the big questions of life thread

[Higher_Desire]

Quote: (Originally Posted by aussiecreeder)

i understand fully what you are saying but i do not see the mormonism is a return to truth like luther, calvin and others were for their day. luther and his contempories were rebelling against the catholic church and how tradition had become more important than what the scriptures say. they did not add new doctrines like joseph smith so clearly did. furthermore the new testament instructs us to test all spirits and prophets. how is one supposed to test smith when we can't translate the language fully? it is impossible to verify the truth or otherwise of his sayings other than on blind faith.

I understand what you mean about how it seems odd that in this case scripture was added, but if the story is true (as I believe it), then the full truth was not the earth, and therefore had to be brought to light, or, so to speak, fill in the holes. Absolutely one must test spirits and prophets, but we also cannot prove everything there is to know about the Bible, either. Testing spirits has a lot to do with feeling. Somewhere in the Bible (can't remember where right now) it says that if something is true, you will feel a "burning in your bosom." That's what people must test with the BoM, too. I've known people of other religions that were devout to that religion and became Mormon. I also know 3 people who were stongly anti-Momons and anti-Mormon activists that became converted. They all say they felt that burning in the bosom that only comes from asking God if something is true or not.

Quote: (Originally Posted by aussiecreeder)

the bible never instructs blind faith and reasoning is certainly not excluded from faith and quite the opposite in fact.

I don't remember saying that reasoning was excluded from faith or anything about blind faith. But in a literal sence, everyone who believes in God is following blind faith (in a sense). I mean, have you ever seen God? Has anyone you know ever seen God? I know I haven't seen him. All we're going on is what the Bible says and we believe to be true. Faith (in a religious sense) is blind because you're putting all of your trust in something you have not physically seen to exist. Though, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that blind faith is everything. Personally, I don't look as faith as blind.

Quote: (Originally Posted by aussiecreeder)

if smith was so sure of the truth of what he said he shouldn't have acted in the way he did. have a look at christ when he rebuked peter for cutting the ear off a soldier and how he had no fear before pilate or as the roman soliders spat on him and treated him like a dog. why do we need a secondary authority like the book of mormon when 2 timothy 3:16 saids that all scripture is useful for teaching, rebuking......and revelation instructs not to add or take away from the holy scriptures and this is added instruction?

anyhow see ya round and have a good new years.....

As for why we need a second authority like the BoM, it may be debatable that we don't, but it's support. The way I have heard it before, the bible and BoM are like nails. When you use one nail to hold a board to the wall, you can, but the board will spin. Having two puts another nail into the board holds is firmly in place (ie, like you life).

Yes, Revelation does say not to add or take away from scripture. But there are two things you must remember: first, the Bible is not arranged in chronological order. When the Romans arranged it, they did it in order of what they thought was important. Hence, after the five gospels they had (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts of the Apostles) they put the book of the Romans. With that being historically true, isn't it true that any book of the bible written after it would therefore be wrong? Also, what has also been said (by someone who was NOT Mormon, and I can't remember his name, but he was a Bible scholar) was that John could be talking about that if HIS teachings were changed. He was shown many things by the Lord (especially in Revelation) and if those things are changed or left out, then hellfire would rain upon us.


H-D

[aussiecreeder]

Quote: (Originally Posted by Higher_Desire)

I understand what you mean about how it seems odd that in this case scripture was added, but if the story is true (as I believe it), then the full truth was not the earth, and therefore had to be brought to light, or, so to speak, fill in the holes. Absolutely one must test spirits and prophets, but we also cannot prove everything there is to know about the Bible, either. Testing spirits has a lot to do with feeling. Somewhere in the Bible (can't remember where right now) it says that if something is true, you will feel a "burning in your bosom." That's what people must test with the BoM, too. I've known people of other religions that were devout to that religion and became Mormon. I also know 3 people who were stongly anti-Momons and anti-Mormon activists that became converted. They all say they felt that burning in the bosom that only comes from asking God if something is true or not.

I don't remember saying that reasoning was excluded from faith or anything about blind faith. But in a literal sence, everyone who believes in God is following blind faith (in a sense). I mean, have you ever seen God? Has anyone you know ever seen God? I know I haven't seen him. All we're going on is what the Bible says and we believe to be true. Faith (in a religious sense) is blind because you're putting all of your trust in something you have not physically seen to exist. Though, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that blind faith is everything. Personally, I don't look as faith as blind.

As for why we need a second authority like the BoM, it may be debatable that we don't, but it's support. The way I have heard it before, the bible and BoM are like nails. When you use one nail to hold a board to the wall, you can, but the board will spin. Having two puts another nail into the board holds is firmly in place (ie, like you life).

Yes, Revelation does say not to add or take away from scripture. But there are two things you must remember: first, the Bible is not arranged in chronological order. When the Romans arranged it, they did it in order of what they thought was important. Hence, after the five gospels they had (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts of the Apostles) they put the book of the Romans. With that being historically true, isn't it true that any book of the bible written after it would therefore be wrong? Also, what has also been said (by someone who was NOT Mormon, and I can't remember his name, but he was a Bible scholar) was that John could be talking about that if HIS teachings were changed. He was shown many things by the Lord (especially in Revelation) and if those things are changed or left out, then hellfire would rain upon us.


H-D

what you've said there at the end adds up and i'll give you that but the rest just doesn't do it for me at all. so a "burning in your bosom" will tell the truth? what if i have a burning in my bosom to go and rob a bank? to become a muslim? the bible generally is against making decisions on feelings and the love throughout the bible for instance is more of a decision based upon actions, rather than warm and fuzzy feelings (although they're excluded). what makes the burning of your bosom any more legimate than anyone elses? feelings are totally subjective and can't be tested for any evidence. at least the belief in God is a rational decision because life without some form of higher power i'm sure you would agree is laughable.

so if the book of mormon adds to a mormon's spirtual walk isn't the bible sufficient for that? doesn't the bible claim to the inspired word of god and sufficient for all teaching? is a mormon without the book of mormon or who doesn't recongise its authority worse off or even a true mormon?

[Higher_Desire]

Quote: (Originally Posted by aussiecreeder)

what you've said there at the end adds up and i'll give you that but the rest just doesn't do it for me at all. so a "burning in your bosom" will tell the truth? what if i have a burning in my bosom to go and rob a bank? to become a muslim?

You have to know if the feeling is coming from God or Satan. Absolutely people have said that the feeling they got was from God, especially things like killing other people, but society has a set of rules and guidelines (ie, laws) that tell us what is morally acceptable as right or wrong, and religion is deemed as right so long as it stays within the contexts of national law. If things are right, you can feel they are right.

So what about the Muslim extremists (suicide bombers) who say what they're doing is right? They claim that what they are doing is right because they are killing for God (Allah). Now by what we as Christians believe, they'd go to hell because we're not supposed to kill. But they think they're going to heaven. It's God's judgement. Not ours.

So do you mean to tell me that you've never had a feeling that the Bible was true based solely on what you've read in it or your faith in it? If you did have that feeling, how did you know where it came from?

Quote: (Originally Posted by aussiecreeder)

the bible generally is against making decisions on feelings and the love throughout the bible for instance is more of a decision based upon actions, rather than warm and fuzzy feelings (although they're excluded). what makes the burning of your bosom any more legimate than anyone elses? feelings are totally subjective and can't be tested for any evidence.

What do you mean we're not supposed to make decisions based on feeling? I agree it's not the only reason to do or not to do something. Here's an example. Jesus taught in parables and taught that people should follow him. They followed him by what they felt. Parables are not literal statements about things that happened. In Matthew 13:10-17, the deciples ask Jesus why he speaks in parables. Jesus' basic answer is so people can draw their own conclusions. I want you to go read it, and tell me what you think of it. Especially verse 15. (See with their eyes, hear with their ears, and understand with their hearts.) How are we supposed to draw our own conclusions if we don't have some type of feeling?

Quote: (Originally Posted by aussiecreeder)

at least the belief in God is a rational decision because life without some form of higher power i'm sure you would agree is laughable.

Is belief in God a rational decision? Not everyone believes in God or the Bible. There are still many people who believe in evolution and that there is no higher power. A good friend of mine named Jay is an athiest, so is he going to hell? Can he go to hell if he doesn't believe in hell?

Quote: (Originally Posted by aussiecreeder)

so if the book of mormon adds to a mormon's spirtual walk isn't the bible sufficient for that? doesn't the bible claim to the inspired word of god and sufficient for all teaching? is a mormon without the book of mormon or who doesn't recongise its authority worse off or even a true mormon?

It's not that the bible isn't sufficient, by all means it is believed to be the most correct of any book on earth, but remember, the bible is not complete. There were books left out if the Bible, for example the Macabees and the book of Jasher to name a couple. The bible, though very right, is not 100% correct and void of holes.
A Mormon without the BoM or recognize it's authority? What do you mean by that? All Mormons have the BoM, and if they don't recognize an authority, they wouldn't be a member.


H-D

[aussiecreeder]

Quote: (Originally Posted by Higher_Desire)

You have to know if the feeling is coming from God or Satan. Absolutely people have said that the feeling they got was from God, especially things like killing other people, but society has a set of rules and guidelines (ie, laws) that tell us what is morally acceptable as right or wrong, and religion is deemed as right so long as it stays within the contexts of national law. If things are right, you can feel they are right.

So what about the Muslim extremists (suicide bombers) who say what they're doing is right? They claim that what they are doing is right because they are killing for God (Allah). Now by what we as Christians believe, they'd go to hell because we're not supposed to kill. But they think they're going to heaven. It's God's judgement. Not ours.

So do you mean to tell me that you've never had a feeling that the Bible was true based solely on what you've read in it or your faith in it? If you did have that feeling, how did you know where it came from?

What do you mean we're not supposed to make decisions based on feeling? I agree it's not the only reason to do or not to do something. Here's an example. Jesus taught in parables and taught that people should follow him. They followed him by what they felt. Parables are not literal statements about things that happened. In Matthew 13:10-17, the deciples ask Jesus why he speaks in parables. Jesus' basic answer is so people can draw their own conclusions. I want you to go read it, and tell me what you think of it. Especially verse 15. (See with their eyes, hear with their ears, and understand with their hearts.) How are we supposed to draw our own conclusions if we don't have some type of feeling?

Is belief in God a rational decision? Not everyone believes in God or the Bible. There are still many people who believe in evolution and that there is no higher power. A good friend of mine named Jay is an athiest, so is he going to hell? Can he go to hell if he doesn't believe in hell?

It's not that the bible isn't sufficient, by all means it is believed to be the most correct of any book on earth, but remember, the bible is not complete. There were books left out if the Bible, for example the Macabees and the book of Jasher to name a couple. The bible, though very right, is not 100% correct and void of holes.
A Mormon without the BoM or recognize it's authority? What do you mean by that? All Mormons have the BoM, and if they don't recognize an authority, they wouldn't be a member.


H-D

Its easy to draw a conclusion that muslim extremists are wrong in taking innocent life in their quest to be accepted by Allah but what about socially accepted religions. One can easily have a "burning in their bosom" to become a buddhist, hindu, muslim, jew or any of the world's main religions. They all feel its right and are moral people but based on feelings you can't say which one is right. Only one can be right and they all have the burning in their bosom.

Yes I do feel that christianity is the right path but that doesn't help your case. We both have a "burning in our bosom" and yet only one of us can be right or perhaps we are both wrong. Having no god is illogical because there must have being something to start whatever process took place, to create the matter and life and its ecosystems are way too complex for no creator.

The bible is the most correct book? So by most correct it has error? Where are the errors? If there any errors the whole book is basically useless as it proves that its not an inspired book and is not any better than the Quran for instance. BTW if something is void of holes then it doesn't have any holes.

[Higher_Desire]

Quote: (Originally Posted by aussiecreeder)

Its easy to draw a conclusion that muslim extremists are wrong in taking innocent life in their quest to be accepted by Allah but what about socially accepted religions. One can easily have a "burning in their bosom" to become a buddhist, hindu, muslim, jew or any of the world's main religions. They all feel its right and are moral people but based on feelings you can't say which one is right. Only one can be right and they all have the burning in their bosom.

Everyone has different feelings about what is right. I thought we already established that. I have friends who are passionate about being Methodist, Presbeterian, Catholic, Seventh Day Adventist, and a few others. They have feelings for what they believe is right. It is something that works well for them. But is isn't impossible to say that they haven't tested another, as I have done.

Quote: (Originally Posted by aussiecreeder)

Yes I do feel that christianity is the right path but that doesn't help your case. We both have a "burning in our bosom" and yet only one of us can be right or perhaps we are both wrong.

Perhaps we are both right or wrong. But in the long run, what does it come down to? It comes down to a faith and belief in God that HE will judge us on. In Revelation 20:12, we are told that we will be judged by our works, and Ecclesiastes 12:14 adds that God will bring all works and secrets into our judgement whether they be good or evil. So does another book really matter? I believe it is an additional guide to living a good life. Is that really such a bad thing?

Quote: (Originally Posted by aussiecreeder)

Having no god is illogical because there must have being something to start whatever process took place, to create the matter and life and its ecosystems are way too complex for no creator.

Not having a God is not illogical because there are a lot of people who don't believe in him, and find the belief in him illogical (as I stated above). It only seems illogical to have no God when you have a background in religion.

Quote: (Originally Posted by aussiecreeder)

The bible is the most correct book? So by most correct it has error?

It is MOST correct even though there are SOME errors. It is the most complete history we have of the history of the world, customs of the Jews, and Jesus' ministry.

Quote: (Originally Posted by aussiecreeder)

Where are the errors?

Anywhere there isn't much information, where the B isn't clear between A and C, anywhere that leaves you guessing what exactly is going on, or anywhere the BoM seems to clarify or give a better understanding of. Go find some areas you're not sure about.

Quote: (Originally Posted by aussiecreeder)

If there any errors the whole book is basically useless as it proves that its not an inspired book and is not any better than the Quran for instance.

No, that's not true. If I write a book about the history of the world before 1500 (commonly called the modern era), but switch the names of Constantine and Confucius, does that mean that every other piece of information in the book is also wrong? No. What I'm getting at is this: Neither the Bible nor the BoM are inspired books. They are translations of early writings of what God showed to his prophets. Some things were not written down in their entirety.

Quote: (Originally Posted by aussiecreeder)

BTW if something is void of holes then it doesn't have any holes.

I know that. If you read my post properly, I used it in the right sense.


H-D

[aussiecreeder]

the bible claims to be in the inspired word of God and yet you say its has errors. that means the whole premise is built on a fraud and it is no better than any other book. please point out what you believe are errors or contradictions and why someone should accept the BOM over the bible where they contradict.

everything has feelings about what is right but not everyone can be right, surely that has to be obvious. lets for arguements sake pretend that the islamic god is the one and only god. if he claims that all who reject him will go to hell and we have because we're not muslims then what would our fate be? our works are not enough and do nothing to bring us closer to god. the NT in particular makes it clear its salvation by grace through faith not works. jesus describes those who say "we cast out demons.....etc" and yet he saids "depart i do not know you". one can sincere and yet sincerly wrong and the bible seems to say clearly they will pay for that wilful ignorance.

you really need to point out specific areas in the bible that are clearly wrong i think.......

[Higher_Desire]

Quote: (Originally Posted by aussiecreeder)

the bible claims to be in the inspired word of God and yet you say its has errors. that means the whole premise is built on a fraud and it is no better than any other book. please point out what you believe are errors or contradictions and why someone should accept the BOM over the bible where they contradict.

Premise does not indicate fraud when the words are truth. I never at any time said that the Bible was not truth. It is truth, and I believe it. As I said, not everything in the Bible is written in its entirety. There are places that say things like "I will not write any more about this right now." Examples... where is heaven? If Jesus Christ was perfect and without sin, why did he need to be baptized? What is in store for us after this life? What is the purpose of life? What is the point of working for God? Are all of Jesus' teachings and parables that were ever taught in his life contained in the Bible?

Quote: (Originally Posted by aussiecreeder)

everything has feelings about what is right but not everyone can be right, surely that has to be obvious. lets for arguements sake pretend that the islamic god is the one and only god. if he claims that all who reject him will go to hell and we have because we're not muslims then what would our fate be?

Well, if the Islamic God is the one and only, we are subject to his judgement. All Gods say that they are the only way to truth. Let me clarify that by saying that all followers of a God say that they have the truth. The basic answer is that there is only one God. He will judge us how he sees fit. We have NO 100% evidence for ourselves who that God is because we have never physically seen him.

Quote: (Originally Posted by aussiecreeder)

our works are not enough and do nothing to bring us closer to god. the NT in particular makes it clear its salvation by grace through faith not works.

What the hell are you talking about? We must show our belief through our works. Just saying "I believe" isn't enough to be saved. Go get your Bible and look up Proverbs 24:12 ("...and shall not he render to every man according to his works?"), Matthew 5:16 ("Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven."), and James 2:14-26 ("...though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?...Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone...But wilt thou know, O van man, that faith without works is dead?...Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?...Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only...") Go read those passages in their entirety, and then tell me again that works don't matter.

Quote: (Originally Posted by aussiecreeder)

jesus describes those who say "we cast out demons.....etc" and yet he saids "depart i do not know you". one can sincere and yet sincerly wrong and the bible seems to say clearly they will pay for that wilful ignorance.

Jesus is talking about the blasphemers and unworthy. Those who do it for show. Here's an example, James 5:13-15. Go read that. That passage refers to the sick and afflicted who are tended to by the worthy.

All of my references were King James version.


H-D

[aussiecreeder]

salvation is by faith although james rightly clarifies that if there are no works then there is no salvation. however it is a VERY important distinction that works do NOT save a person.

None [of them] can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him: (For the redemption of their soul [is] precious, and it ceaseth for ever

Psalms 49:7-8
*A Song of degrees for Solomon.* Except the Lord build the house, they labour in vain that build it: except the Lord keep the city, the watchman waketh [but] in vain. [It is] vain for you to rise up early, to sit up late, to eat the bread of sorrows: [for] so he giveth his beloved sleep.

Psalms 127:1-2
I have seen all the works that are done under the sun; and, behold, all [is] vanity and vexation of spirit.

Ecclesiastes 1:14
Put me in remembrance: let us plead together: declare thou, that thou mayest be justified.

Isaiah 43:26
I will declare thy righteousness, and thy works; for they shall not profit thee.

Isaiah 57:12
But we are all as an unclean [thing], and all our righteousnesses [are] as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.

Isaiah 64:6
They shall cast their silver in the streets, and their gold shall be removed: their silver and their gold shall not be able to deliver them in the day of the wrath of the Lord: they shall not satisfy their souls, neither fill their bowels: because it is the stumblingblock of their iniquity.

Ezekiel 7:19
Therefore, thou son of man, say unto the children of thy people, The righteousness of the righteous shall not deliver him in the day of his transgression: as for the wickedness of the wicked, he shall not fall thereby in the day that he turneth from his wickedness; neither shall the righteous be able to live for his [righteousness] in the day that he sinneth. When I shall say to the righteous, [that] he shall surely live; if he trust to his own righteousness, and commit iniquity, all his righteousnesses shall not be remembered; but for his iniquity that he hath committed, he shall die for it. Again, when I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; if he turn from his sin, and do that which is lawful and right; [If] the wicked restore the pledge, give again that he had robbed, walk in the statutes of life, without committing iniquity; he shall surely live, he shall not die. None of his sins that he hath committed shall be mentioned unto him: he hath done that which is lawful and right; he shall surely live. Yet the children of thy people say, The way of the Lord is not equal: but as for them, their way is not equal. When the righteous turneth from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, he shall even die thereby. But if the wicked turn from his wickedness, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall live thereby.

Ezekiel 33:12-19
O my God, incline thine ear, and hear; open thine eyes, and behold our desolations, and the city which is called by thy name: for we do not present our supplications before thee for our righteousnesses, but for thy great mercies.

Daniel 9:18
For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed [the righteousness] of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

If someone is saved by works then there is no need for grace. Furthermore what would be the point of Jesus dying on the cross if we can save ourselves. Jesus then ceases to be the saviour and we become the saviour becaues we are doing the work and becoming acceptable to God. Don't you think its a little arrogant to take this stance? Also Hebrews 11 documents great men and women of faith such as Abraham and Noah and repeatedly saids "by faith they were saved" when they obeyed. Their obedience was the proof of their faith but its not what saved them.

There is no problem in Jesus being baptized because baptism does not save but is a public profession of faith and Jesus obeyed God and humbled himself to John the Baptist by immersing himself in that river.

[Higher_Desire]

Quote: (Originally Posted by aussiecreeder)

salvation is by faith although james rightly clarifies that if there are no works then there is no salvation. however it is a VERY important distinction that works do NOT save a person.

If someone is saved by works then there is no need for grace. Furthermore what would be the point of Jesus dying on the cross if we can save ourselves. Jesus then ceases to be the saviour and we become the saviour becaues we are doing the work and becoming acceptable to God. Don't you think its a little arrogant to take this stance?

Holy Christ. We're going around in circles here and it's getting really old. You are not SAVED by works, and I never said you were. The references I quoted stated that you are JUDGED by your works. God judges based upon what you did and how he judges our rightousness and our passage into heaven. That is grace. It is because we are each judged individually and there isn't only one judgement for everybody.

How can you dispute those verses that as clearly as day say "Faith without works is dead."?

Quote: (Originally Posted by aussiecreeder)

Also Hebrews 11 documents great men and women of faith such as Abraham and Noah and repeatedly saids "by faith they were saved" when they obeyed. Their obedience was the proof of their faith but its not what saved them.

You said contradicted yourself. You said that they were saved by faith, and then that faith is not what saved them. They worked through their obedience to God and showed their faith. Also, they were tested and still stayed focused on God.

Quote: (Originally Posted by aussiecreeder)

There is no problem in Jesus being baptized because baptism does not save but is a public profession of faith and Jesus obeyed God and humbled himself to John the Baptist by immersing himself in that river.

It's good how out of all my questions you only attempted one. Though baptism is public, it's not just a way of saying "Hey world! Look at me!" Baptism is the physical declaration one makes to God to show that they promise to live by his commandments and to turn away from the sins of they world and their own personal idolitary ways. Last time I checked, Jesus didn't need to have any sins washed away because he didn't have any.


H-D

[aussiecreeder]

yeah we're going around in circles but in your reply just now you stated no your works don't save you and then later on said its not faith that saves you. what is it? anyhow we're not getting anywhere........i'm not disputing faith without works is dead. what i am disputing is that works save because they clearly do not. i thought it was a relatively simple concept......

[Higher_Desire]

Quote: (Originally Posted by aussiecreeder)

yeah we're going around in circles but in your reply just now you stated no your works don't save you and then later on said its not faith that saves you. what is it?

No I never said that. To boil it down... You must show your faith through your works to be saved. They are both needed.

Quote: (Originally Posted by aussiecreeder)

anyhow we're not getting anywhere........i'm not disputing faith without works is dead. what i am disputing is that works save because they clearly do not. i thought it was a relatively simple concept......

Works alone do not save and I never said that they did. What I said was that faith without works is dead (James 2:14-26). Faith cannot survive without works, and your works show your faith. One without the other is good but not good enough.


H-D

[Dearon_Thereon]

no this thread will not answer what came first the chicken or the egg? neither will it tell if God is dead. instead there are much bigger questions......

1.Why does Iceland have a mild climate while Greenland is covered with ice and makes Alaska look like Florida?
In history, green was white and white was green.

2.Did Adam and Eve have navals?
guess not... but you never know, ask the CIA

3.Why does Adam cop all the blame for the first sin? Wasen't his wife who did it first? Is it all part of a feminist conspiracy to get rid of men forever?
Feminist conspriacy's piss me off!

4.If Adam went fishing instead of talking to his wife would the world be a better place?
no, we'd all be fishing now instead of talking to our wifes how she shouldn't buy that couch with the last money you have for groceries (don't mind spelling) and other life supplies.

5.Why do women go to the toilet in pairs?
they're women, what more to say?

6.Why do they go shopping and not buy anything?
see above.

7.Why won't Lindsay Lohan return my calls, emails or agree to go on that date?
who in godsname is Lindsay Lohan

P.S. did ya miss me ppl? i havn't been around in a long time...

[Higher_Desire]

Quote: (Originally Posted by Dearon_Thereon)

no this thread will not answer what came first the chicken or the egg?

It was the chicken. (Genesis 1:20-21)

Quote: (Originally Posted by Dearon_Thereon)

neither will it tell if God is dead. instead there are much bigger questions......

"God is not dead nor doth he sleep." (From the traditional Christmas hymn, I Heard the Bells on Christmas Day)

Quote: (Originally Posted by Dearon_Thereon)

7.Why won't Lindsay Lohan return my calls, emails or agree to go on that date?
who in godsname is Lindsay Lohan

She's an actress. She was in movies such as The Parent Trap, Mean Girls, and Freaky Friday. She's also attempting to start a singing career.

Quote: (Originally Posted by Dearon_Thereon)

P.S. did ya miss me ppl? i havn't been around in a long time...

Yes I did miss you. Some people just seem to disappear for a while.


H-D

[aussiecreeder]

Why do men have nipples? They don't serve any practical purpose considering i've never met a man who has being able to pass milk through them lol. Oh and Higher Desire it looks we agree......I think.

[Higher_Desire]

Quote: (Originally Posted by aussiecreeder)

Why do men have nipples? They don't serve any practical purpose considering i've never met a man who has being able to pass milk through them lol.

Some men have... like Nathan Jones. He's a wrestler. He's taken so many sterioids that at one point, his body actually produced enough estrogen to make him lactate.
Also there's the whole theory of we all start life in the womb as female, and men are just more evolved females, but science has pretty much proven that false.

Quote: (Originally Posted by aussiecreeder)

Oh and Higher Desire it looks we agree......I think.

Phew. That took a while. Glad we finally reached an agreeable conclusion.


H-D