Jump to content
You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 68 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Arielle Popstar said:

Funny that I don't remember giving option 2 that much credibility though I did bring it up for consideration as it was being tossed about a lot at the time. What I did and still think though is that the Big Tech Social Medias colluded and conspired to shut the Republicans down. Probably why they are now on the hot seat in a few different countries as they exposed their hand to how much they can influence an election. No free democratic entity needs that kind of crap. For that matter, the restrictions they still continue to put on free speech and the flow of ideas in all areas of life is positively draconian as they throttle the flow of information through search result algorithms to benefit one idea over an other, regardless of which has more merit. 

Anyway, how exactly did your post relate to the topic at hand?

That you will believe what you want to believe, regardless of how simple or complicated it is. Not that you're alone in that, by any means.

Edited by Theresa Tennyson
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Hiya folks. Science is not about truth. Scientists do not claim to hold the truth. Science is merely the art of not BS-sing yourself or others, while trying to understand things and make predictions b

The term "genocide" was coined in 1944. Historians researching wars prior to then will never find the word "genocide" in accounts of those times, so it takes more careful analysis of the historical re

Posted Images

3 hours ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

The term "genocide" was coined in 1944. Historians researching wars prior to then will never find the word "genocide" in accounts of those times, so it takes more careful analysis of the historical record to discern it. Given the widespread disagreement over what actually constitutes genocide, people disagree about its prevalence even since the word was coined.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-11108059

Even so...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genocides_by_death_toll

The Mongol Invasions (~1200-1350AD) took more lives in absolute terms than all listed genocides since. The Dzungar and Circassian genocides killed 1.3-2.3 million people . The population of Earth was much smaller centuries ago and absolute death count is a misleading measure. Death tolls should be expressed per-capita. By some accounts, nearly 15% of the world's population was exterminated during the Mongol Invasions. It took 150 years to do it, but that would be equivalent to a modern genocidal campaign killing about 15 million people per year for the next 100 years. Our modern ability to prevent collateral deaths due to injury and disease do moderate the comparison, but those perpetrating ancient genocides were aware of the expected outcomes.

While none of the genocide that predates Darwin can be blamed on him, a lot of the genocide after can't be either. People have been discriminating against against each based on myriad difference (political, religious, cultural) since well before Darwin. White supremacists don't generally believe in Darwin's theories, they often justify their view by citing the acceptance of slavery in... the Bible. There's never been a shortage of excuses for in-groups to exterminate out-groups.

https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1049743.pdf

I'll argue that science and technology have done more to make war more efficient than to offer justifications for genocide. Nuclear weapons anyone? Even so...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_by_death_toll
https://www.vox.com/2015/6/23/8832311/war-casualties-600-years

In absolute population terms, the three deadliest wars are:

  • WWII (~1941), killing 56-85 million of Earth's 2.3 billion (2.4-3.7%)
  • Mongol Invasions (~1300), killing 30-60 million of Earth's 360 million (8.3-16.7%)
  • Three Kingdom's War (~200), killing 30-40 million of Earth's 200 million (15-20%)

If you rank per-capita, the order is reversed.

I've overlaid a bubble chart of war deaths over the last 1700 years with a chart of the world's population. I think it's pretty clear that, per capita, the world has become significantly less violent over time, particularly since the industrial revolution, which brought explosive population growth that dramatically outpaced violence.

156424436_WarDeaths.thumb.png.4032078a5e71e92ac9834dd098cca7c9.png

 

 Perhaps I should have been a little more careful with my wording. When I used the word "Genocide" I was thinking more along the lines of countries like Russia and China killing off their own people to bring in their forms of Socialism/Communism that required the slaughter of 80-100 million. Marx, Trotsky, Stalin were all convinced and infatuated with Darwin's theory to the point they had no qualms with killing off the millions they thought stood in their way.

Quote

 

Meanwhile, the same science that coincides with declining violence per capita also did this to infant mortality rates...

image.png.110e709729c5a3de5d9d67c1c6ae53fb.png

Science is the most powerful tool humanity has ever discovered, it's well worth watching over its use. We've used it to imperil ourselves with global warming and it's not currently keeping up with the massive experimentation being done by microbes.

Yet I remain hopeful.

 

The drop in infant mortalities is an interesting story that shows the often times backwards thinking of scientists. They even invented a phrase for it called “The Semmelweis reflex or ‘Semmelweis effect’ which is a metaphor for the reflex-like tendency to reject new evidence or new knowledge because it contradicts established norms, beliefs or paradigms,”

Semmelweis who discovered that doctors and med students of the time did not wash their hands before delivering babies, often caused the deaths of both the mother and baby as a result of infecting them with "childbed fever" as opposed to the midwives in the same hospital not experiencing nearly the same degree of deaths of their patients. Semmelweis started to promote handwashing to those who worked in the department he managed and saw an immediate drop in infant mortality. He was eventually fired over the politics of it and the medical staff went back to their old ways resulting in many deaths again. Semmelweis started to promote his ideas to different hospitals but all rejected them until well after his death. 

I came across an article a while back when researching into him that suggested the problem with the medical establishment at the time was that they looked down on their Jewish counterparts who practiced a high degree of cleanliness as a result of their adherence to the torah laws which required such sanitation and thereby also experienced much less childbirth death and complications.

One has to wonder sometimes if intelligence is inversely proportional to common sense. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Lindal Kidd said:

Nah. Could've been teenage aliens on spring break who were just litterbugs.

I just realized...if someone tries to insult you by calling you "alien trash"...take pride in your roots, baby!

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Luna Bliss said:

You still don't get it. The "evidence" for Creationism is not equal to the evolutionary evidence amassed. Creationism has no scientific backing -- how on earth could we scientifically study if God plopped down humans fully formed?  However evolutionary science demonstrates life forms on earth do indeed evolve over time -- we have evidence for this even if not complete and some unknowns are present.

Well I made a scientific prediction when i was about 11 years old based on Creationism that came true the following year. I had come home from school with a new science textbook full of dinosaurs that apparently lived millions of years before. Having read a lot of it in one sitting because of my interest and being that I loved showing my father he was wrong on stuff, I went up to him and showed him my science book and told him how the world had to be more than 6000 years old. He simply mentioned that there were Christians who believed the Bible had indications there have been previous creations to this one. He then told me to start reading the Scofield reference bible which was pretty common back then and had notes that showed those verses that pointed to previous creations starting with Genesis 1:2. Took the wind out of my sails!

Based on those previous creations, it was a logical conclusion that there must be signs for that and sure enough the following year, the Eldredge and Gould paper on punctuated equilibrium proved that scientists were seeing signs of sudden explosions of new life in a very short time periods. Exactly what one would expect of a Designer who at various times interjected in His creation to tweak the life forms already there or restart it all after massive extinction events. Which is what happened 6000 or so years ago.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

Perhaps I should have been a little more careful with my wording. When I used the word "Genocide" I was thinking more along the lines of countries like Russia and China killing off their own people to bring in their forms of Socialism/Communism that required the slaughter of 80-100 million.

Got a link to something to back up that 80-100 million number?

I find these...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Russia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_the_Soviet_Union
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_China

A very quick skim of the numbers across all three pages suggests 10-20 million, much of which would not be considered genocide.

54 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

They even invented a phrase for it called “The Semmelweis reflex or ‘Semmelweis effect’ which is a metaphor for the reflex-like tendency to reject new evidence or new knowledge because it contradicts established norms, beliefs or paradigms,”

Semmelweiss was himself a major factor in the rejection of his idea...

https://digitaltonto.com/2018/the-semmelweis-myth-and-why-its-not-really-true/

Rejection of new ideas ain't always or entirely because of reluctance to give up established old ones. Sometimes the new idea is proffered by an incompetent messenger.

Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

Well I made a scientific prediction when i was about 11 years old based on Creationism that came true the following year. I had come home from school with a new science textbook full of dinosaurs that apparently lived millions of years before. Having read a lot of it in one sitting because of my interest and being that I loved showing my father he was wrong on stuff, I went up to him and showed him my science book and told him how the world had to be more than 6000 years old. He simply mentioned that there were Christians who believed the Bible had indications there have been previous creations to this one. He then told me to start reading the Scofield reference bible which was pretty common back then and had notes that showed those verses that pointed to previous creations starting with Genesis 1:2. Took the wind out of my sails!

Based on those previous creations, it was a logical conclusion that there must be signs for that and sure enough the following year, the Eldredge and Gould paper on punctuated equilibrium proved that scientists were seeing signs of sudden explosions of new life in a very short time periods. Exactly what one would expect of a Designer who at various times interjected in His creation to tweak the life forms already there or restart it all after massive extinction events. Which is what happened 6000 or so years ago.

 

giphy-downsized-large (1).gif

  • Like 2
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

Got a link to something to back up that 80-100 million number?

I find these...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Russia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_the_Soviet_Union
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_China

A very quick skim of the numbers across all three pages suggests 10-20 million, much of which would not be considered genocide.

Semmelweiss was himself a major factor in the rejection of his idea...

https://digitaltonto.com/2018/the-semmelweis-myth-and-why-its-not-really-true/

Rejection of new ideas ain't always or entirely because of reluctance to give up established old ones. Sometimes the new idea is proffered by an incompetent messenger.

Ok well this link from a quick search:

The following estimates represent citizens killed or starved to death by their own Communist governments since 1918. These numbers do not include war dead. The governments are sorted by body count (highest to lowest).

All numbers are mid-estimates.

While this list is as complete as I have been able to determine, it is evolving. Some numbers are incomplete and there are still five Communist countries that have the potential to kill more of their citizens. Over the next year, each government will be profiled in detail on this website.

Communist Body Count: 149,469,610

https://scottmanning.com/content/communist-body-count/ 

There is an itemized list of dead per country at the site.

At another Wiki link it shows in part these sources with various counts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_communist_regimes

 

 

Quote

 

According to Klas-Göran Karlsson, discussion of the number of victims of communist regimes has been "extremely extensive and ideologically biased."[31] Rudolph Rummel and Mark Bradley have written that, while the exact numbers have been in dispute, the order of magnitude is not.[v][w] Although any attempt to estimate a total number of killings under communist regimes depends greatly on definitions,[32] several attempts to compile previously published data have been made:

  • In 1994, Rudolph Rummel's book Death by Government included about 110 million people, foreign and domestic, killed by communist democide from 1900 to 1987.[33] Due to additional information about Mao's culpability in the Great Chinese Famine from the work of Jung Chang and Jon Halliday, in late 2005 Rummel revised upward his total for communist democide between 1900 and 1999 to about 148 million, using their estimate of 38 million famine deaths.[34][35] In 2004, Tomislav Dulić criticized Rummel's estimate of the number killed in Tito's Yugoslavia as an overestimation based on the inclusion of low quality sources and stated that Rummel's other estimates may suffer from the same problem if he used similar sources for them.[36]
  • In 1997, the Stéphane Courtois introduction to the Black Book of Communism gave a "rough approximation, based on unofficial estimates" approaching 100 million killed.[x] The subtotals listed by Courtois added up to 95 million killed. Nicolas Werth and Jean-Louis Margolin, contributing authors to the book, criticized Courtois as obsessed with reaching a 100 million overall total.[37] In his foreword to the 1999 English edition, Martin Malia noted "a grand total of victims variously estimated by contributors to the volume at between 85 million and 100 million."[y]
  • In 2005, Benjamin Valentino stated that the number of non-combatants killed by communist regimes in the Soviet Union, People's Republic of China and Cambodia alone ranged from a low of 21 million to a high of 70 million.[z][aa] Citing Rummel and others, Valentino stated that the "highest end of the plausible range of deaths attributed to communist regimes" was up to 110 million."[z][ab]
  • In 2010, Steven Rosefielde wrote in Red Holocaust that communism's internal contradictions "caused to be killed" approximately 60 million people and perhaps tens of millions more.[38]
  • In 2011, Matthew White published his rough total of 70 million "people who died under communist regimes from execution, labor camps, famine, ethnic cleansing, and desperate flight in leaky boats", not counting those killed in wars.[ac]

 

  •  
Edited by Arielle Popstar
cleanup
Link to post
Share on other sites

By God, if I didn't know better and hadn't seen all these points refuted before, @Arielle Popstar would be the perfect mixture of Schmuley Boteach  and Kent Hovind - argumentation. :|

Let's not forget first all these murdering totalitarian regimes base their state on one particular pillar : unconditional worshipping of the Perfect Leader / Being.

Something not uncommon to creationists.

ETA : See what I did there, Arielle ? Don't even go there.

 

Edited by TDD123
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, TDD123 said:

By God, if I didn't know better and hadn't seen all these points refuted before, @Arielle Popstar would be the perfect mixture of Schmuley Boteach  and Kent Hovind - argumentation. :|

 

 I don't know Schmuley Boteach but I will look him up if he has anything new to offer but Kent Hovind I don't like the comparison to. He is an anti gapper without imo, good justification.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

Ok well this link from a quick search:

The following estimates represent citizens killed or starved to death by their own Communist governments since 1918. These numbers do not include war dead. The governments are sorted by body count (highest to lowest).

The following estimates represent citizens killed or starved to death by their own Communist governments since 1918. These numbers do not include war dead. The governments are sorted by body count (highest to lowest).

All numbers are mid-estimates.

While this list is as complete as I have been able to determine, it is evolving. Some numbers are incomplete and there are still five Communist countries that have the potential to kill more of their citizens. Over the next year, each government will be profiled in detail on this website.

Communist Body Count: 149,469,610

https://scottmanning.com/content/communist-body-count/ 

There is an itemized list of dead per country at the site.

At another Wiki link it shows in part these sources with various counts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_communist_regimes

 

 

  •  

A quick tally of the numbers on Scott Manning's page shows that, of the 149.5 million total, about 142 million come from one source, Rudolph Rummel.

The "All numbers are mid-estimates." is either disingenuous or misinformed.

From Rummel's Wiki page "Most estimates of democide are uncertain and scholars often give widely different estimates. His (Rummel) figures for Communist regimes are higher than those given by most other scholars."

Rummel is the high roller on estimates, with the rest of the researchers ranging from 10-20 million (which concurs with what I quickly derived from a skim of the massacre pages I linked) to 110 million.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Rabbi Boteach used the same argumentation of Darwinian totalitarian murdereous regimes being equal to atheism.

It was not solely to offend you. Do look up whom he debated against with those arguments of yours.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, TDD123 said:

Kent Hovind

Hovind contends that Darwinism produced "Communism, Socialism, Nazism, abortion, liberalism and the New Age Movement".[65][66] He blamed the forced Cherokee resettlement on a belief in evolution, although the Trail of Tears preceded Origin of Species by roughly two decades.[10][11] Hovind maintains that biology textbooks are lying in order to brainwash youth.[67][68] He said, "Satan is using evolution theory to make kids go to hell."[69

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Hovind

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/15/2021 at 10:13 AM, Arielle Popstar said:

Took me a few years before I gave up God being made in my Dad's image. 

You posted that after my story about being set down the path to independence of thought by my father's admonition that "Man creates God in his own image" before sending me off to Sunday school where he knew I'd hear the reverse.

It seemed to me this might be an inference that I am too enamored of my father's thinking to challenge it.

1 hour ago, Arielle Popstar said:

Well I made a scientific prediction when i was about 11 years old based on Creationism that came true the following year. I had come home from school with a new science textbook full of dinosaurs that apparently lived millions of years before. Having read a lot of it in one sitting because of my interest and being that I loved showing my father he was wrong on stuff, I went up to him and showed him my science book and told him how the world had to be more than 6000 years old. He simply mentioned that there were Christians who believed the Bible had indications there have been previous creations to this one. He then told me to start reading the Scofield reference bible which was pretty common back then and had notes that showed those verses that pointed to previous creations starting with Genesis 1:2. Took the wind out of my sails!

Based on those previous creations, it was a logical conclusion that there must be signs for that and sure enough the following year, the Eldredge and Gould paper on punctuated equilibrium proved that scientists were seeing signs of sudden explosions of new life in a very short time periods. Exactly what one would expect of a Designer who at various times interjected in His creation to tweak the life forms already there or restart it all after massive extinction events. Which is what happened 6000 or so years ago.

I too loved showing my father that he was wrong on stuff, since before I could talk. Those early years were a very tough slog. I got my head handed to me on a platter more times than I care to, or can count. Things eventually improved and I started winning rounds here and there. Ultimately, though our thinking diverged, we continued to delight in bringing each other new ideas to challenge our old beliefs.

Dad would often challenge me with false statements, to make sure I was on my toes and ready to swat him down. When I started swatting down ideas he held as true, he was gracious in defeat and sometimes giddy.

Now, rather than wonder if there was an inference about me in your "Dad's image" statement, I wonder if you were mistaken about yourself.

Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

Semmelweiss was himself a major factor in the rejection of his idea...

https://digitaltonto.com/2018/the-semmelweis-myth-and-why-its-not-really-true/

Rejection of new ideas ain't always or entirely because of reluctance to give up established old ones. Sometimes the new idea is proffered by an incompetent messenger.

At the root of the rejection for every incompetent messenger, there is the pride and ego of the listener. Remember too that the truth of better sanitation was being proven already anywhere orthodox Jews were. Semmelweis was just one more messenger in a long line messengers promoting that these childbirth deaths were unnecessary. The science of Sanitation has been known since the Moses put pen to paper and probably before then even through oral traditions.

Even Christians failed in that regard thinking the old testament was only relevant for the Jews and not them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

Hovind contends that Darwinism produced "Communism, Socialism, Nazism, abortion, liberalism and the New Age Movement".[65][66] He blamed the forced Cherokee resettlement on a belief in evolution, although the Trail of Tears preceded Origin of Species by roughly two decades.[10][11] Hovind maintains that biology textbooks are lying in order to brainwash youth.[67][68] He said, "Satan is using evolution theory to make kids go to hell."[69

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Hovind

This is quite outrageous.  Why cannot some see the words in Genesis as a kind of Hebrew poetry that is most likely attributed to Moses.  One can see the repetitive word day fairly similar to that of poetry.  Meditative prayer also was not unheard of in those times in that area of the world.  Many biblical scholars cannot even ascertain how to translate the word day used in Genesis.  The best that can be found is the word was turned into daeg in German possibly taken from Swedish or something like that and yada yada yada.  It is not that important.  I don't think, if there is a God, to some of you YEC, God cares how you interpret the moon and the sun and day and night but that you have a happy life.  

But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day [is] as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

Edited by FairreLilette
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Arielle Popstar said:

Based on those previous creations, it was a logical conclusion that there must be signs for that and sure enough the following year, the Eldredge and Gould paper on punctuated equilibrium proved that scientists were seeing signs of sudden explosions of new life in a very short time periods. Exactly what one would expect of a Designer who at various times interjected in His creation to tweak the life forms already there or restart it all after massive extinction events.

Also exactly what you'd expect from genetic mutations that have much more physical impact than you'd expect from the change in the genetic code, like the article I posted where it was discovered that pythons and boa constrictors "lost their legs" through three small changes in a helper gene despite still having all the genetic code to make legs in place.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Arielle Popstar said:
6 hours ago, Luna Bliss said:

You still don't get it. The "evidence" for Creationism is not equal to the evolutionary evidence amassed. Creationism has no scientific backing -- how on earth could we scientifically study if God plopped down humans fully formed?  However evolutionary science demonstrates life forms on earth do indeed evolve over time -- we have evidence for this even if not complete and some unknowns are present.

Expand  Expand  

Well I made a scientific prediction when i was about 11 years old based on Creationism that came true the following year. I had come home from school with a new science textbook full of dinosaurs that apparently lived millions of years before. Having read a lot of it in one sitting because of my interest and being that I loved showing my father he was wrong on stuff, I went up to him and showed him my science book and told him how the world had to be more than 6000 years old. He simply mentioned that there were Christians who believed the Bible had indications there have been previous creations to this one. He then told me to start reading the Scofield reference bible which was pretty common back then and had notes that showed those verses that pointed to previous creations starting with Genesis 1:2. Took the wind out of my sails!

Based on those previous creations, it was a logical conclusion that there must be signs for that and sure enough the following year, the Eldredge and Gould paper on punctuated equilibrium proved that scientists were seeing signs of sudden explosions of new life in a very short time periods. Exactly what one would expect of a Designer who at various times interjected in His creation to tweak the life forms already there or restart it all after massive extinction events. Which is what happened 6000 or so years ago.

If I studied these passages in the Bible I'm certain I'd get a different interpretation. How would you reconcile that? What makes yours into the truth you're so certain of?

  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Theresa Tennyson said:

Also exactly what you'd expect from genetic mutations that have much more physical impact than you'd expect from the change in the genetic code, like the article I posted where it was discovered that pythons and boa constrictors "lost their legs" through three small changes in a helper gene despite still having all the genetic code to make legs in place.

I'm sure it's a wrong-headed analogy, but this seems akin to a random change in a computer program changing a loop count, or deleting a subroutine call.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Theresa Tennyson said:

Also exactly what you'd expect from genetic mutations that have much more physical impact than you'd expect from the change in the genetic code, like the article I posted where it was discovered that pythons and boa constrictors "lost their legs" through three small changes in a helper gene despite still having all the genetic code to make legs in place.

Yes that is valid hypotheses too except you lack the thing that caused it other than relying on an accidental mutation and loss of information whereas I have the hypotheses that the darn snake was cursed to crawl on his belly for all his days and those three small changes were done by the Creator. 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, FairreLilette said:

Yeah this.  I have shared that my Bible literalist sister, who was raised in a liberal Democratic household, became Republican because her pastor asked her too some 20 years ago.  Since we were both raised in a liberal Democratic household, I asked her why she changed to Republican and she told me her pastor asked the whole congregation to vote Republican.  The most likely reason to vote against gay marriage I'd assume for that time frame.  However, this was a previous pastor who is no longer her pastor once she became a Lutheran.  She now has a new pastor.  What her Lutheran pastor believes she should be political-wise I have not asked.  I found it a bit scary when she told me why she became a Republican in the first place.  Now some Republicans would say I'm probably publishing some wive's tale from an alt-left position or something but that is not the case and what I am saying is entirely true.

Yes, 1 in 4 residents of the U.S. are Evangelical, and of those 80% vote Republican. The pastors do push it. I was looking stuff up but too lazy to get the links atm..

I remember when gay marriage was up for vote in mid-terms...probably the time period you're referring to...when it was voted down. My neighbor acted like she was going out to save all of mankind with her vote, even wheeling her disabled husband who was at the slobbering stage and probably couldn't process much cognitively, pushing him along to create one more vote, out to save the world from the evil homosexuals.

She was all "marriage should be between a man and a woman". I told her not to get gay-married then.

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

If I studied these passages in the Bible I'm certain I'd get a different interpretation. How would you reconcile that? What makes yours into the truth you're so certain of?

Its the truth as I see it. I am not forcing you to accept what I see and you couldn't even if you wanted to. The truths in the Bible are spiritually discerned, not a matter of intelligence.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

I have the hypotheses that the darn snake was cursed to crawl on his belly for all his days and those three small changes were done by the Creator. 

1 in 6 kids in the U.S. go to bed hungry, and no doubt more since Covid -- wonder why the Creator doesn't come and help since He was so good with the snakes..

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 68 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...