Atheist Groups Increase on School Campuses

TheRegenerate »

Tue Sep 29, 2009 7:24 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

Back to the point at hand.

To "Alockslee",

2 Peter 3:3 " Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts..."

This country was founded on Judeo-Christian right from the start. There is scripture etched in stone all over Washington D.C. There are 3 different instances of the Ten Commandments VISIBLE TO ALL in the U.S. Supreme Court.

Governor Bradford, in writing of the Pilgrims’ landing, describes their first act: “Being thus arrived in a good harbor and brought safe to land, they fell upon their knees and blessed the God of heaven....”

Rhode Island Charter of 1683, which begins: “We submit our persons, lives and estates unto our Lord Jesus Christ, the King of kings and Lord of lords and to all those perfect and most absolute laws of His given us in His holy Word.”

James Madison, our 4th President and one of the founding writers of the Constitution said, and I quote, "We have staked the whole of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God."

The Supreme Court Decision 1892—Church of the Holy Trinity Vs. The United States: “Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of The Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise; and in this sense and to this extent our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian….
This is a religious people. This is historically true.”

I'm so tired of hearing about the Constitutions secular nature when that is nothing but a lie from the father of all lies, invented by Humanists to propagate their own agenda, preying on the unwitting non-believer because they WILL NOT acknowledge the obvious. God created us, like it or not.

Here's another quote for you that I used in another thread. Sir Arthur Keith, Scottish anatomist and anthropologist, a "fellow" (which is an incorporated senior member of certain colleges and universities and/or a member of it's governing body) of the Royal College of Surgeons of England said this: "Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe in it because the only alternative is Special Creation (God), and THAT is unthinkable"(emphasis mine)

You will know the truth one day. That being the day, the MOMENT, you die. If we (Believers) are wrong, then everyone becomes fish food and no one cares. But, if we are right, it is a decision you will regret for Eternity....

Alockslee »

Sun Sep 27, 2009 2:35 am Agree: 3   Disagree: 1

Flagged as inappropriate. show Interesting that non religious groups are growing on schools and campuses. Now the issues will have voices that use rational fact based platforms to provide information to everyone and then those who hold to religious beliefs can then put forth their position statements based upon the same tangible facts in order to convince people to follow along. The problem results when those promoting religious doctrine venture into an area they haven't had experience in and that is simply rational fact based discussions which requires civil discourse and they won't be able to scare anyone into obedience any longer. Since secular groups have begun voicing their positions, those engaged in religious indoctrination are left with being made to actually produce something to back up their side and that is not only quite difficult in the first place since having to defend intangibles leave them in the position of proving a negative and everyone knows you can't prove it with what they have. The better position for those engaged in religious proselytizing and indoctrination would be better served to avoid those situations which call for civil discourse as their entire rhetoric requires that the people involved already have their ability to think independently removed or at the very least so severely retarded that it removes the need to produce any rational evidence and move directly to simply quoting incoherent verses and then jump immediately to conclusion which avoids any of the cumbersome problems of actually proving and supporting logical argument. It is well past time that the thinking portion of the population took the steps necessary to regain the political and actual control of the country in order that the Constitution be fully enforced and followed and toe put a final end of any fantasy based programs that have prevented America from progressing from the dark ages mentality that has been inflicted upon this nation for the purposed of a 4th Reich and those who hide under guise of religion in order to accomplish it. No longer will the mindless sheep be allowed to interfere with the actual secular laws and the sooner the population is informed and recover from the damages inflicted upon America the faster the total recovery including economic, health and intellectual integrity will return and America finally put away those ideologies which require discrimination and fear to thrive. TFR hide

Daniel Paul »

Sat Sep 26, 2009 10:34 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

"That is quite different from what I think I hear most fundamentalists claiming here - that they start with the Bible and apply it; "

Actually, sermons are developed by subject or by exegesis. Both are based on hermeneutics of the text as a rule. Then the content of the sermon is constructed from the hermeneutical analysis based on subject matter or text. Thus, they do start with the Bible and base the sermon on subject of exegesis.

Daniel Paul »

Sat Sep 26, 2009 10:31 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

"If you'll pardon my saying so, to me this statment expresses the problem. You start with an opinion based on your own prejudices, and then *use* the Bible in an attempt to justify your prejudice."

Actually, I never took the course so...nope! Wrong again HM!

Homosexual Man »

Sat Sep 26, 2009 8:06 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Oh, and I left off the topic of mutations, which is how evolution occurs. Now that you know the basics of genetics, we can pick up the specifics of mutations later. :-)

Homosexual Man »

Sat Sep 26, 2009 8:01 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

And there is way way way way way way more. We can talk about that later. :-)

Homosexual Man »

Sat Sep 26, 2009 8:01 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

In my view, this is one of several biological facts that, put together, prove beyond any shadow of doubt that evolution is the manner by which life diversified on Earth.

I'll say that for me, it's "as sure as I'm sittin here." It is *possible* that I do not exist, or that my existence is only an illusion, something like in the movie "The Matrix."

But if I actually exist, I am absolutely convinced that evolution is the mechanism by which we came to be, or else some deceitful (perhaps playful) deity went to an enormous amount of trouble to make it *look* that way.

No flaw in this basic interpretation has ever been found.

Homosexual Man »

Sat Sep 26, 2009 8:00 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

OK now back to the thing that is so extraordinarily beautiful: translating from the instructions (the RNA reverse copy of the DNA gene) to the structure (the protein).

Every possible ordered series of three G, C, A, and U in RNA codes for one specific amino acid out of the 20 or so that are used in most organisms.

So AAA codes for the amino acid lysine, CCC for proline, GUU for valine, and UGU for cysteine. With only a few exceptions among bacteria, this code is EXACTLY THE SAME in every single organism that has ever been studied.

Whether you are Christian, atheist, Buddhist or whatever, this is literally the language of God. We were created in this language.

You can see a chart of all combinations here:

http://www.biologycorner.com/bio4/notes/codon.html

Homosexual Man »

Sat Sep 26, 2009 7:40 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Oh - I need to insert here - DNA is "reverse" copied into RNA, like making a photograph from a negative. Every G in DNA becomes a C in RNA. Every C in DNA becomes a G in RNA.

Every T in DNA becomes an A in RNA. And in one of those odd exceptions, every A in RNA becomes not a T but a very slightly different chemical labeled U.

So the codes in RNA (which are reverse copies of genes, which are small portions of the chromosomes) are composed of series of G, C, A, and U.

Homosexual Man »

Sat Sep 26, 2009 7:35 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

OK so you've got genes made up of codons, that code for proteins made up of amino acids. How do they do that?

To me, the way they do this is one of the most beautiful facts in the known universe. It is literally "written" material, as if someone wrote instructions (DNA) for how to create a structure (a giraffe for example).

Homosexual Man »

Sat Sep 26, 2009 7:32 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Genes - the instructions - are made up of "codons", each of which is an ordered series of exactly three of those G's, C's, T's, and A's.

Proteins - the structure that the instructions will produce - are made up of amino acids. There are about 20 amino acids that make up pretty much all proteins in more or less every single organism on Earth, from viruses to bacteria to squid to fish to humans. (Some bacteria do have a few alternative amino acids but we won't worry with that for now.)

Homosexual Man »

Sat Sep 26, 2009 7:28 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

OK, so genetic material is a string of G's, C's, T's, and A's in all sorts of orders. Those very very very long strings form "chromosomes"; humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes for example. These chromosomes are in the nucleus of every single cell in your body (except for red blood cells), and you inherited half of them from your mother and half from your father.

What really matters in genetic material is individual genes, which are shorter (but usually still pretty long) sections of those chromosomes. Genes are the code that instruct the cell how to create proteins, which are critical to the formation of the physical structure othe cell and the things that cells make up: tissues (like muscle) and organs (like the liver).

Homosexual Man »

Sat Sep 26, 2009 7:05 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Jar wrote: "How did that first sentient life come into existence and who nutured it since it was the first of its kind unable to sustain itself."

Each step in the process was gradual. There are constant minor mutations and occasional major mutations.

Our genetic material (DNA or RNA) is composed of strings of 4 specific chemicals that can be referred to by the letters G, C, T, and A. They literally spell out a code that is implemented in order to create and maintain our bodies (and *all* living organisms that we know of, unless you want to count prions, which may or may not be considered "living" but let's set that aside for now).

Homosexual Man »

Sat Sep 26, 2009 6:43 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

DP wrote: "The Bible college I worked for had a class called "apologetics". In theory the course was to teach you how to properly support/defend the points you were making from a Biblical standpoint."

If you'll pardon my saying so, to me this statment expresses the problem. You start with an opinion based on your own prejudices, and then *use* the Bible in an attempt to justify your prejudice.

That is quite different from what I think I hear most fundamentalists claiming here - that they start with the Bible and apply it; they claim that their intention is to apply the Bible 100% regardless of their own prejudices and preferences. (Of course, they don't do that either, because it is impossible; for starters, if you even try, you will wind up committing numerous felonies.)

Homosexual Man »

Sat Sep 26, 2009 6:02 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

"The reality of convergence implies that anatomical features arise because of the need for specific functionality, which is a serious blow to the concept of homology and ancestry."

On the other hand in the past twenty years we have gradually discovered that the literal letter-by-letter genetic code for these characteristics matches up pretty much perfectly in those cases where we expected them to, and does not match when it was already understood that similar characteristics had evolved independently.

So I don't see this type of convergence posing any challenge whatsoever to the theory of evolution.

In fact, it is *evolutionary* convergence. It is just exactly what you would expect to happen under the theory of evolution.

Daniel Paul »

Fri Sep 25, 2009 9:15 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 5

"Silly twunt."

Now, now...that twunt nice.... :D


Hey, Steve...tell me what you think of what I posted:
Fri Sep 25, 2009 8:46 pm

Daniel Paul »

Fri Sep 25, 2009 9:12 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

"I have been cracking up with your statement about your pastor."

Why thank you. The Bible college I worked for had a class called "apologetics". In theory the course was to teach you how to properly support/defend the points you were making from a Biblical standpoint. I use to tell people that it, in actuality, was to teach you how to properly apologize/defend yourself for all the bad jokes you were going to tell during your sermons....

u4eeeahhh »

Fri Sep 25, 2009 9:01 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

The theory of evolution of man is supported by a set of independent observations within the fields of anthropology, paleontology, and molecular biology. Collectively, they depict life branching out from a common ancestor through gradual genetic changes over millions of years, commonly known as the "tree of life." Although accepted in mainstream science as altogether factual and experimentally proven, a closer examination of the evidences reveal some inaccuracies and reasonable alternative explanations. This causes a growing number of scientists to dissent from the Darwinian theory of evolution for its inability to satisfactorily explain the origin of man.

One of the major evidences for the evolution of man is homology, that is, the similarity of either anatomical or genetic features between species. For instance, the resemblance in the skeleton structure of apes and humans has been correlated to the homologous genetic sequences within each species as strong evidence for common ancestry. This argument contains the major assumption that similarity equals relatedness. In other words, the more alike two species appear, the more closely they are related to one another. This is known to be a poor assumption. Two species can have homologous anatomy even though they are not related in any way. This is called "convergence" in evolutionary terms. It is now known that homologous features can be generated from entirely different gene segments within different unrelated species. The reality of convergence implies that anatomical features arise because of the need for specific functionality, which is a serious blow to the concept of homology and ancestry.

u4eeeahhh »

Fri Sep 25, 2009 9:00 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Evolution Of Man - Concepts in Evolutionary Theory

The currently-accepted theory of the evolution of man rests on three major principles. These principles hinge on the innate ability which all creatures have to pass on their genetic information to their offspring through the reproductive process. An alternative explanation for homology is a common designer. According to this reasoning, the similarities in anatomical features between species point to a blueprint used by a Creator/Designer.

The first tenet is microevolution, the occurrence and build-up of mutations in the genetic sequence of an organism. Mutations are predominantly random and can occur naturally through errors in the reproductive process or through environmental impacts such as chemicals or radiation.

The second tenet of evolution is natural selection. Natural selection is a natural mechanism by which the fittest members of a species survive to pass on their genetic information, while the weakest are eliminated (die off) because they are unable to compete in the wild. Natural selection is often termed "survival of the fittest" or "elimination of the weakest."

The third tenet is speciation, which occurs when members of a species mutate to the point where they are no longer able to breed with other members of the same species. The new population becomes a reproductively isolated community that is unable to breed with its former community. Through speciation, the genes of the new population become isolated from the previous group.

Daniel Paul »

Fri Sep 25, 2009 8:46 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

"It is scarcely possible to avoid comparing the eye to a telescope. We know that this instrument has been perfected by the long-continued efforts of the highest human intellects; and we naturally infer that the eye has been formed by a somewhat analogous process. But may not this inference be presumptuous? Have we any right to assume that the Creator works by intellectual powers like
those of man? If we must compare the eye to an optical instrument, we ought in imagination to take a thick layer of transparent tissue, with a nerve sensitive to light beneath, and then suppose every part of this layer to be continually changing slowly in density, so as to separate into layers of different densities and thicknesses, placed at different distances from each other, and with the surfaces of each layer slowly changing in form. Further we must suppose that there is a power always intently watching each slight accidental alteration in the transparent layers; and carefully
selecting each alteration which, under varied circumstances, may in any way, or in any degree, tend
to produce a distincter image. We must suppose each new state of the instrument to be multiplied by the million; and each to be preserved till a better be produced, and then the old ones to be destroyed. In living bodies, variation will cause the slight alterations, generation will multiply them almost infinitely, and natural selection will pick out with unerring skill each improvement. Let this process go on for millions on millions of years; and during each year on millions of
individuals of many kinds; and may we not believe that a living optical instrument might thus be formed as superior to one of glass, as the works of the Creator are to those of man?"

What think you?

jar1961 »

Fri Sep 25, 2009 8:31 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

FOR UHHEEE: Guess again... at the point in which the DNA sequence for humans somehow "evolved"... You atheists try to complicate the very processes you believe in....
I using your logic.... at one point in time before there was no senscient life there was a "Caused" First Event of the homosapien species... when that event happened there was no other form of life to nuture it...

So unless you can do better than attack my creationist faux pas your criticism is specious....
So why dont you tell the room what the nature of the Caused First Event of human beings was? How did it happen? How did that first senscient life come into existance and who nutured it since it was the first of its kind unable to sustain itself.

u4eeeahhh »

Fri Sep 25, 2009 7:55 pm Agree: 5   Disagree: 3

Jar1961, you said...once upon a time from the primordial slime was born the first humanoid.

No where, in any version of evolutionary theory, is such a thing proposed. First there were single cell lifeforms, then multi-cell, then invertebrates and on and on through millions of years.

Man popping up completely formed comes from your Creation myth.

Prophet »

Fri Sep 25, 2009 6:10 pm Agree: 5   Disagree: 8

Evoluution is one of the most absurd teachings I've heard of.

steveh20 »

Fri Sep 25, 2009 5:55 pm Agree: 4   Disagree: 5

"upon a time from the primordial slime was born the first humanoid."

Not even close..LOL

Silly twunt.

jar1961 »

Fri Sep 25, 2009 5:09 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 6

OKAY want to really strike a nerve with these evolutionist atheists? Ask them.... "Assuming they are correct about evolution... once upon a time from the primordial slime was born the first humanoid. Now science tells us that humanoid life is the most helpless and vulnerable at birth.... So assuming that these evolutionists do believe in cellular division...that means they believe that humanoid life first started as a baby.....so when these babies were created.... who snatched them out of the primordial ooze? WHo protected them from the predatory animals? Who fed them? WHo protected them from the heat and cold? Who nursed them when they were sick?

It really drives them batty..... you see... we as Christians believe in the uncaused First Cause... ansd the only way for humanoid forms of life to survive would have been to be created in adult hood with reasoning and survival skills...... Now where did I read that again?

TLChild »

Thu Sep 24, 2009 8:07 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Daniel P,


I have been cracking up with your statement about your pastor.

"Our pastor was preaching a ways back and mentioned "dyslexic atheism" which is people who don't believe in Dog."

Daniel Paul »

Thu Sep 24, 2009 7:29 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

Our pastor was preaching a ways back and mentioned "dyslexic atheism" which is people who don't believe in Dog.

jester in the Kings court »

Wed Sep 23, 2009 5:09 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

reading your post makes me wonder who's flattering who.

steveh20 »

Wed Sep 23, 2009 4:28 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Greetings Jester

Good question. No idea of the answer.

Steve

jester in the Kings court »

Wed Sep 23, 2009 4:16 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 0

steve. are you imitating the atheists, or are they imitating you?

steveh20 »

Wed Sep 23, 2009 10:20 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 4

A very good afternoon Gibbon family

"P.s For the record everybody, I do think atheism is a mental illness, they where just fine but got sicker as most people do."

Why thank you kind sir, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

BW

Steve

Gibbons Family »

Wed Sep 23, 2009 2:06 am Agree: 15   Disagree: 12

steveh20,

Well that finally explains why you never responded to my comment a month ago,

"P.S. Steve, I tried to find out what "Tootle pip chaps" means, but I kept getting redirected to some place called Stone House Hospital. Is that where you're posting from?"

The irony in your comment sh20 is that I have met many people who have been in institutions and heard voices, but contrary to your testimony, not one of them heard the voices of "a certain deity and his son". Without exception, they heard the voice of Satan.

For the record, I didn't mean to offend people with mental issues (as some here with ongoing issues are trying to make it seem), by suggesting that atheists could go to mental institutions, if only we hadn't closed most of them. And I certainly wasn't trying to frighten them with the thought that atheists may soon join them.

TGF
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

P.s For the record everybody, I do think atheism is a mental illness, they where just fine but got sicker as most people do.

TheRegenerate »

Tue Sep 22, 2009 10:15 pm Agree: 10   Disagree: 0

Dear Homo,
Actually, I rail against the so-called "Prosperity Gospel" because it's a lie. If you understood what I wrote, you would know that whether you are rich or poor doesn't matter, it's an issue of the heart. It is more DIFFICULT as a rich man to come to Jesus, particularly if you were rich FIRST, because, like the rich young ruler, they can't see being poor and WON'T give it up.

Paul said in Phil 4:12 "I know how to be abased, and I know how to abound. Everywhere and in all things I have learned both to be full and to be hungry, both to abound and to suffer need." He has had both situations and he is content either way. THAT is the point.

I find it interesting that you didn't mention Solomon or David (God-proclaimed as a man after God's own heart) who were Kings with King money.

How do you define Poor and Meek?

I also agree with Slacker. You are very angry. God is in control

Slacker »

Tue Sep 22, 2009 8:55 pm Agree: 10   Disagree: 0

Flagged as inappropriate. show "And Rachel, please explain how you derive from any of the verses listed above that God wants you to have material possessions. If you cannot do that, admit that you are a blasphemer, sell that iPod your mom bought you, and give the money to the poor. Then maybe we can talk. " How are Me and Rachel Blaspheming the Lord God almighty, hmmm explain how you arn't doing the same because I guarantee you haven't given away your possessions yet you stand on your high horse and act like everyone else has to do something you haven't done. Your a hypocrite and you need to check your anger at the door before you come to a grown up debate... hide

Slacker »

Tue Sep 22, 2009 8:51 pm Agree: 13   Disagree: 0

Flagged as inappropriate. show "The blaspheming Slacker says that this is "my high horse." Sorry, bucko, this is Jesus's high horse that you're spitting on here." Dude you have no idea what you are talking about, it is exactly what Rachel talked about, but because you hate everyone and everything Christian your anger blinds you to the truth. Once you come at this without this anger that you have, then and only then will you be able to actually understand Christ and What he wants you to do... hide

Homoousia316 »

Tue Sep 22, 2009 7:45 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 10

Flagged as inappropriate. show If God didn't want you to be poor, he wouldn't have told you to dispose of your worthless material possessions. If God didn't want you to be poor, he would have told you that it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than it is for a poor man to enter the kingdom of heaven. If God didn't want you to be poor, he wouldn't have demanded that you abandon EVERYTHING to follow him. Show me where Jesus taught that the way to salvation is to hoard material possessions. Can you? Let me show you where Jesus says that poverty is a virtue that is pivotal to salvation: Matthew 5:3, 19:21, 26:9, Mark 10:21, 14:1-5, Luke 4:18, 6:20, Luke 11:40-41, 12:33, 18:22, 19:7-10, 2 Corinthians 8:9, 9:9, Galatians 2:10, and James 2:5. And that's just what I can remember off the top of my head, and just from the New Testament. If you think that God values your material gains and wants you to be rich, you are calling every verse above a bald-faced lie. The blaspheming Slacker says that this is "my high horse." Sorry, bucko, this is Jesus's high horse that you're spitting on here. And Rachel, please explain how you derive from any of the verses listed above that God wants you to have material possessions. If you cannot do that, admit that you are a blasphemer, sell that iPod your mom bought you, and give the money to the poor. Then maybe we can talk. hide

rachel707 »

Tue Sep 22, 2009 3:05 pm Agree: 11   Disagree: 1

actually Homo, TheRegenerate is 100% right, God doesn't want us to be poor, how can we help other people if we have nothing? Jesus told the rich man to sell everything he had because the rich man valued money more than Him, and He wants us to get rid of anything in our lives that we value more than Him...and it's not always money.
Job lost everything, everything, family, home, crops, animals, got boils all over his body and was miserable, but he remained faithful to God and was blessed with even more than he had to begin with, so why would God bless him if he was supposed to stay homeless and poor? He wasn't, it was his test of his faith, that even when he lost everything he would remain faithful to God, and he passed. I really wonder how many Chrisitans could say the same, or how many Christians are holding onto something that they love more than Christ Himself?

Slacker »

Tue Sep 22, 2009 9:19 am Agree: 13   Disagree: 0

Flagged as inappropriate. show "Slacker, God does not care about your supply and demand and he does not care about what rules you think you need to be successful. God already TOLD you what to do: give EVERYTHING to the poor. You can spit in his face with your capitalism and your material needs or you can live in voluntarily destitution. Up to you" You so blinded by your anger and hatred for your fellow mand that you won't even bother reading what the bible actually says about it. What Jesus said was to this rich man and said "give everything away and FOLLOW ME". Once you figure out the last part of what Jesus said, then you can start to act like you know it all, until then get off you high horse... hide

Homoousia316 »

Tue Sep 22, 2009 8:47 am Agree: 4   Disagree: 3

Flagged as inappropriate. show Neither Slacker nor TheRegenerate came even close to getting the point. Slacker, God does not care about your supply and demand and he does not care about what rules you think you need to be successful. God already TOLD you what to do: give EVERYTHING to the poor. You can spit in his face with your capitalism and your material needs or you can live in voluntarily destitution. Up to you. TheRegenerate sounds like one of those scumbag "prosperity gospel" frauds. Prosperity, you say that there is "no special significance" or "Holy Position" in being poor. Explain "blessed are the poor." Explain "the meek shall inherit the Earth." Explain to me how easy you think it is for a camel to get through the eye of a needle. Seriously, you Republican Christians. Have you ever even read a verse of the New Testament outside of the introduction to a Left Behind novel? hide

Neal Herring »

Tue Sep 22, 2009 12:20 am Agree: 3   Disagree: 0

Persecution is a blessing.

TheRegenerate »

Mon Sep 21, 2009 7:16 pm Agree: 11   Disagree: 2

"Because as I recall, Jesus held poverty and charity as virtues and said that the rich are basically damned. "

You recall incorrectly because you don't know The Word. Charity, yes, poverty, no. Abraham, David, Solomon and many other kings were absolute men of God and were exceedingly rich (God told Solomon He would bless him with great riches because when God granted him a request, Solomon did not choose money. Solomon then counted his gold by the ton) but they did not WORSHIP money. Jesus is telling the rich young ruler (whom He knew to value his money too much) that he needs to sell all he has and follow Him. The young man WOULDN'T do that. MONEY CHANGES EVERYTHING! to quote Cindy Lauper and that is without doubt. Most people can't handle it without it changing them. The point is how you feel about it and what you DO with it. As a Christian, that is everything

There is no special significance or Holy Position in being poor. You cannot obtain Righteousness with a vow of poverty, anymore than you can buy your way into Heaven with all your charity. That would be called "works", something you can do or not do, to gain Salvation. Impossible.

Slacker »

Mon Sep 21, 2009 5:20 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 8

Flagged as inappropriate. show "Because as I recall, Jesus held poverty and charity as virtues and said that the rich are basically damned. " Maybe if you actually read it, applied it to your life and lived by the principles you wouldn't be so nasty to people who actually believe in it and work to further God's Kingdom. As for the money, you do realize in the US we have a thing call Supply and demand, where people supply things that people demand, which in affect cost money to buy. You know when you go to McDonalds, the big mac you eat cost money. So to print things and what not it cost money to do that... hide

Slacker »

Mon Sep 21, 2009 4:33 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 5

Flagged as inappropriate. show Darwinian Evolution just shows how suckers can be tricked into anything, I present Climate Change as Evidence, or "How Al Gore believes the planet has a temperature". You can pick up your carbon credits from his company on your way out of his speaking engagement... hide

rachel707 »

Mon Sep 21, 2009 2:12 pm Agree: 12   Disagree: 7

TGF, I'm sorry but I thought you were a Christian and was just trying to have a normal conversation with you, but I see that all you want do is find the faults in what I post so I'm done...you said "Psst. Just between you and me, there are some depraved people here" - you are starting to sound like one of them, that was the only point I was actually trying to make...

Homosexual Man »

Mon Sep 21, 2009 12:46 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 8

Flagged as inappropriate. show Pharyngula has a link today to a site that shows that the Rapture is going to occur TODAY! GOOD LUCK EVERYBODY, SEE YOU IN HEAVEN THIS AFTERNOON !!! :-| :-\ http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/09/oh_no_warning_alert_alert_aler.php http://home.flash.net/~evt/rapture.htm hide

gem_of_tki »

Mon Sep 21, 2009 8:28 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 7

Flagged as inappropriate. show "... Pharyngula and Teapot Atheism ..." Pharyngula is excellent. I'm checking out the Teapot Atheist. Thanks. hide

converse02 »

Mon Sep 21, 2009 5:11 am Agree: 4   Disagree: 9

"Christians take offense to the tendency for atheists to treat us as simple minded and ignorant..."
"but are likely to believe in God instead of Darwin"

Darwinian evolution is a fact and accepted by scientists the world over. When many theists keep on denying the science on evolution, it doesn't help impress atheists.

Homoousia316 »

Mon Sep 21, 2009 1:13 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 10

Flagged as inappropriate. show We have truly reached a new low when Gibbons thinks that all it takes to be on the good side is to acknowledge the existence of free speech rights for people with whom he disagrees. How noble of you. Though I appreciate your warning not to call Jesus a homosexual; good to know where you draw the line on what speech we should tolerate and which speech is just too dangerous for the innocent children of the Christian Post to be exposed to. Good thing blogs like Pharyngula and Teapot Atheism do not share your passion for censorship of ideas that are too controversial to you. "I disagree with you but I agree with your right to say it" is not a riposte you should be proud to make. hide

Gibbons Family »

Mon Sep 21, 2009 12:42 am Agree: 6   Disagree: 2

To the foolish flaggers,

From what I've seen over the past few weeks here, if you flag one post because you disagree with it, all of your posts will probably get flagged - forever.

Never flag and we'll get to read all the ridiculous things everybody says (if you disagree) or all the great pearls of wisdom (if you agree) - and no matter what side you're on, you'll get to read your favorite posters' comments without having to click on "show".

1) Stop flagging and: we'll all get to read everyone's posts, good or bad.

2) Keep flagging and: all your posts will likely be flagged, and you'll have to click on 'show' to see your friends' posts.

It's your choice. If you've been here long enough to see what happens to people who frequently flag, you'll pick #1 and never flag.
If you're either new or just plain stupid (you know one of those people with one malfunctioning hemisphere), you'll pick #2.

TGF
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Flagged as inappropriate means inappropriate for a Christian website, not inappropriate for any website and not disagreeable to you.

viking »

Sun Sep 20, 2009 10:40 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 0

U4, ooops. looks like you ruined your record with that last post.