Slashdot Mirror

Ah yes, the "Buddhists will burn" clause.

OK here is where my op could have been a book. Like I said, different denominations teach different things. And different translations translate differently. Read also Matthew 25:46 Click on g2851 and check out definition. Also see Matthew 7:13 Life or destruction, not heaven or hell.

For further reading, see Ecclesiastes 9:5,6 and 10 and Ezekiel 18:4 and 20 and John 11:11-14 and the kicker in Revelation 20:13 and 14 Notice it says that Hell (hades) and death get thrown into lake of fire. and Lake of fire is second death, not second death is living forever in a lake of fire. The idea of a burning hell for immortal souls is a Greek idea. I invite you to look up the basic definition of Soul in Hebrew. And know it applies to animals also.

Please don't forget to point out that faith without works can get you into trouble too, I meet way too many "christians" who wouldn't know the difference between a sheep and a goat.

Damn, but you don't want to be stuck on his left hand side.

I agree 100% about the faith w/o works. Anyone who *practices* things not Christian can't really be called a christian. Matthew 7:15-23 I will never tell you or anyone that they will burn in Hell forever. Because it's just not true. See Revelation 20:13 again. Also see Acts 24:15

As for why mainline Christendom teaches eternal Hellfire and immortal soul, that is another book. Let me know if you want me to publish it here.

Ah yes, the "Buddhists will burn" clause.

OK here is where my op could have been a book. Like I said, different denominations teach different things. And different translations translate differently. Read also Matthew 25:46 Click on g2851 and check out definition. Also see Matthew 7:13 Life or destruction, not heaven or hell.

For further reading, see Ecclesiastes 9:5,6 and 10 and Ezekiel 18:4 and 20 and John 11:11-14 and the kicker in Revelation 20:13 and 14 Notice it says that Hell (hades) and death get thrown into lake of fire. and Lake of fire is second death, not second death is living forever in a lake of fire. The idea of a burning hell for immortal souls is a Greek idea. I invite you to look up the basic definition of Soul in Hebrew. And know it applies to animals also.

Please don't forget to point out that faith without works can get you into trouble too, I meet way too many "christians" who wouldn't know the difference between a sheep and a goat.

Damn, but you don't want to be stuck on his left hand side.

I agree 100% about the faith w/o works. Anyone who *practices* things not Christian can't really be called a christian. Matthew 7:15-23 I will never tell you or anyone that they will burn in Hell forever. Because it's just not true. See Revelation 20:13 again. Also see Acts 24:15

As for why mainline Christendom teaches eternal Hellfire and immortal soul, that is another book. Let me know if you want me to publish it here.

Ah yes, the "Buddhists will burn" clause.

OK here is where my op could have been a book. Like I said, different denominations teach different things. And different translations translate differently. Read also Matthew 25:46 Click on g2851 and check out definition. Also see Matthew 7:13 Life or destruction, not heaven or hell.

For further reading, see Ecclesiastes 9:5,6 and 10 and Ezekiel 18:4 and 20 and John 11:11-14 and the kicker in Revelation 20:13 and 14 Notice it says that Hell (hades) and death get thrown into lake of fire. and Lake of fire is second death, not second death is living forever in a lake of fire. The idea of a burning hell for immortal souls is a Greek idea. I invite you to look up the basic definition of Soul in Hebrew. And know it applies to animals also.

Please don't forget to point out that faith without works can get you into trouble too, I meet way too many "christians" who wouldn't know the difference between a sheep and a goat.

Damn, but you don't want to be stuck on his left hand side.

I agree 100% about the faith w/o works. Anyone who *practices* things not Christian can't really be called a christian. Matthew 7:15-23 I will never tell you or anyone that they will burn in Hell forever. Because it's just not true. See Revelation 20:13 again. Also see Acts 24:15

As for why mainline Christendom teaches eternal Hellfire and immortal soul, that is another book. Let me know if you want me to publish it here.

Ah yes, the "Buddhists will burn" clause.

OK here is where my op could have been a book. Like I said, different denominations teach different things. And different translations translate differently. Read also Matthew 25:46 Click on g2851 and check out definition. Also see Matthew 7:13 Life or destruction, not heaven or hell.

For further reading, see Ecclesiastes 9:5,6 and 10 and Ezekiel 18:4 and 20 and John 11:11-14 and the kicker in Revelation 20:13 and 14 Notice it says that Hell (hades) and death get thrown into lake of fire. and Lake of fire is second death, not second death is living forever in a lake of fire. The idea of a burning hell for immortal souls is a Greek idea. I invite you to look up the basic definition of Soul in Hebrew. And know it applies to animals also.

Please don't forget to point out that faith without works can get you into trouble too, I meet way too many "christians" who wouldn't know the difference between a sheep and a goat.

Damn, but you don't want to be stuck on his left hand side.

I agree 100% about the faith w/o works. Anyone who *practices* things not Christian can't really be called a christian. Matthew 7:15-23 I will never tell you or anyone that they will burn in Hell forever. Because it's just not true. See Revelation 20:13 again. Also see Acts 24:15

As for why mainline Christendom teaches eternal Hellfire and immortal soul, that is another book. Let me know if you want me to publish it here.

Saying in effect, "Are you really there God, let me prove it by some scientific method." will never prove God. Yahweh popping into sight of all people of the Earth and saying "Here I AM worship me" and shooting off some fireworks will not be motivation for obedience. Take Exodus for example if you are a believer or any criminal today if you are not. Just b/c people see God or Laws and Enforcement will not make them obey/submit if they don't want to. Christianity or Citizenship only works if practitioner is willing, and educated.

Saying in effect, "Are you really there God, let me prove it by some scientific method." will never prove God. Yahweh popping into sight of all people of the Earth and saying "Here I AM worship me" and shooting off some fireworks will not be motivation for obedience. Take Exodus for example if you are a believer or any criminal today if you are not. Just b/c people see God or Laws and Enforcement will not make them obey/submit if they don't want to. Christianity or Citizenship only works if practitioner is willing, and educated.

[bible citation needed]

It says 'day' in the bible. There is no footnote explaining this actual means '1,000' years.

At least not in the King James version.

What GP was referring to is 2 Peter 3:8

Could the reason perhaps be that the Bible says 'day'?

See below.

despite the fact that when Genesis was written no such calender system existed.

I don't know where that came from either.

With all due respect, it is perfectly clear to anyone not trying to reinterpret the theory to fit the data that it does say that the Earth -- and everything in it -- was created in six days.

OK. Here goes. Different bible translations translate different things. True. Different Denominations interpret things differently. You might like to compare KJV of Genesis 2:4 and other translations of Genesis 2:4. The rest of the second chapter actually describes the same history of chapter one and calls it one day. I could say today something like "back in my day" or "back in the Roman's day" and you would understand it to be a period of time in the past. Not literal day.

The previous quote of 2 Peter 3:8 shows that day is not always literal in the Bible. Now, was that verse describing the upper limit of time that day equated with? It doesn't really say. Actually there is approximately 365000^2 range mentioned there.

Here is where religious controversy comes in. Not all religions will agree with above paragraph. Some will say 'God made the fossils and photons and rest of universe to look like 13 billion years old to test your faith' or something like that. Is that the proper interpretation? I don't think so, but that debate is for somewhere else. (please)

Now as for the movement to force "Christianity" on others by rule of law, I personally have not found any New Testament passage that supports that. In fact, the basic tenet of Christianity is that faith is vital and works w/o faith is worthless for salvation.

Even Jesus said his followers had a special relationship with earthly governments. John 18:36. There are others, but realize please according to Gospels, Jesus never forced anything but the thievin' temple merchants.

I agree that science should deal with the observable. If there was 'creation' then all believers should be interested in how it works. I am. It is also very clear that not all "Christianity" can be truth from Bible, some religions flat out contradict each other. Most are close on the major points. I would like to think that where science and religion conflict, as in creationism vs evolution, it is a misinterpretation of Bible and possibly observed data that causes problems. I would agree that more often, religion has stepped wrong, but I wouldn't fault the Bible with that. More likely to blame is man's interpretation.

Any powerful tool can be misused/abused greatly. Look at Crusades and WWII. Religion pretty much at root. But those perps were not acting like Christ.

And finally the difference between modern conventional wisdom and Christianity. Christianity says "Please don't hurt anyone around you including yourself." Modern CW says "Don't hurt anyone around you not including yourself." Which works better? You decide. I'm not here to preach. (I hope you don't feel preached to. If so, Sorry!)

[bible citation needed]

It says 'day' in the bible. There is no footnote explaining this actual means '1,000' years.

At least not in the King James version.

What GP was referring to is 2 Peter 3:8

Could the reason perhaps be that the Bible says 'day'?

See below.

despite the fact that when Genesis was written no such calender system existed.

I don't know where that came from either.

With all due respect, it is perfectly clear to anyone not trying to reinterpret the theory to fit the data that it does say that the Earth -- and everything in it -- was created in six days.

OK. Here goes. Different bible translations translate different things. True. Different Denominations interpret things differently. You might like to compare KJV of Genesis 2:4 and other translations of Genesis 2:4. The rest of the second chapter actually describes the same history of chapter one and calls it one day. I could say today something like "back in my day" or "back in the Roman's day" and you would understand it to be a period of time in the past. Not literal day.

The previous quote of 2 Peter 3:8 shows that day is not always literal in the Bible. Now, was that verse describing the upper limit of time that day equated with? It doesn't really say. Actually there is approximately 365000^2 range mentioned there.

Here is where religious controversy comes in. Not all religions will agree with above paragraph. Some will say 'God made the fossils and photons and rest of universe to look like 13 billion years old to test your faith' or something like that. Is that the proper interpretation? I don't think so, but that debate is for somewhere else. (please)

Now as for the movement to force "Christianity" on others by rule of law, I personally have not found any New Testament passage that supports that. In fact, the basic tenet of Christianity is that faith is vital and works w/o faith is worthless for salvation.

Even Jesus said his followers had a special relationship with earthly governments. John 18:36. There are others, but realize please according to Gospels, Jesus never forced anything but the thievin' temple merchants.

I agree that science should deal with the observable. If there was 'creation' then all believers should be interested in how it works. I am. It is also very clear that not all "Christianity" can be truth from Bible, some religions flat out contradict each other. Most are close on the major points. I would like to think that where science and religion conflict, as in creationism vs evolution, it is a misinterpretation of Bible and possibly observed data that causes problems. I would agree that more often, religion has stepped wrong, but I wouldn't fault the Bible with that. More likely to blame is man's interpretation.

Any powerful tool can be misused/abused greatly. Look at Crusades and WWII. Religion pretty much at root. But those perps were not acting like Christ.

And finally the difference between modern conventional wisdom and Christianity. Christianity says "Please don't hurt anyone around you including yourself." Modern CW says "Don't hurt anyone around you not including yourself." Which works better? You decide. I'm not here to preach. (I hope you don't feel preached to. If so, Sorry!)

[bible citation needed]

It says 'day' in the bible. There is no footnote explaining this actual means '1,000' years.

At least not in the King James version.

What GP was referring to is 2 Peter 3:8

Could the reason perhaps be that the Bible says 'day'?

See below.

despite the fact that when Genesis was written no such calender system existed.

I don't know where that came from either.

With all due respect, it is perfectly clear to anyone not trying to reinterpret the theory to fit the data that it does say that the Earth -- and everything in it -- was created in six days.

OK. Here goes. Different bible translations translate different things. True. Different Denominations interpret things differently. You might like to compare KJV of Genesis 2:4 and other translations of Genesis 2:4. The rest of the second chapter actually describes the same history of chapter one and calls it one day. I could say today something like "back in my day" or "back in the Roman's day" and you would understand it to be a period of time in the past. Not literal day.

The previous quote of 2 Peter 3:8 shows that day is not always literal in the Bible. Now, was that verse describing the upper limit of time that day equated with? It doesn't really say. Actually there is approximately 365000^2 range mentioned there.

Here is where religious controversy comes in. Not all religions will agree with above paragraph. Some will say 'God made the fossils and photons and rest of universe to look like 13 billion years old to test your faith' or something like that. Is that the proper interpretation? I don't think so, but that debate is for somewhere else. (please)

Now as for the movement to force "Christianity" on others by rule of law, I personally have not found any New Testament passage that supports that. In fact, the basic tenet of Christianity is that faith is vital and works w/o faith is worthless for salvation.

Even Jesus said his followers had a special relationship with earthly governments. John 18:36. There are others, but realize please according to Gospels, Jesus never forced anything but the thievin' temple merchants.

I agree that science should deal with the observable. If there was 'creation' then all believers should be interested in how it works. I am. It is also very clear that not all "Christianity" can be truth from Bible, some religions flat out contradict each other. Most are close on the major points. I would like to think that where science and religion conflict, as in creationism vs evolution, it is a misinterpretation of Bible and possibly observed data that causes problems. I would agree that more often, religion has stepped wrong, but I wouldn't fault the Bible with that. More likely to blame is man's interpretation.

Any powerful tool can be misused/abused greatly. Look at Crusades and WWII. Religion pretty much at root. But those perps were not acting like Christ.

And finally the difference between modern conventional wisdom and Christianity. Christianity says "Please don't hurt anyone around you including yourself." Modern CW says "Don't hurt anyone around you not including yourself." Which works better? You decide. I'm not here to preach. (I hope you don't feel preached to. If so, Sorry!)

And John 13:34,45 tells you how to find the real ones.

It is not hypocritical to call a spade a spade, as long as you are not one also. Romans 2:21-24 Paul knew that back then too.

But the problem is found in 2 Peter 2:1-3, actually predicted/prophesied all that long time ago.

Any "Christian" who says 'I can't judge anything another does' doesn't have a firm grasp of the Bible, or is not obeying it. See 1st point above.

I was told today that I was going to die and go to hell to burn forever if I didn't become born again. Then the same man told me there were two sides of hell (one good and one bad) That was after I trapped him at "Jesus was in hell for 3 days" Then he said Hell was just a holding place for dead when I read him Revelation 20:13-15

Also, to believe in 'my God decreed time to die' would also mean the rest of the verses there literally are true. Ecclesiastes 3:1-8

And allowing self to die as some unforgivable sin? Check out John 19:30-33

/rant

That was a lot of work...

And John 13:34,45 tells you how to find the real ones.

It is not hypocritical to call a spade a spade, as long as you are not one also. Romans 2:21-24 Paul knew that back then too.

But the problem is found in 2 Peter 2:1-3, actually predicted/prophesied all that long time ago.

Any "Christian" who says 'I can't judge anything another does' doesn't have a firm grasp of the Bible, or is not obeying it. See 1st point above.

I was told today that I was going to die and go to hell to burn forever if I didn't become born again. Then the same man told me there were two sides of hell (one good and one bad) That was after I trapped him at "Jesus was in hell for 3 days" Then he said Hell was just a holding place for dead when I read him Revelation 20:13-15

Also, to believe in 'my God decreed time to die' would also mean the rest of the verses there literally are true. Ecclesiastes 3:1-8

And allowing self to die as some unforgivable sin? Check out John 19:30-33

/rant

That was a lot of work...

And John 13:34,45 tells you how to find the real ones.

It is not hypocritical to call a spade a spade, as long as you are not one also. Romans 2:21-24 Paul knew that back then too.

But the problem is found in 2 Peter 2:1-3, actually predicted/prophesied all that long time ago.

Any "Christian" who says 'I can't judge anything another does' doesn't have a firm grasp of the Bible, or is not obeying it. See 1st point above.

I was told today that I was going to die and go to hell to burn forever if I didn't become born again. Then the same man told me there were two sides of hell (one good and one bad) That was after I trapped him at "Jesus was in hell for 3 days" Then he said Hell was just a holding place for dead when I read him Revelation 20:13-15

Also, to believe in 'my God decreed time to die' would also mean the rest of the verses there literally are true. Ecclesiastes 3:1-8

And allowing self to die as some unforgivable sin? Check out John 19:30-33

/rant

That was a lot of work...

And John 13:34,45 tells you how to find the real ones.

It is not hypocritical to call a spade a spade, as long as you are not one also. Romans 2:21-24 Paul knew that back then too.

But the problem is found in 2 Peter 2:1-3, actually predicted/prophesied all that long time ago.

Any "Christian" who says 'I can't judge anything another does' doesn't have a firm grasp of the Bible, or is not obeying it. See 1st point above.

I was told today that I was going to die and go to hell to burn forever if I didn't become born again. Then the same man told me there were two sides of hell (one good and one bad) That was after I trapped him at "Jesus was in hell for 3 days" Then he said Hell was just a holding place for dead when I read him Revelation 20:13-15

Also, to believe in 'my God decreed time to die' would also mean the rest of the verses there literally are true. Ecclesiastes 3:1-8

And allowing self to die as some unforgivable sin? Check out John 19:30-33

/rant

That was a lot of work...

And John 13:34,45 tells you how to find the real ones.

It is not hypocritical to call a spade a spade, as long as you are not one also. Romans 2:21-24 Paul knew that back then too.

But the problem is found in 2 Peter 2:1-3, actually predicted/prophesied all that long time ago.

Any "Christian" who says 'I can't judge anything another does' doesn't have a firm grasp of the Bible, or is not obeying it. See 1st point above.

I was told today that I was going to die and go to hell to burn forever if I didn't become born again. Then the same man told me there were two sides of hell (one good and one bad) That was after I trapped him at "Jesus was in hell for 3 days" Then he said Hell was just a holding place for dead when I read him Revelation 20:13-15

Also, to believe in 'my God decreed time to die' would also mean the rest of the verses there literally are true. Ecclesiastes 3:1-8

And allowing self to die as some unforgivable sin? Check out John 19:30-33

/rant

That was a lot of work...

And John 13:34,45 tells you how to find the real ones.

It is not hypocritical to call a spade a spade, as long as you are not one also. Romans 2:21-24 Paul knew that back then too.

But the problem is found in 2 Peter 2:1-3, actually predicted/prophesied all that long time ago.

Any "Christian" who says 'I can't judge anything another does' doesn't have a firm grasp of the Bible, or is not obeying it. See 1st point above.

I was told today that I was going to die and go to hell to burn forever if I didn't become born again. Then the same man told me there were two sides of hell (one good and one bad) That was after I trapped him at "Jesus was in hell for 3 days" Then he said Hell was just a holding place for dead when I read him Revelation 20:13-15

Also, to believe in 'my God decreed time to die' would also mean the rest of the verses there literally are true. Ecclesiastes 3:1-8

And allowing self to die as some unforgivable sin? Check out John 19:30-33

/rant

That was a lot of work...

And John 13:34,45 tells you how to find the real ones.

It is not hypocritical to call a spade a spade, as long as you are not one also. Romans 2:21-24 Paul knew that back then too.

But the problem is found in 2 Peter 2:1-3, actually predicted/prophesied all that long time ago.

Any "Christian" who says 'I can't judge anything another does' doesn't have a firm grasp of the Bible, or is not obeying it. See 1st point above.

I was told today that I was going to die and go to hell to burn forever if I didn't become born again. Then the same man told me there were two sides of hell (one good and one bad) That was after I trapped him at "Jesus was in hell for 3 days" Then he said Hell was just a holding place for dead when I read him Revelation 20:13-15

Also, to believe in 'my God decreed time to die' would also mean the rest of the verses there literally are true. Ecclesiastes 3:1-8

And allowing self to die as some unforgivable sin? Check out John 19:30-33

/rant

That was a lot of work...

Please quote me the passage in the Christian bible where it says that Christians can pick and choose which passages of the bible to "interpret"?

The Bible Interprets itself. Take Judges Chapter 9:8 for instance says Once upon a time the trees decided to elect a king.

Then the rest of the Chapter explains it's allegory and what it means.

Read Daniel or Revelation and see all the dreams and wild beasts/monsters. Does Daniel or John really believe in the literal existence of these Beasts? No... Daniel 8:20-22 gives the meaning.

Also all six creative days in Genesis are called 1 day in Genesis 2:4 Also the Bible equates 1 day with 1000 years. 2 Peter 3:8

There are just a few. If you want more, let me know. BTW If you don't like "Christians" in politics, check out John 6:14,15. or John 18:36

Just so you know, I defend no stance taken by blueletterbible.org or any reference they quote, just an easy online bible to quote. I will not defend all Bible translations either.

Please quote me the passage in the Christian bible where it says that Christians can pick and choose which passages of the bible to "interpret"?

The Bible Interprets itself. Take Judges Chapter 9:8 for instance says Once upon a time the trees decided to elect a king.

Then the rest of the Chapter explains it's allegory and what it means.

Read Daniel or Revelation and see all the dreams and wild beasts/monsters. Does Daniel or John really believe in the literal existence of these Beasts? No... Daniel 8:20-22 gives the meaning.

Also all six creative days in Genesis are called 1 day in Genesis 2:4 Also the Bible equates 1 day with 1000 years. 2 Peter 3:8

There are just a few. If you want more, let me know. BTW If you don't like "Christians" in politics, check out John 6:14,15. or John 18:36

Just so you know, I defend no stance taken by blueletterbible.org or any reference they quote, just an easy online bible to quote. I will not defend all Bible translations either.

Please quote me the passage in the Christian bible where it says that Christians can pick and choose which passages of the bible to "interpret"?

The Bible Interprets itself. Take Judges Chapter 9:8 for instance says Once upon a time the trees decided to elect a king.

Then the rest of the Chapter explains it's allegory and what it means.

Read Daniel or Revelation and see all the dreams and wild beasts/monsters. Does Daniel or John really believe in the literal existence of these Beasts? No... Daniel 8:20-22 gives the meaning.

Also all six creative days in Genesis are called 1 day in Genesis 2:4 Also the Bible equates 1 day with 1000 years. 2 Peter 3:8

There are just a few. If you want more, let me know. BTW If you don't like "Christians" in politics, check out John 6:14,15. or John 18:36

Just so you know, I defend no stance taken by blueletterbible.org or any reference they quote, just an easy online bible to quote. I will not defend all Bible translations either.

Please quote me the passage in the Christian bible where it says that Christians can pick and choose which passages of the bible to "interpret"?

The Bible Interprets itself. Take Judges Chapter 9:8 for instance says Once upon a time the trees decided to elect a king.

Then the rest of the Chapter explains it's allegory and what it means.

Read Daniel or Revelation and see all the dreams and wild beasts/monsters. Does Daniel or John really believe in the literal existence of these Beasts? No... Daniel 8:20-22 gives the meaning.

Also all six creative days in Genesis are called 1 day in Genesis 2:4 Also the Bible equates 1 day with 1000 years. 2 Peter 3:8

There are just a few. If you want more, let me know. BTW If you don't like "Christians" in politics, check out John 6:14,15. or John 18:36

Just so you know, I defend no stance taken by blueletterbible.org or any reference they quote, just an easy online bible to quote. I will not defend all Bible translations either.

Please quote me the passage in the Christian bible where it says that Christians can pick and choose which passages of the bible to "interpret"?

The Bible Interprets itself. Take Judges Chapter 9:8 for instance says Once upon a time the trees decided to elect a king.

Then the rest of the Chapter explains it's allegory and what it means.

Read Daniel or Revelation and see all the dreams and wild beasts/monsters. Does Daniel or John really believe in the literal existence of these Beasts? No... Daniel 8:20-22 gives the meaning.

Also all six creative days in Genesis are called 1 day in Genesis 2:4 Also the Bible equates 1 day with 1000 years. 2 Peter 3:8

There are just a few. If you want more, let me know. BTW If you don't like "Christians" in politics, check out John 6:14,15. or John 18:36

Just so you know, I defend no stance taken by blueletterbible.org or any reference they quote, just an easy online bible to quote. I will not defend all Bible translations either.

Please quote me the passage in the Christian bible where it says that Christians can pick and choose which passages of the bible to "interpret"?

The Bible Interprets itself. Take Judges Chapter 9:8 for instance says Once upon a time the trees decided to elect a king.

Then the rest of the Chapter explains it's allegory and what it means.

Read Daniel or Revelation and see all the dreams and wild beasts/monsters. Does Daniel or John really believe in the literal existence of these Beasts? No... Daniel 8:20-22 gives the meaning.

Also all six creative days in Genesis are called 1 day in Genesis 2:4 Also the Bible equates 1 day with 1000 years. 2 Peter 3:8

There are just a few. If you want more, let me know. BTW If you don't like "Christians" in politics, check out John 6:14,15. or John 18:36

Just so you know, I defend no stance taken by blueletterbible.org or any reference they quote, just an easy online bible to quote. I will not defend all Bible translations either.

And get out of politics. John 18:36

meh. They get evidence that science works every time they flick a light switch or get in a car. The best evidence for religion they've see is in all probability a preacher who tells them every Sunday that they have to have FAY-uth, or they'll burn in HAY-ull.

Sigh.. And the other gives evidence that stuff in the bible is historically accurate too or that sister sarah prayed to relief and won the lottery the next day. But as I already addressed, turning on the lights (which originally wasn't a scientific endeavor) doesn't prove that your a monkeys uncle or that evolution has happened or even explain why macro evolution has stopped.

The problem is that in the field of evolutionary biology, nothing- is verifiable in the same ways as turning something on or recording an event on film and playing it back. You should also look at how Mr Evolution is not all of science and it is a logical fallacy to think that because something related is right that everything else is if it is related. You are basically saying right here that, evolution is science, since finds the truth, therefore evolution is true. Now take this to the examples of the fallacy, Cake if food, food it nutritious, cake is nutritious. But as we know, cake isn't really nutritious.

But then you have to have already accepted the "corrupt evolutionary scientific community" conspiracy theory or else why else do you assume that the nice Mister Science who makes your car go, and your cell phone ring should be jerking your chain when the subject changes to fossils?

No, you don't have to accept anything, you don't have enough information to know otherwise though. The alternate to not accepting something as the truth is not believing it as a lie, there are all sorts of ranges in between where you don't even decide either. This isn't a yes no answer, and it especially wouldn't be one if you didn't know anything about it and had to rely on someone else to explain it. You will be doomed to never seeing the point if you can't mentally assume the premise that you don't know what you already know when developing what you know. That isn't a trick statement either, I'm asking you to imagine how you would make a decision without the luxury of knowing what you already know because you made that same decision in the past. In other words, look at this as if you didn't already know the jets upset the cowboys in last nights game and were going to place a bet 2 months before the game. Otherwise your participation in that exorcise is pointless because it is designed to show how the bias is created while you are already answering with the bias we are talking about.

Incidentally, I don't think you can limit the debate to purely evolutionary biology. If we take the Bible as the literal truth, then we limit the age of the universe as six-thousand-and-something years. So we have to stop teaching a whole chunk of astrophysics right there. We can estimate the age of stellar objects by the amount of red shift they show. What do you propose we stop teaching? Do we have to junk the speed of light and most of relativity with it? We already lost carbon dating. Where do we stop?

Well, actually no we don't limit the age of anything. The English translation of the bible says days but the original word yowmmeant periods of time as well as days. The term day is the common understanding of the use of the word but even if the bible is 100% accurate, it doesn't mean that our use or implementations of it are. Now, as for the rest of the bible verses the rest of science, again, your in the same boat, You don't know that science or even the explanation of the science behind the cell phone is accurate any more then you do the bible, again, you aren't capable of verifying anything for yourself, you have to believe what someone else has said. You s

Moderation in everything you do. I believe these words of wisdom are mentioned in the Psalms as well.

Actually, it was Aristotle or Andria Terence who first came up with this idea, and it was paraphrased two hundred years later in the New Testament. (I point this out only to help religious people understand that there is wisdom outside of their holy books.)
http://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/sayings.html#moderation
http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/24302.html

One thing I never understood, why is prostitution (paying someone to have sex with you) illegal but making pr0n (paying someone to have sex with you or another person in front of a camera) is legal?

First off, it is not "sex" it is "fornication". The media has done a deceptive job of greying the issue and justifying immoral actions by replacing "fornication" with "sex". They deceived the law enforcement and kept it from being a crime.

Fornication is highly discouraged in Holy Scripture. It says don't do it, period. After all the fallout from the "sex revolution", the wisdom of this scripture is too true.

Second, pr0n teaches nothing about how to maintain a relationship. Zero, nada, zip. The physical aspect glorified by pr0n is not even 1% of what you need to know about maintaining a relationship. Not to mention that it encourages immoral behavior like adultery, whoremongery, and fornication. Yes there is scripture that discourages pr0n, but I am refraining from using the search while at work.

I am very anti-drugs and anti-porn, but these attempts to censor the internet are just stupid (or evil). Even with drugs, attempts to censor substances that might be abused is pointless. If you can't get cocaine (a substance quite healthful and safe in the very small naturally occurring quantities found in coca leaves), there are the other spices in the spice rack (I have a friend who blew her mind abusing nutmeg), or you can pick green mulberries (which are hallucinogenic). Our heighborhood is awash in green mulberries this time of year. Chop down all the trees! Think of the children!

The censorship of marijuana is especially ridiculous. In addition to being a *highly* useful plant for a host of purposes not involving getting stoned (which I consider abuse), it is so pervasive here in Virginia that police stations can't keep it from growing wild at their stations. Absolutely *anyone* could be charged with "production" of marijuana and their property seized at the whim of an officer.

The situation with porn is the same. The abuse makes the porn. Broadcast TV could be reasonably censored because the amount of content was small, and personally reviewed. I.e., a human made the judgment call as to whether a scene would "cause someone to stumble" I Cor 8:4-13. The best that can be done on the internet is to have a blacklist of truly evil IPs.

Rev 13:17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.

You have hit the nail on the head, as Jesus put it, "Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day [is] the evil thereof." But that does not excuse lack of prudence when you do have knowledge of consequences, Proverbs 27:12, "A prudent [man] foresees evil [and] hides himself; The simple pass on [and] are punished."

I'm very much pro-science, but there can't be a blithe assumption that everything we do is risk-free.

The trust God approach actually does not deny risk. It just says that "all things work together for good to them that love God" in the end. Kind of like the Princess Bride where the hero endures incredible hardship and pain before riding off into the sunset with his true love.

You have hit the nail on the head, as Jesus put it, "Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day [is] the evil thereof." But that does not excuse lack of prudence when you do have knowledge of consequences, Proverbs 27:12, "A prudent [man] foresees evil [and] hides himself; The simple pass on [and] are punished."

I'm very much pro-science, but there can't be a blithe assumption that everything we do is risk-free.

The trust God approach actually does not deny risk. It just says that "all things work together for good to them that love God" in the end. Kind of like the Princess Bride where the hero endures incredible hardship and pain before riding off into the sunset with his true love.

No one ever came back from the dead to tell us "There is NO life after death" for very obvious reasons :-)

Then what about this guy, then?

You science types agree that matter can't be created or destroyed, only changed into another form, right?

If there is no afterlife, why bother being a 'good person' in this life?

It would make believers the most miserable of creatures.... (verses 12-19)

Slashdot CAPTCHA: dismiss - How apt!

"And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered. Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you even as the green herb have I given you all things." - Genesis 9:2-3

"And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending unto him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth: Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air. A nd there came a voice to him ``Rise, Peter, kill and eat''." - Acts 10:11-13

"Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils: Speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their conscience seared with a hot iron, Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth." - 1 Tim 4:1-3

"And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered. Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you even as the green herb have I given you all things." - Genesis 9:2-3

"And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending unto him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth: Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air. A nd there came a voice to him ``Rise, Peter, kill and eat''." - Acts 10:11-13

"Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils: Speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their conscience seared with a hot iron, Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth." - 1 Tim 4:1-3

"And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered. Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you even as the green herb have I given you all things." - Genesis 9:2-3

"And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending unto him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth: Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air. A nd there came a voice to him ``Rise, Peter, kill and eat''." - Acts 10:11-13

"Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils: Speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their conscience seared with a hot iron, Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth." - 1 Tim 4:1-3

I think the truth of it is that people (of all religions) need to realize that no one lives without fault/sin/whatever they call it

How profound. It's not like the Bible says it in Eccleasiasties 7:20, 1 Kings 8:46, or 2 Chronicles 6:36.

Maybe one day they'll understand.

I think the truth of it is that people (of all religions) need to realize that no one lives without fault/sin/whatever they call it

How profound. It's not like the Bible says it in Eccleasiasties 7:20, 1 Kings 8:46, or 2 Chronicles 6:36.

Maybe one day they'll understand.

I think the truth of it is that people (of all religions) need to realize that no one lives without fault/sin/whatever they call it

How profound. It's not like the Bible says it in Eccleasiasties 7:20, 1 Kings 8:46, or 2 Chronicles 6:36.

Maybe one day they'll understand.

Good point. I must've been thinking of Adam and Eve.

Yep.

I will point out, just in case you're interested, that Lev 20:17 in the KJV is mistranlated, and says "it is a wicked thing". It is a mistranslation because the word itself has no such meaning. It possible means "shame" here. Though, the normal translation is "kindness". IOW, brother and sisters is a no-no, but it's a kindness nonetheless. How? As you pointed out, Adam's children married each other. Because we all come from one family there is less rivalry. Can you imagine if there were different strains of humanity?

Good point. I must've been thinking of Adam and Eve.

Yep.

I will point out, just in case you're interested, that Lev 20:17 in the KJV is mistranlated, and says "it is a wicked thing". It is a mistranslation because the word itself has no such meaning. It possible means "shame" here. Though, the normal translation is "kindness". IOW, brother and sisters is a no-no, but it's a kindness nonetheless. How? As you pointed out, Adam's children married each other. Because we all come from one family there is less rivalry. Can you imagine if there were different strains of humanity?

Pardon the King James, couldn't find a modern transation in short order.

You may want to bookmark http://www.biblegateway.com/ or http://www.blueletterbible.org/ for future reference.

1611 version
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

And the version I used....
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep, And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day.

Same version, different times, still differences. Note the second one has been modernised. You could say that I shouldn't just copy and paste off the internet, but that would prove my point as well. Things change.

Claiming that catholic priests put Jesus Christ
in a piece of bread is denying that he came in the flesh.

Check out John 6:51 ff. For example:

"For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. "

The Hebrew word used in the commandment is ratsach (murder), as opposed to tabach , which means killing, in general.

The Hebrew word used in the commandment is ratsach (murder), as opposed to tabach , which means killing, in general.

This is more evident in the internet rumor that "the www you placed in the web browser before the sites name actualy means 666" While there is actualy no atual W (some translator include it) in the hebrew alphabet, It was explain to me that w and v are commonly interchanged when going form one alphabet to another and the v also stood for the number 6. Unlike modern/western numerical systems, hebrew uses/used something like roman numerals were 666 instead of meaining six hundred sixtysix, it actualy means the sum of 6+6+6 or 18.

Um... you really don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about, do you? The number 666 you're referring to is from Revelation 13:18, which was originally written in Greek, not Hebrew. There's a discrepancy between manuscripts; it looks like the Textus Receptus says "666" while Wescott-Hort says "six hundred sixty-six"; you can compare them here. I've found no indication that the original text was intended to mean any other numeric value. What it actually does mean, though, I have to say I don't know. It's definitely not www, though.

Why would Lot offer his daughters to the mob of men since it was a very bad thing to do? Quite simply, what Lot did was wrong. He was hypocritical and ungodly in his action. In that culture, it was extremely important to treat visitors very well since the host of a home in a city automatically represented that city to the visitors. It was a very big deal to make sure the visitors were well treated. This may have played a part in Lot's decision to honor his guests, but it makes no difference. Lot was very wrong to offer his own daughters to the mob.
          Some may think that Lot was a very godly man. But this is not the case in this instance. If he were, why was he living in Sodom in the first place? Why did he choose to go there? It is probably true that Lot was a God-fearing man to some extent, but he obviously was compromising his values and was probably being influenced by the sinfulness of the city. In his compromised position, he sinned by offering his daughters.
          Finally, we must look at 2 Pet. 2:6-7,

"and if He [God] condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction by reducing them to ashes, having made them an example to those who would live ungodly thereafter; 7 and if He rescued righteous Lot, oppressed by the sensual conduct of unprincipled men..."

        Even the righteous before God can do things that are wrong. Overall, Lott feared God and trusted in Him -- even though he did wrong by offering his daughters. God does not remember our sins (Isaiah 43:25), Therefore, Lot's sins were not remembered when Lot was described in Peter's account.

Actually it is in Genesis Chapter 19: 30-36. It's really not that salacious.Gen 19