steveorino 7 #651 March 6, 2007 I was wondering you have been. steveOrino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,594 #652 March 6, 2007 QuoteYes, and early scientists were just as spectacularly wrong. Both science and religion have grown up a bit since then. My point was more that science and religion were created for many of the same purposes, not 'look how dumb religions are'. That is usually my point, but not this time.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,114 #653 March 6, 2007 >My point was more that science and religion were created for many of >the same purposes, not 'look how dumb religions are'. Right - because back then we didn't even know there _was_ a difference. Heck, often the various religions employed the leading scientists (or 'natural philosophers') of the time! Since then, we've been learning, and they've been diverging. Occasionally someone tries to misuse one or the other to claim authority in fields that make no sense (like the Loving decision, or the science of eugenics, or the latest intelligent-design nonsense.) But that's an aberration, not a reason to condemn either one (IMO.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lindsey 0 #654 March 6, 2007 Quote>I'm still hoping to hear any reasonable argument against abortion . . . It would be the same argument as against murder. If it is illegal to kill a one-day-old child, it stands to reason that it might be illegal to kill a fetus in its 39th week (i.e. shortly before it is born, when it is capable of living on its own.) I think I remember a woman being charged (with what I can't recall) for refusing a C-section that would have saved her unborn baby's life. And I think I remember a man being charged for killing a fetus when he beat his wife/girlfriend.-- A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JackC 0 #655 March 6, 2007 QuoteRight - because back then we didn't even know there _was_ a difference. Heck, often the various religions employed the leading scientists (or 'natural philosophers') of the time! Right so religion and science did overlap back in the day, because they were almost considered one and the same. QuoteSince then, we've been learning, and they've been diverging. Occasionally someone tries to misuse one or the other to claim authority in fields that make no sense (like the Loving decision, or the science of eugenics, or the latest intelligent-design nonsense.) But that's an aberration, not a reason to condemn either one (IMO.) Right, so science and religion still overlap even now. You might want it to be an aberration and perhaps in some perfect world they should be separate, but we don't live in a perfect world. The fact is that religion and science do overlap and Gould, well intentioned as he might have been, was wrong. To quote Richard Dawkins on the subject : This [NOMA] sounds terrific, right up until you give it a moment's thought. You then realize that the presence of a creative deity in the universe is clearly a scientific hypothesis. Indeed, it is hard to imagine a more momentous hypothesis in all of science. A universe with a god would be a completely different kind of universe from one without, and it would be a scientific difference. God could clinch the matter in his favour at any moment by staging a spectacular demonstration of his powers, one that would satisfy the exacting standards of science. With regard to the separation between religion and government in the US (you claim they are separate), ask yourself this: Could an atheist become president of the US? What about a muslim, hindu or sikh? The fact that there is only one electable demographic should tell you that religion and politics are not nearly as independent as you might think. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #656 March 6, 2007 Quoteyep, there are lots of bikers in the church I pastor. Are they gay? Why do you want to know? Because if they are, then you denying them a right to be married.* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #657 March 6, 2007 Quote You might call me a "red-letter" Christian. I'll defend what JC taught but I will not defend the immoral acts of people in the OT. So you defend that: - Parents must kill the children who cursed them: Mark 7:10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death - Any city which does not "recieve" Jesus should be destroyed (with its population) like Sodom and Gomorrha: Mark 6:11 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city. - No peace brought Jesus, but violence and division: Matthew 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. Luke 12:51 Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: - Physically handicapped people were sinners: John 5:14 Afterward Jesus findeth him in the temple, and said unto him, Behold, thou art made whole: sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee. Quote But since you brought it up, please show me where the Bible or God calls Lot moral or righteous? 2 Peter 2:7 - 2:9: 2:7 And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked: 2:8 (For that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds;) 2:9 The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished: Quote JC taught about protecting children in general and not doing harm. It is my opinion that would include pedophylia. Could you provide a quote? I just quoted JC's words that the children who curse their parents should be let die to death - which is even worse.* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
philh 0 #658 March 6, 2007 Im not asking you to defend those immoral acts which were not commanded or condoned by god. But killing gays is commanded by god and by most Chrsitians definition god=JC. Lot and his family were the only people spared in Sodom and Glamorah, everyone else was killed by god including little children. in fact the so called merciful god even killed Lots wife simply for looking back at the destruction. She followed natural human instict of curiosity and instict presumably created by god? I think we can infer from that that god thought Lot was righteous and maybe we can also infer god likes killing children. In fact Ill expand on that; in Egypt during the PLagues god selects all first born Eygptian to be killed, this instead of simply killing the pharoh, you want to infer from the bible I can do the same. My inference is that god likes killing children and so I think hes closer to the paedophiles than you imply. Think about it, he selects children to killl becuase of the crimes of their leaders, he does make rulings on sexual behaviour eg commanding death for gays but says nothing about paedophilia. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
philh 0 #659 March 6, 2007 On what basis are science and religion not overlapping? Its eeasy for Stephen Jay Gould to say this, that doesnt make it true. Science has a view on the origin of the universe, so does religion. Science has a view on the origin of man, so deos religion. Science has a view on the origin of diseases so does religion. Science is even starting to work on the origin of morality, something I think religion has somethign to say on. On all of these things science and religion differ and they are not exactly minor questions. they are key question abut our very existence. Of course they are overlapping. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steveorino 7 #660 March 6, 2007 QuoteQuoteyep, there are lots of bikers in the church I pastor. Are they gay? Why do you want to know? Because if they are, then you denying them a right to be married. I have not denied anyone their right to be married. steveOrino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bigtexan 0 #661 March 6, 2007 QuoteWhile I don't agree that people should not be able to lobby and vote their conscience, I guess you have the right to dissent and and attempt to supress our rights. Umm. Typical. In effect your saying that as long as you can get a large enough group to vote a partictular way then, 'so be it; Anything goes.' with this rational, your basically saying that you have no viewpoints that you would deem inapproiate to force upon the population as a whole as long as a subtgroup within the population can get enough support to make it so. this is what your saying, you know this? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steveorino 7 #662 March 6, 2007 More or less. I do not want to suppress the speech of anyone, no matter how vile it is. You do, I don't, simple enough. steveOrino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bigtexan 0 #663 March 6, 2007 Quotesuppress the speech of anyone again.. putting words in my mouth? I said they should not be allowed to forcefully subject me to their viewpoints.. but I see we should be done with this go round. It's gettin no where. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steveorino 7 #664 March 6, 2007 Quotewith this rational, your basically saying that you have no viewpoints that you would deem inapproiate to force upon the population as a whole as long as a subtgroup within the population can get enough support to make it so. this is what your saying, you know this? Yes, that is democracy in its essence, the majority rules. A "subgroup" doesn't rule in a democracy does it? If they do, it is the problem of the silent majority. You don't like what the majority thinks? Change their mind as they did in the 50s & 60s with civil rights. It is my opinion, you are on a slippery slope when you don't want to hear dissenting views, or feel when the majority speaks they are "forcing" their will upon you, and therefore, their voices must be silenced. steveOrino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steveorino 7 #665 March 6, 2007 QuoteQuote You might call me a "red-letter" Christian. I'll defend what JC taught but I will not defend the immoral acts of people in the OT. So you defend that: - Parents must kill the children who cursed them: Mark 7:10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death You gotta love those who are clueless to biblical interpretation and quote out of context a passage that actually says almost the exact opposite of their viewpoint. JC was speaking against those who quote Moses about honoring their parents, but actually dishonor their parents by holding back support because that so called support was “promised to God”. Read the WHOLE passage not just a snippet you copied from an atheist website. Quote- Any city which does not "recieve" Jesus should be destroyed (with its population) like Sodom and Gomorrha: QuoteMark 6:11 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city. I know you fundies love the KJV, but that text has added the S&G insight in later documents. The older transcripts don’t have that, but rather they end with “a testimony against them.” But even so, all he is saying is spread the word, if they don’t accept the good news, leave. Their judgment will be greater than S&G. That judgment is one they bring upon themselves for rejecting the good news of God. Spiritual death is far greater than physical death Quote - No peace brought Jesus, but violence and division: Matthew 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. Luke 12:51 Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: He is simply telling it like it is. His word divides people. Try living as JC actually taught … not your church or your denomination, or that TV evangelist that promises you God will give you a Mercedes if you buy his book, but actually live the way JC taught, and people will separate from you. It is a life of sacrifice and servanthood. Not many people waiting to do that. Quote- Physically handicapped people were sinners: John 5:14 Afterward Jesus findeth him in the temple, and said unto him, Behold, thou art made whole: sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee. On the contrary, JC taught the EXACT opposite. John 9:1-3 As he went along, he saw a man blind from birth. His disciples asked him, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?" "Neither this man nor his parents sinned," said Jesus, "but this happened so that the work of God might be displayed in his life. He was not equating his handicap with a sin, but rather instructing him to quit sinning or a worse thing than being a cripple such as spiritual death and separation from God, awaits him It is a shame the only Bible you seem to know are the ridiculous, out of context, passages that frequent the atheist websites. It really places your argument on very shakey ground. I know very little about science and evolution theory. I can go to creationist websites and copy texts about genomes, yada, yada, yada, but I still know very little about the subject. When a guy like the Prof (Kallend)comes around, he'd rip me a new one and expose my ignorance. Therefore I typically stay away from such debates. I'd suggest most of you fundy atheist either take a freshman level Bib Interp class or at least quit copying hobby horse straw man scriptures from atheist websites Quote Quote But since you brought it up, please show me where the Bible or God calls Lot moral or righteous? 2 Peter 2:7 - 2:9: 2:7 And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked: 2:8 (For that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds;) 2:9 The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished: Okay, you got me on that one. I would never call Lot righteous based on his dealings with his Uncle Abraham. Maybe he looked righteous compared to the citizens of S&G. Here is a Harvard theologian's insight. I'm not sure I agree, but if you google "was Lot righteous?", you do see some efforts to explain. http://www.hup.harvard.edu/features/kugbib/chapter.html Quote Quote JC taught about protecting children in general and not doing harm. It is my opinion that would include pedophylia. Could you provide a quote? I just quoted JC's words that the children who curse their parents should be let die to death - which is even worse. There isn't one pluck it and quote it text about it. JC taught about compassion and loving the unlovely throughout the gospel. You would do well to read it. steveOrino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JSBIRD 1 #666 March 6, 2007 Quotei was wondering how many of us beleave in God I love Jesus, but do u or Budda , or any other God for that matter. I just know when my time comes ill be happy were im going. Jesus love u I believe in spell check. 359"Now I've settled down, in a quiet little town, and forgot about everything" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #667 March 6, 2007 QuoteI believe beleave in spell check. Fixed it for you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,114 #668 March 6, 2007 >You might want it to be an aberration and perhaps in some perfect >world they should be separate, but we don't live in a perfect world. That's right! But that doesn't change the correctness of something. A lot of people think smoking doesn't negatively impact your health at all. They are wrong. A lot of people think that eating lots of fat has no effect on your health, and happily use anecdote after anecdote of Billy Jo who ate nothing but bacon fat and lived to 100. They are wrong about the effects of fat as well, despite their anecdotes. Some people think the world is flat. Their belief does not make it so. >Could an atheist become president of the US? Probably not. Do you approve of that state of affairs? Do you think the constitution of the US intends for only christians to run the country? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
philh 0 #669 March 6, 2007 "You gotta love those who are clueless to biblical interpretation" What a ridculously arrogant statement. Your assuming that there is some kind of objective correct interpretation proven by biblical scholars that happen to agree with your particular interpretation of the bible that you hold. But biblical interpretation is necessarily subjective. I have to laugh when you say you are ignorant of sceintific matters and hence dont comment on them but the opposite goes for biblical matters as if these are equivalent. These two are not comparable. Science has a lot more objectivity to it than literary criticism. Its a fact that the speed of light in a vacum is a constant. Its not a fact in any similar way that for example when the bible says death it means a spritual death,rather than a physical death.that is interpretation ie opinion. people who hold atheist, liberal Chrsitian and fundamentalist views have all studied the bible and they dont agree. So your suggestion that by simply studying the bible one will come to the "right" conclusion is clearly nonsense. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steveorino 7 #670 March 6, 2007 Actually what I was referring to is there are many interpretations of the Bible, not just one (including mine). Sadly it seems the atheist here only know the same way to interpret the Bible as the fundies do. Just as sad is they will miss the point of many scriptures and it's insight with their narrow viewpoint. But like Bill Parcels says ... "We are what we are." steveOrino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JackC 0 #671 March 6, 2007 Quote>You might want it to be an aberration and perhaps in some perfect >world they should be separate, but we don't live in a perfect world. That's right! But that doesn't change the correctness of something. OK so we've established that religion and science do overlap and always have done and that a creator is in fact the mac-daddy of all scientific hypothesese but yet somehow you still want me to believe that non-overlapping magisteria is correct? I really cannot see how you can come to that conclusion. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #672 March 6, 2007 Quote I have not denied anyone their right to be married. So are you pro or against gay marriage?* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steveorino 7 #673 March 6, 2007 QuoteQuote I have not denied anyone their right to be married. So are you pro or against gay marriage? I'm an amatuer steveOrino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shortyj 0 #674 March 6, 2007 Steve I think it's so funny you call Jesus JC It reminds of that scene in meet the parents where owen wilson also refers to Him as JC. sorry thread driftPlaytime is essential. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steveorino 7 #675 March 6, 2007 QuoteSteve I think it's so funny you call Jesus JC It reminds of that scene in meet the parents where owen wilson also refers to Him as JC. sorry thread drift Well, it is natural, we're good buds and all. steveOrino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
