Are These People Christians

Chip Bronson said:
it's not like that at all. :D if you come up with irrefutable propostition, hell, i'll second it bro. but you haven't done that yet. ;)

I don't believe anything is irrefutable bro. All you can do is listen to both sides of any given arguement, weigh the evidence presented by each side, and figure out which makes the most sense to you. Differing opinions are a beautiful thing.

That being said, I think there is a fairly respectable amount of evidence in support of a global flood. Like ta hear it? Here it go.

The bible says that with the opening of the springs of the watery deep and the floodgates of the heavens, billions of tons of water flooded the earth. (Ge 7:11) This would have caused tremendous changes in earths surface. The earths crust, as we know, is relatively thin (estimated at between 20 and 100 mi thick), stretched over a rather plastic (somewhat squishy?) mass thousands of miles in diameter. Under the added weight of the water, there was likely a great shifting in the crust. In time, shallow sea basins were deepened, and new shorelines were established, with the result that now about 70 percent of the earths surface is covered with water. This shifting in the earths crust may account for many geologic phenomena, such as the raising of old coastlines to new heights. It has been estimated by some that water pressures alone were equal to 2 tons per square inch.

Remains of mammoths and rhinoceroses have been found in different parts of the earth. Some of these were found in Siberian cliffs; others were preserved in Siberian and Alaskan ice (yeah, yeah, Bering Strait). As you are undoubtedly aware, some were found with food undigested in their stomachs or still unchewed in their teeth, indicating that they died suddenly. The fossil remains of many other animals, such as lions, tigers, bears, and elk, have been found in common strata, which may indicate that all of these were destroyed simultaneously. Some folks point to such finds as definite physical proof of a rapid change in climate and sudden destruction caused by a worldwide flood.

But where is the water now? I knew youd ask that. Could be that its right here on earth. Many scientists believe that oceans were once smaller and continents were bigger. There is some evidence of this in the fact that river channels that extend far out under the oceans. Its also noteable that scientists have stated that mountains in the past may have been much lower than at present, and some mountains have even been pushed up from under the seas. Now, it is said that there is ten times as much water by volume in the ocean as there is land above sea level. Dump all this land evenly into the sea, and water would cover the entire earth, 1.5 miles deep. So, after the floodwaters fell, but before the raising of mountains and the lowering of seabeds and before the buildup of polar ice caps, there was more than enough water to cover the entire earth.

There now. How's that?
 
CyniQ said:
I don't believe anything is irrefutable bro. All you can do is listen to both sides of any given arguement, weigh the evidence presented by each side, and figure out which makes the most sense to you. Differing opinions are a beautiful thing.


Ahhhh, not to pick nits but here comes a hoggism:

If I told you that getting hit by an apple that was dropped on your head from 30 stories up would hurt like a son-of-a-bitch, having a differing opinion would be ignorance ...because we can demonstrate that an apple will reach roughly 130mph on its way down and will exert a rather large impulse on any object that it comes in contact with in a vertical plane given it's mass....now that is clearly irrefutable. How about a marble or a pachinko ball? Either would split a human's skull and probably burrow down a good half a foot while simultaneously knocking that person to the ground. That is an example of an irrefutable argument. We can simply climb a 30 story building, drop the object on a target, and watch the carnage at the moment of impact.

An argument which is supported by inference is not irrefutable.
 
CyniQ said:
I don't believe anything is irrefutable bro. All you can do is listen to both sides of any given arguement, weigh the evidence presented by each side, and figure out which makes the most sense to you. Differing opinions are a beautiful thing.
CyniQ said:
differing opinions are indeed a beautiful thing. :D

CyniQ said:
That being said, I think there is a fairly respectable amount of evidence in support of a global flood. Like ta hear it? Here it go.

The bible says that with the opening of the springs of the watery deep and the floodgates of the heavens, billions of tons of water flooded the earth. (Ge 7:11) This would have caused tremendous changes in earths surface. The earths crust, as we know, is relatively thin (estimated at between 20 and 100 mi thick), stretched over a rather plastic (somewhat squishy?) mass thousands of miles in diameter. Under the added weight of the water, there was likely a great shifting in the crust. In time, shallow sea basins were deepened, and new shorelines were established, with the result that now about 70 percent of the earths surface is covered with water. This shifting in the earths crust may account for many geologic phenomena, such as the raising of old coastlines to new heights. It has been estimated by some that water pressures alone were equal to 2 tons per square inch.
CyniQ said:
the water could also have come as a result of the ice age coming to an end and the polar caps melting.

CyniQ said:
Remains of mammoths and rhinoceroses have been found in different parts of the earth. Some of these were found in Siberian cliffs; others were preserved in Siberian and Alaskan ice (yeah, yeah, Bering Strait). As you are undoubtedly aware, some were found with food undigested in their stomachs or still unchewed in their teeth, indicating that they died suddenly. The fossil remains of many other animals, such as lions, tigers, bears, and elk, have been found in common strata, which may indicate that all of these were destroyed simultaneously. Some folks point to such finds as definite physical proof of a rapid change in climate and sudden destruction caused by a worldwide flood.
CyniQ said:
the fossilized remains of various animals in common strata could have happened over the course of 500,000 years or more. not exactly very 'rapid change'. the sudden death of animals could also be due to poisoning. a few animals out of millions dying suddenly does not support the occurence of a deluge.

CyniQ said:
But where is the water now? I knew youd ask that. Could be that its right here on earth. Many scientists believe that oceans were once smaller and continents were bigger. There is some evidence of this in the fact that river channels that extend far out under the oceans. Its also noteable that scientists have stated that mountains in the past may have been much lower than at present, and some mountains have even been pushed up from under the seas. Now, it is said that there is ten times as much water by volume in the ocean as there is land above sea level. Dump all this land evenly into the sea, and water would cover the entire earth, 1.5 miles deep. So, after the floodwaters fell, but before the raising of mountains and the lowering of seabeds and before the buildup of polar ice caps, there was more than enough water to cover the entire earth.
CyniQ said:
or a substantial portion of the water from the ice age could have just evaporated over time. you know, leave a glass of water on the window sill and watch the level go down....

CyniQ said:
There now. How's that?

differing opinions are indeed a beautiful thing. :D

the water you mention could also have come as a result of the ice age coming to an end and the polar caps melting.

the fossilized remains of various animals in common strata could have happened over the course of 500,000 years or more. not exactly very 'rapid change'. the sudden death of animals could also be due to poisoning. a few animals out of millions dying suddenly does not support the occurence of a deluge.

the water may still be here or a substantial portion of the water from the ice age could have just evaporated over time. you know, leave a glass of water on the window sill and watch the level go down....

ps: i've got a huge dick and THAT is irrefutable!!!! :cool:
 
Hogg said:
Ahhhh, not to pick nits but here comes a hoggism:

If I told you that getting hit by an apple that was dropped on your head from 30 stories up would hurt like a son-of-a-bitch, having a differing opinion would be ignorance ...because we can demonstrate that an apple will reach roughly 130mph on its way down and will exert a rather large impulse on any object that it comes in contact with in a vertical plane given it's mass....now that is clearly irrefutable. How about a marble or a pachinko ball? Either would split a human's skull and probably burrow down a good half a foot while simultaneously knocking that person to the ground. That is an example of an irrefutable argument. We can simply climb a 30 story building, drop the object on a target, and watch the carnage at the moment of impact.

An argument which is supported by inference is not irrefutable.

Touche.:o
 
CyniQ said:
Or. You could just have skinny legs that make your dick LOOK huge!:D

LOL....now while mine was simply a comment on the term irrefutable, yours was indeed a touche to old Chippy :D
 
garyzilla said:
I think we are getting off the topic.

Okay here goes. IMHO.

The Scriptures offer no apologies, no concessions, no ambiguity. Homosexual practices, adultery, fornication, are all repulsive in Gods sight. Therefore, true Christians should not water down the bibles position on what Paul called disgraceful sexual appetites merely to become more popular or more acceptable to modern culture. Nor do they agree with any movement dedicated to the promotion of homosexuality as a normal lifestyle.

However, should Christians hate the individuals who practice such things?

We cannot read hearts. (Jeremiah 17:9, 10) It would be wrong to assume that one is an unreformable enemy of God because he or she is practicing wrong (Duh), of any variety. In many cases wrongdoers simply do not know Gods standards.

True Christians should be slow to hate fellow humans, or even avoid it altogether. Even if they have strong feelings against certain lifestyles, they should not seek to inflict injury on others, nor do they harbor spite or malice toward them. Rather, the bible counsels Christians to be peaceable with all men.Romans 12:9, 17-19.

No, these people are not true Christistians.
 
Chip Bronson said:
differing opinions are indeed a beautiful thing. :D

the water you mention could also have come as a result of the ice age coming to an end and the polar caps melting.

the fossilized remains of various animals in common strata could have happened over the course of 500,000 years or more. not exactly very 'rapid change'. the sudden death of animals could also be due to poisoning. a few animals out of millions dying suddenly does not support the occurence of a deluge.

the water may still be here or a substantial portion of the water from the ice age could have just evaporated over time. you know, leave a glass of water on the window sill and watch the level go down....

ps: i've got a huge dick and THAT is irrefutable!!!! :cool:
Or it could be that the Flood and subsequent atmospheric changes caused the ice age.
 
I thought about starting another thread, but here is just as good. I suppose it may be a slight digression, but not really.

Why the Bible, Christianity, Jesus/God, etc.? Why not Hinduism(ok, technically, you can't be a Hindu unless you're born into it) or Islam or Zoroastrianism or something fun like Odinsim, Wicca, Celtic Paganism, etc.?

Basically, my question is why do you choose to follow the Christian path? What is the appeal of it over another religion? We've established a similar pattern in all Mono-theistic religions, so wouldn't one of them be just as good?

Do you believe that all the others are wrong and that everyone who does not follow the Bible is going to Hell?
 
Christianity has tons and tons more historical and scientific support. Most other religions dont have any, or very little, historical, archeological, or scientific evidence.
 
That still doesn't negat Judaism. Maybe the Jews were right and Christ wasn't the son of God. Ever thought of that one?

Mormonism is a sect of Christianity. LOL
 
First, few REPUTABLE scientist believes there was ever a global flood. It isnt supported by the flood layers. Creationist scientists claim the flood layers are inaccurate, but currently, they are considered a true basis for historic dating.

Second, Grizzly, it was John Stuart Mill who claimed most people are Christian because they are born into Christian households. I think this is the case, in general. Some actually believe in Christ because they have true faith, but I find this to be the minority.

I think the appeal of Christianity is contained within the doctrine itself. Not only does Christ offer redemption for sins (and the guilt that follows), but also outlines what happens if one does not agree with Christ. (aka Hell)

The worlds two fastest growing religions (Christianity and Islam) both have consequences for belief (Heaven or Hell). In other words, there is no real consequence for not believing in the Buddah, etc.

Third, on a side note, a marble WILL NOT slice through someone from 30 stories. It doesnt have enough mass and its terminal velocity is too slow.

[MK]
 
Last edited:
And it is true, Christianity has far more historic facts confirmed than most other religions. However, this seems fallacious...because then is seems like you are saying you are Christian because SCIENCE confirms it. Would you still be Christian if there were NO SCIENCE AT ALL to back it up? I would, because I think it comes down to faith, not facts.

[MK]
 
Back
Top