America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 7 years ago by frankj1. 126 replies replies.
3 Pages<123>
Bible passage predicts presidential race result
Jump to Bottom | Previous Topic | Next Topic
jjanecka Offline
#51 Posted: Mon, Sep 5 2016, 8:51 PM EST
Joined: 12-08-2015
Posts: 4,334
We'll know for certain when that Temple gets rebuilt and he starts talking again.
frankj1 Offline
#52 Posted: Mon, Sep 5 2016, 8:59 PM EST
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,221
will I have to pledge money to the Building Fund again?
Speyside Offline
#53 Posted: Mon, Sep 5 2016, 10:00 PM EST
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
What was your first pledge? Solomon' temple?
tonygraz Offline
#54 Posted: Mon, Sep 5 2016, 10:25 PM EST
Joined: 08-11-2008
Posts: 20,253
TMCTLT wrote:
+1


The ones you deny or ignore like the moron you are.
tonygraz Offline
#55 Posted: Mon, Sep 5 2016, 10:30 PM EST
Joined: 08-11-2008
Posts: 20,253
MACS wrote:
There is one thing science can't quite resolve.

Scientists believe you can't create something from nothing. The big bang doesn't explain how the entire universe was created out of nothing. It just popped into existence?


Did that hurt ? If something can't come from nothing where did God come from (assuming you are a believer) ?

And when you figure that out explain infinity ?
victor809 Offline
#56 Posted: Tue, Sep 6 2016, 12:05 AM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
The difference is science tries to find an explanation. And continues to push that explanation for consistency.

Religion is weak and takes the easy way out. Anything which doesn't have an easy explanation is just filled in with "and then... God". It's weak.
TMCTLT Offline
#57 Posted: Tue, Sep 6 2016, 4:56 AM EST
Joined: 11-22-2007
Posts: 19,733
tonygraz wrote:
The ones you deny or ignore like the moron you are.



Such a sweet sweet man Tony......how's them GURKHA's smokin for ya?

frankj1 Offline
#58 Posted: Tue, Sep 6 2016, 7:31 AM EST
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,221
Speyside wrote:
What was your first pledge? Solomon' temple?

said one old FOG to another!
jjanecka Offline
#59 Posted: Tue, Sep 6 2016, 7:32 AM EST
Joined: 12-08-2015
Posts: 4,334
Can't take the word of any man who smokes Gurkhas and likes them...

Additionally, Victor, you need to remember what the purpose and aim of a pure science and a pure religion is. That is to find Absolute Truth. Therefore the argument becomes philosophical.

I'll give you that some religions or religious denominations are weak. As explained earlier that Science's role in Religion is to destroy superstition and vice versa. Go back and read some of my comments from before I've already addressed this.
MACS Offline
#60 Posted: Tue, Sep 6 2016, 7:56 AM EST
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,779
tonygraz wrote:
Did that hurt ? If something can't come from nothing where did God come from (assuming you are a believer) ?

And when you figure that out explain infinity ?


We don't have the answers. Some questions are just not able to be answered.
Speyside Offline
#61 Posted: Tue, Sep 6 2016, 8:29 AM EST
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
And I almost spelled Solomon's right Frank!
tailgater Offline
#62 Posted: Tue, Sep 6 2016, 8:32 AM EST
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
tonygraz wrote:
If something can't come from nothing where did God come from (assuming you are a believer) ?



Might be the single most stupid post in CBid history.

Clue: Look up the word "Faith".

Matters not if you personally believe in God. The definition remains constant.
tailgater Offline
#63 Posted: Tue, Sep 6 2016, 8:38 AM EST
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
victor809 wrote:
The difference is science tries to find an explanation. And continues to push that explanation for consistency.

Religion is weak and takes the easy way out. Anything which doesn't have an easy explanation is just filled in with "and then... God". It's weak.


As an engineer, I "get" science.
I like to see evidence and facts and figures to support what is believed to be true.

But don't kid yourself.
Religion isn't easy. Not by any definition of the term.

Blaming the unknown on God merely shifts the question of "How?" to the question of "Why?"

If I were tasked with solving just one of those, I'd always choose the former.

Covfireman Offline
#64 Posted: Tue, Sep 6 2016, 11:29 AM EST
Joined: 09-03-2015
Posts: 809
Couldn't faith then manifest matter first? If there was enough faith in it? Is that why the older gods no longer influence the world as much ? Or does an alternative explanation scare you ?

As someone mentioned faith in God was where our morals evolved from , I guess that explains tony's dishonesty . The 8th commandment and all .

.223 and 6" of steel .
victor809 Offline
#65 Posted: Tue, Sep 6 2016, 11:43 AM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
Tail, don't give me a sob story about "why" being a hard thing to answer. The decision to stop at whatever "why" religion stops at is arbitrary, and generally lines up with where our knowledge has ended.
ZRX1200 Offline
#66 Posted: Tue, Sep 6 2016, 11:58 AM EST
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,606
I just renamed my pecker .223
TMCTLT Offline
#67 Posted: Tue, Sep 6 2016, 12:06 PM EST
Joined: 11-22-2007
Posts: 19,733
ZRX1200 wrote:
I just renamed my pecker .223




I like it....was .556 already taken???
frankj1 Offline
#68 Posted: Tue, Sep 6 2016, 12:16 PM EST
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,221
#66 and 67 aside...

is this the only place on Earth where a discussion about The Good Book can whip up so much hate and bile?

Does anyone practice it's words, or just try to prove that their interpretation is the correct one and others' are wrong?

HA!
Speyside Offline
#69 Posted: Tue, Sep 6 2016, 12:18 PM EST
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
LMAO!
Speyside Offline
#70 Posted: Tue, Sep 6 2016, 12:20 PM EST
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
At .223 and .556.
Covfireman Offline
#71 Posted: Tue, Sep 6 2016, 12:33 PM EST
Joined: 09-03-2015
Posts: 809
ZRX1200 wrote:
I just renamed my pecker .223


I thought it was the quarter inch killer ?
MACS Offline
#72 Posted: Tue, Sep 6 2016, 1:00 PM EST
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,779
You know Frank, what I find amusing is that both sides have 'faith'. They both 'believe' they're right, and neither of them can prove or disprove the other.

*shrug*
ZRX1200 Offline
#73 Posted: Tue, Sep 6 2016, 1:24 PM EST
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,606
#66???


Why was my post hateful and Bile Frank????
jjanecka Offline
#74 Posted: Tue, Sep 6 2016, 2:59 PM EST
Joined: 12-08-2015
Posts: 4,334
frankj1 wrote:
#66 and 67 aside...

is this the only place on Earth where a discussion about The Good Book can whip up so much hate and bile?

Does anyone practice it's words, or just try to prove that their interpretation is the correct one and others' are wrong?

HA!



I don't condemn atheists for their very finite view of life and philosophy nor do I condemn other Christian denominations or other religions for their very surface level analysis of scripture amd Church history. Some people just cannot handle that level of depth or feel that it's unnecessary to learn that much without becoming a priest/preacher. My brothers are prime examples of this; they're both great guys, try to be charitable, et cetera. They really don't care that the majority of the tabernacles in a Catholic Church are lined with cedar and built much according to leviticus on how the Ark of the Covenant was built. They just want to be better men than they were the day before.a lot of folks just want to live everyday.

I don't think there's really a condemnation of values here. Rather there is a discussion and the point should be made that the discussion shouldn't be about disproving God but rather what opportunities can religion benefit from science and what opportunities science can benefit from religion.
frankj1 Offline
#75 Posted: Tue, Sep 6 2016, 4:23 PM EST
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,221
ZRX1200 wrote:
#66???


Why was my post hateful and Bile Frank????

I said..."#66 and 67 aside..."

I meant other than yours and Paul's pecker posts, which were very funny, our Bible threads hardly ever showcase how the Bible would hope we behave.
jjanecka Offline
#76 Posted: Tue, Sep 6 2016, 4:51 PM EST
Joined: 12-08-2015
Posts: 4,334
It's eye for an eye in CBID. WIN EVERY AUCTION.
victor809 Offline
#77 Posted: Tue, Sep 6 2016, 5:00 PM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
Jjanecka... Explain what you mean by "finite" view of life. I would argue that religion provides a crutch to allow people to have a much more limited view of life, as anything not immediately explainable can be fit (and usually is) in the god umbrella.

Similarly, I'd be hard pressed to see any way whatsoever in which science can benefit from religion. One does not improve the scientific method by interjecting unproveable faith into it.
MACS Offline
#78 Posted: Tue, Sep 6 2016, 5:26 PM EST
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,779
You can neither prove that God does not exist. So your atheism is equally unprovable.

Make no mistake, though... they are both "faith", i.e. - belief without proof. You believe God does not exist. I believe He does. Neither of us can prove or disprove our position.
jjanecka Offline
#79 Posted: Tue, Sep 6 2016, 5:27 PM EST
Joined: 12-08-2015
Posts: 4,334
What you fail to recognize is that there are religions where science has been wholly integrated and ingrained into their entire thought process. Without speculative inquiry into "How God created something." We would not have some of the brightest theories in medicine, physics, astronomy, et cetera.

I still can't believe y'all guys are stuck on such an elementary discussion as to whether or not God exists when we've made countless comments saying it can niether be proven or disproven.

What we have is science, which will always be around and religion, which will always be around. And we need to find ways to ensure that science progresses ethically while ensuring that religion grows philosophically.
victor809 Offline
#80 Posted: Tue, Sep 6 2016, 6:10 PM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
MACS wrote:
You can neither prove that God does not exist. So your atheism is equally unprovable.

Make no mistake, though... they are both "faith", i.e. - belief without proof. You believe God does not exist. I believe He does. Neither of us can prove or disprove our position.


... you're simply incorrect.

There is an infinite number of possibilities that could "exist" ... that means that the existence of any specific god is infinitely small (unless you start adding your probabilities of each type of god together, ie the probability of the roman catholic god or the southern baptist god existing is 2x infinitely small. Your problem is that without any evidence at all, there is equal likelihood of existence of a god that half the planet believes in, as there is a god made up by me yesterday. None are based on anything remotely resembling evidence.

However, the probability of god NOT existing is a whole other set of numbers, because there is another set of possible theories of how everything gets started (and these theories can be proven to be mathematically consistent with actual theories about real forces in physics, so to call them "equally unprovable" is disingenuous... I'd like to see you make god mathematically consistent with the theory of relativity. ) The theories of the universe without a god are not a subset of "god theories" and the probability is therefore not diluted out by your infinite possible deities.

I don't tell people not to be religious, that's their choice. But don't sully actual science by trying to claim they are equivalent. That's simply crap.
victor809 Offline
#81 Posted: Tue, Sep 6 2016, 6:19 PM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
jjanecka wrote:
What you fail to recognize is that there are religions where science has been wholly integrated and ingrained into their entire thought process. Without speculative inquiry into "How God created something." We would not have some of the brightest theories in medicine, physics, astronomy, et cetera.

I still can't believe y'all guys are stuck on such an elementary discussion as to whether or not God exists when we've made countless comments saying it can niether be proven or disproven.

What we have is science, which will always be around and religion, which will always be around. And we need to find ways to ensure that science progresses ethically while ensuring that religion grows philosophically.



Religions which find ways to work with science are fine and dandy. They are not improving science by being religions however. The question "how god created..." is not in any way different than "why is this like this?" In our past, science has worked within religion simply because all of society worked within the framework of a religion.

Science is not dependent on religion. And really religion is not dependent on science either. However, our society is.
Brewha Offline
#82 Posted: Tue, Sep 6 2016, 7:18 PM EST
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,175
MACS wrote:
There is one thing science can't quite resolve.

Scientists believe you can't create something from nothing. The big bang doesn't explain how the entire universe was created out of nothing. It just popped into existence?

It's a good question MACS.

Perhaps it helps to understand that while something never comes from nothing, it is also true that matter and energy are in fact the samething - in different states. An analogy would be steam, that can be condensed into water and on to ice. A rock of ice from steamy air.

And if we consider that energy once congealed into matter creates gravity and timespace - where it did not exist before- the idea that the Big Bang was just a change of state becomes more clear. Energy into matter creating timespace as a natural product. A natural oscillation between states has been widely theorized and seems reasonable.

Now this is a perfect opertunity to calm divine intervention. But does that not raise more question that's it answers?
Speyside Offline
#83 Posted: Tue, Sep 6 2016, 7:20 PM EST
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
Science and belief in God are 2 very divergent concepts. Science has a mathematical basis as Victor stated. Belief in God is a leap of faith. It is also worth pointing out that one can believe in God and not be religious. This would be a Theist or a Deist.
Brewha Offline
#84 Posted: Tue, Sep 6 2016, 7:24 PM EST
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,175
jjanecka wrote:
Can't take the word of any man who smokes Gurkhas and likes them...

Additionally, Victor, you need to remember what the purpose and aim of a pure science and a pure religion is. That is to find Absolute Truth. Therefore the argument becomes philosophical.

I'll give you that some religions or religious denominations are weak. As explained earlier that Science's role in Religion is to destroy superstition and vice versa. Go back and read some of my comments from before I've already addressed this.


The absolute truth is that there is no absolute truth - all truth is relative.

Stick that in your puzzle box....
Brewha Offline
#85 Posted: Tue, Sep 6 2016, 7:30 PM EST
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,175
Speyside wrote:
Science and belief in God are 2 very divergent concepts. Science has a mathematical basis as Victor stated. Belief in God is a leap of faith. It is also worth pointing out that one can believe in God and not be religious. This would be a Theist or a Deist.

Perhaps all of our sciences are merely us peeling the onion on how God did it.

You can't finish a puzzle until you have all the peices.....

In any event, science offers no evidence on the existance of God ether way.
Unless sociology is consulted.
jjanecka Offline
#86 Posted: Tue, Sep 6 2016, 7:36 PM EST
Joined: 12-08-2015
Posts: 4,334
Relativism is complete ****. It basically devolves into complete selfishness of the individual and complete lawlessness. I'll have no part in it.
Brewha Offline
#87 Posted: Tue, Sep 6 2016, 7:44 PM EST
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,175
jjanecka wrote:
Relativism is complete ****. It basically devolves into complete selfishness of the individual and complete lawlessness. I'll have no part in it.

Mellow





Well, so much for man's quest for knowledge....
banderl Offline
#88 Posted: Tue, Sep 6 2016, 7:46 PM EST
Joined: 09-09-2008
Posts: 10,153
Some of the guys here are way into relativism.
They only date kin.
Speyside Offline
#89 Posted: Tue, Sep 6 2016, 7:53 PM EST
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
Prolly met at the family reunion.
tailgater Offline
#90 Posted: Tue, Sep 6 2016, 8:03 PM EST
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
victor809 wrote:
Tail, don't give me a sob story about "why" being a hard thing to answer. The decision to stop at whatever "why" religion stops at is arbitrary, and generally lines up with where our knowledge has ended.


Sob story?
Decision to stop?

Didn't mean to hit a nerve.
But truth is truth.
People of faith don't stop searching for the WHY in just the same manner that people of science don't stop searching for the HOW.
tailgater Offline
#91 Posted: Tue, Sep 6 2016, 8:03 PM EST
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
banderl wrote:
Some of the guys here are way into relativism.
They only date kin.


Incest is only relative.
ZRX1200 Offline
#92 Posted: Tue, Sep 6 2016, 8:05 PM EST
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,606
If you can't keep it in your pants, keep it in the family.
jjanecka Offline
#93 Posted: Tue, Sep 6 2016, 8:08 PM EST
Joined: 12-08-2015
Posts: 4,334
Bible says it's cool after the 4th generation. Right?
ZRX1200 Offline
#94 Posted: Tue, Sep 6 2016, 8:09 PM EST
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,606
As long as you put it in her butt.
MACS Offline
#95 Posted: Tue, Sep 6 2016, 8:10 PM EST
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,779
I've stated my opinion. I stand by it. No sense in arguing a point of contention that has existed, unresolved, for centuries.

I'll leave you all to it.
tailgater Offline
#96 Posted: Tue, Sep 6 2016, 8:14 PM EST
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
victor809 wrote:
Jjanecka... ... I would argue that religion provides a crutch to allow people to have a much more limited view of life, as anything not immediately explainable can be fit (and usually is) in the god umbrella.


I agree that religion is a crutch, but not in the manner you're suggesting.
I don't see how it limits one view of life, especially if one were to embrace both religion AND science.



victor809 wrote:
Similarly, I'd be hard pressed to see any way whatsoever in which science can benefit from religion. One does not improve the scientific method by interjecting unproveable faith into it.


Agree. Science can not benefit from religion. But neither should it be use as a tool to disprove it. The two should be autonomous.
jjanecka Offline
#97 Posted: Tue, Sep 6 2016, 8:18 PM EST
Joined: 12-08-2015
Posts: 4,334
Science benefits from religion by providing a moral and ethical backbone to research.
tailgater Offline
#98 Posted: Tue, Sep 6 2016, 8:23 PM EST
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
jjanecka wrote:
Science benefits from religion by providing a moral and ethical backbone to research.


So angry muslims can't be effective scientists?
frankj1 Offline
#99 Posted: Tue, Sep 6 2016, 8:27 PM EST
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,221
tailgater wrote:
So angry muslims can't be effective scientists?


what about angry Jewish wives? she has something against anatomy.
victor809 Offline
#100 Posted: Tue, Sep 6 2016, 8:29 PM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
Why would you assume that religion is required for morals and ethics? Does that mean atheists are all evil and without morals and all people who follow a religion are ethical?
Users browsing this topic
Guest
3 Pages<123>
Back to Top