Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 22:03:57 -0400 From: Lawrence Sica <lomifeh@earthlink.net> To: Drew Raines <drew-dated-1032131896.4746e7@rain3s.net> Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Message-ID: <BB54E1C8-C52A-11D6-8708-000393A335A2@earthlink.net> In-Reply-To: <20020910231814.GA21879@drew.rain3s.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tuesday, September 10, 2002, at 07:18 PM, Drew Raines wrote: > Lawrence Sica wrote: >> >> On Tuesday, September 10, 2002, at 05:17 PM, Drew Raines wrote: >>> >>> Have you actually read the Bible or do you quote it fourth-hand >>> for fun? >> >> Yes I have read it. Many many times. > > >>> 8:7, NASB). His point was, just like Romans 3:23, that ``all >>> have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.'' They >>> deserved a stone in the head just as much or more than the >>> woman for their unbelief. >> >> Romans isn't Jesus' words. > > ``In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, > and the Word was God. . . and the Word became flesh, and > dwelt among us. . .'' (John 1:1,14) > > ``No prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men > moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God'' (2 Pet. 1:21). > > ``Paul. . . wrote to you all his letters. . . which the > untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the /rest of > the Scriptures/, to their own destruction.'' > > Romans is God's Word. Jesus is God. Romans is Jesus' words. > > BTW, I didn't (intend to) claim Jesus wrote Romans. I was > merely infering that the point of Romans 3:23 was the same as > Jesus' point in John 8:7. > ok. But those words aren't the word's that jesus said while he was alive on earth. Which is what I am going by. >> And I read what he said as you have no right to stone her >> because you are not pure either. He told ppl he brought a >> new law...and that the old laws were no longer applicable. > > I thought you were saying that Jesus didn't persecute anyone, a > comment justified by John 8:7. Also, if you were agreeing with > Neal, why did you sarcastically refer to a piece of scripture > which supported his point? > The point i was trying to make is that tolerance is a core of christianity. He stated that all the tolerance we see today is not a good thing. > You really should use punctuation more liberally. We don't > mind the extra bandwidth usage. > i'll ignore the dig and just stick to the facts. >>> him with my salvation. How the flood, however, justifies >>> slavery is a mystery. Care to elaborate? >> >> The son who looked at noah naked? Remember him? Well it was >> said his children would serve the rest...I forget his name >> off the top of my head. But it was then used that blacks >> were descended from the one son, so they could be slaves. > > OK, so you're referring to what Noah said after Ham entered the > tent when Noah was naked. He cursed Canaan, Ham's son, telling > Ham he shall be a ``servant of servants to his brothers'' > (Genesis 9:25). > > That doesn't justify slavery as an institution that pleased > God, however, which is what you were implying in previous > messages. Where does the Bible claim that? > I said it was used to do that, not that the Bible said that. My point being the bible has been interpreted in various ways to suit the needs of those thumping it to justify what they do. Like slavery or the crusades. --Larry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?BB54E1C8-C52A-11D6-8708-000393A335A2>