StarGateWars Forums

Posted: **Thu Mar 04, 2010 12:17 am**

scubapants wrote:ok first i wanna point out that i am not trying to take the piss here, the following questions are genuin proper questions to which i am looking for proper answers if anyone can help.

if you believe in god and the bible i am not trying annoy you i mearly jus wanna know a few things.

if god created the earth in the beggining, when did he find the time to create the big bang, and all the other stuff that happened before the earth existed.

if god forgives all sins how can we go to hell and what if his idea of heaven isnt my idea of heaven, it wont be heaven if i dont like it.

lust is a sin, so how do we decide who we want to spend the rest of our lives with if we want to have sex with someone before we marry them thats lust but we wouldnt marry someone we wernt attracted to.

if i was an all powerfull holy creator and i wanted people to believe in me i would show up every so often to prove i was real so that people were able to believe in me instead of just believing in something just because some book from 2000 years ago siad its real, man existed long before the bible so why did god wait all that time to let his son loose on earth to trick people into believing in his dad but wait jesus is god isnt he and his mum was a virgin so god impregnated mary but kept her a virgin and she gave birth to the thing that got her pregnant but somehow kept her virginity, anyway why did 'god' wait so long to show up then dissapear

if we all came from adam and eve and god created them in his own image doesnt that mean that god looks nothing like us because thats a whole lot of inbreeding over a very long period of time so we would look nothing like the first 2 of our species if there were only those 2 to start with.

ok thats just about enough on that if anyone can understand any of what i have just siad and knows of any answers to my questions please tell me

here goes,
the in the beginning refered to here is the beginning of the earth, not the beginning of time. God existed along side others for eons before he created earth and everything on it.

There is no hell yet. Judgement day has not occurred. When you die, you simple go into the ground and cease to exist. It is not until later that all will be judged. Also only 144k of ppl are actually going to be in heaven with God... the rest will be here on earth in a renewed state.

Marriage is based on much more than lust, there's friendship, love, trust and an understanding. Lust people tend to grow out of. Sex is a part of marriage, but shouldnt be the sole reason for it (even if the bible does say go forth and multiply)

Jesus was just one of the ppl, god has used to show his existance. There are also ppl like Moses, Job. The bible was a collection of writings that started long before Jesus was "born" hense the old and new testaments.

Being the image of someone doesn't necessarily mean looking like someone, it can be your mannerism, behaviour etc too. And Adam and Eve were created as a perfect couple, hence why they had so many children and lived so long. (hundreds of years) .

God and Jesus are not one and the same being.

I suggest next time a Jehovah Witness knocks on your door, instead of slamming it ask them questions.

Posted: **Thu Mar 04, 2010 12:30 am**

this is a most excellent 20 part series of the history of the bible with regards to the book not if the teachings and interpretations are right or wrong: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKsPb_pp ... re=related

Posted: **Thu Mar 04, 2010 3:18 am**

[spoiler]

Kit-Fox wrote:Dont ya just love the whole purer genes argument BS. Its like another argument I hear off some guy on IRC who thinks that nobility is passed on by DNA

You just cant beat some people as they just dont understand the science, and as such ignore how their ideas are invalidated by the answers and evidence provided by scientific processes.

Its like cutting your nose off to spite your face

It isnt BS, it is how does one say, highly probable. If you understand anything about science you would agree with me.

Let me give you a small gene lesson. A simple one so even you can understand.

First off, cell degeneration.
Here we have a skin cell. It is a 'perfect cell' . It replicates itself, because that's what cells do. OMG here comes radiation. One of the perfect cells is damaged.

So now we have 1 perfect cell, one damaged.
they both replicate. Because that's what cells do.
2 Perfect cells, 2 damaged cells...
ect ect...
process repeats until the perfect cells are somewhat damaged.

The cell is therefore mutated into a cell still the same, but not 100%.

It is the same thing with DNA code.

To relate with computers so IT people can understand... If you are downloading a movie or song or show it downloads in packets. If somehow this packet is misplaced. Let say, the bit in the middle is missing, the song will still play but it would skip the middle scene. Although it still works.

Now if you seed this; a different packet dissipates somehow though the seeding, so the next person has the bit in the middle missing and a bit at the end.

ect ect....

Or if you allow me the very famous, photocopy of a photocopy of a photocopy logic process. The photocopy at the end will get how does one say, grainy...

It is the same thing with DNA code.

You have not given any sort of logic, science or reasoning as a basis for your statement.

Meaning: Some people just dont understand the science, and as such ignore how their ideas are invalidated by the answers and evidence provided by scientific processes.

For the record:Nobility is not passed though DNA, this guy must be pulling your leg.
[/spoiler]

[KMA]Avenger wrote:this is a most excellent 20 part series of the history of the bible with regards to the book not if the teachings and interpretations are right or wrong: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKsPb_pp ... re=related

I always enjoy your spam.

Try: http://www.doesgodexist.org/Charts/Chec ... uracy.html

@Tempy: JWs are not 100% right... abit you know in the head.

Posted: **Thu Mar 04, 2010 3:22 am**

well, i dont enjoy your stupidity and blindness.

its a VERY intelligent film full of historical fact...watch it, you might just learn something...but i wont hold my breath!

Posted: **Thu Mar 04, 2010 3:27 am**

[KMA]Avenger wrote:well, i dont enjoy your stupidity and blindness.

its a VERY intelligent film full of historical fact...watch it, you might just learn something...but i wont hold my breath!

I hope you know it is Pro Christianity..

Posted: **Thu Mar 04, 2010 3:32 am**

Mister Sandman wrote:@Tempy: JWs are not 100% right... abit you know in the head.

Where's my wall?
Ah. There.
](*,)

So far JT's been the only one to post a balanced view which keeps all options open and rejects nothing. It's a crying shame you lot are so obsessed by it. What's the difference anyway.. whether this booklet is true, or the Silmarillion.. or Dostoievski's work.. or Kafka.. Rand.. oh well. Open eyes like JT (in this thread) would be so refreshing for once.

Posted: **Thu Mar 04, 2010 3:35 am**

Mister Sandman wrote:
[KMA]Avenger wrote:well, i dont enjoy your stupidity and blindness.

its a VERY intelligent film full of historical fact...watch it, you might just learn something...but i wont hold my breath!

I hope you know it is Pro Christianity..

you have something against Christianity?

actually, its not pro-anything, what it is-is an unbiased view of the history of the book known as the bible.

Posted: **Thu Mar 04, 2010 4:16 am**

Offensive Bias wrote:
Mister Sandman wrote:@Tempy: JWs are not 100% right... abit you know in the head.
Where's my wall?
Ah. There.

It is true though.

So far JT's been the only one to post a balanced view which keeps all options open and rejects nothing. It's a crying shame you lot are so obsessed by it. What's the difference anyway.. whether this booklet is true, or the Silmarillion.. or Dostoievski's work.. or Kafka.. Rand.. oh well. Open eyes like JT (in this thread) would be so refreshing for once.

Keeping everything open and rejecting nothing is not a balanced view. and for the record, it does reject views. Read again.
I think he ought to do according to my personal wish list well he just wouldnt amount to GOD at all

The moment you but a bias or "I think" it isnt a balanced view. You should know you are called offensive bias. :roll:

you have something against Christianity?
No
actually, its not pro-anything, what it is-is an unbiased view of the history of the book known as the bible.
You would be surprised.

Posted: **Thu Mar 04, 2010 4:25 am**

you SERIOUSLY need a lesson in humility mate!

nuff said!!!

Posted: **Thu Mar 04, 2010 4:44 am**

The idea that DNA and our genetic code was purer in the past is inherently stupid, simply because thats not how it works. It doesnt magically start out 100% perfect, it starts out very very imperfect and slowly over a great amount of time and a lot of changes, changes itself into the best fitting form for that lifeforms environment.

Posted: **Thu Mar 04, 2010 7:07 am**

Kit-Fox wrote:The idea that DNA and our genetic code was purer in the past is inherently stupid, simply because thats not how it works. It doesnt magically start out 100% perfect, it starts out very very inperfect and slowly over a great amount of time and a lot of changes changes itself into the best fitting form for that lifeforms environment.

If you consider the origin of the Homo Sapiens Sapiens as "God's Perfect Creation", then yes.. our genes would have been 'purer'.
Without some divine origins, the whole decaying DNA thing becomes a bit far fetched.

Oh well.. it does decay, our species.. Not the DNA in itself, but the creatures it results in; increasing numbers of failed and defective humans, incapable of survival if not for the investments we as a society put in medicine and other stuff.. I'd say let them die and work on preventing their issues, rather as keeping them alive. We keep our weak alive and sacrifice our strong to internal conflict, instead of allowing nature to eliminate our weak and defective, and breeding with our strong. Man is no different from horses in that one can breed out diseases, and breed into general directions of physique. Work on letting one of your children's children be the embodiment of perfection.
Now that would be manifest destiny.

On another note. Do we not forget that Adam was equal to God? Old Snakey, that devilish naughtyboi Lucifer, never lied.

Posted: **Thu Mar 04, 2010 8:32 am**

Sir Balor wrote:
Hitchkok wrote:im going to attempt to disprove the least important part of your post, ignore the important bits and then say you cant argue back because i went to 'school'

i meant theorems, easy mistake. and of course theorys and even theorems arent true in the most empirical sense sense of the word, but until they are disproven (in the case of well established theorems) they are taught as truth.

also be a bit less arrogent in your posts, you have no means to calculate the intellect of anybody you address on an internet forum.

that was not the least important part of your post, it was the pivotal part of your post.
and there is no such thing as a "scientific theorem". a theorem is a statement in mathemthics and formal logic. mathemathics and formal logic aren't sciences, they are a branch of philosophy, and as such, theorems can be proved in them.
but i don't know why i even bother writing that, since you yourself states that "theorys and even theorems arent true in the most empirical sense sense of the word, but until they are disproven (in the case of well established theorems) they are taught as truth."
and two more things:
1) i never said you can't argue back. i just told you to take my training in this fields into consideration, which you clearly didn't, before making an attempt at a reply, and definietly as half assed as the one you did.
2) if you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen. i'll be as arrogant as i like. if you're offended by what a person half away around the globe writes about you (and, BTW, i didn't write one thing regarding youre intellect), stop loging in to internet forums (and i'll also advice you to do the same with leaving youre front door).
good day, sir.

Posted: **Thu Mar 04, 2010 9:28 am**

i'm pretty sure the name of this part of the forum is "intelligent discussion" not "intelligent hostility".

any chance we can all be a bit more friendly?

any chance i can mod this part of the forum? :-"

Posted: **Wed Apr 07, 2010 3:47 am**

GOLDEN WING wrote:its just basically "Blind" Faith u either believe their is something better after ur time is up its as simple as that

But... I don't understand. If it's just blind faith, based on no evidence, and not falsifiable, why believe it? I mean, there's no evidence neither for nor against the existence of unicorns in the underground of Venus, but if you met someone who believes in them, you would think that that person is insane. Also, here's a short list of gods, could you tell me how many of them are real and why all the other gods are false?

AncientAnubis wrote:I'm pretty sure some people need to actually look up what a "theory" is. Just to enlighten the nubs here, a theory DOES in fact have evidence to back up the assumption, but it hasn't been able to be proven as an absolute truth under every circumstance.

A fact in science is a confimer observation. Something that can be observed directly. A scientific theory is an explanation of a group of facts that makes predictions and is falsifiable. For example, here you can see a way in which theory of evolution could have been disproven. Also, here's some more theories: theory of gravity, theory of electromagnetism, atomic theory.

Posted: **Wed Apr 07, 2010 4:44 am**

Mister Sandman wrote:the church is made up of humans, no human is perfect. That would explain burning non-believers.
.

are you talking about the dark ages? if yes, and just how does the term "no human is perfect". explain such a cruel act of inhumanity?

ever heard of the counter reformation which was launched by Rome on the protestants?

methinks you need to study your history.

StarGateWars Forums

the bible (the real bible)

Re: the bible (the real bible)

Re: the bible (the real bible)

Re: the bible (the real bible)

Re: the bible (the real bible)

Re: the bible (the real bible)

Re: the bible (the real bible)

Re: the bible (the real bible)

Re: the bible (the real bible)

Re: the bible (the real bible)

Re: the bible (the real bible)

Re: the bible (the real bible)

Re: the bible (the real bible)

Re: the bible (the real bible)

Re: the bible (the real bible)

Re: the bible (the real bible)