tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post4259826291728549168..comments2024-03-19T01:46:23.275-04:00Comments on Debunking Atheists: Psychological QuestionnaireD. A. N. http://www.blogger.com/profile/11745259115723860852noreply@blogger.comBlogger49125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-64132627467026008002008-12-29T18:25:00.000-05:002008-12-29T18:25:00.000-05:00Something else, Dan...You're question about whethe...Something else, Dan...You're question about whether I was married or not does nothing to assuage the problem of the bible's overall misogynistic attitude toward women.<BR/><BR/>At most, you could doubt that I know how marriage works, but the bible's dealing with women cover more than just that.<BR/><BR/>Ex) <B>Leviticus 12:1-14</B> Women who have sons are unclean 7 days<BR/> <BR/><B>Leviticus 12:4-7</B> Women who have daughters are unclean 14 days.Reynoldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07316048340050664487noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-46346941090265974272008-12-29T18:22:00.000-05:002008-12-29T18:22:00.000-05:00The "belief system of athiesm" is just a belief th...The "belief system of athiesm" is just a belief that there are no gods. <BR/><BR/>Whether "default" or not depends on how the individual arrived to it. A lot of atheists used to be believers until they looked to deeply into their religions.Reynoldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07316048340050664487noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-6876966093557049192008-12-29T17:48:00.000-05:002008-12-29T17:48:00.000-05:00Reynold,So are you claiming that the belief system...Reynold,<BR/><BR/>So are you claiming that the belief system of atheism is some default position to religion?D. A. N. https://www.blogger.com/profile/11745259115723860852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-55516790926595120922008-12-29T17:40:00.000-05:002008-12-29T17:40:00.000-05:00Except that atheism isn't a religion; at most it's...Except that atheism isn't a religion; at most it's a viewpoint on the veracity of all the religions out there.<BR/><BR/>No preists, no inset rules to follow, no path to get to any afterlife, no churches or equivalents, etc.<BR/><BR/>Discussed earlier in my post just above your last one.Reynoldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07316048340050664487noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-50319017201505752202008-12-29T17:02:00.000-05:002008-12-29T17:02:00.000-05:00Pvblivs,I have long thought that fundamentalist ch...Pvblivs,<BR/><BR/><I>I have long thought that fundamentalist christianity was just another cult, albeit with more members.</I><BR/><BR/>A cult is defined as followers of an unorthodox, extremist, or false religion so my questions to you is what religion is the right religion if Christianity is a false one? Let me guess, Atheism?D. A. N. https://www.blogger.com/profile/11745259115723860852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-38063043840120686282008-12-27T11:07:00.000-05:002008-12-27T11:07:00.000-05:00Huh? Atheism a "religion"? I know that your supr...Huh? Atheism a "religion"? I know that your supreme court has given it the status of a religion in order to convey to atheists the same constitutional rights against discrimination that religious people have or something like that, but it <A HREF="http://www.secularleft.us/archives/2005/08/atheism_and_evo.html" REL="nofollow">does not mean</A> that atheism is a <A HREF="http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/ath/blathm_rel_religion.htm" REL="nofollow">religion</A>.<BR/><BR/><BR/>By the way, believing that people and "apes" are related does not by itself necessitate atheism. What kind of "apes" anyway? With some variety of chimp we share about 98% of the genes that they do. I'm too lazy and apathetic to look that up right now.Reynoldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07316048340050664487noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-65840936075114876942008-12-26T21:47:00.000-05:002008-12-26T21:47:00.000-05:00Sorry, I believed (past tense) my public school te...Sorry, I believed (past tense) my public school teachingsD. A. N. https://www.blogger.com/profile/11745259115723860852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-16630818002929114802008-12-26T21:44:00.000-05:002008-12-26T21:44:00.000-05:00Reynold,I'd say that you are absolutely clueless a...Reynold,<BR/><BR/><I>I'd say that you are absolutely clueless about atheism because even while you "thought" that you were a xian but say that you were not, you were<B> still </B>not an atheist.</I><BR/><BR/>I may have to agree with you. Although, I will clarify something for you to help your own conclusion as to what I <B> was</B> in the past. I was born into an atheist's home I was raised as an atheist and my entire family are atheists, even to this day. My Mom past away as an atheist even. I believe my public school teachings as being related to apes, I loved science and My hero was Carl Sagan and ran home to watch Cosmos whenever it was on. I never knew who Jesus was, but I heard hints of him from people during my life growing up. When I inquired about Him, my Dad's teachings showed me Jesus was a fake character made up to control the masses, "to keep the poor in line" kind of talk. So in the military age 17-21, I thought Christians were weak minded and gullible. I never really knew any other of the false religions in detail. In refection though, I thought Muslims was some black people's religion since I heard of Malcolm X and Mohomed Ali. At age 23 I was given a gospel tract by such a wonderfully kind lady, I finally read the Bible and believed in Jesus but it was only recently that I was born again forever in Christ. Also, it was only after I read the Bible did I find out about other religions and even read the gnostic and Apocryphal writings and, even with basic understandings, I easily rejected all of them as false. So truthfully and accurately I would of been considered to be an ingotheist growing up, until I started searching at which time I became a lost soul with a belief of Christ to, thanks to God's Grace, a Christian much later. I never entered into the religion of Atheism like all of you(dig), to follow my Dad.D. A. N. https://www.blogger.com/profile/11745259115723860852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-80964722277985104002008-12-26T18:20:00.000-05:002008-12-26T18:20:00.000-05:00That especially applies to the average pulpit-poun...That especially applies to the average pulpit-pounding idiot preacher out there who criticizes evolutionary theory when they'd had absolutely <B>no</B> training in <B>any</B> of the relevent fields. Ex) The late leader of "Coral Ridge" ministries, James Kennedy who bashed science that he knew nothing about on a semi-regular basis.Reynoldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07316048340050664487noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-30119745352199579942008-12-26T18:18:00.000-05:002008-12-26T18:18:00.000-05:00Dan +†+ said...quoting me: Reynold,I'm not married...<B>Dan +†+ said...quoting me: <BR/><BR/>Reynold,<BR/><BR/>I'm not married myself, but I know people who are</B><BR/><BR/><I>Buddy that is like saying I'm not a brain surgeon, but I stayed at a Holiday Inn last night.</I> <BR/><BR/><I>Dude, you are absolutely clueless about marriage until you are indeed married, you are absolutely clueless on parenting until you have children, and you are absolutely clueless about Christianity until you become a Christian.</I><BR/>I was a xian for years, whether you admit it or not. Tough. I'd say that you are absolutely clueless about atheism because even while you "thought" that you were a xian but say that you were not, you were <B>still</B> not an atheist.<BR/><BR/><I>Studying is not equal to doing. I can read all day about quarterbacking for the NFL but until I get into a game I will be 'clueless'.</I><BR/>Actually, not really. You would at least know enough to understand what they are doing or trying to do on the field.<BR/><BR/><I>And that is tonight's word.</I><BR/>Yeah, that's your word, alright.<BR/><BR/>Dan, Buddy. To use your analogy then, it'd be like <B>you</B> criticizing science and evolutionary theory. Even most of the YECs/IDists out there fall into that category. ex)<B>Lawyer</B> Phillip Johnson and Casey Luskin or <B>Physical Chemist</B> Johnathan Sarfati who writes about Anthropology, Geology, Astronomy, and Paleontology in his book "Refuting Evolution" and it's sequel.<BR/><BR/>They don't have the training in the proper fields and the experience/study in the proper subject.Reynoldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07316048340050664487noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-65042671762333719532008-12-26T09:50:00.000-05:002008-12-26T09:50:00.000-05:00Dan: It is interesting to note that cults say ...Dan:<BR/><BR/> It is interesting to note that cults say that outsiders are clueless and have no basis to criticize. I have long thought that fundamentalist christianity was just another cult, albeit with more members.Pvblivshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17931937272948538181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-33593281012880073292008-12-24T19:10:00.000-05:002008-12-24T19:10:00.000-05:00Reynold,I'm not married myself, but I know people ...Reynold,<BR/><BR/><I>I'm not married myself, but I know people who are</I><BR/><BR/>Buddy that is like saying I'm not a brain surgeon, but I stayed at a Holiday Inn last night. <BR/><BR/>Dude, you are absolutely clueless about marriage until you are indeed married, you are absolutely clueless on parenting until you have children, and you are absolutely clueless about Christianity until you become a Christian.<BR/><BR/>Studying is not equal to doing. I can read all day about quarterbacking for the NFL but until I get into a game I will be 'clueless'. And that is tonight's word.D. A. N. https://www.blogger.com/profile/11745259115723860852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-29669373694412191002008-12-24T15:59:00.000-05:002008-12-24T15:59:00.000-05:00Where exactly does the bible imply partnership as ...Where exactly does the bible imply <B>partnership</B> as opposed to rulership? The bible compares the relationship of man and spouse to that of believer and god.<BR/><BR/>Where is the implied "partnership" in <B>that</B> relationship?<BR/><BR/><BR/>Then there are still all those bible verses that the SAB site lists where women are clearly given less status than men. As you admitted yourself, it's punishment passed down from "eve's transgression".<BR/><BR/>Yeah, real fair.<BR/><BR/>I'm not married myself, but I know people who are. ;)Reynoldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07316048340050664487noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-70346184287379802142008-12-24T15:45:00.000-05:002008-12-24T15:45:00.000-05:00Reynold,You're still not getting it; no matter how...Reynold,<BR/><BR/><I>You're still not getting it; no matter how many people we have over us, if a woman is married, she has one more person in authority over her...her husband.</I><BR/><BR/>You're still not getting it; Stay at home mothers have one less person of authority over her... a boss. So if the goal is to have less people to answer to, I suggest the woman stay at home. (and take off those shoes and socks, of course :) In fact working woman have <B> one more</B> person in authority over her.<BR/><BR/><I>CEO's generally listen to their advisers at least.</I> and <I>It's hashed out as opposed to one person just making decrees.</I><BR/><BR/>Now come on are you claiming I (or Christians) don't listen to our adviser, i.e. their wife? I would be lost without Patty's input in matters. Her opinion counts/matters the most. We hash out a great deal of things. Ultimately though, and unapologetically, I will make the big decisions of direction of the family.<BR/><BR/>Since it was avoided I will ask again: Are you married?<BR/><BR/><I>It seems to me that it's your presupps showing again by your blind [acceptance] of the lower status of women because of "Eve's transgression".</I><BR/><BR/>Oh come on, this isn't masters and servants, it's called a partnership for a reason. Psst, without a soft intelligent woman this would be even more of a yucky place, plus I would have zero children. Your broad stokes of that paint brush is making things look ugly, I will assume that was the goal. You are no Monet, get a smaller brush.<BR/><BR/><I>Pencil??? Snort. We're typing this on the internet! </I><BR/><BR/>Speaking of pencils and sharpness....D. A. N. https://www.blogger.com/profile/11745259115723860852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-54873945919963183802008-12-24T02:15:00.000-05:002008-12-24T02:15:00.000-05:00Dan +†+ said... Reynold,The point is that women ha...<B>Dan +†+ said... <BR/><BR/>Reynold,<BR/><BR/>The point is that women have an extra person to submit to as well as all the other people you listed that we have to submit to; their husbands. Men do not.</B><BR/><BR/><I>I disagree. I stay at home to homeschool our kids, You have a job right? So you then have one extra person to submit to, your boss. There you have now been debunkified on that subject.</I><BR/>You're still not getting it; no matter how many people we have over us, if a woman is married, she has <B>one more</B> person in authority over her...her husband.<BR/><BR/><I>God has designed an order, even children are to be submissive to their parents and I am ultimately held accountable and responsible for what happens in my household. I am to be submissive to Christ as the Godhead.</I><BR/><BR/><B>If nothing else, any questions of "leadership" could be left up to the individual couples depending on knowledge and personality.</B><BR/>And intelligence, I forgot to mention.<BR/><BR/><I>Are you married? So, what if there is a struggle as to the doing the right thing?</I><BR/>It's hashed out as opposed to one person just making decrees.<BR/><BR/><I>This was not an issue in my house at all, but lets say that my wife wanted our kids in public schools and I did not. Without a house head nothing but railing and debating.</I><BR/>Or, both parents can set up the rules before they have kids and keep the debates away from them after they have kids. They can even teach their kids about teamwork and about how each side can contribute as opposed to just making decrees.<BR/><BR/><I>With a head of the house every speaks their mind and the CEO makes the decision as to the direction of the family, bearing in mind a wrong decision effects the company/house.</I><BR/>CEO's generally listen to their advisers at least.<BR/><BR/><I>So why is it OK for a Company, Ship, or any other organization and not a family? Why? Because God commanded it? Are your Presups showing again?</I><BR/>No, just my sense of fair play. It seems to me that it's <B>your</B> presupps showing again by your blind acceptence of the lower status of women because of "Eve's transgression".<BR/><BR/><I>It avoids a great deal of fighting when the driver of the bus is identified. Why don't you and your spouse drive the car at the same time? Why don't you install an extra steering wheel? Sound absurd? If it does, I agree.</I><BR/>What makes you think that a marriage is like driving a car? <BR/><BR/><B>The bible just arbitrarily demands that it be the male.</B><BR/><I>Oh, I disagree there is a specific purpose. Read Genesis 3:16</I><BR/>Yeah, it's eve's fault, so all women after her have to pay the price. Not much better than being purely arbitrary.<BR/><BR/>Mind you, even before that, woman was made as a "helper" to man, as implying "for man" and not as a "partner" to man. <BR/><BR/><BR/><B>In reference to Leviticus 12:1-14 and Leviticus 12:4-7: Care to explain?</B><BR/><I>No, I cannot, that one is new to me.</I><BR/><B>Hmmm, I guess you should have read your bible more.</B><BR/><I>Ouch that hurt, touché.</I><BR/>Thanks. I was hoping to use that at some point.<BR/><BR/><I>In my 30 seconds of Bible study: Perhaps, one reason of this was, that the male child had had the advantage of the covenant of circumcision, and brought blessing to his mother. Another reason, however, was, "because the woman was in the transgression," (1 Timothy 2:14) and led Adam into it. It kept up the remembrance of the Fall, and of the first sin, possibly.</I><BR/>Yeah, again, because of their alleged ancestor, all women must be punished.<BR/><BR/><I>Woman can be in a position of authority, and even have been in the OT, although "New Testament clearly restricts the authority/teaching position in the church for qualified men."</I><BR/>Women being in authority in the bible is more the exception rather than the rule. How many women rulers have their been over nations as compared to kings for instance? <BR/><BR/>Then there are the various OT laws which favour men over women.<BR/><BR/><B>Now why is that?</B> <BR/><I>I will fall back to 1 Timothy 2:14 again.</I><BR/>Yeah, passing the punishment onto all women because of what the alleged first woman did.<BR/><BR/><I>Let me punch this home for a moment. When Eve disobeyed God by transgressing His Law She brought thing onto herself.</I><BR/>Onto <B>herself</B> and herself only. Why should it be passed on to others?<BR/><BR/><I>Now look at these two verses<BR/><BR/>See the similarities?<BR/><BR/>In referencing the woman: "and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee."<BR/><BR/>In referencing sin: "And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him"<BR/><BR/>Metaphorically, the temptation of sin wants to have control over, or consume, Cain, and it did. By nature, because of the fall, the woman will seek to rule over the husband.</I><BR/>So even before the fall, it was man's "god-ordained place" to rule over women? So much for your talk of "equality" then.<BR/><BR/><I>Also, because of the fall, there is a natural tension that takes place in the family and there is a struggle for headship. "Woman wears the pants in the family" is a result of the curse. We are to resist sin and control from the woman. Powerful stuff, huh? So the Women desire to rule over men, because of the fall, falls naturally into the position of authority, because of her desires.</I><BR/>Yeah, because of what <B>one</B> woman did, <B>all</B> women afterwards must bear punishment. Sounds fair, in bibleland anyway.<BR/><BR/><I>This is why, I believe, that desire was so great they burned their bra's and protested. In a Holy setting though (Church or Family) we are not to allow the woman to usurp that authority.</I><BR/>Or it could be the lousy treatment that biblical and secular law has been giving them for centuries on end. Nothing like being automatically put in second place just because of your gender.<BR/><BR/><I>Besides we are equal when we are together.</I><BR/><B>The bible does not often imply equality.</B> <BR/><I>I may have misspoken I was thinking of two become one flesh at the time. (Matthew 19:5,Mark 10:8,Ephesians 5:31)</I><BR/><BR/><B>More often it implies subservience.</B> <BR/><I>I agree with reason 1 Timothy 2:14</I><BR/>So then all women are to be punished for something that their alleged ancestor did?? Yeah, that's fair...<BR/><BR/><B>Except for times when he beaked off to his mother like when he said: "Woman, what have I to do with thee?"</B><BR/><I>You hypocrite, are you claiming you have never been angry?</I><BR/><B>No, but this isn't about being angry. This is about christ breaking the rule about honouring his father and mother.</B> <BR/><I>Fine I understand you point but He did honor his Mother's wishes.</I><BR/>Not after lipping off to her first. <BR/><BR/><I>Calvin said she did wrong in going beyond her proper bounds. Her anxiety about the inconvenience endured by others, and her desire to have it in some way mitigated, proceeded from humanity, and ought to be regarded as a virtue; but still, by putting herself forward, she might obscure the glory of Christ. Though it ought also to be observed, that what Christ spoke was not so much for her sake as for the sake of others. Her modesty and piety were too great, to need so severe a chastisement.</I><BR/>Not helping your case by admitting that...<BR/><BR/><I>Besides, she did not knowingly and willingly offend; but Christ only meets the danger, that no improper use may be made of what his mother had said, as if it were in obedience to her command that he afterwards performed the miracle.</I><BR/>One would think that as an "omniscient being" he'd have seen that and would have been more circumpsect when talking with her. Besides, even if she was in the wrong, he did it anyway. Since "christ" would never knowingly "sin" and he did it anyhow, that implies that his turning the water into wine was, in the end, not such a big deal after all in regards to his future "ministry".<BR/><BR/><I>Perfect love is a constant confronter. It takes far more love to confront then to ignore a situation I have always said and here God's Word agrees. Do you?</I><BR/>It can be done, however, without telling your mother to take a hike.<BR/><BR/><B>Why are you dodging?</B> <BR/><I>I'm not, just slow.</I><BR/>I know the feeling.<BR/><BR/><I>I love these discussions though. It sure makes me sharpen my pencil. Thanks!<BR/></I><BR/><B>Pencil???</B> Snort. We're typing this on the internet! Why do you need a pencil? Now, a marker I could understand.Reynoldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07316048340050664487noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-89514181420641643212008-12-24T00:26:00.000-05:002008-12-24T00:26:00.000-05:00Reynold,The point is that women have an extra pers...Reynold,<BR/><BR/><I>The point is that women have an extra person to submit to as well as all the other people you listed that we have to submit to; their husbands. Men do not.</I><BR/><BR/>I disagree. I stay at home to homeschool our kids, You have a job right? So you then have one extra person to submit to, your boss. There you have now been debunkified on that subject.<BR/><BR/>God has designed an order, even children are to be submissive to their parents and I am ultimately held accountable and responsible for what happens in my household. I am to be submissive to Christ as the Godhead.<BR/><BR/><I>If nothing else, any questions of "leadership" could be left up to the individual couples depending on knowledge and personality.</I><BR/><BR/>Are you married? So, what if there is a struggle as to the doing the right thing?<BR/><BR/>This was not an issue in my house at all, but lets say that my wife wanted our kids in public schools and I did not. Without a house head nothing but railing and debating. With a head of the house every speaks their mind and the CEO makes the decision as to the direction of the family, bearing in mind a wrong decision effects the company/house. So why is it OK for a Company, Ship, or any other organization and not a family? Why? Because God commanded it? Are your Presups showing again? It avoids a great deal of fighting when the driver of the bus is identified. Why don't you and your spouse drive the car at the same time? Why don't you install an extra steering wheel? Sound absurd? If it does, I agree.<BR/><BR/><I>The bible just arbitrarily demands that it be the male.</I><BR/><BR/>Oh, I disagree there is a specific purpose. Read Genesis 3:16<BR/><BR/><I>In reference to Leviticus 12:1-14 and Leviticus 12:4-7: Care to explain?</I><BR/><I>No, I cannot, that one is new to me.</I><BR/><B>Hmmm, I guess you should have read your bible more.</B><BR/><BR/>Ouch that hurt, touché.<BR/><BR/>In my 30 seconds of Bible study: Perhaps, one reason of this was, that the male child had had the advantage of the covenant of circumcision, and brought blessing to his mother. Another reason, however, was, "because the woman was in the transgression," (1 Timothy 2:14) and led Adam into it. It kept up the remembrance of the Fall, and of the first sin, possibly.<BR/><BR/><I>Woman can be in a position of authority, and even have been in the OT, although "New Testament clearly restricts the authority/teaching position in the church for qualified men."</I><BR/><BR/><B>Now why is that? </B><BR/><BR/>I will fall back to 1 Timothy 2:14 again.<BR/><BR/>Let me punch this home for a moment. When Eve disobeyed God by transgressing His Law She brought thing onto herself.<BR/><BR/>Now look at these <A HREF="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=gen%203:16,%20Gen%204:6-7;&version=9;" REL="nofollow">two verses</A><BR/><BR/>See the similarities?<BR/><BR/>In referencing the woman: "and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee."<BR/><BR/>In referencing sin: "And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him"<BR/><BR/>Metaphorically, the temptation of sin wants to have control over, or consume, Cain, and it did. By nature, because of the fall, the woman will seek to rule over the husband. Also, because of the fall, there is a natural tension that takes place in the family and there is a struggle for headship. "Woman wears the pants in the family" is a result of the curse. We are to resist sin and control from the woman. Powerful stuff, huh? So the Women desire to rule over men, because of the fall, falls naturally into the position of authority, because of her desires. This is why, I believe, that desire was so great they burned their bra's and protested. In a Holy setting though (Church or Family) we are not to allow the woman to usurp that authority.<BR/><BR/><I>Besides we are equal when we are together.</I><BR/><B>The bible does not often imply equality. </B><BR/><BR/>I may have misspoken I was thinking of two become one flesh at the time. (Matthew 19:5,Mark 10:8,Ephesians 5:31)<BR/><BR/><I>More often it implies subservience. </I><BR/><BR/>I agree with reason 1 Timothy 2:14<BR/><BR/><B>Except for times when he beaked off to his mother like when he said: "Woman, what have I to do with thee?"</B><BR/><I>You hypocrite, are you claiming you have never been angry?</I><BR/><B>No, but this isn't about being angry. This is about christ breaking the rule about honouring his father and mother. </B><BR/><BR/>Fine I understand you point but He did honor his Mother's wishes. Calvin said she did wrong in going beyond her proper bounds. Her anxiety about the inconvenience endured by others, and her desire to have it in some way mitigated, proceeded from humanity, and ought to be regarded as a virtue; but still, by putting herself forward, she might obscure the glory of Christ. Though it ought also to be observed, that what Christ spoke was not so much for her sake as for the sake of others. Her modesty and piety were too great, to need so severe a chastisement. Besides, she did not knowingly and willingly offend; but Christ only meets the danger, that no improper use may be made of what his mother had said, <B>as if it were in obedience to her command that he afterwards performed the miracle.</B><BR/><BR/>Perfect love is a constant confronter. It takes far more love to confront then to ignore a situation I have always said and here God's Word agrees. Do you?<BR/><BR/><I>Why are you dodging? </I><BR/><BR/>I'm not, just slow.<BR/><BR/>I love these discussions though. It sure makes me sharpen my pencil. Thanks!D. A. N. https://www.blogger.com/profile/11745259115723860852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-89867055709976027102008-12-23T22:24:00.000-05:002008-12-23T22:24:00.000-05:00Dan +†+ said... Reynold,Yes, but women have an ext...<B>Dan +†+ said... <BR/><BR/>Reynold,<BR/><BR/>Yes, but women have an extra person to submit to, their husbands. Your point?</B><BR/><BR/><I>Person? I get your point but we all do, except God Himself.</I><BR/>The point is that women have an extra person to submit to as well as all the other people you listed that we have to submit to; their husbands. Men do not. How is that so hard to understand? <BR/><BR/><B>Why not an equal partnership, if "god" wanted man and women to be equal in his eyes?</B><BR/><I>So how many Captains are on a ship? It's just a matter of order. You know, too many cooks...</I><BR/>What makes you think that a ship is a proper analogy for a marriage? If nothing else, any questions of "leadership" could be left up to the individual couples depending on knowledge and personality. The bible just arbitrarily demands that it be the male. It even goes to the extent that it's easier for a male to divorce a woman than it is for the woman to divorce her husband. See the link in my previous post.<BR/><BR/><I>Besides we are equal when we are together.</I><BR/>The bible does not often imply equality. More often it implies subservience. Sometimes they're even implied to be property to an extent. See the link I gave in my previous post.<BR/><BR/><I>We complete each other. Do I need to explain the necessity of both to procreate?</I><BR/>No, but you <B>do</B> have to explain why women were considered "unclean" for 7 days after giving birth to a male child, and 14 days after giving birth to a female child.<BR/><BR/><I>How people say women are equal to men is beyond me. Want proof? Next time you move tell your wife to P/U all the heavy items because you just did your nails. We are physically wired as well as mentally wired different and it's amazing how complimentary we are together as one. I wouldn't change a thing. It's perfection.</I><BR/>Except the bible makes it clear that the <B>status</B> of women is less then men. People can have different abilities yet have the same status. Besides, you xians don't see any problems with OT baby butchery either.<BR/><BR/><B>What about Genesis 2:18 where it says it is "not good" for man to be alone.<BR/>So woman was made for man?</B><BR/><I>Yes</I><BR/>I'll let you ponder the significance of that answer for yourself.<BR/><BR/><B>In reference to Leviticus 12:1-14 and Leviticus 12:4-7: Care to explain?</B><BR/><I>No, I cannot, that one is new to me.</I><BR/>Hmmm, I guess you should have <A HREF="http://debunkingatheists.blogspot.com/2008/12/ignotheists.html" REL="nofollow">read your bible more</A>.<BR/><BR/><I>I would have to research it...and pray about it, of course.<BR/><BR/>Woman can be in a position of authority, and even have been in the OT, although "New Testament clearly restricts the authority/teaching position in the church for qualified men."</I><BR/>Now why is that? <BR/><BR/><B>Except for times when he beaked off to his mother like when he said: "Woman, what have I to do with thee?"</B><BR/><I>You hypocrite, are you claiming you have never been angry?</I><BR/>No, but this isn't about being angry. This is about christ breaking the rule about honouring his father and mother. If xians didn't constantly claim that he was "sinless" then the fact that christ had done that would be irrelevent.<BR/><BR/>When people are angry and say stuff like that to their parents, it counts as a sin, does it not? <BR/><BR/>Why are you dodging? <BR/><BR/><I>and yet you comment again... TBC<BR/>December 23, 2008 5:53 PM</I><BR/>So?Reynoldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07316048340050664487noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-65877063465343275202008-12-23T20:53:00.000-05:002008-12-23T20:53:00.000-05:00Reynold,Yes, but women have an extra person to sub...Reynold,<BR/><BR/><I>Yes, but women have an extra person to submit to, their husbands. Your point?</I><BR/><BR/>Person? I get your point but we all do, except God Himself. <BR/><BR/><I>Why not an equal partnership, if "god" wanted man and women to be equal in his eyes?</I><BR/><BR/>So how many Captains are on a ship? It's just a matter of order. You know, too many cooks...<BR/><BR/>Besides we are equal when we are together. We complete each other. Do I need to explain the necessity of both to procreate? How people say women are equal to men is beyond me. Want proof? Next time you move tell your wife to P/U all the heavy items because you just did your nails. We are physically wired as well as mentally wired different and it's amazing how complimentary we are together as one. I wouldn't change a thing. It's perfection.<BR/><BR/><I>What about Genesis 2:18 where it says it is "not good" for man to be alone.<BR/>So woman was made for man?</I><BR/><BR/>Yes<BR/><BR/>In reference to Leviticus 12:1-14 and Leviticus 12:4-7: <I>Care to explain?</I><BR/><BR/>No, I cannot, that one is new to me. I would have to research it...and pray about it, of curse.<BR/><BR/>Woman can be in a <A HREF="http://www.carm.org/news/palin.htm" REL="nofollow">position of authority,</A> and even have been in the OT, although "New Testament clearly restricts the authority/teaching position in the church for qualified men." <BR/><BR/><I>Except for times when he beaked off to his mother like when he said: "Woman, what have I to do with thee?"</I><BR/><BR/>You hypocrite, are you claiming you have never been angry? <BR/><BR/>and yet you comment again... TBCD. A. N. https://www.blogger.com/profile/11745259115723860852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-2730925353805823092008-12-23T17:13:00.000-05:002008-12-23T17:13:00.000-05:00Dan +†+ said... Reynold,Well, xianity does have a ...<B>Dan +†+ said... <BR/><BR/>Reynold,<BR/><BR/>Well, xianity does have a reputation for being misogynistic.</B><BR/><BR/><I>We are called bride of Christ for a reason, God loves woman.</I><BR/>Only if you do a very good job of cherry-picking verses to make it seem like that. For the opposite view, check out <A HREF="http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/women/long.html" REL="nofollow">here</A> (this guy is too enthusiastic about picking out verses, but within that link, you'll still find amble evidence of biblegod's attitude towards women.)<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>Yes woman submit to the husband and husband submit to God. See we are playing the role of the marriage that will happen in heaven with Jesus and his believers. Stay loyal in Christ and you will understand how exalted you will be in heaven.<BR/><BR/>"Many women don't like what the Bible says because it calls wives to "submit to their husbands." However, submission is not limited to wives submitting to their husbands. We are told to submit to God, governmental authorities, our boss, and leaders in the assembly.</I><BR/>Yes, but women have an extra person to submit to, their husbands. Your point?<BR/><BR/><I>We are also told to submit to one another, which includes men submitting women and vice versa. God is a God of order. In a sinful world, submission to those in authority is the only way to maintain order."</I><BR/>Why not an equal partnership, if "god" wanted man and women to be equal in his eyes?<BR/><BR/><I>Genesis 1:27 "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."<BR/><BR/>Traits from man and woman equal make up "image of God"<BR/><BR/>What about Genesis 2:18 where it says it is "not good" for man to be alone.</I><BR/>So woman was made <B>for man</B>? Not helping your case here.<BR/><BR/>What about this? As a part of punishment after the "tree of knowledge" incident:<BR/><B>Genesis 3:16</B><BR/><I>To the woman he said, "I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you."</I><BR/><BR/><BR/><I>How did God treat women? Remember story of Esther?</I><BR/>Remember the story of Lot's daughters who he offered up to a rape gang? After that, "righteous Lot" was spare the destruction of the city.<BR/><B>Genesis 19: 1-8</B><BR/><I>Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him and said, "No, my friends. Don't do this wicked thing. Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don't do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof."</I><BR/><BR/><BR/><I>You then have to ask, How did Jesus treat women? Like the woman at the well or Mary Magdalene or even the prostitute about to get stoned.</I><BR/>How's about looking at who gave those laws on how to deal with such offenses by women in the first place in the OT??<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>"The women described in the Bible are not always homemakers and mothers. Obviously, the biological function of women is to produce children.</I><BR/>Let's look at that:<BR/><B>Leviticus 12:1-14</B> Women who have sons are unclean 7 days <BR/><B>Leviticus 12:4-7</B> Women who have daughters are unclean 14 days. <BR/><BR/>Care to explain? Don't do what Robert Turkel/JP Holding does, and say that it's to allow time for "bonding" or some such nonsense, since the context of the verses themselves talk about "unleanliness" and not "bonding time".<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>However, Deborah was both a judge and leader of Israel.(Judges 4:4) Other women were involved in ridding Israel of her enemies.(Judges 4:21) Quite a number of women are described as being prophetesses.(Exodus 15:20,2 Kings 22:14,Luke 2:36)<BR/><BR/><BR/>Other women in the Bible were involved in teaching the Word of God(Acts 18:26)"</I><BR/>Even though the bible itself says <I>"Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression."</I><B>--1 Tim. 2:11-14</B>?<BR/><BR/><I>Countless other verses point to Jesus holding high regard for women.</I><BR/>Except for times when he beaked off to his mother like when he said: "Woman, what have I to do with thee?"<BR/><BR/>And of course, some of those verses the SAB pointed out in the link above.<BR/><BR/><I>God's people are referred to as female, not male.</I><BR/>To point out subordination. So what? Many times, "gods's people" are also referred to as "harlots" whenever they stray from the faith. Why not just "traitorous" or something instead of a word that slams women?<BR/><BR/><I>In the Old Testament, God's people are the "daughters of Zion." The Body of Christ (including us men) is referred to as the "bride" of Christ and God is said to be our "husband." Whenever referred to by sex, the assembly is described as "she" or "her." (Ephesians 5:25,27)"</I><BR/><BR/><I>In conclusion we have one verse that sums it all up: Galatians 3:28 "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.</I><BR/>Too bad that verse goes against so many others as pointed out in that link I gave previously.Reynoldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07316048340050664487noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-13691736901964571302008-12-23T16:44:00.000-05:002008-12-23T16:44:00.000-05:00Dan quoting me:What do you mean by "paradigm"? We ...<B>Dan quoting me:<BR/>What do you mean by "paradigm"?</B> <BR/><BR/><I>We went from science to science feeding the paradigm called evolution and now infects every part of science. It's just wrong and not good science. Science should be objective, not subjectively searching for only evolution evidence,</I><BR/>Your ignorance of the history of science is showing here. In Darwin's day it was creationism that was the ruling paradigm. Very few people wanted to believe in evolution plus an old earth. Read Ronald Number's book <I>The Creationists</I> to get a clue. Numbers also details several examples of people who were trained by ICR and who wanted to believe in a young earth who wound up having to ditch that idea once they got out into the field.<BR/><BR/>Compare that with true dogma; young earth organizations like ICR and AIG demand that anyone who joins them take an oath where they swear that they'll only believe the genesis/biblical view of origins and that they promise to never change their mind about that, no matter what. <BR/><BR/>How's <B>that</B> for "objective science" Dan? Pot, kettle, black.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>plus take evidence that doesn't support evolution and label it "inconclusive".</I><BR/>Complete b.s. on your part. If anything, that would describe creationism instead. As I've said before, things like fossil vertebrates in the precambrian would mess up the theory. Also, if the fossil record didn't verify changes in organisms over time as evolution theoriesed, Darwin's theory would not have lasted long beyond him.<BR/><BR/>Now, when it comes to people trying to write off evidence that goes against their views as you accuse "evolutionists" of doing, even when faced with the problems presented by the distance that starlight form other galaxies has to travel they shrug it off and still go with the young earth view. When confronted with problems in radiometric dating that would shoot down their views, creationists rely on <A HREF="http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/miracle_henke.htm" REL="nofollow">miracles</A> to save them.<BR/><BR/><I>Humphreys (2000, p. 334) also acknowledges that young-Earth creationism depends on miracles and actually welcomes them. Concerning the decay rates of radioactive isotopes, Humphreys (2000, p. 367) states:</I><BR/><BR/><B>"It appears that Christ already has direct control of the nuclear (and other) forces, and furthermore that He is intimately involved with them. So even if we cannot follow all the links in the chain of causes back past a certain point, we can be confident that Jesus Christ is not only at the end of it, but at every link along the way. The point I am trying to make is that we should avoid the pitfall of insisting on completely naturalistic explanations for accelerated [radioactive] decay.<BR/><BR/>******Instead, my approach is to push the science we think we know as far as is reasonable, but remain ready at every point to see that God has intervened, and is intervening."*****</B><BR/>So, you want to talk about people dodging evidence that shoots down their point of view, Dan?<BR/><BR/>Continuing with the quote:<BR/><I>Of course, ANY mystery or problem can be superficially covered up with miracles. Anyone can yell: "God did it!" Whereas forensic scientists and paleontologists can often use remaining evidence to reasonably explain past unwitnessed events, YECs have no way of testing miracles or verifying the existence of supernatural beings. Young-Earth creationism is based on an unbelievable and unjustified faith, whereas the track record of the naturalistic approach of science is well-established, highly reliable and often imported into our daily lives to explain everything from crimes to missing car keys. Also, when faced with the most obvious errors and contradictions in their Biblical interpretations, YECs certainly have vivid imaginations and, by invoking miracles or other unlikely excuses, they can easily plaster over the most blatant inconsistencies in their Bible interpretations and their young-Earth mythology - errors and contradictions that YECs probably would not excuse if they were found in the Book of Mormon or the Koran.</I><BR/><BR/><BR/>You claim, Dan, that evolution "infects" every part of science? If by that remark you mean that the established age of the earth and the universe is backed up by <I>observations</I> in physics and astronomy then maybe you'd have a point.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>Oh OK, I perfectly understand what you are getting at now. So we can conclude, of course, someone that is in an abusive relationship would find that subject uncomfortable and it wouldn't bother someone who isn't. So thanks for admitting to the world that jokes about you beating your wife makes you uncomfortable. Since you actually beat your wives (polygamy joke too?) you are getting uncomfortable with that subject. Got it. I will steer clear since you are crawling in your skin with that subject. Who would of thought that God devised humor to pull out truths. He sure deserves all of our praise!</I><BR/>Yeah, right. Even when biblegod orders the death of babies and pregnant women in the OT you people still say that he deserves all of our praise. What an anti-human philosophy you subscribe to. No wonder those jokes are amusing to you.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>This inclusion without any mention of the baby eating link. You are cracking me up, dude.</I><BR/>For one thing, <B>no group I've heard of </B> eats babies, so no matter how disgusting that joke is, it's safe to assume that it has no real life parallels. Wife beating is a different matter. <BR/><BR/>And, you're still acting like a prick. Jebus muse be proud of you. Can you point out where in the bible he endorsed <B>that kind</B> of joke? The verses you gave did not describe violent humour.<BR/><BR/>Well, I guess in order to show that I do have a sense of humour, I can keep on talking about xians as being necrophiliacs in denial then.Reynoldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07316048340050664487noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-4365929647071646982008-12-23T13:52:00.000-05:002008-12-23T13:52:00.000-05:00Reynold,Well, xianity does have a reputation for b...Reynold,<BR/><BR/><I>Well, xianity does have a reputation for being misogynistic.</I><BR/><BR/>We are called bride of Christ for a reason, God loves woman. Yes woman submit to the husband and husband submit to God. See we are playing the role of the marriage that will happen in heaven with Jesus and his believers. Stay loyal in Christ and you will understand how exalted you will be in heaven.<BR/><BR/>"Many women don't like what the Bible says because it calls wives to "submit to their husbands." However, submission is not limited to wives submitting to their husbands. We are told to submit to God, governmental authorities, our boss, and leaders in the assembly. We are also told to submit to one another, which includes men submitting women and vice versa. God is a God of order. In a sinful world, submission to those in authority is the only way to maintain order."<BR/><BR/>Genesis 1:27 "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."<BR/><BR/>Traits from man and woman equal make up "image of God"<BR/><BR/>What about Genesis 2:18 where it says it is "not good" for man to be alone.<BR/><BR/>How did God treat women? Remember story of Esther?<BR/><BR/>You then have to ask, How did Jesus treat women? Like the woman at the well or Mary Magdalene or even the prostitute about to get stoned.<BR/><BR/>"The women described in the Bible are not always homemakers and mothers. Obviously, the biological function of women is to produce children. However, Deborah was both a judge and leader of Israel.(Judges 4:4) Other women were involved in ridding Israel of her enemies.(Judges 4:21) Quite a number of women are described as being prophetesses.(Exodus 15:20,2 Kings 22:14,Luke 2:36) Other women in the Bible were involved in teaching the Word of God(Acts 18:26)"<BR/><BR/>Countless other verses point to Jesus holding high regard for women.<BR/><BR/>God's people are referred to as female, not male. In the Old Testament, God's people are the "daughters of Zion." The Body of Christ (including us men) is referred to as the "bride" of Christ and God is said to be our "husband." Whenever referred to by sex, the assembly is described as "she" or "her." (Ephesians 5:25,27)"<BR/><BR/>In conclusion we have one verse that sums it all up: Galatians 3:28 "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.D. A. N. https://www.blogger.com/profile/11745259115723860852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-34888552666160948182008-12-23T13:14:00.000-05:002008-12-23T13:14:00.000-05:00Reynold,What do you mean by "paradigm"? We went fr...Reynold,<BR/><BR/><I>What do you mean by "paradigm"? </I><BR/><BR/>We went from science to science feeding the paradigm called evolution and now infects every part of science. It's just wrong and not good science. Science should be objective, not subjectively searching for only evolution evidence,plus take evidence that doesn't support evolution and label it "inconclusive".<BR/><BR/>You've not done any thinking about this, I suspect.<BR/><BR/>Dan:<B>I applaud your exhaustive search for the truth, but in the end it was a search in vein since truth was not the result.</B><BR/><BR/><I>Evidence please?</I><BR/><BR/>God's Word for one.<BR/><BR/><I>Jokes about wife-beating is just tasteless.</I><BR/><BR/>This inclusion without any mention of the baby eating link. You are cracking me up, dude.<BR/><BR/>Besides you do know at what time of day was Adam created? A little before Eve. Adam was a very famous runner since he was first in the human race.<BR/><BR/>Judges 14:14 has a riddle if you are searching for humor in the Bible.<BR/><BR/>In Mark 5:9, Jesus asks a man possessed by devils, "What is your name?" The devils reply, "My name is Legion; for we are many." Get it? Hilarious!<BR/><BR/>John 1:45-51 <I>"Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth? "</I> That sarcasm is witty. <I>"Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile!"</I> Really an honest Jew? Jesus said <I>"Because I said unto thee, I saw thee under the fig tree, believest thou?</I> (audience laughs) <I>thou shalt see greater things than these.</I>" You could open in Vegas with this stuff.<BR/><BR/>You said<I>I'd rather introduce you to some people I know who were beaten up by their husbands.</I><BR/><BR/>and this<BR/><BR/><I>The ones about wife beating were a riot... By the way, not many xians I know would find that joke funny either, due to certain things that have happened in their lives.</I><BR/><BR/>Oh OK, I perfectly understand what you are getting at now. So we can conclude, of course, someone that is in an abusive relationship would find that subject uncomfortable and it wouldn't bother someone who isn't. So thanks for admitting to the world that jokes about you beating your wife makes you uncomfortable. Since you actually beat your wives (polygamy joke too?) you are getting uncomfortable with that subject. Got it. I will steer clear since you are crawling in your skin with that subject. Who would of thought that God devised humor to pull out truths. He sure deserves all of our praise!<BR/><BR/><I> Seriously, how stupid are you?</I><BR/><BR/>so stupid when I hear it's chilly outside I get a bowl.<BR/>so stupid I sold my car for gas money!<BR/>so stupid I thought a quarterback was an tax refund and I took a spoon to the superbowl.<BR/>so stupid someone told me to do the robot.....and now R2D2 has chlamydia.<BR/><BR/><I>I could say that all christians are just necrophiliacs in denial</I><BR/><BR/>As long as it's done tastefully. :)D. A. N. https://www.blogger.com/profile/11745259115723860852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-66028204384006126242008-12-23T04:55:00.000-05:002008-12-23T04:55:00.000-05:00And it fundamentally wrong and deceptive.Evidence ...<I>And it fundamentally wrong and deceptive.</I><BR/>Evidence please. People like Ray Comfort and yourself get shot down every time evolution is talked about. Assertions do not a case make. Even though you're too squeamish and cowardly to go the the <B>TalkOrigins Archive</B>, I'll mention it anyway.<BR/><BR/><I>So if what is claimed true that "evolution is science" then Science should and does separate itself from just one theory. As I posted about in the past, when a theory becomes the paradigm for science then deception ensues.</I><BR/>The theory of evolution is just that; a theory with a lot of corroborating evidence, with nothing going against it (once the falsehoods of YECism/IDism are dealt with...remember the Dover trial)?<BR/><BR/>What do you mean by "paradigm"? Do you mean that evolution is the "paradigm" in biology as atomic theory is in chemistry or "Einsteinism" is in physics? If so, where is the "deception" in those fields?<BR/><BR/>You've not done any thinking about this, I suspect.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>I applaud your exhaustive search for the truth, but in the end it was a search in vein since truth was not the result.</I><BR/>Evidence please?<BR/><BR/>I applaud your non-exhaustive search for the truth where you picked up your holy book and just assumed that it's right and everything else is wrong.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>Now, to my statements about you:<BR/><BR/>I was picking on you, period. I wasn't taking you seriously, as you were with me. I was laughing at you and teasing you.</I><BR/>So what? Jokes about wife-beating is just tasteless. Not even many atheists I know act like that. <BR/><I>If you felt my words harmful then you deserve even a noogie on top of my discontent.</I><BR/>Yeah, you xians damn near never apologize for anything.<BR/><BR/><I>Your life is way too short to worry about me and my warped sense of humor.</I><BR/>Warped? Well, xianity does have a reputation for being <A HREF="http://www.melbourne.indymedia.org/news/2007/05/144960_comment.php" REL="nofollow">misogynistic</A>.<BR/><BR/>Guess I can't blame you for that; your religion doesn't place as high a value on the lives of women as secularism does.<BR/><BR/><BR/><B>You're sinking even lower in my estimation of you.</B><BR/><I>Do you think I seek the praise of men? Really? You must be mistaken (John 12:43)</I><BR/>Nope. I was just pointing out that you're starting to act like an ass. That's why you get no respect.<BR/><BR/><I>It was only a friendly banter from one brother to another. If that is offensive then get a hooker you wife beater. BTW stop eating babies and accept a handshake from me.</I><BR/>Nah. I'd rather introduce you to some people I know who were beaten up by their husbands.<BR/><BR/><B>Is this one of the "gifts" of the "holy spirit" I keep hearing about?</B> <BR/><I>Yes, God gave us the gift of a sense of humor,</I><BR/>That explains all the jokes jebus used to tell in the bible. The ones about wife beating were a riot. Care to show where those verses are? By the way, not many xians I know would find that joke funny either, due to certain things that have happened in their lives.<BR/><BR/><I>oh that's right you deny that also...your loss.</I><BR/>No loss at all; I just don't find jokes about wife beating very funny.<BR/><BR/>Good grief; how stupid do you have to be to assume that because I don't find wife-beating jokes funny, that I don't have <B>any sense of humour at all</B>? Seriously, how stupid are you?<BR/><BR/>I could say that all christians are just necrophiliacs in denial and if you were to take offense to <B>that</B> I could say that xians are the ones with no sense of humour. Get the point yet?Reynoldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07316048340050664487noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-66026174870827984632008-12-23T03:49:00.000-05:002008-12-23T03:49:00.000-05:00Reynold,Well, I believe you accomplished your task...Reynold,<BR/><BR/>Well, I believe you accomplished your task then.<BR/><BR/><I>All it does, is it tells us where we came from.</I><BR/><BR/>And it fundamentally wrong and deceptive. So if what is claimed true that "evolution is science" then Science should and does separate itself from just one theory. As I posted about <A HREF="http://debunkingatheists.blogspot.com/2008/08/science.html" REL="nofollow">in the past,</A> when a theory becomes the paradigm for science then deception ensues.<BR/><BR/>I applaud your exhaustive search for the truth, but in the end it was a search in vein since truth was not the result.<BR/><BR/>Now, to my statements about you:<BR/><BR/>I was picking on you, period. I wasn't taking you seriously, as you were with me. I was laughing at you and teasing you. If you felt my words harmful then you deserve even a noogie on top of my discontent. Your life is way to short to worry about me and my warped sense of humor.<BR/><BR/><I>You're sinking even lower in my estimation of you.</I><BR/><BR/>Do you think I seek the praise of men? Really? You must be mistaken (John 12:43)<BR/><BR/>It was only a friendly banter from one brother to another. If that is offensive then get a hooker you wife beater. BTW stop <A HREF="http://debunkingatheists.blogspot.com/2008/07/atheists-eat-babies.html" REL="nofollow">eating babies</A> and accept a handshake from me.<BR/><BR/><I>Is this one of the "gifts" of the "holy spirit" I keep hearing about? </I><BR/><BR/>Yes, God gave us the gift of a sense of humor, oh that's right you deny that also...your loss.D. A. N. https://www.blogger.com/profile/11745259115723860852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-45006755895965520912008-12-23T03:12:00.000-05:002008-12-23T03:12:00.000-05:00Well, finally...you list the original article...af...Well, finally...you list the original article...after god only knows how many weeks...<BR/><BR/>But as usual, you left something out. <BR/><BR/><BR/>He's saying that evolution is good science, and that those who try to attach any further meaning to it are wrong.<BR/><BR/>He explains that in his email to me:<BR/><I>well, I did say that evolution is a religion but I was taken out of context --</I><B>I think that too often evolutionists take their theory in a religious fashion when they should treat it as science</B><I> -- let me see if I can dig something out for you -- but really you should read my book "can a darwinian be a christian?" published by cambridge university press<BR/></I><BR/><BR/>Now, to the part of the article that you Dan, and other creationists never mention:<BR/><I>What is the moral to be drawn from all of this? You might think that the time has come to save evolution from the evolutionists.<BR/><BR/>Darwinism is a terrific theory that stimulates research in every area of the life sciences. In the human realm, for instance, discoveries in Africa trace our immediate past in ever greater detail, while at the same time the Human Genome Project opens up fascinating evolutionary questions as we learn of the molecular similarities between ourselves and organisms as apparently different as fruit flies and earthworms. Surely this is enough.<BR/><BR/>There is no need to make a religion of evolution.</I><B> On its own merits, evolution as science is just that -- good, tough, forward-looking science, which should be taught as a matter of course to all children, regardless of creed.</B><BR/><BR/><I>But, let us be tolerant. If people want to make a religion of evolution, that is their business. Who would deny the value of Mr. Wilson's plea for biodiversity? Who would argue against Mr. Gould's hatred of racial and sexual prejudice, which he has used evolution to attack?</I><BR/><BR/><B>The important point is that we should recognize when people are going beyond the strict science, moving into moral and social claims, thinking of their theory as an all-embracing world picture.</B><I> All too often, there is a slide from science to something more, and this slide goes unmentioned -- unrealized even.<BR/><BR/>For pointing this out we should be grateful for the opponents of evolution. The Creationists are wrong in their Creationism, but they are right in at least one of their criticisms. Evolution, Darwinian evolution, is wonderful science. Let us teach it to our children. And, in the classroom, let us leave it at that. The moral messages, the underlying ideology, may be worthy. But if we feel strongly, there are other times and places to preach that gospel to the world.</I><BR/><BR/><BR/>There is one thing that Ruse himself didn't pick up though. Gish had said to him: <I>Christianity tells us where we came from, where we're going, and what we should do on the way. I defy you to show any difference with evolution. It tells you where you came from, where you are going, and what you should do on the way. You evolutionists have your God, and his name is Charles Darwin."</I><BR/>Gish's challenge is easily met: Evolution does <B>not</B> tell us what we should do "on the way". It doesn't even tell us where we are going! All it does, is it tells us where we came from.<BR/><BR/>That article notes that Darwin himself when he wrote the <I>Origin of Species</I> sought to make evolutionary biology less ideological as compared to his grandfather's opinion which was that evolution was the deistic god's work who set things in motion and then stood back:<BR/><BR/><I>In 1859, Charles Darwin, rightly considered the father of modern evolutionary thought, published his great work: On the Origin of Species.<BR/> <BR/>With this book, Charles Darwin hoped to change things and make a less ideological system of evolution. He offered a systematic survey of the biological world, showing how many different factors (the fossil record, the geographical distributions of organisms, the discoveries from embryology, and much more) point to evolution. <BR/></I><BR/><BR/>Now, to your statements about me:<BR/><I>How about: So I won't trust anything that you claim.</I><BR/>Right. Give a reason <B>why</B> instead of bible verses. How about recording every single instance of my claims being wrong, Dan?<BR/><BR/>In other words: If you claim I'm untrustworthy, <B>back up that claim</B>!<BR/><BR/><B>...you do realize that you're implying that since I'm not a xian, nothing I say can be trusted?</B><BR/><I>Is your counter claim that you can always be trusted?</I><BR/>No, it's my claim that you have <B>nothing</B> to base your accusation: that nothing I say can be trusted, on. I notice that you avoided giving any justification for that charge. How's about backing up your charge first? This isn't the xian dark ages anymore, when all one needed was an accusation to convict. You have to prove your case. <BR/><BR/>You're sinking even lower in my estimation of you.<BR/><BR/><B>Sorry, Dan, I don't follow any "spirit".</B><BR/><I>So why are you questioning someone else's then?</I><BR/>I'm questioning creationist <B>honesty</B>, not some non-existent spirit.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>Speaking of which... Do you feel better claiming that?</I><BR/>Only in that I'm trying to set the record straight<BR/><BR/><I>I am strong enough to offer myself as a punching bag to you if that is what you require to move on in life.</I><BR/>If you didn't beak off so much there'd be no need. Start acting worthy of respect and stop playing the martyr. You don't deserve it.<BR/><BR/><I>Better to do it to me then your spouse or dog at home. At least I hope you have a spouse to aid in the release of this pent up frustration. :)</I><BR/>What the hell is this? Is this a joke about wife-beating? WTF? You evangelicals have the most fucked up sense of humour I've ever seen. Is this one of the "gifts" of the "holy spirit" I keep hearing about?Reynoldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07316048340050664487noreply@blogger.com