There is already significant evidence in the various forms we have of the bible to prove that it's been warped and rewarped by translation. (The detail about whether David had horns or a halo comes to mind). I can understand why you feel compelled to use your faith when faced with a lack of evidence, but when the evidence is there, why disregard it b/c it is differnent than your faith.
It's like this: if you see something that looks like the head of a snake sticking out from behind a tree, it is reasonable to believe that what you can not see is the body of a snake, but if you walk around the tree and see that it infact has the body of a lizard, would you cling to your conviction that it is a snake or would you accept that the animal is indeed a lizard b/c the evidence has demonstrated that you were wrong?
Religion
Moderators: Public Relations Department, Players Department
-
Nosajimiki
- Posts: 468
- Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 5:13 pm
- Location: in front of a computer
-
Elros
- Posts: 1511
- Joined: Sat Jul 22, 2006 5:41 pm
- Location: South Carolina, USA
Not one of you have given me solid evidence that the KJV is warped or messed up. Everything that has been disscussed is peoples opinion on how they do not believe that the Bible could be preserved for so long and still be accurate ect... However you lack to evidence to prove it. So right now I am still using my faith that the head is a snake, and none of you have lead me around the tree to see that it is a lizard yet. 
P.S. Thanks for bringing this back on topic. *looks at the last several posts disgustedly*
P.S. Thanks for bringing this back on topic. *looks at the last several posts disgustedly*
Every action has a consequence.
-
saztronic
- Posts: 694
- Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2005 5:27 pm
- Location: standing right behind you
So not only do you not answer arguments -- you can't take a joke either. 
You punted on the question of evil, even when presented with seamless arguments about its intractability. You rely on faith as the evidence of things unseen, but don't explain why faith in elves and hobgoblins would be incorrect while faith in a Biblical Jesus is correct.
The Bible as a document is so riddled with error and discrepancy that it's almost not even worth bothering to debate it. You want "evidence" of this. Here is some. A link:
http://www.rotten.com/library/religion/ ... stortions/
And here is but one specific example of the many in that link:
The most logical explanation is that a scribe later heard this story and thought it exemplified Christ's forgiving nature, and added it in. Maybe the scribe wrote it in the margin, and a future scribe actually incorporated it. Who knows. What we do know, for a fact, is that the story doesn't appear in any of the texts prior to the Councils of Trent and Nice. I'm sure you'd find a way to bend over backwards to explain this -- say, by claiming that God just overlooked the story when moving John the Apostle's hand over the page, and so had someone else add it in later. You know how God is, always forgetting his hat and everything.
Either way, the facts indicate that the story was not in the canonical Bible, but was added later. Therefore, the only choices are 1) To conclude that the canonical Bible as defined by Church councils is not, in fact, authoritative, or 2) That the Bible is not a finished document, and may be added to by prophets or scribes inspired by God throughout history. If you choose one, you have no leg to stand on with regard to Biblical authority. If you choose two, then you have no argument when someone tells you Muhammed or Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God and therefore you believe in an outdated religion.
I doubt you'll answer any of this, however, just as you failed to answer many of the earlier and quite sound arguments put forward in this thread, but will instead change the subject or offer up a series of non sequiturs.
And given that that seems to be the order of the day, then mentioning Angelina Jolie's mammary glands or Fnordian Discordia or Kurt Vonnegut or fishing for pike on a Tuesday in the upper Midwest, in this thread, are just as relevant (or irrelevant) to the topics at hand as what you've been saying all along, and what I expect you will continue to say.
I expect this will seem offensive in text, and I don't mean it that way. But I am frustrated by the seeming inability of people to conduct a logical argument. West likes to celebrate this as a tribute to discord and nonsense, and he's right to. Because in the absence of people actually responding to each other's arguments, this whole thread is nothing more than white noise dressed up in colorful clown garb.
You punted on the question of evil, even when presented with seamless arguments about its intractability. You rely on faith as the evidence of things unseen, but don't explain why faith in elves and hobgoblins would be incorrect while faith in a Biblical Jesus is correct.
The Bible as a document is so riddled with error and discrepancy that it's almost not even worth bothering to debate it. You want "evidence" of this. Here is some. A link:
http://www.rotten.com/library/religion/ ... stortions/
And here is but one specific example of the many in that link:
The Link wrote:Take, for example, the popular story (John 7:53-8:11) in which Jesus saves a woman from being stoned as an adulteress. It is from this passage that Christianity draws the oft-paraphrased advice, "Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her."
Interestingly enough, this entire story (or periscope) is missing from the earliest version of John. It is also missing from early Latin translations of the text, missing from older versions used in the Holy Land and in fact, according to the 12th century Byzantine scholar Euthymius Zigabenus (the earliest church father to comment on the passage), accurate copies of the Gospel of John do not and should not contain it. Furthermore, if one blocks out the entire little story, John 7:52 flows just fine into John 8:12, lending further credence to the idea that the passage was simply inserted after the fact. Who inserted it, and why, remains a mystery.
The most logical explanation is that a scribe later heard this story and thought it exemplified Christ's forgiving nature, and added it in. Maybe the scribe wrote it in the margin, and a future scribe actually incorporated it. Who knows. What we do know, for a fact, is that the story doesn't appear in any of the texts prior to the Councils of Trent and Nice. I'm sure you'd find a way to bend over backwards to explain this -- say, by claiming that God just overlooked the story when moving John the Apostle's hand over the page, and so had someone else add it in later. You know how God is, always forgetting his hat and everything.
Either way, the facts indicate that the story was not in the canonical Bible, but was added later. Therefore, the only choices are 1) To conclude that the canonical Bible as defined by Church councils is not, in fact, authoritative, or 2) That the Bible is not a finished document, and may be added to by prophets or scribes inspired by God throughout history. If you choose one, you have no leg to stand on with regard to Biblical authority. If you choose two, then you have no argument when someone tells you Muhammed or Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God and therefore you believe in an outdated religion.
I doubt you'll answer any of this, however, just as you failed to answer many of the earlier and quite sound arguments put forward in this thread, but will instead change the subject or offer up a series of non sequiturs.
And given that that seems to be the order of the day, then mentioning Angelina Jolie's mammary glands or Fnordian Discordia or Kurt Vonnegut or fishing for pike on a Tuesday in the upper Midwest, in this thread, are just as relevant (or irrelevant) to the topics at hand as what you've been saying all along, and what I expect you will continue to say.
I expect this will seem offensive in text, and I don't mean it that way. But I am frustrated by the seeming inability of people to conduct a logical argument. West likes to celebrate this as a tribute to discord and nonsense, and he's right to. Because in the absence of people actually responding to each other's arguments, this whole thread is nothing more than white noise dressed up in colorful clown garb.
I kill threads. It's what I do.
-
Elros
- Posts: 1511
- Joined: Sat Jul 22, 2006 5:41 pm
- Location: South Carolina, USA
Ok, about the John 7:53-8:11, here is just one article on the subject. There are so many on it that I can't even start to post them here. This one was written by a jewish scholar who studied out the whole issue:
http://forum.jerusalemperspective.com/v ... php?p=1759
Secondly, I am sorry if I do not answer every single argument that every single person wages. Besides maybe one or two others, I am the only one arguing my side of the topics, and there are about 8 of you. If I was just arguing or discussing with one or two people then I could answer every argument that they post, but when it comes to 7 or 8 different people posting long posts with multiple arguments in each one it is close to impossible to argue or comment on every one of them. So don't accuse me of not responding to something you said, when I just overlook, or do not have the time to argue every point that you try to make.
Last of all, about me choosing 1 or 2, I choose 3.
3) The passage was written by John when he wrote the rest of the book, and just because some people with no solid proof, just some speculation decide they do not want it in there anymore try to remove it does not mean that it is false or wrong.
Study out the topic some more before posting a argument about something that can't even stand on its own two feet.
http://forum.jerusalemperspective.com/v ... php?p=1759
Secondly, I am sorry if I do not answer every single argument that every single person wages. Besides maybe one or two others, I am the only one arguing my side of the topics, and there are about 8 of you. If I was just arguing or discussing with one or two people then I could answer every argument that they post, but when it comes to 7 or 8 different people posting long posts with multiple arguments in each one it is close to impossible to argue or comment on every one of them. So don't accuse me of not responding to something you said, when I just overlook, or do not have the time to argue every point that you try to make.
Last of all, about me choosing 1 or 2, I choose 3.
3) The passage was written by John when he wrote the rest of the book, and just because some people with no solid proof, just some speculation decide they do not want it in there anymore try to remove it does not mean that it is false or wrong.
Study out the topic some more before posting a argument about something that can't even stand on its own two feet.
Every action has a consequence.
-
saztronic
- Posts: 694
- Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2005 5:27 pm
- Location: standing right behind you
In any case, thanks for responding.
Well, shoot. How simple! Amazing! The argument is really so easy -- if we don't know how it could have got in there later, then ironclad reasoning suggests the only possible explanation is that it must have been there right from the beginning!
Flat out wrong.
Let's apply this logic to to a few other topics -- say I find a finger in my Big Mac, like that woman in California in a few years back. There's no way for sure we can know how that finger got in there, ergo, it simply must have been in there since the beginning! Amazingly easy! But wrong. She put it there.
Let's say an enterprising Democratic reporter gets his hands on some of George Bush's Air Force Reserve records, and these records show that Mr. Bush was slacking off during his year in the Reserve. The documents have some odd discrepancies, though. They have typographic characteristics impossible for the period -- the "th" in "109th" is superscripted, for example, when no typewriter from the period was capable of doing this. How did that happen? Well, since we don't know how it could have happened, then ergo, it simply must have been there from the beginning! Amazingly easy! But wrong. The documents were forged.
The article's argument isn't logic, it's wishful thinking dressed up as logic. Shabbily dressed, I might add.
The Bible was preserved historically by handwritten copying. Iteration after iteration, painstakingly -- but perhaps, not always accurately, and perhaps, sometimes intentionally inaccurately -- copied from one to the next. People make mistakes. People, whatever their motives, sometimes change things in an editorial way. They add things that weren't there, or they subtract things they don't like.
You would like to argue that this never would happen, because God would divinely work to keep His Word intact down through the ages. When you are given an example where this probably wasn't the case, you reject the most plausible explanation -- that it was added later by someone -- because it can't be categorically proved, and say that because you believe God is consistent, the text must have been that way from the start.
Time after time you reject the most plausible argument, whatever the topic, because in order to accept the most plausible argument in many of these areas you would have to doubt. And you won't. Which is fine. And you may be right. But if you reject the most plausible argument in any given situation, time after time, then over time, your entire belief system is built on a house of cards. You have no answer but faith when confronted with sensible challenges to your arguments.
And those who base everything on faith are, simply, suspect. You can use faith as the basis for any action, no matter how deplorable. We've already discussed slavery and the evils committed by the Church and suicide bombers. All in the name of faith. Stay the course, no matter what. This I believe. Full speed ahead, damn the torpedos and damn (literally) anyone who disagrees with me.
And this is our impasse. It's not really worth talking about anymore, and I wish you well. I hope you realize that I wasn't, and wouldn't, try to deprive you of your faith. But I was, and am, trying to show you that doubt is not inconsistent with faith. That you can still believe in God, and in the resurrection, even if the Bible is just not consistent sometimes. You can hold on to your faith and still look at it critically, and thus avoid the fate of those who unwittingly yet cheerfully do evil in God's name. What's more, I believe that this is what God wants from us -- to use the brains He gave us to look for truth and develop good judgement.
I still hold out that hope for you, but will leave my side of the debate here. Be well.
Your Article wrote:It is clear to me that this story was indeed a part of the Bible right from the beginning. Why am I so sure about it? Actually, it's very simple; there's simply no other reasonable explanation for how this pericope could have ever made it inside the closed canon, unless it was there already from the very beginning!
Thus, absent such an explanation, it looks like we will be forced to accept the default position -- the Adulteress must have been there right from the beginning... And you can be sure of this; none of our mainstream scholars have ever explained the history of this passage in anything like a coherent manner.
Because, yes, dear reader, I did look far and wide, and found nothing. There's just this Big Blank there, in all these thick academic commentaries; the scholars are sure that the Adulteress was not originally a part of the Gospel of John, but they are totally mum as to when and how it ever made it there... It must have sneaked in, all by itself, while nobody was looking!
Well, shoot. How simple! Amazing! The argument is really so easy -- if we don't know how it could have got in there later, then ironclad reasoning suggests the only possible explanation is that it must have been there right from the beginning!
Flat out wrong.
Let's apply this logic to to a few other topics -- say I find a finger in my Big Mac, like that woman in California in a few years back. There's no way for sure we can know how that finger got in there, ergo, it simply must have been in there since the beginning! Amazingly easy! But wrong. She put it there.
Let's say an enterprising Democratic reporter gets his hands on some of George Bush's Air Force Reserve records, and these records show that Mr. Bush was slacking off during his year in the Reserve. The documents have some odd discrepancies, though. They have typographic characteristics impossible for the period -- the "th" in "109th" is superscripted, for example, when no typewriter from the period was capable of doing this. How did that happen? Well, since we don't know how it could have happened, then ergo, it simply must have been there from the beginning! Amazingly easy! But wrong. The documents were forged.
The article's argument isn't logic, it's wishful thinking dressed up as logic. Shabbily dressed, I might add.
The Bible was preserved historically by handwritten copying. Iteration after iteration, painstakingly -- but perhaps, not always accurately, and perhaps, sometimes intentionally inaccurately -- copied from one to the next. People make mistakes. People, whatever their motives, sometimes change things in an editorial way. They add things that weren't there, or they subtract things they don't like.
You would like to argue that this never would happen, because God would divinely work to keep His Word intact down through the ages. When you are given an example where this probably wasn't the case, you reject the most plausible explanation -- that it was added later by someone -- because it can't be categorically proved, and say that because you believe God is consistent, the text must have been that way from the start.
Time after time you reject the most plausible argument, whatever the topic, because in order to accept the most plausible argument in many of these areas you would have to doubt. And you won't. Which is fine. And you may be right. But if you reject the most plausible argument in any given situation, time after time, then over time, your entire belief system is built on a house of cards. You have no answer but faith when confronted with sensible challenges to your arguments.
And those who base everything on faith are, simply, suspect. You can use faith as the basis for any action, no matter how deplorable. We've already discussed slavery and the evils committed by the Church and suicide bombers. All in the name of faith. Stay the course, no matter what. This I believe. Full speed ahead, damn the torpedos and damn (literally) anyone who disagrees with me.
And this is our impasse. It's not really worth talking about anymore, and I wish you well. I hope you realize that I wasn't, and wouldn't, try to deprive you of your faith. But I was, and am, trying to show you that doubt is not inconsistent with faith. That you can still believe in God, and in the resurrection, even if the Bible is just not consistent sometimes. You can hold on to your faith and still look at it critically, and thus avoid the fate of those who unwittingly yet cheerfully do evil in God's name. What's more, I believe that this is what God wants from us -- to use the brains He gave us to look for truth and develop good judgement.
I still hold out that hope for you, but will leave my side of the debate here. Be well.
I kill threads. It's what I do.
-
Elros
- Posts: 1511
- Joined: Sat Jul 22, 2006 5:41 pm
- Location: South Carolina, USA
Well first of all, if you are going to post some of the man's argument from that link I gave you then you should post the whole thing(which as way to long, and that is why I just posted a link). Of course you can take one section out of the argument and make it look like a invalid argument, but that is not what his final conclusion or stand was based on. That was just his first few paragraphs that he was writing to get the topic started off on a melow basis before getting into the more solid proof that he stated on down the line. However, even the site that you gave me has "no" solid prrof whatsoever of when or where, or if even the section of John was added in later. It is just a theory, because it has no solid proof. If you believe that it was added, well I am no going to condem you for it, because you can take that stand if you want. However, you can not tell me that my stand on the Bible is wrong, because you have yet to give me any solid proof of that. You even said in your last post:
So when it comes down to it, we are both taking a leap of faith to believe the argument either way we go, because there is no solid evidence on either side of the argument.
When you are given an example where this probably wasn't the case, you reject the most plausible explanation -- that it was added later by someone -- because it can't be categorically proved
So when it comes down to it, we are both taking a leap of faith to believe the argument either way we go, because there is no solid evidence on either side of the argument.
Every action has a consequence.
-
formerly known as hf
- Posts: 4120
- Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2004 2:58 pm
- Location: UK
-
formerly known as hf
- Posts: 4120
- Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2004 2:58 pm
- Location: UK
As for the current discussion. Like I said earlier, whether you believe that different versions of the Bible are all sacred, in that all scribes were influenced by God - is not what I was getting into.
That the bible has been changed, to an important degree, by human hands (divinely controlled or not) is indisputable.
That the bible has been changed, to an important degree, by human hands (divinely controlled or not) is indisputable.
Whoever you vote for.
The government wins.
The government wins.
-
Nosajimiki
- Posts: 468
- Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 5:13 pm
- Location: in front of a computer
Found out the other day that Johova's witnesses believe that there is no heaven and hell based on a single word translated differently in the book of Genesis... where faith is envolved, everything is a butterfly effect, so no matter how many things you try to argue about how his word is preserved, there is enough difference from one english bible to the next alone to prove that his word is either lost, distorted, or scrambled in what we have.
#004400 is my favorite color.
-
Nyaraka
- Posts: 15
- Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2005 11:23 pm
- Location: where the bears roam.
This is perhaps a bit off-topic, but it suddenly popped into my mind as I was thinking about something else:
I was wondering if any religious person (regardless of what religion) could give me a reason or explanation as to why their God created the other planets in this solar system. Not that there necessarily has to be a reason -- but I'm curious.
Was it for our amusement? So humans could later discover them? That seems a bit random. Or were they mistakes? (Thereby implying that God is not actually a perfect being.)
o_o
I was wondering if any religious person (regardless of what religion) could give me a reason or explanation as to why their God created the other planets in this solar system. Not that there necessarily has to be a reason -- but I'm curious.
Was it for our amusement? So humans could later discover them? That seems a bit random. Or were they mistakes? (Thereby implying that God is not actually a perfect being.)
o_o
-
Elros
- Posts: 1511
- Joined: Sat Jul 22, 2006 5:41 pm
- Location: South Carolina, USA
Nyaraka wrote:This is perhaps a bit off-topic, but it suddenly popped into my mind as I was thinking about something else:
I was wondering if any religious person (regardless of what religion) could give me a reason or explanation as to why their God created the other planets in this solar system. Not that there necessarily has to be a reason -- but I'm curious.
Was it for our amusement? So humans could later discover them? That seems a bit random. Or were they mistakes? (Thereby implying that God is not actually a perfect being.)
o_o
Yes, I can tell you a little about them. It all has to do with the "preadamic" earth. Before Adam was created, the earth used to be populated by angels and other heavenly beings. This was all before the fall of Lucifer. Lucifer used to traffic amongst the different planets in the universe, but when Lucifer rebelled God destroyed the earth and its atmosphere as well as all the living creatures on the planet(possibly where Dinosaurs and Mammoths lived, and why they are found so deep in the ground). He also cast Lucifer out of heaven, as most of you all have heard.
I will give a few verses out of the Bible for this, but it really is a very detailed study, and is not even talked about much in the religious sects because it is a deeper doctrine to be studied out, and many of the common "Sunday Morning" religious people do not study their Bible enough to know much about it.
First of all, God told Adam in Genesis 1:
27. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
28. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
The word "Replinish" the earth means to "Refill", meaning that it had been filled once before.
Secondly, the Bible talks about Lucifer trafficking through the different cities and planets, and all the things he did before he was cast down.
Isaiah 14:12-17:
12How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:
14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.
15 Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.
16 They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms;
17 That made the world as a wilderness, and destroyed the cities thereof; that opened not the house of his prisoners?
Ezekiel 28:12-17:
12 Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus, and say unto him, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty.
13 Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created.
14 Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire.
15 Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.
16 By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire.
17 Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee.
All the above verses are about Lucifer and what he did and was doing before God destroyed the earth, and cast Lucifer(who is now Satan) from heaven. There is a whole lot more to this study, but I can't even start it here. I suggest maybe you should look it up if you want more info. Just Google it.
Last of all, there is no telling what God might use the planets for in the future. We have an eternity ahead of us, so I am sure they will be used for something even if it is after God destroys the earth in the battle of Armageodon. Also, he might have put them there for our enjoyment, to see the beauty and vastness of his creation.
Every action has a consequence.
-
Zanthos
- Posts: 1525
- Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2005 3:08 am
- Location: US of A
This is a little bit more off topic, but whatever...
I think this might tie in with my personal belief that god gave humanity the ability to advance scientifically, and as such it is not inherently evil to pursue technologies such as cloning. Yes, what is dead is dead, but if parents allow their kids to play house, why wouldn't god allow his people to play creator?
Don't get me wrong, I am Roman Catholic (and a science major) and do support the Pope, but I think religious extremism will ultimately be the downfall of religion.
On a side note, I hope all of you watched southpark the last 2 weeks, as it almost pertains to this discussion, (or maybe not, I havent read the last 30ish pages)
I think this might tie in with my personal belief that god gave humanity the ability to advance scientifically, and as such it is not inherently evil to pursue technologies such as cloning. Yes, what is dead is dead, but if parents allow their kids to play house, why wouldn't god allow his people to play creator?
Don't get me wrong, I am Roman Catholic (and a science major) and do support the Pope, but I think religious extremism will ultimately be the downfall of religion.
On a side note, I hope all of you watched southpark the last 2 weeks, as it almost pertains to this discussion, (or maybe not, I havent read the last 30ish pages)
Person: Akamada doesnt control the animals.
You see a wild boar attack Person.
Person: I still dont believe you.
<Spill> Oh, I enjoy every sperm to the fullest.
You see a wild boar attack Person.
Person: I still dont believe you.
<Spill> Oh, I enjoy every sperm to the fullest.
-
Nalaris
- Posts: 943
- Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 3:08 am
Nyaraka wrote:This is perhaps a bit off-topic, but it suddenly popped into my mind as I was thinking about something else:
I was wondering if any religious person (regardless of what religion) could give me a reason or explanation as to why their God created the other planets in this solar system. Not that there necessarily has to be a reason -- but I'm curious.
Was it for our amusement? So humans could later discover them? That seems a bit random. Or were they mistakes? (Thereby implying that God is not actually a perfect being.)
o_o
God is perfect now. We have no reason to believe he was always perfect (to my knowledge), nor do we have any reason to believe the contrary.
Earth would be filled with craters if it weren't for Jupiter. I can't remember the rest off the top of my head, but I'm pretty sure that there are various purposes for most of the other planets.
-
Elros
- Posts: 1511
- Joined: Sat Jul 22, 2006 5:41 pm
- Location: South Carolina, USA
Nalaris wrote:Earth would be filled with craters if it weren't for Jupiter. I can't remember the rest off the top of my head, but I'm pretty sure that there are various purposes for most of the other planets.
There you go, just another example of how smart God is. He knew exactly where and how to place the planets so that we could survive.
I heard that if we were any closer to the Sun the earth would burn up, and if we were any farther that it would be to cold for people to survive. God placed us right in the perfect and only place where it would be possible for man to live.
God's creation is an awesome thing.
Every action has a consequence.
-
Sicofonte
- Posts: 1781
- Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2006 5:01 pm
- Location: Into your Wardrobe
Nalaris...
And the reason why God created the asteroids?
Nyaraka...
The religious people has always an answer for everything, even if that answer is that "we can not understand the plan of God, just have faith"
I'm a fucking arrogant pedantic too clever by half atheist always feeling that I understand the plan... and there is no one leading it, but the physics laws (known or not)
And the reason why God created the asteroids?
Nyaraka...
The religious people has always an answer for everything, even if that answer is that "we can not understand the plan of God, just have faith"
I'm a fucking arrogant pedantic too clever by half atheist always feeling that I understand the plan... and there is no one leading it, but the physics laws (known or not)
Tyche es una malparida. Espero que Ramnus y Pluto intervengan... o no 
Return to “Non-Cantr-Related Discussion”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest