New here? Register in under one minute Already a member? Login

244985 questions, 1084399 answers

Dear Cupid > Forums > Cupid's Lounge > In Response to Anja - 'God'

In Response to Anja - 'God'

, posted over a year ago

People who aren't fundamental in their religion or people who don't follow some sort of religion, generally get riled up from those who point out that "God loves all of us", "God wouldn't do this to people" or "God isn't stupid, he is very wise", etc. Then followed by comments like "Everyone else don't know any better", or "If you don't put your faith into God, then you will never understand", etc.

For me, I've had my massive share of religious people coming to me, condemning me and annoying the crap out of me, even throwing a major fit and telling his entire family, including me and my family and friends that we will all go to lala hell and boil for all of eternity. I mean, that guy and those people really need to chill out. Go have a dip in the pool or eat a buck of ice cream!

What really gets me are those who arrive at my door - EVEN when I explicitly tell them no soliciting, telling me that we should go give their church a try. When that doesn't work, they bring some hot asian girl with the pastor and try to lure me in. Last time that happened, I couldn't stop laughing. The pastor was irritated and asked me what was so funny and responded something like, "You couldn't get me in last time, so you brought bait eh?"

Anyway, Anja's last comment on that girl's post "If there is no God why do all of you care to make a comment for/against Him, good or bad?" - it IS about ignorance. You automatically think that if we talk about God, then there is a god, or at least in your POV, a Christian God.

Now I'm an agnostic and I hate calling myself that. Whatever is out there is out there, whether I believe in it or not. To me, it doesn't matter. If it's all in our head for the last 4000 years, then whatever, who the fuck cares? Seems like the people of Islam, Christ, and Judaism really care about this. Here's taken from my blog - just some humorous FYI:

10 - You vigorously deny the existence of thousands of gods claimed by other religions, but feel outraged when someone denies the existence of yours.

9 - You feel insulted and “dehumanized” when scientists say that people evolved from other life forms, but you have no problem with the Biblical claim that we were created from dirt.

8 - You laugh at polytheists, but you have no problem believing in a Triune God.

7 - Your face turns purple when you hear of the “atrocities” attributed to Allah, but you don’t even flinch when hearing about how God/Jehovah slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in “Exodus” and ordered the elimination of entire ethnic groups in “Joshua” including women, children, and trees!

6 - You laugh at Hindu beliefs that deify humans, and Greek claims about gods sleeping with women, but you have no problem believing that the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, who then gave birth to a man-god who got killed, came back to life and then ascended into the sky.

5 - You are willing to spend your life looking for little loopholes in the scientifically established age of Earth (few billion years), but you find nothing wrong with believing dates recorded by Bronze Age tribesmen sitting in their tents and guessing that Earth is a few generations old.

4 - You believe that the entire population of this planet with the exception of those who share your beliefs — though excluding those in all rival sects - will spend Eternity in an infinite Hell of Suffering. And yet consider your religion the most “tolerant” and “loving.”

3 - While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot rolling around on the floor speaking in “tongues” may be all the evidence you need to “prove” Christianity.

2 - You define 0.01% as a “high success rate” when it comes to answered prayers. You consider that to be evidence that prayer works. And you think that the remaining 99.99% FAILURE was simply the will of God.

1 - You actually know a lot less than many atheists and agnostics do about the Bible, Christianity, and church history - but still call yourself a Christian.

Anyway, it just irritates me when the mention of God and stuff get into the personal lives of the many. Faith? Yeah how contradictory. If you have faith in Christ, why are you in mathematics, as a scientist, as a medic, as a person in business? Would you not leave everything to Christ and God and trust that they will provide everything for you? Would you not leave the will of change up to them?

Why learn about the human body, when it is supposedly the will of God that diseases, illness, and similar things happen to people? The tsunami that killed millions, devastated the lands, the hurricane that destroyed New Orleans, the constant tornadoes that tear through the states, the massive floods that kills thousands in China - why become a medic/doctor/nurse, when it is supposedly the will of God? Doesn't God have a purpose for all these things?

You say God helps people, that it is wise, and is not stupid and loves everyone - how the fuck do you know that? Because a book says that? How is God wise when it can't even 'write' a book in different languages in the first place, and how could he be wise if the Bible did not and cannot state the exact laws of living? Through the centuries, wars have ensued from the different interpretations of the bible. Many denominations have risen throughout the millenia - Jehovah's, Mormons, Evangelists, etc.

Anyway, I can go on, but my wrists hurt and I'm at work. I don't expect anyone to add to this, BUT, these are some of my thoughts.

Summary: I am Canadian, and I love Kokanee. [wink]

Posted on 20 June 2006 @ 20:59 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

, posted over a year ago

What do you think of Stephen Hawking?

In that the universe is infinite and even the atom, electron = and Stephen theory that there is indeed something smaller than an electron-to the fact that it is believed that electrons and neutrons lose or gain energy and bounce back and forth between levels of energy denote this idea of the universe being infinite.

Also take the "energy never dies; it transforms" as science's way of denoting there is a higher power.

We are part of this higher power and parts of us will never die.

I say that there are many Gods but we, the people of this Earth were created by one supreme power.

I believe this one supreme power wants for us to be happy; to learn and grow in wisdom. This Earth is a place where we can grow and be happy.

This power loves all and set the world in motion with man to rule over in "righteous dominion".

We are to discern between good and bad. We have the gift of free agency. We have the capacity to do all things in greatness. We are beautiful and amazing.

Each person has within them the power to do great good or great harm.

In the end the message is to do good and do no harm.

Simplify things and we are all united; we all belong, we all are one.

Posted on 27 August 2006 @ 17:17 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

, posted over a year ago

I rather we unite as one than to have people believe in many. My motto since I was a teen was/is: "Unity equals progression."

For example, two weeks ago, I had an argument with another senior designer at our firm. However, I stopped and looked at it as a whole and instead of debating over and over again, I said to myself, "There is little progression if we continue this. The good of this project is for the company. We must unite our minds, so the project can progress."

This ideal works for everything. 8]

I was watching a thingy on string theory - things that make up the basics of everything, smaller than atoms and they supposedly vibrate too! 8]

I lost my train of thought. Went downstairs to get chicken. Mmm... Chicken... Yum!

Posted on 27 August 2006 @ 21:13 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

, posted over a year ago

Basics of String Theory: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory

I'll have more thoughts on Stephen Hawking when I'm not so hung over. Domo arigato [bows].

Posted on 27 August 2006 @ 21:15 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

bonym, posted over a year ago

Where did all this come from Martini, whats with insulting Christianity all about. You may be agnostic thats great, but why the long rant about Christianity? Me for example, I strongly go against the TRINITY, not all Christians believe in the Triune God, and I am one who believes in the oneness of God, I dont think its fair that you rant on like this, we all have different opinions, and thats fine. You believe what you believe and me and Anja believe what we believe. Thank you

Posted on 27 August 2006 @ 21:55 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

Serene Katy, posted over a year ago

Amen

Posted on 27 August 2006 @ 22:7 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

bonym, posted over a year ago

Dear Martini, As I feel so strongly on this I will add my 10 excerpts, the opposite of what you have written:

10 - You vigorously deny the existence of thousands of gods claimed by other religions, but feel outraged when someone denies the existence of yours.

WHO SAID I WE DENY THE EXISTENCE OF OTHER GODS? THERE ARE MANY DIFFERENT GODS ACCORDING TO PEOPLE, BUT IN MY REALITY THERE IS ONLY ONE TRUE GOD, I DONT CARE ABOUT WHOM ANYONE ELSE BELIEVES IN, TO ME ONLY JESUS IS GOD

9 - You feel insulted and “dehumanized” when scientists say that people evolved from other life forms, but you have no problem with the Biblical claim that we were created from dirt.

WHO SAID WE FEEL DEHUMANISED? I JUST THINK ITS PIFFLE THAT WE EVOLVED FROM APES, BUT IF THE BIBLE SAYS MAN WAS CREATED FROM DIRT, THEN GOD BEING GOD CAN DO ANYTHING. GET OVER IT.

8 - You laugh at polytheists, but you have no problem believing in a Triune God.

I DO NOT BELIVE IN THE TRINITY, THE BIBLE SAYS I AND MY FATHER ARE ONE, AND THAT WAS JESUS TALKING. JESUS IS THE IMAGE OF GOD, THERE ARE NO THREE SEPARATE BEINGS, ONLY ONE GOD, JESUS CHRIST

ERRM WHAT THE HELL? I DONT TURN UP MY FACE AGAINST ALLAH AT ALL, WHERE DID THAT COME FROM?

WHO SAID I LAUGH AT HINDUS? YOU MIGHT BUT I DONT

YAWN

HELL WASNT MADE FOR MAN BUT FOR THE DEVIL AND HIS DEMONS, MAN DECIDES HE WANTS TO GO TO HELL, NOT GOD

HOW DARE YOU CALL SOMEONE AN IDIOT, WHO SAYS HE IS AN IDIOT, YOU SHOULD NEVER BLASPHEME THE HOLY GHOST

WHAT THE HELL?

1 - You actually know a lot less than many atheists and agnostics do about the Bible, Christianity, and church history - but still call yourself a Christian.

THATS RIDICULOUS, JUST COS YOU KNOW MORE ABOUT SOMETHING DOESNT QUALIFY YOU TO BE THAT PERSON, A CHRISTIAN IS A FOLLOWER OF CHRIST, I DONT GIVE A FLYING F*** IF YOU KNOW MORE ABOUT THE BIBLE THAN ME, I KNOW A LOT ABOUT DRUGS BUT YET I DONT TAKE THEM NOR HAVE I EVER TAKEN THEM SO THATS AN INVALID COMMENT

It amazes me how people are so quick to insult another persons faith and make assuptions like you have done which are not true of a lot of Christians and of me in particular, As a Christian I have never once cast judgement on anyone and I dont bash people with my faith yet you have the audacity to come out with all that ranting and insults. Its not fair.

Posted on 27 August 2006 @ 22:50 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

DearCupid, posted over a year ago

FWIW I strongly suspect that Anja was a "troll", when I was nuking someone else's accounts who was posting garbage, the Anja one was from the same IP. Not 100% certain but fairly sure.

Posted on 27 August 2006 @ 23:1 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

bonym, posted over a year ago

Oh I see, well thanks for that info! I have noticed that she has not been on the scene for ages!!!!

Thank you

Posted on 27 August 2006 @ 23:5 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

bonym, posted over a year ago

Martini, please dont think that I want to turn this into some argument, I dont, but I get very hurt when you make assumptions. I have no problem with you or your beliefs, but please dont be so insulting next time. Thank you.

Posted on 27 August 2006 @ 23:25 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

, posted over a year ago

First of all, those 10 points were not mine. I took them from another post from Craigslist. The link is here: http://vancouver.craigslist.org/about/best/phx/167335230.html - as you can see, it was posted on June 2nd, 2006, where as mine was June 13th on my blog page.

If you want to go rant your ass off, you can do there instead.

As for why I am against Christianity - I am not. I am against religion as a whole. However, Christianity has ALWAYS been the one to come up in almost everything I associate myself with before I learned to NOT associate myself with it in the first place.

I may have an unreasonable amount of patience for many things, but I have a very low tolerance for people who exert religion on others - who talk about religion as they say that they do not judge others, yet they have the tenacity to say they themselves know the truth. THAT IN ITSELF IS A JUDGEMENT.

You say you don't judge others. Just because your thoughts are unspoken, does not mean you do not judge others. You proclaim that you know the truth. That means that everyone else is following the wrong thing. You say you have no problem for others believing in whatever they believe in as long as you believe in what you believe in.

In Christianity (as with many other single-god religions), the religion is absolute. There is NO SUCH THING AS MULTI-VARIOUS interpretations. THE REASON WHY SO MANY RELIGIOUS PEOPLE HAVE A MULTITUDE OF interpretations is the absolute fact that religion itself is NOT DEFINED. YET YOU HAVE THE TENACITY TO SAY IT IS THE TRUTH.

BY WHAT MATTER, SUBJECT, AND HISTORICAL EVENT THAT YOU YOURSELF AS AN INDIVIDUAL HAS HAD THE opportunity to witness and experience to say that YOUR RELIGION IS THE ABSOLUTE TRUTH?

I once had the opportunity to argue the case of religion with someone who was a lot more in-tuned with his religion than most that I have had the chance to meet and/or talk with. His usual argument with me was to ask, "Why not?"

I told him that I understand why religion must exist on this planet. Without it, many people will not have a focus in their lives. Many people need religion as a form of self-realization that do in fact exist for a purpose higher than themselves alone.

He asked me if someone had attacked my beliefs, shouldn't I be hurt. I grinned and answered that I would not. If I was a person who only focusses myself on a religion, and use that to live through life in this world, than sure, I may cry and become overly defensive. However, I do not need religion to tell me who I am and what my purpose is in this world, in this life. Thus, your rants, as well as Anja's sparked a sensitive cord in my moral code.

It is the usual 'tactic' that I have experienced throughout my entire 22 years since I've gained self-awareness, that 90% of the Christians I have met or talk with would counter attack, or declare a defensive position for the supposed peace they have achieved through their own religion, then when they have made their voices heard, they would quickly shut down the argument and say, "I don't want to talk about this anymore. I don't want to hear what you have to say because what you have to say does not involve me."

The just of it. Of course, there are many other verbal forms - some more polite, others more blunt.

I am very intolerant of Christians. Alas, I have three Christian friends - very close ones. One of them I have known for 20 years this month. Never once in my entire life that we've been friends, has he every preached his beliefs to me. The only time I ever hear ANYTHING to do with Christianity from him is when he invites me to his religious events. The other friend who is Christian is not so tactful, but that's a story I will not get into. Then the last friend who is Christian whom her boyfriend, which is my brother who is more Buddhist gave a lot, sacrificed a lot for her. I questioned my brother and said, "You would accept a church wedding for her, yet she absolutely declines to step foot in a temple for Guan Yin because she feels it is against her beliefs. I feel very insulted. If she wasn't your wife-to-be, she would not be my friend and future sister."

I wish, with all of my heart, that religion be abolished and that people start learning about themselves, their families, their duties and obligations to the state. Following religion is fine IF it was unified. Alas, if Christianity was absolute, or if Islam is absolute, etc, then wouldn't the people of the world be unified then?

Then would there be no denominations or factions of a belief? Then would there be no versions and 'necessary' translations for the Bible or the Koran?

If a religion is absolute, then the point of having a separated people, having separated ideals, having the emotions of lust and torment - would they all not contradict the whole idea of a religion being absolute? Rather than it starting in one place of the world at a time when the world was torn asunder by the egos of an emperor?

Of course not. It doesn't work that way. If today someone who resembles a son of god were to come out, the world's population would ridicule that person because of learned wit and intelligence. Of course, 2000 years ago, people burned women at a stake, just because she can practice medicine, heal people using alternative means, or believe in another invisible man. 2000 years later, if we were to hang a woman or burn her at a stake for practicing Buddhism or using Chih-Gong or Pagan worshipping or anything like that, those same people would go to jail.

Assumptions you say? I never say all. I always say relativity. For my last example, I have a cousin who I had the opportunity to become friends with a long time ago. Back then, he was a very good person, laid back enough, and loved to play and joke. Years later, after he joined a church in the UK, he came back to Hong Kong, and every day, he would denounce my aunt and uncle and his sister for not becoming Christians. He continued to pester them saying that they will not be saved, will go to hell and burn forever. He would then cry and burst out of the house, slamming the doors, and going to his church where the pastor would calm him and say pretty much what you have said.

Anyway, bottom line is that, my only problem with religion of today is that people exert their will even when they don't verbally say it. As with Malyce Synn, I believe in oneness - unity, togetherness. I love that idea. I wish that the people of this world can do it, but it can't and it will never happen. Lest it turns out like the world in Equilibrium.

IF YOU TRULY believe in your own beliefs, then NOTHING I say can make you cry or make you sad, or at the very least, make u upset. Like a tree, it serves its purpose to create air, to create seeds, to create flowers. If you attack it with your sword, it may bleed sap, but it will continue to grow and serve its purpose. Unless of course, you strike it down and make it into firewood.

As with I, the only thing I 'need' to do to stand up for my beliefs, is to be myself. When people of religion cause strife, to attach my beliefs, I laugh whole-heartedly and say this, "And exactly what are you attacking? My beliefs are infallible, because it exists only in here [points to my heart] and no where else. It needs not to be written. It needs not have churches nor temples be built for it. It needs not pastors, priests, nuns, or monks to preach it. And finally, it need not congretations of men and women, boys and girls to follow it."

[bows]

Posted on 28 August 2006 @ 1:15 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

, posted over a year ago

Wait.

Jesus was one in purpose with his father; God.

Jesus time and again said no glory unto me but to my Father who resides in heaven; the one true God...worship him.

Posted on 28 August 2006 @ 1:18 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

, posted over a year ago

And to clarify...it was Pharoh that ordered the slaughter of those many Jewish children as he thought MOSES was JESUS and therefore felt his kingdom was threatened let alone his authority over the slaves.

Posted on 28 August 2006 @ 1:20 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

, posted over a year ago

I highly enjoyed EQUILIBRIUM.

Posted on 28 August 2006 @ 1:34 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

, posted over a year ago

Most of the problems of today are when people betray their own beliefs. When they become a hypocrite...they point the finger at others and fail to point it at themselves and say...hey, I'm being the idiot here...I'm being unkind, I am being selfish, I am not listening, I am hating...

It's the hypocrites that make this life unbearable. As well as the naricisstic and sociopaths.

Posted on 28 August 2006 @ 1:45 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

, posted over a year ago

Haha, and so did I. I think Christian Bale is a great actor. I also really liked American Psycho.

I am sure, many prophets of a religion would speak of unity and oneness. To humble yourself for an invisible man is great. It shows to others that you have some form of modesty. Conceitedness aside, the only god I recognize is myself. Even then, whatever a god may be in story books and fairy tales, I do not believe in the infinite immortality of oneself or others. Things can only really last and exist as long as people are here to see, read, and hear about them.

Religious deities only exist because humans exist. Humans want an organized whole, thus religion is created to incorporate the needs of the whole. The world is segregated with different beliefs, because each person have their own mind, thoughts, and wills.

[chuckles] As with a recent conversation with an old friend over tea and noodles, I blurted, "Wouldn't it be nice to follow in the footsteps of our ancestors and serve an emperor and the state?" Even then, the emperor must be a good person, a good mentor, and one not afraid to make mistakes and try to listen for correction. [wink]

Posted on 28 August 2006 @ 1:49 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

bonym, posted over a year ago

As always Martini, I dont believe in starting arguments, and whenever you do respond you always write something intelligent to make one think so thats fine with me, but you did say something about judging others, i.e. because my views are not heard, well arent we all like that, do you think that everythingin the world is ok? Of course not, yet I am sure that you dont vocalise your views on everything do you. So no I dont judge people, I dont tell people they are going to Hell, I dont respond to peoples problems with something like you are a sinner and sort your life out, I answer most questions, justly and fairly regardless of what I may think on the subject. I am aware that thousands if not millions of Christians or people all over the world calling themselves Christians are hypocrites, I believe that, I also believe there are a lot of false "Christians" out there, of course, but I do not believe that I am one of them. Thank you

Posted on 28 August 2006 @ 10:3 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

Yos, posted over a year ago

I am sceptical of anyone who is sure of anything.

If you are 100% sure there is a God then I have to wonder how well you really know yourself. Are we all not fallible? Could you wrong? Of course you could. We all can.

But I feel the same way about the athiests and agnostics. To criticize religeon from the safe seats of rationality and science is to stand on one pile of assumptions whilst claiming that you shouldn't be making assumptions. Just as someone who believes in God has no right to force me to believe, an athiest has no right to try to force a believer to give up their faith.

But of one thing we can be sure: all humans are hypocrites at some point or another

Posted on 28 August 2006 @ 10:15 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

bonym, posted over a year ago

Of course Yos, I agree with you. I cannt say that I am 100% sure there is a God, I just believe in him, to be 100% means I need hard solid evidence which I dont have. And you are very right, I would not force Christianity on you, why? Its pointless, if anyone asks me about it, I will gladly tell them my perspective but in the end as they say the choice is yours. And yes we can all be hypocrites, I know for one that I have been in the past.

Posted on 28 August 2006 @ 10:43 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

Serene Katy, posted over a year ago

Oh there's always room for another hypocrite, don't ever use that as excuse to stay away from God.

Now, Martini, Yos et al, where two or three are gathered in God's name he will be present. Isn't that a nice thought :)

Posted on 28 August 2006 @ 11:56 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

Yos, posted over a year ago

He will be present? I always hoped that God is a she :)

Posted on 28 August 2006 @ 12:3 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

Serene Katy, posted over a year ago

Omnes

Posted on 28 August 2006 @ 12:4 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

, posted over a year ago

Its like, what came first the chicken or the egg.We would be here till pigs fly talking about God,atheists and polotics.Beliefs are personal and should not be forced apon anyone or held against anyone.

Posted on 28 August 2006 @ 12:18 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

Serene Katy, posted over a year ago

Jubilate Deo

ni secular seculorum OMNES

Posted on 28 August 2006 @ 12:23 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

Yos, posted over a year ago

The irony of 'omnes' is that the Christian chuch kept its services in Latin so that the congregation couldn't understand what was being said. Knowledge = power so why give up the knowledge?

I should say that I am pro religion and spirituality, but generally anti organized religion, and very anti the politicizing of the church.

Posted on 28 August 2006 @ 12:48 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

, posted over a year ago

There's a good quote from the film "Men in Black"

"A person is smart, people are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it. 1500 years ago everybody *knew* that the earth was the centre of the universe. 500 years ago everybody *knew* that the earth was flat and 15 minutes ago you *knew* that people were alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll *know* tomorrow."

I believe that's good to try and keep your beliefs provisional; ie - keep an open mind and accept that they may be wrong. This though goes against a faith based religion because you can't really ever accept the possibility that it's wrong. You have to commit to those set of ideals and follow them regardless of evidence that may contradict them.

If you study theology, or the history of religion you quickly see that the central tenants of the christian faith survived and became mainstream through terrible acts of violence, manipulation and a will to construct and dominate one organised religion across the globe. This undisputedly challenges the idea that the Bible is the word of God, unless you believe that it was God's will that so many had to suffer and be punished for us to now have the "true" message.

I think much of the Bible is contaminated by humans need for power and control; and particularly by the Catholic church who used Christianity to become the mass religion that it still is today. Take a read of the Gnostic Gospels; text that mainstream Christianity will, without question, class as heresy, yet I think shows quite strongly that there is far more to the christian story than the bible admits.

Posted on 28 August 2006 @ 13:5 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

Serene Katy, posted over a year ago

What's the difference between learning Latin and learning English? The primary intention was that more people could worship together through Latin. It's not really THAT difficult to understand, and the root of so many other languages.

So, Latin actually enlightened and unified in its use rather than created a cloak of misunderstanding. Yes it can be a mystical, beautiful language, thereby making it entirely suitable for the mysticism of Deity and worship thereof. :) Chill out my friends.

Alleluia Omnes Populi!!

Posted on 28 August 2006 @ 13:28 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

bonym, posted over a year ago

Dr Pete have you thought about being the next Immanuel Kant or John Stuart Mill, why is it that every time you write something it always sounds soooooooooo intelligent and philosophied (is that even a word?)!!!!!!!!!!! In the next 10 years I hope you have a book out on something or the other because you dont insult other beliefs but you state a good point. I like it!!!

Posted on 28 August 2006 @ 13:38 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

, posted over a year ago

I like the current and last, as he puts it, Dahli Lama.

I like that he says that the life goal is for knowledge and they teach what they have learnt. If it should happen that "God" made himself known in a physical sense so that the mortal eyes could see him and he came down and said, I am God, I am the Way, follow me; he would start teaching that as well.

For most humans; they have faith. Faith is to believe in something or someone which can not be seen and which you hope to be true.

We have faith in many things in this life. This site testifys to that.

We have faith in others and in the world. We have faith in humanity.

Faith is a gift that should not be denied.

Faith is a power.

Why are we getting caught up in defending what we claim to know or believe? Why do we take offense when another states things that we may disagree with...that is all it is...we each have our own unique sense of things and personal beliefs.

I think Martini just states his thoughts to get us thinking and to not be offended by it.

Faith can easily become knowledge. When you live a certain faith you come to learn that there is wisdom in such instructions and therefore living it becomes knowledge.

This is for anyone with any belief.

Truth is all around us and in everything and is for eveyone.

We are all of the same Earth and made of the same materials.

I do my best to see what I have in common with another when they make statements that may not necessarily agree with my way of things, my beliefs, my standards.

I don't agree with all Martini and others have said but I can understand what is being said. I can relate to most things others have to say.

I take no offense in generalized statements.

And when someone expresses themselves; it's very interesting and very revealing don't you think?

Posted on 28 August 2006 @ 15:25 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

, posted over a year ago

And thank you for the statements everyone. I believe that no one can really agree to anyone else's beliefs, thoughts, 'logics' and other general 'rationalizations' in accordance to matters that require a broader and more 'complex' range of understanding.

For myself, I am not good at articulating my thoughts into text. [two hours later] Then again, now I tire of this. It's a nice read. So I'll just read/listen instead of inputing into this thread. [sigh]

Posted on 28 August 2006 @ 20:56 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

bonym, posted over a year ago

I disagree Martini, I think you do articulate your thoughts very well, but obviously we just disagree on our beliefs thats all and me being me, can get a tad mad when people say things about Christianity, sorry. x

Posted on 28 August 2006 @ 21:4 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

Serene Katy, posted over a year ago

Martini, you rascal, are you fishing for compliments??? You are extraneously capable of expressing yourself through the literary medium. In fact, it appears to be your God given gift ;)

Or should I say one of them? This thread reminds me; Have to book an appointment at the optician's.

Posted on 28 August 2006 @ 22:43 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

, posted over a year ago

[laughs]

No really. For example, I only have a couple of friends who know how to read the meaning behind my words. It took me a long time to actually teach myself how to be 'straight-forward'. Geez, if you knew me 5+ years ago, you would probably pull out your hairs in frustration trying to understand.

Aside from this thread, the last time I publically started a debate or some sort of insight was quite a long time ago.

Ah whatever... Now onto the Best Sex Fantasy thread! Yeah sorry about that, I was too tired to get into sex... [wink]

Posted on 29 August 2006 @ 0:27 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

, posted over a year ago

Wow. Someone's anger and resentment has tainted his post- I had a hard time taking you seriously after I began reading the barely restrained hatred and unacceptance of another's free will to choose for themselves what faith they will practice and align themselves with.

The key principles of justice, mercy, forgiveness, honesty, weaknesses are not present in your statements which Jesus advocated for all so that they can have a greater understanding.

Most contentions arise from lack of understanding-lack of ownership and lack of honesty and humility.

Me thinks you need big hugs and some bubble tea and oh yah...sushi.

*hugs*

Posted on 11 October 2007 @ 0:16 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

, posted over a year ago

Jesus may have tried to advocate those statements to everyone, and I'm sure he probably did a pretty good job of it, but my statements were based mainly on the perception of the religious and their beliefs.

In any debate, intricate detail is a good starting point. It goes to the core of the issue and people argue and discuss on that, but for that sort of debate to happen, a mediator and moderator will have to be present and a lot of time and a lot of words and questions and answers exchanged. Obviously, my words from my perspective was targeting a select group of religious people, but I wasn't really attacking the entirety of that religion. Though I am sure, it sounded that way.

If I was a machine, getting points across would be very easy, but debating them would be difficult as understanding perspective, emotion, and upbringing would not be a part of my logic.

The thing about my unacceptance of another's free will to choose for themselves with the faith they wish to practice isn't wholely accurate. What I tried to say was that if people choose to practice a faith, they should do so NOT proclaiming absoluteness, but instead seeking integration of their own mind into something more spiritual.

Eg: I have a friend who visits my blog frequently. She is a hardline Christian who doesn't believe in sex before marriage. She doesn't really preach her thoughts to her friends, and she used to demand that her lover become a Christian eventually. However, I've noticed that she (and quite a lot of others in the same religious sphere) would use loopholes and unsaid words from her Bible to do things that those with a logical mind would deem questionable. For example, sex to her means vaginal penetration. Blow jobs, hand jobs, rubbing the penis in between her giant breasts, and fingering and stuff like that aren't considered sex. They are considered foreplay, but not sex. I mean, really, how much farce can it truly get?

Fine whatever. And how about meaningless killing of life? Jesus advocated mercy, honesty, justice, etc, etc, etc. Yet, I find that the bulk of the religious people I know would kill on a whim. This does not necessarily have to be about killing another person.

For example, I have another friend who used to be a hardline Christian who taught the Book of Genesis to other Christian children every Sunday, whom I went hiking with. As we rested at a bridge with a beautiful natural creek below us, a grasshopper flew and landed beside us. It was minding its own business when suddenly my friend flicked it with his finger, not killing it on impact, sending it over the bridge to a rock, where it was still twitching and bleeding to death. My first thought, "Why did you do that?"

Yes, not all Christian, Catholics, Muslims, and the like do stuff like that. An individual is an individual with his or her own mentalities and emotions, but at the very least, if you can follow a faith through the words that Jesus or Muhammad preached, then the least you could do is live up to those same sort of principles.

Freedom of choice is great, but choosing then going in half hearted - I'm wondering, what's the point? ESPECIALLY when they so vigorously defend their own faiths.

I have no religion. I have nothing to defend but my own principles and my own standards of living. If what I do is questionable, then there is no religion I can fall back on as an excuse for my own doings. If I what I do hurts others, then I implore you to stand your ground, point at me, shake your head, and say, "Martini, WTF?"

I won't feel good at first, but I'll listen and I'll think on it, and eventually if it's logical to me, I might upgrade my way of thinking, and proceed to change my views accordingly without hurting others as much. However, if you choose to align yourself with a religion, do so as you so defend and dictate. Don't align yourself to a religion because you think you can get away with stuff, and still go to heaven.

Jesus, Buddha, Muhammad - they're all probably wonderful human beings with a vast wealth of consideration and passion. However, as humanity proceeds through times coming and going, where is progression when you align yourself to statements long outdated?

People don't need to be told what is right and what is blatantly wrong. Religious scripture is great, and should work as a guideline for people who need it if they are confused, but taking it as an absolute text and then do something that supposedly isn't written or twist it in a way where they can get away with things just totally mind boggles me.

Also about forgiveness, I WOULD JUST LOVE to see HOW a mother can forgive a guy for repeatedly raping her 5 year son, and the "god bless him" for 'shedding his sins' by becoming a Christian in jail. How convenient.

If you ever come by Richmond/Vancouver, give me a ring. I'll treat you to all you can eat sushi at Tokyo Ichiban. Excellent nigiri tuna and spicy tuna cones.

Posted on 11 October 2007 @ 1:24 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

, posted over a year ago

So only those who practice no religion or who have no values, standards to govern themselves by-only they are exempt from judgement? Only they are entitled to mercy?

The thing I adore about Jesus and the new testament is that he did teach accountability for one's choices-taught that there are consequences for all choices be it good or bad. He taught that it is so easy to pass judgement and condemn others and turn a blind eye to ourselves- he re-taught that one needs to worry about their own doings and focus and commit to doing right before singling out another and faulting them.

You are harsh in your judgement in condemning those who stumble, make mistakes- we all inherit weaknesses when we entered this mortal world.

Jesus was the one to introduce mercy, long suffering, patience. Before him-it was justice only; an eye for an eye-passing judgement and condemning.

We each our responsible for our own choices, we are to govern ourselves in a manner that would and should do no harm.

Ideally some think that making others do and sumbit to a will, a practice will benefit everyone. I disagree.

You overlook the true importance of free agency. Let those make their own choices and also let them except the consequences.

Weither you are religious, believe in a higher power or just believe in man and science- you must be aware that certain life choices will bring happiness, peace or they will bring further strive, hardships, heartache.

You either learn to accept and learn how to cope in this life, learn to gain a perspective that will bring you more peace and success or you do not.

The majority of this Earth strongly support that there are indeed standards and there are ideas, values, actions that do far more great for the better good of humankind.

Let's not lose focus.

Bitterness and hard feelings are an easier route than one of forgiveness, compassion, and fairness.

I am not one who shies from taken the higher, more difficult road. This does not say I have made mistakes, I have stumbled, or I had fallen. But the great thing in this life is every moment holds promise-every second is an oppurtunity for redemption.

Posted on 11 October 2007 @ 4:0 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

, posted over a year ago

Comparitively (sp?), my words are no harsher than the perception in which the religious perceive in what their God has set under an ultimatum of hell or heaven, with the illusion of free will. A lot of people will say that Jesus and God is one and the same, but I beg to differ. It seemed as though Jesus 'rebelled' against the absoluteness of the religious god and proposed compassion and sanctuary for those who seek it.

And about turning a blind-eye to myself, if ever, I think if you know me more, if ever, I would tell you that amongst all the creations of humanity and life, I consider myself one of, if not, the most flawed and perfect human being. Imperfection and perfection being a paradox of each other - one without the other would not make sense obviously.

[grins]

Didn't the introduction between you and I start out on a deliverance of misinterpreted religious words?

Anyway, I've read your points, and there is nothing you said that isn't twisted, meaning that your words are not twisted. However, as much as I would like to discuss this with you, it's better done over open and closed territory with booze and snacks. I pretty much grew tired of this thread about a year ago.

Also, if you did not know, the ten points made in my thread starter weren't mine. They were copied from else where. I believe I got them from Digg.com.

I believe everyone has judgment, even for those who say they don't. Just because you don't say it, it doesn't mean you don't have it. When you align yourself with a belief system - eg: a faith or a religion, you are telling yourself "THIS is the most compatible one for me." Other faiths or religions don't work for you, is because you either haven't had the heart to understand them, or you were forced into the one you are in right now.

What Jesus taught is what Buddha taught. Why aren't you Buddhist? Jesus taught about god and heaven. Buddha taught about nirvana and enlightenment. Jesus said that only he can ever be closest to god. Buddha taught that everyone can eventually become Buddha. So what was it about Buddhism, or Islam, or Catholicsm, or any other religion that you did not align yourself to? Why did you choose Christianity when you seem spiritual yourself and philosophical? Why not God Without Religion? Why not spirituality without religion?

I did not overlook the importance of free agency. I didn't say it in my entries because the focus wasn't on free will. However, since you brought up free will, I'm wondering, why proclaim that one would go to hell if that person does not live up to the standards given to us by one single human being from an era of war or open torture?

Alas, I knew there will be misinterpretation in my entries. It's a given. It's not like I can open my head and attach my brain to others. There are tons of things unsaid in my entries. I guess the better way to have said them were if someone asked about it. However, since my words seems to harsh (compared to what relatively?), people often just look at that as they are.

BTW, this thread was in response to a comment made by the forum troll Anja over a year ago whom someone of a 'higher power' warned me about afterwards.

[sighs]

Anyway, there is a 'twisted' thing I am thinking and feeling right now, but rather than say it here, I'll keep it to myself and pardon myself.

Cheers.

Posted on 11 October 2007 @ 4:34 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

, posted over a year ago

Come to think of it, here are a few other questions for you or anyone who wishes to answer:

1) You say you do not judge a person. So how do you tell what is right and what is wrong?

Yes, there are issues concerning a scenerio, but someone who binge drinks, goes home and beats his kids and then rapes the wife and repeats daily tells you what? In your mind, if you truly do NOT judge a person, then the person who abuses his family is NOT abusing his family, nor is he wrong at what he does. Don't judge the man for what he does right? Only God can do that right?

2) Free will - to choose what you desire to do and follow in organization, in partners, in friendship and lifestyle. In the end, you die and that's that. However, in religion, the absolute consequence is Heaven for the good and faithful and Hell for the wicked. The question is for religion, if it is free will, then where is the free will after we die? Why do we need to go to Heaven and why do we need to go the Hell and burn for all of eternity?

If I am a dad, and my wife and I bring a child to this world, regardless whether s/he is homosexual or hetero, or bisexual, I would wish him/her the best and continue to be his/her father. If s/he turned out wicked, it would make things a lot harder, I am sure, but regardless, wouldn't my ultimate wish is that he or she come out of that wickedness and do good?

If humanity can live for over a thousand years each person, do we not have the power to teach each other, let alone have religion teach us to be 'better' people? Why limit the age of people to a measley 75 years on average, and furthering that, an average of 50 years on average back in ancient times? Where is free will for those who can't learn as fast as others in a span of 60 to 80 years?

You said that Jesus taught humility and compassion and knowing yourself and changing yourself for good before condeming others, then here's another question: if the religious god is omnipotent and spans out an infinite amount of dimensions and timelines, then why bother creating a race of living creatures that is LESS than God? Why not create a race that is equal to god and equal to Jesus?

I thought about this when I watched my brother play a game of Sims, where he created a family of people and then watched them do things like go to the washroom, or lock them up in a room and let them starve to death, or play pranks on them, etc. Then it dawned on me. The religious perception of God is an unloved geek who created humanity so he/she/it can get his/her/its amusement from a rather dull and boring life. Then create Jesus, Moses, and Muhhamed and sends them to Earth to preach how great the malevolent god really is, and that people misinterpret his/her/its actions of mass destruction as evil, when in fact, it's all in the plan.

What plan?

A great leader leads his/her men/women through a coaching and management system. Jesus died roughly 2000 years ago, and since then God wants us to follow his words through and through without a single reborn deity to fill in the place of Jesus or any magical being from ancient history for a world fresh and unlearned, torn with the ravages of war, anarchy, and dictatorship.

What is happening in Israel right now? What is happening in parts of Africa? What the hell is the USA doing in Iraq? Where is our next savior? Where is the messenger of God that should be here right now to tell us what to do?

In a more accurate approach to things, I am not truly condemning the individuals who believe in a certain faith. That is the fallacy of humanity and our wee little brains. No, on the contrary, I am in fact, probably judging the religious perception of God and religion itself.

Free will? When there is no Hell or Heaven, then truly there is free will. Until then...

Posted on 11 October 2007 @ 5:0 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

, posted over a year ago

Lastly, regardless of the 'harshness' of my words, I love you all, well, a lot of you. If I can say it as a human being, I will say at least this: If you think religion's God really truly loves you, then our loving giving parents must be God's God multiplied by a zillion.

Yes, I know, some people can take my sarcasm and read between the lines. Some people can't and get offended and/or hurt. It's a given. Can't please everyone. There are those with wit and structure who may deem my view as extreme and poorly constructed. Then there are those who read and nod and smirk and think and question and answer their own questions and ultimately, just not care in the end, and go on about their own business.

This thread, like 99% of all of my blog entries are just to pass time. Like games, like jogging, and running, and reading books and walking around, and stuff. It's an aspect.

As far as judgment goes, I think my judgment on people aren't as absolute as religion may judge you. In fact, isn't my 'judgment' more like an opinion, and isn't an opinion simply a collective ideal of thoughts and experiences mashed together to form words of a sentence for others to hear and read?

My gosh Fade, reading your words is giving me two feelings: 1) misery and 2) being very turned on.

[laughs]

Misery because I can see how I have baited myself into another religious 'discussion' where I was really just venting in raw format.

Being very turned on because you did NOT beat around the bush like 90% of all the people I have talked with on this subject, AND it's clear, and meaningful. Wow. Very nice.

Posted on 11 October 2007 @ 5:13 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

, posted over a year ago

Well to be clear- the scriptures do not judge-they instruct, guide, teach one on how to be fair minded, peaceful, loving, accepting, tolerant, patient...

I do understand that you like to express yourself, verbalize and perhaps you do so to further your understanding of yourself. Maybe sometimes you write what you will then after some reflection, decide that maybe you were only half serious.

I find no fault when someone is seeking wisdom, understanding and I think that is what alot of your journals do as well as vent at the injustices and hypocrisies of life, the world, and the beings in it. The whole injustice of the mindless, thoughtless horde.

I do believe that you and I, as well as others on this site do indeed have a common purpose in that we expect to rise above the horde.

Turned on?

You know what totatlly did it for me? Your humble post that exposed your soul. *wink*

Posted on 11 October 2007 @ 14:51 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

, posted over a year ago

About that heaven and hell...there are three instances I know of that the Bible speaks about THREE DEGREES of GLORY which refutes the Catholic teaching of heaven and hell.

One passage goes on to explain that as the star, the moon, and the sun all have differing degrees of light-so does man and there are prepared three degrees of glories for such purposes.

It would not be fair and just for a Loving Heavenly Father to send his children to this Earth knowing we would inherit weakness of mortal man. He instructs in his works that man is expected to rise above his natural state, become more Christlike, humble yourselves as children, gird thy loins in righteousness. God, our Heavenly Father wants for us to all return to him. He prepared a way through our Eldest Brother, Jesus.

Jesus states that no greater love hath a man for his brothers than he shall lay down his life for them.

Too many people don't realize that his sacrifice was a means for us to repent of sins we commit against ourselves, another, and to God.

Not too many people understand fully the purpose of Jesus.

God is a loving and just God. He expects us all to be accountable for all we do and has said we will each be judged according to our own works.

I was taught by my parents that just because you go to church and pray or pay tithe does not automatically qualify you for the highest kingdom. It is through continual practicing, living the standards and principles and repenting regularly-all your life.

Repenting means to sin no more, in that you don't keep having sexual relations with your brother's wife or dog...repent, and then go out to do it again. It means you also commit, rededicate to living those teachings and having the wisdom to obstain from giving into to temptation.

"Man looketh on the outer appearances while God looketh on the heart."

This does not mean God judges you on your intentions- he judges on your word and deeds.

When you hear of those people who believe they speak on Jesus's behave and feel self righteous in condeming another to hell-they forget that Jesus is just and will judge accordingly. Jesus will not put someone in a kingdom he will not feel comfortable or happy in.

Three degrees of Glory is just.

Only those who choose to deny God will be cast out.

And if you don't hear the Gospel in it's true and fullness-you are given a chance in the next.

I don't know. The God I was taught was more loving, more forgiving and does love each and everyone of us and is disappointed, and sadden when he sees a child stray or turn him away.

I do know and have a testimony that there is a living God, our Heavenly Father, who loves us all and wants us all to succeed in this life and in the next. That's why he gave us his teachings. He gave us a way.

It's unfortunate that those who wanted their will over God's to come to pass-that they felt the need to twist and pervert his message. Because of this, not too many people are aware of just how amazing and loving he really is.

Being I am a parent; I know I would hurt to no end if my children stopped listening to my instruction and choose ways and practices that would cause them suffering. I would be most wounded if my children stopped having a relationship with me-stopped all communication and forgot from where they came.

I am glad I have the understanding I do. It helps me to not be so bitter, cruel, harsh. It gives me direction and purpose. I have hope and faith. I am content.

Posted on 11 October 2007 @ 15:9 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

, posted over a year ago

Actually, when it comes down to it, if you're content with what you have become, then that's really all that matters. Whatever faith and belief and organization you follow, is really up to you.

Posted on 11 October 2007 @ 21:4 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

, posted over a year ago

Again...free agency. It does matter how you use it though. *wink*

I think we are on the same page-just take slightly different approaches to it. :P

Posted on 11 October 2007 @ 23:30 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

rcn, posted over a year ago

I just had to add something to this. Just something to think about, since their is someone from both sides. I have asked this question from therapists I know through psychiatrists, and their answer is, "no scientific or psychiatric reasoning why it works this way, but it's been proven to work over and over again."

Question: Women who are raped. Children who are molested. Relationship abuse.

Why is it that some of these victims, after carrying stacks of guilt, PTSD, depression, anxiety, phobias, etc. When they extend true forgiveness to the person who violated them, why does the pain, disorder, phobia etc. disappear as if they were never afflicted with it?

Religion, or scientific reasoning?

Posted on 13 October 2007 @ 6:52 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

, posted over a year ago

I think it's a bit of both. Religion allows the belief that oneself is unified with others of a common goal, happiness, and such. Science provides a deeper medical and psychological understanding of the issues.

For myself, I don't quite take a side. It's actually what works and how much of it makes sense to me. Mind you, with a little solid history, one side can go a long way. Meaning, if say science in its absoluteness provides fruity explanations without theorical proof, then it's just as fruity of religion if it gives explanations without reasonable theory.

Eg: if science said that the negative issues concerning victims disappear after they join a faith following because people's minds are being manipulated by their religious leaders - then this explanation is hokey, thus the science corresponding this is hokey.

However if science said the negative issues concerning victims disappear after they join a faith following because of the personal integration into a society that desires a common good for all, that everyone is learned to love and forgive everyone, and to work together to do good for humanity, then the explanation of science would be considered legit, thus science corresponding that is legit.

This same goes for religion. If religion dictates that victims shed their negativities after joining a religious following because invisible angels come from heaven and sing happy songs into these less fortunate, and read the bible, it will automatically wipe away all fears and troubles - then that sort of explanation is hokey, thus the religion that dictates that is hokey.

HOWEVER, if religion gives a reasonable theory such as that Jesus taught compassion, honesty, and to lend a helping hand to your troubled neighbors, then the forethought that all religious people of that following would be the same, thus any victim of abuse would feel like they have entered a huge family that will support and love them. This sort of explanation is reasonable theory (there are other terms mind you). So religion that dicate this will be considered proven reasoning, thus the religion that corresponds to this is a proven religion.

On a similar topic, I remember asking one of my female Christian friends about personal thoughts. She said that her individual thoughts are god's thoughts, and that her choices are god's choices and a part of his plan. I personally didn't quite like that. I always encouraged personal growth and personal thought progression. So our differences layed there. Her thoughts are god's thoughts and her choices are god's choices. Where as my thoughts are my own, and my choices are somewhat my own. I say "somewhat" because I still believe that there is some higher force that may influence the choices layed out before me.

Anyway, like I said, I neither side with religion nor science, though I do lean towards science with spirituality more so than religion and a god or the trinity.

Posted on 13 October 2007 @ 9:26 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

, posted over a year ago

I could see what she meant.

We have our agency to choose, we choose what thoughts we will have,entertain, and put into action.

Scriptures say to give up the natural man and become sons and daughters of God living, doing his will which means keep the commandments.

In my belief- man will be judge for his own works and Adam's transgression is his own. Therefore the sins of the father just means that maybe if a father/mother chooses to drink-the effects of the home and influence reaches down to generations but if I were to kill someone-that is my sin and I will stand accountable for it.

I like that if ignorance or hatered is taught by parents-the greater sin is on them than on the children. There is mercy for a certain ignorance.

Make sense?

Posted on 13 October 2007 @ 22:24 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

, posted over a year ago

Oh yes of course. Away from religion for a moment here. I have always believed that law makers and politicians should be punished more severely than common civilians for breaking the same laws. I mean, it is those same law makers and politicians that make the laws that civilians try to abide to, yet they cannot even follow their own developments?

Posted on 13 October 2007 @ 23:9 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

, posted over a year ago

Then again, a lot of regional laws are so messed up, that even common civilians get punished severely for minor crimes.

Anyway, back on topic and slightly off the current subject, I've always wondered about the story of Adam and Eve. If incest is frowned upon today as being the supposedly #1 or #2 cause of birth defects (though that theory has still yet to be proven), as well as for 'moral' reasons, wouldn't the procreation of Adam and Eve and their children procreating together also be considered immoral?

The thing that I can't quite reason with is why god created a man with a penis that is capable of having an erection and a woman with a vagina that is capable of getting wet through arousal, and then expect the man and the woman to not have sex ever? Why didn't god create two asexual people, or why didn't god create another god to share godhood, or instead of creating angels, and Adam and Eve, why didn't god just reverse himself and abolish existence altogether?

I was just thinking that it's not logical to continue to make humans suffer through the actions of Adam and Eve for thousands of years through a compassionate loving god.

Of course this is a different sub topic mind you.

Posted on 13 October 2007 @ 23:23 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

rcn, posted over a year ago

I did become Christian. I think people who don't believe are afraid. The same as kids are afraid of the dark, or the bump in the night.

My mother when she was young said she never believed in ghosts, but at the exact minute of her grandmothers time of death, there was a knock on their front door, and no one there, when they opened the front door there was a knock on the back door, and again no one there. All though this happened her belief level of this happening is still the same. She experienced it, but believes there had to be something other than the obvious.

I am not Catholic, all though the family I grew up with is. I change because at my church, they read a chapter right from the bible, then explain what they read. That's it. My first experience going to that church, a previous non believer spoke. She got talked into attending church by a couple of Christian women who just seemed to not leave her alone until she went. While she was there she said she remembers people singing, then an hour and a half later it was over. She couldn't repeat anything that was said during the mass. She said during this time she remained seated and while the pastor was talking it felt as if there was a river running through her body. She said it felt as if all of her sin, hurt, guilt washed away with that feeling.

I'm not saying both sides aren't right. I think some of the statements are overly thought and slightly distorted. We hear so many different views, it's hard not to pick up their views as ours and get off track.

Our thoughts and actions are our own. I'm Christian but God doesn't process his thoughts through me. He even tries to provide all of us with gifts, but all though their offered, we still have the choice to accept or deny. Even many evolutionists have come to the conclusion that their is a higher creator. Their theories were good, but they kept hitting dead ends. One recent study by scientist regarding the big bang was to view past explosions and create some of their own. They view hundreds of them, and have concluded an explosion does not and is not capable of creating order. Our order is that such as moving the earth less than 5 degrees either way will freeze the planet or burn it up. They also stated in their conclusions that coming from one bang, everything created from it would have the same material makeup.

I think the problem lies that many people don't acknowledge anything they can't see, touch, hear, or smell. I received an e-mail once that said "I'd rather live as if there is a God and find out there isn't, than to live like there isn't and find out there is."

I do believe your other statements about corrupt officials. Just like anything else, if the leaders don't follow their own laws, how can they expect anyone else too. It's like that in a business I was in, if I wasn't working, my organization wouldn't either. People tend to do what the leader does.

As far as the confusion about what's right and wrong, so many things, when you look at statutes, are man made laws. We have a government that is trying to play God. If you do one small things that may violate the rights of another, they hurry up and pass a law to punish for it. It's too far out of control. I listen to the news and now it's like "you guys are really taking something messed up and really screwing it up worse." It's like common sense does not come with politics. It drives me nuts.

Anyway. I'm not trying to convert you over. I just believe some things are not meant to be explained. And we can corrupt ourselves by trying too hard to do it.

Posted on 14 October 2007 @ 0:38 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

, posted over a year ago

Well the bible I read states they were husband and wife-who had the authority to wed them? God. They walked in his presence.

He gave them two commandments, 1) Be fruitful and multiply 2) Do not partake of the tree of knowledge.

Tree of knowledge as stated in King James Bible, the knowledge of good and evil and further states partaking of it would cause them death.

The whole cleaving of one flesh is of the bonds of marriage. In the very beginning was laid out the purpose and charges of man and woman, husband and wife.

Note the greater commandment was to be fruitful and multiply-have children. It was the greater commandment.

We don't know how long they were in the garden. And while in the garden, they were as little children-knowing not right from wrong. Did they have agency? Were they accountable?

Now I don't know why other christians from other faiths believe Eve committed a great offense to God. In my belief-she was of righteous decent being the first daughter and granted the privelage of being the Mother of all mankind. She figured out that to keep the greater commandment she would have to partake of the tree as with the gift of knowing right from wrong; all mankind was granted the gift of free agency.

This is central to Heavenly Father's plan as he wants for each of his children to choose to return to them of their own will. He gave us the scriptures and his son to prepare the way for us to return.

Adam and Eve, with the fall, brought the gift of free agency to all and introduced mortal death. The second death the scriptures speak of is spiritual death that occurs from sinning.

This is God plan is to bring about all being on Earth their immortality. Jesus's sacrifice gave all men and women the gift to an immortal body-all qualify for this that have lived on the Earth and to those that currently do and those to come.

The promise of eternal inheritance that is spoken of in Jude 9:15 is for those who live and keep the commandments and repent continually-after being judged at the final judgement- those that were Saints will be found by Jesus to enter into the Highest degree, highest kingdom and live forever with God.

I was taught that life is a probationary state so we prove ourselves by our faith and works.

In my believe-we teach how to be accountable and responsible. That our choices are also for future generations.

It makes sense to me.

So God's specifically says in the scriptures that the power of procreation; sexual and spiritual intimacy is to be reserved for Husband and Wife. It is a charge and responsibilty that when abused;was foretold that it would destroy families and bring about the destruction of man.

How do you think the human race is doing?

Posted on 14 October 2007 @ 1:5 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

, posted over a year ago

You know- I think the reason why it makes sense to me is that I was taught God is eternal. Our spirits are eternal.

We lived with him before we came to this Earth and he put a veil of forgetfulness over our minds so that the gift of free agency comes to pass.

We lived with our Heavenly parents,yes I said parents, and we grew in knowledge. When we realized that we were different from our Father. He had a physical body and we were spirits. We loved him so much and wanted to be like him. That is when the plan was created.

There were two that were great spirits, one was our elder brother, Jesus, and the other Lucifer. They came to Heavenly Father with their plans.

Lucifer offered He would make us all return and the glory be his. ( No free agency)

Jesus offered that he would come to the Earth to prepare the means to return to Heavenly Father but said that free agency would be the means. Let them decide for themselves by the life they lead, if they will return and the glory be yours,Father in Heaven.

Whe were asked which plan, all of us in our spirit form let out a shout for joy. Chapter 12, Revelations, King James Version.

It states when Satan was cast out due to rebellion-he sought to overthrow the Kingdom of God and sit on the throne. He and his followers ( 1/3 of the host of heaven fell) were cast out in their spirit state-never to receive a physical body. All who live and have walked and currently walk and will walk this Earth-we are greater than he is as we have gained our physical bodies. In his jealousy, anger, resentment, pride-he seeks to pull down as many as he can. Even people today can be like this.

Angry and hateful towards those that succeed, who are happy, who have peace. They spit on them and mock them and call them down. Wanting them to fall so that they can feel better themselves-than they can continue doing evil; no one likes to be made wrong.

Posted on 14 October 2007 @ 1:24 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

, posted over a year ago

You know- I think the reason why it makes sense to me is that I was taught God is eternal. Our spirits are eternal.

We lived with him before we came to this Earth and he put a veil of forgetfulness over our minds so that the gift of free agency comes to pass.

There were two that were great spirits, one was our elder brother, Jesus, and the other Lucifer. They came to Heavenly Father with their plans.

Lucifer offered He would make us all return and the glory be his. ( No free agency)

Whe were asked which plan, all of us in our spirit form let out a shout for joy. Chapter 12, Revelations, King James Version.

I personally enjoy reading the scriptures. There is so much knowledge and wisdom in them. They hold the answers to many people's cries of justice-they answer the whys.

You were taught at school about the sun and the moon and stars-that there was a purpose-that the Earth spins in orbit around the sun. You believed this in faith. All children have to believe in that what they are being taught is true. Eventually believing in it-it becomes knowledge. There is a witness.( The Bible has this knowledge already-Adam was aware of such knowledge as he was instructed by God)

How can someone describe to someone what salt tastes like? Without saying salt?

Man does not understand all knowledge. We do not know all things.

We have faith the Sun will rise tomorrow. It does not become knowledge until it happens.

There is a witness as to how we can learn to know if God, the Eternal Father is our loving Father in Heaven, and there is a means to come to know that Jesus is the son of God, the only begotten. Jesus himself states that he will send a comforter, that by all things will be made known. The Holy Ghost.

For those who truly desire to know truth, the must have three things: a SINCERE heart, with REAL intent, and having FAITH in Christ.

By the power of the Holy Ghost, all things will be made known.

Posted on 14 October 2007 @ 1:41 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

, posted over a year ago

@RCN: "I think people who don't believe are afraid. The same as kids are afraid of the dark, or the bump in the night."

The same can be said about those who believe are afraid of the "What if" factor. As with the email you received, it was very similar to what my friend said to me before, "I rather die believing and go to heaven than to die not believing and end up in hell." That was assuming that heaven and hell existed in that form.

And I can see that your words wasn't trying to convert anyone. It has meaning and it's clear and to the point.

@Fade: there are still some questions that haven't been addressed. As human beings, we are limited to what our bodies and our psyche allows us to do. So as mothers and fathers, they are limited in their power to give guidance to their children. However, as god, an omnipotent being of vast infinite wisdom and power, why did he/she/it create a hierarchy of beings that can either be closer or further away from god itself?

I was thinking about "free agency" aka "free will", and then you mentioned satan and the angels that fell with him. Now if I were a father with my limited human powers and 'wisdom', I would be able to do so much before using brute force if I were to, in trying to achieve what I think is achievable to teach my kids to behave. However, god being father of all wouldn't need brute force ever, and further that, since he is the creator, why would he even attempt to create a race of creatures (humans) that lack the perfection that god has?

You can argue that god wants humans to learn accountability and responsibility and truth, but isn't that the same concept as saying that a man and a woman has the (twisted) choice of creating a baby that is more flawed than that of the parents, and then trying to teach accountability and responsibility and truth to the child?

The real question is, if god is perfect, and he foresaw the infinite time and dimension around and in him, and knowing that the creations he will make will be flawed, why then, did he had the heart to create such a flawed living society? This was somewhat addressed in your previous message, but I was thinking that it wasn't really answered. If I were a parent, I would want my children to be good, be compassionate, and be sincere and honest. Of course, but I am human, and there is only so much I can do. If I were god with human emotion, I would want my children to be more than what I was born with and what I grew up with.

So wouldn't it be logical to say that god held back? Wouldn't it be logical to say as much as he loves his children, his actions is no better than a parent that kicks the kids out at age 18 and leave them to fend for themselves?

You say "free agency" aka "free will" in correspondance to Jesus and Lucifer. However, those are great extremes. It's like the ultimate darkness versus the ultimate paradise.

If I were a parent, and my kids swerved into a path of their own - a little mischevaous (sp?) and a little good, but nothing too extreme, not quite following a faith, but aren't bad people either, etc, I wouldn't condemn them into hell for not believing, nor would I force them into heaven for not being bad. So where do they go? There is supposedly nothing in between heaven and hell, except earth, but if that were the case, then why not let humanity live longer or live forever?

There are alternative ways for the Christian, Islamic, and Catholic idea of god to teach people. It's just that regardless of "free agency" aka "free will" that god may wish us to believe, we only really have two choices. Then again, even in heaven there are 'ranks' and 'closeness' to god, but isn't that just favor? Shouldn't god be impartial then rather than good? If god can pass judgment, then he isn't truly good. He is neutral. If he doesn't choose the ones to go to hell and the ones to go to heaven, then he would be good. Regardless of how bad people can get, only a good god would choose good for the people. So in this case, wouldn't it be logical to say god isn't a good god, but rather, a neutral objective god?

Also, furthering the above logic, why would then being with god be glorious?

You see, it doesn't make sense that with the infinite wisdom and power that god has, and the ability to see through all dimensions and times, that these things are created. Unless god was lonely, but even then, wouldn't it be more prudent to create another god, or rather, god shouldn't be lonely anyway, because god is god. Humans can feel lonely because we have emotions, memories associated to those emotions, and limited lifespans, but god is eternal.

I mean, Jesus and love and compassion and free will and satan to me, are all good reads, but the logic is still lacking. Mind you, I am not in disagreement with the positive unity that religion is trying to portray through your words, and having people held accountable, but even without religion, people can be held accountable.

With my first starter words for RCN, I would rather follow a leader that shows us what accountability means than to read a book about it. I agree that corruption can stem from knowing too much, but not everyone can be made corrupt from knowing too much. It's like saying, not all cops are good and not all criminals are bad.

Nevertheless, it has been nice to converse with you two, without all the trolling and abusive comments that a lot of other forums unfortunately achieve.

Posted on 14 October 2007 @ 2:45 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

rcn, posted over a year ago

I am Christian, as I said before, but I really don't believe in hell. As a parent I know I wouldn't condemn my children to an eternity of pain, I really don't believe God would either.

We need to remember the bible "Mathew, Mark, Luke, John." Are their interpretations of the events that took place.

My oldest daughter loves the spirit world. She watches haunted houses, and all the so called reality ghost shows. We decided to do something once. We pulled up pictures of angels, Jesus, Heaven, God, supernatural as a search. Buy when we looked for pictures of creatures from hell, the devil, etc, it came back empty as far as photos. There were hand made figurines and such.

You would think if it was a struggle between heaven and hell, here on earth for power over the will of people, there would be equal photos taken of the devil as there is religious photos.

My belief is this, and I know quite a few disagree, the "devil" is inside all of us. When we're given a choice to do what's right and do what's wrong, the devil is the part of us that does what's wrong all though we know it is and could have gone the opposite direction. So when we're in a constant battle, good over evil, I believe it's a internal battle we all face.

I do believe we all have something to learn here. When you talk about death and destruction, I don't view that area the same. If someone here dies, they return to where they came from. I look at our life here as a University. When you're talking about perfection, no one has perfection but Him. Not even his angles. Angles were created for one purpose, and that is to serve God. They have never resided on earth as people. We don't go to heaven and become angles.

We all question, why are we here, why were we created as we have been, what is His overall plan. We won't find the answers until the end. People try and try, but I think if I was God and designed all this, do you think I'd make it simple enough that the human mind would be able to comprehend.

We do live forever. Just not at this temporary location. These human bodies pass, but our spirit lives on. Who knows why he built everything the way he did, but being God he's the only one who has the answer to that question. As far as the Catholic church is concerned. I heard the recently had a meeting to abolish one of their laws. I can't remember which one it was. I look at many of their laws as being man made, and not having biblical significants. I listened to a debate between a Christian Pastor and a Priest regarding confession. It says in the bible that only Jesus himself can forgive sins. They asked the priest about their views. He answered "We assume since he is not here that we take the place of a mediator between the sinner and Jesus." There's no where in the bible that says Jesus needs a mediator.

I'm not saying any religion is wrong. There are so many that have branched off different ones. I believe Jesus dies on the cross as payment for our sins. I believe he is the savior and one day will be back here to take his place as king, and all country leaders will step down from their positions. And I also believe with all these different religions that biblical history only happened one way, so when he returns quite a few people will be disappointed when they find that their religion wasn't the way it happened.

I also believe their are gifts from the Holy Spirit but they don't come in the form of just touching and healing as one of them use to be. With all the media, if you could touch and heal someone, you'd have your own TV program.

I also believe God works in mysterious ways. There's a little boy that literally touched the hearts of many. Five months old and got shaken baby syndrome from a babysitter. On the popular "Myspace" The mother asked for prayer. When I received a message with her story, she had 3000 people part of the prayer efforts. Within 40 days there were over 140,000 people praying. Her blog with his updates is the #1 viewed page on the site. Some days when she would post a message there would be anywhere from 2,000 to 25,000 comments to one message. Organizations in Florida set up a donation fund to assist with medical, someone donated a minivan for their transportation needs. All the medical bills were paid for. At the beginning of summer we received a disheartening message. Over 50% of his brain activity was gone, he'd live in a comatose state for the rest of his life. The doctors said there was nothing they could do, and told them to prepare themselves to loose their child. They even had the hospital pastor come in and pray.

For a couple of months he had his ups and downs, he slowly began improving. I read a message today, they believe while sleeping his brain had literally repaired its self, he's looking at having his first birthday soon, and the doctors say it's beyond their medical comprehension how he recovered as he had. I believe God had intervened here. They had so many churches placing shrines in them. It was really spiritually amazing to watch the progress. With all the bad things that happen in this world, how is it that 140,000 people were attracted to one place to pray for the recovery of one boy?

Posted on 14 October 2007 @ 5:4 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

, posted over a year ago

Actually RCN, I like your interpretation of the "Devil is inside all of us" and "the internal battle we all face".

I guess it's literal translation that 'bugs' me. Your explanation of Heaven and Hell and life being like an University is actually quite spiritual. You seem to follow your faith, but still retain your own individual spiritual core. It's almost like an agnostic Christian, if you don't mind me saying so. ^_^

As far as unity of people, as much as that story of the prayers for a baby due forever in a coma, it's nice and touching, but unity itself, as I see it is a nice awesome thing regardless whether religion is a part of it or not. Often, I see people coming together to help someone or something or a group of people, and that makes my eyes water. I like knowing that there can be unity even when fragmentation occurs throughout the world.

For myself, I will never be able to abide by religion, but I do look at all religion as a sort of philosophy. I'm not athiest. It wouldn't make sense if I were to be, if what might be out there is still quite unknown. The Bible, the Koran, the Buddhist scriptures and folk religious texts can take us 'closer' to personal truths, and that truth can possibly even have many interpretations, but I guess what really matters is how each individual use and relate to that truth.

In other words, in my viewpoint, truth is only as truthful as you believe it. Thus absolute truth is personal individual truth. Either that be widely accept or not, well, that's up to each of you.

However as far as the bible saying Jesus needs no mediators, wouldn't that idea be the same as saying that since the bible - old and new testaments including the Book of Genesis do not say anything outside the realms of Earth, that means the only thing that really exists to humanity is Earth itself?

Posted on 14 October 2007 @ 11:23 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

rcn, posted over a year ago

What's it's saying with the mediators is to forgive sin, a priest is not needed to stand in the middle to relay that information to Jesus. I do attend a non-denominational Christian church. When I was attending the Catholic church I was really bothered by the actions of other who attended. Growing up in a small town, you knew quite a few people who attended church, but on a personal level as well. It was almost like, "I can cheat, beat my kids and wife, and all will be forgiven because I'll be in church on Sunday." To me that's a problem. A double standard. I try to follow my beliefs of being a good person to others, caring about what happens to others even if I don't personally know them.

I do feel as if God is leading me in a positive direction. I graduate next month in Law, and I'm taking on the law makers regarding DV laws. Theirs something wrong when they make so many arrests, require all these classes, but the real violent individuals are still out there, planning their attack, their victims hiding and living in fear. And they believe their laws are working. I all ready know I'll be stepping on some toes, someone tried to do this before, but chickened out because of a few death threats by womens rights organizations. I'm the type that will moon them and tell them to kiss my ass.

Myself with some others are going to be taking on the education department as well. The biggest excuse heard for why kids stage war against their school is, they didn't know how to handle the issue, or they were being picked on and didn't know how to cope. We're going to challenge them to enact a program in early junior high to have a mandatory class to instruct kids on building their self esteem, how to handle rejection, peer pressure, etc. If we give the proper tools, they can make a better decision.

I feel with these God is leading me. I don't get paid for it. It's done on my own time. The 160 typed pages I have on DV I did on my time. And I think he chose me because I'm just stupid enough to keep going even if threatened. I'd be like buggs bunny sticking my finger in the barrow of the gun.

It's not just religion or not. I think as a whole, our country has lost integrity, our leaders don't have good character or moral beliefs. We have politician that make decisions based on them getting reelected, even if it means compromising their values and making a decision that's not in the best interest as a whole.

There is one guy who's running for President when questioned about going against his party and what they would say, his answer was "It's my hope my view will become the view of my party, I'm not here to get the American people to like me, I'm here to tell the truth."

Weather it be religion or life in general, the moral make up of people has gone to hell. People do what they want no matter who they hurt in the process. Integrity need to be reestablished, individual characters need to be redefined. People need to tell the truth, even if it costs them to do so. People need to stick to their beliefs instead of compromising them for what may be popular.

I did hear a story that was depressing when you consider Christian religions. In Rome there is a church where numerous Christian leaders meet once or twice a year for general meetings. There is a person who comes that day, who's not part of any of the churches, with the key to unlock the door. He was chosen because the church leaders could not decide which leader should be responsible for the key. That's what our world is coming too.

Posted on 14 October 2007 @ 21:37 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

, posted over a year ago

I think anything I say-will be picked apart and scrutinized. Scientific, angry demands is not faith.

Like I had mentioned- the three things to know for yourself that what you hear is truth and they are? Demonstrating that

Jesus and Lucifer were as we were in the pre-exsistance, spirit sons and daughters. we differed in degrees of knowledge and light and Jesus was the brightest and Lucifer next in glory. Have you ever read revelations? I could see if you read the Bible in it's entirity and are saying you just don't understand it- that comes across as someone who is serious about seeking truth and understanding and not jsut using relgion as Just as we do on this Earth. There was no extreme at that time.

We have counselled and cautioned those on this site that if there is abuse or neglect occuring in a home, a relationship- that it is to not be tolerated.

I see two older brothers, one was angry and decided to war against the Father in Heaven and he was in direct opposition to the plan where we would choose for ourselves. He wanted to make us, force us through abuse of power- to submit to his unrighteous will and not that of the Fathers. Why would our Heavenly family tolerate that?

I know from my childhood that by living in a home where there was abuse, violence, threats, dischord, neglect-that if I had loving sisters or brothers or Aunts and Uncles to stand up for what was right and exiled them from my childhood home; it would be done in love; righteousness.

Why would it be different in our Heavenly Father's home?

To the spoiled, rebellious child that takes advantage and shows disrespect to his parents and does not want anything to do with family rules, standards, principles-is that child happy and learning if he should stay in such an environment?

Or would it do him good to go out in the world to see just how thankful he should be to have two loving parents that did their best to teach him ways that would bring him lasting happiness-that would prepare him to succeed in relationships and in life? Tough love is a means of teaching, especially when there is a rebellious heart.

There are those in this live who would rather choose unhappiness as they have no true self love for themselves or others-they lack compassion. Why do they choose to be unhappy,ungrateful?

That is why it is important for parents to teach their children how to govern themselves in the world; by being in it but not of it.

We were loved so much and had our agency before this time-why wouldn't we have it here? Does that makes sense-for a loving Heavenly Father to give us something so powerful and crucial and then take it away once we come to Earth? Is that just?

This life is an oppurtunity to prepare ourselves to return unto him. We are given the power to choose. You decide if you will be in the spirit of listening and acceptance. You decide if you truly have a hope that there is a loving Father in Heaven that gave us all the equal oppurtunity to return to him.

A part of free agency is that God put the world in motion-let man govern as it is explained in Exodus that whole dominion in righteousness. The only times he intervenes if his Heavenly Plan will be twarted by Satan.

There was a war in Heaven. We in that state, being who we were-made a choice then. We choose the plan. We choose to have the gift of a mortal body to learn and grow and to be wise like our Father.

We have an inheritance.

We are spiritual beings on Earth to experience mortal, physical experiences-not mortal being here to experience spiritual. We are children of a Heavenly Father.

Not all will have an oppurtunity to hear the gospel in it's fullness-those will hear it in the next.

It is unfortunate that so many truly believe that there is no God, no Loving Heavenly Father. It is unfortunate that so many will put themselves as God and only believe in their own, limited, imperfect knowledge.

RCN- it is so misleading that there are those who do not fully read and seek understanding of what they read in the Bible. Nowhere in it does it support death bed repentance. It states clearly we will be judged according to our works.

" If we say taht we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us." (John 1:8)

"Love not the World, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him." (John 2:15)

How does one find fault in the commandments? Who dare say that the world does not contain instruction on how to behave, live?

If any man find fault it is because of their wounded pride that they are told that what they do is unrighteous, ugly, and evil-and if they do no evil, then why do they take offense?

It is because deep within themselves they know right from wrong and hope to pretend, cheat their ways into Heaven.

So many such people come unto this site and demonstrate what it is to be dishonest. The consequences that they tell of only further supports that what the Bible teaches and testifys is true.

As we are imperfect, so will be our Governments, our institutions, the World.

There is no fault in being told to strive for doing good, for doing as Jesus did.

There are many that will testify that he is the Only Begotten Son, of an all knowing, all loving, Righteous Heavenly Father.

The Spirit will testify and touch the hearts of those who are prepared to hear the truth.

Come on, I can't be the only person who has read it from the beginning to the end and could discern the power of the truth.

Posted on 15 October 2007 @ 4:22 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

, posted over a year ago

Again, my beliefs differ from most protestant religions. Again, my teachings and understanding does not support that Angels were lesser than Jesus.

In revelations-the Angel that John the Revelator is speaking to; is Jesus the Christ. He states he is the Alpha and Omega.

We are angels when we appear to family members or to people in the past and today.

There is only one that was fully resurrected and glorified-Jesus. There is no other.

Jesus is not imperfect or lowly. So, that whole Angle thing does not work for me.

But again, I have a testimony and have had a witness. I read the scriptures daily and speak to my Father in Heaven. Most times it is prayer of thankfulness. And in dark times, it is to seek comfort and to not be alone-to be uplifted.

I agree that each son and daughter has unique gifts and talents that they are to share and use in righteous ways that will promote good.

Sometimes we lose one and gain another, and sometimes we are used as tools to do his will.

There have been countless times where I had been prompted by the spirit to check on someone, to help them.

I know that women have the amazing gift of owning great compassion and good will. I adore and am grateful to be a woman, a mother, a sister, a daughter, a friend.

Posted on 15 October 2007 @ 4:36 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

, posted over a year ago

The Bible speaks of other worlds-that God's work is ungoing. This in no way takes away our greatness and his love for us-just shows how Eternal he truly is.

I guess it's easier for me to believe and accept as I have loving, supportive, nuturing, wise parents in my life; that I could believe there IS a Loving Heavenly Father.

Posted on 15 October 2007 @ 4:39 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

rcn, posted over a year ago

I believe there is a loving Father in Heaven who unconditionally loves everyone. I don't see where his love or arguments could be compared to an uncle here on earth. There is no one's love here, including that of a parent child, husband wife, that could come close to comparing to the love God has for everyone.

If God has such a great love for everyone, why banish them to eternal damnation? I don't know if you have children. With mine, and the unconditional love I have for them, their going to make mistakes and some may be big, but even if I had the power too, I wouldn't extend an eternal, painful punishment on them. I wouldn't because of my love for them.

I too study the bible. I keep a copy by my bed, and one on my computer. I have 5 more assignments before receiving my Christian counseling certificate.

When I became a born again Christian, I had all ready experienced years of human behavior studies. It was an amazing experience. I had numerous motivational books, and books on making behavior changes. I was watching a Christian bible study, just because I didn't want to get up and change the channel. What I noticed by that one program was everything in all the books I read on empowering lives, was in the bible.

What is somewhat upsetting is the scriptures that have been excluded. I don't think it's right, for whatever reason, for people to make choices to decide what goes in and what stays out.

I don't believe in restricting prayer. I think people should be able to pray anywhere, even in government institutions, schools, military. My daughter asked me last year why they couldn't put angels on their school Christmas tree. Separation of Church and State is really blown out of proportion. It's suppose to be based on not allowing government to force religious beliefs or denominations on people, not to restrict them from exercising them.

Time to crash before I mumble. lol

Posted on 16 October 2007 @ 8:10 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

ironic nostalgia, posted over a year ago

i'm jumping into this really late, but i felt the need to point something out. you are misinformed about prayer in public institutions and the separation of church and state clause in the constitution.

people can pray wherever they want -- so long as such prayer is a private endeavor and not endorsed by any public institution, such as a public school, a government building, or a court of law.

that's why your daughter cannot put angels on the school christmas tree. for the school to allow angels on the official school tree would be to implicitly endorse the religion that the angels syumbolize.

it's also why kids who attend a public school cannot organize an official school club centered around a religion (i.e., a buddhist club), why public schools cannot organize and/or lead a group prayer (i.e., praying over the loudspeaker at a football game), or why courts cannot hang a copy of the ten commandments. such activities are implicit endorsements of a specific religion. the separate of church is pretty clear on this -- "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." such an endorsement would be respecting an establishment of religion.

however, private prayer of an individual is not an implicit endorsement of any religion by a public institution, and therefore, falls outside the bounds of the separation of church and state.

Posted on 16 October 2007 @ 14:23 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

, posted over a year ago

RCN, it is clear that you do not fully understand what I am saying. I wouldn't make any of my children do my will once they are a grown, accountable adult. I can influence still by my love, guidance, and support. They get to choose.

In my belief-we stand before Jesus at the judgement bar and by our own memory ;we recall all the things we thought, felt, and did. We are then aware of all our wrongs and those we did not repent of. Based on this Jesus decides where we will be happy. For some, they want nothing to do with the truth, Jesus, light. Will they ever be happy in any of the kingdoms? I think not.

I believe that Jesus is just, honest, and owns a heart of mercy. I trust in him that he is doing the will of the Father and will keep the commandment that no unclean shall dwell in the Father's presence.

Who are we to persume that we know more than God?

Posted on 16 October 2007 @ 14:59 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

, posted over a year ago

Just be glad that we live in a Country and time where we are not restricted to even worship an Almight Heavenly Father.

Focuses on such small matters is losing perspective.

We have the knowledge that we can pray to our Heavenly Father and we can keep a prayer in our hearts.

It's a blessing.

Posted on 16 October 2007 @ 15:3 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

ironic nostalgia, posted over a year ago

"Based on this Jesus decides where we will be happy."

soo... if jesus doesn't think an individual will be happy in heaven, he decides that that individual will be happy in hell?

that's the logical extension of your argument, yet that runs counter to what you write about jesus in your next paragraph:

"Jesus is just, honest, and owns a heart of mercy."

how could anyone who owns a heart of mercy honestly believe (you do say he's honest) that an individual would be happiest in a place of eternal suffering?

Posted on 16 October 2007 @ 15:6 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

ironic nostalgia, posted over a year ago

"Just be glad that we live in a Country and time where we are not restricted to even worship an Almight Heavenly Father."

and we never will be restricted in that way. the constitution clearly states that citizens have the right of freedom of religion and freedom from religion.

Posted on 16 October 2007 @ 15:8 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

, posted over a year ago

That was my point, but in other times, in other countries and even in the Bible, there were laws at one time that went after those who were caught worshipping God or praying to him would be put to death.

In Canada, there is a possibility of a freedom being struck down if it is found to be unreasonable or in violation to the majority's freedoms. The constitution can be challenged.

Just Society's standards are lowering.

We currently had our marriage laws to be re-written to allow for same sex marriages. Alberta is the only exception that will now bow down to the voice of those small few who feel that the sacred and true purpose that Heavenly Father intended as stated in the bible; is in direct violation to their liberty. We recognize that those religion do not have to marry same sex couples as the Bible states it is an unlawful abomination.

I think alot of people would prefer to remain ignorant so that they can live what they will and not that of the Father's. They are quick to forget that God is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow-the Bible states he is unchanging.

Now I uphold that free agency is crucial but I fear as to what the future does hold should society become more of a majority that cry out for justice and those who are living the standards and precepts expected by Heavenly Father may be found a select few and persecuted.

History has demonstrated that when a nation is properous; the quicker they are to give up goodly ways.

I'm still glad that Canada recognizes God as a standard of what is expected and acceptable behaviours and values.

And in no way my views a reflection on whole to Canadians. It's my personal view. And because I don't support same sex marriage in no way states that they should be persecuted for their sexual orientation choice.

I have never supported a man or woman being fired or ridiculed for being a homosexual. They are still people; our fellow man that deserves equal respect. Their sexual orientation in no way interferes with their ability to teach so long as they teach course materials.

As personal views such as hate crimes are forbidden in our schools, so is advocating for homosexuality.

The logistics and semantics of Canadian Law makes for an interesting read.

Posted on 17 October 2007 @ 0:21 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

rcn, posted over a year ago

I agree with you. We have a very damaged society. Their still fighting the marriage laws here. Marriage here was state by state, but the federal government got involved and made gay marriage a violation of the U.S. Constitution. They're still appealing that decision. I don't mind the sexual orientation of others. I would though if a gay was trying to pick up on me.

What made it hard for us with religion is having non-believers in high political offices. My mom and I were talking yesterday about the change in behaviors people have now. She said she is glad she's on the way out, instead of being here.

I'm in family law her now, as a student, and it's just amazing how much the government regulates the actions of people.

What are we really teaching our children? When a family argues, files for divorce. I think we really teach our children, when things get tough, bail, run away, don't work at anything. It's very disappointing to me that we have become a society of taking the easy way out, instead of facing responsibility for our actions and working through problems.

As far as putting to death, did you hear about the Christian recently who refused to switch to an eastern religion and they shot him. That's just wrong. Just because people may not share the same beliefs doesn't mean punish them for it.

We now have a law here that requires pre-marital counseling. I told my son I should be one of the counselors and carry a big stamp that says NO on it, and stamp it on peoples foreheads if I see any issues pop up that will destroy the marriage later on.

That's why I'm challenging some of our governments actions and laws passed. People need to start standing up and challenging wrongdoings, instead of just living with them as that's just the way it is. I will get right up and be on record for saying "the only way this could have been passed is if someone was misleading the public just so they could get reelected." Too many of our laws are passed by kissing the publics butt, instead of doing what's right for society.

With standards lowering too, they toss just about anyone, with a college education, into office. Just because they went to college doesn't meant they have good ethical behavior, strong character or personal integrity. It just means they went to school and qualify for office. We need people who do what's right and not what's popular, what's best as a whole and not what's best for their voting record. In the state where I live, adultery is illegal, but their's no punishment. They passed it just so others wouldn't implement them as being "for" adultery. If they actually had rules to enforce it, they would have to open a whole new court just to handle those cases. Their's not enough funding to enforce that law.

Anyway, have a good night.

Posted on 17 October 2007 @ 6:11 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

rcn, posted over a year ago

Actually in church and state, they can organize religious functions on public school campuses. They can't require attendance by students, but as long as their is one club that is not school related that meets, religious groups have the same rights as the other clubs. The schools do have to extend the same courtesy as they do to other clubs as well.

Posted on 17 October 2007 @ 6:19 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

stina, posted over a year ago

RCN - you said "I don't mind the sexual orientation of others. I would though if a gay was trying to pick up on me." If 'a gay' was trying to pick up on you, why would you start to care about his or her sexual orientation? Why would it only matter at this point? Of course, I'm queer, so maybe that's why I don't understand - do you mind elaborating? Does it bother you if it's just a gay man, or do queer women bother you if they hit on you, as well? I'm not trying to be snarky, I just have never been given a straight answer by anyone. (I've heard many people say this - that they don't mind unless they're hit on.)

You said "What made it hard for us with religion is having non-believers in high political offices." I do not understand. Could you elaborate? Because as far as I know, our government has *always* been free from religion - or that's how it was supposed to be, according to those who founded it. Do people without religion not have morals? I'm athiest, and I personally think I have better morals than a lot of people who are religious. At least, in my community.

I don't understand your logic about divorce, either. There are so many different circumstances and reasons why people divorce. Do you think divorcing someone because they physically assault you everyday is teaching children to 'run away?' Do you think divorcing someone who cheats constantly and doesn't give a crap about their spouse is teaching a child to 'run away?' What about parents who split because one is into hardcore drugs and it's a bad environment for the children? What about divorce between a couple where one refuses to work, just sits there, does nothing to help, etc and is ultimately a bad role model for his/her children? How can you say that divorce teaches kids to take the 'easy way out?' In many cases, doesn't divorce teach children to take care of themselves, make themselves happy, and live a healthy life?

And, typically, divorce is extremely taxing on one's emotions even if it's a split between a couple who have problems with abuse. So I guess since you were divorced, you taught your children how to take the easy way out, as well? So you are saying that you didn't face responsibility for your actions? You taught your kids not to work through their problems? My point in saying this is that you make some pretty broad generalizations about divorce. I'm just trying to understand why. People get divorced for many reasons - a majority of which does not mean that people take the 'easy way out.' You should know, you've experienced it first hand, correct?

"Did you hear about the Christian recently who refused to switch to an eastern religion and they shot him." No, can you please post a link to an article?

I don't know where in the states you live, but there is no law in Maryland that requires a couple to have premarital counseling. And with you being a Christian, since Christians are not supposed to judge, why should you be able to pass judgement on those who want to marry if you think that they have a 'shoddy' background? (Maybe you were joking, but it's hard to tell through text.)

"That's why I'm challening some of our governments actions and laws passed. People need to start standing up and challenging wrongdoings, instead of just living with them as that's just the way it is." Agreed. That's why people need to actually become involved in their government by voting and making themselves be heard - be it through letters to their congress people, starting organizations, attending organization meetings, attending protests, etc.

"With standards lowering too, they toss just about anyone, with a college education, into office. Just because they went to college doesn't meant they have good ethical behavior, strong character or personal integrity..." Agreed!!! And, as is completely apparent by Bush's school history, it doesn't even matter what kind of grades are made while they attend school, either. It's appalling and disgusting. But it doesn't end with Bush (obviously). A lot of the government is infected with this kind of b.s. It's more apparent when you work in the defense industry, though. Ugh.

About your church and state post - just wanted to add that they can organize religious functions on public school campuses because it's public property, the school just cannot endorse it.

Posted on 17 October 2007 @ 13:27 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

ironic nostalgia, posted over a year ago

fade,

my response will be from an american-centric perspective, because that's the legal and political system i am familiar with.

"In Canada, there is a possibility of a freedom being struck down if it is found to be unreasonable or in violation to the majority's freedoms. The constitution can be challenged."

i'm not sure how things work in canada, but in the united states, changing the constitution is no easy task. first, a proposed amendment must pass through a congressional committee before it goes up for a debate on the floor of the two houses of congress. since 1789, over 10,000 constitutional amendments have been proposed, yet only 33 amendments have been added to our constitution. 6 of those amendments are still pending ratification. the process involves passing the bill in both houses of congress by a 2/3rds vote, and then 3/4ths of all state legislatures must ratify the amendment. this process applies to both amendments that would add language to the constitution or repeal language -- basically meaning that this process is necessary for any change to occur.

additionally, i should note that the united states is a representative democracy, or republic. this means that our system of government is not run by majority rule; rather, it is to ensure that the rights guaranteed to all citizens are not blocked by the majority from the minority.

"Just Society's standards are lowering.

We currently had our marriage laws to be re-written to allow for same sex marriages."

you seem to be implying that by extending the rights and privileges of marriage that opposite-sex couples enjoy to same-sex couples is some how a "lowering" of standards. please explain that statement. i don't understand your logic that an extension of rights equals a lowering of standards.

it appears that i must explain the origins of marriage here, to put the discussion in proper context. marriage was not originally the domain of religions (at least, not contemporary religions). in fact, christianity did not recognize marriage as a sacrament until the 15th century. until that time, to be a true christian was to live a life of celibacy. marriage's roots go back to the days of tribal society. it's primary function was the transfer of property between families (women were considered property -- the trade was usually a wife for livestock or wealth, i.e., a dowry.)

today, marriage is still primarily a function of the state. religions/churches do not issue marriage licenses -- courts do. a marriage license is recognized by the state as providing certain rights and privileges to the undersigned -- the right to make medical decisions for a partner and children, the right to receive inheritance/transfer property from/to a partner, the right to receive tax breaks and incentives from the state, for example. currently, these rights and privileges are not extended to couples of the same sex. because of these rights and privileges are granted by the state, marriage is a secular institution by any objective measure.

this is what the current debate is over. the laws in the united states are not based on any kind of biblical code/ethics -- our laws are based on the values of the enlightenment (reason, logic, facts, evidence, empirical observation, etc). this is why many archaic laws have been stuck down in recent times -- for example, the recent decision by the supreme court that state laws banning sodomy are unconstitutional.

because of the nature of our legal system, any law banning the rights and privileges from a group of individuals runs afoul of the 14th amendment of the constitution, which states that all citizens of the united states cannot be denied the rights and privileges granted by the united states constitution. this is the exact same argument used by thurgood marshall in 1954, where he argued in brown v. board of education that "separate but equal" was unconstitutional. whatever the bible states about same-sex couples is irrelevant -- it is not a legal document with any authority.

"And because I don't support same sex marriage in no way states that they should be persecuted for their sexual orientation choice."

but you do -- your stance of being against same-sex marriage fundamentally denies the rights and privileges of marriage to a whole group of people. that's the definition of discrimination -- it's a silent form of persecution. those who opposed integration of public schools in the united states are guilty of the same form of discrimination -- these people wanted to deny the rights and privileges of public education to a whole group of people by leaving them in sub-standard educational conditions.

"As personal views such as hate crimes are forbidden in our schools, so is advocating for homosexuality."

this statement is a bit puzzling. would you argue that it is wrong to teach tolerance? that is all teachers do when they, in your biased words, "advocate homosexuality." again, the same argument came from those who opposed integration -- they argued that teachers should not be allowed to "advocate" for african-americans. and by that they meant teach that african-americans are equal citizens who deserve equal rights.

Posted on 17 October 2007 @ 14:15 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

ironic nostalgia, posted over a year ago

"the federal government got involved and made gay marriage a violation of the U.S. Constitution"

the federal government has done no such thing. president bush has proposed a ban on same-sex marriage, but that proposal failed in committee. the only bans on same-sex marriage are defined by state laws. only a few states recognize same-sex marriage or "civil unions."

additionally, the maryland court of appeals recently ruled that a ban on same-sex marriage is constitutional. at this point, only a petition of the supreme court can declare laws denying the rights and privileges of marriage to same-sex couples unconstitutional. i don't see how the supreme court can rule any other way, considering that to do so would go against precedent of the application of the 14th amendment.

"I don't mind the sexual orientation of others. I would though if a gay was trying to pick up on me."

this statement also puzzles me, and is blatantly contradictory. would you mind the sexual orientation of a straight woman who hits on you? if not, does this mental exercise now demonstrate that you have some personal issue with the sexual orientation of others?

"What are we really teaching our children? When a family argues, files for divorce."

i think stina really sums up well the logical flaws with your argument. this is quite a broad generalization you have advocated. taking your position to the logical extreme, should women who are in abusive relationships continue to risk the lives of themselves and their children, to avoid teaching their children to "run away"?

"As far as putting to death, did you hear about the Christian recently who refused to switch to an eastern religion and they shot him."

where did this happen? i'd hedge a bet that it wasn't in the united states. how is this pertinent to the current discussion? i don't understand why it is mentioned, though, i could have missed something in the above discussion.

"What made it hard for us with religion is having non-believers in high political offices.

you seem to be implying that the irreligious don't have "good ethical behavior, strong character or personal integrity," yet you don't offer any contemporary examples to support such a claim. i'd also argue that being religious doesn't make you qualified for office either, but that appears to have been a de facto requirement since the beginning of this country. early discussions in our country tried to keep all "non-christians" out of elected office, using the same exact argument you have stated.

currently, religions within the united states advocate state-sponsored intolerance and discrimination against groups whose personal activities they disagree with. are those the kind of ethics you would like to see embodied in elected officials?

additionally, how many non-believers are there actually in office today or have been in the past? every single elected official in the history of the united states has proclaimed some form of religion, be it deism, judaism, muslim, or (primarily) christian. the only atheist i can think of who has ever been in office just came out about his convictions within the last year. that's one elected official in more than 200 years.

Posted on 17 October 2007 @ 14:47 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

ironic nostalgia, posted over a year ago

fade,

i realize that i should also add that every single amendment to the constitution of the united states has been an extension of rights. only in one instance was there a repeal of rights (prohibition), but that amendment was repealed with a subsequent amendment.

my point is that there is no historical precedent to suggest that freedoms will be repealed through amending the constitution. other methods have been used to restrict freedoms, but usually those restrictions have been deemed unconstitutional with a constitutional amendment (the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments are prime examples of this).

Posted on 17 October 2007 @ 15:3 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

, posted over a year ago

We do have a different political system. We had adopted some of Britian's laws-we even follow certain protocols in our courts.

I am someone who has differing and in most cases, higher standards than the "norm". If one finds this offensive it is probably because they themselves feel inferior or attacked when there is none. I do not support that gay marriages are God's will. I know from my daily scripture reading that to speak out and say it's not God's standard is truth and I'm glad I have the freedom to do so. No where in my statements do I promote hatered or intolerance.

Our youth legal system for so long protected our youth because they were not adults and therefore are not held accountable to the same degree of their adult counterparts that commit the same autrocities. It is such cases like these that I worry over the decaying standards of my community. I don't know what goes on in yours or in your Country- I am more aware of mine.

Back in the day, Church, Home, and School were the three pillars of the community. They had more of the same purposes. Church has been under attack and undermined and some good came of it but on the morality level-it's not so not have been an influence?

If Religion is mocked and picked apart it loses good. There is a higher infidelity rate and higher divorce rate. How can one not figure that the attack on the church and it's teaching may it's power of influence based on righteous teachings that stem from Heavenly Father's word. With it the high standard it teaches, the morals and values are then under attack. There is much wisdom in the Bible and Society of today is walking further and further away from this rod that can help us stay centered in our minds, hearts, and homes.

Schools have also taken a hit and unfortunately, they are restricted on many things. This never used to be the case.

If you compare the youth from the 1950's to today, their concerns are divergent. What teachers stress over have changed as well. From chewing bubble gum, running in the hallways, late assignments, smoking to gang violence, metal detectors, drugs. You cannot tell me that lowering standards of what is acceptable for the sake of an individuals freedoms have brought only good?

Freedom is necessary but the laws of the land of both the US and Canada were inspired by our ancestors that had a strong faith and love for our Creator. They wanted their citizens to remember where all our blessings and freedoms come from and to not abuse them. I think our forefathers would be heartbroken at the direction our Countries are heading.

As children need a strong, loving home, with rules and values present, a home presided over by a Father and Mother who love one another and uphold the sacred vows of marriage-we as adults, humans need laws to direct us to lasting happiness and success.

The home is under attack and as it the true and central purpose of the family.

When you let a child have too much freedom, those parents that don't have a close relationship with their children and believe that they had time with them to learn what is expected and just put blind faith in them. Those same children turn to the media and other people who do not support the values and standards of their home.

When you don't love and respect your children enough and becoming domineering-you are abusing them and your role. You over criticise, restrict, control. They are unhappy and become rebellious and run from the home out into the world that is full of messages that glamourize a lifestyle of the fast lane, cheap momentary thrills of drugs, alcohol, and sex. They hide the downfalls of addiction, sexual disease, and emotional and mental well being.

So when I say that the lowering of standards causes me concerns. I know full well what I am talking about.

You let one standard of the Bible go and soon after others follow. There is a pattern in history that shows this as well.

I do worry about what the future holds for my grandchildren and realize I have to be steadfast in my teachings. I believe I was sent in this time to protect and love all that I see.

Posted on 17 October 2007 @ 16:25 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

, posted over a year ago

African Americans did not choose their skin color. Homosexuals choose what desires they will entertain. Just as a man in a marriage choose to step out of his vows of marriage and sleep with someone who is not his wife, be it male or female.

There is a line of right and wrong, appropriate and ill appropriate.

As I have said before, when you go against the truth, you lose the gift of knowing truth.

Posted on 17 October 2007 @ 16:37 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

stina, posted over a year ago

Fade, this is in reference to your last post: homosexuality is not a choice. Tell me and please provide solid scientific facts for your claim - how does a homosexual *choose* to love someone of the same sex? Because, obviously, that is a desire of the heart. The burden of proof is on you since you have made this claim.

In reference to your earlier post, you said "I am someone who has differing and in most cases, higher standards than the "norm"." What do you mean that you have "higher standards" than the norm? I would like to know what you think constitutes a "higher standard." Because from what I read, I can only gather that you mean "higher standards" include being oppressive to a massive group of people and not allowing them the rights they should have as people.

You say "No where in my statements do I promote hatered or intolerance." Excuse me, most of your posts have been about intolerance - no marriage for homosexuals means that they do not recieve as many benefits/rights as those who are allowed to marry. Please explain why you do not think you're promoting intolerance.

"If Religion is mocked and picked apart it loses good." I do not understand what you mean. If it is picked apart, then how does it all of a sudden become less "good." If it truly is "good" then no amount of "picking it apart" should do any harm, correct? Please provide examples of what you mean. I see that you've written about a higher infidelity rate and a higher divorce rate, but I do not see the connection you're trying to make. I suppose that's because I see no connection between religion and marriage (or divorce and infidelity.)

I will post more about this later...

Posted on 17 October 2007 @ 16:54 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

ironic nostalgia, posted over a year ago

fade,

i'm not sure where to begin here. most of your recent post does not address any of the concerns and questions i posed to you in my previous posts. in fact, it appears as though you have abandoned our previous discussion and trailed off into something else entirely -- i'm not exactly sure what you are trying to argue with your last post.

"I am someone who has differing and in most cases, higher standards than the 'norm'. If one finds this offensive it is probably because they themselves feel inferior or attacked when there is none."

so, in the context of the previous discussion, are you claiming that you have a "higher standard" of morality/ethics because you believe it is just to deny the rights and privileges to an entire group of people? how is that not an offensive position?

let me turn the tables here for a second -- supposed there was a law in place that made it illegal to marry someone of the opposite sex, and suppose that the dominate religion regarded opposite-sex marriage as an abomination. additionally, same-sex couple enjoy all kinds of rights and privileges based on their married status that opposite-sex couple are legally prevented from enjoying. how is this not discrimination?

"If one finds this offensive it is probably because they themselves feel inferior or attacked when there is none."

how do you think same-sex couples feel when you proclaim to have a higher moral standard because an ancient book of questionable truthfulness tells you so? of course they would feel inferior, because you have put yourself in a position of superiority. this behavior is the same kind espoused by those who supported slavery in america's past.

"I do not support that gay marriages are God's will."

and god's will is quite irrelevant in a modern legal system. no laws are based on "god's will," nor will ever be. this is part of the progression of the human mind -- the enlightenment. it is the insistence on empirical evidence and basic logic. the archaic methods of divine mandate are relics of ancient systems of government -- theocracy, autocracy, monarchy, totalitarianism. i'll choose the enlightenment values within a representative government any day over the word of priests and tyrants.

"No where in my statements do I promote hatered [sic] or intolerance."

i claimed that your position is a form of discrimination. you advocate a position which aims to deny an entire group of people equal rights with yourself. that's the definition of discrimination. most discrimination forms from an intolerance of the group being discriminated against. no where did i claim you espoused hatred. perhaps you can show me where i made such a claim?

"If Religion is mocked and picked apart it loses good."

and this is only a testament to its uselessness. the enlightenment taught people to question authority, to seek out sources, to verify information, to repeat experiments to prove facts, to use basic logic to understand theoretical situations -- in essence, to think.

why should religion be exempt from such scrutiny? would you believe the physicist who claims that gravity is a myth and that a supernatural being holds all objects to the ground with his millions of hands, whose only "evidence" is an ancient book that just proclaims such is the state of the world? or would you believe the physicist who claims that there is a force of gravity, derived from the mass of the earth, which pulls objects towards the earth, whose evidence is repeated experiments which verify unquestionably the existence of such a force?

the former is religion, the latter is science. if religion cannot hold up to scrutiny, then there is something wrong with religion, not something wrong with asking questions.

"There is a higher infidelity rate and higher divorce rate."

sorry, that's a falsehood. divorce initially increased because it was made legal; however, the divorce rate of today is not much different than it was at that time. also, i'd like to see your figures about infidelity. you've just made two claims without supporting them. why should i believe you?

"You cannot tell me that lowering standards of what is acceptable for the sake of an individuals freedoms have brought only good?"

you need to define this term of "lowering of standards" that you are throwing around a lot. what exactly do you mean by that? are you saying that public education was better in the 1950's, when schools were segregated? when girls were not encouraged to go to college, or study math and science? when higher education was primarily the domain of white males? was that really a better system?

additionally, your examples of what teachers stress over is news to me. do you have some evidence that these are widespread? i remember my primary and secondary education experiences, and none of those things were stressed by teachers -- that was only 7 years ago. teachers always stressed the content of the class over everything else.

your comments about family are contradictory. you criticize parents who let children have too many freedoms, but you also criticize families who "criticise, restrict, control" their children. what should parents do then? furthermore, you are yet to show that such behavior is common among modern families. what evidence have you that this is a widespread problem?

"They hide the downfalls of addiction, sexual disease, and emotional and mental well being."

really? are you familiar with the public education system at all? from my own memory, education about the dangers of drug use was a high priority for every school i attended. sexually transmitted diseases were practically all we talked about in health class. if you mean parents, perhaps you have a point; however, i have not seen any data to suggest that a significant number of parents refuse to educate their children on such matters. do you have such evidence. my point, though, is that this information is available to children, primarily through the public education system.

"You let one standard of the Bible go and soon after others follow. There is a pattern in history that shows this as well."

what standard of the bible is being let go? is it the one about same-sex couples being an abomination? sounds like a good one to let go, if you ask me. most of the religious of today have let go of bible standards that justify slavery, too. or do you think we need to bring those back as well?

i'd have to say that, from reading your response, you make a lot of unsupportable claims. you hold up religious "values" as if they should not be subject to the same scrutiny we put all ideas through, yet you willfully ignore some of the more egregious "values" of the bible, such as justifications for slavery. my point is that we have better documents to base ethical codes on. any post-enlightenment philosopher is head and shoulders above the teachings of the bible. i suggest you read kant or hume. we can base our ethics on a foundation of solid, empirical, verifiable evidence and sound logic.

that's what the constitution is -- it is not a "christian influenced" document. read the treaty of tripoli, which states "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." we are a country based on the ideals of the enlightenment. the only turning in graves would be because many in the united states are trying to turn this country towards theocracy.

Posted on 17 October 2007 @ 17:39 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

ironic nostalgia, posted over a year ago

"African Americans did not choose their skin color. Homosexuals choose what desires they will entertain. Just as a man in a marriage choose to step out of his vows of marriage and sleep with someone who is not his wife, be it male or female.

There is a line of right and wrong, appropriate and ill appropriate.

As I have said before, when you go against the truth, you lose the gift of knowing truth."

then i guess you have lost the gift of knowing the truth. scientists have already determined that sexual orientation (whether hetero- or homo-) is not a choice, but biologically driven. in fact, such behavior is even found in animals.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/03/040309073256.htm

Posted on 17 October 2007 @ 17:42 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

stina, posted over a year ago

well, reading what was just posted, it doesn't seem I need to add onto what I wrote! lol

Posted on 17 October 2007 @ 17:49 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

, posted over a year ago

No they have not, by my readings that are in my presses-they remain inconclusive.

They note that perhaps higher estrogen levels may play a factor but minute. Just as they go on to say that a group of men on a submarine will stop producing testosterone and will not need to shave. Factors of environment in this case does play a part but it in no way effects sexual preference.

It is a possibility they are researching and have already drawn the conclusion that genetic make up is a deciding factor.

I'm wondering what references you will be willing to post for my review. Please and thank you.

As for the other issues you have raisesd.

I am not happy that you feel the need to attack my beliefs. They are mine and I base them on teachings from my parents and what I have discerned in the Bible.

There is a different standard from people of religion/faith than that of society. I am not happy with this and I am aware if I want change, first, it begins with me. I can excercise my vote and I can, if needed, write up a proclamation for others to sign in support.

Another thing that you raise and neglect, is that I entitled to my beliefs and you obviously disagree with them and I'm fine with that. You could just state and instead of taking my words and twisting them and putting your meaning on them.

Perhaps being I am an imperfect being and from time to time depending on my mood, environment- I may not be fully to my potential of self expression. State that but do not infer that I am a person that does not understand and practive compassion. Do not state that there are no laws that govern our universe. Do not state that we are not born with our own moral compasses and all through our lives we have the power to excercise decisions based on our desires and that we are helpless when it comes to our desires. We are not.

We govern our own desires and it should not be the other way around. Unfortunately there are things in this life that can take this power and gift away; I refer to drugs and other addictions.

That is my point time and again and I will not deviate from this as it has long been my belief.

We all have weaknesses we given for purposes to learn to overcome and strengthen us. It differs from person to person.

There is mercy but do note that the Bible is clear on what is tolerable and not tolerable. What is expected and not expected.

I will say that I do get to make my own judgements and I do get to teach my kids in a way that I see fit regardless what Societ has to say. I am aware that as time goes on that I will have to remain steadfast in my teachings towards my family as society's standards; others sense of right and wrong deviate from the healthy norm that befinits all mankind.

Posted on 18 October 2007 @ 0:25 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

ironic nostalgia, posted over a year ago

i have posted a reference for your review -- the article in science daily. from your response, it is evident that you did not read it. here it is again:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/03/040309073256.htm

i'll quote at length from the article to show that everything you wrote about the science being "inconclusive," estrogen levels, and the submarine is just a bunch of crap. i also have to wonder why you went to the general press and not to the scientific literature. from the article:

"A study published in the February issue of the journal Endocrinology demonstrates that not only are certain groups of cells different between genders in a part of the sheep brain controlling sexual behavior, but brain anatomy and hormone production may determine whether adult rams prefer other rams over ewes."

"'This particular study, along with others, strongly suggests that sexual preference is biologically determined in animals, and possibly in humans,' said the study's lead author, Charles E. Roselli, Ph.D., professor in the Department of Physiology and Pharmacology, OHSU School of Medicine. 'The hope is that the study of these brain differences will provide clues to the processes involved in the development and regulation of heterosexual, as well as homosexual, behavior.'"

"The results lend credence to previous studies in humans that described anatomical differences between the brains of heterosexual men and homosexual men, as well as sexually unique versions of the same cluster of brain cells in males and females."

"'There's a difference in the brain that is correlated with partner preference rather than gender of the animal you're looking at.'"

"OHSU researchers discovered an irregularly shaped, densely packed cluster of nerve cells in the hypothalamus of the sheep brain, which they named the ovine sexually dimorphic nucleus or oSDN because it is a different size in rams than in ewes. The hypothalamus is the part of the brain that controls metabolic activities and reproductive functions."

"The oSDN in rams that preferred females was 'significantly' larger and contained more neurons than in male-oriented rams and ewes. In addition, the oSDN of the female-oriented rams expressed higher levels of aromatase, a substance that converts testosterone to estradiol so the androgen hormone can facilitate typical male sexual behaviors. Aromatase expression was no different between male-oriented rams and ewes."

"The study was the first to demonstrate an association between natural variations in sexual partner preferences and brain structure in nonhuman animals."

next time, please read the references i provide before dismissing them. i don't know what you're talking about as far as the men on the submarine -- care to send some evidence of that? i've never heard of it. additionally, the effects of hormone levels have not been tested. the article states that the alteration of pre-natal hormone levels is being considered for lab testing.

what the article does state is that there are differences in the size of a particular part of the brain. this suggests that sexual orientation is related to genetics. that's not exactly something people have control over. to suggest so is very disingenuous.

as for the rest of your post... it's very confusing. for instance, you wrote "Another thing that you raise and neglect" -- how can i raise an issue yet neglect it at the same time?

you are entitled to you beliefs, yes. but you aren't entitled to impose those beliefs onto others, and that's exactly what you are doing when you wish that same-sex marriage be banned. this was evident when you wrote, "I am not happy with this [society's standard, which you are referring to same-sex marriage] and I am aware if I want change, first, it begins with me. I can excercise [sic] my vote and I can, if needed, write up a proclamation for others to sign in support."

you state that you actively want to work to prevent the rights and privileges of marriage from being extended to same-sex couples. that is being intolerant if there ever was a clear example. how is your position different from those who worked to prevent integration?

then you get into a bunch of existentialism that isn't exactly relevant to our current discussion.

you write that i state that you are not compassionate, yet i never said that in this thread. what i did say is that you support discrimination. you have not addressed my argument yet. will you address the substance of my argument instead of throwing out your interpretations of what i have written?

you write that i cannot state that there are no laws governing the universe. well, i never claimed there weren't. not sure where you got that idea. there are physical laws in the universe -- its the study of physics, biology, chemistry; it is science. if you are inferring that there are supernatural laws, i am yet to see any evidence of such a thing. can you prove your claim? i doubt it.

you write that i cannot state we are not born with a moral compass... what does that mean exactly? are you suggesting that you were born with a set of morals? i suggest you read up on cultural studies, sociology, anthropology, and philosophy. there are plenty of more compelling arguments that humans construct their own morals based on little more than their own minds. we create morals -- there is no evidence to suggest that morals have been handed down to us through some supernatural force. do you have such evidence?

you bring up drugs again... for what purpose? what are you suggesting when you say "we govern our own desires"? in context of the previous discussion, i have to assume that you are again pressing the falsehood that gay/lesbian individuals are actively choosing their sexuality. as i have shown twice, you are wrong. if this is not what you meant, please be more specific in what you write. your vagueness prevents any meaningful discussion from taking place.

"There is mercy but do note that the Bible is clear on what is tolerable and not tolerable. What is expected and not expected."

you continue to bring up the bible as if it is a legal authority, and as i have pointed out several times, the bible has no place in our modern societies. we have developed far better systems of ethics and morals than the an ancient text could ever hope to keep up with. i'll live in the now, not in the past.

if you choose to live by the bible, that's fine. but i think the rest of us would prefer if you kept it to yourself. again, to keep this conversation in the context of our previous discussion, you aim to impose your beliefs about same-sex marriage on all of society. why? how does the marriage between other individuals affect yourself?

"others sense of right and wrong deviate from the healthy norm that befinits [sic] all mankind"

you are yet to demonstrate that your beliefs and/or the bible offer any kind of benefits to a modern society. how are other ethical codes "deviating from the healthy norm" as you claim? what is the "healthy norm"? please elaborate on these points. i have given several examples to demonstrate that the bible is an outdated text with outdated ethics/morals. additionally, i have provided contemporary ethical philosophies and systems of government that far surpass anything the bible has to offer. you are yet to offer a counter-critique of my claims. please, convince us, why should we follow the bible? i'd prefer specific examples with supporting evidence, not vague declarations of quoted bible verses.

lets compare two documents that outline ethical philosophies -- the bible and the united states constitution.

the bible is an ancient text, written by many different men who lived centuries apart from one another. additionally, the bible has been unofficially altered over time from it's original texts. in fact, we don't even have the original texts, nor do we have secular evidence that many of the subjects of the bible and authors of its books even existed at all. furthermore, there is no mechanism to officially change the language in the bible, in order to keep the text relevant with current times.

the original constitution is available. we can verify that nothing has been altered outside of the boundaries of a defined law and due process. the constitution also has a mechanism to change, in order to adapt to new situations that could not have been previously envisioned. this allows us to make the constitution a better document as time progresses.

which document would you rather base a legal system on? a system of government? a system of ethics? the unalterable copy of an ancient text, or the original, evolving document?

Posted on 18 October 2007 @ 2:47 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

, posted over a year ago

What is your problem? Clearly I have stated that what you have read is not the same what I have read and yet you come on here and post some snotty reply to that has attached to it contempt which infers that your way of thinking and your one source is THE BE ALL.

Strongly suggests. That statement does not support it is conclusive. Suggests is not fact.

Posted on 18 October 2007 @ 3:7 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

, posted over a year ago

Another thing you are operating on is that you are from the States and I am from Canada and yet you use your standard to tell me that I should align my believes on your constitution.

I agree that the constitution in your counrty and mine has failed alot of people, mainly African Americans, Native Americans, and The Japenese American Descendants. Both our counrtry's have a bloody and violent history and did not follow the constitution in those times when they were oringinally established.

I have a strong belief that Family is crucial in it's divinity. No where in the constitution does it support the rights of a Family as a unit-just individual freedoms.

My claims as to which I make my inferences are clearly not based on what you deem as being fair minded. Which I clearly state.

Soceity does have different views on marriage, family, sex, substance abuse.

There is a histroy that Governments have covered up the addictive traits of cancer and hid the health consequences of smoking. They overrid this for the sake of a buck. It is fast becoming common knowledge.

While schools may briefly touch on sex education and the use of drugs-it must not be an effective enough program as the numbers of teen abuse is on a rise. Do note that most of these teens that abuse come from middle income to higher incomes.

Maybe Society, from time to time, puts on the mantle of a crusader but society on a whole has deviated from wise teachings of obstaining from sex until married. The good of living these teachings far outweigh the bad.

There would be less teen pregnancies, less spread of std's, less infidelity as the commitment and sanctity of marriage would be supported by advocating waiting to express natural affection the way it was intended.

If you do not support that the Bible is based on wisdom that comes from Divinityp-then state that and end this discussion.

Time and again I reference where my beliefs stem from and why I hold the views I do. This is a blessing of freedom of expression.

NO where do I ever say I hate or state that people who have different views than mine should be persecuted.

I find it funny as I voice my opinion-that I am now being singled out and persecuted for being the individual I am and having the beliefs I do.

Posted on 18 October 2007 @ 3:24 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

, posted over a year ago

And another thing I may not have made clear, which will only further insense others-having same sex desires/feelings is not wrong but acting on them is just as it is for those who are heterosexual and have desires for their counterpart and act on it outside the bonds of marriage.

I think it is sad when one identifies themselves primarily with sexual feelings.

Posted on 18 October 2007 @ 3:32 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

, posted over a year ago

I do not reject homosexual as a group- I love them as my fellow brother and sisters.

I, personally don't support their sexual practices and when asked what I believe- I tell them.

As they expect me to be fair to them and know they are more than the one characteristic of sexual orientation; I know that they should understand why I feel and believe what I do-I don't expect them to have the same belief.

Clearly we all cannot have the same beliefs.

As tolerance becomes more and more and with it freedoms are giving based on sexual preferences-do not confuse that I in no way say that they do not have the choice to live and do what they will.

Again those come on here and take my opinion and use it as a means to hate and resent and attack.

Your comments towards me; I have felt the spirit of contention in them.

There has to be a standard to refer to. And in times of confusion and darkness like what occured in World history after the fall of the Roman Empire and what transpired in the Dark Ages-we can refer to.

In the court system that is why the Government, at least in Canada, created the constitution. It is to protect the people from the Government.

The Canadian Constitution changes with the times and the Bible and it's teachings does not. And that is where all the contention comes from.

Divergent standards.

Posted on 18 October 2007 @ 3:46 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

, posted over a year ago

Don't misinterpret "legal" with "good".

Posted on 18 October 2007 @ 4:1 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

, posted over a year ago

"I think it is sad when one identifies themselves primarily with sexual feelings."

Putting god into perspective here, he made a man with a penis and a woman with a vagina. 'Naturally' a penis fits into a woman's vagina, and when it does, over a period of repetitive thrusting from the man, sometimes the woman, or both, sperm would shoot out, or in some cases, dribble out and find its way into a woman's egg, if he's lucky.

Now back more on topic, god created humanity with the distinction of man and woman - the distinction of gender and sexual orientation. On one hand, and correct me if my interpretation is off; Fade interprets that man and woman can fall in love without physical attraction. Thus being a natural human is being heterosexual. This is in the belief that homosexual men and women cannot fall in love without physical attraction.

Okay, wait, I'm not putting words into Fade's mouth. What I am actually doing it trying to piece together the theory behind this. No, on the contrary, if I am making a mistake, correct me. I'm simply trying to understand this segment.

Now there is really one unsaid thing here that I want to say. By saying that natural humanity consists of man and woman and their own premade sexual preferences is the right thing, those who believe this may think that it is obviously wrong for men and women to 'sway' from that 'premade' sexual preference. However, here is that unsaid thing: what if heterosexuals and homosexuals do not have a designation of sexual orientation and instead, are just referred to as humans?

So rather than walk down the street and say "You see Kim there? Yeah, she's a lesbian." You would probably simply say "You see Kim there? Yeah, I saw her kissing her wife the other day. So hot."

However, society is forced to use words such as "homosexual" or "lesbian" and "gay" because people often need a focal point for discussion, rather than just say "he" or "she".

I think to have designation of a person based on his or her sexual orientation is in some ways offensive. It's like being heterosexual is a given thing, and homosexuality is not.

I remember talking with a friend once a long time ago, and somehow our conversation came to me saying "I went to the temple yesterday with my mom. Wow, was it smoky in there!" She then asked, "Why were you at a temple?" And I said, "My mom wanted to make her prayers yesterday so I drove her."

You know what her reply was? "Like a Christian temple?" And I replied, "Um, no. Christian temple? Those things exists? No, a Buddhist temple."

She said, "Oh, you're Buddhist? I didn't know that."

What caught me with those words, was that she automatically thought that everyone in Canada is a Christian. So in my mind, that sort of 'ignorance' is actually just as bad as branding that everyone in the world are automatically heterosexual.

BTW, I'm not Buddhist, though Buddhist philosophy are much more in-tuned with my own agnostic feelings. ^_^

Now mind you, I wonder about Fade's comment here: "I, personally don't support their sexual practices and when asked what I believe- I tell them."

I think it's possible that some people may misinterpret this comment. For example, I thought that she simply meant that she isn't homosexual herself, thus not supporting it. However, others may perceive that as her being hateful or on a lesser degree, just don't abide by it at all. Make sense?

Personally, I am either or. If Jon and Tom, and Jane and Tammy love each other and want to share life together, fabulous. Go for it. If Jason and Sheila, and Jessica and Mark love each other, great, awesome, go hug a rainbow while you're at it. So long as they don't go cheat on each other and cause emotional havoc.

I don't believe marriage is between man and woman. I believe marriage is just a piece of paper that ties two lovers together in hopes that the government will support them in bringing up a family. To me, I think marriage should be abolished and the universal common term as "civil union" should be placed instead. Then again, I am only 'extreme' that way, if at all.

In my perfect world, maple trees will have bronze taps, and Kokanee will pour from them endlessly. Other safety and health considerations are a given. Other than that, I'll abolish segregated and diverse religion, and replace it with philosophy from all walks and ideals of life. In my world, Jesus and Huddha were fabulous men who drank tea in the afternoon, and played a game of ancient checkers in the evening, and debated on such matters such as "Just how vast is the universe, and how humanity will interpret it."

Oh noes! LI, now you're just being silly amidst a heated debate about sexual orientation and religion. Yeah, I am. What are you going to do about it? Shove a butt plug up my ass? Not going to happen. I may be liberal, but NOT THAT liberal!

Posted on 18 October 2007 @ 7:7 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

stina, posted over a year ago

Okay, I have a feeling that ironic will reply to all of what you've just stated, Fade, so I do not think I'll have to address any of that. BUT, I have to ask, where did you read the fact about submarines and estrogen? (This is what you stated in a previous post, "Just as they go on to say that a group of men on a submarine will stop producing testosterone and will not need to shave.")

A large part of my family has been in the Navy (they are all retired). My grandfather was at sea close to 30 years as the captain of a destroyer and part of the crew of a submarine. He has never heard of this. Neither has anyone else that I've spoken with.

Also, I work for a defense contractor that builds submarines and sells them on a global scale. None of my coworkers have heard of this and even found it laughable. You'd think that *someone* would have been notified if our products promoted the estrogen levels in males to rise so much that men could stop shaving.

I have tried researching it online and could not find anything to back up this claim of your's. I'm really interested to read the study that you read. Can you please post the source? My coworkers are interested in your claim, as well.

I'm also interested in your response to my last post. It's rather short, so you probably will not have to spend too much time responding. I basically just ask you for sources and elaboration on your previous points.

Thanks!

PS - you said "What is your problem? Clearly I have stated that what you have read is not the same what I have read..." I don't think ironic (or anyone else here) has a problem. Honestly, all I see is more or less intelligent conversation and debate. Perhaps it would benefit you to post your sources so that your claims can be verified. I'd be interested (as mentioned throughout this post) to see your sources, as well.

Posted on 18 October 2007 @ 12:34 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

stina, posted over a year ago

(Fade, I also searched for studies having to deal with testosterone levels and submarines, but nothing showed up. The only things that I could find were fictional movies, books and short stories.)

Posted on 18 October 2007 @ 13:8 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

, posted over a year ago

Huddha - now that's a name... [sighs] I meant Buddha... BUDDHA!!! BOO DUH!

Posted on 18 October 2007 @ 13:47 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

ironic nostalgia, posted over a year ago

fade,

"What is your problem?"

i don't have a problem -- i enjoy a lively and intellectually stimulating discussion. perhaps you don't; i can't be sure. but if i think you're wrong, i'll point it out, and bludgeon the point home. as of this post, you still have no addressed any of my criticisms with specific arguments of your own.

"Clearly I have stated that what you have read is not the same what I have read"

and as i have asked repeatedly, please explain yourself. your vague responses are not helping to understand your position. you leave me to interpret your words myself because you will not provide clarification. if you feel as though i have misrepresented your claims, then show me exactly how and explain your position better. just proclaiming that you have been misinterpreted does not help at all, and it suggests that i have not misinterepted your argument because you have not clarified anything.

"some snotty reply to that has attached to it contempt which infers that your way of thinking and your one source is THE BE ALL"

sorry you feel that way, but if you explained yourself better, as i have repeatedly asked, my responses might not come off as "snotty" to you. i must say, it does get tiring to continually ask you for a clarification of your claims when you continue to refuse the request.

additionally, my argument in no way infers what you claim. i merely stated that there are better methods than the bible to form ethical codes, and i provided a reasoned argument for thinking so. you have provided me with no argument as to why you way of thinking is superior, yet you imply that your way is a "higher standard." that, in-and-of-itself is a proclaimation that your way "is THE BE ALL" end all.

furthermore, sentences like this one are problematic:

"There is a histroy that Governments have covered up the addictive traits of cancer and hid the health consequences of smoking."

huh? i didn't realize that cancer was an additive substance. can you elaborate? or did you mean to say that smoking is an addictive substance? my point is that sentence construction is important, and it is partly why your arguments are difficult to follow. i cannot know what you mean if you do not articulate it properly.

"Strongly suggests. That statement does not support it is conclusive. Suggests is not fact."

those words were my characterization of the scientific study. criticizing them does not criticize the evidence that i have provided, and this again leads me to believe that you have not read the article i posted, or even the quotes from the article. i'll post the definitive paragraph again:

the study demostratives conclusively that sexual behavior is controlled by a part of the brain. let me ask you something, do you have control over how different parts of your brain grow in size? no? then gay/lesbian individuals don't either. sexual orientation is not a choice. the science is in, and you refuse to face it.

"your standard to tell me that I should align my believes on your constitution"

i said no such thing. i used the united states constitution as an example of enlightenment thinking. i could have also used the universal declaration of human rights, a document ratified by the united nations in 1948. canada did vote in favor of the final draft. my point is that both of these documents constitute enlightenment thinking, and both of these documents are far superior to the ehtics/morals of the bible. i've already even several specific examples.

"There would be less teen pregnancies, less spread of std's, less infidelity as the commitment and sanctity of marriage would be supported by advocating waiting to express natural affection the way it was intended."

hmm. interesting. you make no less than four claims and provide no evidence that waiting until heterosexual marriage to have sex (i must assume that that is what you mean by "waiting to express natural affection the way it was intended." again, writing more clearly would certainly help everyone understand what you mean.) will prevent teen pregnancies, prevent the spread of STD's, decrease infidelity, and uphold the "sanctity of marriage." how will you enforce such a "rule"? legal enforcement would be the only sure way to impliment your "standard," and that is a clear example of you trying to force your "standards" onto everyone else. to suggest otherwise is willfully disingenuous on your part.

additionally, you need to define the "sanctity of marriage." you throw that around as if its definition is a commonly accepted one. what do you mean by that? and what do you mean by "natural affection the way it was intended"? how do you know how "natural affection" (do you think affection can be "unnatural" in same way?) is intended to be performed? can you explain how you know this? please use specific examples from real world data. the ramblings of dead men in an ancient text hardly qualify as empirical evidence.

furthermore, we have observed same-sex relations across animal species. how do you explain that such behavior is "unnatural"? how do you explain your "standard" as truth if there are real world examples that contradict it?

"If you do not support that the Bible is based on wisdom that comes from Divinityp-then state that and end this discussion."

i don't, and i have stated as such many times. i have provided reasoned arguments and real world evidence to explain my point of view. you are yet to address my claims, and you are yet to offer a counter argument to suggest that there is any unique wisdom in the bible. i've repeatedly asked you for such examples, and you have refused to comply.

"This is a blessing of freedom of expression."

not a blessing -- a guaranteed right, safe-guarded by thinkers of the enlightenment. if religions had had their way in the late 18th century, it's likely you would not have freedom of expression today.

"NO where do I ever say I hate or state that people who have different views than mine should be persecuted."

but you do, and i have laid this out several times. you state that you would vote to ban same-sex marriage. you say that you would organize petitions to ban same-sex marriage. with these statements, you have entered the world of political activism. there is nothing wrong that doing that; however, you enter political activism with the goal of restricting the rights and privileges of marriage from same-sex couples. that is discrimination -- a form of persecution. if you don't agree with my argument, please state why you disagree. please give me an argument in your defense. just stating that you don't think people should be persecuted is not enough to deflect your previous statements. please explain how those statements i have highlighted do not add up to discrimination.

"I find it funny as I voice my opinion-that I am now being singled out and persecuted for being the individual I am and having the beliefs I do."

you can voice your opinion, but be prepared to back it up when challenged. that is the nature od debate -- to provide your claims and argue that your claims are correct. you have provided no argument to support you position. a well thought-out opinion is one that has supporting evidence and reasoned arguments to prove its validity. why should i respect your opinion when you have not even attempted to give me a reason to? my point is that there are good opinions and there are bad opinions -- you are yet to prove that your opinion is worthwhile.

if you are not interested in debate, why are you here? forums are not designed as simple proclamations of opinions, and then we all hold hands and a "agree-to-disagree" at the end. this is a debate, and you are not providing any agruments to support you position. don't play victim just because you can't support your claims. i would hold anyone else making claims without providing evidence to the same intellectual standard.

"And another thing I may not have made clear, which will only further insense others-having same sex desires/feelings is not wrong but acting on them is just as it is for those who are heterosexual and have desires for their counterpart and act on it outside the bonds of marriage."

and that's fine that you believe that. but don't try to apply your opinion to everyone else. your desire for political activism to prevent same-sex couples from getting married is the problem. you are making a value judgment about a private activity that effects no one else except the individuals invloved -- and such value judgments have no place in a legal system.

"I think it is sad when one identifies themselves primarily with sexual feelings."

when a group of people are systematically discriminated against in a larger society, it becomes necessary to identify oneself to highlight the injustice. look at any progressive movement in modern history -- i.e., women's sufferage and civil rights -- and you'll see that those groups raised awareness to their plight my making such distinctions. this has shown to be an effective measure to bring about positive change. in a world that mostly assumes heterosexuality, discrimination against homosexuality cannot be seen by the larger society unless it is identified.

"I do not reject homosexual as a group- I love them as my fellow brother and sisters.

I, personally don't support their sexual practices and when asked what I believe- I tell them."

like i've said, that's fine if you want to believe that. just don't try to prevent them from receiving the same rights and privileges from the state that you enjoy.

"do not confuse that I in no way say that they do not have the choice to live and do what they will."

i'm not confused on this point. you have stated clearly that you think sexual preference is a choice, and i have demonstrated conclusively, several times with scientific evidence, that sexual orientation is not a choice. you are yet to provide a counter argument with any scientific data to support your claim.

"There has to be a standard to refer to. And in times of confusion and darkness like what occured in World history after the fall of the Roman Empire and what transpired in the Dark Ages-we can refer to."

no one is arguing that there shouldn't be a standard -- the argument is what that standard should be. as i have stated several times with reasoned arguments that enlightenment thinking is far surperior to your ancient text, there is a mush better standard than the bible. the bible is archaic. you are yet to provide any argument that proves otherwise.

"The Canadian Constitution changes with the times and the Bible and it's teachings does not."

and as i highlighted before, that's one of the weaknesses of the bible -- it's inability to adapt to new circumstances.

"Don't misinterpret 'legal' with 'good'."

no one did. "good" is a personal value judgment, and a completely subjective one. it has no place in law. legal system are based on objective, reasoned arguments with sound logic. if we start with a document like the bill of rights or the universal declaration of human rights, we have defined our own morality -- just as the authors of the bible defined their own morality. as i have argued repeatedly, the morals and ethics of documents like the bill of rights and universal declaration of human rights are a much better foundation for legal systems than the ethics and morals of the bible. those contemporary, enlightenment influenced documents are far superior to the bible in every way imaginable. again, you are yet to provide a counter argument to suggest otherwise.

Posted on 18 October 2007 @ 14:49 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

, posted over a year ago

I meant to say addictive qualities of smoking and excessive smoking leads to cancer.

Posted on 18 October 2007 @ 14:56 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

, posted over a year ago

I didn't see this as a debate forum. Questions were posed and I took it as we all had a say on our teaching, interpretation or what not.

So that is what I did. And I had referenced the Bible and will provide a list of all the sections I have read.

I also know that the Bible has different set of instruction, values, standards that conflict with Society's message of today.

I know what I am saying and have received that others understand my point of view and realize that it is my opinion, belief and that others have come on here to tear apart my beliefs and teachings due to their lack of understanding of wehre I am coming from and dress it up as educated discussion.

Where your education is derived from is not as mine and as I say this time and again to infer that I accept we have different perspectives- you overlook and demand prove.

Some of my beliefs and teachings are based on faith-where I hope for things that are true which are not seen. God being one of them.

If in some way you take offense to me even accepting the invite and pound away your points and fail to understand my side-I'm not telling you to read the Bible yourself and tell me where your claims support yours. I think if I did this-it would be claimed as I am not educated as I rely on relgious backround and not scientific.

Science does not know everything and can not feed the human spirit the way the Bible can, so I have found.

I understand you may not have experienced this and therefore that is where you are coming from so maybe that is where all this confusion and demands for me to prove myself.

I live my day and I do prove myself.

Just that anything I have to say or contribute is dismissed. That in no way says this is an educated discussion.

And just because I read the bit about men and submarines and that over time, there are those that since they do not have females around to compete for mating rites-there have been cases where men will stop producing the certain levels of testosterone; does not make me wrong. It can also infer you just are unaware of it and just because more people are unaware of it-does not make it right or truth.

Ignorance of facts is not educated.

Posted on 18 October 2007 @ 15:5 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

stina, posted over a year ago

Fade, quick question: why do you refuse to post your sources?

Especially since you say "Just that anything I have to say or contribute is dismissed. That in no way says this is an educated discussion." and "Ignorance of facts is not educated." Well, educate us! This is what most of us have been asking for and for some reason you are not.

Even though some of us do not post as frequently or do not have as much to say, we are still interested in both sides of the current discussion.

Posted on 18 October 2007 @ 15:13 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

stina, posted over a year ago

(And as far as I can tell, this whole thread has been debating. It's in the Lounge area of the forums where people are free to talk about anything. If you don't want to be a part of the thread anymore, you don't have to respond to anymore posts, you know? It seems like you're really stressing out about all of this...)

Posted on 18 October 2007 @ 15:20 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

ironic nostalgia, posted over a year ago

fade,

once again, you fail to address anything from my previous post. i don't need clarifications about your religious faith. you made a claim about the real world, and you aim to enforce that belief politically.

you stated that same-sex couples should not be allow to receive the same rights and privileges of marriage as opposite-sex couples currently enjoy.

i take issue with that, so i provided a counter argument as to why same-sex couples should be entitled to the same rights and privileges that opposite-sex couples enjoy.

you invited the debate by making the claim. now you are backpedaling from your claim by stating that it's just your "personal belief," but you now hide the fact that you stated above that you think your belief should be the social "standard."

science knows a hell of a lot more than the bible could ever hope to know. with every new scientific discovery, something that a religion somewhere once claimed to know as truth has been proven to be false. examples are abound:

- the age of the earth

- the fact of biological evolution

- the position of the earth in the solar system

- the position of the sun in the solar system

- the shape of the earth

- the rotation of the earth

- the basic chemical building blocks of life

- the existence of germs/microscopic organisms

these are just a few. with every one of these discoveries, religion has been forced to retreat from it's previous claims about the state of our universe, because their claims are demonstrably false. the trend of science's consistent record of discovering truths and religion's consistent record of being proved wrong only lead me to believe that this trend will continue as we progress through time.

you have given me no reason to think that the bible offers any kind of unique wisdom, and you are yet to prove that the bible offers verifiable truths.

additionally, i'm not asking you to prove yourself -- perhaps you do not understand what i mean when i ask you to provide evidence for your claims. i want to you make reasoned arguments and provide empirical data to support your view. you have done no such thing.

this is what stina is talking about with your claim of men on submarines. how much clearer can i make this...

SHOW US THE ORIGINAL SOURCE WHERE YOU READ THAT, SO WE CAN JUDGE FOR OURSELVES IF WHAT YOU SAY IS THE TRUTH.

do you understand the concept of sourcing? we want to see your evidence. just claiming it doesn't make it so. prove it. provide the evidence. how many more times can i request this of you?

you say "ignorance of facts is not educated" -- then provide us with your "facts." i want to see the original source of such claims. or are you saying that you did original research, and you have data to support your view? can your share with us this data?

please provide support for your claims. i'm not interested in your "belief" that they are true. i'm interested in independently verifiable, objective sources that back up your claims. can you provide them?

Posted on 18 October 2007 @ 15:27 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

, posted over a year ago

Biblical references:

Reasons why those of religions that have the Bible for their cornerstone of faith feel the need to teach or correct:

"...[take] upon us the responsibility, answering the sins of the people upon our own heads if we did not teach them the word of God with all diligence; wherefore by laboring with our might their blood might not come upon our garments." (Jacob 1:19)

"Cry aloud, spare not, lift up they voice like a trumpet, and shwe my people their transgression, and the house of Jacob their sins" (Isaiah 58:1)

Also see, Ezekial 34:2, Ezekial 33: 3-4.

Those who have heard the truth and are aware of the teachings of scripture they will be held accountable-the extent of truth the indivudal owns is how they will be judged.

"Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore yoru sin remaineth." (John 9:41)

If I had not come and spoken unto to them, they had not had sin: but now they have no clok for their sin. (John 15:22)

And that servant, which knew his Lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.

But he who knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required..." (Luke 12:47-48)

I don't say to anyone that they will go to hell as it is not my authority to declare such things;that is Jesus's authority.

I do say there are consequencs for committing any of the sins spoken of in scripture.

I have also said that I believe God to be just and therefore as we all have different degrees of knowledge; so is there different degrees of kingdoms. In Corinthians it speaks of three. 1 Cor. 15:40-42. ( I think it's posted up above)

We belong where we serve:

"No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon."(Matt 6:24)

Mammon is the church of the devil with Satan at the head of the church. In scripture it is told that Satan's ways are those who commit sins against God or those who are in opposition to Heavenly Father's teachings. That these teachings that are against God's; the practices of the sins is what the Chruch of the Devil is.

Matthew 13:38, 1 Peter 4:3, Revelations 12:17.

"For when they speak great swelling of words of vanity, the allure through the lusts of the flesh, through much wantonnesss, those that were clean escaped from them who live in error.

"While they promise liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought into bondage." (2 Peter 2:18-19)

Scriptual Lists of Sins:

"This also know, that in the last days perilous times shall come.

For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,

Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,

Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;

Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts..."

(2 Timothy 3:1-6)

...uncleanliness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonourn their own bodies between themselves:

Who ...worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator...

...God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemingly...

Backbitters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents.

...Convenant breakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

Who knowing the judgement of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them. (Romans 1:24-27, 30-32)

See also 1 Cor. 6:9-10; 1 Cor. 6:15-16; 18, Cor. 3:16-17; Cor. 6:9-10, Cor. 10:8, Ephesians 5:3-7; Galatians 5:19-21, Colossians 3:5, 7-8, 1

"For this is the will of God, even your santification and honour;

Not in the lust of concupiscience, even as the Gentiles which know not God:

That no man go beyond and defraud his brother in any matter: because that the Lord is the avenger of all such, as we also have forewarned you and testified.

For God hath not called us unto uncleanness, but unto holiness.

He therefore that despiseth, despiseth not man, but God, who hath also given unto his holy spirit." (Thessalonians 4:3-8)

Ancient names for sins of today. It is warned to not rationalize that sins on the excuse that a particular sin is not mentioned nor forbidden in scripture.

Repentance is for all and repentance gets us a remissions of our sins so we can be made clean to enter into the highest degree where God resides.

"Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;

And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him." (Hebrews 5:8-9)

"For the wage of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." ( Romans 6:23)

We all have sin.

"If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

If we say that we have sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us."

(1 John 1:8, 10)

"For there is not a just man upon the earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not."

(Eccles. 7:20)

I like the quote above as for me it states that although we are not evil-we can do evil. We inherit weaknesses that cause us to sin. We sin by our choices.

Posted on 18 October 2007 @ 17:0 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

, posted over a year ago

I do not dispute scientific knowledge for it was present in the Bible and I am aware that all things point to a divinity; that the laws that govern our universe was set in motion by the Creator. My Native ancestry's belief in the creator further testifies of the Creator's greatness and love for all his children.

There is spiritual knowledge too. We are more than just a body, we are spirit beings so is my understanding.

Again you overlook what I am saying and may not understand me but then zero in on something and overlook and make a wrong assumption of who I am, what I believe.

I am put once more on the stand of a trial of my faith.

So I will continue trying to teach you in the hopes that you may hear why I believe what I do, which was the original question. As to what authority I gain my understanding and again I have answered time and again.

I will keep repeating my belief by quoting scriputure.

I guess the true message that I do my best to uphold; is to choose righteousness.

That there is wisdom in scripture on how to avoid the spirit of contention, the traps of man's thinking and will in place of the all knowing, all wise, all loving Father in Heaven.

So I think you do not understand what I am saying. I think you look at it and as it is your choice to overlook what I have said and why I believe what I do and with it-disregard it as it is not your own; it is not my fault.

Posted on 18 October 2007 @ 17:7 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

, posted over a year ago

I'm aware you base your thinking on man's law. I base mine on God's being aware of man's.

If I live the commandments and teaching in the scriptures; I find that I am not in violation of man's law.

I may have a different opinion, view, belief from man's law; which is evident.

It is this difference of opinion that you refute and anger against.

I do find it futile to argue beliefs for each individual is entitled to their own belief.

I see this is one of those agree to disagree discussions.

All I have done my best to do is answer why I believe what I do, and what authority it is from.

As for the submarine thingie; I admit I read it when I was a youth; 20 years ago.

I'm currently searching for it online and maybe I will be lucky to find what source I read it from. It'd be fun to find.

Posted on 18 October 2007 @ 17:17 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

, posted over a year ago

There is a place in modern time for the Bible. I and my Family say so.

Just because you don't like it, agree with, dispute it should not qualify it as such. With this statement it can be infered that those who Worship the Almighty and live his teachings are not entitled to our beliefs.

If you say it has no place in modern times-you say I have no place or right to exsistance and no right to believe and live it.

That doesn't make sense to me.

You are advocating freedoms but then take mine away with that statement.

Maybe that is not what you meant but that is what I understand from it.

Posted on 18 October 2007 @ 17:28 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

, posted over a year ago

To all those of a faith, Muslim, Buddist, Catholic, Protestant...we make a large population and our exsistance is in violation to your personal belief that scripture, faith, religion, the Bible has not place in modern times.

Our very presence denies that logic.

Posted on 18 October 2007 @ 17:30 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

, posted over a year ago

I don't have to reject and have not, nor will I, reject what I know to be true.

I will not put man's understanding before God's.

So as much as you are trying to subvert my belief-you will not.

Declare me ignorant but I for myself, get to decide what is truth.

Even if science may prove-they go back and forth on such matters be it health, what is best for us, good for us.

I enjoy theory-most knowledge starts off as theory and then it proved or not proved.

Science is science and one understanding which I enjoy to read about- I miss my popular science subscription.

As Jesus is the law, and that God governs himself by law-it must be recongized that science is also within his powers and capacities. I say that man does not even come close to having his understanding.

There is no way we could create the world in it's perfectness of climate, gravitational forces. Even a tiny mushroom is to be fascinated by and held in awe. The mircale of all living things on this earht and of the knowledge of the sun, moon, stars, galaxies further my appreciation of a Heavenly Father.

When you read the Bible, it does not give an account as to how old the Earth is-it is true it is far more older than any written history.

My religious beliefs do not refute science on that level.

Even if it is a weakness to have a genetic make up-it is still a choice to practice or indulge in behaviours.

Being I am Native-American and science suggested the possibility that Native Americans and the Irish may lack a gene inhibitor that does not help us regulate our "flusing out toxins" as effecitively as others. The debate on this is still on-going as to weither it is true or not.

This doesn't decide if I am an alcoholic. It just says that it is my weakness that should I start drinking-the possibility of becoming one increases.

I don't drink. Did so off and on in my youth out of rebellion and learning for myself what makes me happy or not. I decided it's not something i want or need.

My choice.

Posted on 18 October 2007 @ 17:46 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

, posted over a year ago

The Bible has many historical writings of Earth and climatic events that have been proven to be true.

That is no different than those that said that Native Americans, because they had no written langauge, were lower, less than and have no say in history.

We have cultural and historical knowledge passed down in song and dance.

The BC tribes have had a case ruled that there is scientific evidence that what they pass down is viable knowledge.

http://anthonydepalma.com/articles/nyt/namerica/02091998.html

In the Bible it states time again of continental shifts, rifts-land falling away and oceans overcoming the land, mountains crumbling. Where there was flat land now stand mountains, and mountains gave way to the sea.

So this is one of the sites I refer to in my readings.

About science and the Bible being in harmony

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

Posted on 18 October 2007 @ 18:5 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

, posted over a year ago

In case no one feels compelled to visit the site, I make a quote from the site:

The following verses suggest that God created the universe through an expanding universe - what science has called the Big Bang. In many cases the Hebrew text indicates present tense - a process still continuing.

Who alone stretches out the heavens, And tramples down the waves of the sea; (Job 9:8)

Covering Thyself with light as with a cloak, Stretching out heaven like a tent curtain. (Psalms 104:2)

It is He who sits above the vault of the earth, And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers, Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in. (Isaiah 40:22)

Thus says God the Lord, Who created the heavens and stretched them out, Who spread out the earth and its offspring, Who gives breath to the people on it, And spirit to those who walk in it, (Isaiah 42:5)

Thus says the Lord, your Redeemer, and the one who formed you from the womb, "I, the Lord, am the maker of all things, Stretching out the heavens by Myself, And spreading out the earth all alone" (Isaiah 44:24)

"It is I who made the earth, and created man upon it. I stretched out the heavens with My hands, And I ordained all their host." (Isaiah 45:12)

"Surely My hand founded the earth, And My right hand spread out the heavens; When I call to them, they stand together." (Isaiah 48:13)

That you have forgotten the Lord your Maker, Who stretched out the heavens, And laid the foundations of the earth; That you fear continually all day long because of the fury of the oppressor, As he makes ready to destroy? But where is the fury of the oppressor? (Isaiah 51:13)

It is He who made the earth by His power, Who established the world by His wisdom; And by His understanding He has stretched out the heavens. (Jeremiah 10:12)

It is He who made the earth by His power, Who established the world by His wisdom, And by His understanding He stretched out the heavens. (Jeremiah 51:15)

The burden of the word of the Lord concerning Israel. Thus declares the Lord who stretches out the heavens, lays the foundation of the earth, and forms the spirit of man within him, (Zechariah 12:1)

The heavens are telling of the glory of God; and their expanse is declaring the work of His hands. (Psalms 19:1)

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

To further testify that there is a God in Heaven and he made the heavens and all things therein.

Posted on 18 October 2007 @ 18:21 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

ironic nostalgia, posted over a year ago

fade,

glad you finally stepped up the the challenge here. although, i have not been arguing to dissuade you of your faith. i really could care less what you personally believe. the problem is when you want to legislate your beliefs, as is evident in several of your posts.

unless you can provide me with a legal argument for preventing same-sex couples from enjoying the rights and privileges of state-recognized marriages, there's nothing to debate. we cannot debate faith, because faith makes claims that are inherently unprovable.

many of your bible passages do not speak of ethics, and they make rather vague proclamations.

- the Jacob 1:19 and Isaiah 58:1 passages seems to be about spreading religion. what has that got to do with ethical behavior? additionally, these two passages say nothing about the truth of the bible, nor provide us with any insight that proves there is any truth in the bible

- what does the John 9:41 passage have to do with ethics? your passages appear to be presupposing the truth of the bible before proving there is any truth in the bible.

- Luke 12:47-48 appears to be saying that non-believers who are aware of god's "existence" will be severely beaten. how is this an example of ethical behavior that we should replicate in a modern society?

- Matt 6:24 also does not speak of ethics -- all it says is that god is a very jealous individual and does not tolerate his subjects having another master (by the way, does the idea that you are a subject, a servant, to a master not bother you? subjects are not free -- citizens are.)

- 2 Timothy 3:1-6 has nothing to say about ethics either. it appear to be a vague prophecy that could potentially apply to various times throughout history. additionally, it is seems to be from a specifically christian point-of-view. how is love of god a form of ethics?

- parts of Thessalonians 4:3-8 seem to be advocating the ethics of fear. the passage states that people should not "defraud [their] brother[s]" otherwise the lord smite them. the message is "don't do this or you will die." that's pure, unadulterated fear. should we be basing a system of ethics on fear?

- what has Romans 6:23 to do with ethics? it basically says not to disobey god if you want eternal life. how is this applicable in a modern society?

- Eccles. 7:20 has nothing to to say about ethics. its a vague proclamation that can probably be found in texts throughout history. who has ever argued that humans can only do right or only do wrong? who has not pointed out the duality of humans?

additionally, many of your quoted bible passages make claims about the real world. the existence of supernatural beings and gods, and their actions and feelings towards humans are described. how do i know that any of this is true? i've never seen god, nor has anyone on earth. have you any proof that one exists? your religion claims these things are true, so your religion must provide the undeniable proof. bible passages don't meet a scientific standard of proof.

you also make the claim that there is something called "supernatural knowledge." do you have proof of such knowledge? falling back on "faith" is not proof -- it is conjecture and speculation at best, willful ignorance at worst. you seem to be willing to believe ideas on insufficient evidence. i do not. without sufficient evidence, what reason do i have to believe something is true?

my point here is that by quoting the bible to prove the bible's truthfulness is a circular argument. furthermore, there's not a whole lot of wisdom that i can see in your quoted passages. many of them describe an angry god who demands the sole attention of his subjects at all times. any deviation from this and the angry god will make his retribution felt. what is so insightful about that? there's very little in ethics as well -- only demands that certain behavior be followed at the threat of eternal suffering. there's no reasoned arguments in those passages to create a set of ethics/morals.

i do hope you know that the scientific discoveries i posted about previously were not in the bible. the bible says the earth is approximately 10,000 years old. the bible is wrong. science proves the age of the earth to be approximately 4.5 billion years old. the bible says that humans were "created" from dirt. the bible is wrong. science has proved that humans are a part of the natural process biological evolution, and that we have evolved from humanoid ancestors who split into distinct species. the tree of evolution is traced all the way back to a primordial soup of single cell organisms and proteins.

scientific knowledge is not in the bible because religion and science have two very distinct methods for gaining knowledge.

religions simply state that such-and-such is so, because an imaginary, supernatural being says so. religion offers no way to examine the evidence.

science is a method of repeatable, empirical observations. data can be observed by any interested individual. experiments can be repeated to prove their accurately. from this collection of facts, specific conclusions of undeniable truth can be reached.

philosophy is like science's little brother -- philosophy is primarily focused on the bigger, theoretical picture. how is philosophy different from religion? philosophy uses the same techniques to discover truth that science uses. it applies reason, logic, facts, empirical observations, and repeatable experiments to form theories. religion does no such thing.

which method would you rather base a system of ethics on? i'll take science and philosophy any day over religion.

the purpose of having this discussion between religion in science is to put your previous statements into context. you claim to want to legislature your beliefs. because we live in a modern system of enlightenment influenced ethics and morals, the bar for setting up a legal system has been raised. bible passages do not meet the standard of well-supported, factually proven, scientific and philosophical ideas.

this is what i mean when i say your beliefs have no place in modern times. you can continue to believe them all you want, but they have no place in the public sphere. your beliefs are archaic. they do not apply to modern societies. nuggets of insight in the bible have already been derived from other places -- our own humanity. we don't need a jesus to tell us "do onto others as you would have them do onto you" anymore (though, he was not the first to say that. confucius beat him to it by about 500 years). we have a set of universal human rights, derived from our own reason and logic, that far surpass anything the bible has to offer. to go this link and read them for yourself:

http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

this declaration is much clearer, more humane, more encompassing, and better thought-out than the bible.

furthermore, the fact that contemporary religions have large follows speaks nothing of said religions truthfulness, nor their usefulness. is it not possible that a lot of people believe in bad ideas?

we can set up ethical codes and moral systems without the need to create imaginary gods and devils to fill in the yet undiscovered blanks. considering science's track record, it's only a matter of time.

so, if you want to make a legal argument for outlawing same-sex marriage, you need to do so without justification from the bible. it is not a legal document, nor is it applicable in modern societies. the enlightenment has brought us methods of inquiry and discovery that far surpass religion.

additionally, i would still like you to explain how your position is not discriminatory. do you have a reasoned argument to prove that outlawing same-sex marriage is not discrimination? and that bit about the submarine. please try to find a recent source, though. it is very likely that an article 20 years old is out-of-date.

Posted on 18 October 2007 @ 18:39 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

ironic nostalgia, posted over a year ago

my above response is for your posts submitted before this time stamp:

Posted on 18 October 2007 @ 17:30 (London time)

i would prefer in the future if you could put your entire response into one post instead of making multiple posts. i cannot respond properly if you put up your argument in sections.

Posted on 18 October 2007 @ 18:42 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

, posted over a year ago

The reason why I was resistant to provide evidence is because I wanted to rely on that it is my understand and belief and that I did not want to cram the Bible down anyone's throat.

But since it was asked for references- I provided.

I guess trying to be sensitive of others caused me to not be and made me out to be ignorant and unlearned.

How odd.

Posted on 18 October 2007 @ 18:51 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

rcn, posted over a year ago

Sure I'll answer the couple of inquiries. I've had friends who have been gay. Just friends, nothing more. I found them to be quite funny when they'd come to my girls house at the time and fight her over which posters they could borrow of guys she had hung up.

There seems to be a certain respect with gay males where they don't attempt to pick up on those they know are strait. It would be a very uncomfortable situation for a gay male to attempt with a strait male.

To answer your other question about religion. There is the separation of church and state, but when people vote, and make political decisions, it's very hard to do so without a portion of their religious beliefs partially being reason for why they vote one way or another.

Posted on 18 October 2007 @ 19:1 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

ironic nostalgia, posted over a year ago

ok, moving on to your other posts:

"Declare me ignorant but I for myself, get to decide what is truth."

wrong. individuals do not get to "decide" what is an independently verifiable truth. if i'm holding a red pen, and i claim its a red pen, and everyone i show the pen to verifies that it is indeed a red pen, you do not have the right to say my pen is blue and call that the truth. the objective truth is that the pen is red, because the information has been independently verified by disinterested, 3rd-parties.

"Even if science may prove-they go back and forth on such matters be it health, what is best for us, good for us."

you are wrong to characterize science as going "back and forth." such debates in science are proof that it works -- when science discovers new data that render old theories incorrect, science changes to represent the best possible explanation for all the data. religion stubbornly insists that it is still right, despite the emergence of new evidence.

"I enjoy theory-most knowledge starts off as theory and then it proved or not proved."

science does not begin with theory. science begins with a hypothesis -- a question about the world. science then investigates said hypothesis by conducting experiments, observations, and collecting evidence. then science takes said facts and puts them together to form a theory. a scientific theory is a collection of facts with an explanation that best describes all the available facts. when a theory is robust enough that it can deflect all imaginable criticisms, it becomes a scientific law. a scientific theory is defined as the best explanation for all the available facts.

"My religious beliefs do not refute science on that level."

of course they don't -- no religious beliefs could possibly refute science. religion's method of inquiry is far inferior to science -- science will trump religion every time. do you have an example of the opposite?

"The Bible has many historical writings of Earth and climatic events that have been proven to be true."

really? which ones? currently, there is no proof of a world-wide flood, yet that is one of the bible's principle stories.

as for your god and science link, it doesn't say anything about science and the bible being in harmony. it attempts to prove the existence of god. in doing so, however, the explanations create more problems. first we have the attempt to answer the question that arises from the idea that since we live in a world of cause and effect, the universe must have a cause -- i.e. god did it. the problem that brings is the question, "then, what caused god?" the answers provided? god exists either a) outside of time, or b) in multiple dimensions of time. what proof is offered for either explanations? none.

multiple dimensions is still purely theoretical. it's proven to be mathematically possible, yes, but until we can observe another dimension, we cannot be sure that they really exist.

the idea that sometime can exist outside of time is laughable. no evidence is provided other than pure speculation and imagination. there are no examples of anything existing outside of time.

Posted on 18 October 2007 @ 19:18 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

ironic nostalgia, posted over a year ago

fade,

the difference here is that you did not just state that "it is my understand and belief and that I did not want to cram the Bible down anyone's throat."

you made a claim about same-sex marriage and then stated that you wanted to legislate your beliefs. that requires you to provide some reasoning for wanting to outlaw same-sex marriage. if you want to make legal claims about the real world, you need to provide evidence.

if you simply stated that you believe that same-sex marriage is wrong, and stated that you do not -- in any way, shape, or form -- want to outlaw same-sex marriage, then there'd be nothing to argue about.

but that's not what you wrote. you wrote about your desire to outlaw same-sex marriage.

Posted on 18 October 2007 @ 19:23 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

, posted over a year ago

To answer about my first Bible quote-it was to state where my knowledge comes from as I was asked time and again why I believed it.

Then you put the conditions that I should not use the Bible but science. Well that was unfair and unjust. As over the course of me speaking it is quite evident where I put my faith in understanding and discerning truth.

Obviously I had these teachings at a young age and put them to practice of did not and decided on the outcomes of both paths, what best brings me happiness and success and peace.

For me the truth is that the Bible is the word of God and for me it is that there is a Heavenly Father.

I acknowledge him in all things that are good, wise, and consistant. I see evidence of his exsistance in the universe and this world.

I see the consequences of those who do not know his will or go against it and it is in keeping with what he states in his scriptures.

You were wanting me to only speak to you in your world and I know you not. You wanted to know of me but had to restrict it to your langauge for purposes I still dont' know but conclude it was for the purpose to argue and not learn or undrstand another's will.

This is more about finding fault than it is truth of another's reality.

I never once said you had to believe what I believe or that anyone else did.

No, I remained consistant that it was my belief and my understanding which is not in favour of current society's interpretion of liberty.

You will find fault or disregard anything I have to say as it is not of your own thinking.

You rely on one source and I rely on both but favour one over the other which I discern for myself.

The other quotes were to further support what I understand are sins that God set out as expectations of all mankind. Yes even those who don't believe in him or those how deny him are included in this as he recognizes we are all his children of his creation for his will; which is to bring to pass our mortality and eternal life.

I gave my knowledge and they get to decide for themselves what is truth.

They asked and I was but one to offer a possible understanding.

There are ways other than relying on man's limited capacities of thinking. We as humans are restricted in our thought processes.

Three kinds of questions that I notice were evident in this whole forum that influences thought procees.

Questions of fact- requires evidence and reasoning within a system.

Questions of preference- call for stating a subjective preference.

Questions of judgement-require evidence and reasoning within multiple systems.

Three basic functions of the human mind.

Thining, feeling, and wanting.

Egocentric tendencies get in the way of true understanding and acceptance.

I have family members that are homosexual and struggle with homosexuality. It is hard for me to see them hurt, mourn, anger and to be persecuted. Many times they ask what I believe. It's hard as I feel this sets me up as they already bring their own prejudices of how others reacted to them and imposition them on what I have to say. I tell them that I love them and they will always be my family. I tell them that I know we have differing beliefs and mine say that the practice of homosexuality is not acceptable behaviour in God's eyes. I have to furhter say that he knows and loves them and they will always be his child. I have to further say that Jesus understands your pain, sorrow, anger and choices and all the conflict it brings in your life. I have to say he took not only the sins of the world but also all the infirmities, pain, sorrow. We dont' have to be alone in our struggles. That he has a far greater knowledge of their life and struggle than I will. That he maintains he loves the sinner but hates the sin. This statement no way promotes intolerance or hatred towards those who live differently from us. I know that I have compassion for them and tell them that they just need to do their best and hope that things work out.

I then go into the plan of salvation should they ask for more.

Again, it's something I know to be true because the spirti bore witness. The witness happened because I was sincere, had faith in Christ, and prayed with real intent to know that what I heard was true.

I don't think those who hurt others by ignorance should be excused but I can understand why it played out the way it did.

If one really tries to see through another's eyes, walk the extra mile in their mocassins'-there would be far less miscommunication, more understanding and acceptance of another.

I don't have to agree with all someone has to say but this in no way should get in the way of being fair minded towards them and being their friend.

Hopefully people understand what I am saying.

Do continual good and do no harm.

Posted on 18 October 2007 @ 19:25 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

, posted over a year ago

I said if I was unhappy about it I could take that route.

I have not as I understand that I cannot put my will onto another-that violates their agency to choose for themselves.

So I let it be. I obey the laws of the land but for my personal view-no, I don't support it.

Make sense?

Posted on 18 October 2007 @ 19:28 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

ironic nostalgia, posted over a year ago

rcn,

"It would be a very uncomfortable situation for a gay male to attempt with a strait male."

that's not what you wrote before. you wrote that if a gay man were to hit on you, it would make you uncomfortable. you fault the gay man for not knowing your sexual orientation. how is he to know unless he talks to you? the issue that people took with your original statement was your uncomfortableness with the idea of a gay man hitting on you.

"when people vote, and make political decisions, it's very hard to do so without a portion of their religious beliefs partially being reason for why they vote one way or another."

and that has absolutely nothing to do with the separation of church and state. no where does the constitution legislate the reasons for which citizens are allowed to vote. perhaps you can provide the relevant text from the constitution that does this? separation of church and state is about the government endorsing a specific religion over all others. the 1st amendment is explicitly clear that the government shall not do so.

Posted on 18 October 2007 @ 19:29 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

ironic nostalgia, posted over a year ago

fade,

seeing that you have rescinded your desire to legislate your beliefs about same-sex marriage, there's nothing more to discuss.

i'm not here to argue your personal beliefs about god and whatever else you choose to think is truth.

i jumped in here because you made claims about the real world and did not provide sufficient evidence. using the bible to support a change in our legal system and a change in our social mores/values/ethics, though, becomes problematic. you can choose to believe the bible, but when you want to use your beliefs to influence society, the bible just doesn't cut it anymore.

-there's no way to verify that anything in the bible is true.

-there are better foundations for ethical behavior in contemporary philosophy and legal documents based on the ideals of the enlightenment.

-scientific inquiry is a far superior method for discovering truth and knowledge.

throughout this thread i have provided many reasoned arguments to support the three points above. your declarations that the bible is true because that's what you believe says nothing about the specifics of my arguments.

until you address those, we don't have anything further to discuss.

Posted on 18 October 2007 @ 19:42 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

, posted over a year ago

Ironic...stop being so contentious. I don't understand why you are so quick to assign blame and fault.

I got that RCN current statement was for clarification-that he tried another avenue to get his point across so that the audience could hear it.

His point came across.

Posted on 18 October 2007 @ 19:44 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

ironic nostalgia, posted over a year ago

sorry fade, but no where to i assign blame or fault. i only hold people to their words. here's what he said:

"I don't mind the sexual orientation of others. I would though if a gay was trying to pick up on me."

clearly, his explanation is quite different. if he really meant that he was worried about the gay man being hurt, he should have said that the first time.

what rcn just did in his most recent post is what we call "spin" in the united states.

Posted on 18 October 2007 @ 19:55 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

, posted over a year ago

I'm telling you that scientific analysis is separate from Faith. I support this.

You are saying you want a discussion with be about my beliefs which are influenced by by faith but I cannot use it to teach you why I believe what I do. I have to use your standards.

That is so unfair and maybe you don't intend to be but that is how it is coming across.

You don't get to set the rule or parameters of faith. You tried and all I did was still try to answer the why I believe.

You don't want to understand otherwise you would not discount anything I have to say as truth.

Well society and science cannot conclusively define truth-they can only educate by their set parameters and that in itself is limited.

I have stated before about faith:

"faith is not to have perfect knowledge of things; therefore it ye have faith ye hope for things which are not seen, which are true."

(Al 32:21)

I guess I have to accept you don't want understanding but just a means to find fault.

Unfortunate.

Posted on 18 October 2007 @ 19:56 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

, posted over a year ago

That's not what I got. I got that it's about respect. That the same that gay men cry out that they be respected for their choices, and would become angry if RCN went up to them and said...you need to sleep with women not men-the same that gay men need to be respectful of him and no go up to him and say you need to sleep with men, particularly me.

Maybe I'm just adding more confusion.

But to me RCN, seems fair to give what you expect.

Posted on 18 October 2007 @ 19:59 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

, posted over a year ago

I extend a challenge that you give me materials to read over so that I may gain a better appreciation from where you are coming from- I acutally want to learn.

I also extend to you to read over the website so you may understand where I'm coming from.

It is obvious you believe what you do, and I believe what I do.

But there is still no understanding and that is a part of my own personal mission.

I do want to learn how others see. I'm curious.

Posted on 18 October 2007 @ 20:4 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

ironic nostalgia, posted over a year ago

as i have said many, many times, i don't care what you personally believe or why you believe it. i'm not interested, and i have not asked you to explain your faith.

i have only asked you to provide evidence WHEN YOU MADE CLAIMS ABOUT THE REAL WORLD. the bible is not sufficient to support your claims about how the real world should/does work. i have written repeated why this is so, and still, you are yet to address my arguments.

the issue i have taken with you is when you STATED THAT YOU WANTED TO LEGISLATE YOUR BELIEFS. i pointed out that the bible is insufficient as a legal document, and i gave reasons why. you have not challenged my claims here.

since you now state that you no longer wish to legislate your beliefs, there is nothing more to discuss about your belief on same-sex marriage.

science can conclusively define truth about the natural world. all of our technology is based upon the knowledge that science has uncovered. do you disagree? you are using a computer, are you not? without discoveries of knowledge through science, computers would not exist. or do you think that there is some uncertainty about the properties of how computers function? it would seem that you do, and it's possible you think that your computer might just have a thermal-nuclear meltdown any second. i mean, the science isn't conclusive, right???

how can religion conclusively define truth? it has no mechanisms to verify anything it claims! so you take things on faith. that's fine, but it's not truth in a scientific sense. as i have stated, i, as well as the rest of the modern world, am not interested in faith-based "truths." we want reality-based truths.

i've already outlined several times the differences between religious inquiry and scientific inquiry. if you don't understand the difference at this point, there's nothing more i can write.

Posted on 18 October 2007 @ 20:11 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

ironic nostalgia, posted over a year ago

you are adding more confusion. rcn clearly stated that he does not have a problem with another's sexual orientation unless a gay man hits on him. your little bit about respect has nothing to do with what he wrote.

if he did mean that, he probably should have written that the first time. honestly, i saw his explanation as spinning his original post to say something that it clearly did not.

Posted on 18 October 2007 @ 20:14 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

, posted over a year ago

That whole thing about eternal suffering...I think your understanding of what it is based on relgion before protestant churches influences your thought process.

My view of eternal damnations differs drastically from other relgions. When even asked about it from people from other faiths-I'm condemned to hell for my different understanding.

So whatever your view is, all I can assume from why you are so adverse to it and it's purpose-it must actually be a place of torment which would be physical abuse/violence?

For some, a state of depression is a form of hell and to others a separation from God's love and exsistance is a form of hell.

So what does hell mean to you?

I see it as another alternative for those who want nothing to do with God- a place outside of the three degrees of glory mentioned in Corinthians chapter 15-it's an interesting read.

Posted on 18 October 2007 @ 20:19 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

ironic nostalgia, posted over a year ago

if you are truly interested, i'll suggest two works for you to start with:

A Treatise of Human Nature by david hume

Critique of Pure Reason by immanuel kant

Posted on 18 October 2007 @ 20:19 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

ironic nostalgia, posted over a year ago

hell means nothing to me because there is no proof that such a place exists.

i used the term "eternal suffering" because that best encompasses what christians believe about hell -- the term can apply to any kind of pain be it physical, emotional, or mental.

my point was, though, i think it's pretty messed up to based a system of ethics on the threat of eternal suffering. that's using fear to justify the ethical system. how does that lead to a just system? how can we prevent the powerful from exploiting that system? (i.e, the inquisition)

Posted on 18 October 2007 @ 20:23 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

, posted over a year ago

Well go ahead and see it that way-so why are you choosing to become so incensed over it? Are you taking it personally? Do you see it as an attack against your person?

I don't see it as him attacking you.

But I do understand how you seem to take on the responsibility of speaking on behalf of the gay community and that maybe you see our statements of opinion as an outright attack.

I will agree that as RCN and I were sharing common beliefs and perhaps sharing our not so common- that we may have appeared insensitive to other's free agency.

I'll apologize for appearing to be insensitive but at the time; that was not my purpose.

In this whole forum is a sharing and disputing and in the end...we decide for ourselves who we will interpret another's words but with this we have to also take on our own misunderstanding of them just as it is expected those saying their words take ownership.

Not everyone can be in a frame of mind that convey's their thoughts eloquently.

Heck from the readings of my own post I'm going...that's a dangling particle, that's a tense issue, I misspelt that, that made no sense...my fingers couldn't keep up with my braind and I missed a whole thought...

The beauty of imperfect beings.

Also...our thoughts change and we should be re-instated, validating, and re-learning.

How does one grow?

I thank you for challenging my beliefs-I learned alot from this.

Posted on 18 October 2007 @ 20:25 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

, posted over a year ago

did you read the entirity of my post?

have you read all my posts?

do you recognize that we, as people are all on the path of self discovery until the day we die and that we are not all at the same degree of understanding on any of the many belief systems?

do you believe that your believe is not a perfect knowledge?

do you recognize that a forum also is about sharing?

do you recognize that the word forum is not exclusive to debate?

do you recognize that your standards are not mine or anyone else's?

do you recognize by as you claim my belief structure is limited, so is yours?

do you recognize that the power to take offense when none was meant is more upon the individual who chooses to take offense than on the individual who did so with out the intent to do so?

Posted on 18 October 2007 @ 20:31 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

ironic nostalgia, posted over a year ago

this has been a intellectually stimulating experience for me, and i have enjoyed the dialog.

i did not see rcn as attacking me, i just thought it was a really stupid thing to say. in my mind, it's equivalent of saying, "i don't have a problem with black people, but i mind them hanging around my neighborhood." do you see how his statement was offensive?

i'm glad to have challenged your beliefs and got you thinking about it. the rest is for your decide for yourself.

take care.

Posted on 18 October 2007 @ 20:37 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

, posted over a year ago

A part of my belief is my faith. The more I read what you say...I realize that either I am not making myself clear, or that you are not reading my all of my words to get a clear picture of who I am. The more you read the more you know. Or possibly both.

It's very dismissive of you and rude to state you don't care what I think.

I caught on to that and thus my mention of the spirit of contention.

What I know about learning and understanding-the spirit of contention cannot exsist in the same space/place of the spirit of understanding.

Posted on 18 October 2007 @ 20:38 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

, posted over a year ago

Don't put your belief onto my just based on the weak example of the blessing of scientific, technological advancement of mankind.

I found that far reaching and in no ways disputes God's exsistance according to my knowledge.

It rather demonstrates to be that inspiration had occured which can come from two sources.

God being one of them.

So that you are making an assumption that because you belief science is just that and not of God; that God does not either exsist or does not govern himself by law...

I'm sorry; you're point is just another means for you to change my way of thinking of his exsistance and divinity.

Maybe you wrestle with the idea that someone such as I could even have a belief in God for starters. And so because of that-it narrows your scope of understanding and therefore...anything you toss at me just sounds more and more like a temper tantrum and a means to control and shape my universe into your understanding.

I can even see as your reality is shaped by your thought processes which influenced by your beliefs - my reality confounds yours as mine defies your logic.

I can see that.

Posted on 18 October 2007 @ 20:45 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

ironic nostalgia, posted over a year ago

yes, i have read all your posts. i thought my point-by-point refutation of your posts would be evidence enough of the fact that i have read them.

i do recognize that we do not all share the same level of understanding, that's why we need more education that stresses only believing ideas on sufficient evidence.

i never claimed to have perfect knowledge.

forums may not always be for debate, but when you make a claim, be prepared to support it if challenged.

i recognize that there are some basic standards about inquiry and discovery of knowledge that we do not all share, and this is holding us back as a species.

my method of acquiring knowledge and truth is flexible to changing circumstances and the emergence of new evidence. i don't make claims about things i cannot prove. your belief system does make claims that cannot be proven, and is inflexible. in this respect, we are fundamentally different in the way we seek truth. if you do happen to read hume and kant, i hope you'll see which method is more suited to discovering knowledge and truth.

i don't assume intent -- i'm not a mind reader. but if someone says something offensive and/or stupid, i'll point it out in the hope that they'll learn their error.

Posted on 18 October 2007 @ 20:46 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

ironic nostalgia, posted over a year ago

as i have said, i'm not interested in your personal beliefs because that's not what we were talking about. we were talking about real world policy, and the reasons for your religious beliefs aren't that relevant.

additionally, i anticipated that the conversation would inevitably turns towards a discussion of faith, which is why i tried to avoid it. i've had those discussions so many times that i know exactly how it will end. there's really no point of me trying to argue about faith with you.

Posted on 18 October 2007 @ 20:52 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

ironic nostalgia, posted over a year ago

first, scientific, technological advancement is not a blessing. it's the result of the hard work of dedicated individuals who have decided to use their minds. don't devalue their work by calling it a "blessing."

the point of my computer example was to show that science can be very conclusive about many things in the natural world when we have enough of the facts to support a theory. this has nothing to do with your faith.

it does not demonstrate that anyone was inspired by "god." do you have proof of such inspiration?

i make no claims about the existence or non-existence of god.

let me explain something about basic logic first -- it is not necessary to prove a negative. to have to prove a negative is logically impossible, because the mind can think of an seemingly infinite number of possibilities.

the burden of proof is on those who make the claim. religions claim there is a god. prove it. i have no responsibility to prove the negative -- that god does not exist.

unless you can prove god exists, we assume that god does not exists until such evidence arises that makes god's existence indisputable. we've been waiting our entire history for such evidence, and it has never arisen.

this is the same logic that we use to dismiss the idea that the tooth fairy exists, or that unicorns exists, or that goblins exists. all three are creatures of fantasy, yet do you need proof of their non-existence to accept that they do not exist? no. you accept that they do not exist because there is no evidence for their existence.

your beliefs do defy logic. but that's not my problem -- it's your's to come to terms with.

Posted on 18 October 2007 @ 21:1 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

, posted over a year ago

I noted the inspiration not the hard work. Weither you support my definition of inspiration remains to be seen.

I am thinking not.

Posted on 18 October 2007 @ 22:54 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

, posted over a year ago

I don't see it as a problem but how you view of me being less because of where I derive my sources of knowledge, intellect does not infer I am wrong.

I just go about the whole process differently than you.

It remains to be seen if we have common traits that unite us.

But again, how I see your ignorance towards me because of your "loftier" position does not even come close to accepting what you have to say as fair as they are tainted with lables of abuse of being stupid.

So not kind.

And you can address any labels on my belief or logic as stupid but all I can decide if that is what logical thinking based on science gets you-I want nothing of it.

Posted on 18 October 2007 @ 22:59 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

, posted over a year ago

I think you fail to accept that you reject the sources of my belief because of your apparent prejudice and then make the wrong assumption that I am wrong as I don't conclude what you do.

I haven't rejected it. I live it as best as I can on a daily basis. The more I put to practice the precepts, the more I find them to be true.

It's not blind faith.

My Parents taugth me one way and I had to decide for myself if it was something I wanted to adopt.

All my life experiences still point to my conclusion that God exsits.

You dispute the validity of my reasoning based on another system that is not pefect and shares the similiar goal of seeking knowledge and truth as mine does because you have learned on your path-that everything points to you being right.

Well you are not always right. And I haven't attacked another for believing what they do and condemn them based on their intellect.

You take away the power of the individual by stating that only those who base their beliefs on scientific fact-which science itself had to grow by getting rid of old ways of thinking with each new discovery. That science itself has many numerous mistakes and had to correct.

A part of science used to uphold that the black man was not human but some other sub species. And that sprang from Man's understanding-not God's.

And don't bring up Cain. It is obvious you do not want to educated yourself on the whole purpose of God that the bible supports and teaches.

In the Bible it does state that all men are created equal and in his image. I know where I get my reasoning and with it not once have I condemned another to hell or to stupidity.

Your arrogance and contempt and exclusion of others that you state does far more damage than mine. It is that same intolerance, that same spirit of contention that created in History slavery- persecution.

An individual still experiences the same process of learning regardless of religion, political,and/or scientific influenced sources.

I can recognize this.

Posted on 18 October 2007 @ 23:21 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

, posted over a year ago

Fade, I read this entire thread with interest and from what I have interpreted from it is that ironic merely wanted you to justify the claims you made that appear to have consequences in our world, it didn't seem like he was interested in attacking your own personal belief in God at all.

I have to say, it seems to me that you pull away from this discussion as soon as it gets to the root of it. It is something all Christian’s in my experience appear to do when they are directly challenged about what the consequences would be of their beliefs, should they be put in law.

The problem for me is that your beliefs make judgements on entire groups of society and if those beliefs were formed in law, it would cause the prejudice, suffering and repression of millions of people. Christian's seem to have the belief that they can "love" the person, but not the act. This however again evades the very consequence of their belief and it is this consequence that they are unwilling to discuss. It is paradoxical to on one hand believe you can accept someone or something, whilst on the other, believe that person is a wrongdoer or the act is wrong. A consequence to believing something is wrong is that you seek to punisher the wrong-doer, stop the action from happening again and educate against it. You cannot both accept and disagree with something at the same time; that is a contradiction.

Your argument would have substance to me if you had the insight and conviction to follow your argument to its logical consequence, but instead you stop short, revert to the faith argument, complain of being personally attacked and seemingly withdraw from the argument just as it got interesting.

Personally can see the kind of world that we would regress to should thinking such as yours become law and order. The human race has been there before; it’s still there in many parts and until a Christian can effectively argue a better alternative to me I shall always be incredibly wary of such people as you who seemingly recite religious rhetoric in some kind of brainwashed fashion. You're a danger to the peace and freedoms of society, and what makes you that danger is that you don't even realise it yourself.

Posted on 19 October 2007 @ 11:56 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

ironic nostalgia, posted over a year ago

fade,

peter sums up very accurately the position that i have been advocating throughout this thread. i have taken issue with your beliefs only when you aim to intersect those beliefs with law. the reasons for your faith are quite irrelevant in that context.

you continue to make claims you cannot prove -- for example, you've repeatedly claimed that computer scientists were "inspired by god" to create computer technology. this is a claim about the real world, as well as a claim about the inner workings of another individual's mind. how do you know such things? how can you prove, with empirical evidence, such inspiration occurred? i have never read any quotes from scientists proclaiming to have been inspired by god.

my point is that your claim gives credit of the scientific discovery erroneously to god. i believe such a claim devalues the hard work that those individuals conducted to make those discoveries. give credit where credit is due.

another point that needs to be explored -- the hierarchy of sources. you seem to hold all sources as equal, and therein lies the problem. not all sources are equal, and the enlightenment has outlines several ways in which we can discern sources from one another. when you read kant and hume, i hope you'll come to understand this.

as i have stated several times, sources with the following qualities are better sources than those which do not have these qualities:

-sources that use independently verifiable facts and evidences

-sources that use reasoned arguments and sound logic

-sources that are flexible to changing circumstances and the emergence of new evidence

-sources that use repeated experiments and observations to prove facts

-sources that are transparent

the kind of sources i have just described are scientific. science uses independently verifiable facts, as well as reasoned arguments. science is flexible -- if science gets something wrong, it fixes the error. the fact that science has been wrong in the past, yet has corrected the error, only speaks of its robustness. science gets better with time. science is based on repeatable experiments and observations that any interested individual can perform to verify scientific claims. and science is transparent because all original research and data is available to any interested individual for personal review.

science is better suited to providing the best possible explanation for all the available facts.

in contrast, the bible holds zero of the qualities. there is no independently verifiable information within the bible. there are no reasoned arguments in the bible -- it is plagued by logical contradictions and circular arguments. the bible is described as "infallible," which makes it inflexible to the emergence of new evidence. if the bible gets something wrong, there is no mechanism to fix the error -- the bible persists stubbornly in claiming that the error is truth. there are no experiments or repeated observations described in the bible. the bible not a transparent document -- we do not have original texts or original data of the bible.

i bring up this distinction because you previously stated your desire to use the bible as a "standard" for social mores/values/ethics, and as a basis for a legal system. the problem is that the bible is not suited for modern legal systems, yet knowledge discovered through science is suited for such a system. i hope you understand this distinction by now.

but this is no imposition on your personal beliefs -- you can hold any that you choose. it's when you want to bring those beliefs to the public sphere. as i have stated repeatedly, your ideas have not gone through the same rigorous scrutiny as scientific data. as peter as stated, you seem unwilling to want to subject your beliefs to such rigor.

Posted on 19 October 2007 @ 14:24 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

, posted over a year ago

That part about me being a danger to society-was ridiculous.

I'm very family oriented, uphold marriage and believing in doing good.

Any harm I may do is when I, like any other being on this Earth, give into their temper and say hurtful things. The message in my home is to respect and love one another. That Family is First. That we are an example to one another. That we should catch one another doing service to family members and our neighbours.

I have never had anyone tell me I was a danger to anyone let alone Society. My teens friends enjoy my home and often have said they feel safe, warm, and special in my home-that they feel they are heard. My Children have often told my Parents that I am Super Mom. To which I blush and feel happy that I'm doing an okay job to have the honor of love and trust from my children.

I do my best to keep outside influences that threaten my home life and family to a minimum.

My teens have often been given letters from their teachers recognizing their integriy, leadership, and good will. They are often sought out for advice or someone who can listen and support.

My standards taught to me by my parents who are responsible and respectful citizens of my country and city have been proven by me and the countless others who live by such teachings.

I'm having a real hard time believing you on that one.

Posted on 22 October 2007 @ 21:18 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

ironic nostalgia, posted over a year ago

fade,

you've outlined the problem with your argument that biblical standards should be used as social standards in your own post:

"My standards taught to me by my parents who are responsible and respectful citizens of my country and city have been proven by me and the countless others who live by such teachings"

you are basically saying that your believe your standards to be true because your standards are true. your argument is circular. you have no independently verified data to prove your standards.

while i'm sure that your parents are respectful and responsible, that in no way verifies the truth of your standards. neither of those qualities can speak of transparency or empirical evidence.

this is how scientific inquiry differs from religious inquiry.

additionally, this is what, i believe, peter meant when he said you are a danger to society. i don't think that he meant that in a physical or verbal sense, as you seem to understand. he was clearly talking about your way of thinking about the world as being dangerous for a modern society.

perhaps danger isn't the best word; i would have probably said that your way of thinking is a step backwards, archaic, or even obstructionist. i think that your way of thinking holds the rest of us back from progressing socially because you are willing to believe in ideas on insufficient evidence. that is the problem -- than is what can be potentially dangerous -- believing ideas on insufficient evidence.

and this is why i will always argue that religious knowledge is not suited for legal and social standards, and why scientific knowledge is suited for legal and social standards. scientific knowledge is more robust knowledge because it has gone through the rigor of enlightenment ideals (as i have outlined in my previous post), while religious knowledge has gone through no such rigor.

Posted on 23 October 2007 @ 14:35 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

, posted over a year ago

So what are the scientific break down as to what a decline in the family will bring?

And if everyone was same sex oriented; the population would stagnate. Those who claim it is needed-well then we would stop in a full generation or two. That's where those who favour money come into factor.

They can wage wars and reduce the population that way. I think "evil" is necessary or opposition as we experience growth through it be economic, social, or political-even on a religious level.

Morality has no place in science?

Social behaviours which with the adaptation of science into one's moral way of thinking-is effected.

With this comes the decline of the importance of Family where Mom and Dad live in the same home and have children and raise them with love, respect, understandings of social, political, and moral code.

The changing trend of the importance of marriage has indeed seen an increase in the divorce rate, single parents struggling economically, higher teen pregancies,higher rate of std's. These are influenced by all the above mentioned components.

There was a time where the three pillars of community worked together. Home/Family, Church, and Scahool. Each one has been successfully attacked.

With this breakdown of the pillars, police sociologists and child behaviourlists state that this explains the rise in teen violence, teens abusising drugs and substances, and teen pregnancies, as well as teens turing to gangs for a sense of family.

I don't believe my way of thinking of the importance of family and marriage are outdated. And I sure don't see these to be limiting. I find more freedom and happiness in the path I have choosen.

Apparently more and more give up moral standards that do in fact cause alot of Social stress; especially in the family and home life.

So many teens in my country are commiting more senseless crimes. More animal abuse causing death, more attacks on the elderly. Why is that? Scientifically.

What is the scientific explanation for all of these events? Does science justify them all?

Posted on 23 October 2007 @ 19:12 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

ironic nostalgia, posted over a year ago

fade,

sometimes, i feel as though we're having two separate conversations. you bring up a lot of issues with claims that i have not raised. i'll start from the top:

"So what are the scientific break down as to what a decline in the family will bring?"

this is a loaded question. and i'd argue that we're not seeing a "break down" in family, only that different kinds of family structures are becoming more common. why, you might ask? the reasons are complex, and involve intersecting variables of economic, cultural, and political natures.

but, i have not raised this issue about family. what is your point?

"And if everyone was same sex oriented; the population would stagnate."

no one is arguing that we all become "same sex oriented [sic]." your argument is a straw man. what we do argue is that same-sex couples receive the same rights and privileges as opposite-sex couples. your statement suggests that you have some kind of suppressed fear regarding same-sex couples.

"Those who claim it is needed"

like your previous statement, no one makes this claim. your argument is a straw man.

"That's where those who favour money come into factor."

what do you mean by this? you were just writing about the "danger" of everyone suddenly becoming gay/lesbian, then you bring up money? your paragraph makes no sense. how can i respond to this?

"They can wage wars and reduce the population that way."

who is they? same-sex couples? i can only assume, since that's the only subject you've been writing about. are you afraid that same-sex couples want to wage a war against you? do you have evidence of such plans?

"I think 'evil' is necessary or opposition as we experience growth through it be economic, social, or political-even on a religious level."

this makes little sense to me. can you clarify this statement? evil is a necessity or it is an opposition? how is this related to personal growth?

"Morality has no place in science?"

no one made this claim. if you read my previous posts, i discussed that contemporary philosophers offer a better foundation for a system of morals/ethics. have you had a chance to read kant or hume? morality can be derived from our own humanity -- there is no need to create imaginary friends to have morals and ethics.

"Social behaviours which with the adaptation of science into one's moral way of thinking-is effected.

so you're saying that science itself is to blame for the "decline of the importance of family." got any proof of that? i'd say that the reasons are more complex.

"The changing trend of the importance of marriage has indeed seen an increase in the divorce rate, single parents struggling economically, higher teen pregancies,higher rate of std's. These are influenced by all the above mentioned components."

first, teen pregnancies and STDs can be attributed to abstinence-only sex education in the united states. a recent study in the states concluded that such programs fostered an atmosphere of ignorance regarding sex, leading to the aforementioned social issues. abstinence-only policy is religiously influenced.

second, you are flat wrong about divorce rates, so stop making that claim. here's data from the states:

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvss/divorce90_04.pdf

divorces rates have been decreasing for more than ten years.

finally, single parents are not a product of "poor morals," but usually of abusive circumstances. the fact that single parents struggle economically should be a motivating factor to fix the economy, not punish single parents by forcing them to stay in abusive relationships. in the states, we had welfare reform, which changed the rules so that single parents could lose the support they needed, but would allow them to continue to receive state support if both parents stayed marriage. the justification for such policy was to "strengthen" marriage. what was the effect? many women were forced to stay in abusive relationships because they could not support their children on their own -- thereby putting themselves and their children at risk. this is what happens when policy is religiously motivated -- people get hurt.

"So many teens in my country are commiting [sic] more senseless crimes. More animal abuse causing death, more attacks on the elderly. Why is that? Scientifically."

are you blaming science for such crimes? have you any proof? that's quite an unsubstantiated statement you've made.

"What is the scientific explanation for all of these events? Does science justify them all?"

you misunderstand the purpose of science. religion is used to justify all kinds of things -- war, violence, persecution, control -- but that's not what we use science for.

science is not designed to "justify" anything; science provides explanations of the natural world with transparent, empirical evidence. as i have stated before, science can weight all the data and find the best possible explanation.

science has the method to do so. religion has no such method. there is no way for religion to discover why any of the social issues to bring up are happening. religion can only provide conjecture and speculation -- that is no method to base real world policy on. science can provide certainty.

i have to cut my response short, but if you have some specific questions, i can answer those at a later time.

Posted on 23 October 2007 @ 20:46 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

, posted over a year ago

well we are. You want scientific prove God exsists. I say it is about faith and that living the teachings of the Bible brings knowledge and a confirmation of things that are true.

You obviously believe one is superior over the other and I do not.

You obviously believe that faith is useless and I do not. I like believing in the good of man. Scientifically this doesn't prove my statement.

Of course I wasn't speaking that Gays/Lesbian wage war on society. I believe I said those; could be man or woman or both who use any means to get what they want at the expense of the innocent and trusting individuals of society/world. Are they an anomaly? On a psycological level-most dictators, World leaders lack a lesser quality/trait of compassion and less to no remorse. To psychologists-this is an anomaly.

I think Homosexually could be viewed, scientifically as an anomaly as well being that scientifically man and woman are designed to populate the species.

Psychologist further state that children need structure and do well socially and scholary, emotionally, mentally when both parents are present and sustain the marriage through healthy adult relations. In my religion, we support the family and rearing of children from parents that practice fidelity, respect, honour to one another and the marriage, and teach all aspects of the human mind, body, and spirit.

Ohp...have to go. BBL

Posted on 24 October 2007 @ 1:45 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

ironic nostalgia, posted over a year ago

"You want scientific prove God exsists [sic]. I say it is about faith and that living the teachings of the Bible brings knowledge and a confirmation of things that are true."

if you're going to make the claim that god exists, faith doesn't cut it. anything short of empirical evidence is not proof. but this is besides the point -- the only reason such proof is necessary is because the religious, like yourself, want to legislate such beliefs. your faith alone is not justification enough to bring your beliefs into law. that is the point. if you want your beliefs put into law, you need better justification for your beliefs -- faith does not cut it.

as i have said repeatedly, you can have your own personal faith all you want, just keep it to yourself. secular society is not interested in your faith-based beliefs. we want reality-based beliefs. your religion cannot offer such a thing.

"You obviously believe one is superior over the other and I do not."

yes, i do. and i have outlined why i think so, and you are yet to address my arguments. additionally, you have given me no reason to think that faith-derived beliefs and reality-derived beliefs are equal. you have only asserted as much. why should i take your claim seriously?

"You obviously believe that faith is useless and I do not. I like believing in the good of man. Scientifically this doesn't prove my statement."

believing in the "good" of humanity has nothing to do with faith. and you still have not given me any reason to think that faith is worth anything. you have only asserted that you think that faith has value.

"Of course I wasn't speaking that Gays/Lesbian wage war on society."

then you need to write more clearly. the use of "they" in your previous post is ambiguous. you still have not clarified who you meant by "they."

"I believe I said those; could be man or woman or both who use any means to get what they want at the expense of the innocent and trusting individuals of society/world."

you just claimed that you believe in the good of humanity, but now you say that people will take advantage of the innocent whenever possible. how are you able to reconcile such contradictory beliefs?

furthermore, you continue on to talk about dictators in the same paragraph. what are you suggesting here? are you saying that gay/lesbian individuals exhibit the same kind of behavior as dictators? that gay/lesbian individuals have a lack of compassion/remorse? (i can only assume that is what you meant, because your sentence construction actually states the opposite -- you write that dictators "lack a lesser quality/trait of compassion," which means that dictators do not have lesser compassion.)

"I think Homosexually could be viewed, scientifically as an anomaly as well being that scientifically man and woman are designed to populate the species."

no one is arguing that homosexuality isn't a minority sexual orientation. and that is no reason to economically punish a segment of the population. as i have shown, homosexuality is a natural phenomenon, and to pass legislation that would deny a group of the population rights and privileges that everyone else enjoys is discrimination. you have not addressed this argument yet.

"Psychologist further state that children need structure and do well socially and scholary, emotionally, mentally when both parents are present and sustain the marriage through healthy adult relations. In my religion, we support the family and rearing of children from parents that practice fidelity, respect, honour to one another and the marriage, and teach all aspects of the human mind, body, and spirit."

you are still yet to prove that religion specifically provides such "structure." supporting and idea and putting an idea into practice are two different things.

lets perform a mental exercise. there are two families -- one is explicitly religious; the other is not explicitly so, they may or may not be religious.

both families have troubled marriages. the first family holds the marriage together, despite a history of abusive behavior. the second family has a divorce between the clashing parents because of abusive behavior.

which family is likely to be more "structured," or better yet, be more able to provide a healthy childrearing environment?

its obvious that the second family can provide a better environment than the first family. the second family's parents can re-marry and find working relationships to be role models for their children. the first family, however, will only foster an environment of abuse for their children.

now, i am by no means suggesting that this is typical of all religious and non-religious families. my point is that the religiously influenced family can become trapped into a bad environment because of it's unwillingness to adapt to new circumstances. the second family changes with the changing circumstances, and is able to find a solution that works -- while this may not always happen, the second family has that possibility. the first family does not.

there is not one solution that will work for everyone, yet you seem to think that your solution is the one fix that everyone needs. my example shows that your solution can fail under particular circumstances. it is better to have an adaptive system rather than a rigid one.

this example relates to our entire discussion. the religious want to impose strict rules and laws that are inflexible to changing circumstances. i argue that a system which is adaptable is better suited to finding the best solution possible.

in my view, religion fosters an atmosphere of inflexible, archaic thinking, which will enviably lead to a poor legal system because religion cannot change to fix its errors.

science and philosophy, on the other hand, do provide a method to fix errors, and therefore, improve as our knowledge of the world improves. this way of thinking provides a better method to create a legal system. science and philosophy provide the adaptive methods to always give us the bet possible explanation of all the available facts.

Posted on 24 October 2007 @ 14:44 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

, posted over a year ago

You jumped on and seized an oppurtunity to judge my beliefs and you are entitled to do so; freedom.

I am glad I have the freedom to believe and practice what I will.

Faith for me does cut it. Eventually it becomes knowledge.

Everything I see denotes there is a God, a higher power. You see differently.

I'm happy in living how I do.

I don't have to address anything. Anything I have said you have attacked.

It is clear you believe one thing and I another. Aruging beliefs gets us nowhere.

You want to hold to yours and I hold to mine.

I don't have to prove to you a thing.

I will correct any statements you falsely say I believe. You sure don't know me or what I believe and if you are confused are putting your own interpretations tainted by past experiences-it's your fault and not mine.

You read those scripture references but did not understand what they meant. And that's okay. You get what you will and I get something that makes sense to me.

It's just how it is.

Yes I have about they-they the people who are corrupt and believe and live that their selfish needs come first over the expense of others. They is anyone who fits this thinking and living. I used politicians such as Hilter,Mussolini and what not to anyone in your current circle of life. I've met many and they have no remorse for what they do. They defy sociologists and pyschologist and are told to be a select few of the populace that have been tested time and again and show they lack remorse. The ability to feel sorrowful over deeds that cause pain and suffering. They are good at pretending to cry and act sad but they just don't feel it as they believe they are right and others are wrong no matter what.

That is what I meant by "they". You hold onto so much that it gets in the way of you understanding but again, this isn't about you understanding-it's about you wanting to argue and be right. You get to be in your own life and thoughts so I don't know why I need to show you God exsists.

Extraverts struggle more with this "concept" than intraverts. Those who were raised in a violent, abusive home, even homes where affection was absent is a from of abuse-where loving parents were absent, struggle far more with believing there is a God as all they know is themselves; that they are the only person they can rely on and their way of thinking is all they have.

The thing I like about what I believe is it's about conquering fear, base needs and desires, and working to be a master over your heart, mind, body. Living the Biblical teachings well there are alot others don't want to give up. Alot of people think of it as "if it's truth or right-than I'm wrong". No one likes to be wrong. No one likes to be ignorant. Alot of ego and pride gets in the way of hearing the message of the Bible. There are alot of reasons why people struggle with the authenticity of the Bible. Alot believe it is just a bunch of men trying to assert their will and power over the masses, and history tells us a lot of men used the Bible and some of the scriptures out of context to justify their actions. They forget that in the Bible it states alot will use my name for a cause that is not just and condemned will they be.

The Bible and it's standards are alot for some people and it makes them feel inferior and that is not what it is about.

The Bible and Jesus; the true purpose of the Bible points to his divinity-it is a testimony of who he is and his life's mission. This brings hopes to millions of people. Those who strive to live his teachings find themselves more peaceful and wanting to be better people; they want to rise above feelings and thoughts that cause harm to themselves and others.

Anger is a destructive emotion that leads many to say hurtful words, do hurtful things to even bringing on wars. Forgiveness does more for one and others than people will want to see.

Alot of the Addictions Recovery program use Jesus as a means to draw on the power to heal and forgive and overcome addictions. Most of those people find it works.

Not everybody can live with the teachings and not everbody can be happy with believing their is no God.

Hope is a beautiful gift and power. Science is mystified by this and let science be. To them, it is an unexplained phenomena that exsists.

I struggled with my childhood. I've read all psychologists books on alocoholics, children of alcoholics, children of abuse, abusive relationships trying to gain understanding and all I became was more angry at what had occured. Society failed me I thought. Neighbors witnessed me being abused and did nothing. Maybe it was out of fear, or they believed it was not their place. I am sure this helped shaped that I will speak up when I see someone doing something they should not be doing, be it abuse or theft. These are a part of the Bible as well as the Law; thankfully.

The times I was raised played a part. Native Americans are thought to be less than and not worthy of equal rights. 1968 to 1978-there were still alot of people unable or unwilling to accept that Native Americans have the same rights to vote and the law as non native men and women. So I am sure ignorance played a mighty role into why the public beatings from my mother, brothers and sisters occured.

I wasn't raised in a loving home and I did not have parents to instruct me on life and the why's of it. I had to come up with it on my own. The freedom and power of reading introduce to me another world that was bigger and better than the one I lived in.

Before I was 8 and read the Bible- I would run away and hide from my family to escape the abuse. I felt alone and had no one I could trust or talk to. Everyone I knew abused me, ridiculed me. It was a tough world. I didn't understand why I exsisted. I wanted to die was the thoughts through most of my childhood. But I would dream and imagine me being older and stronger and no longer being with my family- I get to be my own person and make my own decisions. I held to that dream. It gave me hope. I was able to find windows of happiness, freedom to be me in those moments.

Alot of times after being beaten- I would run away to somewhere safe; away from my home. In those times I felt compelled to talk to someone-hoping someone heard and understood. When I would do this, I felt more calm, more peaceful and recharged that one day, my life would get better.

The one time I went to a teacher to tell of the abuse of my home and how I didn't want to go home. She called my Mother. I was told to go home where I was beat, thrown down the stairs, and was left there-told to not come up. I was not allowed to eat. The sun rose and fell a few times. My brother snuck me down some water and bread. In that time, I cried and asked why? I don't know why this is happening. I was angry. Then sad. Then despaired. Then I would feel a calm come over me and the thought " I will get through this and I will not have to be here forever" would enter my mind. I felt more calm and recharged. It was hope that gave me strength. It was powerful and it was real.

When I was 8, I read the Bible. I remember the Christmases and Easters where I would be the only one watching tv and watching the greatest story every told. I remember feeling that same feeling I would feel when I was younger and surviving, enduring my childhood. Whoever Jesus was-he lived like I did. I was happy and wanting to be loving and I was despised for it.

Everything he said in the movie made sense to me. Yes we should be kind to one another. Yes we should share our bread. ( I went many days without food and resorted to eating out of neighbours cans-survivald who taught we should be friends to our neighbours and watch for them and love them. Treat others how you would want to be treated. I cried so much when they murdered that loving man. It was a good movie.

I spoke to a friend at school.We played together alot. He would always tell me I was beautiful and fun to be with. That I was nicer than most people. We shared alot of things and he would tell me that my life would get better.

I told him about the movie I saw and how could people murder good people? How could they do that and not feel bad? Wasn't it wrong? I told him I liked the movie. He reassured me it wasn't just a movie. That there was a Jesus ande he lived a long time ago. I wanted to know how he knew this. He told me of the Bible. It was about Jesus. He said it was boring but...some of it was fun to learn about.

I asked for a Bible and was laughed at. I was mocked by my family. My Mother told me that Jesus doesn't love someone like me-no one would. In my heart I felt and believed differently. That is not what the man in the movie spoke or acted like at all. I wanted one to find out for myself. I was 8 years old when I read it from cover to cover. Alot of it didn't make sense but what I felt was real to me. I experienced that feeling through out my life far too much to be told it is not real.

The reasons why I believe what I do are my life experiences. My life is real, I exsist. I lived from one extreme to the other.

The hope and love I feel, the peace I feel everytime I read the scriptures-no man can emulate. No man can recreate. That feeling is a power and real and my life is a testimony to the power of the Holy Ghost that tells me Jesus is the only Begotten.

I am blessed that I have this in my life. It brings me happiness. I am thankful to my loving foster parents in whose home I went to when I was 12. In me, I felt and believed differently than the many foster homes who re-instatede what my birth family taught me. I am not nothing. I am someone. I deserve to walk this Earth like anyone else. I deserve happiness and love. I deserve family. I deserve to be safe. Countless homes would tell me to stay in the basement, eat outside or away from the supper table. I was not entitled to share in their family life. A few homes were okay but rarely did they include me in family discussions. I would still feel alone but then that feeling of peace would come and the thought would enter my mind-you are safe.

It was when I was 12 that I lived with those I call my parents. They taught me what I knew to be true was true. It was right. I tell many that before them and their home; I felt like a ghost and they breathed life into me.

They taught me what justice is but also mercy. They taught me how to work to forgive. They were a mystery to me. Who are they that include me into their family activities? How is it they are allowing me to spend Christmas with them instead of sending me home to my alcoholic, abusive mother where men would creep into my home? They listened to me and heard me and validated me? How are they like this? What makes them...good?

I asked them one day and they told me to come to Church with them and find out for myself. I did.

That same feeling that I had experience in my youth came and flooded over me. I felt safe, warm, loved, at peace. I am happy when I have this in my life and it gives me strength and courage to live honestly and justly. When I stumble I am not judged harshly, instead I am encouraged to get back up and do. No where else have I been taught this message of hope and happiness. No where else.

To me it is truth.

Posted on 24 October 2007 @ 16:40 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

stina, posted over a year ago

I feel like this discussion is running around in circles. I feel like nothing new has been stated for several days; mostly because there is a lack of evidence being provided on Fade's side and when Ironic asks for it, Fade brings up a minute point that was discussed instead of sticking with the actual topics: why religion should be used to dictate laws. Isn't that the main point of all of this? Why can't the question be answered? What's with the he said/she said stuff? Prove your claims and if you can't, admit so. Good grief.

Posted on 24 October 2007 @ 16:48 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

ironic nostalgia, posted over a year ago

fade,

i get the feeling that you are not reading my posts.

"I am glad I have the freedom to believe and practice what I will."

i never argued that you do not have such freedom. in fact, I EXPLICITLY SAID YOU DO HAVE SUCH FREEDOM.

"Faith for me does cut it. Eventually it becomes knowledge."

again, I EXPLICITLY STATED THAT THAT IS FINE -- FOR YOU. the problem arises when you want to legislate your beliefs. faith may cut it FOR YOU, but it does not cut it for EVERYONE. get it?

"I don't have to address anything. Anything I have said you have attacked."

you made a claim about the real world. you pushed the claim that you believe same-sex marriage should be banned. did you forgot that this is the basis of our discussion? you seem to be retreating from this topic because you have not mentioned it at all in your response. i have not "attacked" you -- i have criticized your claim about same-sex marriage, and you offered no counter rebuttal. yet you continue to claim that your "standards" should be law. without a counter argument from you, how can we continue this discussion?

"I don't have to prove to you a thing."

you do have to prove that your "standards" are better IF you want to MAKE THEM INTO LAW. you said that you do. you have given me no reasoned argument to ban same-sex marriage. if you want to do that, YOU HAVE TO PROVE IT.

"I will correct any statements you falsely say I believe. You sure don't know me or what I believe and if you are confused are putting your own interpretations tainted by past experiences-it's your fault and not mine."

and we've been over this before. i can only go on what you write here -- if you fail to articulate your ideas, it is not my fault that they are misinterpreted. i have asked you repeatedly to clarify past statements you have made, and you have stubbornly refused to do so. what am i to make of such behavior?

"You read those scripture references but did not understand what they meant. And that's okay. You get what you will and I get something that makes sense to me."

that's a really old post you're referencing -- why do you bring it up now? why didn't you address that post when it was made? furthermore, you haven't addressed WHY you think i have misunderstood those passages. you make a lot of statements without supporting them, or giving me reason to think what you say is true.

your explanation of "they" hasn't helped me to understand what you originally meant. you claim to have "used politicians such as Hilter, [sic] Mussolini," yet i can find no mention of those men in the discussion between you and i. when did you mention them? it seems as though your definition of "they" is evolving as this discussion progresses.

furthermore, what does this have to do with the discussion at hand? hitler and mussolini were tyrants. how is this relevant to a discussion about religion and science, and more specifically, about the central topic -- your claim that same-sex marriage should be banned? i ask again, what is the point? please clarify.

"You hold onto so much that it gets in the way of you understanding but again, this isn't about you understanding-it's about you wanting to argue and be right. You get to be in your own life and thoughts so I don't know why I need to show you God exsists. [sic]"

you made a claim about the real world -- you said previously that biblically-derived "truths" are equal to scientifically-derived truths. i offered a counter argument, and you have not addressed my argument. do you understand how debates function? if you make a claim, back it up with some reasoning, at least. all you have done is continue to assert that things are true without explaining your reasoning.

so that means that if you are going to claim that god exists, and that god's law should be the basis of a modern legal system -- you need to prove that such a god exists and that god's law is the best possible solution. this is how real world policy is made -- people make claims that such-and-such is a good idea, they prove that it is the best idea though empirical evidence, reasoned arguments, and transparent methods, and then the idea is considered for law through a vote of the people. your ideas have not gone through such rigor, and you have given me no reason to think that they are the best ideas possible.

"There are alot [sic] of reasons why people struggle with the authenticity of the Bible. Alot [sic] believe it is just a bunch of men trying to assert their will and power over the masses, and history tells us a lot of men used the Bible and some of the scriptures out of context to justify their actions. They forget that in the Bible it states alot [sic] will use my name for a cause that is not just and condemned will they be."

you do realize that you are using the bible as justification for the bible? you say that people struggle with the authenticity of the bible because many other people have used it "out of context," and then you say that those who struggle with the bible's authenticity fail to remember that the bible predicts that other people will use the bible for nefarious purposes. this is a circular argument, and therefore, it is illogical. you are using the bible to prove the bible's authenticity. this is what i mean when i say that you have no provided INDEPENDENTLY VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE. independently verifiable means a source other than your own religion and bible that confirms what your religion and bible state. no such source exists to my knowledge. do you have such a source?

your story of personal struggle and triumph is touching, and i do mean that. as i have said before, your personal faith is not a part of the debate. i have no bones to pick with your personal faith as a personal endeavor -- but when you want to legislate your beliefs, that is when the problems arise. i don't know how many more times i can state this.

the point of my previous example was to show that religiously-influenced methods have a major flaw -- that of inflexibility. religious doctrine cannot work for everyone in every circumstance. therefore, religious doctrine has no place in a just legal system. in my example, i showed how religious doctrine could force someone to stay in an abusive relationship. in a previous post, i discussed a real world policy that is religiously influenced -- welfare reform in the united states -- that economically forces people to stay in abusive relationships. there is nothing just about these laws, and i see the religious motivation as turning a blind eye towards the real problems that can be fixed through reasonable laws -- such as improving the economic situation of single parent families.

in closing, i'd like to restate the original debate that sprung up between you and i: your claim that same-sex marriage should be banned. this is the discussion that i am interested in having, and it is the discussion that you seem disinterested in continuing. instead, you continue to bring up your personal faith, as if your personal story will sway me into thinking that religious doctrine should be the basis for public policy.

the debate has evolved into a discussion between religion and science, but only in the context of how we should base our moral/ethical codes, as well as our legal systems. i have given plenty of reasons to demonstrate that science and philosophy offer a far superior method to religion. you have only responded by asserting that religion is just as good a method, without providing any reasoned support for such a claim. this behavior is littered throughout all your posts -- you make claim after claim without providing any supporting evidence. when i take you to task for not providing any supporting evidence, you say that i am "attacking" you and that you don't need to prove anything. if you feel that you don't have to prove your beliefs, then your beliefs have no place in public policy -- keep them private.

if you choose to keep your faith personal, and no longer wish to legislate your beliefs, then there isn't anything further to discuss. at one point i thought you did make such a statement implicitly, but now i am unsure. your more recent posts allude to your desire to base public policy on religious doctrines. if that is your position, please state so explicitly so that we can continue a meaningful discussion. i have stated my position unequivocally, many times.

Posted on 24 October 2007 @ 17:42 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

, posted over a year ago

Hey I can't help it if you cannot feel the spirit of my words are loath to see from my view as to why I believe what I do. That was the original question and what I said did not fit the question poser.

Science, to me does denote there is a higher power, intelligence that put the world and universe in motion. Mathematically speaking-every ecosystem on this planet, the atmosphere that supports carbon based life forms, the air we need to sustain life, to the make up of our brains and the amazing capicity of it's power that a computer cannot emulate, we have the amazing power at regeneration, smokers who quit smoking; the damage begins to repair itself, even in age we can work to make our bodies healthier and stronger than they have ever been, to the make up of a mushroom. Even scientist cannot take atoms and form them into a human being. Cloning techonolgy is still based on taking a previously exsisting dna and injecting it into another embryo. Out of the hundreds of trials, one successfully grows into a clone. Yet the clone is flawed or has a lesser life expectancy, is more suceptible to disease yet it shares the exact dna. Mathematically speaking, to get the equal exsisting planet of this one-is a mathematicians nightmare. As you would have to account for every exsisting system and life form which gives us a tremendously ridiculous exponential number. This in itself signifies to me that yes there is law, yes there is matter, and yes some power had to organize it to create this perfect, inhabital planet. To me it is beauty and amazing and I am in awe of this miracle.

So to me, mathematically speaking-it does speak to me that a higher power exsists.

It is a moot point to take a personal belief and to put your scientific parameters onto it as to me; they are their own separate systems. To you one refute the other and to me they go hand in hand.

If you can't see the proof like I can-how is it that I have to convince you to see it? You have to do it for yourself. You have to want to for starters.

That's the problem.

I love knowledge. I love learning. Anything I do learn does not subtract from my belief and yet you both seem to think it should. That must be hard and mindboggling for you to accept.

I'm glad what I believe in makes me happier and a better person.

I'm an anomaly, I know.

Posted on 24 October 2007 @ 17:48 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

, posted over a year ago

Most of our laws originated by our founding fathers who were well versed in the Bible. They saw it as a means to be educated. They must have liked what they read as they used it in your American constitution and in my Canadian constitution. They used it as guidelines to set up a legal system that was also influenced by Emperor Justinian.

They still have God in the Canadian constitution. I am aware that many people feel this makes them less as they don't believe or align themselves with them and overlook what was taught in the Bible.

To me God is just and to me Jesus was a perfect example on how someone should act to another. I find no fault in love thy neighbour. Any blame that ensues from anyone not living this is the individuals to take.

And those lower rates of divorce, in Canada-it is because less and less couples are choosing to marry and would prefer to remain common law. I'm sure that has to be accounted for to make the date more viable a source. *wink*

Posted on 24 October 2007 @ 18:12 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

, posted over a year ago

Oh that's Emperor Justinian

Posted on 24 October 2007 @ 18:13 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

, posted over a year ago

Well to the color blind...they have no idea if it is a red pen or blue or what not...they have to believe it is what you say it is.

Posted on 24 October 2007 @ 18:14 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

, posted over a year ago

that gay comment about one picking up on me...was not mine.

Posted on 24 October 2007 @ 18:15 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

, posted over a year ago

Too bad I don't follow your rules to what was once a forum about sharing and gaining insights and seeking knowledge and about clarification of preconceived knowledge to one where you come in and with your spirit that is in opposition to the origianl post-want me to account for a being I know to be true.

Some will need to see him and know then. I'm not one of those. That is why faith is just that.

You don't have it and I get that. You want me to give it to you and I can't-it's something you choose for yourself.

Again...everything denotes to me that there is a God. I'm sorry if you can't understand the why of it.

Posted on 24 October 2007 @ 18:21 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

, posted over a year ago

No IN, I said if I believe my standard were true, I could lobby them. That is true. Any one individual in Canada can challenge an exsisting constitutional freedom. Any Canadian can petition their MLA and other Government representative to have a law reviewed or changed.

That is truth.

I have not said it WAS my desire but mentioned if it was I COULD do what I described.

If you had asked me if I have done so, I would have answered no. Why? Because I do not believe that I should decide what another believes and practices unless it is in violation to one's safety. Sexual orientation is clearly an individuals right to choose. I hold to the higher law of free agency.

But again...had you just asked me out right for clarification due to a misunderstanding...maybe you wouldn't be so hell bent on making me account for what I believe in. I just do.

Posted on 24 October 2007 @ 18:28 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

ironic nostalgia, posted over a year ago

fade,

alright, i see that you have no interest in continuing our discussion about same-sex marriage. i'll conclude that you have conceded my point.

and now i see that you have altered our conversation about religion and science -- you now seem disinterested in continuing our discussion about the differing methods of obtaining knowledge provided by science and religion. i'll also have to conclude that you have conceded my point on this as well.

i draw these two conclusions because you have not addressed my claims. in academic circles, an unanswered claim is one that wins the debate.

furthermore, your paragraph about science denoting a higher power is riddled with illogical conclusions.

all of your examples of science denoting a higher power do no such thing -- you are taking an extra leap to draw that conclusion. the facts of complex ecosystems and the complexity of the brain does not by itself provide evidence of a higher power, or of an intelligence behind the world and universe. what evidence do you have that suggests that such complexities cannot exist without a higher power? through science, we have discovered all kinds of naturally occurring complexities, be they biological or ecological. you'll have to prove that those naturally occurring complexities could only have evolved through a higher power. the current explanation that such complexities naturally evolved is supported by mountains of scientific evidence:

http://www.talkorigins.org/

there is nothing about these complexities that implies a higher power, and you have not provided any hard data to support your conclusion.

you have made a claim that these complexities denote a higher power simply because of their existence. again, this is a circular argument -- you are using the complexity of life to prove that a higher power exists because life is complex. this is an illogical argument.

the fact that scientists have not developed fully perfected methods of cloning says nothing about a higher power -- all it says is that scientists have not developed fully perfected methods of cloning. you are drawing a further conclusion about a higher power without providing a reason for doing so.

"Mathematically speaking, to get the equal exsisting [sic] planet of this one-is a mathematicians nightmare."

umm, no, it's not a mathematician's nightmare. in fact, when you consider that the universe is filled with billions of star-systems that have billions of galaxies that have billion of stars and planets, the fact that we have only discovered a few planets that can support life is not troubling. the probability is low, and that is exactly what we find in the universe -- a small number of planets out of the billions of galaxies in the universe.

"So to me, mathematically speaking-it does speak to me that a higher power exsists. [sic]"

but you haven't shown that you can prove the existence of a higher power with any mathematics. do you have such an equation that proves the existence of a higher power?

"It is a moot point to take a personal belief and to put your scientific parameters onto it as to me; they are their own separate systems. To you one refute the other and to me they go hand in hand."

then what are you trying to prove with the two paragraphs above the one just quoted? you write that science denotes the existence of a higher power, then you write that one cannot put religious beliefs under scientific scrutiny. your positions are inconsistent. which is it?

"If you can't see the proof like I can-how is it that I have to convince you to see it? You have to do it for yourself. You have to want to for starters."

no, i don't have to "want to." you make a claim, you prove it. you claim religion is true. prove it. i'll believe you if you actually provide empirical evidence. you are yet to do so. you have only given me faulty logic and drawn conclusions that aren't supported by your stated reasons.

"I'm glad what I believe in makes me happier and a better person."

that's great -- but that speaks nothing about the truth of your claims.

Posted on 24 October 2007 @ 18:35 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

ironic nostalgia, posted over a year ago

my above response is to your post with this time stamp:

Posted on 24 October 2007 @ 17:48 (London time)

PLEASE, as i have asked you before, PUT YOUR RESPONSE IN ONE POST. how can i reply to you if you continue to respond to the thread with additional posts while i'm writing my response to your first response?

Posted on 24 October 2007 @ 18:41 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

ironic nostalgia, posted over a year ago

"Most of our laws originated by our founding fathers who were well versed in the Bible. They saw it as a means to be educated. They must have liked what they read as they used it in your American constitution and in my Canadian constitution. They used it as guidelines to set up a legal system that was also influenced by Emperor Justinian."

WRONG. the founding fathers of the united states did no base our constitution on christianity. i've already directed you to the treaty of tripoli, which states that the united states government is in no way based on the christian religion.

if you read any of the federalist papers, you see that the united states constitution is based on the ideals of the enlightenment.

"To me God is just and to me Jesus was a perfect example on how someone should act to another. I find no fault in love thy neighbour. Any blame that ensues from anyone not living this is the individuals to take."

that's not all the bible says, and current, as i have already pointed out, the bible is being used to discriminate against gay and lesbian couples. additionally, the bible was used in the past to justify slavery. you'll probably counter with the "they used the bible wrong" argument; however, any document that is ambiguous enough to be interpreted in contradictory ways is not suited for a legal system. legals systems are designed to be interpreted in ONE way.

"And those lower rates of divorce, in Canada-it is because less and less couples are choosing to marry and would prefer to remain common law. I'm sure that has to be accounted for to make the date more viable a source"

you fail to understand how a "rate" is calculated. a "rate" is a ratio, meaning that the absolute number of marriages is already factored into the number. this is how we are able to compare different years which have different absolute numbers of marriages. your criticism is unfounded.

so if i take your claim at face value, for the sake of argument, that canadian raw number marriages have been decreasing, the "rate" of divorce ALREADY ACCOUNTS FOR THIS.

Posted on 24 October 2007 @ 18:53 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

ironic nostalgia, posted over a year ago

"Well to the color blind...they have no idea if it is a red pen or blue or what not...they have to believe it is what you say it is."

you missed the point of my example. the point is that independently verified data can better be trusted to be accurately representing an objective truth. the bible does not offer such data, and science does.

Posted on 24 October 2007 @ 18:55 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

ironic nostalgia, posted over a year ago

"that gay comment about one picking up on me...was not mine."

I NEVER SAID IT WAS.

it'd pretty clear in my posts that i'm writing to RCN, not you. only when you addressed RCN's comment did i address you, and still my criticism was aimed at RCN.

i'm now forced to conclude that you are misreading my posts.

Posted on 24 October 2007 @ 18:57 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

ironic nostalgia, posted over a year ago

"No IN, I said if I believe my standard were true, I could lobby them. That is true. Any one individual in Canada can challenge an exsisting constitutional freedom. Any Canadian can petition their MLA and other Government representative to have a law reviewed or changed."

so then you agree that same-sex marriage should not be banned? if you have no desire to lobby, then you have no desire to change the laws of the land. therefore, we can conclude, you have no problem with the legalization of same-sex marriage. but this is not what you stated before -- you did say you have a problem with the legalization of same-sex marriage. glad to finally have gotten this cleared up.

"If you had asked me if I have done so, I would have answered no. Why? Because I do not believe that I should decide what another believes and practices unless it is in violation to one's safety. Sexual orientation is clearly an individuals right to choose. I hold to the higher law of free agency."

then this discussion is over.

"But again...had you just asked me out right for clarification due to a misunderstanding...maybe you wouldn't be so hell bent on making me account for what I believe in. I just do."

AND I DID. REPEATEDLY. my requests were ignored because you never clarified your position, until now.

Posted on 24 October 2007 @ 19:1 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

ironic nostalgia, posted over a year ago

"Again...everything denotes to me that there is a God. I'm sorry if you can't understand the why of it."

you never explained why. just claiming that "everything denotes to me that there is a God" is not providing evidence of a god.

this is the argument from incredulity, or the argument from ignorance:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

"Quite commonly, the argument from personal incredulity is used in combination with some evidence in an attempt to sway opinion towards a preferred conclusion. Here too, it is a logical fallacy to the degree that the personal incredulity is offered as further "evidence." In such an instance, the person making the argument has inserted a personal bias in an attempt to strengthen the argument for acceptance of her or his preferred conclusion."

read the whole article for an understanding as to why your argument is illogical.

Posted on 24 October 2007 @ 19:4 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

, posted over a year ago

Don't twist my words to fit your meaning. I said the higher law is free agency. I don't support their choice but support they can decide for themselves. Dumb!

Posted on 24 October 2007 @ 19:37 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

, posted over a year ago

Mine isn't illogical. Mathematically speaking it does support my belief. You just don't agree it does based that math does not fit into your arguement as to why God doesn't exsist.

Posted on 24 October 2007 @ 19:40 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

, posted over a year ago

oh geeze. Wikipedia is not a viable source as anyone can add to that source. Anyone can post their views. Alot of what is said is someone's intrepetation of information. Not all people quote their sources in it's entirity as well which further makes it less credible. It is highly biased.

My instructors in Bylaw, Management, Accounting, Organizational Behaviours say to use more reliable sources such as newspapers, encyclipedias, history. But even then alot of what is written has to be re-written to fit modern day beliefs and interpretations.

I've read some of that sites posts and concur with what my instructors have to conclude.

And you can ask me to post one big post...but I choose if it's something I want to do or not. And often, I come back between my time of studying to post another thought.

Alot of your rules to make things bend to your will and way of thinking are very restrictive and yet you say religion is restrictive.

You want the expansiveness of science and yet don't want to accept the expansiveness of religion.

Posted on 24 October 2007 @ 19:48 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

, posted over a year ago

You are just as biased.

Posted on 24 October 2007 @ 19:49 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

, posted over a year ago

When you open with Fade and then go on and not mention to RCN...I have no choice to conclude you mean me. As you only separated your thought process internally.

Posted on 24 October 2007 @ 19:52 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

, posted over a year ago

You are arguing for the sake of arguing when discussing the good of humanity and yet fail to realize that not everyone believes or lives in a way that is for the good of humanity. That was a far reaching arguement.

It is certain that there are opposites in this life, justice/injustice, light/darkness, male/female, good/bad...yin and the yang. I totally support this. As we are more than the sum of our parts, more than just mind and body-we are spirit. We need to feed all aspects.

If science cannot explain or support that there is such a thing as a spirit and yet-they cut a leaf in half and photograph it's electoral force and it shows a whole leaf...and conclude it's an phenomena they can't explain but exsists...it's just odd they refuse to say that it's possible it is spirit. Instead they say maybe it just "remembers" it's form and are giving off that signal. To my Native Ancestors who taught and believe we are spirt, blood, body, mind and are a part of everything-we are everyone...it wouldn't mystify them.

To say that I adhere to one and only one and then declare me ignorant is an oversight on your part. Fallacy I do believe.

Posted on 24 October 2007 @ 20:0 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

ironic nostalgia, posted over a year ago

ok, that's it -- i'm done, fade.

for half of your above responses, i have no idea what text of mine your are referencing -- you provide no quotes. how can i know to what you are responding to specifically?

the wikipedia post was only to explain the concept of argument from incredulity. do you think that the explanation is incorrect? why? you attack the source without addressing the concept.

"Mathematically speaking it does support my belief."

i've asked you to explain how mathematics does so, and what do you give me? nothing. you just assert that it is so. this is why i cannot take your arguments seriously -- you provide no reasoning to support your claims.

about the RCN comment, i opened with "fade" that one time because i was referencing YOUR comments on RCN's comment! i already addressed that fact in my post.

the rest of your posts don't address any of my comments. you talk of science and spirituality -- science is only concerned with the natural world because the natural world is empirically observed.

also, an electrical force says nothing about a "spirit" world! science concludes that electricity IS a phenomenon that it can explain -- there are whole scientific fields devoted to it!

"Instead they say maybe it just 'remembers' it's form and are giving off that signal."

oh really? who said that? i've never heard of any scientists making such a claim. again, this is what i'm talking about when i say you make claims without supporting evidence.

you have given me no reason to think that a supernatural world exists, and again you argue from incredulity.

i'm tired of this one-sided conservation -- it's obvious you are not interested in having a discourse.

Posted on 24 October 2007 @ 20:35 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

, posted over a year ago

Phantom leaf phenomena. Back when I was 10 to 12, I was fascinated with the possibility of pshyics as I was in a foster home where the mother claimed to be one. She didn't predict accurately that Brian Mulroney would win. She said the other guy would.

Yet there have been times when I knew that one of my children were in distress and they would be blocks away from me. I would ignore it to only get a stronger impression to go to them and know where they would be. Many times I have saved them from violence or even accidents.

My Ex BF said he didn't believe is such things as science hasn't proven such abilities exsist but when I would be half asleep I would know what he wanted before he even asked. I would tell him what it was he wanted, needed or even be able to tell him what he needed to hear. It freaked him out he had said as he never experienced anything like it. He couldn't explain it but eventually it was something he came to know and love about me. Call it intuition, psychic ability or what not but it occurs.

Alot of things in this world science can predict and assume and some have even be tested and "proved". But there is far too much left unaccounted for.

No one can say with certainty what happened to the Aztecs. A great and prosperous society that vanished. There are many other such cultures that have vanished when they seemed to be at the apex of their technological advances and claims to scientific knowledge. There are alot of speculations but since we cannot speak to them directly to ask what went on-we draw conclusions based on our own understanding and with this assumption we form an opinion based on our current precepts.

Science is a good tool to use, especially in the field of medicine but remains ineffectual to explain the mysteries of the universe as man's understanding is limited in scope. This is not to say we have a better grasp than what we believe accient cultures had but even saying that is ignorant. The battery has been around for centuries.

'In space-time everything which for us constitutes the past, the present, the future is given in block... Each observer, as his time passes, discovers, so to speak, new slices of space-time which appear to him as successive aspects of the material world, though in reality the ensemble of events constituting space-time exist prior to his knowledge of them.'

Posted on 24 October 2007 @ 22:45 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

, posted over a year ago

Guys, ladies, I've been reading IN's inquiries and Fade's responses, and it's not really going anywhere. I know questions need answers, but we won't find them here. We either need more people for each 'side', or simply drop the entire 'discussion'. As far as this thread goes, Fade hasn't been addressing most of the questions and comments IN has put out and has continued to use circular logic for Faith.

I was hoping Fade would take each point in IN's comments, as he did her's, and addressed them, rather than go on about other similar things.

/fin

Posted on 25 October 2007 @ 1:31 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

rcn, posted over a year ago

I wanted to reply to your post "Fade". I believe some people possess different senses. I believe some people have a psychic ability.

I think there are some things science is just not meant to prove, and it doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't exist.

As far as relying on Wikapedia (i may have misspelled it) I don't rely on their information. Anyone can add or change information on it, and the sources of the information are not verified. I could even go on and erase a whole subject, or rewrite it to make no sense. Any information found on there needs to be verified by a reliable source.

Posted on 27 October 2007 @ 6:35 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

, posted over a year ago

For those who distrust Wikipedia, may I suggest Conservapedia - it's the trustworthy encyclopedia.

www.conservapedia.com

If only it were around to cite when I was reading Theology at University :(

Posted on 28 October 2007 @ 15:4 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

ironic nostalgia, posted over a year ago

pete, nice! conservapedia has provided me with tons of laughs.

RCN, as far as criticizing my wikipedia link, again, like fade, you fail to address the concept explained and instead attack the source.

while i agree that wikipedia isn't the be-all-end-all source, it is not without value. especially when you consider that wikipedia requires 3rd-party sources for all the information provided (and when there is no source for information, wikipedia lets the read know that the source is missing), we can recognize that there is an objective standard that is being pursued on that site.

using basic analytical criteria (something that is taught in English 101), we can conclude, reasonably, that there is some reliable information on wikipedia.

Posted on 29 October 2007 @ 13:7 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

, posted over a year ago

Talking to Instructors and my Doctor bud and U of A instructor in Genetics...they all state that Faith is not something science can prove or disprove.

Man has the ability to witness an event and put any meaning on it. With this...so many conclusions can be wrong just as much as they are right.

We share a common link in beliefs to a degree of what justice and injustice is.

It is a small minded thinker that can disregard the possibility of a supreme power as the universe is governed by laws and powers mankind is just starting to understand. Man does not know everything and may not even get to know everything.

Many assumptions and conclusions of Scientists have been proven wrong by the very same field of measurements previous Scientists have used. Science is an ongoing process that had not been perfected and may not be in man's time.

There are far greater things to worry and obsess over than KNOWING or needing PROOF.

To those who conclude there is no God-why take offense at those who do conclude there is one? Why must you make it a destructive and often times, arrogant point of belittling another for something you cannot conceive as? Is this no different than the countless accounts of historical events where one group persecuted, raged war on, and destroyed other civlilizations that have the same and equal rights to life on this planet that we all share?

Science remains one of discovery and thus far, because there is not "concrete" evidence to support such a supreme power of being does not support there is none. As science can neither disprove as there has been no reliable, viable measure to declare such a statement as such a means has not fallen into man's scope of understanding.

Science therefore will stick to what it's main purpose is-to better the human race but not with absence of compassion, acceptance, respect, and for the greater good of humanity.

We share the same planet and life is too small to be wasted upon things that cannot be explained.

If it is ever discovered that such a being and power exsists; let each individual decide for themselves to accept or reject such a discovery.

Posted on 2 November 2007 @ 20:57 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

, posted over a year ago

You're a troll account, right? Apart of you being completely brainwashed and incapable of any reason it has to be the only answer...

Posted on 3 November 2007 @ 11:32 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

, posted over a year ago

How nice of you Pete to resort to name calling, labeling, passing judgement based on the fact I do not share the same belief systems as you.

You strike me as someone who has let their anger and seemingly injustice over what occured in his past with someone who was militant and used religion as a means to control.

Your past experiences now have left you feeling justified in attacknig me and making me the one to pay for what they have said against you. I am sorry that such unfairness and unkindness has happened to you.

I am not them.

I am me. You do not know me but make a judgement that is biased from your past experiences, and have not honestly had an open, adult conversation with me to get to know me.

It is no different from those who look on me and because of the stereotype of All Natives are alcoholics, on welfare, drug abusers, prosititutes, and sleep around, and have multiple children with multiple partners...

Even though I have excercised my choice to align myself with a certan faith, eventhough I made the decision of my own free will and to what I know and witnessed to be true by the spirit's testimony-this does not give you the right to disrespect me publically and resort to verbal abuse. This give you no right to call me down because you fail to accept I have the right to choose what I do and because you choose to take offense for reasons only you know.

Your veiled hatered and resentments are evident to me by your words.

I know that the Scientific community is divided over what they will collectively state to agree on regarding a decision of God's exsistance. So far they say God is an unknown and they prefer to rely on facts that can be measured.

Scientists themselves, as individuals will do their best to offer their opinion on the matter but Science as a whole does not support their statements.

It is left up to the individual. As it is the same in the religious community. Common ground that I can appreciate. Common ground that should not divide.

We are both humans that walk the same Earth and live in a society that effects our lives.

Now that we agree to disagree let us be brother and sister and focus on the good in one another.

I accept your difference of opinion and I am glad that no two people think alike-uniqueness is what makes man great.

Posted on 3 November 2007 @ 15:43 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

, posted over a year ago

I'm not angry at all - and I am not "calling you down"; I just find it hard to believe that you are a legitimate user.

You consistently fail to address anything that IN has said, despite the many hours that he has obviously spent in carefully putting his point across, instead, you appear to respond with statements that seem to entice IN or anyone else involved in this discussion to respond in nonconstructive circles. Your recent reply is a good example - it is meaningless rhetoric that, within the context of the discussion, means absolutely nothing because you seemingly loose all sense of reason and revert to replying with confusing and muddled personal thoughts that have little or no context with the message in which you are replying to.

I very much believe and support that some people have a spiritual dimension to their character, but when when you, fade, start pronouncing extremist opinion that advocates prejudice against those that are different from you then you have to expect someone to challenge you.

It was actually one of your answers to a question posted on here that prompted my interest in this debate - how you could so irresponsibility handle a child that was dealing with his sexual identity through adolescence. You have clearly had some form of extremist religious upbringing or serious mental anguish in your life to turn to religion in the way that you have, yet in this indoctrination you appear to have become disconnected from the rest of us - or perhaps you were always that way, I don't know. Yet whilst you have found your own solitude and safety in religion, preaching your belief system in the way that you did was nothing but grossly irresponsible and potentially damaging to someone who clearly is a vulnerable person. So do not project how you feel others have treated you on to me, because I barely know you - and I am certainly not angry towards you - rather, saddened that in times of crisis a person with such reason resorted to choose the opium of the masses, rather than the freedom of the intellect.

Posted on 3 November 2007 @ 21:11 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

, posted over a year ago

I cannot nor can science give him what he seeks. He chooses for himself.

He takes all he sees, reads and forms his own personal conclusion, decision. And then is bewildered how someone like me or anyone else, can read the same things, see the same things and for another.

If he does not understand the possibility or probability of a higher power's exsistance; that there is a God, who am I to say he is wrong or cannot believe it.

All I have tried to do was tell him I am firm in my belief and gave him the why of it.

My life is a witness and experience he cannot take away but does so by explaining it away by his reaonsing.

He puts unfair parameters so he can have his desired conclusions which isn't very scientific if you ask me.

I love theoretical physics. I was amazed that the took two particles and divided them, and shot one out into space while having the other here. They then took the one particle and reversed it's spin and waited to see what would happen to the other. The other reversed it's spin as well. There are laws that exsist and that are amazing to discover but only raise more questions.

I adore that we learn by asking, seeking.

It is normal, human to ask the why's of this life.

It is normal, human to form one's own way of thinking and live by their own path shaped by their life's influences, choices, and thinking.

You both took one thing that was mine and to which is not something you agree to, and instead fo saying that was not fair or necessary. And then allow me to say, you're right- you go off about disproving a God. And telling me and only me, that I am responsible to give to you something you don't have an understanding of or had no real intention of wanting to.

So of course it got to this.

The scientific community is divided, astronomists say astronomy is humbling and they stand in awe. Amongst them some say there is a God, some say they are not sure but are in awe, and some say there isn't.

Science itself has not come out and declared there is or is not a God.

They do leave it to the indivdual.

The beauty of free will.

If you take offense by anything any person of any religion has to say, you need to take ownership as to why you are offended, what was the history that formed this opinion and belief, and then wonder why you honestly believe it is alright and okay to jump on a bandwagon to promote there is no God.

As I have a right to testify there is, you have a right to say there is not.

In my online reading of debates forums by scientist themselves...they bounce back and forth.

One scientists who is not religous or believes in a God said, I don't think it is fair to say that science can speak of faith and be true to what faith is. They are two separate systems and using one to define the other creates mess and lack of communication, understanding, and acceptance.

Science is science and faith is faith. One does not undo the other but just confounds those who believe in one over the other.

I say maybe there is room for both to co-exsist in harmony.

As there are two different views, many different belief systems-there is certain to be just as many articles and testimonies to post that counter IN claims.

Rather than fall to this trap, I remained true in saying I believe what I do and you do for your own reasons. I acknowledge you don't understand and it confounds you that someone like me even exsists. It would be frustrating and one may fall prey to make the other conform to his reality, so he is not uncomfortable with such an event, person, belief.

I have come to know that my belief system and how I live day to day is NOT the opinion of the masses.

You and IN declare I am not of an opinion of the masses.

Who are you to condemn me for offering my opinion?

Your hypocrisy to condemn me based on offering my opinion asked in the context I am well versed on was not an injustice.

I speak his langauge. You know not of what occured in email. I offered hope and comfort.

I am someone who sees beauty all around in this world, how it works, evolves, generates...testifies to me that their is a God.

Be saddened and fault me. I know who I am.

I am who I am regardless.

Posted on 5 November 2007 @ 19:3 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

, posted over a year ago

No Peter, I have not had extremist religious upbring but know that some have and it is unfortunate that some can take something beautiful and meant as a means to strengthen, uplift, instill hope, speaks of man's greatness and capacities to do good continually-and use it to control, abuse, and persecute. It was meant for justice and mecy and not for injustice and hate.

That is what I discern when I read it. No where in it does it say one is better than another but says one should strive to live honestly and be a friend and neighbour to another.

I have had extremist abuse, deprivation, neglect, and suffered at the hands of many who I were to trust. There was no love, no religion, no hope.

Yet in me, I knew I was more than what they taught be by their cruelty, depravity. I was right. The constitutions says so as does what I have read and know about the Bible and God.

What does science have to say about this? Alcohol causes chemical change. Some men/women have more testosterone in them that causes them to have an increased level that can induce violent behaviour.

Woohoo!

Such joy and love and hope in the scientific explanation.

I know it is true but it is so cold and void of comfort.

You do not know me and run a judgement no past experiences that rob from forming a true, accurate conclusion.

I am sorry that whomever persecuted you through religion has caused you to feel pain, anger, resentment, and sorrow-that they abused your trust too.

I have intellect and I have spiritual and I feed both.

You just don't like what I have to say and that's fine.

You don't have to be happy with everything I say.

Posted on 5 November 2007 @ 19:16 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)

REPLY TO MESSAGE or Start a new topic

Add a new message to this topic