Here is Practical Explanation about Next Life, Purpose of Human Life, philosophical/religious facts, theories etc.

hackenslash said:

This is, not to put too fine a point on it, arse-gravy. Of course Christianity is dependent on at least some of the commandments. None of the Abrahamic religions can function without the first. You can't be a Christian and have other gods. It simply doesn't work.

Click to expand...

Well thats a good point. My point is that you dont have to know what the 10 commandments are in order to be a Christian. I guess it could be argued that the first commandment is implied within the concept of Christianity itself. But there are presumably millions of Christians who are in fact Christians but worship and pray to the idols of the Catholic church.

So i think both positions are debatable(they are debated all the time) but I also think I can demonstrate that mine is more correct.

Led Zeppelin said:

Well Christianity is not dependent on Law. We dont follow symbolic laws. I did miss speak when I said the 10 Commandments dont contain symbolic laws. I would say keeping the sabbath is symbolic for example. But Christianity is not dependent on the any of the 10 Commandments either.

But anyway, I think what you are talking about is the charge the God has on the government to administer justice. Part of that envolves putting murderers to death. And much of the world understands this. There are even Atheists who support the death penalty.

Click to expand...

No, what I am saying is that when Christianity and the State share in authority, what we actually saw was even 'symbolic laws' being treated as major crimes with the 'perpetrators' being meted out death as justice.

Led Zeppelin said:

My point is that you dont have to know what the 10 commandments are in order to be a Christian.

Click to expand...

Here's the problem: what do you actually need to be a Christian?

Despite what various groups say, all you actually need to be a Christian is the ability to say 'I am a Christian'. There is no other test or qualification.

You could, for example, contend that the Westboro Baptist Church aren't Christian because they don't follow X, Y, and Z values you believe are required as per your reading of the Bible, but they can simply turn round and say that you aren't a Christian because you don't follow X, Y, and Z values they believe are required as per their reading of the Bible.

Of course, if there is Big Guy in the Sky of the Christian persuasion, then there may well be an objective standard of Christianity, but as He somehow failed to communicate expressly what this entails in the Bible given the interpretative disunity among Christians, the only way this could be resolved is through death, so not something we'll ever have mortal access to.

But there's no human means of arbitrating who is or isn't a Christian - we're all obliged to take each other's self-identification as gospel.

.

Dragan Glas said:

Greetings,



As I've told you before, they don't turn into another species, they give rise to another species.

I - and others - have told you this, you just won;t accept it.

I'll deal with this later.


No-one can "recognise" their father or mother merely by looking at them if they've never seen them before.

A new-born baby doesn't "recognise" its mother or father.

It will bond with the first person(s) it sees. Breast-feeding helps the baby to bond with the woman - not "mother" - who breast-feeds it.

Research with other animals have proven this.

Hatchlings will bond with the first thing they see - whether it's their parent or another bird, or species of bird or teddy bear or even a researcher.

How do you know if the adults you think of as your parents are actually your biological parents? - you may have been adopted as a baby.

Adopted children aren't told they're adopted until they reach legal age because it causes emotional problems growing up. Further, the identities of biological parents are protected by law - the adopted person may not be allowed to find out who are their biological parents, in case they seek revenge through violence for being given up for adoption.

Just because they say they're your biological parents doesn't mean they are.

Just because you're told something doesn't make it true.

The people you think of as your biological parents may have lied to you.

The only way you can be certain is through a DNA test - paternity test for your father, maternity test for your mother.

If your DNA matches both of them, then you know they're your biological parents. If only one matches yours, then that one is your father/mother, and the other isn't. If neither matches yours. then they're not your biological parents.

This is the only way of being certain as to who are your biological parents.


You have no idea how DNA works, never-mind how a DNA test is done.

As has been pointed out to you, do you really think a transplant changes your own DNA?

Your body replaces its cells over a number of years - different parts of your body are replaced at different rates. The whole body is said to be replaced every seven years.

That includes any transplants, whether organs and/or limbs.

Do you really think that doctors and/or scientists are so stupid as to take a DNA sample from a transplant?

As has been explained to you, a DNA test is done by taking a swab of cells from inside your mouth - the inside of your cheek, to be precise.

DNA tests are reliable.

The only time when there's a problem is in the case of Mosaicism/Chimerism.

This is where a individual is born with more than one genome (DNA), though they can occur in different ways. The latter is due to two or more zygotes fusing into one so that a baby is born with multiple DNAs.

If this baby is a male, and grows up to commit a rape, for example, there can be a problem in identifying him as the rapist.

The police have the rapist's DNA - the victim has positively identified this man as the rapist.

They take a DNA sample - from inside his mouth - but when they compare it with the rapist's DNA (from the semen), they may find it doesn't match.

So, how do they make sure?

By taking a sperm sample from the accused, and comparing it with the sample from the rapist.

Both of these will match - thus proving that the accused man is indeed the rapist.

Understand?

Kindest regards,

James

Click to expand...

what you will deal with later ?? huh? i just want damn scientific explanation just demontrate your hypothesis. how one species turned into another, did you not watched your videos on evolution ? how man transforms from monkeys ? yet monkeys are there as well as demonstrate that how this off-shot takes place.

but fun is you cannot demonstrate anything. thanks for making show of having knowledge yet its fun to see how confident you are, maybe its due to having enough money, enough food, enough land, enough of everything but fun is existence of father is denied ( what an joke is it )

you are just an troll. its clear to me now ( pseudo scientific man ) and people like you just can observe anything and speak anything nonsense things. but fun is you cannot demonstrate your hypothesis, how one room or species turns into another species or room ? where person who walks from one room to another ( aka soul ) would go than ?

amazing it is to see that you are satisfied still, rightly your fellow quoted darwin that fools feels more confident in ignorance than having knowledge. ( very well said ) perfectly fits on you.
_________________________
we are just talking about father, not mother. because no one is dropped from the sky either. they are coming out of womb of there mothers and people has seen us when we came out of certain mothers wombs. so dont bring mothers. its question of only biological fathers.

now you or me or we all here are no longer new borns, so why dont you tell me now that how did we recognized our real father even ? whom we havent seen before our births ? how ? and neither you nor i are that unfortuante that we are adopted. so just bring us process of recognizing of our real fathers generally. because general population is not that unfortunate that we all are adopted. do you understand that ?

if you dont believe your real mother than why do you believe your darwin also ? because you have no proof or any scientific explanation for your evolution as well. but still beleive some whores that there is no father but evolution ? why is that than ?
_____________________________
i do have idea how dna works that is why i have brought entire hand or legs transplant. and what is dna ? any president ? no its not its an slave of blood groups, hairs, bone marrow, skin tone, skin color, etc things and be found in all these things like anything.

doctors transplant entire hand or legs after matching all these things like gross material like skin color, skin tone, hand or legs size upto genders and subtle as well like bone marrow, tissues, blood groups etc matches. so you make proper research about it and know what is entire hand or legs transplanting.

because this transplanting of entire hand or legs has killed your pseudo dna test fallacy. and nothing is reliable unless you prove how it is reliable, you have to prove yourself how it is reliable, after being shattered by this contradiction of entire hand or legs transplant.
____________________

those who are charged as criminals with this dna test ( with bare guess work ) than they are doomed because it is matching with many others. and how it is relaible you have to bring greater knowledge than i have brought and prove it. now because you said something in favor of someone wont make me believe it. becaue you are someone who is not able to demonstrate your hypothesis that how evolution is working. yet you are claiming to be right in the first place. amazing type of farce it is.

Sparhafoc said:

Here's the problem: what do you actually need to be a Christian?

Despite what various groups say, all you actually need to be a Christian is the ability to say 'I am a Christian'. There is no other test or qualification.

You could, for example, contend that the Westboro Baptist Church aren't Christian because they don't follow X, Y, and Z values you believe are required as per your reading of the Bible, but they can simply turn round and say that you aren't a Christian because you don't follow X, Y, and Z values they believe are required as per their reading of the Bible.

But there's no human means of arbitrating who is or isn't a Christian - we're all obliged to take each other's self-identification as gospel.

Click to expand...

I guess I pretty much agree with this .

I would say that to be a Christian, you must sincerely ask Christ to forgive you for your sins. Other Christians might add on a slew of other requirements. I think I could probably win a debate on whether or not any other requirements are needed.

Not every person who says he is a Christian is really a Christian. I generally give them the benefit of the doubt. Christ even tells us this in the Bible.

Sparhafoc said:

Of course, if there is Big Guy in the Sky of the Christian persuasion, then there may well be an objective standard of Christianity, but as He somehow failed to communicate expressly what this entails in the Bible given the interpretative disunity among Christians, the only way this could be resolved is through death, so not something we'll ever have mortal access to.

Click to expand...

Thats a great point! And I pretty much agree with you. Its one of the things thats kinda strange about Christianity.

I think one reason for disunity is that people conflate what you have to do to be in paradise when you die with what you have to do to become a Christian. I would not call a 3 month old baby a Christian but certainly that baby can goto heaven if he died.
I think another reason is that most Christians just dont know enough about the bible to be able to speak much about Christianity.

But these are both kinda small points, I think, compared to the point you are making.

Dragan Glas said:

Greetings,


I gave the link, and then gave a rough explanation of the geologic column.

Here it is again:


This was seen as evidence that species had given rise to other species; that some of the earlier species had died out because they didn't appear in the fossil-record any more.

Do you understand this?
Do you accept this?

I gave a link to a video in Hindi explaining what evidence led to Darwin concluding that evolution was the explanation for speciation.

Did you watch it?

Here it is again:



I've asked you several times what is your first language, since you seemed to be having trouble understanding English.

You still haven't answered this simple question.

Once I know what language you speak, I can find resources in your own language so there won't be any problems in understanding.


I have already dealt with DNA tests.

You have no evidence for Krishna or any other deity. You've already admitted this, so claiming that he exists doesn't count.

You have no evidence for the soul - claiming it exists doesn't count.

I want to know the answers to the questions I've asked you above.

Kindest regards,

James

Click to expand...

i could not see any rough explanation at all, all you have written is darwin has kept his writting on fossils, so that is not an scientific explanation. and we understand things from reading, not from fossils because they are already finished but darwin kept his writting. so anyways that is not scientific explanation.

and its fun that im getting trolled by an troll like you, who is just making excuses one after another of having knowledge and still in spite of making 12 pages of posts not giving me any scientific explanation at all. its indeed an fun to see how foolish atheists also can be. because they always make show as if they have conquered people by giving scientific answers from point to point and yet here you could not make progress on the basic level and move even one foot leg that how your nonsense is scientific at all.

thank for a lot for trolling me in the name of science, but all you can do is speak nonsense after reading nonsense of darwin because you accept him as authority. and i have got mine who is real mother instead of any prostitute and i would prefer to go on with Srila Prabhupada.
_______________________

i wont watch your any videos because if - if there is any knowledge in that also than what is wrong to repeat it ? is that you are dumb ? or what ? just repeat that scientific explanation here and finish the business.

you have made so many comments yet you are not able to give me any scientific explanation and simply making show of having knowledge. what is the value of this farce ? huh? and i understand nothing, because you gave me no scientific explanations yet. and you have nothing, but i dont think you will ever admit it.

and i do understnad english very well, but you wont admit it that you cannot explain anything because you have nothing to explain. you have nothing.
___________________________
how did you dealt that i can see as well, and you defy it that there is no father just because you havent seen him before your birth. but i wont get carried away by some unmature childrens like you, because i know it very well that who has seen our father before our birth and knows it that who has tilled her.

how did you dealt with evolution also, that i can see. sometimes making excuses for languages than sometimes for so on nonsense things. so final conclusion is you cannot demonstrate anything, because you have nothing like scientific explanation.

you wont admit it that you are wrong. i know it very well. now what do you want ? clear that point, because you wont admit the failure of dna test due to entire hand or legs transplant, nor you admit it that you cannot explain anything like scinetific explanation, because your all cheap links and vidoes have no knowledge at all.

Led Zeppelin said:

Thank you for answering that. I don't know much about Hare-Krishnas. There are laws that god gave in the bible that we knew were ok to violate at times, to save someones life for example. These were laws which were symbolic of the required sacrifice for the forgiveness of our sins. There was another set of laws which superceded the symbolic laws. These are what you might call "criminal laws" or "The 10 Commandments". So you do not murder someone just to keep a symbolic law.

The over-all theme of the Bible is that the law leads to death. This was exemplified by the death of Christ. Because Christ was lord over the sabbath and the law died with him. There are people alive today who still try to follow the law but there is not even a temple for them to give the sacrifice demanded by the law.

So I am wondering what is the point of Hare-Krishnas having a law like "dont eat meat" if that law can be violated under certain circumstances. It must be important to you since you were so quick to bring it up.

Click to expand...

just try to understand that why we discuss your christianity only ? why not bhudhism, islam, and rest of religions also ? if we have to discuss things on the basics of holy books quotes, faith, or belief and personal experience ? whats so special in christianity ? huh?

now so far we hare krishnas goes so here is Practical explanation. but what explanation christiantiy has got ? bring it and than i can talk about christianity also with you. otherwise i cannot, because i have to listen everyone so whats so special in you ?

Led Zeppelin said:

I guess it could be argued that the first commandment is implied within the concept of Christianity itself.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't say it's implied, it's explicit. It's literally impossible to be a Christian without accepting the first commandment as a given.

Led Zeppelin said:

But there are presumably millions of Christians who are in fact Christians but worship and pray to the idols of the Catholic church.

Click to expand...

Hahaha. Did you really just suggest that catlickers aren't Christian? We'll set aside that all branches of Christianity have their own version of prohibited iconoclasm. In fact, I'd argue that Christianity is very specifically a prohibited iconoclasm imposed on Judaism (one of many objections the Jews have to Christianity), and not just successfully, but correctly.

Led Zeppelin said:

So i think both positions are debatable(they are debated all the time) but I also think I can demonstrate that mine is more correct.

Click to expand...

That something is debated doesn't mean it's debatable. This forum is riddled with debates about things that simply aren't up for debate. In fact, this thread is one. Anning thinks there's some point of contention when, in fact, he's just talking total bollocks, which hardly qualifies as debate.

hackenslash said:

Hahaha. Did you really just suggest that catlickers aren't Christian? We'll set aside that all branches of Christianity have their own version of prohibited iconoclasm. In fact, I'd argue that Christianity is very specifically a prohibited iconoclasm imposed on Judaism (one of many objections the Jews have to Christianity), and not just successfully, but correctly.

Click to expand...

Ahh lol. I think I am suggesting that there are Christians that worship the idols of the Catholic Church.

hackenslash said:

I wouldn't say it's implied, it's explicit. It's literally impossible to be a Christian without accepting the first commandment as a given.

Click to expand...

Ok, well I guess you got me there. Well done.

Led Zeppelin said:

Well I could almost agree that all 10 are symbolic. Except that some of them cross over to what I would call "judicial law". So they do serve a function other than symbolism.

Click to expand...

This is one of the most pernicious lies ever foisted on the world by the religious, and it's incredibly damaging. Judicial law bears neither relationship nor resemblance to the ten commandments. Yet another instance of the religious claiming credit for something that it had fuck all to do with.

To be clear, to the extent that mosaic law has had any influence on secular law, it's been the imposition of religious bullshit where it has no place, and it's been uniformly bad. Secular law, and the social contract it supports, predate religion by tens of thousands of years at least, let alone predating Christianity. The good bits are an attempt to codify what we already knew from the fact that we're a social species (in case you're wondering, all social species have some form of moral sense), and the rest is about who owns what, and is entirely worshipful of the material, which would seem to contradict Mosaic law. Nobody ever accused the authors of your fantasy of being consistent.

Led Zeppelin said:

Ahh lol. I think I am suggesting that there are Christians that worship the idols of the Catholic Church.

Click to expand...

That's an odd suggestion, given that the vast majority of the world's Christians are Catlickers, which would seem to suggest that this is the norm rather than the exception.

Sparhafoc said:

You could, for example, contend that the Westboro Baptist Church aren't Christian because they don't follow X, Y, and Z values you believe are required as per your reading of the Bible, but they can simply turn round and say that you aren't a Christian because you don't follow X, Y, and Z values they believe are required as per their reading of the Bible.

Click to expand...

The best bit of all this is that, toxic as WBC are, they'd win this argument, because their reading is an accurate, direct reading of the text.

Sparhafoc said:

Of course, if there is Big Guy in the Sky of the Christian persuasion, then there may well be an objective standard of Christianity, but as He somehow failed to communicate expressly what this entails in the Bible given the interpretative disunity among Christians, the only way this could be resolved is through death, so not something we'll ever have mortal access to.

Click to expand...

This is the core of why the existence of the bible (and other Abrahamic fanfic) as it stands proves categorically that Yahweh is fiction.

anning said:

and i do understnad english very well

Click to expand...

No, you really don't. That's not a criticism, of course. I don't understand Urdu very well, or Mandarin, or Dutch.

That said, it's silly to make a declaration like this when it's perfectly obvious to those around here that it isn't true. Your understanding of English isn't terrible, and in fact I'd go as far as to say it's admirable to have done so well with it. However, there have been several instances in which you've clearly misunderstood even the most basic of things that's been said to you. Moreover, the amount of effort it's taking me to glean the salient information in order to respond, and my understanding of English far exceeds 'very well'. I can also tell, from the responses that others have given to you, that they've not managed to pick out the meaning in some of these instances and, again, these are people whose command of English ranges from 'very well' to 'expert'.

anning said:

how did you dealt with evolution also, that i can see. sometimes making excuses for languages than sometimes for so on nonsense things. so final conclusion is you cannot demonstrate anything, because you have nothing like scientific explanation.

Click to expand...

I answered all your questions about evolution on Page 6, but you weren't interested.

anning said:

just try to understand that why we discuss your christianity only ? why not bhudhism, islam, and rest of religions also ? if we have to discuss things on the basics of holy books quotes, faith, or belief and personal experience ? whats so special in christianity ? huh?

now so far we hare krishnas goes so here is Practical explanation. but what explanation christiantiy has got ? bring it and than i can talk about christianity also with you. otherwise i cannot, because i have to listen everyone so whats so special in you ?

Click to expand...

Ok, well the reason why I brought up Christianity is because I am a Christian and since you and I are the only 2 non-atheists in this thread, I am trying to figure out if there is any common ground or a point of contrition that can be used to help further a possible discussion along between us. This is a web forum and normally(?) people like it when you ask them questions about themselves and posts they have made.

Since you brought up laws, I attempted to explain to you the significance of Judeo-Christian Law and asked you to explain the significance of the laws of Hare-Krishnas. And now you are acting like its completely unreasonable for me to ask you why I should do the things you, as a Hare-Krishna, say we should do.

I am not sure what the point of any of this is. I guess if I wanted to, I could start a thread about why I think Christianity is great and special. Im not even sure what the point of that would be either.

Maybe I should start a thread where I tell people that the key to happiness is to stop jerking off. Then when someone asks me why, I'll say "Oh yeah?? Then tell me what is so great about jerking off!!!"

hackenslash said:

That's an odd suggestion, given that the vast majority of the world's Christians are Catlickers, which would seem to suggest that this is the norm rather than the exception.

Click to expand...

Oh I dont mean at all to suggest that the majority of Christians would agree with hardly anything I say. I just seem to be the only active member who is a Christian here. It's hardly a popularity contest

Jerking off is great. No boy is ever happier than when he first realises the relationship between hand and penis.

I recommend jerking off at least once a day. It promotes well-being, and stimulates the emission of endorphins, and is well-known to be good practice in terms of self-care.