Intelligent Design support letter to the editor

[Radrook]

Homer: Are you saying you're never going to eat any animal again? What about bacon?....


Aww! Shucks! I thought we wuz friends!

[Radrook]

Delted Double post

[DrBaltar]

Sorry that Bible quotations annoy you. The reason I post scripture isn't because I feel that my point will have been proven to the ones who read it so there. I am well aware that those who are reading are in their majority atheists, agnostics, and possibly even a Satanist now and then. So I am definitely not under the delusion you seem to assume I am. I simply quote because the quote expresses my thoughts in a manner that I find equally effective or more effective than mine. I also quote to demonstrate the applicability of the Bible counsel to our everyday life or to demonstrate that it has value in providing us with guidance on how to behave.The bible quotes themselves do not annoy me. I just think you could speak for yourself. I have young twins, a boy and girl. When I ask him a question, my daughter (being a woman ;) ) answers for him. He probably feels that her answers are equally effective or more effective than his. But that's not the point. I want to hear the answer from him. He should step up and speak for himself.

Sorry you feel that way.Is that what you say when you cannot find an applicable bible quote? You do not need to apologize for my feelings.

[RobRoy]

Sigh! Ok! Bye! : )

LOL. I love how my comment, which wasn't aimed at him, was taken as a personal attack by him. :D

[six7s]

Sorry that Bible quotations annoy you

The biblical quotes don't annoy me

Your steadfast refusal to address the issue annoys me

Either way, you don't have to apologise

However, it would be appreciated if you were to simply change your posting style to the extent that you did address the issues

I am well aware that those who are reading are in their majority atheists, agnostics, and possibly even a Satanist now and then

Indeed

Y'ain't preaching to the choir here

Satanists? We have satanists here? Woooooooooooo Hoooooooo!

So I am definitely not under the delusion you seem to assume I am

There's a whole-lotta-assuming going on

I assume that you are deluded into thinking that sceptics think reading your biblical quotes is a worthwhile exercise

For me, it ain't

As the bi(b)le reads like pure, unadulterated nonsense as a whole, then it hardly makes sense to pretend that cherry-picking from it will support an argument on a sceptics forum

I also quote to demonstrate the applicability of the Bible counsel to our everyday life or to demonstrate that it has value in providing us with guidance on how to behave.

You may as well quote from tabloid horoscopes

Woo is woo is woo is woo

[articulett]

What six7's said.

[PBTree]

Sorry that Bible quotations annoy you. The reason I post scripture isn't because I feel that my point will have been proven to the ones who read it so there. I am well aware that those who are reading are in their majority atheists, agnostics, and possibly even a Satanist now and then. So I am definitely not under the delusion you seem to assume I am. I simply quote because the quote expresses my thoughts in a manner that I find equally effective or more effective than mine. I also quote to demonstrate the applicability of the Bible counsel to our everyday life or to demonstrate that it has value in providing us with guidance on how to behave.

.

Either the whole book is true or none of it is.

People can't (as someone succinctly stated) "cherry pick" pieces out of it. Providing someone with guidance on how to live their life, also means they have to stone gays and shrimp eaters. The bible says so! (I realise it doesn't say that but you get my point)

And a silly question; wouldn't a satanist be a theist?
To follow the ways of beezlebaub wouldn't you also have to believe that the sky fairy started it all?

[NobbyNobbs]

It's also like seeing a congressman constantly quoting ancient Greek scholars or Aesop's Fables while debating a bill in the House that is meant for modern times. i.e. perhaps the general sentiment is valid but is often naive and doesn't take into account current relevant situations and events or benefit from modern research. You just drop some random quote from 2 or more millennia ago and smugly move on as if saying "I believe my point has been made".


I have a real problem with this.

I mean, senators, knowledgable enough to quote ancient Greek scholars?

Talk about fantasy.....

[Radrook]

Either the whole book is true or none of it is.

People can't (as someone succinctly stated) "cherry pick" pieces out of it. Providing someone with guidance on how to live their life, also means they have to stone gays and shrimp eaters. The bible says so! (I realise it doesn't say that but you get my point)

And a silly question; wouldn't a satanist be a theist?
To follow the ways of beezlebaub wouldn't you also have to believe that the sky fairy started it all?

I understand the point you are trying to make-yes. However, you
are mistaken. You can't cherry pick. Some things were applicable to ancient Israel and some are applicable to mankind in general. If you know which is which then you will avoid that cherry-picking mistake. Knowing which is which is a simple matter of becoming
familiar with the book one is using for guidence. One would know, for example, that the stoning you mention is no longer required
just as circumcision is no longer required as well as the dietary laws. When they were, they were required of the Jews and not mankind in general.


As for fairies, I could ask the same about abiogenesis-wouldn't I have to believe Mother Goose? And believe me from where I stand that's the way the whole idea seems to me.

BTW
What does the theist question have to do with all this?

[six7s]

...also means they have to stone gays and shrimp eaters. The bible says so! (I realise it doesn't say that but you get my point)I understand the point you are trying to make-yes

You could have fooled me!

However, you are mistaken. You can't cherry pick

Nope... YOU are mistaken

Sure, people shouldn't cherry pick, but, unless you live under a rock, you can't have failed to notice that people can, and do!

Knowing which is which is a simple matter of becoming familiar with the book one is using for guidence.

Go and tell that to your god-fearing, neighbour persecuting bretheren

http://www.redmolotov.com/images/designs/wwjb_design.jpg


As for fairies, I could ask the same about abiogenesis-wouldn't I have to believe Mother Goose?

I have a hunch that the leading minds focused on the origins of life don't want you to believe anything, preferring that you think instead... and, if you find any significant errors with the current model(s), to let 'em know

[PBTree]

I understand the point you are trying to make-yes. However, you
are mistaken. You can't cherry pick. Some things were applicable to ancient Israel and some are applicable to mankind in general. If you know which is which then you will avoid that cherry-picking mistake. Knowing which is which is a simple matter of becoming
familiar with the book one is using for guidence. One would know, for example, that the stoning you mention is no longer required just as circumcision is no longer required as well as the dietary laws. When they were, they were required of the Jews and not mankind in general.

That is pure assumption on your part.
There is nothing in the book that states "ok, after this date, people don't need to do this anymore. Just assuming that stoning is not needed for adulterers anymore is the same as saying, "I know exactly what god means". Bit arrogant methinks.

In truth, people stopped doing a lot of things that the book mentioned because they discovered it was plainly idiotic and based upon the ramblings of strange superstitious old men.


BTW
What does the theist question have to do with all this?


You mentioned satanists in your post. Curiousity on my part begged an answer as I can't see the difference between a satanist and a theist. They both believe in the bloke in the sky.

[Radrook]

That is pure assumption on your part.
There is nothing in the book that states "ok, after this date, people don't need to do this anymore. Just assuming that stoning is not needed for adulterers anymore is the same as saying, "I know exactly what god means". Bit arrogant methinks.

Sorry but you are mistaken. The book does tell us that after Christ's death for our sins the Mosaic Law was no longer in force. So it isn't arrogance, it is merely a listening to what the book says but which you say it doesn't say. Which to me indicates that you haven't read it. Which further raises the pertinent question of why someone who hasn't read a book is arrogantly presuming to know what the book says or doesn't say.



In truth, people stopped doing a lot of things that the book mentioned because they discovered it was plainly idiotic and based upon the ramblings of strange superstitious old men.

That's YOUR idea, not the Bible's. Of course you are fully entitled to your ideas and even to your rudeness in expressing your ideas as I am entitled not to have your rudeness present on mny computor screen.


You mentioned satanists in your post. Curiousity on my part begged an answer as I can't see the difference between a satanist and a theist. They both believe in the bloke in the sky.

Uhummm! But I'll pass on any further communication.

[PBTree]

Sorry but you are mistaken. The book does tell us that after Christ's death for our sins the Mosaic Law was no longer in force. So it isn't arrogance, it is merely a listening to what the book says but which you say it doesn't say. Which to me indicates that you haven't read it. Which further raises the pertinent question of why someone who hasn't read a book is arrogantly presuming to know what the book says or doesn't say.


Do you have a passage I can look at. I have never heard/seen that mentioned.

I would have to think that everytime someone mentions stonings (i'm assuming that's a part of the mosaic law) etc on this forum, that a passage such as that would be raised as a shining light for some sort of intelligence in the book.

[six7s]

The book does tell us that after Christ's death for our sins the Mosaic Law was no longer in forceDo you have a passage I can look at. I have never heard/seen that mentioned

Well... it depends bit you ummm... cherry pick... from

The Beatitudes

Matthew 5 (New International Version) (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=5&version=31)

XiDmMBIyfsU



Now when he saw the crowds, he went up on a mountainside and sat down. His disciples came to him,
and he began to teach them saying:
Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted.
Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth.
Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled.
Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy.
Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God.
Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God.
Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me.
Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

Salt and Light


You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled by men.
You are the light of the world. A city on a hill cannot be hidden.
Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house.
In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven.

The Fulfillment of the Law


Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

[SezMe]

Sorry but you are mistaken. The book does tell us that after Christ's death for our sins the Mosaic Law was no longer in force.
Woo-hoo. The ten commandments no longer apply and I can covet my neighbors wife.

Right?

[NobbyNobbs]

Sorry but you are mistaken. The book does tell us that after Christ's death for our sins the Mosaic Law was no longer in force.

Once again, which part of it? All? None? The parts that aren't repeated in the NT?


Uhummm! But I'll pass on any further communication.


Dodge.

[alfaniner]

Either the whole book is true or none of it is.
...

Not necessarily. (I think this might be the fallacy of the excluded middle?) You might phrase it as "Either the whole book is true or at least a part of it is not."

[DrBaltar]

I understand the point you are trying to make-yes. Knowing which is which is a simple matter of becoming
familiar with the book one is using for guidence. One would know, for example, that the stoning you mention is no longer required
just as circumcision is no longer required as well as the dietary laws. When they were, they were required of the Jews and not mankind in general.Why are these things no longer required?

[DrBaltar]

I think it's time for a Bible For Dummies that takes out all the stuff that is known to be incorrect (such as Genesis), out dated information (such as the Mosaic Laws), and gives a proper translation so there are no mix-ups like 1 day=1000 years or created means revealed. Then all the Judeo-Christian religions would say "silly me, THAT's what that means". And people growing up, and reading the Bible For Dummies book wouldn't get confused and get distracted by science and logic. No longer would there be these awkward moments where religious teachers try and explain what the Bible "really" means.

[bokonon]

Sure, people shouldn't cherry pick, but, unless you live under a rock, you can't have failed to notice that people can, and do!

I think cherry picking is a more rational approach to a book which is so obviously error-ridden and fable-strewn as the bible, so I have no problem with the practice.

Everybody has an idea of what's right and what's wrong. For the most part, those ideas don't really originate in the bible. People like Radrook like to quote scripture to bolster their existing prejudices, and to shut off discussions of correct and incorrect on certain topics. So what if they cherry-pick and interpret and masticate a text until it's a pasty pulp fiction in order to justify the position they adopted in the first place? We all have the right to adopt positions on issues. If you can convince a bible-thumping man that a position is not correct, believe me, he'll find a way to square it with scripture somehow.

So the real issue is not cherry picking for me, it's how can I show somebody that this position is mistaken. While it's annoying to be confronted by a smug "It's not me saying it, it's GAWD saying it," I try not to focus on the holey sock puppet aspect of the debate. Most arguments from true believers are rationalizations propping up lies supporting ideas that are nonsensical to begin with, and you can wear yourself out trying to dismantle the defenses one slimy layer at a time and still be no closer to the core concept. I think often the tactic is deliberate.

How many posts has it been since the topic of intelligent design was discussed in this thread, for instance?

[NobbyNobbs]

I think cherry picking is a more rational approach to a book which is so obviously error-ridden and fable-strewn as the bible, so I have no problem with the practice.

Everybody has an idea of what's right and what's wrong. For the most part, those ideas don't really originate in the bible. People like Radrook like to quote scripture to bolster their existing prejudices, and to shut off discussions of correct and incorrect on certain topics. So what if they cherry-pick and interpret and masticate a text until it's a pasty pulp fiction in order to justify the position they adopted in the first place? We all have the right to adopt positions on issues. If you can convince a bible-thumping man that a position is not correct, believe me, he'll find a way to square it with scripture somehow.

So the real issue is not cherry picking for me, it's how can I show somebody that this position is mistaken. While it's annoying to be confronted by a smug "It's not me saying it, it's GAWD saying it," I try not to focus on the holey sock puppet aspect of the debate. Most arguments from true believers are rationalizations propping up lies supporting ideas that are nonsensical to begin with, and you can wear yourself out trying to dismantle the defenses one slimy layer at a time and still be no closer to the core concept. I think often the tactic is deliberate.

How many posts has it been since the topic of intelligent design was discussed in this thread, for instance?


It's one thing to use Bible quotes to support a position you already have taken. It's an entirely different matter when you take a position simply because the Bible has a quote about it. This is the problem I have with many people who are against gay rights. When it comes down to it, most of their reasons are along the lines of "Well, the Bible says it's wrong." They let that book do their thinking for them.

[RobRoy]

It's one thing to use Bible quotes to support a position you already have taken. It's an entirely different matter when you take a position simply because the Bible has a quote about it. This is the problem I have with many people who are against gay rights. When it comes down to it, most of their reasons are along the lines of "Well, the Bible says it's wrong." They let that book do their thinking for them.

The Biblical quotes against gays always makes me laugh. I used to keep a list of Biblical quotes that advocated all kinds of fun stuff like rape, slavery, murder, brutality, etc. Tried to find it, but must be on my other computer. I do remember that eating certain birds, wearing certain clothes, even doing certain things at certain times, could mean the loss of a hand, or a daughter or your own life.

So if you're going to use the Bible to support homophobic tendencies, then at least have the good grace not to wear mixed-cloth, which will earn you a stoning in the Bible.

[bokonon]

It's one thing to use Bible quotes to support a position you already have taken. It's an entirely different matter when you take a position simply because the Bible has a quote about it. This is the problem I have with many people who are against gay rights. When it comes down to it, most of their reasons are along the lines of "Well, the Bible says it's wrong." They let that book do their thinking for them.
That's just the thing. I think the gay bashing bible thumpers are using bible quotes to justify positions they have already taken, rather than letting the book do their thinking for them. The bible says people should sell all they have and follow Jesus, but nobody does it, because they don't want to. The bible says it's better to stay single and celibate than get married and raise a family, but most Christians who can find a suitable partner get married anyway. Only a handful of crazies in the bible belt subscribe to the "drink poison and handle serpents" passages.

They use god as a sock puppet, to try to make their bigotry look like selfless service to the almighty. That's the nature of this cherry picking. When they cite scripture to support their bigotry, they aren't letting the bible do their thinking for them, they're letting it do their talking for them.

[PBTree]

How many posts has it been since the topic of intelligent design was discussed in this thread, for instance?


I believe that we have been discussing it all along. ID believers use the book as their reference point. If we can't agree if the book is true (en toto) or not, then how can either side discuss it rationally?

If the book is true, then ID'ers win but if the book is a total crock as most of us on this forum think, then we win and sanity returns to the world.

We really need the author to return (holding breath at this time) and explain what he/she meant with all of those obtuse statements made in his/her book. I suppose if you are an illiterate fisherman (Peter etc), then comprehending what the big guy has just said in a booming voice and then trying to put pen to paper, might have been a struggle. This would account for all the non-sensical sentences.

[bigred]

Page Not Found
Sorry, the page you requested could not be found.


I don't see anything redeeming about this article whatsoever. :cool:

[godofpie]

[ but most Christians who can find a suitable partner get married anyway. Only a handful of crazies in the bible belt subscribe to the "drink poison and handle serpents" passages."


Hey now! You're talkin' 'bout my neighbors. At least they are committed to the literal view. Strychnine is an acquired taste, but it doesn't go with pizza.

[Radrook]

Woo-hoo. The ten commandments no longer apply and I can covet my neighbors wife.

Right?


Sigh! If you were familiar with the NT you would never say that. In any case, let me clarify. The ceremonial law with it's sacrificial and dietary requirements, along with its observations of Sabbaths and other such things is no longer in force. The punishments for violations of moral laws are no longer in force although the moral principles are still binding upon Christians minus the punishments and sacrifical requirements. That's why Christ died, so that the law could give way to grace or forgiveness based on his sacrifice.

[b]Romans 10:4
For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.


If that explanation is still unclear please feel free to ask for further clarification.

[Radrook]

Once again, which part of it? All? None? The parts that aren't repeated in the NT?

I respond to that question in a post above. Please refer to it for the answer.


dodge


Yep! I dodge the irrelevant, the unnecessarily rude, and the otherwise annoying. To me of course. On the other hand I am quite willing to invest a considerablre portion of
my very limited time in calmly discussing issues and providing answers to genuine questions.

[six7s]

Sorry but you are mistaken. The book does tell us that after Christ's death for our sins the Mosaic Law was no longer in force

@Radrook: How do you (without cherry-picking) tally your statement with Matthew 5:17-18 (New International Version) (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205:17-18;&version=31;)?
17 Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
18 I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

If the old laws are no longer "in force", why would Christ aim to fulfill them, down to the last letter?

:confused:

[DrBaltar]

The ceremonial law with it's sacrificial and dietary requirements, along with its observations of Sabbaths and other such things is no longer in force. The punishments for violations of moral laws are no longer in force although the moral principles are still binding upon Christians minus the punishments and sacrifical requirements. That's why Christ died, so that the law could give way to grace or forgiveness based on his sacrifice.

[b]Romans 10:4
For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.


If that explanation is still unclear please feel free to ask for further clarification.
Sounds like God is a hard-ass and Jesus is keeping his anger in check. Yay Jesus!

[bokonon]

Woo-hoo. The ten commandments no longer apply and I can covet my neighbors wife.

Right?

Sigh! If you were familiar with the NT you would never say that. In any case, let me clarify. The ceremonial law with it's sacrificial and dietary requirements, along with its observations of Sabbaths and other such things is no longer in force. The punishments for violations of moral laws are no longer in force although the moral principles are still binding upon Christians minus the punishments and sacrifical requirements. That's why Christ died, so that the law could give way to grace or forgiveness based on his sacrifice.

[b]Romans 10:4
For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.


If that explanation is still unclear please feel free to ask for further clarification.
Well, isn't that "observations of Sabbaths" thing one of the ten commandments? So if that one's out the window, what makes you think the others are sticky? Are you writing your own bible or something?

[NobbyNobbs]

That's just the thing. I think the gay bashing bible thumpers are using bible quotes to justify positions they have already taken, rather than letting the book do their thinking for them.

Which begs the question: why do they take that position? I have yet to see a rational reason, which is what leads me to believe that most reasons are either

a) the Bible sez so, or
b) I might catch teh gay.

Admittedly, many may have (b) as their reason, but I have a hard time believing that with all the information out there about homosexuality and genetics and so on, that this is a viable option.

Then again, human stupidity is the only universal constant.

[NobbyNobbs]

That's just the thing. I think the gay bashing bible thumpers are using bible quotes to justify positions they have already taken, rather than letting the book do their thinking for them.

Which begs the question: why do they take that position? I have yet to see a rational reason, which is what leads me to believe that most reasons are either

a) the Bible sez so, or
b) I might catch teh gay.

Admittedly, many may have (b) as their reason, but I have a hard time believing that with all the information out there about homosexuality and genetics and so on, that this is a viable option.

Then again, human stupidity is the only universal constant.

[RobRoy]

Admittedly, many may have (b) as their reason, but I have a hard time believing that with all the information out there about homosexuality and genetics and so on, that this is a viable option.

Then again, human stupidity is the only universal constant.

And they fear what is different, odd, or strange. Treatment of the mentally ill is easily proof of that.

[Radrook]

It's one thing to use Bible quotes to support a position you already have taken. It's an entirely different matter when you take a position simply because the Bible has a quote about it. This is the problem I have with many people who are against gay rights. When it comes down to it, most of their reasons are along the lines of "Well, the Bible says it's wrong." They let that book do their thinking for them.


Of course! The logical inevitable consequence of belief in the Bible as God's Word. Nothing unusual there. So any surprise or amazement concerning this is illogical and unwarranted. It would be warranted if behavior is out of kilter with the given belief system. A Muslim eating pork-for example-or Buddhists rejecting Nirvana or pacifists engaging in warfare. But since in this case it isn't, your astonishment comes across as illogical.


BTW

I don't recall bringing up gayness or the so-called gay rights. So I am presently in a quandary as to why this is suddenly thrust into the thread. But since it has, let me say that I personally have never tried to deprive any person, regardless of sexual preferences, of his human rights nor do I approve of anyone who does.

However, if asked what the Bible says on any given subject, including homosexuality, then I will be obligated to quote scripture. If asked whether I believe the scripture is right, I will answer yes. If the person then disagrees, I will acknowledge his right to his opinion. If I am then told that the Bible isn't saying what it just plainly said, I would probably ask why he
reads a book that annoys him instead of reading one that doesn't or better yet-try writing his own.

[Radrook]

Which begs the question: why do they take that position? I have yet to see a rational reason,

Anyone can tag anything that makes them uncomfortable as irrational.

which is what leads me to believe that most reasons are either
a) the Bible sez so, or

Really, and what of the others who don't say that the Bible says so? Not everyone who chooses not to follow the gay lifestyle or who chooses heterosexuality-or feels more attracted to and exclusively heterosexuality lifestyle, or who might view strict heterosexuality as the normal are Christians. There are Muslims for example, who also take the same stance and quote from the Koran.

Homosexuality and Islam
http://av.rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A9ibyKILpqpHt7sAmj5rCqMX;_ylu=X3oDMTBvdmM3bGl xBHBndANhdl93ZWJfcmVzdWx0BHNlYwNzcg--/SIG=121dm4hgd/EXP=1202452363/**http%3a//www.geocities.com/mikailtariq/homo.htm

There are also the Asiatic Indians with their diverse religions

So actually, what is needed at this point is statistical evidence to support either your view or mine. But I think that the exception to the proposed- Bible based only-generalization has proven the point.

b) I might catch teh gay. Admittedly, many may have (b) as their reason,


True, some do feel that way. But again the provision of statistics is necessary in order to elevate your idea from it's present shadowy opinion status. For example, how many hold this opinion and how is this attitude distributed statistical among the various religions. That information would prove that you are either completely mistaken in saying that it is the predominant reason, or confirm your accusation that this is a predominant reason. As it stands, however, it remains to be proven one way or the other and makes your stupidity
belief seem trite.



....but I have a hard time believing that with all the information out there about homosexuality and genetics and so on, that this is a viable option. Then again, human stupidity is the only universal constant.

Stupidity given the premise but your premise is founded on the misunderstanding of what was said. You are confusing the catching with the literal catching of a disease. That is not the concept that was being hinted at. The concept hinted at is that close association with certain types of people will lead to an eventual imitation of their habits-be they bad or good. In view that the whole concept which you tag as stupid is really irrelevant due to this misunderstanding.

[Ocelot]

However, if asked what the Bible says on any given subject, including homosexuality, then I will be obligated to quote scripture. If asked whether I believe the scripture is right, I will answer yes.

As far as I'm aware, and I might be wrong on this. The prohibitions on homosexuality are one of those Old Testament things that is not included in the new covenant, like not eating shellfish or wearing clothes made of two fabrics.

Is that a viable interpretation of the Bible in your eyes?

[six7s]

The prohibitions on homosexuality are one of those Old Testament things that is not included in the new covenant, like not eating shellfish or wearing clothes made of two fabrics

But two guys slamming oyster shooters in woollen sweaters by Versace and lycra shorts by Gaultier will burn, nevertheless

[RobRoy]

As far as I'm aware, and I might be wrong on this. The prohibitions on homosexuality are one of those Old Testament things that is not included in the new covenant, like not eating shellfish or wearing clothes made of two fabrics.

Sorry, unfortunately, there are New Testament proscriptions against homosexuality:

Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinithians 6:9-10, 1 Timothy 1:9-10.

[six7s]

Sorry, unfortunately, there are New Testament proscriptions against homosexuality:

Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinithians 6:9-10, 1 Timothy 1:9-10.

There is, of course, a wide range of interpretations

ReligiousTolerance.org » Homosexuality in the Christian Scriptures » Romans 1:26-27 (http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibc.htm)
This passage is unique in that it is the only place in the Bible that refers to same-gender sexual behavior by women.

Bennett Sims, the former Episcopal bishop of Atlanta, believes that these verses have done more to form Christians' negative opinion of homosexuality than any other single passage in the Bible. He writes: "For most of us who seriously honor Scripture these verses still stand as the capital New Testament text that unequivocally prohibits homosexual behavior. More prohibitively, this text has been taken to mean that even a same-sex inclination is reprehensible, so that a type of humanity known as 'homosexual' has steadily become the object of contempt and discrimination."

Topics included in this section:

Introduction: Overview, important words, Context (http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibc3.htm)
Interpretation by religious conservatives (http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibc4.htm)
Interpretation by religious liberals and others (http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibc5.htm)
Additional interpretations (http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibc8.htm)



Although the above addresses some rather interesting points, it does (understandably) overlook the (blindingly) obvious:

The Bible may be an arresting and poetic work of fiction but it is not the sort of book you should give your children to form their morals.

Source (http://antitheism.wordpress.com/2006/12/13/richard-dawkins-on-background-briefing-audio/)


biblicalnonsense.com
(http://www.biblicalnonsense.com/outro.html)The Bible demonstrates overwhelming evidence of authorship by fallible, divinely uninspired humans.

[edge]

It's also like seeing a congressman constantly quoting ancient Greek scholars or Aesop's Fables while debating a bill in the House that is meant for modern times. i.e. perhaps the general sentiment is valid but is often naive and doesn't take into account current relevant situations and events or benefit from modern research. You just drop some random quote from 2 or more millennia ago and smugly move on as if saying "I believe my point has been made".

Ah but when evidence that occurs today is presented you quickly dismiss it as some thing scientifically explainable, when the context of what is being presented says exactly the opposite. In some cases science is right but not in all cases.
As in the case of O.B.E. or N.D.E.s .
All in the mind, but the people that experience these will tell you differently.
In my mind God is showing us more and is doing so today, not in antiquity.
Miracles happen today, prayers ARE ANSEWERED EVERY DAY BUT ONLY TO THE DEVOTED.

I wrote Tom an E-mail and he says he’s coming in here to spank you hard Articulate, something about slander? :)

[RobRoy]

There is, of course, a wide range of interpretations.

Wait a minute. You're saying the Bible can have more than one interpretation!?

[Giggywig]

Miracles happen today, prayers ARE ANSEWERED EVERY DAY BUT ONLY TO THE DEVOTED.
So if your prayer is not answered, it's because you're not devoted enough?

[edge]

To understand what is said and not sugar coat it here it is in its entirety.
Romans 1:26-27 and more.

God's Wrath Against Mankind
18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness,
19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.
20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.
22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools
23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another.
25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones.
27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done.
29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips,
30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents;
31they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless.
32Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

Wait a minute. You're saying the Bible can have more than one interpretation!?

The right, and the wrong interpretations.

This is the way it’s interpreted on the link that was presented above.
Romans 1:26-27: "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence [sic] of their error which was meet."


The meaning is lost with those last few words and then what do you learn?


Originally Posted by Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion
The Bible may be an arresting and poetic work of fiction but it is not the sort of book you should give your children to form their morals.

Source
If you don’t agree with God then this is true for you.

Then he six7s,adds,

The Bible demonstrates overwhelming evidence of authorship by fallible, divinely uninspired humans.

Total lie.


So if your prayer is not answered, it's because you're not devoted enough?

There might be many reasons Not everything that is asked for is given even for the totally devoted Christian.
So how many would be answered for an atheist?

That part of Romans encompasses more than just Homosexuals.

To put my joystick in the ****** end of a gut is just plane stupid, my common sense told me that.
due penalty for their perversion
Don't want none of that, because it's true.

Two women together doesn’t turn me on either, it actually makes me sad, but I have been a friends with these types of people and their orientations is their business.

They have to answer not me.
All I could do is try to talk to them and not judge them.
Let them know how God feels about it.
I also understand that it might go deeper in their psychology that can’t be fixed here, except by God and tell them this also.
Whatever it is it is their will, freedom of choice.

[D'rok]

To understand what is said and not sugar coat it here it is in its entirety.
Romans 1:26-27 and more.

God's Wrath Against Mankind
18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness,
19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.
20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.
22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools
23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another.
25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones.
27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done.
29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips,
30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents;
31they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless.
32Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

Yaweh sure is a pleasant chap.

--snipped homophobic nonsense--

Whatever it is it is their will, freedom of choice.

Perhaps you can tell us at what point you, using your free will, freely chose your sexuality. Or did you just always like womenfolk? Obviously, if you are honest, the latter is true. Why do you suppose it is different for gay folks?

ETA: Unless you are one of those self-hating closeted types trying to pray the gay away. In which case, my heart goes out to you in all sincerity.

[six7s]

That part of Romans encompasses more than just Homosexuals.

To put my joystick in the ****** end of a gut is just plane stupid, my common sense told me that.

Maybe your common sense might help you read the next chapter of Romans (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%202:1;&version=9;), where Paul warns his readers of the folly in condemning others... it might just make you stop and think long enough to understand that "plane stupid" is what happens when blinkered fanatics believe that it is their divine duty to make repeated attacks on innocent people going about their private business

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1760247ab86af71113.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=10641)

[bokonon]

There might be many reasons Not everything that is asked for is given even for the totally devoted Christian.
So how many would be answered for an atheist?

As an atheist, I've found that I get everything I pray for.

Has that not been your experience?

[articulett]

Maybe your common sense might help you read the next chapter of Romans (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%202:1;&version=9;), where Paul warns his readers of the folly in condemning others... it might just make you stop and think long enough to understand that "plane stupid" is what happens when blinkered fanatics believe that it is their divine duty to make repeated attacks on innocent people going about their private business

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1760247ab86af71113.jpg


Great response.

Now if only "common sense" would keep the pedophilia in the clergy from being attracted to little kids--after all, they have "god" on their side (plus, as a bonus-- the threat of hell!)

[articulett]

As an atheist, I've found that I get everything I pray for.

Has that not been your experience?

Me too. 100% of the time. It's awesome.

[Jeff Corey]

Maybe your common sense might help you read the next chapter of Romans (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%202:1;&version=9;), where Paul warns his readers of the folly in condemning others... it might just make you stop and think long enough to understand that "plane stupid" is what happens when blinkered fanatics believe that it is their divine duty to make repeated attacks on innocent people going about their private business

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1760247ab86af71113.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=10641)

"Plane stupid". Elegant. Nominated.

[Radrook]

As far as I'm aware, and I might be wrong on this. The prohibitions on homosexuality are one of those Old Testament things that is not included in the new covenant, like not eating shellfish or wearing clothes made of two fabrics.

Is that a viable interpretation of the Bible in your eyes?

First, thanx for your calm and decent response. Second, please note that I was not the one bringing this subject into the spotlight and that my post was a response to an accusation
of being a homophobe and of bashing people who choose that lifestyle. I personally don't like to bring up this subject due to the extreme irate reactions which arise. So I try to avoid it since I am not here seeking debate but merely wishing to shed some light on Biblical issues the best I can without trying to stir up severe controversies. That being said, let me answer your question as briefly and as politely as I can.

The moral law was not abolished per se. What was abolished was the punishment required for those sins and the sacrificial requirements related to those specific sins. These can be found in Deuteronomy, which expands on the Ten commandments which are a synopsis. Leviticus also, mentions them as well.

Please take note that if we claim that one serious moral law was abolished and is OK now. then we are obligated to say that all others are OK. That would mean that incest is now OK, theft, murder, cursing at God, disrespecting our parents,idolatry, adultery, fornication etcetera are now all OK.

Which of course they aren't'. They are things which are not to be practiced and we are told not to practice them in both the OT and the New. In short, both Hebrew and Greek scriptures are in accord. Here ius an example:

OT Scriptures:

Deuteronomy 5:18
Neither shalt thou commit adultery.


Proverbs 6:32
But whoso committeth adultery with a woman lacketh understanding: he that doeth it destroyeth his own soul.
==============================================

NT Scriptures:

Matthew 5:27
Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
28
But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

Galatians 5:19
Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,

So there really is no targetting or bashing soely of any particular group. As you can see, heterosexual relations are also included to a certain extent and are limited. However, the Bible is definitely clear both in the OT and the NT that homosexuality is not an approved practice just as it is clear about adultery and all other sexual matters. Is it easy to follow these requirements? No it isn't. That is understood. And that includes for heterosexuals as well.

Example:

I once met a fellow who said he could never be a Christian because he just could not refrain from committing adultery. He continually boasted about how he though being married had women all over the city and even had children by them. In fact, he said he'd prefer death to having to refrain from adultery. But one thing he didn't say-to his credit-he didn't say that what was clearly written wasn't.

[bokonon]

Galatians 5:19
Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,

So there really is no targetting or bashing soely of any particular group. As you can see, heterosexual relations are also included to a certain extent and are limited.
Sure there is.

First of all, if you allow homosexuals to marry, "fornication" is no longer an issue.

Second, you've been claiming that dietary laws (for example) have been repealed by the new testament, but here we have "uncleanness" listed just as plain as the rest of them. How can that prohibition not include eating "unclean" foods such as pork?

So, basically, you're selectively (and arbitrarily) choosing which "laws" apply to modern life, and you're stacking the deck so that some people violate those laws by engaging in the same physical acts that others (who are presumably NOT in violation) engage in.

Sorry, no matter how you try to spin it, that's targeting and bashing a specific group.

[Radrook]

Sure there is.

First of all, if you allow homosexuals to marry, "fornication" is no longer an issue.

But since we are considering this subject from a strictly biblical point, then we would have to see what the Bible says about marriage-wouldn't we? And if we disagree with what it says, then we have several options,

1. Reject
2. Deny what is clearly written
3. Write our own Bible.

To me the third is the most logical if I were in your shoes. The second one is illogical. Similar to reading the Constitution and insisting that cruel and unusual punishment doesn't include torture. Or that freedom of worship isn't really guaranteed but that it has to mean something else. To which I would say as well, write your own constitution.



Second, you've been claiming that dietary laws (for example) have been repealed by the new testament, but here we have "uncleanness" listed just as plain as the rest of them. How can that prohibition not include eating "unclean" foods such as pork?


Because we are specifically told in the Bible that the foods which were formally tagged as unclean under law are no longer to be viewed that way. While we are specifically told in the same Bible that the practice that you want the Bible to approve is not approved. As simple as that.


Actually, gentiles were never under obligation to avoid those foods because gentiles were never under the Mosaic Law Covenant. Such dietary restrictions were for the nation of Israel. That is a basic Bible teaching which anyone who has taken the time to read the Bible is familiar with.

So, basically, you're selectively (and arbitrarily) choosing which "laws" apply to modern life, and you're stacking the deck so that some people violate those laws by engaging in the same physical acts that others (who are presumably NOT in violation) engage in.

Sorry, no matter how you try to spin it, that's targeting and bashing a specific group.

Not spinning anything. Are all these other groups whose practuices are not apprpoved of targeted as well? All these people who are doing all these things could come on this board complaining that they are being targetted. Yet no one else comes forth with that complaint. Strange!


As for choosing and picking, neither I nor anyone else has the right to be arbitrarily choosing what is or what isn't applicable to Christians. Actually, such a demonic practice is inexcusable since the Bible is clear on such things. At least to those who have taken the time to read and study it it is. For those who haven't, then it is far more logical to simply ask for help in understanding the Bible instead of accusing those who have studied it for decades of misinterpreting what it says.

Acts 8

30And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest?

31And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.

32The place of the scripture which he read was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth:

33In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: and who shall declare his generation? for his life is taken from the earth.

34And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man?

[RobRoy]

The right, and the wrong interpretations.

Ahh, thank God He came down and told you specifically there was only one correct interpretation to a document that spans centuries written from the point of view of multiple authors who had multiple aims in mind when they wrote it, and then cleverly gathered by another organization who rejected or accepted based on their own agenda.

That sure clears things up for me!

[six7s]

But since we are considering this subject from a strictly biblical point, then we would have to see what the Bible says about marriage-wouldn't we?

Good idea!

Deuteronomy 24:1-2 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2024:1-2;&version=9;)| Luke 16:18-19 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2016:15-20;&version=9;)
1When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. | 18Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.
2And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife. | 19There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day:
Divorce: OK | Divorce: NOT OK

And if we disagree with what it says...

Ermmm... Given that this is a collection of books that says (Matthew 5:17-20 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205:17-20;&version=9;)) "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled", it disagrees with what it says

...then we have several options,

1. Reject
2. Deny what is clearly written
3. Write our own Bible.

I vote for option 1:
#2 doesn't apply... its NOT clearly written
#3 doesn't apply... I don't need a bible in order to live my life

To me the third is the most logical if I were in your shoes

What can you see, when wearing my shoes, that I am unaware of?

The second one is illogical.

Please explain the logic that supports the idea that it IS clearly written

And, if you know, please explain why you don't even address the option to reject

[Radrook]

I really wish I could engage others in this discussion but every time I attempt it I get a barrage of ad hominems, recriminationsa, condemnations, and other such irrelevancies

There is also the problem of shielding my eyes from the blinding holiness of the sinless.

[six7s]

Build a bridge


And get over it

[edge]

Why do you suppose it is different for gay folks?
Don’t know except that it is probably different in a lot of cases.

As an atheist, I've found that I get everything I pray for.

Has that not been your experience?

No,
I've found that I get everything I pray for.


If you get everything you pray for how come you still don’t believe in God, or haven’t you prayed for that to be reveled to you?




Maybe your common sense might help you read the next chapter of Romans (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%202:1;&version=9;), where Paul warns his readers of the folly in condemning others... it might just make you stop and think long enough to understand that "plane stupid" is what happens when blinkered fanatics believe that it is their divine duty to make repeated attacks on innocent people going about their private business

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1760247ab86af71113.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=10641)


I guess you missed this part and only see what you want to see.


They have to answer, not me.
All I could do is try to talk to them and not judge them.
Let them know how God feels about it.
I also understand that it might go deeper in their psychology that can’t be fixed here, except by God and tell them this also.
Whatever it is, it is their will, freedom of choice.

I should have added that I have my own things to ansewer for.

The idea here is to get better not worse, for me I stopped smoking, it been a little over three weeks.

Some get worse and then you have ,

Now if only "common sense" would keep the pedophilia in the clergy from being attracted to little kids--after all, they have "god" on their side (plus, as a bonus-- the threat of hell!)


I would have to say he is skeptical of what he portrays.
And so what lead him there?

A step further into depravity, I agree with the law on this.

But the differance is I would never be friends with one of these, if I could help it.

[D'rok]

Don’t know except that it is probably different in a lot of cases.

Or could it be that there is the same amount of choice in all cases - i.e., no choice? Could you choose to be gay?



If you get everything you pray for how come you still don’t believe in God, or haven’t you prayed for that to be reveled to you?If this is humour, then well played sir. If this is sincere, then yikes - you just set a new standard for obtuseness.

[bokonon]

But since we are considering this subject from a strictly biblical point, then we would have to see what the Bible says about marriage-wouldn't we? And if we disagree with what it says, then we have several options,

1. Reject
2. Deny what is clearly written
3. Write our own Bible.

To me the third is the most logical if I were in your shoes. The second one is illogical. Similar to reading the Constitution and insisting that cruel and unusual punishment doesn't include torture. Or that freedom of worship isn't really guaranteed but that it has to mean something else. To which I would say as well, write your own constitution.
I think door number 1 is the best choice here, rejecting an outdated and inconsistent source for something which is more consistent, and which more fairly satisfies the needs of all people living today, rather than those of patriarchs living dozens of centuries ago.

Because we are specifically told in the Bible that the foods which were formally tagged as unclean under law are no longer to be viewed that way. While we are specifically told in the same Bible that the practice that you want the Bible to approve is not approved. As simple as that.
Not as simple as that at all. The bible contradicts itself on this point as it does on most points. We can either

1. Reject it as too unreliable and inconsistent to use in formulating a worthwhile set of ethics, or
2. Pick and choose those passages which conform to our existing prejudices, and find excuses to wave away those which don't, or
3. Enact laws which embody every prescription and proscription as the inerrant word of God, as any good theocracy should. Where it's inconsistent, the laws will be inconsistent; where it's unfair, the laws will be unfair, but who are we to question?

Once again, door number one appears to be the way to go.

Actually, gentiles were never under obligation to avoid those foods because gentiles were never under the Mosaic Law Covenant. Such dietary restrictions were for the nation of Israel. That is a basic Bible teaching which anyone who has taken the time to read the Bible is familiar with.
The ten commandments were also given to the nation of Israel, so I repeat my earlier assertion that if we're justified in rejecting dietary laws for this reason, we're justified in rejecting the ten commandments.

Not spinning anything. Are all these other groups whose practuices are not apprpoved of targeted as well? All these people who are doing all these things could come on this board complaining that they are being targetted. Yet no one else comes forth with that complaint. Strange!
Society doesn't impose a penalty on adulterers, fornicators, or shrimp eaters. It does impose a penalty on those who wish to form a legally-recognized exclusive union with a person of the same gender. I don't want to speak for anyone, but I suspect that if the legal situation was made equitable, no one would give a damn about the tongue clucking and scowls of disapproval from those who lived by a different set of lights.

As for choosing and picking, neither I nor anyone else has the right to be arbitrarily choosing what is or what isn't applicable to Christians.
And yet, you do it. I don't blame you, really; you're forced to do it by the inconsistent edicts contained in your own holy book. "Here's the law," "That's not important now," "Yes it is, I haven't repealed even the least of the laws," "Oh, wait, here's a more important law -- Love your neighbor as yourself -- " which seems to override the first law, unless you ignore it...

[six7s]

I guess you missed this part and only see what you want to see.

All I could do is try to talk to them and not judge them.
Let them know how God feels about it.

I did read that part

Do you appreciate that from what you wrote, it can be inferred that your ARE (perhaps unwittingly) judging

If you're not judging, then what do you want "to talk to them" about?
What is the "it" that your god has feelings for?

[six7s]

"Plane stupid". Elegant. Nominated.

Thanks Jeff and arti

:confused: Nominated for what? where?

[Jeff Corey]

Thanks Jeff and arti

:confused: Nominated for what? where?
Nominated for the Language Award on Forum Communities. When I saw "plane stupid" I had a similar thought, but you beat me to it.
P.S., The "Nominate" button is below here........................................x

[articulett]

Nominated for the Language Award on Forum Communities. When I saw "plane stupid" I had a similar thought, but you beat me to it.
P.S., The "Nominate" button is below here........................................x

Yes it was profoundly ironic... but edge doesn't have the capacity to appreciate the message. At least others did.

Religion can make people "plane" stupid. Faith can kill.

[edge]

Religion can make people "plane" stupid. Faith can kill.
Obviously so can skepticism.
Two sides of the same coin believing the same thing.

[D'rok]

Obviously so can skepticism.
Two sides of the same coin believing the same thing.

Right. Because skeptical terrorism is the scourge of civilization. :rolleyes:

Fit me out for a suicide vest Father Dawkins.

[articulett]

Obviously so can skepticism.
Two sides of the same coin believing the same thing.

Evidence?

[six7s]

Obviously so can skepticism.
Two sides of the same coin believing the same thing.

Planet?

[articulett]

Right. Because skeptical terrorism is the scourge of civilization. :rolleyes:

Fit me out for a suicide vest Father Dawkins.

If your avatar is wearing it, it's rather sexy.

[D'rok]

If your avatar is wearing it, it's rather sexy.

It does accentuate my mighty thews of barbarian mightiness doesn't it!

(Gazes at self flexing in mirror)

[edge]

It does accentuate my mighty thews of barbarian mightiness doesn't it!

(Gazes at self flexing in mirror)
Vanity.

Planet Earth under atheistic communism rule, killed more people than in all of Christianities history.

[Radrook]

Originally Posted by six7s
Maybe your common sense might help you read the next chapter of Romans, where Paul warns his readers of the folly in condemning others... it might just make you stop and think long enough to understand that "plane stupid" is what happens when blinkered fanatics believe that it is their divine duty to make repeated attacks on innocent people going about their private business [url]http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting...b86af71113.jpg
"Plane stupid". Elegant. Nominated.

First, none of us are innocent. We all sin and fall short of perfection.

Romans 3:23
For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

That's why we are all in need of Jesus' Ransom sacrifice.

Second, the things which the Bible requires of us are not attacks. They are instructions on how to attain eternal life.

1 John 2:25
And this is the promise that he hath promised us, even eternal life.

Third, Paul's admonition not to judge doesn't mean that we should approve of adultery, fornication, murder, or any other such previously condemned things. He is merely tells us to not sit ourselves in Christ's judgment seat and go about presumptuously classifying others as eternally damned since we are neither assigned nor qualified to do that.

Fourth, Paul clearly tells us to listen to God's instructions as written.

Romans 2

21Thou therefore which teachest another, teachest thou not thyself? thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou steal?

22Thou that sayest a man should not commit adultery, dost thou commit adultery? thou that abhorrest idols, dost thou commit sacrilege?

23Thou that makest thy boast of the law, through breaking the law dishonourest thou God?

So it's not the approval of sinful behavior he is asking for.

Fifth: What we or anyone else decides to do morally is our private business-true. However, it is definitely not our business to try to impose our morality on the Bible via insisting that our private business receive its unqualified approval.

[articulett]

Vanity.

Planet Earth under atheistic communism rule, killed more people than in all of Christianities history.

You don't define regimes by what they don't believe--rather by the ideals that unite them... the faith they do have not all the stuff they don't believe in. North Koreans are communists and they believe in god... and they believe their leader is the son of him.

Men kill people... men form armies that kill people. Men form armies and use propaganda to get other men to kill people.

I'm sure the communists didn't believe in Santa Claus either, but I doubt it has anything to do with the atrocities they believed were worth committing. And, Hitler was a Christian.

You are the vain one-- you are the one who thinks you know what god wants. How much more vain could you be?

[six7s]

First, none of us are innocent. We all sin and fall short of perfection... That's why we are all in need of Jesus' Ransom sacrifice.

Please note that although you might want (need?) to believe that YOU need a saviour, many others (content to live and die in the tangibly real, mortal world) neither need nor want to rely on a fantastic myth as a moral compass towards a specified ideal of perfection

To suggest otherwise is naive, ignorant and, frankly, insulting

Second, the things which the Bible requires of us are not attacks. They are instructions on how to attain eternal life

Yeah... riiiiiiiight... and evidence for this 'eternal life' is to be found where? (besides within the Book of Circularity)

Third, Paul's admonition not to judge doesn't mean that we should approve of adultery, fornication, murder, or any other such previously condemned things

If you are implying that, without your book, we are incapable of thinking for ourselves, then you are deluding yourself

Fourth, Paul clearly tells us to listen to God's instructions as written.

So it's not the approval of sinful behavior he is asking for.

:confused: This is a 'point' worthy of enumerating?

Fifth: What we or anyone else decides to do morally is our private business-true. However, it is definitely not our business to try to impose our morality on the Bible via insisting that our private business receive its unqualified approval.

Ummm... I think you have missed the point of this thread, which began - using satire - to discuss of the abject absurdity in using an old, outdated book to support blatant lies as tools to teach our children how to view the world

Google Cache: Intelligent designs, January 6, 2008 (http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:Okx0CjMKP-kJ:www.orlandosentinel.com/news/opinion/letters/orl-le06_308jan06,0,2966547.story+site:www.orlandosent inel.com+Elgison&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1):
I would like to add my voice to those who have advocated the teaching of intelligent design (ID) in Florida biology classes. It is, after all, abundantly clear that a great many life forms are far too wondrous and intricate to have come about by purely natural means.

<snip/>

Microorganisms such as viruses and bacteria, which not only debilitate and kill animals millions of times their size, but can also alter their genetic structure to evade the best attempts by man to eliminate them.

Moving on to more complex life forms, we have perhaps the single most remarkable example of ID: the incredible cockroach. This astonishing animal can live for a month without sustenance, exist on nutrients in the glue of postage stamps, and withstand radiation doses 10 to 15 times that of humans.

Sadly, I must also express deep disappointment in the actions of my fellow men in regard to these life forms. We spend billions, nay trillions, of dollars concocting deadly chemical and biological agents to vanquish them. Who are we to destroy the creatures, which God, in His infinite wisdom, has chosen to design and create?

No, my friends, we must stop this senseless slaughter of the good Lord's handiwork, and instead, honor and venerate them. For by paying homage to these intelligently designed creatures, we pay homage to the intelligent designer.

HOWARD ELGISON
Longwood

[NobbyNobbs]

\

I don't recall bringing up gayness or the so-called gay rights. So I am presently in a quandary as to why this is suddenly thrust into the thread. But since it has, let me say that I personally have never tried to deprive any person, regardless of sexual preferences, of his human rights nor do I approve of anyone who does.

However, if asked what the Bible says on any given subject, including homosexuality, then I will be obligated to quote scripture. If asked whether I believe the scripture is right, I will answer yes. If the person then disagrees, I will acknowledge his right to his opinion. If I am then told that the Bible isn't saying what it just plainly said, I would probably ask why he
reads a book that annoys him instead of reading one that doesn't or better yet-try writing his own.

So, you have never tried to deprive anyone of his rights, regardless of sexual preference. And you believe the scripture is right. And the scripture says that homosexuality is an abomination. So, I'm a bit confused as to where you stand onthe issue of homosexuality.


So actually, what is needed at this point is statistical evidence to support either your view or mine. But I think that the exception to the proposed- Bible based only-generalization has proven the point.



True, some do feel that way. But again the provision of statistics is necessary in order to elevate your idea from it's present shadowy opinion status. For example, how many hold this opinion and how is this attitude distributed statistical among the various religions. That information would prove that you are either completely mistaken in saying that it is the predominant reason, or confirm your accusation that this is a predominant reason. As it stands, however, it remains to be proven one way or the other and makes your stupidity
belief seem trite.

Might I point out that I started my statement with "I believe" followed by the two possible reasons I was able to think of why people might not approve of homosexuals. I did not start out by saying, "It is a well-documented fact that....". What I wrote was my opinion, and in the face of evidence to the contrary, I am willing to amend it. But until then, I'm certainly entitle to it.



Stupidity given the premise but your premise is founded on the misunderstanding of what was said. You are confusing the catching with the literal catching of a disease. That is not the concept that was being hinted at. The concept hinted at is that close association with certain types of people will lead to an eventual imitation of their habits-be they bad or good. In view that the whole concept which you tag as stupid is really irrelevant due to this misunderstanding.

I haven't misunderstood anything. I meant exactly what you said I misunderstood. There are a surprising number of people who believe that you can become gay simply from hanging around with those who are. I've met several myself.





The right, and the wrong interpretations.


:eye-poppi

First, thanx for your calm and decent response. Second, please note that I was not the one bringing this subject into the spotlight and that my post was a response to an accusation
of being a homophobe and of bashing people who choose that lifestyle.

I think I may have been the one who brought up the issue of homosexuality, but I don't recall ever accusing anyone of being a homophobe. If I did, please point out where.

[D'rok]

Vanity.

Humour. (Attempted).

Planet Earth under atheistic communism rule, killed more people than in all of Christianities history.

No surprise that you trotted out that old fallacy. Although Planet Earth killing people is a new twist.

[articulett]

Beware: Planet Earth. It kills people. All people who have ever lived on planet earth have died or are in the process of doing so.

[RobRoy]

Beware: Planet Earth. It kills people. All people who have ever lived on planet earth have died or are in the process of doing so.

Not me. :D

[articulett]

Not me. :D

You're immortal? You weren't, by chance, conceived immaculately, were you?

And if humans are immortal, doesn't that mean that communists never really killed anyone?

[RobRoy]

You're immortal? You weren't, by chance, conceived immaculately, were you?

Mother!?

And if humans are immortal, doesn't that mean that communists never really killed anyone?

That logic would follow.

[PBTree]

Vanity.

Planet Earth under atheistic communism rule, killed more people than in all of Christianities history.

Maybe (I said maybe) it killed more but the big g killed just about every animal on earth (except for a farmer, his family and some animals in a boat), with one big flood.

I think he has the record.. ;)

[Ocelot]

First, none of us are innocent. We all sin and fall short of perfection.

Well I guess I'm not innocent. Either in the biblical sense of sin or under a more utilitarian ethic. I don't recycle as much as I should, don't give as much as I should to the third world and I did kill that hooker.


From a statistical sense I can understand your statement under the aforementioned utilitarian ethic. There are so many ways to be immoral and we're all weak. I find it almost unimaginably improbable that anybody could survive to adulthood with a perfect moral history.

However, one of my biblical sins is pride. I extremely proud of my 5 month old son. From a utilitarian point of view I don't find that particularly immoral. However it is this pride that stings a bit when I infer that you're suggesting that this innocent bundle of joy could be described as immoral.

I do think I understand the biblical point of view that he inherits original sin from his 300 greats grandmother who ate forbidden fruit. Perhaps this also means he inherits the sins of his rather mean great grandfather who marched with Oswald Mosley. However from a utilitarian point of view I don't acknowledge the inheritance of an immoral history.

As such I wonder if your view of sin is purely biblical or whether you believe that my son, who is barely capable of the cognitive functions required of morality is somehow tainted under the sense of ethics that as a non-believer I find more relevant.

Could you describe an action my son could possibly have performed which without recourse to biblical reference could be described as immoral? And if you can do that for this son, what about my first son who was stillborn?

[Ocelot]

Planet Earth under atheistic communism rule, killed more people than in all of Christianities history.

If true, this is a result of great secular advances in technology that have allowed the population of the earth to multiply exponentially. Look instead at the percentage of people killed by Christianity. What percentage of Mayans, or Aztecs? What percentage of Native Americans or Aboriginal Australians?

What percentage of Europe died under the Black Death and would that figure have been any different if the alchemists of the time who recommended effective disease control based around a theory of a contagion borne by rats were not burned as heretics for denying that the disease was a plague sent by God to punish the sinful.

[six7s]

Can you wriggle your way out of that, Radrook?

Thanks Ocelot. Nominated (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3426778&posted=1#post3426778)

[Radrook]

Well I guess I'm not innocent. Either in the biblical sense of sin or under a more utilitarian ethic. I don't recycle as much as I should, don't give as much as I should to the third world and I did kill that hooker.From a statistical sense I can understand your statement under the aforementioned utilitarian ethic. There are so many ways to be immoral and we're all weak. I find it almost unimaginably improbable that anybody could survive to adulthood with a perfect moral history.[/quote

True, but we can view us as sinless if we want him to based on the sacrifice of Jesus Christ died for those sins you mention, the sins I can mention in reference to myself and the sins anyone else can mention about himself. So we need not feel condemned, alienated, rejected by God based on our faults since he has provided a way around that.


However, one of my biblical sins is pride. I extremely proud of my 5 month old son. From a utilitarian point of view I don't find that particularly immoral. However it is this pride that stings a bit when I infer that you're suggesting that this innocent bundle of joy could be described as immoral.I do think I understand the biblical point of view that he inherits original sin from his 300 greats grandmother who ate forbidden fruit. Perhaps this also means he inherits the sins of his rather mean great grandfather who marched with Oswald Mosley. However from a utilitarian point of view I don't acknowledge the inheritance of an immoral history.

There is nothing wrong in being proud in the way you describe. The pride the Bible refers to is pride which directly interferes without acceptance of God as our creator. Feeling simple pride in our kids doesn't necessarily do that. Here is an article which sheds light on the subject:

Sin of Pride
http://av.rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A9ibyJ_uhbFHDkcBfFprCqMX;_ylu=X3oDMTBvdmM3bGl xBHBndANhdl93ZWJfcmVzdWx0BHNlYwNzcg--/SIG=11vo28152/EXP=1202902894/**http%3a//www.allaboutgod.com/sin-of-pride.htm

About the sins which our ancestors commit, none are applied to us. What the Bible describes is an inheritance flaw of inherent inability to refrain from sin. This inheritance can be traced back to our first parents, Adam and Eve. But
what you describe, is different.

As such I wonder if your view of sin is purely biblical or whether you believe that my son, who is barely capable of the cognitive functions required of morality is somehow tainted under the sense of ethics that as a non-believer I find more relevant.

We are all unable to refrain from sinning no matter how hard we try. This inability we inherit just as we inherit eye color, height, hair texture, and all other physical attributes as well as intellectual potentials and limits. So it's not a direct inheritance of the sins committed by our ancestors. But an inheritance of inability to refrain from sin and as a consequence an inability to remain young, healthy, and live forever. That's why Jesus provided himself as a Ransom. So we could escape that condition.


Could you describe an action my son could possibly have performed which without recourse to biblical reference could be described as immoral? And if you can do that for this son, what about my first son who was stillborn?

Sorry about you son. I am a father as well so I can definitely sympathize with your sentiments in this matter. I don't view any human, unborn, a baby, child, adolescent or adult as tainted. I do believe however that we are all in need of redemption via Jesus Ransom because of inheriting the inability to refrain from sin.

Perhaps you might not see the difference in approach. But I feel that there is a fine distinction there I think-between viewing others as in need of redemption as opposed to being tainted.

Perhaps it's the connotative or implied general calloused haughty, holier than thou, outlook toward others which is contrary to Christian love for neighbor as oneself that is conveyed by the practice of invariably and immediately viewing others as tainted as opposed to the compassionate one of seeing the person merely as in need of redemption.

It might appear to be semantically trivial but I don't hink so.

[Radrook]

So, you have never tried to deprive anyone of his rights, regardless of sexual preference.


Trying to deprive a person of his freedom to choose his lifestyle? No, I haven't tried that. I have often given advice to my kids. I have also pointed out what the Bible says about a subject if asked. Does that qualify?

And you believe the scripture is right. And the scripture says that homosexuality is an abomination. So, I'm a bit confused as to where you stand on the issue of homosexuality.

First, again let me remind you that I did not bring up this subject. In fact, I tend to avoid it.
Neither did I use the word abomination, nor did I directly quote the scripture using that word. The reason? Because that is not the best approach.

As for the question you ask, It should be clear that I cannot approve any practice, be it adultery, fornication, loose conduct, spiritism, murder or the practice you mention since these are spoken of as sinful.

But that doesn't mean I have to be rude in my way of expressing this as you seem to be trying to get me to be. Which brings up the question about your own sentiments about the very issue you claim to be defending and in reference to your care about the feelings of the very people you say deserve respect.

[Might I point out that I started my statement with "I believe" followed by the two possible reasons I was able to think of why people might not approve of homosexuals. I did not start out by saying, "It is a well-documented fact that....". What I wrote was my opinion, and in the face of evidence to the contrary, I am willing to amend it. But until then, I'm certainly entitle to it.

Of course you are. Sorry if I gave you the wrong impression.



I haven't misunderstood anything. I meant exactly what you said I misunderstood. There are a surprising number of people who believe that you can become gay simply from hanging around with those who are. I've met several myself.

So have I.

I think I may have been the one who brought up the issue of homosexuality, but I don't recall ever accusing anyone of being a homophobe. If I did, please point out where.

I didn't say you did. Please show me where I said you did.

[bokonon]

We are all unable to refrain from sinning no matter how hard we try. This inability we inherit just as we inherit eye color, height, hair texture, and all other physical attributes as well as intellectual potentials and limits. So it's not a direct inheritance of the sins committed by our ancestors. But an inheritance of inability to refrain from sin and as a consequence an inability to remain young, healthy, and live forever. That's why Jesus provided himself as a Ransom. So we could escape that condition.
"Of course you're sinful; I made you that way. The bad news is, that means I don't want to be with you. The good news is, after you're dead, you'll be able to refrain from sinning. Then we can be together!"

[Radrook]

If true, this is a result of great secular advances in technology that have allowed the population of the earth to multiply exponentially. Look instead at the percentage of people killed by Christianity. What percentage of Mayans, or Aztecs? What percentage of Native Americans or Aboriginal Australians?

What percentage of Europe died under the Black Death and would that figure have been any different if the alchemists of the time who recommended effective disease control based around a theory of a contagion borne by rats were not burned as heretics for denying that the disease was a plague sent by God to punish the sinful.



What makes you think that the persons behaving that way were practicing Christianity?

[Radrook]

Deleted

[Ocelot]

What makes you think that the persons behaving that way were practicing Christianity?

This was a comment I made regarding Edge's proposition that more people have died under secular rule than in the history of Christianity.

Clearly those people were killed by people who happened to be atheist. With the possible exception of millions killed by Mao's cultural revolution for failing to abandon their religious beliefs the vast majority we not killed by people "practicing" atheism. They were killed by people practicing totalitarianism.

Edge might say that their atheism is not irrelevant. "If God is dead, then all things are possible!” - Dostoevsky. He mistakes Religious conviction for the only reason we resist such genocide. He suspects (possibly correctly) that the religious imperative at least acts to calm mankind's occasional homicidal lusts. And I would counter with Stephen Weinberg's aphorism "With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."

He might be able to make some tenuous causal link between the fact of certain evil people being atheist and the evil they perform. He will not in the main, be able to say that they were practicing atheism.

I too can make a more than tenuous link between the actions of those evil religious people I cited and religion. They were placing faith in revealed knowledge above evidence. They acted according to their religious beliefs. They acted due to their religious beliefs. To suggest that they were not practicing Christianity is somewhat of a no true scotsman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_scotsman) argument.

My argument may have weaknesses. I acknowledge them. however it was not supposed to be a cogent argument in it's own right. It was supposed to be a mirror of the argument Edge made. The weakness in my argument are inherited from the argument it copies.

[Ocelot]

There is nothing wrong in being proud in the way you describe. The pride the Bible refers to is pride which directly interferes without acceptance of God as our creator. Feeling simple pride in our kids doesn't necessarily do that. Here is an article which sheds light on the subject:

Sin of Pride
http://av.rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A9ibyJ_uhbFHDkcBfFprCqMX;_ylu=X3oDMTBvdmM3bGl xBHBndANhdl93ZWJfcmVzdWx0BHNlYwNzcg--/SIG=11vo28152/EXP=1202902894/**http%3a//www.allaboutgod.com/sin-of-pride.htm (http://av.rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A9ibyJ_uhbFHDkcBfFprCqMX;_ylu=X3oDMTBvdmM3bGl xBHBndANhdl93ZWJfcmVzdWx0BHNlYwNzcg--/SIG=11vo28152/EXP=1202902894/**http%3a/www.allaboutgod.com/sin-of-pride.htm)




Link redirects to http://www.allaboutgod.com/sin-of-pride.htm (http://www.allaboutgod.com/sin-of-pride.htm) which my browser refuse to display.

However...

That's cold comfort as one of those who doesn't accept God as our creator. Not that I worry about his judgement on the matter, I find the possibility of his existence remote to say the least but I do despair of people who dodge the results of the trust I place in reason and logic, accusing me of unwarranted pride in human accomplishments. I find such accusations more than a little prideful themselves, an arrogant celebration of ignorance. Not that I'm accusing you of this in any way.


About the sins which our ancestors commit, none are applied to us. What the Bible describes is an inheritance flaw of inherent inability to refrain from sin. This inheritance can be traced back to our first parents, Adam and Eve. But
what you describe, is different.

We are all unable to refrain from sinning no matter how hard we try. This inability we inherit just as we inherit eye color, height, hair texture, and all other physical attributes as well as intellectual potentials and limits. So it's not a direct inheritance of the sins committed by our ancestors.

Actually that does help explain a few things. So, and correct me if I'm wrong but you're not say that my son has sinned, only that he has that capability in his nature even if he hasn't yet practiced it.

Following this logic what he inherits is not an actual sin, an honest to goodness black mark against his hypothetical soul, but a sinful nature. Or to put in back into terms I relate to a capability and tendency towards immoral action. Coupled with the abundant opportunity for such action it becomes an eventual inevitability. however as of yet, you're not necessarily suggesting he has sinned. Much less, his older but stillborn brother. As such if I follow you logic correctly, under your paradigm they are both currently eligible for eternal life despite being un-baptised and unredeemed by Jesus. They simply don't need it. Is that correct?

I understand that my living son might in your eyes benefit from such redemption as a kind of inoculation against inevitable sinning later in life but random chance forbid he does die unblemished by sinful action

Obviously we differ in opinion about the historical reality of the Garden of Eden story. however I speak with reference to your beliefs out of a desire to understand. This sinful nature we inherit from our imperfect forebears, when did that begin? You see I've heard this described as original sin and comes as a consequence of Adam and Eve eating forbidden fruit. However this nature cannot have come from that initial transgression. For them to sin in the first place it must have already been in their nature.

Given that nature and the opportunity to fulfil it sin was inevitable from the moment of their creation. Why then does the buck seem to stop with these first humans. Should responsibility not lie with God or does the Serpent latterly identified with Satan play a role. Even then does God not bear ultimate responsibility?

I suspect that you might answer with a subtle difference between an ability to sin and an inability to refrain from doing so. Thus far I've equated the two. I've considered an ability to sin as a probability of doing so which coupled with abundant opportunity leads to an eventual inevitability. If that is not that case then I'd welcome clarification on the difference, in your eyes, between my son's present condition and that of Adam and Eve prior to their transgression.

[edge]

No true Scotsman is a fallacy of equivocation and question begging. Its name was coined by philosopher Antony Flew in his 1975 book Thinking About Thinking – or do I sincerely want to be right?.



The evidence for design in the universe and biology is so strong that Antony Flew, a long-time proponent of atheism, renounced his atheism in 2004 and now believes that the existence of a Creator is required to explain the universe and life in it. Likewise, Frank Tipler, Professor of the Department of Mathematics at Tulane University, and a former atheist, not only became a theist, but is now a born-again Christian because of the laws of physics.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/atheismintro3.html




"People are Basically Good" - Proof to the Contrary
by Rich Deem



If you examine the atrocities perpetrated by people within the last century, you find a huge number of murders. Adolph Hitler killed 6 million Jews prior to and during the second World War. Joseph Stalin killed 20 million Soviet citizens between 1929 and 1939 because they were not politically correct. Mao Tse-tung killed 34 to 62 million Chinese during the Chinese civil war of the 1930s and 1940s. Pol Pot, the leader of the Marxist regime in Cambodia, Kampuchea, in the 1970's killed over 1.7 million of his own people. These do not include all the people killed in "legitimate" wars.

Many would object to this analysis, since they could claim that these atrocities were perpetrated by only a few individuals. However, these individuals could not have done anything if they were not backed by others, who agreed with their "values." The vast majority of Germans willingly followed Adolph Hitler and gave their consent to his policy to get rid of the "Jewish


http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/peoplegood.html

People with no religion or the wrong false religion, it all leads to the same thing.
People slapping each other on the back, telling each other to nominate themselves for being so good and smart.


Something to think about,

Communism failed because humans are basically sinful, lazy, and self-centered. The only reason why "Communism" succeeded in the first century Christian Church was that the people had been transformed by the power of Jesus Christ.

Conclusion to the article.
The unending human propensity for hatred, violence, and evil will continue as we, the "righteous" haters will seek out and kill the "unrighteous" haters. An underlying spiritual cause of all this hatred is the only reasonable explanation of human depravity. Evolution does not account for the extremes of our violent behavior, but the Christian worldview fits the data exactly - humans are basically evil until transformed by the renewing power of Jesus Christ.

[six7s]

Link redirects to http://www.allaboutgod.com/sin-of-pride.htm (http://www.allaboutgod.com/sin-of-pride.htm) which my browser refuse to display.

I'm not sure why your browser balks at the link, but I can think of a workaround...

If you Google the URI, you will see - in addition to the usual 'main' link - a link to a CACHED (http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:bEigYTC47_oJ:www.allaboutgod.com/sin-of-pride.htm+http://www.allaboutgod.com/sin-of-pride.htm&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1)version

Sin Of Pride
(http://www.allaboutgod.com/sin-of-pride.htm)Sin Of Pride - Preoccupation with self. Learn the reasons behind having a proud heart, study examples from history, and learn how to combat it.
www.allaboutgod.com/sin-of-pride.htm - 33k - Cached (http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:bEigYTC47_oJ:www.allaboutgod.com/sin-of-pride.htm+http://www.allaboutgod.com/sin-of-pride.htm&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1) - Similar pages - Note this

[six7s]

Something to think about...

Evolution is not a sect, club, organisation, etc

Evolution is simply something that is observed in nature...

Like the tides

Like rust


If you think about that, maybe you will understand why it is absurd to say:
Evolution does not account for the extremes of our violent behavior


The tides do not account for the extremes of our violent behavior

Rust does not account for the extremes of our violent behavior



Maybe you are simply confusing evolution with the scientific method

If so, please note that the scientific method involves adopting whichever set of data that most accurately represents reality

So, if the data that correlates with the Christian worldview is indeed consistent with what is observed in nature, then scientists will adopt it :)

In the (unlikely) event that that data is in conflict with evolutionary theory, then evolutionary theory will be modified accordingly

You see, scientists aren't afraid to admit their mistakes. Instead, they simply document and publicise the mistakes - in an attempt to learn from them - and then move on, bolstered by yet more consistent data :)

but the Christian worldview fits the data exactly - humans are basically evil until transformed by the renewing power of Jesus Christ.

Also, please note remember that (assuming that "the Christian worldview fits the data exactly" AND the data does indeed 'accurately represent observed reality'), trumpeting ONE hit whilst ignoring any misses is called 'confirmation bias'

:)

[Drewbot]

Evolution and Aggressiveness go hand in hand.
When we were Oooga Booga Cavemen, recently evolved from the slime, fighting for mates, The aggressive male Cavemen, sensing the secretions of the ovulating female, would bash in the skulls of the passive Cavemen with a Mammoth Femur, in order to mate. Thus the aggressive traits were passed on. Evil, is nothing more than compounded aggressiveness over thousands of generations.

[DrBaltar]

humans are basically evil until transformed by the renewing power of Jesus Christ.
Do you have any data that confirm this?

What I have found is this, by the Federal Bureau of Prisons.

Response Number %
--------------------------- --------
Catholic..............29267 39.164%
Protestant ...........26162 35.008%
Muslim ................5435 7.273%
American Indian .......2408 3.222%
Nation ................1734 2.320%
Rasta .................1485 1.987%
Jewish.................1325 1.773%
Church of Christ ......1303 1.744%
Pentecostal ...........1093 1.463%
Moorish ...............1066 1.426%
Buddhist ...............882 1.180%
Jehovah Witness ........665 0.890%
Adventist ..............621 0.831%
Orthodox................375 0.502%
Mormon .................298 0.399%
Scientology ............190 0.254%
Atheist ................156 0.209%
Hindu ..................119 0.159%
Santeria................117 0.157%
Sikh ....................14 0.019%
Bahai.....................9 0.012%
Krishna ..................7 0.009%
--------------------------- --------
Total Known Responses 74731 100%

Catholics and Protestants make up 74% of the prison population while atheists only make up .209% of the prison population. Please explain why atheists make up 15% of the general population and only .209% of the prison population?

[Radrook]

Link redirects to http://www.allaboutgod.com/sin-of-pride.htm (http://www.allaboutgod.com/sin-of-pride.htm) which my browser refuse to display.

Sorry. I have to get into the habit of clicking the link to make sure it works. I'll look it up and see If I can repost a working link. Thnx for bringing it to my attention.

However...

That's cold comfort as one of those who doesn't accept God as our creator. Not that I worry about his judgment on the matter, I find the possibility of his existence remote to say the least but I do despair of people who dodge the results of the trust I place in reason and logic, accusing me of unwarranted pride in human accomplishments. I find such accusations more than a little prideful themselves, an arrogant celebration of ignorance. Not that I'm accusing you of this in any way.

The feeling of pride in having accomplished something is a gift from the creator who also feels proud of what he accomplishes. Or feels good about the things he accomplishes to express it a different way.



Actually that does help explain a few things. So, and correct me if I'm wrong but you're not say that my son has sinned, only that he has that capability in his nature even if he hasn't yet practiced it.

Correct

Following this logic what he inherits is not an actual sin, an honest to goodness black mark against his hypothetical soul, but a sinful nature. Or to put in back into terms I relate to a capability and tendency towards immoral action. Coupled with the abundant opportunity for such action it becomes an eventual inevitability. however as of yet, you're not necessarily suggesting he has sinned. Much less, his older but stillborn brother.

The unborn cannot willfully sin. The culpability of those who are born is based on their understanding of what they do. Their sanity, or ability to tell right from wrong for example. Momentary insanity also affects culpability as is evident in trials involving crimes of passion.


As such if I follow you logic correctly, under your paradigm they are both currently eligible for eternal life despite being un-baptised and unredeemed by Jesus.

Agreed.

They simply don't need it. Is that correct?

Eternal life isn't a given. Neither is it based on need. Eternal life is a gift which comes for perfect obedience. Since we cannot obey perfectly, Jesus obeyed perfectly for us and died
for our sins. If he himself had sinned then he would have been paying the penalty for himself. But since he was sinless, he could die for the sins of those who passed away, people alive and those yet not born in order that they too could have an opportunity gain eternal life by being viewed as sinless based on his payment of their debt.
However, just as in Eden, a show of respect anbd apreciatiuon is reqwured as evidenbce tyhat we accept that gift:

1 Timothy 6:18-20 (King James Version)

18That they do good, that they be rich in good works, ready to distribute, willing to communicate;

19Laying up in store for themselves a good foundation against the time to come, that they may lay hold on eternal life.

In short, if the basis for the gift is missing then there is no basis to give it. Jesus sacrifice provided the basis to offer such a gift to everyone who accepts it. That implies the ability to consciously accept the gift. Since those who are not as yet born are incapable of accepting or rejecting, then their decision has to be made later when theyt are capable of it. Which requires of course a resurrection. Which is promised. So they are not just summarily written off as some would perhaps suppose.

It's also might help to keep in mind that's gifts can be rejected or accepted and that they aren't forced upon those who might not appreciate them had they had the chance to Choose. That would constitute a violation of freedom of choice. which of course leads to an entirely different subject.

I understand that my living son might in your eyes benefit from such redemption as a kind of inoculation against inevitable sinning later in life but random chance forbid he does die unblemished by sinful action I suspect that you might answer with a subtle difference between an ability to sin and an inability to refrain from doing so. Thus far I've equated the two. I've considered an ability to sin as a probability of doing so which coupled with abundant opportunity leads to an eventual inevitability. If that is not that case then I'd welcome clarification on the difference, in your eyes, between my son's present condition and that of Adam and Eve prior to their transgression.


First, this present situation with its injustices due to random chance was not what God had in mind, It is a temporary condition which he promises and promised immediately in Eden to restore things to pre-rebellion conditions. But there were serious issues raised in Eden.

1. Was the rebel angel right? Was God unworthy of worship as he had said?

2. Was he right in saying that mankind could do better alone?

3. Was God lying as that rebel told Eve?

4. Would mankind invariably reject their creator if tempted because the only reason they would obey was for selfish reasons.

No, these things weren't said directly but were implied in the words he spoke. What was our first parent's reaction-agreement with Satan and a joining with him in his disrespect and rebellion.

So it wasn't simply eating a forbidden fruit but what that signified. It signified rejection of God;s guidance in favor of the creature behind the serpent and a demand for being left to decide what is good and evil on their own. It also cast a doubt on the rightfulness of God's rule. It was described as being motivated by selfish need to dominate and to keep Adam and Eve and their offspring from being more like him.


As God and their heavenly father he had the right to guide them as all parents guide their children. He'd provided them with life, a beautiful home, given them a task of subduing the earth as earth's caretakers, given them the gift of sex and mutual companionship, made the eating of food pleasurable via taste, made their home pleasurable via sight and sound.

Consider what he could have done instead., He could have made eating and procreation pleasureless via making them either self fertilizing or else like the sea anemone which sprouts buds, or else like the amoebae the uses cellular fission Could have made the garden in black and white, filled with cactuses as the only vegetation. Just to name a few things at his disposal. He could have forced obedience by strapping them with an automatic agonizing pain inducer as soon as they as much as thought of doing something contrary.

Yet he chose otherwise. All he expected was a refraining from eating of a certain tree as a show of appreciation and respect and their love for their heavenly father. Not eating wasn't going to cause starvation since they had all they needed. Neither were they obligated to even be near the tree since they could simply go elsewhere.


Obviously we differ in opinion about the historical reality of the Garden of Eden story. however I speak with reference to your beliefs out of a desire to understand. This sinful nature we inherit from our imperfect forebears, when did that begin? You see I've heard this described as original sin and comes as a consequence of Adam and Eve eating forbidden fruit. However this nature cannot have come from that initial transgression. For them to sin in the first place it must have already been in their nature. [/COLOR]

Adam and Eve's perfection was based on their ability to live forever in eternal youth and perfect health and their inherent ability to remain sinless. There was no tendency to do evil as we have it. There was a tendency to do good instead-which makes their decision to rebel even more serious since there was no inherent weakness to which they could point as the cause of their failure. In fact, if there had been such a weakness then they would have npthomg tp lose if they sinned. But the scriptures indicate that there was a change-both physical and mental- Cain's murder of his brother based on envy is asn example of the mental deterioration. The mental condition is described by the Apostle Paul :

Romans 7

18For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.

19For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.

20Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.

21I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.

22For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:

23But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.

24O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?

25I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.


So the the first indication must have been their awareness of an inability to prevent sinful thoughts, as described by Paul, from constantly plaguing their now imperfect minds coupled by unwanted desires and emotions engendered by such thoughts.

James 1:14-16 (King James Version)

14But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.

15Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.

The second indication must have been their gradual awareness of physical change or the gradual inexorable journey toward death something contrary to what Satan had promised.

Genesis 3:4
And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

Genesis 5:5
And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.

The had dwindled to approx eighty by the time Psalm 90:10 was written due to further loss of physical vigor.


BTW
This reminds me of the film Bruce Almighty where he suggests that he could do better than God in managing world affairs and God replies that he is free to try but to remember that he has to let people choose their own behavior. In short, he had to allow for the possibility of mistakes and the consequences of such mistakes in order to avoid making them robots. If you were God how would you get around such a connundrum?

[DrBaltar]

This reminds me of the film Bruce Almighty where he suggests that he could do better than God in managing world affairs and God replies tha the is free to try but to remember that he has to let people be gave as they choose. In short, he had to allow their mistakes and the consequences of such mistakes in order to avoid making them robots. If you were God how would you get around such a connundrum?

Simple, stay out of their affairs. It's easy for me. It allows them to make decisions based on semi predictable outcomes. And it's the fairest solution. No one is favored over another. Besides, I didn't create a universe to get caught up in their tiny insignificant affairs. I mean, look at the size of the universe. Look how long it's been here before I made them. Do you think all this is about them? I'd much rather shoot stars down a black hole or watch galaxies collide than worry about if Bob's favorite team wins the superbowl, or whatever they are whining about these days.

One day I wanted to see what would happen if I started messing around with organic molecules. It was pretty cool, but the novelty has worn off. Sure every once in a while I'll peek in for a laugh, or impregnate one of their women and watch all the fallout. But mostly I just let them do their own thing.

[edge]

Evolution is simply something that is observed in nature...
Like the tides
Like rust

Evolution is not observable like tides and rust.
Evolution is a theory we think is/was, observable through great amounts of time, with leaps of faith to make up for the gaps in the fossil record.


The aggressive male Cavemen, sensing the secretions of the ovulating female, would bash in the skulls of the passive Cavemen with a Mammoth Femur, in order to mate. Thus the aggressive traits were passed on. Evil, is nothing more than compounded aggressiveness over thousands of generations.

This could explain why the Neanderthals went extinct.
Or other supposed missing links, like Lucy.

If Neanderthals weren’t related to us what in the world makes you think that more primitive apes are related to us?
It’s your theory I forgot.


Then with faith we could have a theory like this, humans survived till now because, good was presented to us, but by whom?

Then this, “good morals”, was breed into us for thousands of generations till now.

Other wise we would have gone the same way Neanderthals did with every other male bashing in every other skull that was trying to get the ovulating female, heaven forbid if they had a Mall back then.
What of the father and mother, sons and other daughters of that poor cave girl on her ovulating cycle?
Do you think they would allow a rape of their offspring in front of their eyes or do you suppose they would intervene?
If what you say is true then we would have never got to this point in history.


I would have to say that the world has more good in it than bad, so your theory doesn’t wash.

So the creation would have been pure to begin with not evil.
You would have it the other way around.
Credit for the human and not the creator.


http://www.omniology.com/NeanderRecons.html

[six7s]

Catholics and Protestants make up 74% of the prison population while atheists only make up .209% of the prison population. Please explain why atheists make up 15% of the general population and only .209% of the prison population?

Reluctant as I am to promote woo, I am an atheist because I'm a sceptic... not the other way around... and, going only from the data above, my scepticism suggests two related possible factors:
<speculation>

Conversions following stress
e.g. a trial and subsequent incarceration into what are - at least according to the mass media - institutions where bullying and abuse is rife
.
Conversions of 'pendulum-swingers'
With only anecdotal evidence, I get the impression that a significant proportion of those who gather at the shallow end of the gene pool not only have a habit of diving in, head-first without even looking but also, being real pack-animals, they are prone to aligning themselves with any dominant trend, especially one that is diametrically opposed to the 'norms' that have routinely failed them so far
</speculation>

[bokonon]

BTW
This reminds me of the film Bruce Almighty where he suggests that he could do better than God in managing world affairs and God replies that he is free to try but to remember that he has to let people choose their own behavior. In short, he had to allow for the possibility of mistakes and the consequences of such mistakes in order to avoid making them robots. If you were God how would you get around such a connundrum?

Ooh, ooh, I know. Make them smart enough to know when something will be a mistake before they make it. Give them one of those "Ghost of Christmas Future" iPods, so they'll have enough information to make an informed decision. Give everybody the ability to poof stuff into existence, so no one will be tempted to exploit or steal from his fellow creatures to get things. Make everybody omniscient, so they will know if some ne'er-do-well paints unflattering comments on the side of his neighbor's yacht.

God's problem appears to be that he didn't sit down and think things through before he started duct-taping his universe together. A little planning could have avoided the Eden eviction, and the Noah genocide, among other things.

[edge]

Catholics and Protestants make up 74% of the prison population while atheists only make up .209% of the prison population. Please explain why atheists make up 15% of the general population and only .209% of the prison population?


We all fall short.
I'm a Christian and I'm not in prison.

If I was to belong to any of these I would say, Church of Christ ......1303 1.744%
I am not sure if I belong to any of them.
When I was in the military I was asked to make a choice and I did, a random choice.
Just to help the paper work go through.
I choose Protestant, but I wasn't one, it didn't matter the same God that I pray to wouldn't care which building I was in and there was no Orthodox church there for me to go and pray in, which is what I was brought up as.
At the time I was more of an atheist, but I was asked, so I replied.

So if those were all the choices I still wouldn't know which to pick.
How many percent of those choices are wrong or where picked just to pick one?

If you are in prison, then they have given up their faith what ever it was and have fallen.
The stories I hear is that they go in non-believers and come out believers in Christ.
For some it is still a façade.

[DrBaltar]

humans are basically evil until transformed by the renewing power of Jesus Christ.
Do you have any data that confirm this?
Edge, let's try again. You made the claim that humans are basically evil until transformed by the renewing power of Jesus Christ. Do you have any data that confirm this? Or is it just a random claim?

[RobRoy]

Evolution is not observable like tides and rust.
Evolution is a theory we think is/was, observable through great amounts of time, with leaps of faith to make up for the gaps in the fossil record.

On this, I'm afraid, you're wrong. Evolution is observable. Although I know it's hopeless that you would even consider reviewing this information, still, I'll put it out there with one very nice peice of evidence: written-for-the-layman Darwin's Ghost. Professor of Genetics at Univesity College London Steve Jones lays out the observable truth of evolution as scientists have been able to see it through the HIV virus, which has evolved from one species into two seperate species HIV-1 and HIV-2. Because of the speed with which the HIV lives, grows, reproduces and dies, the evolution of this virus has been easily traceable.

No leap of faith required. It's happened like this in the past, it's happening, it will happen in the future.

*singing* It's the CIRCLE OF LIFE, it's a WHEEL OF FORTUNE . . .

[RobRoy]

Double-post. Curse my computer.

[PBTree]

Evolution is not observable like tides and rust.
Evolution is a theory we think is/was, observable through great amounts of time, with leaps of faith to make up for the gaps in the fossil record.



All evolutionary gaps are caused by the lack of scientific knowledge (answers). Once the knowledge is obtained, through real scientific investigation, these gaps will be filled in. You never know, we may never know the answers but that still doesn't mean science will fill it in with nonsense. It will just remain unknown.

The other lot don't have answers either but they tend to; make things up.


Its the same as when you see people using biblical quotations throughout this forum and then placing an explanation of those quotations underneath it. There are several on this page. The explanations are all made up. Nobody has bothered to contact the author, it is all just assumption. Without access to the brain behind the biblical verbiage, it is all so much nonsense.
All quotational explanations should be preceded by; "IMO" and not put out there as an assumed fact.

[PBTree]

Evolution is not observable like tides and rust.
Evolution is a theory we think is/was, observable through great amounts of time, with leaps of faith to make up for the gaps in the fossil record.



All evolutionary gaps are caused by the lack of scientific knowledge (answers). Once the knowledge is obtained, through real scientific investigation, these gaps will be filled in. You never know, we may never know the answers but that still doesn't mean science will fill it in with nonsense. It will just remain unknown.

The other lot don't have answers either but they tend to; make things up.


Its the same as when you see people using biblical quotations throughout this forum and then placing an explanation of those quotations underneath it. There are several on this page. The explanations are all made up. Nobody has bothered to contact the author, it is all just assumption. Without access to the brain behind the biblical verbiage, it is all so much nonsense.
All quotational explanations should be preceded by; "IMO" and not put out there as an assumed fact.

[six7s]

Double-post. Curse my computer.

OK :)

Harken, ye sulphurous nonentity, thou dabbler in abominations! Wouldest that thou be whipped with a thousand scorpions, trampled by a herd of stampeding pigs, cast onto a steaming dung-heap and turned into a pillar of salt!

Amen


Of course, you could do it yourself:

Ship of Fools » Biblical Curse Generator (http://www.shipoffools.com/Features/Curses/Curses_body.html)

pre-loaded with blistering put-downs as delivered by Elijah, Jeremiah and other monumentally angry saints. Simply click the button... and get ready to smite your foes with a custom-made curse straight out of the Old Testament.

[edge]

Look at like this,"Sombody lite the torch after that big noise called THE BIG/BANG and he's still in here and we are out of the dark".

So what's your pleasure Light or dark?
This is what it boils down to.

[articulett]

Who made that somebody? Who made that torch? How do you know?

[six7s]

Do you actually understand some of that? Wow! You really do ROCK!

:)

[articulett]

Do you actually understand some of that? Wow! You really do ROCK!

:)

You didn't know I speak woo?

[DrBaltar]

Look at like this,"Sombody lite the torch after that big noise called THE BIG/BANG and he's still in here and we are out of the dark".


Who made that somebody? Who made that torch? How do you know?


Look at like this,"Sombody created the God who lites the torch after that big noise called THE BIG/BANG and he's still in here and we are out of the dark".


Who made that somebody? Who made that torch? How do you know?


Look at like this,"Sombody created the creator who created the God who lites the torch after that big noise called THE BIG/BANG and he's still in here and we are out of the dark".

[six7s]

Ahaa! Now I see the picture!

Turkeys
Turtles
Turtles
Turtles
Turtles
Turtles
Turtles
Turtles
Turtles
Turtles
Turtles
Turtles
Turtles
Turtles
Turtles
Turtles
Turtles
Turtles
Turtles
Turtles
Turtles
Turtles
Turtles
Turtles
Turtles
Turtles
Turtles

[NobbyNobbs]

Evolution is not observable like tides and rust.
Evolution is a theory we think is/was, observable through great amounts of time, with leaps of faith to make up for the gaps in the fossil record.

Consider an acorn, a young sapling, and a full grown oak tree. To my knowledge, no one has ever sat around and watched the entire cycle. According to you, we can't know for sure that an acorn develops into an oak tree, unless we have a sample from each and every stage of development.



If Neanderthals weren’t related to us what in the world makes you think that more primitive apes are related to us?
It’s your theory I forgot.

Neandertals are related to us, but they are cousins, rather than ancestors.



I would have to say that the world has more good in it than bad, so your theory doesn’t wash.

What about your theory that people are inherently evil? You seem to have contradicted yourself.

[edge]

Consider an acorn, a young sapling, and a full grown oak tree. To my knowledge, no one has ever sat around and watched the entire cycle. According to you, we can't know for sure that an acorn develops into an oak tree, unless we have a sample from each and every stage of development.

You are not even close in a time line of occurrence.
On a short time line you can make up for the gaps because the tree isn’t going anywhere.

Neanderthals are related to us, but they are cousins, rather than ancestors.


I guess I have never met a Neanderthal cousin.
I guess that gorillas are second cousins twice removed what about chimps?



Originally Posted by edge
I would have to say that the world has more good in it than bad, so your theory doesn’t wash.
What about your theory that people are inherently evil? You seem to have contradicted yourself.

It just means that there are more people that make the right choices right now and that comes from various beliefs and conscience.
The evil choices are still there and we all have to make choices in the respect to which paths we take.
Revelations tells us that balance is going to change and it will come from lack of belief and skepticism of the word of God brought on from non-believers.
Shall I show you where it says that?
Or do you know and refuse to listen?
It doesn’t mean we have to stop progressing it means we need to change our hearts.

[six7s]

It just means that there are more people that make the right choices right now and that comes from various beliefs and conscience

So... is the 'inherent evil' like 'inherent toothlessness' (something humans grow out of, naturally) or 'inherent illiteracy' (something we learn to overcome)?*

and that comes from various beliefs and conscience

So, considering that well over half of the people on the planet live between Tehran and Tokyo, which belief systems qualify?*

Revelations tells us that balance is going to change

Correction. Revelations tells YOU that balance is going to change.

and it will come from lack of belief and skepticism of the word of God brought on from non-believers.

You do know that scepticism is not synonymous with cynicism, don't you?

If so, are you suggesting that the word of God can't bear the scrutiny of those searching for the truth?*

:confused:

__________________________________________________ __
*TIP OF THE DAY: When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging

[PBTree]

Revelations tells us that balance is going to change and it will come from lack of belief and skepticism of the word of God brought on from non-believers.


You could show me where it states the date of this change, so I can prepare. Even the year, or the century would be good.

I find it amazing that believers like to use the book as a source of reference but always in an obtuse sort of way. Never giving out the "when answer" to any question.

eg.
"Its going to rain like heck (sometime in the next brazillian years), so start wearing your faith based water-wings now, just to be on the safe side".

"jesus will return".
"When?"
"Never you mind when, just know that he will, sometime".
"How do you know he's coming?"
"I've got this special book and it tells me everything. Can't understand half of what's in it and there appears to be heaps of violence but I am sure it tells me he is coming back"
"Got a date for this event"
"jesus will return."
"When?"
etc etc etc...

[six7s]

"jesus will return".

:confused:

Evidence that he ever left?

[PBTree]

:confused:

Evidence that he ever left?

I have seen the picture of him raising up to heaven from the mount on a beam of light. That has to be evidence of his 'leaving'.

+

Funny thing was though, he looked more like a swedish tennis player than someone from the middle east.

:)

[Jeff Corey]

...Revelations tells us that balance is going to change and it will come from lack of belief and skepticism of the word of God brought on from non-believers.
Shall I show you where it says that?
Or do you know and refuse to listen?
It doesn’t mean we have to stop progressing it means we need to change our hearts.

Your Revelations are old writings by deluded people. You seem to have been infected by their delusions. I picture you standing on a milk crate down in the town square blathering this crap to the uninterested.

[Drewbot]

How do you know ... (insert religious question here)?

It says so in the book

But how do you KNOW?

It says so in the book

BUT HOW DO YOU KNOW?!?!?!

It says so in the book

I UNDERSTAND IT IS IN THE BOOK! BUT HOW DO YOU KNOW?!!

It says so in the book...

... to infinity ...

[Radrook]

Evolution is not observable like tides and rust.
Evolution is a theory we think is/was, observable through great amounts of time, with leaps of faith to make up for the gaps in the fossil record.

The following creationist site has an interesting article which addresses the punctuated equilibrium as opposed to gradualist evolutionist approach and makes reference to the gaps in the fossil record you mention.

Article
http://av.rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A9ibyKG_17ZH9kQBnEprCqMX;_ylu=X3oDMTBvdmM3bGl xBHBndANhdl93ZWJfcmVzdWx0BHNlYwNzcg--/SIG=129fi5vth/EXP=1203251519/**http%3a//www.godandscience.org/evolution/evolution.html

[edge]

You do know that scepticism is not synonymous with cynicism, don't you?
Only in the real world face to face then skeptics are more humble.

If so, are you suggesting that the word of God can't bear the scrutiny of those searching for the truth?*

Heck NO.

*TIP OF THE DAY: When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging
If there’s gold at the bottom you must hit bottom to get the gold/knowledge.


Eldredge and Gould not only showed that paleontologists had been out-of-step with biologists for decades, but also that they had unconsciously trying to force the fossil record into the gradualistic mode. The few supposed examples of gradual evolution were featured in the journals and textbooks, but paleontologists had long been mum about their 'dirty little trade secret:' most species appear suddenly in the fossil record and show no appreciable change for millions of years until their extinction."2
Dr. Donald Prothero


I like that site it’s very informative.

[NobbyNobbs]

You are not even close in a time line of occurrence.
On a short time line you can make up for the gaps because the tree isn’t going anywhere.

Sigh. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogy)


I guess I have never met a Neanderthal cousin.

Sigh, again. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinct)

I guess that gorillas are second cousins twice removed what about chimps?

Considering what I've heard so far, I'd say that chimps are a step up from you, evolutionary-wise.

[edge]

Considering what I've heard so far, I'd say that chimps are a step up from you, evolutionary-wise.
Look, skeptyspeak, whatever...

[articulett]

Ewwww....this thread has been totally infested by creationist woos... there's no escaping the stupid... and they haven't the intelligence to correct their vast ignorance. They think their head is filled with "higher truth"... they don't need facts or anything.

(Let this serve as a warning to others as to how creationism encourages brain damage. Don't let your babies be taught by creationists...)