More reliable source?

[Wynd_Fox]

Oh. Why not? Came too late, or just 'cause it's me?

[Ad Bot]

[Nex]

You mean retranslated.

= rewritten

[Niblic]

God does not exist, because if there was a ruler of the infinite universe.

It would not be a species of these dumbforget humans living on the tail of their galaxy.

[Gamefandan]

Oh. Why not? Came too late, or just 'cause it's me?

snot is a loved member of the community for no apparent reason and there was once this one thread with something along the line of "I hate snot," fun ensued.  

God does not exist, because if there was a ruler of the infinite universe.

It would not be a species of these dumbforget humans living on the tail of their galaxy.

Oh stuff it's another one of those things that always thinks they are right.

[ultimamax]

I don't see why we should even be arguing about this. But I'ma have to go with science, even if I'm Christian.

[pixl]

Theorys are peoples way of making up stuff so they don't have to belive the tripe of the bible. The bible was probably made up because people needed an explanaition. Many other cultures have their own beliefs that are similar to those of the bible. What makes your fairy tale "true" and theirs "false"?

[Regulith]

Nice job opening Pandora's Box...

For about the 4th time in a month.

[Rughugger]

inb4rughugger

Waaaaaaay before me. But I would have to agree with Inv3rted. I do not see the bible as 100% fact. I simply see it as a moral code with a few errors here and there. So I'm on the edge of Science to be more reliable since we have the technologies to prove and/or disprove more effectively than people did 2000 years ago. Do I believe that there were things in the bible that may have actually happened? Yes, but to base a history off of it is the best we can do since nothing was really written down at that time and age.

Ever thought you'd hear a bible-thumper say that? lol

[TheChaosCarrier]

Science.

[Wynd_Fox]

Waaaaaaay before me. But I would have to agree with Inv3rted. I do not see the bible as 100% fact. I simply see it as a moral code with a few errors here and there. So I'm on the edge of Science to be more reliable since we have the technologies to prove and/or disprove more effectively than people did 2000 years ago.

Ever thought you'd hear a bible-thumper say that? lol

Took you long enough.

[Eryehk]

Bible = Faith in the words.

Science = Facts.

[Rughugger]

Took you long enough.

Long enough to reply or my admission? I have important stuff to focus on today like chicks and homework. lol

[Wynd_Fox]

Long enough to reply. I was hoping for a debate between you and Inv3rted, and as those are always entertaining.

[Rughugger]

Long enough to reply. I was hoping for a debate between you and Inv3rted, and as those are always entertaining.

Ah, well sorry to disappoint. it was a rather busy day today.

[Game master pro]

I do not see the bible as 100% fact. I simply see it as a moral code with a few errors here and there.

And what a good moral code it is!

Who is it that should be put to death again? Oh right, it's homoloveuals (leviticus 20:13), adulterers (leviticus 20:10), disobedient children (deut 21:20-21), women who are not virgins on their wedding night (deut 22:13-21), all non-christians (luke 19:27), anyone accused of wickedness by at least 2 people (deut 17:2-7), anyone who works on the sabbath (exodus 35:2-3).

and the bible has such respect for women! like how it's disrespectful for them to speak in church (1 cor 14:34-5), or how women cannot teach or have authority over men (1 timothy 2:12).

but you know, it's all right since you can just become a disciple of christ, but first you have to hate your family! (luke 14:26). but first we must have a sword, so sell all your clothes to buy one (luke 22:36).

need i continue, really?