the "tit happens" thread did that

Why? Just because I think gay people deserve the same rights as straight people doesn't mean that I have to endorse drug use or paedophilia. Polygamy is different yes, but it is illegal and in no time what so ever will it be legalised due to the myriad of problems it would introduce. I fail to see how legalising gay marriage will throw a problem up for society.




Foster a nation of freaks and weirdos? Homosexuals are not freaks or weirdos. They are every day people with normal lives who just happen to be attracted to people of the same sex. It's precisely this attitude that has kept the human race from advancing into a more civilized society. I don't agree with Manchester United supporters but that does not entitle me to label them as freaks just because they have different opinions to me.

After all this, you still have not convinced me that you have the right to condemn people who publically abuse gays.

__________________

I have no problem with gay marriages, but gay adoptions could fuck shit up too much.

__________________

That realy depends on the persons adopting. Being adopted by the wrong hetrosexual couple could fuck a child up. Why would having two mothers or two fathers fuck things up? That's the same as saying being brought up with only one parent would fuck things up, because there is lacking one?
There are a lot of single parent families here, and it doesn't make a difference.

The most important thing for a child is love and care. It doens't matter how many and what sex the parents are.

__________________

Agreed.

__________________

No need, man. There's no harm in forcing me to defend or clarify things I've said, especially if I'm not stating them particularly well. Or in posting while drunk.


Good call. I'd probably be suicidal if I tried to live with more than one woman. One, on the other hand, keeps me sane. Or so I like to say; it's not like I suddenly become psychopathic when I'm single. My behavior just grows more erratic and stupid. Especially stupid.

__________________

lol, i know what you mean. They turn into that little angel on your shoulder.
I'm only married commonlaw.

__________________

i never said they were i said that allowing alternatives you would let all sorts of other freaks like pedophiles think that they should start getting rights ro marry and what not.



dont care any more.
were not gonna change our opinions.
im gonna quit posting this thread unless someone says something extremely unintelligible or really funny.

By the way im sure im just ignorant but what is the manchester united?

__________________

dear nearest mod,

please close this.

kind regards,
andrew

Pedophilia and homosexuality are very different topics. There is strong evidence to show that homosexuality is genetic. There is none to show that pedophilia is. Pedophiles are generally influenced by a poor or repressive environment. They are people who never fully mature mentally and as a result identify with children. They usually have problems sustaining or even having relationships with adult men or women. Also quite often, they themselves were sexually abused in some form as children. Most pedophiles were physical abused (if not sexually) and/or emotionally taunted or traumatized. Pedophilia is a learned behavior. It's a vicious cycle, much like physical abuse.

There is no legitimate comparison between pedophilia and homosexuality.

__________________

I consider both of them wrong, even if you cannot compare them.

__________________

from now on. In arguements to this degree. We now need some references to back our statements!
(well it would make it a bit more interesting)

__________________

This thread is getting out of hand. How many more pages before a mod closes it, and wich mod will?
Betting has now started.

__________________

I'm not trying to change your opinion - you are perfectly entitled to it. It isn't your opinion on gays that I am arguing against. You youself have admitted that you are against gays and worry that if gay marriage is legallised that a society of freaks will be born yet you condemn people who publically verbally and physically abuse gays. It's obvious that you don't care but can you see the hypocrisy in this?




A disgusting football club.

To the people who want the thread closed: Why? There have been no slanging matches and the thread has stayed on topic. What's the problem? If you've had enough don't read it. This is the problem in society as well: just sweep it under the carpet, it'll just go away. If only society could sit down and discuss the issue as we have in this thread - maybe there'd be less morons going around and beating up people just because they are gay.

__________________

We've got an independent thinker here.
Room 101 for you.

__________________

no i honestly dont. The way i see your argument, the only way to not be a hyupocrite is to either never say anyone is wrong and just let everyone live by their own rules, or to condemn evey single person you see doing sometihng that you disagree with. All bad things are not equal. im not a hypocrite for saying that a drug user is worse than a jay walker (two valid arguments as both are vicimless crimes yet still completely different.)


and i wish everyon would quit saying to close the thread. If youre sick of it then stop reading.

__________________

But surely if one condemns another for attacking something that oneself disagrees with there is at least a faint whiff of double standards in the air. The double standards do not apply to the violence or verbal abuse but to the thought processes behind them. These processes may or may not be rooted in morality but it boils down to one fact: the dislike of another person due to their sexuality.

__________________

Christians generally tend to be blind to hypocrisy, their fairytale beliefs get in the way of good reasoning.

__________________

thats the saddest part about any religion for that matter

__________________

wrong: I don't dislike gay people. I think there lifestyle is wrong but i dont dislike them. Anyone who says that they dislike everyone who sins or does wrong or whatever is a hypocrite because no one is perfect and everyone is wrong at one tom or another. but to say that someons actions are wrong is completely different thatn saying that that the person is a bad person or that i dislike them.





you havent actually made an argument your just calling christians hypocrites. Id also like you to explain what you mean by "fairy tale beliefs" because despite what most people think there is actually a lot of scientific evidence for things in the bible. Not all of course.

__________________

If you really want me to start, this thread is gonna get way off hand. But i'll say this: the last time I had an argument with a christian on the validity of his religion, at the end all he could say was this:

no, nup, there is a god, no, god exists, just face it, na, na, na and so on.

__________________

well of course there are ignorant christians who dont listen and have no factual argumrnts but theres also a lot of atheists and evolutionists who ive disscussed with who end up doin tha same thing

"no my biology teacher said christians suck and that a monkey evolved into darwin and he was the fist human so it must be true because i didnt look any of it up to see if any of it was true and also once on the discovery channel they said that the big bang made the earth so that proves it."

please dont judge all christians by the ignorance of one person. juat as i dont judge all athesist or agnostics or whatever by the few stupid ones ive talked too.

__________________

That is a fair point but why do you consider homosexuality to be wrong? You must dislike some aspect of homosexuality in order for you to state that it is wrong otherwise you would be indifferent towards it.

Oh and about religion, it is fundamentally flawed: science has disproved the vast, vast majority of it. However, the specifics of this are best suited in another thread.

__________________

Look, you bring up a decent point about the "some ignorant christians" thing, but I can think of at least four people I know off the top of my head that are like that.

but hey, lets just make this the end of this topic in this thread. Its supposed to be about gay bashings.

__________________

okay, fuck ever being in a band with you cunt (he asked), you sound like a redneck trucker piece of shit.

edit: Well, he's from central USA, I wasn't far off.

__________________

Me?

__________________

hey why not. This is the controversial thread.
Science can prove alot of things. And there are a lot of things science cannot even fathom. Like you said "the majority" of it.
People say that "we" hide behind faith. I don't hide behind anything. I'm 99.9% sure there is a "god". A god being to some: energy, love, empathy, science, a being, nothingness, etc.
I have faith, call me ignorant if you want (john i know you won't, you are an intelligent, tolerable man), But if you do, you are also.

__________________

no, rob24. he's rather stupid.

__________________

oh ok. just making sure becasue i also am from central USA .

__________________

Actually, there is very little scientific evidence to support the veracity of the bible. Contrarily, scientific evidence overwhelmingly supports that even as a religious person you should take everything you read from the bible with a grain of salt. Now, my mother is a very strongly religious person (she reads religious literature daily, she goes to church 2-3 times a week, and she has taught both seminary and Sunday school) and her outlook is that since the bible was written by humans capable of error, and not God himself, that the bible is not 100% accurate, especially because many things were different back then. For example, let's look at Noah's Ark. According to the bible, the whole world flooded during that period. There is no evidence to support that. It is possible, however, that since at the time no human being knew of the whole world, that a region could have been flooded. Now, since that would have been that person's "world", that makes far more logical sense.

It's impossible for the whole world to have been flooded for as long as it supposedly was, because we wouldn't have any surviving plants or animals. It's also impossible for Noah to have had two of every animal in the world on his Ark. There are over 2900 species of snakes and almost 4600 species of lizards on this planet today. Within the order Squamata alone, there are roughly 4650 species. Now, let me be illogical and somehow assume that all sea snakes would have miraculously survived the 40 day flood, since they are, after all, aquatic. That knocks about 60 snakes off the list, so we are down to 'only' 4590 species. So that would mean not only did he track down and collect (without harming himself, mind you, as large monitor lizards, the helodermids, and about half of all venomous snakes are very dangerous) two of each of these animals, but he then maintained them on his ship for between 40 and 150 days. In order to do that, he needs to, in fact, bring far more than those original animals. Since many lizards (including all monitors), all amphisbaenids, and all snakes are predatory, you now need to find large quanitites of other animals to be used as food for the original animals. The smaller monitor lizards should do nicely on a diet of rodents, as would a ton of the snakes. The larger monitors will need to be fed with sheep, lamb, or cattle, as they need large prey. Smaller lizards can be fed with insects, but unfortunately, since they feed on small prey, they need large quanities of it daily. Now, there are the specialty animals. Helodermids feed largely on the eggs of birds and reptiles, but they also sometimes eat rodents, so it's not out of the realm of possibility that they could have been fed rodents on the trip.

Now, my specialty, snakes. Most snakes are generalist feeders that eat a variety of prey items. Many are not. For example, there are two groups of snakes, one Asian (Pareas, etc.) , the other South American (Dipsas, Sibon, etc.), that feed solely on slugs and snails and are specially adapted to do so. So now you need tons of snails, because the snails they eat are relatively small. How about the genera Elachistodon or Dasypeltis that feed on nothing but birds eggs? These are not large snakes, and although their mouths and throats are specially adapted to stretch to amazing sizes, it's not likely an average Dasypeltis could eat a chicken egg. So now you need the eggs of a medium sized bird. Other snakes feed primarily or entirely on other snakes. A king cobra is a huge snake (average lenght 14 feet) and it feeds entirely on other large snakes (including pythons) and monitor lizards. So now you need a steady supply of 8 foot long rat snakes and bull snakes or 6 foot long monitor lizards to keep the king cobras fed. I shouldn't forget to mention the smaller desert snakes (Bitis peringueyi, for example) that feet entirely on small lizards.

I'm sure you can see my point, the story isn't logical by any scientific standards (or even common sense!). Now, if you take the bible with a grain of salt (understanding that standards, logic, and perception back then were very, very different) you can see how maybe Noah's Ark actually makes sense. Maybe an area was flooded, and maybe Noah got all the important animals he could think of. Then the area drains, and despite the fact that he couldn't have gotten all of the animals, therefore causing many to be locally extirpated, since the flood didn't cover the whole world, in due time, these animals infiltrate the once flooded area again. It's certainly a strange story, and a long shot, but still entirely possible, unlike the story currently presented to you.

So, no, science doesn't back up the bible taken at face value. It can, however, be used in conjuction with the bible (taken with a grain of salt, pardon the cliche) to gain a different perspective on how the world is or was.

__________________

ChrisRezendes, you make an awesome point. A rather lengthy point, but an awesome one, nonetheless. Oh, and I hate nu metal. hahahahahaha
I slay myself.

very true...

__________________

The part of the Bible that seems most contradictory to me is the whole Adam and Eve Garden of Eden story and it's connotations. God is supposed to be a perfect being/entity but he can't be that perfect if he couldn't create a human that could resist temptation. God Himself admits he cannot be perfect by feeling the need to test his creations. If He is so perfect, then surely whatever he chooses to create can be done so perfectly without any flaws, including man.

Besides if God really loved us, as priests contend, then why put us in a position in which we may be tempted? Why not just revel in His perfect creation? He could have done without the tree, the apple and the snake (sorry Chris!) quite easily and everything would have been hunky-dorey. Analyse the problem: man failed a test set by God and as such was given the free will to do as he pleased whether it be helping his fellow man or killing him. Follow the chain of events back and we reach the real failure. Eve for giving into temptation? The snake for tempting Eve? No. God. For the simple reason of creating the tree. No tree, and there's no apple with which the snake could tempt Eve. By this logical argument, God is flawed.

There are so many issues within the Bible that science and logical thought defeat without even breaking sweat. The religious leaders of the 15th and 16th centuries were scared shitless by scientists who were smashing their religiously held belief that the Earth was put at the centre of the universe by God. Copernicus found that we weren't even the centre of the Solar System never mind the universe. What did the religious leaders do? They put him under house arrest for crimes of heresy because they were scared that their theological beliefs were about to be smashed to smithereens.

But what of religion after these scientific discoveries? The logical thing that should have happened was that people begin to question the whole of religion. This would be logical seeming that aspects of religion were being disproved. However, back in the 15th and 16th centuries, the Church was feared and held sway over the public. Eventually, when the evidence became insummountable after the discoveries of Galileo Galilei and the brilliance of Isaac Newton (equations do not lie), the Church began peddling the, 'the Bible is meant to symbolize...' mantra and the people shrugged and carried on believing - forgetting that the Church had just lied to them for the past 2000 years.

For me, it is the Church that is continually moving the goalposts, but each time science realigns it's aim and kicks right between the sticks. Soon enough, there will be nothing left to disprove and all that will be left of the Church will be faith without foundation. To people who still believe and get something out of their faith: good luck to you, if it helps you in life then I'm all for it. It just does nothing for me.

__________________

One interesting belief, and I don't recall reading this in the bible, but is has been spewed forth by the religious, is as follows- snakes were banished to crawling around on their bellies for the rest of their existence as a punishment for Lucifer having taken the form of one of them. This doesn't really make any logical sense. First off, according to the bible, Satan himself decided to take the form of the snake, not vice versa. Why would the snake be punished for that?

It also begs the question, in what manner did the snake locomote BEFORE that happened? Obviously snakes were originally lizards, but that was around 70 million years ago. So, I suppose we are to assume that snakes, despite their lack of limbs, managed to navigate through rugged terrain by bouncing up and down on their tails or some other such nonsense. This whole idea also brings up other questions. What transgressions were committed against God and man by the earthworms? What of salamanders (depite their legs, many still crawl on their bellies)? What about non-snake limbless lizards, or lizards such as skinks with limbs so shortened they also must travel on their bellies? How about caecillians? I could go on forever.

Again, I don't recall ever reading this in the bible, and I doubt it's there, it's just a completely asinine hypothesis brought to us by those who draw illogical conclusions from the bible.

Despite my personal atheism, I don't seek to destroy the credibility of the bible. I mean, there is a slight possibility that I could be wrong and there could be a God, or some sort of deity with supreme control over everything. I merely propose that those who seek spiritual benefit from the bible not to take it at face value, because that is when things get dangerous. That is where blind faith comes in, and that propels violence.

__________________

I agree. As an account as to why we are here and how the universe was formed it is completely worthless when compared to what science has taught us. I prefer to believe in the numbers, the equations and the work of brilliant men like Newton, Darwin and Einstein rather than the faith that "it just is." I am certain that future advancements in physics, chemistry, biology, and neuroscience will render the Bible useless.

__________________

My beliefs are my beliefs so I'm not posting these links as any attempt at an arguement.
They are an interesting read though, for atheist and christian alike

http://www.newcreationstudies.org/N....htm#archeology
http://www.reasons.org/resources/ff...taught_it_first
http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/science.shtml
http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/b_proof.shtml
http://www.doesgodexist.org/Phamplets/Mansproof.html
http://www.ordination.org/MCAC%20Backup/proof.htm
http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/top.htm
http://www.reasons.org/resources/ap...ble_and_science

__________________

The only pages I have read, which are the "clarifyingchristianity" pages, are full of errors. This page, http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/dinos.shtml , in particular-

Unlike behemoth, who is huge, Leviathan is ferocious and terrifying. Many references (we have not listed them all) refer to the sea, so Leviathan is probably a sea creature. Although some bibles refer to Leviathan as an alligator or crocodile (and both of these are fierce) neither of these is a sea creature. They like the water, but they spend much of their time on land.

Wrong. There are several crocidilians that inhabit saltwater. Going back as far as this quote dates, there certainly may have been even more. Beyond that, the quote wasn't nearly specific enough to determine that the animal didn't spend any time on land. Contrarily, I got the impression that it did. If it did not, it would have been much more easy for fisherman to avoid, and therefore not much of a reason to try to kill one.

Further, the question “Who can open the doors of his face. . . .” implies that nobody can pry Leviathan’s jaws open. Yet we are all familiar with “alligator wrestlers” who routinely pry open an alligator’s jaws. Alligators do not match the description of Leviathan—and we are not done yet.

Well, I can't argue with that. Alligators DON'T match the description of Leviathan. Specifically, alligators were never as large, intimidating, or man-eating as the crocodiles. More importantly, as far back as these quotes date, there were never any alligators anywhere near the areas the authors of the bible had lived.

Far more importantly, they are quite factually incorrect. Who here is familiar with 'alligator wrestlers' who routinely pry open crocodilian jaws? Nobody. Let me tell you why. The jaws of alligators are crocodiles are extremely powerful in that their jaw closing muscles provide a crushing force. Specifically, it has been calculated that the jaws of a Crocodylus niloticus generates 2 tons of pressure per inch. No human back then would have had NEARLY enough power to pry those jaws open. On the other hand, the jaw OPENING muscles of crocodilians (especially those of Alligator missipiensis, the animal used by alligator wrestlers) are quite weak, and can be held closed reliably with tape or rope, size dependent of course. A person my size (5'10, 220lbs) could easily hold shut the jaws of a 10 foot long alligator. Of course, it wouldn't be recommended, as it could go into a death roll to shake you off, turn around and bite your arm off, but that's neither here nor there.

Considering the areas in which the bible was written, it seems almost impossible that they were NOT referring to a Crocodylus niloticus. Even more oddly, they contend that not only did some dinosaurs breathe fire like dragons, but that this SEA DINOSAUR did. Besides the gross inaccuracy in referring to a prehistoric marine reptile as a dinosaur, what purpose would any marine animal had of BREATHING FIRE? Furthermore, how exactly did it breathe fire underwater? For the record, Kronosaurus ate cephalopods and crustaceans.

Also along that page, they deny evolution, as many Christians do. There are no serious biologists that deny evolution. Evolution is not a theory, it is a scientific fact. The fact that they go against all of our knowledge of evolution (dinosaurs were created ONE DAY before humans?!) proves straight away that the bible is not substantiated by logical biology. All of their matching of vague comments to try to substantiate it hardly changes that.

__________________

I'd also like to point out that none of those pages really use scientific evidence, and contrarily (especially this page http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/top.htm ), try to pick apart and destroy the credibility of biology. It's kind of funny. Here, this quote is the best-

'Although evolutionists state that... humans resulted from animals, each of these is an impossibility of science and the natural world.'

Humans didn't only result from animals, humans are animals! That is a scientific fact. Also of HIGH importance is that fact that the only people actively campaigning to deny the facts of evolution are those who follow the bible. Tell me that's a coincidence!

__________________

May I also add that all life on this planet evolved from simple, single-celled organisms over a period of hundreds of millions of years. There is no evidence - scientific or otherwise - to suggest that we were just 'created' from nowhere by a higher being.

The way I see it, the Bible was an attempt to explain why we are here and how we came into being before we had such a thing as scientific advancement. It worked well when people were, generally, uneducated and scared of the repurcussions ascerted by the Church. For about the last 3-400 years science has debunked the majority of the Bible's explanations of creation and replaced them with theories that have foundations of substance. Foundations based in mathematics cannot be argued with as we can visibly test hypotheses. Unfortunately for religious people, the same is not true of much of what they believe in.

__________________

Then how did the world get here? if youre using science as evidenc then thats physically impossibe seeing as how one of the most inportant laws in chemistry and physics is the law of conservation: matter can be neither created nor destroyed.

also, you make it sound like every scientist completely agrees that evolution is the way the truth and the light. They dont. There are a lot of scientists that arent necessarily pro-religion but are anti evolution. One of the most popular ideas is Intelligent Design. Basically it says that the world and the human genome are so ridiculously complicated that they couldnt have randomly formed via natural selection, especially in the time frame that people say. Also as i understand it, evolution generally teaches that the first cell came from a random combinig of elements and physical forces to create a chemical reaction that created the first strand of DNA. This idea also implies that there were already physical forces like gravity and elemrnst present. Unless they were *created* im not quite sure how they would get there. There are many other ideas incorporated into intelligent design but im not that well acquainted with the theory. Its real easy to look up though.





How is god flawed? Because he created a sinful creaure or because he gave his creature the chance to be tempted?

God knew that we would sin. He put the tree there because while making us perfect to start with, he also gave us freewill. If he hadnt given us freewill we wouldnt have sinned but we also wouldnt have been able to sin and it wouldnt have meant anything. Just like its not an amzing accomplishment everytime you tell a computer to perform a simple command and it does. Becaue without freewill pretty much we are just robots.

Id also like to see the part of the bible where god "admits he cannot be perfect by feeling the need to test his creations" I sure dont remeber that in the bible. But who knows maybe you have a catholic bible

__________________

If this were true it wouldnt be a coincidence but its not. There are plenty of teachers and scientists who dont belive in either and who dont want evolution or creationism taught. Im not quite sure what other rational theories are left but there are people who arent christian who "actively campaign" agianst evolution

__________________

I've studied biology since I've been able to read (quite literally) and I don't recall any people of the sort. If they do exist, I'd really appreciate it if you would provide a link to show me who they are, what ideals they follow, and exactly how they believe life came to be.

I'd also like to see exactly how these people classify various forms of life, seeing as the taxonomic system currently in place is entirely built upon Darwin's ideas of evolution.

__________________

Just for the hell of it:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=315976

Just figured this would be interesting and relevant. Don't think I'm taking sides here. I've read through heaps of this shit already and my hands are washed. Just thought it'd be worth the read.

OK, so, I semi-read a few pages. Are we actually on topic?

They went from a discussion of gaybashing to one of the morality of homosexuality to one of the validity of Christian morality to one the validity of the Christian worldview in general. I wouldn't say it's remotely on topic, but it's more focused and intelligent than at least 85% of the rest of Chit Chat.

For the most part.

please close this jarrod!!!

theres an intense hammer rage shirt in it for you!

Closing a thread in which people are intelligently discussing their beliefs - not a wandering and aimless conversation that would be better left to a private message or instant messenger, but actually making this place a forum for conflicting ideas, whatever they may be, until the discussion wears out of its own volition - when Now Playing threads exist and RTTs are clogged with 'lol' posts would baffle me. Why everyone seems to want this because the discussion gets lengthy would also baffle me if it weren't the case everywhere else.

But I'm not buying anybody any damn shirts. I don't have enough as it is.

Not entirely correct: Energy can be neither created nor destroyed but it can be converted into other forms of energy and - thanks to Einstein's derivation of E = mc^2 - it can also be converted into matter. As a caviat: black holes are the universe's energy destroyers. Once energy travels beyond the event horizon of the black hole it can no longer be measured nor observed since it would have to propagate at a velocity greater than that of light and hence is effectively destroyed. However, small fractions of energy can escape in the form of Hawking radiation but how this works is beyond my level of understanding.

The Earth was created through gravitational effects causing dust clouds to congeal. The gravitational effect was heightened by these clouds then orbiting the Sun (which was also born of the very same clouds). This, combined with friction amid the dust clouds as they formed increasingly large rocks, helped form the Earth and it was specifically friction which caused the Earth's molten iron core to form. This process took billions of years before anything remotely resembling a planet took shape.

This is a proven fact and it's as far as you can possibly get from believing that the world was created in 7 days. A major tenet of Christianity lays on the ground in tattered ruins and yet Christians still shake their heads and say, "OK, we'll give you that one, but the rest of the Bible is true."



The number of creationist scientists is a microscopically small proportion of the scientific community. They are the sort of scientists for whom the last big break through in science was Newton's theory of gravitation and they usually shun the grandiose works of the 20th Century - namely General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics - in favour of a classical approach.

This is daft to say the least as classical mechanics cannot even describe the heliocentric orbit of Mercury around the Sun never mind the big cosmological questions that General Relativity has helped to solve. Quantum Mechanics is the most successful scientific theory that man has ever postulated yet they shun it's strange (yet physically observed and mathematically proven) implications in favour of old, religion friendly theories. They're the sort of scientist equivalent to a person who would prefer to drive around in a classic 1904 Model T Ford that cannot muster velocities greater than walking pace (when it isn't braking down) and proclaim it as the best and most efficient car that the world has ever seen.



Yes, they are ridiculously complicated and the odds of it happening are billions to one. But think about this: the universe is infinite. And there are an infinite number of universes that make up the multiverse. Even odds of a billion billion to one are amazingly good odds in an infinite universe of infinite universes.



The universe has always been, there is no concept of beginning or end. The particular universe that we inhabit is thought to have been created when two massive 'branes' (it's complicated!) collided and realeased an almight amount of energy (the big bang). The expansion of this energy and all the matter that was born from it, constitutes our universe.



Yes. If God was perfect, He would have created a being that was able to withstand temptation.



That's a huge cop out. If He knew that we would sin, why didn't he erradicate that particular propensity from our psyche? He obviously enjoyed watching us sin.



Yes, but if we don't know any other form of existence then we have nothing to compare it to. I could be wrong, but from what I remember, God only gave mankind free will after Adam and Eve had eaten the apple from the tree and been banished from the Garden Of Eden.



Well, it wasn't in the Bible - it's what I gleaned from that aspect of the story, but putting a tree in the Garden Of Eden and then telling Adam and Eve not to eat from it is a test. Why put the tree there if they weren't to enjoy it's fruits? Furthermore, He created the snake to tempt them!

Why test Adam and Eve? If He created them exactly how He intended then, if He is perfect, by logical processes Adam and Eve must be perfect. If God needs to test His creations then He is doubting whether He has created a perfect being. He doubts that He is perfect. If it then turns out that Adam and Eve aren't perfect, this implies that God is also not perfect since a perfect being should by all logic be able to create a perfect creation. Just by logically scrutinizing this story alone, I can't see how God can be perfect.

__________________

pretty much every other religion in the world, who obviously don't believe in the bible, yet still think evolution is true.

__________________

OK, i dont really mind that you belive in evolution and think that christianity is a joke but the creation theory that your not talking about is absolutely not a "proven fact." If it were there wouldnt be any more debate about the creation. Unless I slept through that part of biology, I sure dont remember the day that my teacher showed us the evidence and said here it is. because that never happened. Although theres a lot of people who believe it it is by no means a "proven fact".

__________________

You forgot that the bible states that God created man who can make their own choices/decisions

__________________

Was that directed at me cause I'm kinda lost

__________________

I'm not sure what this means. I asked for a link to this group of legitimate biologists (i.e. people with advanced degrees, who have done work in the field of biology, studying animals, executing tests, and recording the data). I also wanted to know the ideals of these people (if they are Christians, that automatically proves me right), who they are (so I could contact them if I wanted to), and exactly how they thought all these animals and plants came to be. I also, and this is possibly the most important factor, wanted to know how these legitimate biologists classify life on this planet, as the current system of taxonomy in place is based entirely on Darwinism. They certainly would have had to come up with a different system, and I want to see it. If they haven't even come up with a classification system to befit their anti-Darwinist ideas, they certainly can't be considered serious.

Instead of helping your argument, you make a vague reference to "pretty much every other religion in the world, who obviously don't believe in the bible", and then continue to say that they DO, in fact, believe in evolution. I don't understand that. Maybe it was a typo in your post, if not, there is a serious problem with your syntax. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and hope you just somehow got messed up. I know that has happened to me before and I wouldn't fault you for it. As a matter of fact, I've done it in this very thread, when I referred to Alligator mississipiensis on a specific level as missipiensis, obviously a typographical error. I am asking for you to now clarify exactly what that response was supposed to mean and how it was supposed to support your argument.

__________________

No fucking kidding. I'm sorry if people having a mild and intelligent debate scares you retarded sewage receptacles, in the name of god and man, shut this evil thread down. After all, you worthless douchebags, it's not like you can just AVOID THE FUCKING THREAD, is it? I swear to god, I wonder if some of your mothers were standing upright when you were born, propelling your tiny bodies headfirst to the hospital floor, easily explaining why none of you have an IQ over 80.

Now, if you'll kindly occupy yourselves with something shiny, the grownups will now continue their discussion.

__________________

No its just that religion isn't appropriate to talk about here. It sparks too many conflicts. Its even a metaltabs rule...any thread created a couple years ago would be "fucked and dead" because of one religious debate. I don't see why its welcomed now...

__________________

haha yeah sorry. I misread your post then i mistyped. I meant to say that they dont believe in evolution. also i forgot to give a link of scientist and stuff.

http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/

http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/

i dont know the exact ideals of these people but neither one is a christain organization

while looking this up ive come to realize that there arent so many groups of scientists against evolution as there are well known scientist who supportd it and then changed their minds. If you really want me to i can get some of their names, but my original point was that there are scientist against evolution.

I guess il have to start double reading my posts. sorry about that

__________________

metal=life: Religious discussions would lead to a fucked and dead for two reasons:

1. It was a holdover from irishbunny, who understandably has had enough religious debate in her life. We don't keep up my arbitrary Bands or Poetry rules, no reason to keep hers here. Though we should have kept up my arbitrary Bands and Poetry rules.

2. 99% of the time it was simply 'Fuck Christianity, those fuckin' suckers go to church and kiss the cross and fuckin' believe this bullshit religion.' If this were that, I'd be all for it being deleted, but it's a reasonably intelligent discussion. Except for the occasional 'The posts are too long and nobody's changing his mind, close it.' If they get to pointless bitching or being insulting for the sake of insulting, without explaining their reasoning as they have, blast this shit to hell. From what I can tell, it hasn't just been stupid 'I hate Christians, regurgitated Deicide lyrics' shit, so there's no reason to close it. If briyo feels challenged rather than offended, it shouldn't offend anyone else. If it crosses the line, fuck it, but most of what seems to be annoying the 'close it down' contingent has fuck-all to do with that.

So by this logic, if God is truly perfect, he could have created a being that made the correct choices each time. Since God Himself imposed the moral code upon mankind, He surely can create beings to obey it perfectly and still have the free will to make their own decisions and choices. That is unless God is not perfect and was unable to imbue this in mankind.

The other option of course, is that God retains His perfection and actually intended us to murder, steal and adulterate, which would make Him a thoroughly nice fella indeed.



Well, it is a proven fact because cosmologists and astronomers are witnessing the various stages of star and planet formation each night as they peer into space. Also, our understanding of forces and how these immense clouds behave lead us to a mathematically sound basis for star/planet formation. Creationists just choose to ignore these facts because it flies in the face of their own beliefs for which, incidentally, they have no evidence or data to back up.

__________________

My Poetry rules were that I wanted reasonably good spelling and grammar and actual constructive criticism. Anything against this was deleted or edited. In Bands I decided there could only be one Children of Bodom thread and that any thread that turned into a discussion of Varg would be sent to the island of misfit toys. If I were still Bands mod, there'd be a lot more arbitrary rules since the attitude of metalheads towards various bands is probably my biggest bone to pick with metalhead culture, so it's probably a good thing I'm not longer Bands mod and can't piss out my window on everyone's parade.

Speaking of parades, homosexuality doesn't bother me in the slightest. Some homosexuals do, but they tend to be the ones who annoy my gay friends too, so I figure that has more to do with them as people and less to do with whom they choose to fuck. Christianity has certain philosophical aspects that appeal to me and I cull that out rather than focus on the aspects that frustrate me or rub me wrong. Anthrax rule.

dude, your using irrational logic. Eihter we don't have free will and loving and obeying is meaningless because we cant disobey him. Or he gave us freewill because he wanted us to beleive in him by choice. He didn't want us too kill and commit crimes and hate people. He gave us freewill; therefore when we kill and hate and do amzingly stupid and hateful things like shoot amazing guitar players he didnt make or want the person to do that and it is still morally wrong. But god has nothing to do with them sinning. Humans were the one who took the apple not God. so i still dont understand how God is flawed.

__________________

Exactly! God created the apple and so He is responsible for mankind's subsequent actions. If He didn't create the tree and the apple, mankind would never have been placed in a situation to have sinned, free-will or no free-will. If you knew a man was going to kill your wife but didn't have the means, would you give him a gun? No, neither would I, and we are mere mortals. So why would God create the tree, the apple and the snake if He knew that they would ultimately be the reason why mankind disobeyed Him?

__________________

Man created God, not visa versa.

A tainted mankind creates a tainted god. Or should that be religion?

By all means, I do believe there might be some supernatural force at work somewhere, but would be nothing like what organized religions and cults would want us to believe, since those views are from humans.

__________________

John's right. If God knew that we where to sin, also knowing in advance to every sin we would participate in; then why would he become so angry like in the Old Testiment? That's like buying a puppy, placing a grilled steak infront of it and becoming so aghast at the fact that it disobeyed you and ate it that you kicked it out of your warm house, ignoring the fact that you knew that this event was inevitable when you bought it (or in His case, made it). The Bible's God surley isn't perfect; he's got the logic of a child.

By the way, I can't remeber the last time we had a thread like this that didn't spiral out of control. It almost brings a tear to my eye!

__________________