# Should Christians support Obama?



## jagbender (Jun 18, 2012)

Dr. David Barton - on Obama 
Respect the Office? Yes. 
Respect the Man in the Office? No, I am sorry to say. 
I have noted that many elected officials, both Democrats andRepublicans, called upon America to unite behind Obama. 
Well, I want to make it clear to all who will listen that I AM NOTuniting behind Obama! 
I will respect the Office which he holds, and I will acknowledgehis abilities as an orator and wordsmith and pray for him, BUT that is it. 
I have begun today to see what I can do to make sure that he is aone-term President! 
Why am I doing this? 
It is because: 
- I do not share Obama's vision or value system for America;
- I do not share his Abortion beliefs; 
- I do not share his radical Marxist's concept of re-distributingwealth; 
- I do not share his stated views on raising taxes on those whomake$150,000+ (the ceiling has been changed three times since August); 
- I do not share his view that America is Arrogant; 
- I do not share his view that America is not a Christian Nation; 
- I do not share his view that the military should be reduced by25%; 
- I do not share his view of amnesty and giving more to illegal?sthan our American Citizens who need help; 
- I do not share his views on homosexuality and his definition ofmarriage; 
- I do not share his views that Radical Islam is our friend andIsrael is our enemy who should give up any land; 
- I do not share his spiritual beliefs (at least the ones he hasmade public); 
- I do not share his beliefs on how to re-work the healthcaresystem in America; 
- I do not share his Strategic views of the Middle East; and 
- I certainly do not share his plan to sit down with terroristregimes such as Iran.
Bottom line: my America is vastly different from Obama's, and Ihave a higher obligation to my Country and my GOD to do what is Right! 
For eight (8) years, the Liberals in our Society, led by numerousentertainers who would have no platform and no real credibility but for theircelebrity status, have attacked President Bush, his family, and his spiritualbeliefs!
They have not moved toward the center in their beliefs and theirphilosophies, and they never came together nor compromised their personalbeliefs for the betterment of our Country! 
They have portrayed my America as a land where everything is toleratedexcept being intolerant! 
They have been a vocal and irreverent minority for years! 
They have mocked and attacked the very core values so important tothe founding and growth of our Country! 
They have made every effort to remove the name of GOD or JesusChrist from our Society! 
They have challenged capital punishment, the right to bearfirearms, and the most basic principles of our criminal code! 
They have attacked one of the most fundamental of all Freedoms,the right of free speech! 
Unite behind Obama? Never!
I am sure many of you who read this think that I am goingoverboard, but I refuse to retreat one more inch in favor of those whom Ibelieve are the embodiment of Evil!
PRESIDENT BUSH made many mistakes during his Presidency, and I amnot sure how history will judge him. However, I believe that he weighed hisdecisions in light of the long established Judeo-Christian principles of ourFounding Fathers!!!
Majority rules in America, and I will honor the concept; however,I will fight with all of my power to be a voice in opposition to Obama and his"goals for America ..." 
I am going to be a thorn in the side of those who, if leftunchecked, will destroy our Country! Any more compromise is more defeat! 
I pray that the results of this election will wake up many whohave sat on the sidelines and allowed the Socialist-Marxist anti-GOD crowd toslowly change so much of what has been good in America!


----------



## DOMS (Jun 18, 2012)

Americans in general should not.


----------



## vicious 13 (Jun 18, 2012)

Politics and religion don't go together and who should we support


----------



## exphys88 (Jun 18, 2012)

Maybe if you pray hard enough, god will make a mormon president.  Wait, does god like mormons, or does he hate them like he does fags?


----------



## vicious 13 (Jun 18, 2012)

God for president?


----------



## DOMS (Jun 18, 2012)

vicious 13 said:


> God for president?



Only if he smites his predecessor, the Senate, Congress, and... 

Screw it, he'll need to kill just about all the politicians.


----------



## Chrisotpherm (Jun 18, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> Maybe if you pray hard enough, god will make a mormon president.  Wait, does god like mormons, or does he hate them like he does fags?



I knew your were going to chime in ex. Lol. 

However I do see eye to eye on what this fellow has said.  Our nation iw losing our stance as a world power and continually being down graded by our own president and congress stupid decisions.


----------



## exphys88 (Jun 18, 2012)

Chrisotpherm said:


> I knew your were going to chime in ex. Lol.
> 
> However I do see eye to eye on what this fellow has said.  Our nation iw losing our stance as a world power and continually being down graded by our own president and congress stupid decisions.



I wasn't intending to suggest anything about obamas politics, just the irony of telling christians that they should vote for a mormon instead of a christian.  It's also strange what christians think jesus would suggest they do.  Would jesus agree with bombing of other countries?  Would he be for capital punishment?  Would he be a socialist of a capitalist?  would he be ok with healthcare for everyone?  does he think people should strive to be rich, or does he think that rich people will have a hard time getting into heaven?


----------



## ALBOB (Jun 18, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> the irony of telling christians that they should vote for a mormon instead of a christian.





Uhhhh, you do realize Mormons ARE Christians, don't you?


----------



## DOMS (Jun 18, 2012)

ALBOB said:


> Uhhhh, you do realize Mormons ARE Christians, don't you?



Some of the better ones.


----------



## hoyle21 (Jun 18, 2012)

ALBOB said:


> Uhhhh, you do realize Mormons ARE Christians, don't you?



Most Christians would disagree.


Besides, Christians dont support America.   They would feel more welcome in a place like the Philippines, or the middle east.


----------



## exphys88 (Jun 18, 2012)

ALBOB said:


> Uhhhh, you do realize Mormons ARE Christians, don't you?



Yes, Mormons currently like to be included in the term "Christian," but clearly the 2 sets of beliefs can't both be accurate.  Here is a Christian website that clearly lays out the differences in the 2 religions and explains why either one or both is incorrect.
http://bible-truth.org/arelds.htm


----------



## exphys88 (Jun 18, 2012)

DOMS said:


> Some of the better ones.



Mormons are some of the genuinely kindest and respectable people that I've come into contact with, much like Buddhists.
But, I bet they're lame in the sack.


----------



## DOMS (Jun 18, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> Yes, Mormons currently like to be included in the term "Christian," but clearly the 2 sets of beliefs can't both be accurate.  Here is a Christian website that clearly lays out the differences in the 2 religions and explains why either one or both is incorrect.
> Are Mormons Christians?



Yep, Mormons have some unique views, but unlike most other religions, Christian or otherwise, they spend more time doing good than talking about doing good.


----------



## exphys88 (Jun 18, 2012)

DOMS said:


> Yep, Mormons have some unique views, but unlike most other religions, Christian or otherwise, they spend more time doing good than talking about doing good.



I completely agree


----------



## secdrl (Jun 18, 2012)

I thought Obama was a Christian? Supports Abortion, Supports Gay Marriage and said the passing of his HC bill is something "Jesus would do." 

Obama Says He Is A Christian? You Be The Judge! - YouTube


----------



## charley (Jun 18, 2012)




----------



## exphys88 (Jun 18, 2012)

secdrl said:


> I thought Obama was a Christian? Supports Abortion, Supports Gay Marriage and said the passing of his HC bill is something "Jesus would do."
> 
> Obama Says He Is A Christian? You Be The Judge! - YouTube



So, supporting capital punishment, discrimination of homosexuals and only giving  healthcare to those with enough money are things jesus would approve of?  Have you read the bible, cause I'm pretty sure jesus was against killing, was against judging people and healed the sick w/o pay.    If jesus were alive today, he'd be a socialist and a pacifist, both of which are not good for humanity.


----------



## secdrl (Jun 18, 2012)

I disagree that gays are discriminated against. They want special treatment and special rights. It's discrimination against straight people. For example, they can have a gay pride parade and celebrate their "colors," but would it be okay if they we held a "straight parade." Of course not, that's hateful and full of bigotry. The left have always shown a fucked up hypocritcal agenda, and Barack Obama is the epitome of a hypocrite.


----------



## hoyle21 (Jun 18, 2012)

secdrl said:


> I disagree that gays are discriminated against. They want special treatment and special rights. It's discrimination against straight people. For example, they can have a gay pride parade and celebrate their "colors," but would it be okay if they we held a "straight parade." Of course not, that's hateful and full of bigotry. The left have always shown a fucked up hypocritcal agenda, and Barack Obama is the epitome of a hypocrite.



Good luck exphys!


----------



## exphys88 (Jun 18, 2012)

secdrl said:


> I disagree that gays are discriminated against. They want special treatment and special rights. It's discrimination against straight people. For example, they can have a gay pride parade and celebrate their "colors," but would it be okay if they we held a "straight parade." Of course not, that's hateful and full of bigotry. The left have always shown a fucked up hypocritcal agenda, and Barack Obama is the epitome of a hypocrite.



I've been to tons of straight parades, actually every one I've been to was straight.  How about being fired for being gay? Is that discrimination, cause until this last year, the military did it all the time.  
What special rights are you referring to?  
I'm not defending obama, I'm just pointing out the absurdity of conservatives thinking that their views are anything close to resembling to what jesus taught.


----------



## secdrl (Jun 18, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> I've been to tons of straight parades, actually every one I've been to was straight. How about being fired for being gay? Is that discrimination, cause until this last year, the military did it all the time.
> What special rights are you referring to?
> I'm not defending obama, I'm just pointing out the absurdity of conservatives thinking that their views are anything close to resembling to what jesus taught.



Where are you attending straight pride parades? I'd like to pencil one in on my calendar. No, I don't think you should be fired for being gay in a corportate job. The military is a different story. What about black only colleges, now they're letting tranny's in beauty pagents. (not that there's anything wrong with that) Or black only scholarships? etc.?? The list goes on and on. IMO, the liberal left discriminates against white/straight people on a daily basis while promoting tolerance and acceptance for the alternative lifestyle and various races.


----------



## DOMS (Jun 18, 2012)

secdrl said:


> I disagree that gays are discriminated against. They want special treatment and special rights. It's discrimination against straight people. For example, they can have a gay pride parade and celebrate their "colors," but would it be okay if they we held a "straight parade." Of course not, that's hateful and full of bigotry. The left have always shown a fucked up hypocritcal agenda, and Barack Obama is the epitome of a hypocrite.



And that's how it is for non-white males.

You're black and want equality? Create scholarships only open to blacks and create a television station called the Black Entertainment Television network. You know, shit that whites aren't allowed to do.

You're a woman and want equality? Bitch about how there aren't enough women lawyers, doctors, or CEOs; but shut the fuck up when it comes to miners, industrial fishers, and sanitation workers. Bonus points for not talking about how men are underrepresented as registered nurses and elementary teachers.

You're gay and want equality? Get the ability to get married, abuse the shit out of churches that don't want to perform the ceremony even though there are other places to get it done, and then bitch about the backlash like you had nothing to do with it.

I'll close with the following quote of mine:

"And this is why I like being a hetero pale male.

Gays try to prove they're as good as straight people.
Minorities try to prove they're as good as whites.
Woman try to prove they're as good as men.

I don't have to prove shit."


----------



## exphys88 (Jun 18, 2012)

secdrl said:


> Where are you attending straight pride parades? I'd like to pencil one in on my calendar. No, I don't think you should be fired for being gay in a corportate job. The military is a different story. What about black only colleges, now they're letting tranny's in beauty pagents. (not that there's anything wrong with that) Or black only scholarships? etc.?? The list goes on and on. IMO, the liberal left discriminates against white/straight people on a daily basis while promoting tolerance and acceptance for the alternative lifestyle and various races.



We don't need straight pride parades, we are not treated as inferiors.  The point is that they're fighting for equal rights; to not be discriminated against, to not be told who they can and can't marry, and to be able to serve their country without being discriminated against.  

Why should we allow our military to fire gays?  You know that gays have been serving in the military since it was created right?  I'm still waiting for the military to collapse as repubs said it would after we removed DADT.


----------



## jagbender (Jun 18, 2012)

Why should gays have equal rights.  The cannot produce offspring.    When God dessigned men and women he had a simple plan 

Man mate with woman produce children.

Not man fuck man in ass 

Woman act like a man and  strap fuck girlfriend with a plastic dick.


It is too simple insert male part into female part 

DUH


----------



## troubador (Jun 18, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> So, supporting capital punishment, discrimination of homosexuals and only giving  healthcare to those with enough money are things jesus would approve of?  Have you read the bible, cause I'm pretty sure jesus was against killing, was against judging people and healed the sick w/o pay.    If jesus were alive today, he'd be a socialist and a pacifist, both of which are not good for humanity.



I'm no bible scholar but from what I gather I wouldn't be so sure about your claims. How an individual should act is not the same as how governments should operate. I make the argument all the time to Christians - just because something is immoral doesn't mean it should be illegal. Our founding fathers were able to see this distinction and I think the bible speaks very little(if at all?) about how a government should operate yet speaks heavily about how morality is an individual responsibility.


----------



## exphys88 (Jun 18, 2012)

jagbender said:


> Why should gays have equal rights.  The cannot produce offspring.    When God dessigned men and women he had a simple plan
> 
> Man mate with woman produce children.
> 
> ...



So, once your wife goes thru menopause and cannot reproduce, she no longer deserves equal rights?
I'm a big fan of women fucking other women with plastic dicks.

Again, back to the original point, you guys are nothing like jesus was and I'm sure he would be ashamed that you guys claim to be christians.  You sound more like muslims to me, and mormons actually act like jesus wanted folks to IMO.


----------



## exphys88 (Jun 18, 2012)

troubador said:


> I'm no bible scholar but from what I gather I wouldn't be so sure about your claims. How an individual should act is not the same as how governments should operate. I make the argument all the time to Christians - just because something is immoral doesn't mean it should be illegal. Our founding fathers were able to see this distinction and I think the bible speaks very little(if at all?) about how a government should operate yet speaks heavily about how morality is an individual responsibility.



I don't see your point.  I never said anything about things being illegal, I'm questioning whether conservative views are anything like jesus'.  I'm pretty sure when jesus said "thou shall not kill," he didn't mean that it was ok for a soldier to kill, or that capital punishment was an exception.  Or, when he said a rich man will have a hard time getting into heaven, he wasn't talking about governments.


----------



## troubador (Jun 18, 2012)

jagbender said:


> Why should gays have equal rights.



I think they do. If I'm not mistaken, laws regarding marriage make no distinction in sexual orientation. Gays aren't prohibited from getting married but rather anyone is barred from getting married to anyone of the same sex. So gays have equal right which happen to be quite inconvenient for them.

I actually don't care if homos get married, or four people get married to each other, or a midget marries a goat.


----------



## exphys88 (Jun 18, 2012)

troubador said:


> I think they do. If I'm not mistaken, laws regarding marriage make no distinction in sexual orientation. *Gays aren't prohibited from getting married but rather anyone is barred from getting married to anyone of the same sex. So gays have equal right which happen to be quite inconvenient for them*.
> 
> I actually don't care if homos get married, or four people get married to each other, or a midget marries a goat.



lol, that's a clever way to put it (no sarcasm).


----------



## troubador (Jun 18, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> I don't see your point.



Oh well.


----------



## exphys88 (Jun 18, 2012)

troubador said:


> Oh well.



correction, you didn't make a point.  Governments are made up of humans and laws are enforced by humans, therefore even if jesus didn't discuss governments, he discussed how we should treat each other, which includes our laws and policies.  You basically gave a cop out answer to treat people shitty and still say you're a christian and live the life the jesus intended you to.


----------



## jagbender (Jun 18, 2012)

troubador said:


> I think they do. If I'm not mistaken, laws regarding marriage make no distinction in sexual orientation. Gays aren't prohibited from getting married but rather anyone is barred from getting married to anyone of the same sex. So gays have equal right which happen to be quite inconvenient for them.
> 
> I actually don't care if homos get married, or four people get married to each other, or a midget marries a goat.



Gays want more than equal rights.


----------



## troubador (Jun 18, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> correction, you didn't make a point.  Governments are made up of humans and laws are enforced by humans, therefore even if jesus didn't discuss governments, he discussed how we should treat each other, which includes our laws and policies.



I'm no bible scholar but from what I gather I wouldn't be so sure about your claims. How an individual should act is not the same as how governments should operate. I make the argument all the time to Christians - just because something is immoral doesn't mean it should be illegal. Our founding fathers were able to see this distinction and I think the bible speaks very little(if at all?) about how a government should operate yet speaks heavily about how morality is an individual responsibility.


----------



## jagbender (Jun 18, 2012)

I know a lot of people on this forum do not belive in the Bible.  That is Ok with me.  I choose to accept the Bible as God's word.  The term Christian has watered down and diluted.   A lot of "Christain" Church's do not teach scripture.  I have only been studying scripture for 3 years and I happen to find it very interesting and humbling.  
People can argue about religion for centuries.  As a Christian I do have beliefs that a lot of what is happening in the world is not moral.  
Obama is not a good leader his is an Anti Christ.  There is a lot of truth in Bible prophesy, pick up a Bible and read it.   What is happening in the Middle East, It's in there.  New world order,  In there. 

One of the harderst things for me to understand was reading the Bible with today's meaning of the words today's morals and views, and by human standards.  I really did not understand many of the words of the Bible until I started studying the context and the meanings of the words. 

Christians were called Christians in Christ's time because they were different they were noticably different in the way they acted and believed.  Today so many "Christians" call themselves Christians, but no one can tell the difference in them. 

Today's casual  Christians have done more damage to God's word than Atheists.   I do agree with some of the views of posters here about Christianity.  But I do belive that the Bible is the inspired word of God.


----------



## jagbender (Jun 18, 2012)

Matthew 24:24, _"For there shall arise false Christ, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect."_


----------



## jagbender (Jun 18, 2012)

The name Christian was first used, as Acts 11:26 records, to identify the disciples of Jesus Christ. The word "Christian" is the Greek word, "_christianos_" and it means an adherent of Jesus Christ. It literally means "_Christ ones_


----------



## jagbender (Jun 18, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> Yes, Mormons currently like to be included in the term "Christian," but clearly the 2 sets of beliefs can't both be accurate.  Here is a Christian website that clearly lays out the differences in the 2 religions and explains why either one or both is incorrect.
> Are Mormons Christians?


I just read this link and am still trying to find the part where "both religions are incorrect"

Actually this article shows at Mormon's are Biblically incorrect and that the Bible is the true word of God.  

*[h=2]Are Mormons Christians?[/h]
The Bible and the Scriptures of the LDS Church
Prove Conclusively that Mormons are not Biblical Christians. 
by Cooper P. Abrams, III
(Published in O Timothy Magazine, Volume 13, Issue 9, October 1996)
Minor revisions made in January, 2003

   

Gadgets powered by Google
**

          Historically, only until recently have Mormons wanted to be called Christians, preferring not to be included with Christian denominations which Joseph Smith said were, ". . .all wrong...all their creeds were an abomination in his sight, and that those professors (Christians) were all corrupt." (Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith, 2:18-19)
          In the past Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the Mormons) have preferred to be called "saints." However, in the recent years the LDS church has spend millions in an intense public relations campaign aimed at moving their church into the mainstream of Christianity. The political and economic benefits of Mormons being included in the mainstream of Christianity are obvious. Further, for Mormons to be accepted as traditional Christians would greatly aid in their proselyting the members of Christian denominations into the LDS church. This is why the LDS church is trying so hard to present themselves as Christians and trying to overcome the stigma of being a cult.
Hopefully, this article will help the both Mormons and non-Mormons to see that Mormonism worships a different god and Jesus Christ and not the God and Jesus Christ of the Bible. The Constitution of the United States gives every citizen the right of freedom of religion and the LDS people have the right to believe as they desire. However, biblical Christians also have the right to defend their historic faith as revealed in the Bible and expose those who misuse their historic name. 

          This article, by presenting what God has said about who He is and His attributes, will show that the god of Mormonism is not God, our Creator, as He has revealed Himself in the Bible. The Bible's answer to the question, "Are Mormons Christians?" is simple: "They are not biblical Christians because their beliefs and teaching are contrary to what the Bible teaches and this reveals them to be a "Christian" cult." 

          A cult is a defined as a religion that uses the name of an astablished religion but changes its beliefs, practices, and terms. Cults often claim superiority over the historic faith. 
          The Mormon Church proudly declares they are Christians and their church bears the name of Jesus Christ, but the fact is they believe in a different Jesus Christ and god and not Jesus Christ who is our Creator (John 1:3, Colossians 1:16-17). This was confirmed by LDS Prophet Gordan B. Hinckley on June 4th, 1998 in a speech in Paris, France when he stated that those outside the the LDS Church who say that Latter-day Saints "do not believe in the traditional Christ" were correct. He further stated:


"The traditional Christ of whom they speak is not the Christ of whom I speak. For the Christ of whom I speak as been revealed in this the Dispensation of the Fullness of Times. He together with His Father, appeared to the boy Joseph Smith in the year 1820, and when Joseph left the grove that day, he knew more of the matters of God than all the learned ministers of the gospel of the ages." (Church News, June 20, 1998, p70)

          The traditional Christ of whom Hinckley spoke is the Jesus Christ as proclaimed in the New Testament and who biblical Christians have believe in and accepted as their Savior, the very Son of God, for the past 2000 years. Hinckley stated the Jesus Christ worshiped since ther First Century is not the Christ of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. He clearly states that the Mormons believe in a Christ that was revealed to Joseph Smith in 1820, come 1800 after our real Savior lived. Without question President Hinckley stated and confirmed that the LDS Jesus Christ and the Jesus Christ of the Bible are not the same. Only those who believe in the Christ of the Bible are true Christians.
          The name Christian was first used, as Acts 11:26 records, to identify the disciples of Jesus Christ. The word "Christian" is the Greek word, "christianos" and it means an adherent of Jesus Christ. It literally means "Christ ones." (Acts 11:26, 26:28, 1 Peter 4:16) The correct definition of the word is one who is a follower of the Jesus Christ of the Bible. Never in two thousand years has the word "Christian" had any other meaning or reference to anyone other than the historical Jesus Christ of the New Testament.
[h=3]Why Mormons are not Christians?[/h]

          First: Mormons do not follow or believe in the historic Jesus Christ of the Bible, but rather a difference Jesus. This is why most biblical Christians emphatically insist that Mormons are not Christians. Let me explain.
          The god of the Mormons is not the God of the Bible. To the Mormons, Jesus, is the first born son of an exalted "man" who became the god of this world. According to LDS church teaching, their god was first a man who became a god. The man-god of Mormonism was then made the god of this world because of his good works on another planet somewhere out in the Universe. He "earned" godhood, and was thus appointed by a counsel of gods in the heavens to his high position as the god of planet Earth. The Mormon god of this world was a man, like all men on earth. This is what the celestial marriage and the temple vows are all about. LDS men, by doing their temple work, are striving for exaltation by which they too shall one day can become a god. Their wives will be the mother goddesses of "their" world and with their husband will produce the population of their world. This is the Mormon doctrine of "eternal progression." 
Note the following quote is from the Mormon, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 1, page 123, made by the LDS Apostle Orson Hyde:
          "Remember that God, our heavenly Father, was perhaps once a child, a mortal like we ourselves, and rose step by step in the scale of progress, in the school of advancement; has moved forward and overcome, until He has arrived at the point were He is."           Lorenzo Snow, late President of the Mormon church, made this statement in the second verse of his famous poem entitled, "Man's Destiny":


          "As Abra'm, Isaac, Jacob, too,           First babes, then men-to gods they grew.                      As man now is, our God once was;           As now God is, so man may be,-           Which doth unfold man's destiny. . ."           

First the god of Mormonism is not the God of the Bible. 
          The God of the Bible is not an exalted man. The God and Creator according to His word is omnipresent, omnipotent and omniscient. The Bible says He is the only God and there are no other Gods. He had no beginning or end and he is a Spirit being and never was a man.           
[h=3]Note the clear teaching of the Bible as to who the real God is:[/h]



          Numbers 23:19, "God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?" 
         Psalms 102:26-17, "They shall perish, but thou shalt endure: yea, all of them shall wax old like a garment; as a vesture shalt thou change them, and they shall be changed: But thou art the same, and thy years shall have no end." 
          Isaiah 43:10-11, "Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no savior."           Isaiah 44:6, "Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God."
Isaiah 44:8, "Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any."


         Isaiah 45:21-22, "Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the LORD? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me. Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else." 
          Jeremiah 23:24, "Can any hide himself in secret places that I shall not see him? saith the LORD. Do not I fill heaven and earth? saith the LORD." 
          Malachi 3:6, "For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed." 
          John 1:16-18, "And of his fullness have all we received, and grace for grace. For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him." 
         John 4:24, "God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth." 
          Romans 1:22, "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things." 
          Colossians 1:15, "Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:" 
         1 Timothy 1:17, "Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen."           1 Timothy 6:16, "Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen." 


Clearly, the Mormons' god is not the God of Christianity who is God revealed to us in the Bible. The Mormon god is god, formed from the imaginations of Joseph Smith and does not exist. He is completely different from the God of the Bible our Creator. 
          [h=3]Second: The Jesus Christ of Mormonism is not the Jesus Christ of the Bible. [/h]
          The Mormon Jesus is the son of this man-god. The Mormon Jesus is the brother of all men on earth and also the brother Lucifer. He is not, to the LDS church, "God incarnate" which means God come to earth as man, as the Bible plainly states. (Matt. 1:23) Clearly, the Mormon god and Jesus cannot the true God and Jesus of the Bible. 
According to LDS popular LDS thought, Jesus married several of the Marys of the New Testament. Orson Hyde, the Mormon Apostle said, "We say it was Jesus Christ who was married in the marriage of Cana of Galilee." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 2, page 80) 
Brigham Young, contradicted God's word as recorded in Luke 1:35 and said, "When the Virgin Mary conceived the Child Jesus...He was not begotten by the Holy Ghost. And who is His father? He is the first of the human family." (Journal of Discourses, Pages 50-51) 
>Compare this with the Word of God which says:
*


----------



## exphys88 (Jun 18, 2012)

I made the point that only one can. E correct, it was in response to someone claiming that Mormons are Christian.


----------



## jagbender (Jun 18, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> I made the point that only one can. E correct, it was in response to someone claiming that Mormons are Christian.


Thank you for clarifying. 

I do agree Mormons are not Christians.


          A cult is a defined as a religion that uses the name of an astablished religion but changes its beliefs, practices, and terms. Cults often claim superiority over the historic faith. 
          The Mormon Church proudly declares they are Christians and their church bears the name of Jesus Christ, but the fact is they believe in a different Jesus Christ and god and not Jesus Christ who is our Creator (John 1:3, Colossians 1:16-17). This was confirmed by LDS Prophet Gordan B. Hinckley on June 4th, 1998 in a speech in Paris, France when he stated that those outside the the LDS Church who say that Latter-day Saints "do not believe in the traditional Christ" were correct. He further stated:



"The traditional Christ of whom they speak is not the Christ of whom I speak. For the Christ of whom I speak as been revealed in this the Dispensation of the Fullness of Times. He together with His Father, appeared to the boy Joseph Smith in the year 1820, and when Joseph left the grove that day, he knew more of the matters of God than all the learned ministers of the gospel of the ages." (Church News, June 20, 1998, p70)


----------



## Standard Donkey (Jun 18, 2012)

mfw people ITT think they know what christians are/believe
mfw real christians are libertarians
mfw i have no face


----------



## exphys88 (Jun 18, 2012)

Standard Donkey said:


> mfw people ITT think they know what christians are/believe
> mfw real christians are libertarians
> mfw i have no face



Translation?


----------



## NVRBDR (Jun 18, 2012)

[SUP]this pleases Jesus and The Father: 
 [/SUP]But without faith _it is_ impossible to please _Him,_ for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and _that_ He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him. 

about peoples behavior: 
For what I am doing, I do not understand. For what I will to do, that I do not practice; but what I hate, that I do. [SUP]16 [/SUP]If, then, I do what I will not to do, I agree with the law that _it is_good. [SUP]17 [/SUP]But now, _it is_ no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me. 

_For your reading pleasure:
There is_ therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus,[SUP][a][/SUP] who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit. [SUP]2 [/SUP]For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death. [SUP]3 [/SUP]For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God _did_ by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh, [SUP]4 [/SUP]that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. 

O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? [SUP]25 [/SUP]I thank God?through Jesus Christ our Lord!


----------



## jagbender (Jun 18, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> Translation?


I had to go to the Urban dictionary.  I am getting old 
my face when
Urban Dictionary: mfw

ITT  in this thread 
Urban Dictionary: ITT


----------



## exphys88 (Jun 18, 2012)

Jimmyusa said:


> [SUP]this pleases Jesus and The Father:
> [/SUP]But without faith _it is_ impossible to please _Him,_ for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and _that_ He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.
> 
> about peoples behavior:
> ...



Oh geez


----------



## jagbender (Jun 18, 2012)




----------



## NVRBDR (Jun 18, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> Oh geez




For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.


----------



## exphys88 (Jun 18, 2012)

Jimmyusa said:


> For the word of The Flying Spaghetti Monster is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.


Fixed!


----------



## NVRBDR (Jun 18, 2012)

religion is man's attempt to reach God. Jesus is God reaching out to man.


----------



## secdrl (Jun 18, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> Fixed!




Edit another man's words because you have a difference of opinion? Cheap. Weak. This isn't AG.


----------



## exphys88 (Jun 18, 2012)

secdrl said:


> Edit another man's words because you have a difference of opinion? Cheap. Weak. This isn't AG.



You call him god, I call him by his real name; the Flying Spaghetti Monster.  Some day you will come to see the truth


----------



## fit26 (Jun 18, 2012)

If gays want to marry same sex, they have to leave church.  I they want to be christians, they have to act normal and marry opposite sex.  They can't have both ways.  They can't force church to change the its policy.  Any christians who support same sex marriage is breaking one of the rules of the church.  Politicians should stay away from religions.


----------



## exphys88 (Jun 18, 2012)

fit26 said:


> If gays want to marry same sex, they have to leave church.  I they want to be christians, they have to act normal and marry opposite sex.  They can't have both ways.  They can't force church to change the its policy.  Any christians who support same sex marriage is breaking one of the rules of the church.  Politicians should stay away from religions.



I agree


----------



## NVRBDR (Jun 18, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> You call him god, I call him by his real name; the Flying Spaghetti Monster.  Some day you will come to see the truth


Gods name spoken by Him: 

Then Moses said to God, ?Indeed, _when_ I come to the children of Israel and say to them, ?The God of your fathers has sent me to you,? and they say to me, ?What _is_ His name?? what shall I say to them??
[SUP]14 [/SUP]And God said to Moses, ?*I AM WHO I AM.*? And He said, ?Thus you shall say to the children of Israel,_*?I AM* _has sent me to you.??

The Truth:
Jesus answered, ?*I am t*he way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.


----------



## NVRBDR (Jun 18, 2012)

[SIZE=+2]A Few Declarations of Founding Fathers and Early Statesmen on Jesus, Christianity, and the Bible

[SIZE=+2]WallBuilders - Issues and Articles - The Founding Fathers on Jesus, Christianity and the Bible[/SIZE]
[/SIZE]


----------



## Standard Donkey (Jun 18, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> You call him god, I call him by his real name; the Flying Spaghetti Monster.  *Some day you will come to see the truth*



yeah the truth that nothing exploded and created everything.. duh


it's science


----------



## exphys88 (Jun 18, 2012)

Jimmyusa said:


> [SIZE=+2]A Few Declarations of Founding Fathers and Early Statesmen on Jesus, Christianity, and the Bible
> 
> [SIZE=+2]WallBuilders - Issues and Articles - The Founding Fathers on Jesus, Christianity and the Bible[/SIZE]
> [/SIZE]



They did a great job of cherry picking those quotes.  They left out the Jefferson bible in which he removed any scripture that mentions the divinity of Jesus.
I could also post some quotes that suggest disgust w Christianity by the founding fathers.


----------



## exphys88 (Jun 18, 2012)

Standard Donkey said:


> yeah the truth that nothing exploded and created everything.. duh
> 
> 
> it's science



Is that how god was created?  Surely something as complex as god had to have been created and couldn't just come from nothing?
Have you ever taken a biology class?


----------



## maniclion (Jun 18, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> Is that how god was created?  Surely something as complex as god had to have been created and couldn't just come from nothing?
> Have you ever taken a biology class?



The FSM shit him on an asteroid and a sun hatched him...


----------



## Standard Donkey (Jun 18, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> Is that how god was created?  Surely something as complex as god had to have been created and couldn't just come from nothing?
> Have you ever taken a biology class?



 yes i took bio in highschool lol..

still dont know how something comes from nothing tho


----------



## exphys88 (Jun 18, 2012)

maniclion said:


> The FSM shit him on an asteroid and a sun hatched him...



You're going to hell, w other horrible humans like Gandhi and all the Jews killed in the holocaust.


----------



## NVRBDR (Jun 18, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> Is that how god was created?  Surely something as complex as god had to have been created and couldn't just come from nothing?
> Have you ever taken a biology class?




I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.
He is the Maker of heaven and earth, the sea, and everything in them—He remains faithful forever.
For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him.
In the beginning, God created...


----------



## withoutrulers (Jun 18, 2012)

prime mover< prime mover<prime mover<prime rib with seasoned red potatoes,green beans, and home made apple pie.


----------



## exphys88 (Jun 18, 2012)

Standard Donkey said:


> yes i took bio in highschool lol..
> 
> still dont know how something comes from nothing tho



You mean like god?  I don't know how something comes from nothing either, but I can bet that some book written thousands of years ago by men I've never met doesn't have the answers either.


----------



## exphys88 (Jun 18, 2012)

Jimmyusa said:


> I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.
> He is the Maker of heaven and earth, the sea, and everything in them—He remains faithful forever.
> For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him.
> In the beginning, God created...



Right... the bible says god is real, and god says the bible is accurate, in the bible.  I'm convinced!


----------



## exphys88 (Jun 18, 2012)

withoutrulers said:


> prime mover< prime mover<prime mover<prime rib with seasoned red potatoes,green beans, and home made apple pie.



And a side of scat?


----------



## NVRBDR (Jun 18, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> You mean like god?  I don't know how something comes from nothing either, but I can bet that some book written thousands of years ago by men I've never met doesn't have the answers either.



Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.

The bible is the best place to get your answers bro.


----------



## exphys88 (Jun 18, 2012)

Jimmyusa said:


> Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.



Thanks for the bed time story


----------



## parsifal09 (Jun 18, 2012)

religious thread,mmmm


----------



## exphys88 (Jun 18, 2012)

parsifal09 said:


> religious thread,mmmm



They really highlight the critical thinking skills of religious folks.


----------



## withoutrulers (Jun 18, 2012)

Jesus recently revealed to me in a dream that he is a Buddhist.


----------



## charley (Jun 18, 2012)

withoutrulers said:


> prime mover< prime mover<prime mover<prime rib with seasoned red potatoes,green beans, and home made apple pie.





If its all the same to you, I'll have the prime rib & green beans.....no potatoes or apple pie.....I'm carb cutting..


----------



## withoutrulers (Jun 18, 2012)

charley said:


> If its all the same to you, I'll have the prime rib & green beans.....no potatoes or apple pie.....I'm carb cutting..


^^^Wants to have a prime movement


----------



## NVRBDR (Jun 18, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> Right... the bible says god is real, and god says the bible is accurate, in the bible.  I'm convinced!



Correct, the bible confirms itself as true over and over again, here is a fun fact...

The Bible is composed of 66 parts, or books, written over a period of approximately 1,500 years (from about 1450 BC to about 90 AD) by over 40 different people. These writers were all different from each other. Some were rich, some poor, some young, some old. Some were priests, some prophets, one was a tax collector (Matthew), one was a doctor (Luke), a tentmaker (Paul), and a fisherman (Peter). Yet they all wrote about the same man who claimed to be God - Jesus Christ.  You will find that they all agree about Jesus Christ, God, the Holy Spirit, the Bible, the end times, salvation, heaven, hell, etc.


----------



## parsifal09 (Jun 18, 2012)

i respect your beliefs

i enjoy reading the bible,lots of good stuff such as song of songs,ecclesiastes,lamentations,job,isaiah,romans,etc





Jimmyusa said:


> Correct, the bible confirms itself as true over and over again, here is a fun fact...
> 
> The Bible is composed of 66 parts, or books, written over a period of approximately 1,500 years (from about 1450 BC to about 90 AD) by over 40 different people. These writers were all different from each other. Some were rich, some poor, some young, some old. Some were priests, some prophets, one was a tax collector (Matthew), one was a doctor (Luke), a tentmaker (Paul), and a fisherman (Peter). Yet they all wrote about the same man who claimed to be God - Jesus Christ.  You will find that they all agree about Jesus Christ, God, the Holy Spirit, the Bible, the end times, salvation, heaven, hell, etc.


----------



## NVRBDR (Jun 19, 2012)

parsifal09 said:


> i respect your beliefs
> 
> i enjoy reading the bible,lots of good stuff such as song of songs,ecclesiastes,lamentations,job,isaiah,romans,etc



Thanks brother. great books, Romans has always been a favorite of mine too, among others...


----------



## Standard Donkey (Jun 19, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> They really highlight the critical thinking skills of religious folks.



doesn't sound like you have much of a clue either..


we christians aren't so arrogant as to claim that we know the truth for certain, but that's where that whole faith thing comes in


----------



## withoutrulers (Jun 19, 2012)

Standard Donkey said:


> doesn't sound like you have much of a clue either..
> 
> 
> we christians aren't so arrogant as to claim that we know the truth for certain, but that's where that whole faith thing comes in


The certainty by which christians make their claims is a huge portion of the backlash against their views. there are major political pushes made by christians in america attempting to force religion into schools, legions of christians go out every day to irritate the world with their pamphlets and ridiculous religious claims. There are parts of this country where it is literally impossible to engage in conversation without a christian butting their know-it-all head in to assert their views. Arrogance is part and parcel with the christian ideology. Every single time a christian tells someone else they're going to hell, would you not call that arrogant certainty?


----------



## Chrisotpherm (Jun 19, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> Is that how god was created?  Surely something as complex as god had to have been created and couldn't just come from nothing?
> ?




Famous quote: *Have you ever taken a biology class. 


*This thread shows why congress and the church are sseparated. There have been so may interpretations of the bible, hince  the forming of separate denominations as baptist, Methodist, pPentecostals etc...  Where in the bible do you find Jesus or the bible in general specify any of the above to be?  This my brothers is the reason American Christians are so hated by everyone world wide. Because they separate themselves from other "believers", fellow Christians because of a diffent theology on the way to heaven. Something I believe Christ himself would openly rebuke. As all denominations that are known are man made from their own interpretation of the bible and in a way can be looked at what he hated most, Pharisees and Sadducees.  I hate getting into God debates, especially prove he is real ones.  As folks have already made up their minds what they are going to believe regardless of what is shown through text. People want to see physical proof and even Christ said, " blessed are those who have not seen, but believe". So regardless of what any scholar "MAN" says these days, unless you have proof then folks just aren't going to believe. The only physical sign they will see, is us who call ourselves Christians acting as Christ would and as a whole in America are doing a terrible job. Again Jesus would openly rebuke for the way we are alllllllll acting as he was of love, compassion, forgiveness, healing, relationship/communion and hated the thing I hate to is religion. As religion isn't a faith or an act, but a belief in with all the knowledge you could possibly read and be driven by man. His followers had relationship, which is everything that I described Christ above. Once you have all that then you will know who God is as you know who he is. 

The gay issue will never be won in this day in time because folks are way more liberal than they were 50-100 years ago. However from a Christian perspective, I don't hate them or judge them because I am not God, but I don't agree with or like what they do, but would be a friend and am a friend to me of them showing them love. That is all we can do as the "so called believers".


----------



## Zaphod (Jun 19, 2012)

jagbender said:


>



Their electric bill would be astronomical since it would never shut off.


----------



## exphys88 (Jun 19, 2012)

Standard Donkey said:


> doesn't sound like you have much of a clue either..
> 
> 
> we christians aren't so arrogant as to claim that we know the truth for certain, but that's where that whole faith thing comes in



Christians don't claim to know the truth?  You're kidding right?  It's the non religious folks that claim to not know, we have no problem saying that we don't know, unlike religious folks who make up ridiculous stories about the origin of earth.  Here is the creation story in a nutshell:

A magical god creates a man, then takes his rib and makes a woman.  They decide to eat the magical fruit at the advice of the magical talking snake, and are suddenly ashamed of being naked.  
They decide to have kids, their 2 sons then have sex w their mother do she can give birth to their wives.  They then screw their sisters and so on and so on.
Then there's a big flood and all of the dinosaurs perish, even the ones that live in the ocean.  The animals that are on another continent have to swim across oceans to catch a ride on this boat so they won't drown in the flood.
Makes perfect sense.

Faith: the license that religious folks give each other to believe the dumbest things.


----------



## DOMS (Jun 19, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> Is that how god was created?  Surely something as complex as god had to have been created and couldn't just come from nothing?
> Have you ever taken a biology class?



Where did the universe come from? The Big Bang? Where did _that_ come from?


----------



## DOMS (Jun 19, 2012)

maniclion said:


> The FSM shit him on an asteroid and a sun hatched him...



Just like your mother!


----------



## exphys88 (Jun 19, 2012)

DOMS said:


> Where did the universe come from? The Big Bang? Where did _that_ come from?



I bet the same spaghetti monster that created god, created the universe.


----------



## exphys88 (Jun 19, 2012)

DOMS said:


> Just like your mother!



Ejaculations 4;20
"For those that maketh funeth of others mother, shall perish in spaghetti w meatballs."


----------



## gamma (Jun 19, 2012)

I am a  believer in Christ and in God. I just recently started reading the Bible very entertaining believe it or not . Not sure if I call my self a Christian or not but I guess I lean more toward that side. I am not a big fan of religion , because I don't think one religion is better than an other and I don't believe your gonna go to hell for believing or having a different view or life style. I take it for what it is take what I need from the word  grow with that.People no matter what will have a point of view that you may or may not like that's life, never gonna change.People can be so one closed minded it kills me. To think your way is the only way haha , the ol saying there's more than one way to skin a cat. God and state should be separated, that's how our forefathers wrote it up because they knew people could not be trusted with there beliefs and the stronger the country grows the harder things  would be to change  but that doesn't mean we cant critique things alone the way. I don't know a whole lot about who, what, when and where but I do know this you gotta have something to believe that's greater than your self lifes not about you its about the journey , decisions, hardships , good and the bad. Who you are at the end of the day weather you believe  in God , aliens or what ever you will answer for decisions you have made.


----------



## exphys88 (Jun 19, 2012)

You're not a Christian if you believe that those from other religions aren't going to hell.  
The bible is very clear that regardless of how great of a person you are, if you don't believe that Jesus is the son of god, you're going to burn in hell for eternity.


----------



## gamma (Jun 19, 2012)

Ok so be it I never claimed I was . I even have gay friends Not my style not my life , but I still like em all the same. I am opened minded on most subject  life's not black an white like many seem to think it is. If your gonna claim your a Christian you gotta walk the walk and talk the talk . Maybe that's why I could never find a church That I like. I still believe and teach my kids right from wrong say our prayers and are thankful for the good things in our life.


----------



## Zaphod (Jun 19, 2012)

I'm a Christian.  I've been taught that God forgives everyone and every act.  Even the act of not believing.


----------



## bandaidwoman (Jun 19, 2012)

I tell all my homosexuals to become a quaker, they have been conducting  marriage ceremonies for gays since I was a kid ( my dad and grandparents were quaker ) and they don't believe Jesus ever condemned mutual love and monogomy even among homosexuals.  Old testament laws were nullified by Jesus, including the traditional heterosexual laws that forced us women to marry our rapists , polygomy and marrying underage 11 yr olds etc. so they don't go by them.    Of course,they were ahead of their time in women equality ( susan b anthony was a quaker) and not owning slaves, principles that put them on the hate list by their fellow christians back even long before the civil war.

As for Mormons, I tell my Mormon friends they are  more a sub- branch of Islam. The age of prophets died with Jesus for all christians.    Islam allowed  for more of them from Mohammed to the twin prophets of Bahai muslims, Joseph Smith was a prophet who wrote his own biblical book just like his counterparts in Islam.   EIther that or make it another Abrahamic religion, but I agree with most christians, they are not christians.....


----------



## bandaidwoman (Jun 19, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> You're not a Christian if you believe that those from other religions aren't going to hell.
> The bible is very clear that regardless of how great of a person you are, if you don't believe that Jesus is the son of god, you're going to burn in hell for eternity.



Quakers have never believed that, when I used to attend quaker meetings they used jesus as a guiding light for how we conduct our lives , but he is not the only way to salvation , so ghandi, buddah,etc.  made it to heaven.  They believe god is the center of the wheel and all religions are the spokes of that wheel.  So you can see why between this belief, their pacifism, their belief in sexual equality and the need to abolish slavery made them the most radical and feared sect for a long time in our history.


----------



## withoutrulers (Jun 19, 2012)

ok so one time I like found this golden disc with fancy writing on it, and only i could read and stuff......


----------



## jay_steel (Jun 19, 2012)

Religious beliefs and politics should be separated. I have no issues with abortion or gay marriage it is their choice what they do and my opinion should not impact there lives. Gay marriage does not effect my wife and I or the economy. Every one should have the right to marry by the state or gov't to get benefits for there partners. To me its not fair for them not to be treated equally and have medical coverage and ect. I was 100% against gay marriage until I meet a good friend of mine who is a lesbian and married. My beliefs should not impact her happiness

Also it was not log ago where being black was considered inpure and a sin. So religion it self to me is an abomination. I believe in God, but would never trust another man to preach his word and tell me how to live.

I want a president that does the right thing for the people and not for their personal gains. That looks at the entire American population and not as a diversity group or rich or poor. Some one that says get the hell off welfare, but at the same time help that blue collar working class guy that lost his job still pay his bills and get back on his feet. Enough is a enough period stop paying for drugs abusers next fix and lets toughen this shit up.


----------



## bandaidwoman (Jun 19, 2012)

I can't understand why the greatest archeological find of all tiime would be "hidden" by the mormon church and not relinguished to the world for all to see ( these golden tablets that belonged to jesus when he came here).


----------



## bandaidwoman (Jun 19, 2012)

jay_steel said:


> To me its not fair for them not to be treated equally and have medical coverage and ect. I was 100% against gay marriage until I meet a good friend of mine who is a lesbian and married. .



This is the crux for why they are fighting for legal marriages. 

This is the ony 1st world country that ties your health  insurance coverage to your spouse or workplace. With more and more businesses opting out of insurance coverage due to cost ( it is my second highest overhead for my business), you now have to depend on a spouse. This is a fundamental right they want desperatly , now if we had universal or single payer healt care, I'll bet the gays would not be so desperate to get "legally" married.

   This country is different from Iran because it's President does not respect any religious book or even his own religion.  It's why Nixon defied Quaker pacifism and bombed the hell out of Cambodia and Kennedy did not obey the "Pope" for any of his decision making.  The constitution does not mention Jesus anywhere, it was to protect everyone , it did not say except the gays.....


----------



## Arnold (Jun 19, 2012)

jay_steel said:


> Religious beliefs and politics should be separated.



x2


----------



## troubador (Jun 19, 2012)

bandaidwoman said:


> I tell all my homosexuals to become a quaker, they have been conducting  marriage ceremonies for gays since I was a kid ( my dad and grandparents were quaker ) and they don't believe Jesus ever condemned mutual love and monogomy even among homosexuals.  Old testament laws were nullified by Jesus...



That's true but you have to do some intricate tip toeing to say that. I think Jesus did reaffirm the idea that marriage is between a man and woman. 


> _And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ “and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh?’” (Matt. 19:4.)_


And yes, I'm aware that technically this doesn't grammatically address homosexuality but the fact that he specifies 'male and female' seems to allude to it. 

And the new testament does speak about homosexuality as a sin:


> [SUP]25 [/SUP]They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
> [SUP]26 [/SUP]Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. [SUP]27 [/SUP]In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.




Like I said before, personally I don't see a valid reason why homos can't get married but I also believe the bible does support Christians thinking homosexuality is a sin and gay marriage is a sin. That's of course assuming the bible isn't a make believe story.


----------



## troubador (Jun 19, 2012)

jay_steel said:


> Gay marriage does not effect my wife and I or the economy.



What evidence do you base this assertion on?


----------



## DOMS (Jun 19, 2012)

jay_steel said:


> I have no issues with abortion or gay marriage it is their choice what they do and my opinion should not impact there lives.



I have an issue with abortion. I think the man should have the right to make the call too. Just the woman should only be the one that decides if the man should be turned into some sort of endured servant?


----------



## withoutrulers (Jun 19, 2012)

I think gays should be able to get abortions too.


----------



## troubador (Jun 19, 2012)

withoutrulers said:


> I think gays should be able to get abortions too.



Should you be able to abort gay babies? What if there was a test and the doctor was like 'Your baby tested positive for gayness'; would you be all like 'Hell no, abort that shit. There'll be no Liza Minneli played in this house'?


----------



## exphys88 (Jun 19, 2012)

troubador said:


> That's true but you have to do some intricate tip toeing to say that. I think Jesus did reaffirm the idea that marriage is between a man and woman.
> 
> And yes, I'm aware that technically this doesn't grammatically address homosexuality but the fact that he specifies 'male and female' seems to allude to it.
> 
> ...



I agree.  I think too many Christians create their own version of Christianity to fit their own needs.  When they have a hard time swallowing the idea that someone like Gandhi is in hell and hitler may be in heaven, they rewrite what the bible says.


----------



## DOMS (Jun 19, 2012)

troubador said:


> Should you be able to abort gay babies? What if there was a test and the doctor was like 'Your baby tested positive for gayness'; would you be all like 'Hell no, abort that shit. There'll be no Liza Minneli played in this house'?



Your though falls under this:



DOMS said:


> Liberals: open and tolerate of all ideas...until you  say something they don't like, even if it's factual.


----------



## bandaidwoman (Jun 19, 2012)

troubador said:


> That's true but you have to do some intricate tip toeing to say that. I think Jesus did reaffirm the idea that marriage is between a man and woman.
> 
> And yes, I'm aware that technically this doesn't grammatically address homosexuality but the fact that he specifies 'male and female' seems to allude to it.
> 
> ...



It is based on interpretation but what's interesting about us quakers , we are for the most part, like both my grandparents who were both  chemists, mathmaticians etc very very educated ( we believe education frees the mind)  and many were linguists. Our freindship circle had ancient linguists and greek specialists,   They read the new testament in greek and only the book of mathew was in hebrew, and they could not find it.  They showed me how the sodom and gomorra were also misintreretted about homosexuality when translated to latin and english, which is why the jews for the most part dont' give a damn like most christians. You really should check them out, you would be amazed how many speak multiple languages like myself or know how to read the bible in its original language.  The only other sect that comes close to the percentage that can read in the ancient tongue of the bible are the jews, and jesuit priests...


----------



## bandaidwoman (Jun 19, 2012)

In other words, quakers try not to take the bible literally or else we would still be marrying our daughters off at 11.  It is all up to interpretation, there were members who believed it was wrong argued it and others who said it was never explicitly said and argued it, but we allowed for differences, which is why we have never been considered dogmatic...of course that also made quakers dangerous...


----------



## bandaidwoman (Jun 19, 2012)

THE SOCIETY OF FRIENDS (QUAKERS) AND HOMOSEXUALITY

here you can see quakers disagree among themselves ( civilly) but I like how one quaker pointed out that even though the bible condones and supports slavery as well as denial of women in clergy,  doesn't mean Jesus wouldn't have found it wrong.  In other words, to take the bible as a literal word of God and not the spirit of jesus is dangerous and not good for humanity.  So you see why they were villified , and even to this day....


----------



## charley (Jun 19, 2012)

_still..............._


----------



## jay_steel (Jun 19, 2012)

troubador said:


> What evidence do you base this assertion on?



Ok, a gay couple is married by state, they do not qualify for most medical benefits. Some companies will allow domestic partners where others will not. For example the military. I will use both of us as an example who I presume you are straight so no offence please. We are married or a couple, and I work and have great medical, but you can not. You go out and get injured and severely hurt and puts us in further debt. We can not afford to pay medical bills ect or we would have go to a government assisted health care and have them pay the majority of the bill which puts that money else where. 

I guess it does effect it but in a positive way.

if it does effect it negatively then no one should get married and pay higher tax rates, ect

And

Gay marriage does not effect the way I live my life. Yes, I will raise my kids on the values of man and wife, but I will also raise them that I served my country and scarified to ensure every one has the right to live they way they choice as long as it is ethically.


----------



## jagbender (Jun 19, 2012)

Chrisotpherm said:


> Famous quote: *Have you ever taken a biology class.
> 
> 
> *This thread shows why congress and the church are sseparated. There have been so may interpretations of the bible, hince  the forming of separate denominations as baptist, Methodist, pPentecostals etc...  Where in the bible do you find Jesus or the bible in general specify any of the above to be?  This my brothers is the reason American Christians are so hated by everyone world wide. Because they separate themselves from other "believers", fellow Christians because of a diffent theology on the way to heaven. Something I believe Christ himself would openly rebuke. As all denominations that are known are man made from their own interpretation of the bible and in a way can be looked at what he hated most, Pharisees and Sadducees.  I hate getting into God debates, especially prove he is real ones.  As folks have already made up their minds what they are going to believe regardless of what is shown through text. People want to see physical proof and even Christ said, " blessed are those who have not seen, but believe". So regardless of what any scholar "MAN" says these days, unless you have proof then folks just aren't going to believe. The only physical sign they will see, is us who call ourselves Christians acting as Christ would and as a whole in America are doing a terrible job. Again Jesus would openly rebuke for the way we are alllllllll acting as he was of love, compassion, forgiveness, healing, relationship/communion and hated the thing I hate to is religion. As religion isn't a faith or an act, but a belief in with all the knowledge you could possibly read and be driven by man. His followers had relationship, which is everything that I described Christ above. Once you have all that then you will know who God is as you know who he is.
> ...



Excellent post


----------



## jagbender (Jun 19, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> Christians don't claim to know the truth?  You're kidding right?  It's the non religious folks that claim to not know, we have no problem saying that we don't know, unlike religious folks who make up ridiculous stories about the origin of earth.  Here is the creation story in a nutshell:
> 
> A magical god creates a man, then takes his rib and makes a woman.  They decide to eat the magical fruit at the advice of the magical talking snake, and are suddenly ashamed of being naked.
> *They decide to have kids, their 2 sons then have sex w their mother do she can give birth to their wives.  They then screw their sisters and so on and so on.*
> ...



The Bible states tht they had Sons and Daughters. 
enesis 5:4New King James Version (NKJV)
[SUP]4 [/SUP]After he begot Seth, the days of Adam were eight hundred years; and he had sons and *daughters*.

Also Adam and Eve were geneically perfect, hence there was no need to have a "law" agains having sex with your sister.  

Since there were no Genetic defects people lived 800 years. 

There are loaws today about incenst correct?  WHY? because of genetic mutations. 

Also Evolution is based on the ADDITION of DNA to a genetic profile 

The Bible shows that changes occur from Natural selection of DNA 

Here is an interesting book 
Amazon.com: The Foundations: One Blood, One Race: Ken Ham: Movies & TV


----------



## exphys88 (Jun 19, 2012)

Right... They lived for 800 years, and had sex w their sisters.

Where are genetics mentioned in the bible?  Where does it say they were genetically perfect?  This is a manipulation of the facts to fit the bible.

We also know that the sun is older than the earth, but  the bible claims that the earth was created first.

If the universe is only 6000 years old, there would be many stars in which the light couldn't have reached earth yet, but we know of many stars that are further than 6000 light years away and we can see them.


----------



## heavyiron (Jun 19, 2012)

In the beginning God created the light. Then he created the light holders.

It's in Genesis 1:3 that God creates light (Hebrew 'owr meaning  illumination as opposed to ma'owr as in Genesis 1:14 which means  luminary or light holder). 
Seems like the creation account commonly illustrates a creating of mature (older looking) plants, animals trees, etc. Adam and Eve were apparently "old" enough to procreate even though they were only a day old. Trees apparently had fruit on them even thought they were new.

I'm not taking sides I just read Genesis with this in mind.
​


----------



## exphys88 (Jun 19, 2012)

I'm still trying to figure out who created god.  Something doesn't come out of nothing.


----------



## btex34n88 (Jun 19, 2012)

secdrl said:


> I disagree that gays are discriminated against. They want special treatment and special rights. It's discrimination against straight people. For example, they can have a gay pride parade and celebrate their "colors," but would it be okay if they we held a "straight parade." Of course not, that's hateful and full of bigotry. The left have always shown a fucked up hypocritcal agenda, and Barack Obama is the epitome of a hypocrite.



Spot on! 100% agree with you


----------



## DOMS (Jun 19, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> I'm still trying to figure out who created god.  Something doesn't come out of nothing.



There are plenty of arguments one could make against religion, and this isn't one. After all, who did create everything it not a god?


----------



## bandaidwoman (Jun 19, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> Something doesn't come out of nothing.



Actually it can, thanks to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, it has also been experimentally proven, the most famous is the Casimir effect.


----------



## exphys88 (Jun 19, 2012)

DOMS said:


> There are plenty of arguments one could make against religion, and this isn't one. After all, who did create everything it not a god?



The point is that nobody knows, and nobody should claim to.


----------



## heavyiron (Jun 19, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> I'm still trying to figure out who created god.  Something doesn't come out of nothing.



Its a hard concept to imagine. I have a very hard time understanding eternity. Its difficult for me to imagine a being that has always existed. I'm not sure our natural laws can be applied to the supernatural. The more I studied this stuff the more questions I have. Faith is a very tricky thing.
'


----------



## exphys88 (Jun 19, 2012)

bandaidwoman said:


> Actually it can, thanks to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, it has also been experimentally proven, the most famous is the Casimir effect.



That is beyond my education.  
I was being sarcastic and poking fun at the religious who use that argument to try and prove that we had to have been created by a god. Which I'm sure you gathered.


----------



## jagbender (Jun 19, 2012)

has anyone else thought if the Universe is infinatly large, could the universe be infinatly smaller?


----------



## exphys88 (Jun 19, 2012)

heavyiron said:


> Its a hard concept to imagine. I have a very hard time understanding eternity. Its difficult for me to imagine a being that has always existed. I'm not sure our natural laws can be applied to the supernatural. The more I studied this stuff the more questions I have. Faith is a very tricky thing.
> '



I have a hard time imagining a lonely old magical god, all alone in space, no mother or father, no friends, no siblings, just him by himself and then he decides to create the universe.
I have no reason to believe that an old book written by very ignorant men could possibly know the answers, especially when it has gotten so many things wrong about our planet.  Humans don't live to be 900 years old, we didn't come from 2 humans, there was no ark, the earth is billions of years old, etc


----------



## bandaidwoman (Jun 19, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> The point is that nobody knows, and nobody should claim to.





exactly, I agree with the buddists on this one.  Even if there is a god, why the hell should he give a damn about us? And why does it have to be one?  And why does he care if we cover our head, or have sex missionary style, or cook food a certain way, or attend mass on certain days , and all the different ways we claim to know God in the religious books. The best thing to do is assume he doesn't give a rats ass and realize it's up to humans  to save ourselves, and if this is all it is, then human misery is all the more tragic and helping another in need becomes much more imperative then telling them there is another place that is better after they die an agonizing death praying to some god.   Interestingly, some quakers feel this way and that's why the extreme pacifism, many believe god may have created us but did not necessarily provide and afterlife any more than I provide an afterlife for  the bacteria I grew in  my petri dish.....


----------



## heavyiron (Jun 19, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> I have a hard time imagining a lonely old magical god, all alone in space, no mother or father, no friends, no siblings, just him by himself and then he decides to create the universe.
> I have no reason to believe that an old book written by very ignorant men could possibly know the answers.



Many theologians believe he never was alone because he is more than one "person", hence the trinity.

Regardless, the writings tend to promote the concept that god desires relationship.


----------



## exphys88 (Jun 19, 2012)

heavyiron said:


> Many theologians believe he never was alone because he is more than one "person", hence the trinity.
> 
> Regardless, the writings tend to promote the concept that god desires relationship.



This is all under the assumption that the bible is the word of god, but there are so many things that have been proven to be false in the bible that you have to conclude that it is not the word of god and is actually just a story.
Once you realize that evolution is a fact, the bible becomes fiction.  You cannot accept both as truth.


----------



## heavyiron (Jun 19, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> This is all under the assumption that the bible is the word of god, but there are so many things that have been proven to be false in the bible that you have to conclude that it is not the word of god and is actually just a story.
> Once you realize that evolution is a fact, the bible becomes fiction.  You cannot accept both as truth.



Yes, that is the assumption for sure. I'm just pointing out that a careful study gives new insight that you may not have considered.

 I spent years studying the arguments on both sides and frankly it just caused further questions for me. I even learned beginning first century Greek to satisfy my curiosity so my studies were formal.

There are many theistic evolutionists that would strongly argue that one can believe in evolution and god without inconsistencies. However I do understand the argument against the position. 

Again, I'm not taking sides but just pointing out things aren't as black and white as you might assume.


----------



## exphys88 (Jun 19, 2012)

I agree that evolution and the belief in god can both exist, but i would argue that the bible and evolution are not compatible, for many reasons.  Those that say they are compatible are grasping at straws IMO.


----------



## heavyiron (Jun 19, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> I agree that evolution and the belief in god can both exist, but i would argue that the bible and evolution are not compatible, for many reasons.  Those that say they are compatible are grasping at straws IMO.



Theistic evolutionists would strongly disagree. Not sure how many hours you have studied the position but my humble guess is not very many.


----------



## Standard Donkey (Jun 19, 2012)

either way you skin the cat.. something had to appear out of thin air.. and that thin air had to have come from nothing.. etc.


either there was a god that has always existed that created everything. or nothing blew up for no reason and created everything.


i dont think we are supposed to fully understand


----------



## exphys88 (Jun 19, 2012)

heavyiron said:


> Theistic evolutionists would strongly disagree. Not sure how many hours you have studied the position but my humble guess is not very many.



Oh, I'm very well aware of what they think, I have actually studied this more than most other subjects.
I actually have more respect for creationists because they are realistic in their beliefs.  Theistic evolutionists are delusional IMO.


----------



## heavyiron (Jun 19, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> Oh, I'm very well aware of what they think, I have actually studied this more than most other subjects.
> I actually have more respect for creationists because they are realistic in their beliefs.  Theistic evolutionists are delusional IMO.


What is the strongest argument against Theistic evolution in your view?


----------



## exphys88 (Jun 19, 2012)

Standard Donkey said:


> either way you skin the cat.. something had to appear out of thin air.. and that thin air had to have come from nothing.. etc.
> 
> 
> either there was a god that has always existed that created everything. or nothing blew up for no reason and created everything.
> ...



Right, but the only folks that claim to know the answers are the religious ones, and they are extremely easy to prove wrong, especially creationists.  Evolution is called a theory but it's one of the most solid theories there are.


----------



## exphys88 (Jun 19, 2012)

heavyiron said:


> What is the strongest argument against Theistic evolution in your view?



The creation story, Noah's ark, the virgin birth.


----------



## heavyiron (Jun 19, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> The creation story, Noah's ark, the virgin birth.



Please be more specific. 

Thanks


----------



## exphys88 (Jun 19, 2012)

The creation story and evolution can not both be true.  If the bible is the word of god, then everything in it is exactly accurate, including the creation story.  To say that you believe the bible is the word of god and to also believe in evolution is a contradiction.


----------



## heavyiron (Jun 19, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> The creation story and evolution can not both be true.  If the bible is the word of god, then everything in it is exactly accurate, including the creation story.  To say that you believe the bible is the word of god and to also believe in evolution is a contradiction.



I have a hard time believing you have studied this topic as much as you claim. The answer is very elementary from a theistic evolutionists point of view.

Not all writing's in the Bible are historical narratives. Therefore they are not all literal. 

I'm not a theistic evolutionist so don't get me wrong but writing styles are all over the map in the bible. You have poetry, lyrics to songs, prophetic sections that are cryptic so to assume Genesis is all historical narrative and does not contain allegory seems odd.

I think you are assuming writing style and furthermore may be assuming how the bible should be understood. This is common in our western society but the bible was not written in the west.

Anyway, I have to run.


----------



## exphys88 (Jun 19, 2012)

heavyiron said:


> I have a hard time believing you have studied this topic as much as you claim. The answer is very elementary from a theistic evolutionists point of view.
> 
> Not all writing's in the Bible are historical narratives. Therefore they are not all literal.
> 
> ...



The answer is all that needs to be said, and I'm on my phone so I can't really go into detail here in terms if what we know about genetics and the history of humans.
The point is that most of the explanations given by theologians are merely copouts when they're faced w 2 ideas that are not compatible yet threaten their beliefs.  
The whole argument about whether the bible should be taken literally or not just makes the bible pointless.  One could argue that any part of the bible shouldn't be taken literally and could manipulate it in any fashion they see fit.  
What purpose does the bible serve if any of us can interpret it any way we see fit?  
It's just fiction full of horrendous crimes sanctioned by a god that is supposed to be a loving god.  Murder and rape of children, stoning, torturing etc.


----------



## exphys88 (Jun 19, 2012)

The point that im trying to make about creation is that theistic evolutionists are denying the story of Adam and eve and their fall from grace.  This is essential to Christianity, without it there is no reason for Jesus to give his life.  The 2 ideas are not compatible if the entire premise of Christianity is merely a fable.

Have you read any of Dawkins, or hitchens, or harris' books on this?  They are much more eloquent in their arguments than I am, and they are biblical experts.


----------



## heavyiron (Jun 19, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> The point that im trying to make about creation is that theistic evolutionists are denying the story of Adam and eve and their fall from grace.  This is essential to Christianity, without it there is no reason for Jesus to give his life.  The 2 ideas are not compatible if the entire premise of Christianity is merely a fable.
> 
> Have you read any of Dawkins, or hitchens, or harris' books on this?  They are much more eloquent in their arguments than I am, and they are biblical experts.


I fully understand the arguments becuase I have argued for them =)

Adam could REPRESENT any man that fell. The days could REPRESENT vast periods. Do you see the point? If you take it as allegory now 6 days is 6 billion years. Their (theistic evolutionists) position still affords for evolution and its a commonly accepted way to read some writing styles. Western minds may not be used to this but again, it wasn't written in the west.

However, I do agree. It looks like historical narrative to me.


----------



## exphys88 (Jun 19, 2012)

I've heard all of this before, but it's still a copout.  Dawkins calls it "smuggling god thru the back door."
This kind of thinking makes the bible pointless though. 
 One could make similar arguments about the ten commandments.  For example, I've questioned Christians about their acceptance of capital punishment, which seems to go against "thou shall not kill," and their response is that they interpret it as "thou shall not murder.". Using the literal vs non literal interpretation of the bible makes the bible irrelevant, it's like a blank slate that anyone can manipulate to fit their needs.  Much like Jim jones did.


----------



## heavyiron (Jun 19, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> I've heard all of this before, but it's still a copout.  Dawkins calls it "smuggling god thru the back door."
> This kind of thinking makes the bible pointless though.
> One could make similar arguments about the ten commandments.  For example, I've questioned Christians about their acceptance of capital punishment, which seems to go against "thou shall not kill," and their response is that they interpret it as "thou shall not murder.". Using the literal vs non literal interpretation of the bible makes the bible irrelevant, it's like a blank slate that anyone can manipulate to fit their needs.  Much like Jim jones did.



You do realize that breaking the ten commandments was considered a capital crime by the Jews? 

In other words if they broke them they were put to death. This inherently proves they were making a distinction between murder and killing. Putting a murderer to death in their eyes was punishing a criminal. This does not make the writings pointless it just shows distinction between killing someone who is innocent vs killing someone who is guilty of a capital crime.

Once you understand their culture and how their society was managed then you can understand that apparent contradictions may not be contradictions at all. 

***disclaimer*** I'm not a Jew or a theistic evolutionist. Just pointing out that you need to study culture and writing style before you determine an interpretation is useless. LOL!


----------



## exphys88 (Jun 19, 2012)

heavyiron said:


> You do realize that breaking the ten commandments was considered a capital crime by the Jews?
> 
> In other words if they broke them they were put to death. This inherently proves they were making a distinction between murder and killing. Putting a murderer to death in their eyes was punishing a criminal. This does not make the writings pointless it just shows distinction between killing someone who is innocent vs killing someone who is guilty of a capital crime.
> 
> ...



I'm not saying its useless, it's just arbitrary and subjective.
I have also heard the same thing when I ask Christians about their acceptance of  the bombing cities full of innocent civilians.


----------



## heavyiron (Jun 19, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> I'm not saying its useless, it's just arbitrary and subjective.



I think interpretation can be subjective but when its explicit that a culture views killing and murder as two distinct things then its not really interpretation. If you simply read the entire context of a paper it gives more insight and information. Cherry picking a verse or two without reading the whole book is lazy.

Furthermore the view is actually valid. Do you think killing an innocent person is the same thing as putting a murderer to death? If two people were on death row and one was a serial murderer and rapist and the other was completely innocent would you say killing the innocent man was the same as punishing the criminal?

Anyway, its not a big deal, just thought I would point out that understanding the history, culture and writing style within the entire context is a good way to understand a writing. Viewing a writing without that knowledge through western eyes is less profitable.


----------



## exphys88 (Jun 19, 2012)

heavyiron said:


> I think interpretation can be subjective but when its explicit that a culture views killing and murder as two distinct things then its not really interpretation. If you simply read the entire context of a paper it gives more insight and information. Cherry picking a verse or two without reading the whole book is lazy.
> 
> Furthermore the view is actually valid. Do you think killing an innocent person is the same thing as putting a murderer to death? If two people were on death row and one was a serial murderer and rapist and the other was completely innocent would you say killing the innocent man was the same as punishing the criminal?
> 
> Anyway, its not a big deal, just thought I would point out that understanding the history, culture and writing style within the entire context is a good way to understand a writing. Viewing a writing without that knowledge through western eyes is less profitable.



I actually appreciate your devils advocacy (pun intended), I just respectfully disagree.  

I think your example of Jews putting people to death for disobeying the ten commandments reinforces my argument.  They interpreted the commandment to not include putting people to death for crimes, when in fact god could have intended it to mean to never kill regardless of the circumstance.  Unless your god, there is no way to tell, thus leaving it wide open for crazy interpretations.
This can be done w any part of the bible.


----------



## heavyiron (Jun 19, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> I actually appreciate your devils advocacy (pun intended), I just respectfully disagree.
> 
> I think your example of Jews putting people to death for disobeying the ten commandments reinforces my argument.  They interpreted the commandment to not include putting people to death for crimes, when in fact god could have intended it to mean to never kill regardless of the circumstance.  Unless your god, there is no way to tell, thus leaving it wide open for crazy interpretations.
> This can be done w any part of the bible.



What are you implying by using the terms devil's advocacy? =)

Interpretation isn't really the word in my view. Its more a translation issue. Some translators got it right and others did not. (some use the word murder)

Just one chapter later we have the directive more explicitly defined. This is why context is crucial for understanding documents.

"He who strikes a man so that he dies shall surely be put to death." Ex. 21:12

Anyway, its time to drink beer....


----------



## exphys88 (Jun 19, 2012)

I hope it's good beer, the bible says that thou shall only drink microbrews.  That's how I interpret it anyways.


----------



## heavyiron (Jun 19, 2012)

I can't remember but wasn't it the Egyptians that invented beer?


----------



## Arnold (Jun 19, 2012)

heavyiron said:


> I can't remember but wasn't it the Egyptians that invented beer?



if so then I LOVE Egyptians !


----------



## exphys88 (Jun 19, 2012)

heavyiron said:


> I can't remember but wasn't it the Egyptians that invented beer?



I have no idea, your history is obviously better than mine.


----------



## troubador (Jun 19, 2012)

jagbender said:


> has anyone else thought if the Universe is infinatly large, could the universe be infinatly smaller?



I believe it's finite.


----------



## exphys88 (Jun 19, 2012)

troubador said:


> I believe it's finite.



Based on what?


----------



## troubador (Jun 19, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> I've heard all of this before, but it's still a copout.  Dawkins calls it "smuggling god thru the back door."
> This kind of thinking makes the bible pointless though.
> One could make similar arguments about the ten commandments.  For example, I've questioned Christians about their acceptance of capital punishment, which seems to go against "thou shall not kill," and their response is that they interpret it as "thou shall not murder.". Using the literal vs non literal interpretation of the bible makes the bible irrelevant, it's like a blank slate that anyone can manipulate to fit their needs.  Much like Jim jones did.



There are parts of the bible that are intentionally non-literal (allegories). Even if the creation story isn't literal that doesn't mean the ten commandments aren't either(fallacy of composition). Even if that did make the bible pointless it doesn't mean believing the bible is the word of god and believing in evolution is a contradiction(fallacy of distraction).


----------



## exphys88 (Jun 19, 2012)

If there are things in the bible that are not true, then it can't be the word of god.  So, a creationist who accepts the literal interpretation is admitting the bible is not the word of god since evolution is essentially proven.
The theologian who accepts evolution is admitting that parts of the bible are fictional, and without being able to accurately point out the sections that are fictional vs non fictional, he renders the bible as just a fable, not to be taken seriously.


----------



## heavyiron (Jun 19, 2012)

Fictional is a strong word. Again you are assuming a writing style like allegory to equate to fiction. This is a elementary misunderstanding of types of literature.


----------



## troubador (Jun 19, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> Based on what?



This is not my area of study but...
The big bang says the size of the universe(y axis) is constantly expanding which means it must have a finite size at a given time(x axis) but the limit as time tends to infinity does not exist.


----------



## exphys88 (Jun 19, 2012)

I know what allegory means, I just don't believe that the creation story falls under that label, and the majority of Christians agree.  It's a cop out to deal w the fact that their entire religion becomes fictional when faced w the evidence of evolution.


----------



## exphys88 (Jun 19, 2012)

troubador said:


> This is not my area of study but...
> The big bang says the size of the universe(y axis) is constantly expanding which means it must have a finite size at a given time(x axis) but the limit as time tends to infinity does not exist.



It's not my area either, I was actually asking a question out of curiosity.


----------



## troubador (Jun 19, 2012)

heavyiron said:


> Fictional is a strong word. Again you are assuming a writing style like allegory to equate to fiction. This is a elementary misunderstanding of types of literature.




Exactly. 

Example of your logic... if some guy, let's call him Dawkins, said  something like "smuggling god thru the back door"... well clearly Dawkins didn't mean god was literally smuggled through a back door. That's fictional so you can't tell what Dawkins says is fiction or non-fiction therefore he should not be taken seriously.


----------



## hoyle21 (Jun 19, 2012)

I personally hate it when Christians try to interpret the old testament.    It also bothers me that they have made many changes to the Torah (to benefit the new testament) and still claim it is the word of G-d.


----------



## troubador (Jun 19, 2012)

troubador said:


> This is not my area of study but...
> The big bang says the size of the universe(y axis) is constantly expanding which means it must have a finite size at a given time(x axis) but the limit as time tends to infinity does not exist.



I realized this answer is incredibly nerdy. So here's my analogy. Think about the universe as the horror movie monster 'The Blob'. The blob starts out small but as it consumes things it keeps getting bigger and bigger. At any given point in time the blob is a certain size but it appears there's no limit to how big the blob can get.


----------



## oufinny (Jun 19, 2012)

troubador said:


> I realized this answer is incredibly nerdy. So here's my analogy. Think about the universe as the horror movie monster 'The Blob'. The blob starts out small but as it consumes things it keeps getting bigger and bigger. At any given point in time the blob is a certain size but it appears there's no limit to how big the blob can get.



Sounds like a nice analogy to Muslim extremism and belief that all others should either bow to Allah or be killed.  Or you could equate it to the ingrained hatred towards Christians and Jews that starts at birth among more Muslims than people are comfortable admitting.


----------



## troubador (Jun 19, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> If there are things in the bible that are not true, then it can't be the word of god.  So, a creationist who accepts the literal interpretation is admitting the bible is not the word of god since evolution is essentially proven.
> The theologian who accepts evolution is admitting that parts of the bible are fictional, and without being able to accurately point out the sections that are fictional vs non fictional, he renders the bible as just a fable, not to be taken seriously.


Also the ability to discern what is literal and not does not mean it isn't true.(argument from ignorance fallacy)


----------



## exphys88 (Jun 19, 2012)

troubador said:


> Exactly.
> 
> Example of your logic... if some guy, let's call him Dawkins, said  something like "smuggling god thru the back door"... well clearly Dawkins didn't mean god was literally smuggled through a back door. That's fictional so you can't tell what Dawkins says is fiction or non-fiction therefore he should not be taken seriously.



Yes, but we can ask Dawkins if what he meant was fiction or not.  With the bible, it's subjective what is considered fictional and everyone has their own opinion.


----------



## heavyiron (Jun 19, 2012)

Every night I retire to bed and watch a meterologist explain to me on TV when the sun will rise. He gives me a specific time for the sun to rise but its not really true. The sun does not rise. The earth rotates. He knows this so he must be a liar and therefore everything he says must be untrue. This is a pretty radical way to view things. People communicate things in different ways. It may be technically untrue but we know what they mean. 

Anyway, I cannot imagine living my life looking for all the errors that really are just communication styles. That's a pretty high and lofty standard that would make me a very rigid person. This is what Western thinking teaches us and its a kind of exceptionalism that is arrogant and short sighted. The Hebrew culture is not like ours. The language is not like ours. To view it with Western preconcieved ideas may cause misunderstanding.


----------



## exphys88 (Jun 19, 2012)

heavyiron said:


> Every night I retire to bed and watch a meterologist explain to me on TV when the sun will rise. He gives me a specific time for the sun to rise but its not really true. The sun does not rise. The earth rotates. He knows this so he must be a liar and therefore everything he says must be untrue. This is a pretty radical way to view things. People communicate things in different ways. It may be technically untrue but we know what they mean.
> 
> Anyway, I cannot imagine living my life looking for all the errors that really are just communication styles. That's a pretty high and lofty standard that would make me a very rigid person. This is what Western thinking teaches us and its a kind of exceptionalism that is arrogant and short sighted. The Hebrew culture is not like ours. The language is not like ours. To view it with Western preconcieved ideas may cause misunderstanding.



So, you're basically claiming that the bible is useless to us?  I agree.

It's definitely not something to learn morals from and it's definitely not something that will help understand the origins of humans, and it's a horrible historic document, so it really serves no more purpose than Harry potter.


----------



## troubador (Jun 19, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> Yes, but we can ask Dawkins if what he meant was fiction or not.  With the bible, it's subjective what is considered fictional and everyone has their own opinion.



Sure but if we continue with your logic... we can't know if his answer is fiction or non-fiction therefore he still shouldn't be taken seriously.


----------



## heavyiron (Jun 19, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> So, you're basically claiming that the bible is useless to us?  I agree.



LOL, no. You must understand the culture, context and writing styles before you interpret the meaning. That has been my point from the begining. It's also helpful to understand the underlying language because translation may lose its meaning. I have a desire to understand and appreciate other cultures not judge them and their writings because they don't fit my western world view.


----------



## exphys88 (Jun 19, 2012)

heavyiron said:


> LOL, no. You must understand the culture, context and writing styles before you interpret the meaning. That has been my point from the begining. It's also helpful to understand the underlying language because translation may lose its meaning. I have a desire to understand and appreciate other cultures not judge them and their writings because they don't fit my western world view.



I don't disagree w any of this, I think you are correct.
How many Christians actually understand the culture though? How many people that claim to understand, actually do?  
I'm not judging creationists, which is the original topic, I'm telling them that they're flat out wrong.  And those that hide behind "literal interpretation vs non literal" don't really have any way to prove that it was written in an allegorical fashion, it's just a way to reconcile their faith w facts.

I would be curious how long the idea of non literal interpretation of the bible has been around.  I bet it started around the time that science was proving that the stories in the bible couldn't be true.


----------



## heavyiron (Jun 19, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> I don't disagree w any of this, I think you are correct.
> How many Christians actually understand the culture though? How many people that claim to understand, actually do?
> I'm not judging creationists, which is the original topic, I'm telling them that they're flat out wrong.  And those that hide behind "literal interpretation vs non literal" don't really have any way to prove that it was written in an allegorical fashion, it's just a way to reconcile their faith w facts.
> 
> I would be curious how long the idea of non literal interpretation of the bible has been around.  I bet it started around the time that science was proving that the stories in the bible couldn't be true.



The bible was written by something like 40 diffrerent authors in like 66 books/letters. It is highly logical that different writing styles were used. Psalms for example are basically lyrics to songs. Definately NOT historical narritive. Proverbs would not be considered historical narrative for the most part. All the prophetic books are pretty cryptic at times and seem to deal with future events so again not historical narrative. This is just off the top of my head. Seems like the parables jesus taught were made up stories to teach spiritual truth so that would be in all the gospels. Obviously those would not be considered historical narrative. I think many writings in the bible appear to be historical narrative but where one is allegory vs historical narrative would take a lot of study to try to determine. Anyway, its hard for me to be black and white about it becuase writing styles do morph throughout various writings.

Song of Solomen was like a love letter/ancient porn....


----------



## parsifal09 (Jun 19, 2012)




----------



## parsifal09 (Jun 19, 2012)

here you go

you're welcome

Reformed Books

Best Commentaries | Old and New Testament Bible Commentary reviews, ratings, and prices


----------



## Zaphod (Jun 19, 2012)

A friend of mine at work is a Hindu.  He believes in many gods.  He'll go to a Hindu temple to worship, sometimes a Christian church, a Jewish temple, etc.  I asked him why.  "Because as long as the message is to live to be a better person the denomination doesn't matter."


----------



## exphys88 (Jun 19, 2012)

heavyiron said:


> The bible was written by something like 40 diffrerent authors in like 66 books/letters. It is highly logical that different writing styles were used. Psalms for example are basically lyrics to songs. Definately NOT historical narritive. Proverbs would not be considered historical narrative for the most part. All the prophetic books are pretty cryptic at times and seem to deal with future events so again not historical narrative. This is just off the top of my head. Seems like the parables jesus taught were made up stories to teach spiritual truth so that would be in all the gospels. Obviously those would not be considered historical narrative. I think many writings in the bible appear to be historical narrative but where one is allegory vs historical narrative would take a lot of study to try to determine. Anyway, its hard for me to be black and white about it becuase writing styles do morph throughout various writings.
> 
> Song of Solomen was like a love letter/ancient porn....



The amazing part is that grown adults actually think all of these books, letters, songs are the words of god.


----------



## exphys88 (Jun 19, 2012)

Zaphod said:


> A friend of mine at work is a Hindu.  He believes in many gods.  He'll go to a Hindu temple to worship, sometimes a Christian church, a Jewish temple, etc.  I asked him why.  "Because as long as the message is to live to be a better person the denomination doesn't matter."



He should avoid the Jewish temple then because if someone derives their morals from the old testament, then they're probably pretty fucked up.


----------



## parsifal09 (Jun 19, 2012)

christianity is okay

I just  never got the trinity


----------



## Zaphod (Jun 19, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> He should avoid the Jewish temple then because if someone derives their morals from the old testament, then they're probably pretty fucked up.



As long as the message is to be a better person how can that be fucked up?


----------



## exphys88 (Jun 19, 2012)

Zaphod said:


> As long as the message is to be a better person how can that be fucked up?



That is not the message of the old testament.  Sure, you may find a few scriptures w a good message, but it's also filled w all sorts of orders to kill people for things like being gay or not being a virgin on your wedding day.  A cursory glance at Leviticus and Deuteronomy is all you need to see how atrocious the god of the bible is.


----------



## heavyiron (Jun 20, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> The amazing part is that grown adults actually think all of these books, letters, songs are the words of god.



Equally amazing to me is that people claim to know that there is no god.


----------



## exphys88 (Jun 20, 2012)

heavyiron said:


> Equally amazing to me is that people claim to know that there is no god.



I agree.  Even though I don't believe in a god, it would be silly to say that I know there isn't one, even though he's never been seen, heard or ever given a reason to believe he is actually real.


----------



## FUZO (Jun 20, 2012)

Nobody should support Barry


----------



## jay_steel (Jun 20, 2012)

btex34n88 said:


> _I disagree that gays are discriminated against. They want special treatment and special rights. It's discrimination against straight people. For example, they can have a gay pride parade and celebrate their "colors," but would it be okay if they we held a "straight parade." Of course not, that's hateful and full of bigotry. The left have always shown a fucked up hypocritcal agenda, and Barack Obama is the epitome of a hypocrite._



Ditto, I believe in gay rights period and rights of all people, black, white, asian what ever. But the second we throw a white party shit hits the fan or a white straight parade things would get way out of hand.


----------



## jagbender (Jun 20, 2012)




----------



## exphys88 (Jun 20, 2012)

That's not true, kids can read the bible on their own time in schools, teachers just can't read it to kids.
Would you be ok w your kids' teacher reading the Koran to your kids?


----------



## ctr10 (Jun 20, 2012)

The question should not be should christian's vote for Obama, no one should vote for him because he does not have the business smarts to run the country, he is way in over his head


----------



## exphys88 (Jun 20, 2012)

ctr10 said:


> The question should not be should christian's vote for Obama, no one should vote for him because he does not have the business smarts to run the country, he is way in over his head



Yes, his religion is irrelevant.  He's a president, not a pastor.


----------



## jagbender (Jun 20, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> This is all under the assumption that the bible is the word of god, but there are so many things that have been proven to be false in the bible that you have to conclude that it is not the word of god and is actually just a story.
> Once you realize that evolution is a fact, the bible becomes fiction.  You cannot accept both as truth.


How do you prove evolution is a fact?


----------



## exphys88 (Jun 20, 2012)

jagbender said:


> How do you prove evolution is a fact?



The study of biology, geology, paleontology, zoology, genetics or anthropology.
Even the pope has declared it as fact, but then again Catholics are a little more educated in the sciences when comparedz to other Christian sects.


----------



## jagbender (Jun 20, 2012)

troubador said:


> I believe it's finite.




Then the Stoner question come up,  what is beyond a finite universe?  
(from the movie Animal House)


----------



## jagbender (Jun 20, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> That's not true, kids can read the bible on their own time in schools, teachers just can't read it to kids.
> Would you be ok w your kids' teacher reading the Koran to your kids?



The school systems here in Florida do teach ABOUT other religions.

The irony of the above post is that to some extent, if children are brought up with the "values" taught in the bible, more are less likely to end up in prison.  
Sixty years ago there was America was much more Christian than today.  
I belive that there were "fewer" homosexuals, less drug problems and much less of the population had an entitlement mentality.   IMHO because the Bible teaches what God says is right and wrong and more of society believed in the Bible. 

The liberal, politically correct, entitlement trends put the morals and values in Man's perspective not God's perspective.
God is Holy (perfect) and has set up perfect rules for the imperfect to try and follow. No man can be perfect.  But a man can try, God judges a man from his heart.  His intent and his willingness to follow God's word.  


It would be interesting to see how much of a prison popluation was raised in a Christian environment.   And how much of a Prison Popltaion repents.   

Also I thinks that is ironic that once a person gets into trouble and goes into prison "some" do repent and try to change thier ways.  Or at least the try to tell the parole board that!


----------



## jagbender (Jun 20, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> The study of biology, geology, paleontology, zoology, genetics or anthropology.
> Even the pope has declared it as fact, but then again Catholics are a little more educated in the sciences when comparedz to other Christian sects.



Why is it still called the Theory of Evolution?


----------



## exphys88 (Jun 20, 2012)

jagbender said:


> The school systems here in Florida do teach ABOUT other religions.
> 
> The irony of the above post is that to some extent, if children are brought up with the "values" taught in the bible, more are less likely to end up in prison.
> Sixty years ago there was America was much more Christian than today.
> ...



Your post was misleading, kids are allowed to pray in school and read the bible.  In fact, in my highschool there was a bible study group led by a teacher at lunch time.  The seperation of church and state would be violated if teachers were using school time to  prosthelytize children into their religion.  I asked you if you would be ok if your kids' teacher was reading the koran to your kids in school, but you didn't answer.

Which values are you referring to?  the old testament? because our values would be fucked up if people actually followed those rules.  

60 years ago was better?  Maybe if you were a white male.  Are you suggesting that life for black americans was better then? 

There weren't less homosexuals, there were less homosexuals out of the closet.  Who are you to judge gays when jesus specifically told you not to?

Fortunately, your views about how our country should be based around christian ideas was prevented by our founding fathers.  As much as you deny it, our country is a secular country, that happens to have a lot of christians living in it.


----------



## exphys88 (Jun 20, 2012)

jagbender said:


> Why is it still called the Theory of Evolution?



Because science requires absolute proof to label something as law, unlike religious folks.  I bet you believe matter is made up of atoms, even though it's just a theory.  A scientific theory is not a hypothesis, but a Theory that has withstood scrutiny for decades and with evolution, centuries.  You clearly have a lack of scientific knowledge to think that evolution hasn't basically been proven.


----------



## heavyiron (Jun 20, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> .  Who are you to judge gays when jesus specifically told you not to?



Actually Jesus specifically told his followers to judge rightly (John 7:24) . He did not want them judging hypocritically. Read the context before you make an interpretation...=)

btw, why are you judging judgers? LOL!


----------



## secdrl (Jun 20, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> That's not true, kids can read the bible on their own time in schools, teachers just can't read it to kids.
> Would you be ok w your kids' teacher reading the Koran to your kids?



In history class, most schools CANNOT teach the history of Christianity for fear of being offensive. Yet, they can openly discuss Islamic fundamentals and history.


----------



## exphys88 (Jun 20, 2012)

heavyiron said:


> Actually Jesus specifically told his followers to judge rightly (John 7:24) . He did not want them judging hypocritically. Read the context before you make an interpretation...=)
> 
> btw, why are you judging judgers? LOL!



I'm not held to the rules of the bible, that's why.  Similarly, I don't believe everyone should be forgiven, some crimes are unforgivable, like murder and child molestation.  And, I judge all sorts of people without thinking twice.

I think you interpreted John 7:24 incorrectly.  You need to study their culture without a western bias (which is impossible for a person of our era) before making claims about what it means.


----------



## secdrl (Jun 20, 2012)

This has some science, faith, etc. in it. Check this out. For all of the non-believers, what are your thoughts. It's long, but well worth it. How Great is Our God: with Louie Giglio (full video) - YouTube


----------



## exphys88 (Jun 20, 2012)

secdrl said:


> In history class, most schools CANNOT teach the history of Christianity for fear of being offensive. Yet, they can openly discuss Islamic fundamentals and history.



What convinced you of this?


----------



## secdrl (Jun 20, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> What convinced you of this?



convinced me? That implies some type of persuasion. You can google various cases/circumstances where the public school system can't talk about Christianity, but they can talk about Islam. This is fact.


----------



## secdrl (Jun 20, 2012)

Check this out, the "glue" that holds our bodies together is a molecule called Laminin. Magnified a few hundred times, this is what Laminin looks like.


----------



## heavyiron (Jun 20, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> I'm not held to the rules of the bible, that's why.  Similarly, I don't believe everyone should be forgiven, some crimes are unforgivable, like murder and child molestation.  And, I judge all sorts of people without thinking twice.
> 
> I think you interpreted John 7:24 incorrectly.  You need to study their culture without a western bias (which is impossible for a person of our era) before making claims about what it means.



Its only impossible for the lazy...=) Now go study....


----------



## exphys88 (Jun 20, 2012)

Here is an important question for creationists.  

How do you explain that nearly every scientist from every branch of the biological and physical sciences (biology, paleontology, zoology, anthropology, astronomy etc)  from nearly every civilized country accepts evolution as fact and how each one of these sciences are all in agreement about evolution?  Do you really think it's a massive conspiracy?


----------



## exphys88 (Jun 20, 2012)

heavyiron said:


> Its only impossible for the lazy...=) Now go study....



I'm willing to bet that most bible scholars are in disagreement about most of the meanings of the scriptures.  Basically making the bible worthless except as a nice story with some really fucked things done to humans by god.


----------



## NVRBDR (Jun 20, 2012)

*[SUP]

[/SUP]**
For 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. [SUP]22 [/SUP]Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools [SUP]23[/SUP]**[SUP]

[/SUP]*


----------



## exphys88 (Jun 20, 2012)

secdrl said:


> Check this out, the "glue" that holds our bodies together is a molecule called Laminin. Magnified a few hundred times, this is what Laminin looks like.



No actually, this is the representation of laminin, it's real shape in its original form is bent and distorted.  Nice try though, I've seen this craziness before.


----------



## exphys88 (Jun 20, 2012)

This is what it looks like, looks like a surfer to me.


----------



## secdrl (Jun 20, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> No actually, this is the representation of laminin, it's real shape in its original form is bent and distorted. Nice try though, I've seen this craziness before.



Well, of course. The actual "fluid" the cells sit it cause the structure to bend, distort slightly. I'm just sayin' this is pretty neat.


----------



## heavyiron (Jun 20, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> I'm willing to bet that most bible scholars are in disagreement about most of the meanings of the scriptures.  Basically making the bible worthless except as a nice story with some really fucked things done to humans by god.



You make a lot of general statements for someone who claims to have a scientific mind...


----------



## exphys88 (Jun 20, 2012)

Jimmyusa said:


> *
> For 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. [SUP]22 [/SUP]Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools [SUP]23[/SUP]**[SUP]
> 
> [/SUP]*



Surely if god exists, he would appreciate skepticism and critical thinking.


----------



## heavyiron (Jun 20, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> Here is an important question for creationists.
> 
> How do you explain that nearly every scientist from every branch of the biological and physical sciences (biology, paleontology, zoology, anthropology, astronomy etc)  from nearly every civilized country accepts evolution as fact and how each one of these sciences are all in agreement about evolution?  Do you really think it's a massive conspiracy?



Theistic evolutionists are alive and well in the scientific community.


----------



## exphys88 (Jun 20, 2012)

secdrl said:


> Well, of course. The actual "fluid" the cells sit it cause the structure to bend, distort slightly. I'm just sayin' this is pretty neat.



It looks like a sword to me.


----------



## exphys88 (Jun 20, 2012)

heavyiron said:


> Theistic evolutionists are alive and well in the scientific community.



93% of scientists in the national academy of scientists are atheist or agnostic.

I was addressing the creationists in the thread.


----------



## heavyiron (Jun 20, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> 93% of scientists in the national academy of scientists are atheist or agnostic.



What is the average breakdown of agnostic vs atheist?

Cite your source if possible.


----------



## exphys88 (Jun 20, 2012)

heavyiron said:


> What is the average breakdown of agnostic vs atheist?
> 
> Cite your source if possible.



72 atheist
20 agnostic

Nature, "Leading scientists still reject God"? July 23, 1998

It's actually a well cited poll by both creationists and atheists.


----------



## exphys88 (Jun 20, 2012)

The theistic evolutionists may be out there, there just isn't many of them in the sciences.  They're mostly in church trying to reconcile their contradicting views.


----------



## NVRBDR (Jun 20, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> Surely if god exists, he would appreciate skepticism and critical thinking.



But without faith _it is_ impossible to please _Him,_ for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and _that_ He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.

My son, give attention to my words; Incline your ear to my sayings.
[SUP]21 [/SUP]Do not let them depart from your eyes; Keep them in the midst of your heart;
[SUP]22 [/SUP]For they _are_ life to those who find them, And health to all their flesh.
[SUP]23 [/SUP]Keep your heart with all diligence, For out of it _spring_ the issues of life.

faith please God, straight up. anything you want know about God, you can read it anytime, He'll meet you on the pages of the His Holy Word, I guarantee it.


----------



## exphys88 (Jun 20, 2012)

Jimmyusa said:


> But without faith _it is_ impossible to please _Him,_ for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and _that_ He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.
> 
> My son, give attention to my words; Incline your ear to my sayings.
> [SUP]21 [/SUP]Do not let them depart from your eyes; Keep them in the midst of your heart;
> ...



Right, the faith thing.  The belief in something without a reason to believe in it.  If you ever get cancer, just eat an orange a day and you'll be cured, but you have to have faith for it to work.
Luckily for the world, science doesn't rely on faith, it relies on facts, hence why we live in the world we do today with our medicine and technology.


----------



## exphys88 (Jun 20, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> Here is an important question for creationists.
> 
> How do you explain that nearly every scientist from every branch of the biological and physical sciences (biology, paleontology, zoology, anthropology, astronomy etc)  from nearly every civilized country accepts evolution as fact and how each one of these sciences are all in agreement about evolution?  Do you really think it's a massive conspiracy?



bump for this question, I can't seem to get a creationist to answer this one.  Heavy, I assume you aren't a creationist.


----------



## NVRBDR (Jun 20, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> Right, the faith thing.  The belief in something without a reason to believe in it.  If you ever get cancer, just eat an orange a day and you'll be cured, but you have to have faith for it to work.
> Luckily for the world, science doesn't rely on faith, it relies on facts, hence why we live in the world we do today with our medicine and technology.




yes, the faith thing! I have seen faith and the spoken word of God heal a stroke victim, the doctors thought this person was never going to be the same, they were wrong.


----------



## heavyiron (Jun 20, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> 72 atheist
> 20 agnostic
> 
> Nature, "Leading scientists still reject God"? July 23, 1998
> ...



Thats an old poll. Its probably even worse now.

It makes sense though. Scientists are trained to believe observable and reproducable data in the natural world. The supernatural is not observable.


----------



## exphys88 (Jun 20, 2012)

Jimmyusa said:


> yes, the faith thing! I have seen faith and the spoken word of God heal a stroke victim, the doctors thought this person was never going to be the same, they were wrong.



lol, if that' isn't proof than I don't know what is.  Every religion has these stories, which makes all of them even more ridiculous, because surely all of the religions can't be true.


----------



## exphys88 (Jun 20, 2012)

heavyiron said:


> Thats an old poll. Its probably even worse now.
> 
> It makes sense though. Scientists are trained to believe observable and reproducable data in the natural world. The supernatural is not observable.



worse?  I see it as an improvement.  What is wrong with being skeptical to claims that cannot be demonstrated or proven in any fashion?  If we can't measure the supernatural in any form, how do we know it exists except for a book that was written by men that nobody knows and who never met jesus?


----------



## heavyiron (Jun 20, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> worse?  I see it as an improvement.  What is wrong with being skeptical to claims that cannot be demonstrated or proven in any fashion?  If we can't measure the supernatural in any form, how do we know it exists except for a book that was written by men that nobody knows and who never met jesus?


 
I didn't mean worse in the sense of a negative. Take a breath son and calm down. =)

I also like observable and reproducable data.


----------



## exphys88 (Jun 20, 2012)

heavyiron said:


> I didn't mean worse in the sense of a negative. Take a breath son and calm down. =)
> 
> I also like observable and reproducable data.



lol, you're right, I do get a little worked up.  It's just something that I'm passionate about, mostly the creationism part.


----------



## NVRBDR (Jun 20, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> lol, if that' isn't proof than I don't know what is.  Every religion has these stories, which makes all of them even more ridiculous, because surely all of the religions can't be true.




laugh if you will. The person, It was my wife, the prayers and spoken Word of God was by me.  On January 14 of this year, she seizured at the ER, her MRI showed a massive stroke, she was taken from one hospital by life flight to a larger neurology ICU downtown. She had an emergency surgery, then recovered in neurology ICU for 2 weeks, then home with zero signs of a stroke on her last MRI. There are more details to this story, I'll be glad to share with you, IF you want to hear them. Either way, it was a straight up miracle done in the name of Jesus. 

FYI, I am not a religious person by most anyones standards, my church attendance is spotty and I sin on a  daily basis. however,  I am a believer in Christ, a student of the bible and I understand that Jesus has given those who believe and receive it, forgiveness and salvation amongst many other great and wonderful promises.


----------



## heavyiron (Jun 20, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> lol, you're right, I do get a little worked up.  It's just something that I'm passionate about, mostly the creationism part.



So setting aside the bible. Do you feel strongly negative about a creator/designer that then let evolution take over?


----------



## exphys88 (Jun 20, 2012)

heavyiron said:


> So setting aside the bible. Do you feel strongly negative about a creator/designer that then let evolution take over?



I have a hard time with the idea of a creator, but am in no position to make an assertion one way or the other.  I am convinced that if there is a creator, he doesn't intervene though.


----------



## exphys88 (Jun 20, 2012)

Jimmyusa said:


> laugh if you will. The person, It was my wife, the prayers and spoken Word of God was by me.  On January 14 of this year, she seizured at the ER, her MRI showed a massive stroke, she was taken from one hospital by life flight to a larger neurology ICU downtown. She had an emergency surgery, then recovered in neurology ICU for 2 weeks, then home with zero signs of a stroke on her last MRI. There are more details to this story, I'll be glad to share with you, IF you want to hear them. Either way, it was a straight up miracle done in the name of Jesus.
> 
> FYI, I am not a religious person by most anyones standards, my church attendance is spotty and I sin on a  daily basis. however,  I am a believer in Christ, a student of the bible and I understand that Jesus has given those who believe and receive it, forgiveness and salvation amongst many other great and wonderful promises.



I am glad to hear that she recovered.  

The issue is that there are many stories from people of other religions who claim that their god healed them too.  Just because something extraordinary occurs, doesn't mean it was done by god.  Correlation does not equal causation.


----------



## NVRBDR (Jun 20, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> I am glad to hear that she recovered.
> 
> The issue is that there are many stories from people of other religions who claim that their god healed them too.  Just because something extraordinary occurs, doesn't mean it was done by god.  Correlation does not equal causation.




again, I claim ZERO religion bro. I am a believer in the Word of God, Jesus our Lord, God the Father and the Holy Spirit. It has nothing to do with religions, everything to do with FAITH.
So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it
Beloved, I wish above all things that thou mayest prosper and be in health, even as thy soul prospereth.


----------



## fsoe (Jun 20, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> This is all under the assumption that the bible is the word of god, but there are so many things that have been proven to be false in the bible that you have to conclude that it is not the word of god and is actually just a story.
> Once you realize that evolution is a fact, the bible becomes fiction.  You cannot accept both as truth.



Can you give us examples of what has been proven false , instead of just making a generic statement like the one posted above -


----------



## withoutrulers (Jun 20, 2012)

Jimmyusa said:


> again, I claim ZERO religion bro. I am a believer in the Word of God, Jesus our Lord, God the Father and the Holy Spirit. It has nothing to do with religions, everything to do with FAITH.
> So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it
> Beloved, I wish above all things that thou mayest prosper and be in health, even as thy soul prospereth.


^^^says he's not religious, then spews religious rhetoric....


----------



## exphys88 (Jun 20, 2012)

fsoe said:


> Can you give us examples of what has been proven false , instead of just making a generic statement like the one posted above -



the creation story, noah's ark, the resurrection of jesus.

we know that the entire human race cannot originate from 2 humans.

you cannot fit 2 of every animal on a boat, especially if they have to travel from other continents, not to mention the issue with what happened to the dinosaurs that lived in the oceans.

humans do not come back to life after being buried for 3 days, not even with our technology today.


----------



## DOMS (Jun 20, 2012)

heavyiron said:


> What is the average breakdown of agnostic vs atheist?
> 
> Cite your source if possible.



Fun fact: all of the major mass murderers of the 20th century were atheists.


----------



## exphys88 (Jun 20, 2012)

DOMS said:


> Fun fact: all of the major mass murderers of the 20th century were atheists.



they also had brown hair and were male.  Good argument for ridding the world of brown haired males.

Maybe atheists are more intelligent and superior?


----------



## exphys88 (Jun 20, 2012)

DOMS said:


> Fun fact: all of the major mass murderers of the 20th century were atheists.



We've been thru this before.  Can you provide what it is that convinced you that Hitler was an atheist?  I am aware of many excerpts from his speeches and writings in which he explicitly refers to himself as a christian and is doing the work of the lord.  

All you have ever done is suggest that he was lying, but you have yet to provide proof of his atheism.


----------



## DOMS (Jun 20, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> they also had brown hair and were male.  Good argument for ridding the world of brown haired males.



Prince Yoshiko, Idi Amin, Mao Ze-Dong, Pol Pot, Kim Il Sung, and Mengistu Mariam had brown hair? 



exphys88 said:


> Maybe atheists are more intelligent and superior?



They've turned into better killers.


----------



## DOMS (Jun 20, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> We've been thru this before.  Can you provide what it is that convinced you that Hitler was an atheist?  I am aware of many excerpts from his speeches and writings in which he explicitly refers to himself as a christian and is doing the work of the lord.
> 
> All you have ever done is suggest that he was lying, but you have yet to provide proof of his atheism.



My understanding of Hitler comes from reading books, not the Internet. He did make pro-religious quote...after he decided to get backing from religious people; even though he denounced religion when he left his parents. It was part of his consolidation of power. He went to every group, religious or otherwise, and used his political charms. It's how he rose to power.

Sometimes, learning involves more than a paragraph found on a web page.


----------



## exphys88 (Jun 20, 2012)

DOMS said:


> My understanding of Hitler comes from reading books, not the Internet. He did make pro-religious quote...after he decided to get backing from religious people; even though he denounced religion when he left his parents. It was part of his consolidation of power. He went to every group, religious or otherwise, and used his political charms. It's how he rose to power.
> 
> Sometimes, learning involves more than a paragraph found on a web page.



I didn't know that denouncing religion equates to atheism.  I know many christians who denounce religion, are they atheists too?


----------



## DOMS (Jun 20, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> I didn't know that denouncing religion equates to atheism.  I know many christians who denounce religion, are they atheists too?



He denounced all of it; including god.


----------



## exphys88 (Jun 20, 2012)

DOMS said:


> He denounced all of it; including god.



[h=3]_de?nounce_/diˈnouns/[/h]
Verb:


Publicly declare to be wrong or evil.
Inform against.


If he denounces god, he is acknowledging he exists.


----------



## heavyiron (Jun 20, 2012)

Anyway, not sure I can vote Obama. My home value was decimated under the man and has only gotten worse. He does not know how to fix this thing. Time for someone else to take over.


----------



## exphys88 (Jun 20, 2012)

heavyiron said:


> Anyway, not sure I can vote Obama. My home value was decimated under the man and has only gotten worse. He does not know how to fix this thing. Time for someone else to take over.



My house lost all of its value in 2007 and pretty much stayed the same; it dropped more than 50% that year because I live in a rural area.  But, I won't be voting for either.  I've become apathetic about politics, my quality of life has not changed under bush or obama and I've come to believe that it doesn't matter.


----------



## DOMS (Jun 20, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> *de?nounce/diˈnouns/*
> 
> 
> Verb:
> ...



And he declared all of _religion _to be wrong. What's so confusing?


----------



## hoyle21 (Jun 20, 2012)

If broken down into denominations Atheist would now be the second largest religious group in America.

Catholics 25%
Atheist 15%
Lutheran 14%

Are the top three.


----------



## hoyle21 (Jun 20, 2012)

heavyiron said:


> Anyway, not sure I can vote Obama. My home value was decimated under the man and has only gotten worse. He does not know how to fix this thing. Time for someone else to take over.



Obama wasn't president in 2007.


----------



## heavyiron (Jun 20, 2012)

hoyle21 said:


> Obama wasn't president in 2007.



I never said he was brother.


----------



## DOMS (Jun 20, 2012)

hoyle21 said:


> Obama wasn't president in 2007.



It's a good thing he hasn't been the president for over three years and made promises about fixing the problem.


----------



## heavyiron (Jun 20, 2012)

If a CEO can't fix things when he says he can you give him a few years then find someone else. If a quaterback can't get things back on track you give him a few seasons then find someone else. Its just the way the world works. 

Obama gave it a shot but its time to move on.


----------



## hoyle21 (Jun 20, 2012)

DOMS said:


> It's a good thing he hasn't been the president for over three years and made promises about fixing the problem.



Admittedly it's slow, but your 401K, property value, and the stock market are all considerably higher than before he was president, which actually started in 2009.

Let's ignore all other global factors while we're at it.


----------



## hoyle21 (Jun 20, 2012)

heavyiron said:


> If a CEO can't fix things when he says he can you give him a few years then find someone else. If a quaterback can't get things back on track you give him a few seasons then find someone else. Its just the way the world works.
> 
> Obama gave it a shot but its time to move on.



To Romney?   Who while as governor during the boom years led a state that ranked in the bottom of all economic factors?


----------



## heavyiron (Jun 20, 2012)

hoyle21 said:


> To Romney?   Who while as governor during the boom years led a state that ranked in the bottom of all economic factors?



Unfortunately the way our system works is you basically get two choices. I just can't see us maintaining the spending Obama wants. It doesn't work in business or our housholds so I would rather have a man that reduces spending.


----------



## DOMS (Jun 20, 2012)

hoyle21 said:


> Admittedly it's slow, but your 401K, property value, and the stock market are all considerably higher than before he was president, which actually started in 2009.
> 
> Let's ignore all other global factors while we're at it.



BBC News - Federal Reserve cuts forecast for US economic growth


----------



## hoyle21 (Jun 20, 2012)

I'm going third party, Gary Johnson is my candidate, but past actions and historical data shows that Romney will be as bad, if not worse than Obama.


----------



## hoyle21 (Jun 20, 2012)

heavyiron said:


> Unfortunately the way our system works is you basically get two choices. I just can't see us maintaining the spending Obama wants. It doesn't work in business or our housholds so I would rather have a man that reduces spending.



I absolutely assure you Romney will continue the spending spree.   That's not a new trend, just a big deal because a black guy is doing it.


----------



## hoyle21 (Jun 20, 2012)

DOMS said:


> BBC News - Federal Reserve cuts forecast for US economic growth



Again that's a global issue.   The entire planet is in the same shoes.


----------



## heavyiron (Jun 20, 2012)

hoyle21 said:


> I'm going third party, Gary Johnson is my candidate, but past actions and historical data shows that Romney will be as bad, if not worse than Obama.



I wish the third parties were more mainstream. They get killed when it comes time to vote. Our whole system basically funnels us to two candidates, maybe three. Its not much of a choice.


----------



## LAM (Jun 20, 2012)

heavyiron said:


> If a CEO can't fix things when he says he can you give him a few years then find someone else. If a quaterback can't get things back on track you give him a few seasons then find someone else. Its just the way the world works.
> 
> Obama gave it a shot but its time to move on.



1). it typically takes 5 years for the economy of a country to recover from a financial collapse.

2). it takes decades to restore wealth lost from a housing asset bubble burst (40% of the total wealth of the working class)

3). it takes legislation to decrease income inequality which would greatly improve our consumption based economy

* GOP economic policy increases income inequality with top down grants which only makes the economy more sluggish


----------



## exphys88 (Jun 20, 2012)

heavyiron said:


> Unfortunately the way our system works is you basically get two choices. I just can't see us maintaining the spending Obama wants. It doesn't work in business or our housholds so I would rather have a man that reduces spending.



If only we could do the same with congress since they are the ones that really make things work or not.


----------



## hoyle21 (Jun 20, 2012)

heavyiron said:


> I wish the third parties were more mainstream. They get killed when it comes time to vote. Our whole system basically funnels us to two candidates, maybe three. Its not much of a choice.



http://www.ontheissues.org/Gary_Johnson.htm

Read up Heavy.    And unlike Romney or Obama his record backs up his beliefs.


----------



## exphys88 (Jun 20, 2012)

DOMS said:


> And he declared all of _religion _to be wrong. What's so confusing?



if he denounces god, he is acknowledging he exists, therefore he must not be an atheist.  Maybe he was a buddhist, they denounce religion too.

The problem with you calling him an atheist is that you have yet to back it up with evidence.  I'm all ears and eyes for you to share what convinced you of this.


----------



## heavyiron (Jun 20, 2012)

hoyle21 said:


> I absolutely assure you Romney will continue the spending spree.   That's not a new trend, just a big deal because a black guy is doing it.



Naw, I don't care what color he is. Its the future spending spree that is truely frightening. He took a good idea like health care and is projected to spend us into oblivion. I just don't think that level of future spending is sustainable. Its a boat load of future spending on top of already massive present spending.


----------



## heavyiron (Jun 20, 2012)

hoyle21 said:


> Gary Johnson on the Issues
> 
> Read up Heavy.    And unlike Romney or Obama his record backs up his beliefs.



Looks interesting. Do you honestly think he has a shot at winning???


----------



## hoyle21 (Jun 20, 2012)

heavyiron said:


> Looks interesting. Do you honestly think he has a shot at winning???



No, I don't believe he will win.   My hope is he gets enough votes for the libertarian party to qualify for federal campaign funds like the dems and repubs.   At least then it would be a more equal playing field in future elections.


----------



## DOMS (Jun 20, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> if he denounces god, he is acknowledging he exists, therefore he must not be an atheist.  Maybe he was a buddhist, they denounce religion too.
> 
> The problem with you calling him an atheist is that you have yet to back it up with evidence.  I'm all ears and eyes for you to share what convinced you of this.



You keep substituting words. He's not denouncing _god_, he denounced all of _religion_.

I was convinced by information that I read in books. I can find web pages that agree and disagree with me. You'll simply not find the comprehensive study on him that you will in a book. Understanding the motivations of a someone takes more than reading a quote or two. Hitler only believed in one thing: himself. Everything else was a tool to amassing power. Whether you take my word on it or not doesn't matter to me. I'm simply laying out the facts.

As for "denounce", you're understanding it incorrectly. From your own posted definition: 


Publicly declare to be wrong or evil.

There's nothing about believing the thing you said is wrong.


----------



## exphys88 (Jun 20, 2012)

DOMS said:


> You keep substituting words. He's not denouncing _god_, he denounced all of _religion_.
> 
> I was convinced by information that I read in books. I can find web pages that agree and disagree with me. You'll simply not find the comprehensive study on him that you will in a book. Understanding the motivations of a someone takes more than reading a quote or two. Hitler only believed in one thing: himself. Everything else was a tool to amassing power. Whether you take my word on it or not doesn't matter to me. I'm simply laying out the facts.
> 
> ...



denouncing religion does not mean he's an atheist.  The fact is that he never claimed to be atheist, yet he claimed to be christian.  was he lying to win acceptance, maybe, but there is still no proof that he actually held the belief that there is no god.  It's just a game that christians like to play, as if being atheist makes you more likely to kill.  Additionally, all of the people that actually did the killing for him were primarily christian.


----------



## DOMS (Jun 20, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> denouncing religion does not mean he's an atheist.  The fact is that he never claimed to be atheist, yet he claimed to be christian.  was he lying to win acceptance, maybe, but there is still no proof that he actually held the belief that there is no god.  It's just a game that christians like to play, as if being atheist makes you more likely to kill.  Additionally, all of the people that actually did the killing for him were primarily christian.



A game that Christians like to play? You mean like how atheists play the "religion has killed...blah, blah, blah"? Like that?

It's funny how anti-religious people like to dish out this or that negative fact about religion, but get all ass-hurt when you point out that all the greatest killers of the 20th century, to the sum of over 100,000,000 people, were atheists.

I didn't study Hitler because I wanted to prove he was anything. I studied him because he was interesting enough to want to understand. It's the same reason that I Caesar, the Pharaohs of Egypt, Robert Mugabe, and MLK.


----------



## hoyle21 (Jun 20, 2012)

Christians are over represented in prisons percentage wise, and atheist are under represented.


----------



## exphys88 (Jun 20, 2012)

DOMS said:


> A game that Christians like to play? You mean like how atheists play the "religion has killed...blah, blah, blah"? Like that?
> 
> It's funny how anti-religious people like to dish out this or that negative fact about religion, but get all ass-hurt when you point out that all the greatest killers of the 20th century, to the sum of over 100,000,000 people, were atheists.
> 
> I didn't study Hitler because I wanted to prove he was anything. I studied him because he was interesting enough to want to understand. It's the same reason that I Caesar, the Pharaohs of Egypt, Robert Mugabe, and MLK.



I consider you a very intelligent person, so I'm shocked when you avoid the fact that atheists don't kill in the name of atheism or specifically because they're atheists, yet many religious people have killed specifically because of their religious beliefs.  The communists didn't kill in the name of atheism anymore than they did because they were tall.  This is an important concept that you surely get, yet avoid for some reason.


----------



## DOMS (Jun 20, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> I consider you a very intelligent person, so I'm shocked when you avoid the fact that atheists don't kill in the name of atheism or specifically because they're atheists, yet many religious people have killed specifically because of their religious beliefs.  The communists didn't kill in the name of atheism anymore than they did because they were tall.  This is an important concept that you surely get, yet avoid for some reason.



I never said that atheists kill in the name atheism. I don't know where you got that.

I just pointed out that, in the last century, all of the greatest mass murderers were atheists; no more, no less.


----------



## exphys88 (Jun 20, 2012)

DOMS said:


> I never said that atheists kill in the name atheism. I don't know where you got that.
> 
> I just pointed out that, in the last century, all of the greatest mass murderers were atheists; no more, no less.



they were lots of things; males, fathers, sons, brothers and maybe even some of them loved certain types of foods.  The difference is that many religious people have specifically killed because of their religious beliefs, which put religion at fault.  You can't say the same for atheists.


----------



## DOMS (Jun 20, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> they were lots of things; males, fathers, sons, brothers and maybe even some of them loved certain types of foods.  The difference is that many religious people have specifically killed because of their religious beliefs, which put religion at fault.  You can't say the same for atheists.



The atheists kill in the name of race, nationality, and ideologies. Which is so much better.


----------



## exphys88 (Jun 20, 2012)

DOMS said:


> The atheists kill in the name of race, nationality, and ideologies. Which is so much better.



religious people kill for these same reasons, plus they kill because they think god wants them to.


----------



## exphys88 (Jun 20, 2012)

Here, instead of saying that "religious people have killed more than atheists," lets say that "religion has been responsible for more deaths/murders than atheism," since you acknowledge that those atheists didn't kill because they were atheists.  Does that work for you?


----------



## DOMS (Jun 20, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> Here, instead of saying that "religious people have killed more than atheists," lets say that "religion has been responsible for more deaths/murders than atheism," since you acknowledge that those atheists didn't kill because they were atheists.  Does that work for you?



I can roll with that if we're talking about all of history. The previous century...not so much.

But I will take the opportunity to point out that the shitty place on Earth _right now_ has the least amount of religion.


----------



## exphys88 (Jun 20, 2012)

DOMS said:


> I can roll with that if we're talking about all of history. The previous century...not so much.
> 
> But I will take the opportunity to point out that the shitty place on Earth _right now_ has the least amount of religion.



The middle east?


----------



## hoyle21 (Jun 20, 2012)

I would say the shittiest places on earth have the most religion.

And it's always been like that.   Religion and its power was at its peak during a time we now refer to as the dark ages.


----------



## Luxx (Jun 20, 2012)

DOMS said:
			
		

> I never said that atheists kill in the name atheism. I don't know where you got that.
> 
> I just pointed out that, in the last century, all of the greatest mass murderers were atheists; no more, no less.



Who?


----------



## Luxx (Jun 20, 2012)

hoyle21 said:
			
		

> I would say the shittiest places on earth have the most religion.
> 
> And it's always been like that.   Religion and its power was at its peak during a time we now refer to as the dark ages.



This


----------



## DOMS (Jun 20, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> The middle east?



Sub-Saharan Africa. The shittiest place on Earth.


----------



## DOMS (Jun 20, 2012)

Luxx said:


> Who?



You're new, so I'll indulge.

Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Idi Admin, Yasuhiko Asaka, Mao Tse-Tung, Kim Il Sung, Yasuhiko Asaka, Mao Tse-Tung, and Kim Il Sung. All total, they're responsible for about 100,000,000 deaths.


----------



## troubador (Jun 20, 2012)

jagbender said:


> Why is it still called the Theory of Evolution?



I believe because it uses inductive evidence. We can't create something like a mathematical proof for it. I also think the theory part is about how things evolved not a theory about if evolution exist or not, that part is a fact.


----------



## exphys88 (Jun 20, 2012)

DOMS said:


> Sub-Saharan Africa. The shittiest place on Earth.



but not shitty because of lack of religion, it's not as if they all converted to christianity that their situation would be better.  Japan, which is mosty non religious has some of the happiest, healthiest people on the planet.  America, which has a large percentage of religious folks ranks as one of the highest in depression.


----------



## DOMS (Jun 20, 2012)

hoyle21 said:


> I would say the shittiest places on earth have the most religion.



You could, but you'd be wrong.



hoyle21 said:


> And it's always been like that.   Religion and its power was at its peak during a time we now refer to as the dark ages.



I think this quote from Wiki sums up what I've read:



> The medieval period is frequently caricatured as supposedly a "time of  ignorance and superstition" which placed "the word of religious  authorities over personal experience and rational activity."[SUP][/SUP] However, rationality was increasingly held in high regard as the Middle Ages progressed. The historian of science Edward Grant,  writes that "If revolutionary rational thoughts were expressed [in the  18th century], they were only made possible because of the long medieval  tradition that established the use of reason as one of the most  important of human activities".[SUP][/SUP] Furthermore, David Lindberg  says that, contrary to common belief, "the late medieval scholar rarely  experienced the coercive power of the church and would have regarded  himself as free (particularly in the natural sciences) to follow reason  and observation wherever they led".[SUP][/SUP]


----------



## DOMS (Jun 20, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> but not shitty because of lack of religion, it's not as if they all converted to christianity that their situation would be better.  Japan, which is mosty non religious has some of the happiest, healthiest people on the planet.  America, which has a large percentage of religious folks ranks as one of the highest in depression.



I simply stated a fact: the place with the least religion is the shittiest place on Earth. But feel free to keep throwing your opinions in.

Also, your belief that the Japanese are "mosty non religious" is a so wrong that I'm astounded.


----------



## Luxx (Jun 20, 2012)

DOMS said:
			
		

> You're new, so I'll indulge.
> 
> Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Idi Admin, Yasuhiko Asaka, Mao Tse-Tung, Kim Il Sung, Yasuhiko Asaka, Mao Tse-Tung, and Kim Il Sung. All total, they're responsible for about 100,000,000 deaths.



Thanks, were they raise in a religious family? Just wondering cause I have listen to a radio show on serial killers and they seem to be raised in a religious family.


----------



## exphys88 (Jun 20, 2012)

DOMS said:


> I simply stated a fact: the place with the least religion is the shittiest place on Earth. But feel free to keep throwing your opinions in.
> 
> Also, your belief that the Japanese are "mosty non religious" is a so wrong that I'm astounded.



Here is a quote from wiki on japanese religious statistics, notice the bold.  The other point is that buddhism can be called atheist or non-theist.  Are you still astounded?:

Most Japanese people  do not exclusively identify themselves as adherents of a single  religion; rather, they incorporate elements of various religions in a syncretic fashion[SUP][1][/SUP] known as _Shinbutsu shūgō_ (神仏習合 _amalgamation of kami and buddhas_[SUP]?[/SUP]). _Shinbutsu Shūgō_ officially ended with the Shinto and Buddhism Separation Order of 1886, but continues in practice. Shinto and Japanese Buddhism  are therefore best understood not as two completely separate and  competing faiths, but rather as a single, rather complex religious  system.[SUP][2][/SUP] Christianity also has an influence on mainstream culture.
 Japan enjoys full religious freedom and minority religions such as Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and Sikhism  are practiced. Figures that state 84% to 96% of Japanese adhere to  Shinto and Buddhism are not based on self-identification but come  primarily from birth records, following a longstanding practice of  officially associating a family line with a local Buddhist temple or Shinto shrine.[SUP][3][/SUP][SUP][4][/SUP][SUP][5][/SUP][SUP][6][/SUP] *About 70% of Japanese profess no religious membership,[SUP][7][/SUP][SUP][8][/SUP]  according to Johnstone (1993:323), 84% of the Japanese claim no  personal religion. In census questionnaires, less than 15% reported any  formal religious affiliation by 2000.[SUP][9][/SUP]* And according to Demerath (2001:138), 64% do not believe in God, and 55% do not believe in Buddha.[SUP][10][/SUP] According to Edwin Reischauer, and Marius Jansen, *some 70–80% of the Japanese regularly tell pollsters they do not consider themselves believers in any religion*.[SUP][1][/SUP] Japanese streets are decorated on Tanabata, Obon and Christmas.


----------



## DOMS (Jun 20, 2012)

Luxx said:


> Thanks, were they raise in a religious family? Just wondering cause I have listen to a radio show on serial killers and they seem to be raised in a religious family.



Don't confuse _serial_ _killers_ for _mass_ _murderers_. They're two different things.

Hitler was, but I don't know about the others.


----------



## exphys88 (Jun 20, 2012)

DOMS said:


> Don't confuse _serial_ _killers_ for _mass_ _murderers_. They're two different things.
> 
> Hitler was, but I don't know about the others.



Yes, hitler didn't do the killing himself, his christian soldiers did.


----------



## DOMS (Jun 20, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> Here is a quote from wiki on japanese religious statistics, notice the bold.  The other point is that buddhism can be called atheist or non-theist.  Are you still astounded?:
> 
> Most Japanese people  do not exclusively identify themselves as adherents of a single  religion; rather, they incorporate elements of various religions in a syncretic fashion[SUP][1][/SUP] known as _Shinbutsu shūgō_ (神仏習合 _amalgamation of kami and buddhas_[SUP]?[/SUP]). _Shinbutsu Shūgō_ officially ended with the Shinto and Buddhism Separation Order of 1886, but continues in practice. Shinto and Japanese Buddhism  are therefore best understood not as two completely separate and  competing faiths, but rather as a single, rather complex religious  system.[SUP][2][/SUP] Christianity also has an influence on mainstream culture.
> Japan enjoys full religious freedom and minority religions such as Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and Sikhism  are practiced. Figures that state 84% to 96% of Japanese adhere to  Shinto and Buddhism are not based on self-identification but come  primarily from birth records, following a longstanding practice of  officially associating a family line with a local Buddhist temple or Shinto shrine.[SUP][3][/SUP][SUP][4][/SUP][SUP][5][/SUP][SUP][6][/SUP] *About 70% of Japanese profess no religious membership,[SUP][7][/SUP][SUP][8][/SUP]  according to Johnstone (1993:323), 84% of the Japanese claim no  personal religion. In census questionnaires, less than 15% reported any  formal religious affiliation by 2000.[SUP][9][/SUP]* And according to Demerath (2001:138), 64% do not believe in God, and 55% do not believe in Buddha.[SUP][10][/SUP] According to Edwin Reischauer, and Marius Jansen, *some 70–80% of the Japanese regularly tell pollsters they do not consider themselves believers in any religion*.[SUP][1][/SUP] Japanese streets are decorated on Tanabata, Obon and Christmas.



I never had an issue with Wikipedia...until now.

Someone has butchered that page within the last year or so. All of that "the Japanese aren't religious" stuff was added.

Curious, I checked sources 7-9.

Seven links to a page with an _opinion_ piece that reads, "Millions Disenchanted With Buddhism, Shinto Find Spiritual Options", and has no sources. 
Eight links to another opinion piece with no sources.
The ninth links to a book reference and doesn't even bother with an excerpt.

For this, I'll use a British word: rubbish. That's what that edit is.

Japan is one of my favorite topics of study. This Wiki edit is wrong.


----------



## troubador (Jun 20, 2012)

This is a ridiculous argument. If religions are all false then it can not be the root cause of so many problems. In other words, if religion is man made these problems exist with man and independent of religion. I think religion could only be a symptom and not a cause. There are atheists who think and reason just as though they were religious.


----------



## DOMS (Jun 20, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> Yes, hitler didn't do the killing himself, his christian soldiers did.



Following their leader who fed them propaganda. None of which changes the fact that Adolf was atheist.


----------



## DOMS (Jun 20, 2012)

troubador said:


> This is a ridiculous argument. If religions are all false then it can not be the root cause of so many problems. In other words, if religion is man made these problems exist with man and independent of religion. I think religion could only be a symptom and not a cause. *There are atheists who think and reason just as though they were religious.*



Such as the Religion of Global Warming.


----------



## exphys88 (Jun 20, 2012)

troubador said:


> This is a ridiculous argument. If religions are all false then it can not be the root cause of so many problems. In other words, if religion is man made these problems exist with man and independent of religion. I think religion could only be a symptom and not a cause. There are atheists who think and reason just as though they were religious.



hmmm?  I think you make a valid point, but I don't think that anyone was making any claims about what problems exist as a result of religion.  I was mostly pointing out that evolution and the bible are incompatible.


----------



## exphys88 (Jun 20, 2012)

DOMS said:


> I never had an issue with Wikipedia...until now.
> 
> Someone has butchered that page within the last year or so. All of that "the Japanese aren't religious" stuff was added.
> 
> ...



I don't doubt you on this.  The interesting part is that they don't believe in god, yet have one of the best societies out there.  Not a good argument for the necessity of god to be moral.  And, some claim that buddhist is not a religion, but a way of life, but that's just a play on words IMO.


----------



## withoutrulers (Jun 20, 2012)

Religious views of Adolf Hitler - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Not seeing anything in here about hitler being atheist.


----------



## exphys88 (Jun 20, 2012)

withoutrulers said:


> Religious views of Adolf Hitler - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> Not seeing anything in here about hitler being atheist.



There is nothing to suggest he was atheist, except some "books" that DOMS has read that convinced him.  There are, however, many quotes in which he specifically refers to himself as a christian.


----------



## DOMS (Jun 20, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> I don't doubt you on this.  The interesting part is that they don't believe in god, yet have one of the best societies out there.  Not a good argument for the necessity of god to be moral.  And, some claim that buddhist is not a religion, but a way of life, but that's just a play on words IMO.



Don't confuse being religious with have a god in the Christian sense. They Japanese believe in kami, or spirits. They believe that many sentient, non-human, spirits exist in the world. They also beleive in spirits of the dead and reincarnation. Don't fool yourself, they are religious.

Actually, most Japanese practice two religions, Buddhism (inner) and Shintoism (outer). Buddhism I'm sure you're familiar with, but Shintoism comes from the original inhabitants of the Japanese islands called Ainu. The Japanese live a life that balances the two.


----------



## exphys88 (Jun 20, 2012)

DOMS said:


> Don't confuse being religious with have a god in the Christian sense. They Japanese believe in kami, or spirits. They believe that many sentient, non-human, spirits exist in the world. They also beleive in spirits of the dead and reincarnation. Don't fool yourself, they are religious.
> 
> Actually, most Japanese practice two religions, Buddhism (outer) and Shintoism (inner). Buddhism I'm sure you're familiar with, but Shintoism comes from the original inhabitants of the Japanese islands called Ainu. The Japanese live a life that balances the two.



fair enough, I concede the point.


----------



## DOMS (Jun 20, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> There is nothing to suggest he was atheist, except some "books" that DOMS has read that convinced him.  There are, however, many quotes in which he specifically refers to himself as a christian.



I'm not interested in fitting Hitler into my world-view. I'm just interested in Hitler. If there were proof that he was religious, I'd go with it. But I've read many books that covered Hitler's life in detail. The short of it is that Hitler was the perfect politician; one scary bastard.

Also, I like how you put books in quotes. Should I put everything you say that I don't agree with in quotes? Are you "intelligent"?


----------



## withoutrulers (Jun 20, 2012)

As an atheist, I take my marching orders from non-god. "What's that voice in my head that only 
i can hear? Go forth and kill millions of people who disagree with my non-ideology?" Let us darken the ground with their blood.


----------



## DOMS (Jun 20, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> fair enough, I concede the point.



I'm still rather unhappy to have found an article on Wiki that's so horrifically biased and based on opinion.


----------



## exphys88 (Jun 20, 2012)

DOMS said:


> I'm not interested in fitting Hitler into my world-view. I'm just interested in Hitler. If there were proof that he was religious, I'd go with it. But I've read many books that covered Hitler's life in detail. The short of it is that Hitler was the perfect politician; one scary bastard.
> 
> Also, I like how you put books in quotes. Should I put everything you say that I don't agree with in quotes? Are you "intelligent"?



lol.  I was referring to your earlier statement that you were convinced about his atheism from books that you read.  The problem is that he said he was a christian, never said he was an atheist,  yet you conclude he is one because he condemns religion?  Seems like a stretch.


----------



## exphys88 (Jun 20, 2012)

DOMS said:


> I'm still rather unhappy to have found an article on Wiki that's so horrifically biased and based on opinion.



Yes, I am too, I usually find it to be very reliable.


----------



## DOMS (Jun 20, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> lol.  I was referring to your earlier statement that you were convinced about his atheism from books that you read.  The problem is that he said he was a christian, never said he was an atheist,  yet you conclude he is one because he condemns religion?



He hated religion and all the notions that went with it. No one with an ego that big would believe in a universe where there may be someone above them. You really should read up on him. He should have been Time Man of the Century. No one person affected the world that century than him.

But hey, if you feel the need to believe that he's religious, go for it. I choose to because the facts I've read say so. It doesn't effect anything for me one way or the other. I just like to base my world-view on the facts as much as possible.

Also, claiming to be an atheist back in those days would be political suicide. He never would've come out and said it. It's the things he said to his family and the people that he associated with that show that he had nothing to do with religion, including the belief in god.


----------



## hoyle21 (Jun 20, 2012)

Stalin actually attended a seminary school on partial scholarship.   He was expelled eventually.   History is conflicting here on why.


----------



## DOMS (Jun 20, 2012)

hoyle21 said:


> Stalin actually attended a seminary school on partial scholarship.   He was expelled eventually.   History is conflicting here on why.



Maybe it was for shooting seminary all over the teacher?


----------



## hoyle21 (Jun 20, 2012)

DOMS said:


> He hated religion and all the notions that went with it.



So did Jesus.


----------



## DOMS (Jun 20, 2012)

hoyle21 said:


> So did Jesus.



Come here. I've got some seminary for you, too.


----------



## DOMS (Jun 20, 2012)




----------



## NVRBDR (Jun 20, 2012)

wow, this thread really sparked some interesting debate.

from the book of James 1:26-27If anyone among you thinks he is religious, and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this one’s religion _is_ useless. [SUP]27 [/SUP]Pure and undefiled religion before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their trouble, _and_ to keep oneself unspotted from the world.


----------



## KelJu (Jun 20, 2012)

DOMS said:


>



This is the best post in this thread!


----------



## maniclion (Jun 20, 2012)

We should take the one thing most religions tend to agree upon and just stick with it, and that is the Golden Rule....amen.


----------



## secdrl (Jun 20, 2012)

If evolution is real, why did we stop evolving? As a surface example, why are apes no longer turning into humans? Evolution, IMO, is science fiction.


----------



## exphys88 (Jun 20, 2012)

secdrl said:


> If evolution is real, why did we stop evolving? As a surface example, why are apes no longer turning into humans? Evolution, IMO, is science fiction.



This question does not even warrant an answer, but il help you a little.  First, evolution takes millions of years for species to change.  Secondly, apes didn't turn into man, we share a common ancestor w apes.  You could get these answers in a junior high biology book.


----------



## secdrl (Jun 20, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> This question does not even warrant an answer, but il help you a little.  First, evolution takes millions of years for species to change.  Secondly, apes didn't turn into man, we share a common ancestor w apes.  You could get these answers in a junior high biology book.



I guess that's where creationists differ from individuals like yourself. You take all of your beliefs and views as fact, no discussion, set in stone, non-debatable. But, if a creationist has an opposing view, they're uninformed, illiterate idiots. Makes sense.


----------



## Zaphod (Jun 20, 2012)

heavyiron said:


> Naw, I don't care what color he is. Its the future spending spree that is truely frightening. He took a good idea like health care and is projected to spend us into oblivion. I just don't think that level of future spending is sustainable. Its a boat load of future spending on top of already massive present spending.



I'm interested in knowing where you got the information that the healthcare reform law is going to spend us into oblivion.


----------



## exphys88 (Jun 20, 2012)

secdrl said:


> I guess that's where creationists differ from individuals like yourself. You take all of your beliefs and views as fact, no discussion, set in stone, non-debatable. But, if a creationist has an opposing view, they're uninformed, illiterate idiots. Makes sense.



I'm merely pointing that if you ask questions like that, you haven't taken the time to really study evolution.  
Evolution is a non issue to virtually every scientist, it's been a fact to scientists for centuries.  There is no debate within the scientific community, because the evidence is overwhelming.


----------



## NVRBDR (Jun 20, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> I'm merely pointing that if you ask questions like that, you haven't taken the time to really study evolution.
> Evolution is a non issue to virtually every scientist, it's been a fact to scientists for centuries.  There is no debate within the scientific community, because the evidence is overwhelming.




In secdrl defense, you have not taken the time to study the bible, but claim it to be foolishness at best. furthermore, you claim those that do study the bible are of lesser intelligence and incapable of critical thinking, unlike yourself and others that agree with you.

op?  There are so many reasons not to vote for B Hussein Obama, IMO, you don't have to factor his religion in. I believe he is a muslim, not a christian as he claims he is. I remember BHO said he was a muslim during an interview on ABC, the guy giving the interview had to correct him.


----------



## exphys88 (Jun 20, 2012)

Actually I was raised a Christian and wasted way too much of my life reading the bible.
The fact is that the evidence for evolution is non debatable to scientists, including an increasing number of theistic evolutionists as heavy has suggested.  It really is a waste of time debating it, and I'm sorry if that offends you, but creationism is a joke, and creationists do not deserve the opportunity to debate such ridiculousness.


----------



## NVRBDR (Jun 20, 2012)

You were raised a Christian? Were you part of a religion or a church? Ironically, I never stepped foot into a church until I was 30 years old! I started reading the bible, my family I are enjoying Gods goodness in our life's in a grand way... LOL, Exphys, It takes a lot more than a disagreement of philosophies of life to get me offended, so no worries brother, I am not offended at anything posted in this thead. I enjoyed it for the most part
At your last comment "creationism is a joke"... nor deserve the opportunity to debate...

[SUP]13 [/SUP]These things we also speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teaches but which the Holy[SUP][a][/SUP] Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. [SUP]14 [/SUP]But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know _them,_ because they are spiritually discerned. [SUP]15 [/SUP]But he who is spiritual judges all things, yet he himself is _rightly_ judged by no one. [SUP]16 [/SUP]For “who has known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct Him?”


----------



## exphys88 (Jun 20, 2012)

We went to church, but not often.  I had many Christian friends in junior high and youth group was a big part of my life.  But, once I took biology my freshman year, I realized that evolution was undeniable and was not compatible w the creation story.  
I've spent my free time since then studying darwins natural selection and even took an entire semester class about him in college.  I've also read nearly every one of Dawkins, Harris, hitchens and Denny's books.
I'm not a bible expert, but I know enough to make up my mind that evolution is really how we came to be, and the evidence is solid.
The most educated and intelligent scientists, who understand our world better than anyone else are nearly all in agreement about evolution (some who are Christian).  Do you really think there is some kind of conspiracy?  
I like to make the point that there are virtually no non-religious scientists who question evolution, but there are plenty of religious folks that question creation.
Here is a great Christian site that educates young earth creationists on all of the evidence of evolution and an old earth. I highly recommend taking a look.

http://www.oldearth.org/


----------



## maniclion (Jun 21, 2012)

secdrl said:


> If evolution is real, why did we stop evolving? As a surface example, why are apes no longer turning into humans? Evolution, IMO, is science fiction.



Who says we've stopped evolving?  Over what period of time do you think evolution happens?  A couple generations?  A millennium?


----------



## Diesel618 (Jun 21, 2012)

lol @ evolution being science fiction, while an all-powerful omnipotent being who sees all and is concerned with the smallest human affairs and takes time out of all that to answer little Bobby's prayers being the best counterpoint available.


----------



## HialeahChico305 (Jun 21, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> Ejaculations 4;20
> "For those that maketh funeth of others mother, shall perish in spaghetti w meatballs."


----------



## Gissurjon (Jun 22, 2012)

11 pages!! fohohohohoho reeal!??


----------



## exphys88 (Jun 22, 2012)

The word of god, lol!


----------



## bandaidwoman (Jun 22, 2012)

so what other scientific theory  predicted that chimps, like humans, lack the Gal-alpha(1,3)-Gal sugar molecule on the surface of their proteins, ( important in organ rejection), which is why we have to genetically modify pig tissues ( knock it out...knock out gene) to transplant pig skin on humans? (There is astronomical cost and ethical reasons why we don't harvest chimp tissues and organs for humans even though we would not reject them like unmodified pig tissues)
By the way all old world primates lack this surface antigen, unlike new world primates ( farther from us on the evolutionary tree). What should I teach my medical students?  Intelligent design in no fucking way predicted this, we use evolutionary theory to help us in xenotranpslantion and you can bet your ass we use it all the friggin time in medicine.


----------



## exphys88 (Jun 22, 2012)

bandaidwoman said:


> so what other scientific theory  predicted that chimps, like humans, lack the Gal-alpha(1,3)-Gal sugar molecule on the surface of their proteins, ( important in organ rejection), which is why we have to genetically modify pig tissues ( knock it out...knock out gene) to transplant pig skin on humans? (There is astronomical cost and ethical reasons why we don't harvest chimp tissues and organs for humans even though we would not reject them like unmodified pig tissues)
> By the way all old world primates lack this surface antigen, unlike new world primates ( farther from us on the evolutionary tree). What should I teach my medical students?  Intelligent design in no fucking way predicted this, we use evolutionary theory to help us in xenotranpslantion and you can bet your ass we use it all the friggin time in medicine.



God works in mysterious ways?


----------



## heavyiron (Jun 22, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> View attachment 46029
> 
> The word of god, lol!



Actually many ancient manuscripts used are remarkable in how close they resemble each other. Might be differences in a letter or word here and there but the similarities on many are striking. However this would be dependent on which text is used. The Majority text would be the majority that agrees while the Critical text would be more eclectic.

If memory serves they found a version of Isaiah that was about 10 centuries older than the oldest previous copy and the differences between a thousand years of copying made no major notable changes to the understanding of the writing. Basically they conveyed a similar message with some variances.

This is also true of many non religious ancient manuscripts we embrace today. Textual variations will always be a part of ancient writings that are copied. I imagine Shakespeare has variants as well.

Not sure if you have ever studied textual criticism and the criteria used but its a complex field that is hard to summarize here. I spent a few months studying it and can honestly say it was not enough time to understand all the variables.


----------



## jagbender (Jun 22, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> the creation story, noah's ark, the resurrection of jesus.
> 
> we know that the entire human race cannot originate from 2 humans.
> 
> ...



Humans cannot come back to life, But God can do all things.


----------



## exphys88 (Jun 22, 2012)

heavyiron said:


> Actually many ancient manuscripts used are remarkable in how close they resemble each other. Might be differences in a letter or word here and there but the similarities on many are striking. However this would be dependent on which text is used. The Majority text would be the majority that agrees while the Critical text would be more eclectic.
> 
> If memory serves they found a version of Isaiah that was about 10 centuries older than the oldest previous copy and the differences between a thousand years of copying made no major notable changes to the understanding of the writing. Basically they conveyed a similar message with some variances.
> 
> ...



No, I have not studied that at all.  

I'm not sure on your position, are you of the opinion that the bible is the word of god, or the word of many different men?  I'm surprised if you are convinced it's the word of god, because in your postings here, you require strict factual evidence of any claim made, yet would have to completely ignore that requirement to believe anything in the bible.


----------



## exphys88 (Jun 22, 2012)

jagbender said:


> Humans cannot come back to life, But God can do all things.



I bet he can't make a rock too big for him to lift up.  And, if he can do anything, then he knowingly allows the suffering of  humans on a daily basis, which makes him an awful example to live by, not to mention all the innocent women and children he massacred in the old testament.


----------



## heavyiron (Jun 22, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> No, I have not studied that at all.
> 
> I'm not sure on your position, are you of the opinion that the bible is the word of god, or the word of many different men?  I'm surprised if you are convinced it's the word of god, because in your postings here, you require strict factual evidence of any claim made, yet would have to completely ignore that requirement to believe anything in the bible.



I Googled Textual Criticism and randomly chose a short explanation contained in the following link. Read it carefully and look at the examples of one word in one verse. Scholars spend an immense amount of time trying to get the meanings of the original writings. The old King James has bias as do most translations but once you learn the differences and why, its not really a huge deal to the overall meaning of the manuscripts.*
 http://legacy.earlham.edu/~seidti/iam/text_crit.html*

I'm not really sure what to believe to be honest. 

There is also an area of study on the theories of inspiration. Some believe the bible is a direct dictation from god. Others believe he used men and their own styles to convey general ideas or thoughts. Mechanical, Verbal and Plenary are various ways scholars try to define types of inspiration therefore looking at every little word or spelling in a verse as an error is assuming mechanical inspiration. Otherwise, slight variances are irrelevant as long as the general meaning is there. Here is a random link on different theories on inspiration;
What Are the Different Views Regarding the Inspiration of the Bible? - Yahoo! Voices - voices.yahoo.com

I love science but remember that science is the study of the natural world not the supernatural. Science kind of starts with a preconceived bias. Science discounts that which cannot be reproduced or observed. Therefore it is logical that scientists would not believe in the supernatural. They are trained to only believe the natural reproducible and observable data in front of them. When it comes to the natural world I rely heavily on observable and reproducible data. When it comes to the supernatural, science has virtually no application.


----------



## jagbender (Jun 22, 2012)

secdrl said:


> If evolution is real, why did we stop evolving? As a surface example, why are apes no longer turning into humans? Evolution, IMO, is science fiction.


Another question.  If there was evolution, that means there would have been many life forms dying over the millions of years.  So if these lifeforms were evolving. then there should be many transitional fossils easily found.  

Incredible Creatures That Defy Evolution


Incredible Creatures That Defy Evolution​
By Andy Butcher 
Bugged by a beetle, a scientist changes his beliefs on how the world began. 







Creationists used to bug Jobe Martin, until a bug helped make Jobe Martin a creationist. Only half an inch long, the Bombardier Beetle may not be very big, but it helped chew great big holes in his long-held views on evolution. Or, more accurately, burn them.

For on closer inspection the modest beetle is a marvel of nature, a sort of six-legged tiny tank. It defends itself by mixing chemicals that explode; firing through twin tail tubes that can swivel like gun turrets. The bubbling liquid that shoots out at 212 degrees Fahrenheit is enough to deter most predators.
The force of the "round" fired should be enough to blast the little beetle into orbit,if not pieces, and it would be if it was discharged at one time. But 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




slow motion photography has revealed that the crafty beetle actually lets go with a stream of up to 1,000 little explosions. Together they are enough to put off would-be attackers while leaving the small defender with its feet still on the ground.
As Martin marveled at the intricate design, he realized that there was simply no way the Bombardier Beetle could have evolved its sophisticated defense system over time, adding swiveling "gun barrels" or its "repeater" firing mechanism at different stages. It needed them all in one package, at the same time. A beetle that blew itself up would not be around to develop a more refined firing system. A beetle that could not keep the enemy in firing range would not survive to work on more maneuverable firepower. "There's simply no way a slow, gradual process will produce this beetle," says the former science major who, over a five-year, period made a complete about-face in his beliefs about the origins of the earth. Now in an entertaining and enlightening new video he shows how the Bombardier Beetle and a host of other remarkable members of the animal kingdom undermine Darwin's widely accepted theory.
The Bombardier Beetle is one of the unlikely stars _of "Incredible Creatures that Defy Evolution,"_ a 50-minute Discovery Channel-style documentary that encapsulates Martin's years of research for church, school and family viewing. Host David Hames, who experienced firsthand the firepower of the Bombardier Beetle and said, "It felt like someone put a cigarette out on my leg!" guides the film crew as they capture animals on film and as Martin explains their various intricacies.






There is the giraffe, whose long neck necessitates a powerful heart to pump blood all the way to the brain. By rights the blood flow should blow its brains out when it bends to drink water, but the lofty animal has a delicate series of spigots and a sponge that dissipate and absorb the rush of blood. "How could that evolve?" muses Martin. "He needs all these parts there all the time, or he is dead..."
Then there's the woodpecker, whose rat-a-tat hunt for tree grubs should send it home each night with a mighty 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




migraine. Instead it is studied by surgeons who want to learn more about head trauma in humans. The bird has a piece of cartilage that acts as a shock absorber and an extra-long tongue that can reach into the tree to pluck out its meal. It also has a glue factory that makes the bug stick until it is in the woodpecker's throat and produces another secretion to dissolve the glue on swallowing.
A college professor, Martin had been a Christian for several years when two students challenged him to examine the validity of evolutionary theory. His gradual complete switch of views eventually led him out of dentistry and into ministry. For more than a decade he has shared some of his discoveries at churches and conferences through his Rockwall, Texas-based Biblical Discipleship Ministries.
Through his studies he has developed cogent biblical answers to the typical questions thrown out against creation-about the age of the earth, the flood, fossils, dinosaurs and the missing link. But he points to the world around him to challenge the central claim of evolution.
The Australian incubator bird, the beaver and the gecko lizard are among the other subjects of Martin's video, 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



produced by Monument, Colorado-based Reel Productions, who specialize in on-location documentaries. Although it is well filmed and paced, Martin maintains _"Incredible Creatures That Defy Evolution"_ is far more than just an entertaining diversion. It actually providing clear examples of what creationists call the "irreducible complexity" of life that challenges the idea of slow development.
He believes it is part of a crucial battle not just for Christians' minds, but their hearts, too. "It comes down to a matter of how you decide you are going to interpret the Scriptures," he says. "Will you take it in its literal, historical form or are you going to say these early chapters are probably poetry, probably written from the perspective of some guys who lived between the Tigris and the Euphrates rivers? How will you take Scripture? If you can't take these early chapters literally, for just what they mean, well then, how do you know what to do with the rest? When it comes right down to it, it interferes with our view of doctrine. The foundational doctrines are all there in the early chapters of Genesis: man, sin, the family, and all that." Martin says that the academic world knows the big and difficult questions the likes of the Bombardier Beetle ask of evolution, but conveniently ignores them. In the rarefied scientific circles most lay people don't follow or understand, he says, more and more people are admitting that, like an attractive jar with a hole in the bottom, Darwin's theory just doesn't hold water.






"There are changes going on in the evolutionary community because of the growing evidence for design and it is beginning to realize there's no way mindless chance processes could create an ordered, artistic, complex universe like we have; explosions don't create order. The problem is, once people start to talk about a designer, are they willing to name him?" And it is the name Jesus and Martin’s love for his Savior, not some dry scientific debate, that motivates him. Martin presents his evidence not with the pinched determination of a fussy academic, but with the delight and wonder of someone who sees the marvelous hand of a brilliant creator in the world around him. His appreciation makes his video defense of the trustworthiness of creation not just a considered explanation, but a considerable celebration.








Scotch biologist J Arthur Thomson observed,"We speak of the body as a machine, but it is hardly necessary to say that none of the most ingenious machines set up by modern science can for a moment compare with it. The body is a self-building machine, a self-stoking, self-regulating, self-repairing machine - the most marvelous and unique automatic mechanism in the universe."
THE EYE




In 1802, William Paley, the 59 year-old Anglican archdeacon of Carlisle, already had a reputation as an apologist. That year he published a design argument based on the mind-boggling organizational intricacies of the human eye.
Like the top-of-the-line modern camera, the eye contains a self-adjusting aperture, an automatic focus system, and inner surfaces surrounded by a dark pigment to minimize the scattering of stray light. But no camera that small is so complete.
The sensitivity range of the eye, which gives us excellent vision in bright sunlight as well as in the dimmest moonlight, far surpasses any film. The eye adjusts to 10 billion-fold changes in brightness.
Its neural circuitry enables the eye to automatically enhance contrast.
Its color-analysis system enables the eye to distinguish millions of shades of color and quickly adjust to lighting conditions (incandescent, fluorescent, underwater, or sunlight) that would require a photographer to change filters, films, and housings.
The eye-brain combination produces depth perception that is beyond the range of any camera. Engineers have yet to design a system that will, e.g., calculate the exact force required for an athlete to sink a basket, on the run, from 25 feet away, in a split-second glance.
Consider the combination of nerves, sensory cells, muscles, and lens tissue in the eye.
Light passes through the cornea, which has the greatest effect on focus. It is the cornea that determines whether someone is nearsighted, or has astigmatism. This is the part of the eye corrected by Lasik surgery.
The cornea is alive, one cell layer thick, getting its food and oxygen from tears. The tear gland not only feeds and lubricates the eye, but also packs enzymes into the tears that kill bacteria.
Then light passes through the iris, the aperture. People had no idea how intricate irises are until we started making biometric scanners for identification purposes. Whereas each human fingerprint has 35 measurable characteristics, each iris has 266. The chance that two people will have matching irises is one in 10[SUP]78[/SUP].
Passing through the lens, the light is further focused, a fine-tuning. Then it strikes the pigmented retina.
The retina has 127 million photovoltaic receptors - only 7 million of which provide color awareness and fine detail. The information of these 127 million receptors is converted from light to electricity and transmitted along one million nerve fibers to the 1% of the cortex of the brain.
As little as one photon can trigger a photoelectric cell; a flashlight, eg, fires 10[SUP]18[/SUP] photons per second. On a clear dark night, the eye can see a solitary candle flame from 30 miles away.
Think in terms of Polaroid Instamatic cameras that printed out photos rapidly, and compare. The retina never stops "shooting" pictures, and each fiber of the optic nerve processes one hundred "photos" each second. Each of those individual photos would be represented mathematically by 50,000 nonlinear differential equations, to be solved simultaneously. Considering both eyes, and allowing only five synapses (connections) to other nerves from the retina to the brain cortex, a 1983 Cray supercomputer would require one hundred years to process the information that your eye transmits every hundredth of a second.
How could chance, acting with one gene at a time, start with a sightless organism and produce an eye with so many interdependent precision parts? The retina would be useless without a lens; a lens would be useless without a retina.
Paley asks,
"Is it possible to believe that the eye was formed without any regard to vision; that it was the animal itself which found out that, although formed with no such intention, it would serve to see with?" 
"...There cannot be design without a designer, contrivance without a contriver...The marks of design are too strong to be got over. Design must have had a designer. That designer must have been a person. That person must have been God."
*Darwin himself suggested the complexities of the human eye negate his own theory of evolution.*
More than 50 years later, Charles Darwin himself wrote, (in a chapter from his Origin of the Species entitled "Difficulties with the Theory"), "To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." Jeremy Rifkin, evolutionist, writes in his book Algeny that Darwin confided to a friend, years later, "The eye to this day gives me a cold shudder."


----------



## jagbender (Jun 22, 2012)

The Case for Creationism


----------



## jagbender (Jun 22, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> I bet he can't make a rock too big for him to lift up.  And, if he can do anything, then he knowingly allows the suffering of  humans on a daily basis, which makes him an awful example to live by, not to mention all the innocent women and children he massacred in the old testament.



God is just and Holy from His perspective not ours.


----------



## exphys88 (Jun 22, 2012)

heavyiron said:


> I Googled Textual Criticism and randomly chose a short explanation contained in the following link. Read it carefully and look at the examples of one word in one verse. Scholars spend an immense amount of time trying to get the meanings of the original writings. The old King James has bias as do most translations but once you learn the differences and why, its not really a huge deal to the overall meaning of the manuscripts.*
> http://legacy.earlham.edu/~seidti/iam/text_crit.html*
> 
> I'm not really sure what to believe to be honest.
> ...



Thanks, I will look at those.  Do you study all religions or just christianity and the bible?  I frequently ask christians if they think they are christian for the sole reason that they were born in a christian country and are surrounded with christian ideas, and I usually get the answer that even if they were born in iran, they would have found jesus, lol.  If we were in another country with a completely different religion, we'd be discussing their religious text.  My point is that we can't actually study the supernatural (if one exists) in any way, and we can randomly make up ideas about it and nobody can prove or disprove them, so what's the point?  Can't we live happy, prosperous lives without making up ideas about a supposedly supernatural world?  I can


----------



## exphys88 (Jun 22, 2012)

jagbender said:


> The Case for Creationism



Here is an educated christian scientist that rebuts all of that nonsense.  You may learn something.

Creation Science - Old Earth Ministries

can god create a rock too big for him to lift?


----------



## exphys88 (Jun 22, 2012)

jagbender said:


> Another question.  If there was evolution, that means there would have been many life forms dying over the millions of years.  So if these lifeforms were evolving. then there should be many transitional fossils easily found.
> 
> Incredible Creatures That Defy Evolution
> 
> ...



Here is your problem, it's "the called god of the gaps theory" (creationism) and it's quite funny.

creationists point out holes in evolution, questions that haven't been answered yet, we call these "gaps."  They (creationists) think that because there are things that we don't understand about evolution, their idea automatically wins the argument by default even though there is zero evidence for creationism.  I could easily point out these gaps and say "see, there are things that we don't understand about evolution, therefore my idea that we were all created by a spaghetti monster and are living on the skin of a pig is proven to be true."

Creationism isn't proven by default, they need to provide proof, which  has never happened.


----------



## exphys88 (Jun 22, 2012)

heavyiron said:


> I Googled Textual Criticism and randomly chose a short explanation contained in the following link. Read it carefully and look at the examples of one word in one verse. Scholars spend an immense amount of time trying to get the meanings of the original writings. The old King James has bias as do most translations but once you learn the differences and why, its not really a huge deal to the overall meaning of the manuscripts.*
> http://legacy.earlham.edu/~seidti/iam/text_crit.html*
> 
> I'm not really sure what to believe to be honest.
> ...



The problem is that nothing out there really lends any weight to god having anything to do with the writing of the bible.  We have a book that was admittedly written by men who claim god inspired them to write it.  

If you're familiar with Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism, he claims to have received tablets from an angel in which they laid out the new religion that god intended.  Once again, we have men who make miraculous claims about speaking to god, but none can be verified as true.  Why on earth should anyone believe anything that these men claim?  Men have a terrible  history of lying to benefit themselves.


----------



## NVRBDR (Jun 22, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> Thanks, I will look at those.  Do you study all religions or just christianity and the bible?  I frequently ask christians if they think they are christian for the sole reason that they were born in a christian country and are surrounded with christian ideas, and I usually get the answer that even if they were born in iran, they would have found jesus, lol.  If we were in another country with a completely different religion, we'd be discussing their religious text.  My point is that we can't actually study the supernatural (if one exists) in any way, and we can randomly make up ideas about it and nobody can prove or disprove them, so what's the point?  Can't we live happy, prosperous lives without making up ideas about a supposedly supernatural world?  I can



Yes you can live your life any way you choose, that is "free will" by definition. However...
So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen, since what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal.


----------



## heavyiron (Jun 22, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> Thanks, I will look at those.  Do you study all religions or just christianity and the bible?  I frequently ask christians if they think they are christian for the sole reason that they were born in a christian country and are surrounded with christian ideas, and I usually get the answer that even if they were born in iran, they would have found jesus, lol.  If we were in another country with a completely different religion, we'd be discussing their religious text.  My point is that we can't actually study the supernatural (if one exists) in any way, and we can randomly make up ideas about it and nobody can prove or disprove them, so what's the point?  Can't we live happy, prosperous lives without making up ideas about a supposedly supernatural world?  I can



I enjoy Judaism but I'm not Jewish. The Torah and Prophets are interesting to me.

Many Theologians believe that Jesus/god was the creator so if someone believes in a creator they actually are believing in Jesus. I could see that going both ways though. 

I don't discount the possibility of a god or creator because I don't know what I don't know. This is not a flippant statement but one I truly believe. I just don't have the information to say god does not exist. Therefore I'm interested in the possibility.


----------



## heavyiron (Jun 22, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> The problem is that nothing out there really lends any weight to god having anything to do with the writing of the bible.  We have a book that was admittedly written by men who claim god inspired them to write it.
> 
> If you're familiar with Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism, he claims to have received tablets from an angel in which they laid out the new religion that god intended.  Once again, we have men who make miraculous claims about speaking to god, but none can be verified as true.  Why on earth should anyone believe anything that these men claim?  Men have a terrible  history of lying to benefit themselves.



Not sure I would put the book of Mormon in the same category. 

With the bible we know the Cities, coins, pottery, leaders and geography existed and are factual. We also have eye witness testimony and third party non biblical writings. Not sure you could say the same of Mr Smiths book.


----------



## exphys88 (Jun 22, 2012)

heavyiron said:


> I enjoy Judaism but I'm not Jewish. The Torah and Prophets are interesting to me.
> 
> Many Theologians believe that Jesus/god was the creator so if someone believes in a creator they actually are believing in Jesus. I could see that going both ways though.
> 
> I don't discount the possibility of a god or creator because I don't know what I don't know. This is not a flippant statement but one I truly believe. I just don't have the information to say god does not exist. Therefore I'm interested in the possibility.



I actually agree with everything said here, and have a similar stance.  Except for the part about jesus, because if you believe jesus is god, then you have to believe in the resurrection, divinity etc.  You can believe in god, as many religions do, but don't believe that jesus was the son of god and was sacrificed for our sins.


----------



## exphys88 (Jun 22, 2012)

heavyiron said:


> Not sure I would put the book of Mormon in the same category.
> 
> With the bible we know the Cities, coins, pottery, leaders and geography all existed and are factual. We also have eye witness testimony and third party non biblical writings. Not sure you could say the same of Mr Smiths book.



we know that all the people, cities, pottery, leaders that existed during the time of joseph smith, with much more accuracy than the bible, as well as eye witness tesimony.


----------



## NVRBDR (Jun 22, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> The problem is that nothing out there really lends any weight to god having anything to do with the writing of the bible.  We have a book that was admittedly written by men who claim god inspired them to write it.
> 
> If you're familiar with Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism, he claims to have received tablets from an angel in which they laid out the new religion that god intended.  Once again, we have men who make miraculous claims about speaking to god, but none can be verified as true.  Why on earth should anyone believe anything that these men claim?  Men have a terrible  history of lying to benefit themselves.




The Bible is composed of 66 parts, or books, written over a period of approximately 1,500 years (from about 1450 BC to about 90 AD) by over 40 different people. These writers were all different from each other. Some were rich, some poor, some young, some old. Some were priests, some prophets, one was a tax collector (Matthew), one was a doctor (Luke), a tentmaker (Paul), and a fisherman (Peter). Yet they all wrote about the same man who claimed to be God - Jesus Christ. On the surface, there might seem to be disagreement between the writers, (you may tell your account of a situation we both were part of which may differ from my account), but the stories subject matter only has perspective differences which adds to it's truth, as no two people will tell the same story word for word. As you study deeper, you will find that they all agree about Jesus Christ, God, the Holy Spirit, the Bible, the end times, salvation, heaven, hell, etc. exphys, I highly recommend you study and research the Gospels for yourself, ie, Matthew Mark, Luke and John
Not all collections of religious writings can claim this feature. The Koran was entirely written through the revelations of one man, Mohummad. The Book of Mormon was entirely written through one man, Joseph Smith based on his account of a visit form Jesus and God The Father in 1820


----------



## heavyiron (Jun 22, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> we know that all the people, cities, pottery, leaders that existed during the time of joseph smith, with much more accuracy than the bible, as well as eye witness tesimony.



Have you read the book of Mormon? I think you may have missed my point. Where are these items Mr Smith wrote about? Who saw them and testified about them? Are the golden plates verifiable? Where is the geography he describes? What things did he write that we cannot verify?


----------



## NVRBDR (Jun 22, 2012)

The bible is historically accurate;
Luke, a Bible writer, is one example. His details about Roman officials such as "Sergio Paulus of Cyprus," "Gallio, the proconsul of Achaia," "Herod the Great," "Pontius Pilate," and "King Agrippa,"are all confirmed by ancient Roman historical records and archeology. Even unbelieving scholars agree that King David, King Solomon, the Philistines, and countless other persons mentioned in the Bible were real people, and that such cities as Ephesus, Philippi, and Thessalonica were real places. The ancient Ebla Tablets, a collection of 17,000 tablets discovered since 1968 and written around 2,500 B.C. mention the biblical cities of Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, Zeboiim, and Zoar, found in Genesis 14. The Mari Tablets, 25,000 tablets written in 1,900 B.C., mention the names of Abraham, Jacob, Nahor, Dan, Levi, Benjamin, and Ishmael, found in the book of Genesis. Also a Canaanite bronze calf was discovered a couple of years ago and reported in Time magazine, confirming the Bible's account that pagan nations worshipped calves.


----------



## DOMS (Jun 22, 2012)

Fun fact: the Bible contains the formula for π (pi).


----------



## exphys88 (Jun 22, 2012)

Jimmyusa said:


> The Bible is composed of 66 parts, or books, written over a period of approximately 1,500 years (from about 1450 BC to about 90 AD) by over 40 different people. These writers were all different from each other. Some were rich, some poor, some young, some old. Some were priests, some prophets, one was a tax collector (Matthew), one was a doctor (Luke), a tentmaker (Paul), and a fisherman (Peter). Yet they all wrote about the same man who claimed to be God - Jesus Christ. On the surface, there might seem to be disagreement between the writers, (you may tell your account of a situation we both were part of which may differ from my account), but the stories subject matter only has perspective differences which adds to it's truth, as no two people will tell the same story word for word. As you study deeper, you will find that they all agree about Jesus Christ, God, the Holy Spirit, the Bible, the end times, salvation, heaven, hell, etc. exphys, I highly recommend you study and research the Gospels for yourself, ie, Matthew Mark, Luke and John
> Not all collections of religious writings can claim this feature. The Koran was entirely written through the revelations of one man, Mohummad. The Book of Mormon was entirely written through one man, Joseph Smith based on his account of a visit form Jesus and God The Father in 1820



How many of these men actually met jesus or witnessed anything that they claimed happened?  I've read enough of the bible to conclude that the god of the bible is a murderous psychopath.  Here is a quote from Christopher Hitchens that sums it up much better than I can.  btw, he was a bible expert.

“The Bible may, indeed does, contain a warrant for trafficking in  humans, for ethnic cleansing, for slavery, for bride-price, and for  indiscriminate massacre, but we are not bound by any of it because it  was put together by crude, uncultured human mammals.”   
 ―     Christopher Hitchens,     _ God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything 

_This is a book that I recommend you read.  Even if the god of the bible showed himself to me I wouldn't' worship him because he does not deserve to be worshiped.


----------



## exphys88 (Jun 22, 2012)

DOMS said:


> Fun fact: the Bible contains the formula for π (pi).



but yet, the writers were completely ignorant to the fact that dinosaurs existed before them.  Or that the sun is actually older than the earth, or that you cannot possibly start a race of humans with the genes of 2 humans.


----------



## heavyiron (Jun 22, 2012)

Buying brides seems like a good thing....

Just sayin...


----------



## exphys88 (Jun 22, 2012)

Jimmyusa said:


> The bible is historically accurate;
> Luke, a Bible writer, is one example. His details about Roman officials such as "Sergio Paulus of Cyprus," "Gallio, the proconsul of Achaia," "Herod the Great," "Pontius Pilate," and "King Agrippa,"are all confirmed by ancient Roman historical records and archeology. Even unbelieving scholars agree that King David, King Solomon, the Philistines, and countless other persons mentioned in the Bible were real people, and that such cities as Ephesus, Philippi, and Thessalonica were real places. The ancient Ebla Tablets, a collection of 17,000 tablets discovered since 1968 and written around 2,500 B.C. mention the biblical cities of Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, Zeboiim, and Zoar, found in Genesis 14. The Mari Tablets, 25,000 tablets written in 1,900 B.C., mention the names of Abraham, Jacob, Nahor, Dan, Levi, Benjamin, and Ishmael, found in the book of Genesis. Also a Canaanite bronze calf was discovered a couple of years ago and reported in Time magazine, confirming the Bible's account that pagan nations worshipped calves.



historically accurate but completely retarded in science and physics.


----------



## exphys88 (Jun 22, 2012)

heavyiron said:


> Buying brides seems like a good thing....
> 
> Just sayin...



I know a guy...


----------



## heavyiron (Jun 22, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> but yet, the writers were completely ignorant to the fact that dinosaurs existed before them.  Or that the sun is actually older than the earth, or that you cannot possibly start a race of humans with the genes of 2 humans.



Job describes two creatures that may have been dinosaurs.


----------



## exphys88 (Jun 22, 2012)

“One must state it plainly. Religion comes from the period of human  prehistory where nobody-not even the mighty Democritus who concluded  that all matter was made from atoms-had the smallest idea what was going  on. It comes from the bawling and fearful infancy of our species, and  is a babyish attempt to meet our inescapable demand for knowledge (as  well as for comfort, reassurance and other infantile needs). Today the  least educated of my children knows much more about the natural order  than any of the founders of religion, and one would like to think-though  the connection is not a fully demonstrable one-that this is why they  seem so uninterested in sending fellow humans to hell.”   
 ―     Christopher Hitchens,     _ God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything _

“Violent, irrational, intolerant, allied to racism and tribalism and  bigotry, invested in ignorance and hostile to free inquiry, contemptuous  of women and coercive toward children: organized religion ought to have  a great deal on its conscience.”   
 ―     Christopher Hitchens,     _ God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything 

_NObody said it quite as good as hitchens


----------



## exphys88 (Jun 22, 2012)

heavyiron said:


> Job describes two creatures that may have been dinosaurs.



except dinosaurs did not exist then.  Maybe they were actually monsters?

15 ? Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.
16 Lo now, his strength [is] in his loins, and his force [is] in the navel of his belly.
17 *He moveth his tail like a cedar*: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together. 
18 His bones [are as] strong pieces of brass; his bones [are] like bars of iron.
19 He [is] the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his
sword to approach [unto him].
20 Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play.
21 He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens.
22 The shady trees cover him [with] their shadow; the willows of the brook
compass him about.
23 Behold, he drinketh up a river, [and] hasteth not: he trusteth that he
can draw up Jordan into his mouth. 
24 He taketh it with his eyes: [his] nose pierceth through snares.

sounds like an elephant, maybe a rhinoceros, or a horse?


----------



## heavyiron (Jun 22, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> except dinosaurs did not exist then.  Maybe they were actually monsters?



Not sure what your earlier point was. You said the authors were ignorant of dinosaurs before them. Based on what?


----------



## NVRBDR (Jun 22, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> except dinosaurs did not exist then.  Maybe they were actually monsters?
> 
> 15 ? Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.
> 16 Lo now, his strength [is] in his loins, and his force [is] in the navel of his belly.
> ...



The obvious clue that this is not a hippo or an elephant (as often interpreted) is the description of its tail, which ?he bends?like a cedar tree? (40:17).  The cedars of the Middle East, such as the famous cedars of Lebanon, were very large trees.  That?s hardly an appropriate description for the tail of a hippo, rhinoceros, horse or an elephant.  But it matches perfectly with several different species of dinosaurs, such as the apatosaurus or brontosaurus.  His great height is indicated by the phrase, ?the mountains lift up food to him? (40:20).  This implies that he stood taller than the trees.


----------



## exphys88 (Jun 22, 2012)

heavyiron said:


> Not sure what your earlier point was. You said the authors were ignorant of dinosaurs before them. Based on what?



If the creation story is accurate, then humans would've lived alongside dinosaurs, which is exactly what creationists assert.  Surely, living along t-rex would be mentionable.  The guys who wrote about creation were ignorant to the fact that dinosaurs existed and therefore left out their existence and extinction.


----------



## exphys88 (Jun 22, 2012)

Jimmyusa said:


> The obvious clue that this is not a hippo or an elephant (as often interpreted) is the description of its tail, which “he bends…like a cedar tree” (40:17).  The cedars of the Middle East, such as the famous cedars of Lebanon, were very large trees.  That’s hardly an appropriate description for the tail of a hippo or an elephant.  But it matches perfectly with several different species of dinosaurs, such as the apatosaurus or brontosaurus.  His great height is indicated by the phrase, “the mountains lift up food to him” (40:20).  This implies that he stood taller than the trees.



so, you're claiming humans lived alongside dinosaurs? lol
Don't you think there would be more mention of how awful it would've been for humans to have to deal with dinosaurs.  And, then there is the problem with making the claim that dinosaurs died in the flood, since some dinosaurs actually lived in the sea.


----------



## heavyiron (Jun 22, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> If the creation story is accurate, then humans would've lived alongside dinosaurs, which is exactly what creationists assert.  Surely, living along t-rex would be mentionable.  The guys who wrote about creation were ignorant to the fact that dinosaurs existed and therefore left out their existence and extinction.



Ok, that's what I thought you meant. So lets assume this. (Big assumption). 

That's why I mentioned Job's descriptions of creatures that looked like dinosaurs. Apparently it was written about but not sure I would discount an ancient writing even if it did leave it out. I may never in my life write about a certain animal that is common but that does not mean I'm ignorant of it.


----------



## exphys88 (Jun 22, 2012)

heavyiron said:


> Ok, that's what I thought you meant. So lets assume this. (Big assumption).
> 
> That's why I mentioned Job's descriptions of creatures that looked like dinosaurs. Apparently it was written about but not sure I would discount an ancient writing even if it did leave it out. I may never in my life write about a certain animal that is common but that does not mean I'm ignorant of it.



I'm pretty sure that if we lived alongside dinosaurs, there would be many stories about them.  And, there were all sorts of ridiculous things discussed in the bible, so making up stories about monsters isn't a far stretch.  talking burning bushes, people rising from death, humans living 900 years old, parting seas.  We could also pull the interpretation card and say maybe we shouldn't be interpreting his story as being literal.


----------



## heavyiron (Jun 22, 2012)

BBQ dinosaur would be in my book......


----------



## exphys88 (Jun 22, 2012)

lol, You're just trying to ruffle my feathers.  I know you're not a creationist, you're too critical, so I'm bowing out of this conversation. I do appreciate and value your perspective though.  
Jimmy, I think you're a nice guy, but I know it's a waste of time to debate with creationists, and frankly creationism doesn't deserve to be debated with.  It's like debating with someone that believes in astrology.


----------



## heavyiron (Jun 22, 2012)

*Job 40:15-24 
"Behemoth" description fits that of a dinosaur*

15 ? Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.
16 Lo now, his strength [is] in his loins, and his force [is] in the navel of his belly.
17 *He moveth his tail like a cedar*: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together. 
18 His bones [are as] strong pieces of brass; his bones [are] like bars of iron.
19 He [is] the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his
sword to approach [unto him].
20 Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play.
21 He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens.
22 The shady trees cover him [with] their shadow; the willows of the brook
compass him about.
23 Behold, he drinketh up a river, [and] hasteth not: he trusteth that he
can draw up Jordan into his mouth. 
24 He taketh it with his eyes: [his] nose pierceth through snares.
*25 But the mighty men of IronMag doth smite him and take him in pieces to heavyiron to BBQ whilst drinking beer.*

Amen


----------



## NVRBDR (Jun 22, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> so, you're claiming humans lived alongside dinosaurs? lol
> Don't you think there would be more mention of how awful it would've been for humans to have to deal with dinosaurs.  And, then there is the problem with making the claim that dinosaurs died in the flood, since some dinosaurs actually lived in the sea.



It is possible to have left something out of a story and it still be accurate truth. I am certain by your posts, it doesn't matter what the bible says or doesn't say, at this point in your young life you have made up your mind as to whether or not you want to believe the bible as Gods Word. I'll mention this again, God gave man free will to choose life or choose death bro, He is pullin for ALL to choose life, it's that simple. On a new note, I don't know what you guys do for a living, but man you've got alot of free time! lol as do i...
The nanny leaves at 5 and I haven't WO yet, I gotta go for now. peace. I recommend the gospels, start with the book of John, if you want to find some peace, you''l find it there.


----------



## bandaidwoman (Jun 22, 2012)

*the problem with creationism is that it is intrinsically lazy,*it basically says, such and such phenomenom is so complex, only god can do it so we need to just leave it alone.  Which is why the scientific education of this country is going to hell.  

as for the eye, creationists would not have discovered the pax-6 gene ( look it up), basically gene complexes that can generate large scale changes in a nonincremental fashion.  evolutionary theory always taught us we use old genes to develop new tricks. The octopus eye is far better optical device  than humans, why the hell would god give them the more perfect eye?.  If the eye is so perfect, why do we have macular degeneration, astigmatism, nearsightedness, farsightedness, cataracts, river blindness, acute angle glaucoma, etc. etc. etc. 

and god sure did a shitty job designing our eye , to an optic engineer it is built upside down and backwards,( blood vessels over the optic disc rather than behind so that when there is hemmorage it gets damaged),  requires photons of light to travel through cornea, lens, acqueous fluid, blood vessels, ganglion cells, amacrine cells, horizontal cells, and bipolar cells before they reach the light senstive rods. This design only  makes sense if eyes made from available materials of ancesteral orgins building on the scaffolding of existing structure.  

*and the creationists in my classes still cannot offer another scientific theory that explains why chimps and our closest primates lack the 1,3 gal antigen expression on the surface of our cells while the rest of the mamallian kingdom doesn't?( important in creating transgenic animals for xenotransplantation)
*
.


----------



## exphys88 (Jun 22, 2012)

bandaidwoman said:


> *the problem with creationism is that it is intrinsically lazy,*it basically says, such and such phenomenom is so complex, only god can do it so we need to just leave it alone.  Which is why the scientific education of this country is going to hell.
> 
> as for the eye, creationists would not have discovered the pax-6 gene ( look it up), basically gene complexes that can generate large scale changes in a nonincremental fashion.  evolutionary theory always taught us we use old genes to develop new tricks. The octopus eye is far better optical device  than humans, why the hell would god give them the more perfect eye?.  If the eye is so perfect, why do we have macular degeneration, astigmatism, nearsightedness, farsightedness, cataracts, river blindness, acute angle glaucoma, etc. etc. etc.
> 
> ...



My physiology professor gave a great analogy that explained why so many human organs are very poorly constructed.  He used a house as an example:  If we were to build a house using plans that had the entire house thought out, including the plumbing, electrical, roofing etc, we would have a  house that worked perfectly in sync.  A house that starts off as a one room, then later has a kitchen is added, then a second bathroom, then plumbing is added years later, we would have something that resembled how the human body evolved.  

Maybe not as eloquent as you put it, but for us common folk, it made a lot of sense.


----------



## bandaidwoman (Jun 22, 2012)

Exactly!

In medical school we learn that human bodies are simultaneously vulnerable to disease and incredibly resiliant, because we are not built from a perfect blueprint, our bodies are millions of compromises weeded out by natural selection in small, small increments to maximize reproduction ( not health by the way). Why do we have narrow brith canals that can cause 15-30% mortality in birthing women in a paleolithic or third world conditon ( much higher than non biped mammals), wisdom teeth?, neonatal jaundice ( Evolution explains why our body goes through the trouble of making a difficule to exrete toxin, but that is whole biochemical evolutionary talk), hardening of the arteries, type II diabetes, 

or why choking is the top ten cause of aaccidental death in humans? ( what a shitty thing putting the trachea below the esophagus in such a precarous position to make room for our larynx so the food and air passages cross.? )god would get a fail at a georgia tech's acoustic engineering and mechanical engineering). WHy did he confer other animals the ability to protect their larynx by interlocking the epiglotis with the soft palate so that a bridge forms and diverts the air into the trachea while channeling the food in to the esophagus?  Does he reallly, really hate our infants and children ( who comprise most of the victims)


----------



## bandaidwoman (Jun 22, 2012)

The simple fact that most american still do not know that general relativity has supplanted newton's theories as the best gravitational theory for explaining planetary bodies and the validity of evolution , shows the dismal mindset of this country.

  The fact that evolution has far more lines of evidence than general relativity , doesn't seem to phase creationists.  General relativity draws from atomic clocks, hubble space telescope  etc, but evolution draws it's support from geology, paleontology, botany, zoology, herpetology, entomology, population genetics, plate techtonics, comparative anatomy, physiology, and the final nail on the coffin , molecular biology.... just doens't make sense.


----------



## exphys88 (Jun 22, 2012)

bandaidwoman said:


> The simple fact that most american still do not know that general relativity has supplanted newton's theories as the best gravitational theory for explaining planetary bodies and the validity of evolution , shows the dismal mindset of this country.
> 
> The fact that evolution has far more lines of evidence than general relativity , doesn't seem to phase creationists.  General relativity draws from atomic clocks, hubble space telescope  etc, but evolution draws it's support from geology, paleontology, botany, zoology, herpetology, entomology, population genetics, plate techtonics, comparative anatomy, physiology, and the final nail on the coffin , molecular biology.... just doens't make sense.



I am fully convinced that faith is to blame.  I am dumbfounded that we have come to place such value on believing without evidence.  Here is a great quote from Sam Harris:

“Tell a devout Christian that his wife is cheating on him, or that  frozen yogurt can make a man invisible, and he is likely to require as  much evidence as anyone else, and to be persuaded only to the extent  that you give it. Tell him that the book he keeps by his bed was written  by an invisible deity who will punish him with fire for eternity if he  fails to accept its every incredible claim about the universe, and he  seems to require no evidence what so ever.”


----------



## NVRBDR (Jun 22, 2012)

I can't help it... here's a stupid joke, to follow ole Sammys ^^^ joke.

Dick and Jane participated in a local college study research on self esteem. 
Dick was asked if he likes dick, using his critical thinking, and knowing the research was on "self esteem", he assumed they were asking if he liked himself. So Dick replied "yes" 
Jane was asked the same question, unaware the study was on "self esteem", Jane assumed they meant "penis", being a straight female, Jane replied, "yes"
Fast Forward 20 years.

New research shows 100% of males and females like "penis" The human race has evolved, and now it is normal to be gay

the lesson- Don't believe everything you read under the umbrella of research. 

For the record- I have no problem with gay people, I don't condone it, never the less, no problem. I believe all people should enjoy the right to be what they want to be, after all, it is their God given right.


----------



## bandaidwoman (Jun 22, 2012)

English is my sixth language and I have decided that americans just still don't  understand the difference between linguistic meaning of theory and scientific theory.  It does not mean "conjecture", "speculation", or "guess" . Most languages don't use such redundant jargon to imply completely different things. 


The theory of evolution is the same degree of correctness as the theory of gravity( now dominanated by general and special relativity) , the germ theory, the platetechtonic theory, quantum theory, etc, etc. 

englilsh 101 



A SCIENTIFIC THEORY IS A COHERENT SET OF PRINCIPLES OR STATEMENTS THAT EXPLAINS A LARGE SET OF OBSERVATIONS OR FINDINGS. THESE PRINCIPLES ARE THE PRODUCT OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH AND EXPERIMENTS, VERIFIED OVER AND OVER AND COME CLOSE TO APPROXIMATING  A "FACT"

scientists use theory because they change and are fluid, not dogmatic like religion.  It builds upon others but if something new comes around and totally changes the fundamental facts of it's predecessors ( like general relativity to newton and quantum theory) then the theory evolves into a better one, it never , never reaches a end or period.


----------



## heavyiron (Jun 22, 2012)

Don't forget the law of gravity....


----------



## exphys88 (Jun 22, 2012)

heavyiron said:


> Don't forget the law of gravity....



I think it's techically a law and a theory.  It's a law when we're describing the attraction of two objects, but the theory has to do with why two objects attract.  

This is way above my intelligence, it's just what I can remember.  I'm sure that bandaidwoman can decipher this for us. 

Nobody seems to want to debate with her.


----------



## heavyiron (Jun 22, 2012)

I was trolling.....like for the last 5 pages.....you atheists need to drink beer and get laid or something....


----------



## exphys88 (Jun 22, 2012)

heavyiron said:


> I was trolling.....like for the last 5 pages.....you atheists need to drink beer and get laid or something....



lol.  I'm trying to cut and the wife is "out" for a few days.  

please keep your trolling to AG


----------



## heavyiron (Jun 22, 2012)

Diet coke and whisky?


----------



## NVRBDR (Jun 22, 2012)

trying to cut and the wife is gone? that explains alot. lol


----------



## exphys88 (Jun 22, 2012)

Jimmyusa said:


> trying to cut and the wife is gone? that explains alot. lol



do you mean my antagonistic demeanor?  I'm always like that when it comes to creationists.


----------



## NVRBDR (Jun 22, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> I think it's techically a law and a theory.  It's a law when we're describing the attraction of two objects, but the theory has to do with why two objects attract.
> 
> This is way above my intelligence, it's just what I can remember.  I'm sure that bandaidwoman can decipher this for us.
> 
> Nobody seems to want to debate with her.




in plain english...  A law doesn't change, it doesn't care that you don't believe it. theories change on a regular basis. dam bro, you are seriously wound TIGHT.


----------



## exphys88 (Jun 22, 2012)

Jimmyusa said:


> in plain english...  A law doesn't change, it doesn't care that you don't believe it. theories change on a regular basis. dam bro, you are seriously wound TIGHT.


 
Yes they change, but they usually don't go away.  Evolution has been around for a very long time and the more we learn about genetics, the more it is proven to be fact.  Why aren't creationists leading the fight against atomic theory?  It's just a theory after all.  That's right, it doesn't challenge what they base their entire life on, therefore they accept it as fact.


----------



## exphys88 (Jun 22, 2012)

bandaidwoman said:


> *the problem with creationism is that it is intrinsically lazy,*it basically says, such and such phenomenom is so complex, only god can do it so we need to just leave it alone.  Which is why the scientific education of this country is going to hell.
> 
> as for the eye, creationists would not have discovered the pax-6 gene ( look it up), basically gene complexes that can generate large scale changes in a nonincremental fashion.  evolutionary theory always taught us we use old genes to develop new tricks. The octopus eye is far better optical device  than humans, why the hell would god give them the more perfect eye?.  If the eye is so perfect, why do we have macular degeneration, astigmatism, nearsightedness, farsightedness, cataracts, river blindness, acute angle glaucoma, etc. etc. etc.
> 
> ...





bandaidwoman said:


> The simple fact that most american still do not know that general  relativity has supplanted newton's theories as the best gravitational  theory for explaining planetary bodies and the validity of evolution ,  shows the dismal mindset of this country.
> 
> The fact that evolution has far more lines of evidence than general  relativity , doesn't seem to phase creationists.  General relativity  draws from atomic clocks, hubble space telescope  etc, but evolution  draws it's support from geology, paleontology, botany, zoology,  herpetology, entomology, population genetics, plate techtonics,  comparative anatomy, physiology, and the final nail on the coffin ,  molecular biology.... just doens't make sense.



She says it much better than I can ever hope to.


----------



## NVRBDR (Jun 22, 2012)

bandaidwoman said:


> Exactly!
> 
> In medical school we learn that human bodies are simultaneously vulnerable to disease and incredibly resiliant, because we are not built from a perfect blueprint, our bodies are millions of compromises weeded out by natural selection in small, small increments to maximize reproduction ( not health by the way). Why do we have narrow brith canals that can cause 15-30% mortality in birthing women in a paleolithic or third world conditon ( much higher than non biped mammals), wisdom teeth?, neonatal jaundice ( Evolution explains why our body goes through the trouble of making a difficule to exrete toxin, but that is whole biochemical evolutionary talk), hardening of the arteries, type II diabetes,
> 
> or why choking is the top ten cause of aaccidental death in humans? ( what a shitty thing putting the trachea below the esophagus in such a precarous position to make room for our larynx so the food and air passages cross.? )god would get a fail at a georgia tech's acoustic engineering and mechanical engineering). WHy did he confer other animals the ability to protect their larynx by interlocking the epiglotis with the soft palate so that a bridge forms and diverts the air into the trachea while channeling the food in to the esophagus?  Does he reallly, really hate our infants and children ( who comprise most of the victims)




God provided a perfect environment for us, however, sin entered in and brought with it all kinds of evil, sickness, abnormalities, pestilence, hate, etc...
 We were not created to live in a world full of sin, disease, destruction, death, etc... God provided a perfect environment, as before the flood, people lived a lot longer than today. We changed things, God designed us perfect for the intended environment. The bible will always prove itself over and over and confirm it's Truth.
Your theory of evolution says things happen out of necessity, right? the strong survive, the weak die off, well today there are more diseases and abnormal birth defects than ever in recorded history. If over the (millions) years things improve upon themselves, what's the dealio?  The whole theory contradicts itself over and over, we should be perfect by now or at least closer.


----------



## NVRBDR (Jun 22, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> She says it much better than I can ever hope to.




lol, shitty design on the eye? 

Again this answer is the same. we live in a fallen world of sin, sickness, disease, this explains the diseases, etc...
 If we were designed and created to live in fricken salt water, we might have an eye designed for that! lol. the last time I opened my eyes underwater in saltwater, I was in PCB Florida, it burned like hell, you want to know why? I am not an octopus, lol  
you can try to complicate things all you want, that answers don't change.


----------



## exphys88 (Jun 22, 2012)

Lol


----------



## troubador (Jun 22, 2012)

Jimmyusa said:


> Your theory of evolution says things happen out of necessity, right? the strong survive, the weak die off, well today there are more diseases and abnormal birth defects than ever in recorded history.



Why has God decided to spontaneously create new diseases in recent years? 



> The whole theory contradicts itself over and over, we should be perfect by now or at least closer.



Yeah, based on my advanced knowledge of biology, if evolution was true we'd be able to teleport and shoot lasers out of our eyes. 



If evolution was true, why haven't monkeys developed wings like in the Wizard of Oz? Clearly it'd be easier to reach bananas and little dogs.


----------



## Iron8 (Jun 22, 2012)

Heavy for pope 2013


----------



## exphys88 (Jun 22, 2012)

troubador said:


> Why has God decided to spontaneously create new diseases in recent years?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



if monkeys turned into humans why are there still monkeys?


----------



## troubador (Jun 22, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> if monkeys turned into humans why are there still monkeys?



Exactly, evolution ain't real. It's a lie satan made up to lead mankind astray. 

Evolution can't be real cause cells and stuff are complicated. I can't understand that shit so God must of done it.


----------



## Zaphod (Jun 22, 2012)

Jimmyusa said:


> God provided a perfect environment for us, however, sin entered in and brought with it all kinds of evil, sickness, abnormalities, pestilence, hate, etc...
> We were not created to live in a world full of sin, disease, destruction, death, etc... God provided a perfect environment, as before the flood, people lived a lot longer than today. We changed things, God designed us perfect for the intended environment. The bible will always prove itself over and over and confirm it's Truth.
> Your theory of evolution says things happen out of necessity, right? the strong survive, the weak die off, well today there are more diseases and abnormal birth defects than ever in recorded history. If over the (millions) years things improve upon themselves, what's the dealio?  The whole theory contradicts itself over and over, we should be perfect by now or at least closer.



What, exactly, has the bible proven?  Keep in mind I'm a Christian and grew up in a fairly religious family so I know what the deal is.  Parts of it have been backed up by other recorded history and through archeological and anthropological work, not the other way around.


----------



## NVRBDR (Jun 22, 2012)

a one word answer, prophecy. I agree with you on it being "backed up", in addition to that the hydrology, geology, physics, etc... I did not grow up in a christian family, quite the contrary, so honestly, I don't know the deal you are talking about, I only studied the bible for the last 13 years, give or take a few months. I don't believe I have even scraped the surface.


----------



## Zaphod (Jun 22, 2012)

Jimmyusa said:


> a one word answer, prophecy. I agree with you on it being "backed up", in addition to that the hydrology, geology, physics, etc... I did not grow up in a christian family, quite the contrary, so honestly, I don't know the deal you are talking about, I only studied the bible for the last 13 years, give or take a few months. I don't believe I have even scraped the surface.



Prophecy?  What has the bible predicted that has come true?


----------



## NVRBDR (Jun 22, 2012)

Zaphod said:


> Prophecy?  What has the bible predicted that has come true?



really? lol  please explain "the deal?" to me


----------



## NVRBDR (Jun 22, 2012)

I understand, no worries, not all christians read the bible, reading the bible does not make you a christian, so for example, Is 53, written about 700 years prior to Christ's birth.


----------



## fsoe (Jun 22, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> the creation story, noah's ark, the resurrection of jesus.
> 
> we know that the entire human race cannot originate from 2 humans.
> 
> ...



wow - I thought you had facts - Those are not facts , those are your assumptions - You have no facts whatsoever to back up what you said you are assuming those things did not happen -


----------



## Zaphod (Jun 23, 2012)

Jimmyusa said:


> really? lol  please explain "the deal?" to me



I made no fantastical claim about what the bible proves all the time.  You did.  I'm simply asking what the bible has proven.


----------



## hoyle21 (Jun 23, 2012)

Jimmyusa said:


> I understand, no worries, not all christians read the bible, reading the bible does not make you a christian, so for example, Is 53, written about 700 years prior to Christ's birth.



You believe isaiah 53 is written about Christ?   Because it's not.


----------



## bandaidwoman (Jun 23, 2012)

*OK , CAN CREATIONISTS STOP PRETENDING THAT ONLY GRAVITATIONAL THEORY HAS LAWS, IT SHOWS HOW UTTERLY IGNORANT YOU ARE*


Here it is,

there are five laws of evolution, natural selection is one of them, they are a small  part of evolutionary theory.

Newton had his 3 laws of motion, they are a small  part of gravitational theory.

the difference, theory explains "why"

newton's laws of motion did not explain why the apple falls, general relativity , as part of gravitational theory explained why 

now can creationsists stop saying only gravity has "laws"

sheesh

http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/lawtheory.htm


this guy in the link does a better job than i can

Laymen think laws are more powerful than theories, but in science it is the reverse.  

Goddam english language for coopting jargon from one field and applying it totally differentlly in another.  It makes it so unprecise! ( and very confusing for those of us who had to learn english)


----------



## Zaphod (Jun 23, 2012)

Jimmyusa said:


> I understand, no worries, not all christians read the bible, reading the bible does not make you a christian, so for example, Is 53, written about 700 years prior to Christ's birth.



Who would that be talking about?


----------



## heavyiron (Jun 23, 2012)

bandaidwoman said:


> *OK , CAN CREATIONISTS STOP PRETENDING THAT ONLY GRAVITATIONAL THEORY HAS LAWS, IT SHOWS HOW UTTERLY IGNORANT YOU ARE*
> 
> 
> Here it is,
> ...




Get back in the kitchen and make us some waffles.

K thanks!


----------



## exphys88 (Jun 23, 2012)

Heavy has a soft spot in his heart for creationists.  They're like a younger sibling w mental retardation.


----------

