Life after death? Your thoughts?

[SWP's back]

[round of applause for this post]

Take a bow Sir.

Yet you ignore my reply. Fitting

Entirely fitting since you're still using evidence and proof interchangeably as if they were the same thing.

If by calling the Bible 1700 years old you mean the canon of scripture, that happened in AD 393 which makes the bible 1618 years old.

However the books that compose the New Testament were all written by AD 95 and most were written by AD67, which makes it 1944 years old (if we exclude revelation).

What a fucking shock. You focus on semantics as you have no argument that stands up to the slightest interrogation. You complain about me using "proof" and "evidence" interchangably yet insist on quoting scripture and using that as either.

You are a charlottan and hypocrite Paul. I don't know how ElanoJo has managed to be a civil as he has these past few weeks.<br /><br />-- Sat May 28, 2011 5:36 pm --<br /><br />

@SWPs back Yeah I am neither for or against Catholic schools because you usually get better GCSEs than normal state schools and when youve left and older you can make your own mind up and go your own way (like you have).

Without their teaching you may have never taken this path?

Also them stories are great mate, and obviously I cannot say the reasoning to why them things happen. Its stuff you wouldnt believe if you read it in the bible eh? haha. Anyway as I have said loadsssss now I am not religous I probably agree with out about it causing wars etc I also believe it divides and is used for Man to manipulate women and children and also other men for their own personal agendas.

Think we have pretty much come to the end of our debate agreeing the disagree on somethings? From reading your stuff I rekon we are about the same age, I'm 18.

29 so I am not sure whether to take that as a compliment or not. It would be interesting to have this discussion in a decade and see how your views have altered (or not) over that time.

My school could have provided the same springboard for academic success without the indoctrination mind.

 

[Josh Blue]

29, I am not a physic then. Please dont take offence I generally thought you were my age group.

Also If I am still using this site within a decade I am sure the topic of God/Religon/After Life will pop many many times.

It would also be interesting to see how yours and everyones beliefs alter over that time because I am sure they will all change slightly.

 

[pauldominic]

What a fucking shock. You focus on semantics as you have no argument that stands up to the slightest interrogation. You complain about me using "proof" and "evidence" interchangably yet insist on quoting scripture and using that as either.

You are a charlottan and hypocrite Paul. I don't know how ElanoJo has managed to be a civil as he has these past few weeks.

You asked me why I hadn't commented on your post so as a matter of courtesy I did.

You might call it semantics, but to me there is a crucial difference between evidence and proof.

 

[SWP's back]

What a fucking shock. You focus on semantics as you have no argument that stands up to the slightest interrogation. You complain about me using "proof" and "evidence" interchangably yet insist on quoting scripture and using that as either.

You are a charlottan and hypocrite Paul. I don't know how ElanoJo has managed to be a civil as he has these past few weeks.

You asked me why I hadn't commented on your post so as a matter of courtesy I did.

You might call it semantics, but to me there is a crucial difference between evidence and proof.

Ofwhich you have neither.

 

[ElanJo]

Not all evangelicals state that evolution is a myth, if you're tarring all of these people with the same brush then that's hardly open minded. There is no reason why evolution cannot be the way that a creator could have formed the world. The idea of it fits in with the creation story in the Bible, partially in the detail but also in the way that it didn't happen all at once, but more that it was a process.

If you're open to everything, then are you open to things that can't be categorically proven? Many of these evangelicals that you speak of have a hope that one day everything on this earth will be made new, that there will be no more death, or crying, or pain. They believe that 2000 years ago, God became man, died to pay for their sins, and then returned to life, and that it is that which has permanently separated them from death. This belief structure sounds pretty open minded to me! :)

I'm not going to touch on your complete bastardization of what it means to be open-minded, it's been mentioned already, what I'd like you to do is expand on the bold part, especially the bit where you mention "detail".

 

[SWP's back]

Not all evangelicals state that evolution is a myth, if you're tarring all of these people with the same brush then that's hardly open minded. There is no reason why evolution cannot be the way that a creator could have formed the world. The idea of it fits in with the creation story in the Bible, partially in the detail but also in the way that it didn't happen all at once, but more that it was a process.

If you're open to everything, then are you open to things that can't be categorically proven? Many of these evangelicals that you speak of have a hope that one day everything on this earth will be made new, that there will be no more death, or crying, or pain. They believe that 2000 years ago, God became man, died to pay for their sins, and then returned to life, and that it is that which has permanently separated them from death. This belief structure sounds pretty open minded to me! :)

I'm not going to touch on your complete bastardization of what it means to be open-minded, it's been mentioned already, what I'd like you to do is expand on the bold part, especially the bit where you mention "detail".

You managed to find out what Ducado meant with the mountains of evidence against evolution yet?

 

[pauldominic]

Not all evangelicals state that evolution is a myth, if you're tarring all of these people with the same brush then that's hardly open minded. There is no reason why evolution cannot be the way that a creator could have formed the world. The idea of it fits in with the creation story in the Bible, partially in the detail but also in the way that it didn't happen all at once, but more that it was a process.

If you're open to everything, then are you open to things that can't be categorically proven? Many of these evangelicals that you speak of have a hope that one day everything on this earth will be made new, that there will be no more death, or crying, or pain. They believe that 2000 years ago, God became man, died to pay for their sins, and then returned to life, and that it is that which has permanently separated them from death. This belief structure sounds pretty open minded to me! :)

I'm not going to touch on your complete bastardization of what it means to be open-minded, it's been mentioned already, what I'd like you to do is expand on the bold part, especially the bit where you mention "detail".

You managed to find out what Ducado meant with the mountains of evidence against evolution yet?

The human genome. Apparently human beings have fewer chromosomes than a cabbage and biologists can't understand the mechanics of how it all fits together to produce human beings.

Even the double helix is under question.

 

[Damocles]

I'm not going to touch on your complete bastardization of what it means to be open-minded, it's been mentioned already, what I'd like you to do is expand on the bold part, especially the bit where you mention "detail".

You managed to find out what Ducado meant with the mountains of evidence against evolution yet?

The human genome. Apparently human beings have fewer chromosomes than a cabbage and biologists can't understand the mechanics of how it all fits together to produce human beings.

Even the double helix is under question.

Yeah, that's utter shit. I have a feeling that you know next to nothing about genetics and have just thrown out words in the vague hope that they might make you sound like you've heard something interesting. The very idea that the double helix is "under question" and that "biologists can't understand the mechanics of how it all fits together" is preposterous.

 

[JoeMercer'sWay]

At the moment I lean towards "there's no point of this if there isn't" but haven't made my mind up about it definitively.

 

[ElanJo]

I'm not going to touch on your complete bastardization of what it means to be open-minded, it's been mentioned already, what I'd like you to do is expand on the bold part, especially the bit where you mention "detail".

You managed to find out what Ducado meant with the mountains of evidence against evolution yet?

The human genome. Apparently human beings have fewer chromosomes than a cabbage and biologists can't understand the mechanics of how it all fits together to produce human beings.

Even the double helix is under question.

Where are you parroting this from?

How do you think Chromosomes work? Higher number of Chromosomes = a "higher entity"?

SWP's Back, nope, he never replied. I'm not surprised as he has form for this. The way he acted in a Libya thread a while ago was beyond cowardly. I can understand if people forget about a post they made but it wasn't the case in that thread as he carried on posting in it.