insane

That's the English translation. The Hebrew word for day is "Yowm". Search a Hebrew Bible concordance (just google), the word's reference number is 3117. It has many definitions, some being "age", or "era". So God creating the universe in 7 ages, or 7 eras, fits perfectly with evolution.

Like I said, the application is merely a result of a principle that does NOT change. No, the applications are defined by the principle. Or, people apply the principle in different ways, and therefore the applications are defined by what people think is a good application to the principle. The principle "speaking kindly in love", has never been disputed - however the applications have been disputed. Take aerodynamics. It's a principle. Application: airplanes. Before airplanes, blimps. It's not like blimps are a bad application, or airplanes are a bad application, they're just different. But they apply the principle of aerodynamics correctly. If they apply the principle incorrectly, they crash. Just like people can apply the principle of "speaking kindly in love", incorrectly. It's not like someone can say "I think cussing people out and threatening them is my application of the principle", because that's just non-sensical. Aerodynamics does not change - it's not defined by what people think a good application of aerodynamics is, it just is. Same with this example principle of "speaking kindly in love". It's not defined by good application, good application is defined by the principle.

The first recorded martyr in scripture is Stephan, and Paul (Saul) was there, and it said he was giving approval to his death. I believe I said I didn't have time to look into it too much :) I was late for work, and now I'm late for bed. I don't have too much time to devote to this argument, which is why I provided a 'half-hearted' response. However: This is entirely hind-sight - completely useless to the apostles at the time who saw Christians being martyred. They didn't KNOW that they would die peaceful deaths (assuming you are right) - all they knew is that Christians were being persecuted in brutal ways and that writing the gospels would show themselves as Christian. Hence, any person wouldn't see the point of lying about something like that - they must have actually believed.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the four writers of the gospel all died natural deaths, and the information about certain apostles being imprisoned, mistreated, and dying unusual deaths came only from later Christian writers who heard "stories" that were past down. Jesus' death was the only one confirmed by outside sources during his own time. This is why most encyclopedias/sources of information directly go into Jesus' death, but descriptions of the supposed persecution and crufixions of the disciples are usually preceded by the phrase "later tradition states that..." I'm pretty sure that Christianity started becoming prominent enough to be discrimnated against in the second century (long after all of the apostles had died), as that is when outside/neutral accounts of persecutions against Christians began to be written. Maybe I've just heard bias accounts, but I heard that only the apostle John died a natural death. I don't have time to search around now, but I'll quote Tacitus, about Nero in 64AD (first century, not 2nd). This is taken from wikipedia about emperor Nero. (emphasis mine)

And in the Bible, eyewitnesses lied so that they could get tortured, burned at the stake, and killed? Give me a break... I think he meant those as two examples of why people lie, not as the sole reasons why they do so. All we know is that five people claim they witnessed Jesus perform supernatural acts. If five people in today's world said they saw their friend walk on water, they would be just as doubted. But they wouldn't be crucified - like some of the disciples. What I'm saying is, these people had all the reasons NOT to lie about something - they had nothing to gain by it except a painful death.

And in the Bible, eyewitnesses lied so that they could get tortured, burned at the stake, and killed? Give me a break...

I'm pretty sure any child that hasn't played this game was deprived!

Ah, way to actually show how his arguments are badly constructed. You do alot of baseless insulting/assuming on this thread without providing much real reasoning...

Eh, this may sound stupid, but you've never been to hell. Fire and brimstone are symbolic words used in Revelation - hell is basically the lack of God's presence, which is exactly what you want if you choose "not God" in your life here on Earth. Why should God send you to heaven, if you don't want to believe in Him or be in His presence? It seems that by sending you to hell, God is giving you exactly what you want.

School is for learning! Not bypassing filters that help you learn!

This is one thing I've been thinking about by myself lately, and I've come up with an answer that probably won't be accepted, but it's interesting to think about anyways. The moral standards written in the Bible are in fact absolute, but their applications change. For example: in the Bible it talks about speaking kindly to one another in love. 20 years ago, cussing would have been widely regarded as not speaking in love - today, many people accept it as a legitimate form of communcation. So, what's happening here? People are still aiming to speak kindly in love to one another, except the way they do it is changing. Same (absolute) principle, different application. I dunno, just something I've been pondering.

Of course. Why would God force people to follow Him? I'd say it is more loving to let people choose "not God". The definition of hell, is "not God", or just a place without God's presence. Fire and brimstone is very much symbolic things talked about in the book of Revelation. Why would God force someone who chose "not God" during his life, to be in God's presence for eternity? That's just ridiculous.

Guess so - it depends on your views on subjectivism I guess. A largely religious person could also argue that while science may portray truth about nature, truth about nature is largely irrelevant to living our lives - as it doesn't improve people - it just improves people's circumstances. (Not my personal view, just playing devil's advocate :P)

I always thought science provided truth about natural events and the world, y'know, scientific things. Religion would portray truth about morality, and how to live your life - two different branches of truth. It's not science vs. religion folks.

Ah, I don't think the point of the thread is to "convert" people, it's more to exercise our minds and debate the impossible (for me, anyways).

But you're not the maker of your friend, so you can't be held responsible. Let's say his mother gave birth to him with the knowledge that he will one day get drunk and die. Once again, I ask. Who is responsible? The guy who chooses to drink and get behind the wheel. If a psychic predicts that I will marry Jeanie, and I end up marrying Jeanie, and my marriage sucks, do I blame the psychic? Of course not, foreknowledge is not the same as determinism. Just because God knows it will happen does not mean that God caused it to happen.

Does this mean I get to lock two posts? So more people will see my locking abilities? :P Okay fine, bad joke. But I'm still locking this one.

I'm really surprised that anyone's opinion on him would be changed at all. I don't see how he was 'deceiving' anyone of anything. What he did was on the side, and the way he presented himself was as a rolemodel. How was he deceiving? By doing something in secret, and presenting himself as a rolemodel. It's not honourable because the only reason he did this was because he was caught. If he hadn't been caught on May 3rd, you can bet things would be now, how they were on May 2nd. Sure, 'fessing up now is better than playing innocent, but it's just the lesser of two evils.

You were a great member of both teams Duke! At least you were a legit merchant :P That's a TON of stuff gone!

Okay, nothing weird was going on aside from some unexpected actions by some of our users, it's all dealt with.

OR put the American National Anthem on a loop for the rest of his life in his cell. ;)

And sometimes their "own" moral can be very detrimental to human life. And don't go bringing up the Crusades or something, because that is an example of forcing their OWN morals on Christianity - leaving Christianity blameless.

Exactly - these "calculations" would take forever and are simply impractical. That's why I prefer dutiful morality systems like Kantianism, even though i don't totally agree with that one.

Welcome here! :)

That's what science says. Science only deals with natural phenomena. God isn't natural. Therefore science can't tell that God exists, even if He does.