Anyone want to have a religious debate?

NJSC wrote:

Gunny1.5 wrote:

And giving a blind man the gift of sight, doctors do that every day, its called glasses, it never says anywhere what Jesus did to let that man have his sight, so for all we know jesus jusst gave hime a broken piece of glass with a concave shape and told him, "Here, put this in front of eyes and you will be able to see clearly agin.

Also, Jesus could have hired the old man to do that and he just have been able to see clearly the whole time, just so that people would accept Jesus instead of shunning him.

Look at the greenhouse efect, this one small defect in Gods so-called "plan", is deteorating the entire planet. It is causing our polar ice caps to melt which is causing a chain reaction in which the oceans rise, streams over flood, whole islands swallowed by the water, at this rate, Gods "plan" will have been meaningless.

And something else, If God only created one continent, why would he want it to split apart, or if he created all seven continents at once, why would he want them to be heading on a crash course straight for each other.

It clearly states that Jesus spit into the dirt and rubbed it on the mans eyes.
Global Warming is a theory, not a proven thing.
Last thing you'll have to ask God about.

NJSC wrote:Stalker that is an oracle about the King of Tyre.
and just because the Bible doesn't say who it is does that give us the right to assume? The sin was not in the serpent it was in the humans of the story.

The difference with Christianity from the other religions (save for Islam and Judaism) you chose is that God created us out of love. In practically all other religions humans were a burden to God. You may not believe in the Adam and Eve story, but there is no denying that 2000 years ago there was a dude named Jesus and had a posse of 12 other dudes. That guy was put to death on a cross for claiming to be equal with God. This is not biblical evidence, but historical. There is no scholar who denies this. Now these 12 guys were eyewitness to Jesus and practically everything they did. That's how life was for a Rabbi and his disciples (also historical). Now they wrote down what happened to them (quite a bit of what we have as Bible) and there can be only 3 conclusions: 1. they were lying, 2. they were crazy, 3. they were telling the truth.
1. If they were lying, they wouldn't have anything to gain. They were ostracized, stoned, beaten, and eventually killed for what they believed to be true. Now if someone was sitting there with an axe about to chop your head off, wouldn't you confess to the lie? Of course you would to save your own skin. These 12 guys didn't.
2. What percentage would it be for all 12 (13 if you count Paul) guys for having the same disease, with the same hallucinations, and still be able to intelligently argue their points their entire lives? I would venture to say 0%.
3. Well the title of the idea explains itself.

Gunny1.5 wrote: once had beautiful tusks, but as they continued to be killed, they began to rub their tusks against other objects and they would be shaved down, untill eventualy they began to be born with them.

Gunny1.5 wrote:wrong, it was an adaptation that the elephants undertook, those with long tusks ground them off, but natural selection took place and selected those with the trait of small tuskks and inbreed them so that the off spring would have smaller tusks also until eventualy they began to be born without tusks, i am sorry if i was not clear enough on that fact.

Aggressor wrote:

Gunny1.5 wrote: once had beautiful tusks, but as they continued to be killed, they began to rub their tusks against other objects and they would be shaved down, untill eventualy they began to be born with them.

WRONG this can be and has been scientifically disproven. It was a certain strand of the theory of evolution thought up in response to Darwin's natural selection and Darwin himself set out to disprove it. I cant remember what its called but the assumption you make is that the characteristics that an animal has AFTER its birth is handed down to its children. This is a scientific impossibility. For example, I was born tan. If I went out and had surgery to remove all the pigment from my skin, according to your theory, my children would be born without pigment. Or, if I went out and got extremely muscular, utterly jacked, pulsating with muscles and viens, than according to your theory my children would also be born insanely muscular.

Aggressor wrote:You could also argue that the Greek Orthodox series of the Bible is the most accurate as it is directly unchanged and unaltered for over 1500 years. I wouldnt say that any Bible is more accurate than any other, but be careful when you try and point out the KingJames Bible specifically, alot of controversy as arisen over it as it is.

Gunny1.5 wrote:wrong, it was an adaptation that the elephants undertook, those with long tusks ground them off, but natural selection took place and selected those with the trait of small tuskks and inbreed them so that the off spring would have smaller tusks also until eventualy they began to be born without tusks, i am sorry if i was not clear enough on that fact.

NJSC wrote:

Trophy (according to tusk size) elephants are taken every year from Africa though. Plus the time line is not congruent with the idea of evolution.

NJSC wrote:not correct sir. The term used here is O Morning Star and is used as imagery for the King of Babylon. The term lucifer was just thrown in there because that's how King James' theology was. He did not give scrutiny to the interpretation of the texts and comparatively the compilations of modern era are much better translations due to being translated by dozens of scholars instead of just one man's interpretations