Materialists believe in magic

[Jorge]

Why are you banning the Beagle anyway? Sure he can be 'difficult ', but no more so than you.

First, He knows what he's talking about. Second, while he's not kind to YEC ideas, it's for a reason. They don't hold up. And also unlike you, he can explain why, and he does.

You don't ban others that confront YEC silliness, so I realize it's not just that he shows the faults in YEC.

But it's poor form on your part. A Cheap shot, more revenge than anything legit.


Jim

As much as you defend Materialists/Atheists, why don't you come out of the closet already?
You know that I have long hypothesized that you have a deep, spiritual affinity with
Materialists/Atheists. One day you will realize that it is intellectually dishonest to promote
the things that you do while continuing to promote yourself as a "Christian". So, come on,
O-Mudd, take the same plunge as Charles Templeton once did and say "Farewell to God".
Templeton died an Atheist and went straight to hell but at least he was honest about it.

Jorge

[Jorge]

If to identify "the scum of the earth" we use the criterion of "blathers, clucks and welches on bets", then Jorge Fernandez is the scum of the earth

Kindly enjoy your comrade Beagle Boy OFF this thread.
Thanks in advance ------- now OFF!!!
Of course, as has become obvious by now, the rules don't apply to you people so
my request to both you and Beagle Boy is for naught.

Jorge

[Jorge]

No Jorge -

(1) 'believe in something ' is not how we typically define religious.

Source: websters

Religion
1):the belief in a god or in a group of gods
2): an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods
3): an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group

© Copyright Original Source

The 3rd definition is closest, but by the time you get there, the word is being used as a metaphor - e.g. "That fellow's interest in cycling is like a relgion"

Religious of course is just that adjective describing a person that has a religion.

So what you are doing here is using taking the metaphorical use of the word at the beginning of your argument, and then substituting the primary definition at the end. Argument by substitution of terms with non-equivalent definitions is not a valid argument.

In non-metaphorical terms - religion refers to the belief in God or a group of gods. It does not define belief in the general sense.

(2) There is no singular belief that the "Universe came out of nothing". Theory and observation leads to the conclusion the universe began as some kind of singularity. The universe is expanding. Reversing that process - assuming the universe has finite extent - leads to the conclusion that at some point in its past, the mass/density was such that the universe was a singularity.

What is the source of that singularity has several possible options. only one is creation out of nothing. Whatever a person 'believes' about that initial form may or may not lead back to belief in God. But belief the universe began from a singularity is the natural conclusion from the existing data and observations. Having that belief does not imply religion in even the metaphorical sense.

(3) There are many types of belief that a person or group of persons might have that would not be defined as religious, even in the metaphorical sense. I believe my wife is faithful to me. I can't prove it, but my observations of her are consistent with that belief. But that belief does NOT constitute any sort of Religion, and a person can believe in the unprovable faithfulness of their partners without that belief constituting some sort of basis for religious faith. And to call it 'religious' would - except in certain extreme cases - be an inappropriate used of the word.


Jim

You're treating with this subject at the Junior High School level. Try it at your age group.

Jorge

[oxmixmudd]

As much as you defend Materialists/Atheists, why don't you come out of the closet already?
You know that I have long hypothesized that you have a deep, spiritual affinity with
Materialists/Atheists. One day you will realize that it is intellectually dishonest to promote
the things that you do while continuing to promote yourself as a "Christian". So, come on,
O-Mudd, take the same plunge as Charles Templeton once did and say "Farewell to God".
Templeton died an Atheist and went straight to hell but at least he was honest about it.

Jorge

Jorge - do you realize that what you've just done here is blasphemous? You would encourage a person to leave faith in Christ? Do you suppose that Christ's work on the Cross was cheap? Do you suppose that He would let ANY go - that He would encourage ANYONE to depart from the faith when He hung and suffered and died for the salvation of each and every one? Does Christ's work on the cross mean so little to you? Are the souls of those around you so cheap that you can play games with them or actually as you do here encourage one of them to leave behind a salvation bought with so great a price?




Jim

[oxmixmudd]

You're treating with this subject at the Junior High School level. Try it at your age group.

Jorge

Interesting: this comment is nothing more than a grade school level slam. It doesn't address the points made. Only attempts to insult the author.

So who is it that is not reasoning like an adult?



Jim

[Jorge]

Interesting: this comment is nothing more than a grade school level slam. It doesn't address the points made. Only attempts to insult the author.

So who is it that is not reasoning like an adult?

Jim

Wrong! As you are operating at a Junior High School level, I thus
gave you feedback worded - for your benefit - at that same level.

You want ADULT feedback? Then provide ADULT content.

Jorge

[Jorge]

Jorge - do you realize that what you've just done here is blasphemous? You would encourage a person to leave faith in Christ?

I can always count on you to interpret my words in the WORST possible way.
This is about the 78th time that I've said that to you - the M.O. in unmistakable.

I did not ask you to "leave Christ", I asked you to be HONEST. I even provided an example.
Templeton, for all his spiritual error, was at least honest in the path that he took.

First, never forget who and what Templeton was. Templeton probably forgot more Bible than you will ever know. Countless thousands of people came to Christ through his sermons and preaching. Keep that in mind.

Second, Templeton realized that there was no way to consolidate Christianity with Evolution and so, acting with complete (albeit erroneous) honesty, he rejected the truth in favor of the lie. You should take careful note on how Templeton's conclusion fully agrees with Dawkins words that it is, quote, "delusional" to think that Evolution and Christianity are compatible. Templeton was not delusional and was thus 'rationally' led to the path that he took.

Templeton was wrong in rejecting Christ but at least he was HONEST. Now do you get it?

Do you suppose that Christ's work on the Cross was cheap? Do you suppose that He would let ANY go - that He would encourage ANYONE to depart from the faith when He hung and suffered and died for the salvation of each and every one? Does Christ's work on the cross mean so little to you? Are the souls of those around you so cheap that you can play games with them or actually as you do here encourage one of them to leave behind a salvation bought with so great a price?

Thanks for the sermon but I don't need it. Above I explained my meaning. I also noted how you once again took my words in the WORST possible way so as to further your agenda.

I wouldn't have wasted a New York minute with you if I did not have the utmost regard, respect and love for Christ's work on the Cross. It is people like yourself -- with your lack of understanding -- that tarnish Christ's work. You do so with compromise, distortion and the introduction of false doctrines, heresies and blasphemies into the Perfect Work of Christ. The fact that you do not see this -- or if you do, will not admit it -- is another matter.

Then, in pure Clinton style, you accuse your opponent (me) of your own crimes (as you do here).

All that's left to say is, WOW!!!

Jorge

[oxmixmudd]

Wrong! As you are operating at a Junior High School level, I thus
gave you feedback worded - for your benefit - at that same level.

You want ADULT feedback? Then provide ADULT content.

Jorge

With you - it doesn't matter what the content is. The feedback is always at the same very, very low level.


Jim

[oxmixmudd]

I can always count on you to interpret my words in the WORST possible way.
This is about the 78th time that I've said that to you - the M.O. in unmistakable.

I did not ask you to "leave Christ", I asked you to be HONEST. I even provided an example.
Templeton, for all his spiritual error, was at least honest in the path that he took.

I am never dishonest with you Jorge. And you did encourage me to leave the faith - though now that I've pointed out how just plain bad it is to do something like that, you'll never admit it.

First, never forget who and what Templeton was. Templeton probably forgot more Bible than you will ever know. Countless thousands of people came to Christ through his sermons and preaching. Keep that in mind.

I know who Templeton was.

Second, Templeton realized that there was no way to consolidate Christianity with Evolution and so, acting with complete (albeit erroneous) honesty, he rejected the truth in favor of the lie. You should take careful note on how Templeton's conclusion fully agrees with Dawkins words that it is, quote, "delusional" to think that Evolution and Christianity are compatible. Templeton was not delusional and was thus 'rationally' led to the path that he took.

Sorry Templeton was not able to figure it out. But the problem is not compatibility. The problem is believing the Bible is trying to tell us scientifically HOW God made life and the world. Indoctrination like what you are fully immersed in is one reason for that. This is why I don't really try to get you to understand Evolution is reality. IF you thought that, you could not remain Christian - you based your faith on some incorrect assumptions, but can't change without breaking and I would not want that.

But you do need to face the reality that - for whatever the reason might be - you can't support your beliefs with science. And that science itself is operating correctly when it theorizes an evolutionary history for life.

Templeton was wrong in rejecting Christ but at least he was HONEST. Now do you get it?

I get that you don't comprehend honesty when it is right before you. I've never been dishonest with you Jorge.

Thanks for the sermon but I don't need it. Above I explained my meaning. I also noted how you once again took my words in the WORST possible way so as to further your agenda.

Sorry Jorge. You do need that sermon - and several others. If you didn't need that sermon, you'd have never created that post.

I wouldn't have wasted a New York minute with you if I did not have the utmost regard, respect and love for Christ's work on the Cross. It is people like yourself -- with your lack of understanding -- that tarnish Christ's work. You do so with compromise, distortion and the introduction of false doctrines, heresies and blasphemies into the Perfect Work of Christ. The fact that you do not see this -- or if you do, will not admit it -- is another matter.

The fact remains, you encouraged another person to leave the faith. Are you really that cavalier? Or are you so arrogant as to say that it doesn't matter because you don't think I'm really a Christian anyway?

There really is no way to put a 'good' spin on that post Jorge.



Jim

[Jorge]

With you - it doesn't matter what the content is. The feedback is always at the same very, very low level.

Jim

.......... See, right there, look above... THAT is another example of blatant dishonesty.
.
.
.
Keep 'em coming, O-Mudd .......... I'll do the same.

Jorge

[Jorge]

I am never dishonest with you Jorge. And you did encourage me to leave the faith - though now that I've pointed out how just plain bad it is to do something like that, you'll never admit it.

......... See, right there, look above... THAT is another example of blatant dishonesty.
Keep 'em coming, O-Mudd .......... I'll do the same.

I know who Templeton was.

You should try examining his life's path much more. It is a path that many Theistic Evolutionists have taken and for most of the same reasons. It is the path that you are on today. The only remaining question is, will you somehow manage to escape it or will you continue on it where it took Templeton?

Sorry Templeton was not able to figure it out. But the problem is not compatibility. The problem is believing the Bible is trying to tell us scientifically HOW God made life and the world. Indoctrination like what you are fully immersed in is one reason for that. This is why I don't really try to get you to understand Evolution is reality. IF you thought that, you could not remain Christian - you based your faith on some incorrect assumptions, but can't change without breaking and I would not want that.

That's the same story that you keep parroting time and again. Read my lips: you are wrong! You have little-to-no understanding of the logic or philosophy that is involved in this matter and so you were and remain an easy prey to the lies of TE/OEC. And that's the good version. The really bad version is if you do fully understand the logic and philosophy that is involved. Because in that case then you are a wolf in sheep's clothing - i.e., knowing the truth but spreading a lie.

But you do need to face the reality that - for whatever the reason might be - you can't support your beliefs with science. And that science itself is operating correctly when it theorizes an evolutionary history for life.

Yet ANOTHER of those falsehoods that you continuously parrot. You want to believe that and you want others to believe it as well. Why? Because it lends 'credibility' to your agenda, that's why. After all, if Jorge (or any other Biblical Creationist) "cannot support their beliefs with science then - golly gee wiz - everybody knows that they must be wrong and, ergo, we (TEs/OECs) must be right."

That is sophomoric logic based on lies - plain and simple.

I get that you don't comprehend honesty when it is right before you. I've never been dishonest with you Jorge.

Yeah, right ... as long as the Post-Modern New Age Dictionary is used then, yeah, you've "never been dishonest with me". It's like the person that says, "I've never lied". The moment they make that statement they prove themselves untruthful (i.e., a liar).

Sorry Jorge. You do need that sermon - and several others. If you didn't need that sermon, you'd have never created that post.

You must've gotten an A+ in Clinton Strategy: accuse your opponents of the crimes that YOU commit.

The fact remains, you encouraged another person to leave the faith. Are you really that cavalier? Or are you so arrogant as to say that it doesn't matter because you don't think I'm really a Christian anyway?

I explained my position quite well. Of course, you'll never accept it and so that's that.

There really is no way to put a 'good' spin on that post Jorge.

That's coming from the Master of Spin himself.
Heck, as a TE/OEC you've had to spin God's Holy Word right into the ground.

As for you being or not being a Christian, how many times must I repeat the same lecture?

Jorge

[Roy]

Kindly enjoy your comrade Beagle Boy OFF this thread.
Thanks in advance ------- now OFF!!!
Of course, as has become obvious by now, the rules don't apply to you people so
my request to both you and Beagle Boy is for naught.

You seem to have forgotten writing this Jorge:

"Call me out if the money doesn't arrive."

If you want the criticism to stop, you know what to do.

[Bret]

I just finished reading a well-written article at the CMI site from April 2016, here:

[Bret]

"In July 2008, 16 high profile evolutionists met, by invitation, in Altenburg, Austria. They had come because they realized that mutations and natural selection did not explain the diversity of life, and they had come together to discuss this crisis in evolutionary biology. The only consensus was that there is a major problem, a crisis."

Batten spreading an urban legend and citing not the proceedings or any participant, but Creationist Walter Remine. Shocking. Pigliucci, who actually attended, clears up the lies spread by dishonest Creationists.
http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.c...cientific.html

[Roy]

You must've gotten an A+ in Clinton Strategy: accuse your opponents of the crimes that YOU commit.

Isn't that a Karl Rove strategy?