So you admit that there is a Jesus and that he actually can come into a mans soul and indwell the man and change his life?
So you admit that there is a Jesus and that he actually can come into a mans soul and indwell the man and change his life?All the born again Christians I know were alcoholics or drug addicts. Sample size isn't that big but thought it was worth mentioning.
So you admit that there is a Jesus and that he actually can come into a mans soul and indwell the man and change his life?
All the born again Christians I know were alcoholics or drug addicts. Sample size isn't that big but thought it was worth mentioning.
I doubt you've ever spoken to one personally. Thats the whole point of the thread. Atheists seem to have a free pass to spread FUD as they see fit on anything religion related. The more I thought about it the more I realized how contrived all the atheists complaints really are.
It doesn't reflect what I experienced at all, at least in my community. Maybe yours was different, I respect that. Its not like they were trying to push creationism in catholic school. In fact it was the total opposite. I was lucky to have such good schooling, put me ahead of most people in the area. Catholics are big into education, not to be stereotyped as stupid religious people, which seems to go 100% unquestioned whenever someone brings it up.
I doubt you've ever spoken to one personally. Thats the whole point of the thread. Atheists seem to have a free pass to spread FUD as they see fit on anything religion related. The more I thought about it the more I realized how contrived all the atheists complaints really are.
It doesn't reflect what I experienced at all, at least in my community. Maybe yours was different, I respect that. Its not like they were trying to push creationism in catholic school. In fact it was the total opposite. I was lucky to have such good schooling, put me ahead of most people in the area. Catholics are big into education, not to be stereotyped as stupid religious people, which seems to go 100% unquestioned whenever someone brings it up.
They were close family friends, I have spoken to them a lot, several of them outgrew the born again Christian thing once they got their life back in order, got a job, and were positive they would not be drinking anymore, and I'm not an atheist. Call me an atheist one more time and you're going straight to hell buddy.
It's a fascinating thing to see because they become utterly dependent on religion instead of whatever substance they were abusing and that's pretty much all they would talk about. Those that didn't outgrow the born again christian thing faded away within a year since unlike their substance abuse, which they hid from everyone, the religious thing was right up in everyone's face and it was not fun for my family to socialize with them any longer.
As far as AA, which was the original topic of this thread, I've been a member for 20 years as of 20 January 2014. I find it amusing almost when people diss AA when there is no "dogma" to dismiss. It's beauty and success lies in the fact that you have a group of people getting together to share their experiences, strengths and hopes in the effort to not only distance themselves from substances that became harmful to them but to improve on the conditions that made them want to use so destructively to begin with. In short, AA is a toolbox. Use what you want and leave the rest. I never got thrown out because I didn't "get God" but I did find a Higher Power through my limited understanding. Still working on that too but it's a process. Oh, virtually nobody I ever come in contact with knows I don't drink or go to AA unless it comes up. I don't hide from the affiliation but I don't sell it either and it's cool how it still works in my life. I wish more religions were like that.
The parody thread dealt with that other AA if you'd like to post in that one.Doh! Sorry, my bad.
First of all, there is NOT a shred of evidence of a global flood. There are tons of evidence of major floods in many parts of the world. Think about the tsunamis that struck Indonesia a few years ago. If all we had were oral records, the story of that tsunami would be told generation after generation. Now, there have also been tsunamis in many other parts of the world. There is geological evidence of far greater tsunamis in many other areas (hundreds of feet high in Hawaii).Not necessarily. There could have been a flood of gigantic proportions many thousands of years ago dating from one of the Pluvial Periods, and the earth is something around 71% covered in water.
Additionally, mammoths (which became completely extinct about 4500 years ago, coinciding with the Biblical Flood) and saber-toothed cats all suddenly, according to an article I was just reading, completely disappeared from North America and Europe.
Note: This isn't to say that the Biblical Flood happened with certainty, but with evolutionary uniformitarianism, evidence could simply be misinterpreted (not saying it is).
Just a thought.
Regardless if anyone accepts this or not doesn't matter to me personally. But we have evidence which could suggest a global flood as being a distinct possibility.
There is, however, a major problem with your assertion that mammoths and saber toothed tigers died out 4500 years ago, at the time of "the Biblical Flood." That assertion relies on modern evidence. It relies on radiometric dating.
It relies on our understanding of the fossil record. It relies on the exact same type of modern science that says your Biblical Flood never happened.
Hold on, Bible Chronology put the Flood roughly around 4,000 to 4,500 years ago.
This begs the question: what modern scientists are doing the research? Basically, no one. "Modern science" operates under the assumption that a Global Flood isn't possible, end of story, and they work from there.
The question that should be asked is: "What kind of affects would it have on our planet and what kinda of evidence would it leave behind", then you start generating questions and theories that clash with your "modern scientists", but I don't think your evolutionary-minded thinkers are gonna put their careers on the line to challege a world-view that is opposed to Biblical fairy-tales.
The falseness of the Biblical Flood has been deemed unchallengable for the past century, so sorry, your "modern scientists" haven't even looked for possible evidence.
This is why I don't bother to argue about the veracity of the Flood story, and will not....and I did expect you to reject it out of hand like you did.
Thanks for the response, though...but I am done with the topic of the Flood.
No evidence exists to support the positive claim that a global flood occurred. The Bible is simply wrong. Period.
I guess you convinently skipped over DrPizza's first paragraph where he talks about evidence of other floods but there is no evidence of a world wide flood? Sounds about par for the course with you.
There is evidence, you just refuse to believe what goes against your beliefs for fear of shattering them. Sucks.
LOL -- I had no problem with his first paragraph, hence, why I didn't quote him. I agree with what he said, that doesn't mean I have to quote him and type "agree", does it?
But you agreeing with his very first sentence goes against everything you went off on a tangent about. Thus making your responce null and void from the get go.
Then if I may , if it was not any fun to associate with them anymore perhaps they were being too vocal about their religion and not enough love and compassion and understanding.Those that didn't outgrow the born again christian thing faded away within a year since unlike their substance abuse, which they hid from everyone, the religious thing was right up in everyone's face and it was not fun for my family to socialize with them any longer.