@Krayola

you are contradicting yourself, you cannot claim to ridicule the bible and still quote events in it as facts. Its either everything in it is true or all of it is true. Hence you can't use what the Jews believe as a basis of your argument cus the same Jews you are using as a basis of your argument actually believe the Torah (which is contained in the bible).

By the way,

1. Who are the Jews

2. Was Moses a Jew.

3. Was the Messiah a Jew.

4. Was Paul a Jew.

5. Was King Herod a Jew.

6. If your disbelief in a Creator, then can you kindly tell me (without using words like could, might, may, they say, it is said):

- how everything began
- When it began
- Why it began
- Which came first between living things and non-living things.

Krayola:

Like I said, your knowledge of this stuff is very superficial. the Jews believe in a Messiah. Just not Jesus. They were looking for a political messiah to rescue them from the Romans which is why they refused Jesus.

Not all Jews rejected Jesus. The Earliest `christians`, Jesus movements as they are generally called, were made up of Jews. . .  This was before Paul. They went around preaching about the saviour and became scornful when people refused to listen. . .  they then started to develop their own apocalyptic message, about punishment, the damnation of those that did not accept, etc etc. their sayings were compiled, with their stories of Jesus, and is used as a source in Matthew and Luke. . .  


The Bible is a propaganda tool. . .  on so many levels.

They were looking for a political messiah to rescue them from the Romans which is why they refused Jesus.

you are starting to amaze me, with your wonderful bible interpretation. So good to see you pick and choose what you wish to tell us the bible is saying.

Not all Jews rejected Jesus. The Earliest `christians`, Jesus movements as they are generally called, were made up of Jews

Once again who are the Jews, and how did you get the information about the early christians before Paul (please don't tell me you got that from the bible again )

They went around preaching about the saviour and became scornful when people refused to listen. . . they then started to develop their own apocalyptic message, about punishment, the damnation of those that did not accept, etc etc. their sayings were compiled, with their stories of Jesus, and is used as a source in Matthew and Luke. . .

Bible is a propaganda tool

Propaganda by who and to who

@ No2Atheism

I thought you once said that paul was a black person?. . . . .

Like I said. . .  this is a pointless exercise. .  I rest my case


I said the bible contains wisdom and i get ridiculed for it.

I have never ONCE said I don`t believe in "God". Not once.

You can believe what you want. .  but it is obvious this debate isn't about any real exchange of ideas. .  but just an avenue for both sides to yell at each other. Knock yourselves out.

No2Atheism:

@Krayola

you are contradicting yourself, you cannot claim to ridicule the bible and still quote events in it as facts. Its either everything in it is true or all of it is true. Hence you can't use what the Jews believe as a basis of your argument cus the same Jews you are using as a basis of your argument actually believe the Torah (which is contained in the bible).

That is the problem with Christianity as practiced by most. . . ALL or NOTHING. . . No room for common sense

. . . the early christians were mostly Jewish. . . They were living in the diaspora and were the most responsive audience right from the start. They are not classified as Jews because they are called early Christians . . . But they were of Jewish origin, and the jewish authorities turned them in ASAP out of fear that they would keep converting more.

The "Jews" (religion) were recognized and allowed to practice their faith in Roman territory. . . The early Christians were a threat, and were considered "sellouts". When you guys use the word "Jews" you do it without recognizing that it describes a people, and not just a belief system. The claim that Jews as a people refused Jesus is misguided. The jewish faith refused Jesus.

Stop trying to oversimplify something that is complicated. . . you hide the truth from urselves

mazaje:

@ No2Atheism

I thought you once said that paul was a black person?. . . . .

Yes i did and i still stand by it, because there are biblical references to back it up.

Romans were white, yet they identified Paul as an Egyptian (off which we understand at that time that Egypt was still basically a black man's nation as it is yet to be invaded by the Arabs).

Krayola:

That is the problem with Christianity as practiced by most. . . ALL or NOTHING. . . No room for common sense

Truth is not open to compromise.

its either Krayola is truthful or Krayola is not. Krayola cannot be both at the same time.

No2Atheism:

Yes i did and i still stand by it, because they are biblical references to back it up.

Romans were white, yet they identified Paul as an Egyptian (off which we understand at that time that Egypt was still basically a black man's nation as it is yet to be invaded by the Arabs).

can you pls provide the bible references. . . . egyptian?. . . . i have never heard that one before.

No2Atheism:

Truth is not open to compromise.

Jihadists fully agree.

Krayola:

. . . the early christians were mostly Jewish. . . They were living in the diaspora and were the most responsive audience right from the start. They are not classified as Jews because they are called early Christians . . . But they were of Jewish origin, and the jewish authorities turned them in ASAP out of fear that they would keep converting more.

The "Jews" (religion) were recognized and allowed to practice their faith in Roman territory. . . The early Christians were a threat, and were considered "sellouts". When you guys use the word "Jews" you do it without recognizing that it describes a people, and not just a belief system. The claim that Jews as a people refused Jesus is misguided. The jewish faith refused Jesus.

Stop trying to oversimplify something that is complicated. . . you hide the truth from urselves

Krayola you are starting to box yourself into a corner. Stop stating things that you don't know for certainty. It would help your ego to make sure you ascertain something 100% before you claim it is true.
Early Church was persecuted in Rome (not the early Jews) so please stop mixing up history. People were persecuted for being part of the early church and not for being part of the early jews.  You are mixing up the two.

Once again let us try to be straight forward without our questions and answers:

1. What do you mean by Jewish.
2. Is there a difference between being a Jew and being Jewish.
3. Is a person a Jew by religion or by birth
4. Once again what is the difference between a Jew and a Jewish person.
5. What is the difference between a Jew and an Isrealite.
6. Is an Isreali the same thing as an Isrealite.
7. Was Moses a Jew.
8. Was Paul a Jew.
9. Was the Messiah a Jew.
9. Was King Herod a Jew.

No2Atheism:


Early Church was persecuted in Rome (not the early Jews) so please stop mixing up history. People were persecuted for being part of the early church and not for being part of the early jews.

If you actually READ my post, you will see that is exactly what i said. But i clarified what u refuse to acknowledge,  that the early Christians were Jewish people, and they were turned in by the Jewish authorities. Do your research. . . I have.

This is a waste of time. . . you don`t want to look critically at your own faith. . . which is why I said people that only know about their own religion know nothing about religion. When you start to develop a real thirst for truth, you will. 

I`m leaving to go and drink alcohol, smoke some marijuana, and If i`m lucky fornicate. holla @ ur boy!!   

mazaje:

can you pls provide the bible references. . . . egyptian?. . . . i have never heard that one before.

@mazaje

Here you have a Roman person addressing Paul ( it is easy to see that Paul was mistaken for an Egyptian despite that he is clearly not an Egyptian).

RNKJV
‪Acts 21:38
Art not thou that Egyptian, which before these days madest an uproar, and leddest out into the wilderness four thousand men that were murderers?


So @mazaje now you have heard about it.

Krayola:



If you actually READ my post, you will see that is exactly what i said. But i clarified what u refuse to acknowledge,  that the early Christians were Jewish people, and they were turned in by the Jewish authorities. Do your research. . . I have.

This is a waste of time. . . you don`t want to look critically at your own faith. . . which is why I said people that only know about their own religion know nothing about religion. When you start to develop a real thirst for truth, you will. 

I`m leaving to go and drink alcohol, smoke some marijuana, and If i`m lucky fornicate. holla @ ur boy!!   

1. So can u kindly answer the questions that i have asked instead of dodging them.

2. You clearly are either new to this forum or know next to nothing about me, otherwise you would know that I am not a person that is scared of tackling taboos even in my own faith, in science and in islam. Do yourself a favour and go through my profile to crosscheck for yourself my past posts so that you would get a better and clearer picture of what i am about. Even mazaje remembers me from my past post about the real isrealites and the fake ones (the ursurpers), hence the reason why he asked me to proof my statement when i said Paul was actually a black skinned person (how black his skin was is however something i don't know cus its not in the bible and hence i don't claim to know it).

3. My username was choosen for a reason, the reason is that i have tasted a little bit of life and science to know enough that your insinuation about knowing the real truth is mere bollocks.

If you desire to know or already know the real truth then it should not take you long to answer the simply questions that i have asked and tabulated for you. At least don't you realise that you could actually get to teach me something by merely answering my questions. Instead you have decided to turn tail and scupper off.

No2Atheism:

@mazaje

Here you have a Roman person addressing Paul ( it is easy to see that Paul was mistaken for an Egyptian despite that he is clearly not an Egyptian).

RNKJV
‪Acts 21:38
Art not thou that Egyptian, which before these days madest an uproar, and leddest out into the wilderness four thousand men that were murderers?


So @mazaje now you have heard about it.

i thought you clearly said that paul was[b] mistaken for an Egyptian despite that he is clearly not an Egyptian[/b]? No2Atheism  na wah ohhh. . . . .  .

mazaje mazaje haba it does not profit you anything to be sly, mischevious and downright devious. Take your time and put away your pride enough to notice that after you asked me to prove my statement that Paul was a black man (by virtue of being called an Egyptian during his him thousand of years ago), that:


I never said Paul was an Egyptian.

I said the Romans were the ones who called Him an Egyptian

Hence it is clear to anyone who understands the use of english, that it means that Paul was mistaken for an Egyptian by the romans

Hence it is also clear to anyone who understands the use of english that it means that Paul looked like a typical Egyptian of his time and age, thousands of years ago during the time of the Romans (i.e. it is clear to see that Paul was mistaken for a black man)


@mazaje you are starting to disappoint me ( you should be above this kind of silly/childish word play), does it mean that you are willing to stoop low to a level of misrepresenting a very clear statement just to try and prove that you were right or try to cover up your own mistake of insinuating that i was initially wrong when infact i was actually correct with evidence.

You asked for a bible reference to back up my statement (about Paul being a black skinned man), i gave you a bible reference to back up my statement, yet you go on about saying something completely irrelevant and out of context.

For your information, Paul himself replied to the mistake made by the Romans by identifying himself as a Jew of Tarsus:

RNKJV

Acts 21:37 And as Paul was to be led into the castle, he said unto the chief captain, May I speak unto thee? Who said, Canst thou speak Greek?  

Acts 21:38 Art not thou that Egyptian, which before these days madest an uproar, and leddest out into the wilderness four thousand men that were murderers?  

Acts 21:39 But[b] Paul said[/b], I am a man which am a Jew of Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, a citizen of no mean city: and, I beseech thee, suffer me to speak unto the people.

@mazaje, I must confess that i completely lost respect for you, as this your singular act of trying to play on words and wrongly/falsely insinuate that i said or implied something (which i clearly did not) shows that you are obviously not someone that can be trusted to engage in a truthful intellectual discussion.

I am sorry to say, but it seems KAG is a more honourable atheist compared to you, at least KAG tends to publicly admit when he is wrong about something. You on the other hand just displayed a characteristics of being dishonourable enough to deceptively dodge having to accept and admit that something is actually true by twisting and misrepresenting what was actually said.

It really very sad, that people on NL would stoop this low.

No2Atheism:

mazaje mazaje haba it does not profit you anything to be sly, mischevious and downright devious. Take your time and put away your pride enough to notice that after you asked me to prove my statement that Paul was a black man (by virtue of being called an Egyptian during his him thousand of years ago), that:


I never said Paul was an Egyptian.

I said the Romans were the ones who called Him an Egyptian

Hence it is clear to anyone who understands the use of english, that it means that Paul was mistaken for an Egyptian by the romans

Hence it is also clear to anyone who understands the use of english that it means that Paul looked like a typical Egyptian of his time and age, thousands of years ago during the time of the Romans (i.e. it is clear to see that Paul was mistaken for a black man)


@mazaje you are starting to disappoint me ( you should be above this kind of silly/childish word play), does it mean that you are willing to stoop low to a level of misrepresenting a very clear statement just to try and prove that you were right or try to cover up your own mistake of insinuating that i was initially wrong when infact i was actually correct with evidence.

You asked for a bible reference to back up my statement (about Paul being a black skinned man), i gave you a bible reference to back up my statement, yet you go on about saying something completely irrelevant and out of context.

For your information, Paul himself replied to the mistake made by the Romans by identifying himself as a Jew of Tarsus:

RNKJV

Acts 21:37 And as Paul was to be led into the castle, he said unto the chief captain, May I speak unto thee? Who said, Canst thou speak Greek?  

Acts 21:38 Art not thou that Egyptian, which before these days madest an uproar, and leddest out into the wilderness four thousand men that were murderers?  

Acts 21:39 But[b] Paul said[/b], I am a man which am a Jew of Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, a citizen of no mean city: and, I beseech thee, suffer me to speak unto the people.

@mazaje, I must confess that i completely lost respect for you, as this your singular act of trying to play on words and wrongly/falsely insinuate that i said or implied something (which i clearly did not) shows that you are obviously not someone that can be trusted to engage in a truthful intellectual discussion.

I am sorry to say, but it seems KAG is a more honourable atheist compared to you, at least KAG tends to publicly admit when he is wrong about something. You on the other hand just displayed a characteristics of being dishonourable enough to deceptively dodge having to accept and admit that something is actually true by twisting and misrepresenting what was actually said.

It really very sad, that people on NL would stoop this low.

very sorry pls. . . i initially did not understand the point you were trying to make now i do. . .

mazaje:

very sorry pls. . . i  initially did not understand the point you were trying to make now i do. . .

Apology accepted,

Likewise I also apologise to you for overreacting.

No2Atheism:

1. So can u kindly answer the questions that i have asked instead of dodging them.

2. You clearly are either new to this forum or know next to nothing about me, otherwise you would know that I am not a person that is scared of tackling taboos even in my own faith, in science and in islam. Do yourself a favour and go through my profile to crosscheck for yourself my past posts so that you would get a better and clearer picture of what i am about. Even mazaje remembers me from my past post about the real isrealites and the fake ones (the ursurpers), hence the reason why he asked me to proof my statement when i said Paul was actually a black skinned person (how black his skin was is however something i don't know cus its not in the bible and hence i don't claim to know it).

3. My username was choosen for a reason, the reason is that i have tasted a little bit of life and science to know enough that your insinuation about knowing the real truth is mere bollocks.

If you desire to know or already know the real truth then it should not take you long to answer the simply questions that i have asked and tabulated for you. At least don't you realise that you could actually get to teach me something by merely answering my questions. Instead you have decided to turn tail and scupper off.

Those questions you asked are meaningless.  I'm not here to follow you down whatever path u wish to tread

As far as proof goes, no one can prove anything that happened 2000 years ago. We can't even prove stuff that happened 500 years ago, so asking people to prove where the God of the Bible is or isn't is just foolishness.

What we can debate if we really want to get anywhere is stuff that we can argue and present evidence for, i'm not talking about a quote from the bible, i'm talking about information that has been gathered by people who study this stuff for a living. . .  historians, archeologists, bible scholars, etc. We can debate the Bible for instance, why there are different accounts of the same events, why certain things might suggest one thing but mean another, etc. but when we spend all this time engaging in such pointless discussion "prove God exists", "prove God does not exist", that people have been unable to do for ever, what are we really trying to achieve?

Like I said this is just a place where people gather to throw rocks at each other. . .

Well, let's first start with the assertion that A can analyse and define her beliefs within the concepts of scientific knowledge, etc. I honestly doubt that's an accurate assessment of the theist's position in regards to gods. The allure - and flaw - of gods is that when scientific evidence that is falsifiable (c.f. empirical evidence) is asked of or for them, the theist is able to reside or hide behind the claim that his or her god is beyond the scope of humanity; essentially, that the god or gods are transcendental - sometimes, even impossibly beyond transcendent. It all belies what you claim.

In any case, on to B. What is the scientific evidence for the non-existence of gods? There isn't any per se. What can be pointed to instead is the existence of alternative, empirically based theories and concepts that could help us understand the existence of humans sans gods. With that B doesn't need to accept "Goddidit" as a viable reason for her existence.

As far as the intellectual goes, though, there are several arguments - some more satisfactory than others. The problem of evil is a firm favourite for many when informed of the supposed existence of an omni-max deity like the Christian one, thus one can present the argument so neatly summed up by Archibald McLeish in JB: "If God is God, he is not good/ If God is good, he is not God/ Take the even, take the odd"

For me, since simply pointing out I just don't believe any gods exist is enough for most people, I'm more content with just pointing out the glaring contradictions in the characteristics and actions of their gods, and the inanity in the dogmas they espouse. For instance, then, to use the Christian god again, the inherent philosophical contradiction in presenting YHVH as both immediately immanent and transcendental is one to which I may point.

So very well said, excellent post. about 3000 years ago volcanoes could not be explained. Common era thinking and present science at that time was simply NOT there. Volcanoes could only be explained as "its too incredible, massive, and unbelievable so god must have done it!" Or, god must be angry with us, he spews this stuff out of the floor that is hotter than anything, and could wipe out entire lands of people because of our disbelief or sins, because it could not be understood, or explained at that time it was there for god that did it (or so they thought). Anytime in human history, whenever something can't be explained, people cling to the idea that god did, rather than thinking that maybe we can't explain it NOW, but it doesn't mean there isn't an explanation.

People thought that plagues the experienced at that time was a curse from god. They thought that it was brought upon the people because of the times they were in. If you ever said that they were getting the disease because of micro-organisms and that the plague was actually a micro-organism that could wreak havoc on the smallest of biological cells, they would laugh in your face about how ridiculous you answer was, Of course, as science came into existence we completely accept the rationale of what the plague is because we have proof of what it is, how it works, and how it affects us and how to prevent it. So a big question theists ask which is a stupid one in my mind is this, "Well the universe is here, so god must have done it." so the question to theists who believe this idea is, don't you think that your answer for the existence of the universe is the same as how the ancient  jews  thought they had the asnwer for the plague, volcanoes, diseses, the sun movements of the sun. That maybe just because we CAN'T explain it , doesn't mean that there isn't an explanation? Apply to this to everything in life. Just because you saw something in the sky doesn't mean its a UFO (in the alien sense).it just means there is something that is explainable, but you just don't have the explanation yet. I am especially fond of the way god used lightning for a while, until science figured out what actually caused it, and how to stop it from destroying tall buildings like churches.

Krayola:

Those questions you asked are meaningless.  I'm not here to follow you down whatever path u wish to tread

As far as proof goes, no one can prove anything that happened 2000 years ago. We can't even prove stuff that happened 500 years ago, so asking people to prove where the God of the Bible is or isn't is just foolishness.

What we can debate if we really want to get anywhere is stuff that we can argue and present evidence for, i'm not talking about a quote from the bible, i'm talking about information that has been gathered by people who study this stuff for a living. . .  historians, archeologists, bible scholars, etc. We can debate the Bible for instance, why there are different accounts of the same events, why certain things might suggest one thing but mean another, etc. but when we spend all this time engaging in such pointless discussion "prove God exists", "prove God does not exist", that people have been unable to do for ever, what are we really trying to achieve?

Like I said this is just a place where people gather to throw rocks at each other. . .  

The questions that i asked are fundamental to any potential discussion. Hence since you consider them to be meaningless, then it means we can't have a meaningful questions and answer session, once you start to consider certain questions to be off limit.

I am science inclined hence i know that[b] no[/b] question is meaningless, cus the best scientific discoveries often come from asking the most simple and sometimes ridiculously obvious questions. So since you think my questions are meaningless, there is no point going forward with this discussions.

You would have noticed now that i prefer to ask and answer questions in a straight forward and clear manner.

So its good talking with you, have a good day.

toneyb:

So very well said, excellent post. about 3000 years ago volcanoes could not be explained. Common era thinking and present science at that time was simply NOT there. Volcanoes could only be explained as "its too incredible, massive, and unbelievable so god must have done it!" Or, god must be angry with us, he spews this stuff out of the floor that is hotter than anything, and could wipe out entire lands of people because of our disbelief or sins, because it could not be understood, or explained at that time it was there for god that did it (or so they thought). Anytime in human history, whenever something can't be explained, people cling to the idea that god did, rather than thinking that maybe we can't explain it NOW, but it doesn't mean there isn't an explanation.

People thought that plagues the experienced at that time was a curse from god. They thought that it was brought upon the people because of the times they were in. If you ever said that they were getting the disease because of micro-organisms and that the plague was actually a micro-organism that could wreak havoc on the smallest of biological cells, they would laugh in your face about how ridiculous you answer was, Of course, as science came into existence we completely accept the rationale of what the plague is because we have proof of what it is, how it works, and how it affects us and how to prevent it. So a big question theists ask which is a stupid one in my mind is this, "Well the universe is here, so god must have done it." so the question to theists who believe this idea is, don't you think that your answer for the existence of the universe is the same as how the ancient  jews  thought they had the asnwer for the plague, volcanoes, diseses, the sun movements of the sun. That maybe just because we CAN'T explain it , doesn't mean that there isn't an explanation? Apply to this to everything in life. Just because you saw something in the sky doesn't mean its a UFO (in the alien sense).it just means there is something that is explainable, but you just don't have the explanation yet. I am especially fond of the way god used lightning for a while, until science figured out what actually caused it, and how to stop it from destroying tall buildings like churches.

2 Samuel 22:14-15 The LORD thundered from heaven, and the Most High uttered his voice. And he sent out arrows, and scattered them; lightning, and routed them.

Job 36:32-33[b] He covers his hands with the lightning, and commands it to strike the mark[/b]. Its crashing declares concerning him, who is jealous with anger against iniquity.

After science has explained how lightning comes about churches eventually installed lightning rods and stopped talking about lightning as gods way of zapping bad people . The more that science discovers about our world the more god retreats into the dark crevasses of ignorance.  There is much we still don't know and that is why god still exists for some to explain what science hasn't explained yet.  Some day science will provide all the answers and a god will no longer be needed for any explanation of our world.  Unfortunately, we will not see that day in our lifetimes.

You guys shld be careful d way u misinterprit d word of God, (Rev. 22: 18), Fear God and reference Him

Oga the Bible never states in any verse that the sun moves from place too place
But it instead suggest that the sun is in motion!
and if you are too dump to understand what kind of motion is sun exibit
then you need to first quote to me the greatest law of motion and that of space!

Am Alone:

Oga the Bible never states in any verse that the sun moves from place too place
But it instead suggest that t[b]he sun is in motion![/b]
and if you are too dump to understand what kind of motion is sun exibit
then you need to first quote to me the greatest law of motion and that of space!

I know that you do not read your bible, you only wait for your pastors to read it for you, by the way the sun is NOT in motion. Even if we are to assume that it suggest that then that suggestion is wrong.

Ecc 1:5 The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises.

bindex:

I know that you do not read your bible, you only wait for your pastors to read it for you

Blah! Blah! Blah!
Execpt you begin to see the bible the as a WISE ONE YOU WILL NEVER UNDERSTAND SHIT!
The letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life!----

Man if you don't know that the sun is in motion
then you damn dum!
Co feeay, Co Dah!

bindex:

I know that you do not read your bible, you only wait for your pastors to read it for you, by the way the sun is NOT in motion. Even if we are to assume that it suggest that then that suggestion is wrong.

I don't need to talk too morons to make my day GO THERE!

http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/kids_space/qsun_motion.html

They take ppl shit for fact
No GOD my A$$

The Sun does rotate around its axis, although it rotates faster at the equator than at the poles. At the equator, the rotation period is 25 Earth days, while at the poles it is 35 Earth days.
The Milky Way also rotates, although different parts rotate at different rates. This keeps the arms from all running into each other.


There is evidence that the Sun is moving. First, the Sun (and our solar system with it) rotates around the center of the Milky Way galaxy. The center of the Milky Way is found by looking in the direction of the constellation Sagittarius. Sagittarius is a summer constellation in the northern hemisphere. The Milky Way then moves around the center of the galaxy. Scientists deduce thi s information by observing thousands of nearby stars.


The Moon and the Sun both rotate counterclockwise. They exhibit direct orbital motion (as opposed to retrograde) - or counterclockwise when viewed from the north pole of the celestial sphere.


The Sun orbits around the center of the Milky Way galaxy at a rate of about 200-300 kilometers/sec


The Babcock model has to do with the Sun. In 1960, the American astronomer, Horace Babcock, theorized that the Sun's 22-year cycle is caused by the fact that the Sun experiences differential rotation and that it has a convective envelope. Because the Sun is a ball of gas, it experiences differential rotation, i.e., the gases at the equator rotate faster than the gases at the poles. So the magnetic field (which is "carried" in the gases of the Sun) tends to get wrapped around the Sun. The magnetic field gets bunched up because of the differential rotation. Convection in the photosphere causes the bunches or kinks of the magnetic field to erupt through the surface of the Sun. This causes a sunspot group which many think is related to solar activity.
For an activity concerning solar rotation, please see our Tracking an Active Region exercise!



This is just 10 of a 1,00o,000,000,000,000,000,000,

And One More Thing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . GET A LIFE!!!!!

Am Alone:

I don't need to talk too morons to make my day GO THERE!

http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/kids_space/qsun_motion.html

They take ppl shit for fact
No GOD my A$$

The Sun does rotate around its axis, although it rotates faster at the equator than at the poles. At the equator, the rotation period is 25 Earth days, while at the poles it is 35 Earth days.
The Milky Way also rotates, although different parts rotate at different rates. This keeps the arms from all running into each other.


There is evidence that the Sun is moving. First, the Sun (and our solar system with it) rotates around the center of the Milky Way galaxy. The center of the Milky Way is found by looking in the direction of the constellation Sagittarius. Sagittarius is a summer constellation in the northern hemisphere. The Milky Way then moves around the center of the galaxy. Scientists deduce thi s information by observing thousands of nearby stars.


The Moon and the Sun both rotate counterclockwise. They exhibit direct orbital motion (as opposed to retrograde) - or counterclockwise when viewed from the north pole of the celestial sphere.


The Sun orbits around the center of the Milky Way galaxy at a rate of about 200-300 kilometers/sec


The Babcock model has to do with the Sun. In 1960, the American astronomer, Horace Babcock, theorized that the Sun's 22-year cycle is caused by the fact that the Sun experiences differential rotation and that it has a convective envelope. Because the Sun is a ball of gas, it experiences differential rotation, i.e., the gases at the equator rotate faster than the gases at the poles. So the magnetic field (which is "carried" in the gases of the Sun) tends to get wrapped around the Sun. The magnetic field gets bunched up because of the differential rotation. Convection in the photosphere causes the bunches or kinks of the magnetic field to erupt through the surface of the Sun. This causes a sunspot group which many think is related to solar activity.
For an activity concerning solar rotation, please see our Tracking an Active Region exercise!



This is just 10 of a 1,00o,000,000,000,000,000,000,

And One More Thing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . GET A LIFE!!!!!

What is this nonsense? When I say motion I mean motion of Moving from place to place as your bible puts it not rotational motion, every body with that went through secondary school and did a little geography knows that the sun rotates around its axis. That is very different from saying that the sun "hurries back to where it rises" how does the sun "hurry" back to where it rises?

Am Alone:

Blah! Blah! Blah!
Execpt you begin to see the bible the as a WISE ONE YOU WILL NEVER UNDERSTAND SHIT!
The letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life!----

Understand what shit? by the way what life does the spirit give?

Ecc 1:5 The sun also rises, and the sun goes down, And hastens to the place where it arose.

Does the sun "hasten to where it arose"? use your wise understanding to explain this "hasten to the place where it arose" for me. Do that or forever keep shut.

bindex:


What is this nonsense? When I say motion I mean motion of Moving from place to place as your bible puts it not rotational motion, every body with that went through secondary school and did a little geography knows that the sun rotates around its axis. That is very different from saying that the sun "hurries back to where it rises" how does the sun "hurry" back to where it rises?

You need the holy spirit before you can understand all these things

Am Alone:

Oga the Bible never states in any verse that the sun moves from place too place
But it instead suggest that the sun is in motion!
and if you are too dump to understand what kind of motion is sun exibit
then you need to first quote to me the greatest law of motion and that of space!

How has the kind of rotational motion that the sun performs around its axis come close to the kind of movement that the bible says it does? does "hurries back to where it rises" sound anything like a rotational motion? Any way I know you will come and tell me that I need the holy spirit to understand all these things.

Paul a black man?. . . . .
Jesus was also black! Remember they said to him, ''Art thou not that NIGERIAN, come to perpetuate 419 in the land of caesar?''

Tùdor:

Paul a black man?. . . . .
Jesus was also black! Remember they said to him, ''Art thou not that NIGERIAN, come to perpetuate 419 in the land of caesar?''

@tudor i don't know whether or not you believe in the bible, but[b] if you do then read on[/b], but[b] if you do not then don't bother to read on[/b] because whether or not Paul was black or the Messiah was not white should not make any difference to you.

@tudor, i don't know you enough to determine whether or not you statement is meant as a joke or scorn or ridicule, nevertheless rather than add fuel to a cycle of insults and ridicule, I would instead answer your implied question with the following points, statements and bible verses.


First and foremost, please note that I deal with what the bible says and not what the media teaches (majority does not rule when it comes to biblical truths) , so the questions becomes: Was the Messiah a Caucasian or Negroid or Mongoloid. Even an honest Caucasian would gladly tell you that the Messiah was certainly not white.

Negroids - black skin and black features
Caucasians - white skin and european features
Mongoloids - Chinese like features



Secondly-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Acts 21:38        (About Paul's skin colour/ race similarity)
RNKJV
Acts 21:37 And as Paul was to be led into the castle, he said unto the chief captain, May I speak unto thee? Who said, Canst thou speak Greek?
Acts 21:38 Art not thou that Egyptian, which before these days madest an uproar, and leddest out into the wilderness four thousand men that were murderers?
Acts 21:39 But Paul said, I am a man which am a Jew of Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, a citizen of no mean city: and, I beseech thee, suffer me to speak unto the people.
Acts 21:40 And when he had given him license, Paul stood on the stairs, and beckoned with the hand unto the people. And when there was made a great silence, he spake unto them in the Hebrew tongue, saying,


--------------------------------------

Amos 9:7          (About Isrealites skin colour)

RNKJV
Amos 9:7 Are ye not as children of the Ethiopians unto me, O children of Israel? saith יהוה. Have not I brought up Israel out of the land of Egypt? and the Philistines from Caphtor, and the Syrians from Kir?

--------------------------------------

Exodus 4: 6-7   (About Moses skin colour)

RNKJV
Exodus 4:5 That they may believe that יהוה Elohim of their fathers, the Elohim of Abraham, the Elohim of Isaac, and the Elohim of Jacob, hath appeared unto thee.
Exodus 4:6 And יהוה said furthermore unto him, Put now thine hand into thy bosom. And he put his hand into his bosom: and when he took it out, behold, his hand was leprous as snow.
Exodus 4:7 And he said, Put thine hand into thy bosom again. And he put his hand into his bosom again; and plucked it out of his bosom, and, behold, it was turned again as his other flesh.


--------------------------------------

Numbers 12:10 (About Miriam skin colour)

RNKJV
Numbers 12:9 And the anger of the LORD was kindled against them; and he departed.
Numbers 12:10 And the cloud departed from off the tabernacle; and, behold, Miriam became leprous, white as snow: and[b] Aaron looked upon Miriam, and, behold, she was leprous.[/b]
Numbers 12:11 And Aaron said unto Moses, Alas, my lord, I beseech thee, lay not the sin upon us, wherein we have done foolishly, and wherein we have sinned.
Numbers 12:12[b] Let her not be as one dead, of whom the flesh is half consumed when he cometh out of his mother's womb[/b].
Numbers 12:13 And[b] Moses cried unto the LORD, saying, Heal her now, O God, I beseech thee[/b].
Numbers 12:14 ¶ And the LORD said unto Moses, If her father had but spit in her face, should she not be ashamed seven days? let her be shut out from the camp seven days, and after that let her be received in again.
Numbers 12:15 And Miriam was shut out from the camp seven days: and the people journeyed not till Miriam was brought in again.
Numbers 12:16 And afterward the people removed from Hazeroth, and pitched in the wilderness of Paran.


------------------------

Jeremiah 13:23 (About the peculiar skin color of the Ethiopians)

RNKJV
Jeremiah 13:23 Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil.



Thirdly------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Was the Messiah a White skinned man (i.e. White man) or a Black skinned man (i.e. Black Man)
2. Was Paul a White skinned man (White man) or a Black skinned man (i.e. Black Man)
3. Was King Herod an Isrealite or an Edomite.
4. Was Moses a White skinned man (i.e. White man) or a Black skinned man (i.e. Black Man)
5. Was Miriam sister of Moses White skinned woman (i.e. White woman) or a Black skinned woman (i.e. Black woman)


Finally--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes Salvation has nothing to do with skin colour of Paul or Moses or the Messiah, nevertheless a true bible believer is required to say the truth all times whether or not the truth is popular or not. The fact that most people are uncomfortable discussing the topic is enough to tell you that something is terribly wrong somewhere.