GOD and the ignorance of the Snarky Atheists.

Well as a snarky agnostic then this doesn't apply to me.

You got a bee in your bonnet about gays now zorro? Is that because we all know how this one ends?
The church might have held firm for now about gay marriage but we all know that you can't say no to gayers and that will mean the faith will have to be reinterpreted yet again to fit into the contemporary zeitgeist as it has through time.
People think that religion not fitting into people's lives of the day is the thing that alienates it and so dismiss it, but I take the opposite view, I say each time they've had to stop and reinterpret something when knowledge has moved the boundaries, or when they've bowed to popularism they have actually undermined the whole concept.

It's funny because I look around me and at things in general and wonder.
I joined NOW TV the other week and there are literally hundreds of films available, I went through the whole list one afternoon and added films to a wish list for easy access later. This isn't a scientific evaluation but on general perusal of the film synopsis for each title I'd say there were possibly three in total that could be said to have had some relevance to religion for the good.
Risen- a film about a Roman centurion on a mission to find the dead Jesus (which apparently must be a hiding to nothing as they knew where he was when dead, and he didn't remain dead nor hang around alive....)
Biblical stories- what look like titbits from the Old Testament.
The young messiah - this looks like a story of Jesus as a child

All the rest are made up, some of mushy nonsense granted or lame drama but the vast majority, (multiple hundreds) are films of gangsters, violence, rape, drugs, crime, horror, thrillers, killers, chillers, devil possession, devil worship, hauntings, super heros, cheating, lying, stealing, corruption.......(I think you get where this is going)

So what I wonder is what the likes of those religious firstly consume, and secondly whether they see all this as an act of evil itself, where the vast majority of the daily offerings are insidious.....or infact whether they are simply meeting a demand and that people prefer this stuff over the spiritualism.....or perhaps it's simply that life isn't actually what the pious think it is.
The vast majority would cut your throat to save themselves, would try and take what you have so they could have more we see this both at personal and state level where liars are everywhere and manipulate the masses into being what they want you to be.

I've watched several superhero films, loads of gangster violent ones and non of the semi religious ones....so perhaps salmon spray was correct about his evaluation of Calvin.....that we can't shape our destiny. If something doesn't appeal you can't force it to....

Fk off God

P.S what is an oiketrion??

I thought they just glowed !

No, what the belief in Christianity says is essentially that you are given unproven data that you dont know the source and can be interpreted however is deemed fit to justify a cause, and that each individual by default is damned, and if they do nothing or dont do as the creator chooses or cant interpret it the way those who interpreted it in a manner that has been changed or added to over the years then you are damned...by the very malevolence of the creation of god and to suffer terribly.

Hobson's choice, since the creator created your doom.
The silver tray will be passed around at the end, give accordingly.

It's a miracle when a child is cured from cancer by praying to a god yet it was the same god that gave the child the cancer in the first place. I just don't get it.

Daid Attenborough twenty years ago - 
“Are you telling me that the God you believe in, who you ... allows a worm that can live in no other way than in an innocent child's eyeball?

David Attenborough last year -

Very vocally agnostic . Non believer in a jewish/christian god in the past.  but says to put your hand into gods hand? in front of Queen and Prince Phillip.

"Truly if you put your hand into the hand of God that shall be to you better than light and safer than a known way."

OVALMAN are you sucking his milk or what?

Yeah we get it zorro, you have lived a life in fear based on what you have been told.

I sometimes think of how daft things are....how the secular saved the jews, not god.
Then were told that they were the chosen ones and those who sacrificed for thier good were for the devil.

the gods you mention are Greek and Norse. Two thousand years after the Jewish god.
this is the year 5,777 in the Jewish calendar(https://www.hebcal.com/hebcal/?year=2017&v=1&month=x&yt=G&nx=on&o=on&vis=on&d=on&c=off&maj=on&min=on&mod=on)

the bible talks about angels falling to earth and mating with earthly women, All their offspring were called the mighty men. Gods. Angels and demi gods in the Greek tradition.
(book of Genesis, if you can be bothered)

the only other religion as old as the hebrew religion is the Hindu religion. It's basically evolution repackaged. Nature as God.

*Far from elevating

it's a nice critique of Jesus. I'm sure he will appreciate it.

JUDGEMENT falls on the unbeliever.

You might be a saint, but most probably you are a sinner.
Jesus did not come to impart wisdom to anyone. He was the lamb of God.
He is God. Not a sage. Not a holy man. not a guru. or a guy selling religion for a buck.

He is the redeemer. You want to be redeemed? or you don't?

the trash bucket is waiting for the don'ts. sad sacks who are in love with themselves.

pray tell me o wise DUSTYBIN when did recorded history start?

He isn't destroying creation - he's redeeming it - He comes after 6000 years. He reigns for 1000 years on the throne of David. He then creates a new heaven and a new earth for those who don't have sins they want to hang on to.
The messiah's job is to end all sin. That's why Judas and the Jews gave him to the Romans. Because they didn't realize it's a two parter. He refused to take on the Romans.
He imparts grace for two thousand years which means Billions are saved. If he just showed up at the end of 6000 years nobody would be saved.

a seven thousand year cycle. Like creation.

How do we date things from history Zorro?

This isn't a strong point of mine BTW but I'm sure I know more than you.

Ovalman please elucidate more - your comment was very oblique.

just don't Ovalman.

trust me, don't.

(incidentally, C&P from risible youtube videos or creationist websites, followed by changing the subject finished with wishy-washy and confused epistemology smattered with some gloating at your impending incineration is the standard template)

The historical perspective on the development of radiocarbon dating is well outlined in Taylor's (1987) book "Radiocarbon Dating: An archaeological perspective". Libby and his team intially tested the radiocarbon method on samples from prehistoric Egypt. They chose samples whose age could be independently determined. A sample of acacia wood from the tomb of the pharoah Zoser (or Djoser; 3rd Dynasty, ca. 2700-2600 BC) was obtained and dated. Libby reasoned that since the half-life of C14 was 5568 years, they should obtain a C14 concentration of about 50% that which was found in living wood (see Libby, 1949 for further details). The results they obtained indicated this was the case. Other analyses were conducted on samples of known age wood (dendrochronologically aged). Again, the fit was within the value predicted at �10%. The tests suggested that the half-life they had measured was accurate, and, quite reasonably, suggested further that atmospheric radiocarbon concentration had remained constant throughout the recent past. In 1949, Arnold and Libby (1949) published their paper "Age determinations by radiocarbon content: Checks with samples of known age" in the journal Science. In this paper they presented the first results of the C14 method, including the "Curve of Knowns" in which radiocarbon dates were compared with the known age historical dates (see figure 1). All of the points fitted within statistical range. Within a few years, other laboratories had been built. By the early 1950's there were 8, and by the end of the decade there were more than 20.

Please quote your sources when you copy and paste. I asked you this before.

I find it hard to distinguish what is yours and what is a C/P.

I'm not entirely sure zorro understands the principles radioactive decay.

But that's not a problem when you can find something on a new earth website that tells you it's all wrong. You don't need to understand it then. You can just let someone tell you it's wrong. And because it fits with other stuff you belief, it's unchallengeable.

I wonder if there's anything on your websites you can copy and paste about the problems with Uranium-Lead dating?