From 1985
- Thread starter MyTeamIsOnTheFloor
- Start date
VanPastorMan
Hall of Famer
Of course now she can just say, "I identify as a boy" and she would be allowed up.
I assume you will say something similar to Saint Peter at the Pearly gates. "I identify as a Christian let me in." I wonder how that will work out for you.
VanPastorMan
Hall of Famer
No, I will plead the blood of Jesus. For that is the correct answer. No works can save us. But faith in Jesus the Son of God, who died for our sins will.
I like the new Starbucks cups with Bible verses
“And they compared Syria to Jerusalem using imagery to confound the heathen, who replace their souls with their genitals.”
Oholah
Holla back.
I won’t pay Starbucks prices for crappy coffee, with or without misunderstood Bible verses.
If you’re gonna waste money, send it to me. I promise to give 10% to charity.
PS - please respond before the Chinese satellites destroy our communications. Their Space Force is way ahead of ours.
I need some help understanding this one too
or this one, when your new wife can't prove she's a virgin:
...If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the young woman’s virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done an outrageous thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father’s house. You must purge the evil from among you.
-Deuteronomy 22:13-21
or this one:
If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity.
-Deuteronomy 25:11-12
Read more at: https://ascienceenthusiast.com/10-c...t7S0EIzCWvUF7_syqmpgSOHGvDfDNB0IYAEFY4n6TlrAo
VanPastorMan
Hall of Famer
Do people just decide what sex they are? You do realize that young people today are starting to think that changing one's sex
Do you generally agree with this statement, "Not all feelings though present are legitimate and beneficial to people who have them?"
I need some help understanding this one too
or this one, when your new wife can't prove she's a virgin:
...If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the young woman’s virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done an outrageous thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father’s house. You must purge the evil from among you.
-Deuteronomy 22:13-21
or this one:
If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity.
-Deuteronomy 25:11-12
Read more at: https://ascienceenthusiast.com/10-c...t7S0EIzCWvUF7_syqmpgSOHGvDfDNB0IYAEFY4n6TlrAo
Yawn.
People who see religion as a threat to science are no smarter or better than people who see science as threat to religion.
Neither should fear the other.
Interpreting a 2000 year old letter from Paul to Timothy (about how to teach Gentiles in Ephesus about the post-Jesus religion of the Hebrews) literally, and then applying it to a modern society, to make fun of a religion on the internet, is pretty low hanging fruit for a guy who wants to be thought of as "smart" - but who apparently doesn't know there was a first and a second book of Timothy. Congrats. Looks like you're a step BELOW "2 Trump" when it comes to Bible quoting.
And it only gets worse if/when you do the same thing to Old Testament stuff - with Moses teaching "the Law" (in this case, about promiscuity) to people escaping 400 years of slavery - and to "scientists" of the day who thought they should build gods out of metal, mummify humans and put them in a pyramid so their soul would shoot off to heaven. They'd have been better off listening to John Prine songs:
Maybe the religious should call the Bible a "theory" to build themselves an automatic "out" - like the science religion does when they get something wrong?
And for those who bitch about "religion causing war," remember - science built the weapons.
Yawn. Yawn Yawn.
Leave the pastor alone.
He aint hurtin nobody.
Religion is only a threat to science in that in some cases it fosters indoctrinated (almost cult-like) willful ignorance and disdain for science, evidence, and truth. That's indoctrinated only into a small ignorant minority, though they seem to hold some sway in the US. I'm thinking the fools that support the creationist museum in Bublefuk Kentucky.
I'm not making fun of anything. You and VPM seem to be self-proclaimed experts on the inspired word of God, I thought maybe you'd explain his treatise on donkey genitals and horse flatulence. Yes, I know that King James' translation cleaned the passage up a bit, for the masses. Or maybe enlighten us on the preferred place of women, or dark-skinned people, in society, according to "the Good Book".
You seem to not have the foggiest clue about what it means to be a "theory" in science and it seems not worth explaining, since you wouldn't listen anyway.
I assume you protest at Disney because its not "really" a small world after all?
I did explain it - you just try hard not to understand. The donkey genitals/flatulence scripture was cherry-picked out of context from part of a much longer passage where Jerusalem/the Israelite nation was compared to Syria through the use of metaphorical imagery about two sisters who were whores and liked sex with donkeys. (I will not say "like your mom," even though its Friday and the OTF, and even though it might be educational in how a "nation" might "get the point" if told "listen up - stop it - you're acting like a whore who screws donkeys.")
I'm no self-proclaimed expert. That's just a false premise you threw out to make yourself "more right." But it doesn't take an "expert" to read the freaking Book of Ezekiel (or even First Timothy - or "One Timothy" for you and Trump) to see what the hell they were talking about. But it helps when you read it without first deciding it is wrong no matter what it says.
And I understand theory and the scientific method juust fine. When you get it wrong, but teach it for decades, it wasn't really "wrong" - it was just a theory - not properly tested. Maybe carried a one instead of a two. Oops. "Why, that's why we HAVE the scientific method - so when we get it wrong and teach it for decades, we can eventually get it RIGHT without ever really getting it "wrong." The Cosmological Constant was not really "wrong" - it was just a theory. Trust us. And when you feel bad, go get yourself a doctor skilled in "bleeding" patients. That shit works GREAT. All the best medical science says "take another pint!"
You realize that Hawking and Moses (assuming he wrote Genesis) agree that the first detectable evidence of creation was light, right? The ground floor of both science and religion are the same. (Cool beans!) The main difference is that Moses had an explanation for why and how it started,and science doesn't. But don't feel bad. Another few thousand years and a few more theories and science might catch up.
Until then, tell me, "what was outside the Singularity?" and "did Adam have a navel?"
Wow, you really have no clue whatsoever. Just a "theory"? A theory in science is not some guess, or a hypothesis, or a proposal, an idea to be thrown out when "properly tested". Think of gravitational theory. The germ theory of disease. etc.
A scientific theory is a huge framework of thought that is independently supported by multiple lines of evidence, by multiple scientific laws, that explains a great many observables, and that can be tested by experiments yet to be performed or even imagined.
You remind me of the stupid creationists who argue that if evolution were true it wouldn't be "just a theory" but it would instead be a law. Not understanding that theories are far more proven all-encompassing frameworks of thought than is any relatively piddling law of science.
Last edited:
1. Some theories are proven right. Considered right for centuries. Then proven wrong. Its OK. Just accept it. Lay back and enjoy it if you can. Think about The Cosmological Constant. Even Einstein got stuff wrong. No biggie.
2. You seem angry. Why? Are insults part of the scientific method? "You remind me of stupid people." Really? That is what you got when I ask about deep questions like "What was outside the Singularity" and "did Adam have a navel?" (By the way, its cold here today. We're doing football experiments. I could probably get you in as a speaker at the 8:00 pm conference. Can you calm down by then?)
Einstein's Cosmological Constant was not a scientific theory. Not even close.
It was one concept, related to and contained within the much broader General Theory of Relativity, that Einstein adopted to reconcile his preconceived notion that space was finite and static (not expanding). Hubble's discovery that the universe was expanding made Einstein, within years, totally abandon the concept of a Cosmological Constant and call it the greatest mistake of his career. But... we now know that Hubble wasn't exactly right either and the expansion of the universe is accelerating. So, the cosmological constant is arguably a reasonable idea again, though it's a matter of great debate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant_problem
I'm quite calm. Planning on putting up a tree tomorrow, part of a pagan custom at my house.
Are you beginning to understand what a THEORY is, in science? It's quite important.
Last edited:
VanPastorMan
Hall of Famer
LoL Yes, I did not complete that first statement. What I meant to say but got distracted at the house was that some young people are seeing changing their sex or identifying their sex as trendy. Let me ask you this. Would you even entertain the idea that at least some of the kids who are dead serious about identifying as the opposite sex have mental problems that should be addressed?
If only any god (I'm not picky as to which one) would purge you, this world would be a much better place.
Would you let your boy play with barbie dolls or your daughter play football?
VanPastorMan
Hall of Famer
I would not go ballistic if they did. But also I would not encourage it. Also I would not conclude that this meant something about their sexuality.
People don't choose their sexual orientation anymore than other people choose to be morally or intellectually challenged. So you guys have that in common.
You can't even distinguish between sex, sexuality, and gender.
One of many reasons you are a raving lunatic.
