J a m e s

He could have, but I know a lot better than to rely on just hearsay alone. Why wouldn't Jesus (the son of God!) leave behind any writings? Am I the only one who finds that silly? No, he obviously wanted it to be as hard as possible to believe in God.

Cyclic theories of the universe more often than not incorporate the big bang into them. There's nothing to say that this isn't possible as far as I can tell. I was just wondering since he appears to believe in the Steady-State theory. That means he doesn't believe the Big Bang happened, right? No, I believe that Big Bangs have happened.

Actually, I hate to break it to you, there are 206 :lol: I shall return with more pickup lines soon, I have plenty... It varies depending on age. The older you are, the fewer bones you have.

No, it is not acceptable for anyone to be racist. You are ignoring the fact that blacks in America have always supported the Democratic party strongly. Obama's being black may have encouraged more African Americans to vote at all, but I think the small amount of blacks who voted for Obama BECAUSE he's black is around the same as the amount of whites who voted for McCain because he's white. Racism is not just a white man's problem. We all share the shame.

I feel like this is all that needs to be said. Yeah, I agree, freedom of speech is overrated. On a serious note: it is EXTREMELY ironic that she feels she has room to complain about discrimination against discriminating people like her. Reminds me of how sad I am to know that the black population of California overwhelmingly supported Prop 8. Truly depressing that they can turn around and discriminate others as if they don't know what it feels like.

While I hold in equal regard that girl's opinion with anyone else's, I'm afraid I have to disagree with her. Just because parents are paranoid about their kids being open-minded doesn't mean they or their kids should be excused for their fear. Why do these kids' parents hold anti-gay-marriage dear? Why can't they handle the fact that they aren't their kids' only beacon of knowledge anymore? Why do these parents worry about their kids being taught that marriage is between "any two consenting adults?" I cannot understand these kinds of people. Do unto others what you would have them do unto you...

I think that life is pointless and have never thought differently yet I've never been depressed about my life in general.

That was directed towards Sly, obviously. Gotta catch some sleep, g'night gentlemen.

AIDS isn't the only STD, you know. :lol:

What do you mean that I was "nothing" as a sperm? This is what I call double standards. I would venture to say that a Christian would say that a sperm doesn't have a soul but an embryo does. That's the only reason I can think of... That doesn't make any sense... Why is the embryo with no soul but is a "human life" so important to you? The sperm isn't important to you; why does it's bondage with the egg change everything? They are essentially equally alive and the embryo doesn't have any human characteristics that the sperm didn't have (besides the double chromosomes, of course).

Just for the sake of argument, I'll let you have this. I'm still waiting for the whole "Sperm = Human life" thing. What do you mean? Sperm isn't human life, it only has 23 chromosomes. Humans have 46. You said sperm doesn't have a place in the animal kingdom, which isn't true, that's all. Also, an embryo will indeed grow if not spontaneously aborted or aborted by human will, but in reality it is just as "alive" as the sperm was. It doesn't have thoughts or feelings (using the word it because it's genderless, not to furthur convey my point). Isn't the soul supposed to be essentially the personality and individuality of a person? An embryo has neither. Enlighten me as to what a soul actually is so I can further understand your stance on this. Explain to me what a soul has to do with anything? In fact, no one mentioned it except for you and that Noob guy. Furthermore, Zierro asked me what species sperm is. I answered none, because it's not a species. A soul has everything to do with abortion. You and I both know that. You claim the soul is there as soon as the sperm meets the egg or something like that, do you not? Wow, this thread got derailed to hell. This is the homosexuality thread! :P

Just for the sake of argument, I'll let you have this. I'm still waiting for the whole "Sperm = Human life" thing. What do you mean? Sperm isn't human life, it only has 23 chromosomes. Humans have 46. You said sperm doesn't have a place in the animal kingdom, which isn't true, that's all. Also, an embryo will indeed grow if not spontaneously aborted or aborted by human will, but in reality it is just as "alive" as the sperm was. It doesn't have thoughts or feelings (using the word it because it's genderless, not to furthur convey my point). Isn't the soul supposed to be essentially the personality and individuality of a person? An embryo has neither. Enlighten me as to what a soul actually is so I can further understand your stance on this.

Oh, do explain. *shoves his marine biology degree under the table* Sperm cells are alive; human sperm is mammalian... Oh, and FYI, there isn't a single man in this world that can go without ejaculating for longer than a few weeks. It is extremely unhealthy to go long without it. Just a neat little fact. So "spilling your seed" being a sin is complete bollocks. Anyone who claims they don't masturbate and doesn't have sex regularly is a liar.

soulja boy up in dis oh watch me crank and watch me roll watch me crank dat soulja boy then superman dat hoe now watch me yuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu...

Except I don't. But whatever makes you sleep at night (: I'd say the same, but then I remember that you're anti-equality so yeh.. no thanks. No one is anti equality. Are women anti equality because I get slapped for going in the womens bathroom? Yes, they shouldn't be allowed to slap people for small mistakes.

None. You do realize you're not going to win this argument, right? Where's the damn /facepalm smilie??? This will have to suffice: :wall:

In other words, you believe in the creation of the universe by an all-powerful being but he does not interfire in our lives in any way and there is no way we could possibly ever understand that god. That's fine to believe; many people don't see how the Big Bang could have occurred without that god. I personally believe that the universe has always existed and will always continue to exist. There is no beginning or end of time.

Erm... You might want to read up on your history. By continuing to assert that the Church was for anti-miscegenation laws, you're really not helping your cause, here. You're aware that the ruling in Loving vs Virginia was initially that they either had to go to prison for 1 year or leave the state for 25 years, for the reason that "God placed different people on different continents therefore showing they shouldn't marry." Sounds like a religious reason to me. I was wrong when I said the "Church" was for the anti-miscegenation laws, but the Christians of that time certainly were. So in response to what I previously said about separating Church (and religious ideals) from the state, it is relevant. Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Once again, pick up a history book and read back to the 17th century. Anti-miscegenation laws had nothing to do with Christianity, nor any religion for that fact. What about the non-religious who supported them? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-misce ... lonial_Era "In the 18th, 19th, and early 20th century, many American states passed anti-miscegenation laws, which were often defended by invoking racist interpretations of the Bible, particularly of the story of Phinehas and the "Curse of Ham"[10]. In 1776, seven out of the Thirteen Colonies that declared their independence enforced laws against interracial marriage. Although slavery was gradually abolished in the North after independence, this at first had little impact on the enforcement of anti-miscegenation laws. An exception was Pennsylvania, which repealed its anti-miscegenation law in 1780, together with some of the other restrictions placed on free blacks, when it enacted a bill for the gradual abolition of slavery in the state. Later, in 1843, Massachusetts repealed its anti-miscegenation law after abolitionists protested against it. However, as the US expanded, all the new slave states as well as many new free states such such as Illinois[11] and California[12] enacted such laws." I'm going to bold the two most pertinent parts of my last post, which you conveniently ignored. So what do I win? Edit: The underlined about was missing originally. You win nothing, they were almost entirely religiously motivated laws. EDIT: Well, they didn't start out that way when slavery was legal.

Pray to your God and tell him to save the souls of all the babies that he willingly allows to be spontaneously aborted as well as the souls of the abortions performed by humans for the next body.

Erm... You might want to read up on your history. By continuing to assert that the Church was for anti-miscegenation laws, you're really not helping your cause, here. You're aware that the ruling in Loving vs Virginia was initially that they either had to go to prison for 1 year or leave the state for 25 years, for the reason that "God placed different people on different continents therefore showing they shouldn't marry." Sounds like a religious reason to me. I was wrong when I said the "Church" was for the anti-miscegenation laws, but the Christians of that time certainly were. So in response to what I previously said about separating Church (and religious ideals) from the state, it is relevant. Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Once again, pick up a history book and read back to the 17th century. Anti-miscegenation laws had nothing to do with Christianity, nor any religion for that fact. What the non-religious who supported them? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-misce ... lonial_Era "In the 18th, 19th, and early 20th century, many American states passed anti-miscegenation laws, which were often defended by invoking racist interpretations of the Bible, particularly of the story of Phinehas and the "Curse of Ham"[10]. In 1776, seven out of the Thirteen Colonies that declared their independence enforced laws against interracial marriage. Although slavery was gradually abolished in the North after independence, this at first had little impact on the enforcement of anti-miscegenation laws. An exception was Pennsylvania, which repealed its anti-miscegenation law in 1780, together with some of the other restrictions placed on free blacks, when it enacted a bill for the gradual abolition of slavery in the state. Later, in 1843, Massachusetts repealed its anti-miscegenation law after abolitionists protested against it. However, as the US expanded, all the new slave states as well as many new free states such such as Illinois[11] and California[12] enacted such laws." "In North America, laws against interracial marriage and interracial sex existed and were enforced in the Thirteen Colonies from the late seventeenth century onwards, and subsequently in several US states and US territories until 1967. Similar laws were also enforced in Nazi Germany, from 1935 until 1945, and in South Africa during the Apartheid era, from 1949 until 1985.[1]"

I know. I can't believe a democrat actually won on the internet! Those dirty liberals and their technology! Us farmers down here in Alabama don't need no darn computers to get the truth. We either read the paper and are misinformed or don't read the paper and are uninformed! What does Alabama have to do with anything? Would you be surprised if John McCain won the talk radio poll? I was just responding to your irony with more irony. The Democrats typically are more active on the internet because they live in cities or more urban areas. Total stereotype, I know, but I can't be bothered to care right now.

So are Christians in the future going to look back at you and other Christians who try to hold back social equality as weird too?

Ugozima is a pretty cool guy, he nasally devours marbles and doesn't afraid of anything.

That was quite possibly the stupidest thing I've ever seen. :lol:

Kids going to a gay marriage. Oh no? Seriously, I was raised an Atheist and I went to a church on a school day out when I was aged 8. The history lessons I received on Ireland were given by a Protestant Unionist, despite me agreeing in principle with the Republicans' cause and being half-Irish myself. You don't find my parents complaining about the influence school had on me. Don't tell me you consider that as evidence of forcing liberal morals onto school children, unless you're afraid of children seeing the world around them for themselves. Challenging children about subjects they may otherwise feel awkward with is part of education. It allows them to approach those issues again later on in life with some sense of maturity. Well maybe to you that doesn't mean anything but to most people it does. That was one of the main reasons it passed. To a lot of people it went from letting gays do their own thing to forcing it upon children. I wouldn't want my six year old learning about gay marriage alongside regular marriage. And the teachers union basically said that they were going to teach it "Whether you Like it or not!" to quote Gavin Newsom. What the hell does that even mean? How do you "learn about gay marriage" in school? Oh god, your kids might assume that, upon hearing of the bond of marriage, any two people can do it! THE HORROR. THE ABSOLUTELY TERRIFYING HORROR.