I appreciate your recommendation, and it is intriguing, but as a pro-lifer, I cannot support an organization that is opposed to the death penalty.

I don't know why you're asking me this since I think conservatism is an outdated ideology that does not override the normal (IE: non-liberal) brain's tendency to trust people that look like them (or at least share an identity with). Conservatism works in a culturally cohesive society, something that never really described the United States to begin with. So what conservatives should have done is, first and foremost, stop being conservative. Being conservative in a significantly progressive population is like catching a cold while suffering from AIDS.

A better question is how should conservatives have responded to liberalism, since it's liberalism's machinations, both pre and post Jim Crow that did the actual damage. The answer of course is the Holy Trinity of good politics: Imperial rule, abolishment of the aristocracy and establishment of a minor Christian theocracy (pagan or Buddhist would probably work well too from a materialistic point of view).

Opposition to civil rights is a good thing though. Their only mistake is that they applied it to race rather than subcultures. Separate, uglier and dirtier drinking fountains for liberals instead of blacks would have done wonders for society.

No, they didn't just call someone baldy - did you actually read the passage in the Bible or are you using a comic strip as your source material?

There were mocking a prophet of G_d and that act carries with it a very huge cost. If you'd care to actually read the passage they were challenging his authority - kids old enough to challenge authority are old enough to suffer the consequences of that challenge.

What happens when a child challenges the law of gravity by walking off a cliff?
What happens when a child challenges the authority of his parent and plays out in the street?
What happens when a child challenges the authority of the law and does Cocaine?

In those three examples do the consequences adjust themselves to the age of the child?

As it turns out, in the REAL WORLD - that place were your body is but your mind isn't - in the REAL WORLD when a child challenges authority that child often dies. As it turns out, a trampoline doesn't appear at the bottom of a cliff, a car doesn't turn to foam rubber, and Cocaine doesn't turn to powdered sugar just because the child is less than 18 years old.

You accept the rules of the natural world as operating the same regardless of age but you refuse to grant G_d the same power you'd give Cocaine. Sorry, patty, but the Bible is about revealing G_d the way He is, and as it turns out He is very dangerous.

[Disusing the Bible story where children are mauled by bears for making fun of Elisha:]

You need to be tied to a chair and forced to watch "Children of the Corn" over and over until your eyes bleed, idiot. 42 people old enough to know how to insult a prophet of God will tear anyone who isn't armed with a machinegun and lots of bullets to shreds. While you're out collecting manure for your next post, feel free to explain what a group of 42+ "harmless young children" were doing out of the city.

[Disusing the Bible story where children are mauled by bears for making fun of Elisha:]

No, they didn't just call someone baldy - did you actually read the passage in the Bible or are you using a comic strip as your source material?

There were mocking a prophet of G_d and that act carries with it a very huge cost. If you'd care to actually read the passage they were challenging his authority - kids old enough to challenge authority are old enough to suffer the consequences of that challenge.

I've always wondered why a couple of bears mauling some kids is such a big deal with skeptics. I admit it is awful - the mindset that G_d isn't allow to judge people is incomprehesible to me.

The powers that be think that everyone MUST be forced to pay for contraception for the YES, slutty life style of Sandra Fluck who gave a speech at the Democratic convention bemoaning that we don’t pay for her contraception. (Rush Limbaugh got in lots of trouble for saying she is a slut, yet it is Sandra who wants to live a life of sex where everyone else pays to keep her from getting pregnant). Why must I as a Christian, who thinks such behavior abysmal, sinful and self destructive pay for her to have sexcapades without consequences?

They claim to be more intelligent than we are,the truth is about 95% of scientists belive in that "evolution theory" and about the same percent is atheist or agnostic.That doesnt mean atheist are more intelligent than us.Anybody that is willing to spend eternity in hell, just for some theory is not that intelligent.I just wish it was like back in the old days where we could just scream infidel and they would be hung or burnt alive, specially those scientists.

The founding fathers messed everything up, with that freedom of religion, and the whole discrimination by creed.The reason they came up with it was because they were scared, being themselves non believers.

> What about those of us who are scientists, believe in evolution, and are Christian?

> Should we be hung or burnt alive or both?

If you believe in evolution you are not a true Christian.Evolution talks about natural selection and mutation by luck,it says God didnt create earth or maybe you are one of those who says God created everything and left it to its luck. And a scientist dont give me that you cant be a scientist and a Christian because scientists dont believe in faith and thats the only way to be a Christian believe everything in the Bible as it is, "nothing taken nothing added"

Gallup's 1991 poll showed that 95% of scientists (including non-biologists) accept evolution, with biologists above 99%.

You realize this is classic argumentum ad populum, don't you?

Again, ears are for hearing and nipples for feeding our children, neither are made to be kissed, but apparently you can not understand this.

[in response to hearing about eHarmony.com's agreeing to start a matchmaking affiliate that would allow gays and lesbians as part of an out-of-court settlement for a 2005 lawsuit claiming they were violating New Jersey’s Law Against Discrimination]

How long until gay sex becomes mandatory as part of some "empathy" program? I give it 100 years.

Simply adopting the values you find around you is a pretty irrational way to determine what the universe is, how we should live, etc. Atheists would make good Nazis; good communists; good little anythings, really. What they don't do is adopt a rational evaluation of all this.

Sorry but those who don't have the Holy Spirit and refuse to become Christians have no other option but to be pharmaceutically lobotmized and live with the side-effects of their mdeication which as I said, in some cases are worse than the medication! So "I'll pray for you" is not enough. Being born again is the only sure cure to the illnesses of the mind. Doctors certainly can't know what a delusion is until they first know what the truth is. And the truth is not that humans created the universe, apes bred human beings and man is infallible. So once again, a fallible mind cannot cure fallibility.

Secular psychology is no different than going to witch doctors. The theories of psychologists are no different than the theories of scientists. They put people in categories, label them, and give them pills like witches gave people herbs and potions.

The only solution to the human condition is Jesus. Human nature trying to fix human nature is the blind leading the blind. A fallible human being cannot fix the fallible human being. Only the truh sets us free. When we admit out envy, greed, lust, anger, sloth, pride, glutony, and other sin, Jesus replaces them with love and forgiveness and we are truly free.

I can't count the people who have been messed up by psychiatrists and psychologists. For example, so many people have been misdiagnosed as bipolar because psychiatrists have pills for that, so they are pharmaceutically lobotmized and have to remain dependant on those drugs for the rest of their lives and those drugs still don't alleviate all of their symptoms! In fact, in some cases, they create side-effects that are worse than the symptoms they had before they took the drugs! One of the biggest ironies is that some of the side-effects of anti-depressant medications cause people to commit suicide!

So wll we need is Christ.

I've read the books, and found them to be well-written blasphemy. I would not expose children I'm trying to raise to love and respect God to this book series. Rowan Williams or no.

Would it be fair and right to regard "humans through apes evolution advocates" who do not permit copulation between apes & humans, to be intellectually dishonest persons?

Yes. Would it be fair and right to regard "humans through apes evolution advocates" who do not permit apes and humans to copulate with each other across species, to be intellectually dishonest persons?

Considering the insistence of evolutionists that humans evolved (which must therefore mean, are still evolving) from whatever soup of chemicals right through the apes.

Which must mean that humans and apes are distant cousins, sufficiently distant cousins - to, therefore, be very safe for copulation and procreation with each other across species, totally consistent and therefore moral within the "law of natural evolution and selection of species".

A teaching the public schools in the "inclusive, non-discriminatory, pro-evolution anti-creation theory" countries like Canada and not a few parts in USA will soon be introducing and promoting, in due course - with their students encouraged to bring their pet monkeys, apes, chickens, bunny rabbits and spiders to their science classes for show-and-tell?

What do the other human persons here think ?

No doubt someone will object, saying something obviously ridiculous like, but atheists are persons.

But clearly this is mistaken because anybody without a well developed belief in God is obviously not a full human person.

What could be more obvious than that ?

How many full human persons do you know without a well developed belief in God. Obviously none, because if they were full human person they would have a well developed belief in God.

Now some people might object to killing atheists for there (and obviously it is there and not thier as they are not whos but whats ) organs but think of all the full human persons that would benifit from the organs and the medical research that could be done on these non-persons.

How could anybody object, they are not human persons and if you think we should not kill them then that is just because of out dated ideas and because they must really just want people to suffer. For shame on you !

So what do people think ?

Should we kill these atheist human non-persons for the benifit of fully human persons ?

Jason

[Would you please tell us what your scientific qualifications (for evaluating evolution) are? What is your profession?]

My qualification is I'm a God-fearing college dropout redneck hick landlord who goes after darwinism with freaking vengeance....and I just happen to have the truth on my side.

[much of the effort supposedly expended on "changing the heart (of pro-choicers)" is little more than clubbing those who disagree with hatred. Calling people "Murderers" and expressing one's hatred for them will not change the heart]

Shooting them will change hearts. It's amazing how quickly certain stances on issues change when there's a psycho on the roof across the street with your head in the crosshair.

[Does It Worry You That Man May Have No Purpose?]

I'm one of those who would have to be put down quickly . If you didn't you would be sorry later . Family and loved ones would be treated the same as they are now but all others who couldn't force my conformity to a social norm would be at risk . I know how animals act and I myself posses an amoral character held in check by a loving God . Riddicks Necromancer theology would prevail . "You keep what you kill" , and those who propose a social moral consciousness will probably be the first to be purged , or become the forced working slaves of someone who thinks just like me . At worst I could get a job as a morale enforcer at someones reorientation work camp . I hope its in a warm region . "Look at that", full circle , I'd have purpose again .

I would like to know why Christians are buying into the sanitation of language game by the homosexual community and using the "positive" term - gay. 99.9% I refuse to use it. Co-opting positive terms is a long-time manipulative ploy.

good post...criticizing selectionist evolution can get people ridiculed and ostricized -- even fired. This is why many scientists are afraid to speak up. Science is a communist establishment where competing views get snuffed out. It's no different than medicine. If anyone comes along and provides evidence for curing cancer or any other disease without drugs or surgery he is labeled a quack -- or even murdered if the treatment is highly effective. (See Dr. Gerson.)

These people are no different than the communists regimes that controlled Russia and China in the past. They must have things their way or no way, and they must supress all opposing views.

[Re: whether homologous organs can be used as evidence of either evolution or ID, 'Why wouldn't he have designed eyes for his favorite species, as good as eagle's or squid's eyes?']

So you could understand the parallel when He says in a spiritual sense, blind man you are in danger of falling in the pit

Now this is the typical Atheist response. If you are not Gay then you are memtally ill and should be killed.

I think the only thing that kindness and love of Gays will get you is AIDS. [...]

I have heard of a few Gays who try to control their lusts and live chaste. They have a heavy cross to bear, but all the other Gays just want to kill them as traitors!

In my experience I find that most Atheists are very unpleasant and invariably Gay and I find Gays intolerable. They are vicious lewd and have no respect for the great majority of the worlds population. I also find Christain Gays very nasty selfish people. I also find that these Atheists who are in the majority insist that if a person is not Gay they cannot be an Atheist, But you have a lot more choice with Christians. they are not all Gay.

1) If Evolution is true then how do you account for Mental Faculties? Atoms banging against one another in randon fasion do not seem to make much since as to how our mental faculties can be reliable. You are stuck with Darwin's Doubt. I find this as a flaw in Atheistic Materialism.
2) Hell is not unjust. Biblical Christianity says that man is fallen. We are born bad so to speak, that is why we need the Grace of Christ. So it is not unjust for God to send us to hell. I would also ask the question: Who are you to talk back to God?

[OMEGA7's view of hell]

For anyone who has studied the bible for over 35 years like I have

would easily know the HELL - GEHENNA - THE LAKE OF FIRE

is exacltly that , a Physical Lake of Fire fed by OIL and Gas

which is common in the Middle East.

Jesus said that the Pharasees would be Cast on the local Garbage Dump

where the Garbage and dead bodies were burnt.

After Armageddon there will be alot of Dead bodies and Armaments

that will have to be burnt. Those who go to the Lake of Fire will be

working there throwing in the Garbage. That is it .

There will be NO Tormenting of HUMANS just Hot sweaty workers.

A couple weeks back, I was at the video store and considered renting the Muppets' (a kids' show) "Wizard of Oz" (a kids' story). I decided against it - actually, I now believe God put it on my heart to avoid it. Now I know why. The Disney Channel (a kids' channel) ran the movie tonight and I couldn't believe that they felt it necessary to dump some blatant sexuality into it! In the scene where the characters first meet the Wizard, they all go in individually and the Wizard uses his machines or whatever to appear as something different to each of them. To the Cowardly Lion (Fozzy), he appeared as a dragon to scare him. To the Scarecrow (Kermit), he appeared as a firey face that spit fireballs. Then we come to the Tinman (Gonzo). As with the plain Gonzo, the Tinman has a chicken as a girlfriend. So what do the people who made this movie have the Wizard appear as to him? Yes, a chicken... eventually. First, they had him appear as a scantily clad, curvaceous woman with a "sexy" demeanor and voice. What. The. Foosball? Exactly how is that appropriate content for kids? Rhetorical question - IT"S NOT! I am glad God pushed me away from that video at the store. I don't want my kids exposed to such garbage.

Oh, yes. Let the "you're overreacting" and "you're a prude" talk begin now. Five words I can say to those kinds of responses: take 'em and shovel 'em.

['YECreationism is no more than drivel. The butt of the joke is where it belongs.']

As opposed to being intellectually sodomised by proponents of Evolution?

Keep Sci-fi in the English lit classes and out of origins science.

[Arguing with a Jew] The Tanach still isn't Scripture - and note the little cross icon - I'm not Jewish, so why the heck would I reference - or care about a reference - to the Tanach [Old Testament, in Hebrew] when the case is supposed to be built biblically? I'm not seeing a need here... Got a Biblical reference you want to make your case from?

['My argument is the naturalist position that says that they did not morally deserve to have a hurricane come and wipe them out']
Why didn't they deserve to be wiped out by the hurricane, ilk?

They were in the hurricane zone.

Anyone, for any reason, who is in the path of the hurricane, deserves to be hit. Even if you don't have the means to leave the area, you still deserve to be hit by the hurricane.

The people who had the means to leave and didn't, made a moral decision to put themselves in danger, thus deserving what the hurricane delivered.

The people who didn't have the means to leave, still deserve to be hit by the hurricane.

Please tell me why the people in the hurricane's path didn't deserve what they received.

[Fundy giving his rationale for believing things despite evidence]

I was already familiar with SN1987A [a famous <a href="http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Thebes/7755/ancientproof/SN1987A.html" target="_blank">supernova which showed the age of the universe</a> much greater than 10,000 years], learning. You've supplied yet another example of something that I've stated more times than I can remember : some people are so 'fragile' in their faith that the slightest event will cause them to drop it and seek refuge elsewhere. Kind'a like the way you "threw down" Morris' book just because you couldn't understand how 2+3 could <u>possibly</u> add up to 11.

What's follows? At the next question that you can't answer, does the resurrection get tossed? The Second Coming? The virgin conception? The miracles? The questions <u>will</u> come - rest assured of that!

The simplest possible explanation for events such as SN1987A (and billions of light years distances) is found in Scripture when God tells us of "stretching the heavens". I don't want to enter into this now so let me just say this : no existing cosmology has anything other than speculations as to how the cosmos is structured and how it works. We are here, vast distances from objects, picking up faint bits of information and trying to piece together an incredibly complex puzzle from those scraps of information. I'm <u>NOT</u> about to question God's Word on such feeble 'evidence'. Obviously, you and others like you were much more inclined via the same 'evidence'. So be it.

[Showing he totally missed the point of <a href="http://home.entouch.net/dmd/mortonsdemon.htm" target="_blank">a christian evolutionists article</a>.]

Morton's <u>Demon</u> is ... a descriptive term. Such a demon does, in fact, exist - you'll get no argument from me on that. What I will argue very strongly is that you wish to attach that demon to YECs without realizing that your compadres (Naturalists) have owned almost exclusive rights to the demon since day one. In fact, Satan owns the Patent on your demon and Naturalists have purchased a licensing agreement for use of that Patent. Your desire to attach that demon primarily to YECs is ... ignorance and despicability all rolled up into one.

I pray that I'm wrong, gr, but I sense that you are one small baby-step away from <u>voluntarily</u> removing the cross from under your name. One or two "key findings" by Naturalists, I believe, might do the trick for you.

Atheists Spread AIDS [...]

(2) Most people who have HIV (and therefore get AIDS) are homosexuals.

(3) Most homosexuals are atheists (whether "weak atheists," otherwise known as "agnostics:" who say they don't believe in God, or "strong atheists" who assert that there is no God; which is a silly distinction to spend a long time fussing over, as they often do).

(4) Therefore, the largest category of people who have HIV (and are therefore spreading it, since you can't spread it unless you first have it) are atheists.

(5) The second largest body of people who spread HIV are needle-sharing drug addicts.

(6) Most needle-sharing drug addicts are atheists.

(7) Therefore, the second largest group of people (other than homosexuals, although many homosexuals are needle-sharing drug addicts too) is also mostly made up of atheists. [...]

(11) Almost everyone who has AIDS is an atheist.

['I think the idea of beleiving in a 950 year old man, because you read it in an old book, is a silly idea.']

Thats ok Steve. You are simply mistaken.

I've stated this before, I think Eugenie Scott is a witch with an agenda that is simply impossible to miss.

She's perfect for the position she holds - just (barely) bright enough to have memorized the Naturalistic so-so stories yet dumb enough to recklessly parrot them with no thought about what she's doing. She's the ideal representative for an organization whose name itself is a blatant lie to the masses : The National Center for Science Education (NCSE).

Folks, the NCSE is NOT about "science education" - it's about the ideological agenda of keeping the creationist position OUT. What's that? You don't believe me? Here it is, straight from their home page :

"The National Center for Science Education (NCSE) defends the teaching of evolution in public schools. We are a nationally-recognized clearinghouse for information and advice to keep evolution in the science classroom and "scientific creationism" out. NCSE is the only national organization to specialize in this issue."

Ms. Scott fights tooth-n-nail every day to make sure that the NCSE lives up to their ideological agenda.
"Science education", yeah, rrrriiiiight!

Jorge

The use of the words "punishment for crime" are metaphorical, which is why Hell is described as a prison in the Bible.

The message of the Bible is also not "turn to God or else". It is "You have a choice, one choice which leads to Heaven and another which leads to Hell. You make that choice by your desires. Continue to live as a slave to your desires and you will end up in Hell".

Finally, Hell is not described as "aggressively terrifying and unpleasant" in the Bible, but simply as a place to avoid at all costs. In light of the fact that Hell represents an complete loss of hope, that alone is reason enough to want to avoid it.

I saw your thread in Theo 201, thought I would see what you wrote. Don't look for dialogue with me here, I hang out in 201 mostly. God is Almighty, but He cannot violate His own Word. He has promised everlasting torment to every soul that is cast into hell. That is the end of the discussion. God never breaks His word. Let your inability to fathom a place of eternal punishment drive you closer to God's Savior. Don't question God's ways, just believe them. That's my advice.