pianofrieak2

There are many reasons why I support the death penalty. However, there are many ways we can fix the whole system. For one thing, like Anethesia said, we need to make sure they are completely guilty. Of course, Anesthesia missed the main reason murderers don't face the death penalty: They claim that they're not in their sane mind. To me, that's a bunch of bull. If they were drunk or on drugs or whatever to keep them out of their mind, that's their fault. If they begin to use the whole "devil made me do it," then, as a Christian, I believe it is possible but there are many reasons to cause them to go down that path and still deserve the death penalty. I favor the shot because I dont' think we need to hammer the point home by using the electric chair. Dead=dead to me. And it's very inhumane to use anything else when killing by a shot is so easy. But, let's get rid of the money involved. Don't have so many people to make sure the process is painless. A shot is a shot, please! Then, the governor being able to use his power to get them out of murder row is plain ridiculous. Guilty=Guilty. No chance of escaping it. As compared to rotting in prison, I think that that idea is based on ignorance. No offense to anyone who advocated it, but you use so much tax dollars in doing it that it's ridiculous. What people have in jail is ridiculous to me...newspapers, tv, weight room. My gosh, if they want to get strong, have them do push-ups. Give them cruddy food. Prison should be feared not annoying. Make prison a living hell. That's what I say. But, while they're in there, make them do something productive. Make them work hard and be proud of their work. When people work for nothing, there is no impetus and it makes them very upset. Who would want to do something for no reason? No one would and it's useless. Make them do something productive. When they're doing something productive, give the money to their family and a small portion to them for when they get out. This will help them to work hard and be proud of their work. When people are on death row, kill them quickly. Don't have them wait a long time to die, for it wastes tax dollars and gives them hope which doesn't exist. It's totally worthless.

As compared to not believing in any...the odds are 0. Evolution already has no evolutionary transitional fossils. The Miller-Urey experiment has already been refuted for itscombination of amino acids to proteins... What more evidence do you need to not believe in evolution?

Now that I'm back (and 2 pages behind...gee whiz!) let me remark on this comment. First off, like insane said, Christianity assumes the sinful nature of man. Man is inherently bad which can be seen anywhere you go (absolute power corrupts absolutely...without checks and balances you see what man's real nature is). Now that we know man is inherently evil, Christianity says that God came in the flesh to redeem us. When Jesus died on the cross, He had finally finished his purpose. He had redeemed us. But, we still couldn't go to heaven because he hadn't conquered death yet. When He was resurrected on the third day, He allowed us to come into contact with a holy God. A holy God cannot be even near imperfection and sin which is why God turned His back on Jesus after he placed the sin of the world on His shoulders. He couldn't even look at His own sin because that would make His holy and perfect eyes sinful. (This is also the reason that Jesus went to hell for 3 days...He had the sins of the world on Him and the punishment for sin is eternal death) That is the reason why anyone who sins cannot go to heaven. Unless, of course, you have some reason to have your sins gone. Hmm...how can this be? Can you have your sins gone? Yes you can. When Jesus died, He entered into a covenant with the Father. Anyone who believes Him to to be who He said He was enters into that covenant. The promise of that covenant is that God separates your sins "as far as the east is from the west." Now you can go to heaven and be in the presence of a perfect God. Because when God looks at you, He sees His perfect son. So God is both just and merciful. The punishment of sin is death but by His grace, you can be justified with Christ and receive eternal life.

Nonsense, man. I appreciate your viewpoint, but it made me laugh so hard that I couldn't help but comment. Please forgive me for any harsh points that I may make. First thing: I found it hilarious taht hard-core Christians are "liberal" in the UK. They'd be conservative in the United States which is completely ironic to me. (Perhaps I should move to the UK!) Secondly, you are being intolerant of Bible-believing Christians. Be careful who you call intolerant because you, yourself are being intolerant merely by calling them intolerant. Hypocrite? Third, how do you know the virgin birth is different in other translations? My guess is that someone told you that and it sounds good to you. If you have any support, please let me know. Lastly, the Bible should be 100% correct because its author is God. God inspired the Bible, and even though people wrote it into scrolls, God is still the author. And God can't lie. Therefore, the Bible is 100% true.

Where?

Lol! :roll: C'mon, bear, are you being serious with that example? That's just plain ridiculous. Let me expound upon what Astra said since you must've missed it. Mousetrap needs what? 1. Board 2. Spring 3. Latch (to kill mice) 4. Cheese or whatever Evolution says all of these parts evolved. Yet, without any of those parts, can the mousetrap work? No. It must have all 4 in the right order at the same time. Next, if evolution has the board, why would it make a spring? Let's say it's a mutation and it makes a spring. Voila, a spring. Oh, wait. The mousetrap still won't work. :roll: Now natural selection says useless pieces will be taken out. So evolution would remove the board and the spring. Say we got a board, spring, and a latch all at the same time. Will it work? No it needs bait (cheese). So it still won't work. So evolution will remove all of them. The chances of getting these 4 things at the same time and at the exact perfect area is extremely, extremely small. Shall we get a real-life example? Now, let me give you some research actual numbers. 1. Flagella rotate at 10,000 rpms. They have over 40 parts. They are able to stop on a quarter turn and reverse direction going 10,000 rpms in just a quarter turn. NO machine exists in the world like that. Of the 40 parts, how many does the cell have naturally? 12. There goes the argument of the cell just reusing parts. No, of the 28 left, how did the cell get it? There is no way it would happen. There is no way that evolution would mutate to get these helpful things, keep them all, and get them in the same order, the same place. That, my friend, is the argument of Behe. Irreducible Complexity. And natural selection would make sure it didn't happen. Evolution violates itself.

Show me proof because in my research, the Earth is the only habitable place in the universe. I think you'll find that given the overwhelming (if not infinite) size of the universe the burden of proof is in fact upon you. Alright...going back I see no reason why you made that response. :oops: If you tell me why you did, perhaps I would take the time to show you my evidence. Until then, your statement merely goes to serve the same point of the Bible: we serve an awesome and powerful God.

It may be possible but it's merely a mix of evolution and creationism. I see absolutely no reason to believe in such a thing, and it is very unpopular among Christian circles. Please don't get the idea that Christians believe in that sort of thing...whether or not Ghost does is beside the point. 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. Show me proof because in my research, the Earth is the only habitable place in the universe. Well, at the very least, it doesn't give us false doctrine about science. And it explains how we got here...as compared to any other workable theory of which evolution has ideas but doesn't explain. Besides, to address your point, intelligent design does generate predictions because it says our world was created by an orderly God and behaves in an orderly fashion...unlike evolution. Intelligent Design must refute evolution in order to have people recognize it as a viewpoint. But its purpose in life is NOT to refute evolution...merely provide an explanation for the great order we see in our universe.

Since you've apparently read enough to know some key terms, how do you explain away irreducible complexity? Why would you say it has absolutely no relevance? Is that because it appeals to a higher power for the creation of the world as compared to gases that assembled...according to gravity (which, oddly enough depends upon mass which was scattered throughout the universe)? Besides, it doesn't address the core of the earth or anything else that makes the Earth the only habitable place in the universe. I'm not advocating teaching Genesis in public schools. I AM saying teaching Genesis' ideas about the world...through the eyes of intelligent Design. BECAUSE EVOLUTION IS A THEORY. :?

I was thinking of Kids with Guns from the Gorillaz, damn vendetta games. All people that have guns have something that should've never existed. Protection comes at a price, Oy. BTW, welcome to the OT forums!! You're joining the Exodus. :wink:

Because beautiful is subjective, your point really doesn't exist. Besides, you're blending New Age teachings to support a Christian miracle which has already been established as being supernatural and, thus, needs no physical explanation. :wink: I'm sorry if I sounded a bit harsh in my reply...I thought you were trying to make Christians look stupid and got a little offended. Forgive me. However, remember that Paul said to be prepared to give an answer to everything. That includes the realms of science...not just philosophy or theology. You should know with physical, scientific, empirical knowledge that your viewpoint makes sense and even seems plausible. Truth should do that, of course. And I agree about the power of Christ's words and teachings. :D

Please don't bump old posts! :wink:

God was pretty smart when he put Jupiter, the largest planet, in our solar system to protect us from massive asteroids from pulverizing us. (Did I just say God??? :roll:)

Um...great point. You're making your side look completely ignorant. :? Besides, even if there were fossils in the ground proving evolution, don't you think we would have found them? I give you a quote from Colin Patterson, the senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History. He is probalby the best paleontologist in the world since he's the senior paleontologist at the best museum of natural history in the world. "If I knew of any evolutionary transitions, fossil or living, I would have certainly included them in my book Evolution." He didn't which means he doesn't know of any. :roll: Oh, by the way, Colin Patterson is an atheist. :wink: He writes again, "Evolution not only conveys no knowledge, but seems to convey anti-knowledge." Nebraska Man, Piltdown Man, Peking man are all frauds...and they're still in some textbooks!! :x And death by pod, you're right about what intelligent design is. It doesn't refute evolution but merely points to an intelligent cause for some of the universe's beginnings. I would agree with Ghost that we shouldn't teach creationism in schools...but we should teach intelligent design since everything is a theory. No one was there...no one knows...and by only teaching one theory...it becomes truth. Which is making the public both ignorant and blind-sided. BTW, you keep seem to be talking about microevolution...which everyone has to agree with. But once you bring macroevolution into the picture, that's where the controversy occurs.

Why don't you have any friends in real life?? :( And what's the whole deal with donuts anyway...

I decided to save myself $180 by not going to prom because I didn't have a date... Yes I asked... But anyway, I'm kinda glad I'm not going. I can hang out with some of my friends who also aren't going and just have a good time. You got lost? At prom?? :P That stinks! BTW, if I went to prom, I'd be driving my dad's '92 Camry. I agree about the whole limo thingie. :wink:

No offense, death, but how many books have you read on the Intelligent Design side of the debate?

Glad you enjoyed them!! I sure did when I saw that sight...it made me laugh so hard. I love the irony in that. :D

Well, Ghost, I kinda agree with you. I would definately say that theology and science are on different levels, such as using science to prove God exists. However, I also believe that you can see God through the universe (i.e. science). For instance, evolution v. intelligent design. I believe in intelligent design because the Bible supports the view of 7 literal 24 hour days (well 6 actually) to create the world. And science backs it up. Oh, gosh, this is gonna be bad for flaming but please use the concept. So, in a way, I agree with you Ghost in saying that science cannot prove theology and visa versa, but I also believe that science can point to truth in certain aspects of your theology. Now, as for religion not being able to be proven... Why would you become a Christian as compared to the tolerant Hindus or the radical Muslims? Or the, well most of the time, apathetic agnostic? Surely you have your reasons why you are a Christian (assuming you are one based on your quote from above). Yet it seems as though you have no proof for being a Christian... Please clarify! :wink:

Well, these shirts aren't exactly random or video-game related, but they're pretty funny. At least to the politically-minded, Republican-sided... http://www.protestwarrior.com

How does the Bible say slavery is ok? Ok... but what does that have to do with the debate? It's still in the bible, and I still disagree with it. It has everything to do with the debate! Our debate, at least to me, is over relativism and how you pick and choose which principles to use. How do you pick them? Ghost has already talked about utilitarianism/pragmatism, leaving you with only two others. Selfishness or nihilism. I think that the Bible tells others how to live. That simple. When you pick and choose, you are being a relativist. Which is self-contradictory and which is what this whole debate is over. Relativism anyone? OK, since you must have missed my point on relativism, let me tell you why it is self-contradictory. Option A=Murder is wrong. Option B=Murder is right. Relativism says A and B are both equally valid if you sincerely believe in them to be true. This violates the Law of Self Contradiction. But, to go one step further, who are you to say that relativism actually is a valid viewpoint. :?: You can't enforce your relativistic beliefs (i.e. your morals of good and bad) on me because you can't enforce anything on me. Which makes relativism self-contradictory. You can't argue for relativism because relativism can't argue. Period. To be honest, I don't know what your specific morals are. And, to be perfectly clear, it doesn't matter. I am merely arguing that morality has to be defined by something other than yourself. Essentially, God. You keep going back to your point of morality being determined by yourself, though most of it is Scriptural. I am saying that's not good enough. It has to be entirely Scriptural. Do we understand each other? :)

So what exactly are you? You believe in some things but not others? How do you know which principles to take and which ones not to take? It sounds pretty relativist (whatever I want) to me. The Old Testament seems harsh because it is the pre-requisite to the New Testament. In the Old Testament, they judged your actions alone. But in the NT, God judges the heart. In the OT, there was no grace and harsh punishments (i.e. Saul made one mistake and was taken off as Israel's king) but in the NT, there is an abundance of grace. The OT is there to point us to our need for God. 10 Commandments anyone? It shows how sinful we are and how in need of God we are. And you say you're not a relativist? You must have no idea what one is. A relativist says that there is no absolutes so you can't tell me what to do. As you said, "no one" can tell you what is right or wrong. I was saying you're a relativist which goes against all of Christ's teachings. Christ said, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father (heaven) except through Me." That leaves out all relativistic teachings, which I have already proven are self-contradictory in my other post.

You know, I should probably just let this post die, but let me ask you one question. You say that you believe in the over-arching principles found in all Scriptures...However, how do you which principles are true? Which ones are good? What is the true determinant for good and evil, right and wrong, morality? Who are you to say that one act is wrong and another isn't? Relativism, according to its own definition, cannot stand up to its own teachings. By stating there are no absolutes is to believe in at least one absolute statement...violating its own existence. And to believe what you do is to be a relativist. Let me close with two quotes: ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬ÅIn the world it is called tolerance but in hell it is called despair. The sin that believes in nothing, cares for nothing, seeks to know nothing, enjoys nothing, finds purpose in nothing, lives for nothing, but remains alive because there is nothing which it would die for.ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

You do realize that animal testing, for the most part, requires "cruelty." The whole nature of animal testing is to test their limits, see what the consequences are of medicines/cosmetics/whatever else. We do it, and the animals feel pain. Many die. But then again, would you rather test on humans? :? I think we've already settled this whole topic, but your post just bothered me. Don't you realize what animal testing is? Try reading the topics before you post something and look...well, look ignorant. I disregarded the end of your post which was total rubbish and didn't exactly help your point any.

So... please don't try to pretend that all religions are the same, when they are clearly not. I stand by my statement that every religion is exclusive. The Koran states that those who resist Islam should be killed. Where you got your information is beyond me. I don't think Buddhism can really be called a religion because they do not profess a belief in God. But, they do believe that their way is the best way to enlightenment. In that way, they are exclusive, saying their way is the best way. Now, to answer the real point of our arguing, what's wrong with being intolerant? Only the intolerant say others are intolerant. Stop being so intolerant of my so-called intolerant beliefs! :roll: