Astralinre

If you don't mind me asking, how did you reach the conclusion that God would not be a person, but rather an idea? And how is people believing in a personal God justification for hating them? You said you organized religion, but is the belief in a personal God the only reason why you do? You say that people should have their own ideas and morals - what if their idea is that a personal God exists and their morals are that we should obey it? Nice point, Astra. Well made. It's ironic how intolerant the people who claim tolerance are. I actually said that I might believe in a god. As i said, it is what i PERSONALLY believe. See peoples opinions on somethings differ than others. What im trying to say is that religion should be kept to yourself. You are not doing any good trying to preach to other people. It should be a private event. And did i ever say i d individuals who believed in god? No. i said i ORGANIZED RELIGION. I the thought of it. It is the same thing as a cult except it is socially acceptable. There is a saying that goes, % the sin not the sinner". My personal belief follows the same thing. As for following thier own beliefs, it should be trying to improve themselves, as opposed to harassing people to join thier specific division of religion. And piano, what the hell. I never preached tolerance. Sorry, but you did say, "The reason I hate most Christians," not, "The reason I hate Christianity." Sorry if you intended the latter, but I was just going by what you typed. Simple mistake. Now, I understand what you said in your response, but I'm trying to understand your original statements, so would you please answer the specific questions I asked about your beliefs? Piano, I'm with MPC on this one; use the bold and large font sparingly, my friend. :)

If you don't mind me asking, how did you reach the conclusion that God would not be a person, but rather an idea? And how is people believing in a personal God justification for hating them? You said you organized religion, but is the belief in a personal God the only reason why you do? You say that people should have their own ideas and morals - what if their idea is that a personal God exists and their morals are that we should obey it? Nice point, Astra. Well made. It's ironic how intolerant the people who claim tolerance are. Well, while it's true that tolerant people tend to be intolerant of intolerant people, that wasn't really my point. In fact, I didn't really have a point, I was just trying to get him to elaborate on his beliefs. :)

If you don't mind me asking, how did you reach the conclusion that God would not be a person, but rather an idea? And how is people believing in a personal God justification for hating them? You said you hate organized religion, but is the belief in a personal God the only reason why you do? You say that people should have their own ideas and morals - what if their idea is that a personal God exists and their morals are that we should obey it?

And yet I don't recall a single passage in the Bible that speaks against gambling...

As a Christian, I believe in absolute morality, but I believe that utilitarianism is often useful for applying those absolute moral principles. There are many situations where one must chose between evil and evil or between good and good, and the only way to make the choice is to determine which option will do the least harm or the most good. In other words, I don't believe in it as a guiding philosophy, but sometimes it can be a handy tool.

Paul, who wrote Corinthians, learned about the resurrection through 1. "revelations" 2. the scripture This is why his words are not in Wikipedia. Wikipedia only takes into account the words of eyewitnesses, such as the original disciples. Paul was never present at any of the events he wrote about. You forget that he also would have known the eyewitnesses themselves. We know he knew the Twelve, and it's likely that he knew others, considering his involvement in the early church. Besides, givin the point of your post, what in the world makes you think that Wikipedia is an accurate source about who saw Christ if Paul isn't? The Bible is the definitive source of information on Christ's life - I think a book written a couple dozen years after the fact by a man who knew the eyewitnesses is much more credible than an online source written 2000 years later. Allow me to repeat myself - if you want to know what the Bible says, read the Bible, not Wikipedia. Regardless of whether or not Wikipedia mentions the appearance to the 500, the Bible does, and it is our source of information about Jesus Christ.

Wikipedia does not say anything about Jesus appearing to 500 people. Obviously, they can't list the people's names, but if what you said is true, then wikipedia would have at least said "Jesus appeared to 500 people." The only people who said they witnessed resurrection were Mary and the disciples. As I said - pretty convenient for them. As much as I like Wikipedia, it is not the final source on what the Bible says - if you want to know what the Bible says, you must actually read the Bible. I Corinthians 15: 3-6 says, "For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep."

That thing about sounds terrible, but when we are all compared to the perfect Christ, we're all terribly stained with our sins. Yes, even Mother Theresa. That's why His grace reaches to everyone, including those we have trouble associating it with. So you are agreeing that could have, potentially, gotten into heaven despite what he did? Exactly. The Bible teaches that Christ died for the sins of the world - he took our punishment upon himself. Therefore, even Hitler could get into heaven if he repented from his sin and accepted the grace of God.

Because they have things proving them wrong. Even Catholic religion has been proved wrong by it's own bible, seeing how could virgin Mary be a virgin if Jesus had brothers? This is like saying the age of the earth and the first human remains proves christianity wrong. People just explain/make excuses to make it consistent. The Virgin Mary bit is related to Jesus' Virgin Birth not the fact that Mary never had hot monkey ... Never said anything about it. I'm was addressing the claim Hinduism and Buddhism has been proven wrong, using the same logic so has Christianity. But your point is wrong. Mary was a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus. Therefore, she was the Virgin Mary. No, that was my_pet_worm's point. HugATree's point was that, even if my_pet_worm was right (which he isn't) it still wouldn't prove Christianity wrong.

!Su madre! "Your face" is safer? Yeah right. I've lost count of how many times I've used that insult on people only to find out that they didn't have a face. I still haven't recovered from the beating this one faceless guy gave me... :(

I wouldn't dislike it if you chopped off my head and put it in a blender; after all, I'd be and my brain would be blended, which would make it rather hard to have indignant thoughts.

I know what evolution is. You're mixing the two concepts. 1. How would a cell with no outside mind know what pieces he needs for the flagella to work? Take, for instance, the mouse trap. A mousetrap has many pieces that have to work perfectly, are in the right place, and are in the right order. Evolution says it's purely chance, but why would evolution keep a useless piece that's necessary in the chain? Evolution has to know what pieces are needed...when...and if it doesn't help the organism at that instance, it won't keep it. And yet the flagella has to have pieces in order in time and in the right place. It's why irreducible complexity is such a marvelous concept. It uses evolution to disprove itself. Hm... Have you read Behe? I think I've heard him use that same analogy about the mousetrap. May I expand a little on what you wrote? The problem with those complex objects gradually becoming complex is this - evolution works on natural selection; beneficial traits are passed on, harmful or useless traits eventually disappear. Irreducible complexity states that certain organs, such as the eye, are made up of many tiny parts which would be useless without every single other part of the organ along with it. How would something like this evolve? Even if a mutation brought about one piece of it, that piece would be useless until all the other parts came about, hence it wouldn't be preserved. The flagellum is a perfect example of this on the cellular level. It's made up of dozens of parts, each of which is useless by itself, and the majority of which are found nowhere in cells except in the flagellum. It's an incredibly complex structure, and I haven't seen anything in the current evolutionary theory that explains how it could evolve. Show me proof because in my research, the Earth is the only habitable place in the universe. Perhaps you ought to say, "The earth is the only known habitable place in the universe." Anesthesia's point is that, as large as the universe is, it's quite likely that there's another planet where some form of life could survive.

Intelligent design doesn't refute evolution, so explaining how accurate evolution is hardly makes an argument against intelligent design. Yup, creationism explains the beginning; evolution explains what has happened to creatures since then.

Well, I read all of the seven books multiple (6-10) times as a kid, so let me see if I can help. :P Nope, when they return to Narnia in Prince Caspian, they are the same age that they are in our world. And Edmond never takes over for a deceased Peter. Right. In Prince Caspian, they are sitting at a train depot when they hear Susan's horn blow, and they are pulled back into Narnia. In Narnia, hundreds of years have passed, but it's only been a couple of years on earth. In The Voyage of the Dawn Treader, Lucy, Edmond and their cousin are looking at a painting of ship at sea, when the painting comes to life and begins to grow in size, until they are drawn into it. Every time they are called to Narnia, it happens in a different way. Hope that helps. :)

These are the shows that I've loved the most and/or that have influenced me the most throughout my life, in no particular order: I Love Lucy I Dream of Jeanie Bugs Bunny / Loony Tunes The Cosby Show Star Trek: The Next Generation Star Trek: Deep Space Nine Boy Meets World Friends Seinfeld Lost :P

The Gospel of Judas was written in about 180 AD by a man called Irenaeus , who incidentally is a Saint now. I would like to inform everyone however, that the only people to use this gospel in history were the Cainites, a group who worshipped Cain, the first man to murder his brother, support of this document is most likely the same argumentitive mindset that they supported. Good information to know. Doesn't that then make the Gospel of Judas unlike the other gospels, as they were written by the people who were there? Hmm, maybe , maybe not, the earliest gospel believe to be written was Matthew, and by using a timeline of events even that has been placed at around 50 A.D. I wasn't talking about when they were written. You said the Gospel of Judas was not written by Judas, whereas the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. This would make the Gospel of Judas different than the other gospels, as it is written by someone who was not there. Yep, Matthew and John were both Apostles, Mark was an associate of the Apostle Peter, and Luke was an associate of Paul and also researched his account thoroughly. Those four were also written within the lifetimes of the Apostles. The Gospel of Judas, however, was written 100 years after the disciples were dead by a man who did not know any of them.

"A Complete History of the French Military - in Five Minutes" "How to Peel an Orange" "What Are Hotdogs Made Of? "Anatomy of a Cardboard Box" "The Secret Life of Trashcans" "How to Construct a House in Five Minutes" "The Fascinating World of Dental Floss" Just to name a few...

I can't see how calling unborn babies parasites to justify killing them is a nice thing to say. I'm sorry you feel that way, but I believe that if you're going to present an opinion, you've got to be able to prove it. She tried to do that, she did a pretty good job! But GhostRanger pointed out some inconsistencies with her arguments, and all of a sudden we're "uncivilized cockblocked *". Problem is you want to start from the given of a fedus is a human and has rights of it's own that come before the mothers. From this point there is no way to prove anything. Your point is the give and all others have to disprove it. There's no problem with assuming a fetus is a human. Scientifically, there is no way to argue that it is not an individual human. You can argue all you want about whether or not its stage of developement matter or whether or not it is self-aware, but it is still intrinsically human. It has its own human DNA. It's the same species as the parents from its conception - how is it not a human?

Most kind: mad4u - I've never read a single mean thing she's said. Least kind: Entangle Funniest: Bubsa, without a doubt. Most intelligent: Hannibal, Insane, Death_by_Pod Best moderator: Weezcake Best administrator: Grin_King Best ranter: Anesthesia Most interesting person: Mercifull Weirdest person: Anyone remember Woman? Person-who-you'd-like-to-sit-next-to-you-on-a-ten-hour-plane-ride: Insane, Bubsa Best runescapian: N/A Best tipiter: There's too many wonderful members for me to choose just one.

It reminds me of Islam when you put it like that. Just because a tiny minority of Muslims (we're talking 0.1% here) are extremists and suicide bombers, people generalise the whole religion in the same way. Unfortunately, that usually only applies when the minority has negative characteristics. The virtue of the minority tends to be ignored when the majority are dragging the reputation of a group down.

One word: Bacon. If that doesn't work, I'd like to second the idea of greasing the top two or three stairs then pushing the dog. (Just make sure there's something soft for it to land on at the bottom.) Indy: Dogs can walk down stairs. It's cows that can't. :P

You are.

Saw it earlier but cba if I was going to answer... anyways OMIGOSH SPOILERS He's the worlds shortest man and he finally got taller than his measuring stick But wouldn't a measuring stick have markings on it?

Ha, very nice quote. For mine, a friend told me this one a few days ago. Odi et amo. Quare id faciam, fortasse requiris? Nescio, sed sentio fieri, et excrucior I hate and I love - why do I do this, perhaps you ask? I don't know, but I feel it being done, and I am crucified Anyways, I find it very moving. I can't really find the words to explain what it means, but for me it relates to how awful the evil in the world truely is... PDM I don't know the speaker or the context of the quote, but it makes me think of the struggle each human has between his sinfulness and his goodness, and the pain that results from that struggle. "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy." - Prince Hamlet, from "Hamlet", by Shakespeare "When sorrows come, they come not single spies, but in battalions." - Claudius, from "Hamlet"

Its also easy for you, a man, to also be pro-life when you are not a woman capable of going through that situation I've never understood how that statement really applies in an argument. "Since you can't get pregnant, don't tell women that they can't have abortions" is usually the sentiment it carries, and that just doesn't make sense to me. Does the ease with which I can make my claims invalidate what I say? A man can escape the responsibility of raising a child by abandoning that child and its mother. A mother can escape the responsibility of carrying and raising the child through abortion. However, I don't think either of them ought to have the right to. Granted, there are conceivable situations in which I would agree with abortion; as with most laws, there's going to be exceptions. But in general, I'm against abortion. Katryna: I still disagree with that point of view. Sure, the child may suffer in its life, but it still has the chance for happiness. If a child is aborted, it will never know pain or joy. But if it is allowed to live, even if it has a painful life, it still has the chance to experience joy. Surely a little joy at the cost of pain is better than never having any joy.