insane

Yeah, the Bible says that children should be raised in a Christian environment. The situations you are describing are children being raised in a fundamentalist Christian environment, which is different. What are you getting at? Ah, but in your passiveness, you are raising your child in a secular environment and thus they will be predisposed towards secularity. It's kind of impossible to raise a child in an "objective" manner, I would think. I don't think so. At least it wasn't damaging in my case, or in any of my friend's cases. The Christian view is that Christ saved us from the threat of hell so it's not really something I've ever really worried about. The Bible contains a lot more passages on how to bring heaven into your life here on Earth than how to bring heaven into your afterlife. Either way, children's Bible stories are mainly picture books about Christ's parables and telling the children to live a life of love; they aren't full of fire and brimstone tactics. As a child, what scared me more than the heaven vs. hell talk was the possibility of there being nothingness after death. At least when hell existed, heaven existed too, and I'd rather have that choice than having nothing to look forward to. The point of horror novels is to scare; the horrific parts of the Bible are histories about the Jewish people and the wars they were involved in. It's like saying Julius' Caesar's Gallic Wars are horrific so we shouldn't read it for its historical content. There's alot more to reading the Bible than just reading the text in a shallow manner, and that is why children are introduced to it in a gradual manner, just like children are introduced to math in a gradual manner. You don't start learning calculus in kindergarten, just like you don't start trying to teach a child about the theology behind hell before they understand other fundamental truths to Christianity. It's bedtime, I'll write more some other time.

Well the shape of orbitals change during hybridization don't they? The atom would be changing shape, but it is a predefined shape and another atom is getting involved, but still.

All this shows is that you are unhappy with how some Christians bring up their children. What does this have to do with Christian doctrine? Does it tell us in the New Testament to bring up our children on fundamentalist views? If you can prove that parents that do this are doing so because of a Biblical command, then sure. I said God and science aren't mutually exclusive. One can easily believe in God creating the universe and science as well. You're relying on a literal interpretation of the Bible to support your argument, which is a straw man. What does raising a child in an objective manner look like? Yes, I've seen children cry when they find out Santa Claus is a myth. I don't think children cry when they're enjoying something more. The Bible doesn't tell us to scare our children with fire and brimstone. This is another action that you're interpreting as an application of Christianity and thus using it to refute Christianity. Another straw man. I thought I already addressed the fact that from a Christian viewpoint, everybody's life belongs to God and that nobody is innocent? Oh, and there's the fact that God never actually had Abraham sacrifice his son. I'm sure if you'll remember, once Abraham proved faithful God provided another way out. This is something we will never agree on. We disagree on the nature/benefits/consequences of pride/humbleness and so this argument will never be resolved. Abraham didn't kill it. Are you aware of the circumstances under which Abraham's child came into the world originally? Not to mention this entire argument about Abraham is ridiculous because it's prior to Judaism AND Christianity, and Christianity is quite separate from Judaism as far as sacrifices and atonement for sins is concerned. Post Christ? Because if you and I were going to try and doctor two separate biographies to be the same we wouldn't load it full of minor inconsistencies, would we? I didn't know what the Vatican laying charges on someone has to do with my salvation. That's what I don't understand. Terrifying children with Hell isn't part of Christianity. I don't see how someone ignoring Biblical commands (not taking life flippantly) has anything to do with the validity of Christianity. Again, stop confusing bad application with bad principle. Me too. That's why Christ's forgiveness exists. I'm not denying it happens, I'm just saying that it's got nothing to do with Christian principles.

Bear in mind I am responding to your post from a Christian standpoint, as we are assuming the Christian faith here. 1. Not all Christians believe in 6-day-creation. 2. Calling Christianity a fairy tale makes it easy to refute since you're already assuming that it is invalid. This is called circular reasoning. 1. You're assuming that God and science are mutually exclusive, which they are not. This has been reiterated on so many threads, so many times I'm surprised someone like you would still attempt that this argument. 2. You're leaving out those who become Christians later on in life. How does your idea of child imprinting work here? So I guess you won't be telling your children about Santa Claus then? You will always tell your children 100% truth? Why do you get to choose which lies children believe are moral and which aren't? Guess you'd better throw out fairy tales or fiction novels. Or at the very least, tell your children before you read them any story that it didn't actually happen. That would be consistent. But again, see above. If the Christian God exists, the creation story could totally be 100% true. Or, it could be symbolic. Science and creation aren't mutually exclusive. 1. What is this incredibly "objective" view from which you look at this story? 2. What does this isolated event have to do with Christian doctrine? 1. What crimes? 2. We're assuming God exists since this is a discussion about Christianity. That makes all creation belong to God. That means God can take life, just as he gives it. From a Christian perspective, no person is innocent, either. We are all sinful and deserving of death. Since Abraham is acting for God, it is not murder. This is offensive and circular in logic. Some Christians rape children. What does this have to do with Christianity? Impress humans? Give me a break. This is a joke, right? The Disciples were Jesus' best friends. They did not try to stop it. I know this was an aside to try and insult Christianity one step further, but I honestly think contradictions are proof that the Gospels were not a doctored story. Funny, I thought the Bible stated that we had to accept the fact that we are sinners and that Christ died for us. But of course, your Bible knowledge is obviously greater than mine. I believe I posted about this earlier. Did you miss it? None of this makes any sense at all. Sorry, maybe you can explain it better, but this seems to be some crackpot theory you dreamt up on the spot. This isn't Christianity. This isn't Christianity either. We are not told to be flippant with our lives. I've addressed it in a previous post. The Law was established to realize how much we cannot do, and to point us to God - what really saves us is not the Law, but the dependence on God that comes from a failed attempt at observing the Law. I guess what you're suggesting is that if a Law cannot always be followed it, to just abolish it? I disagree with that notion. That train of events is a slippery slope and, just untrue. This is nothing but a anger-filled hate-fest against all religion. There's nothing to even respond to here. Your post has degraded, and thus I disgress. Maybe I"ll respond to the rest later on.

It's not just atheists who go to hell, but also people who believe in other gods. It's irrelevant to my point, but yeah, you are correct from a Christian standpoint.

What is this false picture and what makes a mind innocent? I thought blood sacrifice ended with Christ's blood sacrifice (his own blood). Am I wrong? See above. Christ atoned for us. Okay, for everyone that thinks going to hell is unfair: I believe it is the heart behind the choice - saying no to God is saying "I can do life on my own" - the whole message of Christianity is "I can't do life on my own, I need God" - and this independent attitude of doing life without God is what God so strongly dislikes, or hates, if you will. All of this "It's my life, I can do what I want, worship what I want, believe what I want", I believe is coming from a selfish and flawed mindset - if God exists (which is what this topic assumes), then it's not *your* life - God is creator, and you belong to Him whether you like it or not. And just like aerodynamics can be applied incorrectly, so can free will, so can Christianity. Just like there are bad Christians, there are bad choices, we can freely choose not God, and it's a bad choice. So if you do choose "not God" during your life on Earth, why is it unfair for God to give you "not God" after your life on Earth? Hell is simply the absence of God; fire and brimstone is quite symbolic. I don't see it fair for atheists who think they should be able to choose "not God" during life - and then find it unfair when that's what they get after life - to expect God to put them in heaven (which by defintion, is the presence of God - the very thing an atheist would abhorr). This seems ludicrous to me. And these are?

I believe it was done in the past (along with removing nested quotes), but removed for some reason.

Qft. They can call the cops on you and/or talk to your parents later on. No amount of Febreeze will cover them up ;)

When I had acne I used Minocin, which is an antibiotic. It takes a couple months to take effect, and then you're pretty much set. It's expensive though, so don't go for it unless you've got medical coverage.

You know these two posts totally destroy your credibility :P

I love how there are more topics on animals rights than humans rights on this forum. Priorities, people.

This is a point I have made at least ten times on this board, yet nobody gets it. So I think we've resorted to using their own faulty logic against them. At least they understand that.

What does that have anything to do with objectivity? Thank you for an overview of the scientific method. Now please prove to me that it is objective. That's a self-refuting statement. A fact that isn't absolutely certain? :lol: That doesn't make any sense. What does explaining your position have anything to do with objectivity? Your entire post leads me to believe you don't understand the concept of objectivity. Maybe you could explain it to me, so I can better understand your position.

Or posts being made in boards you no longer have access to.

There are no absolute truths. We use experimentation and observation to form facts that group together into theories that are more accurate than their predecessors. Being able to tell if something is "more accurate" requires an objective measure. Saying 5 is closer to 2+2 than 6 can be measured as "more accurate" because there is an objective answer to which we are comparing it (4). If there are no objective truths, then there is nothing to measure against, making it impossible to call something "more accurate" than something else. What makes science objective?

Yep, too bad many people don't get the concept. No matter how many subjective opinions you add together, the sum is still a subjective opinion, just like it's constituents. There's no getting past that, no creating objective truth from subjective POV's :-$ . What makes truth objective? What is your method for finding absolute truth?

Post count: 4228. Actual post count: 2385. That's alot of posts in the staff boards :P

It is estimated that from 1999 to 2002 (P2P file sharing was significantly popular first in 1999), the number of albums sold in the USA dropped from 1.05billion/yr to 825million/yr . This is a decrease of almost 20%. While it may be true that .mp3s are not the cause of this, another successful explanation has not been given for this drop in album sales. [Source]

When did I say it was okay to record songs off the radio? Even if I did say it was okay, it's a false analogy. Artists choose to release songs onto radio airwaves; they don't choose to release their songs onto internet servers... But artists don't choose to release their songs onto the radio to have them copied. It's still taking the place of a bought CD if you copy all your music off the radio, no? So the analogy still works, and highlights the problem with a blanket statement like yours. What's the problem with the blanket statement that I made? Secondly, what is the blanket statement that I made? Thirdly, I don't agree with the logic you used to attempt to piece back together BlueLancer's analogy. What kind of radio station plays all the songs from an album? Usually an album has just one single on the radio. These are songs that the artists put on their myspace accounts and such because they want that song out there to promote the album. The problem begins when people use the internet to steal the entire album and defeat the purpose of the artist's single radio song.

Who cares what you define stealing as, you're still ripping an artist off. Using a technical definition of stealing to justify your actions is pretty cowardly. Are the millions of people, possibly including your parents, thieves too because they recorded audio cassettes from the radio back in the 1980's, copied them forward to their friends and they copied it onwards? When did I use the word thief? You're throwing an emotional term onto my parents to try and bolster your argument. In spite of that, I see no difference. The artist is still getting ripped off, no? If it takes the place of you buying a CD, then yes, the artist is getting ripped off. If you aren't willing to pay for intellectual property being sold, then I don't see how you can possibly claim to have the right to enjoy it. And for the record, an artist typically makes around a dollar per CD sold. [Source] When did I say it was okay to record songs off the radio? Even if I did say it was okay, it's a false analogy. Artists choose to release songs onto radio airwaves; they don't choose to release their songs onto internet servers...

Who cares what you define stealing as, you're still ripping an artist off. Using a technical definition of stealing to justify your actions is pretty cowardly.

What about preaching in a public space, surely that's invasive? I'd think smoking is much more invasive.

Hark!, I be a robot.

Creationism isn't science though. Science studies natural theories and evolution fits that, whereas Creationism is a supernatural theory. Teach creationism in religion/philosophy class and keep evolution in the science classroom.

But the wife isn't committing the act, the husband is. Of course, the loophole for THAT is if you are a Christian, the husband and wife become "one flesh" so the wife would be participating... but I don't think you want to be arguing for Christian ethics, do you now :P