Blank

<{POST_SNAPBACK}> What? :D <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I just noticed your post count doesn't look cool anymore! What happened!?

That school board member was right when she said it's going to make Kansas a laughingstock. And you know what's worse? Kansas is just the first state to do it. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> lol. I laugh because it is so true. Imposing upon the world of science is not the best way of conversion IMO, if conversion is even their intention. They are either trying to convert people to their way of thinking, or they are trying to make life easier for themselves. But that once again confuses me, for if the latter is true, then they must not believe that being persecuted avails rewards from God, and therefore, they don't seem to be following the heart of God as presented in the Bible. I think they should welcome their own contrast with the rest of the world, and look at themselves as a light in a world of darkness [but they should still be humble, mind you. This wouldn't give them any right to do whatever they want (e.g. start wars) because they believe they are light and everything else is darkness. On the contrary, the very motive behind starting wars would put them into darkness as Jesus says in 1 John 2:9= Anyone who claims to be in the light but hates his brother is still in the darkness]

I disagree, because it actually says that science is the study of the physical world alone (and the physical world's manifestations). So I think you meant to say that science for the rest of the world does not include natural phenomenon unless it is making itself manifest in the physical world. But it does not say that the explanations for natural phenomenon come only from the physical world. If what you said is true, then there is nothing other than the physical world.

The problem I believe with Kansas' definition is that anything can become logical with a little finesse and forgeting that it can be basaed on false premise. also natural phenomenon sounds a bit mystical, It suggest to me that science can't be taken seriously. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I think in Kansas' definition, they are merely labeling 'the physical world' as natural phenomenon. IMO both definitions are basically the same. And BTW, can't anything become logical with a little finesse and forgetting

Thanks for trying to save me too. The effort is appreciated. I did say that i was dissappointed that i believe that good non-believers will go to hell. I did not say that i felt it was unjust. It is dissappointing because somebody who had a well-lived life for the most part, did not accept God's grace. That is dissappointing. It's harder to see a good friend reject Christ than it is to see one such as Hitler reject Christ. Fear is said to be a bad way to govern places, but what if the fear is well-merited. God is to be feared (or rather, revered and taken seriously) because He is just, and He will punish where punishment is due. It's more of a warning: don't sin, because God's terrible wrath will be upon you. It's too late for us to take that warning, because we'll already be punished eternally if we don't have Christ to absolve us.

No. What gives you the right to tell me how to live my life? I want a serious answer. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Was I telling you how to live your life? no. I never said,"You need to live your life this way..." I did petition to you to accept what i believe to be your eternal salvation. If you were at an airport, and a person came up to you and said,"i really think you should check where your luggage is right now, because i believe i saw it get knocked off of the converyor belt." I am saying the same thing to you, except we are not in an airport, and instead of luggage we are talking about your soul.

What if we don't want him? I'm still not getting why evangelicals get to incessantly preach to us infidels. Other than the whole free speech thing. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> In the 24th page of this thread, i wrote that Julianw had a good viewpoint about this subject: I consider that to be a really mature viewpoint, i.e. it is looking at the motives behind the actions. I have heard some people ask other Christians who don't do much to evanglalise,"if you think everyone without Jesus is going to hell, and you are just sitting here doing nothing about it, it's the same as if you sat at a bus stop watching people walk into the middle of the road to get hit by the bus and you aren't doing anything to stop them." Looking at it that way, a non-Christian looking to find flaws with Christians would have extra proof to use for saying Christians are hypocrites, just because the Christians aren't evangalising. <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I am not hating them. I DO NOT HATE HOMOSEXUALS! and just in case you guys are going to look over what i just wrote, i will repeat myself, I HAVE NOT WRITTEN ANYTHING THAT EVEN SUGGESTS THAT I HATE HOMESEXUALS, BECAUSE I DON'T! what i wrote, was a possibility for an unexplained thing LIKE I JUST SAID AND LIKE YOU JUST QUOTED!!!!!!!!!!! HOW IS THAT HATING PEOPLE!?!??!?! ITS NOT!!!!! compassion... um, what instance of mine are you referring to? I don't think of myself as superior to anybody. I have sinned like everyone else and am guilty of the same penalty. The only difference is that I have accepted Christ as my saviour whereas other people haven't, but that difference doesn't mean that i now am hating the people who don't believe in Jesus Christ as their saviour. It means, if anything, that I am trying to reach out to others and offer Christ to them too. o yeah, and by the way, I DON'T HATE ANYBODY!

You're joking right? Didn't we already discuss that because people claim to be following a religion doesn't always mean that they and their actions represent the religion itself. I am sure most people agree with me when I say that just because there are extremist muslims, doesn't mean that they are the only ones who represent what Islam is.

I really struck a nerve there : ( Sorry again... but what i said doesn't attack anybody directly. Like i said before, it is a possibility that i thought was interesting. So if you think that suggesting possibilities for unexplained things is wrong, then what was the point of this whole thread? (e.g. How did the world and humans get here? One possibility is in the Bible: God created the world and humans. OR How did AIDS come into being? On possibility is in the Bible: there is a punishment for men commiting indecent acts with other men, and that might be AIDS.)

Hey now, I was definitely not saying,"AIDS IS CUZ GOD IS PUNISHING HOMOSEXUALS!" I was merely invoking the thought: "i guess that AIDS seems like a possible punishment from God since the text says,'Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.' " Sorry, but i always thought that was an interesting verse because it is a possibility to explain something that people don't know the reason for. Doesn't this mean than that there aren't any good people except for Christians? Only Christians can be good. All who don't share the Christian faith are wicked, because: This kind of idea always struck me as odd, because it seems intolerant and unjust, yet most Christians that I know personally are tolerant and caring people, often committed to inter-faith dialogue and helping their fellow man. How do you reconcile these two opposing positions? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I am not saying that one cannot do a rightous act if they are not Christian. I actually said there are good people who don't have Christ: "So it is dissappointing for me to accept that good people who are not saved from their sins will still go to hell." So sorry if i sounded like i was saying "YOU ARE ALWAYS WRONG IF YOU DON'T HAVE JESUS AND I AM THE ONLY ONE WHO CAN DO THE RIGHT THING ALONG WITH OTHER CHRISTIANS", because I certainly did not mean that.

I consider that to be a really mature viewpoint, i.e. it is looking at the motives behind the actions. I have heard some people ask other Christians who don't do much to evanglalise,"if you think everyone without Jesus is going to hell, and you are just sitting here doing nothing about it, it's the same as if you sat at a bus stop watching people walk into the middle of the road to get hit by the bus and you aren't doing anything to stop them." Looking at it that way, a non-Christian looking to find flaws with Christians would have extra proof to use for saying Christians are hypocrites, just because the Christians aren't evangalising.

Thx for the reminder : ) I am actually really enjoying this thread, reading it and inputting my own opinions. And I am also disgusted with the fact that priests have molested children, and other people who are not believers in Christianity are what I would consider people with better values. In the end though, it is unfortunate that the non-Christians with better morals are still under the wrath of God, since their sins have not been forgiven them. Will the priest still go to heaven? well, his sins have been absolved by the blood of Jesus Christ, so i believe, even though he is much more deprave compared to what he should be, he would still go to heaven. In heaven though, his actions on earth will be judged, and God may not reward him as much as He would to a more rightous person. God rewarding Christians in heaven is not so the Christians can have more glory, but it is for the Christians to have something of value to give back to God as an offering (such as the elders casting down their crowns before the Lord). And Christians will choose to do that because then they will see God in His true infinite glory. So it is dissappointing for me to accept that good people who are not saved from their sins will still go to hell. Does that mean God is unjust? First of all, I consider whatever God does to be the definition of "just". Secondly though, I also believe that God gives everyone a chance to accept Christ as their saviour. Many people say the flaw in this belief is: What about people on a remote island who are untouched by any outside influence and therefore can't hear the gospel? My answer to that is: Did Abraham hear the gospel? No he didn't, but in Hebrews it says he is justified by his faith, and God accounted that to him for rightousness. And the people on a remote island or whatever who have never heard the gospel are still without excuse as it says in the book of Romans.

Actually, Kobayashi Maru is a type of highly-contagious toe fungus prevalent in the African Sahara, and is also commonly associated with the demonic mythical bird of the same name... :ph34r:

Alright. Might want to look at who actually compiled the New Testament, though... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I have just now briefly looked and am presenting a couple things i found in this post. (although, i already have faith that God compiled it, but i know that doesn't count much in a faith-objective viewpoint.) ------------------------------------------------- http://www.gotquestions.org/canon-Bible.html "For the New Testament, the process of the recognition and collection began in the first centuries of the Christian church. Very early on, some of the New Testament books were being recognized. Paul considered Luke

Lay off the Christian propaganda. Jess LaVey is a known born again Christian. Though I agree on the scumbag part. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> yeah, since he is a known christian, then everything he does now makes all christians hypocrites. and even though he is a scumbag, the stuff he writes is still the bestest literature ever

looks like someone is generalising followers of religions again... You'll put your faith, on the other hand, in the judgment of a council of bishops, convening hundreds of years after the death of Jesus, as to what ought to consist of his gospel, though? Personally, i put my faith in the Bible, which I believe to be God's own words, not in councils of bishops or whatever else. The earth is older than the Bible says it is? So you think that if God created everything (which is my belief), then he would not have the earth already well-developed as it would be if it had existed for a long long time? You think God would create an uninhabitable piece of rock and then put people on it? No, God is not stupid. He wants people to live on the earth, so why wouldn't He make it in the way that it would be had it existed for a long long time? OH NO! THATS WRONG BECAUSE GOD CAN'T DO THAT! I ASSUME SO... right.... God made people imperfect? OH YEAH! HE MADE THEM WITH ALL THESE FLAWS JUST TO PUNISH PEOPLE BECAUSE HE IS SADISTIC. YEAH, BECAUSE I SAY SO. AND OBVIOUSLY IF HE GIVES US FREE WILL AND WE DECIDE TO DISOBEY HIM, THEN THAT MEANS THAT IT IS HIS FAULT THAT WE CHOSE TO DISOBEY HIM. HIS FAULT! NOT OURS! HE MADE THE DECISION FOR US. I KNOW BECAUSE I SAY SO. HUMANS ARE SMARTER THAN ALL OTHER CREATURES ON EARTH, AND I AM HUMAN, SO OBVIOUSLY I AM SMARTER THAN GOD! GOD CAN'T MAKE US WITH FREE WILL AND STILL HAVE US NOT DISOBEY HIM BECAUSE THEN IT WOULD NOT BE FREE WILL. THERE IS NO OTHER SCENARIO THAN THIS ONE I JUST MADE. SO THAT MEANS THAT GOD IS NOT OMNIPOTENT. BECAUSE I SAY SO. WE ARE ALL JUST A RAT IN A CAGE DESPITE ALL OF OUR RAGE, BECAUSE I SAY SO. GOD HAS TO BE RIGHT BY MY STANDARDS OF WHAT RIGHT IS, BECAUSE I INVENTED 'RIGHT', NOT GOD. GOD DID NOT INVENT 'RIGHT', SO HIS VERSION IS WRONG, BECAUSE I SAY SO. sure...

vengeful? i think it is actually just, considering that sin represents our rebellion toward God. But then of course, its not surprising that i would think of it that way... Jesus lived His whole life in obedience to God, i.e. He did not sin throughout His whole life. God couldn't use Peter as a sacrifice because he sinned and needed forgiveness himself. Plus Peter wasn't the Son of God, and hadn't been prophecied about.

Have you seen me? or are you just guessing what i look like and drawing that... hmm, i am bad at jokes... sorry. i'd better shut up for now.

Crazy? No, ....This joke sucks...

Judges 16:27-30 - "Now the house was full of men and women ... about three thousand men and women.... And Samson called unto the Lord, and said ... strengthen me ... that I may be at once avenged of the Philistines.... And Samson took hold of the two middle pillars upon which the house stood..... And Samson said, Let me die with the Philistines. And he bowed himself with all his might; and the house fell upon the lords, and upon all the people that were therein. So the dead which he slew at his death were more than they which he slew in his life. " Lev. 24:16 - "He that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him." Lev. 21:9 - "And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire." Dt. 13:6 - "If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth; Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die." 2 Chr. 15:13 - "Whosoever would not seek the LORD God of Israel should be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman." Ps. 58:10 - "The righteous shall rejoice when he seeth the vengeance: he shall wash his feet in the blood of the wicked. " Sounds pretty violent to me. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Oh, well then i guess you are a member of the one of the twelve tribes of Israel and you have gone back in time to when those rules were enacted in the tribes. Sure these passages are violent. But the Bible doesn't permit US to violence. God ordered them to do such drastic things (i.e. put to death those not seeking the Lord) because He wanted His people to remain pure and undefiled from the rest of the world. If God said to His chosen people,"Put to death those who don't follow me, but ya'know, you don't really have to do that. And i won't do much other than scold you for it." Hmmm, doesn't sound like an effective command to me. Did I mention that God hates sin? (-Isaiah 13:9- See, the day of the LORD is coming

lol. sorry if i sound threatening. you don't have to trust me, but that's why i am quoting the Bible, so that you don't have to listen to some other random guy talk about his version of religion/faith/worldview. I am just presenting the Bible into this discussion about evolution and creationism. I didn't think that would be such a bad thing... This comes from that article: "The document shows how far the Catholic Church has come since the 17th century, when Galileo was condemned as a heretic for flouting a near-universal belief in the divine inspiration of the Bible by advocating the Copernican view of the solar system. Only a century ago, Pope Pius X condemned Modernist Catholic scholars who adapted historical-critical methods of analysing ancient literature to the Bible." Just because the Catholic Church in the past has adopted theories that have since been proven wrong (copernican view of the solar system) doesn't mean that the Bible is now touting the same views. The Bible doesn't delve into those types of things. Just because the Catholic Church in the past made decisions to condenm so-called "heretics" like Galileo, doesn't mean that the Bible says Galileo is condenmed on the basis of his theories. Another part of that article:" They go on to condemn fundamentalism for its 'intransigent intolerance' and to warn of 'significant dangers' involved in a fundamentalist approach. Such an approach is dangerous, for example, when people of one nation or group see in the Bible a mandate for their own superiority, and even consider themselves permitted by the Bible to use violence against others.

Most of the things in the first link are really simple to explain. for example, was Abraham justified by faith or by works? Well, his works showed his faith. so saying he was justified by his works in this case would mean that he is justified by his faith. (sarcasm ->) NO! BECAUSE ABRAHAM COULD'VE JUST SAT AROUND AND HAD FAITH WITHOUT HAVING TO DO ANYTHING. AND THAT SHOWS HIS FAITH BECAUSE HE IS NOT GIVING UP ANYTHING OF VALUE TO GOD AND SO DOING NOTHING IS WHAT HE COULD'VE DONE! um...no. By doing the works (taking his only son Isaac to be sacrificed), he showed his faithfulness to God (God asked him to do this and stopped him from killing his son because He is not a sick God. and then he provided a ram for the sacrifice instead.) I have to go eat breakfast now, so I'll be back later and try to defend my reasoning for my beliefs then.

For this Trye thing, I have an explanation which i believe to be very viable and logical. First, if you want to read some Bible, I recommend the book of Jonah. It is very short and it is also where I will be deriving my explanation from. Jonah 1:1-2=The word of the LORD came to Jonah son of Amittai: "Go to the great city of Nineveh and preach against it, because its wickedness has come up before me." Okay, so we see here that God is commissioning Jonah to preach against the city of Nineveh because it is such a bad place. Jonah, being a Jewish nationalist, and wanting the Assyrians (an enemy of Israel) to be destroyed, did not want to preach against them and tell them to repent (because he knew God would be compassionate if they did so (Jonah 4:1-2= But Jonah was greatly displeased and became angry. He prayed to the LORD, "O LORD, is this not what I said when I was still at home? That is why I was so quick to flee to Tarshish. I knew that you are a gracious and compassionate God, slow to anger and abounding in love, a God who relents from sending calamity.) So, Jonah flees from God (or tries to) and goes down to Joppa, which is on the coast of Israel, finds a ship, and heads for Tarshish (Jonah 1:3. now guys, if you ever try to run away from God, common sense tells you not to go over water in a ship. That makes it too easy for God to stop you. jk). Next, in Jonah 1:4-17 God sends a storm and everybody on the ship finds out that Jonah is disobeying God, so Jonah has them throw him off the ship to stop them all from dying and he gets swallowed by a big fishy fish (if he didn't get swallowed then he probably would've drowned, neh? so this fish sent from God was a good thing for Jonah.) While in the fish, Jonah prays to God a prayer of repentance and the fish barfs him up on the coast (Jonah 2). Jonah at this point is probably pretty grody looking. He has been living in the stomach juices of a fish for 3 days and nights, so his skin is probably bleached and his hair (if he has any left) is probably bleached too. He would be quite a sight. God tells Jonah to go preach against Ninevah again and this time Jonah does so. The first time he preaches against them, the king and people respond and put on sackcloth and fast (signs of mourning). Now here is the main point of my post here: Jonah 3:10= When God saw what they did and how they turned from their evil ways, he had compassion and did not bring upon them the destruction he had threatened. Oh look! wow, God shows compassion and relents from His wrath. (sarcasm->) NO! HE SAID HE WOULD DO SOMETHING AND NOW HE HAS TO DO IT BECAUSE THE BIBLE HAS TO CONTRADICT ITSELF!!!! um... no. So my explanation is simple. God is forgiving, and it could be that when the people of Trye heard Ezekial's message, they chose to repent and God chose to forgive them. Many years later, the Ninevites reverted to their old wicked ways and God brought the destruction upon them then. So they did eventually get destroyed, but 300 years later or something like that. Oh look! wow, Trye too was destroyed many years after the prophecy said. Maybe they repented, and God relented for a while until they didn't repent and became evil again and then God took them out. (sarcasm ->) NO! BECAUSE THE BIBLE HAS TO CONTRADICT ITSELF SO THATS NOT POSSIBLE!!!!!!! um... no. Anyway, my explanation is very reasonable and logical and does not involve any twists on words or whatever to work. I am sure anybody would agree that this scenario is a viable possibility for Trye and actually makes a lot of sense. Sorry if i offended anybody again, and i am not judging you either.

lol. yeah, I am going to stick with my belief that the Bible is infallible. But if somebody came up to me and had undeniable proof that some parts of it are not true, then i would have to agree with them. And i don't incriminate studying the Bible's origin, i actually would encourage that. because i doubt that it will be proven to have been written by some crazy guy on drugs around 0 BC, and because i think more studying will help prove its truth even more, or if anything, purge it of its falsehoods. For example, there was a section of the NKJ version of the Bible where they later realised they had mistranslated, and so they rewrote it to be correct and that was that.