Locke

I understand completely what his point is, and your post proves my point even further. You can speculate that the verse about homosexuality is out of date, and you can refer to other verses that are obviously not held by the Christian church anymore, but just because you make that speculation doesn't mean you have a clue as to why those verses are not taken literally, nor why the verses on homosexuality should or should not be taken literally now.

You don't know what I, or anyone else's knowledge on this subject is. Just because you decide to showcase your lack of knowledge on the subject doesn't mean everyone else isn't very knowledgeable. But in a sense you're right. Everyone is qualified to debate about whether or not they think it's wrong and why, but not many people are qualified to debate around the biological condition of homosexuality, because not many people here have very much knowledge on it. It's a battle of quoting other people without necessarily understanding very in depth what we're saying.

Exactly my point. Just throwing out verses that are not taken literally in the year 2007 doesn't prove a point about homosexuality, it only proves you don't know what is taken into consideration when the Bible is interpreted. Throwing out verses like that doesn't show that you know all of the verses that speak about homosexuality and WHY they can be refuted - it only reinforces the point that you don't have much in depth Biblical knowledge and probably shouldn't be entering a debate about it. That is not to say the person you responded to should either.

Theologians, unlike yourself, have a very in depth understanding of the cultural context in which the Bible was written in. Theologians, unlike yourself, understand the nature of a Hebrew story in context. Your point is obviously true, but unfortunately for you, you have no idea how to even begin to interpret the Bible. Just saying, "It's up to interpretation" is easy for you, because you have no understanding of it. It doesn't make your point valid though.

It's one argument against gay marriage; and one which shouldn't get used anyways (due to the reasons outlined in the article). Unless the argument is used with other points. That happens so often there is a word for it: synergy. One point by itself might not be enough of a reason to do something, but if you combine all the points together you could result with enough reason to pass the bill. As I said in my previous post, exploding only one point of the argument and pretending like it's the only point, therefore making the argument ridiculous, is dishonest.

The only problem with that is it takes only one point of the anti-gay marriage argument and explodes it trying to make it appear as though it is the only argument against gay marriage. It's a completely fallacious argument, and initiatives like this are dishonest. Those who support a ban on gay marriage more often than not have multiple reasons for doing so, and those multiple reasons at a singular level might not be enough to ban it, but when combined are. People would refer to that as a synergy effect. Taking only one of the arguments and making it appear as the only argument is dishonest. I'm not trying to say I support the ban on gay marriage, just pointing out I don't like this type of initiative because I think it's dishonest.

Source: The Associated Press I have problems with the law being used to "prove a point." It seems similar to Representative Charles Rangel calling for a draft - not because he wants it, but to prove a point. In my opinion, if you want something done (like legal homosexual marriages), then gain enough support to pass a law that makes it legal. Wasting time with obviously and purposefully ridiculous legislation is a waste of everyone's time and money, and is childish. The law isn't something to be played with.

Of course I wouldn't like being locked up with no certainty of future, and I'm sure Satenza would not like much either. It's probably why we choose not to engage in activities that get us thrown in a war prison for terrorists. I support giving Hicks a fair trial just as soon as we're finished killing the terrorists, by the way. Just like we had the Nuremberg Trials from 1945 after WWII, I support giving all terrorists trials once we are finished. Unfortunately for terrorists like Hicks, we're not done yet.

The problem here is that an "outside" opinion hardly equates to an "objective" opinion, especially in a subject where propaganda is highly noticeable on both sides. I don't know what schools you go to either, my schools in America were and are filled with anti-American propaganda. I just had to exchange words with a biology professor who insisted on lying to his classes about America during every lecture.

He's being detained as a prisoner of war, correct?

Oh yeah, thanks for reminding me of that program. It's great for green screens. I can green screen in iMovie. And yes, Final Cut Pro is the top-notch program for movie editing. With the amount of cash that the Adobe product costed, you could buy a Macbook for $1000 less and still get iMovie. iMovies comes with any computer that you could use Final Cut Pro on. Obviously people using Final Cut need something more than iMovie to use, because if their computer can run Final Cut, it already has iMovie on it.

If your using Windows go with Pinnacle Studio's programs. They are fairly cheap for what they offer.

It's amazing that you somehow have access to top secret military information that no one else does. It really does make sense for the U.S. to hold Hicks in prison for so long with absolutely no evidence, no reason, and getting all the bad publicity they are getting from it. Not to mention the money it costs to keep him there for no reason. But since you seem to have some form of access to classified military info, I'm going to go ahead and trust you on this one.

Pault, your entire post is pointless because reality is subjective. Maybe in your reality Iran isn't a threat, but in my reality Iran is a threat. For someone who doubts an absolute reality, you sure seem to be taking a lot of absolute stances in this topic.

Rarely known about? The TV commercials I see about it nonstop beg to differ. And, how exactly were you able to assess MyPurpleCrayon's knowledge about the situation like you have? You didn't get MyPurpleCrayon to contribute, you got him to show you how wrong you were in your initial post. Do you consider it to be an accomplishment when you have people prove that you have no idea what you're talking about?

Just to clarify what insane said. If you read the stories written about God, they are stories that happened long before they were written (the initial point we are responding to is, "Would God exist if Man was not smart enough to write?"). What I am saying is that if God did not exist until we imagined him, yet we are writing about things he did before we imagined him, then he either existed before we imagined him or our writings were false. You were the one claiming reality is subjective. The point you are still not addressing is how something can exist and not exist at the exact same time. You still have not shown how something can exist and not exist at the same time.

You've only known that for the last 150-ish years? Christians have known that man came after the other animals for thousands of years. You know what else is interesting? Dr. Michio Kaku, one of the co-founders of string theory, has recently said it looks as though humans evolved from a single man and woman. That also seems to fit the Christian belief, from what I know of it.

It would defeat the entire idea of faith if God did that for every single generation. Let me put it to you in another way, in a way one of my philosophy professors has put it. If God did something to make every person in the world realize that it was absolutely impossible to doubt Him, and you knew that not following His rules would leave you eternally in Hell, doesn't that eliminate free will? No person would knowingly submit himself to the power that Christians believe God has. The only reason you have the conscious free will to reject Him is because you don't believe there will be punishment. If there was evidence that a God as powerful as Christians believe He is would send you to Hell for eternity for not listening to Him, no rational being would still ignore Him, thus, defeating free will for the human race.

God is the definition of Holy which is the complete opposite of sin. Can God sin? When he came in human form to us as Jesus I believe he opened himself to our weaknesses so that he could become the perfect sacrifice for our sin in the end. Since he didn't succumb to sin he was about to fulfill being the pure sinless sacrifice that was needed to pay for our sin. Someone might differ with me on this but at this time with what I know this is how I feel about the issue. Another great way to answer this question of "Can God sin?" is to compare God to light. God cannot sin because sin is merely a way of describing anything that is separated from God. Darkness, in the example, is anything that is the absence of light, just like sin is nothing more than the absence of God. Just as you wouldn't say that the light itself has attributes of "darkness," God cannot be sinful. Sinful is what happens without God, and darkness is what happens without light.

I'm not quite sure how you could hear one is better. What would make it better?

Explain to me how the universe wasn't snapped into existence. As to the rest this thread is not about evolution. No, you explain to me how life WAS. That's the question. See how you are? You'll use science when it fits your beliefs, and say forget the rest. So science thinks the Universe blew up from a tiny point, thus you could call it "snapping into existence...", but after that, you believe it was all God from there, even though evidence says otherwise. How does that even work in your mind? Science is right where your beliefs fit, and the rest is just made up? Who is to say God wasn't doing the initial snapping? What evidence do you have that points to or away from anything metaphysical? I have yet to see any scientific evidence that does nothing except explain the physical world. Do you know of physical evidence that gives hints about a metaphysical world that I haven't seen? If it is one's belief that God created the world, doesn't that mean he created what science studies? Therefore, could you not say that science is merely studying what God's actions?

If existence and reality is subjective, and I believe there is only one reality, then there is only one reality, right? The argument breaks down fundamentally as soon I suggest that there is only one reality. To use death_by_pod's words, it is nonsensical to suggest that reality is subjective.

This is not a question about the existence of God, this is a question about existence in general. You still failed to respond to the actual reasoning, dismissing it as "nonsensical" which it is not. If you read my posts, you will see that I am not arguing for the existence of God, that point is irrelevant. The question is whether or not something can exist AND not exist at the same time. By the nature of "existence" this is impossible. I'm not trying to prove whether or not God was imagined into existence, I'm saying that if he was in fact imagined into existence, the words that were written about him before he was imagined into existence are false, because they refer to him doing things at a time before he was imagined into existence. Then in your "reality" he exists. If he doesn't "exist" in my reality that is a different reality. But in both realities combined, he exists because he exists in at least one of them. What you are claiming then is you don't know if my house exists - you are not claiming that in the same reality, my house both exists and does not exist. That is my point you seem to be missing consistently.

I don't understand what you're saying; writing about God BEFORE we imagined him? :? Something can exist and not exist at once since reality is subjective. By writing about things he did in the past, we are writing about him existing before we imagined him. If he only exists because we thought about him, then before we thought about him to write the stories, either he exists and does not exist at the same time, OR our stories are false. If reality is subjective, and every person has their own reality, God still cannot exist and not exist at the same time in reality. Maybe in my reality he "exists," and in yours he does not "exist" but that's irrelevant. 1)because we're not even talking about absolute existence anymore and 2) We're talking about two different realities. Sure, God can exist in one place and not exist in another (that is logically feasible), but if we were to look at both realities at once, where God exists in one and does not in the other, we cannot say he "does not exist" and he "exists" because he does exist in one, therefore he exists. It would be like saying that my house does not exist on Mars, but it does exist on Earth. That is logically possible, but my house itself "exists." It does not, "not exist" just because there happens to be places where it is not.

It is a Christian belief, if I am not mistaken, that the book was inspired by God. That verse specifically says that it is eternal, contrary to your statement. Irrelevant to the specific point at hand. I'm quite aware the much of the Bible was written specifically to the people of the time. For instance, did you know in the New Testament Paul instructs women to not braid their hair? Someone who was reading that out of context would not realize that Paul was telling them to not dress like prostitutes, because he was speaking specifically to a hairstyle that only prostitutes wore in that age. What you have failed to account for though, is how a verse that was divinely inspired (since we are looking at it from a Christian perspective) that specifically states that it is an eternal verse, is not eternal. How can you logically and culturally show that a verse which states it's own eternal importance, actually is not eternal? For instance, Paul never says "for the rest of eternity, you should be celibate," therefore, it would be easy to say that the verse is not meant to be eternal. However, when the verse itself says it is eternal, you need some very strong evidence to say it was not meant to be eternal.