God's 12 Biggest d1ck Moves in the Old Testament

[Blackking]

Time is a man made concept. The universe doesn't know what time is. There does not have to be a "birth" of the universe. The universe could have always been there. Energy is neither created nor destroyed therefore it is a more than fair assumption that everything in this universe has always been there. "God" did not have to start things. The Big Bang did not have to start things. It could very possibly have always been there. There are more possibilities than your black/white view.

True that time is a man made concept....

but it isn't true that the universe doesn't know what time is. You don't know the universe could possibly know or not know. Also, we don't know that the universe didn't simply create itself.. creating the laws and time of the universe.

Assuming the universe hasn't always been there is just as valid of an assumption that it has always been there. Thinking that is hasn't always been there is more valid because so far we know of nothing that has Always been.

God, big bang, universe, etc... didn't have to start things--- But there most have been some catalyst - all evidence leads to the idea that there was once a beginning. We are just now finding out about hidden particles in the universe.. so are only recently beginning to understand the formation of the universe....

if big bang is valid then it still doesn't account for the cause of it's inflation.

Then there is probability.
Then there is the 'appearance' of design and fine tuning.
Then there is the fact that we are discussing this as intelligent human beings, living in an intelligent universe. To deny an intelligent catalyst is just like saying inanimate, random matter somehow created intelligence. - this is something that isn't proven and has never happened as far as we know. we know that intelligence creates intelligence for sure.

 

[Blackking]

True, but again, they are not contemporary. They are stories well after the death of Jesus. Hearsay.

Again, this isn't to say the entire stories are true or false. But we have much more evidence to think most things written about the first President are true than we do for most things written about Jesus.

This is true... because modern times are more documented then a time period that used oral traditions.....

At the same time, because you can't completely the entire idea of Jesus.....

you at the very least have to acknowledge his physical existence... even if a bunch of stories combined with egyptian backstories... were injected into the real life of a black jew creating the gospels.

 

[ill]

True that time is a man made concept....

but it isn't true that the universe doesn't know what time is. You don't know the universe could possibly know or not know. Also, we don't know that the universe didn't simply create itself.. creating the laws and time of the universe.

Assuming the universe hasn't always been there is just as valid of an assumption that it has always been there. Thinking that is hasn't always been there is more valid because so far we know of nothing that has Always been.

God, big bang, universe, etc... didn't have to start things--- But there most have been some catalyst - all evidence leads to the idea that there was once a beginning. We are just now finding out about hidden particles in the universe.. so are only recently beginning to understand the formation of the universe....

if big bang is valid then it still doesn't account for the cause of it's inflation.

Then there is probability.
Then there is the 'appearance' of design and fine tuning.
Then there is the fact that we are discussing this as intelligent human beings, living in an intelligent universe. To deny an intelligent catalyst is just like saying inanimate, random matter somehow created intelligence. - this is something that isn't proven and has never happened as far as we know. we know that intelligence creates intelligence for sure.

I completely agree with you and personally think the Big Bang was the start. I was just pointing out that there are other possibilities than whats been discussed. King -Slightly-Retarded has a black/white view so I was trying to open his mind to other possibilities.

 

[NoMayo15]

This is true... because modern times are more documented then a time period that used oral traditions.....

At the same time, because you can't completely the entire idea of Jesus.....

you at the very least have to acknowledge his physical existence... even if a bunch of stories combined with egyptian backstories... were injected into the real life of a black jew creating the gospels.

And I absolutely do. I don't deny that the man probably existed.... I just hate when people try to argue that if I don't accept the entire biblical account of Jesus, then why do I accept any historical figure existed? It's a complete false equivalency.

 

[Everythingg]

You just don't understand the science of this.

Just because I do not agree with the position you take doesnt mean I dont "understand"

Well no, the actual tautology is either it was designed by intelligence or not designed by intelligence. There's a difference between that and what you said.

Whats the difference?

Right, which is what makes me wonder why you believe the things attributed to Jesus are things he actually said. Contemporary means occuring at the same time these men lived. We have letters that we can confirm Washington wrote and historical documents we can confirm he signed. Plus there are writings from historians and other people who knew him that wrote about him. Mountains of evidence confirming his life. There is nothing like that for Jesus. All we have is scripture, which we think was written at least several decades after his supposed death, that are reports of what people say he said and did. What we have is stories about stories. And any child who has ever played the game Telephone can tell you that a sentence often will be misheard when it goes through the filter of different people.

How do you go about "confirming" what Washington wrote? Or confirming what he signed? All the things come to writings. But writings are not proof is what I heard?

So do you want to discuss christianity or not? You said you were "begging" me to do so and yet you havent brought anything to the table?

 

[2Quik4UHoes]

You remember that shyt? Aye yung I still be dyin off some of the shyt nikkaz came up with.

 

[Everythingg]

Time is a man made concept. The universe doesn't know what time is. There does not have to be a "birth" of the universe. The universe could have always been there. Energy is neither created nor destroyed therefore it is a more than fair assumption that everything in this universe has always been there. "God" did not have to start things. The Big Bang did not have to start things. It could very possibly have always been there. There are more possibilities than your black/white view.

Why dont you tell your fellow brethren about time then? He's the one speaking of the instance when "time = 0"? Or is that your friend so you wont correct him?

Is the universe simply energy?

 

[NoMayo15]

Just because I do not agree with the position you take doesnt mean I dont "understand"

It's not the position I take, it's the science. If you say you know the ONLY way something must have happen, then you don't agree with the science, that's all. There are several hypotheses about how the singularity happened, not just the way you think it happened.

Whats the difference?

Well, it might be the case that the laws of nature are such that the reality we now live in is the only outcome that could have possibly happened. It might not be up to mere chance.

How do you go about "confirming" what Washington wrote? Or confirming what he signed? All the things come to writings. But writings are not proof is what I heard?

Breh, why don't you read up on how historical documents are verified. A document can be a piece of evidence, but it depends on a variety of things. What's in question regarding the life of Jesus is the source ... we don't even know who wrote several of the texts in the New Testament.

So do you want to discuss christianity or not? You said you were "begging" me to do so and yet you havent brought anything to the table?

I'm asking you about what you believe, and you've just been spinning your wheels, so fukk it.

Why dont you tell your fellow brethren about time then? He's the one speaking of the instance when "time = 0"? Or is that your friend so you wont correct him?

Is the universe simply energy?

What are you talking about? We've saying the exact same thing, I've just gone into specifics on what's possible, not what's necessarily true.

 

[Everythingg]

It's not the position I take, it's the science. If you say you know the ONLY way something must have happen, then you don't agree with the science, that's all. There are several hypotheses about how the singularity happened, not just the way you think it happened.

The only thing I said I know is that God Almighty is the cause of ALL things in existence. How It brought these things into existence I do not know.

Well, it might be the case that the laws of nature are such that the reality we now live in is the only outcome that could have possibly happened. It might not be up to mere chance.

How do the laws of nature get there though? Dont you see that the questions keep going and going in your theory where no God is present?

Breh, why don't you read up on how historical documents are verified. A document can be a piece of evidence, but it depends on a variety of things. What's in question regarding the life of Jesus is the source ... we don't even know who wrote several of the texts in the New Testament.

I was wondering how YOU verify written accounts? Anybody can write on a piece of paper and say "this guy said it!" right?

Maybe someone who places their faith in "Jesus" can describe accounts of his life. I dont know why you keep bringing it up even though that all the proof we have of washington is documents just as Jesus.

I'm asking you about what you believe, and you've just been spinning your wheels, so fukk it.

What do I believe? I believe alot of things. Which is why I asked you to be more specific. If you dont want to then "fukk it" lol

What are you talking about? We've saying the exact same thing, I've just gone into specifics on what's possible, not what's necessarily true.

Umm.. Breh tried to correct me on some stuff you said. So I asked him why didnt he address that to YOU instead of me and of course he hopped out the thread with a quickness

 

[NoMayo15]

The only thing I said I know is that God Almighty is the cause of ALL things in existence. How It brought these things into existence I do not know.

Fair enough. You can believe whatever you like, but saying God MUST have caused anything is just unscientific.

How do the laws of nature get there though? Dont you see that the questions keep going and going in your theory where no God is present?

Yes, but that's no excuse to define some unproven thing as the explanation. Your god hypothesis is trying to solve a mystery with a mystery. And until there is some tangible evidence then no one is justified in accepting this claim as true.

I was wondering how YOU verify written accounts? Anybody can write on a piece of paper and say "this guy said it!" right?

Maybe someone who places their faith in "Jesus" can describe accounts of his life. I dont know why you keep bringing it up even though that all the proof we have of washington is documents just as Jesus.

I appeal to the experts in the field. Historians who study this stuff, and are the best at determining whether something written down is actually likely to have happened. I keep bringing this up because some documents are more reliable sources of fact than others.

What do I believe? I believe alot of things. Which is why I asked you to be more specific. If you dont want to then "fukk it" lol

I don't see how I can be more specific about asking what you believe in regards to Christianity, and what do you believe in regards to sanctioned slavery in the bible. You said you could do it, but you won't so.... fukk it.

Umm.. Breh tried to correct me on some stuff you said. So I asked him why didnt he address that to YOU instead of me and of course he hopped out the thread with a quickness

Because nothing he said disagreed with me. When I expressed the beginning of time as t=0, I was trying to convey that in this particular theory asking what happened "before" is ridiculous. We aren't in disagreement at all, which seems to go over your head. He started talking about an infinite universe, which him and I both agree is entirely possible, and I was talking about a model where time and the universe came into existence at the same time ... where time is a natural of the universe. Why would he address that paragraph to me when it's YOU who doesn't understand any of this?

 

[Everythingg]

Fair enough. You can believe whatever you like, but saying God MUST have caused anything is just unscientific.

Of course I can believe anything I like. But I rather believe the truth than the lie.

Yes, but that's no excuse to define some unproven thing as the explanation. Your god hypothesis is trying to solve a mystery with a mystery. And until there is some tangible evidence then no one is justified in accepting this claim as true.

I appeal to the experts in the field. Historians who study this stuff, and are the best at determining whether something written down is actually likely to have happened. I keep bringing this up because some documents are more reliable sources of fact than others.

I know breh. You place your faith in men Fine and dandy but just know if they're headed to pit and you're following them, then know where you're headed as well my friend.

I don't see how I can be more specific about asking what you believe in regards to Christianity, and what do you believe in regards to sanctioned slavery in the bible. You said you could do it, but you won't so.... fukk it.

"Sanctioned slavery" has nothing to do with christianity. And asking what I believe in regards to Christianity is a blanket statement. Pick a specific topic within christianity that you want explained. Since you said you were begging me to explain what I've said about christianity, go back and pick one, bring it to the table. Im not a fountain thats just going to start flowing with water at the drop of a dime. But if you dont want me to expound on something I've said than as you said "fukk it"

Because nothing he said disagreed with me. When I expressed the beginning of time as t=0, I was trying to convey that in this particular theory asking what happened "before" is ridiculous. We aren't in disagreement at all, which seems to go over your head. He started talking about an infinite universe, which him and I both agree is entirely possible, and I was talking about a model where time and the universe came into existence at the same time ... where time is a natural of the universe. Why would he address that paragraph to me when it's YOU who doesn't understand any of this?

"Time is a man made concept. The universe doesn't know what time is."

So if the universe doesnt know time, and is a man made concept, how can you include it in the universe's beginning? You were the one that was discussing time yet he addresses me as the one discussing time ignoring that it was YOU that brought time into the discussion in relation to the Universe. Thats why he dipped out. He didnt want to address how YOU were the one he was supposed to be addressing.

Btw How could there be nothing then suddenly t=0 and starts to move forward and the universe begins? Your story makes no sense friend.

 

[NoMayo15]

Of course I can believe anything I like. But I rather believe the truth than the lie.

Yes. And what's the best way to determine if a claim or set of beliefs are true?

I know breh. You place your faith in men
Fine and dandy but just know if they're headed to pit and you're following them, then know where you're headed as well my friend.

"Sanctioned slavery" has nothing to do with christianity. And asking what I believe in regards to Christianity is a blanket statement. Pick a specific topic within christianity that you want explained. Since you said you were begging me to explain what I've said about christianity, go back and pick one, bring it to the table. Im not a fountain thats just going to start flowing with water at the drop of a dime. But if you dont want me to expound on something I've said than as you said "fukk it"

"Time is a man made concept. The universe doesn't know what time is."

So if the universe doesnt know time, and is a man made concept, how can you include it in the universe's beginning? You were the one that was discussing time yet he addresses me as the one discussing time ignoring that it was YOU that brought time into the discussion in relation to the Universe. Thats why he dipped out. He didnt want to address how YOU were the one he was supposed to be addressing.

Btw How could there be nothing then suddenly t=0 and starts to move forward and the universe begins? Your story makes no sense friend.

He was saying the same thing I was, but in a different way to you! You're the one that doesn't seem to understand these concepts, so why would he quote me instead of you?!

No one said there was ever "nothing". Again, you start with flawed premises which leads to your fallacious conclusions. When I refer to t=0, I'm referring to the split second the big bang event occurred. That doesn't mean the universe was conscious of time. I'm using a human concept to relate it to something more understandable. How does anything Ill said contradict what I say?

 

[Everythingg]

Yes. And what's the best way to determine if a claim or set of beliefs are true?

Seek and you shall find

Guess not. Oh well...

He was saying the same thing I was, but in a different way to you! You're the one that doesn't seem to understand these concepts, so why would he quote me instead of you?!

No one said there was ever "nothing". Again, you start with flawed premises which leads to your fallacious conclusions. When I refer to t=0, I'm referring to the split second the big bang event occurred. That doesn't mean the universe was conscious of time. I'm using a human concept to relate it to something more understandable. How does anything Ill said contradict what I say?

Now where did you state that time was a manmade concept before this post and before the one he made? Why was he addressing that to me when you was the one that was discussing time?

Umm... you said there was no before. If there is no before and for some reason I cant address what happened before the big bang, what else are you saying than that there was nothing?

 

[NoMayo15]

Seek and you shall find
Guess not. Oh well...

Now where did you state that time was a manmade concept before this post and before the one he made? Why was he addressing that to me when you was the one that was discussing time?

I didn't have to, I thought that went without saying. He addresses you because you're the one in disagreement with us. You said there has to be a "before", and that's just not the case.

Umm... you said there was no before. If there is no before and for some reason I cant address what happened before the big bang, what else are you saying than that there was nothing?

I said it might, in fact, be the case that "before" doesn't make sense. I don't understand why you interpret that to mean "nothing existed". I don't think your argument follows.

 

[Chris.B]

This angry God being portrayed is not a true representation of Yahweh