Confederate Memorial Hall deemed offensive

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

We have missing links elsewhere, most notably for the lobe-finned fish-to-tetrapod link and the synapsid-to-mammal link. We are also getting extremely close to the dinosaur/bird connection but haven't quite made it yet. The Burgess Shale is the best example of evolution in progress, including those mutations that don't make it, accounted for in natural selection which goes hand-in-hand with evolution.

 

The first thing they teach you on the very first day of Earth Sciences and Paleontology is one simple phrase:

 

"ORGANIC EVOLUTION IS A FACT"

 

And no I am not atheist.

[Vyce 0]

Let's not start THIS again.

 

I've said it before in this folder, and it's one THOUSAND percent true:

 

Religion does NOT negate Science.

 

Science does NOT negate Religion.

 

Anyone who thinks otherwise is either too steeped in either ideology or just naive.

[Guest SP-1]

Oh, I believe in micro-evolution and adaptation. But solid evidence for macro-evolution isn't there. My point is simply that to dismiss one area with little to no proof in favor of another line of thinking with little to no solid proof, while both have plenty of evidence is foolishness. If you're going to educate children, give them access to all the information.

 

And chaos, I'm glad you think I'm an idiot. I'm also saddned that anytime a discussion like this comes up, it breaks down into flaming almost immediately. Have you ever investigated the evidence for biblical history or *gasp* studied it in accordance with "secular" history?

 

Vyce is fairly correct when he says that neither negates the others. Upon close inspection, they tend to support one another more often than not.

 

But, of course, nobody takes the time to fully investigate such matters.

 

And we're the close-minded ones.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

But that's not even true. Creationism is 100% utter complete sheep crap on a stick but you're so stupid you can't see it.

 

Whatever, consider those my closing statements. Back to the motives behind the Civil War, please.

[Vyce 0]

Jesus fucking Christ.

 

You're all a bunch of fucking children.

 

If Jesus and Charles Darwin were alive today, they would, respectively, kick all of your impudent fucking asses.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Well heck, if that's what he wants to believe, fine. I won't stop him. But I will call him stupid and I will draw the line on putting that in the public schools.

[Guest BDC]

Back to the Civil War, I want to know why exactly the statue I referred to should be removed. It honors a famous citizen of our state. Jefferson Davis pretty much ran the Confederacy by himself to the point of developing a nervous condition. He didn't really want to leave the Union, but fact of the matter is, when the South made a stand on states' rights, slavery was just the easiest thing to refer to, not necessarily the best.

 

I'm also not saying every Confederate soldier was a gentlemen fighting for honorable purposes, but many were. I guarentee that not all Union soldiers were the altruistic 'save the Union' types. What's wrong with respecting those that died for tor their country, no matter how illegal or brief it was.

[chaosrage 0]

Back to evolution.......

Oh, I believe in micro-evolution and adaptation.  But solid evidence for macro-evolution isn't there. 

 

First of all, scientists only divide evolution in micro and macro to define scale. The only difference is micro can be one or two changes and macro is a bunch of changes. If you admit one change can happen in a species, then another can happen and another and another and another.

 

Second, the hundreds of times we've seen macro-evolution (one species to another species) take place isn't solid evidence?

 

Third, what about "fossils of humans with heavy brow ridges, large teeth, no chin, and smaller brain sizes" don't you consider to be macro-evolution?

 

Fourth, not that you would need it, but some species do have their whole entire evolutionary chain visible in fossils, like a land animal evolving into a whale.

 

My point is simply that to dismiss one area with little to no proof in favor of another line of thinking with little to no solid proof, while both have plenty of evidence is foolishness.  If you're going to educate children, give them access to all the information.

 

Hah. One of these things is a scientific fact, the other one is... well, nothing. Creationism in Genesis isn't a theory. It's not even a hypothesis because it can't be tested or observed. There's no evidence for it. It's just a bed time story. If you want it in school, fine, but only in a reading or an english class.

 

And chaos, I'm glad you think I'm an idiot.  I'm also saddned that anytime a discussion like this comes up, it breaks down into flaming almost immediately. 

 

I don't care, you'll get over it.

 

Vyce is fairly correct when he says that neither negates the others.  Upon close inspection, they tend to support one another more often than not.

 

Well that's good because NOBODY said evolution did negate religion. It only negates Genesis, which hardly anyone takes literally anyway.

 

And we're the close-minded ones.

 

You said it, not me.

Edited October 8, 2003 by chaosrage

[Firestarter 0]

to dismiss one area with little to no proof in favor of another line of thinking with little to no solid proof, while both have plenty of evidence is foolishness

This is just too good. "Both have plenty of evidence?" What evidence? Every single piece of evidence we have flatly contradicts a literal interpretation of the Bible. The world was not made in seven days. Man evolved from lower animals. Not one species was created by some bearded guy in the sky; they all came into being through descent with modification. The earth is one hell of a lot older than 6000 years. There was no massive worldwide flood. Ever.

 

If you're going to educate children, give them access to all the information

No. Not if you define "information" as "SpiderPoet's retarded religious dogma." They're supposed to be learning science, not your asinine brand of Christianity.

 

Have you ever investigated the evidence for biblical history

WHAT EVIDENCE?!

 

or *gasp* studied it in accordance with "secular" history?

What the hell is this part of the sentence supposed to mean?

 

[science and religion] tend to support one another more often than not

More bullshit. Science says NOTHING about whether or not God exists. The Bible says a lot of things about history, biology, geology, astronomy, and countless other sciences which are quite frankly just plain flat-out WRONG.

 

And we're the close-minded ones

Yes. Yes, you are. If there were ONE IOTA of evidence for a flood I would give you the benefit of doubt. If there were one iota of evidence for a special creation of man I would give you the benefit of doubt. If there were one iota of evidence for a young earth rather than the deep time theory (which is a result of the convergence of nuclear physics, geology, chemistry, astronomy, and many other sciences, and predates by the theory of evolution through natural selection by DECADES) I would give you the benefit of doubt.

 

But there is NO SUCH EVIDENCE. And your entire belief system rests on a POSTULATION of the Bible being the perfect and immutable Word of God. NO EVIDENCE against it will ever change your mind. True or false? Given a scientific conclusion, however sound, based on physical and historical evidence which you don't understand because of your massive ignorance, and a verse in the Bible which flatly contradicts it, you will ALWAYS choose to believe in the Biblical verse. Right? It's the Word of God, after all. It can't be wrong. Is this or is this not a central, indeed the primary tenet of your belief system?

 

Yes. You are close-minded. You're also willfully ignorant, and deeply disrespectful of God.

 

Because you have chosen to ignore his greatest gift to humanity: independent intelligence and the courage to use it.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Back to the Civil War, I want to know why exactly the statue I referred to should be removed. It honors a famous citizen of our state.

Which are we talking about again? This thread was originally about the confederate flag and name, and now it's about soldiers.

 

The confederate soldiers can have whatever private memorial they can get. Regardless of how scummy they may or may not be, they were human beings. They were enemies of our country though, and thus I'm not so nuts on public recognition.

 

The flag and Confederacy itself however, did make it's stand on slavery. It's image and history is far more tarnished than the individual men and women inside it. It's message nowhere near as honorable.

 

 

Keep in mind this is coming from a guy who's grandma owned a confederate flag and either had it flying outside or in her living room. She'd also use every racial put-down under the sun (despite being an immigrant herself and talking about "the old country" every chance she got.) My view is slightly skewed (it used to be further skewed though I've corrected it over time) but I'm not totally unfamiliar with the subject

[Firestarter 0]

Third, what about "fossils of humans with heavy brow ridges, large teeth, no chin, and smaller brain sizes" don't you consider to be macro-evolution?

He's not going to answer you, chaosrage. He won't. He can't.

 

It's the same situation Hilaire Belloc found himself in when HG Wells wrote his Outline of History. In Mr Belloc Objects, he wrote:

 

What would Mr Belloc say of [Neanderthal man]? Would he put it before or after the Fall? Would he correct its anatomy by wonderful new science out of his safe? Would he treat it like a brother and say it held by the most exalted monotheism, or treat it as a monster made to mislead wicked men?

 

He says nothing! He just walks away whenever it comes near him.

 

But I am sure it does not leave him. In the night, if not by day, it must be asking him: "Have I a soul to save, Mr Belloc? Is that Heidelberg jawbone one of us, Mr Belloc, or not? You've forgotten me, Mr Belloc. For four-fifths of the Paleolithic age I was 'man.' There was no other. I shamble and I cannot walk erect and look up at heaven as you do, Mr Belloc, but dare you cast me to the dogs?"

 

No reply.

 

SpiderPoet can't answer the evidence either, so he too just walks away. Is that same apparition haunting his nights, I wonder? What answers does he have for it that Mr Belloc did not? Does he dare to cast it to the dogs?

 

No reply.

[Firestarter 0]

Evolution is as much theory as anything else.  There's too much unexplained in there.  Calling a theory a fact is grasping for something that isn't there yet.  It's still the THEORY of Evolution, not Evolutionary Law.

Missed this earlier. Quoting Stephen Jay Gould yet again:

 

In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact" - part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science - that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."

 

Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

 

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

 

Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory - natural selection - to explain the mechanism of evolution.

Click here for more explanations.

 

I wasn't aware that the pursuit of education was limited to singular views that are just as unproven as it's main opponent

Creationism isn't an "opponent" of evolution. It is nothing more than a very old, very bad, and very tired joke.

 

Don't give yourself airs.

[Guest SP-1]

Third, what about "fossils of humans with heavy brow ridges, large teeth, no chin, and smaller brain sizes" don't you consider to be macro-evolution?

He's not going to answer you, chaosrage. He won't. He can't.

 

It's the same situation Hilaire Belloc found himself in when HG Wells wrote his Outline of History. In Mr Belloc Objects, he wrote:

 

What would Mr Belloc say of [Neanderthal man]? Would he put it before or after the Fall? Would he correct its anatomy by wonderful new science out of his safe? Would he treat it like a brother and say it held by the most exalted monotheism, or treat it as a monster made to mislead wicked men?

 

He says nothing! He just walks away whenever it comes near him.

 

But I am sure it does not leave him. In the night, if not by day, it must be asking him: "Have I a soul to save, Mr Belloc? Is that Heidelberg jawbone one of us, Mr Belloc, or not? You've forgotten me, Mr Belloc. For four-fifths of the Paleolithic age I was 'man.' There was no other. I shamble and I cannot walk erect and look up at heaven as you do, Mr Belloc, but dare you cast me to the dogs?"

 

No reply.

 

SpiderPoet can't answer the evidence either, so he too just walks away. Is that same apparition haunting his nights, I wonder? What answers does he have for it that Mr Belloc did not? Does he dare to cast it to the dogs?

 

No reply.

Or I'm a college student who has classes most of the day, and I'm not going to shotgun a reply to good questions. When I have checked into Christian looks at neanderthal man and the like and I see what has to be said on it, then I will reply. I'm deeply sorry that I won't do so on your time table, but then you mistake me for soeone who blindly goes about spouting things off without using my God-given ability to reason, think, and consume information on a given subject. But you continue on being judgemental and close-minded towards us Christians, attempting to guess my next course of action, and I'll go on and do what I'm actually going to do. In the end, you'll still be judgemental and close-minded, and I will either continue with my present belief or change it if what I deem to be better information makes itself known.

 

But thanks for attempting to reply on my behalf, Marney. Incorrect assumptions on your part, but it was a nice gesture, ma'am.

[AboveAverage484 0]

Uhhhh...

 

For example: Did you know that the Battle of Antiem (sp?), Maryland was the bloodiest single day of combat on US soil ever?

 

 

 

Antietam was the bloodiest single day of the war. The Union suffered 12,410 casualties (2,108 killed outright), while the Confederacy suffered 13,724 casualties (2,700 killed outright). Popular myth about this battle: 25,000 Americans were killed in this battle. About 4,800 were killed the day of Sept. 17, the date of the battle, while more died later on from their wounds, but in no way shape or form did almost 25,000 soldiers die that day. Don't let your instructors tell you otherwise

[Ripper 0]

Thanks benoitrulz4life, I honestly never knew that. Good thing this thread stayed on track and gave me a chance to learn something new.

[Dr. Tom 0]

I always learned it was the bloodiest battle of the War Between The States.

 

It's also about an hour and a quarter from where I live. Worth checking out, for those nearby.

[Guest Doomsault]

Whoops, wrong thread.

[AboveAverage484 0]

The top five bloodies Civil War battles:

 

Gettysburg, PA - 51,112

Chickamauga, GA - 34,624

Chancellorsville, VA - 30,099

Antietam, MD - 26,134

The Wilderness, VA - 25,416

[Firestarter 0]

When I have checked into Christian looks at neanderthal man and the like and I see what has to be said on it, then I will reply

I have another "good question" for you then, o esteemed college student. Why will you "[check] into Christian looks (sic) at neanderthal (sic) man and the like?" (emphasis added)

 

What does Christianity have to do with science? You are in essence saying that Hindoo, Moslem, Buddhist, agnostic, pagan, and atheist scientists inevitably reach conclusions which are inferior to those of Christian scientists. Why? What is your reasoning? How does a scientist's belief (or lack thereof) in the Christian God affect the validity of his work? Science is defined as a process "devoted to formulating and testing naturalistic explanations for natural phenomena... for systematically collecting and recording data about the physical world, then categorizing and studying the collected data in an effort to infer the principles of nature that best explain the observed phenomena." (pp 22-23 of amicus curiae brief to the United States Supreme Court by J Lehman et al, in Edwards vs Aguillard 1986)

 

Science has nothing to do with religion. Again, how is a scientist's religion relevant? Why do you intend to restrict yourself only to "Christian" studies of Neanderthal man? Do you think that anyone who isn't a Christian is automatically a liar?

 

you mistake me for soeone who blindly goes about spouting things off without using my God-given ability to reason, think, and consume information on a given subject

No. I don't mistake you for such a person at all.

 

I will either continue with my present belief or change it if what I deem to be better information makes itself known

I think the former possibility is by far the more probable.

Edited October 9, 2003 by Cancer Marney

[Your Paragon of Virtue 0]

I would just like to say that Stephen Jay Gould can't be trusted. Why? Well he likes to believe in something we know FOR SURE to be a myth:

 

apples didn't suspend themselves in midair

 

This CLEARLY shows that he believes in the story of Newton and the apple, which NEVER happened.

 

On tap for later, the famous Italian guy who dropped a bowling ball and a feather from the Leaning Tower of Pisa. Or did he?! *Cue ominous music*

 

I don't really have much to add, except that whenever Marney posts I get confused about a few things:

 

1) I don't know what about (sic) means, although I'm sure others use it too.

 

2) Ditto for &c.

 

3) I've never really seen her DEFEND Christianity on the boards, and she's almost always knocking it. Which confuses me the most. Oyveh.

 

All I have to say is that while the Old Testament is largely a book of *contextual* stories, that the New Testament is more reliable than most people give it credit for.

 

Finally, Northrop Frye called the Bible the "most important and Greatest literary book EVER~!", and he's like a genius, y'know? That's gotta count for something.

[Guest MikeSC]

1) I don't know what about (sic) means, although I'm sure others use it too.

I believe that (sic) means that the author is quoting something that is either misspelled or has a grammatical error and they are letting the reader know that they are fully aware of that, but since it is not their work, they will not correct it.

 

Or I could be wrong --- and in that case, (sic) me.

-=Mike

[Guest SP-1]

Keep putting words in my mouth, Marney. I called no one a liar. A lie is a blatant attempt to mislead people from something that you know to in fact be true. If someone doesn't believe in Christianity and wholeheartedly believes what they are saying, I don't count that as lying.

 

I will look into what Christian scientists have to say because I'm a Christian. My personal walk with God is daily and it is deeper than going to church every sunday and reciting book and verse. Because they are people trying to unify what we know and what we cannot explain.

 

If hardcore evidence came out tomorrow from a team of professing, Evangelical Christian scientists, would you dismiss it simply because they were Christian and they proved it?

[Firestarter 0]

I would just like to say that Stephen Jay Gould can't be trusted. Why? Well he likes to believe in something we know FOR SURE to be a myth:

 

apples didn't suspend themselves in midair

 

This CLEARLY shows that he believes in the story of Newton and the apple, which NEVER happened.

I assume you're being sarcastic. It's highly likely that the apple story is made out of the whole cloth, but Gould is obviously just using a well-known (albeit probably mythical) image for dramatic effect there.

 

On tap for later, the famous Italian guy who dropped a bowling ball and a feather from the Leaning Tower of Pisa. Or did he?! *Cue ominous music*

No, Galileo used an inclined plane and he rolled balls down it. Dropping things wouldn't have worked in any case because falling objects accelerate too quickly to easily measure. (I guess those history of science classes at St John's have turned out to be of some minimal use after all.)

 

whenever Marney posts I get confused about a few things:

 

1) I don't know what about (sic) means

Sic is Latin for "thus." It is used to indicate an error, idiosyncrasy, or ambiguity in the original text that has been preserved in a quotation.

 

2) Ditto for &c.

&c is an abbreviation of "et cetera," which is Latin for "and others."

 

3) I've never really seen her DEFEND Christianity on the boards, and she's almost always knocking it. Which confuses me the most.

Why?

 

Finally, Northrop Frye called the Bible the "most important and Greatest literary book EVER~!", and he's like a genius, y'know? That's gotta count for something.

Albert Einstein said: "I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own - a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty." Einstein was like a genius too, y'know? That's gotta count for something as well, right?

And in 1794, Thomas Paine wrote: "Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we called it the word of a demon that the Word of God. It is a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind; and for my own part, I sincerely detest it, as I detest everything that is cruel." He was also like a genius, y'know?

 

So are you going to dismiss the genius of Einstein and Paine in favour of Frye's because Frye said something more to your liking, or accept the fact genius in a particular field doesn't necessarily give instant validity to everything that comes out of a person's mouth?

[Firestarter 0]

If someone doesn't believe in Christianity and wholeheartedly believes what they are saying, I don't count that as lying.

 

I will look into what Christian scientists have to say because I'm a Christian.

You did not answer the question. I will restate it.

 

Do you believe that a scientist's religious stance per se has ANY direct bearing on the validity of his scientific research?

 

If hardcore evidence came out tomorrow from a team of professing, Evangelical Christian scientists, would you dismiss it simply because they were Christian and they proved it?

No. Mike is a Christian and he holds many beliefs I do not share. Nevertheless when he talks about politics I take his data, opinions, and analyses at face value, because he has proven himself to be knowledgeable, intelligent, earnest, and sincere. If the hypothetical scientists had a decent reputation among their peers and presented sound, testable, falsifiable, repeatable, and independently corroborated studies without reference to the Bible as the inerrant word of God, I wouldn't hold their Christianity against them. Much though your ilk tempts me to do so.

 

My personal walk with God is daily and it is deeper than going to church every sunday and reciting book and verse.

Yes yes yes. We all know about your personal fucking relationship with God. You've only told the entire board about it a few hundred times. And yes, we all remember the time Jesus saved you from the Prince of Darkness by His Divine Grace when you called on the power of His Most Holy Name.

 

Shut your yap.

Edited October 9, 2003 by Cancer Marney

[Jobber of the Week 0]

My personal walk with God is daily and it is deeper than going to church every sunday and reciting book and verse.

Oh you poor poor soul! What an immense burden that must be!

[Firestarter 0]

Jobber, what your insensitive comment fails to acknowledge is that

Active throughout biblical History, the Holy Spirit now dwells within every saved Christian.

I'm sure that SpiderPoet is part of the "congregation of the SAVED," to borrow some sarcasm from Ama Ata Aidoo. So you know that's got to be a bugger, carrying that damn Holy Spirit around all the time. What, he can't walk on his own two feet? Take a taxi? Get a room? Hell, I'd charge rent.

[Your Paragon of Virtue 0]

I would just like to say that Stephen Jay Gould can't be trusted. Why? Well he likes to believe in something we know FOR SURE to be a myth:

 

apples didn't suspend themselves in midair

 

This CLEARLY shows that he believes in the story of Newton and the apple, which NEVER happened.

I assume you're being sarcastic. It's highly likely that the apple story is made out of the whole cloth, but Gould is obviously just using a well-known (albeit probably mythical) image for dramatic effect there.

 

On tap for later, the famous Italian guy who dropped a bowling ball and a feather from the Leaning Tower of Pisa. Or did he?! *Cue ominous music*

No, Galileo used an inclined plane and he rolled balls down it. Dropping things wouldn't have worked in any case because falling objects accelerate too quickly to easily measure. (I guess those history of science classes at St John's have turned out to be of some minimal use after all.)

 

whenever Marney posts I get confused about a few things:

 

1) I don't know what about (sic) means

Sic is Latin for "thus." It is used to indicate an error, idiosyncrasy, or ambiguity in the original text that has been preserved in a quotation.

 

2) Ditto for &c.

&c is an abbreviation of "et cetera," which is Latin for "and others."

 

3) I've never really seen her DEFEND Christianity on the boards, and she's almost always knocking it. Which confuses me the most.

Why?

 

Finally, Northrop Frye called the Bible the "most important and Greatest literary book EVER~!", and he's like a genius, y'know? That's gotta count for something.

Albert Einstein said: "I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own - a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty." Einstein was like a genius too, y'know? That's gotta count for something as well, right?

And in 1794, Thomas Paine wrote: "Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we called it the word of a demon that the Word of God. It is a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind; and for my own part, I sincerely detest it, as I detest everything that is cruel." He was also like a genius, y'know?

 

So are you going to dismiss the genius of Einstein and Paine in favour of Frye's because Frye said something more to your liking, or accept the fact genius in a particular field doesn't necessarily give instant validity to everything that comes out of a person's mouth?

I know, I was just kidding. It's sort of like people who use the story of, say, David and Goliath, to illustrate a point.

 

There's a well known story about either Galileo or Da Vinci dropping a bowling ball and a feather from the top of the Leaning Tower of Pisa and seeing them both fall at the same time. It's ridiculous on so many levels that I won't even touch it.

 

The Christian thing is basically that I wouldn't get why you seem to show most hostility towards other Christians, and seem to argue against the existence of God when such a debate comes up.

 

Einstein also said that: "The more I discover about the Universe, the more I feel that a higher power exists." He might've said God I don't remember, I'm just pointing out that he believes in something, whether it be the Christian version or not.

 

I guess my comment would've implied that what Frye said should be taken as the BIBLE (heh), and that everyone else is wrong, but I was just offering a different viewpoint. A viewpoint that isn't represented much on the forum, that the Bible has much value that people don't give it credit for. I also believe that you can't take everything in it at face value, but most people tend to look at it too literally, which is the problem with most religions. Relating to Paine, I don't know much about the Old testament in general, and it admittedly is pretty ridiculous in terms of violence and such. That's why I can understand why so many people might dislike or hate it.

 

The New Testament is pretty reliable though. I stand by this.

[Ripper 0]

So....how bout that civil war?

[Guest SP-1]

The reason I stated that about my walk was to reiterate why I'm on the side that I'm on. Not to place myself on any kind of pedastal. I detest when Christians get so caught up in themselves that they forget their own burden of sin.

 

As for an answer to your question, no, that they are Christian does not automatically determine whether their research or conclusions are correct or incorrect to me. I search for Christian answers because secular conclusions are already out there and widely known. Conclusions that try to tie what's out there with a biblical world view are what I'm after, therefore I search for the work of Christian scientists. I can easily find a completely secular conclusion without looking too hard at all, and those that reject a Christian view or idea are already versed in the concepts. Therefore I search for a Christian researcher's conclusions and ideas because that's the view I'm coming from and am generally supporting (unless their conclusions flat out strike me as wrong in which case I will reject them and continue pursuing the goal of unification when I have the time).

 

Nowhere did I say the Holy Spirit was a burden. Life's much simpler with Him giving guidance.

[Guest MikeSC]

So....how bout that civil war?

Looking at your image, I must question the existence of a just God if a movie like "Gigli" can get greenlit.

 

Then again, I suppose they wanted to show that the movie from Project Greenlight didn't look so bad by releasing a film slightly less sucky.

 

I bet Jefferson Davis would've liked "Gigli".

-=Mike