Homosexual Books for First Graders
People have strong feelings that some animals are 'always helpful' and some believe some animals are just plain evil because of myths and legends.Originally Posted by Sorovis
I never said it was in the Bible. I just pointed out that some Christians believe ravens are associated with death. There's a difference like though I may believe that 'the great black dog that haunts graveyards' means death, doesn't mean that it's written in the Bible that this creature means death (and I highly doubt this creature is in the Bible).
I love the 'may' part. Though it is a nice theory, then why do camels who have never done this before just go ahead and do it? Some camels only do it twice and some do it continuously.
The fact is that they are thinking, and thinking is the way you are classifying animals and humankind.
Though people who do have them can practice and be condemned for practicing something great. Joan of Arc was condemned for witchcraft though she said she could talk to God. Which is true then, that witchcraft is against the Bible so we should condemn all who have 'supernatural experiences' or that supernatural experiences are life and thusly must be dealt with like anything else, with tolerance?
It may not be my place to change them but then who's place is it? Psychologists can only go so far like priests without having stuff being shoved down the person's throat. But yes, if they kill themselves when you've tried to reason with them, it's not your fault. It's basically not anyone's fault actually. Not changing from what your idea of what is right is not anybody's fault. Because it is someone else's idea of what they should be instead of what they choose to be is more of being dominant over that person. If they're a killer then report it to the police, let them deal with it.
They see right or wrong, just not as extreme as us. They know when to go after something, just like us. They think about what will happen if they chase after a full grown, male buffalo than if they go after an old, about to die buffalo. Which is more reasonable and how will I come out? Fact is, we don't think of this as thinking though it is, it's rational thinking. They learn what happens if they go after a full grown elephant. So they don't do it again. If they go after an elephant that is young and alone, they know they will have a better chance of taking it down.
They take consquences and remember past experiences, just like all humans.
Yes you do.
For example, some person can claim they are homosexual because of being molested. The psychologists fixes it and voila!
Then, there's the person who doesn't say anything and doesn't know why they are homosexual. The psychologist has to dig before he/she can do any improvement. Without finding the problem first off, you have only a small, general way of curing it. This does not mean it will last forever as many can remember past experiences and revert back.
It makes them right in their sense, like loving my mother and father is right in my sense. Being right in one's sense is enough to keep them going. If their views on the world are shot down by someone, what would they do? What would you do? You would fight the change, just like that person until they are forced to believe that it's right.
Physical change is almost impossible without lots of money. To change physically deals with the body, not the mind.
They called them the different names. We have universal names for all of them and have related them to what the first people have "made" them to be.
It says it in all the changing sites you gave us as evidence and we've been arguing over that for a while now...
Homosexual Books for First Graders
Yeah... I haven't really posted, but I've read just about everything that's been posted in this topic [because it's funny] and I have only one thing to say to you:
Homosexuality is not illegal. Therefore it cannot be legalized. Leave the gays alone, they're not hurting you. If it really is such a horrible sin, then so be it. It's not like they're forcing their lifestyle on you.
o_0
jimm
You heard it here first, folks!
3-time winner of Fanfic's "Oddest Writer" award!
Knight of I.N.D.E.E.D.
Homosexual Books for First Graders
1) He said the particle disappeared, not that the universe had nothing. The particle may have disappeared but the energy that went into the particle's formation hasn't. #2 said the universe is always active. #1 talked about particles that collapsed. If you knew what you were talking about you would've known that the disappearance of 1 particle doesn't mean that it became nothing, but just got broken down into energy, which would then be doing something else. Once again, please bother to learn before you talk.
2)See 1
3)I don't really have time to go through 13x40 posts of BS where you don't even refute the arguments but just ignore them because you don't know how to respond or brush them off as "well, the bible/God says..." You, on the other hand, don't even read the post directly before yours. Honestly, if your going to argue, argue with evidence that isn't biased. I'll get further on this in 5. And to bring it back into this subject, if you don't see God, you have no direct evidence/contact of him/her, and your only using and trusting something that has been subject to man's flaws and errors as evidence to God and as God's message to you, your still trusting human flaws and errors on your faith.
4)Good show. You've just put words into my mouth. If your getting this desperate I suggest you take a break from this debate. Did I EVER say that quantum physics disproves the bible? I never even drew a link. All I did was explain to you how the total energy of the universe could equal zero, yet things could still function within the universe. If you can't even get that message straight I suggest you get prescribed for ADD. As for your Einstein says argument...TRO can you cover that one for me? You've described so much better than me in a past debate. Yes...I am too lazy to get my message across to someone who labeled me as ignorant when he himself ignored everything he couldn't respond to, or used the "God" excuse. Advice on future posts...if your going to use evidence, use evidence that has support.
5)Try using something that doesn't the require the influence of a 2000 year old piece of literature that is already biased, because every single one of your evidence sites are either directly using the bible, or biasing based on the message they interpret from the bible. Why not get a 3rd person POV, or something recent that happened to prove that your god exists?
6)Look at 3.
And I don't think ScytheMantis was talking about the fact that if someone gets reborn its not a miracle (because it is). I think he was refering to the fact that THERE IS NO PROOF (do not use the Bible, as it in itself is subject to discretion) that Jesus had actually died, and to add to that, there is no other sources in history to say a person came back from his tomb after crusifiction.
You've failed to see out of your own ignorance that conciousness does not take an advanced mind. Right and wrong are not thoughts that we are born with. It is learned. An animal also learns this. A dog never commits the same mistake twice if it is scolded at. It'll know that it is unacceptable, so even when the situation arrives, it would avoid doing the mistake again (this of course only occurs if it doesn't take orders/listens to another person as well). Humans learn right and wrong when they are told it is bad, or when they commit bad things and then are punished. We don't have any beforehand knowledge of this. If you tell me we do then think back to a time you did something wrong. Did you know it was wrong? An Omega in a wolf pack knows it is the underdog. It almost never ever challenges the pecking order. In that case, it knows it would be doing something wrong in a wolf's POV. It knows this because it has been shown and taught from day one what happens when an omega challenges order. A person only knows that stealing is bad because he is taught from day one that it was bad and was shown what happened when you stole from someone else. If you don't believe this, think for a few minutes that if you were never told that stealing was bad, would you know that it was?Rei Zero failed to see my whole point out of his/her ignorance. Animals do not have as advanced minds as us and do not have conciousness to see right or wrong as we do.
EDIT: And the very fact that you say there are only 7 dimensions shows how little you know about the subject of quantum physics.
Homosexual Books for First Graders
Amen!
If some of you haven't noticed, no matter what you say, if somebody believes the Bible is always right no matter what, you won't get through to them.
There is nothing wrong with homosexuality.
If you don't agree with it, what are you afraid of? Maybe you are too scared to admit to yourself that you are homosexual because it goes against everything you believe is right...hmmm...if you think that it is wrong to be homosexual, you are wrong.
As for people trying to say that abuse and such can turn people homosexual, I suppose it can, but I have friends, who have lived perfectly happy childhoods and are gay. No abuse there. Most people who are gay know they are by the time they are 11, 12, or 13. Quit trying to make excuses. There are gay people, there is nothing wrong with them.
I think the problem lies in jealousy, considering even the stereotypical gay male is more attractive to women than the average straight guy.
Get over people. There is nothing wrong with homosexuality. Quit hating.
Homosexual Books for First Graders
The part I find funniest is that he claims this isn't what he's saying, it's what he's been told to believe.
And yet, WE'RE the ignorant ones.
Homosexual Books for First Graders
Muffin Man, both Sorovis and I (and possibly Yeah5) have given a lot better reasons for having the beliefs we've had than you have given of yours. Please share with us (and I'm not trying to be sarcastic or insulting) your reasons for believing what you believe.
Rei Zero, I openly admit that I dont' know much about Quantum Physics. I would ask that you give me a website that could educate me to a degree.
Rusted One or Chris, I ask again. What's the problem with double posting? (or in the cases of some Chess-playing freaks, quindriple posting)
P.S. if the Rusted One reads this, I will respond to your post later and edit this post accordingly if necessary.
Homosexual Books for First Graders
no proof that he died!!!?!?!?! haha. how could he have survived it? are kidding me? or are you saying that no-one tried to kill him? if you are saying these, than i can just as well say that alexander the great never existed (i can say that and have it make more sense).
Homosexual Books for First Graders
Ok...so maybe I said something vague and stupid there. Yes, he did in actual historical context, die. However, if what the Bible had said was true and Jesus was alive and walked away, than it could just as easily have been that Jesus never died in crucifiction, but was entombed thinking he was dead.
Homosexual Books for First Graders
oh. one example to whow that he died is that the soldiers stabbed him in the side to make sure he was dead. It says that blood and water came out. This makes sense medically if he was dead, as fluid builds up in the lungs.
say he wasn't dead...a lot of people died of scourging alone.....they didn't even make it to crucifiction. has anyone refuted that Jesus' manner o death was predicted hundreds of years before he was born.....even though crucifiction wasn't invented yet? there are several prophecies in the Bible that came true. even some incredibly specific ones...
"In 586 B.C. the prophet Ezekiel was given a detailed prophecy regarding the powerful seaport of Tyre. At the time, Tyre was perhaps the greatest port in that part of the world. It could be equated to New York City of today. The prophet Ezekiel outlined a prophecy in detail, naming several fates that awaited Tyre.
1. Nebuchadnezzar would destroy the city on the mainland.
2. More than one nation would come against it.
3. The city would be flattened like the top of a bare rock.
4. The area would become a site for spreading nets.
5. Stones and timbers would be thrown into the water.
6. The city would not be rebuilt.
7. Nearby rulers would give up their thrones.
n 586 B.C., Nebuchadnezzar destroyed the city on the mainland, forcing people to the island portion of the city. In 332 B.C. Alexander the Great began a siege of the island city. In order to reach it, he scraped the stones and timbers from the mainland city into the water to form a causeway. Due to the successful siege, many neighbor rulers surrendered to Alexander without a fight. Today the ancient mainland portion of Tyre remains a flat rock where local fishermen dry nets."
that was from www.evidenceofgod.com
entombed thinking he was dead? nope. Roman soldiers were required to guard the tomb from theft. There was a seal on the tomb put in place by the government, and if you broke it (you would have had to in order to open the tomb),you would be killed. If Jesus was inside, it would have been amazing for him to have been able to roll the HUGE stone away. There were slants in front of the tomb that made it easier (not necissarily easy) to put the stone in place, and it would take more than one man to move out of place. not to mention being unlikely that anyone could open the tomb from inside.
Homosexual Books for First Graders
Actually, stones used in Israel at the time to block tombs weighed at most 1 ton. That is a weight that a single man can tip over.
As for the guards, who said guards were immune to bribery? Joseph of Arimathia was a rich man and a supporter of Jesus. He could afford to dish out a few bribes here and there.
As for Roman Soldiers, it is doubtful they were roman at all. First Pilatus had said that he cared no more about Jesus' fate (the hand-washing). Second off, Romans soldiers would *not* have gone to the *Jewish* priests to report the theft - they would have gone to their commanding officer, rather than compounding their failure by not only failing to prevent the theft of the body, but failing to report it and running to the protection of Jewish priests who had no influence over roman military justice (administered after trial, in which the jury was made up of their fellow legionaries) anyway.
As for being dead, we have examples of just-captured war prisonners (ie, people who had been fighting in battle just before) surviving crucifixion, including an eyewitness report by the most famous historian of the region and era - Flavius Josephus.
In addition with crucifixion death was meant to last days, not a handful of hours as with Jesus.
That he would have survived and come back out is a very real possibility.
Homosexual Books for First Graders
Not my place to say. I don't rule out divine intervention, but the most mundane explanation always takes top priority with me. What happened to the man is as common as it should be (almost never) so I simply find nothing suspicious about it. It's comparable to winning the lottery. It just has to happen at some point.Scythemantis: By that logic, what is a miracle? What would you consider a miracle?
On the subject of psychic powers (something I've always had a bit of fun discussing):
The human brain formulates its thoughts in electricity. Electricity can travel. It can also make things move. We may not fully understand how "psychic" powers work right now, but they're definately rooted in the natural, not the supernatural.
Fish of the order Mormyridae (elephant fish or trunkfish) communicate with eachother, locate prey and detect oncoming predators with electrical impulses very similar to brainwaves, so we already know how it can work, just not for humans.
Homosexual Books for First Graders
Which is actually a false statement - because all you can say is that you've been told one thing, and that's all you're repeating. On the other hand, your opponents can say, "I don't have some religious doctrine governing my life - so I'm not basing all my decisions on that. While I may be listening to what other people say, I'm weighing up why they say it, and taking into account what actually is the case according to those directly and indirectly affected by the subject, rather than trusting the word of a book that was written in times when slavery was fine, and women were commodities and not people. Also, there is the fact that they're not harming me, and nobody else is being hurt either; and in very few, if any other religions, is it "immoral", and so the consensus would be that either it isn't, or there's no reason to believe it is."
Problem is that it's mucky, and needless. If there was reason for it, fine - but there's not. It's just laziness, and we don't accept one person doing something that others find irritating just because they can't be bothered adhering to the general rules/conditions that TPM works on. Why make two posts in a row when one is far tidier, and easier to keep track of (for you and for those you're talking to, and for the mods)? It makes sense and makes forum interaction far easier for the majority.Rusted One or Chris, I ask again. What's the problem with double posting? (or in the cases of some Chess-playing freaks, quindriple posting)
No need to edit, as this post will not be connected to the one you'll end up posting, and it won't be straight after this one.P.S. if the Rusted One reads this, I will respond to your post later and edit this post accordingly if necessary.
Of course, are the "miracles" historically accurate? By no means does anything say they are. Miracles are not fact; they are not supported by anything but the words the Bible says, and that, as most modern Christians claim, gives it over to interpretation anyway (given that if you were to take the Bible literally, you'd be met with a flood of scientific impossibilities, as was the problem with Christianity before people started telling others it was "only metaphorical"). If these are to be claimed as "historic fact", then I hereby claim that the acts of Herakles in Ancient Greece did, in fact, take place - and this would mean that everything the Bible says is wrong, anyway.
I want one of those historically supported Kerberoi; having a dog with three heads, that'd be cool.
Homosexual Books for First Graders
yeah5: you crack me up. You really shouldn't say anything else because you are just embarrassing yourself. Everytime you say anything about what the Bible says, you state it as if it is fact. That's fine that you believe in your faith, but that's the thing, it's your faith. There is no proof that Jesus is the son of God, or that God even exists, therefore, the reasonable, educated person, who is truly wise, no matter how Christian they are, would realize that the Christian Faith is not a good enough justification to hate homosexuals and to withhold reading material that contains homosexual content from first graders. That's censorship, discrimination, and just plain wrong.
Just because you do not agree with something, does not mean it's wrong. Learn to think for yourself rather than believing every word from one book written two thousand years ago is always right and in a perfect light. Think for yourself.
Homosexual Books for First Graders
First, Heracross: What you have just presented has no validity whatsoever. If you were to pay attention to this debate, you would see what you just said is being currently battled, and you aren't helping those who support the same thing you do by blatantly telling someone who is giving evidence to support his ideas to be quiet when you have done nothing to support your argument.
Homosexual Books for First Graders
wow. the Bible had some scientific accuracies that i don't think anyone knew at the time.
"The Shape of the Earth
"He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in" (Isaiah 40:22, NIV).
This may or may not be construed to support the spherical shape of the earth. The horizon is a circle and a circle is flat.
The Earth is suspended in nothing
"He spreads out the northern [skies] over empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing" (Job. 26:7, NIV).
This is particularly interesting considering that the cosmology of other cultures at that time did not have the earth suspended in nothing, but rather upon pillars, or people, or animals. "
http://www.carm.org/bible/ms_science.htm
actually i have given evidence of God outside the Bible . You just havn't seen it. Anyway, i havn't been talking about homosexuality for a while. that was pages ago probably, unless i'm mistaken
Homosexual Books for First Graders
it has just as much, if not more, validity than anything you have said, or anyone else who is a bible-thumper, has said. he states the simple truth, and nothing more. and if you're gonna put him down for stating simple truth, then what does that say about you?
Burning in water, drowning in flame
Homosexual Books for First Graders
Obviously, you have not been paying attention to the debate considering I have already posted several times with evidence backing my side of the argument. I simply realize that there is no point in debating with people like yeah5 who believe that everything in the Bible is fact, there is just no getting through to them.
Yeah5: Maybe you should dive into the theories on what happened to Atlantis and if Atlantis even existed. There is evidence from about 9,000 years ago (estimated) that shows they at least had the idea of airplanes, trains, and most importantly, nuclear weapons. And if somebody asks me to site that, forget it, I'm not going to the library and finding the book that said that, you can do it yourself if you really care that much.
What does all that have to do with this debate: Simply showing that simply because the Bible contains information on a round earth means nothing. There may have been past civilizations which could have been more advanced or close to where we are, who simply could have wiped themselves out with Nuclear War.
Besides, for hundreds of years people toyed with the idea of a round earth. It is fine to have faith, and I commend you for supporting it like you do, but it is just ignorant to try and support an argument with a book that a) not everybody believes in and agrees with and b) that has not been proven to be true.
Let's go into the political side of it. By denying homosexual books to first graders because the Bible doesn't agree with it, you are violating First Amendment Rights. Freedom of Privacy, Freedom of Association, Freedom of Religion, all of this is aimed at preventing the government from forcing a set of values onto a group of people. If you say "The Bible says this so we can't do it" you are forcing a set of values on many groups of people. That's unconstitutional.
By denying homosexual books to first graders you are promoting hate. Hate leads to discrimination, hate is what caused days like September 11.
Homosexuality is not wrong. If God truly exists, and you believe God made you the way you are, then why would God make one of his children homosexual, especially if he supposedly doesn't agree with that lifestyle? It is not a choice, so don't sit around and try to say that. I have friends, who spent years trying everything to become straight and be attracted to women. There are hundreds of documentaries following people who tried to do the exact same thing for their faith. It is not a choice, people are born that way, and there's nothing wrong with it.
You are in the wrong sir, and that's the bottom line.
Homosexual Books for First Graders
Rambunctious: I don't exactly see how that first paragraph actually helps the argument, but I will not blame you considering I have been being sidetrecked lately and I contributed to it. Yes, I know some people associate ravens with death.
I must apologize; like I said above, I have been shifting what I support slightly every post without noticing. My original argument was that animals could think, but not on the level of humans. So yes, camels can think; but I doubt they have a very human reason for rebelling, especially since other signs of human level intelligence would easily be noticable.
I never said supernatural experiences ment the person was practicing with them. I still have a few and I quit studying the supernatural arts quite some time ago. I also did not know Joan of Arc practiced witchcraft; that may mean what she thought was God may not have been Him at all, but the exact opposite (which is why the Bible stresses not to practice these arts).
It is their place to change. Refusing to do so is nothing but their fault, and it does not by any means say that it is impossible to change.
Yes, but my point is not right and wrong as in 'the right time to pounce', but as in why murder is wrong, or why adultry is wrong (they certainly don't know that), or why, in the case of the mantis, both are wrong.
I once again say you do not have to know the problem to fix it. If the person is willing to change, they will change. Knowing what caused it may help, but it is by no means necessary. How exactly would it be? (me as an example: I've liked this specific girl for some three years. For the longest time, I simply couldn't escape my thoughts and attraction to her because I did not believe I could or that I had to. When I finally accepted it wouldn't work out, slowly thoughts of her faded from my mind until now, where she is just any other person.) I know the Rusted One will read and be appalled by what I just said, that anybody can change, but let me ask you: have you tried to change with all intentions to?
Of course a person accustomed to their way of life will fight change. But so will everyone, and if they mean to they will eventually accept the change as the right way. When I said physically impossible, I ment it was just impossible. Sorry for the inaccuracy of my words.
Yes, but Adam and Eve did not necessarily name every single creature (I may be wrong on that, so correct me if I am). They also did not label every creature with an image, like snakes for evil or rabbits for...whatever image they have.
Homosexual Books for First Graders
Rei Zero, I apologize for my crudeness towards your posts. Just next time, don't be so harsh, please. Now you've already stated what we argued about did not disprove the Bible, so let's move on (I see you already have).
What yeah5 said was right. They made sure Jesus was dead before they buried him, and that also would not explain how he escaped the tomb, since he would be too weak to open it himself and their were two roman soldiers guarding it.
Scythemantis: Saying what happened to that man and winning the lottery is certainly not a good comparison, considering the chances of the man surviving the jerk from the end of the rope (not breaking his neck), and having the gun fire in the exactly right place, then falling into the water and surviving long enough to vomit up the poison are much more unlikely than winning the lottery.
I like your idea on psychic powers. I'm not going to stick to them being supernatural because the Bible does not say they are (I also kind of believe that myself). So I withdraw my example of psychic abilities being evil.
Homosexual Books for First Graders
no, they didn't name every single creature. mainly because adam and eve didn't exist.
Burning in water, drowning in flame
Homosexual Books for First Graders
actually, you have no factual proof for this. only assumptions.
Homosexual Books for First Graders
haha. atlantis? show me evidence that they existed. I've already show histoprical accuracies of the Bible. People thought the Bible was wrong that a Hittite empire existed. Then they found the Hittite empire's capital. Now mention of that empire is in my public school textbook.
ill try to check out about atlantis. i don't know much about it.
Homosexual Books for First Graders
People believe dolphins are always friendly so if a person is injured by a dolphin, it will be brushed off as a 'freak accident.' If a raven helps a person, it will be brushed off as a 'freak accident' if the people believe that ravens are usually a sign of death.
Go freak accidents!
A human reason for rebelling would be:
1. Disapprove of conditions
2. For the fun of it
3. Wanting something new
etc.
The first one can be the camel's reasoning. Another would be just to lay down more without being moved.
Practicing supernatural arts would mean believing in them in the first place. Though supernatural arts would have to have a very large classfication system...
Joan of Arc was condemned for witchcraft even though it might have not been witchcraft. The last witch was condemned in the 1950's during WWII.
Don't you just love modern politics?
So by telling them that their views need to be changed and them fighting the change is their fault? It's human instinct to fight sudden changes, even if it could be helpful.
I think that's why mental asylums were invented
Though murder is wrong in the human's view of the world, we could lose a few million people just to stop overpopulation...
That example is good, except for the fact that if God created all animals, then he created the mantis to be what they are today. Though not all mantises eat their mates, just the slow ones.
Knowing the problem helps get rid of it. If someone feared aliens but didn't know that was the problem, then how does one overcome it? Several tests, yes, but that would pinpoint the problem. Hypnosis as well pinpoints the problem.
Example, I have a fear of falling. I didn't know about it until I was hanging art over the stairwell. If I didn't know that this was my problem around heights, then I'd have to go through different tests to find out what was scaring me.
I have extremely short memory loss. I cannot remember what happened during lunch last Thursday though I did talk quite a bit. I remember visuals though, quite well. I have not made many "intentional" changes because I've gone through slow changes that happen subconsciously in me and I haven't "grown up" yet.
Some people don't accept change. That's one reason why so many people in Iraq are fighting over the different views that the world is throwing at them and why so many soldiers are being attacked. Another reason would be why assassins still exist. They do believe that killing can be wrong but money talks, extremely well.
The Native Americans resented the fact that the Europeans were forcing them into Catholicism. So they fought, until the Europeans won and "accepted" it. This didn't mean they wanted it but there wasn't any way to fight it anymore.
(Note: This is not done to "bash" Catholicism, this is made to show how people can fight change).
Then what did they call them? 'It?' They had a name, even if it wasn't one we recognize today. The two could them 'camel' or 'creature with hump on back.' Much like 'dog' is in English and 'chien' in French.
I call Pegasus!
I was about to say Cerebus but then remember the translations from Greek to English...
It's more likely that you will be hit by lightning and bitten by a shark than it is to win lottery...here, sharky, sharky, sharky.
Homosexual Books for First Graders
The Bibles assumptions...please show me where every bit of the Bible factually happened.
Homosexual Books for First Graders
need i go trhough this?
People thought the Hittite empire was fake (recorded in the bible) until it was found.
People though the word "Canaan" was wrongy used in the Bible until a document mentioning it from some time around 2300 BC was found http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a008.html
"In 586 B.C. the prophet Ezekiel was given a detailed prophecy regarding the powerful seaport of Tyre. At the time, Tyre was perhaps the greatest port in that part of the world. It could be equated to New York City of today. The prophet Ezekiel outlined a prophecy in detail, naming several fates that awaited Tyre.
1. Nebuchadnezzar would destroy the city on the mainland.
2. More than one nation would come against it.
3. The city would be flattened like the top of a bare rock.
4. The area would become a site for spreading nets.
5. Stones and timbers would be thrown into the water.
6. The city would not be rebuilt.
7. Nearby rulers would give up their thrones.
n 586 B.C., Nebuchadnezzar destroyed the city on the mainland, forcing people to the island portion of the city. In 332 B.C. Alexander the Great began a siege of the island city. In order to reach it, he scraped the stones and timbers from the mainland city into the water to form a causeway. Due to the successful siege, many neighbor rulers surrendered to Alexander without a fight. Today the ancient mainland portion of Tyre remains a flat rock where local fishermen dry nets. "
http://www.evidenceofgod.com/answers/archaeology5.htm
Homosexual Books for First Graders
First I'll speak with The Rusted One. I get what you're saying about the light analogy. I agree that because I'm a Christian I have a greater likelihood of interpretting something as a divine revelation than you would. However, my bias does not necessarily make me wrong. To say so would be an example of logical fallacy ad hominem, attacking the man, not the argument. My being a Christian doesn't mean I will always interpret incorrectly. The veracity of any man is hit or miss. While some men are right more than others no man is always right or always wrong. (Jesus could be considered an exception to this seeing as how he was God's son, and on important matters spoke God's message)
Also, I have another point for you. You say it's likely that if they feel the same than the bio-chemical processes are the same. I agree with that. It is 'likely'. Your logic is sensible, but not certain. When a hypochondriac is given a placebo to cure his 'flu', it is likely that he is healed the same way since the flu is still cured. However, this of course is not the actual case. Now unlike the hypochondriac's flu, your feelings do exist. Don't hold my rough analogy against me. But what I'm saying is that what is likely is not necessarily true.
Also, a couple posts ago you said that you were yet to feel either. It was your post before last. Could you please explain that. I apologize that I can't quote it for you because I don't know how without deleting what I've already written. (this paragraph is the last paragraph I wrote in this post)
Damien, I'd like to offer you a friendly welcome back. I was worried the spamming epidemic had annoyed you out of this thread. After all, I never believed for a minute that you ran out of alleged Biblical flaws.
Speaking of Biblical flaws I responded to the last of the remaining ones, so right now I think that evidence against the Bible's accuracy is currently not standing. (please correct me if I'm wrong) I'm sure with you back this is merely temporary relief.
Also, could you just post a few biblical flaws at a time so I'm not so overwhelmed in researching them? Just asking a friendly favor.
Now on to the attack on Jesus' times. The gospels don't record Jesus speaking on a whole lot of controversial topics. This isn't to say he didn't. John concluded his gospel by saying "Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written."
The Gospels are primarily focused on showing that Jesus was the prophesied messiah and the son of god.
As far as no proof of miracles, that all depends on how much you trust history. As I said, Luke was found flawless by an atheistic archaeologist (so flawless in fact, that the atheist later became a christian being influenced by the accuracy of the Bible)
Luke recorded miracles such as Jesus healing ten lepors, and Jesus giving sight to a blind man. Just to name a couple.
Also, there's a logical problem with your theory of the apostles stealing the body of Jesus. Why??? All they got from it was agonizing persecution and death! Several were crucified!
Also, when Jesus died, the apostles were very depressed. Most returned to what they were doing three years earlier. Like fishing for a living.
On the issue of the Roman Soldiers being bribed, not likely. The roman soldiers ran a severe risk of being torturously executed for letting people get past them. Also, Paul accounts for more than 500 people seeing Jesus after he rose from the dead.
Jesus rose, and they were from then on on fire for the Lord. They endured awful scourgings. The first few centuries were brutal toward Christians and yet the Christian faith. How could something inspired by a theft create such fortitude.
The evidence is astounding.
Homosexual Books for First Graders
You do realize that that proves nothing? The Bible was written after all those events. All it does is show that the Bible was written to be more historically accurate than once thought. The history within it could easily have been copied from library scriptures or gotten through oral history. It doesn't prove that God existed. The Bible could easily have been comprised of both factual and false information.
But the question is did he actually get out of that tomb? It could just as easily have been made up that Jesus got out of the tomb. There is no sources other than the Bible that says he actually did walk out, and the Bible isn't the most reliable of sources.What yeah5 said was right. They made sure Jesus was dead before they buried him, and that also would not explain how he escaped the tomb, since he would be too weak to open it himself and their were two roman soldiers guarding it.
Homosexual Books for First Graders
Strange.
Because the Tyre I know of (yes, it's the biblical one) is definitely not flattened to a bare rock - in fact the ruins of the ancient Tyre (which remained a major seaport of the mediteranean well into the Crusades era a millenium and a half after Alexander) are perfectly visible today, still visited, and part of the UNESCO World Heritage Organization protected sites.
Also, "would not be raised again", Alexander fail abyssymaly there - since Tyre was a major seaport for another 1500 years after he died, and in fact still is a decently sized town on the map with 14 000-15 000 inhabitants.
"The city would not be rebuilt" indeed...
The lesson to learned from this Yeah5 is - when you want solid history, check the facts with historians, or the books they wrote. Not with Theologians. When you want to prove a biblical prophecy happened fully, then *double*-check the historical facts - with the people whose job it is to study them.
Homosexual Books for First Graders
A circle is, indeed, flat. A circle is also not a sphere. If I say circle, I don't mean sphere - unless I'm a small child who doesn't know the difference. If the Bible had said, "ball", then that would have validity. It didn't. Are we, then, to surmise that the Bible was written by a number of children?
This assumes that the Earth, being flat, has an up and down, and therefore can be suspended over something. It cannot be. The Earth is not flat (nor circular), and therefore there is no up nor down in order for it to sit "over" something. Now, this fact also means that the Earth is not suspended at all - it just is where it is. To be suspended, you must be frozen in an environment where you can go up or down, and there must be something holding you up. Given that we know there is no up nor down, and there is nothing holding the Earth up, this statement is fallacious.The Earth is suspended in nothing
"He spreads out the northern [skies] over empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing" (Job. 26:7, NIV).
This is particularly interesting considering that the cosmology of other cultures at that time did not have the earth suspended in nothing, but rather upon pillars, or people, or animals. "
Not only this, but the myths of Ancient Greece say nothing of the Earth being supported on pillars, or people, or animals. The Earth, to them, was a great woman, who lay in the emptiness called "Chaos", which was a void of nothing. Your claim is fallacious, as is that of the website.
Also, quoting "prophecies" is hardly helping you - if I say, "you know, back in 570 something BCE there was a guy called Solon made up a bunch of laws because he knew that in 2,500 years the world would work around the principles of democracy that would follow on from his laws," would you believe me? If not, why not? I could say that he was a prophet, but because the people of Ancient Greece believed that it was the Pythia at Delphi who was the one seeing the future because the gods told her - but given that you wouldn't believe in those gods, could it not be possible that it wasn't necessary to be the Pythia to have such powers of future-sight? I'd say that if it could happen in the Bible, it could happen to people elsewhere in history - so Solon must have been one such person, especially given the fact that it was the first kind of government like that in Ancient Greece; elsewhere it was strictly oligarchic - so he would be taking on quite a fair bit of opposition. In fact, Solon decided to leave Athens, where the laws were instituted, for ten years to ensure the laws wouldn't be repealed at his hand - I reckon he must've known that if he stayed, he'd be pressured to change them again. I reckon he was given a prophecy, or that he was a prophet.
And you know the problem? I can say all of this in retrospect, as your sources do, because when you know what happened you can change what you say happened so that you can tell history the way you want it. You aren't guessing, as you would if you were trying to predict the future - you know what happened, and how it is now - and so changing details or adding them in to fit in with the present isn't at all hard.
Checkmate - I'm not totally sure of this, as I haven't read the Bible in detail - but is there not to accounts of the "Creation" that differ from each other?
No, I didn't say that because you're Christian you're always wrong when interpreting things; I said that because you're Christian, you're always going to interpret things the way they're told to you by the Bible or other Christian people. That doesn't make you always wrong - you would undoubtedly say that killing someone is wrong - but it doesn't make you always right, either.
The problem with this is that, while you use the hypochondriac example, you then state that what I might feel is unlike that - so it undercuts the entire example anyway. I know what is likely is not necessarily true - but in the absence of any evidence, why would you suppose otherwise? I could say that, because you aren't me, you might not feel the same feelings I do for someone of the opposite gender that I'm currently the partner of - but I have nothing to suggest this, and so I'm left assuming that you do feel the same for your loved one as I might for mine. Even if I didn't, though, if I identify something as love, and for me it feels like love, there is no reason to suppose that the feeling is any less great than anyone else's who is also "in love".Also, I have another point for you. You say it's likely that if they feel the same than the bio-chemical processes are the same. I agree with that. It is 'likely'. Your logic is sensible, but not certain. When a hypochondriac is given a placebo to cure his 'flu', it is likely that he is healed the same way since the flu is still cured. However, this of course is not the actual case. Now unlike the hypochondriac's flu, your feelings do exist. Don't hold my rough analogy against me. But what I'm saying is that what is likely is not necessarily true.
I think I stated that I'm yet to feel what it's like to be in either a heterosexual or homosexual relationship; not that I've not had feelings of some sort for anyone, but that I've never been in a relationship with anyone (due to fear in the case of two girls I had feelings for [I was 12 and 13 during each example, and the first I never found out felt the same until years later, and the second was quite open about it and I felt confronted and uncomfortable when I was first told - so I lied and said I felt nothing but friendship to avoid the entire situation (and these are the only girls I've had feelings for so far) - and in the case of the guy, that's current, but is basically sexual attraction given that I don't have any idea of who this guy is beyond sight [as shallow as that sounds] - and given that I'm far too scared to say anything [and the fear of being rejected plays into it, of course]).Also, a couple posts ago you said that you were yet to feel either. It was your post before last. Could you please explain that. I apologize that I can't quote it for you because I don't know how without deleting what I've already written. (this paragraph is the last paragraph I wrote in this post)
Homosexual Books for First Graders
a) Rusted One, I forgot to conclude in my last post that both of our feelings could be labeled placebo effects. That's why my beliefs are based on more than my personal feelings.
b) I'm not saying you're wrong, about the two creations, but I'm certainly not saying you're right. I've never heard of that, and while you're a much better debater than Pokemaniac Bill, I must tell you the same thing. I can't really answer to it unless you give me scriptures. I obviously know where the first is but have never heard of the second.
Now onto Rei Zero. It is fact that the body of Jesus is not in Joseph of Arimathia's tomb. There was no 'whoops wrong sepulcher' it is certain. The pharisees, when told that Jesus was not in the tomb would have certainly pointed the disciples to the correct tomb had their been a mistake.
Also, a further counter to the bribe theory. The pharisees had alot more money than the twelve disciples, and could have out-bribed them easily to quell what could turn out to be a revolution against Rome and against them.
And Damien, how do you respond to my answers to the remaining flaws you posted?
Homosexual Books for First Graders
Any feeling, then, could just be placebo (which I don't dismiss as possible) - but it totally nullifies any point that may have been made about the verity of feelings experienced by one person or another. This means that I can't be told (to link it back to the original topic of debate) that my feelings and knowledge that are limited to myself only can be questioned, nor can what I do know be spoken of as false by another person to me.
As for the two "Creations", I'm unsure of where they were - which is why I didn't state it as a fact that there are, in fact, two accounts. Given that we do not possess a Bible in my house, I can also not look it up for you - nor would I like to try, given that it may take me a long time to find it. The only thing I do know, if there are two, is that many Creationists regard one "Creation" as that of the universe, etc., and one of "Eden", though there is no proof nor evidence suggesting that they are not two different accounts of the same supposed thing. Given that, I'm tempted to say I'm not fabricating it and then convincing myself that it is the case.
Homosexual Books for First Graders
I know it's worlds apart from a lottery ticket, just meant to say that it's a comparable process. Exactly the right numbers coming up in exactly the right sequence.Scythemantis: Saying what happened to that man and winning the lottery is certainly not a good comparison, considering the chances of the man surviving the jerk from the end of the rope (not breaking his neck), and having the gun fire in the exactly right place, then falling into the water and surviving long enough to vomit up the poison are much more unlikely than winning the lottery.
The problem is just that there are different kinds of psychic. A lot of people think that "psychic powers" are all about crystal balls, ouija boards, astrology and other carnival gypsy stuff that could certainly be seen as contradictory with biblical law. Serious psychics find this association rather insulting. "Real" psychic power is simple telekinesis and telepathy, not fortune-telling or conversing with the dead.I like your idea on psychic powers. I'm not going to stick to them being supernatural because the Bible does not say they are (I also kind of believe that myself). So I withdraw my example of psychic abilities being evil.
I'm not sure which category precognition would fall under, though. Actually knowing the future sounds impossible, more into the magical side of things, but on the other hand, I don't think it's too far-fetched to say that a powerful enough mind could predict the outcome of events by picking up on the immediate details, just as we can tell when something is about to fall or hear when someone is approaching.
Homosexual Books for First Graders
Sythemantis: I suppose you may be right about the man who tried to kill himself so many times, but you also must be aware there are miracles. If you were to do a little research on the topic you would find quite a few 'notable' instances, to put it that way.
On the topic of psychic powers, I myself am fully aware of what true psychic abilities are. I also know that in order to do anything major with them you must do years upon years of practice (a certain person I've heard of: Nina Kuligina <not sure on the name> is particularly good). Among the other types of psychic gifts (and I also believe not everyone can harness them and put them to actual use) include precognition, claravoiyance, and the aforementiones telepathy and telekinesis. However, this is off topic. If you ever want to talk about it just private message me and I'll be happy to discuss.
Homosexual Books for First Graders
That's my entire point. A human's feelings alone cannot be considered sole basis for an argument, because human A's experiences can completely contradict Human B's experience. That is why I base my faith not on personal experiences alone.
Damien has brought up Tyre, but so far most of the flaws people have proposed in the Bible have been taken down. I'm still waiting for Damien to respond to my question on Quirinius.
The Bible has been deemed accurate by countless authorities. Not limited to Christians. A part of Christianity is faith. I doubt any sincere Christian would question that statement. But Christ does not call people to blind faith. If he did, he wouldn't have performed the countless miracles he did. The Bible does stand up against investigation, and that's one of the reasons I am, (and proud to say it) a Christian.
Homosexual Books for First Graders
Rambunctious: Supernatural powers is a very broad category indeed, and I do believe in them as does the Bible say they are real. When Moses turned his staff into a snake, Pharoah's magicians were also able to do so, however, Moses's snake devoured the magicians'.
So Joan of Arc may not have been practicing witchcraft? Oh and yes, modern politics are the most honorable thing to date...
Them continuing to resist change after the initial reaction to it is their fault. Also, instinct can be overcome.
Murder is wrong, yes, but we will continue to have it no matter what you do. On the case of overpopulation, even murder doesn't do much to keep that in check.
That's my point. Animals don't understand right and wrong because they were not designed to. Animal intelligence only goes to a certain level, one that still remains below that of human intellect.
Actually, the mantids that eat their mates are not the slow ones (all females are slow when ready to lay eggs), but the ones who need the nutrition for the eggs and whos mates are not fast enough. If people start doing that, then we've got quite a problem.
Knowing the problem does help, but homosexuals know they're homosexuals, and from their they need to decide if they're going to change. I myself am absent minded. I don't know how many times I have forgotten my library books for months at a time (I had a some thirty five dollar fine not too long ago and am sitting on a fifteen dollar one right now).
The people in Iraq rebel not because they don't accept change (that's only part of the reason), but also because the people doing the change are the ones who just beat them back in a war and are forcing it upon them (I'm neutral on this argument). About the assassins, hey, what can I say? Some people have very flexible morals.
Thing is though, forcing change upon a person's general way of life is much different than saying one particular thing they are doing is wrong and why it is wrong.
I imagine they loosely named the creatures to identify them (thing with hump on its back). But this is up for speculation.
Homosexual Books for First Graders
Yeah5: You truly are a dumbass. Did you not read through my post or was it just too complex for you to understand. I never said Atlantis existed, nobody knows if it did or not, I said that in the search for theories on where Atlantis could have existed, they found evidence suggesting either a creative mastermind primitive human being, or the possiblity of an advanced culture several thousand years ago.
You and your "historical evidence" for the Bible is silly. You have assumed a lot of things. Yes Jesus existed and was crucified, BUT if you ask most historians, they will give you a completely different explanation for how. Most believe he was crucified on a TREE, not on a CROSS. The Romans crucified thousands of people, it wasn't something special done just for Jesus. They lined the roads leading to Rome with the victims as a warning, and in the day and time that Jesus lived, instead of building crosses they had resorted to using trees because of lack of time and willpower to spend the money to build a cross.
And besides, so what that he died on the cross. There is no proof that he was put in a tomb, that is assumed (they do have theories on where the tomb could have been).
You do not think, and that's the problem. Many books have been written in history based on a true person or an actual event with tons of made up fiction intertwined to spice it up. Just because Jesus existed does not mean he is the son of God. That's your problem. You are assuming it as fact and trying to push your faith on people
I noticed how you completely ignored the bulk of the argument, and that's on politics, so either I suggest you defend how it's right to completely forget The Bill Of Rights, specifically the First Amendment, or leave the debate considering nothing you have said is fact, only faith, which should never be used to justify anything because it is forcing beliefes on groups of people who may not necessarily agree with it.
I'm not saying you have to agree with homosexuality, but, you have no right to withold homosexual books from first graders or any child or person simply because your faith does not agree with it.
Just because you don't agree with something does not mean it's wrong.
Grow up, use actually support. Jesus did exist, but there is still no proof that he is the son of God or that God actually exists. Politically speaking, is it right to defy Democracy, to defy the American Constitution that has been the reason for bring our great nation to his current sole superpower status, to it's current prosperity? Is it right to get rid of our freedoms, simply because your religion might not agree with them?
No, it's not.
Actually read my post before responding, and refute my arguments or don't say anything. I don't need to hear your assumptions that everything that happened to Jesus actually happened, there is no proof, nor was his case and death anything special to the time.
It is fine to have faith, but it is not right to force it on anybody else.
Homosexual Books for First Graders
The rebels in Iraq do not reflect the desire and wants of all people in Iraq, despite what the media leads you to believe.
Drama sells, not happy stories.
(This is off topic, and you probably didn't believe that the rebels reflected everybody in Iraq, I just had to make that statement because very few people in this topic seem to actually have a brain)
Homosexual Books for First Graders
Why would the bribe necessarily come from the disciples? Joseph of Arimathia was described as a rich man I believe, and besides which, it's not like the Pharisees would have been able to fight a biding war with whoever bribed the guards - seeing as there's no point to bribing the guards if you do so in such a way that the pharisees know about it).
As for our historical debate, I'm afraid I lost a lot of your points in the onrush of spam and multiple posting from both sides. If you would like me to look over them again, feel free to repost them, or we could take the bible vs history debate out of this topic to another thread (or simply let it drop and agree to disagree).
Homosexual Books for First Graders
Sorovis...I don't think you've read a word of my post, or chose to ignore it. Right and wrong are not thoughts that we are born with. It is learned. An animal also learns this. A dog never commits the same mistake twice if it is scolded at. It'll know that it is unacceptable, so even when the situation arrives, it would avoid doing the mistake again (this of course only occurs if it doesn't take orders/listens to another person as well). Humans learn right and wrong when they are told it is bad, or when they commit bad things and then are punished. We don't have any beforehand knowledge of this. If you tell me we do then think back to a time you did something wrong. Did you know it was wrong? An Omega in a wolf pack knows it is the underdog. It almost never ever challenges the pecking order. In that case, it knows it would be doing something wrong in a wolf's POV. It knows this because it has been shown and taught from day one what happens when an omega challenges order. A person only knows that stealing is bad because he is taught from day one that it was bad and was shown what happened when you stole from someone else. If you don't believe this, think for a few minutes that if you were never told that stealing was bad, would you know that it was?
So are you going to refute that or just ignore it?
So is the fact that Jesus wasn't in the tomb something written just in the Bible or something that was documented as actual historical account?Now onto Rei Zero. It is fact that the body of Jesus is not in Joseph of Arimathia's tomb. There was no 'whoops wrong sepulcher' it is certain. The pharisees, when told that Jesus was not in the tomb would have certainly pointed the disciples to the correct tomb had their been a mistake.
The Bible, however, has not been deemed 100% accurate. Not even close. Even if it is very accurate on many of the historical accounts that doesn't mean it doesn't have things that aren't true. Most, if not all, of the facts in the Bible deemed accurate have other sources to support it. There are no other sources from history to state that all those miracles happened. If he doesn't call people to blind faith than he would have something to verify to the people of the modern world things did happen, now that the bible is in question.The Bible has been deemed accurate by countless authorities. Not limited to Christians. A part of Christianity is faith. I doubt any sincere Christian would question that statement. But Christ does not call people to blind faith. If he did, he wouldn't have performed the countless miracles he did. The Bible does stand up against investigation, and that's one of the reasons I am, (and proud to say it) a Christian.
Your attraction to a certain gender is an instinct. To turn off an instinct is like asking a person to not run away from a car coming 90 mph at him. Why should they supress their own most basic of feelings when they aren't doing anyone harm just because people don't like it. Heck, if you don't like it you aren't being forced to be subjected to or witnessing it. Think of it this way. If society was mostly homosexual, the Bible said heterosexuality is wrong, and you are the one subject to the prejudice because you were a homosexual, would you think it right to strip away your rights just because you had a certain preferance for something and some book said that it was wrong? It would be like if society said you are not allowed to eat neopolitan ice cream because society didn't like it, even though it never affected anyone and you liked to eat it.Knowing the problem does help, but homosexuals know they're homosexuals, and from their they need to decide if they're going to change. I myself am absent minded. I don't know how many times I have forgotten my library books for months at a time (I had a some thirty five dollar fine not too long ago and am sitting on a fifteen dollar one right now).
Homosexual Books for First Graders
No, of course one person's feelings can't be the sole basis for an argument - but, when a person is claiming for themselves that something is true of themselves, then it cannot be refuted by someone who has no similar experience. Also, when there are countless people in similar situations to the person making the claims, and they make similar claims, then it would be the most logical thing to believe that they are speaking not about some freak occurence, but of something that holds true for almost all, if not all, people in their situation. I base what I believe on what I know; and I don't believe in things which are unsupported by something universal, like science. I'm not Christian, and many millions of people are not either; specific religions are not universal, particularly when compared to the fact that science is (and even those parts of science that many Creationists discount because they're theories; science doesn't fabricate things, but rather observes and theorises based on what the observations say).
The thing is, if something is deemed accurate, it needn't mean it is entirely accurate - rather, those parts that refer to something that we know happened (not necessarily anything to do with Jesus at all) are reported in a fashion that portrays all facts we know to be true of that specific incident. That doesn't mean that the whole thing is accurate, nor does it necessarily give us any account of truth in some instances - it just means that some parts of it are true. I could refer to the Trojan War, for instance; it was held to have happened during the "previous" age in Greek history from the one it was recorded by Homer in - and this was true, as evidence supports a Greek attack on the city lying where Troy was reportedly sited during the Mycenaean Age. The Iliad speaks of kings of the separate poleis in Greece, and yet during the ages contemporary to Homer and subsequent poets, monarchies were only found in Sparta, and were not solely monarchies anyway (Sparta was in fact a Diarchy, mixed with such things as oligarchy and elements of democracy) - and yet in Mycenaean Greece, kings, known in singular terms as "Wanax", ruled palaces. The Iliad goes so far as labelling King Agamemnon as "Anax", a title derived from "Wanax".The Bible has been deemed accurate by countless authorities. Not limited to Christians. A part of Christianity is faith. I doubt any sincere Christian would question that statement. But Christ does not call people to blind faith. If he did, he wouldn't have performed the countless miracles he did. The Bible does stand up against investigation, and that's one of the reasons I am, (and proud to say it) a Christian.
The point of that drawn out comparison was to demonstrate that while an account of something may be full of historically accurate facts and bits of information, it is by no means accurate in its entirety; nobody is a proponent nowadays that Athene actually favoured a man called Odysseus over all others in the Greek army, or even that Odysseus existed; nobody purports that the war was indirectly caused by three quibbling goddesses and was about the most beautiful woman in the world. It would be folly to suggest so, given that there is no reason to believe, aside from the accounts, that any of these things are real. The same is true of the Bible - it contains some fact, some serious embellishment.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
