Blank

That shows you how intelligent and rational they are... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> yeah it does. so your sarcasm is way off... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Is not the fact that sarcasm is way off the very reason that it is on?

I'd hang the hamster on a cross and tauntingly ask why it can't save itself if it is god.

Sadly, it sounds only too believable. Is that TV series still going to happen? Let's hope it's successful and distracts Mr. Lucas from attempting to make movies. It might be quite good, as presumably George isn't actually going to be writing it. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> an episode 7 SW movie couldn't be that bad guys... the movies already bottomed out in bad quality. it can only get better. So with that in mind, I want an episode 7 with the old Mark Hammil. But if possible, I don't want George to write it.

That shows you how intelligent and rational they are...

the best one too use is to say dat they are bad at spellin, cuz that ones so easy and troo at the same time

people always seem to phrase that so disdainfully using "stagnation". How about using a nice word like,"preservation" or "consistancy".

ah, thanks for the clarification. When i "refered" to the bible though, i was refering to where i got my belief, not using it as "evidence". and okay, if evidence, means something testable, then evidence is still not needed for my faith. In this case, i think we agree that ID cannot be scientific.

That comment was very relative to you. I judge it as a cheap shot to the people holding opposing beliefs to yours. You are the one who dignifies things by debating them. What if, by not debating something, you are giving it more dignity by symbolising your fear that you may not be able to disprove it? Relative to me, the evidence is all around me, manifest in what i call "creation" ( I refer to Romans 1:18-20= "The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities

sorry man... there were just too many options. plus i always thought revan would be a better guy character. so please continue voting in my biased poll.

Well, start voting...

You forgot to add Pixies' trademark saying, "Am I right fellas? I mean, am I right?"

Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom of harassment and/or discrimination. And verbal hatred is harassment/discrimination in my book. you're my favourite now.

<{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.