Casey wrote:
> Anyone can make a spelling error in their posting and
> you illustrate this point in your own posting.
unable to differentiate between "there" and "their" is not a spelling
error. explain to me what kind of a keyboard do you have that in you
haste to type "there" you unwittingly typed out "their"?
> You read the Scriptures too hastily for the verse you cite from
> Deuteronomy says nothing about a rapist marrying the girl that he raped.
> Start back in verse 25, for there God says that the rapist must die.
> Perhaps like most atheists and agnostics so anxious to disprove and
> discredit the Bible, you too treat the Bible too hastily. What or whom
> are you trying to justify?
Boy, it must feel good to lie for Jesus doesn't it?
"If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and
RAPES her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girls father 50
sheckelsof silver. He MUST marry the girl, for he has violated her."
-Deuteronomy 22:28
Due 22:25 only prescribes death for girls who are PLEDGED to be married.
it saying nothing about unbethrothed girls. Accroding to "god" their
(notice the correct usage of the term "their") dignities are worth
exactly 50 sheckels of silver.
> If our society headed God's commands in this area and in all others we
> would not have such a sick society where we have little justice, can hardly
> trust our leaders or anyone else, and the list goes on.
do you adhere to the following "God's law"?
"If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman... They must be put
to death."
Lev 20:13
There has been only one ruler this century that has tried to follow this
law and systematically exterminate one particular portion of humanity.
His name is Adolf Hitler
> But be careful of your treatment of the Scriptures for Jesus tells you
> that when you stand before him after death you will be judged according to
> every jot and title that He has spoken. False conclusions from hasty
> readings that your friends and colleagues are only too eager to agree with
> will not stand when you meet with God.
In that case your hasty exoneration of all the despicable verses of the
bible will earn you eternal pain for your intellectual dishonesty.
> Be cautious about equating the Bible with Hitler. You are walking on
> thin ice.
And I should feel threatened because.....
> Hitler's autobiography whose title means' my struggle'was full
> of evolutionary concepts. Hitler seemed to admire the teachings of Ernest
> Haekel. Hitler's campaign to create a superior race and to exterminate
> the Jews was his attempt to help evolution out a bit.
Wrong again, Hitler was continuing the proud tradition of Christian
anti-Semitism. From St. Augustine to Martin Luther (whose book "On Jews
and Their Lies" illuminated his utter bigotry), there has been plenty of
Christian hatred towards theologies alien to its own: monotheism calls
for the destruction of other god.
What did Jesus mean when he concluded in one of his many cryptic
parables: "But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over
them bring them here and kill them in front of
me"? -Luke 19:27
well, let look at the OT:
"If your very own brother, or your brother, or your son or daughter, or
the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying
"Let us go worship other gods"... you must certainly put him to death."
- Deu 13:6-9
The bible is quite zealous when it comes to the issue of worshipping the
"one true god", so much so that the very first "commandment" dictates
that "thou shall have no other gods before me"
>The fact that he based his theories on evolution has been an embarrassment to evolutionists
> over the years.
the fact that you have no idea what is in the Bible means that you
should be embarrassed about your ignorance.
> Some evolutionists today
> including Stephen J. Gould of Harvard point out that this disproven theory
> is still featured in school biology texts.
you see, unlike creationists, real scientists are concerned about truths
> Some abortionists still use this discredited theory to justify the torture, mutilation, and murder of
> millions of preborn babies who God says he knew before the world was ever created.
While some Christians use the Bible to justfy hatred of other based on
their creed and sexual preference. Let's see what the Bosnian Muslims
have to say about this. Oh wait, half of them are dead from those good
'ol Christian Serbs.
> You think that you have discredited the Bible in its claims on
> science such as the supposed 4 legs of locusts. But consider who in the
> past had great respect for the science in the Scriptures:
what a weak argument, Show me a four-legged insect.
> Newton, Kepler, Galileo, Kelvin, Faraday, Herschel, and there are countless
> others.
Big fucking Deal, Newton also believes in alchemy, let's see you turn
lead into gold.
> even today there are many scientists contributing to science that believe
> in a literal Genesis, and yes their science is very well informed by their
> bias just as the evolutionist has his philosophical bias from which he
> starts.
Name one Nobel Laureate in Science, that "believes" in the literal
Genesis
<cue Jeopardy music>
> If there is no evidence for a worldwide flood then ask yourself
> why there are marine fossils at the tops of practically all the major
> mountain ranges around the globe. Why are their countless numbers of
> fossilized dead things buried all over the world under tons of sedimentary
> rock?
another weak argument, mountains move, and seas levels change.
> Why are there many huge densely-packed fossil graveyards, all over the
> world? Why are there countless numbers of mammoths still buried in
> Siberia, some with undigested food in their stomachs.
Another weak argument, some animals die in the middle of their meal, it
doesn't take a global flood.
> If you deal with the data fairly you will have to give some credit to a
> world wide flood. The collection of fossils that lies at the centre of
> the Cambridge U. fossil collection were collected by a creationist
> geologist several centuries ago. Up to one hundred and fifty years ago
> fossils were explained by leading scientists in terms of Noah's flood.
> And God gives us very good details about the flood.
And upon looking at those fossils, they were were no longer
creationists. Or do you claim that Cambridge University is an
intellectual hotbed for creationism?
> But because the evolutionists tell you a story that you agree with and
> doesn't sound like it comes from the Bible you just believe it and don't
> critically think about it. And then like many others you just slam a
> point of view which is a threat to the philosophy that is dear to you.
hypocrisy, thy name is Creationist. You have done exactly the same thing
by your pathetic attempt to justify the various evil deeds of your God.
your laughable threat that I am "walking on thin ice" shows that "you
just slam a point of view which is a threat to the philosophy that is
dear to you."
> You need to ask yourself why the Egyptian civilization suddenly appeared
> only about five thousand years ago. Why do the major civilizations trace
> their histories back to only three to five thousand years?
it's too bad you can't get your lies straight. Acording to your
propaganda. The earth is about 6,000 years old, beginning with Adam.
Here is the relevant timline, using your own precious Genesis:
Adam 130
Seth 105 (borned when Adam was 130, etc)
Enosh 90
Kenan 70
Mehalalel 65
Jared 162
Enoch 65
Methuselah 187
Lamech 182
Noah 600 when the flood "happened"
which means that the "flood" happened 4344 years ago, or 2343 BC. Let's
look at the history of Egypt shall we:
"Early dynastic period: c 2925BC-2575BC", not to mentioned Neolithic
cultures such as the Marimada Bani Salama are dated to be 7000 years
old!
Guess what! the Egyptians lived as *if* the flood never happened!
>Why are the
> oldest trees known no more than 4 to 5,000 years old?
you see, the problem with reading only creationist propaganda is that
you have no idea what you're talking about:
"It might interest you to know that trees go back at least 8000 years
without being disturbed by Noah's flood! Dr. Charles Ferguson of the
University of Arizona has, by matching up overlapping tree rings of
living and dead bristlecone pines, carefully built a tree ring sequence
going back to 6273 BC (Popular Science, November 1979, p.76). It turns
out that such things as rainfall, floods, glacial activity, atmospheric
pressure, volcanic activity, and even variations in nearby stream flows
show up in the rings. We could add to that list such items as disease
and excessive activity by pests. "
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/matson-vs-hovind.html
> One thing that is hardly ever taken into consideration is the age-old
> antipathy to God by mankind that has affected the writing of history, the
> doing of science, and many other cultural activities. Stanley Jaki of
> Chicago U. has said that their is a decided anti-Christian bias among
> historians.
First of all, it is Stanley Jaki of SETON HALL UNIVERSITY. Secondly, he
is a Benedictine monk, and as you know
the Catholics feel that evolution is "more than a theory"
So let me use the exact same reference and turning it back to you: Jaki
feels that evolution is plausible, why don't you?
> Liberal Theologians assert that the Genesis accounts were adapted from the
> Babylonian myths but qualified experts in literature have said that the
> case seems to be the other way around since the Genesis accounts are much
> better written and the Babylonian are very crude.
Of course it is, older versions tend to be.
> But almost every evolutionist likes to believe the Liberal Theologians
> since this information seems to discredit the Bible. God is far more
> original than you and others give him credit for.
"God" is far more orignial than this mishmash of fairytales you called
the bible
> Consider also that the Ancient Chinese have on their pottery symbols
> depicting the Ark of Noah and eight people aboard the Ark. An
> anthropologist has found numerous Chinese symbols depicting numerous
> Biblical concepts. But this is another fact that probably did not make
> its way into your public school education.
Let me hear it, I happened to be Chinese and I double majored in
history. And trust me, my public education at UCLA is far superior than
any creationist education that is offered at some private degree mill.
Bring it on.
> Consider carefully your sources, Yang. Consider that many theologians
> today do not believe that the Bible is the Word of God. And many
> evolutionists who are eager to recruit the notions of these theologians are
> themselves atheists and agnostics in the tradition of Darwin, Huxley,
> Lyell, Hutton, and many others.
I don't need to, mainstream Christians aren't as deluded as you.
Yang
#28
