Polska13 »

Fri Nov 13, 2009 2:48 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 1

"I don't believe the bible ever states the godliness of driving a car, performing bypass surgery, computers, or any number of other things either? So what?"

~ So you are comparing that to what the Bible does say about homosexuals. The bible mentions in romans about obeying the governing authorities which entails driving the speed limit, doing a good job being a doctor, using computers in such a way that does not tempt you, and many many other things.

"Doesn't your bible say anything about love, fidelity, lifelong commitments, or family? That'd odd, I would think they'd be mentioned."

~ As a matter of fact, it says quite a bit about love, fidelity, and lifelong commitments. It expresses the great facet of being a family. However, it also says to love Christ more than all those and to obey Him.

"I don't know how you can be such an anti-gay zealot when you know darn well there is nothing wrong with being gay. (I think you just enjoy being a crabby old zealot.)"

~ I can't speak for the other guy, but I am zeolous for my Father and my God. I know 'darn well' there is plenty wrong with homosexuality. God destroyed a wicked city in which there was homosexual acts. Leviticus makes it clear a man should not lie in bed with another as he would a woman. But most importantly, the book of corinthians tells us that homosexuals will not enter the Kingdom of God (Heaven) unless they repent and turn from their sin. The fact is you may choose to think there is nothing wrong with being gay and that is fine. I warn you that you are very wrong. You may choose to listen or you may choose to go on about your merry business. The choice is yours, but don't be mistaken. You will not see the Kingdom of God unless you repent and turn from homosexuality.

Senate Passes Hate Crimes Bill; Obama Expected to Sign

Polska13 »

Thu Oct 29, 2009 9:26 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 3

Alockslee,

Can you give us an explanation to my previously posted question? Why do you need the hate crimes law since you are already protected from violent acts?

Senate Passes Hate Crimes Bill; Obama Expected to Sign

Polska13 »

Wed Oct 28, 2009 3:09 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 6

"In Response: So again you are speculating this is a lead into greater things, but nothing in the current Bill allows for it, so nothing in it can used from it to do that. Your point is this that because of enhancements for a specific group that your ideology doesn't like that will automatically change the way you can believe. Wrong!"

If I am wrong, then explain why you need the bill. All these classes are already protected for violent acts no matter the reason. Why do we need one for so-called "hate crimes"? If you want evidence of how "hate crimes" bills affect free speech, take a look at the legislation in the UK. There is my point.

"Next, who are you to tell anyone anything in the first place, if you believe something is a certain way and some invisible giant will punish you for it then don't do it. You don't under any law get to make anyone else follow your beliefs, no matter how ridiculous they are to the rest of the World. Do you understand that you don't and are not empowered to tell anyone how to live their life."

These are not my words, but the words of God from the Bible. I am no one to tell anyone anything because I am a sinner, but I have been washed clean and I now know the truth. If you are too foolish to accept it, then it will be between you and "the so-called giant" you speak of. If He is real, which I have experienced as true, then you will have to answer to Him. I do not try and make you follow my beliefs. I am enforcing no law doing so, but am opposing any law which keeps me from (or that will lead to keeping me from) telling about my God legally. I am not empowered to tell you how to live your life. I am empowered to tell you the truth. You decide the road you'll take.

One last question: Why do you need the hate crimes law since you are already protected from violent acts?

Senate Passes Hate Crimes Bill; Obama Expected to Sign

Polska13 »

Tue Oct 27, 2009 3:55 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 7

"Show us where your religion is going to be affected by the legislation. Don't speculate argue the section I just posted and prove to us that it will be interpreted in the manner you claim. The entire section is given above so lets see how you argue this into something completely different than it says."

I stated that this law will LEAD to one thing - the loss of freedom of speech. Although this bill does include what you say, it will open doors for amending the law to more specifically drown out the opposing voice. If it were not for this reason, then why would you need it. Homosexuals are already protected under the law from violent acts for no matter what reason. And while I understand that others are protected here as well, we all know what is the pushing force behind this.

Basically, homosexuals do not want to here that it is wrong to commit the sin of homosexuality. No one who is in sin wants to here that they are wrong for what they're doing. "Or do you know know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." Unless you repent of your sins and turn to Christ, you will not see the Heaven, but will spend eternity separted from God in the lake of fire built for Satan and his demons. May God bless you and convict you!

Senate Passes Hate Crimes Bill; Obama Expected to Sign

Polska13 »

Mon Oct 26, 2009 11:24 am Agree: 3   Disagree: 6

"The problem is that some local systems are biased and will selectively *not* protect certain groups of people. They will enforce the laws when someone commits senseless violence, but they will *not* enforce the laws when someone commits violence that is targeted against blacks, gays, etc."

It will not matter. If someone chooses to select only parts of the law to enforce, it will still be the same, and no different law specifically identifying it will matter. People who are racist and bigoted will still be racist and bigoted.

This law is unethical and simply un-American. The laws should cover all people, not certain groups. Violence is wrong no matter who it is done unto. If a homosexual man is beaten, the criminal should face the same punishment as if he beat down a straight man. Violence is violence no matter who it is done to or for what reason.

This law will lead to one thing - the loss of free speech. It will soon become a crime to speak against the sin of homosexuality and doing so will result in fines, loss of tax exemption, and possibly prison time for church leaders. The wording of this bill is so tricky and when left for interpretation by a liberal left court will lead to a greater loss for freedom of speech.

'Ardi' Reverses Common Understanding of Human Evolution

Polska13 »

Tue Oct 06, 2009 2:47 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 2

"Note that the article quoted from uses the term "the Flood" not a flood. The use of the definite article and the capitalized noun indicate that here they are speaking not of a possible geological event but rather a specific scripture revealed miracle. This is further confirmed by the language "the floodwaters" again the definite article reveals that the source of this is revelation through scripture not hypothesis based on observation. Clearly what the author of the article quoted contains is apologetics not science. The author clearly began with a predetermined answer "the Flood" and sought out phenomena which to a person untrained in the physics and geology involved could be interpreted to support the predetermined outcome. This of course is by definition not science."

You doubt that it was possible that the entire earth was flooded. Yet there is a great deal of evidence that shows it was possible. It is not the miracle you deny, but the God Himself.

You say the author began with a predetermined answer, "the Flood". You are right. However, you also begin with a predetermined answer, "evolution and slow, gradual movements". Therefore the same evidence shows the author here that the Flood could have caused this - if there was such a flood. While you would look at that evidence and say that this had to have taken a very, very long time and therefore the earth has to be millions or billions of years old. It comes down to the fact that one believes in the Holy Scriptures of God, and one is a scoffer who denies the scriptures as nothing to be taken seriously. You rely on what you call science, which is really your interpretation of science while the author relies on the Word of God. I guess we'll never really know until we die - to whom is right.

'Ardi' Reverses Common Understanding of Human Evolution

Polska13 »

Tue Oct 06, 2009 2:39 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 2

"Thanks for your reply. I have a question re your sand experiment (by the way they are not elements they are minerals), Do you know how hard granite is? I'm not sure you do. Try your experiment on Granite I guarantee, the piece will still look the same afterwards."

I do know how hard granite is, but I guarantee you that if I use granite, while it may not break apart it will have moved drastically. However if the water just slowly runs across it, it would take it a very long time to move even a little. That's the point I am making. Using the same piece of evidence - the granite or sand (whatever it may be) - we look at the same thing but because of our presuppositions, we see different outcomes and therefore will interpret it differently.

"Re your piece about rapid plate motion, once again you just let these things roll off your tongue with no thought to the physics involved etc..You don't really understand how lithosphere is formed do you? You don't know much about the mantle do you?(apart from what you read on web sites)."

I understand what I have studied as you understand what you have studied. I am no geologist, but many of the people I have studied are and are very well known and thought of. They make good sound arguments.

"Once again my advice to you is get out and join a local geology club, its good fun."

I would imagine it is. And I would even like to as I think it would be fun. However, I would still come to the same consensus because I believe God created the earth a few thousand years ago and I will see the same evidence you would but would see how it happened rapidly instead of slowly. It is very plausible. I urge you to study the scholars with doctorates who have done these experiments and such. You may see a whole different side to the story.

'Ardi' Reverses Common Understanding of Human Evolution

Polska13 »

Tue Oct 06, 2009 9:41 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

"I've no idea where Polska got the sand from, me thinks he/she needs a few lessons in orogenies."

Even better, do that same experiment I recommended using the elements you mentioned. You definitely won't get what you're looking for slowly and gradually. But try using some strong waters from below and above and see what happens.

'Ardi' Reverses Common Understanding of Human Evolution

Polska13 »

Tue Oct 06, 2009 9:38 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

"And that's a problem because? You need to elaborate, you've just made a statement but go no further, more detail please."

That's a problem because of the very next statement in the article I posted.
"These observations are consistent with extremely rapid motion during the Flood, followed by slow plate velocities as the floodwaters retreated from the continents and filled the trenches with sediment."

You have not provided any evidence as to why this observation would be more plausible as slow and gradual. Why would it be?

'Ardi' Reverses Common Understanding of Human Evolution

Polska13 »

Mon Oct 05, 2009 4:40 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

As for mountain ranges, put some logic into your thinking. Take a sandbox and slowly add water to it and gradually rotate it around. Take a look at what you have after a couple of hours of slowly and gradually doing this. Then take that same sandbox and put water coming in from below and coming down from above to completely cover it catastrophically. Then let the water drain. Look at what you have. Then see if the evidence you have for mountain ranges fits a slow gradual climb or a catastrophic event.

'Ardi' Reverses Common Understanding of Human Evolution

Polska13 »

Mon Oct 05, 2009 4:29 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

Dr. Andrew Snelling holds a Ph.D. in geology from the University of Sydney and has worked as a consultant research geologist to organizations in both Australia and America. Dr. Snelling is a professor at the Institute for Creation Research in Santee, California, and has written numerous scientific articles.

He takes the same evidence and observations that you would have, but shows a different method for how it could have occurred -- such as through a global flood. This is plausible and eliminates the need for millions of years. You see how the interpretation and presupposition alters the conclusion. Evolutionists are more apt to say that this had to have taken millions of years, but young earth creationists explain and show how it could have happened rapidly - which is also more credible - given a historical account of a global flood and small scale demonstrations of slow and gradual movement or catastrophic movement.

'Ardi' Reverses Common Understanding of Human Evolution

Polska13 »

Mon Oct 05, 2009 4:25 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

Global investigations of the earth’s crust reveal that it has been divided by geologic processes into a mosaic of rigid blocks called “plates.” Observations indicate that these plates have moved large distances relative to one another in the past, and that they are still moving very slowly today. The word “tectonics” has to do with earth movements; so the study of the movements and interactions among these plates is called “plate tectonics.” Because almost all the plate motions responsible for the earth’s current configuration occurred in the past, plate tectonics is an interpretation or model of what geologists envisage happened to these plates through earth’s history

Most geologists believe that the movement of the earth’s plates has been slow and gradual over eons of time. If today’s measured rates of plate drift—about 5–6 in (12–15 cm) per year—are extrapolated into the past, it would require about 100 million years for the Atlantic Ocean to form. This rate of drift is consistent with the estimated 4.8 mi3 (20 km3) of magma that currently rises each year to create new oceanic crust.

On the other hand, many observations are incompatible with the idea of slow-and-gradual plate tectonics. Drilling into the magnetized rock of the mid-ocean ridges shows that a matching “zebra-striped” pattern of the surface rocks does not exist at depth, as Figure 2 implies.2 Instead, magnetic polarity changes rapidly and erratically down the drill-holes. This is contrary to what would be expected with slow-and-gradual formation of the new oceanic crust accompanied by slow spreading rates. But it is just what is expected with extremely rapid formation of new oceanic crust and rapid magnetic reversals during the Flood.

Furthermore, slow-and-gradual subduction should have resulted in the sediments on the floors of the trenches being compressed, deformed, and faulted; yet the floors of the Peru-Chile and East Aleutian Trenches are covered with soft, flat-lying sediments devoid of compressional structures.3 These observations are consistent with extremely rapid motion during the Flood, followed by slow plate velocities as the floodwaters retreated from the continents and filled the trenches with sediment.

A catastrophic model of plate tectonics (as proposed by creation scientists) easily overcomes the problems of the slow and gradual model (as proposed by most evolutionist scientists). In addition, the catastrophic model helps us understand what the “mechanism” of the Flood may have been. A 3-D supercomputer model demonstrates that rapid plate movement is possible. Even though this model was developed by a creation scientist, this supercomputer 3-D plate tectonics modeling technique is acknowledged as the world’s best.

'Ardi' Reverses Common Understanding of Human Evolution

Polska13 »

Mon Oct 05, 2009 9:44 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 3

"One can believe in a creator AND accept the findings of the science of evolution."
-- While you may believe in a creator and accept "the finidings" of evolution, you cannot believe in the Creator God whose Son is Jesus. It contradicts the faith and scripture.

"I think the problem among many religious folks have is they have little to no understanding of the science of evolution."
-- I have a great understanding of evolution as many others who dismiss common ancestors and macroevolution. I am not blind to accept it as the truth when there are so many holes and so little hard evidence to back up the statements made by religious evolutionists.

"I think part of the problem may be young earth dogma which conflicts with the findings of science that describes an earth and universe of billions of years in age."
-- Young earth creationists do not conflict with the findings of science. This is where you show you know little about both. The scientific facts are the same for everyone. It is the presuppositions and how one comes to interpret those scientific facts that conflict one another. Evolutionists simply want to believe the evidence backs what they believe in. Young Earth Creationists do the same. After long studies, there are holes in both views; however, I would have to admit that the people who hold to young earth creationism have a more solid foundation for their beliefs and it is much more credible.

Creation Museum Plays Host to Secular Student Alliance

Polska13 »

Thu Sep 24, 2009 11:32 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

"It is an affront to human intellect , that society gives the content of religion a free pass from scrutiny and criticism."
This is laughable. Society in no way gives religion a free pass. Have you watched the mainstream media lately?

"The Creation museum must appear to those who accept the overwhelming evidence for evolution ; even those who believe in a deity ; as humorous to say the least."

In your opinion, you may be right; however, you are wrong about the overwhelming evidence for evolution. If there truly was overwhelming evidence and not overwhelming perspective then there would be no problem.

"It sounds very much like a simple violation of free speech directed against the dissenter."

It is a privatly owned business with policies that one has to adhere to when they pay to enter. If it were public, you may have a point, but it is not.

"Additionally , it is nothing less than appalling , that 44% of Americans accept the literal version of creation, and reject science."

What you find appalling, I find wonderful. Although evolution has been taught as fact for decades, people are still smart enough to see its great flaws and decide against it.

Creation Museum Plays Host to Secular Student Alliance

Polska13 »

Thu Sep 24, 2009 11:24 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

"It is almost unbeleievable that a family touring the museum and hearing comments of dissent , claimed their vacation was ruined. Not terribly secure in their beliefs , I'd say."

I would imagine that it has nothing to do with being secure in their beliefs, but more of being disrespected by a few. Tolerance is preached among evolutionists, but it is a double standard to them when they are the ones who need to be tolerant. People travel and pay to enjoy a visit. They may have had small children whom they are teaching to revere God and His Word. That is their right, and they deserve to have that right without scoffing and ridiculing.

Obama Administration Moves to Redefine Marriage

Polska13 »

Thu Sep 24, 2009 8:12 am Agree: 4   Disagree: 1

Flagged as inappropriate. show 1 Corinthians 6:8-10 8Instead, you yourselves cheat and do wrong, and you do this to your brothers. 9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. hide

Fighting Words about the Bible?

Polska13 »

Fri Apr 17, 2009 2:16 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

If you want your article about the Red Sox to have some meat or depth to it, then you would ask the Yankees to express their side, maybe even get a small part of what other teams think, as well as getting some of the most famous Red Sox.

The same applies for Bible critics. If they want to truly have a non-biased article with depth, then explore all sides of the matter. That almost never happens.

Pastor Tackles Truth, New Age Spirituality, Mormonism

Polska13 »

Tue Mar 24, 2009 11:19 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

ebernie,

You say that people should read the Bible for themselves (not what their pastor directs them to do) and then the Book of Mormon. In your own statement you have done exactly what you claim others should not do. To understand the doctrines of Mormonism, you must be taught, or discipled by the leaders in the Mormon church. You have listeded to where elders have directed you. You see, it is biblical to be discipled in the truth. It was custom in the Old Testament for young men who wished to understand scripture to be discipled by a Rabbi. This was the way that these young men could fully understand the Scriptures and not just interpret whatever they felt it said. This was the way that truth was understood the way God intended. Today, we can read in the New Testament, where Paul writes in a letter to Timothy that we should "study to show ourselves approved". This means we should adhere to discipleship under ministers who teach the truth the way God intended throughout Scripture. When one studies scripture and is discipled, and seeks after God, then God gives wisdom and knowledge to know Him, to understand His way. We can then understand what the Gospel truly is - and what false Gospels are.

Why Doesn't God Take Away My Problems?

Polska13 »

Wed Mar 18, 2009 8:52 am Agree: 3   Disagree: 0

TheHuron137,

You show little knowledge by your post. There is very sufficient evidence for Jesus' life and ministry. There is just as much for his death and resurrection - not to mention that nearly the whole world redid their calendar just for this man. There is no doubt in any intelligent human being that Jesus was a real man who lived nearly 2,000 years ago. The question is whether you believe He was who He said He was. Now, if this man had such an impact on the world that time stopped and revolved around him, there must be something to Him. It is what you choose to believe. So know this: Jesus is very much real, non-fiction, and by the teachings of the Bible, alive still today. Make your stand with Him, or be against Him. But do not be foolish in your thinking that He is imaginary.

Mendelssohn, Lincoln, and Darwin

Polska13 »

Tue Feb 17, 2009 10:52 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Vesuno,

The writer did not call Lincoln a "racist", but stated that some still debate whether or not Lincoln was a racist. And some people do. It is claimed that he owned slaves before the war, that he actually didn't want to free the slaves but just kind of fell into it, and so on. There is even documents to back it up. I believe, no matter how he felt beforehand, that he did a good thing and that his end thinking and his speeches thereafter showed his genuine belief in the emancipation of the slaves. I believe he may be our greatest president.