dougdegraw

Technically the Moon is a satellite of the Earth, but it comes closer to being a planet than almost any other moon in the system (excepting the Pluto-Charon pair).

However let us review this Biblically:

Genesis 1:16

God fashioned two great lights—the larger light to shine during the day and the smaller light to shine during the night—as well as stars.

Per the Bible the Sun and the Moon are the same with the only difference a matter of degree. So if you believe the Bible is Truth, The Moon must be a star, just as the Sun is.

However, if you understand that the Bible shows a primitive level of understanding, using myth and supposition to fill in the gaps of what was unknown, then how can you accept it as Truth of an All-Knowing God?

This is not about whether you believe in a deity or not, it is about the reference material that some of your ilk continue to thump or bash people over the head with.

If it has errors it can not be the Word of a Perfect God, and if it is not then it can not be used to guide behavior in His name.

We have seen it posted several times on here that Christianity must be right because it has existed for about 2000 years without failing ... I'm not saying that but others are.

However Judaism has been around for over 4500 years ... doesn't that make it the better religion if you are looking at staying power?

In fact since the Christians still haven't managed to convince the Jewish people that Jesus Christ was their Messiah after 2000 years of trying, doesn't that argue against Christianity?

More over don't they realize that every argument they use against the Mormons who say the second coming has already happened and a reprieve granted are the same arguments the Jewish have used to say the Christians are full of it?

I don't subscribe to any of those faiths, but what are they going to do when their own arguments are used against them? Will they ignore them like they have proven they are very good at doing? Admit their own faults (unlikely) but come up with excuses why things have changed (not unusual)? Turn in to a bunch of report monkeys to get rid of uncomfortable questions (They've done it before)?

What will they do?

Then the NDE of Durga Jatav is proof of the Hindu Gods.

He reported that when he thought he died in the late 1940's, he had been taken to another place by 10 people. He tried to escape, but they cut off his legs at the knees to prevent his escape. He was taken to a place where there were tables and chairs and 40 or 50 people sitting. He recognized no one. They looked at his "papers," saw that his name was not on their list, and said, "Why have you brought him here? Take him back." To this Durga had replied, "How can I go back? I don't have feet." He was then shown several pairs of legs, he recognized his own, and they were somehow reattached. He was then sent back with the instructions not to bend his knees so that they could mend. Durga's older sister, corroborated his account of his apparent death and revival.

A few days after Durga revived, his sister and a neighbor noticed marks on Durga's knees which had not been there before. These folds - or deep fissures - which appeared on his skin in front of his knees were still visible in 1979. There was no bleeding or pain in his knees other than the discomfort engendered by Durga following the "instructions" to keep his knees in a fixed position. X-ray photographs we took in 1981 showed no abnormality below the surface of the skin.

In detailed studies of over 700 NDEs amongst Hindus, there is very little similarity to Christian NDEs but much more relevance to Hindu imagery. If NDEs are proof, then God has competition.

All the variations of Star Trek have their agreed upon abbreviations:

ST:TOS = The Original Series

ST:TNG = The Next Generation

ST:DS9 = Deep Space Nine

ST:VOY = Voyager

ST:ENT = Enterprise

Since they are already producing the 3rd of the New Star Trek remakes with rumors of taking it to TV, we are going to need one for them. What do you think it should be?

ST:??? =

ATL = Alternate Time Lines

TNM = The New Movies

REM = Remakes

WIU = Women in Underwear (3 so far in two movies, I sense a trend)

or what would be your alternative?

I've seen many people with either crosses or doves or scriptures tattooed in various places.

Tattoos really are an art form and can be quite beautiful when done well.

Either tell us about or show us your favorite, here is your chance to be proud of your dedication.

So let's hear from you.

(Lev 19:28)

"What is the difference whether it is in a wife or a mother, it is still Eve the temptress that we must beware of in any woman...

I fail to see what use woman can be to man, if one excludes the function of bearing children."

- Saint Augustine (the prominent pioneer of Western theology)

Considering the obvious gender bias in the Bible, the depiction of women as chattel and property to be bartered. The allowance of men to have several wives, but women must be devoted to only one man.

Even in modern times, many congregations and sects don't believe in or allow women to be religious leaders. Do you feel that this a good religion to bring up your wives and daughters in?

We have seen it time and again in various questions and responses. Christians state there is proof of their God in the infrequent prayers He answers and the blessings He provides. And when person F gets the job they want, while a hundred other devout followers die of cancer, that is neither coincidence, personal effort or intervention by other Earthly agency but supreme proof of a Divine Hand in their lives.

So now we have established by your own "logic" what you consider Proof of God. Now let us consider other religions. Muslims pray to their version of the Abrahamic God, Hindus pray to their Gods, Buddhists (Mahayana) pray to theirs, Wiccans pray to the God and Goddess, etc. And they also feel that their prayers have been answered and they have received blessings. In my personal experience I believe the Goddess has shown me the paths I need to walk to get what I seek.

Therefore they have met the level of proof you have set for their gods to be real as well.

But before you can voice the protests I already hear forming on the foaming mouths of the rabid ones, let me see if I can guess the response. "All other religions are actually praying to Satan in disguise." Did I get it right?

They do not pray to Satan anymore than you do, less so considering Satan is a creation of your faith, not theirs. So who said it was Satan? The self admitted jealous God (Ex 34:14) who sounds like the brat child. "These are my followers, if you take them, I'll say you are made up by an evil guy."

There are a few references scattered throughout, but let's take one of the most obvious and easiest to understand.

Exodus 7:10-12, In order to perform a miracle for Pharaoh, Moses had Aaron throw down his staff which became a snake. Pharaoh called forth Egyptian priests who performed the same "miracle." Now Aaron's snake ate the others, but that glosses over the point.

Worshipers and Priests of the Egyptian Gods were given the same abilities as Moses and Aaron. in fact several times they were able to demonstrate the same abilities, even though their results were weaker.

So if the Hebrew God gave the power to Moses and Aaron, then who gave the power to the Egyptians? The Egyptian Gods of course. Just because they were weaker does not prove they were non-existent, if anything, that they were able to act at all shows they exist, and the Hebrews (and later the Christians) prove it in their own Holy Writ.

Now, some of the softer translations change Priests to Sorcerers, but any historian can tell you that sorcerers of Egypt drew their power from their patron Gods.

This is not a slam, but a serious question. Will theists listen to evidence or once again try to make the question disappear?

There is a current, visible and trackable evolution of some groups of both the Prarie and Pacific Rattlesnakes. Groups of rattlesnakes are actually losing their rattles. No while babies don't have rattles yet, and adults can break or lose their rattles due to accident, this goes beyond that.

Rattlesnakes with normal rattles are getting killed off as humans expand into their habitat. The rattle warns the humans that a snake is there, and usually it is killed shortly thereafter. Doesn't seem like a big deal right, but it sets up what follows. Snakes with deformed or atrophied rattles do not make noise, are not found and survive to breed, passing on the "silent rattle".

So in areas close to human habitation they are finding more and more of the snake population that do not rattle. This is a classic example of evolution, an unusual trait found to aid survival being passed on to the greater population. Eventually it is possible that our many times great grandchildren will wonder why they are called "rattle" snakes.

So here is the question. Will you accept this ongoing and observable proof of the theory as valid, or are you going to try and find some "out" to deny evidence right before your eyes?

I have watched one particular "lady" (since I can not actually verify female) change her name 4 times this morning, nor is it the first time I have observed this behavior from her. She is one of the Theist trolls who constantly asks the same inane and intellectually insulting questions over and over again, never listening to the answers.

I have to assume she is trying this behavior in an effort not to look like the same person asking the same questions, but she does not grasp that the links when you answer someone's question previously show the new "identity" when it gets changed.

Others are a little smarter about it, and have clones set up. Agreeing with themselves from duplicate accounts, or making new account when too many people block them or they get banned. The really smart ones let the clones get blocked/banned while the main account stays clear of the issue. Of course they don't realize that after a few posts, especially the repetitive ones, it starts to become obvious who is who.

Do these people think every one is that gullible that they will fall for such pathetic tricks. Might as well call the Nigerian Prince, he is more believable.

We have all seen it here, or some variation on it, and mayhap some who see this question have used it.

A- - -B

-|- -- -|-

D- - -C

A) The World Exists

B) Therefore there must be a Creator

C) The Creator Exists

D) To Prove the Creator exists look at the World He Created

That is called circular logic and proves nothing, but let's take a minor step out of reality and assume for a moment it does. What the people that use this argument fail to realize is the two BIG traps it opens up.

Trap #1:

If such logic actually did prove the existence of a Creator, rather than the result of a chain of natural events, it in NO WAY dertermines which Creator may have done the deed.

You may cite the Bible and say it must be the Christian God, but I could cite Hellanic Texts, or Egyptian heiroglyphs, or Chinese Scrolls and make an equally valid case for Chronus and the Titans, Atum and Kheprie or Nu Wa.

Heck, one could say Cthulu hocked a giant snot ball and thus was the Universe was born and still meet the criteria of the circular logic argument.

Trap #2

By proving that the Creator is a thing that exists, you subject it to the same method of circular logic.

The Creator Exists - Therefore He must have been Created - The Creator's Creator Exists - For Proof look at the existence of the Creator.

Congratulations, you have just proved the existence of God's Boss with the same logic you used to prove God.

So now to the question - is this really the type of logic and arguments you want to use in future debates? You don't really have to answer, although I know some smart alecks will, just think about it, really think about it and do yourself a favor next time the subject comes up.