It has to do with the title of this thread. The credibility of the church. You look back at history and you find time and time again the church has strayed from what it says are it's principles. And then held fast to what it believes are facts only to be proven wrong time and time again. It's the reason so many people question religion these days. Because it has a historical reputation for being wrong. And when it is proven wrong in this case the only conclusion is that people will question it credibility even more.
The same way I question your ablity to use empathy towards another human being.
And by the way, anal sex is not an action that homosexuals can claim singly as their own. There is plenty of anal sex going on between heterosexual men and women.
So because the Christian (mostly Catholic) church is guilty of attrocities that were not supported by the Bible, you believe that the Bible has no bearing on how people should be living their lives. I think that you should read the Bible, or at least some of it. What you will find is that the times of corrupt churches who use their God as an excuse to slaughter people has long since past. If you honestly believe that Christians are as dangerous as Muslim extremists, then I think that you need a reality check. The Christian Church of today does more charitable work than you could possibly imagine. You are saying that the Church is losing credability because of things that happened hundreds of years ago. I say that the Church has lost membership because people have come to the realization that life is short, and that they need to have as much fun as possible...care not about your life after this one. The Bible warns against selfish life styles, but as humans, we are drawn to a life of materialism and wealth.
The reason why people question religion these days is because things like evolutionary theory have become so main stream that people just accept it without any real knowledge of what they are accepting. I would bet my life that if 90% of evolutionists knew the things that I know about evolution, that they would begin to question their belief in it. It's not about quantifiable evidence with evolution, it's about finding things that suit your cause and ignoring everything else. Say the same thing about creationism if you want, it won't bother me. Because I know that when the Bible presents scientific fact, it isn't wrong, nothing scientific in the Bible has ever been disproven.
Gnomexxx I think that you have a lot of learning to do about the Church...I have done my part to learn about the theories of evolution, and the big bang, and athiesm...I think it's your turn to learn about what I believe, and stop making such gross generalizations and ranting on and on about things that you obviously have a very elementary understanding of.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Originally posted by Draenor Originally posted by gnomexxxIt has to do with the title of this thread. The credibility of the church. You look back at history and you find time and time again the church has strayed from what it says are it's principles. And then held fast to what it believes are facts only to be proven wrong time and time again. It's the reason so many people question religion these days. Because it has a historical reputation for being wrong. And when it is proven wrong in this case the only conclusion is that people will question it credibility even more.
The same way I question your ablity to use empathy towards another human being.
And by the way, anal sex is not an action that homosexuals can claim singly as their own. There is plenty of anal sex going on between heterosexual men and women.
So because the Christian (mostly Catholic) church is guilty of attrocities that were not supported by the Bible, you believe that the Bible has no bearing on how people should be living their lives. I think that you should read the Bible, or at least some of it. What you will find is that the times of corrupt churches who use their God as an excuse to slaughter people has long since past. If you honestly believe that Christians are as dangerous as Muslim extremists, then I think that you need a reality check. The Christian Church of today does more charitable work than you could possibly imagine. You are saying that the Church is losing credability because of things that happened hundreds of years ago. I say that the Church has lost membership because people have come to the realization that life is short, and that they need to have as much fun as possible...care not about your life after this one. The Bible warns against selfish life styles, but as humans, we are drawn to a life of materialism and wealth.
The reason why people question religion these days is because things like evolutionary theory have become so main stream that people just accept it without any real knowledge of what they are accepting. I would bet my life that if 90% of evolutionists knew the things that I know about evolution, that they would begin to question their belief in it. It's not about quantifiable evidence with evolution, it's about finding things that suit your cause and ignoring everything else. Say the same thing about creationism if you want, it won't bother me. Because I know that when the Bible presents scientific fact, it isn't wrong, nothing scientific in the Bible has ever been disproven.
Gnomexxx I think that you have a lot of learning to do about the Church...I have done my part to learn about the theories of evolution, and the big bang, and athiesm...I think it's your turn to learn about what I believe, and stop making such gross generalizations and ranting on and on about things that you obviously have a very elementary understanding of.
You follow your church. I'll follow my science.
At least my science isn't afraid to admit when it's wrong. As a matter of fact it applauds the action. It's a part of the scientific principles to question, tear apart, and test anothers theories. That's one of the things that the church can't stand. The church calls its truths unquestionable. Science says bring the questions on because that's what leads to discussion and advancement.
You may call my science wrong, but my science isn't man made. Your religion is. My science is simply the observation of God from a humble disposition with a will to learn. Religion is man trying to say he already completely understands God. Science admits it doesn't have all the answers and trudges on in the search. Religion claims to have all the answers and stopped searching millenia ago.
So because the Christian (mostly Catholic) church is guilty of attrocities that were not supported by the Bible, you believe that the Bible has no bearing on how people should be living their lives. I think that you should read the Bible, or at least some of it. What you will find is that the times of corrupt churches who use their God as an excuse to slaughter people has long since past. If you honestly believe that Christians are as dangerous as Muslim extremists, then I think that you need a reality check. The Christian Church of today does more charitable work than you could possibly imagine. You are saying that the Church is losing credability because of things that happened hundreds of years ago. I say that the Church has lost membership because people have come to the realization that life is short, and that they need to have as much fun as possible...care not about your life after this one. The Bible warns against selfish life styles, but as humans, we are drawn to a life of materialism and wealth.
The Church hasn't changed anywhere, it still follows the same book as hundreds of years ago. The people inside the church might have changed, but that's just because religion doesn't have such an influence in everyday life anymore.
The reason why people question religion these days is because things like evolutionary theory have become so main stream that people just accept it without any real knowledge of what they are accepting. I would bet my life that if 90% of evolutionists knew the things that I know about evolution, that they would begin to question their belief in it.
Right... why do I get the feeling that you have no idea what you're talking about...
It's not about quantifiable evidence with evolution, it's about finding things that suit your cause and ignoring everything else.
Oh, now I know. Sounds so familiar. Like every bible humbing moron, you make claims that you know nothing about.
Say the same thing about creationism if you want, it won't bother me. Because I know that when the Bible presents scientific fact, it isn't wrong, nothing scientific in the Bible has ever been disproven.
Because there isn't anything scientific in the bible.
Gnomexxx I think that you have a lot of learning to do about the Church...I have done my part to learn about the theories of evolution, and the big bang, and athiesm...I think it's your turn to learn about what I believe, and stop making such gross generalizations and ranting on and on about things that you obviously have a very elementary understanding of.
At least my science isn't afraid to admit when it's wrong.
That's because when science is proven wrong, it makes something else up until that can be proven wrong...the problem is, nothing in the Bible that has to do with science has ever been proven wrong...find me something scientific in the Bible that isn't true.
As a matter of fact it applauds the action. It's a part of the scientific principles to question, tear apart, and test anothers theories. That's one of the things that the church can't stand. The church calls its truths unquestionable. Science says bring the questions on because that's what leads to discussion and advancement.
Maybe that's because the Church believes that the Bible is the word of God and therefore doesn't need questioning? The fact of the matter is that when it IS questioned, creationism stands up quite nicely, and I would argue better than evolution...the scientific community claims to admire action and questioning, but for some reason they hate when creationists do the questioning.
You may call my science wrong, but my science isn't man made. Your religion is.
Excuse me? Sorry but you're wrong here...the Christian church was started by God himself...your psuedo science is a bunch of theories made up by man to explain things that are simply not explanable without the presence of a God. Before you say anything, YES I KNOW that not everyone believes that the Christian faith was started by God...don't nit pick everything I say, because I know some of you were ready to hit that quote button.
My science is simply the observation of God from a humble disposition
It is humble to deny the existence of a God by replacing him with our physical laws of nature? Hardly...It is the religous people who are humble because we make ourselves but minute pieces of God's overall plan for the world, whereas science seeks to make God a non factor by forcing everything to adhere to physical laws that we have created, and when things don't adhere to those laws, they make something else up.
with a will to learn. Religion is man trying to say he already completely understands God.
No, religion is man attempting to do God's will...no truly religious person claims to understand God, because he is beyond out comprehension.
Science admits it doesn't have all the answers and trudges on in the search. Religion claims to have all the answers and stopped searching millenia ago.
That is because we believe that the Bible holds the overall conclusion. And scientific scrutiny does in fact back up our beliefs, again, more so than it does evolution. But you probably will never admit to this because you are so dead set on your belief in evolution that you refuse to see it any other way. Once again I will remind you that I was once a believer in evolution, and was agnostic, borderline athiest. I took things in with an open mind, and came to these conclusions...this is not something that I have been told since I was little. Christianity doesn't claim to have all the answers, Christianity claims to know how life begun in the first place, because it is in our text. The Bible is not all encompassing when it comes to science, obviously there is much that we have discovered since it's creation, but nothing that refutes the Bible. BUT the Bible does provide excellent guidlines for where to look for answers.
For those reasons I can't accept religion. For the cases that I have described time and time again, I cannot accept evolution, once all of the facts are gathered, evolution and the big bang theory seem like a bad joke.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
The Church hasn't changed anywhere, it still follows the same book as hundreds of years ago. The people inside the church might have changed, but that's just because religion doesn't have such an influence in everyday life anymore. You really didn't understand? The Church wasn't following the bible when it did those things, the Church wasn't following the Bible when it started the crusades, or believed that the Earth is the center of the universe...why? Because those things aren't taught in the Bible.
The reason why people question religion these days is because things like evolutionary theory have become so main stream that people just accept it without any real knowledge of what they are accepting. I would bet my life that if 90% of evolutionists knew the things that I know about evolution, that they would begin to question their belief in it. Right... why do I get the feeling that you have no idea what you're talking about... Because you probably believe blindly in evolution and have done very little to actually further your knowledge about it, as most evolutionists tend to do.
It's not about quantifiable evidence with evolution, it's about finding things that suit your cause and ignoring everything else.
Oh, now I know. Sounds so familiar. Like every bible humbing moron, you make claims that you know nothing about. And what have I claimed that I know nothing about? I would love to hear this, because I am very knowledgable on the subject of religious beliefs and how my own Bible stands up to scientific scrutiny...I would appreciate if you are going to say things like this, that you would actually support your assertions.
Say the same thing about creationism if you want, it won't bother me. Because I know that when the Bible presents scientific fact, it isn't wrong, nothing scientific in the Bible has ever been disproven. Because there isn't anything scientific in the bible. lol
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Isn't this like the 200th religious thread this week? Isn't rehashing this same old arguement getting a bit old?
Fine, I've already posted here, so I might as well insert my opinion:
I'm Agnostic. I'm not a creationism type of guy. I believe in evolution, be it started by absolute randomness, or by the hand of a god/s, Simply because evolution has more evidence than a couple thousand year old book. Yes, I know, that book happens to be the word of the Lord Almighty. Well, I find it hard to believe. Actually, I find it near impossible to believe. I believe that if God wanted to give us a message, he would come down and say it himself. Yes, I know. Jesus and the Prophets are his messengers. I was hoping for something a little more recent. Afterall, seeing is believing.
Not that this really matters. We can go on, and on, and on, and nothing will ever change, we're just wasting space on the internet in an attempt to persuade another that their opinion is wrong.
Sorry, I'm in a wierd mood. I think I need to be off anyway.
We barely remember who or what came before this precious moment; We are choosing to be here right now -Tool, Parabola
I truely don't care what people want to believe... go ahead, think some loony in the sky is snapping his fingers and making everything happen.. What pisses me off is when they kill, beat, shun, rob, and destroy the rights of those who they deem "moraly wrong." Is homosexuality a disorder that happens at birth, we about 99% sure of that. Does that mean it isn't a sin in the christian faith? No. Let the wackos believe what they will as long as they aren't making the laws or diminishing the rights of others.
Originally posted by Draenor Originally posted by busdriver The Church hasn't changed anywhere, it still follows the same book as hundreds of years ago. The people inside the church might have changed, but that's just because religion doesn't have such an influence in everyday life anymore.You really didn't understand? The Church wasn't following the bible when it did those things, the Church wasn't following the Bible when it started the crusades, or believed that the Earth is the center of the universe...why? Because those things aren't taught in the Bible.Well...I guess I can't argue with you there. Back then normal people couldn't interpret (...sp?) the bible, so priests were equal to kings. The reason why people question religion these days is because things like evolutionary theory have become so main stream that people just accept it without any real knowledge of what they are accepting. I would bet my life that if 90% of evolutionists knew the things that I know about evolution, that they would begin to question their belief in it.Right... why do I get the feeling that you have no idea what you're talking about...Because you probably believe blindly in evolution and have done very little to actually further your knowledge about it, as most evolutionists tend to do.Ok, open my mind. Tell me some of those things that will make me question Evolution. It's not about quantifiable evidence with evolution, it's about finding things that suit your cause and ignoring everything else. Oh, now I know. Sounds so familiar. Like every bible humbing moron, you make claims that you know nothing about.And what have I claimed that I know nothing about? I would love to hear this, because I am very knowledgable on the subject of religious beliefs and how my own Bible stands up to scientific scrutiny...I would appreciate if you are going to say things like this, that you would actually support your assertions.You already supported what I said by making claims that evolution theory isn't based on scientific study. The whole Theory is based on science. Say the same thing about creationism if you want, it won't bother me. Because I know that when the Bible presents scientific fact, it isn't wrong, nothing scientific in the Bible has ever been disproven.Because there isn't anything scientific in the bible.lolSo which part is scientific in the bible? Water turns to wine?
The Church hasn't changed anywhere, it still follows the same book as hundreds of years ago. The people inside the church might have changed, but that's just because religion doesn't have such an influence in everyday life anymore. You really didn't understand? The Church wasn't following the bible when it did those things, the Church wasn't following the Bible when it started the crusades, or believed that the Earth is the center of the universe...why? Because those things aren't taught in the Bible. Well...I guess I can't argue with you there. Back then normal people couldn't interpret (...sp?) the bible, so priests were equal to kings.
The reason why people question religion these days is because things like evolutionary theory have become so main stream that people just accept it without any real knowledge of what they are accepting. I would bet my life that if 90% of evolutionists knew the things that I know about evolution, that they would begin to question their belief in it. Right... why do I get the feeling that you have no idea what you're talking about... Because you probably believe blindly in evolution and have done very little to actually further your knowledge about it, as most evolutionists tend to do. Ok, open my mind. Tell me some of those things that will make me question Evolution.
It's not about quantifiable evidence with evolution, it's about finding things that suit your cause and ignoring everything else.
Oh, now I know. Sounds so familiar. Like every bible humbing moron, you make claims that you know nothing about. And what have I claimed that I know nothing about? I would love to hear this, because I am very knowledgable on the subject of religious beliefs and how my own Bible stands up to scientific scrutiny...I would appreciate if you are going to say things like this, that you would actually support your assertions. You already supported what I said by making claims that evolution theory isn't based on scientific study. The whole Theory is based on science.
Say the same thing about creationism if you want, it won't bother me. Because I know that when the Bible presents scientific fact, it isn't wrong, nothing scientific in the Bible has ever been disproven. Because there isn't anything scientific in the bible. lol So which part is scientific in the bible? Water turns to wine?
If I had the slightest reason to believe that maybe I would be able to open your eyes, I would try to do so. But because of the content of this post, especially the last part of it...I really don't see the point in trying. If you really want to put your beliefs into question, I suggest you take a look at past debates about evolution that have taken place on this forum. Or find a website that is about applying science to creationism. I would suggest www.answersingenesis.org but for some reason I have this feeling that you are going to pass it off as christian nut case propaganda aimed at shooting down that evil science thing.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
If I had the slightest reason to believe that maybe I would be able to open your eyes, I would try to do so. But because of the content of this post, especially the last part of it...I really don't see the point in trying. If you really want to put your beliefs into question, I suggest you take a look at past debates about evolution that have taken place on this forum. Or find a website that is about applying science to creationism. I would suggest www.answersingenesis.org but for some reason I have this feeling that you are going to pass it off as christian nut case propaganda aimed at shooting down that evil science thing. Oh yes, that's always a great way to end an argument; "you're stupid and wrong. I know stuff but I won't tell you". Maybe just a coinsidence, but that's usually where creationists always end up with.
Imo, acting on homosexual urges is a sin. But so is affairs, adultery, lust, etc. and that homosexuality is merely one of many possible temptations.
As for the whole science vs. religion debate right above this post, have we realized now that it really doesn't accomplish anything as we believe what we believe and usually end with a tie. At least bring some useufl information like in the other forums where both sides have valid arguments and an actual debate takes place.
Originally posted by Blurr Someone wanna check if the OP and reavo are the same person? Same silly posting tactics. No sneaky business now.
Says we live in the same town. But I've never met a George Nichols, nor claimed to be one. I started taking medicine to snuff out my alter personalities years ago. I feel much better now.
Are you talking about posting news articles? I'm not the only one that does that.
Besides, modjoe and I are really one and the same. LOL!!!
No I'm referring to the utterly idiotic way you both put some silly title in the thread, and then your whole original post is basically just a news article (whether credible or not) which is then used to attack and promote hatred against a religion.
Hate-mongers ftw!
"Because it's easier to nitpick something than to be constructive." -roach5000
Originally posted by Nierro Obviously, whoever said "homosexualality is a sin" didn't give that much thought.
If god created all men and women, why would he conciously make gay ones only to say that they were sinful?... /sigh.
Maybe it was just a big cosmic "WHOOPS." I am not religious, but I could have sworn I heard that this god character was supposed to have "created man in his image." So that means god could have been gay. Not that it matters, just saying it could be.
Wow...go read Genesis please. Umm....no thanks, I don't like that type of fictional writing. And you take yourself and my last post waaay to serious.
"It is easier to be cruel than wise. The road to wisdom is long and difficult... so most people just turn out to be assholes" Feng (Christopher Walken)
People should really start to take the bible for what it is, a special FX cinema enhanced history book with some good parts (love thy neighbor, don't judge others (be tolerant) etc) and some bad parts (anti-semitic, slavery acceptation, homosexual bashing etc), the compiler of the new testament was clearly biased anyway for choosing those gospels over the other 20 or so.
So i wonder, if we dont believe in the Harry Potter (or insert your favorite S-F novel) books, why do ppl have to believe in the bible?
Upallnight I'm not sure what you're trying to get at.
I'm pointing out the fact that reavo and (possibly) the OP post these threads with silly articles and use them to promote a campaign of attacks and hatred against religion (most usually Christian) or other beliefs (like creationism). Are you trying to say that anyone who defends a belief in christianity is a skinhead? Please elaborate.
Also regarding the homosexuality thing, I'd like to throw another log on the fire. We've seen people talk about Christianity and Judaism, but what about Islam? Islamic doctrine also says that homosexuality is a sin.
Specifically I know that Islam says anal intercourse, or the act of sodomy (as in male on male homosexual sex) is a sin. Those who act on/consumate sodomy are sinners and will be punished in the after-life.
This is actually a point where Islam and Mormon (a Christian religion) agree. It's also not a point of hatred as anti-christian or anti-muslim people would have you believe. The point is this. Having the urges to engage in sodomy is not a sin. What is a sin, is acting on those urges and committing sodomy. You are the one who chooses to act on those urges, so you are the one who has to be held accountable for them.
There are other religions which have similar views on homosexual sex (that it is not approved): Zoroastrianism (According to the Vendidad) Sikhism (according to the Akal Takht) Judaism (apparently according to the Torah [Leviticus 18:22]) Falun Gong (apparently according to Li Hongzhi)
Other religions which condemn homosexuality not of itself but because of some of the acts committed through it or the role someone takes during homosexual sex (ie, a man taking the role of the woman): Asatru Baha'i Buddhism Confuscianism Hinduism Taoism Voodoo (Haitian)
For all these religions to condemn either homosexuality or some of the act of homosexuality, they nearly cover every part of the globe. To me, that in itself is a signifigant fact.
"Because it's easier to nitpick something than to be constructive." -roach5000
in this day and age, its so popular just to make up your own religion. "if i dont like that part, ill just pretend that it doesnt matter."
if you dont want to know the truth, you wont ever know the truth. but the truth is there, hidden right out in front of you. some truthes are harder to take than others. but it doesnt make them any less true. now im no professing preacher, but i do know a thing or two about the Bible and God. ive done me homework on other religions. in fact, ive studied all the religions of the world. i know what i know. simple as that. i dont have anything to prove to anyone. if you have to be convinced, then youre not going to hold onto it anyway. the truth about God, while it can be taught, has to be revealed to you by God before you will accept it as truth.
as far as the AnswersinGenesis.org, no you didnt check the site. cause if you had, you would realize that it is completely in opposition to evolution. i believe in creationism, not evolution. im not trying to convince anyone of anything, just stating what i believe. but if you give the creationism website a chance and actually read what it says, you may be surprised by what you find. if not, sorry about your luck.
i find it so ironic that the evolutionists and atheists and antichristians accuse christians of being closedminded, but ive yet to find a evolutionist that gives creationism a second look. they quote things like "rocks have been around for millions and millions of years, this proves creationism wrong." haha. kk, so carbon dating is 100% accurate now? anyway, sorry to go off on the tangent there.
Originally posted by PlanoMM i find it so ironic that the evolutionists and atheists and antichristians accuse christians of being closedminded, but ive yet to find a evolutionist that gives creationism a second look. they quote things like "rocks have been around for millions and millions of years, this proves creationism wrong." haha. kk, so carbon dating is 100% accurate now? anyway, sorry to go off on the tangent there.
So because Carbon Dating isnt 100% accurate that means that it is not true? Just want to be clear on what your saying. Because if that is the reason it isnt true then the Bible is also untrue since some of it is also not accurate. Carbon dating is but one of several ways to date something. There is also Dendo, Argon, etc.
You want proof evolution happens? Go take a look at the carabao. A water buffalo in the philippines and southeast asia used like an ox. It was brought there by chinese traders around a thousand years ago. A direct decedant of the chinese water buffalo. Now if you take a carabao and stand it next to a chinese water buffalo from mainland China you will see something rather amazing. Its about 1/3rd the size of the chinese water buffalo. Why is that important? Because when a large species of animal is taken to islands to live it literally shrinks through generations. It evolves to fit the new area.
We are just scratching the surface when it comes to evolution. But everyday we are learning more and more things that prove it dd and does happen still.
I have said this in another thread. If the earth was created in 7 days and the earth is only 6,000 years old (give or take a century or two) then what about the sumerians? Their history, their written history, dates back about 3,000 years prior to Adam and Eve. The chinese about 1,000 years. And how did the indians get across the land bridge to populate the americas when the land bridge sank some 6,000 years before?
Originally posted by PlanoMM in this day and age, its so popular just to make up your own religion. "if i dont like that part, ill just pretend that it doesnt matter." if you dont want to know the truth, you wont ever know the truth. but the truth is there, hidden right out in front of you. some truthes are harder to take than others. but it doesnt make them any less true. now im no professing preacher, but i do know a thing or two about the Bible and God. ive done me homework on other religions. in fact, ive studied all the religions of the world. i know what i know. simple as that. i dont have anything to prove to anyone. if you have to be convinced, then youre not going to hold onto it anyway. the truth about God, while it can be taught, has to be revealed to you by God before you will accept it as truth. as far as the AnswersinGenesis.org, no you didnt check the site. cause if you had, you would realize that it is completely in opposition to evolution. i believe in creationism, not evolution. im not trying to convince anyone of anything, just stating what i believe. but if you give the creationism website a chance and actually read what it says, you may be surprised by what you find. if not, sorry about your luck. i find it so ironic that the evolutionists and atheists and antichristians accuse christians of being closedminded, but ive yet to find a evolutionist that gives creationism a second look. they quote things like "rocks have been around for millions and millions of years, this proves creationism wrong." haha. kk, so carbon dating is 100% accurate now? anyway, sorry to go off on the tangent there.
You do realize there is more than one way to date the age of the planet, correct? Carbon dating is just one of many.
And nothing can ever been 100% accurate.
That's like saying "Omg, it failed! So it musn't be true!!" Yea okay Lol.
I bet many people believe the iceage never happened either. And that was over 10,000 years ago.
The present ice age began 40 million years ago with the growth of an ice sheet in Antarctica, but intensified during the Pleistocene (starting around 3 million years ago) with the spread of ice sheets in the Northern Hemisphere. Since then, the world has seen cycles of glaciation with ice sheets advancing and retreating on 40,000 and 100,000 year time scales. The last glacial period ended about ten thousand years ago.
Keep in mind, man was alive before 10,000 years ago. We walked and hunted the mammoths, etc.
Originally posted by upallnight Originally posted by Blurr
Hate-mongers ftw!
You mean these hate-mongers ???
Are these guys fighting over a Tickle Me Elmo doll or something??? Whats up??
Don't be terrorized! You're more likely to die of a car accident, drowning, fire, or murder! More people die every year from prescription drugs than terrorism LOL!
Everyone should be treated equally. One shouldnt overdo that either. Women should be equal to men, but that is different to women being superior. Gays should be equal to hetero's, but they shouldnt be superior.
I cannot understand people who blindy obey the bible to the word. I myself respect it for its teachings and values, but to me it is more a valuable collection of ethical views rather than a true holy book.
One should interprit the bible with open eyes and understand that its ancient teachings might not apply to our modern society.
im fully aware that there are more than just carbon dating. that wasnt me point. me point was that none of the methods used to date rocks and such are 100% accurate. its funny to me that when you can use one method to test a rock you can get one date. use another and get a completely different date, sometimes very different date (think millions of years), and then test it again with the first method and yet again a different date. and instead of saying ok, we dont have a clue as to the actual date of this rock, they just take all 3 tests and average it out, lol. no other science does this. if an instrument was proven to be inaccurate in any other type of experiment, the scientist would stop using the instrument or method and say, ok, that didnt work.
kk, on to another issue brought up, i dont wanna get pulled into a theological debate here (cause frankly, i dont really care if you believe like i believe), but i dont know anything that has ever disproven anything out of the Bible. i think youre reaching there, but youre going to start quoting textbook science to me and treat me like an idiot if i dont believe what you believe...its so funny to listen to evolutionists talk, they always build off of assumption adding assumption to assumption. before the end of the arguement, youll basicly tell me that im incapable of reasoning and illogical. youll accuse me of using God as a cop out and accuse for things that i cant explain. but oO well, i knew when i started posting in here that i was gonna run up against a science major that feels that they know everything.
the carabao example, thats called adaptation, not evolution. evolution is the changing on a DNA lvl, (adding and removing of genes and chromazones). its a known fact that all animals (including humans) have and can adapt to new environments. no animal or human or other has ever gained a gene or chromazone through evolution. that would be prove of evolution. you cant claim the losing of a chromazone or gene as proof. otherwise you would consider some of the diseases that happen as evolution. do you? most people consider the diseases that effect the DNA a mutation.
about the other peoples that were quoted as being before Adam and Eve, youre assuming that the carbon dating (or any other fallable method used) is accurate. so no amount of reasoning is going to be good enough for you.
about the iceage, if you understand the concept of a global wide flood then you understand that the iceage could indeed have happened, albeit, just alot sooner. personnally, i think that it makes more since for it to have happen within the last 6000 yrs, you quoted man hunting the mammoth, the Bible actually mentions him, as well as leviathan, a giant sea monster. wouldnt it make more sense that yes these creatures actually existed during this time? guess what, a global flood would indeed wipe out the dinosaurs. hmmmm......
in any case, youre going to believe what you wanna believe. i just wanted to put this out there.
Originally posted by Blurr Upallnight I'm not sure what you're trying to get at. I'm pointing out the fact that reavo and (possibly) the OP post these threads with silly articles and use them to promote a campaign of attacks and hatred against religion (most usually Christian) or other beliefs (like creationism). Are you trying to say that anyone who defends a belief in christianity is a skinhead? Please elaborate. Also regarding the homosexuality thing, I'd like to throw another log on the fire. We've seen people talk about Christianity and Judaism, but what about Islam? Islamic doctrine also says that homosexuality is a sin. Specifically I know that Islam says anal intercourse, or the act of sodomy (as in male on male homosexual sex) is a sin. Those who act on/consumate sodomy are sinners and will be punished in the after-life. This is actually a point where Islam and Mormon (a Christian religion) agree. It's also not a point of hatred as anti-christian or anti-muslim people would have you believe. The point is this. Having the urges to engage in sodomy is not a sin. What is a sin, is acting on those urges and committing sodomy. You are the one who chooses to act on those urges, so you are the one who has to be held accountable for them. There are other religions which have similar views on homosexual sex (that it is not approved): Zoroastrianism (According to the Vendidad) Sikhism (according to the Akal Takht) Judaism (apparently according to the Torah [Leviticus 18:22]) Falun Gong (apparently according to Li Hongzhi) Other religions which condemn homosexuality not of itself but because of some of the acts committed through it or the role someone takes during homosexual sex (ie, a man taking the role of the woman): Asatru Baha'i Buddhism Confuscianism Hinduism Taoism Voodoo (Haitian) For all these religions to condemn either homosexuality or some of the act of homosexuality, they nearly cover every part of the globe. To me, that in itself is a signifigant fact.
Blurr, why do misrepresent me? And for that matter why do you represent other religions when it comes to homosexuality?
I have a campaign against pretty much anything that is organized and takes a stance that anyone in its organization is better than or more rightous than others outside of it. And that campaign includes anything from academic organizations to religious organizations to political organizations.
It scares me that part of human nature is the susceptibility to these organizations and the history that they have given us. I can't see myself being a part of an organization that throws out a blanket statement condemning a group of people. It's scary and it's going to lead eventually to misunderstandings of individuals and an excuse for people to consider anything different from them as wrong and worthy of mistreatment.
There are people I don't agree with. Tons of them. But I am not going to form an organization or join an organization who uses that disagreement as a way of coming together and forcing those people to conform or suffer the consequences. That's not allowing freedom of expression, nor is it showing tolerance or humanity.
I'm not against all religions either. I go to church. I go to a local Unitarian/Universalist church. We are a religious organization (although losely interpreted I submit). I don't have much against the Buddhist religion or a lot of the eastern religions. So to say I'm completely anti-religious is wrong too. And, for that matter, I have read interpretations of Christianity from some scholars that I can accept. What bothers me about Christianity mostly is Christians, or people who refer to themselves as Christians. I'm not so sure many of them are to be trusted in their claims.
As for those religions you posted who allegedly condemn homosexuality, seems that some of those are actually anywhere from tolerant to very accepting...
Groups not influenced by the Abrahamic religions have sometimes regarded homosexuality as sacred, while a negative view of homosexuality has been common in the Abrahamic religions. In the wake of colonialism and imperialism undertaken by countries of the Abrahamic faiths some cultures have adopted new attitudes antagonistic towards homosexuality.
The world's largest organized body of religion, the Roman Catholic Church, requires homosexuals to practice chastity in the understanding that homosexual acts are "intrinsically disordered", and "contrary to the natural law". It insists that all are expected to only have heterosexual relations and only in the context of a marriage, describing homosexual tendencies as "a trial", and stressing that people with such tendencies "must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity." [25] Distinguishing between "deep-seated homosexual tendencies" and those that are "only the expression of a transitory problem", the Vatican requires that any homosexual tendencies "must be clearly overcome at least three years before ordination to the diaconate." [26]
In brief, Hinduism has taken various positions, ranging from positive to neutral or antagonistic. Sikhism has no written view on the matter, but Sikh (Punjabi) society is generally ultra-masculine and conservative; toleration of any homosexual behaviour or orientation is bound to meet outrage or strong disapproval. However, other Sikhs believe that Guru Nanak's emphasis on universal equality and brotherhood is fundamentally in support of homosexuals' human rights. Confucianism has allowed homosexual sex with the precondition of procreation. Abrahamic religions have held varied views of homosexuality, depending on place, time and form of same-sex desire. Islam regards love and desire for beautiful youths (adolescent men or boys) as a natural temptation for all men, sexual relations however as a transgression negatory of the natural role and aim of sexual activity. [27]Buddhism traditionally did not concern itself with the gender of the beloved. Contemporary Western Buddhists and many Japanese and Chinese schools hold very accepting views, something that is traditionally allowed when the relationship does not impede the birth of a child, while other Eastern Buddhists, possibly since colonial times, have adopted attitudes that scorn the practice. Christianity has traditionally condemned deliberately non-procreative sex, and while attitudes have in some sectors (e.g. Anglican Church, liberal Protestantism) been liberalised, the majority of denominations still view homosexual relationships as sinful. Judaism, depending on the movement, is either liberal, conservative, or neutral on the subject. The Orthodox-Jewish tradition generally views homosexual sex as sinful, and homosexual attraction as out of the norm, while Reform and Reconstructionism are often fully accepting of gay attraction and sex. Conservative Judaism doesn't view attraction as sinful. Homosexual acts are just thought of as being equal to breaking any other of the mitzvot and therefore equally sinful. This movement, however, does not admit openly gay Jews as rabbis, nor does it perform commitment ceremonies. It is very open to it, and because of the movement's belief in an "evolving Torah", the issue is very big in the movement today. Native American religions generally grant gender-variant individuals honoured status for their perceived spiritual powers. Shintoism, Discordianism, and Taoism regard homosexuality positively. Religions collectively termed "Pagan," including Druidism and Wicca, are also accepting in general.
me problem with picking and choosing what i will and will not believe is this, im fallable. i make mistakes. lots of them (one is prolly being in this thread, lol). so for me to say that know something, is kinda like saying i believe that the world is indeed flat. been proven differently, you say? really? how so, ive never traveled further than 300 miles from where i was born (i have actually, but for the example....well im sure you get it). so all the pictures and such of the earth are just a clever hoax to me. because i choose to ignore anything that i dont wanna believe.
now im not saying you have to believe me or for that matter anyone. but what i am saying is that when i hear someone make the statement that, "I have read interpretations of Christianity from some scholars that I can accept." me first thoughts are, "ok, so this is a person that believes that they are infallable." now i know that wasnt what you were saying, but still you gotta admit that is exactly what it means. im not saying that you should follow a religion blindly or take everything that you read at face value. im just saying that you dont fully know what is and is not completely true. the only one that knows everything is God. we can only hope to get glimpses of the full truth. please dont take offense to this, it is not meant offensively. just stating that just because you state something, it doesnt mean that you might not be wrong. what i say might be wrong. but then again, im not telling people that a certain religion cant be trusted either. anyway, take from this what you will, its just me own opinion.
Comments
So because the Christian (mostly Catholic) church is guilty of attrocities that were not supported by the Bible, you believe that the Bible has no bearing on how people should be living their lives. I think that you should read the Bible, or at least some of it. What you will find is that the times of corrupt churches who use their God as an excuse to slaughter people has long since past. If you honestly believe that Christians are as dangerous as Muslim extremists, then I think that you need a reality check. The Christian Church of today does more charitable work than you could possibly imagine. You are saying that the Church is losing credability because of things that happened hundreds of years ago. I say that the Church has lost membership because people have come to the realization that life is short, and that they need to have as much fun as possible...care not about your life after this one. The Bible warns against selfish life styles, but as humans, we are drawn to a life of materialism and wealth.
The reason why people question religion these days is because things like evolutionary theory have become so main stream that people just accept it without any real knowledge of what they are accepting. I would bet my life that if 90% of evolutionists knew the things that I know about evolution, that they would begin to question their belief in it. It's not about quantifiable evidence with evolution, it's about finding things that suit your cause and ignoring everything else. Say the same thing about creationism if you want, it won't bother me. Because I know that when the Bible presents scientific fact, it isn't wrong, nothing scientific in the Bible has ever been disproven.
Gnomexxx I think that you have a lot of learning to do about the Church...I have done my part to learn about the theories of evolution, and the big bang, and athiesm...I think it's your turn to learn about what I believe, and stop making such gross generalizations and ranting on and on about things that you obviously have a very elementary understanding of.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
So because the Christian (mostly Catholic) church is guilty of attrocities that were not supported by the Bible, you believe that the Bible has no bearing on how people should be living their lives. I think that you should read the Bible, or at least some of it. What you will find is that the times of corrupt churches who use their God as an excuse to slaughter people has long since past. If you honestly believe that Christians are as dangerous as Muslim extremists, then I think that you need a reality check. The Christian Church of today does more charitable work than you could possibly imagine. You are saying that the Church is losing credability because of things that happened hundreds of years ago. I say that the Church has lost membership because people have come to the realization that life is short, and that they need to have as much fun as possible...care not about your life after this one. The Bible warns against selfish life styles, but as humans, we are drawn to a life of materialism and wealth.
The reason why people question religion these days is because things like evolutionary theory have become so main stream that people just accept it without any real knowledge of what they are accepting. I would bet my life that if 90% of evolutionists knew the things that I know about evolution, that they would begin to question their belief in it. It's not about quantifiable evidence with evolution, it's about finding things that suit your cause and ignoring everything else. Say the same thing about creationism if you want, it won't bother me. Because I know that when the Bible presents scientific fact, it isn't wrong, nothing scientific in the Bible has ever been disproven.
Gnomexxx I think that you have a lot of learning to do about the Church...I have done my part to learn about the theories of evolution, and the big bang, and athiesm...I think it's your turn to learn about what I believe, and stop making such gross generalizations and ranting on and on about things that you obviously have a very elementary understanding of.
You follow your church. I'll follow my science.
At least my science isn't afraid to admit when it's wrong. As a matter of fact it applauds the action. It's a part of the scientific principles to question, tear apart, and test anothers theories. That's one of the things that the church can't stand. The church calls its truths unquestionable. Science says bring the questions on because that's what leads to discussion and advancement.
You may call my science wrong, but my science isn't man made. Your religion is. My science is simply the observation of God from a humble disposition with a will to learn. Religion is man trying to say he already completely understands God. Science admits it doesn't have all the answers and trudges on in the search. Religion claims to have all the answers and stopped searching millenia ago.
For those reasons I can't accept religion.
===============================
So because the Christian (mostly Catholic) church is guilty of attrocities that were not supported by the Bible, you believe that the Bible has no bearing on how people should be living their lives. I think that you should read the Bible, or at least some of it. What you will find is that the times of corrupt churches who use their God as an excuse to slaughter people has long since past. If you honestly believe that Christians are as dangerous as Muslim extremists, then I think that you need a reality check. The Christian Church of today does more charitable work than you could possibly imagine. You are saying that the Church is losing credability because of things that happened hundreds of years ago. I say that the Church has lost membership because people have come to the realization that life is short, and that they need to have as much fun as possible...care not about your life after this one. The Bible warns against selfish life styles, but as humans, we are drawn to a life of materialism and wealth.
The Church hasn't changed anywhere, it still follows the same book as hundreds of years ago. The people inside the church might have changed, but that's just because religion doesn't have such an influence in everyday life anymore.
The reason why people question religion these days is because things like evolutionary theory have become so main stream that people just accept it without any real knowledge of what they are accepting. I would bet my life that if 90% of evolutionists knew the things that I know about evolution, that they would begin to question their belief in it.
Right... why do I get the feeling that you have no idea what you're talking about...
It's not about quantifiable evidence with evolution, it's about finding things that suit your cause and ignoring everything else.
Oh, now I know. Sounds so familiar. Like every bible humbing moron, you make claims that you know nothing about.
Say the same thing about creationism if you want, it won't bother me. Because I know that when the Bible presents scientific fact, it isn't wrong, nothing scientific in the Bible has ever been disproven.
Because there isn't anything scientific in the bible.
Gnomexxx I think that you have a lot of learning to do about the Church...I have done my part to learn about the theories of evolution, and the big bang, and athiesm...I think it's your turn to learn about what I believe, and stop making such gross generalizations and ranting on and on about things that you obviously have a very elementary understanding of.
Now that made me laugh
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Isn't this like the 200th religious thread this week? Isn't rehashing this same old arguement getting a bit old?
Fine, I've already posted here, so I might as well insert my opinion:
I'm Agnostic. I'm not a creationism type of guy. I believe in evolution, be it started by absolute randomness, or by the hand of a god/s, Simply because evolution has more evidence than a couple thousand year old book. Yes, I know, that book happens to be the word of the Lord Almighty. Well, I find it hard to believe. Actually, I find it near impossible to believe. I believe that if God wanted to give us a message, he would come down and say it himself. Yes, I know. Jesus and the Prophets are his messengers. I was hoping for something a little more recent. Afterall, seeing is believing.
Not that this really matters. We can go on, and on, and on, and nothing will ever change, we're just wasting space on the internet in an attempt to persuade another that their opinion is wrong.
Sorry, I'm in a wierd mood. I think I need to be off anyway.
We barely remember who or what came before this precious moment;
We are choosing to be here right now -Tool, Parabola
If I had the slightest reason to believe that maybe I would be able to open your eyes, I would try to do so. But because of the content of this post, especially the last part of it...I really don't see the point in trying. If you really want to put your beliefs into question, I suggest you take a look at past debates about evolution that have taken place on this forum. Or find a website that is about applying science to creationism. I would suggest www.answersingenesis.org but for some reason I have this feeling that you are going to pass it off as christian nut case propaganda aimed at shooting down that evil science thing.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Oh yes, that's always a great way to end an argument; "you're stupid and wrong. I know stuff but I won't tell you".
Maybe just a coinsidence, but that's usually where creationists always end up with.
Btw, I did check that site and I didn't find anything to question evolution.
Here's a better link: http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/evolution/blfaq_evolution_index.htm?terms=linkbox
(Couldn't make a hotlink for some reason)
Imo, acting on homosexual urges is a sin. But so is affairs, adultery, lust, etc. and that homosexuality is merely one of many possible temptations.
As for the whole science vs. religion debate right above this post, have we realized now that it really doesn't accomplish anything as we believe what we believe and usually end with a tie. At least bring some useufl information like in the other forums where both sides have valid arguments and an actual debate takes place.
Are you talking about posting news articles? I'm not the only one that does that.
Besides, modjoe and I are really one and the same. LOL!!!
No I'm referring to the utterly idiotic way you both put some silly title in the thread, and then your whole original post is basically just a news article (whether credible or not) which is then used to attack and promote hatred against a religion.
Hate-mongers ftw!
"Because it's easier to nitpick something than to be constructive." -roach5000
Hate-mongers ftw!
You mean these hate-mongers ???
--------------------------------------
Wow...go read Genesis please.
Umm....no thanks, I don't like that type of fictional writing. And you take yourself and my last post waaay to serious.
"It is easier to be cruel than wise. The road to wisdom is long and difficult... so most people just turn out to be assholes" Feng (Christopher Walken)
People should really start to take the bible for what it is, a special FX cinema enhanced history book with some good parts (love thy neighbor, don't judge others (be tolerant) etc) and some bad parts (anti-semitic, slavery acceptation, homosexual bashing etc), the compiler of the new testament was clearly biased anyway for choosing those gospels over the other 20 or so.
So i wonder, if we dont believe in the Harry Potter (or insert your favorite S-F novel) books, why do ppl have to believe in the bible?
Upallnight I'm not sure what you're trying to get at.
I'm pointing out the fact that reavo and (possibly) the OP post these threads with silly articles and use them to promote a campaign of attacks and hatred against religion (most usually Christian) or other beliefs (like creationism). Are you trying to say that anyone who defends a belief in christianity is a skinhead? Please elaborate.
Also regarding the homosexuality thing, I'd like to throw another log on the fire. We've seen people talk about Christianity and Judaism, but what about Islam? Islamic doctrine also says that homosexuality is a sin.
Specifically I know that Islam says anal intercourse, or the act of sodomy (as in male on male homosexual sex) is a sin. Those who act on/consumate sodomy are sinners and will be punished in the after-life.
This is actually a point where Islam and Mormon (a Christian religion) agree. It's also not a point of hatred as anti-christian or anti-muslim people would have you believe. The point is this. Having the urges to engage in sodomy is not a sin. What is a sin, is acting on those urges and committing sodomy. You are the one who chooses to act on those urges, so you are the one who has to be held accountable for them.
There are other religions which have similar views on homosexual sex (that it is not approved):
Zoroastrianism (According to the Vendidad)
Sikhism (according to the Akal Takht)
Judaism (apparently according to the Torah [Leviticus 18:22])
Falun Gong (apparently according to Li Hongzhi)
Other religions which condemn homosexuality not of itself but because of some of the acts committed through it or the role someone takes during homosexual sex (ie, a man taking the role of the woman):
Asatru
Baha'i
Buddhism
Confuscianism
Hinduism
Taoism
Voodoo (Haitian)
For all these religions to condemn either homosexuality or some of the act of homosexuality, they nearly cover every part of the globe. To me, that in itself is a signifigant fact.
"Because it's easier to nitpick something than to be constructive." -roach5000
in this day and age, its so popular just to make up your own religion. "if i dont like that part, ill just pretend that it doesnt matter."
if you dont want to know the truth, you wont ever know the truth. but the truth is there, hidden right out in front of you. some truthes are harder to take than others. but it doesnt make them any less true. now im no professing preacher, but i do know a thing or two about the Bible and God. ive done me homework on other religions. in fact, ive studied all the religions of the world. i know what i know. simple as that. i dont have anything to prove to anyone. if you have to be convinced, then youre not going to hold onto it anyway. the truth about God, while it can be taught, has to be revealed to you by God before you will accept it as truth.
as far as the AnswersinGenesis.org, no you didnt check the site. cause if you had, you would realize that it is completely in opposition to evolution. i believe in creationism, not evolution. im not trying to convince anyone of anything, just stating what i believe. but if you give the creationism website a chance and actually read what it says, you may be surprised by what you find. if not, sorry about your luck.
i find it so ironic that the evolutionists and atheists and antichristians accuse christians of being closedminded, but ive yet to find a evolutionist that gives creationism a second look. they quote things like "rocks have been around for millions and millions of years, this proves creationism wrong." haha. kk, so carbon dating is 100% accurate now? anyway, sorry to go off on the tangent there.
______________________________
You want proof evolution happens? Go take a look at the carabao. A water buffalo in the philippines and southeast asia used like an ox. It was brought there by chinese traders around a thousand years ago. A direct decedant of the chinese water buffalo. Now if you take a carabao and stand it next to a chinese water buffalo from mainland China you will see something rather amazing. Its about 1/3rd the size of the chinese water buffalo. Why is that important? Because when a large species of animal is taken to islands to live it literally shrinks through generations. It evolves to fit the new area.
We are just scratching the surface when it comes to evolution. But everyday we are learning more and more things that prove it dd and does happen still.
I have said this in another thread. If the earth was created in 7 days and the earth is only 6,000 years old (give or take a century or two) then what about the sumerians? Their history, their written history, dates back about 3,000 years prior to Adam and Eve. The chinese about 1,000 years. And how did the indians get across the land bridge to populate the americas when the land bridge sank some 6,000 years before?
Kai
And nothing can ever been 100% accurate.
That's like saying "Omg, it failed! So it musn't be true!!" Yea okay Lol.
I bet many people believe the iceage never happened either. And that was over 10,000 years ago.
The present ice age began 40 million years ago with the growth of an ice sheet in Antarctica, but intensified during the
Pleistocene (starting around 3 million years ago) with the spread of ice sheets in
the Northern Hemisphere. Since then, the world has seen cycles of
glaciation with ice sheets advancing and retreating on 40,000 and
100,000 year time scales. The last glacial period ended about ten
thousand years ago.
Keep in mind, man was alive before 10,000 years ago. We walked and hunted the mammoths, etc.
Heh.
Independant, Shinto, Lesbian, and Proud!
Hate-mongers ftw!
You mean these hate-mongers ???
Are these guys fighting over a Tickle Me Elmo doll or something??? Whats up??
Don't be terrorized! You're more likely to die of a car accident, drowning, fire, or murder! More people die every year from prescription drugs than terrorism LOL!
I cannot understand people who blindy obey the bible to the word. I myself respect it for its teachings and values, but to me it is more a valuable collection of ethical views rather than a true holy book.
One should interprit the bible with open eyes and understand that its ancient teachings might not apply to our modern society.
im fully aware that there are more than just carbon dating. that wasnt me point. me point was that none of the methods used to date rocks and such are 100% accurate. its funny to me that when you can use one method to test a rock you can get one date. use another and get a completely different date, sometimes very different date (think millions of years), and then test it again with the first method and yet again a different date. and instead of saying ok, we dont have a clue as to the actual date of this rock, they just take all 3 tests and average it out, lol. no other science does this. if an instrument was proven to be inaccurate in any other type of experiment, the scientist would stop using the instrument or method and say, ok, that didnt work.
kk, on to another issue brought up, i dont wanna get pulled into a theological debate here (cause frankly, i dont really care if you believe like i believe), but i dont know anything that has ever disproven anything out of the Bible. i think youre reaching there, but youre going to start quoting textbook science to me and treat me like an idiot if i dont believe what you believe...its so funny to listen to evolutionists talk, they always build off of assumption adding assumption to assumption. before the end of the arguement, youll basicly tell me that im incapable of reasoning and illogical. youll accuse me of using God as a cop out and accuse for things that i cant explain. but oO well, i knew when i started posting in here that i was gonna run up against a science major that feels that they know everything.
the carabao example, thats called adaptation, not evolution. evolution is the changing on a DNA lvl, (adding and removing of genes and chromazones). its a known fact that all animals (including humans) have and can adapt to new environments. no animal or human or other has ever gained a gene or chromazone through evolution. that would be prove of evolution. you cant claim the losing of a chromazone or gene as proof. otherwise you would consider some of the diseases that happen as evolution. do you? most people consider the diseases that effect the DNA a mutation.
about the other peoples that were quoted as being before Adam and Eve, youre assuming that the carbon dating (or any other fallable method used) is accurate. so no amount of reasoning is going to be good enough for you.
about the iceage, if you understand the concept of a global wide flood then you understand that the iceage could indeed have happened, albeit, just alot sooner. personnally, i think that it makes more since for it to have happen within the last 6000 yrs, you quoted man hunting the mammoth, the Bible actually mentions him, as well as leviathan, a giant sea monster. wouldnt it make more sense that yes these creatures actually existed during this time? guess what, a global flood would indeed wipe out the dinosaurs. hmmmm......
in any case, youre going to believe what you wanna believe. i just wanted to put this out there.
______________________________
I have a campaign against pretty much anything that is organized and takes a stance that anyone in its organization is better than or more rightous than others outside of it. And that campaign includes anything from academic organizations to religious organizations to political organizations.
It scares me that part of human nature is the susceptibility to these organizations and the history that they have given us. I can't see myself being a part of an organization that throws out a blanket statement condemning a group of people. It's scary and it's going to lead eventually to misunderstandings of individuals and an excuse for people to consider anything different from them as wrong and worthy of mistreatment.
There are people I don't agree with. Tons of them. But I am not going to form an organization or join an organization who uses that disagreement as a way of coming together and forcing those people to conform or suffer the consequences. That's not allowing freedom of expression, nor is it showing tolerance or humanity.
I'm not against all religions either. I go to church. I go to a local Unitarian/Universalist church. We are a religious organization (although losely interpreted I submit). I don't have much against the Buddhist religion or a lot of the eastern religions. So to say I'm completely anti-religious is wrong too. And, for that matter, I have read interpretations of Christianity from some scholars that I can accept. What bothers me about Christianity mostly is Christians, or people who refer to themselves as Christians. I'm not so sure many of them are to be trusted in their claims.
As for those religions you posted who allegedly condemn homosexuality, seems that some of those are actually anywhere from tolerant to very accepting...
--------------------------------------------------
Religion
Groups not influenced by the Abrahamic
religions have sometimes regarded homosexuality as sacred, while a
negative view of homosexuality has been common in the Abrahamic
religions. In the wake of colonialism and imperialism undertaken by countries of the Abrahamic faiths some cultures have adopted new attitudes antagonistic towards homosexuality.
The world's largest organized body of religion, the Roman Catholic Church, requires homosexuals to practice chastity in the understanding that homosexual acts are "intrinsically disordered", and "contrary to the natural law".
In brief, Hinduism has taken various positions, ranging from positive to neutral or antagonistic. SikhismIt insists that all are expected to only have heterosexual relations
and only in the context of a marriage, describing homosexual tendencies
as "a trial", and stressing that people with such tendencies "must be
accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity." [25]
Distinguishing between "deep-seated homosexual tendencies" and those
that are "only the expression of a transitory problem", the Vatican
requires that any homosexual tendencies "must be clearly overcome at
least three years before ordination to the diaconate." [26]
has no written view on the matter, but Sikh (Punjabi) society is
generally ultra-masculine and conservative; toleration of any
homosexual behaviour or orientation is bound to meet outrage or strong
disapproval. However, other Sikhs believe that Guru Nanak's emphasis on
universal equality and brotherhood is fundamentally in support of
homosexuals' human rights. Confucianism has allowed homosexual sex with the precondition of procreation. Abrahamic religions have held varied views of homosexuality, depending on place, time and form of same-sex desire. Islam
regards love and desire for beautiful youths (adolescent men or boys)
as a natural temptation for all men, sexual relations however as a
transgression negatory of the natural role and aim of sexual activity. [27] Buddhism
traditionally did not concern itself with the gender of the beloved.
Contemporary Western Buddhists and many Japanese and Chinese schools
hold very accepting views, something that is traditionally allowed when
the relationship does not impede the birth of a child, while other
Eastern Buddhists, possibly since colonial times, have adopted
attitudes that scorn the practice. Christianity has traditionally condemned deliberately non-procreative sex, and while attitudes have in some sectors (e.g. Anglican Church, liberal Protestantism) been liberalised, the majority of denominations still view homosexual relationships as sinful. Judaism,
depending on the movement, is either liberal, conservative, or neutral
on the subject. The Orthodox-Jewish tradition generally views
homosexual sex as sinful, and homosexual attraction as out of the norm,
while Reform and Reconstructionism are often fully accepting of gay
attraction and sex. Conservative Judaism doesn't view attraction as
sinful. Homosexual acts are just thought of as being equal to breaking
any other of the mitzvot and therefore equally sinful. This movement,
however, does not admit openly gay Jews as rabbis, nor does it perform
commitment ceremonies. It is very open to it, and because of the
movement's belief in an "evolving Torah", the issue is very big in the movement today. Native American religions generally grant gender-variant individuals honoured status for their perceived spiritual powers. Shintoism, Discordianism, and Taoism regard homosexuality positively. Religions collectively termed "Pagan," including Druidism and Wicca, are also accepting in general.
me problem with picking and choosing what i will and will not believe is this, im fallable. i make mistakes. lots of them (one is prolly being in this thread, lol). so for me to say that know something, is kinda like saying i believe that the world is indeed flat. been proven differently, you say? really? how so, ive never traveled further than 300 miles from where i was born (i have actually, but for the example....well im sure you get it). so all the pictures and such of the earth are just a clever hoax to me. because i choose to ignore anything that i dont wanna believe.
now im not saying you have to believe me or for that matter anyone. but what i am saying is that when i hear someone make the statement that, "I have read interpretations of Christianity from some scholars that I can accept." me first thoughts are, "ok, so this is a person that believes that they are infallable." now i know that wasnt what you were saying, but still you gotta admit that is exactly what it means. im not saying that you should follow a religion blindly or take everything that you read at face value. im just saying that you dont fully know what is and is not completely true. the only one that knows everything is God. we can only hope to get glimpses of the full truth. please dont take offense to this, it is not meant offensively. just stating that just because you state something, it doesnt mean that you might not be wrong. what i say might be wrong. but then again, im not telling people that a certain religion cant be trusted either. anyway, take from this what you will, its just me own opinion.
______________________________
