Evolution and Christianity and Salvation

[pocaracas]

I don't have time to address all this properly, so.... I'll just focus on getting back to the original notion.

I know you are from spain I am mocking you.. you speak and think as an isolationist. you have the mind set that your culture your langage is the world and time bench mark and everything should be easily understood and accessible to you. You are the picture of the fat lazy westerner/american the rest of the world hates!!!

Wrong, sport. Not Spanish.

let's put it in a modern context. lets say ISIS strikes you city, and they keep comming becuse you live in one of those puny european places with o guns and they find no boarder oppostion so they just at will bomb and shoot the place up killing people at will!

This reminded me of US schools being assaulted by US-born gun nuts.

There are borders around the EU. Very strict ones. You'd be surprised. No need to waste billions in walls, either.

Yes, and you said it was Paul.
I still see only people being mentioned as actually doing something on Earth.

citation please. Peter is the father of the catholic movement yes.. however paul wrote 2/3's of the bible my question was if peter was the father of the church then why did he contribute so little to it?

Indeed, why was Peter's gospel not kept in the Bible?

Because its philosophy wasn't entirely in line with the philosophy that the Pauline Christianity was wanting to impose.
Peter, for example, would have been ok with women priests. A rather forward notion for the times, but that would just mess up the narrative being pushed by the followers of Paul.
With this, Mary Magdalene was depicted differently from what is now canon.

If there is a god, and if that god only wants to pick out a select few, then why are those allegedly selected always yammering the non-selected about how these should accept some hidden entity as lord and savior and super creator of the whole cosmos?
Leave us be. We were not selected.
Why are you here?!

because we do not know who is and who is no till the final judgement. I grew up the first 1/2 of my life thinking I was not 'selected.' Now I know that was not true. I simply fell into believeing the same bs you guys keep hiding behind.

And tell us again Drich. Was it someone who convinced you that you were selected?
Or was it some circumstance in your life that "opened your eyes"?

If the latter, then your being here is basically useless.

It does make perfect sense in a man-made god, though... so there's that.

if that where true then why isn't ever taught as I explained it?

Because you need proper philosophy.
Your god is indistinguishable from a super advanced alien.
The Catholic god is an underlying conceptual framework without which nothing can exist, for it is the very concept of existence (among many other things).

Can you spot the difference?

In the meantime, I'm here looking you twisting yourself while I have the most straightforward and realistic perspective upon things. People.

the only thing that get twisted is you little perception of a great God and an explaination of a book that has chewed you up and spit you out today.

Your great god is puny.
Your book was written by people, for people, drawing upon notions and stories that were floating around in the...wait for it... popular mythology.

What I learned about the book was that it would be written in Greek if the purpose was to disseminate it throughout the larger region of Asia Minor and Eastern Mediterranean. Many people wrote Aramaic with Greek characters and, if it would be for popular and local consumption, your book would have been written like that.
As it is, it had the clear purpose of convincing people that were not around and could not in any way verify the stories.... except through faith... It was a propaganda device... well.... I should say "they", not "it". There were many gospels and similar texts floating around. All with the same goal: propaganda.

[Jehanne]

I am absolutely amazed that any human being in the modern era can take such an idea(s) seriously.

Why not believe that human beings were deposited into volcanoes by space faring aliens some 50 million years ago?

who says "God" is not an 'alien.' After all He fits the scientific definition. an why not 50 million because 'science' says 3.5 billion years ago. So God,, an extra trestial (not sentient being not of this planet) seeded or created or terriformed this planet with everything it needed to evolve into what it is today and it only took him/his tech or methods 6 days to do it. 6 of his day? six literal earth day or anyother measure of time called a day is not clear. but 6 days by his count was all it took.

I can think this way because I am not a drone who can only look at science as one thing and faith as another. If we live long enough we will see science and faith come together. our ancestors where not stupid they built cities they mapped the stars they came up with philosphy all sorts of universal mathmatics all under their religious beliefs. Any technology to a person without it would appear as magic to them. Perhaps we will understand why jesus spit in the dirt made clay and rubbed it in the blind man's eye to make him see again, or why he told a leper to dunk himself 7 times in the jordan, or why scales fell from pauls eyes it al speaks to thing they do not understand but is certainly our grasp to explain as we become more aware of how God works in this world.

Why not just say that the Cosmos was created by some super alien intelligence last Wednesday to deceive you from believing the real Truth, unless, of course, you pass the "test" of not believing in modern science??

[Drich]

I don't have time to address all this properly, so.... I'll just focus on getting back to the original notion.

I know you are from spain I am mocking you.. you speak and think as an isolationist. you have the mind set that your culture your langage is the world and time bench mark and everything should be easily understood and accessible to you. You are the picture of the fat lazy westerner/american the rest of the world hates!!!

Wrong, sport. Not Spanish.

does it really matter? people call me Chinese or Japanese I just roll with it, why? because I know there is both in our blood line. I don't feel a need to correct If I can connect to their larger point.. maybe you should try that some time you might idk... learn something rather than spending all your time here grading papers like an old school marm checking for exact facts.

let's put it in a modern context. lets say ISIS strikes you city, and they keep comming becuse you live in one of those puny european places with o guns and they find no boarder oppostion so they just at will bomb and shoot the place up killing people at will!

This reminded me of US schools being assaulted by US-born gun nuts.

you know what this reminded me of? the gun free zone that is Paris who was shot up by terrorists who some how got Full auto ak 47s in this gun free utopia and shot the idea that if all guns were bann that would end crime to shite. This also draws the original parallel to witches being the terrorist of their day. but shooting peole with guns they mechanically engineered plagues and seemingly other super natural events out of thin air. Which is why I made the parallel before you trying to change the subject like a douche bag who can identify with the point that was made but refuses to acknowledge it.

citation please. Peter is the father of the catholic movement yes.. however paul wrote 2/3's of the bible my question was if peter was the father of the church then why did he contribute so little to it?

Indeed, why was Peter's gospel not kept in the Bible?

Retard.. Peter himself could not read or write. So he used a scribe. that scrib's name was commonly refered to as saint mark. Meaning the book of mark is peter's gospel.
So peter's gospel was indeed included.

Because its philosophy wasn't entirely in line with the philosophy that the Pauline Christianity was wanting to impose.

dear not smart person.. Paul's church... did not start till the reformaition nealy 1600 years after the church of peter had been in power.

Peter, for example, would have been ok with women priests. A rather forward notion for the times, but that would just mess up the narrative being pushed by the followers of Paul.

no again. why do you presume to speak before you research anything? how many times must I kick your teeth in with truth and fact before you learn to fact check yourself?!?!? EVERYTHING YOU BELIEVE ABOUT THE CHURCH AND GOD IS WRONG! Again moron the RC church is the church peter built.. are their any women in charge of the roman catholic church? do you know the pope has a living apstole in the sucessive line of peter has the power to change the bible any time he wishes? has any of them removed women from church power or authority? no because it was never given to them. Nothing peter ever wrote gave women power in the church and for 1600 years after nothing any one of the sucessive popes wrote gave women power subsequently when Paul's church the church of the bible the protestants came to be nothing gave women power.

With this, Mary Magdalene was depicted differently from what is now canon.

there is nothing written with in a 1000 years of her death that dipicts her any differently. meaning what you are referring to was mostly likely one of the gospels written during the crusades to spark the need to capture and retain the holy land.

because we do not know who is and who is no till the final judgement. I grew up the first 1/2 of my life thinking I was not 'selected.' Now I know that was not true. I simply fell into believeing the same bs you guys keep hiding behind.

And tell us again Drich. Was it someone who convinced you that you were selected?

God showed me my path via a dream sequence that I saw my own judgment and was cast into hell. where I was consumed by hell fire in a great pit of nothingness. I asked for a second chance. and here I am 20 some odd years later still trying to spread the truth I was not privy too. Again incase you forgot I am not here to save anyone rather in my time in hell my worst haunting thought was if I had known the truth would I have responded to God differently. My task here is to provide you with God's truth so if you ever find yourself in my position this thought will not haunt you till it breaks your sanity in grief.

Or was it some circumstance in your life that "opened your eyes"?

Afterwards I sought God and he gave me several gifts to do this job. a few thriving sources of income where I can spend 4 to 6 hours aday in study prayer and answering these questions. godly wisdom to answer questions like the epicurean paradox, evolution verse creation, stupid little paradoxical spiritual speed bumps like can god creat a rock so big he can lift it.. and of course those long lists you 'good people' provide. answers to that stuff come off the cuff and ver little of my time has to be waisted in fussing over them. for instance I prayed for something to tell you guys about evolution/creation when asked. my whole answer came in flashes like I was watching a movie, 15 mins (as long as it took for me to write it down and put it in order and that was it.
be continued..


[

[Peebothuhlu]

At work.

I may regret this post....

BUT

Fek me but I kind of hope that Drich has to at least work a bit at comming across as so bat-sheet crazy as their posts would seem to make them out to be.

[The Grand Nudger]

As we all know, no one who has ever believed themselves to be touched and informed by a god has ever been wrong about anything. Here's what I want to know, though, Drich. Since the contents of your posts express "godly wisdom":... then why is your god such a damned idiot? If you really do want people to take the things you say at face value, then you're going to have to confront the fact that when you pray to god, and god answers you, the things that god says are phenomenally ignorant.

I think that most of us would lay culpability for this on you, but you insist otherwise.

[Drich]

Because you need proper philosophy. Your god is indistinguishable from a super advanced alien.

You are saying that the god of the bible needs to be dumbed down to fit man's philosophy of a god, which is why the god of the bible is not taught intuitively?
Meaning when you said religion is invented by man, and I asked why then is the God of the bible not intuitively taught the way I/the bible teaches, you said because the teaching are not based in man's philosophy hence the need for a course in philosophy?!?!

Are you so stupid to not understand you just contradicted yourself? If God is man's creation then why does one need to study how man perceives God to change the god of the bible to fit man's idea of what God is supposed to be? Do you understand if man created the God of the bible should the God of the bible not fit man's philosophy automatically?

Because the God of the bible does not fit the philosophical profile of what man seeks in God... (by your own admission) shows that God's nature is different than what man would create. I know you are not smart enoug to understand but you just refuted your own objection. you just falsified the idea that God is a creation of man.

The Catholic god is an underlying conceptual framework without which nothing can exist, for it is the very concept of existence (among many other things).

Can you spot the difference?

the catholic version of God can't even work his way past simple paradoxes of being an almighty being. not to mention the problem of evil nor can he resolve creation with evolution or even how adam and eve's children got married and had kids of their own without resorting to incest. So yeah I see a huge difference in that the catholic god is full of flaws you all like to pat yourself on the back when you point them out to eachother over and over again as if it where the first time those objection where made... then you have the God of the bible which no little paradox of litature can bind no question of orginans can't be anwered or is lost to explain how adam and eve children got married with resulting to incest.

You are so transparent in that you need the catholic God to be relevant with your objections and your insults. as your mind is not flexible enough to roll with the punches of a God based in the bible. especially when you are still arguing for aramaic/non Greek translations. (you have yet to properly concede the whole topic.

the only thing that get twisted is you little perception of a great God and an explanation of a book that has chewed you up and spit you out today.

Your great god is puny.

said the douche that just learned that romans primary spoke and wrote greek in the first century in the middle east.

Your book was written by people, for people, drawing upon notions and stories that were floating around in the...wait for it... popular mythology.

not according to you.. you just said the reason this book does not follow the teaching of man is because it lack basic philosophy.

What I learned about the book was that it would be written in Greek if the purpose was to disseminate it throughout the larger region of Asia Minor and Eastern Mediterranean. Many people wrote Aramaic with Greek characters and, if it would be for popular and local consumption, your book would have been written like that.

Aramaic was not an offical language. it was the scribblings of malcontents and barbarians. as such there were or are surviving text in aramaic but they are know translations from the greek. many speculate the aramaic was translated from the greek as a means to speak to the aramaic only as an outreach.

As it is, it had the clear purpose of convincing people that were not around and could not in any way verify the stories.... except through faith... It was a propaganda device... well.... I should say "they", not "it". There were many gospels and similar texts floating around. All with the same goal: propaganda.

no back then they had access to the people who where there. which in that culture is far more believable than anything that could have been written

[The Grand Nudger]

Is the above gods final answer? What level of consultation went into that response?

[pocaracas]

Ah, Drich... if only you could take your head out of the sand and look around...

[quote='Drich' pid='1887526' dateline='1551123711']
citation please. Peter is the father of the catholic movement yes.. however paul wrote 2/3's of the bible my question was if peter was the father of the church then why did he contribute so little to it?

Indeed, why was Peter's gospel not kept in the Bible?

Retard.. Peter himself could not read or write. So he used a scribe. that scrib's name was commonly refered to as saint mark. Meaning the book of mark is peter's gospel.
So peter's gospel was indeed included.
[/quote]

Here's a crazy idea... Whoever was Peter's scribe wrote the gospel of Peter.
Whoever Mark was, wrote a gospel as if it was told by Peter, or however you can claim him to have been his scribe...

Who would know the difference?

Because its philosophy wasn't entirely in line with the philosophy that the Pauline Christianity was wanting to impose.

dear not smart person.. Paul's church... did not start till the reformaition nealy 1600 years after the church of peter had been in power.

Oh yeah... Paul didn't write letters to several locations explaining how his view of the church was to be.

[quote='Drich' pid='1887526' dateline='1551123711']
because we do not know who is and who is no till the final judgement. I grew up the first 1/2 of my life thinking I was not 'selected.' Now I know that was not true. I simply fell into believeing the same bs you guys keep hiding behind.

And tell us again Drich. Was it someone who convinced you that you were selected?

God showed me my path via a dream sequence that I saw my own judgment and was cast into hell. where I was consumed by hell fire in a great pit of nothingness. I asked for a second chance. and here I am 20 some odd years later still trying to spread the truth I was not privy too. Again incase you forgot I am not here to save anyone rather in my time in hell my worst haunting thought was if I had known the truth would I have responded to God differently. My task here is to provide you with God's truth so if you ever find yourself in my position this thought will not haunt you till it breaks your sanity in grief.

Or was it some circumstance in your life that "opened your eyes"?

Afterwards I sought God and he gave me several gifts to do this job. a few thriving sources of income where I can spend 4 to 6 hours aday in study prayer and answering these questions. godly wisdom to answer questions like the epicurean paradox, evolution verse creation, stupid little paradoxical spiritual speed bumps like can god creat a rock so big he can lift it.. and of course those long lists you 'good people' provide. answers to that stuff come off the cuff and ver little of my time has to be waisted in fussing over them. for instance I prayed for something to tell you guys about evolution/creation when asked. my whole answer came in flashes like I was watching a movie, 15 mins (as long as it took for me to write it down and put it in order and that was it.
be continued..
[/quote]

I rest my case.

[quote='pocaracas' pid='1887553' dateline='1551130906']
Because you need proper philosophy. Your god is indistinguishable from a super advanced alien.

You are saying that the god of the bible needs to be dumbed down to fit man's philosophy of a god, which is why the god of the bible is not taught intuitively?
Meaning when you said religion is invented by man, and I asked why then is the God of the bible not intuitively taught the way I/the bible teaches, you said because the teaching are not based in man's philosophy hence the need for a course in philosophy?!?!

Are you so stupid to not understand you just contradicted yourself? If God is man's creation then why does one need to study how man perceives God to change the god of the bible to fit man's idea of what God is supposed to be? Do you understand if man created the God of the bible should the God of the bible not fit man's philosophy automatically?

Because the God of the bible does not fit the philosophical profile of what man seeks in God... (by your own admission) shows that God's nature is different than what man would create. I know you are not smart enoug to understand but you just refuted your own objection. you just falsified the idea that God is a creation of man.
[/quote]

Here, I'll help you find the error in your judgment. You won't see it as an error, because you're thick, but I'll show it to you nonetheless.

In these 3 paragraphs when you speak of god, you always say "god of the bible". That is your problem.
You see... if a god does exist, then god is god. period. simple.
God is that which created the cosmos, that which supports all existence.

It doesn't matter which book describes this god, for it is an objective reality.
When you cling so strongly to the "god of the bible", you are telling us that your god is a [comic] book character.... and, as such, fictional. Every time you have to support god with the book, you repeat that he's fictional.

And I don't think I contradicted myself.
The god you call "god of the bible" is just a character in a book. At best, it is akin to a highly advanced extraterrestrial.
The god so-called "god of the philosophers" is a near-unassailable edifice, which then takes a bit of faith to make the leap into the god of Christianity, but people do it and live on.

That you can't understand how vastly superior to the "god of the bible" the "god of the philosophers" is, shows just how stunted you are.
Go dream+life coincidences!

The Catholic god is an underlying conceptual framework without which nothing can exist, for it is the very concept of existence (among many other things).

Can you spot the difference?

the catholic version of God can't even work his way past simple paradoxes of being an almighty being. not to mention the problem of evil nor can he resolve creation with evolution or even how adam and eve's children got married and had kids of their own without resorting to incest. So yeah I see a huge difference in that the catholic god is full of flaws you all like to pat yourself on the back when you point them out to eachother over and over again as if it where the first time those objection where made... then you have the God of the bible which no little paradox of litature can bind no question of orginans can't be anwered or is lost to explain how adam and eve children got married with resulting to incest.

You are so transparent in that you need the catholic God to be relevant with your objections and your insults. as your mind is not flexible enough to roll with the punches of a God based in the bible. especially when you are still arguing for aramaic/non Greek translations. (you have yet to properly concede the whole topic.

There you go again.... "god of the bible" this, "god of the bible" that... sheesh!

The god of the philosophers (which has been adopted as the god of catholicism) is not a being. It is Being! It is Existence.
It doesn't need to be almighty... It is the source of everything around you, everything in all of existence.
Can you top that with your puny "god of the bible"?

The "god of the philosophers" does not concern itself with the problem of evil at all. Evil is a human construct. God merely permeates his own existence with love. And humans can draw upon that love or not. Evil arises through humanity not partaking in the love provided.

Adam and Eve are, at best, allegory. Mankind evolved from apes, from mammals, from animals, from other life forms. When mankind became what we now call human (or perhaps this happened still before Homo Sapiens) and started thinking of their own morality, mortality and meaning... that's when they left the paradise that was an existence of animal intuition and came to be thinking, premeditating animals. That's the allegory of leaving paradise... ignorance is bliss, remember?

The god of the philosophers is also consistent with whatever science finds to be reality.
Your "god of the bible" is just the personification of a cosmic king. Wholly conjured up by people, drawn from people's experiences, emotions, commands, desires...

[quote='Drich' pid='1887526' dateline='1551123711']
the only thing that get twisted is you little perception of a great God and an explanation of a book that has chewed you up and spit you out today.

Your great god is puny.

said the douche that just learned that romans primary spoke and wrote greek in the first century in the middle east.
[/quote]

Try again. Romans spoke and wrote Latin. Some in the middle East learned Greek and used both Latin and Greek side by side. Official Empire business, especially that to do with the military, was solely performed in Latin.

Local middle Easterns spoke and wrote Greek as a second language.
That's what I learned. Thank you for pushing me towards that info.

[quote='Drich' pid='1887712' dateline='1551209459']

What I learned about the book was that it would be written in Greek if the purpose was to disseminate it throughout the larger region of Asia Minor and Eastern Mediterranean. Many people wrote Aramaic with Greek characters and, if it would be for popular and local consumption, your book would have been written like that.

Aramaic was not an offical language. it was the scribblings of malcontents and barbarians. as such there were or are surviving text in aramaic but they are know translations from the greek. many speculate the aramaic was translated from the greek as a means to speak to the aramaic only as an outreach.

There he goes again...
Aramaic was the de facto spoken language in the region of Jerusalem. Otherwise, this discussion wouldn't even exist.
For local writing, it is clear that some used Greek characters for conveying the sounds of Aramaic. For more widespread communication, proper Koine Greek was used.

As it is, it had the clear purpose of convincing people that were not around and could not in any way verify the stories.... except through faith... It was a propaganda device... well.... I should say "they", not "it". There were many gospels and similar texts floating around. All with the same goal: propaganda.

no back then they had access to the people who where there. which in that culture is far more believable than anything that could have been written

No, they didn't. That is such a fallacy.
Most people never moved farther than 10 miles away from their homes, during their whole lifetime. And the propaganda was aimed at these people who couldn't fact check.
And it carried a message that resonated with the poor peasants.

[fredd bear]

"Retard.. Peter himself could not read or write. So he used a scribe. that scrib's name was commonly refered to as saint mark. Meaning the book of mark is peter's gospel.
So peter's gospel was indeed included."
 
It is not generally accepted that any of the disciples were  involved in writing the gospels. It is accepted that Gospels were written not earlier than 70  ce .Some scholars think it's more like  100 years.  As far was I'm aware the names of the gospel authors were chosen arbitrarily ,and were unconnected  with the original disciples


"Gospel[Notes 1] originally meant the Christian message itself, but in the 2nd century it came to be used for the books in which the message was set out.[1] The four canonical gospels — Matthew, Mark, Luke and John — were written between AD 70 and 100,[2][3] building on older sources and traditions,[4] and each gospel has its own distinctive understanding of Jesus and his divine role.[5] All four are anonymous (the modern names were added in the 2nd century), and it is almost certain that none were written by an eyewitness.[6] They are the main source of information on the life of Jesus as searched for in the quest for the historical Jesus. Modern scholars are cautious of relying on them unquestioningly, but critical study attempts to distinguish the original ideas of Jesus from those of the later authors.[7][8] Many non-canonical gospels were also written, all later than the four, and all, like them, advocating the particular theological views of their authors.[3] "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel

"In the early centuries of Christianity, there were over 200 Christian gospels in circulation, all of them containing wildly varied stories and theologies1. As the Church became organized there was much worry that no-one truly knew what Jesus had said or done, so they ratified just four Gospels: They picked the number four because "there were four winds, four points of the compass, four corners of the temple", mirroring the arguments of Irenaeus in the 2nd century - "just as the gospel of Christ has been spread by the four winds of heaven over the four corners of the earth, so there must be four and only four Gospels"2. The four canonical gospels comprise of synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) plus John. None are eye-witness accounts of Jesus' life and they are all written in Greek, not in the native tongues of anyone who met and followed Jesus. Many of the stories in the Gospels are copied from Greek god-man legends, especially those of Dionysus and Osiris. Although we now know them by the names of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, they are all originally anonymous3."

http://www.humanreligions.info/gospels.html


Oh yeah... Paul didn't write letters to several locations explaining how his view of the church was to be.

There's a bit of a problem with the Epistles of Paul; scholars now accept that several are forgeries, and there is doubt about others.

Regardless, Paul is the most significant figure in early Christianity, not Jesus..  Many scholars argue that Christianity should actually be called "Paulism"

--without Paul to abolish the ritual parts of Mosaic Law, allowing gentiles to join, Christianity would have remained a small Jewish sect, and fade way after a few  generations.

"The Pauline epistles, Epistles of Paul, or Letters of Paul, are the thirteen books of the New Testament, composed of letters which are largely attributed to Paul the Apostle, although authorship of some is in dispute. Among these letters are some of the earliest extant Christian documents. They provide an insight into the beliefs and controversies of early Christianity and as part of the canon of the New Testament they are foundational texts for both Christian theology and ethics. The Epistle to the Hebrews, although it does not bear his name, was traditionally considered Pauline for a thousand years, but from the 16th century onwards opinion steadily moved against Pauline authorship and few scholars now ascribe it to Paul, mostly because it does not read like any of his other epistles in style and content.[1] Most scholars agree that Paul really wrote seven of the Pauline epistles, but that four of the epistles in Paul's name are pseudepigraphic (Ephesians, First Timothy, Second Timothy, and Titus[2]); scholars are divided on the authenticity of two of the epistles.[2]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauline_epistles

I did some digging on 'Paul as founder of Christianity" . There is a LOT of stuff online. The answer varies depending on on the mind set set; Christians tend to say no,  atheists and humanists are more likely to say  yes.


Just a couple of minor points. I pretty much agree with the rest of your post

[Drich]

who says "God" is not an 'alien.' After all He fits the scientific definition. an why not 50 million because 'science' says 3.5 billion years ago. So God,, an extra trestial (not sentient being not of this planet) seeded or created or terriformed this planet with everything it needed to evolve into what it is today and it only took him/his tech or methods 6 days to do it. 6 of his day? six literal earth day or anyother measure of time called a day is not clear. but 6 days by his count was all it took.

I can think this way because I am not a drone who can only look at science as one thing and faith as another. If we live long enough we will see science and faith come together. our ancestors where not stupid they built cities they mapped the stars they came up with philosphy all sorts of universal mathmatics all under their religious beliefs. Any technology to a person without it would appear as magic to them. Perhaps we will understand why jesus spit in the dirt made clay and rubbed it in the blind man's eye to make him see again, or why he told a leper to dunk himself 7 times in the jordan, or why scales fell from pauls eyes it al speaks to thing they do not understand but is certainly our grasp to explain as we become more aware of how God works in this world.

Why not just say that the Cosmos was created by some super alien intelligence last Wednesday to deceive you from believing the real Truth, unless, of course, you pass the "test" of not believing in modern science??

I know you are stuck in 1990's when it comes to creation verse evolution, but there is indeed a movement towards a master creator race of aliens or master designer who seeded this world as it explains alot. if you simply google it science is considering not 'god' wizard supreme but the description of creation and assigning it to a older more advanced race of people. To which I simply ask why can't that master creator alien be god?

---

At work.

I may regret this post....

 BUT

 Fek me but I kind of hope that Drich has to at least work a bit at comming across as so bat-sheet crazy as their posts would seem to make them out to be.

We are talking about how God says he communicates with people in the bible. before I knew the bible I experienced these things. why would you then be surprised that anyone who follows the God of the bible should experience him in the way he himself describes? there are billions of christians about, and rather me being someone who knows a dude who knows a guy who _________ with God.. I am that guy.

---

As we all know, no one who has ever believed themselves to be touched and informed by a god has ever been wrong about anything.  Here's what I want to know, though, Drich.  Since the contents of your posts express "godly wisdom":... then why is your god such a damned idiot?  If you really do want people to take the things you say at face value, then you're going to have to confront the fact that when you pray to god, and god answers you, the things that god says are phenomenally ignorant.

I think that most of us would lay culpability for this on you, but you insist otherwise.

Or... maybe you just can't see what I see/I'm doing a poor job of describing what God shows me. The creation thing is flawless, to anyone I can sit down and time line with. Can you argue with my alpha and omega argument as opposed to the omnimax God? Can you argue that God does not love everyone the same? that God is not omnibenevolent?

I honestly think you guys start with the primise that I am ignorant so that when you get lost, or you can not refute what I say you have that excuse to fall back on.

Look at mr thunder cat.. If I were so inepth why have I been correcting his understanding of the church for over a week? EVERYTHING this guy thought about the 1st century church the bible how it was translated was totally wrong.. but at the end all this douche has to say is I'm stupid and he can reset all the wrong stuff he orginally believed and you would gladly return to his side in support.. 

Now is it because I am ignorant here? or is the sentiment assigned to me so that you all do not have to change what or how you think about the church?

Truthfully look at the crazy stuff he has said and what I had to do to correct him.. all the resources and all the reference material I used to support my work.. what did thundercat have? nothing more than what he thought and his 'word.' and for 3 days with supporting material I was treated as the ignorant one! why? if I can completely support my position? becuse it is a lie you all have to believe inorder to stay with what you believe about God and the church.

You want me to be wrong or ignorant so you do not have to change.

---

Is the above gods final answer?  What level of consultation went into that response?

3 points of reference to everything I say. just like with this next response and every other for everything I write.. Now I might not put hands on and look everything up each and every time.. for instance I might to a bit on 18th century slavery and look up 3 point of material for an argument that might cross over in a discussion about modern slavery a few weeks later. I won't need to pull the info unless I quote it.

Despite what you all need to tell yourselves I research everything. very rarely will I just tell you what I think without some sort of support.