Miss Beverly Hills Thinks God Wants Gays Put to Death

[shropshire 0]

I guess

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[RackJR 0]

Quote

Claiming that life began in some random manner we cannot understand is not science.

i'm guessing Galileo heard something similar.

i don't think any scientist would claim this. it might be better phrased
"although the exact mechanism of the origins of life are currently unknown, we're incredibly curious about how it actually happened, so we will continue to formulate hypotheses. through our testing of these hypotheses, we may better understand an event that occurred roughly 3.5 billion years ago. We will continue to examine and test our ideas, and if they do not fit with the observed data, we will discard or modify them. If they do fit with the observed data, we will continue to test them. Others will also test our ideas independently, and if they cannot replicate our results, the veracity of our claim will be diminished significantly. If the idea survives enough testing, it may eventually be classed as a theory. However, if at any point in the future, a new piece of evidence contradicts the theory, the theory may be modified, or discarded in favor of a new better idea that more closely fits with the observed data."

the religious person, on the other hand: "i know, with absolute certainty, how life originated. i base that knowing on a single book, written over the course of hundreds of years, filled with nearly innumerable contradictions. the origin outlined in this book cannot be tested in any way, instead emanating from a creator, who's origin does not need any such explanation. the earth is filled with similar books, but my book has exclusive rights to absolute certainty. No further testing needs to be done. any perceived contradictions between observed data and this book are not actually contradictions, and may be explained as a lack of understanding or inability to comprehend the book. only further reading of the book in question can provide any answers. if at any point in the future any data can be shown to be in contradiction to the book, it will be ignored, misconstrued, or deliberately misrepresented. anyone who questions the book is clearly limited in their ability to comprehend the book, and needs to be vilified, or killed if possible, before their words can reach anyone else. the book is now, always has been, and always will be absolutely correct."

because we cannot currently explain something fully does not mean there must be an explanation within god, although the religious minded will seize any gaps in our explanations to spin their story up. this has, in fact, been their strategy for anything that cannot be currently explained, throughout history. thankfully science will continue to search for greater understanding and thereby expand the boundaries of what we can explain.

Say what you mean. Do what you say.

[BillyVance 35]

As far as I'm concerned, if Miss Beverly Hills would have said God wants to put Perez Hilton to death, it would have been all right with me.

"Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban

[pbwing 0]

We can always count on Billy to lighten the mood of a thread....

and in this case - oddly enough - put it somewhat back on topic!!

[BillyVance 35]

Quote

We can always count on Billy to lighten the mood of a thread....

and in this case - oddly enough - put it somewhat back on topic!!

You're welcome!

"Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban

[rynodigsmusic 0]

Quote

Well, you said they didn't say "100% certainty" so it sounds like they were doing their jobs. And science has no room for creationism because it's not a scientific topic

Good one. Still doesnt change that scientists often claim truth with 100 certainty based on 90 percent evidence and fact does it? I do however see religious programs doing the same thing, so, clearly I am mistaken here. I just want to see more interaction (like minded thoughts) with science and God as I still do not see any contradiction between what is revealed, and what is underneath it all. Personally, I feel that ligitimate science operates in truth and therefore the closer to truth it gets, the more God is revealed. Of course I know others feel differently, you included it seems?

Quote

Because other scientists can make a name for themselves by proving them wrong. It's how science works. That stands in opposition to religion, where someone who attempts to prove something wrong is often excommunicated or (earlier in history) executed. There is a canon that cannot be violated no matter how important the new facts uncovered.

In the case of Jesus, "religious" and spiritual minds accepted his testimony in spite of and because of his death, so it seems the canons can be violated, and Jesus obviously made a name for himself "proving other religious people wrong". I see your point, Im pretty sure, but I dont think it is a clear example of opposition between science and "religion". More like a comparison in similarity.

Quote

there are religious types who believe that their faith is threatened... and thus want to slow acceptance of new discoveries in science, astronomy, geology, medicine etc.

Maybe their belief yes, but if the faith is genuine it wont matter what is revealed. Faith is much more than just believing God exists. However, it is a shame that new discoveries are not accepted.. on both fronts. If they are true, anyone on the side of truth should accept them.

Still, there seems to be a price for our advancement and I dont just mean the death of faith that seems to threaten a religious envioronment. Ever heard of pandoras box? Hope was at the bottom, but not before destruction and the evils of mankind were released. Yes i am aware this is greek mythology, just making a point.

Quote

Faith does indeed play a role, but the role it plays is in my motivation to do something.

Im glad you see it like that. It shouldnt be a shunned word in science, when clearly it is used there as well. Just another example of the similarities of faith and science. Two words most never want to hear in the same sentence, and Im not just talking about scientists.

So, I guess we still disagree about the connections between science and faith? It is clear I am no where as smart as you bill, but I still see very similar connections between the two. In matters of curiosity and truth. I only responded to you because you seemed quite certain that nature was separate of God, and I dont believe that is true. respectively.

"We didn't start the fire"

[rynodigsmusic 0]

Quote

the religious person, on the other hand: "i know, with absolute certainty, how life originated

I dont care at all how life originated. I believe we are not supposed to know everything. While there are those who have to know, there are also those who just accept. I dont see any reason to believe either of them are wrong or unjustified in their paths. In fact, curiously enough, they often meet each other on common ground along the way. One is not more right than the other if they are both searching for truth. I fully accept that God is allowing us to uncover more and more of the truth, and I will accept anything that is true. But I cannot deny faith as the purpose and power of the revelation of God. Not because I am incapable, but because I know the truth about faith, not the origin of life... that, I take on faith, there is a difference.

However, more often than not, while I accept the truths of scientific/philosophic/theologic ect.. findings, many of them absolutely refuse to accept the revelations found in faith, or at the very least will certainly not attribute them to a wisdom in life that is possibly beyond our own understanding (im directing this at the religious as well). But still, either a mind is on the side of truth, or its not. Impartiality is a quality of God... "Who judges each mans work impartially"... not quite sure it is a quality of man yet.

Quote

if at any point in the future any data can be shown to be in contradiction to the book, it will be ignored, misconstrued, or deliberately misrepresented. anyone who questions the book is clearly limited in their ability to comprehend the book

Is that what you believe? It must be, because you have sincere conviction that seems to "without doubt" separate you from even possibility. What is being ignored besides the fact that Jesus says you cant understand his parables without his spirit? No offense again, but your expressing a clear contradiction here yourself arent you? That is, someone can say the exact same thing you are about science.

I thought scientists were objective and impartial? Yet I dont read any of that in your post. Seems to me if you dont have evidence to disprove God, at least the theory of a life changing faith is still on the table, yes? According to your post anyway.

Quote

because we cannot currently explain something fully does not mean there must be an explanation within god, although the religious minded will seize any gaps in our explanations to spin their story up. this has, in fact, been their strategy for anything that cannot be currently explained, throughout history. thankfully science will continue to search for greater understanding and thereby expand the boundaries of what we can explain.

Pretty sure science does this same thing, just have a better way of phrasing things rather than accepting faith as the purpose revealed in God, because it doesnt fill in the gaps for those who need to know to be on the side of truth.

Not only that. There are boundaries that expand well beyond what we can observe. If it takes faith to observe them, perhaps science can accept that and who knows, incorporate it into their quest for absolute truth?

"We didn't start the fire"

[billvon 3,120]

>In the case of Jesus, "religious" and spiritual minds accepted his testimony
> in spite of and because of his death, so it seems the canons can be
>violated . . .

The canon of Christianity requires Jesus rising from the dead, so that's not violating a religious canon.

Now let's take another example. Let's say someone came along and said "I have new evidence that Jesus did not rise from the dead; he just stayed dead." Do you think Christianity would accept that?

>Personally, I feel that ligitimate science operates in truth and therefore
>the closer to truth it gets, the more God is revealed.

I agree - which is why I think that substituting religion for science is both foolish and counterproductive.

>but I still see very similar connections between the two. In matters of
>curiosity and truth.

I agree there - but many people (including several people in this thread) make the mistake of thinking that since there are connections between the two, they are interchangeable. They're not; religion can never substitute for science and vice versa. They are, in Stephen Gould's words, completely separate magisteria.

[jakee 1,596]

Quote

Still doesnt change that scientists often claim truth with 100 certainty based on 90 percent evidence and fact does it?

Do they? Often? How many % worth of evidence do you have to back up that assertion?

Quote

I see your point, Im pretty sure, but I dont think it is a clear example of opposition between science and "religion". More like a comparison in similarity.

That's because you are incapable of even recognising the point of any argument that shows religion in a bad light.

i swear sometimes it seems like if you were presented (hypothetically) with incontrovertible evidence that Jesus was a rapist you'd say that you see it more like he was a motivational therapist with unconventional tactics.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jakee 1,596]

Quote

One is not more right than the other if they are both searching for truth.

Meaningless platitude.

Two kids are looking for something green. One points at the lawn, the other points at the sky. Are they both equally right?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[rynodigsmusic 0]

Quote

Do they? Often? How many % worth of evidence do you have to back up that assertion?

I dont know man? Isnt the global warming thing beginning to reveal flaws? Im sure there are other examples... its not really in my concern to be honest. respectively.

Quote

That's because you are incapable of even recognising the point of any argument that shows religion in a bad light.

I try to expose religion and differentiate between it and spiritual truth. It is NOT an easy thing to do. However, it is quite easy to speak the truth and let the cards fall.

Quote

swear sometimes it seems like if you were presented (hypothetically) with incontrovertible evidence that Jesus was a rapist you'd say that you see it more like he was a motivational therapist with unconventional tactics.

Maybe just a little below the belt?

seriously though, what is up with the "pirate" emoticon? How is being a pirate an emotion? Someone want to fix that sometime?

"We didn't start the fire"

[rynodigsmusic 0]

Quote

Do you think Christianity would accept that?

No. But your example left no room for discussion past what you presented. You said that science accepts correction (paraphrasing) but spirituality does not. Its a clever point in that you seem to be comparing faith to a religious canon, while knowing that Jesus taught faith against religious canon? I dont know, im going to have to think more on this one, so thanks for that.

Quote

I agree - which is why I think that substituting religion for science is both foolish and counterproductive.

Did we do that? I thought we were talking about faith? My bad, i must have missed it.

Quote

but many people (including several people in this thread) make the mistake of thinking that since there are connections between the two, they are interchangeable.

I wouldnt say interchangable. I just see paralells. For example the fact that you said "a scientists studies the natural enviornment". I believe God, by his very nature, is natural. Not only that, it was a grand revelation for me to begin to see God in everything. As much as it seems to offend science, which seems to pride itself, at times, on the separation of God and nature.

"We didn't start the fire"

[billvon 3,120]

>You said that science accepts correction (paraphrasing) but spirituality does not.

No. I said that science accepts (indeed, depends on) correction, but _religion_ is resistant to it. That's because the scientific method does not apply to religion.

>>I agree - which is why I think that substituting religion for science is both
>> foolish and counterproductive.

>Did we do that?

Fortunately, no, we have not - even when some people advocate to replace the teaching of science with the teaching of religion. (Which is what I was responding to originally.)

>As much as it seems to offend science, which seems to pride itself, at
>times, on the separation of God and nature.

That is as much an error (in my opinion) as conflating the two. They are not the same; they are not opposites. They do not study the same thing, reach the same conclusions, or affect people in the same way. There is really no comparison between the two.

[jakee 1,596]

Quote

I dont know man? Isnt the global warming thing beginning to reveal flaws? Im sure there are other examples... its not really in my concern to be honest. respectively.

I see. So you claim things as fact when you have not even bothered to look for "90%" of evidence?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[RonD1120 62]

Quote

Quote

That is Old Testament law. New Testament teaches forgiveness from sin.

Nice get out of jail free card, if the old testament is suppased by the new testament then why not just bin it and have a new testament touchy feely bible?

A lot of folks just use the NT.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[RonD1120 62]

Quote

Quote

Quote

People that think California is nothing but left wing godless homos take note; this is Beverly Hills.

If a person can't be left alone as homosexual in Beverly Hills . . . where the hell?

Those of us in FL have long believed that CA creates the trends that spread across the nation. Could it be that the good people of CA have just become fed up to their eyeballs the LGBT weirdos within their midst?

You're obviously never seen an episode of COPS. The country would be better off if FL snapped off and sank into the ocean.

Maybe, I am not a big fan of FL. However, most everyone here is from some other place. We request that the last American to leave Miami to please bring the flag. Probably, 10% of all illegal Mexicans earn a living here. Puerto Ricans basically have two ports of entry i.e., NY and FL. Key West is probably 40% homosexual. Intercity Jacksonville, Orlando, Tampa and Miami is owned by the gangs.

If the strawberry farmers have their way again next winter, that is assuming another record cold winter caused by Gore's GW, it probably will collapse.

In my area there were 781 well complaints or dry wells and over 80 sinkholes precipitated by farmers water sprinkling.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

Quote

That is Old Testament law. New Testament teaches forgiveness from sin.

Nice get out of jail free card, if the old testament is suppased by the new testament then why not just bin it and have a new testament touchy feely bible?

A lot of folks just use the NT.

But not the fundies, apparently.

Maybe Miss Beverly Hills should be introduced to that GOP state senator just caught DUI leaving a gay bar. They'd make a nice couple.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

People that think California is nothing but left wing godless homos take note; this is Beverly Hills.

If a person can't be left alone as homosexual in Beverly Hills . . . where the hell?

Those of us in FL have long believed that CA creates the trends that spread across the nation. Could it be that the good people of CA have just become fed up to their eyeballs the LGBT weirdos within their midst?

You're obviously never seen an episode of COPS. The country would be better off if FL snapped off and sank into the ocean.

Maybe, I am not a big fan of FL. However, most everyone here is from some other place. We request that the last American to leave Miami to please bring the flag. Probably, 10% of all illegal Mexicans earn a living here. Puerto Ricans basically have two ports of entry i.e., NY and FL. .

Puerto Ricans ARE Americans (i.e. US Citizens).

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[RonD1120 62]

Quote

Puerto Ricans ARE Americans (i.e. US Citizens).

Yes they are. What is your point?

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[labrys 0]

Quote

Puerto Ricans basically have two ports of entry i.e., NY and FL.

And most Floridians enter the rest of the states through Georgia. What's your point?

Owned by Remi #?

[RonD1120 62]

Quote

Quote

Puerto Ricans basically have two ports of entry i.e., NY and FL.

And most Floridians enter the rest of the states through Georgia. What's your point?

You guys do have difficulty don't you?

My response was to DJL.

Quote

You're obviously never seen an episode of COPS. The country would be better off if FL snapped off and sank into the ocean.

In his attempt to insult me he inadvertently sought to annihilate several other people groups.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[Andy9o8 2]

It's an open, public forum, Ron. If you're going to make what you know fully well to be controversial points, be prepared for other people to rebut them and/or challenge you to defend them.

[RonD1120 62]

Quote

It's an open, public forum, Ron. If you're going to make what you know fully well to be controversial points, be prepared for other people to rebut them and/or challenge you to defend them.

I am, I did.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Quote

It's an open, public forum, Ron. If you're going to make what you know fully well to be controversial points, be prepared for other people to rebut them and/or challenge you to defend them.

I am, I did.

Glad you are. No, you didn't.

[RonD1120 62]

Quote

Glad you are. No, you didn't.

I'm satisfied.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.