1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

How can you ask god for a cure and not blame him for the cause ?

Discussion in 'Speaker's Corner' started by Hodders, 12 Aug 2015.

  1. Usher

    Mobster

    Joined: 30 Dec 2004

    Posts: 3,362

    No, the biggest mass murderers are the Christian church,an estimated 50 million by the Catholic church, plus thousands of heretic 'witches' burned by order of king James

    read this
    http://www.truthbeknown.com/victims.htm
     
    Last edited: 13 Oct 2015
  2. DavidMarq

    Wise Guy

    Joined: 2 Jul 2004

    Posts: 1,535

    Location: Stevenage

    Was post #1026 too difficult for you?
     
  3. jpod

    Wise Guy

    Joined: 16 Jun 2011

    Posts: 1,870

    Location: Cheshire

    I did have look at you link Skolem and the best evidence is not posted on the internet friend.

    My grandama can post an article on evolution, she knows nothing about it.

    There is a hierarchy of evidence and your looking for papers in peer reviewed journals.
     
  4. jpod

    Wise Guy

    Joined: 16 Jun 2011

    Posts: 1,870

    Location: Cheshire

    That is simply not true. Bearing in mind that the patient is going to be facing medicine which was invented by scientists.

    Just because there is a supernatural aspect does not mean that rational thinkers cannot comment and we have to talk fairy talk.
     
  5. RDM

    Capodecina

    Joined: 1 Feb 2007

    Posts: 20,613

    Some of those are not really religiously motivated ( and still don't total the 70+ million from the dictators previously mentioned alone. Christianity does have a lot of blood on its hands but it isn't alone in that or the worst offender.
     
  6. jpod

    Wise Guy

    Joined: 16 Jun 2011

    Posts: 1,870

    Location: Cheshire

    Prove it.

    There is ample opportunity here to actually provide scientific evidence, even at GCSE level.

    I wager on balance the most butchering, the most evil and depraved standards belong to the religious past and present win8.1.

    How dare you suggest for an instant that not believing in your particular brand of faith religion makes us bad people.

    I would have a scientist as a babysitter or a leader of a country any day of the week.
     
  7. jpod

    Wise Guy

    Joined: 16 Jun 2011

    Posts: 1,870

    Location: Cheshire

    oppsi
     
  8. win8.1

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 30 Apr 2014

    Posts: 681

    Referring just to the age of the earth part of your post (using inaccurate dating methods and in regards to the age of the universe inaccurate as well) :

    "rocks observed to form on a particular date often show radioisotope age estimates far exceeding their actual ages. For example, when the fresh lava dome at Mount St. Helens was only ten years old, it showed a radioisotope age estimate of 340,000 years! Many such examples cast doubt on the entire dating method."
     
  9. jpod

    Wise Guy

    Joined: 16 Jun 2011

    Posts: 1,870

    Location: Cheshire

    Not so, when the Turin shroud was dated it was debunked and the techniques carried out in 3 separate locations gave an accuracy within about 100 years of each other.

    There are multiple 'clocks' that scientists can use depending on what is being investigated.

    Can't comment on Mount St Helens but anomalies would be expected, that is the nature of the beast.
     
  10. DavidMarq

    Wise Guy

    Joined: 2 Jul 2004

    Posts: 1,535

    Location: Stevenage

    The question did not ask about the accuracy of the data, but the motives of the scientists.

    If the data is inaccurate as you suggest then the scientists must be aware of this.

    What motivates so many scientists from many different fields and disciplines to conspire together to propagate lies about the age of the earth and the universe?
     
  11. win8.1

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 30 Apr 2014

    Posts: 681

    Even though dating methods have been found to be highly inaccurate they are still used. What motivates them? nice pay check at the end of the week or to be highly esteemed among their colleges could be two reasons.
     
  12. DavidMarq

    Wise Guy

    Joined: 2 Jul 2004

    Posts: 1,535

    Location: Stevenage

    Seems implausible that such esteem could be maintained on a conspiracy of lies, surly those scientists who were not highly esteemed would expose the conspiracy?

    in what way are the methods that are used to determine the age of the universe inaccurate?
     
  13. Uriel

    Sgarrista

    Joined: 15 Jan 2006

    Posts: 7,695

    You've mentioned the early church a few times. Apart from quoting scripture itself I've seen precisely zero evidence in your posts that you know anything at all about, or are even interested in, the early church.

    I know of another group of Christians that make a claim to exclusivity: the Eastern Orthodox. They regard the rest of us as heterodox or heretics (although they are often quite charitable about it and welcoming to other people who claim to follow Christ). They see other churches as not genuine churches.

    It's very different assessing their claims to yours.

    They support their claim to be the ongoing reality of the early church with verifiable historical evidence. They cherish and encourage the reading of the apostolic fathers (the next couple of generations of Christians on from Jesus' apostles). They can demonstrate how the early church interpreted scripture because they have (and freely share) the documentary evidence from the 1st, 2nd, 3rd 4th Centuries. They document the use and form of the canon of scripture as it evolved (oh - that old chessnut!) closely enough that they can claim to be the church it came from. For them Scripture exists within their tradition. They keep lists of their bishops going right back to Peter and ultimately Jesus himself (which, if not independently verifiable are certainly ancient). Their worship style seems to have barely changed since those first generations of Christians and they can support this with both archaeological evidence and documented ancient liturgies. They are able to demonstrate that they follow the rulings of early Christian councils closer than the Roman Catholics and certainly Protestants and various offshoots. They love the bible and their liturgies are absolutely packed with quotations from and allusions to Scripture. You'll hear more of the bible read in one Orthodox divine liturgy than serveral Sundays worth of evangelical services.

    If anyone can claim to have a credible claim to follow the apostles teaching it's them. It took me around 2 years of prayerful study to get to the point where I was satisfied I wouldn't join them. As it happens I did move churches - but to the Church of England which makes far less magnificent claims and certainly isn't perfect, but is where I believe The Lord wants me.

    So why should anyone listen to your claims over theirs? I can guarantee that, at least according to official Orthodox teaching, you would be troubled by their Gospel, appalled at their the vagueness of their teaching on Creation and would denounce them as Bible deniers and false professors.

    All you appear to have is some apparently vacuous claim to supernatural ability to derive correct dogma from the Bible, of a higher order than the Roman Catholics claim for the Pope. Why you and not - er... Joseph Smith of the Church of the Latter Day Saints, who made similar historically unverifiable claims about his visitations from the Angel Moroni and his restoration of 'the true church'? Where are these other born again believers you claim can so obviously recognise each other and sniff out heretics more acutely than wolves smell their prey?
     
  14. win8.1

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 30 Apr 2014

    Posts: 681

    For some it is to be highly esteemed, for others it is pay check and some both. There might be other motives as well and I have no doubt people can be held in high esteem while not telling the truth.

    As in the example I gave something only ten years old showing a radioisotope age estimate of 340,000 years is inaccurate and shows that the dating method cannot be relied upon.
     
  15. win8.1

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 30 Apr 2014

    Posts: 681

    As far as I can see you take your teaching from catholics and from Rome and ecumenical movements who sacrifice fundamental biblical truthes for unity. The early church I talk about is the one mentioned in the Word of God not anti-Christ religious systems posing to believe what the early church taught. I take the fundamental truths taught by Christ and believed by apostles and early church believers from scripture as all other born again believers throughout this world do.
     
  16. Uriel

    Sgarrista

    Joined: 15 Jan 2006

    Posts: 7,695

    Give me a dual polarised microscope, a rock saw, a polishing kit and access to a radiometric testing lab and I can probably find you some minerals in any given lava sample that are older than the eruption itself - maybe even the the volcano.

    My igneous petrology is very rusty admittedly. Not done much for about 15 years.

    If I wanted to commit fraud and mislead, say, a bunch of lawyers or tv viewers with no scientific training I could probably do that by deliberately use a dating technique with a half life that was too long or too short. I'd have to come up with a 'plausible' explanation for the slightly off-looking results from the lab but convincing them that I was suitably qualified would probably be enough to get away with it if I wasn't challenged by an expert.

    This pretty much exact situation is the most offended I've ever been by watching a creation scientist at work - only it involved dinosaur bones rather than lava.
     
  17. Uriel

    Sgarrista

    Joined: 15 Jan 2006

    Posts: 7,695

    I see you know about as much about church history as you do science.

    The Orthodox have been officially seperated from Rome since about 1053 and had been drifting apart from them a long time before that. They are about the least ecumencally minded large group of Christian's going. They won't even share communion with other churches (or take it elsewhere) and the only way reunion with anyone is going to happen is if other people change to total doctrinal agreement with them on all the matters they consider essential.

    If you want to believe your little twig on one of the many upper branches of Christian history is the one true way, that's fine - but can you present any evidence at all that it existed between the end of the New Testament and the 20th Century?

    Edit: "The Word of God.". I suppose you mean the Bible. Or could that phrase also refer to Jesus? It couldn't possibly be used for two different things - could it?
     
    Last edited: 14 Oct 2015
  18. win8.1

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 30 Apr 2014

    Posts: 681

    Good to see creation scientists getting to the truth and exposing the lies of so called experts.
     
  19. Uriel

    Sgarrista

    Joined: 15 Jan 2006

    Posts: 7,695