| + Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results |
Babies born with aids weren’t living how they choseOriginally Posted by truthpaste
Maybe because He exists OUTSIDE our time and space, so He knows the end from the beginning.
How do you think He details the crucifixian over 600 years before ANYONE had been crucified in when he wrote via Isaiah in Isaiah 53 and King David in Psalm 22?
No, it's extremely scientific. Or are you now running away from science because the images frighten you?
...
You are sick.
Here’s the science. The actual thing and not a diagram.
D753F1CA-224E-44D2-8D99-59C9CDF38D32.jpg
Do you also think protons are a sign from god too because the drawings in science books have crosses on them?
The images don't frighten me but you do. There's no science to run away from. There is plenty of fundamentalism and extremism to run away from though.
That protein thing is ****ing nuts
Or to paraphrase: "And the judgment is based on this fact: God’s light came into the world, but people loved the darkness more than the light, for their actions were evil" - John 3v19
Babies contracting aids is evil?
Your argument would be perfect if the cross had not been purely produced by science - the lense through which you view the world - unless of course you hate the view, then you can brush it under the carpet out of view.
Everyone knows what laminin literally looks like, but the image the world sees re it is the one I shared, just like the London Underground Map TO SCALE isn't the one anyone uses when travelling around London - so nice try, but no cigar.
It's the fruit of mankind's rebellion.
In the same way that if you sleep with 20 guys, become infected with aids and then donate your sperm to a sperm bank.
The potential resultant baby is now living with the decisions you made.
Quote me quote me...
Seems a bit unfair that god would allow an innocent baby to have that happen to him. I wouldn’t want to worship someone who could stop that and didn’t.
Oh so you don’t need accuracies or truth to believe in God? Anyone could write and draw an inaccurate diagram or passage and you’ll accept it if it fits your view. Interesting.
You said people dying of AIDS was their own fault, you’ve still not answered my question about cancer? My mate died at 19, care to explain how that was his fault?
If he is winding you up fella just stop replying to him, not worth getting worked up online over a stranger when personal emotions get involved
If you read what I said carefully I never once said "it was there OWN fault" - I said that they inherited a rebellious nature which led them to sin which in turn leads to suffering and eventually death for us all.
Now if that were the end of the story then Basil Fawlty was correct! We are all guilty, and ALL require God's forgiveness - see the difference?
However he isn't, as the Manufacterer actually intervened* to launch His Mission to save misereble ungrateful slime like you and me, which is why we started sung carols and eat mince pies
* We are also free to ignore this intervention and enjoy Christmas once a year and give no thought to it whatsoever.
Reply to what I quoted about science..you seem to like it when it suits you, the same science that proves when and how earth was made..a big bang..you can't just selectively choose what you want to believe.If you read what I said carefully I never once said "it was there OWN fault" - I said that they inherited a rebellious nature which led them to sin which in turn leads to suffering and eventually death for us all.
Now if that were the end of the story then Basil Fawlty was correct!
However he isn't, as the Manufacterer actually intervened* to launch His Mission to save misereble ungrateful slime like you and me, which is why we started sung carols and eat mince pies
* We are also free to ignore this intervention and enjoy Christmas once a year and give no thought to it whatsoever.
You said a few things re Science - Pick your most "reliable" ONE and we can look at it and see if it is a fact.
You have posted diagrams of scientific matter because it is shaped like a cross, you choose to believe that science.
The same science, I'll mention it again in capitals THE BIG BANG as my ONE, cheers for the selection offer there, the big bang is widely accepted in science to be absolutely ****ing true. The big bang kind of pisses all over the god creating earth part of your belief. But you probably don't believe that science as it doesn't suit your belief and doesn't have lots of pretty crosses.
As you said "absolutely ****ing true" then it must be a fact.
What you mean is this, as I've been told since I was in short trousers that scientists believe this is how things started, then it must be correct. Let's go to National Geographic, a scientific publication that has never knowingly supported the Bible and in fact once produced a 15 page article celebrating a 'verified' fossil of a dinosaur with feathers!! (in a later edition it had to apologise for jumping the gun as the fossil turned out to be a hoax of a bird fossil stuck onto a dinosaur fossil).
So much for science speculation turning out to be utterly reliable:-
Before we look at one statement, here is the entire article >> ORIGINS OF THE UNIVERSE EXPLAINED
"Here’s the theory: In the first 10^-43 seconds of its existence, the universe was very compact, less than a million billion billionth the size of a single atom. It's thought that at such an incomprehensibly dense, energetic state, the four fundamental forces—gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces—were forged into a single force, but our current theories haven't yet figured out how a single, unified force would work. To pull this off, we'd need to know how gravity works on the subatomic scale, but we currently don't".
Given that in this short paragraph we have:-
* Here's the theory
* It's thought that..
* but our current theories haven't yet figured out how a single, unified force would work.
* we'd need to know how gravity works on the subatomic scale, but we currently don't".
So your "absolutely ****ing true" is hanging on so much uncertainties that I fail to see how any honest individual - scientist or not - could claim it to be an absolute?
Yes, I like what I read. I am absolutely ficking sure, maybe they have to be careful with how they choose to feel about it.
Doesn't your story go back 6000 years? There is proof of humans well before that.
Can you explain that first sentence please? (choose to feel about it)
The Bible account to Adam does go back just over 6000 years. So to PROVE it incorrect (no scientific FEELINGS or 'we believe that...' statements) go and get your proof
Yes, I like what science says about the big bang. I agree.Can you explain that first sentence please? (choose to feel about it)
The Bible account to Adam does go back just over 6000 years. So to PROVE it incorrect (no scientific FEELINGS or 'we believe that...' statements) go and get your proof
So.your account goes back 6000 years, that's when it all started? I've not been one in this thread to jump on the bibles back fella, so I won't need to disprove what I haven't claimed is drivel, cheers.
Humans have walked the earth for 100s of thousands of years. 360,000 to be a little more on the dot.
Some trees are 5000 years old.. then there's this
"A clonal colony can survive for much longer than an individual tree. A colony of 48,000*quaking aspen*trees (nicknamed*Pando), covering 106 acres (43*ha) in the*Fishlake National Forest*of*Utah, is considered one of the oldest and largest organisms in the world. Recent estimates set the colony's age at several thousand (up to 14,000)*"
Double your bible in one colony of trees. Who knew.
Shall we get into really big numbers with dinosaurs or don't you want all them 0s?
The Earth is categorically 4.5 billion years old. They’re couldn’t be much more proof.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote