Post Your Tough Questions Regarding Christianity

Nope I only tell the truth base on facts and reality not base on personal agenda.

- - - Updated - - -

Really, I guess the break up of the Pangea was cause by something something then? So far scientist have THEORIES as to why and how the Pangea broke up

Hansen theorized that early in Earth’s history - perhaps as much as 2.5 billion years ago - impacts from large extra-terrestrial objects could have been the catalyst for two prime elements of plate tectonics: the spreading out of new crust, and particularly subduction. Since numerous impact craters can be found on Mars and on the Moon, it’s a good bet that Earth suffered a similar steady barrage of meteor impacts in its formative years. According to Hansen, the Earth’s crust at the time was more uniform in thickness, except in certain zones where mantle heat rising up from below would have caused it to thin.

A meteor or asteroid (one large enough to create a 600 mile-in-diameter crater) slamming into one of those weakened zones could have caused magma to erupt to the surface as flood basalts that would spread out and eventually push against the sides of the crater where they would begin subducting back down into the mantle. Such impacts could have happened several times around the world, enough to put the process of plate tectonics into motion.

http://www.d.umn.edu/geology/people/fsbios/hansen.html

Nothing happens without a cause.

 

Yes. And there are many who believe that that fat, uncharitable American would get to heaven just because he has faith. Or that a Muslim who spends his life living justly and righteously could get to heaven, on the basis of his deeds. This is a serious problem for the idea that the bible is the inspired word of God - an omniscient being would know how people would receive such a text, and make it more clear. And this isn't some wishy-washy scientific question like "where does the earth come from", this is the meat of the entire religion - "how do I live forever in heaven?" The carrot that drives so many towards the religion in the first place. And a great many Christians get it wrong, regardless of what it correctly states. If I were God, I'd be a little more worried about that.

Or, you know, it's a garbled, self-contradictory message that you can twist any-which-way to say whatever the hell you want it to. Most people who "misinterpret" God's word aren't doing it because they want to, they're doing it because they sincerely think it means something different.

 

Most of them misinterpret God's word #1, because they aren't familiar with it, and #2, because they have an inflated concept of their ability to read/understand God, without actually STUDYING God.

God isn't worried, I promise you, and he understands how our minds work. There is a reason it's hard to understand for those who want to do battle with God.

 

Do you claim to be able to always read gods word correctly?

 

Did I claim that?

 

That is what I wanted to clarify. Do you?

 

There's nothing to clarify. I said nothing like that. On to the next complete irrelevancy.

 

If you dont like to explain yourself, that is fine. Dont make statements here if you dont like to clarify them.

You speak of what "most" do, or dont do, and why.

Are you in this group,the ones who get it wrong, or, are you in the smaller group who gets it right?

Or is that somehow irrelevant?

 

Where in that quote did you get the impression I was claiming to be able to translate the word of God without error?

I don't waste time arguing arguments I have never asserted...and every time you attempt to assign me one, I will refuse to engage.

I will happily clarify statements I've actually made. But when it comes to defending arguments I never made, I won't do it. Anti-Christians are great at pretending that Christians say and mean things that have never actually been said or thought.

It's the only way you can effectively squash freedom of religion. In essence, it's lying.

 

If it is so painful to just say if you are in that select group, Im sure there is no way I could get you to say. Putting the responsibility on me for your unwillingness to just be forthright isnt very honourable, but fine, thats you, I me, and may we never cross paths again.

 

Why do you insist I am in that select group? Do I come across as the premier biblical scholar of the day? If you think I do, I think that is more evidence of how woefully incomplete your biblical understanding is.

Which means that really, you're the last person anyone should listen to when it comes to intelligent discussion of what the bible contains, and what God is concerned about.

 

Why do you:
1. find it necessary to lie?
I asked if you are, I did not insist that you are. In fact, as I dont think anyone is in this imaginary group, it would be dumb to think you are.

2. Why cant you just be forthright and say if you think that you are in said select group?

As for who knows the bible, I know is says things about how its not good to lie.

Do you know that but choose to ignore it?

 

TAIKOO. WARREN. Learn how the quote BBCode works. Seriously, it's a pain in the ass to read.

Maybe you didn't get what I was saying. Between the catholics, the southern baptists, the unitarians, the calvinists, the lutherans, and the thousands of other sects of humanities, there are major doctrinal differences - differences that could only come from one or more of the parties involved misinterpreting the bible. And we're not talking about some young, know-nothing atheist (although that's a considerably overused stereotype), we're talking about everyone in entire doctrines, including the biblical scholars on each side. People who are not just familiar with the bible and what it says, but have staked entire careers on their ability to read, understand, and study God. Hell, unless you're non-denominational and do not follow any current branch of Christianity, you are essentially relying on one of those people. And if you are non-denominational, then you're relying on yourself; on your ability to interpret the bible. Which, as you stated earlier, is not to be trusted.

Like Catholics and Protestants?

 

What about those who are trying to understand it all?
Who is right? The christians, jews, muslims? Buddahists, hindus, native american of the USA? Just who has it right?
Why?

 

Because fossilization is pretty much a very rare event, requiring, as a rule, sudden burial to prevent decomposition like from a flood. The millions of bison that roamed the United States have left virtually no fossils. Also lions used to live in Israel, as we have believed from historical reports of their presence there but we don't find any lion fossils in Israel.

So why should it be a surprise that small populations, presumably under migration pressure from competitors and or predatiors, living in only one area a few generations at most, should leave no fossils?

So with that explanation I fail to see what is so idiotic about the argument, perhaps it's you that should come to a realization that it's not so idiotic of an argument after all!

 

Why weren't the dinosaurs allowed on the ark?