Ejector

While it is true homosexuality is denounced in the Old Testament, the same word- "abomination" is used as is used for eating seafood with "neither fin nor scale." In the New Testament, Paul certainly condemns it, but Paul never met Jesus, and was persecuting Christians before he got around to telling them how to be better Christians, so I take his advice with a grain of salt. Jesus himself does not say a word on the topic, but his topics on the holier-than-thou Pharisees, who obey God's laws and ignore their fellow children of God are well known. The most applicable example I can think of is the Woman at the Well, where Jesus says "Let he among you who is without sin cast the first stone." It should also be remembered that Jesus served communion to Judas, so I would think we should follow his example rather than some political doctrine.

...some of the folks being ejected were white? No, of course you didn't. Because "none is so blind as he who refuses to see".

In some respects you are right. However I ahve a feeling you are, more often than not, wrong.

way to go. the world needs more people like you "my sheep know my voice, and they follow me"

God bless

I find it interesting that you lumped homosexuality with murder and rapist when the video said nothing about the latter two (I wonder if there is some uncoscious projection there). Secondly what about the whole eternal law of justice and mercy. Grant it God is all merciful but he also a just being. So aren't we all accountable for our behavior?

Lastly, your comment "the Bible says you are just as wicked as they are" where did you get that reference? I haven't memorized the scriptures but I am not familiar with that one.

I believe he refers to Romans chapter 3 where Paul says that everyone is under sin and therefore under God's judgement, regardless of their area of weakness or the severity of it.

Andrew's reference to 1Cor 5 is spot on. The church has an important role in lovingly encouraging people to cast off sinful behaviour. There comes a point where the Christian community must distance itself from those who claim to love God yet openly continue to disobey Him, for the protection of the people and the discipline of the immoral brother.

Absolutely, we are all accountable for our behaviour. Explain this law of eternal mercy for me?

I was partially responding to the fellow below me who said: "I think God has more important things to worry about then if two guys play house together. Thats not my thing, but I'm sure God, like me is more concerned about killers and rapiest." That is why I used murderers and rapists as examples of other sins. I wasn't trying to imply that there was any connection between homosexuality and violent crime.

Yes, we are going to be held accountable for our behavior. I believe there is a verse in the Bible that speaks about being held accountable for every word we say, but I'm not sure of the reference. On the other hand, we also have all been offered the gift of salvation: Jesus Christ died for our sins, and thus we do not need to face the wrath of God. (Again I say: may God be praised).

The Bible says that we are all sinners and that we are all wicked. My point was that homophobes are just as sinful as homosexuals - not so much because they are homophobes, but because they are human. Here are a few verses that confirm that all of us are sinners: Matthew 7:11, Romans 3:23, John 3:19. Also, see Matthew 5:17-48. God sets a pretty high standard for righteousness, and I seriously doubt anyone has ever achieved it.

Could not have said it better.

Dang, my wife and I often have sex at home.

you better quit that home sexualing! the finger's hovering over that button bro...

did i just invent a word?

"Home sexuals"! LOL! It made my day! I had never heard that one before, maybe because in french "maison sexuel" doesn't sound as good... :oP

stop! you sinners!!.... go outdoors ;) :>

to God. True, He will punish those who are not forgiven eventually, but that eventually may only be until they die.

?

It takes work and actually requires that you read, a lot, study other cultures, actively seek out new and different ideas, and keep an open mind.

that god doesnt exist, they decided to make it oublic, so agreed to meet up in town the following day. the athiest was on time, bt the other guy was very very late. when he arrived, he was askd y he was so late. he began his story. "when i was on my way, i came across a river, i was wondering hw i will cross it, i was in such hardhip, suddenly, a tre near me slicd itself up, and bagen to work itself and made a boat for me. i was surprised" he exclaimd." when i climbed aboard it slowly drifted all the way here, and brought me to my destination". the athiest and other townsfolk obviously denied this man. this man then said, well if this is not true, hw is it possible for the world to be made by itself, without any help, and without any materials, just by the big bang? HOW?

That has got to be the most pointless, irrelevant, "made up" fable ever told! LMAO

You need to remember that when the people of your fake fable were alive, they didnt even understand the laws of physics (E=MC^2 and all that), let alone the intricacies of big bang theory. So how could "boat man" reasonably doubt its validity? He couldn't.

In essence, i think you just made that all up... mostly because the big bang theory was only first proposed in 1927... a time when people used steel bridges to cross rivers, not wooden boats without oars.

Then again, if people like you were in charge of technological advancement, we would still be using wooden boats!

I mean, would a devout christian like you have proposed a theory of quantum superposition or entanglement for example (which have sinse been proven)?

No, of course you wouldn't. The very thought of an aspect of science that cannot be seen or conventionally measured, a science that predicts many things which contradict some of your core beliefs... would simply be sacrelidge.

What may be known about God is plain, because God has made it plain. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities - his eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. Ro 1:19-20

Quid pro quo. Prove He doesn't?

Is that true aswell until disproven?

If human intelligence in general practiced that kind of logic, our world would arguably be many hundreds of years behind (in terms of our understanding of the world around us, technology, etc.). And indeed, the passage you chose to represent your point, in my mind, simply shows this lack of understanding of nature and its many complex systems.

When people, of the time when Ro 1:19-20 was written, looked up at the night sky, what did they see? Millions of tiny points of light, twinkling at them, always in exactly the same formation, night after night... what must they have thought? its easy to conceive that minds would've wandered, pondered the "meanings" of their seemingly purposefull surroundings.
But when I look up, I see millions of stars. I know that stars are unimaginably huge balls of burning / reacting elements which are billions and billions of miles away.

My point?

Well, people of that time, just like us today, gathered their knowledge from observations and their subsiquent conclusions. The major difference being of course that their ability to observe was primitave compared to us and completely incapable of observing / measuring things to a resolution anywhere near a level which would offer an understanding of these complex systems. Suffice to say, their conclusions based on their primitive understanding would have been equally primitave, mostly comprised of what was undoubtedly guess work.

You choose to follow their teachings - their theory of "God". I simply see it as a primitave mis understanding of life.

...like the word "primitave"... ? lol

Theories formed within the science of any given time certainly are limited by what could be observed. The same is true of today.

The test of any theory is whether or not it provides answers to basic questions. Some well-meaning people think evolution (for example) is a reasonable theory to explain our questions about the universe. Modern science shows that evolution is not a good theory because it cannot answer, even within the realms of probability, the simplest of questions presented. Take those unimaginably huge balls of yours for example (!) Where did the space for the universe that contains them come from?

Alternatively, the primitave theory of creation still holds as the most scientifically sound explaination for the origin of the world. I stand by my logic.

Your creation belief is based round The Book of Genesis, which says that our planet was created 3000 years before the birth of Jesus (or 5000 years ago from now).

Except there is a mountain of proven scientific evidence to the contrary, from carbon dating, geology... dinosaurs!

The theory of evolution on the other hand is based on sound scientific study, which is constantly being updated as we learn more. Evolution theory, and science in genreal, doesnt ignoor or discount evidence simply because it contradicts your previous understanding / belief, it embraces it... allowing it to improve our understanding of it.

Your christian system on the other hand, is the exact opposite. Discounting anything that encroaches on your beliefs - reguardless of its relevance; and accepting ideas without question, for which there is no proof.

I may be coming into this discussion late but you need to question your belief in evolution with the same "reason" you apply to creation. It requires much more faith to believe in evolution than in intelligent design. I believe in science, in fact science is the best proof of creation and the best argument against evolutiou. . Do you remember the first law of thermodynamics "Living matter can not come from non-living matter". This is one of the first things you learn in science and the rest of the time is dedicated to telling how living matter was derived from non living matter--that's faith. You can't have it both ways. Also carbon 14 testing is the most accurate method of dating but is limited to 5000 years. Evolutionist use circular reasoning to determine their outrageous dates based on their preconceived theories--not very scientific. Knowing how sophisticated we are physiologically how can you believe that each of our systems developed individually of each other over millions and billions of years (i.e. the nervous system, musculatory system, respiratory system, etc.)? God is real and deep in every human being is the knowledge of Him.

That's some question considering you yourself obviously know nothing about it.

The first law of thermodynamics makes use of the key concepts of internal energy, heat, and system work. It is used extensively in the discussion of heat engines.

In other words, it doesn't suggest anything about "Living matter can not come from non-living matter".

Even if we were to transpose your ridiculous concept into the "first law...", that would suggest that magma (molten rock) is living matter, and in fact, more "alive" than you or me!

As for your comment about carbon dating, it is NOT limited to dating objects back 5000 years as that is approximately the half life of carbon-14. Carbon dating is actually reliable back as far as 50,000 years, and even this can be stretched back to as much as 100,000 years using advanced accelerator techniques for counting the carbon-14 concentration.

You are typical of the "pro-religion and therefore anti-science" brigade, who use big words and pseudoscience to try and shoehorn your way into debates for which you have no real justification in being in. Not because of your religious beliefs but because of your complete lack of understanding of the core concepts you are arguing against.

Would you admit that the mechanisms by which non-life became life can't be proven by your theory of evolution?
And even if carbon 14 is accurate up to 100,000 years at best then how do you justify dating fossils and the earth as far back as a billion years? Scientist who share your views base dating on the theory of evolution which requires millions of years to explain the process--that is circular reasoning and is based on a preconcieved conclusion--not science.
I'm obviously not a scientist but I do have common sense and the ability to think. Furthermore I know brilliant scientists who believe in intelligent design and back it up with science fact not fiction. It is typical for those whose religion, in your case "Humanism" is questioned to react with personal attacks on those who don't share their beliefs.
If you are honest with yourself you have to admit that you are taking a giant leap of faith to believe and defend your theories with such a religious fervor. I guess that makes you "pro religious"--does that make you anti-science?

Try geology.

And although fossils can only be accurately dated back by 100,000 years or so using carbon dating, it can tell us when something is older than this - its just that we can't put an axact figure on it. But again, using carbon dating in conjunction with the study of geology and simple archaeological techniques (such as, that fossil was found under a layer of volcanic ash, which we know came from "this" volcano which we know last erupted, by close study of the volcano, x thousand years ago), we can confidently date fossils to those ages.

Accepting this area of science requires no more of a "leap of faith" than accepting Einsteins General Theory of Relativity if you only look at what we know rather than what we'd like to know.

And as for your "Brilliant scientists who believe in intelligent design and back it up with fact..." comment. What "facts" are these? The only concept they have come up with to try and contradict evolution is "Irreducable Complexity"... which unfortunately was based on a single, tiny nematode worms flagellum (a flagellum is a small propellor like tail). Irreducible Complexity argued that the component parts of this flagellum could not have evolved from anything simpler because, they argued, if you took just one of those parts away it no longer functioned - as anything.

But that was all proved to be wrong when it was discovered that another nematode worm did in fact feature a simpler functioning configuration of the component parts.

You wrote: “Your creation belief is based round The Book of Genesis, which says that our planet was created 3000 years before the birth of Jesus (or 5000 years ago from now).

Except there is a mountain of proven scientific evidence to the contrary, from carbon dating, geology... dinosaurs!

I commented on its limitations. It can't be used to date material back millions and billions of years. These estimates are not determined solely by the use of carbon dating in conjunction with the study of geology and simple archaeological techniques as you claim—you have to add the most important ingredient—the belief in the “Theory of Evolution”.

Neither theory rejects science they are merely 2 interpretations of the evidence. And whether you admit it or not it takes faith to believe in each theory. Evolution is in no way proven by science as you argue and for you to present evolution as a scientific fact is intellectually dishonest.

That brings me back to the question I posed to you in my previous response: “Would you agree that the mechanisms by which non-life became life can't be proven by the theory of evolution?”

if you think that then your parents must have been serial killers or perhaps your father molested you as a child or maybe he still does it, that i dont know but you will have a HUGE surprise when you die. youve got hell to pay my boy!

You are seriously fucked up and ignorant.. go back to your hole.

It's religious pride. The lust for power is why people kill each other. Stalin was not religious neither was Hitler or Gengis Kahn.

Openly professed that god would make him the ruler of the world.

I'm not very fond of religion. The practice is merely normative statements without credible positive statements to support them and is largely determined by socialization. This is why many people just adopt the religion in which they were raised.

This is also why you don't find many white people attending a mosque or why people raised in Orthodox Judaism don't embrace Christ. These cultural differences are nothing more than subtleties in the cesspool of religion.

the people who were 'preying' was this church's problem in the first place...

i love "PS: The H**os are not going to get you." thats just tooooooooo damn funny. =) some people would do well to realize that.