Main Site - :: Why Won't God Heal Amputees? ::
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
I used to read the posts there, but my jaw hurt from repeatedly hitting the floor.
I only have a filter for people who do not consistently beg to be belittled, ridiculed, insulted, and demeaned.-Nam
Boy, that site sure takes the fun out of ours. We've have some weird theists, but some of those on that site make ours seem like commie pinko liberals. Even Skep.I only read a few, and I won't sleep for weeks.
radelster, Bibleforums.org 5 Comments [9/14/2005 12:00:00 AM]Fundie Index: 2WTF?! || mehQuote# 6037Why should I expect atheists to see the problem in forcing people to read the Koran? If it isn't Christianity that's being taught and preached, they can't get enough of it! Evolution is just like the Koran- an anti-Christian ideology being taught. Atheists love it.
Quote# 69825Yes sex at six can cause psychological damage. But thats only in rare occasions. Most girls are fine. Thats a scientific fact.
Quote# 73072[I included the whole article because you need to read the thing in context. But if you get the chance, do read the comments. They are also FSTDT-worthy material.) Let's just say, you know for a fact that eating children is wrong. A great number of people believe as you do and we all acknowledge it in unity. Then there is a website that says that eating babies is fine that you don't need to "buy into it" and believe that eating babies is wrong. There is a couple of blogs that talk all day how liberating and fantastic eating children are. Now whoever listens to them think they are crazy and very wrong but a few listen to the intellect behind the reasoning, they listen to the argument. Let's say the argument says it's natural for many animals eat their young in nature, and people are just a part of the natural process or something like that. Some people buy into it and start doing it. You struggle everyday as to why people think like that, they all must be crazy, what do they know that you don't? This goes on and on but after a while you get curious. You then start to go around thinking why you don't get to eat babies as others do and how some people demand that you don't, like your parents. Then one day you get an opportunity to do it but everything in your soul KNOWS it is wrong. You shake at the thought of eating that very young child. It's agonizing to you for quite a while, you cuss at yourself for having such insane thoughts! One day you see a little 5 year old at some playground and you convince yourself that you have to know what it's like. You seize the moment and kidnap the child. You keep that child tied up for days agonizing whether you should do it or not. You almost feel yourself slipping away into insanity to the point you can't take it. So you get the nerve somehow, and do it. Then afterwords you say to yourself that it was too quick that you need to try it again to see if the feelings you had during were genuine. So flash ahead a month and you have done it many times and you now frequent places that do it and go online to websites that also do it and you feel a sense of a warm community. You struggle with the nightmares until they pass and you feel OK. You embrace the fact that you are now a baby eater and you and your new friends are OK with it. The struggle get's a little easier to accept the notion that eating babies is fine for the natural process. You teach you own kids that it is perfectly natural to eat babies. You start your own website that is called "Eat babies!" and you showcase your work. Is this what an atheist goes through when they start to not believe in God? The stories of struggles, that I have heard, turning away from God are similar to this scenario. Many authors talk about the struggle they go through from belief to non belief. The agonizing pain it causes themselves as well as their families. Could atheists talk themselves into anything? The methodical erosion of ones values and morals can be so damaging, to the point that it's acceptable that"Atheists eat babies." An atheist may still be moral and say murder and rape are wrong: but when asked why, they will not have a final reason or authority to which they can appeal.
Quote# 62318No, God's Penis is not a biological organ. I never said God's Penis was the same as man's penis. Obviously it wouldn't be. That is why I pointed out God has a Holy, Righteous Penis. That is to say, it's not the same as man's corrupted, fleshy one. As I said when this subject first came up, once again: Penises are not just for sex & peeing. It is only because man is evil that he thinks of penises exclusively in those terms. Man is made in the image of God the Father. That is the primary reason why man has a penis. You cannot insert your evil prejudicial ideas of man's penis onto God - which is exactly what you are doing. God's Penis is not equal to man's penis. It's really not hard to understand.
Here is a question you. So a light year = the distance light travels in a year. You mentioned the figure 11 million light years away. So my question is how are we observing this light 11 million light years away now? I'm not 11 million years old, i'm 20. --------------------------------------------- Later on he goes on to say... If it takes 11 million years to travel to earth, how can i see it now? I'm only 20. If it takes 11 million years to travel to earth then the viewer would need to be 11 million years old. --------------------------------------------- And it continues with... I don't believe light travels at all, i've looked at various models and worked on many but none of it works. The basics of visual perception is often overlooked. When we look at something what is actually going on? The emission theory states that the light emits (not a travelling speed) from our own eyes not from the object we look at. The intromission theory states the opposite. The emission theory is the most common sense, so i don't believe there is any speed of light. The 'Starlight Problem' has never been a problem for me and the YEC model. The earliest Church Fathers (2nd-4th century AD) who believed in emission theory also had no problem with starlight and a young universe.