NationStates Jolt Archive

No, really, what the hell is wrong with it?

I don't like it at all, but, I dunno. I got asked why I don't like religion so much and I realised I didn't know the answer to that question, DO YOU?

But I nearly got in a fist fight with the guy who asked me that, and then he told me that nobody loved me, then I asked him whether he thought God loved him. And he said yes.

I was just like, what the hell? Just how can you believe that.

And another guy in my class keeps trying to get me to go to his youth group and its getting scary because now another guy in the form above me is doing the same thing. They pay tythes and everything. It scares me how you can believe this and just how stupid humans all are.

*rummages through photobucket*

A-HA! Here we go!

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b131/Colodia/1153257956021.jpg

No, really, what the hell is wrong with it?

I don't like it at all, but, I dunno. I got asked why I don't like religion so much and I realised I didn't know the answer to that question, DO YOU?

But I nearly got in a fist fight with the guy who asked me that, and then he told me that nobody loved me, then I asked him whether he thought God loved him. And he said yes.

I was just like, what the hell? Just how can you believe that.

And another guy in my class keeps trying to get me to go to his youth group and its getting scary because now another guy in the form above me is doing the same thing. They pay tythes and everything. It scares me how you can believe this and just how stupid humans all are.


Meh. There's little wrong with Christianity. No more or less than any other religion.

Now, CHRISTIANS on the other hand...

Believing the Bible too much (sometimes).

Meh. There's little wrong with Christianity. No more or less than any other religion.

Now, CHRISTIANS on the other hand...


I have to disagree on the Christian-ity part.

It too, is flawed, critically, fundamentally, and terminally.

As for the Christ-ians....pretty much, yah.

I have to disagree on the Christian-ity part.

It too, is flawed, critically, fundamentally, and terminally.

As for the Christ-ians....pretty much, yah.

Of course it's flawed. Show me one religion that isn't.

But it's no more or less flawed than any of the others.

But we were watching a video about Hiroshima in Social Studies today and it said about the God-like beliefs in the Japanese empeor and that why so many people scarafices themselves as Kamicazi pilots and just plain ol' propoganda.:(

Of course it's flawed. Show me one religion that isn't.

But it's no more or less flawed than any of the others.


Hmm...

One religion that isnt flawed....

Any religion, or a serious one with more than a few dozen followers?

As for Christianity, I'd honestly say it a little more screwey than most, but Im probably not the most impartial of judges.

*rummages through photobucket*

A-HA! Here we go!

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b131/Colodia/1153257956021.jpg
lol, 'OMFG! My Fundie girlfriend wont give head1!!1':p

Hobo, the problem is Prods!
I blame the Prods!

Christ is great. It's his fan club that sucks. :p

Christ is great. It's his fan club that sucks. :p

lol Nice :D

Meh. There's little wrong with Christianity. No more or less than any other religion.

Now, CHRISTIANS on the other hand...
I would have to disagree. Christianity is a part of the second major group of religions (Abrahamic) to attest that in order for their religion to be correct, every other religion had to be wrong (The first was the order of Aten, Supreme Egyptian god of the Sun. It was as unpopular as Judaism, but was crushed shortly after it's founder, the pharoah Akhenaten, died). Back in the day, when religion used inhabit science's role of explaining how and why thing happened any religions guess was as goos as yours. That is why we used to have huge pantheons. As you might have guessed the first Abrahamic religions would have been quite unpopular, they were the Jews. They hold the record amongst all cultral groups of longest period of continuously generating negative sentiment amonst those with whom they interact. Christians and Muslims come second and third. One has to understand that subscribing to an abrahamic religion is a very arrogant thing to do (Whether intended or not). It basically says "I am right and everyone else is wrong, if you don't believe me you can go to hell- literally".

Christianity and Islam both have something terminally wrong with each other that other religions do not. These two religions are unique in history as being religions based upon sourcing converts. There are no ideas of sacred exclusivity, or national identity in Christianity. Christians are happy for blacks, whites, asians, muslims, hindus, pagans and more to convert to Christianity, in fact they insist that they do. Christianity and Islam both flex the idea that if you don't convert, you are disgusting in god's eyes and will spend an eternity in hell.

What does this mean? Well, if hierachical Christianity/Islam takes over, we will see something akin to the dark-ages with technology. If New age moderate Christianity/Islam takes over, then we will see oppressively moralistic governments, which should drop off eventually as people lose interest and zealousness in the religion (Depending how pervasive the said countries brainwashing system is). Before any of that happens, though, there will be huge arse war between the two.

In short what is wrong with Christianity is that you will find them in 3rd world shitholes blackmailing the population into Christianity with aid. What is wrong with christianity is that it has over a billion adherents worldwide and growing. WHatis wrong with Christianity is that in order for them to be right, the other 5 billion people in the world must be wrong.

And I haven't even touched the contradictions, inaccuracies and hate in their 'holy' book, the bible.

It seems like the Church (meaning all churches, not simply R. Catholics) is in a transition phase right now.. the type of roles and commitments the various churches have are a bit up in the air at the moment, and that leads to a confusion of purpose in some cases.

My church, for example, doesn't evangelize, which makes it somewhat insular.. In fact, I used to commute 30 miles to church when there was one of the same denomination 2 miles from my house. Why? Because I had no idea it was there. I drove by it hundreds of times, but it is a plain, unadorned building, without even a simple cross anywhere on the facade. It seems that not only is there a communication gap between denominations, but between individual churches as well. Once you lose that thread of communication, things break down. As a consequence, most people are born into my denomination and, since priests can marry and have children, even the church staff is often busy with personal issues. I'm wholly in favor of priests marrying, as they can personally relate to a couple's day-to-day conflicts more than any celibate monastery student can, but it does seem to change the tone somewhat if you have a church without any member of the Bishopric in attendance, which happens occasionally.

Believing the Bible too much (sometimes).

Believing the Bible at all. The Bible itself. That's what's wrong. Since Judaism is already complete ideological dirt, Christianity is of course no better.

Believing the Bible at all. The Bible itself. That's what's wrong. Since Judaism is already complete ideological dirt, Christianity is of course no better.

Gee, if that isn't flamebait, I don't know what is.

Believing the Bible at all. The Bible itself. That's what's wrong. Since Judaism is already complete ideological dirt, Christianity is of course no better.

Aw.. daddy made you miss your morning cartoons to go to church? :D

Believing the Bible at all. The Bible itself. That's what's wrong. Since Judaism is already complete ideological dirt, Christianity is of course no better.

Yep. As it is so movingly explained on that great Egyptian hit-single of 2001 ( 5 million copies sold ):

Ana bakrah Israel.

Gee, if that isn't flamebait, I don't know what is.

Flaming is a no-no here. U better watch out... someone will report u. delete ur message, B4 it is too late

Meh. There's little wrong with Christianity. No more or less than any other religion.

Now, CHRISTIANS on the other hand...
i disagree... the opposite, in fact. christaians may well be good people who choose to believe something that i find odd. no harm in that. certainly no harm in religion being used as a vessel for morality in the days before widespread education and the modern nationstate (yeah its outdated in that sense)

the problem lies in organised religion - the church or "christianity" as per your usage, cabra - which can use people to further its own ends, get involved in politics (a very, sadly, topical point that), turn people against each other in leu of what their faith may say, cause wars, be corrupt, and 'evalgelise' (i would hate people trying to convince me to believe in something i don't and have no interest in doing so). through the ages the church in europe was control and power, was rich, directly sparked wars (crusades, anyone?), and manipulated ill-educated people into believing they could pay their way into heaven (which is still partly the case... the old bribery of "be a christan and go to heaven, be a heathen and go to hell" still holds a lot of sway with a lot of people)


in short, religion can be an ok thing. personal belief can even be good. organised religion is corrupt and i see no good to come of it (unless you want to count the church's charity work or something)

Of course it's flawed. Show me one religion that isn't.

Buddhism*.



* May well be as flawed as other religions.**


** May not technically be a religion according to some criteria.

The bigoted followers who want me to live by their moral rules, believing them to be infallibly absolute, and use them as an excuse for what I percieve as injustice. Yeah, that's probably the main turnoff, but there are others.

(not including all Christians in that, just the bigoted ones.)

in short, religion can be an ok thing. personal belief can even be good. organised religion is corrupt and i see no good to come of it (unless you want to count the church's charity work or something)

Unless you count charity work? :p That's half the purpose - to let the fortunate within the community lift up the weak.. religion in any form is more or less a community-building and advising mechanism.

I do disagree about evangelicals.. I don't endorse or accept their brand of religion, but I've never had a bad experience with one.. they're generally interesting people to talk with. Of course, I spend a lot of time in the South and don't have anyone else to talk to.. :p

Of course it's flawed. Show me one religion that isn't.

Deism?

Deism?

There are still metaphysical questions involved in deism.. and anything else.

Christianity and religion in general is somewhat annoying because it affects major decisions in the lives of us godless heathens, like politics. At least a right-winger can have an understanding of the beliefs of the left-winger and vice versa. Since religion is based on faith, either you believe or you don't. Personally, I don't think decisions which can have an effect on the fate of the world, or indeed the fate of another person, should be guided by an invisible guy in the sky who may or may not exist.
*waits to be flamed about how my conceptions of God are wrong*

of course what's wrong with Christianity is us Christians, we are all mean and bad, and stupid and trying to ruin your fun.... if we would just do what you want us to, and give up our beliefs then of course the world would be a perfect place. :rolleyes:

of course what's wrong with Christianity is us Christians, we are all mean and bad, and stupid and trying to ruin your fun.... if we would just do what you want us to, and give up our beliefs then of course the world would be a perfect place. :rolleyes:

don't forget that we eat babies and use mind control on unsuspecting Scientologists...

don't forget that we eat babies and use mind control on unsuspecting Scientologists...
sure, and how dare they be intolerant of our baby eating? it's not like it affects them directly?

There are still metaphysical questions involved in deism.. and anything else.

Meh.

No, really, what the hell is wrong with it?

2000+ years of people fiddling with the theology behind it, and not paying attention to what was originally said. Or, like it says in the bible "Not all who say 'Lord Lord' shall be saved".

Many who think they're following the word of god are gonna be suprised...

don't forget that we eat babies and use mind control on unsuspecting Scientologists...
It's atheists who eat babies, isn't it? Also we turn people gay. Christians burn gays at the stake and hate entertainment, right?

2000+ years of people fiddling with the theology behind it, and not paying attention to what was originally said. Or, like it says in the bible "Not all who say 'Lord Lord' shall be saved".

Many who think they're following the word of god are gonna be suprised...


What "word of god" ?

It's atheists who eat babies, isn't it? Also we turn people gay. Christians burn gays at the stake and hate entertainment, right?
I'm wondering where people get the idea that Christians somehow believe that they are now "perfect" simply because they've accepted Christianity.

I can see that out of Baptists (who actually believe that you're saved permanently once you accept Jesus). And Methodists, too. But not any of the other Protestant faiths, and certainly not the Catholics. And especially not Pentecostals, who believe that you can be baptized, go to church regularly, and say you love Jesus, and still go to Hell because God knows you never meant a word of it.

I love especially the commentary from atheists who have no idea of the heterodoxy within even Protestantism. Atheists love to assign ideas to all of us that only apply to a fraction (perhaps the more vocal fraction, but a fraction nonetheless).

I'm wondering where people get the idea that Christians somehow believe that they are now "perfect" simply because they've accepted Christianity.

I can see that out of Baptists (who actually believe that you're saved permanently once you accept Jesus). And Methodists, too. But not any of the other Protestant faiths, and certainly not the Catholics. And especially not Pentecostals, who believe that you can be baptized, go to church regularly, and say you love Jesus, and still go to Hell because God knows you never meant a word of it.

I love especially the commentary from atheists who have no idea of the heterodoxy within even Protestantism. Atheists love to assign ideas to all of us that only apply to a fraction (perhaps the more vocal fraction, but a fraction nonetheless).


Well, the idea that there is a single god who has a son who he sent to earth could surely be assigned to all Christians. And is does not take an atheist for this. And already this assumption is baseless.

Of course it's flawed. Show me one religion that isn't.

But it's no more or less flawed than any of the others.
Well Buddhism's only flaw is that Humans are allergic to giving up their stuff.

Well, the idea that there is a single god who has a son who he sent to earth could surely be assigned to all Christians. And is does not take an atheist for this. And already this assumption is baseless.

That's not the usual complaint though. The complaint I most often hear is self-righteousness, which isn't an official aspect of most Christian denominations.

I can see that out of Baptists (who actually believe that you're saved permanently once you accept Jesus).
as a Baptist I can tell you that eternal security (aka once saved always saved) has nothing to do with being perfect or thinking that you are perfect.

That's not the usual complaint though. The complaint I most often hear is self-righteousness, which isn't an official aspect of most Christian denominations.

Well, the whole Bible (with and without the NT) is an expression of self-righteousness, so its followers are very likely to develop self-righteousness themselves.

Well, the whole Bible (with and without the NT) is an expression of self-righteousness, so its followers are very likely to develop self-righteousness themselves.
I can tell you haven't read it.

Well, the whole Bible (with and without the NT) is an expression of self-righteousness, so its followers are very likely to develop self-righteousness themselves.
where do you get "self-righteous" from?

surely the whole point of the Bible, or at least the NT is that nobody is righteous on there own, so even a Christian can not be self righteous.

where do you get "self-righteous" from?

surely the whole point of the Bible, or at least the NT is that nobody is righteous on there own, so even a Christian can not be self righteous.

Like I said before, the only "self-righteous" Christians I've met were those with the "I'm saved and you're not" mentality.

There were some perfect sound bites — at one point Pastor Fischer instructs the little ones that they should be willing to die for Christ, and the little ones obediently agree. She may even use the word martyr, which has a shocking echo in the Middle East. I can see future suicide bombers for Jesus — the next step will be learning to fly planes into buildings. Of course, the grownups would say, “Oh no, we’re not like them” — but they admit that the principal difference is simply that “We’re right.”

Thats whats wrong with christianity.

http://journal.davidbyrne.com/2006/08/american_madras.html

2000+ years of people fiddling with the theology behind it, and not paying attention to what was originally said. Or, like it says in the bible "Not all who say 'Lord Lord' shall be saved".

Many who think they're following the word of god are gonna be suprised...
Yeah, pretty much, actually. I mean the old testament is what's full of "Kill all homosexuals", "Don't eat shellfish", "Looking to sell your children to slavery? Here's the going rate" B.S. According to the New Testament, Jesus was sent to fix the flawed religions that existed at the time. So let's compare Christianity (the Gospels) with Judaism (The Old Testament).
Someone harms you?
J:"An eye for an eye; a tooth for a tooth"
C:"You have heard an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, but I say no, love your enemy as you would love yourself. If someone strikes your right cheek, turn the other to him so he may strike it also."
Murder/Hatred?
J:"Thou shalt not kill" (exceptions apply, like wars, oh so very many wars in the bible)
C:"It is not only a sin to kill, but if you look upon someone with hatred, you have commited murder in your heart."
Forgiveness?
J:(See question one)
C:"Forgive them father, they know not what they do"(As he's being crucified) "The one sheep that strays is more loved by the shepherd than the 99 that stayed"
Where is God?
J:"The temple is the house of God"
C:"Wherever three discuss me, I am there. Where I am, the father is as well"

And so forth. The problem with most Christians is that they're not Christian. Most are unforgiving and spiteful. Christ was tolerent, hanging out with lepers, prostitutes and gentiles. It's pretty nifty. But a religion is only as good as those who practice it, unfortunately.

Of course it's flawed. Show me one religion that isn't.


Pastafarianism! :D

I can tell you haven't read it.

Oh yes I have, every word. More than once.

Chrisitanity, like the other two monotheistics, tack the poor, the homeless and the old and make them hardcore Christians. Such, they prey on the weak to add to their Religious Army.

I would have to disagree. Christianity is a part of the second major group of religions (Abrahamic) to attest that in order for their religion to be correct, every other religion had to be wrong

Funny, as a Christian, I have never attested that at all.

One has to understand that subscribing to an abrahamic religion is a very arrogant thing to do (Whether intended or not). It basically says "I am right and everyone else is wrong, if you don't believe me you can go to hell- literally".

Hardly. Anyone who says any such thing has clearly missed Christ's message altogether.

Christianity and Islam both have something terminally wrong with each other that other religions do not. These two religions are unique in history as being religions based upon sourcing converts. There are no ideas of sacred exclusivity, or national identity in Christianity. Christians are happy for blacks, whites, asians, muslims, hindus, pagans and more to convert to Christianity,

Wait. So Christianity is bad because it isn't racist or prejudiced against the beliefs already held by others?

in fact they insist that they do. Christianity and Islam both flex the idea that if you don't convert, you are disgusting in god's eyes and will spend an eternity in hell.

Once again, hardly. Such an attitude would be counter to everything that Christ taught.

sure, and how dare they be intolerant of our baby eating? it's not like it affects them directly?

Careful what you use as a joke. One of the first rumors spread about Christianity at its very beginning was that the new converts were forced to eat a baby covered in flour during the Eucharist. =)

Thats whats wrong with christianity.

http://journal.davidbyrne.com/2006/08/american_madras.html

Yes, and every good little Christian sends their children to indoctrination camps, right?

:rolleyes:

The problem with most Christians is that they're not Christian. Most are unforgiving and spiteful. Christ was tolerent, hanging out with lepers, prostitutes and gentiles. It's pretty nifty. But a religion is only as good as those who practice it, unfortunately.

Exactly, I can't remember the last time a Christian turned the other cheek. Even DK (no offense mate but you're posting on the thread so I picked on you so youhave a chance to defend yourself) claims to be a christian and yet supports wars and the killing of enemies, surely a true christian would have forgiven those people as christ instructed?

I love especially the commentary from atheists who have no idea of the heterodoxy within even Protestantism. Atheists love to assign ideas to all of us that only apply to a fraction (perhaps the more vocal fraction, but a fraction nonetheless).

I demand you see the irony is your words, sir.

I'm wondering where people get the idea that Christians somehow believe that they are now "perfect" simply because they've accepted Christianity.

I can see that out of Baptists (who actually believe that you're saved permanently once you accept Jesus). And Methodists, too. But not any of the other Protestant faiths, and certainly not the Catholics. And especially not Pentecostals, who believe that you can be baptized, go to church regularly, and say you love Jesus, and still go to Hell because God knows you never meant a word of it.

I love especially the commentary from atheists who have no idea of the heterodoxy within even Protestantism. Atheists love to assign ideas to all of us that only apply to a fraction (perhaps the more vocal fraction, but a fraction nonetheless).

Its a pretty screwed up Christian that thinks theyre 'perfect' when you have a number of sources telling you that, "YOU SIN EVERY DAY!", which most of the larger denominations do, it seems :P
But yes, being lumped into the same catagory as the 'GOD HATES FAGS' and 'YOU ARE GOING TO HELL BECAUSE GOD HATES YOU!' people is annoying.

I guess Christians need to develope a larger and more active militant wing with suicide bombers and such, THEN people could say, "BUT not ALL Christians are suicide bombers!".

Funny, as a Christian, I have never attested that at all.

Yes you have, otherwise you should not call yourself Christian.


Hardly. Anyone who says any such thing has clearly missed Christ's message altogether.

I rather think you have missed Christ's message altogether, or what the NT renders as Christ's message.


Wait. So Christianity is bad because it isn't racist or prejudiced against the beliefs already held by others?

Don't slice up sentences.

Once again, hardly. Such an attitude would be counter to everything that Christ taught.

How could you possibly know what Christ taught?

http://circularreasoning.ytmnd.com/ goes into infinity like arguing with some of them

Yes, and every good little Christian sends their children to indoctrination camps, right?

:rolleyes:

Its the fact that they exist.

Meh. There's little wrong with Christianity. No more or less than any other religion.

Now, CHRISTIANS on the other hand...
Ooh, I guess I'll take broad generalizations for 1000 Alex.

Seriously, there is nothing wrong with Christians in general, at least no more so than any human being. I'm a Christian, and I am completely inoffensive when it comes to my beliefs. I have them, but I don't push them or even discuss them. Mainly because I have little interest in doing so.

Yes, Christians can be capable of tremendous ignorance, but let's not pretend atheists can't claim the same thing. See quoted post for an example. Religions sometimes have extremists. Anarchists blow up buildings too, so I can't see ignoring the fact that you don't have to be religious to be insane.

How could you possibly know what Christ taught?
Well, reading the Bible helps......

Its the fact that they exist.
Have you ever been to a Bible camp? If not, then you have no idea what they are like. I went to Palmetto Bible Camp for years, and it was just like summer camp but with church services and bible lessons thrown in. I even got banned for sneaking out and hooking up with girls. Realscary stuff, you know.

http://circularreasoning.ytmnd.com/ goes into infinity like arguing with some of them

And then slam the door into the MFs face.

Well, reading the Bible helps......

How? Did Christ write it?

Have you ever been to a Bible camp? If not, then you have no idea what they are like. I went to Palmetto Bible Camp for years, and it was just like summer camp but with church services and bible lessons thrown in. I even got banned for sneaking out and hooking up with girls. Realscary stuff, you know.

This particular camp said you should be ready to die for Christ. Stop right there, Ive heard enough.

This particular camp said you should be ready to die for Christ. Stop right there, Ive heard enough.
Yes, like the girl in Columbine, who was shot for saying she believed in God. Dying for your beliefs? Not unheard of, and we call those people martyrs. Thats not crazy, its standing up for what you believe is right. If you agreed with the message, you wouldn't think it was crazy.


Thats like saying the guy who stood up to the tanks in China was psychotic for being willing to die for his beliefs. Try understanding before leaping to irrational conclusions based large on pre-determined biases and beliefs.

Yes, like the girl in Columbine, who was shot for saying she believed in God. Dying for your beliefs? Not unheard of, and we call those people martyrs. Thats not crazy, its standing up for what you believe is right. If you agreed with the message, you wouldn't think it was crazy.


Thats like saying the guy who stood up to the tanks in China was psychotic for being willing to die for his beliefs. Try understanding before leaping to irrational conclusions based large on pre-determined biases and beliefs.

The people in Tianenmen stood up for something real.

How? Did Christ write it?
It was divinely inspired (supposedly), and written by guys who lived and traveled with jesus through the years of his life where he continued his ministry. Now, you may not believe that, but that doesn't mean you can dismiss it out of hand.

The people in Tianenmen stood up for something real.
Just because you don't believe in it doesn't mean its not real. I'm sure the Chinese gov't was baffled by that man's actions too.

It was divinely inspired (supposedly), and written by guys who lived and traveled with jesus through the years of his life where he continued his ministry. Now, you may not believe that, but that doesn't mean you can dismiss it out of hand.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11508616&postcount=54

The people in Tianenmen stood up for something real.
By the way, we should stop here, because this demonstrates that your mind is closed to the possibility of Christians being correct. If you cannot fathom that, even as a possibility, then there is no point in discussion, because you will have absolutely no regard for anything I say.

In other words, you are going to assume its all bullshit from the get-go, and thats not really a position I feel like arguing with. Bigots abound in every group, regardless of beliefs.

It was divinely inspired (supposedly), and written by guys who lived and traveled with jesus through the years of his life where he continued his ministry. Now, you may not believe that, but that doesn't mean you can dismiss it out of hand.

Why not? Why should I believe any fanatics who claim to be divinely inspired? And the number of guys who actually lived and traveled with jesus through the years of his life where he continued his ministry AND wrote in the Bible is pretty limited.

Just because you don't believe in it doesn't mean its not real. I'm sure the Chinese gov't was baffled by that man's actions too.

Who is willing to die for something they do not know for sure is real?

Im not.

If the day ever comes, Ill die for freedom. I will not die for some magical man in the sky.

By the way, we should stop here, because this demonstrates that your mind is closed to the possibility of Christians being correct. If you cannot fathom that, even as a possibility, then there is no point in discussion, because you will have absolutely no regard for anything I say.

In other words, you are going to assume its all bullshit from the get-go, and thats not really a position I feel like arguing with. Bigots abound in every group, regardless of beliefs.
Ahhh so he is a bigot for not believing in your un proven premise … nice.

Exactly, I can't remember the last time a Christian turned the other cheek. Even DK (no offense mate but you're posting on the thread so I picked on you so youhave a chance to defend yourself) claims to be a christian and yet supports wars and the killing of enemies, surely a true christian would have forgiven those people as christ instructed?

To be clear, "turn the other cheek" never meant "don't fight back." In fact, it was a form of passive resistance. Turning the other cheek, in Christ's time, would have avoided getting hit again, while simultaneously not becoming violent yourself. I know you didn't specifically state this, but it is a common misconception. The passage was not meant to imply that one should not fight against oppressors or those who harm us - simply that we should do so in the least violent manner we can.

Yes you have, otherwise you should not call yourself Christian.

Please do demonstrate how such a statement is necessary to Christianity?

In fact, if I were to state that I am completely right and that everyone who disagrees with me is wrong, that would be stating my own infallibility, something clearly out of line with Christianity. The fact that we are all fallible is a central part of Christ's teachings.

I rather think you have missed Christ's message altogether, or what the NT renders as Christ's message.

And the NT renders Christ's message to suggest that any of us are infallible? Do point me to any such passages.

How could you possibly know what Christ taught?

Because Christ still teaches it.

Ahhh so he is a bigot for not believing in your un proven premise … nice.

Now UT, that isn't what was said at all.

Surf was clearly complaining that Kaz's mind is completely closed on the issue already. The problem isn't that Kas doesn't believe something, but that Kaz won't even consider it.

Who is willing to die for something they do not know for sure is real?

Im not.

If the day ever comes, Ill die for freedom. I will not die for some magical man in the sky.
prove that freedom is real.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11508616&postcount=54
The events in the bible are independently referred to in history, so there is plenty of reason to believe the accounts. For instance, Flavius Josephus referred to Jesus, as well as John the Baptist.

http://www.carm.org/evidence/extrabiblical_accounts.htm
Also, it lists problems with these quotes and provides ways to do further research on them.

Archaelogical evidence also supports the Bibles accounts
http://www.carm.org/evidence/evidence_archaeological.htm

http://www.amazingdiscoveries.org/articles/bible-insight/display/article/archaeological-evidence-supporting-the-bible/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_history


And there's plenty more. You, however, will most certainly find all this irrelevant, and desperately seek ways to throw it aside. I'm sure you'll have no problem doubting any sources I cite, so that would be why its a pointless discussion.

Christ is great. It's his fan club that sucks. :p

HAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! That's priceless!

Ahhh so he is a bigot for not believing in your un proven premise … nice.
No, he is a bigot for automatically assuming that I am wrong, and refusing to consider the possibilities. Please, allow me to put my own words in my mouth, and you can feel free to attack those.

Why not? Why should I believe any fanatics who claim to be divinely inspired? And the number of guys who actually lived and traveled with jesus through the years of his life where he continued his ministry AND wrote in the Bible is pretty limited.
What about their behavior makes them fanatics? Or did your parents tell you this?

After all, they pretended they didn't know Jesus, and hid, when he was being crucified. Seems pretty clear they were normal, scared human beings.

To be clear, "turn the other cheek" never meant "don't fight back." In fact, it was a form of passive resistance. Turning the other cheek, in Christ's time, would have avoided getting hit again, while simultaneously not becoming violent yourself. I know you didn't specifically state this, but it is a common misconception. The passage was not meant to imply that one should not fight against oppressors or those who harm us - simply that we should do so in the least violent manner we can.

"It is not only a sin to kill, but if you look upon someone with hatred, you have commited murder in your heart."

So you're allow to fight but to even look on someone with hatred in your heart is a mortal sin?

Now UT, that isn't what was said at all.

Surf was clearly complaining that Kaz's mind is completely closed on the issue already. The problem isn't that Kas doesn't believe something, but that Kaz won't even consider it.
Then why the delve into bigotry at the end?

Who is willing to die for something they do not know for sure is real?

Im not.

If the day ever comes, Ill die for freedom. I will not die for some magical man in the sky.
This is what I am talking about. Christians DO know for sure God is real. If you believe, it will be so. Don't you know people's perceptions color their reality? For Christians, he is real because they BELIEVE he is real. Just as for you, he isn't real because you strongly DISBELIEVE in his reality. The difference is that I don't insult your belief.

People who are jackasses often find it handy to use religion as a springboard for their jackassery. Superstition is a terrific tool for jackasses, because there is no way for anybody to fact-check them...they can explain anything away by chalking it up to the mysterious workings of their Sky Fairy.

But does this mean all people who believe in the Sky Fairy are jackasses? Of course not. Belief in the Sky Fairy isn't going to make an otherwise-cool person magically transform into a jackass.

People who want to be good will find reasons to be good, whether in Christianity, or in Islam, or in atheism, or in whatever other belief system they try. People who want to be jackasses will, likewise, find reasons to be jackasses in whatever belief system they end up following.

There are some people who are irrational, self-centered, rude, and annoying. In my experience, finding Jesus doesn't make these people any less irrational, self-centered, rude, or annoying...they simply come up with some Jesus-related ways to be irrational, self-centered, rude, and annoying. But I'm not going to blame Christianity for the fact that they are irrational, self-centered, rude, and annoying. There are plenty of reasons for me to dislike Christianity (along with all other organized superstitions), but this ain't one of them.

"It is not only a sin to kill, but if you look upon someone with hatred, you have commited murder in your heart."

So you're allow to fight but to even look on someone with hatred in your heart is a mortal sin?

Fighting does not necessitate hatred. If someone is trying to kill me or my child, and I defend myself and my child, must I necessarily hate the person doing it? Or am I simply doing what needs to be done so that as little harm as possible occurs?


Then why the delve into bigotry at the end?

The unwillingness to even consider another viewpoint is the very basis of bigotry.

HAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! That's priceless!
See? Yet another example of ignorance.

A similar post made by a Christian would be attacked six different ways. However, because its the "cool" thing to do to rip on Christianity, its venerated.

Oh no! The athiests are fighting the Christians and they actually outnumber them this time!

*Hops in flashy sports car and drives away*

See? Yet another example of ignorance.

A similar post made by a Christian would be attacked six different ways. However, because its the "cool" thing to do to rip on Christianity, its venerated.

How the HELL does that make me ignorant?

"It is not only a sin to kill, but if you look upon someone with hatred, you have commited murder in your heart."

So you're allow to fight but to even look on someone with hatred in your heart is a mortal sin?
You don't have to hate someone to fight them. I don't hate Iraqis, or even terrorists, but I am a soldier in the US military and it is my duty to fight them.

Also, God repeatedly ordered the Jews to wipe out entire cities. That tells me killing isn't necessarily a sin. Murder, based on hatred, monetary gain, etc., however, is. That's why I can fight for my country with a clear conscience.

The events in the bible are independently referred to in history, so there is plenty of reason to believe the accounts. For instance, Flavius Josephus referred to Jesus, as well as John the Baptist.

http://www.carm.org/evidence/extrabiblical_accounts.htm
Also, it lists problems with these quotes and provides ways to do further research on them.

Archaelogical evidence also supports the Bibles accounts
http://www.carm.org/evidence/evidence_archaeological.htm

http://www.amazingdiscoveries.org/articles/bible-insight/display/article/archaeological-evidence-supporting-the-bible/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_history


And there's plenty more. You, however, will most certainly find all this irrelevant, and desperately seek ways to throw it aside. I'm sure you'll have no problem doubting any sources I cite, so that would be why its a pointless discussion.
Then you really don’t know me … if you really wish it we will dig in, but in the end there is some sketchy archeological and historical reference to the main character in the book and some other parts of said book.

There is no proof though of the outrageous claims made by that book other then the possibility that some wacky guy did in fact exist at that time.

You know if we want to go by historical evidence of existence of the clamant proving the divine the Koran beats the bible hands down.

You don't have to hate someone to fight them. I don't hate Iraqis, or even terrorists, but I am a soldier in the US military and it is my duty to fight them.

Also, God repeatedly ordered the Jews to wipe out entire cities. That tells me killing isn't necessarily a sin. Murder, based on hatred, monetary gain, etc., however, is. That's why I can fight for my country with a clear conscience.

Wait, should I be worried about the Jewish sectors in the major US cities? I mean, are they marching downtown New York and threatning to blow it up? Because I don't see anything on the news?

How the HELL does that make me ignorant?
You blatantly agree and support a post that lumps all Christians into a group. Now, switch out "Christian" with "African-American," or "Jew,", or "homosexual."

Now, think about the negative connotation of the post. If it were any other target, that post would have been inappropriate. You are very aware of this, and merely playing dumb I'm thinking, anyways. I find it hard to believe you didn't know quite well what you were doing.

Also, God repeatedly ordered the Jews to wipe out entire cities. That tells me killing isn't necessarily a sin. Murder, based on hatred, monetary gain, etc., however, is. That's why I can fight for my country with a clear conscience.

Interesting, and a demonstration of how heterogeneous Christian belief truly is. I take the fact that the OT outlines genocides to be evidence that the ancient Hebrews got quite a bit of the message wrong.

People who are jackasses often find it handy to use religion as a springboard for their jackassery. Superstition is a terrific tool for jackasses, because there is no way for anybody to fact-check them...they can explain anything away by chalking it up to the mysterious workings of their Sky Fairy.

But does this mean all people who believe in the Sky Fairy are jackasses? Of course not. Belief in the Sky Fairy isn't going to make an otherwise-cool person magically transform into a jackass.

People who want to be good will find reasons to be good, whether in Christianity, or in Islam, or in atheism, or in whatever other belief system they try. People who want to be jackasses will, likewise, find reasons to be jackasses in whatever belief system they end up following.

There are some people who are irrational, self-centered, rude, and annoying. In my experience, finding Jesus doesn't make these people any less irrational, self-centered, rude, or annoying...they simply come up with some Jesus-related ways to be irrational, self-centered, rude, and annoying. But I'm not going to blame Christianity for the fact that they are irrational, self-centered, rude, and annoying. There are plenty of reasons for me to dislike Christianity (along with all other organized superstitions), but this ain't one of them.
Well said and agreed

Then why the delve into bigotry at the end?
Because that IS bigotry. Iron-clad beliefs about groups of people based on sweeping generalizations and prejudices.

Interesting, and a demonstration of how heterogeneous Christian belief truly is. I take the fact that the OT outlines genocides to be evidence that the ancient Hebrews got quite a bit of the message wrong.
See? Christians can't even entirely agree with each other, so how can they all be lumped together?

Well said and agreed
Aye

Because that IS bigotry. Iron-clad beliefs about groups of people based on sweeping generalizations and prejudices.
I misread intent I apologize

See? Yet another example of ignorance.

A similar post made by a Christian would be attacked six different ways. However, because its the "cool" thing to do to rip on Christianity, its venerated.
Look, I understand why your feelings might be hurt by people ripping on your beliefs. But let's not waste our time with this bullshit about how it's "cool" to rip on Christianity, or how Christians are so very put-upon and marginalized.

Most of the people who post on this forum live in nations where Christians hold an overwhelming majority. If memory serves, over half the posters on this board come from America, where Christians control every branch of government, every branch of the media, and the majority of businesses and industries. It's bullshit to claim that bashing Christianity is "cool," and it's bullshit to pretend that you're a persecuted minority, when the exact opposite is true.

Furthermore, even IF bashing Christianity really were "cool," that STILL wouldn't necessarily mean it's wrong to do so. It is currently "cool" to bash racism...does that mean we are all obligated to seriously consider whether or not black people should be treated as sub-human animals? It's "cool" to believe that the Earth is round rather than flat, so does that mean you're a better person if you rebeliously insist that the world is really a disk that sits on the back of a giant turtle?

[NOTE FOR THE TERMINALLY STUPID: I'm not saying Christianity is equivalent to racism, I'm just pointing out that saying something is "cool" doesn't mean shit about whether or not it's valid. Plenty of cool shit is cool for a reason.]

And, finally, let's please just quit with the boo-hoo-hooing in general. If you can't handle the fact that people are going to make fun of your beliefs, then go to another forum. If you have a REASON why the person is factually wrong, you go right ahead and point it out. If you want, you can be really snarky and try to make them look stupid in the process. That can be fun. But please, don't let's waste time getting wet-eyed at the big meanieheads who pick on Christianity.

I misread intent I apologize
Its OK:fluffle:

The events in the bible are independently referred to in history, so there is plenty of reason to believe the accounts.
Not always. We've discovered that Jericho was abandoned at the supposed time of the Israelite conquest, for example. And we've found no evidence of a global flood. Nor or the Israelite slavery in Egypt. Nor of the Exodus. Nor of the supposed earthquake at the time of jesus' death. Nor of the slaughter of the innocents.

Because that IS bigotry. Iron-clad beliefs about groups of people based on sweeping generalizations and prejudices.
Wrong. A bigot is a person who is strongly partial to their own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ. It is entirely possible for you to be intolerant of A PARTICULAR IDEA, without being intolerant of people who happen to hold that idea.

Example: I am totally intolerant of racism. It's a bunch of bullshit that wastes everybody's time. But I am very, very tolerant of racists, because I believe that everybody's got the right to be stupid as long as they're not directly infringing on anybody else's rights.

Likewise, many people are intolerant of Christianity, but are extremely tolerant of Christians. These people cannot be called bigots simply because they believe CHRISTIANITY is bullshit. They can only be called bigots if they are intolerant toward the people who happen to believe in Christianity. And, just for the record, disagreeing with somebody does not automatically constitute "intolerance" for them, even if you use curse words.

Furthermore, even IF bashing Christianity really were "cool," that STILL wouldn't necessarily mean it's wrong to do so. It is currently "cool" to bash racism...does that mean we are all obligated to seriously consider whether or not black people should be treated as sub-human animals? It's "cool" to believe that the Earth is round rather than flat, so does that mean you're a better person if you rebeliously insist that the world is really a disk that sits on the back of a giant turtle?
Heathen! It sits on 4 Elephants, which stand on the back of a giant space tortoise. And don't tell me you haven't wondered about the sex of the Great A'Tuin.

Look, I understand why your feelings might be hurt by people ripping on your beliefs. But let's not waste our time with this bullshit about how it's "cool" to rip on Christianity, or how Christians are so very put-upon and marginalized.

Most of the people who post on this forum live in nations where Christians hold an overwhelming majority. If memory serves, over half the posters on this board come from America, where Christians control every branch of government, every branch of the media, and the majority of businesses and industries. It's bullshit to claim that bashing Christianity is "cool," and it's bullshit to pretend that you're a persecuted minority, when the exact opposite is true.

Furthermore, even IF bashing Christianity really were "cool," that STILL wouldn't necessarily mean it's wrong to do so. It is currently "cool" to bash racism...does that mean we are all obligated to seriously consider whether or not black people should be treated as sub-human animals? It's "cool" to believe that the Earth is round rather than flat, so does that mean you're a better person if you rebeliously insist that the world is really a disk that sits on the back of a giant turtle?

[NOTE FOR THE TERMINALLY STUPID: I'm not saying Christianity is equivalent to racism, I'm just pointing out that saying something is "cool" doesn't mean shit about whether or not it's valid. Plenty of cool shit is cool for a reason.]

And, finally, let's please just quit with the boo-hoo-hooing in general. If you can't handle the fact that people are going to make fun of your beliefs, then go to another forum. If you have a REASON why the person is factually wrong, you go right ahead and point it out. If you want, you can be really snarky and try to make them look stupid in the process. That can be fun. But please, don't let's waste time getting wet-eyed at the big meanieheads who pick on Christianity.

I can agree with just about all of it, but since when is America a theocracy? Christians control all branches of government? the media? everything? really?! I hadn't realized......

1) Look, I understand why your feelings might be hurt by people ripping on your beliefs. But let's not waste our time with this bullshit about how it's "cool" to rip on Christianity, or how Christians are so very put-upon and marginalized.

2) Most of the people who post on this forum live in nations where Christians hold an overwhelming majority. If memory serves, over half the posters on this board come from America, where Christians control every branch of government, every branch of the media, and the majority of businesses and industries. It's bullshit to claim that bashing Christianity is "cool," and it's bullshit to pretend that you're a persecuted minority, when the exact opposite is true.

3) Furthermore, even IF bashing Christianity really were "cool," that STILL wouldn't necessarily mean it's wrong to do so. It is currently "cool" to bash racism...does that mean we are all obligated to seriously consider whether or not black people should be treated as sub-human animals? It's "cool" to believe that the Earth is round rather than flat, so does that mean you're a better person if you rebeliously insist that the world is really a disk that sits on the back of a giant turtle?

4) [NOTE FOR THE TERMINALLY STUPID: I'm not saying Christianity is equivalent to racism, I'm just pointing out that saying something is "cool" doesn't mean shit about whether or not it's valid. Plenty of cool shit is cool for a reason.]

5) And, finally, let's please just quit with the boo-hoo-hooing in general. If you can't handle the fact that people are going to make fun of your beliefs, then go to another forum. If you have a REASON why the person is factually wrong, you go right ahead and point it out. If you want, you can be really snarky and try to make them look stupid in the process. That can be fun. But please, don't let's waste time getting wet-eyed at the big meanieheads who pick on Christianity.

1-2) Right, but on these forums, Christians are in the minority, and have become very popular targets for people who are pissed off about our "majority" position, which by the way we disagree with. YOU think we have all this power, but WE think we lost our influence long time ago.

3) This is just ridiculous. Christianity is not morally wrong, and there is no reason to treat it with absolute disdain. Also, this whole section was rather inapplicable, and I'm not sure what you were trying to say. Seeing as how you compared a long-lived, worldwide belief system to think the earth was flat and racism, you make a very clear statement. I know that you put that disclaimer in, but it doesn't change the clear message you make, in how you think of Christianity. Pointing that out doesn't mean I'm terminally stupid, it means that you have a deep bias and are showing it, whether you mean to or not. Freud would be pleased.

5) This is weak. Logical, well thought out arguments don't count as whining. Also, the point of that post was to show that ignorance crosses belief systems, although you plainly chose to see it as simple crying. Perhaps you need to examine your own beliefs more closely, since your reading comprehension is so skewed.

Wrong. A bigot is a person who is strongly partial to their own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ. It is entirely possible for you to be intolerant of A PARTICULAR IDEA, without being intolerant of people who happen to hold that idea.

Example: I am totally intolerant of racism. It's a bunch of bullshit that wastes everybody's time. But I am very, very tolerant of racists, because I believe that everybody's got the right to be stupid as long as they're not directly infringing on anybody else's rights.

Likewise, many people are intolerant of Christianity, but are extremely tolerant of Christians. These people cannot be called bigots simply because they believe CHRISTIANITY is bullshit. They can only be called bigots if they are intolerant toward the people who happen to believe in Christianity. And, just for the record, disagreeing with somebody does not automatically constitute "intolerance" for them, even if you use curse words.
The comment was aimed at Christians, not Christianity. Also, I specifically stated that it was in reference to people. Score 1 more for your poor comprehension. Please try reading my posts entirely, without jumping on whichever word suits you best. Also, attempt to detract from the converstaion by harping on definitions that essentially agree in juvenile at best.

I can agree with just about all of it, but since when is America a theocracy? Christians control all branches of government? the media? everything? really?! I hadn't realized......
Me neither.

Me thinks Bottle has some deep seated issues with religion, and they are showing quite plainly. And he doesn't even know it.... :(

Me neither.

Me thinks Bottle has some deep seated issues with religion, and they are showing quite plainly. And he doesn't even know it.... :(
IIRC, Bottle is female. ;)

*snip
Heh. $20 bucks says this guy tries to argue that LG was referring to Christianity when he mentioned Christs' "fan club"

People hate Christianity because it smells like rotting salmon.

IIRC, Bottle is female. ;)
Check, gotcha ;)

You blatantly agree and support a post that lumps all Christians into a group. Now, switch out "Christian" with "African-American," or "Jew,", or "homosexual."

Now, think about the negative connotation of the post. If it were any other target, that post would have been inappropriate. You are very aware of this, and merely playing dumb I'm thinking, anyways. I find it hard to believe you didn't know quite well what you were doing.

WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU GETTING AT?!!??! I'm Christian you idiot! I think that comment was funny as hell and you call me IGNORANT!?!

Ignorant: ig·no·rant ( P ) Pronunciation Key (gnr-nt)
adj.
Lacking education or knowledge.
Showing or arising from a lack of education or knowledge: an ignorant mistake.
Unaware or uninformed.

Ok, I know what I'm talking about, and I'm informed on what's going on. You're the ignorant one.

Heh. $20 bucks says this guy tries to argue that LG was referring to Christianity when he mentioned Christs' "fan club"
Bottle is a girl … and apparently you think LG was referring to something other then Christianity?

I can agree with just about all of it, but since when is America a theocracy? Christians control all branches of government? the media? everything? really?! I hadn't realized......
I guess that's what's called majority privaledge. A lot of white men are convinced that they don't hold much power in the US. Kind of makes one snicker...or want to cry...

I guess that's what's called majority privaledge. A lot of white men are convinced that they don't hold much power in the US. Kind of makes one snicker...or want to cry...
so you maintain that America is a theocracy?:confused:

Me neither.

Me thinks Bottle has some deep seated issues with religion, and they are showing quite plainly. And he doesn't even know it.... :(
Um, I'm quite aware that I have "issues" with superstition. Just like I'm aware I have issues with racism, sexism, xenophobia, and people who really wish the Spice Girls would get back together.

Heh. $20 bucks says this guy tries to argue that LG was referring to Christianity when he mentioned Christs' "fan club"
Just a random guess, but I'm thinking that LG may have been employing something known as "humor."

Particularly since what he posted is a joke that has been around for at least the last decade or so.

Congrats, you've worked yourself into a frenzy over something that is not only a joke, but is a very very OLD joke. :)

See? Yet another example of ignorance.

A similar post made by a Christian would be attacked six different ways. However, because its the "cool" thing to do to rip on Christianity, its venerated.
Um I think that post you quoted WAS made by a Christian … some of us find humor in a lot of things even our own beliefs

(my memory may be off but I dont think so)

so you maintain that America is a theocracy?:confused:

I think she's trying to point out that the majority of those in power are Christians, of some variety or other.

WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU GETTING AT?!!??! I'm Christian you idiot! I think that comment was funny as hell and you call me IGNORANT!?!

Ignorant: ig·no·rant ( P ) Pronunciation Key (gnr-nt)
adj.
Lacking education or knowledge.
Showing or arising from a lack of education or knowledge: an ignorant mistake.
Unaware or uninformed.

Ok, I know what I'm talking about, and I'm informed on what's going on. You're the ignorant one.
Well, that is funny.
But then you should have said that a while ago. I merely pointed that the post, if made in all seriousness, out of a prejudice towards Christians, would be ignorant. If you had given me this information a while ago that would have cleared things up.

So, you're right, I was ignorant. As in, I lacked the knowledge that you were a Christian, and merely found that post humorous for abstract reasons, and not because you felt that way about Christians in general.

Um I think that post you quoted WAS made by a Christian … some of us find humor in a lot of things even our own beliefs

(my memory may be off but I dont think so)
Yup, didn't know that.

I think she's trying to point out that the majority of those in power are Christians, of some variety or other.
but..but...but she said that "Christians control the media" and all that, it has a much more negative connotation that just saying they are in the majority....

Um I think that post you quoted WAS made by a Christian … some of us find humor in a lot of things even our own beliefs

(my memory may be off but I dont think so)

No, I think you're right, although only LG could confirm it. IIRC, much like me, he is of the "completely non-denominational" Christian variety. =)

Um, I'm quite aware that I have "issues" with superstition. Just like I'm aware I have issues with racism, sexism, xenophobia, and people who really wish the Spice Girls would get back together.
Yep. OK, then I can see why your posts were so slyly offensive. Don't attempt to be a voice of moderation when you lump yourself in with one side by your words. At least now its clear where you stand.

Bottle is a girl … and apparently you think LG was referring to something other then Christianity?
A "fan club" would refer to the people, i.e. Christians. Not the belief system.

No, I think you're right, although only LG could confirm it. IIRC, much like me, he is of the "completely non-denominational" Christian variety. =)
I was talking about New Stalinberg but that is cool too :)

but..but...but she said that "Christians control the media" and all that, it has a much more negative connotation that just saying they are in the majority....

Often, being in the majority confers all sorts of control.

Bottle certainly has a negative attitude towards religion - she's never hidden that. But I don't think she is trying to imply that this country is officially, or even practically, a theocracy. She's simply pointing out that it would be rather silly for Christians as a whole, who have the most control here, to claim oppression.

((Bottle, feel free to correct me if I am wrong. =)

A "fan club" would refer to the people, i.e. Christians. Not the belief system.
Ok maybe just the wording threw me off

Often, being in the majority confers all sorts of control.

Bottle certainly has a negative attitude towards religion - she's never hidden that. But I don't think she is trying to imply that this country is officially, or even practically, a theocracy. She's simply pointing out that it would be rather silly for Christians as a whole, who have the most control here, to claim oppression.
oh.........okay. ;)

No, I think you're right, although only LG could confirm it. IIRC, much like me, he is of the "completely non-denominational" Christian variety. =)
Yea, that would fit me too. And LG is Christian? Well, couldn't have known. It's the reasoning for the post that matters. If it was just a joke, then its funny. I can agree with that. I took it to be meant offensively, as a slur on Christians. if it wasn't, then I couldn't care less about it.

Well, that is funny.
But then you should have said that a while ago. I merely pointed that the post, if made in all seriousness, out of a prejudice towards Christians, would be ignorant. If you had given me this information a while ago that would have cleared things up.

So, you're right, I was ignorant. As in, I lacked the knowledge that you were a Christian, and merely found that post humorous for abstract reasons, and not because you felt that way about Christians in general.

Regardless if I'm Christian or not, you decided to insult me and claim that I hate all Christians. You're an ass.

Yep. OK, then I can see why your posts were so slyly offensive. Don't attempt to be a voice of moderation when you lump yourself in with one side by your words. At least now its clear where you stand.
She has participated in many religious threads and while personally bias always manages to bring something to the table

I try to do the same myself even though I probably have more reason then anybody to hate organized religion.

Yea, that would fit me too. And LG is Christian? Well, couldn't have known. It's the reasoning for the post that matters. If it was just a joke, then its funny. I can agree with that. I took it to be meant offensively, as a slur on Christians. if it wasn't, then I couldn't care less about it.

A large portion of what LG posts is meant to be a joke. If you haven't seen him around much, you wouldn't have known. He's a jovial guy. =)

Well, apologies to the people who were female that I didn't know were male, and the Christians that I idn't know were Christians. In my defense, I can't know that unless you tell me, you know ;)

Unless I'm stalking you....... :p

Regardless if I'm Christian or not, you decided to insult me and claim that I hate all Christians. You're an ass.

He was apologizing. Do you really need to drag it out further?

Well, apologies to the people who were female that I didn't know were male, and the Christians that I idn't know were Christians. In my defense, I can't know that unless you tell me, you know ;)

Unless I'm stalking you....... :p
true, although if I were you I would steer clear of stalking Bottle.... she's scary

(in a good way)

so you maintain that America is a theocracy?:confused:
No, I maintain that every US president has been Christian, as has every Veep. I maintain that every US Congress, and every Supreme Court, has been overwhelmingly dominated by Christians. I maintain that every major media outlet is dominated by Christians, both at the level of management and at the level of production. I maintain that US industry is overwhelmingly dominated by Christians. I maintain that the overwhelming majority of US retail establishments are owned and opperated by Christians.

[And I humbly maintain that if Christians still feel like they aren't controlling enough of the national discourse at this point, then they're probably never going to be satisfied anyhow.]

This does not mean that we have a theocracy, since our system of law is (at least nominally) still secular. What it means is that our (nominally secular) government is overwhelmingly dominated by Christians. That's one of the cool things about the US system of government; you can have leaders who belong to a particular religion, but the government itself does not automatically become a theocracy.

Regardless if I'm Christian or not, you decided to insult me and claim that I hate all Christians. You're an ass.
Well, I guess I'll have to go bandage my crushed feelings. I already apologized for the error, so I don't see any point in exchanging insults. Feel free to think what you like. I'm sure my ego will survive.

true, although if I were you I would steer clear of stalking Bottle.... she's scary

(in a good way)
And hot :p

true, although if I were you I would steer clear of stalking Bottle.... she's scary

(in a good way)
Yea, you should see the pictures I have.

Often, being in the majority confers all sorts of control.

Bottle certainly has a negative attitude towards religion - she's never hidden that. But I don't think she is trying to imply that this country is officially, or even practically, a theocracy. She's simply pointing out that it would be rather silly for Christians as a whole, who have the most control here, to claim oppression.

((Bottle, feel free to correct me if I am wrong. =)
Exactly. America is not a theocracy, but that doesn't mean that our nation is controlled by atheists/agnostics/secularists.

She has participated in many religious threads and while personally bias always manages to bring something to the table

I try to do the same myself even though I probably have more reason then anybody to hate organized religion.
Well, I can't say anything about not liking organized religion. I stick to -non-denominational as well. I just don't think the Bible supports the rituals etc. of these denominations.

Yea, you should see the pictures I have.

You've got pictures of Bottle!?!?! Ooh! Ooh! Share! =)

Yep. OK, then I can see why your posts were so slyly offensive. Don't attempt to be a voice of moderation when you lump yourself in with one side by your words. At least now its clear where you stand.
When did I claim to be a voice of "moderation"?

Maybe you assumed that I would be one of those goofy new-age apologists who think we all should just hold hands and sway together. Sorry to disappoint. Or wait, no I'm not.

I'm not interested in being "moderate," because the middle ground is placed between whichever extremes people choose. There are plenty of times when the middle ground is bullshit, so why the fuck would being "moderate" always be assumed to be a good thing?

Racism springs to mind yet again. Some people think that racism is bullshit. Other people think that blacks should be caged like animals. I'm not going to waste time trying to find a nice, calm middle ground between the two ideas.

Well, I can't say anything about not liking organized religion. I stick to -non-denominational as well. I just don't think the Bible supports the rituals etc. of these denominations.
I don’t trust anything that tells me to behave a certain way or do certain things without having some way to verify the authority, or the benefit of those actions…

But I guess our past effects all of us.

Exactly. America is not a theocracy, but that doesn't mean that our nation is controlled by atheists/agnostics/secularists.
But then why are decisions being made that Christians would nominally disagree with? After all, that either means we are softening up, and becoming more accepting, or we have less control over governmental policies. And I seriously disagree with the idea of a conservative media. The focus in Iraq is always on the death toll. Wouldn't conservatives being throwing examples of success, instead of reporting a General's testimony that Iraq is falling into civil war?

When did I claim to be a voice of "moderation"?

Maybe you assumed that I would be one of those goofy new-age apologists who think we all should just hold hands and sway together. Sorry to disappoint. Or wait, no I'm not.

I'm not interested in being "moderate," because the middle ground is placed between whichever extremes people choose. There are plenty of times when the middle ground is bullshit, so why the fuck would being "moderate" always be assumed to be a good thing?

Racism springs to mind yet again. Some people think that racism is bullshit. Other people think that blacks should be caged like animals. I'm not going to waste time trying to find a nice, calm middle ground between the two ideas.
Thats all fine and well. Good luck to you with that.

You've got pictures of Bottle!?!?! Ooh! Ooh! Share! =)
Uh uh. Private collection, only for my..... use....

And I wouldn't say "hot", exactly.

But then why are decisions being made that Christians would nominally disagree with? After all, that either means we are softening up, and becoming more accepting, or we have less control over governmental policies. And I seriously disagree with the idea of a conservative media. The focus in Iraq is always on the death toll. Wouldn't conservatives being throwing examples of success, instead of reporting a General's testimony that Iraq is falling into civil war?
Like stated it is not a theocracy … as is they could never completely repress that information and trying to do so would hurt their cause more then help it.

That does not mean they don’t try to taint things with rose colored lenses

But then why are decisions being made that Christians would nominally disagree with?

Because, as you pointed out, Christians don't always agree. And, quite often, the Christians in power have their own viewpoints. Many of those in power are rather on the extreme side of things.

Of course, the decisions that you disagree with might not be the decisions I disagree with.

And I seriously disagree with the idea of a conservative media.

Conservative and Christian do not necessarily equate to each other, especially not in today's political climate.

Because, as you pointed out, Christians don't always agree. And, quite often, the Christians in power have their own viewpoints. Many of those in power are rather on the extreme side of things.

Of course, the decisions that you disagree with might not be the decisions I disagree with.



Conservative and Christian do not necessarily equate to each other, especially not in today's political climate.
But a Christian media would support a government that it controlled, right?


Because its either that, or this "Christian" control of all facets of government and private sectors actually has no effect. If there's no indication of collaboration, then there is no effect from Christians being in the positions they are.

1-2) Right, but on these forums, Christians are in the minority, and have become very popular targets for people who are pissed off about our "majority" position, which by the way we disagree with. YOU think we have all this power, but WE think we lost our influence long time ago.

Like I said:

If you have a problem with what somebody says, then take them to task for it in some constructive way. Don't waste everybody's time crying about how Christians are picked on. It won't accomplish anything.

This is for PRAGMATIC reasons, dude. If you cry every time somebody picks on you, bullies are just going to see a big fat target on your back. There are some assholes around this forum who just like to make Christians mad, and you are giving them exactly what they want. You're running around in circles freaking out over a silly little joke. Save your energy for when it really matters.


3) This is just ridiculous. Christianity is not morally wrong, and there is no reason to treat it with absolute disdain.

From your point of view, I'm sure that's true. Not everybody agrees with you. And not everybody who disagrees with you is a bigot.


Also, this whole section was rather inapplicable, and I'm not sure what you were trying to say. Seeing as how you compared a long-lived, worldwide belief system to think the earth was flat and racism, you make a very clear statement.

Racism and flat-earth theories pre-date Christianity. A belief is not made more true simply because it's been around a long time.


I know that you put that disclaimer in, but it doesn't change the clear message you make, in how you think of Christianity. Pointing that out doesn't mean I'm terminally stupid, it means that you have a deep bias and are showing it, whether you mean to or not. Freud would be pleased.

Yes, I have a bias. So do you. All of us do. What's your point?

I'm biased in favor of the belief in gravity. Does that mean that I can't make a solid argument in favor of gravity? Of course not. Whether or not a given argument is accurate does not depend on the personal bias of the person making the argument. If you want to attack somebody's arguments, GOOD! If you want to pretend that people with biases can't make arguments regarding superstition, then it's gonna be one fuck of a quiet room.


5) This is weak. Logical, well thought out arguments don't count as whining.

What logical, well-thought-out argument? You got mad because somebody made a (very old) joke that you didn't like. It happens. Just move on with your life.


Also, the point of that post was to show that ignorance crosses belief systems, although you plainly chose to see it as simple crying.

Read my first posts on this thread. My entire point is, and has always been, pretty much exactly what I've bolded in your post.


Perhaps you need to examine your own beliefs more closely, since your reading comprehension is so skewed.
I am quite aware of what I believe. You appear to have made a number of mistaken assumptions about me and what I believe. Don't blame my reading comprehension for your misjudgments.

Because, as you pointed out, Christians don't always agree. And, quite often, the Christians in power have their own viewpoints. Many of those in power are rather on the extreme side of things.
Yes, but we knew that when we elected them. I don't think anyone was surprised that Bush pandered to the fundamentalist right and opposed gay marriage and stem-cell research.

But a Christian media would support a government that it controlled, right?

According to the founders of our government, a media that blindly supports a government is more of a problem than a help. Of course, I don't think reporting the news as it is shows support or opposition to a country.

Yes, but we knew that when we elected them. I don't think anyone was surprised that Bush pandered to the fundamentalist right and opposed gay marriage and stem-cell research.

The funny thing about elections is that we don't all vote for the person elected. *You* may have elected many of those in office. Unfortunately, most of those who *I* voted for are not in office. And even those who are in office who agree with me on issues are often bullied by Bush's administration into voting his way - demonsrating that a loud minority can exert a disproportionate level of control.

Of course, I think we may be getting a bit off-topic...

Like I said:

1) If you have a problem with what somebody says, then take them to task for it in some constructive way. Don't waste everybody's time crying about how Christians are picked on. It won't accomplish anything.

This is for PRAGMATIC reasons, dude. If you cry every time somebody picks on you, bullies are just going to see a big fat target on your back. There are some assholes around this forum who just like to make Christians mad, and you are giving them exactly what they want. You're running around in circles freaking out over a silly little joke. Save your energy for when it really matters.


2) From your point of view, I'm sure that's true. Not everybody agrees with you. And not everybody who disagrees with you is a bigot.


Racism and flat-earth theories pre-date Christianity. A belief is not made more true simply because it's been around a long time.


Yes, I have a bias. So do you. All of us do. What's your point?

I'm biased in favor of the belief in gravity. Does that mean that I can't make a solid argument in favor of gravity? Of course not. Whether or not a given argument is accurate does not depend on the personal bias of the person making the argument. If you want to attack somebody's arguments, GOOD! If you want to pretend that people with biases can't make arguments regarding superstition, then it's gonna be one fuck of a quiet room.


3) What logical, well-thought-out argument? You got mad because somebody made a (very old) joke that you didn't like. It happens. Just move on with your life.


4) Read my first posts on this thread. My entire point is, and has always been, pretty much exactly what I've bolded in your post.


5) I am quite aware of what I believe. You appear to have made a number of mistaken assumptions about me and what I believe. Don't blame my reading comprehension for your misjudgments.
1) Defending your beliefs and pointing out prejudiced remarks is not crying. I don't mind being serious every now and then, and if I don't mind answering on occasion, why should you tell me its unneccessary? Apparently I thought it was. And i have ignored similar posts plenty of times in the past. Also, if you think its going to be that easy for some random troll to get me all upset, then yuo just don't know me. Christianity isn't exactly a topic I get all worked up about. I never once in this discussion got angry. As you should have been able to see by the fact that I immediately apologized when I realized I had made some mistakes.

2) You keep equating Christianity to racism and other similarly outragious beliefs. That in itself is an insult, and one that I've chosen to not make a big deal out of.

3) Never got mad, and was always completely rational. This is just an example of you imposing your own "rose-tinted" perceptions on other people.

My entire point regarding you is that your personal bias colors everything you say. That DOES effect debate, and in your case makes me ignore your posts, because I already know that you are going to be insulting me because of my beliefs, and trivializing the issues I point out. Also, you seem to be under the delusion that Christians control everything. I am personally more wary of absolutes, and this particular one just shows your fear and hatred of Christianity itself.

According to the founders of our government, a media that blindly supports a government is more of a problem than a help. Of course, I don't think reporting the news as it is shows support or opposition to a country.
But I wasn't advocating that. I was merely pointing out that in would be in the best interests of the media to support a gov't that should, in theory, at least be related to it by that factor of Christian control.

But I wasn't advocating that. I was merely pointing out that in would be in the best interests of the media to support a gov't that should, in theory, at least be related to it by that factor of Christian control.

I would argue that it is in the best interest of the media (journalism, anyways) to do its job. It's job is not to support or oppose any particular government. It is to report the news.

I would argue that it is in the best interest of the media (journalism, anyways) to do its job. It's job is not to support or oppose any particular government. It is to report the news.
I'm just saying that if the media is Christian controlled, we should see signs of it. All evidence is to the contrary. Except Fox. So, why don't the others show their bias?

2) You keep equating Christianity to racism and other similarly outragious beliefs. That in itself is an insult, and one that I've chosen to not make a big deal out of.

Why shouldn't non-christians equate christianity to outragious beliefs? One of the central tenants of the religion is frequent discourse wtih a being you can't prove is there, essentially talking to an imaginary friend, behaviour that would probably result in a person recieving psychiatric care in any other situation than a religious one. Then you have the christians that say their imaginary friend talks back and then begin wars (see Mr. Bush).

Aside from that strangness, you have the sheer number of people that have be killed over the centuries by christianity, a peacful religion.

I believe christianity is an outragious belief and should be treated as such.

I'm just saying that if the media is Christian controlled, we should see signs of it. All evidence is to the contrary. Except Fox. So, why don't the others show their bias?

What evidence is there to the contrary? The majority of the people in charge of media outlets, just like the majority of politicians in this country, claim to be Christian. Unless we are going to say they are lying (which I generally won't get into, even if I disagree with their particular brand of Christianity), then the media is pretty much Christian-controlled.


Aside from that strangness, you have the sheer number of people that have be killed over the centuries by christianity, a peacful religion.

Did someone convert to Christianity and then immediately die? Did it happen numerous times? If not, it makes very little sense to say that "Christianity" killed anyone. Religions don't kill people. Ideas don't kill people. Political philosophies don't kill people. But some people use these things as an excuse to kill people.

I believe christianity is an outragious belief and should be treated as such.

And that is your belief.

Why shouldn't non-christians equate christianity to outragious beliefs? One of the central tenants of the religion is frequent discourse wtih a being you can't prove is there, essentially talking to an imaginary friend, behaviour that would probably result in a person recieving psychiatric care in any other situation than a religious one. Then you have the christians that say their imaginary friend talks back and then begin wars (see Mr. Bush).

Aside from that strangness, you have the sheer number of people that have be killed over the centuries by christianity, a peacful religion.

I believe christianity is an outragious belief and should be treated as such.
I don't have a problem with you thinking its outragious. But at least have more respect for the Christian you are speaking to than to constantly insult during discourse. I show more respect to non-christians than that. After all, evolution has just as much evidence supporting it as creationism. I don't constantly insult evolutionists for that belief, although I personally think its outragious, and can provide evidence and reasoning to back up that opinion. It's a matter of respecting another person's beliefs.

What evidence is there to the contrary? The majority of the people in charge of media outlets, just like the majority of politicians in this country, claim to be Christian. Unless we are going to say they are lying (which I generally won't get into, even if I disagree with their particular brand of Christianity), then the media is pretty much Christian-controlled.
Yes, but where are the ffects of that control? I guess what I'm trying to say is that I'm not disputing the control, I'm wondering where the effects are. This is not an argument, but merely a question.

Did someone convert to Christianity and then immediately die? Did it happen numerous times? If not, it makes very little sense to say that "Christianity" killed anyone. Religions don't kill people. Ideas don't kill people. Political philosophies don't kill people. But some people use these things as an excuse to kill people.

Well according to the Bible, God was quite keen on the whole smiting thing before he sent Jesus down, the flood that wiped out the whole of humanity except one family being probably his finest genocidal hour.

I don't have a problem with you thinking its outragious. But at least have more respect for the Christian you are speaking to than to constantly insult during discourse. I show more respect to non-christians than that. After all, evolution has just as much evidence supporting it as creationism. I don't constantly insult evolutionists for that belief, although I personally think its outragious, and can provide evidence and reasoning to back up that opinion. It's a matter of respecting another person's beliefs.
An invisible man tells people to write thing in a book 2000 years ago and you claim that it achieves the same level of evidence as things like carbon dating, fossil evidence or any of the other thousands of pieces of information that contributes to current evolutionary theory

Now THAT is a joke

I don't have a problem with you thinking its outragious. But at least have more respect for the Christian you are speaking to than to constantly insult during discourse. I show more respect to non-christians than that. After all, evolution has just as much evidence supporting it as creationism. I don't constantly insult evolutionists for that belief, although I personally think its outragious, and can provide evidence and reasoning to back up that opinion. It's a matter of respecting another person's beliefs.

I think we have a differing view on what constitutes outragious. I've never heard of an evolutionist killing people because of his belief.

I think we have a differing view on what constitutes outragious. I've never heard of an evolutionist killing people because of his belief.
And I have never killed people because of mine.

However, the Communists killed members of all religions, and since they were atheists that would automatically place them in that "evolutionist" category.


EDIT: Unless of course, they had a different reasoning for the origin of the species?

An invisible man tells people to write thing in a book 2000 years ago and you claim that it achieves the same level of evidence as things like carbon dating, fossil evidence or any of the other thousands of pieces of information that contributes to current evolutionary theory

Now THAT is a joke
Well, carbon dating is notoriously inaccurate, the fossil record shows NO evidence of bridge species, and you probably know less about this subject than you think. However, you are welcome to your beliefs.


EDIT: By the way, I earlier posted examples of archealogical evidence and historical texts that back up the accounts in the Bible.

I don't have a problem with you thinking its outragious. But at least have more respect for the Christian you are speaking to than to constantly insult during discourse. I show more respect to non-christians than that. After all, evolution has just as much evidence supporting it as creationism. I don't constantly insult evolutionists for that belief, although I personally think its outragious, and can provide evidence and reasoning to back up that opinion. It's a matter of respecting another person's beliefs.

I'd actually prefer if you provided some evidence and reasoning as to why you think evolution is outrageous.

I don't have a problem with you thinking its outragious. But at least have more respect for the Christian you are speaking to than to constantly insult during discourse. I show more respect to non-christians than that. After all, evolution has just as much evidence supporting it as creationism.
Ummmmm....no. In terms of an analogy of weight, the evidence for creationism weighs about as much as, well....absolutely nothing. Whereas the evidence for evolution weighs somewhere around that of the Earth.


I don't constantly insult evolutionists for that belief, although I personally think its outragious, and can provide evidence and reasoning to back up that opinion. It's a matter of respecting another person's beliefs.
No, one does not respect beliefs that are silly. One respects the right of the person to have silly beliefs, but one does not respect the beliefs themselves.

And I have never killed people because of mine.

However, the Communists killed members of all religions, and since they were atheists that would automatically place them in that "evolutionist" category.
They were not so atheist is anti religion …

hey another whats wrong with ..............thread !!!!!!!!!


Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee fun for all ! :p :rolleyes:

Well, carbon dating is notoriously inaccurate,
No it's not.


the fossil record shows NO evidence of bridge species,
Yes it does.


and you probably know less about this subject than you think.
Irony-o-meter

[--------------------- /~~~~ (broken spring and indicator)

No it's not.

Yes it does.

Irony-o-meter

[--------------------- /~~~~ (broken spring and indicator)
ROFL
Saying it doesn't make it so. prove to me that carbon dating is 100% accurate, shopw me a bridge species, and then fix that spring.

And I have never killed people because of mine.

However, the Communists killed members of all religions, and since they were atheists that would automatically place them in that "evolutionist" category.
1. Communism is theistic.
2. There is no such thing as an "evolutionist".
3. You're taking this thread on a course where you're going to end up looking utterly stupid. Do you really want to do that?

And I have never killed people because of mine.

However, the Communists killed members of all religions, and since they were atheists that would automatically place them in that "evolutionist" category.

Now i'm sure you know better than that. Communists killed people for reasons other than the fact that they believed in evolutionism. Christians killed people because they were christians.

I also feel the need to point out that we're dicussing christianity as a whole and not what you did last Tuesday.

ROFL
Saying it doesn't make it so. prove to me that carbon dating is 100% accurate,
Goalpost shifting and fallacy of infallibism.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD011.html


shopw me a bridge species,

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html


and then fix that spring.
You broke it. Get me a new one.

Well, carbon dating is notoriously inaccurate, the fossil record shows NO evidence of bridge species, and you probably know less about this subject than you think. However, you are welcome to your beliefs.


EDIT: By the way, I earlier posted examples of archealogical evidence and historical texts that back up the accounts in the Bible.
I just used it as an example of one absolute dating method … there are many more then C14 dating methods

But in the end all evidence based in reality rather then faith … thank god reality wins in the scientific world I would hate to think if we let simple faith be the test for what is evidence or not

I was originally going to post in this thread to tell you exactly what's wrong with how Christianity has managed to abuse a fundamentally decent proposal by turning it into a social group. However, if you're interested enough in my ideas, you can check out that Conscience and Truth thread a while back.

The problem is that if I were to adopt what I consider to be a rational Christian stance, the majority of the Athiest arguments make no sense. If you take out the Church dogma and history, Jewish scripture and Pauline Doctrine, Christianity becomes so immensely open ended as an idea that I could argue alongside the Athiests on almost every point while remaining completely true to my own beliefs.

What, then, is Christianity? Is it the people, the complete ideological gift-pack, the ceremony and structure or the mere underlying historical belief?

When someone reasonably tells me just what it is, I will tell them what, if anything, is wrong with it.

No, really, what the hell is wrong with it?

I don't like it at all, but, I dunno. I got asked why I don't like religion so much and I realised I didn't know the answer to that question, DO YOU?

But I nearly got in a fist fight with the guy who asked me that, and then he told me that nobody loved me, then I asked him whether he thought God loved him. And he said yes.

I was just like, what the hell? Just how can you believe that.

And another guy in my class keeps trying to get me to go to his youth group and its getting scary because now another guy in the form above me is doing the same thing. They pay tythes and everything. It scares me how you can believe this and just how stupid humans all are.

Nothing wrong with Christianity itself, but plenty of problems in how it's practiced. That help at all?

Well according to the Bible, God was quite keen on the whole smiting thing before he sent Jesus down, the flood that wiped out the whole of humanity except one family being probably his finest genocidal hour.

Even if those accounts are 100% accurate (and I don't believe they are), they still don't describe religion actually killing anyone. In fact, they don't describe human beings killing each other either. It would appear that you are claiming that *God* kills people.

Goalpost shifting and fallacy of infallibism.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD011.html




http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html



You broke it. Get me a new one.

Oops.

Even if those accounts are 100% accurate (and I don't believe they are), they still don't describe religion actually killing anyone. In fact, they don't describe human beings killing each other either. It would appear that you are claiming that *God* kills people.

So what you're saying is that because the idea itself doesn't cause death, it's ok for the follower of thhe idea to do it?

That people feel the need to make themselves look stupid like this. Christians have the same problem, too. We all do.

Christianity itself, and everything mentioned in the Bible, makes complete sense -- IN CONTEXT. People try to take things out of context and make a big hubbub about it. Anyone can take things in the Bible out of context to make it into something else, as proven by this not-so-serious website. (http://www.highrock.com/personal/WWJD/) In this way, people try to say the Bible contradicts itself, but it really doesn't. Some things aren't so easy to explain, however, and you have to go back to read the Hebrew or Greek versions to understand why things came out the way they did. Some things have been lost in translation, but the original message is clear. And that message doesn't have to be blasted, considering that it's a very friendly message that just wants to make people get along.

Sadly, Christians down through the ages haven't done a good job at getting this message across. The Catholic church, for instance, has been a villain through much of history, going so far as to corrupt the Bible into its own puppet to control the masses, the Crusades, and so on. Many Christians also take the Bible out of context, giving the wrong idea, both unintentionally and intentionally, causing many stereotypes and rumours and other things that aren't actually in the Bible at all.

What's wrong with being proud of your faith, by the way? Tithing and prayer and so forth are simple pledges of sincerity. Now, it's true that some people go a little crazy with it -- and sadly, some go so far as to step on other peoples' feet with it -- but I'm not sure why anyone has a reason to be frightened. Intimidated, maybe, that someone has such faith and optimism that they don't let the world get them down, but why is that such a bad thing?

What's wrong with Christianity?

Nothing. It's the people that corrupt it.

Being as I don't use the forums much, I probably won't respond to anything posted after this. But you're welcome to ask me about things on messengers [AIM is Talkaze, MSN is juuhachigou_018@hotmail.com] provided that it's not done simply to attack my beliefs. :)

As for the Christ-ians....pretty much, yah.
How are Christians any worse than any other group of people?

As for Christianity, I'd honestly say it a little more screwey than most, but Im probably not the most impartial of judges.
What did Christianity do to you and how is it more screwey than most religions?

of course what's wrong with Christianity is us Christians

cos we're sinners.

I'd actually prefer if you provided some evidence and reasoning as to why you think evolution is outrageous.
Sure

1) The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics support the gradual loss of matter to heat energy, i.e. entropy. This heat energy can't be converted back to matter, so things gradually break down. Evolution denies this process, and claims that things become more complex over time, which is inconsistent with scientific law.

2) The fosil record still provides no evidence of bridge species. The only support for evolution is that "past organisms were quite different from present ones. Furthermore, the farther back one looks, the less the creatures resemble modern life." That came from Wiki. That doesn't prove common ancestry.

3) Natural selection is incapable of adavancing an organism to a higher level, but merely weeds out poorly adapted species.

4) While microevolution is plainly obvious, we have never observed change between species

5) The three hominids used by evolutionists as an example of a bridge between apes/monkeys and humans are classified as modern humans. 9 of the twelve total that have been broguth forth turned out to be monkeys.

6) The rock strata support a global flood more than evolution. See Here (http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/evid9.htm)

Ummmmm....no. In terms of an analogy of weight, the evidence for creationism weighs about as much as, well....absolutely nothing. Whereas the evidence for evolution weighs somewhere around that of the Earth.
LOL
Really now? How about some evidence.

1. Communism is theistic.
2. There is no such thing as an "evolutionist".
3. You're taking this thread on a course where you're going to end up looking utterly stupid. Do you really want to do that?
LOL
You know, you have yet to post one scrap of evidence besides your own words.

In Chinese Communism, atheism is the fundamental theory. I didn't just make that up, you know.

LOL
Really now? How about some evidence.
Yeah still waiting for ANY verifiable evidence of any sort from the religious side of the table

LOL
You know, you have yet to post one scrap of evidence besides your own words.

In Chinese Communism, atheism is the fundamental theory. I didn't just make that up, you know.
The tend to lean secularism rather then atheism really….

Ahhh so he is a bigot for not believing in your un proven premise … nice.
No, he's bigot for calling other people maniacs for believing something that he doesn't believe.

1) The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics support the gradual loss of matter to heat energy, i.e. entropy. This heat energy can't be converted back to matter, so things gradually break down. Evolution denies this process, and claims that things become more complex over time, which is inconsistent with scientific law.

I've never understood why a law that describes a loss of energy from a system is used to try to disprove a biological theory.

No, he's bigot for calling other people maniacs for believing something that he doesn't believe.

But they act like maniacs. Talking to imaginary friends, starting wars in the name of said imaginary friend....that sort of thing.

Evolution if fake huh?

So, do you still believe the sun revolves around the earth?

Sure

1) The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics
Has nothing to do with evolution.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#thermo
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF001.html


2) The fosil record still provides no evidence of bridge species.
I showed that it does.


3) Natural selection is
...just one component of evolution.


4) While microevolution is plainly obvious, we have never observed change between species
Really?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html


5) The three hominids used by evolutionists as an example of a bridge between apes/monkeys and humans are classified as modern humans.
Blatant lie.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/


6) The rock strata support a global flood more than evolution.
Blatant lie.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html
especially: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html#georecord

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-flood.html

You were warned that this path would make you look stupid. You have the chance now to gracefully bow out before you further embarrass yourself.

Look, theres nothing wrong with christianity, theres just something wrong with some christians, thats all.

Thread over.

LOL
You know, you have yet to post one scrap of evidence besides your own words.
Pot. Kettle. Black.

Communism deifies the state. It is the religion of state/party/class worship.

You'd know that if you had a modicum of knowledge of economic/political theory.

2) The fosil record still provides no evidence of bridge species. The only support for evolution is that "past organisms were quite different from present ones. Furthermore, the farther back one looks, the less the creatures resemble modern life." That came from Wiki. That doesn't prove common ancestry.

Yes it does.

http://www.txtwriter.com/backgrounders/Evolution/EVpage03.html

The tend to lean secularism rather then atheism really….
Written in 1980, by an Atheist
Let us consider very carefully what the connection is between Atheism and Communism in Russia. There can be no doubt but that Atheism is the reason for the success of Communism. Atheism is the force that brought the Russian nation up from being one of the most backward, primitive and religious nations in Europe in 1917, to the point of being one of the most advanced, scientific and technological, nations in the world today

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/emmett_fields/affirmative_atheism.html

LOL
Really now? How about some evidence.
All you have to do is read my posts. Now then, please don't embarrass yourself--as I know you will--by linking to Kent Hovind's or Ken Ham's sites.

Yes it does.

http://www.txtwriter.com/backgrounders/Evolution/EVpage03.html
That is microevolution, whihc I already acknowledged. It wasn't change from one species to another entirely different species.

This is what I am talking about. Christians DO know for sure God is real.

No, they don't. They have FAITH that he's real which is a very different thing. I seem to recall there being verses where your god even states that he will not allow his existance to be proven because that would devalue faith.

I've never understood why a law that describes a loss of energy from a system is used to try to disprove a biological theory.
Because biological processes follow that law.

Evolution if fake huh?

So, do you still believe the sun revolves around the earth?
In the earth's frame of reference, it does. Sure, that means little in comparison with the infinitely many other frames of reference you might wish to analyse things from, but it just so happens to be the one with which we view most things from.

Because biological processes follow that law.

Proof?

I notice that you provided no links to support your original post about evolution, could you do so that I may look at the veracity of your claims.

All you have to do is read my posts. Now then, please don't embarrass yourself--as I know you will--by linking to Kent Hovind's or Ken Ham's sites.
Nice dodge. How about answering the evidence I gave? Maybe?

Written in 1980, by an Atheist
Let us consider very carefully what the connection is between Atheism and Communism in Russia. There can be no doubt but that Atheism is the reason for the success of Communism. Atheism is the force that brought the Russian nation up from being one of the most backward, primitive and religious nations in Europe in 1917, to the point of being one of the most advanced, scientific and technological, nations in the world today

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/emmett_fields/affirmative_atheism.html
You use that self serving BS from a biased website like that for a SOURCE nice lol

Nice dodge. How about answering the evidence I gave? Maybe?

He did. He refuted all of it.

No, really, what the hell is wrong with it?

I don't like it at all, but, I dunno. I got asked why I don't like religion so much and I realised I didn't know the answer to that question, DO YOU?

But I nearly got in a fist fight with the guy who asked me that, and then he told me that nobody loved me, then I asked him whether he thought God loved him. And he said yes.

I was just like, what the hell? Just how can you believe that.

And another guy in my class keeps trying to get me to go to his youth group and its getting scary because now another guy in the form above me is doing the same thing. They pay tythes and everything. It scares me how you can believe this and just how stupid humans all are.
Christianity is too hung up on evolution, and gay marriage, IMO.

You use that self serving BS from a biased website like that for a SOURCE nice lol
ROFL!

Infidels.org is a secular organization, check the home page. They are atheists. I used their own site.

Ugh, this thread should get locked.

Because biological processes follow that law.
They do. Of course, if we believed your view of the 2LoT, human growth and maturity from infant to adult could not happen. So clearly, your understanding of the 2LoT is wrong.

Nice dodge. How about answering the evidence I gave? Maybe?
You gave no evidence. And you've dodged the evidence I gave.

He did. He refuted all of it.
Where did this happen?

I haven't seen one shred of evidence from you chaps. And you haven't debunked anything, unless there's a whole bunch of posts that I missed...

No, they don't. They have FAITH that he's real which is a very different thing. I seem to recall there being verses where your god even states that he will not allow his existance to be proven because that would devalue faith.
I wouldn't trust the bible on what God thinks or says about himself, if I were you. It is a key point to remember that the Atheist can not legitimately use scripture as an accurate source on the state of deity.

They do. Of course, if we believed your view of the 2LoT, human growth and maturity from infant to adult could not happen. So clearly, your understanding of the 2LoT is wrong.
It only happens with constant intake of energy, and then what happens? It degrades....

You gave no evidence. And you've dodged the evidence I gave.
What evidence? Please repost. I must have missed it...


And I gave an entire post citing evidence that disproves evolution. I have seen any decent answers yet that I haven't answered.

Where did this happen?

I haven't seen one shred of evidence from you chaps. And you haven't debunked anything, unless there's a whole bunch of posts that I missed...

Uh...take off the eyepatch, bub...Knights refuted everything you've stated so far with several links of his own. What's the point of debating if you're just going to ignore the opposition?

ROFL!

Infidels.org is a secular organization, check the home page. They are atheists. I used their own site.
That was the whole point … what would you expect a self serving person to be saying in the 80’s while Russia was on top of his game (or close to)… he was praising atheism as being the reason for the good while still claiming that communism was “at the wheel”

Like I said a whole lot of fluff with absolutely no evidence behind it.

You just assumed I would only claim biased sources if it were a religious website, your mistake I guess.

Where did this happen?
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11509609&postcount=192

Proof?

I notice that you provided no links to support your original post about evolution, could you do so that I may look at the veracity of your claims.
What, precisely are you referring to? I believe I'm done here. Not one of you has provided counter-evidence. You keep shaking your heads and yelling no. If this was going anywhere, it would be different. However, its just a waste of time at this point.

It only happens with constant intake of energy, and then what happens? It degrades....
And?

Did you bother to read anything I've linked to?

What evidence? Please repost. I must have missed it...
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11509609&postcount=192

What, precisely are you referring to? I believe I'm done here. Not one of you has provided counter-evidence. You keep shaking your heads and yelling no. If this was going anywhere, it would be different. However, its just a waste of time at this point.
What is it you're requiring (or not) counter-evidence for? I must have missed something in my skim-read of that exchange.

What, precisely are you referring to? I believe I'm done here. Not one of you has provided counter-evidence.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11509609&postcount=192

Now run away, little fundy.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11509609&postcount=192

He's trying to pretend you never wrote that post, probably to save face. Ten bucks says he claims he "has to go now, but I'll be back" and we never see him again.

Sure

1) The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics support the gradual loss of matter to heat energy, i.e. entropy. This heat energy can't be converted back to matter, so things gradually break down. Evolution denies this process, and claims that things become more complex over time, which is inconsistent with scientific law.

2) The fosil record still provides no evidence of bridge species. The only support for evolution is that "past organisms were quite different from present ones. Furthermore, the farther back one looks, the less the creatures resemble modern life." That came from Wiki. That doesn't prove common ancestry.

3) Natural selection is incapable of adavancing an organism to a higher level, but merely weeds out poorly adapted species.

4) While microevolution is plainly obvious, we have never observed change between species

5) The three hominids used by evolutionists as an example of a bridge between apes/monkeys and humans are classified as modern humans. 9 of the twelve total that have been broguth forth turned out to be monkeys.

6) The rock strata support a global flood more than evolution. See Here (http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/evid9.htm)

What, precisely are you referring to? I believe I'm done here. Not one of you has provided counter-evidence. You keep shaking your heads and yelling no. If this was going anywhere, it would be different. However, its just a waste of time at this point.


It is difficult to provide counter evidence when you don't bother with evidence in the first place. We need sources on these claims or I have to assume that you're just making thing up to pass the time.

He's trying to pretend you never wrote that post, probably to save face. Ten bucks says he claims he "has to go now, but I'll be back" and we never see him again.
Wouldn't take the bet; I'd lose.

Wouldn't take the bet; I'd lose.

At least the poster didn't try claiming that all animals (including T-rex, lions, etc.) used to be herbivours.

At least the poster didn't try claiming that all animals (including T-rex, lions, etc.) used to be herbivours.
Does eating nothing but rocks count as herbivorous?

At least the poster didn't try claiming that all animals (including T-rex, lions, etc.) used to be herbivours.

?

1) Has nothing to do with evolution.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#thermo
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF001.html

2) I showed that it does.

3) ...just one component of evolution.

4)Really?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

5) Blatant lie.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/

6) Blatant lie.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html
especially: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html#georecord

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-flood.html

You were warned that this path would make you look stupid. You have the chance now to gracefully bow out before you further embarrass yourself.
1) The only problem they have with the 2LoT is that life isn't a closed system. I already explained why that isn't relevant. The universe is a closed system, and the general traits of entropy are still observed. In other words, our planet isn't a closed system, but it exists within one. And it follows the same traits. Evolution still claims to be the exception, and without proof.

Make sure you reas the links before using them.

2) All that link did was provide problems with the strata being formed by a flood. It didn't answer any of the problems that I posed via link.... and neither did you.

3) You're right, and yet the point remains.

4) The only examples of speciation they gave were created by human intervention, and ended up being sterile or failed to survive. Not one they gave turned out to be a viable, strong specimen capable of surviving natural selection.

5) You can call it a lie, but none of those fossils have been positively identified as different species. That would be why they are still under debate.

6) Still doesn't answer the problems posed by the geologic column itself, and skirts over the problem I pointed out via link


So, do you actually READ these before you use them?

?
http://creationism.ytmnd.com/ (fast but it loops so you can read again) I forgot what creationist website the garaffe was from

or the always funny


http://creationismlol.ytmnd.com/

At least the poster didn't try claiming that all animals (including T-rex, lions, etc.) used to be herbivours.

See, the sharp pointy teeth are for stripping plant material down, and the forward facing eyes are so it can strike it's plant prey accurately :D

1) The only problem they have with the 2LoT is that life isn't a closed system. I already explained why that isn't relevant.
No, you tried to whine your way out of it.


The universe is a closed system,
Actually, we don't know that. But even if it is, it's irrelevant. The fact is that the 2LoT is a statistical measure of energy decay. There's nothing that says that systems receiving energy input cannot have growth.

But, since you are wholly ignorant regarding thermodynamics, I wouldn't think that you would know of such a thing.


Make sure you reas the links before using them.Big words from someone without any evidence.


2) All that link did was provide problems with the strata being formed by a flood. It didn't answer any of the problems that I posed via link.... and neither did you.
You didn't provide any problems, just Mere Assertions. And you should read the links before you comment on them.


3) You're right, and yet the point remains.
No it doesn't, since you made it out to be that natural selection was the ONLY method for evolution. Meaning: your point is flawed.


4) The only examples of speciation they gave were created by human intervention,
No they didn't.


and ended up being sterile or failed to survive. Not one they gave turned out to be a viable, strong specimen capable of surviving natural selection.
Then you didn't read it.


5) You can call it a lie, but none of those fossils have been positively identified as different species.
Blatant lie.


That would be why they are still under debate.
There is no debate, except from fundies who don't like facts. Tell me: is there a debate about the shape of the Earth simply because there are some who doubt that the Earth is an oblate spheroid (the Flat Earth Society)?


6) Still doesn't answer the problems posed by the geologic column itself,
There are no problems.

So, do you actually read the pages before you comment on them?

Its a pretty screwed up Christian that thinks theyre 'perfect' when you have a number of sources telling you that, "YOU SIN EVERY DAY!", which most of the larger denominations do, it seems :P
But yes, being lumped into the same catagory as the 'GOD HATES FAGS' and 'YOU ARE GOING TO HELL BECAUSE GOD HATES YOU!' people is annoying.

I guess Christians need to develope a larger and more active militant wing with suicide bombers and such, THEN people could say, "BUT not ALL Christians are suicide bombers!".
All Have Sinned and Fall Short of the Glory of God
What's ironic is that Christians who say that they're perfect in the eyes of God are sinners by saying that.

How? Did Christ write it?
Well, many theorize that the Book of Q was Jesus' personal diary. (By the way, Christ is a title, not a name). But the canonical gospels were written by his first followers, and the following books (except Revelations, which was just a dream that was written down of how the second coming could be) were written by those followers as reflections of Jesus' teachings. Also, there are the Gnostic gospels (which every Christian should read) which are also written by the first followers of Jesus, but are incomplete.

It is difficult to provide counter evidence when you don't bother with evidence in the first place. We need sources on these claims or I have to assume that you're just making thing up to pass the time.
http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/evid9.htm

http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/

http://www.icr.org/article/1066/

http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/evid9.htm
Already addressed.


http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/
That's like www.musicagainstnotes.org


http://www.icr.org/article/1066/
The ICR has no real standing in the scientific community. This entire article has already been addressed, too.

*snip
Nothing new in any of this. In every case, you simply posted a huge amount of information, from ONE SITE no less, and then blindly supported your own opinions. I actually read the information, and the conclusions you draw are merely your opinions. None of it is established fact, although you have chosen to interpret it that way. There's no point in continuing discussion when you are absolutely convinced you are right, and refuse to examine problems with your beliefs, which I brought up. You just keep yelling "NUH UH!" and pointing to information you haven't read.


But I'm sure you've convinced yourself well enough.

http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/evid9.htm

http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/

http://www.icr.org/article/1066/

And each of these relates to which point? You may have time to read through page after page of non-peer reviewed submissions but I don't.

Nothing new in any of this. In every case, you simply posted a huge amount of information, from ONE SITE no less, and then blindly supported your own opinions.
IOW: you didn't read the information, and you're scared because your faith-based sites have nothing to offer except "believe or burn".

[snip the rest of the ironic statements]

Already addressed.



That's like www.musicagainstnotes.org



The ICR has no real standing in the scientific community. This entire article has already been addressed, too.
No, YOU don't think they are credible. But then again, I've never seen an evolutionist allow any source that disagrees with them to clame credibility. You just refuse to acknowledge it, and ignore the points. Well, that certainly does make my job difficult, now doesn't it? Sort of like arguing with a recording.

IOW: you didn't read the information, and you're scared because your faith-based sites have nothing to offer except "believe or burn".

[snip the rest of the ironic statements]
ROFL

That's right, if it provides counter-evidence its faith based.

So what you're saying is that because the idea itself doesn't cause death, it's ok for the follower of thhe idea to do it?

Of course not, and you know very well that nothing I said even suggested that.

I am simply pointing out that human beings kill each other, and they find all sorts of excuses to do it. Religion, politics, philosophy, sexual orientation, you name it. There is nothing inherently wrong with any of these things - it is the misuse of them by some human beings that causes problems.


1) The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics support the gradual loss of matter to heat energy, i.e. entropy. This heat energy can't be converted back to matter, so things gradually break down. Evolution denies this process, and claims that things become more complex over time, which is inconsistent with scientific law.

This statement is based on a misunderstanding of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. It does not, in any way, state that things cannot become more complex. It simply states that overall entropy (which is not equivalent to heat energy) will increase or remain the same with any spontaneous process. In some cases, an increase in complexity can lead to an increase in entropy (polymer chemistry, for instance), although this is not often the case. However, it is quite common for coupled processes to occur, in which one process, in and of itself, is a decrease in entropy. It is, however, fueled by a separate process which either cancells out that decrease or increases the overall entropy.

2) The fosil record still provides no evidence of bridge species. The only support for evolution is that "past organisms were quite different from present ones. Furthermore, the farther back one looks, the less the creatures resemble modern life." That came from Wiki. That doesn't prove common ancestry.

Nothing will "prove" common ancestry. Science does not "prove" anything. It either disproves something, or supports it by failing to do so. There is quite a bit of evidence to support evolutionary theory. Thus far, there is none to disprove it (or it would have been discarded by science).

3) Natural selection is incapable of adavancing an organism to a higher level, but merely weeds out poorly adapted species.

What is this "higher level" that you speak of?

4) While microevolution is plainly obvious, we have never observed change between species

Actually we have observed this in several microorganisms.


Meanwhile, even if all of your objections were absolutely true, they would simply provide disproof of evolution, not support for either of the Creation stories in Genesis.

And each of these relates to which point? You may have time to read through page after page of non-peer reviewed submissions but I don't.
I've already had to go through similar amounts of material for Knights posts. Good luck.

No, YOU don't think they are credible.
No one in the biological community thinks the ICR is credible. They offer NOTHING but "I can't believe it, therefore god--and you'd better believe in god because you'll burn otherwise".

So please--stop making a fool of yourself.

To be clear, "turn the other cheek" never meant "don't fight back." In fact, it was a form of passive resistance. Turning the other cheek, in Christ's time, would have avoided getting hit again, while simultaneously not becoming violent yourself. I know you didn't specifically state this, but it is a common misconception. The passage was not meant to imply that one should not fight against oppressors or those who harm us - simply that we should do so in the least violent manner we can.
Actually, you're incorrect.
But I tell you, don't resist him who is evil; but whoever strikes you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also. Someone slaps your right cheek with their left hand (the second-most ultimate insult, do you know what the left hand was used for?). You turn the other cheek to him, so that he may BACKHAND you with his left hand (the ultimate insult). What Jesus was saying is that you respond to violence with humility and non-violence. That's what I was taught in bible study.

That is microevolution, whihc I already acknowledged. It wasn't change from one species to another entirely different species.

Evolutionary theory has never claimed that one species would change to another "entirely different species." The theory is that, over time, lots of small changes add up to a large enough difference to cause speciation. There is no huge jump involved.

ROFL

That's right, if it provides counter-evidence its faith based.
What counter-evidence? All I ever see is "No, it can't be evolution because that would deny god, and we all know that god exists and you will believe in god or burn".

I've already had to go through similar amounts of material for Knights posts.
Liar. You didn't read one word of what I linked to. You went all MEGO at the amount of evidence which annihilates the lies you've been told and believe.

Furthermore, even IF bashing Christianity really were "cool," that STILL wouldn't necessarily mean it's wrong to do so. It is currently "cool" to bash racism...does that mean we are all obligated to seriously consider whether or not black people should be treated as sub-human animals? It's "cool" to believe that the Earth is round rather than flat, so does that mean you're a better person if you rebeliously insist that the world is really a disk that sits on the back of a giant turtle?
Don't forget that the turtle stands on a big rock. Ancient Chinese belief, for those who don't know

1) The only problem they have with the 2LoT is that life isn't a closed system. I already explained why that isn't relevant. The universe is a closed system, and the general traits of entropy are still observed. In other words, our planet isn't a closed system, but it exists within one. And it follows the same traits. Evolution still claims to be the exception, and without proof.

The law only applies in a closed system, my dear. If energy is being added from outside, then it is perfectly possible for entropy to decrease. Not to mention that entropy and order are not equivalent, and increased order can also mean increased entropy.

The fact that you label the fact that neither life nor our world are a closed system as "irrelevant" to the application of a law that only works in a closed system demonstrates that you aren't even trying to be rational.

4) The only examples of speciation they gave were created by human intervention, and ended up being sterile or failed to survive. Not one they gave turned out to be a viable, strong specimen capable of surviving natural selection.

Have you heard of the nylon bug?

I've already had to go through similar amounts of material for Knights posts. Good luck.

No, Knights links linked to the page on the site dealing with the point he made. You just linked to the homepage.