Corinthians was not a letter from one of the Disciples. Paul wrote it and he wasn't a disciple of Jesus, but an Apostle.

1

Ok, your trynna make me look stupid with that sig :(

Buuuuut, I was being sarcastic, and everyone knows that....except for a dude called 'sick wit it' who claims Lil wayne is in the top 10 greatest emcees of all time...........

the fact he suggests its ammusing, kinda puts a dampen on the joke? doesnt it?...not to mention You misinterpreting my post :nono:


I still luv you tho.

LMAO @ him owning the world

This is a misperception...Darwin couldn't have renounced his "theories" because Evolution is not a theory. What you don't understand is this. Evolution can be broken down on a MACRO and MICRO level. Evolution DEFINITELY occurs on a MICRO level. That's proven without doubt. That simply means things change over time. THAT'S 100% true. The argument stems from whether or not MACRO evolution occurred. That is the theory that all life stemmed from a primordial soup that formed in a pond eons ago.
That's the conflict. Darwin is the father of modern biology. Don't fool yourself. Evolution occurs.period. It can EASILY be proven in laboratory experiments on a MICRO level.

We did.

and to think one man created this world is 'LUDACRIS' :thumbup:

Of course everyone is a sinner (no one is perfect), but I'm not attacking you with the Bible. And as far as whatever my "struggle" is, it's already yielded to God. I'm far from doing it or anything similar. People don't live with their sins unless 1) they choose to or 2) they don't know that it's wrong. You don't have to live your life under a sin. And I will sin in the future I'm sure of that because I'm not perfect. But all I can do is try my best to stray from anything that can be considered a sin in God's eyes which I "think" that is close to what you are saying.

GOD is more than a man...."All powerfull and All knowing" he can do what ever he wants, anything you can think of, being appropriate of course lol....

You have a point...

if people wanna base their lives on believing in an imagenary friend, thats their choice.

No...evolutionists don't believe we evolved from MOnkies...Their theory is that humans ARE apes, not that we evolved from monkies. Monkies and apes are different. Lemme break it down:

Their conjecture is this:

Modern humans and Chimps had ONE COMMON ancestor. Call that "animal a".

The theory is that some geological catastrophe drastically changed the environment in which ANIMAL A lived, causing a rift between some ANIMAL As on one side, while some ANIMAL As were on the other side. The belief is that a volcanic-type disaster created two dratically different landscapes. On one side, the land was barren and empty. On the other side, trees remained. Evolutionists believe that the ANIMAL As on the side with the trees evolved into Chimps, while the ANIMAL As on the barren side evolved into people.

^^It's more complex than that. But, that's the theory in a nutshell.
ANIMAL "A"

....I aint trynna offend anyone right now.

''gotta wash dishes''

*Holds back from typing any sexually discrimating remarks*

As I recall, Darwin's sister was the only person present when he died and it's her word that he actually denounced his thoughts...even if he had, it was probably because he was trying to repent because the fear of even the slim possibilty of hell existing would lead him to eternal suffering. But, denouncing all of that would leave him in a position to have a better chance at reaching paradise, and if he didn't...well, so what? He would be dead, and the path of the world would not matter to him in the slightest because he'd cease to exist. Simply put, he was a fearful man --- which is most likely, though this is obviously speculation ---, his sister lied, or he truly did not believe in what he had spent decades working on.

I wrote a track about this.... it's pretty funny... People still believe it and argue it so hard even tho the one man who created the entire "idea", denounced all his theories. haha. And he denounced 'the big bang' not evolution. word.

ps - Judicial & Lady Fiyah, props on knowin ya stuff - I had to get back to Dooms cause I had to do some readin up on all that old stuff.... I don't think I ever even read 2 Kings, and I forgot about the Deuteronomy thing. Good points.

He created the theory that has been expounded on by others...evolution is still speculation but provides a more believable aspect to life, and gives you the choice of which you believe is more ridiculous...evolution or creationism.

I'm doing a paper on this for History class and I have some notes jotted down somewhere, I'll find specific names for the branching theory and the common ancestor in a bit...I know animal A has a name that starts with an 's'.

Let me find the thoughts of Darwinists on the deathbed statement in which Darwin supposedly denounces his theories...

http://www.myspace.com/charles_darwin_evolution

Unfortunately, myspace blogs are apparently down for construction, so I'll look for another site debating the authenticity of denouncement.

It's simple. Darwin didn't renounce his theories. You know, God once stated, "I'm sorry I even made mankind." That's actually IN THE BOOK OF GENESIS!!!!!!!!!!!! Again, evolution is not a theory, but the underlying principle of biology. On a micro level, evolution can be proven in laboratory tests. On a Macro level, that's more speculation than proven. But, you can't argue with fossil records and DNA.

Read his book, "Origin of Species." Until you read that, you don't know what Darwin believed or didn't.

I take the easiest path of a conflicted individual...God created the first organism. Do you know where animal a came from? The ocean, volcanoes, a complex combination? Or is that unknown?

so god is sayin we are all mistakes that makes me feel good (not)

Charles Darwin recounted in his biography of his grandfather Erasmus Darwin how false stories were circulated claiming that Erasmus had called for Jesus on his deathbed. Charles concluded by writing "Such was the state of Christian feeling in this country [in 1802].... We may at least hope that nothing of the kind now prevails." Despite this hope, very similar stories were circulated following Darwin's own death, most prominently the "Lady Hope Story", published in 1915 which claimed he had converted on his sickbed. Such stories have been propagated by some Christian groups, to the extent of becoming urban legends, though the claims were refuted by Darwin's children and have been dismissed as false by historians.

Source - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charle...until_his_death

I have to do this paper anyway, may as well get in a good few arguments. It does do me good to think that someone's watching over me...though under other circumstances that'd be awkward. I suppose that's one of the pros of Christianity, the feeling of acceptance and understanding. Still, I usually take on a more skeptical look at life and consequently fall into a brooding state...I don't truly believe Darwin did denounce Evolution on his deathbed, and historians have discredited the thought. I'll investigate...

EDIT:

Lady Elizabeth Reid Hope (née Cotton1; December 9, 1842–8 March 1922) was a British evangelist who is generally believed to be the Lady Hope who claimed in 1915 that she had visited the British naturalist Charles Darwin shortly before his death in 1882. Hope claimed that Darwin had recanted his theory of evolution on his deathbed, and accepted Jesus Christ as a savior.

Charles Darwin's family denied the story, and insisted that Lady Hope "was not present during his last illness, or any illness." The Lady Hope Story is generally recognized, even by many Creationists, to be false — or at least unverifiable — and if true, probably exaggerated. The story remains a popular urban legend, even though it stands in sharp contrast to Darwin's published and known views about Christianity.

Source - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Hope

Yeah.I Think Jesus Meant Sybolically To Represent His Sacrifice To The World.

lol..yea...Animal A came from where all other lifeforms originated, in the primordial soup. Lightning strikes caused ammino acids to form and connect to make complex lifeforms. Bacteria were the 1st forms of life follwed by more complex multi-cellular organisms. This is evolution in its grandest sense. This is the conflict between religion and science, if there even is one. I believe God made "something", but that "something" evolved over the eons.

Man...lemme get my pizza out the oven so I can stay on this


lol

no not all of us....just you

funny fuck u bitch u are so gay :thefinger :thefinger :thefinger :thefinger :thefinger

^^^actually...God said "I regret making mankind" before he destroyed the world for its wickedness.


In order to get God to say that, they must have been doing some pretty EFF'd upp stuff.

...I didnt even post in this thread, you're confusing me with someone else

I see Q did a lot of posting, but I will just say my piece.

For most of those it is saying, those who eat my flesh and drink my blood in a symbolic way will have eternal life. Basically, those who believe in me and what I am will have eternal life.

In communion the bread and wine symbolize the body and blood, I mean, we can't just tear apart someone for communion, there wouldnt be anyone left.

That'd be a whooooooollllllleee lotta laughin people. Some of the "history" (and I say that purely tounge in cheek) in the bible is a retelling of other "histories" from other books and events in other religions that didn't even happen in the time span they state it did. Like the birth of Jesus. Or the name "jesus" which wasn't even his name.

Virtually EVERYTHING Paul states in the Bible is completely fabricated. He never even MET Jesus!! So...how could he have been an apostle? The telling and the painting of the supposed "Last Supper" is also false, since Paul is pictured and described in the presence of Jesus, whom he never met in his life. There's so many lies and contradictions of events in the bible it'll make your head spin like the Excorsist.

Don't feel for a moment that the human ego isn't so selfish as to immortalize it self in a book that people were going to pass along for generations. Which reminds me, time to make another thread.



That's not a freaudian refference to anything. People are perfectly concious that they are making that statement, which is a common phrase in our scociety. Other civilizations don't go around saying that lol.

And I'm still looking to see which comunities PRACTICE cannibalism and do it out of compliment as you suggested.



Where did "God" destroy the world that we still live in?
Where specifically does it say that god says it regreted making man kind?




Ok, so basiclaly, you're saying that the KING was a cannibal, which we alredy knew. But what you're ignoring is that you're saying that the King was THAT hard up for a meal that he boiled his own son?

I highly doubt it.



What's symbolic in "eat my flesh and drink my blood, for my flesh is just as any other meat and my blood is as any other drink"?

Jesus wasn't the type to try to confuse anyone, he spoke clearly. It's their own misinterpretation of his statements that confuse people, like taking meaning from something he never stated. If he wanted you to eat some bread and drink some wine, he'd have said "eat bread and drink wine, and pretend it's my body and blood". Wafers are not bread. crackers are not bread. Grape Juice is not wine. Grape Kool-aide is not wine. So how is anyone paying dues to this statement if they aren't even consuming the actual food they say he said to consume!!

Especially when that "food" is his own body in the literal sense, as illustrated whne he states "heat my flesh, for my flesh is just as any other meat, and my blood is just as any other drink". That dosen't say "eat this bread" nor "drink this wine".

Ok, so basiclaly, you're saying that the KING was a cannibal, which we alredy knew. But what you're ignoring is that you're saying that the King was THAT hard up for a meal that he boiled his own son?

I highly doubt it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
People did crazy shit back then, just like when they say animals eat their young sometimes....

and i don't know if its true or not but i once heard of some girl who's husband payed no attention to her he payed all of his attention towards the baby and she killed the baby and fed it to him with out him knowing i doubt that shit.....but still people do some crazy shit...

but your thing was why does the bible condone cannibalism....and it doesn't.....never did it say it was ok to eat people...and that king died for what he did anyways...and the people got food so they didn't have to be eating eachother...and like LF said it might have been a way to punish themselves i don't know the whole story of that group of people...

Where did "God" destroy the world that we still live in?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

and about what you said right there ^^^

you ever heard of 'The Flood', Noah's Ark.....he flooded the world killing all the people because they were so wicked except for Noah and his family and 2 of each animal....and they lived and were told to restart basically

*s.v. walks into the room, cracks open a luke-warm guiness and sits on the couch. he looks about and suddenly notices all the dismembered body parts and silverware piled around the room. s.v. calmly gets back up, wipes his fingerprints off of the fridge handle and door handle.......then quickly leaves the crimson covered hell-hole with his brew in tow.*


s.v. disgusted.........c.s.

Man, you're going way off issue now. Talking about naimals eating their young and likening it to cannibalism is unrealistic seeing that animals eat their young to preserve their food source by having one less mouth to feed. You're speculating now, not speaking facts. I'm looking for facts.



AHAHAHAHAHA. For starters, "The Great Flood" didn't destroy the world lmao ahahahahhaha. Think about it man...seriously..if noah suppsoedly took 2 of every animal (even those that DON'T LIVE ANYWHERE NEAR THE CLIMATE THIS IS SAID TO TAKE PLACE - Like Polar Bears, Seals, Penguins, etc) on his Ark and it was packed so tight that there was only room for him, not even the exotic breeds of plant life that outnumber humans and animals alike. - then where'd everyone else come from? There's no 2 humans on the ark homey. No wat the flood could have "destroyed the world" like you say it would have.

Think about it man. Seriously.

Secondly, Unlike the Flood of Egypt, There are NO high water marks on monuments (like the one on Sphynx) ANYWHERE to prove that ANY flood occured ANYWHERE!!!!

Third, how could the flood cover the entire world. Think about it man. Floods come form bodies of water (vapor or not) moving to new locations and unleashing the torrent. That's a movement of water. Where would all this extra water come from to flood the entire globe?? Water never leaves the earth, it evaporates and falls again as rain, so where did this extra water get shipped in from to flood the earth?

And finally, lets pretend that this flood happened, that wouldn't have destroyed the earth. That would have (supposedly) killed all the life on the planet shor to what was on the Ark. Not destroy the earth. That'd be like saying you taking a bath would be destroying your body, which is...UNpossible.

Man, you're going way off issue now. Talking about naimals eating their young and likening it to cannibalism is unrealistic seeing that animals eat their young to preserve their food source by having one less mouth to feed. You're speculating now, not speaking facts. I'm looking for facts.
------------------------------------------------
^well the king didn't have food so wouldn't it be right if i said he ate his son to preserve his own food source by having one less mouth to feed??like you said with the animals..isnt that the same thing???

You also said:
AHAHAHAHAHA. For starters, "The Great Flood" didn't destroy the world lmao ahahahahhaha. Think about it man...seriously..if noah suppsoedly took 2 of every animal (even those that DON'T LIVE ANYWHERE NEAR THE CLIMATE THIS IS SAID TO TAKE PLACE - Like Polar Bears, Seals, Penguins, etc) on his Ark and it was packed so tight that there was only room for him, not even the exotic breeds of plant life that outnumber humans and animals alike. - then where'd everyone else come from? There's no 2 humans on the ark homey. No wat the flood could have "destroyed the world" like you say it would have.

Think about it man. Seriously.

Secondly, Unlike the Flood of Egypt, There are NO high water marks on monuments (like the one on Sphynx) ANYWHERE to prove that ANY flood occured ANYWHERE!!!!

Third, how could the flood cover the entire world. Think about it man. Floods come form bodies of water (vapor or not) moving to new locations and unleashing the torrent. That's a movement of water. Where would all this extra water come from to flood the entire globe?? Water never leaves the earth, it evaporates and falls again as rain, so where did this extra water get shipped in from to flood the earth?

And finally, lets pretend that this flood happened, that wouldn't have destroyed the earth. That would have (supposedly) killed all the life on the planet shor to what was on the Ark. Not destroy the earth. That'd be like saying you taking a bath would be destroying your body, which is...UNpossible
----------------------------------------------------------------------
First of all it wasn't just Noah, he had a wife and 3 sons i believe and they each had a wife......just to clear that up.......and we are talking about GOD here he doesn't have to stick to the rules of science and evaportation, he MADE it rain for 40 days and 40 nigths non-stop,

Also:
That would have (supposedly) killed all the life on the planet shor to what was on the Ark. Not destroy the earth. That'd be like saying you taking a bath would be destroying your body, which is...UNpossible.

He did not destroy earth, the bible said he destroyed the WORLD meaning humans, plants, everything on it.....and you provided the perfect example with the bath thing...

You take a bath and destroy the dirt, fungus, what ever it maybe on you,
GOD flooded destroyed the world, humans, plants

Your body you don't destroy you just cleanse it
The Earth GOD didn't destroy he cleansed it from the evil that overcame it...Enough Said

Nope. THE KING has food. He's the king and gets provided for first and above anyone else. How is this even an issue??


ok, so you're saying that 8 people repopulated the entire planet of all these various races and cultures that are known to exist without interruption throughout time? cmon man, be realistic.

Also, We both (for discussional purposes) agree that it rained, why are you trying to prove something that's esablished? My question is "where did all this EXTRA water to raise ALL water levels globally like you're saying come from"?


He didn't destory the earth? That's funny, because I could have swore that's exactly what you meant when you said:



Isn't this you leaping in the defense of "how and where "God" destroyed the earth"?? smh...



I'm glad you said that because now you finally see what it is I'm trying to say. You taking a bath dosen't destroy your body (like I just said) yet, you see that a flood on the earth destroys the earth?....yeah.


P.S. Using quotes would be nice, so I can make out what you're trying to say from what I already said.

yes i am saying those 8 people re-popuated...we started with Adam and Eve right?? that was just 2 and they seemed to populate just fine....

He didn't destroy the Earth meaning the planet...when 'I' say world im refering to like the humans, plants, structures like the physical stuff.....sorry I could have worded it better....

but I'm tired...we def. should finish this convo on Aim or somethin 2-morrow its interesting hearing the "other" side of things and healthy i think...my aim is lyricalyillest33

I'm glad you mentioned that, because this is where the lies in the bible start to unravel. Right at the beginning.

Adam and Eve, first two people right?

Adam and eve had two sons (Cain and Able) right, one killed the other? Now look what happened to Cain after he killed his brother and got banished:


Hol up..rewind for a second..so cain gets to this new town east of Eden and lays with his wife?? Wait..his Wife????? That would mean that she is obviously around his age and old enough to reproduce, which means she had to simultaneously exist around the same time that HE did. Yet the bible makes no mention of cain having any sisters, nor adam and eve having any daughters and furthermore, they don't say "cain laid with his sister". She was obviosuly someone completely irrelevant to their lineage, so where did she come from?

No way that Adam and Eve populated the earth by them selves and the bible blows their own spot on this numerous times over.


I wish I had that picture bible I used to eread as a kid because it showed cain and his wife in a city with people in it. "How'd they get there" is one of the first questions I asked about the bible, which was the start of me getting kicked out of bible classes by 16 and causing my instructor to cry. Definitely not fun lol.



"the world as we know it". But even that stilldosen't add up to the fact that water dosen't multiply it self, it just moves, so to flood th entire globe would be literally impossible. Even if all the polar icecaps melted, the globe still wouldn't be flooded. The bible tells some stories that are simply complete fabrications man. The Great Flood is one of countless.


I'm down for that. But why not here where everyone can learn from the findings? ;)

people are delicious