Welcome to TruthTalkLive.com!

Today’s Issues, From a Biblical Perspective!

Gay marriage banned in California, Florida & Arizona: HOW?

Posted by truthtalklive on November 6, 2008

While Nov. 4 may have been a joyous day for liberals, it wasn’t a great day for lesbians and gays. Three big states – Arizona, California and Florida – voted to define marriage as between a man and a woman. What do you think? Listen today and find out what other people think and  we look foward to your comments right here!

Related Information:

Viewpoint: What the California Gay Ruling Won’t Do

 Roadblocks Ahead for Gay Marriage

 Watch this video

 PLEASE VISIT www.truthtalklive.com FOR OUR NEW SITE!

 

 

 

 

 

Add to Technorati Favorites 

391 Responses to “Gay marriage banned in California, Florida & Arizona: HOW?”

  1. Simon said

    After the passage of this very important proposition, we should all be grateful for those people in California who spent numerous hours, and dollars, working to get it passed. Unfortunately, although Catholic, Evangelical, Jewish and Mormon church memebers worked unitedly to get the proposition passed, the Mormons are being singled out by protestors who are blocking entrances to their Temples and members are being harrassed.

    Today at 2:00 pm, another protest is being “scheduled” in front of the LDS temple in Los Angeles.

  2. abc's said

    From ballotpedia

    (words in quotation are mine)

    Arguments in favor of the amendment to ban gay marriage.

    Supporters say the amendment would protect children by ensuring that only the form of marriage between a man and a woman would ever be celebrated in Florida.

    (could someone explain how or what this protects children from?)

    The Florida statute that already provides for a single form of marriage could be overturned by a court on constitutional grounds.

    (then it is obvious that banning gay marriage is unconstitutional)

    As the campaign heads into its final week, the main argument supporters of the proposition are making is that if the amendment fails, school children could be indoctrinated in the gay lifestyle.[6]

    (what does that even mean?)

    Arguments in opposition

    The petition is acting as bait for the Presidential election in order to draw out conservative voters; there is already enough legislation in place currently.[10]

    (this means that it was already illegal for gays to get married in florida, so it was used as a tactic to pander to religious voters)

    Health care and pension benefit plans which cover unmarried couples, even heterosexual older couples, living together and which are now legally valid may be adversely affected.

    (so people that aren’t even gay may no longer have the right to their current insurance)

    Article I of the Florida Constitution, known as the Declaration of Rights, establishes rights, but this amendment would instead limit the right to marry.

    (because it is unconstitutional)

    There are already other Florida Laws that expressly prohibit homosexual unions, so this amendments purpose is much larger than that and if passed will be used to restrict all relationships that are not a legal marriage under Florida’s Statutes.

    Opponents say that elderly people in the state who, after being widowed, have subsequently chosen a domestic partnership in order to retain certain benefits, will be adversely impacted by the measure.[11]

    (I voted against the amendment in Florida. I am not liberal, and I don’t necessarily support homosexuality, but I am against discrimination, which is clearly what this is.)

  3. Ed said

    Ok, so where does it stop? Do we then have poligamy because the rights of some folks is being trashed there? Do we then have multipule partner marriages because 4 people love each other and want to share everything 4 ways? Where does it end? How far does marriage have to be mocked until someone does something about it?

  4. Maz said

    Ed: Exactly. Where does it stop? It reminds me of that scripture about everyone doing what is right in their own eyes.

  5. Mike S. said

    Or should we change the laws to allow a mother to marry her adult son as well? eeeewww! Or brother and sisters to marry? Or is there biological proof against such? Wait a minute what about the biological and physical proof that man on man is physically dangerous, not to mention revolting?

    Where does the line get drawn? It keeps moving towards totally depravity actually.

  6. Brad said

    Exactly. If you’re OK with homosexual marriage, are you also OK with polygamy? Are you also OK with incestual relationships? Are you OK with multiple marriage partners?

    If you’re reasoning for being OK with homosexual marriage is that “it wouldn’t affect my marriage” or that “it’s discriminatory”, then what about the above scenarios? Would THEY affect YOUR marriage? Are THEY discriminatory against people who wish to engage in such practices?

    All the above issues happen, and are preferred by some – are you in favor of them all?

    If not, what is your criteria for being OK with homosexual marriage, but not with the other 3 I described?

  7. Maz said

    Sounds more like Sodom and Gomorrah every day doesn’t it?!

  8. Anonymous said

    This show is really putting a damper on the election. I listen to this station daily and I am really disappointed that Mr. Epperson is being allowed to be racist..on a Christian station. Give it up..we have a new president whether you like it or not and he is black…..I really think that that is your real issue….not the gay issues. If you want to be angry……be angry with God….everything has to go past him before anything happens.

  9. Brad said

    Anonymous, basis for your comments?

    How is Stu being racist? Specific points needed, if you’re going to make such an accusation.

    We know there’s a new President, and we know he’s black. It’s not that fact that concerns many people. Let me ask you a question. For every person who may not have voted for Obama because he is black, do you think there’s AT LEAST 1 person who voted for him because he IS? Is that any less “racist” than what you’re thinking about?

    Nobody’s angry with God. There are different components to God’s will – His sovereign will, His permissive will, etc… So to say “everything has to go past Him before anything happens”, while technically true, doesn’t mean that it’s necessarily “good” that it happens.

  10. Ed said

    Racist? Anonymos, you are listening to a different host than I am.
    This is and has been about the issues and morals. Look at the facts, not what you think.

  11. Ed said

    As far as the disparity between the marriage ammendment and the pro-gay cannidate, I have a point that may be true.
    People are wanting to keep marriage the way it is. They are afraid of the pandora’s box that allowing gay marriage represents.
    On the flip side, when voting for canidates, pocket book overrules morals every day. Is it right? No. Is it true? Prove me wrong!

  12. Jared said

    Maz, Ed, and the other Christians,

    You already know the answer to this question. The line cannot be drawn by anyone who does not acknowledge absolute truth. For atheists or relativists no line can be drawn because there is no truth upon which to draw it. Pedophilia, beastiality, rape, incest, murder, racial hate and any other type of debauchery are OK in the minds of many of these folks. Just ask those who practice these things (ex. Hitler). This is a clear and dangerous reality for the relativist and atheist. If we have evolved, coming from nothing, and no external truth can be acknowledged then an appeal for any law, be it ever so simple, is a study in contradictory opinions and as Darwin was so willing to point out the strongest opinion wins.

    I don’t know about you but that is one scary and meaningless system to have one big leap of faith in. Fortunately, you will never find an atheist or relativists who holds to the logical conclusion derived above. This is of course because God has written the law on their hearts. They know it is not OK to murder their own and they know is not OK to abuse the weak. Just ask them. Of course they suppress the truth and fail to acknowledge God and will immediately make some oblivious and dubious argument about how they can have truth and law right after they have denied any absolute truth in the first place.

    And it is so easy to point out. The atheist or relativist will get backed into a corner and then all their opponents facts and conclusions become …. stupid and uninformed!

    Just watch.

  13. Ed said

    Jared,
    Acknowledging a moral law or stance requires a law giver. In thier world view that just cannot be. It is easier to ignore the moral law than admit there has to be a law giver.

  14. Mike S. said

    Very well put Jared!

  15. Barney said

    “If we have evolved, coming from nothing, and no external truth can be acknowledged then an appeal for any law, be it ever so simple, is a study in contradictory opinions and as Darwin was so willing to point out the strongest opinion wins.” Jared

    Now there’s a double decker baloney samwich.

  16. Maz said

    Jared hit the nail on the head. As the scripture I stated before said……eventually……everyone will do what’s right in THEIR OWN eyes. I mean what stops them from going further. Already this century we have seen morals decline……the human race is on the slippery slope downward…..where will it end for those without God? I think they know the answer…..they just don’t want to believe it.

  17. Mike S. said

    Barney… Man would you wipe your face off already???!! :)

  18. Maz said

    Barney: What moral code do YOU live by?

  19. Barney said

    Maz:ignore

  20. Maz said

    Barney: So you have no answer?

  21. Ed said

    Barney,
    There was another statement made many years ago. “Tell a lie long enough and loud enough, people will believe it to be true.”

  22. Maz said

    Barney: Is it wrong to steal? Lie? Cheat? Murder? They are all things were told not to do in the ten commandments. Do you agree with this moral code?

  23. Jared said

    Thanks Barney …

    You just confirmed the last full sentence and fulfilled the last two words on the last line.

    Again thank you. It is so joyous to watch God being exemplified by the truth found in His word by the response of those who are His enemies.

  24. Barney said

    No, Jared, you are wrong. Atheists are just as likely to be model citizens as Christians are.

    And evolution has a much more plausible explanation for laws than you can give.

    So, there, if I proved the last of your post#12, then all I can say is “if the shoe fits, wear it”.

  25. Barney said

    Ed, a nice old saying that is, too. You aren’t accusing me of lying about something, are you?

  26. Maz said

    Barney: So where did our moral laws and our conscience originate?

  27. Ed said

    Barney,
    What moral standard are you willing to use? What is right? What is truth? What is true? If there is nothing out there, then what is preventing us from anarchy? Saying that there is no God, or judgement at the end of this life removes the consiquences of immoral or illegal actions as long as you don’t get caught by law enforcement.

  28. F. L. A. said

    Would it be beastiality to have a romantic relationship with an alien life-form? They’re a person, but not of the same species, so…..
    A big blob of gray in your black and white version of the universe[Huge sharp-toothed grin].

  29. Ed said

    FLA
    Thanks for the joke.
    All,
    The question is still begging to be answered. If we do not draw the line at one man and one woman, then where is the line? If the argument is that people are going to be excluded, then any line will exclude someone. So, again, where is the line supposed to be drawn?

  30. F. L. A. said

    Joke?

    Ah yes, the uh…joke.
    Sure. It was a joke[ahem].

    Can this line be like the “line of the Law”, really wiggly with lots of loops?

  31. Ed said

    Dude, if you can find an alian life form, more will be made of that than any romatic relationships.

  32. Mike S said

    That’s Dudette to you Ed!! F.L.A. is of the female gender. Alien (or someone compared to sea life) female (by her own account) but female nonetheless. We love you Ferox!!

  33. F. L. A. said

    It would depend on a number of factors, hypothetical or otherwise.

    Good strong relationships…the kind of loving relationships that stand the test of time in this world and the spirit world, are not based on romance anyway, but transcends the physical form and all of it’s various differences and limitations. Any really old couple can attest to that.
    Minds and hearts loving minds and hearts.Forever.

  34. Ed said

    Mike,
    I stand (rather sit) corrected.

  35. F. L. A. said

    Oops, I had intended my post to appear before yours Mr.Sears.
    Perhaps then the first sentence would make more sense. Oh well.
    Anyway, thankyou, Mr.Sears. I shall miss you[and others]when I am gone.
    I thought that the term “dude” was genderless? I never claimed to be “hip” enough in modern linguistics to know these things.

  36. Mike S said

    Actually, I think you’re right by todays culture terms… Genderless. My daughter calls all her girlfriends dude, so I stand (sit) corrected! Are you going somewhere F.L.A.?

  37. F. L. A. said

    Yes, sometime soon after this coming Spring Equinox after the last frosts I am going on a….kind of a “quest” of self discovery and exploration.
    I am going to go to South America.
    You have a good world. I want to see some more of it.

  38. Hahahaha! Stuart, a racist!!

    That’s the funniest one we’ve heard all day.

    Stuart operates AM-1340 “The Light”, a Black Gospel station here in the Triad and employs MANY African-Americans who stand strong beside him.

    A racist……hilarious!!!!

    Carry on.

    Moderator (not Stu)

  39. Stanley said

    Stu isn’t a racist.

    But Homosexual rights is the civil rights of our time. You’re delaying the inevitable.

  40. Ed said

    Stanley,
    Which has precidence, homsexuals or the unborn?

  41. Stanley said

    Homosexuals, because they’re people, and they’re not allowed the same rights as heterosexuals.

  42. Stanley said

    Fetuses aren’t people.

  43. Ed said

    Then when does life begin?

  44. Stanley said

    We’ve been over this. Just because a fetus is a collection of multiplying cells doesn’t make it a person.

  45. Jared said

    Barney,

    “Atheists are just as likely to be model citizens as Christians are.”

    You are correct! God’s enemies sometimes are better citizens of the state according to the Christian measurement system. Often God saves some of the worst kinds of sinners as measured by the “model”. Often these people are sanctified over years, but always being righteous through the death of the Lord Jesus Christ in their place on the Cross of Calvery. What’s worse is these people (myself included) know our God’s beautifully designed and easy laws, know where they come from, and still we fail miserably. Wait a moment we are using the Christian measurement system here. Unfortunately atheists and relativists do not worship the law giver and as I described above there is no foundation upon which any of these laws can be established. I find it ironic you are saying that there is a model. Who’s model is that you are referring to. Mine of course is the God’s of creation who has revealed it in his word. Who’s set of laws are you going to follow, Opra’s, Platos, Clooneys, perhaps your own or maybe Charlie Mansons!

    “And evolution has a much more plausible explanation for laws than you can give.”

    I challenge you to derive any plausible explanation for non dynamic laws from first order argumentation.

    If you are just another animal doesn’t it seem that you might eat the young of other males within the community to keep yours the dominant one in the gene pool within that society. Jeffery Dommer was using a similar system. Can you say he was wrong and based on what?

  46. Jared said

    Stanley …

    When exactly did you become Human? Are you human yet. By implication you are saying that not everything has been their all along for you to be who you are physically. Wait … if my memory serves me Hitler said the same thing about Jews, the racist slave owners said the same things about african people they brought to the america to serve as slave labor, and Obama doesn’t thing a new born’s head protruding out of the birth canal is human either. So exactly where do you draw the line. Some of your comrads don’t draw it until the child is a few months old. Then it becomes a people!!

    Can you see the silliness in this system of argumentation you are making! Repent and believe in the one Who says that He has knit you together in the whom. Who is the giver of life!

    Draw the line according to Stanley because that is the only one it will be for in a relativistic world.

  47. Jared said

    By the way Stanley … Darwin said the same exact thing about our african brothers and sisters along with many of our other brothers and sisters from many other counties. Better spend a little time thinking about that and reflecting upon the other discussion threads we have had.

  48. Mike S said

    There are two complaints here. First, homosexuals don’t have the same legal liberties heterosexuals have. Second, homosexual couples don’t have the same legal benefits as married couples.

    The first charge is simply false. Any homosexual can marry in any state of the Union and receive every one of the privileges and benefits of state-sanctioned matrimony. He just cannot marry someone of the same sex. These are rights and restrictions all citizens share equally.

    I realize that for homosexuals this is a profoundly unsatisfying response, but it is a legitimate one, nonetheless.

    Let me illustrate. Smith and Jones both qualify to vote in America where they are citizens. Neither is allowed to vote in France. Jones, however, has no interest in U.S. politics; he’s partial to European concerns. Would Jones have a case if he complained, “Smith gets to vote [in California], but I don’t get to vote [in France]. That’s unequal protection under the law. He has a right I don’t have.” No, both have the same rights and the same restrictions. There is no legal inequality, only an inequality of desire, but that is not the state’s concern.

    The marriage licensing law applies to each citizen in the same way; everyone is treated exactly alike. Homosexuals want the right to do something no one, straight or gay, has the right to do: wed someone of the same sex. Denying them that right is not a violation of the equal protection clause.

    The second complaint is more substantial. It’s true that homosexual couples do not have the same legal benefits as married heterosexuals regarding taxation, family leave, health care, hospital visitation, inheritance, etc. However, no other non-marital relationships between individuals–non-gay brothers, a pair of spinsters, college roommates, fraternity brothers–share those benefits, either. Why should they?

    If homosexual couples face “unequal protection” in this area, so does every other pair of unmarried citizens who have deep, loving commitments to each other. Why should gays get preferential treatment just because they are sexually involved?

    The government gives special benefits to marriages and not to others for good reason. It’s not because they involve long-term, loving, committed relationships. Many others qualify there. It’s because they involve children. Inheritance rights flow naturally to progeny. Tax relief for families eases the financial burden children make on paychecks. Insurance policies reflect the unique relationship between a wage earner and his or her dependents (if Mom stays home to care for kids, she–and they–are still covered).

    These circumstances, inherent to families, simply are not intrinsic to other relationships, as a rule, including homosexual ones. There is no obligation for government to give every human coupling the same entitlements simply to “stabilize” the relationship. The unique benefits of marriage fit its unique purpose. Marriage is not meant to be a shortcut to group insurance rates or tax relief. It’s meant to build families.

    Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council sums the issue up nicely:

    “Gay citizens” already have the same right to marry as anyone else–else to the same restrictions. No one may marry a close blood relative, a child, a person who is already married, or a person of the same sex. However much those restrictions may disappoint the incestuous, pedophiles, polygamists, and homosexuals, the issue is not discrimination. It is the nature of marriage itself.

    From STR.org

  49. Barney said

    Ed and Jared,

    We live by the laws of the land and the morals that were given to us by the society (our parents mostly) in which we live. Yes, that includes religion. But those are learned behaviors.

    What you are saying is that our morals are to some degree innate and given to us by God. I don’t want to make a big fight about it but we can say that all morals are learned and it explains human behavior just as well as anything.

    Is there such a thing as innate morality? What does science teach us? How would that differ from what you are saying?

    Religion is not always a bad thing. But is saying that we fear eternal damnation after death as a consequence of our actions different than saying we fear death as a consequence of our actions?

    Anyways your ‘atheists are immoral by definition’ arguments are ridiculous.

    Oh, I’ not an atheist. I’m a Christian, too.

  50. Barney said

    “I challenge you to derive any plausible explanation for non dynamic laws from first order argumentation.” – Jared

    I’m not sure I understand the question. By “non-dynamic laws” do you mean something like “thou shalt not kill”?

    There is a readily available natural explanation for these laws. Think about it: twenty thousand years ago our hunter-gatherer ancestors lived in small groups in a nomadic or semi-nomadic lifestyle. The death of a single member of the tribe could bring extra hardship to the whole tribe. The non-dynamic law “thou shalt not kill” evolved after time as each succeeding generation
    passed on this nascent moral code.

    Oh, wait, sorry, you’ll reject this because the earth is only a few thousand years old, right?

    Then you use your explanation for morality and I’ll use mine and we’ll both feel guilty about going more than five miles per hour over the limit.

    What’s the dif?

  51. Paul said

    Barney

    You just have a humanistic world view that takes parts of the biblical world view to prop it up, to give people some sence of dignity, but it is fatally flawed.

  52. Paul said

    There are also Christian’s that fall into this wrong headed wold view trap, also called the social gospel.

  53. abc's said

    Let me put it this way.

    If gay people want to get married, it simply doesn’t matter to me, it certainly doesn’t undermine my marriage with my wife, and it won’t have an adverse effect on my children.

    If a majority of Americans have decided that the definition of marriage is between one man, and one woman, that’s ok with me.

    But, I don’t think that marriage should confer any legal rights. Getting “married” should be the same as getting baptised.

    If 2 old heterosexual retired widows would like to form a legal union that is recognized by the state which would allow them to share retirement and insurance benefits, then they should be allowed to do so. Call it something besides “marriage.”

    If one man and one woman would like to share legal rights, then they should be required to seek the same type of legal union as the 2 widowers above. I don’t understand why it isn’t this way already. Marriage should be recognized in a religious context, and any rights conferred should solely be a legal matter. Why can’t they be separate issues?

    The only other thing I can add to the conversation is that persecuting any group of people only serves to unite them.

    Stanley was right when he said,
    “But Homosexual rights is the civil rights of our time. You’re delaying the inevitable”

  54. Barney said

    “You just have a humanistic world view that takes parts of the biblical world view to prop it up, to give people some sence of dignity, but it is fatally flawed.” – Paul

    That is meaningless. It is fatally flawed because? Because I don’t fear eternal damnation? What?

    Could it be that you guys just have a need to feel morally superior to others whose behavior outside the church is just as morally upright as your own but who reject your fundamentalist dogma?

  55. Jared said

    Barney ….

    I love how you default to “There is a readily available natural explanation for these laws.”, “The death of a single member of the tribe could bring extra hardship to the whole tribe.” …. Not if they ate him or her! Which tribe has the best law?

    Who’s set of laws are you going to follow, Opra’s, Platos, Clooneys, perhaps your own or maybe Charlie Mansons!

    If you came from nothing what truth is there.

    What is established as just and unjust. If the state or a group of stronger neighbors comes to your house and confiscates everything you have and says we will give you nothing in return, vacate. I think you are going to be a little upset because you know it is wrong in your heart, but based on your line of argumentation you should feel fine with it.

    Crazy.

    Explain YOUR “Christianity”.

  56. Barney said

    Jared, you’re rambling. Reread my earlier post and try to keep up, OK?

  57. Paul said

    While most people think they were casting their vote on Tuesday for political reasons, they were actually voting for cultural reasons. Although election seasons always spawn heavy words and light action, rarely have both campaigns offered so very little policy and so very much empty rhetoric. It goes to show that every rule has an exception: Apparently you can beat something with nothing. This is not to say that nearly a billion dollars—the amount spent funding the Obama campaign—is nothing. That’s definitely something, only 699 billion short of an economic bailout in fact. But that’s not what I’m talking about. It’s not the money that gave us the ObamaNation (has a nice one-term ring to it, doesn’t it?), though it certainly helped. No, what really put Obama in the White House is what the Red Hot Chili Peppers have termed “Californication:”[1] i.e. the Madison Avenue, hard-sell, skin-deep, image conscious, materialistic veneer that passes for substance in a flash, pop, bling, ready-in-seconds, soundbite world.

    Californication is really nothing new; it is a natural consequence of the worldview of the city of man, which is of course, humanism. If this election has done anything, it has revealed the sad truth that more Americans than we would like to admit really believe that government is the answer. And not just in some “solving political crises” way, but in a total, “womb-to-tomb” way. The ObamaNation was effectively “sold” to the American people in the same way that Procter & Gamble would sell laundry soap or dish detergent, the only difference being that these products actually work. The American people who bought into the $1 billion marketing machine of the ObamaNation were voting for a commodity, not a political idea.[2] They will soon realize that commodities, just like ideas, have consequences too.

    Unfortunately, I fear that most Christians would answer that they never really thought about it. We are often guilty of proclaiming that the only thing that is eternal is our soul, but this is flat out wrong. 1 Corinthians 3 assures that Kingdom-worthy work is as eternal as our souls:

    By the grace God has given me, I laid a foundation as an expert builder, and someone else is building on it. But each one should be careful how he builds. For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. If any man builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, his work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each man’s work. If what he has built survives, he will receive his reward. If it is burned up, he will suffer loss; he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through the flames. (1 Cor. 3:10-15)

    It is this sort of culture making—gold, silver, and costly stones—that we should be striving to build with. The Californication of wood, hay, and straw will burn and be revealed as the façade that it was. Let’s quit worrying about who is President or who isn’t. Our hope doesn’t lie there anyway. Christ has provided a golden opportunity for the Church to quit whining and bellyaching about our paper-mache political messiahs and get to work building for the True One. That is how we furnish the New Jerusalem: by making Christ’s spiritual Kingdom a physical reality for those in need.

  58. Mike S. said

    Barney – “Could it be that you guys just have a need to feel morally superior to others…”

    You sound like Michael Foucault a student of Nietzsche. He established the hermeneutics of suspicion, which he called “philisophical squinting”. This is certainly a reasonable way to discern certain motivations, however if you think that EVERYONE uses Christianity as a power play then you are blinding your own self. CS Lewis said, to see through everything is the same as not to see. I think you may be trying to see through everything Barney… and others. You guys are throwing reason out the window as you seem to ignore the points that make reasonable sense.

  59. Mike S. said

    Not just “Christains” rather “everyone that makes truth claims, is making a power play…”

  60. Stanley said

    Irony is my favorite type of humor.

  61. Maz said

    Ferox: #37. ”Yes, sometime soon after this coming Spring Equinox after the last frosts I am going on a….kind of a “quest” of self discovery and exploration.
    I am going to go to South America.
    You have a good world. I want to see some more of it.”

    I hope you find more than your SELF. I will pray for you that you will find what really matters.

  62. Jared said

    Christians – Those justified by the righteousness of Christ (upholding God’s law for us, and being punished according to our sin)

    Barney …

    You make my point so well in post #12. Again, thank you. I feel terribly sorry for you that you have no concept of first order argumentation and I really enjoy you continually revealing the truth of God’s word when atheists and relativists have no answer. I realize you cannot see this, but those who have had their eyes opened by the Lord see it easily and are obviously very much enjoying your lack of answers.

    Maz asked you the simplest question … “What moral code do YOU live by?” That was wonderful! And your answer … “Maz:ignore” ….

    This above is what Paul refers to: “18For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools”!!!!!

    At this point I am simply going to say there is no point in arguing with you. It is somewhat doubtful you will read all this and you certainly cannot understand it all as you have clearly demonstrated. Unfortunately you haven’t made any cognizant argument for moral law other than a hypothetical group of your own derivation (hunter gatherers) in post #50, which you take a significant leap of faith in I would add.

    Parenthetically, I love it when Atheists and Relativists of any kind take these gigantic leaps of faith. It shows them for what they are, very religious people with extraordinary faith! I realize that this is a function of hatred against the one true God, but we were all enemies at one point (that was for those who have been given a heart of flesh Barney. I don’t expect you to understand that at this juncture.)

    Barney – “Think about it: twenty thousand years ago our hunter-gatherer ancestors lived in small groups in a nomadic or semi-nomadic lifestyle. The death of a single member of the tribe could bring extra hardship to the whole tribe. The non-dynamic law “thou shalt not kill” evolved after time as each succeeding generation passed on this nascent moral code.”

    Barney – I would like you to explain your religion, how you came to this religion, and where it is written down!

    My religion is written in the word of God (bible), of which I came to by Him (God) changing my heart, and I put my full faith in an extraordinary designer of which I cannot fully comprehend or even close (ex. when I look into the nights sky or through a scanning electron microscope, either way and all the way in between it screams of creator God), who made law, kept the law, paid for My failing to keep the law.

    And … I will refer back to my original argument based on first causation post #12 and leave you with another thought.

    If something comes from nothing, and then that something that came from nothing becomes alive and then evolves to the point of cognizance (self awareness), and then the cognizant alive material that came from something that came from nothing forms a notion of a law you shall not kill me, but another one of the cognizant alive things that came from something that came from nothing says I shall kill all my competition …. which one of the cognizant alive organic matters is correct? One law says kill … the other says don’t kill. We both know who has the upper hand in terms of longevity I suspect, but who is correct and based on what?

  63. Maz said

    Barney:

    Jared said to you: ”Maz asked you the simplest question … “What moral code do YOU live by?” That was wonderful! And your answer … “Maz:ignore” ….”

    I would still like to know your answer, and if you want to go on ignoring me (and I would like to know why, seeing as this is a very relevant question) that’s fine, but maybe you could tell Jared what moral code you live by if it isn’t the Ten Commandments? And as you proclaimed yourself to be a Christian (which by your posts I doubt very much) you may like to tell us how you became a Christian?

  64. F. L. A. said

    Maz post#61, Thankyou Maz. Even if you might only be referring to the Christian God by “what really matters”.
    Barney, perhaps you should give up on using the “ancient world” examples with Jared. You know how poorly he debated against the evolutionistic Christian MattF on the last site “Was Darwin a Racist?”.

  65. Kash said

    Hey guys. For all of you who now have new elected officials, whether democrat or republican, start writing them now to support the Pregnant Women’s Support Bill. It is sponsored by Democrats for Life, and has the goal of reducing abortions by 95% over a ten year period.

    Get beyond the idea that overturning Roe v Wade is the only way to reduce abortions!

    This bill would:

    • Establish a toll-free number to direct women to places that will provide support during and following their pregnancy.

    • Provide child care to low-income and student parents.

    • Provide parenting education in maternity group homes.

    • Make the Adoption Tax Credits permanent.

    • Ensure that pregnant women are not denied health care by insurance companies and that coverage is continued for newborns.

    • Codify the regulation that extends coverage under the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) to low-income pregnant women and unborn children.

    • Increase funding for the Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) Nutrition Program.

    • Provide grants to institutions of higher education to fund pregnant and parenting student services.

    • Provide new mothers with free home visits by registered nurses.

    All of these measures would help fulfill the pledge made in the 2008 Democratic Party platform, which “strongly supports a woman’s decision to have a child by ensuring access to and availability of programs for pre- and post-natal health care, parenting skills, income support, and caring adoption programs.”

    And don’t forget: the most concrete thing you can do to prevent abortions is to volunteer at Crisis Pregnancy Centers!

  66. Jared said

    F.L.A.

    Yes he should. “give up on using the “ancient world” examples” and not just with me.

    Imaginary self directed ancient world examples are terrible platforms to derive a systematic argument from. Even Bertand Russell and other prominent intelligent atheists are aware of this. In other words you cannot formulate an argument using these hypothetical imaginary circumstances, that takes huge faith as I demonstrated in post #62 and this is why Atheistic philosophers avoid it. It kind of makes their faith more impossible than someone who believe in a transcendent creator. However, you can use hypothetical situations to determine how an argument stands up and if it can maintain consistency, as I have demonstrated below.

    You should recognize this – “Would it be beastiality to have a romantic relationship with an alien life-form? They’re a person, but not of the same species, so…..A big blob of gray in your black and white version of the universe[Huge sharp-toothed grin].” Here you are using a hypothetical circumstance to test an argument. The answer is for the Atheist, No. The word beastiality has no meaning in the Atheist language, because we are all evolving continuously. By your own word we are always having romantic relationships with different life forms. They may be close, but not exact. Christians need not worry about this. Atheists can have romantic relationships with toads if they are so inclined. The toad or horse or for that matter grass and trees are simply living organisms that have taken a different evolutionary path. Obviously the physiological aspects of having a romantic physical relationship with animals, plants, or and alien might be challenging, but again you have made my point for me. There is no question that given your world view no such thing as law or sin exists. It is just opinions.

    As an example lets not deal in the hypothetical, lets use a real world example.

    Let’s take a look at your brother Stanley who made the argument “Fetuses aren’t people”. What dictates for you the threshold for being people or at least explain to me how YOU dictate what constitutes a people. The reason I capitalize YOU is because this will of course, only be your definition. And you might find this very difficult in light of the above discussion. So I am looking for some consistency in your argumentation here. Of course if you are consistent with your systematic religion you don’t need to be consistent! So we will see what path you take here.

    When exactly did you become Human? Are you human yet. By implication you are saying that not everything has been there all along for you to be who you are physically and considered people. Hitler argued the same thing about Jews (not human), the slave owners said the same things about the African people they brought to the Americas to serve as slave labor, Obama doesn’t think a new born’s head protruding out of the birth canal is human either. So exactly where do YOU draw the line. Some of your comrads don’t draw it until the child is a few months old. Then it becomes a people!! Perhaps based on your historical perspective you might like to describe to me when exactly people came about in the evolutionistic system. Are you more human and people that the monkeys you evolved from? And considering that evolution must be still at work in your systematic religion, please describe to me which race or chain of upright walking organisms that came from monkeys is the furthest along in the evolutionary process.

    Don’t you see the folly in your religion?

    I am sure some other folks here on this forum are.

  67. Kash said

    Since there is a currently raging debate on evolution on the “What’s the Big Deal..” thread, I’m going to try and return to the original topic.

    Note: The following is meant as humor, and is borrowed from something I’ve seen circulating around the internet.

    If one were to construct an amendment to the Constitution based on a literal reading of the Bible it might well contain the following stipulations:

    1. Marriage in the United States shall consist of a union between one man and one or more women. (Gen 29:17-28; II Sam 3:2-5)

    2. Marriage shall not impede a man’s right to take concubines, in addition to his wife or wives. (II Sam 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron 11:21)

    3. A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed. (Deut 22:13-21)

    4. Marriage of a believer and a non-believer shall be forbidden. (Gen 24:3; Num 25:1-9; Ezra 9:12; Neh 10:30)

    5. Since marriage is for life, neither this Constitution nor the constitution of any State, nor any state or federal law, shall be construed to permit divorce. (Deut 22:19; Mark 10:9)

    6. If a married man dies without children, his brother shall marry the widow. If he refuses to marry his brother’s widow or deliberately does not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe, and be otherwise punished in a manner to be determined by law. (Gen. 38:6-10; Deut 25:5-10)

    7. In lieu of marriage, if there are no acceptable men in your town, it is required that you get your dad drunk and have sex with him (even if he had previously offered you up as a sex toy to men young and old), tag-teaming with any sisters you may have. Of course, this rule applies only if you are female. (Gen 19:31-36)

    Perhaps a more contemporary standard measures up better against the ancient near eastern tradition than one might have expected.

  68. Mike S. said

    Kash
    Question for you. Is Planned Parenthood involved in any way? They are purely a cash/death machine and if they are then I would not be inclined to support it.

  69. Mike S. said

    Jared… this will be good… F.L.A. questions her own “humanity” in the first place.

  70. Kash said

    I am pretty sure that Planned Parenthood is not supporting “Democrats for Life.” I don’t see why they wouldn’t support the bill, though. They provide a lot of pre AND post-natal care for women unable to afford it through regular providers. They also provide low cost birth control and pap smears. Planned Parenthood is not 100% evil, they are just 100% pro choice.

  71. Barney said

    “f something comes from nothing, and then that something that came from nothing becomes alive and then evolves to the point of cognizance (self awareness), and then the cognizant alive material that came from something that came from nothing forms a notion of a law you shall not kill me, but another one of the cognizant alive things that came from something that came from nothing says I shall kill all my competition …. which one of the cognizant alive organic matters is correct? One law says kill … the other says don’t kill. We both know who has the upper hand in terms of longevity I suspect, but who is correct and based on what?” – Jared

    Jared, what is this nonsense? I certainly never said that. What “leaps of faith” did my answer make?

    I answered your challenge. I gave you a perfectly good natural explanation for a non-dynamic law evolving from human society. It isn’t rocket science; maybe it’s simplicity caused you to misunderstand it. Sorry!

    As for religion and all the rest: I am a Christian (Methodist) and a creationist (not your kind of Creationist).

  72. Mike S. said

    They (Planned Parenthood) wouldn’t support anything that reduces abortions. It’s their livelihood. They may claim differently but they are a cash machine.

  73. Kash said

    Mike S,
    What proof do you have of that? It doesn’t help our cause to demonize the “other side.”

  74. Maz said

    Barney: (#63) You still havn’t answered the question.

  75. Kash said

    Planned parenthood activities 2006-2007:
    Contraception 38%
    Other Services 1%
    Abortion Services 3%
    Other Women’s Health Services 10%
    Cancer Screening and Prevention 19%
    Sexually Transmitted Diseases/Infections
    (STD/STI) Testing and Treatment 29%

  76. Maz said

    I saw on our local television news that they were taking pictures by a special camera of a babies face within the womb for women to see their babies before they were born. One woman said, is it wasn’t so expensive it would be good to be able to show the photo to her child when it was older….how he grew within his mothers tummy. But do you tell that child…Hey…you weren’t a human being then, just a mass of cells coming together to make something that isn’t a baby until it is fully born?
    When they showed you one of the pictures, it sure looked like a babies face to me, and in fact….it yawned!!!

  77. Maz said

    …correction….not ‘is it wasn’t so expensive’ but ‘if it wasn’t…..’

  78. Mike S. said

    Kasha
    One of many examples. http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5238

    Check out the rest of the site info on abortion/pro life issues. Stand to Reason (STR) is great resource for Christians who care about life and sharing our beliefs. They along with James Dobson are certainly “demonized” by the “other side”.

  79. Kash said

    Yes, but we are Christians and do not have the luxury of behaving like the other side. And I still think it would be a terrible thing NOT to support a bill that will reduce abortions just because you don’t like everyone who might be in favor of it.

  80. Kash said

    That article does show that Planned Parenthoood is hyper-vigilant when it comes to choice, and sees attacks on abortion rights even where none exist. However, to say that they are against decreasing abortions because they make most of their money off of them is inaccurate.

  81. Kash said

    And again, my point is that it is easy to sit around and rail against Roe v Wade, but if you really want to do the hard work of reducing abortions it means getting out there and getting help to women who might be likely to consider abortion.

  82. Mike S. said

    My comment comes from many years of reading and listening to stories about how they respond in similar circumstances. Take some time to read more from STR. I think they are very accurate, responsible, and reasonable in their claims.

  83. Mike S. said

    I’m all for reducing abortions and if you read STR, they are as well. Salem Pregnancy Center is the kind of group that I will continue to support.

  84. Kash said

    My response was because you seemed inclined not to support the Pregnant Women’s Support bill unless Planned Parenthood was totally against it, not because I don’t think you or STR does good work.

  85. Jared said

    Mike S. …… you got it!!!!!!!!

    Barney exemplifies the point I have made time and time again on many other topics. Those who our Lord has … not … opened the eyes of are BLIND. They can’t give themselves sight. A Blind man doesn’t heal himself anymore than pigs can fly. They don’t even understand the fundamental nature of the questions posed to them (look above at post #71). You can argue with the non believer all you want on these forums and they are still blind as when they showed up. God’s word makes them look even dumber when they comment. They will not acknowledge a truth even when it is staring them right in the face and to their own demise. Some call themselves Christians, some can’t even prove they are a person, some say they believe in law and that it comes from society, but then when society decides against their opinion they rail against what the society has chosen saying it is unjust …. why if the law is dynamic and decided by the majority is it unjust?

    Unfortunately … we have another self proclaimed “Christian” who doesn’t believe in the truth of God’s word or that God is the one who establishes truth.

    Do the people who put their full faith in the truth of God and His word see the problem with our Churches given the condition of the self proclaimed “Christians”? Our God has done as he has promised …. “given them a mind of stupor”.

    Romans 11

    What then? What Israel sought so earnestly it did not obtain, but the elect did. The others were hardened, 8as it is written:
    “God gave them a spirit of stupor,
    eyes so that they could not see
    and ears so that they could not hear,
    to this very day.” 9And David says:
    “May their table become a snare and a trap,
    a stumbling block and a retribution for them.
    10May their eyes be darkened so they cannot see,
    and their backs be bent forever.”

    When our churches look no different than the world and more like social clubs, entertainment houses, and activist groups and less like God’s church where we sinners worship, honor, and thank our most HOLY and RIGHTEOUS and GLORIOUS God, what do we get? Buildings full of people calling themselves Christian who don’t have even an inclination of what a Christian is.

    Those who have been justified through the bloody death of our savior Jesus Christ on the Cross and have no righteousness of our own:

    Are whole reliance from beginning to end is on the Lord of our salvation. He justifies us, gives us our faculties to understand, and sanctifies us. Then, and only then, when he is the all and all of our salvation is he truly Glorified and God.

    Without the Lord Jesus Christ we are just like Barney and Friends!

  86. Mike S. said

    Not very SUPERDEEDUPER is it?

  87. Jared said

    No pretty STUPIDEEDUPER!

  88. Mike S. said

    Kash
    If PPH were a partner, I would be highly suspect based upon my years of witnessing their actions. I wasn’t always pro-life BTW.

  89. Jared said

    That just fit to well to pass up. Both instances!

    Mike S., Maz, and others who take God at His word and put their full faith in the salvation provided by the Lord Jesus Christ, from damnation and hell:

    Can you imagine the mass exodus or marduring of the ministers of God’s word in some of these places if they were teaching something even close to the truth as shown in God’s word?

    Poor Joel Oscermeyer, Benny the Hunn, Truth Brodcasting “NOT” network, and the leaders of the Saddlesore church might not have a soul left in the door. That would really be bad if they were out of Business and not making money anymore!:)

  90. Jared said

    That just fit to well to pass up. Both instances!

    Mike S., Maz, and others who take God at His word and put their full faith in the salvation provided by the Lord Jesus Christ, from damnation and hell:

    Can you imagine the mass exodus or marduring of the ministers of God’s word in some of these places if they were teaching something even close to the truth as shown in God’s word?

    Poor Joel Oscermeyer, Benny the Hunn, Truth Brodcasting “NOT” network, and the leaders of the Saddlesore church might not have a soul left in the door. That would really be bad if they were out of Business and not making money anymore!:)

  91. Maz said

    Jared: I e-mailed Joel Osteen some time ago about his type of gospel….did I get an answer?
    I think you probably can guess the answer to that.

    I will challenge anyone who stands in a pulpit and spouts out about blessings and a successful Christian life without mentioning that Jesus shed Hid blood for them on the cross and that they need to repent of their sin or face Judgment and Hell.
    Joel certainly wouldn’t have the biggest Church in America if he did!

  92. Barney said

    “Imaginary self directed ancient world examples are terrible platforms to derive a systematic argument from. ” – Jared

    This from someone who probably thinks Noah’s Ark is waiting for us on top of a mountain somewhere.

    Since Jared mentioned Bertrand Russell, let’s let Mr. Russell speak his own mind:

    “There is something feeble and a little contemptable about a man who cannot face the perils of life without the help of comfortable myths. Almost inevitably some part of him is aware that they are myths and that he believes them only because they are comforting. But he dare not face this thought! Moreover, since he is aware, however dimly, that his opinions are not real, he becomes furious when they are disputed.” [Bertrand Russell, "Human Society in Ethics and Politics"]

  93. Jared said

    Without God’s intervention, if Joel taught the true Gospel Joel’s church would have a big goose egg for attendance! God would and can grow his church though.

  94. Kash said

    Mike S,
    PP is NOT a partner. The Bill was sponsored by “Democrats for Life”!

  95. Jared said

    I digress.

    Isn’t it sad that the word Christian has no meaning anymore. It is kind of like evangelical. It was a great description at one point. Now it means almost nothing.

  96. Mike S. said

    Sorry Barney
    But anyone who thinks Romans 1-2 is “comfortable myth” is not wound too tight. Russell was as blind as anyone else who does not believe.

  97. Jared said

    And there we have it folks!

    Barney “(As for religion and all the rest: I am a Christian (Methodist) and a creationist (not your kind of Creationist).” – quoting Bertrand Russell. Thanks for this one also Barney. It confirms my points in #85 and in #95.

    Bertrand Russell by his own words freely admitted that he yearned for a deeper meaning to life. Unfortunately, as one of God’s enemies who God never chose to change the heart of, he never had deeper meaning and honestly no particular reason to have deeper meaning by his own admission. Interesting that he longed for something he admitted couldn’t exist with his own system!

    Those who’s salvation is found in Christ and Christ alone:

    Thank your God, that He has given you the sight to see the meaning in your life!

    1 Corinthians 10:31 So weather you eat or drink or whatever you do, do all the the glory of God.

  98. Maz said

    Jared: ”Thank your God, that He has given you the sight to see the meaning in your life!”

    I’m not sure I understand your meaning in this statement. Are you saying that no one can see unless God actually gives that person the ability to see?
    Because it seems that if someone is blind it is because God hasn’t given them the ability to see, therefore, how can we blame them for being blind? This sounds like a Calvinist idea.

  99. Ed said

    Question:
    What defines a “civil rights issue”?
    Stanly, you never answered my question in 43. What defines life? When does life begin?
    My question 3. Where does it end? If “marriage” as it were is a defining point in civil rights, who’s rights finaly get “trashed”? Where does the line get drawn? This includes bestiality and extra-terrestrial life. Where do you draw the line? I am happy to draw that line at one man and one woman. Not only scriptural, but practical as well.

  100. Maz said

    Ed: If he is anything like Barney he won’t answer you.

  101. Jared said

    Yes Maz I would stand with Calvin, Luther, and Melanchthon in Soteriology and most other subject matter. This should have been fairly evident all along in what I write. I already know your not of that soteriological understanding, but that is OK. I believe all men fell in Adam and are guilty and it really doesn’t matter what my opinion is, or what I like more, or what seems most logical to me at the moment. Numerous scriptures flesh this out like the ones below. It is all God’s salvation. Without his interceding and changing my heart, I am lost.

    Romans 5

    12Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned— 13for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. 14Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.

    15But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man’s trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. 16And the free gift is not like the result of that one man’s sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification. 17For if, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.

    18Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. 19For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous.

    Ezekiel 36

    22″Therefore say to the house of Israel, Thus says the Lord GOD: It is not for your sake, O house of Israel, that I am about to act, but for the sake of my holy name, which you have profaned among the nations to which you came. 23 And I will vindicate the holiness of my great name, which has been profaned among the nations, and which you have profaned among them. And the nations will know that I am the LORD, declares the Lord GOD, when through you I vindicate my holiness before their eyes. 24 I will take you from the nations and gather you from all the countries and bring you into your own land. 25 I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. 26And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. 27 And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules. 28 You shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers, and you shall be my people, and I will be your God. 29And I will deliver you from all your uncleannesses. And I will summon the grain and make it abundant and lay no famine upon you. 30 I will make the fruit of the tree and the increase of the field abundant, that you may never again suffer the disgrace of famine among the nations. 31Then you will remember your evil ways, and your deeds that were not good, and you will loathe yourselves for your iniquities and your abominations. 32 It is not for your sake that I will act, declares the Lord GOD; let that be known to you. Be ashamed and confounded for your ways, O house of Israel.

  102. Ed said

    If either are demanding a response from any fundamental Christian, they should be able to answer my simple questions. If I am wrong, then what is right!

  103. Ed said

    20 years of Naval service has taught me the following lesson on this topic:
    Whining is complaining without solutions.
    Criticizm follows an issue with a solution.
    Till now, they are just whining. I don’t do whining.

  104. Maz said

    Jared: Yes, our salvation is only through what Jesus has done on the cross, and nothing we can do can earn that salvation, but we are erged to repent, we are told to believe, we are asked to accept Him as the Savior of our souls……so WE do have a part to play in COMING to Him. Repent, believe, accept, receive. He draws us, but we must come. Otherwise we cannot blame someone for not coming, for not seeing, for not understanding.

  105. Barney said

    Jared, you’re feeling pretty good about yourself, so I’ll concede defeat.

    Thanks for setting me straight.

  106. F. L. A. said

    Jared post#66: John is right about you. You do assume too much about others, and usually it sounds like crap. Allow me to explain why. There is a very big difference between having a relationship with a person and with having a relationship with a tree,..or another animal that has not the traits we[Atheists,Pagans, or otherwise] commonly associate with “people”[intelligence,personality,individuality,creativity,theological beliefs, imagination,etc.etc.]. It is not just about being with something of another species, but about being with someone of another species.To use a completely imaginary character, you sound as if to you believe that a woman being with character “Spock”[This is for all of you Star Trek fans] is the same to the Atheist[Not everyone who disagrees with you is an Atheist or a relativist, Jared.]as a woman being with a toad or a clump of grass. Surely you can appreciate the difference, and this should answer your question about how I dictate what constitutes a people.
    You also like to entertain the fantasy that I and all others similar to myself have no good laws, morals, or concept of “sin”, only self serving opinions. Perhaps you have missed my posts in the past were I have described myself as being evil and monstrous.John and I have criticized OURSELVES on many occasions, and would not do so if we did not believe in morals and “sinfulness”.If we were really as you portrayed us as being, then we would no doubt make things easier for ourselves,and get a good nights sleep all night every night, do you not think?
    “Of course if you are consistent with your systematic religion you don’t need to be consistent!”-Jared
    I never discussed with you any of the details of my theological belief system, and I use this label because I know what some Christians[such as yourself?] usually mean when they use the label “religion”.Hypothetical Christian in question:”WE worship GAWWWWD, while everyone ELSE just has man-made “religions!”
    “…Monkeys that you evolved from?”, “….upright walking organisms that came from monkeys…”-Jared
    Hmmm. You know, I almost entertained the notion that you may have actually understood what the Evolutionary Sciences taught in regards to Anthropology, but I appear to have been wrong in giving you so much credit. And you sounded rather educated too, all of that past talk about working with scientists….
    Just so you know, finally, science teaches that humans, other Apes, monkeys, and other modern primates all evolved TOGETHER from a common ancient ancestor. The thinking that humanity evolved from monkeys has been obsolete for a very very long time, save for in the minds of the ignorant, Christians criticizing evolutionists or otherwise. Try and learn about MODERN Evolutionary Sciences, for if any other reason but to help you understand exactly what it is that you are disagreeing with, and to keep from looking foolish when you debate[and attempt to point out alleged follies]with others.
    Are you pleased with my response Mr.Sears?

  107. Ed said

    Of the proveable things in the Bible (Jerico, Israel) by archiologists, why would I not believe the Bible in questionalble or unprovable things? I cannot prove or disprove creation. I can look at creation and say “there has to be more to this than just simple chemistry and billions of years”. Sorry, that is a leap of faith I am not willing to make. Especially when the prediction of Jesus was so dead on, even if the old testiment was written only 400 years before Christ as some speculate.

  108. Ed said

    FLA
    Is there and experiment where single celled organizems developed into multi-celled organizems?

  109. F. L. A. said

    Post#108, Yes Ed. Scientists working with various Cancer Cells conduct such experiments.
    Or were you referring so something along the lines of a sperm cell developing into a fetus? Or something along the lines of Ambiogenesis?

  110. Ed said

    A single celled organism like a bactirum or other, indipendantly viable organizm given the free range to grow and adapt (basis for evolution) and become an organism that each cell is dependant on the others for survival and not viable on its own.

  111. Ed said

    Evolution goes against itself anyway.
    “The strongest, most adaptive survive.” If this were true, then all of life would be simple organisms. The more complex an organizm, the easier to kill. The longer time between birth and puberty (ability to procreate) the lower the chances for that organism to adapt to the new envirionment.

  112. John said

    Ferox is gone for the night Ed.
    Sorry, perhaps tomorrow?
    Goodnight everyone.

  113. Ed said

    awww, and I was getting on a roll too. WAAAAAAAA!!!!LOL

  114. Jared said

    Maz

    We (you and I or anyone else) cannot ever blame anyone for not coming to Christ. This is God’s roll. But, I think that is what you intended in your post. He holds judgement and condemnation in His hand. I believe scripture to be clear on this subject even though it goes against what I would logically contend as you have. I must remember this is my logic. I believe it is clear from scripture there are no seekers of God (Romans 3:10-18) before we are regenerate. Scripture doesn’t call us neutral, but rather in Romans 5 we are called enemies. That is those of us who Christ died for it calls enemies. Although though this doesn’t stand pat with my earthly logic it does explain the experiential evidence that we see every day.

    I trust and take God at His word and one thing that the reformed position of soteriology does do is give all the Glory to God and put us in a state of complete humility and thankfulness. I have no reason to boast as Paul would say and as he points out in Romans 9 the Lord has the power to use me for any purpose weather it be dishonor or honor, just like God used pharaoh by hardening his heart. You don’t see any of the apostles or Paul being given an option to follow the Lord Jesus. He commands them and they do it.

  115. Jared said

    FLA

    Anyone who denies absolute unchanging truth is by definition a relativist and anyone who denies God is an atheist. I think that covers it.

    Go back, read the questions, and give answers. You haven’t done any of this yet and unfortunate for you, you can’t. These cloud like nebulous answers above don’t draw any lines anywhere. You just assume everyone knows or has your exact same opinion. This works works only when you have a set standard.

    Try going back and deriving something close to a first order argument. Otherwise it sound like nebulae and because I say so.

  116. Maz said

    Jared: I’v discussed Calvinism and the idea that God chooses some to go to Heaven and soe to go to Hell before, that we can’t do ANYTHING atall to be saved….and in some ways that is absolutely true, Christ saved us, He did it all to save us from sin, deah, hell and judgment. But we are not puppets, where God is just pulling the strings and we do what He has chosen us to do. How can we love Him and choose Him freely if He is doing EVERYTHING……is He making us love Him? No. He loved us first, He decided right at the beginning of th world to sent His Son as a sacrifice that mankind may be saved from sin. But He still asks for our love and devotion, and this would b=not be worth anything if it was made to happen by God. It must come from us or how can He appreciat our love and devotion. You would not want to meet a woman and make her love you and tell her ‘I’v chosen you to be my wife and you have no choice in the matter. You love her so much but she has been destined to love you and be your wife. Would it not be more pleasing to you if she chose to love you back and chose to marry you of her own accord.

    I have studied the scriptures on this subject and have found many that just don’t agree with the Calvinistic ‘mankind has no choicce in the matter’ kind of theology.
    I’m not going to discuss this any further because we shall not come to an agreement about this as so many times in the past it has been the same with other Calvinists.

    Jesus died for ALL, because ALL have sinned. If God is anything, He is JUST and the justifier of him who BELIEVES. Belief has to be a freewill choice or we are just robots doing what God made us to do.

    And just something about logic…..God gave us logic and a thinking mind, and He gave us the Word, that we may read and think and ponder and know His will for us and for the world. I read the famous gospel in a nutshell, John 3 v 16, to me it says it all and I have had some strange explanations as to why it doesn’t say what it is saying….greek and all, so there is no point in us going into that either.

    You are my brother…..I have other brothers and sisters I love in the Lord, that are Calvinists but we agree to disagree. And here I do the same.
    God Bless.

  117. Maz said

    Sorry for the mistakes….didn’t check it first.

  118. Paul said

    Maz

    First, It is all God and nothing on our part, but we forget God saves through the preaching of his word.(Hebrews 4:12)

    Romans 9:15 “I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion.”

    Rom 9:16 So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy.

    Then when the word is preached it brings conviction to some -
    Acts 13:48b And as many as had been appointed to eternal life belived.

    John 6:37 All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to me I will by no means cast out.

  119. Paul said

    I think the difference your thinking about is not salvation, but sanctification.

    Maz I just think we can sharpen each other, and just keep digging deeper.

  120. Maz said

    Paul: I know all the Calvinist scriptures, as I said I’v been through this for years…..but not continually!!…with some Calvinist brothers and sisters of mine. I can see too much in scripture to support Gods love for the whole world, that Jesus died for the whole world, and that He wants ”all men everywhere” to be saved. I am sure I shall not convince you of this, anymore than you can convince me that Calvinism is right. So I do think it will be pointless to dig any deeper. I get too frustrated in any case going over the same old argument about Pharoah and his hard heart etc. etc. etc.
    God Bless you anyway.

  121. Paul said

    I don’t disagree that God’s will is that none should parish, but it is the power of the gospel unto salvation. It’s not calvanism it’s all the Word of God. The Word either hardens the heart or melts the ice. If you will notice in Exodus Pharaoh hardened his own heart at the hearing of the word several times before God hardened it.

  122. Maz said

    Paul: That’s right. If someone continually hardens their heart toward God, He will eventually harden their heart so that they cannot come. But I believe in the freedom of the will of a person to come to Christ and receive Him as their Savior. The power of God to save is in His Word…..as Romans tells us. And that is what the devil is attacking today. How many pulpits preach the unadulterated salvation message today? I still like to listen to Billy Graham at times…the younger, firy preacher, who use to say ‘The Bible says….’ We need that firy, dynamic preaching today more than ever.

  123. Jared said

    Maz that fine. I consider you a brother also.

    I believe that scripture is clear. Even though I don’t necessarily want to believe this and I don’t believe we are puppets, just sinners who as God removes grace, common grace, we spiral toward the depth of sin on our own. All our God has to do is leave us to our own.

    Ezekiel 36
    Romans 3, 5, 8, 9, 11
    Ephesian 1
    Malachi 1

    And many others.

    I think this takes the boasting away from us and gives it to God. We have no reason to think we are smarter than our brothers and sisters in our choosing Christ, because we did not. We only have reason to be thankful and honor our God.

  124. Maz said

    Jared: I’m your SISTER.

    I too feel I am nothing without Him. He is everything to me and thats why I’m so glad I heard His call and responded.

  125. Paul said

    2Cr 2:15 For we are to God the fragrance of Christ among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing.

    2Cr 2:16 To the one we are the aroma of death leading to death, and to the other the aroma of life leading to life. And who is sufficient for these things?

    2Cr 2:17 For we are not, as so many, peddling the word of God; but as of sincerity, but as from God, we speak in the sight of God in Christ.

  126. Jared said

    Sorry Maz. Think I saw that, but forgot.

  127. Paul said

    Maz and Jared, I love you both brother and I didn’t know either ,sister.

  128. Paul said

    sorry post#125 wrong blog

  129. F. L. A. said

    I guess you have no danger of getting lost and confused in that tiny, narrow, alternate version of the universe that you exist in, Jared. Your “US against EVERYONE ELSE” attitude is not helping you gain very much support and acceptance from others not as you, and as you may not really care about the opinions or acceptance of others not as you,I cannot help but wonder how Christian “elitists” like you ever expect to bring new people to Christ and salvation[I may be wrong, but I thought that this was important to Christians.]. If you are not careful, Christians like you may end up like the Shakers. Are you familiar with them? Only it will not be a lack of reproduction that leads to your dwindling numbers.
    What questions do you think that I have not and could not answer for you, Jared?
    And how in the world did you come to the conclusion that I believe that “everyone” knows or has MY exact same opinion? Were this the case, then you would not even be reading these words.

  130. Jared said

    FLA

    My goal has never been to gain support and acceptance from others outside of the Lord Jesus Christ. I don’t expect to bring new people to Christ, God does that. I expect you to call me an elitist and make comments like I am living in alternative version of the universe. Those who are blind and many of those who claim to be Christians fail to understand this and in their case it is typically because they do not read God’s word. I don’t expect until or if you are saved the blindness leave you. You simply cannot understand.

    My job is to bear witness to the truth of the Lord Jesus Christ living a perfect law biding life and going to the cross to pay the penalty of my Sin. Yes I am very familiar with the shakers, unfortunately this group of people based their salvation prominently upon their own works, I cannot not, because scripture says I have no reason to boast. My salvation is of the Lord Jesus Christ alone from beginning to end. My best works are filthy rages before the Lord. But, the Lord Jesus Christ’s works are worthy of boasting in.

    Unfortunately FLA, your world view has no consistent answer. I don’t expect you to give any consistent answers as have been clearly evidenced in all of the answers by those who do not acknowledge a transcendent creator. You will claim it is consistent, but most of your audience sees the ironic nature of your argumentation and even examples. I challenge you to look at your religion (world view) and make any consistency out of it and draw any line (law) any where. For that matter I challenge you to demonstrate where matter came from or produce any meaning for your life as Bertrand Russell longed for all his life. You can’t make sense out of anything when you don’t have absolute truth given by a transcendent being. You can’t argue from a first causation standpoint and all the evidence stands in direct contradiction to the system.

    FLA … you have a much greater faith than I have. Contemplate this. Something came from nothing?!? I have nothing to say to that. That is more faith than I can understand now. Even some of my atheist physicist and scientist friends acknowledge this is a huge leap of faith, but they choose that blind leap of faith over God and His word. All I can do is bear witness and pray that the Lord will open their eyes as I will pray for you.

    All that said, all you can do is argue what your opinion is, even when you point at your evidence all you are doing is pointing and saying I believe this evidence says this. Many thousands of scientist including myself look at the evidence and it clearly shows the bible to be true in every detail. You look at the same evidence and see evolution. You cannot argue with me and I cannot argue with you in this realm. However. I can point out that your faith is in nothing turning into something whereas my faith is in a more intelligent being than myself designing and creating all things as I see them.

    It is very simple really.

    I have faith on some one, a being (unlimited as I am) , you have faith in nothing producing everything we see around us. That my brother is a great leap of faith and creates enormous consistency issues for the Atheist in terms of laws, emotions, purpose, meaning, etc…

  131. Maz said

    Jared: You have it wrong again…..F.L.A is a WOMAN.

  132. Jared said

    Boy, my gender recognition is really bad!

    Sorry F. L. A.

    I take it everyone else has been on here long enough to understand this.

  133. Maz said

    Jared: Don’t worry, it took me a while before I found out!

    If someone hasn’t got a feminite name it is assumed that they are male. I thot Kash was male too until she mentioned she wasn’t.

  134. Jared said

    Maz …

    How do you deal with scriptures like Romans 8:29-30, Ezekiel 36:22-36, or Romans 9:6-29. I have never not been reformed so I have no personal experience with arminianism and if I have ever gotten an answer from an arminian I don’t remember it. But that is likely my memory. These passages especially the last one with a full explanation and fore seeing of the opposing arguments seem to me to be very problematic for any form of arminianism.

    Just curious, not contentious in any way. And, I know I am not going to change your mind, and I don’t think you are any less justified. If our salvation was tied in anyway to our knowledge of doctrine it would be works based and we would all be lost. besides if there is any conviction to be had, and note I said if, then it isn’t mine to dish out any way. It is the Holy Spirit that does this work.

    And if the atheist and relativists actually read any of what is below it might give them some insight. Although this belongs to the Holy Spirit also!

    Romans 8
    29For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. 30And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.

    Ezekiel 36
    22″Therefore say to the house of Israel, Thus says the Lord GOD: It is not for your sake, O house of Israel, that I am about to act, but for the sake of my holy name, which you have profaned among the nations to which you came. 23 And I will vindicate the holiness of my great name, which has been profaned among the nations, and which you have profaned among them. And the nations will know that I am the LORD, declares the Lord GOD, when through you I vindicate my holiness before their eyes. 24 I will take you from the nations and gather you from all the countries and bring you into your own land. 25 I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. 26And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. 27 And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules. 28 You shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers, and you shall be my people, and I will be your God. 29And I will deliver you from all your uncleannesses. And I will summon the grain and make it abundant and lay no famine upon you. 30 I will make the fruit of the tree and the increase of the field abundant, that you may never again suffer the disgrace of famine among the nations. 31Then you will remember your evil ways, and your deeds that were not good, and you will loathe yourselves for your iniquities and your abominations. 32 It is not for your sake that I will act, declares the Lord GOD; let that be known to you. Be ashamed and confounded for your ways, O house of Israel.

    33″Thus says the Lord GOD: On the day that I cleanse you from all your iniquities, I will cause the cities to be inhabited, and the waste places shall be rebuilt. 34And the land that was desolate shall be tilled, instead of being the desolation that it was in the sight of all who passed by. 35And they will say, ‘This land that was desolate has become like the garden of Eden, and the waste and desolate and ruined cities are now fortified and inhabited.’ 36Then the nations that are left all around you shall know that I am the LORD; I have rebuilt the ruined places and replanted that which was desolate. I am the LORD; I have spoken, and I will do it.

    Romans 9
    6But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, 7and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” 8This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring. 9For this is what the promise said: “About this time next year I will return, and Sarah shall have a son.” 10And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, 11though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls— 12she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” 13As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”

    14What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! 15For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” 16So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. 17For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” 18So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.

    19You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” 20But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? 22What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— 24even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles? 25As indeed he says in Hosea,

    “Those who were not my people I will call ‘my people,’
    and her who was not beloved I will call ‘beloved.’”
    26 “And in the very place where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people,’
    there they will be called ‘sons of the living God.’”

    27And Isaiah cries out concerning Israel: “Though the number of the sons of Israel be as the sand of the sea, only a remnant of them will be saved, 28for the Lord will carry out his sentence upon the earth fully and without delay.” 29And as Isaiah predicted,

    “If the Lord of hosts had not left us offspring,
    we would have been like Sodom
    and become like Gomorrah.”

  135. Jared said

    Maz …

    I am always wandering why evolution didn’t make humans asexual! In their system. Seams so inefficient for the evolutionist and very problematic.

    Just one of those random thought that often comes to mind when I talk with these folks.

  136. Maz said

    Jared: I’v had the long conversations about predestination with my Calvinist brothers and sisters, as I said, it is all to do with GODS FOREKNOWLEDGE…..and He did not predestinate people to heaven or hell, or to salvation either……read the scriptures again…..”For WHOM HE DID FOREKNOW, HE ALSO DID PREDESTINATE TO BE CONFORMED TO THE IMAGE OF HIS SON, that He might be the first-born among many brethren.” Rom 8 v 29.
    He PREDESTIATED THOSE HE FOREKNEW……WHO did He foreknow? Those who would belong to Him by His grace through faith. Through believing in Him. HE PREDESTINATED THEM TO BE CONFORMED TO THE IMAGE OF HIS SON……NOT to salvation.

    Tell me Jared, if God is truly Just, and God is not partial, and is not a respecter of persons, then there is no reason why He chose you and me and not chose other people we know who aren’t saved……yet! Remember, He sees the end from the beginning, He knows those Who will belong to Him before they are born, live and die. He is Omniscient. He chose us IN CHRIST.

  137. Jared said

    I totally agree with your last three sentences. This is why we should be so thankful.

    How about 8:30 and the other two passages. You detached 8:30 from 8:29 and 8:30 appears to link predestination with calling, justification, and glorification. I would contend that these two verses need to be looked at in light of one another.

    I am actually more interested in your dealing with the three texts of scripture in whole. Not separated. The text from Romans 9 actually anticipates the arguments by the Romans against Paul saying “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?”.

    Again I know you have had this discussion many times and I am simply looking for your perspective on these three texts taken in whole.

    I have to go, but I am very interested in your line of thinking, especially, as I pointed out, on the last text, but certainly with the others also.

  138. Maz said

    Jared: Yes. It is all tied up….in His FOREKNOWLEDGE………but tell me, how is it there are more called than chosen?

    And these verses need to be looked at with the rest of scripture….all of it.

    We cannot find fault with God because He IS perfect, and He knows what is best for us all. And there is no fault in His choosing, He makes no mistakes, He can’t, it is impossible because He is Omniscient and knows everything. How can we ever work God out…..never. His thots are higher than our thots and His ways higher than our ways. But His Love is beyond our reasoning, He doesn’t just Love us, HE IS LOVE…….GOD IS LOVE. His love is perfect and cannot be anything but impartial to all sinners, for ALL have sinned, therefore NONE of us deserved to be saved, so all of us can receive the gift of the grace of God. He chose to sacrifice His Son to save those who believe in Him.
    ”WHOSOEVER calls on the Name of the Lord SHALL BE SAVED.” Acts 2 v 21.

  139. Maz said

    Jared:
    Consider these scriptures.

    Acts 16 v 30-31, ”…..Sirs, what must I DO to be saved? And they said, BELIEVE on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved.”

    THEY must BELIEVE.

    Acts 17 v 30. ”…but now (God) commands all men everywhere to repent.”

    GOD COMMANDS…….ALL MEN….EVERYWHERE….TO REPENT.

    THEY must REPENT.

    John 5 v 39,40, ”Search the scriptures; for in them you think you have eternal life; and they are they which testify of me. And YOU WILL NOT COME TO ME, that you might have eternal life.”

    THEY WILL NOT COME.

    So there is, by the testimony of these scriptures, among others, something WE MUST DO to be saved, or why should God COMMAND US to REPENT if we cannot of ourselves?

  140. John said

    What kind of a scientist are you, Jared? Or do you just work around scientists?
    I love your use of big words, but that aside you really don’t sound any smarter than me, a hick-bibliophile with no more than a high school education.
    Your statements about monkeys within post#66 says much. It says that you think human evolution teaches that humans evolved from monkeys, that you think that we modern evolutionists believe this, and most importantly, that you have no idea about what you’re talking about in regards to evolutionary science and us. If you wish to try and point out the faults of others, first try working on yours, at least as it relates to the topic being discussed.I understand now why you left the debate on evolution with MattF. It was one of your wiser moves.

    Claiming something is not the same as proving something, so all of your talk about everyone else who disagrees with you being wrong mean nothing unless you can prove otherwise, and as so far as the topic of theology goes, you have no better evidences than……any of us..[smile].
    Think I’m wrong? Then prove it, Mr.Scientist with “absolute proof from a transcendent being”.I am willing to bet that your theological evidence is no more compelling and factual than that of any other major theological belief system still in existence today.
    As far as your unchanging absolutes go,this only really applies to your version of theology, not the sciences, as you would be a very POOR scientists indeed if you did not accept any of the modern information and theories that has changed the face of science as we know it[Young Earth Christian Creation Science does not count, unfortunately for you, for as any good scientist knows, it's not really science.Disagree? Then try and prove that too if you think you can].I think that a GOOD scientist has to remain impartial[as impartial as possible anyway]study and work with evidence as it is presented and discovered, and if it is found to be personally disagreeable to the scientist, the scientist must try and use REAL SCIENCE to discover different evidences, if possible. If not, then said scientist must just learn to swallow pride and feelings and support the known facts until such a time comes when a chance to produce new evidence and facts comes, if ever.
    Of course this is just from a hick that reads a lot of books, but it sounds like good sense to me. That’s another trait of a good scientist, the ability to admit that you may be wrong and that you don’t know everything. Science “grows”, while theology almost always stagnates.

  141. Maz said

    John: So theology stagnates? Hows that then?

    And actually science keep changing rather than ‘growing’.

  142. Maz said

    John: I posted this on another site a while ago, did you read it?

    Busting the big bang … again

    In 2004, numerous secular scientists wrote an open letter to New Scientist, effectively saying that the big bang theory of the origin of the universe was unsustainable. This in turn led to the first ‘Crisis in Cosmology’ conference in Portugal in 2005. And more recently, in September 2008, a second such conference has taken place in the US. It is quite amazing to hear these scientists, many of whom are not Christians, say that the big bang is nothing more than a myth.

    Now, is science changing their minds yet again?

  143. Jared said

    John…

    I have two advanced degrees. You are correct that doesn’t make me any smarter than you or anyone else for that matter. Some of the most educated folks I know are actually the dumbest. I actually grew up on a farm/ranch doing all the stuff “rednecks” do and loved it by the way. Want to go back in the not so distant future. Very glad for that experience. Went to college, did well in engineering and was asked to stick around. Did research in physics, molecular transformations, thermodynamics, and some numerical methods for solving complex calculations called partial differential equations. All that said, I wish I could remember all the stuff they taught me in school, because I have forgotten a considerable amount and I screwed off in school a lot too. Rock climbing and hiking junky. Some of my smartest friends have no more than a high school education and some of my dumbest friends have several more advanced degrees than I. It’s a mixed bag either way. Education is just that education and it can come in a number of different forms. And for as smart as people, including myself, might think they are they know so relatively little it is pathetic. All human knowledge combined is rather pathetic when compared to the information contained within 1 cells DNA and the mechanisms by which the same cell works. The complexity is utterly flabbergasting. That is one human cell. Imagine that your body is made of billions of these accomplishing thousands of different tasks. That is just the human body. Now lets look at the earth and the complexity, beauty, and balance of it and that included billions of mechanisms going on. Then look at the gallaxy and we can’t count how many stars are in it, can’t account for 95% of the gravity or how that even works for that matter. Now look at the universe, which appears to be made of billions of galaxies. All this to say we don’t know very much and that is being extraordinarily generous.

    I have many friend who are physicist, chemists, engineers, and so on. Some are Christians and some are not. All look at the evidence and say it supports their side of the argument. I have more friends that are hicks and rednecks from Montana. They also say the evidence supports their side of the argument.

    However, the one area that the creationists have a major position over the evolutionists is in the area of first causation. As I described above, to believe that something comes from nothing is extraordinarily problematic for those who deny a creator. My Atheist college friends who are professors, engineers, and hicks are for the most part very willing to admit this. It is a huge leap of faith. They don’t like to use that terminology, but they do admit that given there is no supreme being something had to come from nothing at some point and they also admit that defies all established and observable physical law just as many admit that the 2nd law of thermodynamics is very problematic for evolution.

    Either way there is faith involved. It is my contention that the one who God has opened the eyes of has only a small leap of faith to make, relative to the person who denies a creator. The one who acknowledges the God of the Bible can suddenly make sense out of emotions, sin, law, history, life span, sexuality, language, etc… The one who doesn’t, relies heavily upon theory.

  144. Jared said

    Maz …

    Thanks. Obviously I disagree. My experience has been that reformed covenant theology makes much more sense out of the scriptures than armenian dispensationalism. But that doesn’t negate that we both put our faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and Him alone.

    You believe you choose the good and I believe that choosing that good is impossible and is a work of which I am not capable of on my own, but must have the Holy Spirit to accomplish.

    Have a great Lord’s day worshipping! I’m out of here.

  145. John said

    Jared, have you no understanding as to why the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics has no power against the evolutionary processes because the Earth is not a closed system? If you disagree with this then I would be most interested in your explanation.
    We have Creator Deities too, so, there goes your “First Cause” and accusations of deity denial argument out the window.
    As far as your “you evolutionists believe that something came from nothing and I don’t” claims, you should also know about us that, as me and Ferox[and MattF and other "bad" Christians that believe in the evolutionary processes]are theologians ourselves, we also hold the belief in a form of “divine meddling”[creation] that started things going “in the beginning”. So you see, in a way we too are creationists, abet, of a different variety. And as you have no more evidence to support your Christian creation account as a Hindu does, and the abiogenesis argument has no effect on whether or not evolution actually occurred after this hypothetical event, why even bring any of this up? How are these theological claims supposed to help support your argument against evolution, which continues with or without the various conflicting human theological belief systems that have come into existence in this world? Creationism and evolutionary science can co-exist to an extent if you let it.

  146. Mike S said

    Just curious, to those of you who have read my posts… how many degrees do you think I have earned?

  147. Mike S said

    BTW WFU 28 VA 17!! Go Deacs!

  148. Ed said

    John,
    In #140 above, you state that the idea that men did not evolve from apes. Question: Where did man evolve from then?
    Also, if macro-evolution cannot be proven as law or fact but mearly thory, then why cannot other theories taught as well instead of macro-evolution alone as “fact”?
    As earlier stated in #111Evolution goes against itself anyway.
    “The strongest, most adaptive survive.” If this were true, then all of life would be simple organisms. The more complex an organizm, the easier to kill. The longer time between birth and puberty (ability to procreate) the lower the chances for that organism to adapt to the new envirionment.
    Please answer #110
    A single celled organism like a bactirum or other, indipendantly viable organizm given the free range to grow and adapt (basis for evolution) and become an organism that each cell is dependant on the others for survival and not viable on its own.

  149. Ed said

    As far as Calvinism and Wesleyism, this is a matter of who know what and when. This is also a matter of faith vs works.
    When each is taken to thier extreme, both are wrong. When spoken as an emphasis on one charicter of God or the other, or of faith, then both are right.
    God know all before the begining of time (hence omiscient). In doing so, he new what decision each of us would face (the whole world from the begining of time till the end of time), the possible outcomes and which we would chose. The timeline that all of us know, cumulatively, would be a plane. the time line each of us knows is a line in that plane. God sees not just the plane, but the volume (all time lines, all decisions, all outcomes of those decisions, and the resulting follow on decisions matching that line). Not only that, but God stresses each line so that his will is done.
    Faith, without works is dead. Works not driven by faith are just as dead. It is not by works we are saved, it is faith. However, how does the farmer know the field is full of corn and not some type of grass? The resulting fruit. How do you know you are a Christian, the actions you take (fruits) bear witness to your faith, not the other way around.

  150. Moderator said

    It appears every thread is now morphing into a debate on evolution.

    Can we keep these topic specific? We have several posts on evolution.

    Thanks!
    Moderator (not Stu)

  151. Ed said

    I will repost these questions that have yet to be answered.
    Question:
    What defines a “civil rights issue”?
    My question in 43. What defines life? When does life begin?
    My question 3. Where does it end? If “marriage” as it were is a defining point in civil rights, who’s rights finaly get “trashed”? Where does the line get drawn? This includes bestiality and extra-terrestrial life. Where do you draw the line? I am happy to draw that line at one man and one woman. Not only scriptural, but practical as well.
    Christians should be able to answer these questions simply.

  152. Ed said

    I find this interesting.
    If I say that homosexual relationships are wrong, I am being judgmental. However, to say that the Christian faith is a myth and has no anchor in fact is not judgemental. Which is right? It is like saying that only whites are racist.

  153. F. L. A. said

    Hellow again Ed. John has gone home to bed[He goes to work at 5a.m. everyday, so....].
    Perhaps you will find posts #16 on the site”Was Darwin Right or Wrong?”Feb.21,2008 and posts#148,159,203,369, and#390 on the site “Was Darwin Right or Wrong?”May19th,2008 helpful and/or amusing.

  154. F. L. A. said

    I apologize Moderator for my last post being unrelated to the sites chosen topic. I posted it before reading your post#150.

    Ed, both parties in question are being judgmental.
    There is nothing really wrong with being a little judgmental.Skepticism to a degree is useful and healthy. What is important is the degree of judgmentality applied, to not be too excessive and biased, and as to whether or not a judgment can be supported by factual evidences.
    It is very difficult to support a theological argument[As compared to an argument on, say, botany.] against skepticism, which is why debates involving theology can become so “heated” and still remain unresolved for all parties involved.

  155. Ed said

    Howdy FLA,
    Been on that shift as well. Next week I will be out of my normal town, and may not be able to post. The week after, I should be back to a normal (7am-4pm day) and my not be able to post either.
    My biggest issue right now (and keeping in the topic) are the questions in 151. If not at the homosexual line, then what line if any?

  156. Ed said

    Before I (or any other christian) am labled “homophobe” because I disagree with the homosexual lifestyle, let me tell you about a couple of interactions I had.
    I was stationed at a maintenance facility when Bill Clinton signed in the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. One of my coworkers (he was a civilian) asked me how I felt working next to “one of them”. I told him that I found homosexuality no less or more a sin than a hetrosexual man who sleeps with any and every woman he can. He got upset because (unbeknownst to me at the time) he was living with his girlfreind out of wedlock.
    Later I was stationed aboard a sub when one of my shipmates asked me to help him out. He then confided to me that he was gay and had a hard time talking about his “significant other” because of gender and wanted my take on it. I told him that as long as he was not sleeping with me, I did not care who he slept with, and that his lifestyle along with many of my other shipmates who slept with all kinds of women were commiting the same sin, just in two different ways. Our working relationship did not change, and he had some profound respect for me later.
    I don’t hate homosexual people. I dislike thier actions. However, any sin will send you to hell just as fast another. The sin does not determine how bad of hell you go to. The only solution to sin is Jesus Christ.

  157. Ed said

    FLA
    Skepticism is good. It is healthy in fact. 20 years in the Nuclear Navy and the only thing that was not chided hard at (unlike many other branches and sub branches of the armed services) is healthy skepticism. Healthy skepticism asks questions, many of them hard. (How many times have you tried to answer the 5 year old’s qustion of “why?”) Unhealty skepticism steps out and says “your lying” only because the answer does not suit them when based on facts. As I tell lots of folks I work with when asked “I have a question.”, “I have an answer, I don’t know is an answer.” I do not have all the answers. Neither (it seems) do the people who are asking some hard questions. Life is not as simple as many want to believe it is, on both sides of the fence.

  158. Maz said

    Jared: If you are still reading, just to say #143…great post! It says it all, and I agree!

    #144. I also agree that the Holy Spirit must be involved with our believing but not to the point of totally making our minds up for us and making us repent and believe whether we choose to or not. We STILL have a will to believe and receive, or not believe and reject. Scripture upholds that position.
    God Bless you brother and may we both continue to learn Gods Truth which has set us free from the law of sin and death!

  159. Maz said

    John: #145. Don’t you ever wonder why the second law of thermodynamics exists?

    And Creation (in the true sense) and evolution cannot co-exist. Either we were created by a Super-power outside of us, or it came by accident and chance mutations. You can’t have it both ways. Divine or accidental……..mix’s like oil and water.

  160. Maz said

    Rd: #148…yes, I too wonder what John believes about our origins because evolution deffinitely teaches we came from APES.

  161. Maz said

    Rd…should have been Ed.

  162. Maz said

    Ed: #149. That is my point…..God is omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient….He is eternal, outside of time and space……in fact He is ourside of our understanding. We live in a four dimensional Universe of space plus time. GOD DOES NOT. How awesome is our GOD!!!

  163. Maz said

    Moderator….#150..I was going to mention it, but I think if anyone wants to return to the question they can, but there are times when the flow automatically goes back to who we are, where we came from, Who made us, and where are we going? So I would let it be.

  164. Maz said

    I would also like to see some answer to Eds questions, #151.

  165. Maz said

    Ed: #157. We would be highly ignorant and stupid if we did not ask questions and query the things we are told, taught at school, college, or anywhere else for that matter…even here.
    Paul certainly didn’t mind the Bereans checking out what he was teaching in Thessalonica.

  166. F. L. A. said

    Maz, post#160, this is not necessarily true, and you should have known this by now. Humans are a type of ape that evolved with other apes and primates from a common primate-like ancestor.
    I did not try to answer your other questions within post#151 Ed because I thought that they were mainly directed at the other Christians on the site, so I thought I would let them do the answering for you.

    Maz, post#159, why indeed? Do you know WHAT the Laws of Thermodynamics were created for? Just type in “Evolution and the Second Law of Thermodynamics”. I do not understand why some Christians always seem to think that this will help them disprove Evolutionary Science.You need something else, something better. Also, as it is only a set of rules created by men, I cannot help but see a relation between the old Laws of Thermodynamics and the “Worldly Wisdom Of Man” that you have claimed to be useless and self corrupting, and only relied upon by the “blind unbelievers”.

    Jared made an interesting comment at the end of post#143. I would like to know from him how acknowledging his deity helps his understanding of history. It must be a very interesting understanding, what with him being a Young Earth Creationist. I notice that he did not respond to John’s post#145. Yet[?].
    “Anyone who denies absolute unchanging truth is a relativist and anyone who denies God is an Atheist.I think that covers it.”-Jared,post#115

    Absolute unchanging truth according to whom, specifically? According to your theology?
    And anyone who “denies” God is an Atheist?
    According to whom, specifically? You?
    And the reason that ANY OTHER theologian from a different theological belief system cannot make the same accusation to a Christian is because……????
    And how is it that any of these comments made do not qualify as anything other than your own personal form of relativism[Huge sharp-toothed grin]?

  167. Ed said

    FLA
    Unless I am mistaken, Muslems, Hindus and Zionist Jews (to name 3) DO make the same accusation of Christians. If they did not, Christians would not be killed in Iraq, Iran, India, Pakistan, Afganistan and Indonesia.
    As for #145 (my apologies to the moderator, I tried to get away from the evolution stuff) I had to look as to what abiogenesis ment in order to answer. If I missed my scientific methods, I apologize. Scientific method says that everthing that occured and theorized should be able to be replicated. So, if God did not do it, then how? Abiogenesis is the answer to no God. However, abiogenesis cannot be recreated in any setting. So, abiogenesis does have more emphasis on that argument than it seems.
    Evolution is the newest theory to date. It excludes any “external force” (God, alians) and uses infinite luck (checking the odds, I would feel better in Las Vegas making millions than betting on evolution) or infinite time (radioligical decay of super stable atoms still occurs and they have a half-life, thus no infinite time clock).
    How does any of this have to do with homosexuality? Good question. In fact, evolutionists should be the ones crying the loudest against it, as homosexuality cannot reproduce and that path leads to death of a species. A Christians biggest argument is that God does not like it. Every other science proves the why.

  168. Ed said

    Maz,
    God has always said “kick the tires, ask the questions, verify the responses”. It is not till Moses told God to find someone else that God rebuked Moses.
    Satan says “buy now, while quantities are still in supply” knowing full well he has a storehouse full. Satan (Lucifer) does not want us to question, kick the tires or verify responses because if we do, we see the empty house of cards he has built.

  169. Ed said

    To all:
    BTW, I have absolutely NO degrees to my name.

  170. F. L. A. said

    Yes, Ed, the accusations fly in from ALL faiths, at almost anyone who seems to disagree. Bigots and/or fools abound within almost any form of theological based group, no point in trying to deny it. What I was trying to discover from Jared was his explanation for why he believed these points were only valid from his theology.
    Ed, I believe that John’s post#145 was for Jared.
    No need for you to answer to me for it, but John will read it and be grateful for a Christian response regardless, so our thanks to you for your time and insight.
    I have no degrees to my name either. I have never been to a school a day that I can remember.
    Homosexual behavior is not the big stumbling block to evolution[as we know it, anyway] that you may think. Many other animals besides Mankind practice acts of homosexuality for various reasons[I could provide you with a list[?]] with no ill effects, and as the number of those lifeforms that have these experiences with each other always seem to be in a group of lesser or at least equal number than the bisexual or heterosexual groups, a species can still survive and continue to evolve. It only takes one to three fertile males of many species to keep a species from going extinct, provided that they have access to multiple fertile females.
    How is Ambiogenesis the answer to no God?

  171. Ed said

    If you can prove that just simple chemicals can produce life, or even single celled organisms can become multi-celled organisms through evolution, then you do not need an external source.

  172. Tripp said

    I guess gay marriage and evolution kinda go hand in hand, don’t they?

  173. Stanley said

    Except for the fact they’re completely unrelated, yes.

  174. Maz said

    Ferox: #166. So the Second law of thermodynamics doesn’t disprove evolution? I really don’t want to bother going over this again if you havn’t gt it by now. (SIGH!!!)

    SO…..we DIDN’T come from apes/primates?????
    Yes, or no? It shows it in the textbooks, you know, the pictures of the evolution of man with a little monkey crouched over then progressively more himan until you have someone walking upright. Really, WHAT DID we come from then if, according to evolution, not apes?

  175. Maz said

    Ed #171. Good point.

    We all know about Millers experiment don’t we?

    So if life came by chance chemical reactions, accidentally all by itself, how is it intelligent human beings can’t make this life again, using the same chemical reactions? Doesn’t this show something?
    If life can’t be created by man in a test tube, how on earth did life ever get started on it’s own?
    It amazes me that these problems don’t seem to cause evolutionists to think…….or maybe it does, they just don’t want to accept that anything else…..especially God…..was involved in our origins.

  176. Ed said

    So, is anyone going to take on my question in #151? This is the crux of the initial point.

  177. Maz said

    Stanley: #177. Completely unrelated? How come?

    Evolutionists believe homosexuality is natural and part of our evolutionary progress towards a better human being!!!……as far as THEY believe anyway.

    But as Christians, we believe it is unnatural, and according to the Bible, sinful. So it is VERY relevant to the whole homosexual issue….apart from the fact that God instituted marriage between a MAN and a WOMAN.

  178. Maz said

    Ed: I can’t see you getting any kind of an intelligent answer on this because they havn’t got one. They have no moral absolute on which they can hang their moral cloke.

  179. Barney said

    Ed from post #151 asks:

    “What defines a “civil rights issue”?”
    ——————————————-

    Merriam-Webster defines ‘civil rights’ as:

    “the nonpolitical rights of a citizen ; especially : the rights of personal liberty guaranteed to United States citizens by the 13th and 14th amendments to the Constitution and by acts of Congress”

    So, a “civil rights issue” if brought before the court, or the legislature or even in the newspapers would be about an individual whose “nonpolitical rights” were being discussed or defended.
    ———————————————————–

    “My question in 43. What defines life? When does life begin?”

    Merriam-Webster defines ‘life’ as:

    “the quality that distinguishes a vital and functional being from a dead body”

    So life begins when we can observe these characteristics in an organism.
    ——————————————————————–

    “My question 3. Where does it end?”

    I guess when we can no longer observe the characteristics of ‘life’ in an organism.
    ————————————————

    ” If “marriage” as it were is a defining point in civil rights, who’s rights finaly get “trashed”?”

    No one’s? I dunno, Ed. You have not lost the right to get married have you?
    ———————————————————————-

    “Where does the line get drawn? This includes bestiality and extra-terrestrial life. Where do you draw the line? I am happy to draw that line at one man and one woman. Not only scriptural, but practical as well.
    Christians should be able to answer these questions simply.”

    I agree that this where Christians should draw the line. The laws of our land are secular laws, Ed. The do not address the religious ceremony that you refer to. Where should a secular government draw the line regarding tax breaks for married people? I thought you conservatives were all about tax breaks?
    ——————————————————-

  180. Jared said

    John and FLA

    This is very simple. I believe in God, the one who reveals himself in the scriptures of the old and new testaments along with creation. I take Him at His word to the best of my understanding, parenthetically, I am the faulty one in the equation. If I question the validity of any of His word, then I can bring it all into question and His word becomes meaningless to me. I can bring into question my understanding, but only in as much as it has not maintained consistency with God’s word. He has opened my eyes, not myself, and it is obvious from the discussions, you see your evidence supporting your argument, and I see the evidence overwhelmingly supporting God’s word. I don’t need many different dynamic theories.

    I am a young earth creationist. I see absolutely no scripture suggesting that God used any evolution. On top of that, I see no physical law consistent with evolution. God said he created the universe as we see it in 6 days and throughout scripture this revelation is maintained. There may have been something formless before that for some period of time, but the general form it takes now was 6 days. He re-formed the earth significantly after the flood and I see evidence of the flood everywhere I go. God also establishes in the book of Hebrews that he in fact created everything in the universe out of things that are not visible (Hebrews 11:3). I take Him at His word.

    God has effectively removed the heart of stone I had and replaced it with a heart of flesh, so that I don’t question His word and love it rather than hate it and try to discredit it (hating it and discrediting it are what the world is trying to do everyday). So I can say with great confidence that putting my faith in the creator of the universe, the God of the Bible and the one who came here to earth to suffer my deserved death, is very easy for me. I presuppose God’s word and interpret the the evidence accordingly. At the same time I look at the theories out there, relative to the physical world (life formation, universe, physical law establishment, etc…) and non physical (How law was established, why emotions exist, origin of language, sexuality, etc…) and not only do they appear ridiculous, they also don’t give life any particular meaning, value, or epistemological understanding. I find God’s answers to these questions are not only correct, but provide extraordinary joy and comfort.

  181. Jared said

    I really would like to see the relativist and atheists take on Ed’s question.

    Ed Asked.

    What defines a “civil rights issue”?
    My question in 43. What defines life? When does life begin?
    My question 3. Where does it end? If “marriage” as it were is a defining point in civil rights, who’s rights finaly get “trashed”? Where does the line get drawn? This includes bestiality and extra-terrestrial life. Where do you draw the line? I am happy to draw that line at one man and one woman. Not only scriptural, but practical as well.

    For those who take God at His word this is as ED pointed out very simple. I believe even the atheist of relativist can give answers to these questions according to the “Orthodox Christian” worldview, in other words they know where “Orthodox Christian” draw the lines. The reciprocal however, is not possible for the “Orthodox Christian”.

  182. F. L. A. said

    We will criticize your posts tomorrow Maz and Jared.
    Right now we are being kicked out of the house for the night, so it’s hunting for me and home for John.

  183. Jared said

    Folks,

    Just answer the questions Ed posed. Criticizing the post doesn’t do much for any of us. Besides criticizing supposes some sort of epistemology and truth to go with it.

    Have a nice evening.

  184. Tuesdae said

    ABC’s, your views are so twisted, I am sorry to say. Children need to be protected from being subjected to the homosexual lifestyle, as if it is normal. IT IS NOT. Children need to know that God created them male and female, and the only marriage that HE honors is one between one man and one woman. Also, not allowing homosexuals not to marry is not discrimination. The homosexual community needs to stop comparing their CHOICE to be homosexual to a person’s ethnicity at birth. I am a black woman, not by choice. Homosexuals choose to be so, and they can always change. They can walk away from homosexuality at any given moment. How do I know? I know of several former homosexuals who have done so. God doesn’t make mistakes, and He certainly didn’t put two men or two women together in a relationship. As a matter of fact, He calls it an “abomination” in the book of Romans…

  185. abc's said

    Tuesdae

    You have a right to your opinions.

  186. F. L. A. said

    Tuesdae, welcome to the site.
    You make homosexuality sound like a nicotine addiction. It is much more complicated than that. Do not confuse the homosexual with the bi-sexual. A Catholic priest or a nun can always “walk away” from having a sexual relationship in their lives, but does this make a life of sexual abstinence normal for humans? The human animal is so much more complex than the yes/no, right/wrong, normal/abnormal creature that you may think that it should be according to Christianity. My friend John has interviewed many homosexuals and time and time again when asking about the first time they discovered/realized that they were homosexuals, the answer is almost always something along the lines of…” Well when I hit puberty…” or “When I was 14 and for the first time I noticed I was attracted to other….” which SEEMS to indicate that in at least a majority of the cases, homosexuality is as normal a discovery at puberty for the homosexual as heterosexuality is at puberty for the heterosexual.
    Humanity is very weird. Labels like “normal” have a hard time applying, and seem to be constantly subject to change.

    Happy Veterans Day Ed, and anyone else reading that may be retired from the military!

    Maz, post#174, no, it does not, for we do not exist within a closed system. But please fill free to repeat yourself, not for me, but for others that may agree with you who may have just entered the debate for the first time[Unless you just want to be lazy like I have and just provide readers with the post numbers and sites that help make your points].
    First of all, humans ARE a type of ape, so the question “we evolved from apes?” is somewhat misleading. Secondly, your type of ape evolved from primitive ape-like primates that evolved from primate-like ancestors that evolved from….how far back would you like me to go? You should already know that evolution teaches of a time before mammals even existed to evolve into what evolved into those mammals that later became the primate-like ancestors. We have provided you with numerous examples and sources to investigate.
    Within post#177 you implied that we evolutionists believe that homosexuality is a part of the natural processes that will lead to humans evolving into better humans. Where did you get this idea? We never said this, and evolutionary science does not teach this.
    We said that homosexuality did not effect the evolutionary processes, and that homosexuality and bisexuality naturally occurred in the natural world within various species of animal life, thus bringing to question the argument against homosexual behavior as being “unnatural”.

    Jared, personal testimonies are wonderful, but they are not the same thing as absolute proof or factual evidences. If anyone from any other theological belief system[Major Organized Religion[The dictionaries definition of the word, not yours], cult, or otherwise]had made the same kind of a post[And this is possible, believe it or not] you would probably have discredited it as some form of self deceit, or personal theological relativism.
    You are still in the same boat as every other theologian, Christian or not. Sorry.
    Enjoy your reality.

  187. Maz said

    Abc’s: Tuesdae didn’t give her opinion, her information comes from the Book for living life Gods way (which is the best way…..by the way!) The Bible. And we all know what you think of that….well, that IS your opinion.

  188. abc's said

    Maz

    She gave her opinion. It just happens to be informed by the Bible.

  189. Maz said

    Ferox:
    ”Humanity is very weird. Labels like “normal” have a hard time applying, and seem to be constantly subject to change.”

    That is why we need to know our Maker, so we know the instructions on how to live the ‘normal’ life….otherwise we cannot know what ‘normal’ is if all we are, are human animals, evolved from some goo millions of years ago.

  190. Maz said

    Ferox: ”…we do not exist within a closed system.” And who decided that? and how?

    However you put it, evoluionists believe we came from ape-like creatures. So why try and deny it?

    So to you, homosexuality is part of natural, normal, human life?

  191. Maz said

    Abc’s: You don’t understand, we speak what God speaks, it is NOT our opinion. Opinions can be wrong….Gods Word never is.

  192. abc's said

    Maz

    Your opinion is that the Bible is the world of God. For one reason or another, you chose to believe that. You are free to change your religious beliefs. It is a matter of personal preference.

  193. Paul said

    abc’s

    One Day You will stand before Jesus, then what will you say.
    I hope the Lord opens your eyes.

  194. abc's said

    Paul

    If that should every happen I would probably ask, “What was the point of all that life stuff?”

  195. Paul said

    The thing is we where made for him, but we live in a fallen world.

  196. abc's said

    Paul

    Him who?

  197. Paul said

    JESUS

  198. abc's said

    Paul

    Why would we stand before Jesus. What about God the Father and God the Spirit? Are they supposed to be there too? I’m sure I will have questions about the trinity if I get the chance to ask.

  199. Paul said

    You know something he really loves you , if you will hear his voice just run to him, he’s waiting.

  200. F. L. A. said

    You believe that biblical characters are normal?
    With all of the weird experiences and tests that they went through getting to know your Maker, even if they started out as normal people, they probably were not “normal’ after your God was finished with them.
    Sometimes normal is what one makes it Maz.
    I shall share with you a pagan monsters opinion of what normal is in humanity. Everyone is insane. Everyone. But people are insane in different little ways,some harmless and happy, some destructive and chaotic. Some differences are of course more extreme than others. Now, if a human can find some other humans that they can tolerate and co-exist with[people with insane tendencies that are somewhat compatible with each others], then if enough of these people get together and form a society, they can consider themselves “normal” while anyone who deviates from the common accepted social “norms” of said created society/societies can now be labeled as “abnormal”[the new insane].
    You end up with a northern,pale skinned old man who is at a beach that he paid 10 dollars in shiny chips of dirty metal to park at, smoking a cigar wearing pink flip-flops with black knee-high stockings, blue shorts and an orange flowery shirt, white goop on his ears and nose, looking at a local teenager who is wearing black baggy pants three sizes too big, a leather jacket, and has enough silver jewelry and chains on his body and clothes that he would sink like a stone if he fell into deep water[which would wash off all his white and black makeup], and they look at each other, and they both think “Jeez, what a weirdo! He actually dressed to like that on purpose!? HA!”

  201. Paul said

    I would love to continue but I have to go just think about the one who loves you.(JESUS)

  202. Maz said

    Abc’s: #194. If you read His Word you would find that out before it was too late.

  203. F. L. A. said

    Maz, post#190, What is a closed system, Maz.
    I did not deny that humans evolved from ape-like ancestors,And this is not what I said about homosexuality, Maz.
    I said that normality is somewhat relative for humans, and that homosexual and bisexual behavior is a normal part of the natural world. Understand?

  204. abc's said

    Maz

    I’ve been through the Bible a few times in a few different versions. It just isn’t compelling.

  205. Mike S said

    Homosexuals are born with a sin nature just like everyone else. Everyone’s sin nature is stronger in some areas than others. Personally, I am prone to lust after beautiful brunette women, even though I am married. However, I choose not to follow my lusts anymore thanks to what Christ has done in my heart. Some people lust after children, some people lust after alcohol and drugs, some lust after wealth and material goods. We live in a fallen and broken world and we all have are vices don’t we?

    I won’t argue against the belief that people are born with strong homosexual tendencies, I think that is clear. However, it all boils down to behaviors and actions. Such behavior and action requires a choice to be made. You either choose to act on the temptations, or you choose not to.

    The race comparison to homosexuality diminishes the plight that blacks endured. Blacks did not choose to be black, they just are. However, they can choose to be law abiding model citizens or not. We would certainly cry foul if they claimed that they are allowed special entitlements and privileges just because they are black (or white).

    Homosexuals enjoy the same liberty as everyone else in this country. However, they are asking for special privileges and entitlements because they are homosexual. Marriage laws are the same for everyone. What they are trying to do is to redefine the term marriage because of their desire for their lifestyle to be accepted and condoned by the government.

    I was surprised to learn that California currently has laws that allow all same sex couples the same benefits and rights as married couples through civil unions. So why are they making such a big fuss? Because they want their behavior condoned. Why do you think it’s so important to them? Maybe deep down that guilty conscience is gnawing at them constantly? I feel sorry for their struggles and can only hope and pray for their hearts to be changed by the power of the Gospel!!

    I have several close friends who are gay. They know that I love and care for them, but they also know my stance. Two of them actually agree with me (regarding it being a choice), yet they are clearly choosing what they know in their heart is unnatural. Oddly, they are the ones that I am closest to. Homosexual behavior is no worse than adultery (actually it is adultery), greed, pride, gossiping, selfishness, etc. (All keep us from God apart from trust in Christ). I think we as Christians are guilty of making it a hypercritical sin.

  206. Maz said

    Abc’s: If you read Revelation 20 v 11-15, you will see Who you, as an unrepentant sinner, will have to stand before on the day of Judgment. This is not to be confused with the Bema Seat (Judgment Seat of Christ) which Christians will stand before to be judged for the works we have done for Christ…and be rewarded for. But this will be the final judgment for those who have rejected Christ. You will face GOD.

  207. Maz said

    Ferox:
    ”I shall share with you a pagan monsters opinion of what normal is in humanity. Everyone is insane.”

    I really have no answer to that! Well…..mmmmmmmmmm.

    So tell me, what is your deffinition of insanity?

  208. Mike S said

    Hypercritical as in more critical than others. Actually ALL sin is hypercritical!!

  209. Maz said

    Ferox: A closed system is one that nothing comes in and nothing goes out. The Universe is finely balanced…energy…matter…energy…matter…..

  210. Maz said

    Abc’s: Actually I tried reading the Bible before I came to Christ, and I didn’t understand it either. You need to talk to God, if you are sincere, He will come and help you see the Truth that will set you free.

  211. F. L. A. said

    Maz post#207, any deviation from the various commonly accepted displays of insanity, in accordance with the rules of said established insane society.
    Would you like me to give some specific examples?
    If so I will need a little time to think, confer with John[He is insane too, of course, but as he has greater interaction with society I need his input.], and compile a list of sorts.
    I am going out to eat stuff right now. be back much later.

  212. Maz said

    Ferox: I wonder, if there is insanity, then where is sanity? You can’t really have one without the other.

  213. F. L. A. said

    Post#209, But Maz, it has no known boundries, only hypothetical boundries, and there is a lot of really weird, destructive, creative, and unknown “stuff” within and going on within it. You make the universe sound like one of those little plant terrariums in a big jar.
    Besides, we have all of that annoying evidence and science that you refuse to take seriously that proves evolution has occurred and continues on.

  214. F. L. A. said

    I know not. Maz, perhaps labels such as sanity and insanity are nothing more than our little conceived concepts and nothing more.
    Maybe SANITY does not exist.[?]
    Many of this words theological belief systems start their creation stories with “In the beginning, there was CHAOS….” so maybe cosmic insanity is…..”normal”?[!]

  215. Maz said

    Ferox: I cannot accept something that is only a theory, and that goes against what I believe to be the true. It will always be a theory made up by man because he cannot accept his Creator. That is all evolution is, a theory created to do away with a Creator God.

  216. Maz said

    Ferox: And how do you know it has no boundaries?…..even Hubble has never seen the boundaries of our Universe.

  217. Maz said

    F.L.A: Nothing would really mean anything without something to compare it with. If all we are, are evolved animals, what have we got to know what is sane or insane, what is moral or immoral, what is right or what is wrong? As you say it would only be someones idea or concept….but with a Creator God, we KNOW what is right or wrong, we KNOW what is moral and immoral, and we KNOW who is sane and insane.
    I’m so glad there is a God that created me for a purpose, that I have value, and I have a hope for the future, which is life eternal with Him.
    I feel sorry for those who don’t have that hope. Death ends all……for them, THEY THINK.
    What an awful awakening for those who carry on in this life in ignorance and darkness.

  218. John said

    Then again, what if everything meant something, but we wee Earth mortals just could not ever comprehend the meanings? As a species, we humans seem rather inclined to make the Gods into what we want them to be. Is it so impossible an idea that deities themselves can evolve? Or be “insane”[Sure would explain a lot!]? How could we ever be able to judge such a thing?

  219. paul said

    Thanks Maz for continuing the diolog with abc’s.

    also post#210 is right on, I use to not understand even the music I was alowed to listen to , that was christian, until I got Saved.

  220. Anonymous said

    Barney
    #179 Ok, so when does life begin? Is it at conception? Is at the point when the baby leaves the mother’s womb? Is it somewhere inbetween? As far as rights being “trashed”, my question is if homosexuals are complaining that thier civil rights are not being addressed because of marriage not being allowed my question is where is that line to be drawn if not at homsexuals? Personally, I am for a flat tax which does not give “tax breaks” to anyone of any sort.
    FLA,
    Thank you, it was my honor to serve my country in the way I did. Not to mention alot of fun, educational and has provided a means for me to earn a good living for my family.

  221. Ed said

    All, sorry I posted the last anonymous.

  222. John said

    Happy Veterans Day Ed[and all other veterans who may also be reading]!
    As the both the sperm cell and the woman’s egg are both alive, wouldn’t this mean that life begins even BEFORE conception?
    Perhaps I’m just being too nit-picky. As far as the babies life is concerned, I would think that it’d start at the fertilization of the egg. I don’t think of it as a baby yet[too young and undeveloped] until a heart beat and brain waves are discovered, but this is when I think that it starts, for what my opinion is worth.

  223. Ed said

    Thank you John,
    Do you know when a heart beat and brain waves are developed?

  224. Stanley said

    What do you say to the homosexuals you won’t allow marry? What do you say to their face?
    I want to protect the sanctity of marriage, but I believe that divorces should be allowed?
    I want to protect the children, because you’re unfit to raise a child? How self-righteous.
    It goes against my Christian values?

    Proposition 8 is despicable.

  225. John said

    Your welcome Ed. Many of the people in my bloodline have been in the military. For a loooooooooonge, long, time.

    Heart beat detected at through an ultrasound at roughly seven weeks after conception, ten to fourteen weeks to hear the heart beat with a doppler.

    Brain waves can be detected by use of the E.E.G. roughly forty to forty three days after conception.

  226. Bookert said

    Yeah, Stanley, prop 8 is heartless. At best it gives silly old coots like Dobson a reason to live. At worst, what a waste. What a waste of life – to commit oneself to the abolition of certain sexual proclivities between consenting adults. I mean, I could see devoting one’s life to the elimination of rape or pedophelia – feminists and cops do that – but to build one’s reputation on the oppression of gays – that’s truly sick. What an empty man Dobson must be. What a sad narcissist, gazing heavenward and finding his own lonely face, staring back. Sad, sad, sad. Wasteful and sad.

    Here are three quotes by that gay genius, Oscar Wilde, and all pertain one way or another to Dobson and his dark disciples –

    “Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone elses opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation.”

    “Consistency is the last refuge of the unimaginative.”

    “Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious.”

  227. Ed said

    John,
    As have many of mine. If that is when life begins, then would that make abortion after that point killing?
    Bookhert,
    Is that the only thing Dr. Dobson is involved with? Gay bashing? You really should pay attention to more than just one topic. On top of that, “physician, heal thyself.”

  228. F. L. A. said

    Maz, post#217, I said “I know not.” and “Perhaps…..”
    I do the best that my hostile, insane, monstrous nature will allow me to. I expect at least an equal amount of effort from anyone who claims to care about such things as good morals, truthfulness, fairness, justice,etc., and in the end, will leave the judging up to the deities.

    You are welcome Ed.

  229. F. L. A. said

    I believe it is safe to say that John would not call it killing, Ed.
    We would call it murder. Homicide, to be specific.

  230. Ed said

    FLA,
    Thank you for proving my point. If it murder, then the abortion issue is a “civil right” issue.
    Homosexual marriage (or the lack of) is an inconvinence, nothing more. Last I checked, killing homosexuals still carried penalties for murder (ie. death). Murder of the unborn is not only allowed, but fought for. Kinda like another serious civil rights and liberties issue.

  231. Barney said

    Ed, you asked:

    “Barney
    #179 Ok, so when does life begin? Is it at conception? Is at the point when the baby leaves the mother’s womb? Is it somewhere inbetween?”

    Life has begun when we can observe the characteristics of life in an organism. Do we know when that is? Sperms are alive. Are sperms human life?
    —————————–

    “As far as rights being “trashed”, my question is if homosexuals are complaining that thier civil rights are not being addressed because of marriage not being allowed my question is where is that line to be drawn if not at homsexuals?”

    As long as it doesn’t restrict any one else’s rights we should extend the tax breaks for married couples to any two consenting adults.
    ——————————————

    “Personally, I am for a flat tax which does not give “tax breaks” to anyone of any sort.”

    I agree. Then we wouldn’t be having this argument.

  232. Mike S said

    Here is a list of general rights that are afforded to same sex couples currently in California. From left leaning wikipedia so it’s gotta be true right?

    Scope
    As of 2007, California affords domestic partnerships all of the same rights and responsibilities as marriages under state law (Cal. Fam. Code §297.5). Among these:

    Making health care decisions for each other in certain circumstances
    Hospital and jail visitation rights that were previously reserved for family members related by blood, adoption or marriage to the sick, injured or incarcerated person.
    Access to family health insurance plans (Cal. Ins. Code §10121.7)
    Spousal insurance policies (auto, life, homeowners etc..), this applies to all forms of insurance through the California Insurance Equality Act (Cal. Ins. Code §381.5)
    Sick care and similar family leave
    Stepparent adoption procedures
    Presumption that both members of the partnership are the parents of a child born into the partnership
    Suing for wrongful death of a domestic partner
    Rights involving wills, intestate succession, conservatorships and trusts
    The same property tax provisions otherwise available only to married couples (Cal. R&T Code §62p)
    Access to some survivor pension benefits
    Supervision of the Superior Court of California over dissolution and nullity proceedings
    The obligation to file state tax returns as a married couple (260k) commencing with the 2007 tax year (Cal R&T Code §18521d)
    The right for either partner to take the other partner’s surname after registration
    Community property rights and responsibilities previously only available to married spouses
    The right to request partner support (alimony) upon dissolution of the partnership (divorce)
    The same parental rights and responsibilities granted to and imposed upon spouses in a marriage

    So why the big big fuss over redefining marriage?

    Here are the Eligibility requirements: With my comments in (parenthesis).

    Currently, a couple that wishes to register must meet the following requirements:

    Both persons have a common residence. (what about the rights of the homeless?)
    Neither person is married to someone else or is a member of another domestic partnership with someone else that has not been terminated, dissolved, or adjudged a nullity. (Too restricting, what about those polygamists)
    The two persons are not related by blood in a way that would prevent them from being married to each other in California. (come on now, why are you restricting that father to marry his adult son, what about their civil rights!)
    Both persons are at least 18 years of age. Why not 6 years old to protect the rights of those pedophiles!)
    Either of the following:
    Both persons are members of the same sex.
    The partners are of the opposite sex, one or both of whom is above the age of 62, and one or both of whom meet specified eligibility requirements under the Social Security Act.
    Both persons are capable of consenting to the domestic partnership. (Awe come on now, you’re restricting the rights of that guy who wants to partner with his goat)

    Can you see that the line has to be drawn somewhere?

    Discrimination is good when applied based upon common sense and good moral reasoning. That is why it is illegal for a blind man or a 6 year old to obtain a driver’s license. It’s not beneficial to the health of the individual or to society.

    Furthemore, I will say again, that Gays are asking for rights that no one else has.

    Let me illustrate. Smith and Jones both qualify to vote in America where they are citizens. Neither is allowed to vote in France. Jones, however, has no interest in U.S. politics; he’s partial to European concerns. Would Jones have a case if he complained, “Smith gets to vote [in California], but I don’t get to vote [in France]. That’s unequal protection under the law. He has a right I don’t have.” No, both have the same rights and the same restrictions. There is no legal inequality, only an inequality of desire, but that is not the state’s concern.

    The marriage licensing law applies to each citizen in the same way; everyone is treated exactly alike. Homosexuals want the right to do something no one, straight or gay, has the right to do: wed someone of the same sex. Denying them that right is not a violation of the equal protection clause.

  233. Maz said

    John: #218. ”As a species, we humans seem rather inclined to make the Gods into what we want them to be. Is it so impossible an idea that deities themselves can evolve? Or be “insane” ”

    I agree with you there, mankind does tend to make gods to fit their needs, rather than seeking the God of the Universe and the Truth that will set them free from darkness and ignorance.
    I’m so glad my God does NOT change, He is an eternal Supernatural Being of great LOVE and MERCY, FAITHFULNESS and JUSTICE, and He deffinitely is not insane!! Thanks be unto God for His unfathomable LOVE to us!!

  234. Maz said

    Paul: Thanks for your encouragement. We as Gods children can know and possess a relationship that the world cannot possibly understand. Through Christ we are family, even though I have never met you and don’t really know the Christians that blog on this site very well, we are FAMILY, brothers and sisters in the Lord. The world can never know what that means to us. One day we shall all meet together…Praise to our God forever and ever! Amen!

  235. Maz said

    John: #222. I AGREE!! Once the egg is fertilised, the natural process of a baby being born in about 9 months is unstoppable unless there is a miscarriage, or some other tragedy occurs. But man has NO right to stop this natural process once started.

  236. Maz said

    Stanley: #224. It is GODS RIGHTEOUSNESS we uphold, not our own. You on the other hand have nothing but your OWN values to fall back on.

    Bookert: #226. Those three quotes: What a load of rubbish!

  237. Maz said

    Rd #230. Good point. One is called murder, the other abortion. The only difference is, one is too tiny to speak for itself or have a March to demonstrate their rights.

  238. Maz said

    Sorry! That should be Ed not Rd…..some letters are fading on my keyboard (the ones I use a lot)….anyone got any ideas on how to replace them? I’v lost my ‘i’ , ‘n’ and ‘l’!! and my ‘t’ has nearly gone!!!

  239. anonymous said

    Bookert, Re: #226

    “What an empty man Dobson must be.”

    You need to look in the mirror. That’s the most idiotic statement I’ve ever heard.

  240. Stanley said

    No Maz, its your version righteousness, and your opinion. You’ve got no divine right to say what is right and wrong, merely your opinion.

    Discrimination is wrong Mike.

    Separate but equal is still unjust.

  241. Mike S. said

    So… We should not “discriminate” and therefore should give a blind man a driver’s license huh? Since we would be infringing on his equal rights. Stanley, have you ever thought of “thinking” about your claims before you make them?

  242. Mike S. said

    Should we discriminate regarding giving doctors their license to practice or should we just give them to anyone who wants them? Mike

  243. Maz said

    Stanley: You may have the chance to meet God Himself face to face one day and tell Him what is right and wrong. And then you will have the Truth straight from Him because you obviously don’t accept anything us mortals, saved by the blood of Jesus, have to say.

  244. Mike S. said

    “Separate but equal is still unjust.” So… using your philosophy then we should combine girls and boys locker rooms and showers in middle school and high school then?

  245. Mike S. said

    Oh ok I get it now Stanley. “Right and wrong is merely an opinion”. If/when you ever have kids, (God help them if you do), be sure to tell them that. Especially when they are teenagers.

  246. Maz said

    Stanley: So, we should have no rules, no regulations, no differentiation and no barriers to anyone in any walk of life? Is that what you’re saying?

    But if there is…..who, where, how, what and why.

  247. abc's said

    Maz and Paul

    So what you’re saying is that to become a believer in Jesus, all I have to do is believe first? Once I believe, then my eyes are opened to the truth.

    That doesn’t make any sense.

  248. Mike S. said

    Of course it doesn’t ABC. It is a supernatural event and you don’t believe in those right?

  249. abc's said

    Mike S.

    How do you believe in something if you don’t believe in it? That’s what doesn’t make sense. It’s as if I asked you to believe in Unicorns. Once you believe, then you will see them and it will all be so obvious.

  250. Mike S. said

    So are you saying that supernatural events do not occur because you don’t believe in them?

  251. abc's said

    No Mike. I am saying that I don’t believe in supernatural events. You are telling me that they do occur, but that I have to believe in them first otherwise they can’t affect me.

  252. Mike S. said

    All I was saying is the reason it does not make sense to you is because you do not believe that supernatural events occur.

  253. abc's said

    Mike

    I shouldn’t have said that it doesn’t make sense.
    I used to be a believer, and I used to be involved in the church.

    I understand the mentality, and I am very aware of what scripture says and the differing denominational interpretations. I know what it means to pray and ask for guidance. I know what it feels like when a person thinks that God is communicating directly with them.

    I began to question my faith as I get older. “Those who seek shall find.” Well I sought, and I found out that it just isn’t the truth.

  254. Mike S. said

    ABC
    What is truth? Have you found it? Is it even findable?

    It’s interesting that I too began to question my faith as I got older, yet what I found in my search was that I really didn’t have faith. I believed that I was a believer, but as I matured I realized that could not give an answer to anyone who asked why I believed, and ultimately did not believe. I had a head knowledge but lacked a choice of the will of my heart to fully trust that Jesus Christ’s life, death and resurrection fully paid for the penalty of my sin and gave me the desire and the power to live for Him.

    That may be something for you to consider… did you really believe and trust in Jesus Christ? Or were you just doing what you thought was right for whatever reason. There is a huge difference. Did you really seek “with all your heart”? Just asking.

  255. abc's said

    Mike

    That’s really the only response that anyone can offer. “You were never really a believer.”

    As I got older I realized that I didn’t have faith. I just said that I believed. So I went searching. Instead of finding faith, I found more and more reason to doubt. The only difference now is that I can say that I don’t believe and provide a reasoned response.

    I haven’t found absolute truth, and I don’t think that anyone can.

  256. Mike S. said

    Fair enough… and doubt is actually very healthy, and when combined with a true and honest search from the heart, I will bet my life that you will find the truth. Because if it’s not what I believe it to be then life is just a moment between two eternities of nothingness as some philosopher said.

  257. abc's said

    Mike S.

    That’s what I find so interesting.
    One person can put the time in, do the research and the believing and have very strong faith, while the next person can follow the same path and come up empty handed.

    I think this says more about people than faith.

  258. abc's said

    Mike S.

    “Because if it’s not what I believe it to be then life is just a moment between two eternities of nothingness as some philosopher said.”

    Or it could be Allah and he will be very angry with you. Or you may meet all of the greek Gods on Mt Olympus, etc. Or it could be something that people have never thought of. But it could also just be nothing.

    I was dead for billions of years before I was alive and it didn’t cause me any concern.

  259. Mike S. said

    You are more right than you know. Got to go to a meeting… later..

  260. Mike S. said

    response 259 was to 257.

  261. Maz said

    Abc’s: #247. No, you do not just believe…if you don’t. You have to WANT to know God and the truth about Him. You need to seek Him with your heart, not your head…..He will reveal Himself to you if you are sincerely seeking Him, then you will see, and know, and believe.

  262. Maz said

    Abc’s: Before you can believe in the supernatural, you have to come to know and believe in the One that is the Supernatural worker. Jesus is waiting for you to respond to His love He showed on the cross 2000 years ago. He died for you, you need to realise that, and ask Him to reveal Himself to you……yes, it is a supernatural, spiritual experience……nothing scientific about it. God wants your heart. He loves you, He wants you to love Him.

  263. Maz said

    Abc’s: #253. Did you really have an experience with the risen Christ? Did you come to know His love? Did you ‘feel’ Him in your life, because if you just had a mental ascent to Christianity, then you really didn’t know Him atall. The Bible tells us there are those who call Him ‘Lord, Lord’ but do not belong to Him, and He will say ‘I never knew you’.

  264. Maz said

    Abc’s: ”I haven’t found absolute truth, and I don’t think that anyone can.”

    Do you know what absolute truth is? Because if you don’t know the answer to that, then you probably didn’t know Him as you should.

    The answer…..is JESUS.

  265. Maz said

    Abc’s: The fact is, you were born into this world ‘dead’….dead to God. Ephesians 2 v 1-5 tells us we were (Christians that is) once dead in our trespasses and sins, but Christ made us alive, we had our lives of lust and sin but God saved us from it…by His great love.
    Read all of Ephesians 2. The question is, were you ‘made alive’ in Christ when you were, as you say a Christian?

    And it wasn’t millions of years, that’s evolution talk again.

  266. Stanley said

    Mike, you’re the king of the bad analogy.

  267. Mike S. said

    And Stanley you’re the king of making ridiculous comments without backing them up. example… “Discrimination is wrong”. after claiming right and wrong are just opinions. Just plain silly dude.

  268. Stanley said

    Do you disagree with the statement that discrimination is wrong?

  269. abc's said

    Maz

    “The Bible tells us there are those who call Him ‘Lord, Lord’ but do not belong to Him, and He will say ‘I never knew you’.”

    That sounds really nice of him.

  270. Maz said

    Abc’s: He is just stating a fact…..He never knew them.
    You have absolutely no idea what a heartache you and others like you are to Him. He DIED for you….doesn’t that count for something?…..doesn’t that show you HOW MUCH HE LOVES YOU? It is really terribly sad to hear some of the senseless rhetoric on here from those who refuse to acknowledge God let alone believe in Him.

  271. Maz said

    Stanley: #268…..If he said ‘yes’ or ‘no’, that would….according to you!……be his opinion…..and would his opinion be right or wrong?

  272. Mike S. said

    Stanley… Now try to focus here buddy. Yes I totally disagree with a blanket statement that discrimination is wrong. Did you not understand my examples or I guess you think they are “bad analogies”.

    If you make an A in Anthropology and someone else makes an F should the teacher be discriminate when deciding who passes his class and who does not? Or maybe since you are a socialist, then you would be happy if he did not discriminate against that failing student and took part of your A and gave you both a C? Yeah I know “another bad analogy”, just try to keep up will ya?

  273. abc's said

    Maz

    “He DIED for you….doesn’t that count for something?…..doesn’t that show you HOW MUCH HE LOVES YOU?”

    Honestly, not really. My wife doesn’t need to die to prove that she loves me. I take her word for it.

  274. Maz said

    Abc’s: Jesus didn’t die just to prove His love for you. He died to take away your sin because He didn’t want you to suffer the consequences. YOU are guilty of sin…but Jesus paid the price…took the judgment of YOUR sin upon Himself…..Really Abc’s, I do wonder if you were a Christian in the past if you do not know the fundementals of the sacrifice God made for you on the cross of Calvary.

  275. abc's said

    Maz

    I know the deal, I just didn’t think it was necessary to describe the whole story to you in detail every time I post something related to it.

    If God wanted to forgive us of sin then he could just forgive us.

    If he didn’t want us to suffer the consequences of sin, then he could do away with the consequences.

    If God didn’t want us to sin then he wouldn’t have tempted Adam, or allowed him to be tempted by something else he created, and then held every person to follow accountable for that one sin.

    Why would God take anything personally? Surely he would be above petty human emotion.

    I think of it like I think of the relationship I have with my dog. I love my little beagle. Every once in awhile he chews something up, or digs a hole in the yard. I don’t take it personally, I just try to correct the behavior and we move on with out lives.

    How do you really believe that the story of Genesis describes actual events?

  276. Barney said

    “How do you really believe that the story of Genesis describes actual events?” – Abc’s

    Uh-oh…

  277. Mike S. said

    Abc

    The answer to the first two of your claims is JUSTICE.

    The next two LOVE, do you classify that as petty human emotion? I hope not for your wife’s sake.

    Try number 2 (Do away with consequences) on your dog and see how far that gets you. Consequences are intrinsic to behavior modification.

  278. abc's said

    Mike S.

    That’s interesting that you bring up justice. My brother in law is very Christian and he is always talking about justice.

    What is unjust about everyone receiving an eternal reward when they die?

    I’ve read some interesting material regarding experiments where some species of animals seem to exhibit a sense of justice.

    If I compare my thoughts of what a deity would be like to what I know people are like, then yes, love is a very petty human emotion that is triggered by chemical processes in the brain.

    I agree that consequences are intrinsic to behavior modification. That doesn’t point to the supernatural though.

  279. Maz said

    Abc’s: Your ignorance of the basics of the gospel is glaringly clear, and as I’m having trouble getting on here after I’v posted…..I did answer your post once and somehow it got lost…… but I do not think it will make any difference if I try explaining it to you…and I have decided to cease this line of reasoning with you, and bid you goodnight.

  280. Stanley said

    Yes Mike, that is ANOTHER bad example. Marriage is not something you have to be qualified for, which is not to say I think that people should just go and get married for kicks. But who are you to restrict the rights of others because you don’t like it.

    And I’m not a socialist. I’m a conservative.

  281. Mike S. said

    “Marriage is not something you have to be qualified for” Oh really? You don’t have to prove that your not blood related or married to someone else? Or of age?

    No rights are being restricted. They have the same rights we do. Marriage since the beginning of history and as defined in the law books is between a man and a women. Whether you are hetero or homo we all have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. Same rights. Gays are asking for special rights or for marraiage to be re-defined. WHY?? In Californicatia, they already have all the same rights as married couples under the civil union laws.

  282. Mike S. said

    Conservatives don’t think like you do Stanley. Are you looking to re-define conservatism as well?

  283. Stanley said

    No, the rights aren’t the same. If they were the same, they wouldn’t ask for equality. What do you lose by them being able to marry? To say your definition of marriage is morally superior?

    Actually, I’m an old school liberal, depending on how you define it. A Ron Paul republican, if you like. Not a self-righteous homophobic christian nut job like some conservatives.
    I say government should have a very limited role in our lives. They pave the roads, they keep us save, they provide services the private sector finds difficult to profit off of (like the postal service).

  284. Mike S said

    “If they were the same, they wouldn’t ask for equality” Let me get this straight, so the fact that they are “asking for equality” makes it different? And who said anything about the definition being morally superior? It is what it is. Unless of course you want to re-define “is”. Hey where have I heard that before?

    “What do you lose by them being able to marry?” Society will continue to lose our sense of what is natural and unnatural. It will open the door to all kinds of re-defining of laws rights and terms. It will lead to all kinds of promotion of the “gay agenda” (yes there is one of those) within our schools. They already have tried to indoctrinate kindergartners to the homosexual lifestyle. So you call me a homophobe. Hey they can practice all they want in their own private lives, but when they want to promote their lifestyles in front of my children then they’ve crossed the line. Again. In California, they already have the same rights. Check it out for yourself!!

  285. Ed said

    Last first.
    Stan,
    So let me get this straight, you wish to have homosexual behavior “normalized”? Remind me as to the definition of normal.
    #277
    We are all rewarded for our actions. Hell is the reward for evil actions. Applying my sins to Jesus so his perfection could be applied to me. If you served in the Navy, they award punishment for improper actions.
    #275
    So every judge who convicts law breakers are unjust? Should our court systems let everyone go because it violates thier civil rights? If that would be unjust, then what about God? If you break His laws, should you not be convicted and punished?
    #269
    “… never knew you.” How many celebrities do you know by name? How many of them know yours?
    #268
    Discrimination because of actions? Let me see here. YES!!! If you break the law, then you should be discriminated against. You should loose your privilages, and if you continue to break laws, then you loose your rights. Let me ask again, taking the life of an unborn child (heart beat and brain wave activity present) is a violation of that child’s civil rights?

  286. Jared said

    Maz … nice post 191.

    ABC … Post 192. Once God removes the blinders you can’t choose another faith. Your faith can reform, but there is no changing. This is the part that neither atheists or relativists or other religious folks like the atheist or relativists, who have such extraordinary faith, will never understand. There faith is in their own blindness and the blind do not make themselves to see. They just walk around aimlessly from one theory or one relativistic religion to the next. No absolute truth can exist in such a lack of a systemic understand. This is why it is so hypocritically ironic that the Atheist or relativist even argues. If they have no truth to establish an argument why should they fool themselves.

    The answer to this is in Romans 1. They are actively suppressing the truth as all God’s enemies are in the business of doing!

    This is why none of Ed’s questions has been answered consistently by those who do not believe in the one true God.

    For those who take God at His word this is as ED pointed out very simple.

    Even the atheist or relativist can give answers to these questions according to the “Orthodox Christian” worldview, in other words they know where “Orthodox Christian” draw the lines. This is because God has written the law on their hearts. The reciprocal however, is not possible for the “Orthodox Christian”. The line is a moving target of which no foundation can be established and unlike God’s word No one can define outside of their own opinion!!!!!!

    Pretty simple, no truth = no reason to argue!

  287. Jared said

    Here is the foundation for the truth I described in Post 286.

    John 3

    1Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. 2This man came to Jesus by night and said to him, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God, for no one can do these signs that you do unless God is with him.” 3Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, **unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God**.” 4Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?” 5Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ 8 **The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.**”

    9Nicodemus said to him, “How can these things be?” 10Jesus answered him, “Are you the teacher of Israel and yet you do not understand these things? 11Truly, truly, I say to you, we speak of what we know, and bear witness to what we have seen, but you do not receive our testimony. 12If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how can you believe if I tell you heavenly things? 13 No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man. 14And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, 15that whoever believes in him may have eternal life.

    As with Nicodemus, unless a man is born again, his faith rests in his blindness for unless a man is born again he is Blind. And, as verse 8 affirms that being born again is of God, for a man knows not from where it comes or where it goes, it just happens!

    To God be all the glory!

  288. Jared said

    Post 286 spell checker changed what was suppose to be systematic to systemic. I didn’t catch spell checkers suggestion problem, but I am only human. Wish the atheist or relativist could explain where that human boundary is. I also should have said your sinful understanding of your faith in God can reform, but there is no changing of the faith.

  289. Maz said

    All those atheists who have no absolutes, Ed and Jared have tried to show, that you have no line drawn anywhere. All is open to opinion, except that ones mans opinion may not agree with anothers, so what then? Who’s opinion is right? No one can say, because there is no absolute.
    So the opinion of the majority usually wins, but being in the majority does not make it right…does it? Is that the way it goes? Majority rules OK? So as long as you have enough people behind you to agree with you….that means you are right? Mmmm.

    But again, what is right and what is wrong? According to Stanley, it’s an opinion…..so we’re back to the same problem….how is one persons opinion any more right than anothers?

    When you acknowledge the God that Created us and we look at what He has to say about what is right and wrong, then we have a line drawn, right and wrong is clear……and no man can cross that line. But left to man’s opinion, anybody can cross the line as long as there are enough people to move the line for him. So there is, at the end of the day, no real right and wrong according to man….well that suits him nicely doesn’t it, he can move the line whenever he wants can’t he. But woe to those who are in his way….eh?

    Just a few thots for atheists to ponder.

  290. Mike S. said

    Good post Maz. I heard someone once say that if your God does not oppose you, or challenge your beliefs and actions, then you don’t have a God at all, but a personal genie or cosmic bellhop. I think that is what many people do, they either deny God altogether or create one of their own making that does not disagree with them. Stanley even admitted doing that. The god they want instead of the God who IS.

  291. Paul said

    Very well said Ed, Maz, Mike S., and Jared. But these others just like to argue I think. I enjoyed hearing you guy’s respond though.

  292. Maz said

    Paul: You are absolutely right when you said they just like to argue. I think that is their agenda on here, whatever we say they will come back with some lame, pointless, and many times absolutely senseless statement. I wonder sometimes why I keep going.

  293. Paul said

    Because you love the truth and I love your passion.But your just being salt and light, and my hope is just maybe a little might sink in.

  294. Maz said

    Paul: Yes, that’s my hope, that maybe SOMETHING I say…..MAY open someones eyes…….miracles still happen today!

  295. Paul said

    The Word being proclaimed, all things are possible.Amen to the praise and glory of almighty God.

  296. Paul said

    Yes he is still in the miracle business. Hey he saved me,praise the Lord.

  297. abc's said

    I ask questions because i’m genuinely curious as to what your answers will be, and the logic behind it. For things regarding morality and abolute truth the responses are the same kind of stuff i’ve read in apologetics books.
    When we talk about real science regarding the evidence for evolution, and the lack of evidence for the flood then things get pretty interesting and i’m surprised by the responses almost every time.
    I guess if you feel like i’m here just to argue then i’ll pick up the conversation somewhere else. I enjoyed it. Best of luck to everyone.

  298. Maz said

    Abc’s: Your questions do not sound genuine, they sound argumentative. And don’t you think that if you are reading the ‘same kind of stuff’ in ‘apologetics books’ that we are saying, that there may be some truth it???

    Your science and mine are obviously different. Your science tries to make theory into fact when there is no evidence for it.

    And I don’t believe in luck.

  299. Jared said

    Folks,

    In accordance with the original topic, I watched a discussion/debate between some LDS (self proclaimed mormon) homosexuals last night and a minister of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church.

    Let me demonstrate the relativism, hypocrisy, and opinion.

    Toward the end of the debate the minister asked the two homosexuals how do you reconcile exodus 18. Do you believe incest and bestiality are wrong. The two men said they were dead against both. However, they both said “Homosexuality is OK if it is in a loving relationship”. They obviously didn’t answer the question because they could not. Then a caller challenged them again to answer the question, “How do you reconcile these verses. One of them squirmed in his chair a lot while he tried to circumvent the question by comparing the judgement rendered against a sin (as with stoning a wayward son) with the law that proclaims homosexuality sin. Obviously the a definition and judgment pronounced are two very different things, but that is what the homosexual tried to do.

    Leviticus 18
    20 And you shall not lie sexually with your neighbor’s wife and so make yourself unclean with her. 21You shall not give any of your children to offer them to Molech, and so profane the name of your God: I am the LORD. 22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. 23 And you shall not lie with any animal and so make yourself unclean with it, neither shall any woman give herself to an animal to lie with it: it is perversion.

    For the atheist or relativist or opinionist, no clear line of delineation can be drawn because no such thing as sin exists. Therefore incest, bestiality, homosexuality or any other body or mind destroying perversion is just an act not right or wrong. Just an act.

    This is why none of the folks who do not fear God and His law can give an answer to these questions. Just nebulous opinions. I find it ironic God wrote the law on their hearts such that they know what is good and evil such that they argue for a position at all. Both they and we should be thankful that the law is written upon their hearts and they have to work so hard to suppress the truth!

  300. Paul said

    Post#299 absolutly right!

  301. abc's said

    Jared

    In my experience, this is the most popular myth that theists use to try and explain why religion “must” exist. The most amazing thing about this myth is, in fact, the exact opposite is true. But before we get into that let me just cut to the chase and answer this question.

    People are moral because, on a whole, being moral benefits us. People who are generally moral, have been the fittest. What we call “morality” is simply a set of behaviors that we believe, on a whole, will either benefit our prosperity or impede it. It is very important to understand that most people don’t conscientiously think about it in this way. We don’t have to conscientiously contemplate whether or not it is going to benefit us, on a whole, to go out and murder everyone we don’t like, because our genes have done this for us. Our genes express this knowledge to us using emotion.

    You see, people who were born that went on to murder everyone that they didn’t like, or even committed lesser offenses, such as becoming thieves, simply did not prosper as well as those who participated in a ‘give and take’ relationship with those around them. That is not to say that there aren’t exceptions. Certainly there are thieves who have prospered very well, murderers who got away with it and prospered, etc… However, on a whole, us ‘give and take’ folk outdid them.

    Generally speaking, if you were a thief who went out and murdered everyone you didn’t like, you would have a harder time finding people to help you hunt and get food, you would have a harder time reproducing, you would have a harder time receiving help in a time of need, and a whole host of other problems.

    Your ‘give and take’ counterpart, however, would find it much easier to find a hunting partner, would find it much easier to reproduce, would find it much easier finding people willing to help in a time of need, and so on and so forth.

  302. Paul said

    2Ti 3:1 But know this, that in the last days perilous times will come:

    2Ti 3:2 For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,

    2Ti 3:3 unloving, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, brutal, despisers of good,

    2Ti 3:4 traitors, headstrong, haughty, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God,

    2Ti 3:5 having a form of godliness but denying its power. And from such people turn away!

    Really sounds like give take to me, But when the Holy Spirit is removed, then see what happens.

    2Th 2:6 And now you know what is restraining, that he may be revealed in his own time.

    2Th 2:7 For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only He [fn] who now restrains [will do so] until He [fn] is taken out of the way.

    2Th 2:8 And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord will consume with the breath of His mouth and destroy with the brightness of His coming.

    2Th 2:9 The coming of the [lawless one] is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders,

    2Th 2:10 and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved.

  303. Maz said

    The question really is…why does man have a conscience?

    And why do we worship any god or God? Animals don’t.

  304. Barney said

    Maz: off ignore

    Excellent questions, Maz!

  305. Mike S. said

    Abc
    While your theory is compelling and thought provoking, by calling this a “myth” I guess you are positively sure that your theory regarding where morals come from is certain. So certain that a moral lawgiver is beyond all possiblities huh? You are absoultely sure that it is a myth?

  306. Maz said

    Barney: Thanks. How about some excellent answers!

  307. Jared said

    ABC

    I have a few simple questions for you.

    What is truth?

    And, according to who or what?

    Can you define moral?

    Please do. Your above statement was a gratuitous assertion.

    Interesting you say that those who murder and thieves don’t prosper, why would this be? Many would argue they do. Define prosper for me when all roads end in death. In light of competition it seems one would want to eliminate the competition. Like the lions killing the competitive cubs so their posterity is the most prominent. Do I here Darwin’s theory here? I am referring to the elimination of competition. Are you just another animal and if so why do you act so much differently in many cases and why don’t all the animals, yourself included act similarly?

    Is theft or murder bad when all paths lead to death anyhow?

    Do you not understand that a foundation for argumentation cannot be developed using hypothetical self derived examples?
    Hypothetical self derived examples can only be used to test a line of argumentation and typically you must use examples stemming from either side of an argument in order to test the consistency of such a line of argumentation. Really basic rhetoric philosophy.

    At this point, as demonstrated by the line of questioning above, the rather basic questions are actually insurmountable evidence that your system has no answers.

    It is just another opinion.

    I, along with all those who put their faith in the God of the bible, have an unchanging God to rely on and give us answers.

    Isaiah 14:24 The Lord of hosts has sworn. As I have planned so it be and as I have purposed so shall it stand.

    Who or what do you base your theories on?

  308. Barney said

    Maz, there’s the rub!

  309. Maz said

    Another good question is: Why do we have a law enforcement agency? Why do we have laws that say you can’t steal, you can’t kill, you can’t defraud, you can’t trespass on someone elses property?

    We didn’t have any kind of law enforcement in Britain until the London Bobbies of about 150 years or so ago, why? What about the ‘Wild West’? The law enforcement was the local Sherrif, but people like Jessie James were a law unto themselves. Guns were the law for many.
    In some countries, their law is to kill, it is to steal (or confiscate), when their laws dictate….in other words they have a Dictator.
    You will find that the kind of laws we have in Britain, and in USA, and other countries with similar laws, have had a Christian foundation. Doesn’t that tell you something?

  310. Jared said

    Interesting … one of the posts above referred to the evidence. I have done lots of hiking at 11000+ feet all over the west. At 14,000 feet I have found loads of see shells. Many are not broken and in nearly perfect condition. At 6000 feet I have observed 40 – 60 feet coal seams spanning for thousands of square miles all covered by 40 to 80 feet of clay. Canyons thousands of feet deep in some cases, cut through solid rock mountain ranges. T-Rex soft tissue (cells) found in North dakota documented by national geographic. Soft tissue lasting 60 million years? Even the evolutionist can’t answer this question and some say it only will last 30K years in the best preserving environment. That is 20,000 times more years. The magnetic field of the earth, the moons proximity to the earth, the ocean salinity, etc…, etc… etc…. You see millions of years, I see flood. Pretty simple. I see intelligent design by God, you see random chance coming from nothing. If you are interested in far more of the evidence pointing to creation go to ICR.org

    I think you will find the evidence is very compelling and brings a ton of your theories into serious and question. In fact, it down right disproves the theories all together.

    However, I expect without God’s intervention in anyones life, they will continue to be blind and believe in a lie.

    That is also stated in his word. John 3 as I showed in post 287.

  311. Maz said

    Jared: Funny you should mention the magnetic field of the earth. Other planets in our solar system have these fields and they apparently seem to be too strong to be millions of years old…they should be a lot weaker than they are….so, what do atheistic scientists do? They DON’T look at the evidence and accept that it doesn’t fit their theory, but they look for something else that must cause this strong field so that it fits their theory. This is what atheistic scientists are well known for. When something doesn’t fit their theory, they have to look for or invent (like Dark matter and Dark energy) something to fit their theory (or belief to be more accurate).

  312. Mike S. said

    Hey Stanley
    Watch this and tell me whose rights are being trampled? Who is spewing hate? http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=H_ZvPR09N4Q

  313. Maz said

    Have you seen any of the Gay Marches? You would be forgiven for thinking this was Sodom and Gomorrah of old. What I want to know is why these people want to display themselves in such a manner, when they want to be accepted by the heterosexial community?

  314. Mike S. said

    Not quite like the peaceful MLK Jr. marches are they?

  315. Mike S. said

    I guess we should not expect them to be. MLK Jr. was a humble Bible believing Christian man.

  316. Maz said

    Mike: Who is MLK Jr.? Not heard of him over here. (Unless I know the full name)

  317. abc's said

    Mike S.

    “So certain that a moral lawgiver is beyond all possiblities huh?”

    Not really. It’s possible that there is a moral lawgiver, but in this conversation I don’t think that anyone is arguing for a moral lawgiver that used time and the processes of evolution in which to create moral law.

    Jared

    What is truth?

    A concept created by humans.

    And, according to who or what?

    In general, humans. Specifically, me.

    Can you define moral?

    A code of conduct that is held as authority in matters of right and wrong. Being moral just means following the accepted code of morality.

    “Define prosper for me when all roads end in death.”

    Passing on genetic material to the next generation.

    “In light of competition it seems one would want to eliminate the competition.”

    Killing everyone and everything is not the only method of eliminating the competition Jared. I think it’s a much better idea to work peacefully with the competition for the betterment of all of the individuals. We call this society.

    “Are you just another animal and if so why do you act so much differently in many cases and why don’t all the animals, yourself included act similarly?”

    It’s my contention that they (the animals) do. For the most part they seek out sustenance, companionship, and the chance to reproduce. They also actively avoid death.

    “Is theft or murder bad when all paths lead to death anyhow?”

    In your pejorative sense, no it isn’t bad.

    “At this point, as demonstrated by the line of questioning above, the rather basic questions are actually insurmountable evidence that your system has no answers.”

    You assumed that I wouldn’t have a response to your questions. I know that you don’t accept my answers, and that’s ok. Just tell me where my logic breaks down using evidence.

  318. Maz said

    Abc’s: So there is no truth outside of the human concept?

  319. Mike S. said

    Sorry Maz
    Martin Luther King, Jr.

  320. Maz said

    Mike: Ah yes.

  321. Maz said

    Abc’s: Mike’s question: ”Can you define moral?”

    Your answer: ”A code of conduct that is held as authority in matters of right and wrong. Being moral just means following the accepted code of morality. ”

    I don’t think you’ve really answered this. Where does this code come from? Who decides what this code of morality will be?

  322. Barney said

    Re: post 310

    Ignorance is celebrated as truth by the young earthers!

  323. Maz said

    Barney: Yes….evolutionists are famous for it! Ignorance I mean.

  324. Maz said

    Abc’s: I’d like to know…..according to evolutionists, was there no truth before humnas then?

  325. Maz said

    Humnas…should be humans.

  326. Stanley said

    No. Some truths are objective, like math.

  327. Maz said

    Stanley: But was there maths before humans ?(as far as evolution theory goes).

  328. Stanley said

    Yes, the laws of mathematics are always the same if we are here to experience them or not. 1 + 1 = 2 if humans are here or not.

  329. Maz said

    Stanley: How is it only humans can count and use math?

  330. F. L. A. said

    They are not the only animals that count, among other things, Maz.
    It is most interesting hearing lectures on the meaning of “truth” by people who belong to a theology that has such a long history of fighting over and splitting into different denominations over what truth is.
    Sometimes,[Especially in regards to theological belief]we make our own “truths”.
    For example…….Maz and Jared, how old is the universe?
    Ahhhh..[Huge sharp-toothed grin].
    “Pretty simple, no truth= no reason to argue!”
    But then, arguing/debating does no good when dealing with the self-deluded, so…..you may as well just try to have fun with the experience, if you can.

  331. Jared said

    Maz…

    You got it. Post 311.

    ABC…

    When I read your answers I had a day dreaming moment. I saw hundreds of blind people in an ice skating arena with only running shoes on hi tailing it in every direction.

    You can see the result also.

    Utter confusion …. and circular contradictory nebulous statements.

    Why don’t you go back and read what you wrote.

    Don’t you see any issues with this?

    Maz … pointed out the problem in post 321.

    Again Maz Post 311. If your an evolutionist and the evidence doesn’t fit your model you just inject another nebulous theory and act like it is truth!

    Wait, but there isn’t any truth. What is it truth means anyway?

    Perhaps Barney would like to explain the origin of gravitational forces or magnetic fields and the obviously far to strong nature of them to be billions of years old! I bet he has some theories. In Barney’s world he calls this ignorance if it is an opposing argument, theory if it is his own rendition of things.

    F.L.A – and the other evolution folks … how old is the universe? Try to get within a billion or two please, years that is.

    No God … no truth.

    No truth …. No Hope!

    No hope … total and utter confusion. I think that this is clearly demonstrated above.

    The bible calls it being blind and like I pointed out before the blind don’t make themselves see.

  332. Maz said

    Jared: Great post. We are getting to the foundations!

    Another good question……where did time come from? It may sound a simple question, but actually it isn’t. Time of itself is not absolute. Scientists have discovered that time is not the same everywhere. So really even the evolutionists millions of years means nothing. The speed of light, gravity and time dilation……even Einstein and todays Stephen Hawkins hasn’t quite worked it all out. And they never will unless they let God into the equation, and then we won’t know absolutely everything until we meet Him in eternity. I can’t wait!!!

  333. Barney said

    “Perhaps Barney would like to explain the origin of gravitational forces or magnetic fields and the obviously far to strong nature of them to be billions of years old!” – Jared

    No, but these have been explained by real science; you just ignore it. Thanks, you just proved my point.

    “I bet he has some theories.” – Jared

    Nope.

    “In Barney’s world he calls this ignorance if it is an opposing argument, theory if it is his own rendition of things.” – Jared

    No, I don’t. You either do not understand, or you are being deliberately obtuse.

  334. Ed said

    Again, my question still stands. If life begins at heart beat and brain activity, does that make abortion past that point murder? If it is murder, then why are doctors and mothers allowed to commit murder without reprocussions? The last time murder was allowed to occur without reprocussion was during the civil rights movements for the african-american community. When was any homosexual killed for thier lifestyle and the murderer was not held to the fullest extent of the law (except of course for the above two stated cases)? If I am correct, which has precidence? Does unfettered murder trump inconvienence? In recent history, not one homosexual been imprisoned for being homosexual.
    If the “majority rule” is where the morals are to be from (post #317), then the judges overruling the first law in California would then be immoral.

  335. Barney said

    “If the “majority rule” is where the morals are to be from (post #317), then the judges overruling the first law in California would then be immoral.” – Ed

    Reread post 317, Ed.

    We can explain moral laws naturally, too. “Thou shalt not kill” is an example. Our religion tells us that God wrote this law. Natural philosophy tells us that it evolved.

    You can prefer one or the other or both. Either way we have moral laws we live by.

  336. Ed said

    Barney,
    Yes, we both agree. However, that was for those who do not believe.

  337. Jared said

    Barney …

    Actually, science has explained neither the fundamental origin of gravitational forces or the degradation of magnetic fields. You are obviously unaware of this. There are several theories of widely varying approaches to the subjects, but and that is all. You are making rather simplified gratuitous assertions that you have very limited understanding about.

    Actually, at this time, everyone has limited understanding of these subjects. We know they exist, we can model them using algorithms, but no one has identified the root mechanisms behind these observable phenomenon.

    I would love you to explain natural Philosophy to me. Sounds like another opinion brewing!

    Ed …

    These poor guys are so confused and self contradicted they haven’t a clue where to go next. I challenge anyone to read post 317 and make heads or tails of any of it. It is such a self contradicting, oblivious, gratuitous, confused set of assertions no one could draw any reasonable conclusion from any of it. It is borderline insane.

  338. Jared said

    Funny part is they will come back arguing the same insanity saying it all makes sense.

    Have you ever heard of the Blind leading the Blind. As funny as this might sound it is incredibly sad that before we repent of our sin and wickedness and come before a Holy all Powerful Creator (God) who has created all things and set the universe in order, we are as blind and deaf people. We just don’t get it until God begins to reveal truth to us!

  339. Barney said

    “Actually, at this time, everyone has limited understanding of these subjects.” – Jared

    Except, of course, for Jared. He’s all smart and we’re all stupid.

    Misstating your opponents position is worthy of a High School debate team… you did graduate High School?

  340. Ed said

    Jared,
    My question still has not been answered fully, yet. Barney wants homosexuality to thrive because it gives him an excuse. Because the unborn aren’t alive, they have no rights. This is against majoities across the nation. So, either everyone else is wrong and the minority are right, or these fringe groups that are attempting to demand that I agree with them are right. Both cannot be right. This is the paradox that I am trying to point out. Of course, being blind and of a stiff heart, they cannot do more than whine.

  341. F. L. A. said

    Well, WELL.
    Comments like that Ed, and Maz’s post#292, and the mental mirrored room Jared’s stuck in, really help inspire the[educated and reasonable]skeptic to jump back in with helpful advice or information.

  342. Ed said

    FLA,
    All I have gotten from the “educated and reasonable skeptics” are how there is no absolute and how the homosexual has these “rights” that have no place other than they just want them.

  343. abc's said

    Jared

    “I challenge anyone to read post 317 and make heads or tails of any of it. It is such a self contradicting, oblivious, gratuitous, confused set of assertions no one could draw any reasonable conclusion from any of it.”

    Would you please explain the error in the logic instead of just saying that you don’t understand it.

  344. Barney said

    “Barney wants homosexuality to thrive because it gives him an excuse. ” – Ed (post 340)

    It’s too bad we don’t know each other, Ed.

  345. Ed said

    ABC’s
    Moral law – what other animal in the animal kingdom have such a thing? Did we not all “evolve” at the same time?
    According to #317 you are the only one who knows the truth. I find that simply amazing. That over the thousands (young earthers) and billions (old earthers) you alone have the secret truths that everyone in the last 4000 years have been looking for. Where have you been all this time?
    Where did our moral laws come from, if there is no moral authority?
    According to your statement “Passing on genetic material to the next generation.” would then make homosexuality a self-correcting evolutionary step. If homosexuality is just as biological as skin color, then that gene will simply disapear. Then we would not have homosexuals. Then issues like proposition 8 would be an unnessisary issue.
    There are animals that eat thier own young shortly after birth. If we are no better than other animals, then you would have a point of killing any child that did not meet the criterion of survival. Thus, according to that line of thought, Adolf Hitler was right.
    If we are no better than the animal kingdom, then my previous statements are true.
    Your logic makes sence, if communism makes sense. Communism works on paper. The issue with communism is that it does not take into concideration human greed. How does evolution combat Adolf Hitler, or were his action justified?

  346. Ed said

    Barney,
    Then tell me please why you argue so vehimitly for it?

  347. Barney said

    Ed, you are apparently confused about something. How can I help?

  348. Ed said

    Are you for homosexual relationships or no? Are you for the creation point of view, or the evolution only point of view?

  349. Maz said

    Ed touched on something when he mentioned some animals that eat their young. If we are just higher evolved animals, what stops us from eating our young? What about the lemmings that seem to commit suicide each year? We have a place called Beachy Head on the south of England, it is well known for people committing suicide because the cliffs are so high. What about other animal traits that would be unacceptable to humans? Yet, we seem to have a certain moral code that somehow would make us cringe at the thought of eating our young, or loathe to take a running jump at the nearest cliff, or do any other strange habit some creatures perform.
    Just a thot.

  350. Maz said

    Barney: Was it you that said you were a Creationist?

  351. F. L. A. said

    Actually Maz, almost everything that wild animals do in nature has purpose. Not so with the world of MAN. In many ways, humanity is not any better than other animal life in regards to what is commonly known as morality.
    Would you like a list of examples?

  352. Ed said

    FLA,
    So, does that make man the most evolved, or the least evolved? Does that make such evolution good, or bad?

  353. abc's said

    Ed

    “Moral law – what other animal in the animal kingdom have such a thing? Did we not all “evolve” at the same time?”

    A lot of other animals exhibit morality. Take all of the other mammals as an example. Think about it.

    “According to #317 you are the only one who knows the truth. I find that simply amazing.”

    You interpreted what I said in a unique way that I was unable to anticipate. I can only assume that you’re referring to this bit

    “What is truth?
    A concept created by humans.
    And, according to who or what?
    In general, humans. Specifically, me.”

    Truth is a concept created by humans. I say this because the other animals don’t seem to walk around contemplating truth.
    The response I gave for my definition of truth is according to me. I didn’t mean that I alone know what is true. I can’t answer the question: What is truth? from any other perspective than my own.

    “Where did our moral laws come from, if there is no moral authority?”

    That’s a good question. I think I answered that in my previous post describing a possible evolutionary advantage in species becoming moral. It allows for society to develop.

    “According to your statement “Passing on genetic material to the next generation.” would then make homosexuality a self-correcting evolutionary step. If homosexuality is just as biological as skin color, then that gene will simply disapear. Then we would not have homosexuals. Then issues like proposition 8 would be an unnessisary issue.”

    This assumes that homosexuality is genetic and that it is a trait passed on by a single gene. (basically it is an oversimplification of the possible reasons) You didn’t choose to be heterosexual. You genes control the emotions that make you attracted to the opposite sex. Animals exhibit homosexual behavior all the time. This doesn’t make them less fit to survive and reproduce, it only makes it less likely. Homosexuality, when you look at the human population as a whole makes up a very small percentage of people.

    “There are animals that eat thier own young shortly after birth. If we are no better than other animals, then you would have a point of killing any child that did not meet the criterion of survival. Thus, according to that line of thought, Adolf Hitler was right.”

    I think you are creating a logical fallacy here. Just because we have evolved to contemplate things like this, that doesn’t make us any “better” than other animals. We behave differently than the particular animal that eats its young because we have morals and ethics.

    Adolf Hitler? I think we both agree that the things he did were misguided and atrocious.

    “If we are no better than the animal kingdom, then my previous statements are true.”

    We don’t have to be “better” to act “differently” than the other animals.

    “Your logic makes sence, if communism makes sense. Communism works on paper. The issue with communism is that it does not take into concideration human greed. How does evolution combat Adolf Hitler, or were his action justified?”

    No, Hitler’s actions were not justified. Evolution doesn’t “combat” anything. But, I think I understand the question you are posing. Hitler broke the moral code that we have established and became unfit to survive.

  354. Maz said

    F.L.A: Considering that man is born in sin and prone to do all sorts of evil it is a wonder we do anything right atall. But God has set in our minds a conscience, and some people try to follow it.
    But evolutionists have no reason for why mankind is so ‘evil’ at times…or do you?
    And is there something that wild animals do in nature that doesn’t have a purpose?

  355. Jared said

    Ed…

    You got it in post 340. These guys just don’t see it. They are blind and that is unfortunate. And you will not get an answer. Assumed gratuitous assertions yes, answers no. Where we say, “Thus says the Lord as revealed in scripture”, they have no answer and refer to the line of argumentation that says:

    !!!!”It’s that way because that’s the way it is”!!!!!!

    That’s funny even writing it and that is in essence exactly what Barney is trying to point out in post 317. It’s not even worth answering because it is so circular in nature.

    Christians agree with Him on the first half of the statement, “That is the way it is”, but then the Christian must say, “Because God has purposed and planned it that way”. Isaiah 14:24, Proverbs 16:33

    Barney and Friends

    Everyone by definition includes me. Post 339. Referring back to Post 333 where you made an assertion that is strictly false.

    I think the above few posts proved this one. “Funny part is they will come back arguing the same insanity saying it all makes sense.” I am referring to the above assertion that !!!!”It’s that way, because that’s the way it is”!!!!!! Don’t you see you have nothing else to argue with. No foundation of truth to look toward. Everything is self derived and all you can do is say “That evidence says this, because that is what that evidence says.”

    I will give you one thing. That is a tough position to draw any kind of systematic line of argumentation from!

  356. abc's said

    Maz

    “But evolutionists have no reason for why mankind is so ‘evil’ at times…or do you?”

    Free will.

  357. Barney said

    Okie dokie!

    Thanks, Jared! We understand perfectly now!

  358. abc's said

    Jared

    ” Assumed gratuitous assertions yes, answers no. Where we say, “Thus says the Lord as revealed in scripture”, ”

    That is a gratuitous assertion.

  359. Maz said

    Abc’s: Freewill? So because man has freewill to do what he likes, some choose to do evil?

    But why do evil? Why do they want to do evil?

  360. abc's said

    Maz

    You tell me.

  361. Ed said

    Jared,
    I spent 20 years in the Nuclear Submarine Navy, “It’s that way because that’s the way it is.” and “We always did it that way.” are the same argument. Both are more snibling excuses than arguments.
    ABC,
    I have a hard time following the bit where other animals follow a moral code. Is it a moral code, or an imposed moral code that we seem to have. If no other animal seems to contemplate truth, then why do we? What makes us unique in that fassion? You said that you posted previously, please point it out. Again, whether one or a combination of genes, that combination that creates homosexuality (assuming just a genetic code issue and not an issue stemming from a sin nature that evolution attempts to throw out) it is still a self correcting problem. On top of that, how is it that the small section of the population demand that I give them something that is not thiers or rights that do not exsist? In Nazi Germany, abortion, killing of retarded people, slavery of blacks and genocide of Jews were not against the moral law. What set that moral law that Adolph Hitler broke? Adolph Hitler touted Darwin when doing those things.

  362. abc's said

    Ed

    “In Nazi Germany, abortion, killing of retarded people, slavery of blacks and genocide of Jews were not against the moral law. What set that moral law that Adolph Hitler broke? Adolph Hitler touted Darwin when doing those things.”

    I think this is good evidence that we create the moral code. In Nazi Germany, it was ok to do those vile things.
    In the rest of the world it wasn’t, so the greater majority stepped in and ended it.

  363. Maz said

    Abc’s: #360. Because they have inherited Adams disobedience and are prone to sin. We are born with a bent to sin.
    What is the evolutionists reason?

  364. Ed said

    ABC’s,
    Do you know what moral code was used to call those action immoral?

  365. Maz said

    Abc’s: So was Nazi Germany right to do those vile things?

  366. F. L. A. said

    More evolved than some, perhaps less evolved than others, Ed. Evolution helps a species survive, it is not interested in making “advance super sports models” of life forms. For example, the Cockroach and the Shark.

  367. abc's said

    I’m not willing to keep going round and round discussing morality.

    “Do you know what moral code was used to call those action immoral?”

    The one that says, “It isn’t right to kill people without reason.” I know the Bible contains this as one of the ten commandments, and that isn’t even the 1st one. I think that normal men wrote the Bible, and even just a few thousand years ago people would have understood that murder was wrong.

    “So was Nazi Germany right to do those vile things?”

    Obviously not. The Germans thought they were doing the “right” thing. The rest of the world agreed that it was “wrong”.

  368. F. L. A. said

    Maz, because SIN is fun and self satisfying, but it is a very short “fix”.

  369. Maz said

    F.L.A: #366. But mankind likes to build sports models, aeroplanes, speedboats, rockets, shuttles, telescopes that can show us the other side of the Universe….how is it animals don’t have that curiosity about the Universe or have the need to invent?

  370. Maz said

    F.L.A: So WHY is sin fun? Why does man have a tendency to like that which is wrong rather than right?

  371. Mike S. said

    Abc, “I think this is good evidence that we create the moral code. In Nazi Germany, it was ok to do those vile things.
    In the rest of the world it wasn’t, so the greater majority stepped in and ended it.”

    I don’t think you have said much about this “Gay Marraige” Issue, but using your comment above, on what basis do gays have to complain when “the greater majority” voted to ban gay marriage?

    If the greater majority began to believe that torturing babies was ok, then that would be alright with you?

    Tim Keller draws an example regarding a moral principal. If you live for money and only for money, you will shrivel your soul and will lose all of your relationships and will die a lonely, miserable man. This is not a moral law that is a social construct, this is a moral law that is THERE just like the ground you are standing on.

  372. Mike S. said

    Even Elton John gets it!! As quoted in an interview in USA Today, he says… “I don’t want to be married. I’m very happy with a civil partnership. If gay people want to get married, or get together, they should have a civil partnership,” John says. “The word ‘marriage,’ I think, puts a lot of people off.

    “You get the same equal rights that we do when we have a civil partnership. Heterosexual people get married. We can have civil partnerships.”

    THAT IS WHAT THEY CURRENTLY HAVE in California! So why are they making such a big deal about it? Their “rights” have nothing to do with it!! Only their desire for their lifestyle to be validated by society and government!! They are trying their best to put a salve over the enormous guilt they have in their hearts!

  373. Mike S. said

    And they may not even realize that is what they are doing in their blind state. I feel sorry for them.

  374. Maz said

    Mike: That’s exactly right. They want their relationships recognised as being as ‘normal’ as heterosexual relationships. But then, some heterosexial couples, nowadays, tend to want to live together rather than get married.

  375. Mike S. said

    Yeah that’s sad too. And they too will come up with all kinds of excuses and justifications for their behavior. But it too… Leads to destruction. :(

  376. F. L. A. said

    You mean non-human animals, Maz.
    Oh, but some DO! Aside from artistic expression,like painting, a good many types of animals use a variety of tools for a variety of purposes. Would you like some examples?
    Humans are special in many ways, for their needs are greater than those of other animal types. The more “needs” to be fulfilled the greater the pressure to invent and use tools, and a man trying to build clothing, shelter, and a fire to protect him from the hostile wilderness obviously has greater needs to satisfy than a horse picking up a stick in his mouth to use to scratch the middle of his back with[We have seen this.].
    As for “sin” and it’s appeal, to the shallow individual “sin” is pleasurable for a number of reasons, all of which are based upon the individuals particular likes and dislikes. For example, it may provide simple physical pleasure, or something more deep like a feeling of impowerment. Of course some people have a different idea as to what “sin” is, and the severity of various “sins”.
    Does this help?

  377. John said

    Relax Christians. If the homosexuals ever get the same rights as heterosexuals, then after about fifty years of going through the pain of divorces, alimony payments, and custedy battles that regular married people go through they will probably be trying to make things back to the way that they were[grin].

  378. Maz said

    F.L.A: Why do you call them non-human animals? We don’t say non-animal humans do we?
    According to evolution we are all animals.

    F.L.A: I have never seen an elephant looking up at the sky and wondering where the sun goes at night or a lion sitting thinking about how he can make a bow and arrow to shoot his prey instead of having to run after it, animals live by instinct on the most part, yes, you can find chimps using sticks to get into ants mounds and rocks to break hard fruit, but that is about the limit. There is no deep thought process in any animal, no curiosity within them as to why they are here.

  379. Jared said

    Ed …

    Post 361 … you did understand my point in 355. Their argumentation is completely circular in nature. I don’t remember the last time I observed such a circular set of assertions as in post 317. At least the nature of the circularity could have been made more complex as to hide its obvious co-reliance.

    ABC doesn’t understand what a gratuitous assertion is as is demonstrated by 358 and ABC here again gratuitously assets that men only a few thousand years ago would have understood murder is wrong?

    WHY. Why is murder wrong given your system. Why is homosexuality wright or wrong, is incest wright or wrong, why is bestiality wright or wrong, is anything wright or wrong and according to who … you?

    Let me guess what you would say … it is wrong because they evolved to the point to say it was wrong … so was Hitler lower or higher on the evolutionary scale. I guess your a few years past him so he was probably lower. How about Micheal Jackson … He seems to like pedophilia and frequents the societies that have legalized this activity. Is Micheal more or less evolved?

  380. Maz said

    F.L.A; Don’t you wonder why we, out of the millions of species of animals on this earth, should have such intelligence that can actually send a man to the moon?

  381. Maz said

    I’d like to ask all our atheistic friends why killing isn’t murder in the animal world?

  382. Mike S. said

    Maz… We (except for Ferox and John) just haven’t evolved that far along yet… We are still savages!! Happy Friday! I’m going home!!

  383. Maz said

    Mike: According to Ferox, she is a monster, not sure what John would call himself, but I would call myself a child…..hopefully growing more like my Father every day…..(but not doing a very good job sometimes!).

  384. John said

    I am somewhat of a monster too, abet of a different variety, and only within certain circomstances, not all the time like Ferox, who is monsterous by birthright. I am no more evolved than you are, at least not physically[smile]. I can’t really say about Ferox.
    As far as murder goes, this is a word that WE invented to help us tell the difference between the different types of death that we inflict. I don’t know about the Atheists here, but to the two of us, the two words are one in the same in meaning, and used interchangibaly, interchangabily, darn[stupid English spelling] you know what I mean.

  385. Ed said

    Again, what is the moral imperitave? Where do we get our moral law from? Christians (and many other faiths) say from God. In the Athiest paridigrim there is no God. So my athiest freinds, where is this moral law come from? Where did we learn it from?
    Again, which is worse, the death of the unborn or the inconvinience of the homosexual?

  386. Jared said

    Maz…

    That was an outstanding question. Why is it we are so much more intelligent than all the other evolutionary paths assuming this system works so well.

    That is laughable. What a hoax!!!!!

  387. Jared said

    Maz..

    That is such an awesome question!!!! It makes me laugh just thinking about how stupid evolutionary theory is!! Talk about a leap of faith!

  388. Maz said

    John: 384: But would you call all killing, murder?

  389. Maz said

    I would like to repeat my question about WHERE our conscience came from….where in the primeval goo of our supposed beginnings did our conscience evolve from? How does conscience fit in the DNA strand? And why do none of the ‘other’ animals (according to evolution), have a conscience for right and wrong, they don’t know the concept of justice for instance, or retribution.
    Why are we SO DIFFERENT?

  390. abc's said

    Jared

    “Post 361 … you did understand my point in 355. Their argumentation is completely circular in nature. I don’t remember the last time I observed such a circular set of assertions as in post 317. At least the nature of the circularity could have been made more complex as to hide its obvious co-reliance.”

    You still haven’t explained why you think the logic is circular. I assume that it appears circular to you because I haven’t “gratuitously” inserted the supernatural as a stopping point along the line.

    “ABC doesn’t understand what a gratuitous assertion is as is demonstrated by 358 and ABC here again gratuitously assets that men only a few thousand years ago would have understood murder is wrong?”

    According to the bible, Moses was born around the year 1576 BC. According to actual history, the code of Ur-Nammu was written in Sumerian circa 2100-2050 BC. This is the oldest known written moral code. Guess what the very first rule was in the code?

    This is not a “gratuitous assertion”. Jared, read carefully. Read it again if you need to. Don’t take my word for it, research it on your own. This is real evidence that even before Moses was born people had figured out that we shouldn’t kill other people without reason.

    “WHY. Why is murder wrong given your system. Why is homosexuality wright or wrong, is incest wright or wrong, why is bestiality wright or wrong, is anything wright or wrong and according to who … you?”

    I think this is evidence that you don’t understand the responses that I have given, and that you haven’t given them any thought. You just wait for your turn to respond and say “gratuitous assertion” a few times as if that backs up your argument.

    “Let me guess what you would say … it is wrong because they evolved to the point to say it was wrong … so was Hitler lower or higher on the evolutionary scale. I guess your a few years past him so he was probably lower. How about Micheal Jackson … He seems to like pedophilia and frequents the societies that have legalized this activity. Is Micheal more or less evolved?”

    I’m not going to take the time to answer your contrived questions any longer, because you won’t answer mine.

  391. Folks – we’re turning off the comments on this site. Please visit the new http://www.truthtalklive.com to continue.

    Thank you.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: