mobile21

Look everyone! Shadow_To_Be worships the cartoon of a cowboy with the hat and the gun and everything!:

I agree with you................. you really could use my "rose covered glasses" for a while (If you know what I mean )

Ok Shadow_To_Be, why are you "criticizing me" now? Last time I checked, this thread was about a guy who claimed to have visions and that guy ain't me...........

Exactly! And one more thing, when a black girl is attacked by a white man nothing happens and everything is ok but when a black guy attacks a white woman, that's quite another thing, you can almost instantly hear people demanding for "life in prison" and death penalty (as an imperative punishment)!. This makes me sick! :yikes:

But schism implies heresy.

Janet, if anything, is the victim here! Last time I checked, Justin was the one who attacked her (on stage)!!!!!!

It was just an accident of course. Janet and Justin are sorry for what happened. Please give em' a break

The "1300" something date was the result of a carbon 14 test. The results were published in Nature in 1988: "The results of radiocarbon measurements at Arizona, Oxford and Zurich yield a calibrated calendar age range with at least 95% confidence for the linen of the Shroud of Turin of AD 1260 - 1390 (rounded down/up to nearest 10 yr). These results therefore provide conclusive evidence that the linen of the Shroud of Turin is mediaeval." But later Beta Analytic tested various samples and the conclusion was that the Shroud has some parts from the 16th century while others from the 1st century. The flowers around Christ's body confirm that it comes from Israel because those flowers ( Zygophyllum dumosum ) grow in Israel and Jordan only and not in Europe, as confirmed by Dr. Uri Baruch, an specialist from Israel's Antiquities Authority.

Fovezer: But there is no middle ground. Either the fossils prove that those limbs (in the case of the much-hyped Greenland fossils) match in the evolutionary succession or they don't and, again, there have never been fossils that truly prove that (and in the end, this is the "only thing" to prove). But there is material proof. The radiation in the Holy Shroud proves Christ's body literally disappeared in thin air (and that proves His resurrection)

Well, but not charges for crimes against humanity as you might think............. anyway, read: Associated Press TEL AVIV, Israel - An Israeli court charged a real-estate developer Wednesday with paying more than a half-million dollars in bribes to Ariel Sharon

Excuse me, do you know common sense?. Don't you know Israel made threats against Iran just a short time ago?. I mean, can you "understand" that?.

The KKK or the Israeli Army that is. Thank God there are still brave israeli soldiers who refuse to participate in that country's effort to destroy arab children. "The latest initiative, "Courage to Refuse," has sparked a vigorous debate in Israel over the morality of its continued occupation of Palestinian territory. Many of the soldiers have been stripped of their rank; dozens have been jailed. But former Israeli attorney general Michael Ben-Ya'ir recently stated, "History's verdict will be that their refusal was the act that restored our moral backbone."

Despite protests to the results of a valid Synod, it is what it is and if you can't believe the Holy Spirit really acts in the Church then too bad you have too little faith but that doesn't mean you can change the historical fact of a defined canon. if you can't believe the Holy Spirit really acts in the Church then too bad you have too little faith The REAL question is not whether the Holy Spirit acts in the Church, but whether the Catholic Church has been the ONLY means by which the Holy Spirit acts. To that end, I would reply in the negative: the Holy Spirit is God, NOT the Catholic Church, and that whatever the Catholic Church has partially agreed upon is not the unanimous agreement of all Christians nor all Catholics and never has been. The 'Catholic' Church has NEVER been historically 'catholic' depsite your erroneous protests tot he contrary...and never WILL be. Christ's Church is much bigger and more Universal than what the Vatican could ever imagine nor admit to. What are you talking about?????? By the time the Synod who defined the Canon happened, there was no "catholic-protestant" debate going. All christians belonged to the same doctrinal body. Now all christians still belong to the very same Church but don't uphold the very same doctrine. The question is the same: do you believe that the Holy Spirit acted in the Synod that defined the canon or not?. If the answer is "no", then do you believe the Holy Spirit acted in the Church at least once???? (besides the first apostolic synod as depicted in the Bible of course) .

Despite protests to the results of a valid Synod, it is what it is and if you can't believe the Holy Spirit really acts in the Church then too bad you have too little faith but that doesn't mean you can change the historical fact of a defined canon.

Another assuption on your part that reality proves wrong. The information human beings get must pass through the senses and the human abstract thinking makes the rest, for example, "mermaids" don't physically exist but humans can know what they are because they are a mental composition of a fish and a woman and both things do exist in reality. It's precisely because humans never borned "believing in Yahweh" that proves His revelation to be true because this God -unlike the invented gods of nature of pagan religions who were nothing but a reflection of human beings- has no human qualities whatsoever. All the pagan religions described how their gods were born while the jews said the revealed God was not only immortal but also eternal, meaning that He was never created. Now, how did the jews could invent that if the abstract concept of eternity does not exist in reality?. Indeed the concept of immortality existed in all cultures because all understood death as being "wrong" and therefore they thought: "what if we would never die?" but the humans (the jews especifically) couldn't have never learned the concept of never being born because when we born we come to life, that's why the pagan gods were sometimes immortal but never were they described as "not being born". The answer to this is like the Bible says it is: humans never learned "from nature" that idea of their God, it was God who eventually taught (revealed) that to them.

I ask for proof because you said evolution was wrong. This statement requires evidence to be taken seriously. If you want to see evidence, here we go: 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense - Please read this first. Human Evolution Talk Origins Independent Origins and Rapid Evolution of the Placenta in the Fish Genus Poeciliopsis Insects from arthropods More insect evolution Charles Darwin's writings Human and Apes have common ancestor There are many more. That is just the tip of the iceberg. Now, I did what you asked, so now I ask you for you evidence. Same story. The fossils whose fingers never match in the alleged evolutionary trail and so on. Not even the (much touted) Greenland amphibian fossils proved the evolutionary point at all (all the hype for nothing). The truth is no fossils ever found have proven evolution for real but I know many believe those some day will be found so they talk about it like a fact. If they want to believe in it fine, but that does not make it a fact.

This is something very interesting. I believe no other religion in history has made so many claims of miracles as christianity has. For every true miracle that happens, God proves to us that the "proven God" is the christian God.

This is a perfect example of a strawman arguement. It does explain a lot. It explains why animals would find it beneficial to develop flight. Evolution is not random. What you want to see is impossible. You want to see a bat with no wings give birth to a bat with wings. I know you don't mean this per se, but it is what you are implying, and if that were to happen, it would disprove evolution. If the need arises for an animal to change to better fit the enviroment, it will. I'll also use bats as an example. They have lost their sight and echolocation has become their means of navigating. They evolved to fit their habitat, which are pitch black caves, where sight is useless. Evolution is descent with modification. So, before bats got wings, they were crawling around, then, slowly, membranes began to form between their arms and legs, until they could glide with them, then when it became more beneficial to stay airborne at all times, they developed into usable wings. Please, explain how evolution is illogical, especially compared to YECism. You obviously do not understand evolution. I have shown how and why bats developed flying, but you have completely blown it off making all those inane comments. False. Evolution doesn't occur for no reason. Come on, this is high school stuff. It occurs to help animals better fit their niche. False. I am not talking about ID. I am talking about theistic evolution. Evolution does provide a logical answer, you just choose to dismiss with out even looking into it. That is not ID anyways. That is evolution. I know all the arguments of evolution inside and out, I just don't want to have another 50 pages argument where at the end, because they blindly believe that evolution is true regardless of all the conclusions of the various issues, they answer: "well, the thing is you don't understand evolution". What I just did is to skip the 50 pages of debate and just cut to the chase and you did exactly the same by answering: "you don't understand". We saved like 100 hours of debate (hours we can now use, in my case to pray and, in your case, to watch infomercials )

Please.......... If Da'_Wihcan needs example of "a good attitude" in order to convert, she can read the life of any saint, there are plenty. P.S. she doesn't because she never had any intention to convert

Fovezer: Again, that explains nothing. The reasoning that bats by flying would compete less for food than by crawling like all the other rats is no good explanation for how a rat with no wings one day decided to fly (animals just look for food they are capable of getting, not impossibles). Besides, why do you use an argument of logical purpose for the change in that rat's body if matter that evolves randomly has no reason for doing such things?. The explanation of the evolution of the membranes you give is a good ol' trick: present a tiny step of evolution as believable and then people will immediately accept the bigger (and illogical) argument, that rats with no wings really got wings by jumping and falling over and over again for hundreds of thousands of years against their natural instinct of rats. The conclusion is that for evolution is impossible to rationally explain how flying "was invented" and that's why the only hard proof of evolution is CG imagery where anything is possible. Well, evolution means that something changes for no reason. I think that what you're talking about is intelligent design. In intelligent design, you could explain that there's a logical reason for a group of rats to start flying because that way they could get more food, but it's evident that it involves an intelligent being who is making those reasonings.

I was watching the other day some documentary about bats and how their regular rat-like claws evolved into wings. The thing is since when rats make any decisions???? I mean, to explain that a rat got wings you need to accept that those rats, against their nature, decided to fly so they climbed walls of caves or trees and they would jump (and fall) over and over again. Now, nature would tell you that animals learn and that once the rat learned it can't fly, the rat would avoid the serial jumping and falling thing but evolution teaches that the rats did exactly that over and over again until they truly got wings and now they can fly. Anyway, either God (or the aliens if you like ) designed the biological entities of this planet or God created them from scratch .

There are numerous testimonies in the lives of saints about angels -both good and evil- and how they play a major role in our lives (our enemy is an angel of course). I personally have a great deal of faith in my guardian angel and I constantly remember him (well, "it" for political correctness' sake ) during my prayers. I like the following verse because it reflects the important role of angels as God's messengers and guides for humans: "As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed. "Don't be alarmed," he said. "You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him." (Mark 16:5-6)