The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

J C

monosharp wrote: »

This just boogles the mind.

On the same website, in the same museum they claim that evolution is impossible, especially in creating new species.

Then I came across this gem.



So let me get this straight.

1. They claim that evolution could not have produced the diversity of life that we see today.
2. They then claim that Noah saved about 10,000 species and over a period of 8,000 years these 10,000 species diverged into all the species we have today. :pac:

Please someone, first of all how can they claim evolution is false and then suggest that 10,000 species diverged into 1,000,000+ species today in a pathetically short 8,000 years which is hundreds of times faster then scientists claim evolution actually works.

Please someone, explain this 'logic' to me.

...you are confusing Speciation using pre-existing design and genetic information (which did/does occur) ... with Spontaneous Evolution of pondslime to man via mistakes and time (which didn't/doesn't occur)!!!!:D:)

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

...you are confusing Speciation using pre-existing design and genetic information (which did/does occur) ... with Spontaneous Evolution of pondslime to man via mistakes and time (which didn't/doesn't occur)!!!!:D:)

The first thing you mention is nonsense. A patch holding together a faith far more fragile than you would dare admit. There is no evidence of any limits to variation or to the addition of genetic information. That's wishful thinking. And there is certainly no evidence that the variation required to generate the current biodiversity on Earth could have occurred in a mere 4000 years. I'm sure someone would have commented on the incredible numbers of new species emerging constantly somewhere in the ancient texts of all those ancient civilisations... who didn't notice the global flood either... ah never mind, I suppose they were just remarkably unobservant.

The second is just a straw man misrepresentation of evolution. A lame linguistic spin you use to make evolution sound less plausible. You avoid speaking in plain language because it so rarely helps your case.

monosharp

J C wrote: »

...you are confusing Speciation using pre-existing design and genetic information (which did/does occur) ... with Spontaneous Evolution of pondslime to man via mistakes and time (which didn't/doesn't occur)!!!!:D:)

Are you going to make a decent response or is that it ?

wolfsbane

lugha wrote: »

If you talk about obligation then surely there has to be a subject of that obligation? To whom / what are you obliged to be moral?
Your continuing reference to “feeling obliged” to be moral suggests that I might have the potential to possibly go the way of the characters in Hitchcock’s “Rope” and use some intellectual acrobatics to enable me to rationalize some gross violation of my moral code. As has been pointed out already, the bounds placed on us by evolution (relative though I recognize them to be) are considerable more restrictive than you seem to appreciate. I might occassionsly discard advice given from an (informed) authority (e.g. a doctor or a lawyer) having reasoned that I am sufficiently knowledgeable and intelligent to make a decision alone. But my moral framework is simply not susceptible to a similar intellectual assault. It is a different ball game. Morality and conscience on the one hand and intelligence and reasoning on the other are different domains.
For me morality is relative. But for a number of core issues (murder, rape, theft), these are in practice, absolute. If somebody willfully takes another life, then I do not fudge in any way about seeing this as immoral and I most certainly do not, as you seem to suggest, entertain any notion that it is a matter for the killer alone to assess the morality of his action. It may not be true absolute morality, but the differences are of no practical consequence.

If I get you right, you are saying you are captive to your bio-conditioning. You do not have the ability to stand back from it and recognise it as a mere chemical reaction, one that has no claims on your behaviour other than crack-cocaine has on its addict.

I have never understood my morality like that, even before I was a Christian. I always thought I could overcome it if I chose to.

I understand why you choose to treat parts of your subjective morality as if they were absolute - but I'm asking you to acknowledge there is no moral difference between murder and philanthropy except the one in your head. That, objectively, the murderer has a different morality, not a worse one.

wolfsbane

Mark Hamill said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Only if one believes doing good is mandatory. If it is just an option to doing evil, then no. Materialism says good and bad things are only options, not good or bad in themselves.
I didn't ask if you ought to do things that are good, I said if something has benefits, ought you to do it? Dont you believe that you should do things that you perceive as benefitting you or your loved ones? I do, and I see a deeply thought-out and argued morality as on of those things.

As a Christian, I have a morality that demands me to do good. My problem is seeing how a materialist can have a morality that demands the same of him. You may choose to live a moral life for the benefits it brings to you and yours, but there is nothing to say you should not instead choose to exploit others as much as you can get away with.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
What is the test for whether an action is morally good or not?
There is no test, because as I have already said, there are no absolutes, there is no universal measure to use, all situations must examined separately.

OK, what is the test as to whether homosexual behaviour is morally good is 1950s Britain?

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Don't you mean amoral? Or are you really saying amorality is immoral? By whose standard?
No intelligence can ever be truly immoral, not if that intelligence is supposed to be able to consider the consequences of his actions.

So Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Robert Maxwell, Robert Mugabe, were either moral or stupid?

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
That makes sense, if morality is just subjective, just a point of view.
What were the Canaanites guilty of when god ordered their extermination?

A few samples, in alphabetical order:
Adultery
Bestiality
Child sacrifice
Homosexuality
Incest

Of course they were also guilty of idolatry, thefts, murder also - but the previous list is of several things that especially degraded their land.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Society said he was immoral, and I thought your position held that society determined morality. Or are you now saying morality is down to the individual?
Society does determine what is immoral, but I am not part of that society so why would I support that societies idea of morality? Also, while societies essentially decide what is moral, it isn't a fixed notion, what society thinks is moral or immoral will change as society changes its ways of thinking of morality. I don't believe that there is any absolute morality to the universe, but I do believe there is an ideal way to reason out what a society should declare as immoral, avoiding emotive and fearful half thinking and embracing notions like informed consent and peoples right to live their life as free as is possible.

So societies that say homosexuality is wrong are immoral for so saying? But WHY should they embrace notions like informed consent and peoples right to live their life as free as is possible? Do these things belong to a higher morality than theirs? What is this higher morality than can condemn a whole society as immoral?

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
It does if they think their morality is any more valid that the paedophiles, rather than morality being just a point of view of the individual/society.
Ones persons idea of morality can be more valid than other persons idea of morality if the ideas are based on firmer foundations.

What are these foundations? Sounds suspiciously like an absolute morality to me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Er, No, it was the atheist Death commenting on our need of a meaning/morality if we are to be human:
Death: Humans need fantasy to *be* human. To be the place where the falling angel meets the rising ape.

Death: You need to believe in things that aren't true. How else can they become?
And it was directed at the type of people who believed in a morality which existed regardless of wether or not humans where there to appreciate it. The point was not an insult to people who believe in morality, but to people who need it to be something that is bigger than them in order to appreciate it.

So you accept that materialism cannot be lived out consistently? That as a world-view, it sucks. That atheist materialists have to live as if there was meaning and good and evil in the world.

If you see that, my effort has not been in vain.

wolfsbane

Mark Hamill wrote: »

There doesn't need to be an absolute morality for one to be better than another no more than there needs to be an absolute slice of toast to say that one is better than another. The ideal of something may only be defined arbitrarily by humans, but once it is defined, we can show how one example is better than another

No, you can only show how one example is better than another in your opinion. Others may or may not share that opinion.

Murder is not immoral in many people's opinions. How can you show it is immoral for all people?

lugha

wolfsbane wrote: »

If I get you right, you are saying you are captive to your bio-conditioning. You do not have the ability to stand back from it and recognise it as a mere chemical reaction, one that has no claims on your behaviour other than crack-cocaine has on its addict.

I do have the ability to recognize it as a chemical reaction but that does not in any way impede the bounds morality places on me. In a similar way I can recognise that what I experience as love for those closest to me is ultimately also a chemical reaction. But that does not in any way enable me to change what I think or feel differently about them. Why would you suppose differently? Again I say, these are different realms.

wolfsbane wrote: »

I have never understood my morality like that, even before I was a Christian. I always thought I could overcome it if I chose to.

Just as well you became a Christian then! (I somehow assumed you were always one?). Was there really nothing (civil law aside) which impeded you from going out and say, murdering someone just to have the experience of it, before you became a Christian? If that is so then I’m afraid we are very different creatures.

wolfsbane wrote: »

I understand why you choose to treat parts of your subjective morality as if they were absolute - but I'm asking you to acknowledge there is no moral difference between murder and philanthropy except the one in your head. That, objectively, the murderer has a different morality, not a worse one.

Yes I concede that there is no absolute morality. But this is so only with respect to the multitude of ways in which we might have hypothetically evolved. In FC’s Eastern tribe on another thread, they would have a very different morality and would likely be muttering darkly about prohibitions on eating their young as “PC gone mad”! What we see as a murderer might, in that tribe be a solid upstanding citizen. But that does not mean I can take someone similar in our culture and reason that he is identical to an individual in another hypothetical culture who would be deemed moral, therefore this individual is also moral. We did evolve the way we did and in that specific evolution, what are in theory relative morals are de facto absolute ones. The two tribes know nothing of each other and each would categorically dismiss the morality of the other. They each would assess the worth of their own morality with a narrowly focused word view just as we do (some of us more than others!) and conclude, reasonably enough that their own moral code is absolute. They of course have an excuse that we do not, which is that they have limited experiences to inform their view.
In any case all of this is academic. Even if I conceded that there was an absolute Christian morality the problem remains of ascertaining accurately and in detail what that is. The fact that different facets of the Christian message are interpreted differently across denominations and indeed history indicates that there is a question mark over the fidelity of anything taken from Christianity, including the moral code. If a morality claims to be absolute, then it must be interpreted absolutely homogenously. That there is broad agreement on the more important facets of the Christian message does not negate this point.

wolfsbane

Mark Hamill wrote: »

There doesn't need to be an absolute morality for one to be better than another no more than there needs to be an absolute slice of toast to say that one is better than another. The ideal of something may only be defined arbitrarily by humans, but once it is defined, we can show how one example is better than another

No, you can only show how one example is better than another in your opinion. Others may or may not share that opinion.

Murder is not immoral in many people's opinions. How can you show it is immoral for all people?

wolfsbane

lugha said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
If I get you right, you are saying you are captive to your bio-conditioning. You do not have the ability to stand back from it and recognise it as a mere chemical reaction, one that has no claims on your behaviour other than crack-cocaine has on its addict.
I do have the ability to recognize it as a chemical reaction but that does not in any way impede the bounds morality places on me. In a similar way I can recognise that what I experience as love for those closest to me is ultimately also a chemical reaction. But that does not in any way enable me to change what I think or feel differently about them. Why would you suppose differently? Again I say, these are different realms.

One can feel pity, yet decide to over-ride it. One might reason that justice was more important than mercy in this instance. Or one might only be thinking that the enormous profit from impoverishing this person is more important than their plight. Reason is informed by an emotion, but not controlled by it. Indeed, one emotion may be over-ridden in favour of another.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
I have never understood my morality like that, even before I was a Christian. I always thought I could overcome it if I chose to.
Just as well you became a Christian then!

Indeed.

(I somehow assumed you were always one?).

That is the assumption in any sacral society. Whether Catholic, Anglican or Presbyterian, unless a specific rejection occurs, one is presumed to be a 'Christian'. But God has no grandchildren. One becomes a Christian by choice, not by inheritance.

Was there really nothing (civil law aside) which impeded you from going out and say, murdering someone just to have the experience of it, before you became a Christian?

Conscience. Like you, I may have reasoned about materialism - but I knew there really was a Right and Wrong. Just shows how irrational one has to be to hold to materialism.

If that is so then I’m afraid we are very different creatures.

We are now, but I too was by nature a child of wrath, an enemy of God in my heart.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
I understand why you choose to treat parts of your subjective morality as if they were absolute - but I'm asking you to acknowledge there is no moral difference between murder and philanthropy except the one in your head. That, objectively, the murderer has a different morality, not a worse one.
Yes I concede that there is no absolute morality. But this is so only with respect to the multitude of ways in which we might have hypothetically evolved. In FC’s Eastern tribe on another thread, they would have a very different morality and would likely be muttering darkly about prohibitions on eating their young as “PC gone mad”! What we see as a murderer might, in that tribe be a solid upstanding citizen. But that does not mean I can take someone similar in our culture and reason that he is identical to an individual in another hypothetical culture who would be deemed moral, therefore this individual is also moral. We did evolve the way we did and in that specific evolution, what are in theory relative morals are de facto absolute ones.

This is saying our biology is sacrosanct, the arbiter of good and evil. Hardly a rational idea.

The two tribes know nothing of each other and each would categorically dismiss the morality of the other. They each would assess the worth of their own morality with a narrowly focused word view just as we do (some of us more than others!) and conclude, reasonably enough that their own moral code is absolute. They of course have an excuse that we do not, which is that they have limited experiences to inform their view.
In any case all of this is academic. Even if I conceded that there was an absolute Christian morality the problem remains of ascertaining accurately and in detail what that is. The fact that different facets of the Christian message are interpreted differently across denominations and indeed history indicates that there is a question mark over the fidelity of anything taken from Christianity, including the moral code. If a morality claims to be absolute, then it must be interpreted absolutely homogenously. That there is broad agreement on the more important facets of the Christian message does not negate this point.

Ignorance of the law is not an absolute defence. If one's ignorance is self-imposed, certain blame is there. When man fell in Adam, our ignorance about details of God's law - is it lawful to have more than one wife, for example - is no excuse.

Sins of ignorance are still sins, thought not as grave as wilful sin.

So God's morality is absolute and binding on all, even if they through sin fail to see it as clearly as they ought.

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

Yes but the God revealed in the Bible could be wrong. It could be illogical.

As Malty_t suggests you can't just define something and then use that definition as justification for the idea that the thing is the way you say it is.

A definition by itself means nothing, particularly if you are trying to demonstrate a point.

Sorry if I missed this.

My point applies only if the God I'm speaking about is real. I'm not debating whether He is or not. If He is, then I am being consistent by holding my morality.

If your premise is true - that there is no God and Materialism is the reality - then you are not being consistent when you consider yourself or anyone else bound by any morality.

They may choose to observe one, but they are not bound to do so. Therefore objectively, the murderer is no worse than the philanthropist, just different.

wolfsbane

Malty_T wrote: »

Seriously, though, can someone define what they mean by the Judeo-Christian God?

The God of the Bible.

Here's one expanded definition:

THE BAPTIST CONFESSION OF FAITH
Chapter 2: Of God and of the Holy Trinity
http://www.grace.org.uk/faith/bc1689/1689bc02.html

Turtwig

Thanks WB for the definition

grace.org wrote:

The Lord our God is but one only living and true God; whose subsistence is in and of himself, infinite in being and perfection; whose essence cannot be comprehended by any but himself; a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions, who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; who is immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible, almighty, every way infinite, most holy, most wise, most free, most absolute;

I accept that by the Christian definition God is absolute, however maybe I'm misundestanding this but it seems that if no man can comprehend god wouldn't that make his absolute morality subjective to us??(Which I seem to recall Jakkass admitting?)

Also, the point Lugha is making I've (and many others have too:)) explained before is that our biological conditioning, namely empathy, dictates our morals only a psychopath can easily ignore them . So yes, a materialist who happens to be psychopath can easily ignore his/her morals; the same can also be said for a Christian psychopath.:)

Being a narcissist

Turtwig

J C wrote: »

• The universe looks designed.
• The universe's design is is so complex and on is on such an enormous scale that it would require a designer with God-like propotions of omnipotence and omniscience.
• The universes was designed by God.

using Occams Razor, my list comes in shorter and simpler than your list ... therefore my list is the correct one!!!!:D:eek:

You could have just summed your one up with:
The universe is designed by God;).

wolfsbane wrote: »

An atheist can observe many of God's laws - Do not murder, for example. What he can't do is keep his heart free of unjust anger, which is incipient murder:

I'm pretty sure a buddhist atheist would thoroughly disagree on this

J C wrote: »

ALL Humans have enormous capacities for self-delusion and belief in self-serving ideas ...

Indeed :P

J C

AtomicHorror wrote: »

The first thing you mention is nonsense. A patch holding together a faith far more fragile than you would dare admit. There is no evidence of any limits to variation or to the addition of genetic information. That's wishful thinking. And there is certainly no evidence that the variation required to generate the current biodiversity on Earth could have occurred in a mere 4000 years.

...Current examples of Speciation are observed to occur rapidly/instantly ... and they are observed to always be based on pre-existing Intelligent Design and genetic information!!!!:D

AtomicHorror wrote: »

I'm sure someone would have commented on the incredible numbers of new species emerging constantly somewhere in the ancient texts of all those ancient civilisations... who didn't notice the global flood either... ah never mind, I suppose they were just remarkably unobservant.

...or perhaps the members of these great Ante-diluvian civilisations were simply DEAD as a result of this SUDDEN world-wide disaster!!!!:pac::D

..many of the descendants of Noah, scattered in most of the Nations of the Earth, DO have (their own version) a 'flood story'!!!

...so there is a 'folk memory' of this disaster in practically every tribe and nation on Earth.

...and counting emergent new species all over the World was well down the list of the priorities of the descendants of the survivors of the Great Flood as they congregated in Babel in defiance of God!!!!

....indeed when the first Humans reached the 'far-flung' parts of the World, folowing the Babel Dispersal, they would have found that various animals were there ahead of them - and quite well speciated already!!!

AtomicHorror wrote: »

The second is just a straw man misrepresentation of evolution. A lame linguistic spin you use to make evolution sound less plausible. You avoid speaking in plain language because it so rarely helps your case.

...which bit are you referring to?
...is it the ability of Evolutionists, in common with all Humans, for self-delusion ???
....or is it the fact that they believe in something with even less logic to it than the idea that if you plant a feather in the ground it will spontaneously grow into a hen using nothing except time and mistakes????:pac::):D:eek:

J C

monosharp wrote: »

Are you going to make a decent response or is that it ?

...the TRUTH will set you free ... what MORE do you want???:pac::):D

...stop 'sweating the small stuff' that Materialists confuse themselves with ... and be still and know that Jesus Christ is Lord ... and loves YOU ... and wants to Save you!!!!:cool:

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C

• The universe looks designed.
• The universe's design is is so complex and on is on such an enormous scale that it would require a designer with God-like propotions of omnipotence and omniscience.
• The universe was designed by God.

using Occams Razor, my list comes in shorter and simpler than your list ... therefore my list is the correct one!!!!:D:eek:

Malty_T
You could have just summed your one up with:
The universe is designed by God;).

...I could have ...

and I should have ...

....even more proof that God designed the Universe ... courtesy of Occams Razor and your good self!!!:pac::):D

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
There is no objective morality without God...and ALL Humans have enormous capacities for self-delusion and belief in self-serving ideas ...

Malty_T
Indeed :P

..but the inspiration of the Holy Spirit of God, indwelling each Saved Christian, is an adequate antidote to self-serving ideas!!!:)

monosharp

J C wrote: »

...the TRUTH will set you free ... what MORE do you want???:pac::):D

...stop 'sweating the small stuff' that Materialists confuse themselves with ... and be still and know that Jesus Christ is Lord ... and loves YOU ... and wants to Save you!!!!:cool:

And this, for anyone else reading, is why I consider religion evil and why when all religion is gone, it will be better for everyone.

Turtwig

monosharp wrote: »

why when all religion is gone, it will be better for everyone.

Sadly, that will never happen in entirety in todays world....however I'm optimistic that modern estabhlished societies will one day free themselves to the splendour that is the real world

But seriously, how is what JC said evil, I mean, don't get me wrong religion scares me at times and questions my faith in humanity but If JC's comment scare ya well then I shudder to think of what you would think of the stuff that scares me..:)

Scofflaw

Malty_T wrote:

JC wrote:

using Occams Razor, my list comes in shorter and simpler than your list ... therefore my list is the correct one!!!!

You could have just summed your one up with:
The universe is designed by God

Or "insert miracle here".

cordially,
Scofflaw

monosharp

Malty_T wrote: »

Sadly, that will never happen in entirety in todays world....however I'm optimistic that modern estabhlished societies will one day free themselves to the splendour that is the real world

But seriously, how is what JC said evil, I mean, don't get me wrong religion scares me at times and questions my faith in humanity but If JC's comment scare ya well then I shudder to think of what you would think of the stuff that scares me..:)

Because I think education and learning, understanding the world we live in is a fantastic thing, good for all humanity.

JC's opinion is we should believe Jesus and his propaganda on blind faith. Which is extremely bad for all humanity.

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

...stop 'sweating the small stuff' that Materialists confuse themselves with ... and be still and know that Jesus Christ is Lord ... and loves YOU ... and wants to Save you!!!!:cool:

Love this. Basically sums up the Creationist position. "Don't worry your head about those awkward little details, you know, the 99% of evidence that refutes our position entirely. If there's any sort of flaw, use it to disregard the evidence. If not, just claim it's a trick. No, don't worry. Instead, try to focus on the 1% of evidence that either vaguely supports our position or merely fails to directly falsify it. Big that up, but for heaven's sake don't subject it to the same analysis as the small details. And if you have trouble with any of this, just remember JESUS JESUS JESUS JESUS JESUS JESUS.

Your mind has now been flashed to factory settings."

AtomicHorror

Also loving J C's Razor or "the explanation with the fewest words is most often the truth."

How did I manage to steal the cookie out of that locked press when you had the key throughout the time of the delicious crunchy theft?

Is it:

A) I made an impression of the key while you were sleeping, then got a copy cut. Then I unlocked the press, took a cookie and locked it again.

Or:

I made my hand pass through the press door without breaking it.

Occam's Razor says A. J C's Razor says B. As with his arguments on evolution, we are forced to wonder; is this a bafflingly fundamental misunderstanding on J C's part or yet more Straw-Manning for Jesus?

wolfsbane

Malty_T said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane

An atheist can observe many of God's laws - Do not murder, for example. What he can't do is keep his heart free of unjust anger, which is incipient murder:
I'm pretty sure a buddhist atheist would thoroughly disagree on this

It would be interesting to meet with one. I know of some Christians who claimed to have reached the state of sinless perfection - but on provocation they showed the same old sinful nature rising to the surface.

So if you meet any (of either persuasion), don't presume on their sanctity by stealing their cookies!

wolfsbane

Malty_T said:

I accept that by the Christian definition God is absolute, however maybe I'm misundestanding this but it seems that if no man can comprehend god wouldn't that make his absolute morality subjective to us??(Which I seem to recall Jakkass admitting?)

We do not know all His will, but all that we do know is absolutely binding on us. We may not pick and choose what suits us.

As the Christian matures, he becomes more aware of God's will, as he studies the Bible and is led of the Holy Spirit.

Also, the point Lugha is making I've (and many others have too:)) explained before is that our biological conditioning, namely empathy, dictates our morals only a psychopath can easily ignore them . So yes, a materialist who happens to be psychopath can easily ignore his/her morals; the same can also be said for a Christian psychopath.:)

So a man who feels homosexuality is disgusting and immoral would be a psychopath if he decided his feeling was mere biological conditioning and rejected it on the grounds that he was a rational being?

Or one who felt the same about interracial marriage?

I have always considered homosexuality disgusting, and since becoming a Christian I also consider it immoral. As I haven't overridden my natural feelings, I'm not a psychopath on this account. What about all those who grew up feeling negative about homosexuality, but now accept it as a valid practice?

I grew up regarding interracial marriage negatively, but since becoming a Christian I view it as fine. So I am a psychopath, then? :eek:

J C

monosharp wrote: »

And this, for anyone else reading, is why I consider religion evil and why when all religion is gone, it will be better for everyone.

...evil is a bit strong ... but I too share your skepticism of Religions .... which are the work of Men.

....and could I gently point out that Atheistic Humanism is also a Religion!!!

....I am not religious .... I just have a Saving FAITH in Jesus Christ!!!!:)

... and BTW what is 'evil' or even 'wrong' about my statement of fact that you are confusing Speciation using pre-existing design and genetic information (which did/does occur) ... with Spontaneous Evolution of pondslime to man via mistakes and time (which didn't/doesn't occur)!!!!

J C

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Also loving J C's Razor or "the explanation with the fewest words is most often the truth."

How did I manage to steal the cookie out of that locked press when you had the key throughout the time of the delicious crunchy theft?

Is it:

A) I made an impression of the key while you were sleeping, then got a copy cut. Then I unlocked the press, took a cookie and locked it again.

Or:

I made my hand pass through the press door without breaking it.

Occam's Razor says A. J C's Razor says B. As with his arguments on evolution, we are forced to wonder; is this a bafflingly fundamental misunderstanding on J C's part or yet more Straw-Manning for Jesus?

....very DEEP AH...

....so DEEP that you risk drowning in your own 'thought processes'!!!!:pac::):D:eek:

J C

wrote:

Malty_T said:
I'm pretty sure a buddhist atheist would thoroughly disagree on this

wolfsbane
It would be interesting to meet with one. I know of some Christians who claimed to have reached the state of sinless perfection - but on provocation they showed the same old sinful nature rising to the surface.

So if you meet any (of either persuasion), don't presume on their sanctity by stealing their cookies!

...or fiddling with their Karma!!!!:pac::):D

J C

Malty_T wrote: »

Sadly, that will never happen in entirety in todays world....however I'm optimistic that modern estabhlished societies will one day free themselves to the splendour that is the real world

But seriously, how is what JC said evil, I mean, don't get me wrong religion scares me at times and questions my faith in humanity but If JC's comment scare ya well then I shudder to think of what you would think of the stuff that scares me..:)

...monosharp is obviously a very sensitive kind of guy!!!!:):pac:

...and not nearly as 'sharp' as his/her name might suggest!!!!:D

J C

Scofflaw wrote: »

Or "insert miracle here".

cordially,
Scofflaw

...so you believe in miracles then ... well halleluia!!!!:pac::):D

...of course anybody who seriously believes in the spontaneous evolution of Pondslime into man via mistakes and time MUST be a believer in miracles!!!!:pac::):D