Scientist should have studied bible first
- Thread starter Suiken
- Start date
- Status
MBwithadream
All Star
It took a while before they figured things out. That wouldn't happen if they have read the holy book.
Quarterback
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCOaI06zAvg
You supposedly follow Jesus, who said to turn the other cheek, yet you're flaming other posters here, which is the opposite of turning the other cheek.Not that you should ever be taken seriously but I'd just like to point out the bias, ignorance and pure hate in your posts. People can believe whatever they want. You want to use their holy books as toilet paper? Why? What purpose would that serve? You're obviously butthurt about something. Are you mad that God didn't give you a father? One would think a loser like yourself could find a role model in Jesus then.
By all means keep posting though. I love to see lil bytches like you get mad.
You are an idiot. Don't call yourself a Christian, because you are not one.
Religious people are such idiots.
Johnny Kilroy
79 points in 1 quarter
You supposedly follow Jesus, who said to turn the other cheek, yet you're flaming other posters here, which is the opposite of turning the other cheek.
You are an idiot. Don't call yourself a Christian, because you are not one.
Religious people are such idiots.
I supposedly follow Jesus? Really? Tell me more stuff about my life I had no clue about, breh.
Don't call myself Christian? No problem because I never have.
Keep going though...
Maybe, you need to back off, and stop taking things personally if it doesn't apply to you. If it does, deal with it. You're whole "let me argue for the sake of arguing" while not knowing where someone is coming from bit is comical. Just like you did when Liggins said most complaints came from HL. You just wrote a post, that has nothing to do with anything I'm talking about. I was not talking about the logic of the OP. I specifically told Broke not to join in on the subject because nothing good will come from it on a general level and quoted the exact type of sentiment I was talking about from Looney. That's why my last post was explaining out convo (which has been had before) to you, but that's what happens when you run into shyt with out knowing what the parties are talking about. Now, if you've espoused the same time of sentiment that Looney does and you still believe it to be true, then yes, I'm talking about you. If not, then stop playing this "are you with us or against" bit that gets cheap daps from anyone who feels they might be implicated in those cross hairs.
Have a nice day. :obamaword:
There's no point in discussing religion on here, I had never attempted to before, but I realized that a couple of days ago.
It always becomes a contest of extreme caricatured perceptions with both sides believing they have a better understanding of the other side than they actually do(theists and atheists); it is entirely counterproductive aside from giving those two segments a place to vent. I mean, it probably does more to separate people who are naturally aligned on other issues than anything, it's not like this is some right wing evangelical haven. I'd rather not partake in that is all I'm getting at. So vent away.
The OP is a perfect example of what's wrong, though. Thread could have been about the knowledge of ancient peoples or the roots of science in the Bible itself, but instead what we got was a bunch of vague strawmen and outright wrong ideas that presented both religion and science inaccurately.
he has done this like the past 3 days and thats just specifically towards me
LOL @ you getting attacked. I partook in religious threads for the first time 3 days ago and you were prominent in them. You made a couple of weak arguments, got called out for it, and then you complained. You're smart enough to where even when you're mad you'll shyt on most of those dudes, but being emotionally invested hinders you're reasoning. Because the shyt you hit me with and you in other threads are night and day. I have argued with @Serious, who I consider one of the coolest people on here NUMEROUS times and I'll support him in other threads (actually most threads). For once, someone argued with you on here that wasn't a Mowgli type and you couldn't cope. That's all that happened, and it's because you're in EVERY religion thread making general statements so OBVIOUSLY you're the name I'm going to recognize. Notice how I don't call out your good arguments, because they're good. Notice, how I never argue with the Mowgli types, I only argue with people who I consider to have a baseline of rationality...it's not even being elitist, it's knowing what will devolve into name-calling and you know it too....that shyt is below you. But if that's an "attack" then yeah I attacked you.
He must be part of the HL Elite
Nah, I was never in the HL elite, didn't get nominated for poster of the year like you
Last edited by a moderator:
Johnny Kilroy
79 points in 1 quarter
Yeah I made @Sensitive Blake Griffin quit. I asked him a series of questions that left him dumbfounded so his sensitive ass put me on ignore.
That was a good day.
That was a good day.
Last edited by a moderator:
You're right (well I don't know if I'd characterize them as strawmen), but you're right. But the same way in which those excerpts mean nothing out of context, neither do the rebuttal excerpts people posted. My only point is that the type of discussion you're talking about, and that I think would be great, is something that I don't think is possible in HL. People are too dug-in. It would be a thread of me, you, and two other people having the discussion while everyone else called each other stupid or a heretic. And it's not a HL problem, that's the entire board. I don't know, because I feel like every other type of discussion is possible.
So instruction manuals aren't vague? They will teach you the basics but it's up to you to learn the advance stuffs. Bible wasn't completed back in those ancient days that's why they have Jesus.
not if they're any good
No, I'm talking about the wild interpretive leaps made on the vague and incoherent wording of parts of the Bible, such as claiming that when the Bible refers to "the circle of the earth" it means "sphere" and not "circle," misrepresenting science back then, like claiming "science" was behind the flat earth idea when it was the Church, and misrepresenting science now, like claiming that scientists have endorsed the vague notion that "blood is the source of life and health" in opposition to the idea that bleeding people is good, when we actually know now that blood is not the source of life and health, it is more of a medium, and we still bleed people for things like snake bites.
intilectual recipricol
Killin fake hip hop
There cannot be a discussion on it because only one side has points. Thats the TRUE issue. One side will use well founded points that can be tested, the other side will say how they feel. One side is valid, the other side is not. One side really is stupid. Its not like in politics where you actually can make valid points for each side even though you may be dug into one side or the other.
- Status