View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently December 18th, 2017, 4:48 pm



Reply to topic  [ 368 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 ... 25  Next
 Astronomy/Scientific Question 
Author Message
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: August 6th, 2004, 9:21 am
Posts: 10005
Location: Dallas
Post Re: Astronomy/Scientific Question
steensn wrote:
I liek how you blame mistakes on religion and not science. Just because a people in a time period couldn't seperate them doesn't mean you have to be so blind to do the same. We grow and learn from past mistakes.. well some of us ;)


Why blame science, they don't claim there is ONE and only ONE answer that can be updaed with a better answer. This is much better than a book direct from the Big Man who created it all and knows all.

Science grows and learns from the past, religion simply hangs onto things that have yet to be disproven or try to skirt around those that have.

If we all really "grown and learn" from the past, religion wouldn't be around anymore or would look dramatically diffferent than it does today.

_________________
Image
LB Tweet


June 13th, 2011, 11:12 am
Profile WWW
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: October 20th, 2004, 4:16 pm
Posts: 10408
Location: Where ever I'm at now
Post Re: Astronomy/Scientific Question
Pablo wrote:
That is a good post M2K, even some of the parts I disagree with. Mankind has believed in the existence of a God or gods for a long time, it is the details of that belief that have changed. I think this has to evolve like other beliefs have changed over time.


I agree. Even within Christianity, different churches exist under the same God. The fracturing, however, is due to human fraility. It's the same reason why people leave church, only to flip off someone who cuts them off in the parking lot. So much for being Christ-like.

Pablo wrote:
As for your last part, that is one of my biggest issues with your belief. Do you believe because of a perceived benefit? That is dangerous thinking, imagine people willing to kill others and themselves for percieved benefits after they die because it exist. My other thinking is that there is no way a God, yours or anyone else's, is so egotistical that you have to "believe" in him in order to benefit after we pass. Again a very dangerous line of thinking.


My true answer is no, Pablo. I don't believe because of a perceived benefit. I believe because I choose to, for many reasons. While I do not fully support everything that Christianity states is true, I do believe in the idea that a creator exists. I do believe that Jesus Christ was the son of God.

However, even as a young Catholic school student, I questioned many things. As a Catholic, I was expected to go to confession to own up to my sins, despite the fact that I was taught in school that God is everywhere, and that He is always listening. I was taught that He loves us and is quick to forgive us. Therefore, why was I required to go into a closet and tell a man my sins? I quickly began to understand that this folly was part of mans decision to impact the religion, and not part of my faith in the existence of God. I am not a FIRM believer in every single word of the Bible. I understand and realize that man created those pages, that man decided what went in and what didn't, and that man has attempted to translate the original script into multiple languages over a course of centuries. Some words, some phrases simply don't translate accurately. Therefore, scholars used a "close enough" approach in their translations. That doesn't really cut it, particularly if the text is to be translated yet again and again and again. This doesn't even take into account the politics of the addition/exclusion of the passages in the Bible, as well as the various books.

My choice to believe in God is based on many things. An example would be that science cannot explain everything that takes place, like how men and women can be diagnosed with cancer in late stages, then unexplicably be free of cancer with no treatment other than prayer. That is but one example. For us to exist, and for us to continue evolving as we are, I believe that just way too many things had to happen for it to have been a simple act of nature.

Pablo wrote:
If God truly wanted us to believe in him, all of us, there would be ZERO doubt of his existence. If not, this is truly an EVIL God who is going to punish us for our free will given to us by who? He who created us and the way we think, and is omnipotent on top of that, knew before our birth what our "belief" would be anyways so isn't it really his fault if we get into heaven or not. What a crappy system don't you think?


It's why they call it faith, Pablo. I don't know how God works. Hence the phrase, "God works in mysterious ways". His workings are known only to Him, and you either believe in them or don't. I don't like everthing that happens. I have questioned Him numerous times in my life. However, I don't remember reading anywhere in the Bible that God created the way we think, hence the existence of "free will". Being secretive doesn't make one EVIL. Perhaps this existence on Earth is a test for us? You either pass the test or you don't. There are enough unexplained things that happen, enough things that have occurred for me.....ME....to believe in His existence.

Pablo wrote:
Despite that, have you wasted your time while here believing in him even if he doesn't exist? Excellent question! I would also say you are looking at this question from a biased start point. To illustrate, let me pose a similar question from another belief stanpoint. Would it be a waste of your time to believe we are immortal beings who have forgotten their true nature due to our conflicts resulting from our extraterrestrial past?


I don't think believing in coming from extraterrestrials, or believing yourself to be immortal is a waste of time. Modern psychology may state otherwise, but if that's what you believe then so be it. I don't think that other religious groups are wasting their time. I don't think you are wasting your time. What IS a waste of time, in my opinion, is choosing to enact evil upon others of the world because they don't believe in what you do. What IS a waste of time is these people who feel that money is the end all be all of human existence, and seek to hoard as much of it as possible.

I don't reject the notion of extraterrestrial life existing, just as I don't reject the idea of humans having a soul which lives on beyond our mortal bodies. I think there is strong evidence that our planet has been visited by ETs, and that we could possibly be their offspring. Is it proven? No. Is it possible? Sure. However, I have thought about and rejected the notion that a "perfect storm" took place on this planet to create a place that was habitable by us, provided us with sustenance to our liking, and allowed us to become the creatures that we are today. It is my belief that Nature had some help from Him to make it happen.

When it comes down to it, each persons belief should be personal. I realize that in Christianity one of the principles is to "spread the word". However, Christians were NEVER given a rulebook to play by (and the Bible is not the rulebook). Hence we had the Crusades. The Bible, like any other text, is subject to interpretation by the reader. It is up to you to make your choices. It is up to me to respect those choices.....or not.

_________________
I will not put on blinders when it comes to our QBs performances.


June 13th, 2011, 11:24 am
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: August 6th, 2004, 9:21 am
Posts: 10005
Location: Dallas
Post Re: Astronomy/Scientific Question
Excellent response M2K and you represent your faith very well. I have the upmost respect for your reasoning despite the fact we land on different sides of the "belief".

_________________
Image
LB Tweet


June 13th, 2011, 11:37 am
Profile WWW
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: October 20th, 2004, 4:16 pm
Posts: 10408
Location: Where ever I'm at now
Post Re: Astronomy/Scientific Question
Pablo wrote:
Excellent response M2K and you represent your faith very well. I have the upmost respect for your reasoning despite the fact we land on different sides of the "belief".


Thanks Pablo.

Let me say this....religion is the creation of Man, and I understand that. No offense to any of our religious posters on this forum, but that is the truth. Faith is the creation of God., and it is up to each person to accept it or not. I practice the religion (Orthodox) that I do because :
A) it most closely is linked to the original church set forth by the disciples of Christ, and
B) it is the religion that my wife and children are part of.

I do not put faith in Mankind. I do not put faith in those religions or workings that mankind has created. And as I stated earlier, I don't believe the Bible word for word. Too many variables and too many cooks in the kitchen, so to speak.

I put faith in God. Whether that leads me to Heaven, Hell or simply rotting away in a coffin, that's what my decision is.

_________________
I will not put on blinders when it comes to our QBs performances.


June 13th, 2011, 12:52 pm
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pm
Posts: 13429
Post Re: Astronomy/Scientific Question
Pablo wrote:
steensn wrote:
I liek how you blame mistakes on religion and not science. Just because a people in a time period couldn't seperate them doesn't mean you have to be so blind to do the same. We grow and learn from past mistakes.. well some of us ;)


Why blame science, they don't claim there is ONE and only ONE answer that can be updaed with a better answer. This is much better than a book direct from the Big Man who created it all and knows all.

Science grows and learns from the past, religion simply hangs onto things that have yet to be disproven or try to skirt around those that have.

If we all really "grown and learn" from the past, religion wouldn't be around anymore or would look dramatically diffferent than it does today.


Here is your problem Pablo, religion is our attempt to understand and know God, god, god(s), us, etc. Science is OUR attempt to understand and know our universe. Both can grow and change as our understanding grows and changes. We learn new things in science, we learn new things in who God is.

You are artificially eliminating the ability for man to learn and grow in one area and not the other. Why? Besides the fact that you personally don't believe, there is no reason to.

_________________
regularjoe12 - "You are crackin me up! really! HILARIOUS um let me quote some intellgent people in this coneversation: Steensn:"


June 13th, 2011, 1:10 pm
Profile
QB Coach - Brian Callahan
User avatar

Joined: October 26th, 2005, 11:48 pm
Posts: 3056
Location: Elkhart, In.
Post Re: Astronomy/Scientific Question
Okay, y'all I mentioned this website earlier on, or in a pm to Sly, I don't remember which, but as I checked it out again, I couldn't help but notice the "attaboys" from some very prestigious people and organizations. Thought the rest of you might be interested in what it has to say.

Was the Star of Bethlehem a real astronomical event? A myth created by the early church? Explore the history and science for yourself...
Presentation Times and Places
"well-researched and reasonable"
Former Chief of Planetary Astronomy, NASA, and Technical Editor, Sky & Telescope magazine

"an interesting look... at the star... genuinely thought-provoking"
Christianity Today magazine

"models the scientific method at its best"
Distinguished Professor of Old Testament Studies, Dallas Theological Seminary

"wide-ranging and insightful scholarship"
Former Publisher and Editor, Scientific American magazine, and President, American Association for the Advancement of Science

"This explanation of the Star is compelling..."
NASA's Chief Engineer for the Space Shuttle and the International Space Station, Director of the Columbia Shuttle Accident Task Force


http://www.bethlehemstar.net/

_________________
Acts 4:13, 1 Cor. 2:1-5, Rom. 12:1-2


June 13th, 2011, 9:56 pm
Profile
QB Coach - Brian Callahan
User avatar

Joined: October 26th, 2005, 11:48 pm
Posts: 3056
Location: Elkhart, In.
Post Re: Astronomy/Scientific Question
So has anyone bothered to check it out? Blueskies, Slybry, Pablo? Wags, Steensn, RG12?

It's really quite interesting!

_________________
Acts 4:13, 1 Cor. 2:1-5, Rom. 12:1-2


June 15th, 2011, 2:46 pm
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: August 6th, 2004, 9:21 am
Posts: 10005
Location: Dallas
Post Re: Astronomy/Scientific Question
WarEr4Christ wrote:
So has anyone bothered to check it out? Blueskies, Slybry, Pablo? Wags, Steensn, RG12?

It's really quite interesting!


I've read that site in the past. Couple of things went through my mind, first I reread some of the NT to see where it was mentioned, I found in interesting that I found only one reference to the Star. If memory serves correct, Matthew was the only "Book" that even mentioned this. Imagine something so miraculous having no mention in the other three Books of the NT. BTW - Matthew was written quite some time after Jesus died as well.

Second, isn't it implied that the Star was only visible by the Magi and if this is true doesn't that dispell this entire argument.

There are many other issues with this line of thinking. For example, they followed the path Southward (from the North to the South) yet as you may know objects in the sky (Sun, Moon, Stars) moves Westward (from the East to the West). But lets not get into the technical issues that were omitted cause that can go on all day.

Another issue revolves around the date and time of the birth of Jesus since nobody seems to be able to pin this down. As such, using real astronomical events to tie into an unknown date presents all sorts of problems.

And finally, even if there was a star that proves what? First, I'm sure Jesus wasn't the only child born under that star and secondly think of all the significant astronomical events since and all the children that were born during those events.

In general, if you are really looking for proof you can find it and it really doesn't matter if it is true or not. It also really isn't that interesting after all the flaws rise to the surface rather quickly.

_________________
Image
LB Tweet


June 15th, 2011, 3:12 pm
Profile WWW
Def. Coordinator – Teryl Austin
User avatar

Joined: March 30th, 2006, 12:48 am
Posts: 4205
Location: Davison Mi
Post Re: Astronomy/Scientific Question
WarEr4Christ wrote:
So has anyone bothered to check it out? Blueskies, Slybry, Pablo? Wags, Steensn, RG12?

It's really quite interesting!


havnt had a chance yet bro, but ill commit to reading it tomorrow (thursday) night. Fair nuff?

_________________
2013 Lionbacker Fantasy Football Champion


June 15th, 2011, 3:37 pm
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pm
Posts: 13429
Post Re: Astronomy/Scientific Question
I've only skimmed it, but I'll address some of these logica fallacies.

Pablo wrote:
I've read that site in the past. Couple of things went through my mind, first I reread some of the NT to see where it was mentioned, I found in interesting that I found only one reference to the Star. If memory serves correct, Matthew was the only "Book" that even mentioned this. Imagine something so miraculous having no mention in the other three Books of the NT. BTW - Matthew was written quite some time after Jesus died as well.


Each book was clearly written with different intents, John states his clearly at the beginning and focuses on Jesus' ministry. To say "Oh this is a miraculous event all 4 should have it" doesn't address the context of the intent of each writer. John doesn't even bother with the birth of Jesus and notes at the end that he couldn't put into one book all the miracles surrounding Jesus' life. Like any historical account, not everything is possible to be captured. All deaths in a battle are not noted in the historical accoutn even though each death is tragec and important. Only the main pieces the writer finds important to the main story ot theme will get accounted for.

Pablo wrote:
Second, isn't it implied that the Star was only visible by the Magi and if this is true doesn't that dispell this entire argument.


No, it is implied that they were the only ones looking into the stars for astronomical indications of this event.

Pablo wrote:
There are many other issues with this line of thinking. For example, they followed the path Southward (from the North to the South) yet as you may know objects in the sky (Sun, Moon, Stars) moves Westward (from the East to the West). But lets not get into the technical issues that were omitted cause that can go on all day.


No, it is relative to their position. You assume they woould have followed the staras it rose behind it. It could have rose slightely south east of them and the could have followed it as it peaked over the horizon south of them. Lots of way they could have followed it south.

Pablo wrote:
Another issue revolves around the date and time of the birth of Jesus since nobody seems to be able to pin this down. As such, using real astronomical events to tie into an unknown date presents all sorts of problems.


That is completely intellectually dishonest. Routinely we use evidence available to give a time range then find evidence of an exact time or date based on a clear event described we can point to. If Jesus' birth is estimated from 3 BC or after-ish and and event described we can now link it to a time based on the new evidence. They do this in criminal investigations and other things. To say because we can link the event to the date previous to this claim is nonsense because the claim is evidence FOR a date. This is a false premise as a date isn't required to corroborate the story, the account and the new evidence corroborates the date range and gives an "exact" date.

Pablo wrote:
And finally, even if there was a star that proves what? First, I'm sure Jesus wasn't the only child born under that star and secondly think of all the significant astronomical events since and all the children that were born during those events.


True, it could be a coincidence... but that isn't the point. The point is that non of those other of children are claiming to be the Messiah or God who's followers took the time to note a story of Magi finding him shortely after birth through this event... and later modern science helping corroberate that the event itself might have actually happened. The CLAIM and the later scientific corroberation of part of that claim is completely relevent to proving more of the story truthful. Does it prove Jesus is God? No... but it provides some evidence that more of the story is likely true than previously supported.

Pablo wrote:
In general, if you are really looking for proof you can find it and it really doesn't matter if it is true or not. It also really isn't that interesting after all the flaws rise to the surface rather quickly.


Only if you are intellectually dishonest creating flaws that don't exist.

_________________
regularjoe12 - "You are crackin me up! really! HILARIOUS um let me quote some intellgent people in this coneversation: Steensn:"


June 15th, 2011, 4:38 pm
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: August 6th, 2004, 9:21 am
Posts: 10005
Location: Dallas
Post Re: Astronomy/Scientific Question
Really, lets look at the date of birth - lets say you even have the year right - what day was he born? Because if you are trying to match the birthdate with an astronomical event don't you have to be pretty exact? Bascially they are supporting an argument by saying their could have been a bright object in the sky around the time of his birth, give or take a few months or years. Please steensn.

As for intent and main pieces or books, this would seem pretty important to set up the claims of each book. Do any of the other books talk about the Nativity, yes, and yet they don't bring up this all important aspect. Makes no sense whatsoever and your explanation simply holds no water.

As for the movement of the stars, I'd like to see you try to follow a star and head due South. I agree it is relative to this position, but only at one point in time. An hour later and it has changed spots completely.

I am not being completely intellectually dishonest by point out the "unknown date presents all sorts of problems". In fact, as usual what can only happen here is revisionist will move the date of birth to align with historical event claims. That is the only intelllectually dishonesty taking place here. I stated it creates problems, I didn't state it all out eliminates the possibility.

Quote:
The CLAIM and the later scientific corroberation of part of that claim is completely relevent to proving more of the story truthful. Does it prove Jesus is God? No... but it provides some evidence that more of the story is likely true than previously supported.


Again totally false. You are making connections because you are looking to make them where they don't exist. Let's look at it this way, you are looking at astronomy to prove a miracle which is downright silly to begin with. Do you really think that God NEEDS astronomy to make the Star of Bethlehem occur? Funny, because God isn't bound by the laws of our universe yet you use these laws to try to prove this event.

Therein lies just another flaw with this kind of thinking from the outset that is glossed over by the blindness of "blind" faith. I'm not creating flaws that don't exist, the entire premise is flawed as are the details.

_________________
Image
LB Tweet


June 15th, 2011, 4:59 pm
Profile WWW
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pm
Posts: 13429
Post Re: Astronomy/Scientific Question
Pablo wrote:
Really, lets look at the date of birth - lets say you even have the year right - what day was he born? Because if you are trying to match the birthdate with an astronomical event don't you have to be pretty exact? Bascially they are supporting an argument by saying their could have been a bright object in the sky around the time of his birth, give or take a few months or years. Please steensn.


BS and you know it. No one is taking a birthdate and trying to match it to an astronomical event. They are taking a description of events surrounding a birthday and corroberate the story and come up with a date based on the best known evidence surrounding that time. It is what EVERY SINGLE archeologist and historian does on a day to day job. They corroberate or discredit stories based on archeological evidence from fossils to volcanic eruptions. They use this to take accounts and stories and determine if they happened and if so when they might have happened. That is what is happening here. Someone is taking the time to take events in an account and find evidence to corroberate when it might have happened.

If you are going to contend this then you go against the very basis of EVERYTHING done in archeology and history. You are contend something you have called a science.

Pablo wrote:
As for intent and main pieces or books, this would seem pretty important to set up the claims of each book. Do any of the other books talk about the Nativity, yes, and yet they don't bring up this all important aspect. Makes no sense whatsoever and your explanation simply holds no water.


This is a BS and false contention Pablo, you do not set what the writer finds important. You are trying to take your interest 2000 years later and define what the writer SHOULD have found the most important. There is ZERO claim by any writer to cover every detail... and in fact one writer claims that it is impossible. You are contradicting the writers based on what? What you find interesting? It's a BS argument. I think the Romans should have painted the Pantheon blue, blue is a way cooler color. Since they didn't paint it an arguably super cool color I'm going to say the Romans didn't build the Pantheon, the Greeks did because the Greeks weren't as cool.... It's a lame argument and has ZERO bearing on the validity of any of this. You cannot come in 2000 years later and claim to have better understanding of what or was not important to write down. It's silly...

Pablo wrote:
As for the movement of the stars, I'd like to see you try to follow a star and head due South. I agree it is relative to this position, but only at one point in time. An hour later and it has changed spots completely.


This may be from a lack of knowledge on the text:

Matthew 2 "9 After they had heard the king, they went on their way, and the star they had seen when it rose went ahead of them until it stopped over the place where the child was. 10 When they saw the star, they were overjoyed. 11 On coming to the house, they.."

So the star moved until they came to the place where they were at. they descrive what can easily be considered a southern horizon star that they followed southward as it moved and they ended up probably walking a bit of a curved line as it moved. This point of centention is moot as there is a clear example of what it could have been.

Pablo wrote:
I am not being completely intellectually dishonest by point out the "unknown date presents all sorts of problems". In fact, as usual what can only happen here is revisionist will move the date of birth to align with historical event claims. That is the only intelllectually dishonesty taking place here. I stated it creates problems, I didn't state it all out eliminates the possibility.


Is it? What original date whas decided? There was ZERO claim by anyone that Jesus' birth was actually December 25th and it was only picked to CEBRATE it as the date was unknown. Even if we identified the date, Christmas wouldn't move. Want to talk about revisionist history, you are CHANGING the claim of the Dec 25th date. You have not stated one thing that creates a problem, you have artificially created problems that do not exist. Pablo, I'm sorry but you are clearly not being objectionable here. If there is a reasonable set of or single explinations there is ZERO problemns

Pablo wrote:
Quote:
The CLAIM and the later scientific corroberation of part of that claim is completely relevent to proving more of the story truthful. Does it prove Jesus is God? No... but it provides some evidence that more of the story is likely true than previously supported.


Again totally false. You are making connections because you are looking to make them where they don't exist. Let's look at it this way, you are looking at astronomy to prove a miracle which is downright silly to begin with. Do you really think that God NEEDS astronomy to make the Star of Bethlehem occur? Funny, because God isn't bound by the laws of our universe yet you use these laws to try to prove this event.


It's called history and archeology Pablo... we take written events every day and try to prove or disprove them with evidence we can get. If a story says a special star appeared that wasn't there normally and we can trace through science that in fact we might even be able to determine what it was, that is called history and archeology. If you don't like it, throw out every history book in the world because that is how it works.

Yes, God does NOT need astronomy to prove a miracle... but God also doesn't NEED to go outside the laws to do it either. An all knowing and all powerful being can time things exactly how he wants with no need for outside this world events. You limit God by saying he couldn't do it by knowing when the star was going to rise and who was going to look at it.

Pablo wrote:
Therein lies just another flaw with this kind of thinking from the outset that is glossed over by the blindness of "blind" faith. I'm not creating flaws that don't exist, the entire premise is flawed as are the details.


Opposite, you are creating flaws that do not exist and eliminating absolutaly reasonable explinations for the details... all the while flying in the face of all historical and archeological technics we depend on.

_________________
regularjoe12 - "You are crackin me up! really! HILARIOUS um let me quote some intellgent people in this coneversation: Steensn:"


June 15th, 2011, 7:54 pm
Profile
Varsity Captain

Joined: April 1st, 2009, 9:37 pm
Posts: 312
Post Re: Astronomy/Scientific Question
steensn wrote:
I can only dismiss most them based on opinion of my beliefs, just like you do Christianity and the Bible. But what I can do is dismiss a belief system as a whole (specific set of beliefs within a religion that has varying belief set).

Examples:

Jews believe that the Messiah will come and fulfill all prophecy in one appearence. This is false as the OT describes multiple contradictory appearences. Now I cannot dismiss the Jewish faiuth all together because they can go "We got it wrong, it is two then but Jesus is still not the Messiah." At that point I can't dismiss the religion as a whole because there is nothign forcing it to that specific belief.

Gnosticism is a bit broad, but the specific Gnosticism of the that tried to link into Christianity early on is proven to have provided accounts wit no direct linkage to the situation that are completely and utterly contradictary to the eye witnesses testimony. I cannot prove all Gnosticism wrong, but I can that leg which has dissapeared as well probably because of that.

Greek and Roman mythology is wrong, because you defined it as mythology which by definition is not true ;)

Flying Spagetti Monster only because it was purposefully proposed in jest and documented as such. Had it been presented as a true belief system I couldn't.
Wags beliefs, can dismiss those because it is Wags ;) hat36.gif JK!!!

Anything that tries to encorperate Christianity unitarily while keeping Christianity as defined by the founders true. You cannot have a religion claiming to be the only true religion and claim another religion is right as well. They are contradictory and cannot exist side by side. Christianity as originally intended cannot coexist with any other religion making any religion encorperating that wrong.

Islam in the sense that they say Muhammid was peaceful, he wasn't, so if they claim he was they are wrong. But they can realize the truth that he wassn't and still be Muslim just like Christians and Jews can realize the OT was far from peaceful.

Scientology as well was proposed not as a belief by the creator but as a money making scheme by his own admission a few years earlier. Thes then contradict with no explination and he died a VERY wealthy man.

Simply put, I can identify certain beliefs as being wrong but in the most part, not whole religions.


So.. To put these into chronological order - judiasm, Islam, Greek/roman gods, Christianity, Scientology, church of the flying spagetti monster - that might be wrong but I'm not going to look it up. They can't coexist, yet Christianity was formed after the religions you claim are "wrong" (which you can't possibly know). Christianity's religious work (the bible) is a Plagerization of many other religious works from many other religions.. Look it up.


June 15th, 2011, 8:52 pm
Profile
Varsity Captain

Joined: April 1st, 2009, 9:37 pm
Posts: 312
Post Re: Astronomy/Scientific Question
Serious question: mankind discovers extra terrestrial life - religious folk, what is your reaction?


June 15th, 2011, 9:17 pm
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: October 20th, 2004, 4:16 pm
Posts: 10408
Location: Where ever I'm at now
Post Re: Astronomy/Scientific Question
aughsum wrote:
Serious question: mankind discovers extra terrestrial life - religious folk, what is your reaction?


Welcome....please don't disintegrate us.

_________________
I will not put on blinders when it comes to our QBs performances.


June 15th, 2011, 9:20 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 368 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 ... 25  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware.