Don't forget he let Lot try to w**** out his daughters to protect the booty holes of the visiting angels from the horny gay men in Sodom. The horny gay men from Sodom really liked angel booty holes apparently because the they refused Lot's virgin daughters. And of course let's not forget the next chapter of the story. Lot's daughters got their dad drunk and raped him so they could conceive since there were no men in the cave they were hiding in after they escaped. Yea that's right they raped him, not once but twice!!!
No, I dont think so. And that's really where the discussion is. The gospels aren't written as poems, but as a historical narrative. To argue this would also require much time. If you really want to go deep into this, I suggest N.T. Wright's "The resurrection of the Son of God". But to really simplify the argument, the common ground we have to find is the historicity of Jesus. And more than that, the historicity of the Bible. Historians often use the Bible as a way of corroborating other claims in other contemporary documents, but the supernatural claims often give people some worry about using it as a historical text. But I think l it has to be used as one in the right context. (and most reputable historians believe so too) With the amount of 1st and 2nd century documents the Bible has left behind, secular and religious, the existence of Jesus is arguably more historical than, for example, Socrates. And stretching a bit more, Alexander the Great. If one argues Jesus may have not existed, than they must ask questions about those two. But they don't, just because its Christianity. But if we've got the common ground of a fellow named Jesus that was going around Palestine claiming and preaching things, then we are on the right track. That doesn't solve the supernatural problem though. What does? The rise of the Christian church. Despite solid attempts, no historian has been able to explain the rise and staying power of 1st and 2nd century Messianic Judaism. And that's ridiculously interesting. I'm at work right now, so I should really stop typing all this. Lol. So if you're interested in hearing the examples, I'll shoot more. But if not, well then I'm wasting my money making time.
You have obviously never looked into quantum mechanics. It's hard to use our term 'rational' when describing quantum mechanics at all. This just in...the universe is a bat-**** crazy place.
the scale becomes almost impossible to comprehend (infinite?) when you consider multiverse.. but that's all guesswork. What we know is, life exists. There is a universe that life exists in. Life consists of component of the universe. However implausible, it is possible that life starts from the mixing of the universe components. What we also know is, God is unknown. There is no God that we have seen. Since we have no observable God, it is to date, not possible that life was created by God. Saying God created life is simply a belief with no basis in observable reality. One of these day, if and when we have observable data on a creator... everything changes.
I don't take the bible literally As I alwyas tell my friends. . .could you imagine trying to explain a germ to someone 2000 yrs ago? "So you saying .. . that something so small I cannot see it is killing me. . . . uh huh . . yea right. . . . But me saying it is invisible spirit is bat **** crazy?" - Guy from 2000 years ago Rocket River
Nobody should be wasting their money-making time, SexyButIgnorant. Especially me, seeing as how all of the free stuff I get as a slavish, stupid liberal parrot-Negro from the growing socialist regime, does afford my a lot of idle time. To do the work Mein Fuhrer requires of me, of course. But what the hell...it's a slow day for me.... I wonder if you've read a book by James Tabor, titled Paul and Jesus. It's been in print for a little while, and even after reading it myself for what must be the hundred-and-fifty-thousandth time, I still find it a mesmerizing account. Tabor is a historian, particularly of Christianity, the Apostle Paul, and Jesus of Nazareth. He makes two striking claims in his account about the "authenticity" of the "historical narrative" of the New Testament Gospels: Paul has been historically verified to be the earliest "eyewitness" account of the era by 7 of the books of the New Testament for which he is believed to have authored himself (the book of Romans, in particular...several others which have been traditionally assigned authorship to him are, at best, written by someone else) ...which means that, if the earliest factually accurate account we have of the world of Palestine/Rome is attributed to Paul, and a verifiable letter of Paul was written as early as perhaps 50 A.D. (with Paul's own reference to his conversion experience dating some 10 to 12 years prior to the writing)... ...it could legitimately be argued that, as we have come to know the New Testament...historically, at least...we're reading it out of order. One of the problems I could find with the Gospel accounts, myself, isn't necessarily the supernatural elements (raising the dead, walking on water, et al)...but rather the idea that, sequentially at least, they don't simply tell an accurate enough story. And myths or legends, by nature or virtue, aren't necessarily supposed to get everything factually right...particularly in this case, where oral tradition probably didn't lead to any sort of pen-to-paper transition of the Gospel narrative of Jesus of Nazareth's life by any time before A.D. 70 (which is about the time that the earliest Gospel, Mark, is believed to have been written. None of the stories we hear or read about Jesus of Nazareth now came into being until AFTER Paul's letters are circulated throughout the Roman world. That certainly doesn't mean that the events did or did not "happen", as we liken the term... ..but a lot of socio-political elements went into constructing the narrative of Jesus life...and specifically the brand of wisdom (or faith) he preached and taught. Tabor believes, in fact, that there were possibly two different versions of the faith we now call Christianity vying for "supremacy"...the version that the surviving apostles had because of their direct association with Jesus, and Paul's interpretation based on his "Damascus road" experience. This is long-winded (even for me), but I'd venture a guess that, politics is the largest reason why Messianic Judaism survived in the tumult of 1st and 2nd century Palestine. Some things, it seems, never really change...
The bacteria isn't making a conscious decision to adapt. The bacteria that become resistant just happen to have a random genetic mutation that makes them more tolerant of a certain antibiotic. Similar to how certain groups of people randomly developed sickle cell red blood cells which happened to protect better against malaria. The people with this sickle cell trait survived and procreated and the trait became more prominent in those groups. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/04/110428123931.htm
I liked it. Thanks. It represents a new genre of cartoon like videos that tell Bible Stories among other things in an abbreviated, slightly glib, but engaging manner. It will be of course made fun of here, but its detractors will struggle to refute it's two basic propositions.
Kind of how you struggle to prove god exists? Oh that's right, only Science has the burden of proof apparently.
My thoughts exactly... All the video does is point out there is no evidence for those two facts. Well where is the evidence regarding God existing? Just because some farmers 2000 years ago wrote it in a book along with some stories is evidence enough? Both theories can be made to sound rational or irrational depending on how you present it. Just let people believe in what they want to believe. Can't we all just get along?
I think the point is that "science" doesn't support either position so no matter what you are sort of forced to go on faith alone if you decide to take a stand one way or the other.
I'm a Christian, but I know enough to know that "Answers in Genesis" if a total joke of an organization. Ken Ham is an idiot.
GATC is abundant. It can be combined naturally. It can be recombined naturally and easily. And all of that GATC can be reproduced and recombined by other GATC. This is all observable. After it replicates the only question is how often it is selected for. And that's Evolution. So it seems really simple to me.
Ken Ham has never heard of a virus, apparently. What a terrible video. The hilarious part is that someone posted it thinking there were new, compelling arguments made. I am embarrassed for Clutchfans.
