I definitely was expecting this counter arguement. As stated in my previous comment, you're not taking into account the arguements and justifications that Jesus made.

Additionally the arguement over mixing threads is irrelevant considering the original context was meant only for not mixing threads of a very specific fabric type as explained by numerous rabbinical scholars.

Jesus had no qualms with working on the sabbath, "which one of you here would not go to save your donkey in the well"

Additionally Jesus had no problems curing the woman of her hemmoraging by her merely touching his cloak.

Additionally Jesus spared the woman of her adultery by saying "those who are without sin should cast the first stone."

Your arguement is just a petty misdirection. My arguement bases its assumption on the Ancient Christian Churches (Roman Catholic, Orthodoxy, Byzantine Catholic, Coptic Catholics) who still are in practice and structure their churches and tabernacles according to the Old Law and who practice the Passover daily as was commanded by Jesus through his flesh and blood during the last supper.

Additionally, regardless of whatever denomination, we as Christians form our beliefs upon both the Old Law and the New. Islam only bases their teachings on the Qua'aran which very loosely alludes to any Biblical references. My arguement is not that Islam must become more Christian/Jewish but rather, they are not getting the full story and need to read the entirety of scripture not just what is loosely referenced in the Qua'aran.

jjanecka wrote:

I'll give you partial credit....

You're equating a theory to a hypothesis where theory is the next step after the hypothesis.

The purpose of a hypothesis is to test it to see whether or not it can correctly model real world observations.

If it can model real world observations and is testable / repeatable, then it becomes a theory.

Then the goal is to keep testing it to make sure it holds up to new data and observations and revise and test as necessary.

A theory that stands the test of time and is found to be un-falsifiable over time is reclassified as a law... but even then, I would argue that said laws should be tested again over time.


As for your assertion that scientist have found that the "speed of light" in a vacuum (c) is not constant by "scientists", I would love to see this link. There's a lot of physics that have to be re-written if this is the case, and I have not heard of any such claims that stand up to scrutiny.

I have heard of problems with different organizations attempting to measure the gravitational constant (G), where there have been fluctuations where the measurements appear to oscillate... but to my recollection I don't think any of them claimed that these fluctuations implied variable c.

For the record, I'm open to the idea of variable c if someone could provide mathematical formulas that hold up to real world observations.

In any case, I don't really care what anyone believes in, but if you can provide a link to this proven variable c, I would appreciate it.

bgz wrote:

Lol buckwheat, 4 mitzvahs do not equate to a majority.

Vic, I get what you're saying. My response to that is this, Christians are like the liberal side of Judiasm. We'll try to get away with everything and give everything away according to a loose set of laws if you let us we'd be the ones that wrote the Bill of Rights. Judiasm is more like the conservative side that wrote the constitution and believe in a strict interpretation, built on strong values and tradition, et cetera.

jjanecka wrote:

I don't remember the Singing Bush being in the New Testament... 🤔

DrafterX wrote:

We all saw the 10 commandments movie from back in the day Drafter.That's what I'm basing the entirety of my religious beliefs upon.

jjanecka wrote:

This actually made me LOL. =d>

Buckwheat wrote:

Oh, the picture you posted was funny as hell... but I don't think you truly understand it's meaning.

bgz wrote:

I'm just wondering how much my beliefs will blossom after seeing Ben Hur
🇨🇮

jjanecka wrote: