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 21 of 25
Page 21 of 25 • 1 ... 12 ... 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25
Can God love? (Part 1)
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]
Greatest I am- Posts : 1087
Join date : 2012-04-25
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
You have had ample opportunity to destroy the evidence that supports Common Descent, but you seem to be stuck on just repeating ad nauseam it has not been proven and babbling on about gravity, hung juries and a flat earth.
Where is your evidence and where is the scientific case against Common Descent ?
I am not interested in your unqualified or unsupported opinons, or your spurious analogies, they are not evidence and they are not formed using any scientific method.
Where is your evidence and where is the scientific case against Common Descent ?
I am not interested in your unqualified or unsupported opinons, or your spurious analogies, they are not evidence and they are not formed using any scientific method.
Last edited by Tosh on Sat Sep 15, 2012 6:29 pm; edited 1 time in total
Tosh- Posts : 2270
Join date : 2012-08-15
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
As a 2006 "Statement on the Teaching of Evolution" from the Interacademy Panel on International Issues, a global network of national science academies, said, "Evidence-based facts about the origins and evolution of the Earth and of life on this planet have been established by numerous observations and independently derived experimental results from a multitude of scientific disciplines" (emphasis in original). (Download a PDF with more information.)
A global network of national science academies in the 21st century doesn't seem the same as a few ignorant mariners in the 16 th century, but hey I am not from Texas, they execute retards.
Tosh- Posts : 2270
Join date : 2012-08-15
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
Tosh wrote:Your lack of knowledge of what constitutes an accredited Scientific Theory is mind boggling…Oh, I don’t know. Professor Hoyle’s pet theory, Steady State, belief in which he took to his grave, comes readily to mind.
Your lack of knowledge of the pre-eminence of Hoyle’s Steady state in recent history is mind boggling.
Tosh wrote:Unfortunately for your spurious analogy, majority verdicts exist in Law, the scientific consensus is a majority verdict.99.9% is nine hundred ninety nine out of one thousand. One thousand minus nine hundred ninety-nine equals one. On a jury of any size, six, twelve, or one thousand, one dissenting vote equals hung jury.
Unfortunately for your implicit claim to legal expertise, your assertion that “majority verdicts exist in Law” compellingly evidences your lack of understanding of two fundamental differences between civil law proceedings and criminal law proceedings.
In a civil lawsuit, decisions are based upon a “preponderance of the evidence”, with no presumption of the presence of proof. Depending on a number of factors, decisions can sometimes be reached by majority vote or by some other greater plurality short of unanimity.
In criminal trials, decisions are based upon evidence beyond a reasonable doubt (and in some jurisdictions) to a moral certainty, with a presumption of the presence of proof. Within all jurisdictions of which I am familiar, including those of the governments of Texas and the United States, decisions require unanimity. One dissenting vote equals hung jury.
Tosh wrote:The scientific method is the tool that establishes what is evidence or not, it is from this evidence we determine what exists or not, may I suggest not only is it relevant but essential to the process of establishing what exists.Irrelevant. The “scientific method” is a tool; as such neither “the scientific method” nor its use in scientific inquiry is evidence or proof of the existence or nonexistence of anything.
A tool proves nothing. The scientific method is a tool. The scientific method proves nothing.
Tosh wrote:
… you seem to be stuck on just repeating ad nauseam…
You seem to be “stuck” on me.
Tosh wrote:
… babbling on about gravity…
You introduced gravity.
Tosh wrote:
… hung juries…
You’ve provided compelling evidence of your lack of knowledge thereof.
Last edited by RockOnBrother on Wed Sep 19, 2012 11:13 am; edited 1 time in total
Guest- Guest
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
Your lack of knowledge of the pre-eminence of Hoyle’s Steady state in recent history is mind boggling.
Let me repeat: It was NEVER EVER an accredited Scientific Theory and let me repeat, there has never been an accredited scientific theory that has EVER been proven false.
I am tired of explaining to mostly Americans the difference between a Scientific Theory and a theory in the general sense, which is a hypothesis.
Tosh- Posts : 2270
Join date : 2012-08-15
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
Within all jurisdictions of which I am familiar, including those of the governments of Texas and the United States, decisions require unanimity. One dissenting vote equals hung jury.
Sorry to burst your egocentric bubble but science is not modeled on Texas criminal law, there are many jurisdictions where a majority decision is acceptable in a criminal case.
You are wrong again.
Tosh- Posts : 2270
Join date : 2012-08-15
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
A tool proves nothing. The scientific method is a tool. The scientific method proves nothing.
....so much for you using the scientific method to prove macro-evolution is not proven...lol.
The scientific method tests the evidence to prove its worth, you are drowning again.
Last edited by Tosh on Sat Sep 15, 2012 8:04 pm; edited 2 times in total
Tosh- Posts : 2270
Join date : 2012-08-15
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
You introduced gravity.
Read back Mr Amnesia, you were the one mentioning Einsteins theory on special relativity, promoting its empirical methods to prove Common Descent theory is not proven, it was nonsense then and its still nonsense now.
Hey Texas, I thought the scientific method never proved anything lolol, and yet you use it to prove evolution is false.
You just cannot help putting your foot in your mouth.
Tosh- Posts : 2270
Join date : 2012-08-15
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
You seem to be “stuck” on me.
Ahem...tap...tap...tap, it is you my friend who is spending countless hours altering my posts and rebutting my posts, try and keep your delusions in check.
You promised to ignore me, but here you are like a fish on a hook.
Tosh- Posts : 2270
Join date : 2012-08-15
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
Where is your evidence and where is the scientific case against Common Descent ?
Having been created by your Creator into freedom of choice, you may Google it for yourself if you so choose.
I have googled it, there is none, care to find me a link ?
So your claim is based on secret evidence that you are unwilling or unable to share with your debating opponent, nice tactic, you better stick to your fraudeulent editing and semantic games.
Here is the deal Texas, you go away and find me some evidence that disproves evolution, no offence but your unsubstantiated claims mean diddly squat to science or me.
Tosh- Posts : 2270
Join date : 2012-08-15
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
There is an argument that free will is a myth. We are slaves of our biochemistry. Ask any schizophrenic or any woman having her period or any man lusting after a woman (or man) he can't have or anyone with bipolar disorder etc etc etc. We are so past blaming our behaviour on 'sin'. There are reasons we are the way we are. Evolution, genetics, biochemistry, environment, education. All of which have ample evidence to support it. There is no scientific evidence to support that we are the product of a creator that abracapocused us into existence.
snowyflake- Posts : 1221
Join date : 2011-10-07
Age : 66
Location : England
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
Freewill is an illusion, albeit a necessary one, free will assumes there is no cause behind our choices, this is obviously untrue. We are a product of our genes and environment, there is nothing uncaused about choices made by our physical consciousness, they are deterministic just like everything else.
The reason we must pretend free will exists is to do otherwise would create an environment of irresponsibility, and we would be an irresponsible product of the environment we created. By pretending we are responsible we create an environment of responsibility, and this in turn causes us to be responsible.
Many intellectuals feel the same about God, it is a necessary illusion.
The reason we must pretend free will exists is to do otherwise would create an environment of irresponsibility, and we would be an irresponsible product of the environment we created. By pretending we are responsible we create an environment of responsibility, and this in turn causes us to be responsible.
Many intellectuals feel the same about God, it is a necessary illusion.
Tosh- Posts : 2270
Join date : 2012-08-15
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
Tosh wrote:Let me repeat: It was NEVER EVER an accredited Scientific Theory and let me repeat, there has never been an accredited scientific theory that has EVER been proven false.Your lack of knowledge of the pre-eminence of Hoyle’s Steady state in recent history is mind boggling.
Let me repeat: Your lack of knowledge of the pre-eminence of Hoyle’s Steady state in recent history is mind boggling.
Tosh wrote:… there are many jurisdictions where a majority decision is acceptable in a criminal case.Within all jurisdictions of which I am familiar, including those of the governments of Texas and the United States, decisions require unanimity. One dissenting vote equals hung jury.
In criminal court decisions/verdicts within the jurisdictions of Texas and the United States, unanimity is required.
Tosh wrote:
You just cannot help putting your foot in your mouth.
You just cannot seem to help attempting that for which you demonstrate no talent. Perhaps a short tutorial from two masters of that which you attempt might help.
George Wallace & J. Anthony Brown, “Yo Mamma”
https://www.youtube.com/v/aFHNSJ5U_0I
Tosh wrote:You seem to be “stuck” on me.
Ahem...tap...tap...tap, it is you my friend who is spending countless hours altering my posts and rebutting my posts…
I am spending counted minutes responding to that which you have directed to me.
Tosh wrote:
… no offence…
You lack the ability to offend me.
Last edited by RockOnBrother on Wed Sep 19, 2012 11:22 am; edited 2 times in total
Guest- Guest
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
care to find me a link ?
No.
You seem to be stuck on me but not stuck on evidence, how sweet.
Tosh- Posts : 2270
Join date : 2012-08-15
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
there is none…
Incorrect.
I am not incorrect until you prove otherwise.
Tosh- Posts : 2270
Join date : 2012-08-15
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
You lack the ability to offend me.
Sure.
Tosh- Posts : 2270
Join date : 2012-08-15
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
I hate to ridicule anyones position but to dismiss Common Descent on the grounds of Texas criminal law seems ridiculous to a rational mind, is this your own method or tool of establishing scientific evidence ?
No wonder you keep your evidence secret, lol.
You come back here anytime, you hear fish ?
No wonder you keep your evidence secret, lol.
You come back here anytime, you hear fish ?
Tosh- Posts : 2270
Join date : 2012-08-15
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
As a 2006 "Statement on the Teaching of Evolution" from the Interacademy Panel on International Issues, a global network of national science academies, said, "Evidence-based facts about the origins and evolution of the Earth and of life on this planet have been established by numerous observations and independently derived experimental results from a multitude of scientific disciplines" (emphasis in original). (Download a PDF with more information.)
I am writing to these people, they are wrong in accordance with Texas criminal law, as arguments go this is a real hoot.
I will also mention the 2nd law of thermodynamics, Genesis the Hebrew version and the singularity came from nothing.
Explosive evidence that will shake the scientific world, especially when I get all the facts from Noah's Ark....lmao.
Seriously folks, is there any doubt that creationists have malfunctioning brains ?
I find it fascinating studying these people, its really quite a bizarre phenomena.
Tosh- Posts : 2270
Join date : 2012-08-15
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
"its really quite a bizarre phenomena."
Don't want to re-write that do you, "intellect of Scotland"?
Don't want to re-write that do you, "intellect of Scotland"?
oftenwrong- Sage
- Posts : 12062
Join date : 2011-10-08
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
.Don't want to re-write that do you, "intellect of Scotland"?
Do you want me to re-write it cupcake, keep em coming, I love pets.
Last edited by Tosh on Sun Sep 16, 2012 2:42 pm; edited 1 time in total
Tosh- Posts : 2270
Join date : 2012-08-15
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
Do you think most " normal " religious people give much thought to the mechanics behind God, they seem more interestd in being here for a purpose and going to heaven to see old loved ones. Not many give all that Genesis tripe much attention, they tend to focus on the message of Jesus, those that do think about it, see Genesis as a creation metaphor.
Then you have the old dears, they do not even understand science so they see no conflict with Genesis, there is simply no way we evolved from apes because God made us, a form of divine dementia.
Finally we come to the fundamentalists, the real deal extremist, the type that is not ashamed of their beliefs, their delusional convictions are invulnerable to reason. The type whose " faith " needs the 2nd law of thermodynamics, the type who cuts up pieces of science to fit the creationist jigsaw, and the type of person who will deny with authority 99.9% of the scientific consensus with no science qualifications.
Now where does that kind of fanaticism come from, what are the multiple causes of this effect, how can the human mind persuade itself to think crazy is normal.
The rest of the regulars suffer from too much deference, but there is not one of them who does not think creationists are eccentric, if not a little flakey.
The time and effort that creationists put in to justify their beliefs is almost anti-faith, its as if they need proof.
Its not normal, please don't tell me its normal.
Then you have the old dears, they do not even understand science so they see no conflict with Genesis, there is simply no way we evolved from apes because God made us, a form of divine dementia.
Finally we come to the fundamentalists, the real deal extremist, the type that is not ashamed of their beliefs, their delusional convictions are invulnerable to reason. The type whose " faith " needs the 2nd law of thermodynamics, the type who cuts up pieces of science to fit the creationist jigsaw, and the type of person who will deny with authority 99.9% of the scientific consensus with no science qualifications.
Now where does that kind of fanaticism come from, what are the multiple causes of this effect, how can the human mind persuade itself to think crazy is normal.
The rest of the regulars suffer from too much deference, but there is not one of them who does not think creationists are eccentric, if not a little flakey.
The time and effort that creationists put in to justify their beliefs is almost anti-faith, its as if they need proof.
Its not normal, please don't tell me its normal.
Tosh- Posts : 2270
Join date : 2012-08-15
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
Tosh wrote:care to find me a link ?You seem to be stuck on me…No.
You seem to be stuck on you.
Tosh wrote:
I hate to ridicule anyones position…
Having been created by your Creator into freedom of choice, you may choose to cease anytime you so choose.
Last edited by RockOnBrother on Wed Sep 19, 2012 11:25 am; edited 1 time in total
Guest- Guest
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
If religion gives comfort and the degree of religion reflects the degree of comfort, then it is fair to assume the religious zealot or fundamentalist is in need of the most comfort.
Moderates are quite happy just to give reality a little tweak to incorporate their beliefs and make them feel comfortable, but not the creationist. They want to dismantle reality, and this tells us a lot about them and how uncomfortable they are with reality, the next question is what is it about reality that causes them so much discomfort.
One way to solve the puzzle is to analyse what aspects of reality they want to change or replace, from this we can deduce their psychological needs. If we compare the beliefs of the moderate majority with the extreme minority, the difference may give us some insight.
The main bone of contention surrounds how humans came to be, there is something about theistic or directed evolution the creationist cannot stomach. Their minds find common descent too uncomfortable to accept, and what does this say about how they see themselves and how they want to be seen.
The moderates accept God used the mechanism of evolution to make humans in his image but the creationists do not, so the clue is in the mechanism, what is in the process that is so distasteful, and the answer is simple, its monkeys.
Fundamentalists find sharing their ancestry with primates too uncomfortable, it demeans their self worth and somehow diminishes their status.
So here is my hypothesis behind fundamentalism in the bible belt, its all about species-ism, which is a form of racism. The bible belt is mostly in the old Confederacy, the superior status of whites refuse to accept they evolved from blacks and monkeys in Africa, and the inferior status of blacks refuse to accept they evolved from monkeys in Africa.
The uncomfortable truth is racism drives creationism, the Confederate states need to be made direct from God's image more than most.
Moderates are quite happy just to give reality a little tweak to incorporate their beliefs and make them feel comfortable, but not the creationist. They want to dismantle reality, and this tells us a lot about them and how uncomfortable they are with reality, the next question is what is it about reality that causes them so much discomfort.
One way to solve the puzzle is to analyse what aspects of reality they want to change or replace, from this we can deduce their psychological needs. If we compare the beliefs of the moderate majority with the extreme minority, the difference may give us some insight.
The main bone of contention surrounds how humans came to be, there is something about theistic or directed evolution the creationist cannot stomach. Their minds find common descent too uncomfortable to accept, and what does this say about how they see themselves and how they want to be seen.
The moderates accept God used the mechanism of evolution to make humans in his image but the creationists do not, so the clue is in the mechanism, what is in the process that is so distasteful, and the answer is simple, its monkeys.
Fundamentalists find sharing their ancestry with primates too uncomfortable, it demeans their self worth and somehow diminishes their status.
So here is my hypothesis behind fundamentalism in the bible belt, its all about species-ism, which is a form of racism. The bible belt is mostly in the old Confederacy, the superior status of whites refuse to accept they evolved from blacks and monkeys in Africa, and the inferior status of blacks refuse to accept they evolved from monkeys in Africa.
The uncomfortable truth is racism drives creationism, the Confederate states need to be made direct from God's image more than most.
Last edited by Tosh on Sun Sep 16, 2012 4:09 pm; edited 3 times in total
Tosh- Posts : 2270
Join date : 2012-08-15
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
you may choose to cease anytime you so choose.
I will only cease when you choose to give up your delusions, until then the ball keeps on bouncing.
I have met a few wackos who believe in Noah's Ark, just tailor made for comedy and ridicule, I wonder if there is any scientific support for this gibbersih ?
Tosh- Posts : 2270
Join date : 2012-08-15
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
Tosh wrote:I will only cease when you choose to give up your delusions…you may choose to cease anytime you so choose.
I cannot “choose to give up” that which I do not possess.
Tosh wrote:
I will only cease when you choose to give up your [original text omitted]…
Having been created by your Creator into freedom of choice, you will cease when you choose to do so.
Tosh wrote:
… just tailor made for… ridicule…
Your avowed right, implicit intent, and now explicit intent to ridicule those whose beliefs do not meet with your approval is noted.
I mourn for your mind.
A mind is a terrible thing to waste [/quote]
https://www.youtube.com/v/qYXh7Wwl7bE
I mourn for your soul.
Greek Bible:
“For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who will have all1 men2 to be saved and to come unto the knowledge3 of the truth4. For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men,2 the man2 Christ Jesus, who gave himself a ransom for all1…”
1 Timothy 2:3-6
- πᾶς, pas, all, every, the whole, everyone.
- ἄνθρωπος, anthrōpos, a human being, man.
- ἐπίγνωσις, epignōsis (from ἐπί, epi, an intensifier, and γνῶσις, gnōsis, knowledge), clear and exact knowledge, thorough participation in the object of the knowledge.
- ἀλήθεια, alētheia, true, truly, truth, verity.
Last edited by RockOnBrother on Mon Sep 17, 2012 3:29 pm; edited 2 times in total
Guest- Guest
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
I mourn for your soul.
I mourn for your sanity, and posting meaningless theology doesn't alter this fact.
You haven't a clue what Jesus said or meant, at best we can say he preached a version of the Torah, and he is dead.
I love laughing at the clowns who await his imminent return, these people should be in the circus.
Tosh- Posts : 2270
Join date : 2012-08-15
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
Tosh wrote:Tosh, Monday, 17, 2012 September 17, 2012 at 8:34I mourn for your sanity, and posting meaningless theology doesn't alter this fact.I mourn for your soul.
You haven't a clue what Jesus said or meant, at best we can say he preached a version of the Torah, and he is dead.
I love laughing at the clowns who await his imminent return, these people should be in the circus.
RockOnBrother wrote:RockOnBrother, Monday, 17 September 2012 at 3:44
I mourn for your mind.
A mind is a terrible thing to waste
https://www.youtube.com/v/qYXh7Wwl7bE
Guest- Guest
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
I mourn for your mind.
Don't bother, save it for Marvin Wilson, the retard your barbaric culture executed in August.
Texas executes mentally retarded mandigitaljournal.com/article/330381Cached
You +1'd this publicly. Undo
8 Aug 2012 – Huntsville - Ignoring its own ruling that prohibits the execution of mentally retarded individuals, the United States Supreme Court on Tuesday ...
Tosh- Posts : 2270
Join date : 2012-08-15
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
Tosh wrote:
Tosh, Monday, 17, 2012 September 17, 2012 at 15:40Don't bother, save it for Marvin Wilson…I mourn for your mind.
Marvin Lee Wilson (January 5, 1958 – August 7, 2012) was an American murderer who was executed by the State of Texas on August 7, 2012. He entered death row on May 9, 1992, for the murder of a police drug informant. Wilson abducted and shot 21-year-old Jerry Robert Williams following a physical confrontation between the two in the 1500 block of Verone in Beaumont. At the time of the murder, Wilson had two previous convictions for robbery, one of them aggravated.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvin_Wilson
On 4 November 1992 in Jefferson County, police officers served a search warrant on [Marvin Lee] Wilson's apartment. They obtained the warrant based on information from Jerry Williams, a confidential informant. Williams entered and left the apartment minutes before the police went in. Wilson, Vincent Webb, and a juvenile female were present. The officers found over 24 grams of cocaine and arrested Wilson and Webb for possession of a controlled substance. Wilson was subsequently released on bond.
Some time later, Wilson told Terry Lewis that someone had "snitched" on him. Wilson told her the snitch was never going to have the chance to "have someone else busted," and that he "was going to get him."
On 9 November 1992, Wilson, then 34, Wilson confronted Williams, 21, in the parking lot of a grocery store. According to eyewitnesses, Wilson stood over Williams and beat him, saying "What do you want to be a snitch for? Do you know what we do to a snitch? Do you want to die right here?"
Williams managed to run away from Wilson and made it across the street to a field. Terry Lewis's husband, Andrew, drove his car to the field while Wilson chased Williams and caught up to him. Wilson and Andrews forced Williams into the car.
Williams' nude body was discovered the next morning.
http://www.txexecutions.org/reports/484.asp
I mourn for Jerry Robert Williams.
RockOnBrother wrote:RockOnBrother, Monday, 17 September 2012 at 3:44
I mourn for your mind.
A mind is a terrible thing to waste
https://www.youtube.com/v/qYXh7Wwl7bE
Guest- Guest
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
Texas executes mentally retarded man.
In 2002 the Supreme Court ruled in Atkins v. Virginia that the execution of mentally retarded individuals is strictly prohibited.
Tosh- Posts : 2270
Join date : 2012-08-15
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
Was Jesus retarded ?
Any man claiming the end of the world is imminent is not of sound mind.
Any man claiming the end of the world is imminent is not of sound mind.
Rome executes retarded man.
Tosh- Posts : 2270
Join date : 2012-08-15
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
Matthew 6:14-15
[quote]
[quote]
[/quoteFor if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.
Tosh- Posts : 2270
Join date : 2012-08-15
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
In 2006 a global network of national science academies,
Let us remind ourselves how many mariners aboard Pinta, Niña, and Santa Maria, mid-Atlantic Ocean 1492, accepted flat earth as fact.
"Evidence-based facts about the origins and evolution of the Earth and of life on this planet have been established by numerous observations and independently derived experimental results from a multitude of scientific disciplines.
The “99% of scientists who agree” with macro-evolution do so based upon their shared speculative conjecture as to the application of bones in dated dirt (evidence of something, including itself, but proof of nothing), various advances in DNA, micro-evolution (evidence of itself), and other data.
B’r’shythe bara Elohim et hashamayim ve’et ha’arets. Sch’ma Y’srael, Adonai Eluheinu, Adonai echod. As I type, I am a Christian.
I am not a scientist but a delusional creationist.
Nurse......nurse.....he is on the loose again.
Tosh- Posts : 2270
Join date : 2012-08-15
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
RockOnBrother wrote:RockOnBrother, Monday, 17 September 2012 at 3:44
I mourn for your mind.
A mind is a terrible thing to waste
https://www.youtube.com/v/qYXh7Wwl7bE
I mourn for your soul.Greek Bible:
“For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who will have all1 men2 to be saved and to come unto the knowledge3 of the truth4. For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men,2 the man2 Christ Jesus, who gave himself a ransom for all1…”
1 Timothy 2:3-6
- πᾶς, pas, all, every, the whole, everyone.
- ἄνθρωπος, anthrōpos, a human being, man.
- ἐπίγνωσις, epignōsis (from ἐπί, epi, an intensifier, and γνῶσις, gnōsis, knowledge), clear and exact knowledge, thorough participation in the object of the knowledge.
- ἀλήθεια, alētheia, true, truly, truth, verity.
Guest- Guest
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
It is not my brain that is dead to the SCIENTIFIC fact we share a common ancestor with primates, it is yours.
It is not my soul that is dead, I do not countenance executing mentally retarded humans, it is yours.
R.I.P.
It is not my soul that is dead, I do not countenance executing mentally retarded humans, it is yours.
R.I.P.
Last edited by Tosh on Tue Sep 18, 2012 1:24 pm; edited 1 time in total
Tosh- Posts : 2270
Join date : 2012-08-15
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
If it wasn't for religous deference, creationism would be classified as a form of mental illness.
Half of America is stark raving bonkers, and I mean bonkers bonkers.
Half of America is stark raving bonkers, and I mean bonkers bonkers.
Tosh- Posts : 2270
Join date : 2012-08-15
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
Shirina, I think you and Tosh should get together and produce all your EVIDENCE against Christianity and creation and then the vast majority of sane people would realise just how deluded you are and get on the right path.
Satstitics are used by those who want to gain an advantage by dubious means and often choose those who take part in the full knowledge of how they will vote.
It would not matter if 99% of the population thought there was no God or evolution had any credability it would just mean 99% were wrong.
Wake up and feel the air that God provided along with everything else.
Satstitics are used by those who want to gain an advantage by dubious means and often choose those who take part in the full knowledge of how they will vote.
It would not matter if 99% of the population thought there was no God or evolution had any credability it would just mean 99% were wrong.
Wake up and feel the air that God provided along with everything else.
polyglide- Posts : 3118
Join date : 2012-02-13
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
Shirina, I think you and Tosh should get together and produce all your EVIDENCE against Christianity and creation and then the vast majority of sane people would realise just how deluded you are and get on the right path.
The evidence has been found and it has persuaded the vast majority of sane people, you missed the meeting.
It would not matter if 99% of the population thought there was no God or evolution had any credability it would just mean 99% were wrong.
So much for evidence, are you a comedienne or comedian ?
No way you are genuine.
Tosh- Posts : 2270
Join date : 2012-08-15
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
Everytime I read one of your posts, I imagine some troll who cannot stop giggling as he types.
Tosh- Posts : 2270
Join date : 2012-08-15
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
Tosh, every time I read your posts I feel, no, I know, you have lost the plot and are away with the fairies.
polyglide- Posts : 3118
Join date : 2012-02-13
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
Tosh, every time I read your posts I feel, no, I know, you have lost the plot and are away with the fairies.
No surprise there my dearest polyglide, you claim to know a lot of fairy stories, any chance of you proving just one of them ?
Tosh- Posts : 2270
Join date : 2012-08-15
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
Evolution does not just explain our physical origins, it explains much if not all of our psychological and emotional traits, Darwin himself saw the difference between us and chimps as quantitive.
Chimps can love, nurture, empathise, sympathise, reciporacate, cooperate and show compassion in lesser degrees than ourselves, our higher levels of awareness has simply enhanced them and adapted them.
Chimps can love, nurture, empathise, sympathise, reciporacate, cooperate and show compassion in lesser degrees than ourselves, our higher levels of awareness has simply enhanced them and adapted them.
Tosh- Posts : 2270
Join date : 2012-08-15
Page 21 of 25 • 1 ... 12 ... 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 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 21 of 25
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum