Evolution and Christianity and Salvation

[Drich]

or material from oxford law  or a paper on the Milankovitch cycles or any number of other points of research that conclusivly supports my positions. even parablistic references to movies that simple people do not always understand.. even though what was demonstrated in the movie is ironically being played out by a hypocritical bully that the movie itself supposedly over exaggerated, but again here in this very thread You decided to play the over exaggerated antagonist role..

How is that for a parable bee-otch? 

Now it is my turn.. 

You not only proved my point ,you did so in a way completely consistent with the movie I used as a parable, yet like a moth to a flame just by me backing off and going up against the ropes for a minute, and allowed you to throw whatever puch you like, you instinctively played out the very role of the antagonist the movie portrays! 

How did you not see this???

despite the way you objected to the over exaggerated hollywood portrayal! You on your own accord took the role of the professor and with simplar tone and distain for a believer did everything you could including personal attacks to discredit my beliefs.. You could not simply live and let live, you like the professor wanted to break my beliefs and or my reputation or name. Which proves my point very nicely. thanks for your participation sport! You have shown conclusively that people like you can not allow individual thought not in full alignment with what you believe. and when a person like you places themselves in a position of authority they often time abuse their authority and persecute those in the minority JUST LIKE THE MOVIE GOD IS NOT DEAD

 
what a predictable dummy you've turn out to be. You not only demonstrate the point I was trying to make you did so in a cartoonish over exaggerated way that only hollywood could script!

 So.... wait.

Now you're saying you were using the link to the movie 'God's not dead' as a... 'Parable' ?

Seriously?!?! after all of that???

You weren't using it to try and actually add supporting evidence to your side of the argument?

Go bck and reread my original argument. the movie was used to illustrate how yourside can not allow ANY other competing theories or thoughts.. then I referenced the movie. The professor here demands that all the students declare God is dead.

Like wise you have spent the last idk 4 or 5 post trying to discredit my competing theories and thoughts in the same way the professor did. thus having you follow the same path the antagonist took.

The movie is just that. A 'Movie'. It's in the category, effectively, of entertainment because it's just a presentation of character and/or other wise 'Staw-manning' things.

don't be obtuse. The movie was a movie that depicted a methodology that you yourself use when arguing against a different world view. which shows a systemic flaw in how atheists in general thing and ultimately work with in the community.

So... as something to bolster 'Facts' it fails.

maybe you should define parable? because thatis exactly what it does it takes a principle that maybe is hard to full grasp and it reinforces it or demonstrates it in a easy to understand way..

As somethng to act as a 'Parable', since it doesn't present anything factual, it would also seem to fail.

where did you get your defination? Do you know the story of King david and the prophet Samuel after David had an afair with bathsheba she found out she was prego, and david sent for her husband who was on the front line of a great battle, thinking he would sleep with her, but he did not as he vowed to take no comforts of home unless his brother at arms could as well. So he sent uriaha back to the front lines with a note to have uriaha to spear head the next advance. the general put uriaha at the lead of the next attack and he died..

All to hide David's shame/sin.

Then samel her of this and came to david saying that a wealth land owner took a peasant's only lamb from him and rather than pay him anything he murdered the peasant and kept the lamb for himself. David enraged demanded this land owner be brought before him. Then samuel said you are that land owner, bathsheba was the lamb and uriah was the present.
David hung his head in shame and repented.

Now how much of the parable was true? no of it as david was God's king meaning he owned nothing, he simply managed the kingdom for God. He stole no actual lambs he killed not peasants in order to get away with his crime. He simply sent a solider to war to fight in a battler he would have most likely died in anyway.

The point parables don't have t be true. I can tell you a few others if you like.
Wheat and the weeds, the grain and the chaff, sheep and the goats the parable of the 10 virgins. Most parables are not historical records but rather a story that illustrates or bolsters a larger point!!

That I find your posts to be strange, sometimes obtuse, often times confusing and generally rantish and crazy is my opinion.

If I thought as you did would I not also have come to your conclusions?
Is there not room in your world for people to freely think differently without your correction?

You can insult me for my opinion and that's fine.... But wouldn't you rather be disabusing me of my views that you're a wing-nut instead of continuing to throw abuse and tantrums?

Not at work.

I would like to see you hold it all together any better than I have, given an equal stuaton. You are on the side where you are but one of a dozen voices aday attacking from all sides. almost every day since 2008. Tell me after 10 years of people questioning attacking and out right abusing you any way they can to throw you off topic, you don't want to cut the crap and get down to being real. meaning stop pretending to be nice when it is clear though your opposition to God's truth you care nothing of truth but only seek conformity from everyone not like you and when you do not get it you again like you peers/professor in god is not dead to try and destroy through debate... not real debate as to win over tot he truth, but debate as the professor used to destroy and humiliate for not being like him.

Which is exactly what I caught you doing in the very same

---

We've already discussed milankovich cycles and why they aren't even in the running as an alternative to agw.  The global climate doesn't care about your political leanings and gripes...and they're not exactly a stellar reason to go full climate loon.

we have not discussed anything and will not till I can have some sort of assureance that you will not chicken shite out of a conversation by calling me names like liar and stupid without cause or citation when asked.

You want to call me a liar find show me where I lied when asked

You want to call me stupid then give me a chance to show you or explain when I ask..

I will not allow you troll me with whatever I say with you just saying liar liar liar the whole way.

Are you done with this yes or no?

If you are I can demonstrate how milankovitch cycles would not mean stratospheric temp rise.

---

[quote='downbeatplumb' pid='1890166' dateline='1552072797']
What is the downside of protecting the environment?

crashing world economy billions starve.

If you don't want to crash the world economy the best thing to do is up the regulation of businesses and not start trade wars.
It is only vested interests in damaging businesses that wold be damaged the economy would change. In Europe petrol cars are being phased out, the cars will still be made. The power to run them would still need to be there they would just be less damaging.
So we don't want want to ruin the economy we want to make it less hurtful to the environment.

Even if all the climate scientists and the data that supports them turned out to be wrong and people stopped polluting and damaging the environment so much on the basis of incorrect data all they would have done is make the world better.

If they are wrong we are not doing anything determental. Do you know the story of chicken little? He got hit in the head by something that fell out of a tree and got the who barn yard up in a riot because he convinced everyone the shy was falling, when in fact there was nothing at all wrong.

Except in this case all the science supports there being life threatening climate change caused by man. You are like the man on the titanic saying everythings fine as the ship sinks beneath the wave.

The planet has been warming since the last ice and and will continue to do so not because of anything we do but because the sun is putting out more energy. We can't do anything about that.

Man is pumping Billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere each year CO2 is a greenhouse gas and its effects are well known. That the sun may also be pumping out extra energy is a reason for more drastic reduction in CO2 emission if what you say is true.

we can tax for that. so they claim the sky is falling and claim they can fix the world if you give up more of your money.

Or you could pollute less. recycle more. Bike to work don't drive, I cycle to work.

BUT the climate change deniers are told that the earth is dying, what needs to be done to save it and if they are wrong the world dies, but they are willing to take the risk.

1999 call and want your arguement back
People are not denying some change in the climate as it has been changing since the last ice age. what they are arguing is the cause. the primary cause of the recent spike in change is the melted glaciers that use to cover 2/3s of the north american continent. the migrating poles is the root caue of that as our magnetic shield is exposed now where it was not before.

So what you are saying is that in the past climate change deniers were saying that there was no change but the evidence was so overwhelming that they now accept there is change and the message is "well what are you gonna do?" well we have been telling you what to do and you just wont do it.

You are on the wrong side of history.

The problem with the sky is falling is as the glaceriers melt we begin to see the artic was once a vast tropical paradise. meaning the north pole and canada are supoosed to be or where at one time the amazon junggle, and it had to be much warmer then in our past, meaning we are alot colder than what use to be. or another way to look at it we are returning to normal.. and for this you want a tax???

Well its true that the earth has been hotter in the past. But as a human we are adapted to the climate we have now. Its true the world would survive with some life forms on it. They may just not be people.

Remember the natural state of this planet is to be oxygen free and much colder. Perhaps that's what you want.

I just don't get their mind set.

because you have been programed not to think anyway except the sky is falling with carbon credit/tax

No I accept the evidence that is presented by the experts. You seem to think your opinions are as good as facts.
They aren't.

---

Strawman douche bag you are making up shit to justify a presupposition you are trying to sell.

I've already neutered this point of yours, By pointing out the billions of witnesses who are in most cases outstandingly moral members of this or any community.. while you bring in one peron singular account meaning completely unsupported and calling it eye witness testimony.. again it does not work dummy why? because you are not comparing the whole of christianity meaning trillions of people's eyewitness accounts of the course of 2000 years as being on par or as the same as one ufo guys word.

How f-ing dishonest do you have to be at your very core to take one person's word and compare it to billions living testimony? let alone to the word of 2000 years worth of people???

---

Name a single eyewitness to any miracle whatsoever.

hey stupid... MY WHO POINT IS GOD IS NOT A GOD OF MAGIC.. THAT IT WAS ONLY SEEN AS MAGIC BECAUSE THE PEOPLE WHO LIVED BACK THEN COULD NOT UNDERSTAND THE PROCESSES JESUS USED TO DO WHAT HE DID. Maybe some of it now we can explain maybe it would look like magic now as well who knows it simply depends on how advanced God is.