by scientists.
I have tried to decipher this, is it in some form of code ? I have read it backwards and upside down and it is still a mystery to me, my little troll light has just gone onto amber.
Use your common sense and explain to me why the process of micro-evolution cannot possibly account for macro-evolution ?
Tosh- Posts : 2270
Join date : 2012-08-15
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
by Guest Tue Sep 04, 2012 5:12 pm
Shirina wrote:
Christians… only dispute theories like Evolution and the Big Bang…
Can’t let this one slide by.
I am a Christian some of the time, perhaps more of the time as I grow to love those that I do not love (Ron the con, Calypso Louis, a few more). Prior to realizing a desire to follow Y’shua’s teachings, I grew out of agnosticism (maybe) into the Baha’i Faith. Given my perception of our age differential, I’ve known that YHVH Elohim is for longer that you’ve lived. Those are my “credentials”, sort of, to maybe establish that I have grounds to speak.
Big Bang, according to my conceptual understanding (I don’t deal with the math; I do not want to again see a differential equation for the rest of my life), is supported by such a plethora of data from so many “angles” that it is virtually proven. I am a Christian and an ex-Baha’i.
The “who”, “what”, “when”, and “where” of Bing Bang and Genesis 1:1 are substantively identical. I am a Christian and an ex-Baha’i.
Macro-evolution, according the facts (no disclaimer here) remains unproven. Bones in dated dirt prove that there are bones in dated dirt, no matter how dated the dirt. Does the dirt cover X number of years? Whatever the latest estimate of X may be, bones in dated dirt still proves that there are bones in dated dirt, and nothing more. I believe the transliterated Hebrew word is yuan, day, age, period of time, from beginning to end, from start to completion, so I’ve no argument with you if you believe that the dirt goes back eight hundred years, and I have no argument with Freddy if he believes the dirt goes back ten thousand years. I am a Christian and an ex-Baha’i.
Micro-evolution is absolutely proven. It’s called eye-witness proof, and for me, it’s personal eye-witness proof. I’ve seen collies evolve from working sheepdogs to long-snouted apparitions, courtesy of the despicable American Kennel Club, in my lifetime. I’ve watched (on TV) the evolution of a new breed of bomb dog in Russia and now the US over something like the past twenty years. I see videos of white wolves in the Arctic blending in with their surroundings and grey wolves in the northern forests blending in with their surroundings. I’ve “studied”, via numerous Galapagos specials, the evolution of finches into different sub-species, the evolution of California Sea Lions into a distinct Galapagos subspecies, a weird species of penguin living almost at the equator, and a species or subspecies of lizards diving under the sea eating seaweed. All are examples of micro-evolution; none are examples of macro-evolution. I am a Christian and an ex-Baha’i.
Shirina wrote:
… Bronze Age holy books.
All books are some age. I suppose Hoyle’s books were “space age (he died shortly after 2000), and he was wrong.
Guest- Guest
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
by Tosh Tue Sep 04, 2012 5:18 pm
Every sentence requires a “who.”
" The earth revolves around the sun.", is a sentence not requiring a " who ".
Tosh- Posts : 2270
Join date : 2012-08-15
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
by Tosh Tue Sep 04, 2012 5:35 pm
Big Bang, according to my conceptual understanding (I don’t deal with the math; I do not want to again see a differential equation for the rest of my life), is supported by such a plethora of data from so many “angles” that it is virtually proven.
.Let me repeat there is no data from any angle suggesting the singularity came from nothing, end of story, the BB proves the universe had a beginning............period.
There is a plethora of data from so many " angles " proving the modern synthesis of Common Descent is a fact, and yet you do not consider inductive evidence because it is not observable or replicable. The evidence you accept proving the BB is inductive, and the BB is neither observable nor replicable, there is no eye witness proof and as you said you are an eye witness proof kinda guy.
As I said, you are inconsisent and science deals in consistency.
Last edited by Tosh on Tue Sep 04, 2012 6:31 pm; edited 3 times in total
Tosh- Posts : 2270
Join date : 2012-08-15
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
by astradt1 Tue Sep 04, 2012 5:48 pm
Grammar school lesson: A sentence is a complete idea/thought. Every idea/thought requires a subject, “who.” Every sentence requires a “who.” End of lesson.
You keep repeating the above quote, ad nauseam, possibly in a vain attempt to show your intelligence, but the reality is that a sentence must contain:-
A sentence is a sequence of words that make complete sense on their own.
Every sentence must have a SUBJECT and a PREDICATE:
The subject is who or what the sentence is about. The predicate is what is said about the subject and must include a verb.
http://www.qub.ac.uk/directorates/sgc/learning/FileStore/Filetoupload,163265,en.pdf
Now to be generous you may be mixing up the following journalistic concept of information gathering of the Five W's:-
Who is it about?
What happened?
When did it take place?
Where did it take place?
Why did it happen?
astradt1- Moderator
- Posts : 966
Join date : 2011-10-08
Age : 69
Location : East Midlands
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
by Tosh Tue Sep 04, 2012 5:49 pm
Texas,
Your unqualified opinion on what constitutes the facts does not interest me, what interests me is the qualified opinion of the scientific consensus. In their opinion transitional fossils are inductive proof of the transition from one species to another, there is a plethora of data from many other " angles " that corroborates and supports this conclusion.
These are the same reasons why evolution and BB are given the high status of both theory and fact.
Macro-evolution, according the facts (no disclaimer here) remains unproven. Bones in dated dirt prove that there are bones in dated dirt, no matter how dated the dirt. Does the dirt cover X number of years? Whatever the latest estimate of X may be, bones in dated dirt still proves that there are bones in dated dirt, and nothing more.
Your unqualified opinion on what constitutes the facts does not interest me, what interests me is the qualified opinion of the scientific consensus. In their opinion transitional fossils are inductive proof of the transition from one species to another, there is a plethora of data from many other " angles " that corroborates and supports this conclusion.
These are the same reasons why evolution and BB are given the high status of both theory and fact.
Last edited by Tosh on Tue Sep 04, 2012 7:00 pm; edited 1 time in total
Tosh- Posts : 2270
Join date : 2012-08-15
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
by Tosh Tue Sep 04, 2012 6:25 pm
Texas,
It is not an insult, merely an accurate description of unnecessary over elaboration, I assumed a man with excellent grammar would appreciate the difference between long winded and full of wind.
Texas,
I prefer to debate religion rather than play semantic games, I accept I am more than disrespectful of some beliefs but there is a limit to deference, and creationism is beyond this limit.
… do you really believe your flatulence is deceiving anyone ?
Do you really believe that your intentional insult is worth typing?
Flatulence: inflated or pretentious speech or writing; pomposity: "the flatulence characterizing his writings".
It is not an insult, merely an accurate description of unnecessary over elaboration, I assumed a man with excellent grammar would appreciate the difference between long winded and full of wind.
Texas,
I prefer to debate religion rather than play semantic games, I accept I am more than disrespectful of some beliefs but there is a limit to deference, and creationism is beyond this limit.
Tosh- Posts : 2270
Join date : 2012-08-15
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
by Tosh Tue Sep 04, 2012 6:37 pm
Now to be generous you may be mixing up the following journalistic concept of information gathering of the Five W's:-
Astra,
I have known Texas for years, he aint mixing up anything, if the universe is pre-determined and " of God ", then " everything predicates God ", he sees everything through his own glasses.
He was dying for me to answer as you did, now watch the show as he explains the logic behind his statement, it will involve a lot of Hebrew and extracts from Genesis...lol.
Tosh- Posts : 2270
Join date : 2012-08-15
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
by snowyflake Tue Sep 04, 2012 6:53 pm
I do not have to be qualified in anything to have common sense and a realistic approach to the evidence available
Excuse me, poly, but if you are going to wade into this argument you surely must have some knowledge of the scientific facts and evidence. You clearly do not. You have your faith and your belief and that is all you have. Please present facts pertaining to God and creation with scientific evidence. I can tell you, you can't but if you give me a few years I can direct you to scientific evidence for evolution. Are you suggesting that 95% of the scientific community is wrong and the 5% of scientists who believe in creation are correct? That's a bit wacko in my books.
snowyflake- Posts : 1221
Join date : 2011-10-07
Age : 66
Location : England
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
by Guest Tue Sep 04, 2012 7:01 pm
Tosh wrote:" The earth revolves around the sun.", is a sentence not requiring a " who ".Every sentence requires a “who.”
Who-What-When-Where-Why-How exposition of:
“The earth revolves around the sun.”
- Who: The earth.
- What: Revolves.
- When: Now (implied), whenever (implied).
- Where: Around the sun.
- Why: Not addressed.
- How: Not addressed.
Last edited by RockOnBrother on Tue Sep 04, 2012 7:03 pm; edited 1 time in total
Guest- Guest
snowyflake- Posts : 1221
Join date : 2011-10-07
Age : 66
Location : England
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
by Tosh Tue Sep 04, 2012 7:05 pm
•Who: The earth.
The earth is a " what " not a " who".
Next ?
What about the Sun, is it a who too lol.
Last edited by Tosh on Tue Sep 04, 2012 7:08 pm; edited 1 time in total
Tosh- Posts : 2270
Join date : 2012-08-15
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
by Guest Tue Sep 04, 2012 7:06 pm
Doing good, Snowy. I left you a pm a few days ago. It is thirty-eight C today!
Guest- Guest
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
by snowyflake Tue Sep 04, 2012 7:08 pm
I sent you an email 
Glad you're ok. Oh wouldn't I love for it to be 38 C in England....but it would freak out my beloved pasty white brits Take care, I'm off to Salsa lessons in a moment. x
Glad you're ok. Oh wouldn't I love for it to be 38 C in England....but it would freak out my beloved pasty white brits Take care, I'm off to Salsa lessons in a moment. x
snowyflake- Posts : 1221
Join date : 2011-10-07
Age : 66
Location : England
Page 15 of 25 • 1 ... 9 ... 14, 15, 16 ... 20 ... 25
Similar topics» Can God love? (Part 2)
» Is there any validity for religious dogma to challenge scientific empiricism, and if so what proper evidence has religion for such an assertion?
» Evidence for the existence of God (Part 1)
» Evidence for the existence of God (Part 2)
» What now for Labour? (Part 1)
» Is there any validity for religious dogma to challenge scientific empiricism, and if so what proper evidence has religion for such an assertion?
» Evidence for the existence of God (Part 1)
» Evidence for the existence of God (Part 2)
» What now for Labour? (Part 1)
Page 15 of 25
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum