RE: The Statler Waldorf Balcony
October 18, 2010 at 7:21 pm
(This post was last modified: October 18, 2010 at 7:49 pm by Statler Waldorf.)
(October 18, 2010 at 6:12 pm)Ace Wrote:Quote:There is nothing wrong with God bringing glory to Himself.Stroking your own ego is considered a very sad thing to do. If god doesn't have a problem worshipping himself, then fine. Just don't expect me to stoke his over-sized ego.
Quote: It is wrong for man to bring glory to himself because it is not giving the glory to God.It's wrong for us to stroke our own egos but to stroke god's enormous ego (which seems to be bigger than himself) is a must? Fucking why?! Think god gets jealous too easily and needs constant ego stroking to make him feel better. Once again, that's just sad.
Quote:So to say that it is wrong for God to glorify HimselfI didn't say it was wrong, I said it's very sad.
Quote:Wow, first I get accused of not reading enough and believing it, now I am assused of reading too much and believing it all.I don't recall saying that. Please point out where I said that.
I never said you read too much. You can never read too much. I said don't believe everything you read or hear. I said that you should QUESTION IT!
Quote:Wish people would just make up their minds on hereI wish you would take more time to read posts. Read above.
Actually you are unable to worship God without Him first renewing your heart, so I am not surprised at all that you won't worship Him no matter how you "justify" it.
You may think it's sad, but that's your own opinion.
(October 18, 2010 at 6:03 pm)Thor Wrote:(October 18, 2010 at 5:59 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: There is nothing wrong with God bringing glory to Himself. It is wrong for man to bring glory to himself because it is not giving the glory to God. So to say that it is wrong for God to glorify Himself becasue it does not bring glory to God is silly.
Can "God" do anything wrong?
How do you define wrong?
The old vestigial organ argument eh? We would have seen this same argument in the late 19th, early 20th century- however back then they believed that the body had over 100 of these organs. Now the list is much much shorter because we keep on finding important functions for these sttructures. For example the Appendix aids in the body's ability to fight infection, and the coccyx helps to provide an attachment point for pelvic organs. I would even argue that most modern Evolutionary Biologists will shy away from using this argument, as demonstrated by the Evolutionary Biologist S. R. Scadding's staement,
"Since it is not possible to unambiguously identify useless structures, and since the structure of the argument used is not scientifically valid, I conclude that 'vestigial organs' provide no special evidence for the theory of evolution."
S. R. Scadding, "Do 'Vestigial Organs' Provide Evidence for Evolution?," Evolutionary Theory, vol. 5, p. 173.
(October 18, 2010 at 5:49 pm)Thor Wrote:(October 18, 2010 at 3:50 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Nope, creation scientists believe in an ice age.
Really?
And how long do they think this Ice Age lasted? And how long ago did it end?
Most creationists believe in one ice age that shortly followed the flood and lasted around 1000 years.