pianofrieak2

Well, I would disagree with you in saying that most things should be figurative. I believe that everything in the Bible really comes down to this: Is Jesus who He said He was or is He not? He said, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the father except through Me." That's pretty exclusive...but then again, every religion is exclusive. So is the truth.

Why does science always have to be portrayed to be against God? It's not like Christians all of a sudden throw away common sense when they become believers.

Hey, you seem knowledgeable! I was talking with a Danish friend of mine a while ago (since I'm 1/3 Danish) and I was wondering if this phrase is right... Hej, Vordan Gaar Det. Is that Hi, how are you? How do you say, "My name is..." in Danish? :)

Goodness gracious, can't science accept something they can't explain? No one knows how gravity works and no one knows how Jesus physically walked on water. *sigh* It's just supernatural events they worry about... Anyway, I think that there is no way ice will freeze on top of a lake enough for a man to walk across. For one thing, in the Scriptures, it was in the Lake of Tiberias, a lake that is very stormy. Ice=no chance Plus, Jesus met them while they were in the boat. It was during a storm and the disciples were terrified and thought they were going to lose their lives. Would this happen if they were stranded in ice that somehow managed to support a full-grown man? Definately not.

Nice forum name...it seems to suit you. Um, we've already talked about this. Here is the link: http://forum.tip.it/viewtopic.php?t=435760 :wink:

Great logic, people are starving so lets blame the scientists; everyone knows scientists only do their job to stop money going to 3rd world countries. Nice train of thought... :? Do you realize how many scientists research global warming? There is at least one too many...one scientist's funds can be used to save the starving people in Africa. (Hopefully through any way BUT the United Nations). I realize scientists need to do their jobs and support families. I'm not saying stop funding to science altogether...but they could be researching important such as making better breeds of plants or finding out how to transport/preserve food or learning how to conserve oil just to name a few.

We might be taller. I don't know about that. But when you're talking about global warming, please don't listen to whatever your high school biology teacher says as your final authority. Yes, the globe is heating up. But it's heated up 0.1 degrees Celsius in hundreds of years. I'm not too worried. Besides, it's going to take a few degrees, not hundredths of degrees, to melt the polar icecaps and flood the world. As if 1 inch more of water would make such a big difference. You know, instead of giving money to save the planet, why not save the starving people in Asia and Africa? :?: You see, the only reason scientists mention it is to get money from people being fearful. The government likes it because they get more power to "regulate" heavy industry. Environmentalists like it because they get more donations to save the earth and all that junk. Everyone is using fear to get money or power by this whole environmental epidemic. :? Cars are bad, but no one had to make horse-drawn carriages disappear. They simply went away because people found an easier and cheaper way to travel. Hybrids or hydrogen-powered cars will soon rule the market, but until that comes don't worry about the state of the world. :) And on the topic of eugenics (or selective breeding), Hitler already showed us the real path of that mindset. Let's not be trapped in the past. :roll: If you care that much about eugenics, I've just written an 11 page paper on it. I can give you some sources to look up for it. :wink:

It's probably as true as the DaVinci Code. :roll:

You're right. I looked very carefully and didn't see where anyone that said communism is bad. I need to fix this. Communism is bad! (I can't let little innocents on TIF think that Communism is good, now can I?) a good summary of the facts, if people can't figure out a politcal movement thats killed more than 50 million people in the last century is bad. Socialism actually killed all of those people. It was just in the name of communism. Communism actually has no government...it's an anarchy which relies on the natural good in people. And people wonder why it will never happen??? :roll: Ghost is right...Communism is bad. :wink:

Just got accepted to Cornell and Notre Dame. :)

Wow, Bubsa, that's really cool! I'm glad that you're doing this. I really respect you for spending your time and effort in running this great marathon. It takes a lot to go out of your comfort zone for others. I salute you and pray for your success to raise money (as well as not dying until the end of the race). You might be receiving something...

I would say: Love God, Love People. :wink:

What's the idea, Ghost? I'm eager to hear it. BTW, I never advocated amnesty either. Just fixing the process which sounds eerily similar to what you are suggesting. :)

What's the difference? If you think about it, there are only 4: Size-so is a giant "more human" than a Little person? Level of Development-is a 40 year old man more human than a 7 year old kid? Environment-is an American asleep in their bed more human than a Chinese man working in rice fields? Degree of Dependency-So are diabetics less human than non-diabetics? The only differences really have no effect on the entire matter. You forgot about - consciousness, ability to suffer, ability to have an ongoing life independent of another human. If you think there are only 4 differences between a fetus and a baby it might be time for you to flick through "Where did I come from?" again. Consciousness-Level of development. Ability to suffer-Level of Development Ability to have an ongoing life independent of another human-level of development/degree of dependency What the heck are you talking about me missing stuff? Perhaps you should think about what you say before you say it. :wink:

They can be. It just takes time, money, and lots of paperwork. Ghost and bearofthunder are both arguing and both have great points. But, I believe we can resolve this by doing one thing: Fixing how we make illegal immigrants legal. By doing this, we eliminate all needs of debate by bearofthunder and Ghost is happy with his arguments. Everyone is settled. Of course, the problem is how many illegal immigrants you want to be made legal. They then get all of the benefits thereof which can cause a drain on our economy and change the national language (jk lol). Bush's whole problem is how to fix the process of getting them legal. And the Democrats are making such a huge fuss about it in order to get more minority votes. They don't even know what to think or do. All they seem to do is complain, offering no solutions. Great people, eh? :roll:

National ID cards merely pave the way for heightened government control. Great...they need more control, right? :roll: Eventually, when the world unites, one government will control everyone in the world.

You say this why? I think the American founding fathers would disagree with you. For one thing, by rebelling against England they were overthrowing their government. Leaving what? Well, a government they had to form by themselves with almost no money. Surely to them freedom is better than safety. Besides, they gave up their fortunes and, in most cases, their lives. You sure safety is greater than freedom? :wink:

What's the difference? If you think about it, there are only 4: Size-so is a giant "more human" than a midget? Level of Development-is a 40 year old man more human than a 7 year old kid? Environment-is an American asleep in their bed more human than a Chinese man working in rice fields? Degree of Dependency-So are diabetics less human than non-diabetics? The only differences really have no effect on the entire matter.

If you are referring to hell as recorded in the Bible, then you can't believe that tape. Right now, hell is in a spiritual dimension because spirits are...as the name sounds...spiritual. They are not bound by anything natural. Besides, heaven does not equal up and hell equal down. They might be reversed. All we know is that they're in separate places in a separate dimension.

That's exactly what happens all of the time! Scientists use genetic engineeering and combinations of plants (for instance: they combine a certain type of strawberry that's resistant to cold and one that's resistant to rocky soil to produce a "super" strawberry plant). Then the weeds have to get tougher to beat this competitive "super" strawberry that's cutting into their dirt and nutrients. It's called evolution. Of course, this is the ONLY type of evolution out there. Microevolution. Macroevolution has already been debated, so let's not go there.

Well, there have been a lot of responses on this topic. I believe that the system needs to be reformed. 1. We have a system of getting people to be legal immigrants. Use it! 2. If it's bad...that's fine. Revise it. THEN use it! 3. If people don't want to respect our system, I say "forget you". Get out. 4. If you allow others to bypass our system, we should have harsh penalties and THEN deport the illegals. That's just what I say. :) (in my merciful self of course! :wink:)

Is that an absolute statement? How do you know if there's not an absolute? Don't tell me you believe everything you hear in school. Relativism doesn't even hold up to its own name. Either relativism absolutely exists or it doesn't exist at all which leaves us with absolutes. Relativism, by its definition, violates its own existence. Thus, your argument is null and void. :wink:

Alrighty. I usually don't like making topics, but I was reading this newspaper article describing what the United States is planning to do to re-do the way they do immigration. So far, this is what I have figured out. 1. Fences and border cameras along the Mexico-US border, perhaps along the Canadian one as well. 2. Tougher punishments for companies that hire illegal aliens. 3. Requirements for companies to make sure they don't hire illegal aliens. Anything I'm missing? What's your view? BTW, please, please, please state why you believe what you believe. Don't say "yes". That's really lame. :wink: Thanks so much.

That's precisely why I don't think it's such a good idea. The main reason they did it is to keep the older boys involved. Girls are the key. But, then the guys have to "show off" to show how cool they are and they end up being distracted, in some cases mean, and just ends up in a bad place. Not being sexist here...just pragmatic. :wink:

I'm Eagle! :) I learned so much in my Eagle Scout project...it wasn't too difficult but I learned a lot through my experiences. @darkrick: It's called Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts in the USA. They don't group them all together unless you're in venturers. They let girls be in venturers. In my opinion, it's not a good idea but that's just me.