Abortion

[vtmarik]

What evidence???? We have already gone over this 1,000 times! Evidence of evolution??? Show me! Show me ONE fossil of an animal becoming a different animal. Like a mouse with a wing bone (on its evolutionary way of becoming a bird)! It doesn't exist.

As far at the age of the earth, I personally believe carbon dating is inacurate. And there is NO WAY to prove it otherwise. So, we must just take the word of science that it is accurate. NOT!

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html

I'm only gonna say this once.

Boo-yah

jay will claim that dinosaurs with feathers dont count. Only a mouse with wings counts!!!!

Oh, yeah, but I'd also like to add that any use of the bible to determine the age of the earth isn't even based on scripture. It's based on conjecture based on the various "abraham begat issac who begat...." chapters.

http://www.albatrus.org/english/theolog ... _earth.htm

According to assumptions and conjecture based on the Bible, the Earth is about 5000-6000 years old. And I suppose we have to take some nutbar guessing game at face value?

Science bases the age of the earth not on carbon dating alone, but from studying geological strata (since we know how long it takes for a layer of substrata to form through geological and sample analysis). Different layers of the earth's crust have different ages, the deeper we go the older things get.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_timescale
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geochronology

[jay_a2j]

The earth is not 6,000 years old. Its been 6,000 years since Adam and Eve. God created the earth before he created Adam and Eve so the earth must be older than 6,000 years.

[vtmarik]

The earth is not 6,000 years old. Its been 6,000 years since Adam and Eve. God created the earth before he created Adam and Eve so the earth must be older than 6,000 years.

Ok fine, but I posted what you wanted. A transitional creature, the link between bird and saurian, the Archeopteryx.

Funny how you just skipped over that.

On a side note, how old is the earth then? There's no biblical mention of the age, so we have to go with the scientific estimates.

[areon]

Or you can keep it simple and look at whales. They have bones that would be legs if they hadn't spent the last few centuries swimming around. They still have the bones but they have changed over time from lack of use and prevents them from breeding with the original species that was on land. Wala, new species.

[vtmarik]

Or you can keep it simple and look at whales. They have bones that would be legs if they hadn't spent the last few centuries swimming around. They still have the bones but they have changed over time from lack of use and prevents them from breeding with the original species that was on land. Wala, new species.

I've already brought that one up, he says that they're designed to "strengthen the pelvis" or some such nonsense and so he doesn't believe that they're vestigial.

Actually, he doesn't believe that any organs are vestigial.

[jay_a2j]

The earth is not 6,000 years old. Its been 6,000 years since Adam and Eve. God created the earth before he created Adam and Eve so the earth must be older than 6,000 years.

Ok fine, but I posted what you wanted. A transitional creature, the link between bird and saurian, the Archeopteryx.

Funny how you just skipped over that.

On a side note, how old is the earth then? There's no biblical mention of the age, so we have to go with the scientific estimates.

I "skipped" it because when I cliked on your link I got a "ERROR" message.


No one knows how old the earth is. Biblicly speaking. God created the Universe in 6 days and we don't know if it was 6, 24 hour days or 1000 years per day. "A day to God is like 1000 years"




areon..... ya, ok.you stick with whales have leg bones.

vtmarik.... I think you are confussing me with Truman.

[vtmarik]

I "skipped" it because when I cliked on your link I got a "ERROR" message.

That's funny, it works for me.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html

No one knows how old the earth is. Biblicly speaking. God created the Universe in 6 days and we don't know if it was 6, 24 hour days or 1000 years per day. "A day to God is like 1000 years"

Yes, but an estimate of 4.5 billion years is plenty of time for God to have created the earth. I'm sure in your version of reality science can be used to fill in the gaps that the Bible leaves.

[jay_a2j]

I see your speculative (is this even a word?) link and raise you this link: http://www.bible.ca/tracks/converted-to ... theist.htm

[Backglass]

I see your speculative (is this even a word?) link and raise you this link: http://www.bible.ca/tracks/converted-to ... theist.htm

Hey! Isnt that the guy down the street who screams at the kids in his bathrobe when a football lands in his yard.


YOU DAMN KIDS!!!!! GET OUT OF MY YARD!!!!

[vtmarik]

I see your speculative (is this even a word?) link and raise you this link: http://www.bible.ca/tracks/converted-to ... theist.htm

I call.
http://ffrf.org/shop/books/details.php? ... oks&ID=FB5

[salvadevinemasse]

I see your speculative (is this even a word?) link and raise you this link: http://www.bible.ca/tracks/converted-to ... theist.htm

I call.
http://ffrf.org/shop/books/details.php? ... oks&ID=FB5

boys boys boys..
This is the abortion forum.. when did it turn into the god one? and when did we start playing "God link" poker?*Raises eyebrow* I'll look at the links soon when my head doesnt feel like exploding from 10 hours of work today at my new job!
Salva-

[P Gizzle]

I see your speculative (is this even a word?) link and raise you this link: http://www.bible.ca/tracks/converted-to ... theist.htm

I call.
http://ffrf.org/shop/books/details.php? ... oks&ID=FB5

i fold.


http://www.espn.com

lol

[jay_a2j]

I see your speculative (is this even a word?) link and raise you this link: http://www.bible.ca/tracks/converted-to ... theist.htm

I call.
http://ffrf.org/shop/books/details.php? ... oks&ID=FB5

*lays down his hand on the table and looks over the top of this shades...


Royal Flush.



http://www.remnantofgod.org/creation.htm

[stinkycheese]

I see your speculative (is this even a word?) link and raise you this link: http://www.bible.ca/tracks/converted-to ... theist.htm

I call.
http://ffrf.org/shop/books/details.php? ... oks&ID=FB5

*lays down his hand on the table and looks over the top of this shades...


Royal Flush.



http://www.remnantofgod.org/creation.htm

What kind of poker are you playing?!

I haven't even bet yet...

I'll go all in! http://getbehindjesus.net/

[vtmarik]

*lays down his hand on the table and looks over the top of this shades...


Royal Flush.



http://www.remnantofgod.org/creation.htm

http://www.remnantofgod.org/JOE-GIANT2.jpg

I almost peed my pants laughing at this image. Sorry buddy, that "Ace of Spades" is the two of hearts. Deuces aren't wild. You lose.

http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/rr.html
http://qumran.com/Refuting_Christianity/index.htm
http://qumran.com/Refuting_Christianity ... _texts.htm

[jay_a2j]

I just have to reply to a segment of your last link.

" The New Testament book of Matthew claims that Jesus was the Messiah
since he lived in the city of Nazareth. The New Testament utilizes
the following "proof text" to make its point: "He [Jesus] came and
resided in a city called Nazareth, that what was spoken through the
prophets might be fulfilled. "He shall be called a Nazarene.'"
(Matthew 2:23) Since a Nazarene is a resident of the city of Nazareth
and this city did not exist during the time period of the Jewish
Bible, it is impossible to find this quotation in the Hebrew
Scriptures. It was fabricated out of thin air."



The fact that Nazareth did not exist when the prophesy mentions it... IS PROOF that is was devinely inspired! How could the author of an OT book know that there would be a town called Nazareth? The statement is flawed to begin with because Jesus being from Nazareth was not the only thing that "claims Jesus is the Messiah". The book of Mathew does not say, "Jesus must be the messiah because he was from Nazareth" The fact the Jesus was from Nazareth fulfilled the prophecy that He (the messiah) would be a Nazarene. Butr there is more evidence than that of Him being the Messiah.

[vtmarik]

Matthew is part of the NT, not the OT. He's "quoting" a prophecy from the OT that doesn't exist. This is called reading comprehension, and it's a 4th grade reading skill. I'm certain that you have this skill.
So answer this: How can a non-existent prophecy prove Jesus' Messianic status?
-------------
Secondly, there's a lot of info that proves that he wasn't the messiah.
http://www.evilbible.com/jesus_false.htm

Two that are worth noting:

1) Matthew 1:23 says that Jesus (the messiah) would be called Immanuel, which means "God with us." Yet no one, not even his parents, call him Immanuel at any point in the bible.

They called him Yeshua.

2) The Messiah must be a physical descendant of David (Romans 1:3 & Acts 2:30). Yet, how could Jesus meet this requirement since his genealogies in Matthew 1 and Luke 3 show he descended from David through Joseph, who was not his natural father because of the Virgin Birth. Hence, this prophecy could not have been fulfilled.

Yep, that's because Matthew didn't know about the Virgin Birth. He didn't believe in such a thing.

[salvadevinemasse]

I just have to reply to a segment of your last link.

" The New Testament book of Matthew claims that Jesus was the Messiah
since he lived in the city of Nazareth. The New Testament utilizes
the following "proof text" to make its point: "He [Jesus] came and
resided in a city called Nazareth, that what was spoken through the
prophets might be fulfilled. "He shall be called a Nazarene.'"
(Matthew 2:23) Since a Nazarene is a resident of the city of Nazareth
and this city did not exist during the time period of the Jewish
Bible, it is impossible to find this quotation in the Hebrew
Scriptures. It was fabricated out of thin air."



The fact that Nazareth did not exist when the prophesy mentions it... IS PROOF that is was devinely inspired! How could the author of an OT book know that there would be a town called Nazareth? The statement is flawed to begin with because Jesus being from Nazareth was not the only thing that "claims Jesus is the Messiah". The book of Mathew does not say, "Jesus must be the messiah because he was from Nazareth" The fact the Jesus was from Nazareth fulfilled the prophecy that He (the messiah) would be a Nazarene. Butr there is more evidence than that of Him being the Messiah.

Jay-
Didnt your parents teach you don't believe everything you read? Whats next? are you planning on reading a book about the tooth fairy next and believing in that now too?

To me the bible is just a story lighten up and stop worrying so much about what happened back then to a guy you never met! my friend just lost a very good friend of hers and so i think right now people should just focus on their loved ones and laugh and have fun in life...

just a thought
Salva-

P.S. VTMarik, I got most of your gifts today!! This is one of those hehe I'm not telling you what it is things!... Oh and no trying to tickle me to get it out of me like one of the last times I did this to you!!

[Backglass]

To me the bible is just a story lighten up

I will reply for you jay.

--------------------------------
WHHATTT? JUST A STORY!?!!>!!

OK...you keep thinking that. You'll see one day.

"He that sayeth thouest book is just a story shall burn his testicles in a fiery puddle of kerosene and shall have his nose hair pulled out one-by-one with acid covered needlenose pliers. For eternity, and forever and ever. Even if the hairs grow back, so sayeth he!"

--------------------------------

How'd I do?

[s.xkitten]

To me the bible is just a story lighten up

I will reply for you jay.

--------------------------------
WHHATTT? JUST A STORY!?!!>!!

OK...you keep thinking that. You'll see one day.

"He that sayeth thouest book is just a story shall burn his testicles in a fiery puddle of kerosene and shall have his nose hair pulled out one-by-one with acid covered needlenose pliers. For eternity, and forever and ever. Even if the hairs grow back, so sayeth he!"

--------------------------------

How'd I do?

sounds about right to me

[salvadevinemasse]

To me the bible is just a story lighten up

I will reply for you jay.

--------------------------------
WHHATTT? JUST A STORY!?!!>!!

OK...you keep thinking that. You'll see one day.

"He that sayeth thouest book is just a story shall burn his testicles in a fiery puddle of kerosene and shall have his nose hair pulled out one-by-one with acid covered needlenose pliers. For eternity, and forever and ever. Even if the hairs grow back, so sayeth he!"

--------------------------------

How'd I do?

LMFAO! I love your posts. I just gave a kid what for because they fucked up on their math in this forum! lol.Which is really funny as all hell seeing as I flunked pre-algebra twice!!

And what happens if they dont have testicles? huh?huh?huh? What if its a girl that says it...Do they get a "Get out of damnednation free card?" WOOHOO if they do! and if god is so loving why would god allow such things to happen? It makes me wonder about what sylvia brown says about how we are the dead ones.. I like to think I'm just in school learning and this life that i've been given here on earth is the school thats teaching me..What do you think about it?

Salva-

PS- Did a good job only over reacted a little bit, because I think He would throw out a bible verse or two from revelations... I'm not worried about it at all..I'll just wait for his reaction I love trying to get his "goat" sometimes!

[vtmarik]

To me the bible is just a story lighten up

I will reply for you jay.

--------------------------------
WHHATTT? JUST A STORY!?!!>!!

OK...you keep thinking that. You'll see one day.

"He that sayeth thouest book is just a story shall burn his testicles in a fiery puddle of kerosene and shall have his nose hair pulled out one-by-one with acid covered needlenose pliers. For eternity, and forever and ever. Even if the hairs grow back, so sayeth he!"

--------------------------------

How'd I do?

Will our balls get frostbite and fall in the cheese dip?

[s.xkitten]

To me the bible is just a story lighten up

I will reply for you jay.

--------------------------------
WHHATTT? JUST A STORY!?!!>!!

OK...you keep thinking that. You'll see one day.

"He that sayeth thouest book is just a story shall burn his testicles in a fiery puddle of kerosene and shall have his nose hair pulled out one-by-one with acid covered needlenose pliers. For eternity, and forever and ever. Even if the hairs grow back, so sayeth he!"

--------------------------------

How'd I do?

Will our balls get frostbite and fall in the cheese dip?

nooo, they were burned off, so they can't get frostbite

[jay_a2j]

Matthew is part of the NT, not the OT. He's "quoting" a prophecy from the OT that doesn't exist. This is called reading comprehension, and it's a 4th grade reading skill. I'm certain that you have this skill.
So answer this: How can a non-existent prophecy prove Jesus' Messianic status?
-------------
Secondly, there's a lot of info that proves that he wasn't the messiah.
http://www.evilbible.com/jesus_false.htm

Two that are worth noting:

1) Matthew 1:23 says that Jesus (the messiah) would be called Immanuel, which means "God with us." Yet no one, not even his parents, call him Immanuel at any point in the bible.

They called him Yeshua.

2) The Messiah must be a physical descendant of David (Romans 1:3 & Acts 2:30). Yet, how could Jesus meet this requirement since his genealogies in Matthew 1 and Luke 3 show he descended from David through Joseph, who was not his natural father because of the Virgin Birth. Hence, this prophecy could not have been fulfilled.

Yep, that's because Matthew didn't know about the Virgin Birth. He didn't believe in such a thing.

So because his parents didn't call him Immanuel the prediction isn't talking about Jesus? You have got to be kidding! Jesus is called Immanuel by millions of Christians throughout the world!



Is Mary a descendant of David?

In both genealogies of Jesus, one in Matthew 1.6, the other in Luke 3.31, the ancestry of David is mentioned ... for Jesus. Further, it was common knowledge and expectation for New Testament times and writings that the Messiah would be of the House of David. Joseph is clearly pointed out as descendant of David in both genealogies. On the other hand, New Testament sources are silent about Mary's descendance from David. However, through her marriage with Joseph she enters his family and legally becomes, she and her son Jesus, a part of the House of David. This is not exactly what we mean by Davidic descendance. Again, important passages of the Old Testament such as Jer. 11,1.10; Jer. 23.5, and Ps 132.11 indicate Jesus' Davidic lineage and thus suggest that Mary, too, was of the same. What seems to corroborate this is that according to custom the bridegroom (Joseph) would choose his bride (Mary) from among the women of his own tribe. This explanation would then be in accordance with the fact that Jesus' origin is not human but divine, i.e., without the cooperation of Joseph. Post-biblical tradition sees in Mary a descendant of David from early times on: Tertullian (+after 220) (De carne Christi 21, PL 2, 833) is first, but there is also Ambrose, Jerome, Hesichius of Jerusalem, Pope Leo the Great, and, most explicitly, Paschasius Radbertus (+ 859) (Exp. in Matthaeum, lib. 1, cap. 1, PL 120, 77-80, 89) ... among others. In the Litanies of Loreto we find the advocation "Tower of David," meaning Mary is compared to a not further known building of old Jerusalem used in the Song of Songs to describe the beauty of the bride(4,4).

[vtmarik]

So because his parents didn't call him Immanuel the prediction isn't talking about Jesus? You have got to be kidding! Jesus is called Immanuel by millions of Christians throughout the world!

It's just one of many examples listed on that page.

And note that you skipped over the other part of my response.

Matthew is part of the NT, not the OT. He's "quoting" a prophecy from the OT that doesn't exist. This is called reading comprehension, and it's a 4th grade reading skill. I'm certain that you have this skill.
So answer this: How can a non-existent prophecy prove Jesus' Messianic status?

Is Mary a descendant of David?

In both genealogies of Jesus, one in Matthew 1.6, the other in Luke 3.31, the ancestry of David is mentioned ... for Jesus. Further, it was common knowledge and expectation for New Testament times and writings that the Messiah would be of the House of David. Joseph is clearly pointed out as descendant of David in both genealogies. On the other hand, New Testament sources are silent about Mary's descendance from David. However, through her marriage with Joseph she enters his family and legally becomes, she and her son Jesus, a part of the House of David. This is not exactly what we mean by Davidic descendance. Again, important passages of the Old Testament such as Jer. 11,1.10; Jer. 23.5, and Ps 132.11 indicate Jesus' Davidic lineage and thus suggest that Mary, too, was of the same. What seems to corroborate this is that according to custom the bridegroom (Joseph) would choose his bride (Mary) from among the women of his own tribe. This explanation would then be in accordance with the fact that Jesus' origin is not human but divine, i.e., without the cooperation of Joseph. Post-biblical tradition sees in Mary a descendant of David from early times on: Tertullian (+after 220) (De carne Christi 21, PL 2, 833) is first, but there is also Ambrose, Jerome, Hesichius of Jerusalem, Pope Leo the Great, and, most explicitly, Paschasius Radbertus (+ 859) (Exp. in Matthaeum, lib. 1, cap. 1, PL 120, 77-80, 89) ... among others. In the Litanies of Loreto we find the advocation "Tower of David," meaning Mary is compared to a not further known building of old Jerusalem used in the Song of Songs to describe the beauty of the bride(4,4).

So, what you are saying is, that by marrying Joseph she became part of the lineage? I hate to break it to you, but blood determines lineage not matrimony. Descendants of people are related to them by blood (or to use modern terms, their DNA). Mary didn't magically become related to Joseph (or else that would imply that incest is Bible-endorsed) by marrying him. Perhaps you might want to try again?

Also, note the words "post biblical tradition," we aren't talking about post-bible, we're talking about the Bible. Stop deflecting and start comprehending what you are reading.

And may I ask where you culled this clipping from? It'd be nice to know what all the gobbletygook between the parentheses means.