Three Kinds of People

[loco]

There are three kinds of people in this world:

A. Those people who are moved into action to plunder, destroy, oppress and murder.

B. Those people who are moved by God into action to do something about A.

C. Those people who sit on their butt or stand by and do nothing about A, except whine, complain, criticize and judge B for doing something about A.


A loves C, because by doing nothing, C contributes to A's cause.

[OzmO]

There are three kinds of people in this world:

A. Those people who are moved into action to plunder, destroy, oppress and murder.

B. Those people who are moved by God into action to do something about A.

C. Those people who sit on their butt or stand by and do nothing about A, except whine, complain, criticize and judge B for doing something about A.


A loves C, because by doing nothing, C contributes to A's cause.

Did God move these people to do something about the people who he ordered to kill innocent children in the OT?    

[columbusdude82]

There are two kinds of people in the world:

1. people who look at evidence, and dismiss an idea if the evidence overwhelmingly rejects it.

2. people who have "faith" in "dogma," and dismiss evidence that contradicts their "dogma."

[loco]

Did God move these people to do something about the people who he ordered to kill innocent children in the OT?    

Mmm, be more specific and we will discuss.   

[OzmO]

Mmm, be more specific and we will discuss.   

y
o
u

k
n
o
w

w
h
a
t

i

a
m

t
a
l
k
i
n
g

a
b
o
u
t


 

[loco]

y
o
u

k
n
o
w

w
h
a
t

i

a
m

t
a
l
k
i
n
g

a
b
o
u
t


 

Mmm, be more specific and we will discuss.   

[OzmO]

Mmm, be more specific and we will discuss.   

no point in pointing out  something you already know and we have discussed.   

[loco]

2. people who have "faith" in "dogma," and dismiss evidence that contradicts their "dogma."

Sounds just like the scientists that you so much worship.  


http://discovermagazine.com/2006/apr/dinosaur-dna
"By all the rules of paleontology, such traces of life should have long since drained from the bones. It's a matter of faith among scientists that soft tissue can survive at most for a few tens of thousands of years, not the 65 million since T. rex walked what's now the Hell Creek Formation in Montana. But Schweitzer tends to ignore such dogma"

[columbusdude82]

Sounds just like the scientists that you so much worship.   


http://discovermagazine.com/2006/apr/dinosaur-dna
"By all the rules of paleontology, such traces of life should have long since drained from the bones. It's a matter of faith among scientists that soft tissue can survive at most for a few tens of thousands of years, not the 65 million since T. rex walked what's now the Hell Creek Formation in Montana. But Schweitzer tends to ignore such dogma"

Wrong... and Non Sequitur.

"Faith" isn't so much about believing that dead tissue may survive a few thousand years, but that dead people used to come back to life all the time, only the art of resurrection was lost...

[loco]

Wrong... and Non Sequitur.

"Faith" isn't so much about believing that dead tissue may survive a few thousand years, but that dead people used to come back to life all the time, only the art of resurrection was lost...

[loco]

Did God move these people to do something about the people who he ordered to kill innocent children in the OT?    

You know, OzmO, some people believe that abortion is murder, yet they stand by and do nothing about it while millions of unborn babies are murdered every year.  Some even support its legal practice.   

[columbusdude82]

That's all you got?

Which of the following two claims is more believable?

1. "Dead tissue may be preserved relatively well for centuries under certain favorable conditions, for example, in resin or under a layer of sediments."

2. "A guy was born with a mother but no father, brought a couple of dead people back to life, then died and came back to life himself."

[loco]

That's all you got?

Which of the following two claims is more believable?

1. "Dead tissue may be preserved relatively well for centuries under certain favorable conditions, for example, in resin or under a layer of sediments."

2. "A guy was born with a mother but no father, brought a couple of dead people back to life, then died and came back to life himself."

You mean, soft tissue preserved for 65 million years?  Both of the above require faith...and resurrection is not an art.  It's a miracle from God.

[columbusdude82]

We know for a fact that soft tissue may be preserved, for example, in the North Pole or Siberia!!! Or a fly preserved in resin!!! So 1 does not require faith. 1 is believable. It may happen, because in some cases, it HAS happened.

2 is far less believable...

[24KT]

We know for a fact that soft tissue may be preserved, for example, in the North Pole or Siberia!!! Or a fly preserved in resin!!! So 1 does not require faith. 1 is believable. It may happen, because in some cases, it HAS happened.

2 is far less believable...

Not only HAS it happened, I'll be meeting a guy who climbed everest who stumbled upon such a phenomenon.
The man was unconscious & unresponsive, ...and had been left for dead by other climbers. Turns out he wasn't dead. He had regained consciousness in the middle of the night, only to find himself frozen and alone on a frozen rock ledge barely 3 feet²

[loco]

We know for a fact that soft tissue may be preserved, for example, in the North Pole or Siberia!!! Or a fly preserved in resin!!!

Yeah, but for how long?  Not 65 Million years.  It is scientists who have been saying for years that soft tissue cannot be preserved for more than a few thousand years. 

Just because something is true in a small scale does not mean that it is true in a much, much larger scale. 

By your own logic above:

Resuscitation: "The restoration to life or consciousness of an individual showing no signs of life" is performed by doctors and paramedics everyday.  If we know this for a fact, is it too hard to believe that God can resurrect someone who has been dead for three days?   

So 1 does not require faith. 1 is believable. It may happen, because in some cases, it HAS happened.

2 is far less believable...

They both require faith.

[columbusdude82]

No, they are not both the same...

Answer me this: those two people that Jesus resurrected from the dead, did they die "again" later on or are they still around?

[loco]

No, they are not both the same...

Answer me this: those two people that Jesus resurrected from the dead, did they die "again" later on or are they still around?

All I'm saying is this:

"And the beginning of every logical chain is an act of faith: some unproven axiom, some set of postulates that were chosen because they simply felt true. There’s no getting around this, because logical inference can only draw on what is previously given, either as an axiom or a theorem already proved. To demand that every step in a logical chain depends on an earlier logical proof leads, of course, to an infinite regress."  Malcolm Pollack

And those people that Jesus resurrected died again.  Jesus resurrected them, but He did not make them immortal.

[columbusdude82]

Sounds like Jesus' resurrection magic powers weren't all that great, huh?... He saved the good stuff for himself...

[militarymuscle69]

That's all you got?

Which of the following two claims is more believable?

1. "Dead tissue may be preserved relatively well for centuries under certain favorable conditions, for example, in resin or under a layer of sediments."

2. "A guy was born with a mother but no father, brought a couple of dead people back to life, then died and came back to life himself."

Why can't both be believable? Why does everything have to be so black and white....either or.....Why can't someone believe in both?

[loco]

Sounds like Jesus' resurrection magic powers weren't all that great, huh?... He saved the good stuff for himself...

All in His own good time.  When Jesus returns, those Christians who are still alive will become immortal.  Those who are already dead will be resurrected, this time to immortality.  Those who were resurrected in the past will be resurrected a second time, this time to immortality.

[columbusdude82]

Why can't both be believable? Why does everything have to be so black and white....either or.....Why can't someone believe in both?

That's not what I said. I asked which is MORE believable. Which is more likely to have occur. Which would be more likely to have evidence backing it up.

The obvious answer is 1. It is easier to find evidence of well-preserved dead tissue from long time ago (because such evidence has been found!!!) than it is to find evidence of dead people coming back to life (if there were evidence for it, religious people would be shouting it from the rooftops).

[loco]

Why can't both be believable? Why does everything have to be so black and white....either or.....Why can't someone believe in both?

I agree, we can believe both of the above.