Evidence for God from Science

B. W. wrote:Reactionary, I always wondered what the weather is like in Croatia year round.

Here is Colorado USA it pleasant despite the snow in the winter. We average around 350 days a year of Sunshine and temperatures are usually mild and dry North of Denver. Someday, Lord willing, I would like to visit your country.

Blessings!
-
-
-

B.W. don't you know it's improper board etiquette to interrupt a testosterone filled thread, with talk of the weather in Croatia? I just had this conversation with Reactionary the other day. Climate is mediterranean. warm, dry summers, and mild, rainy winters. And there's mountains. Kinda like Colorado without the snow, and cold. Warm like Florida, without the humidity.

This is my ideal city. Mountains, water, old world charm, and warm enough for palm trees.

B. W. wrote:Reactionary, I always wondered what the weather is like in Croatia year round.

Here is Colorado USA it pleasant despite the snow in the winter. We average around 350 days a year of Sunshine and temperatures are usually mild and dry North of Denver. Someday, Lord willing, I would like to visit your country.

Blessings!

B.W., I wouldn't want to drift off topic, but you're the admin, so if it's fine with you...

The weather in Croatia depends on the region. Northern parts, which include the capital Zagreb and the plains of Slavonia, have a moderate continental climate similar to other central European countries, like Austria or Hungary. The south, by which I mean the region of Dalmatia, has a Mediterranean climate with rainy winters and hot summers, similar to Italy, Spain or Greece. During the summer, temperatures in the entire Croatia fluctuate around 30C, while during winters the Mediterranean south witnesses temperatures from 5-10C, while in the continental north temperatures are usually slightly below zero.

You won't find that much sunshine in Croatia as in Colorado. The south witnesses about 2,700 hours of sunshine, while Zagreb has about 1,900.

If you ever decide to visit Croatia, I'm sure you won't be disappointed. I've talked to many tourists and they were very satisfied. I recommend visiting the towns due to their cultural heritage.

RickD wrote:B.W. don't you know it's improper board etiquette to interrupt a testosterone filled thread, with talk of the weather in Croatia? I just had this conversation with Reactionary the other day. Climate is mediterranean. warm, dry summers, and mild, rainy winters. And there's mountains. Kinda like Colorado without the snow, and cold. Warm like Florida, without the humidity.

Rick, but not the entire Croatia has Mediterranean climate. This map roughly describes it: http://www.cromaps.com/assets/opci_poda ... romaps.jpg

Rick, but not the entire Croatia has Mediterranean climate.

Reactionary, is it safe to say that any city in Croatia that has water and palm trees nearby, is Mediterranean? My ideal Croatian city, has water, mountains, and palm trees. That's all I need.

RickD wrote:Reactionary, is it safe to say that any city in Croatia that has water and palm trees nearby, is Mediterranean? My ideal Croatian city, has water, mountains, and palm trees. That's all I need.

But only if it contains palms!
You might find this thread interesting - it contains numerous pictures of Split (apparently your favourite), and it's even in English!
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=241796

domokunrox wrote:
Neo-x,

You're way behind us. You're going to want to catch up first. In fact, I was reading your post and I thought it was a post by reactionary repeating himself, but then I scrolled to the right and saw your name. You fell into the same fallacious reasoning he did but just with more impressive backflips for the sake of holding your tenuous position. Get up to date, then get back to us.

Duh! what makes you think I didn't read all through the thread before posting? Honestly, I had expected more from you, Dom. Especially since your recent posts on the truth knowledge thread deserved a commendation. I am a bit dis-appointed as you seem caught up more in issues with the forum members than the topic at hand. But let not this discredit your proposition.

You have made quite an assumption, that I just jumped in, like an illiterate bloke you must think I am. Well as far as I am concerned, you are not off the hook.

So spare me the ad hominem, I suggest you get back to the topic. Let not my "impressive back flips" hold you from explaining your position.

I'm calling you out on it, my post awaits.

For the record, English is my third language. Anyone having trouble understanding me?

But only if it contains palms!

It's not the fact that there are palms, Reactionary.
It's the fact that the climate is warm enough year round to support palm life, that's so enticing to me.

Beautiful pictures, btw. The only thing I don't like about Croatians, is that they keep adding an unnecessary 'u' to words that don't need it. Like, favorite.

Byb, Rick, Reactionary, you all did a great job, especially Reactionary. Gracias, for your words.

domokunrox wrote:

Ivellious wrote:Just glancing through the Florida State article, I found some serious flaws in his logic (especially in the area of economics). He also makes a few claims that seem a little absurd and a few that are completely opinions, not based in historical fact (for instance, his explanation of why killing women and children is considered worse than killing men and how that concept emerged is ludicrous). He also "cites" statistics that he obviously is making up on the spot, and I found several quick references to discredit some of his claims. He basically tries to spin everything to say that "actually, men have it way worse than women, so shut up and let us do our thing." Also, he kind of doesn't understand evolutionary theory. He kind of butchers its basic principles to make a point.

Not all that impressed. His very first point is valid, that high risk-taking has favored men throughout history...but after that it falls flat. And even that point can rather easily be countered by saying that women simply haven't been allowed to take "risks" throughout history.

Well, this just goes to show and maybe even prove something. Not to be particularly offensive to you, but you are indeed a women and you've read the article with such a narrow scope, you've missed some critical ideas.

Women have extremely high value. Think about that for a second. Especially many years back.

Your counter to his point is absurd and completely void of economic reasoning and void of any military strategy. If we were both running countries, and we were at war. You wouldn't be serious in sending all your women to the battlefield, would you? I would simply wipe you out, and I wouldn't even need to invade you. I would only need to wait for all the men you harbored to simply die and walk in uncontested.

It has nothing to do with women simply haven't been allowed to take risks. It just simply is IGNORANT for a society to allow such a thing because it could severely hinder their economic output.

Ancient wars were fought, and when ones side won, why didn't they also kill the women and young girls? Because they are economically valuable, that's why.

Why is this so difficult to comprehend? I mean, on top of that men have been proven to be ahead of the curve in some aspects, while women have proven to be ahead of the curve in other aspects.

What I find most particularly offensive about this is that you use womanhood as an insult. What foolishness.

For the record, men and women have comparatively the same size brains, proportional to body size.

And reading into the account of the fall to try to formulate "woman's weakness" and "men's weakness" is certainly straining the text. The text does not clarify HOW Adam was tempted, so HIS emotional weakness could very well have been being attracted to Eve and succumbing to the desire to please her. See? You can't really pin it down to just one thing. Sin, ultimately, came from rebelling from God, with multiple reasons.

What we have to be careful of in these discussions is looking at what societies have done through the years in their sinfulness as "what should be done". So while dominance has been shown, usually it has been corrupted by sin.

Proper Godly male leadership rarely exhibits the dominance often seen in corrupt historical context, where the male subjugates the woman or requires total submissiveness from her. Leadership is not exactly the same as dominance.

And I like what someone said earlier with regards to the promiscuity. Dominance does not excuse or validate promiscuity from either gender, although society certainly has gone to pains to justify male "studliness" for all sorts of idiotic reasons.

Great Post Zoe,

Reactionary – I had to ask about the weather as it was getting stormy on this thread!

Next, as Curly of from the Three Stooges would say, "Gee, is everybody dumb? Judgy wudgy if you let us musicians, we can act it out for you..." (Disorder in the Court, short)”

Has anyone noticed what Genesis 1:27 actually is saying:

Gen 1:27, "So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them." NKJV

Hmmm. God is one God in three persons of one divine essence all co-equal to each other – is that not true?

Whose image were we created like – reflect? God – coequal – think about it:

So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. NKJV

Male and female, interesting – coequal – get it?

Now look at Gen 1:28-31-31, "Then God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth." 29 And God said, "See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food. 30 Also, to every beast of the earth, to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for food"; and it was so. 31 Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good. So the evening and the morning were the sixth day." NKJV

Both were given the same instructions, calling, and blessings. I find that very interesting. Coequal in their respective capacity but different in each owns uniqueness. A reflection of the Divine Trinity being symbolized here, where each has their own personal roles, attributes, fully operating… yet one and coequal…

Think about it…

Adam and Eve both sinned – as Zoe pointed out – rebelled against the word that God gave them – not to eat of the tree of knowledge. They listen to another and rebelled. Since then, we still don’t get it right.
-
-
-

B. W. wrote:Reactionary – I had to ask about the weather as it was getting stormy on this thread!

I see what you did there...

Men are more dominant in the Biblical sense, because we were created first, that is Hayah's order. Man first, women second. It has nothing to do with "physical ability, genes, etc." It has to do with the order Hayah made.

actsapostolos wrote:Men are more dominant in the Biblical sense, because we were created first, that is Hayah's order. Man first, women second. It has nothing to do with "physical ability, genes, etc." It has to do with the order Hayah made.

What? That's like saying a parent loves their first child more than their second! That's not how it works. Especially not how GOD works since HE loves us all equally.

In biblical terms, the patriarchal thing can be viewed because of Eve's temptation on Adam.
Adam is her "head" as God is Adam's.
Of course the equality of NATURE is a given and the ideal is, as Paul stated, "neither Man nor Woman but one under Christ".
We should always STRIVE for the ideal.

I have read this entire thread and I'd like to say that Reactionary, Neo, Rick and some of the other men have renewed my hope that there ARE decent Christian men out there without whips to crack over the heads of their wives and children. This issue is very personal to me...

Some years ago I was married to a man that held the same sort of beliefs as Dom seems to do. It was very important to my former husband that myself (the wife) and our three daughters knew he was 'the boss'. He had us up every morning at 4:30am drilling us on Biblical principles and exercising his authority over us, even down to what we would wear that day. He was superior because he was 'the man' and he demanded respect. The girls were frightened to death of him.

Do you know what happened in the end?

It might surprise you... It certainly did me.

As much as he had drilled us and preached to us every morning, in the wee hours of night he had been going online and soliciting nude photographs from teenaged young men.

When confronted, this 'Christian' man of our family eventually left me for a man and he is still involved in a homosexual relationship with the same partner now, some 15 years later.

Dom's insistance that in every Christian family the MAN should be leading everyone else by the nose unchallenged is perhaps more upsetting to me than to anyone else... because I know firsthand that a human male can in no way compare to our Lord Jesus Christ.

Humans are fallible. They are not perfect. I put my faith and trust in God alone now.

I don't need a man to intercede or approach the Lord for me. I am thankful that He will hear me directly and care for me perfectly.

Wow Kim, I don't even know what to say. I'm sorry.

Humans are fallible. They are not perfect. I put my faith and trust in God alone now.

I don't need a man to intercede or approach the Lord for me. I am thankful that He will hear me directly and care for me perfectly.

That deserves a double dose of Amen!!