Thanks everyone for your responses to my post about the old earth and evolution, there's so much written it's hard to respond to everything, but here's some info.

First, I certainly do admit some of my misconceptions, for example, my assertion that virtually all mutations are harmful to the species is not correct, after doing some research on the matter.

However, I still do defend my assertion that science has not shown a series of chemical reactions that demonstrate evolution.

First there are some (rather comical, IMHO) attacks on my character, which are quite odd because the individuals attacking no nothing about me or where I come from or exactly what I believe. An example of such an attack is the statement:

<<
"But I think you know all this - my guess is that you're a scared christian hanging on desperately to the dying gasps of an outdated religion - happier ignoring and misrepresenting the well documented science that reduces your faith to mere superstition than facing up to the truth about the way the world works."
>>

Not at all. Just a scientist skeptical about evolution looking for answers. Beyond the attacks, there are some interesting observations that show a double standard exists. An example:

<<
"The chemical reactions are not needed for reasonable belief."
>>

and

<<
1. Proofs are for math and alcohol, not science.
>>

(Before you conclude that I'm cherry picking, I'll get to the other points in a moment.) The double-standard is this: many people on this blog have demanded irrefutable proof that God exists. Fair enough. But then those who do not believe in God claim that the same standard of proof is not needed for such theories as evolution. Not right. We can't have it both ways.

Here's a common argument:

<<
3. We do not need the exact biochemical breakdown to what happened in order to conclude that it happened. Your question is setting an absurd demand of proof - akin to asking the exact details, down to the nano-second of how a murder occurred.
>>

Sure we do. Let me discuss what I would consider "proof." Consider how well scientists understand nuclear fusion, for example, two hydrogens forming a helim atom. We understand the chemical reaction; we understand the number of neutrons that are produced; we understand the pressure the system has to be under for the reaction to occur. We understand it so well that we can recreate it by engineering a Hydrogen Bomb. We also see it happening in nature, i.e. the Sun is fusing hydrogen to form helium as we speak.

The same understanding is not present in evolutionary theory. "We do not need the exact biochemical breakdown to what happened in order to conclude that it did happen" seems like a statement of faith to me. In other words, we seem to be saying that the fossil evidence is so compelling that the only possible explanation for the increasing sophistication of life on earth is mutation + natural selection. To me that's a statement of faith, not fact. (A statement of fact, for exmaple, would be something like the Sun's energy is derived through nuclear reactions whose properties we understand very well).

It is not unreasonable for a skeptic to ask the biochemical community to produce the sequence of reactions in which a strand of DNA not only copies itself, but creates a more advanced copy of itself. I did read the information about frame mutation (the nylon bug) and it is very interesting--thanks for the link.

But we still do not understand the chemical reactions in which advanced organisms arise from simpler ones. The earliest single-cell organisms on earth had very simple DNA strands; we have much more complicated ones. To get from there to here is a sequence of biochemical reactions. At least one such set of reactions, for example showing how a single-cell organism "evolved" to a multiple-cell organism (the simplest example I can think of) will suffice. Until we have figured out such biochemical reactions, I rest my case that evolution is unproven.

I did read about, and previously already knew, the theory that the amino-acid rich environment in early earth, coupled with other processes, may have produced the first strand of DNA. Again, it's faith until they can show the reactions.

Now don't get me wrong--I certainly do admit that there is strong evidence that evolution might have occurred--the fossil record, frame mutations, speciation in plants--all argue that it might be correct. But "might be correct" is different from it absolutely being correct. We believe nuclear fusion because we know it so well we can reproduce it. For evolution, the belief is largely hinged on faith: it must be true because we have no other explanation, and if anything is missing from the theory, it's only a matter of time until we discover it. A statement of faith as great as any God-believing Christian has.

As for alternatives to evolution, many people responding to me claim that I am arguing for intelligent design, or Larmackian evolution, or some such variant. Not at all. Just because I'm arguing that evolution is a theory, not a fact, does not mean that I am arguing for those other alternatives. I am not, And in the case of Lamarckian evolution it has shown to be incorrect and I would not argue for it at all.

The real truth is: no one knows what actually happened to cause life on this planet. People have opinions, and some rest on very strong evidence, but there's a leap of faith in every viewpoint. If you believe in evolution, note that the chemical reactions have not yet been worked out to show the mechanism of evolution. It is not unreasonable to ask for this, given that other areas of science have been so thoroughly explained. And if you believe in God, although there's some evidence for His existence, there's certainly a leap of faith in there as well.

What is totally ridiculous is holding the theory of evoulution in equal standing to faith based creationism/intelligent design ideas. Evolution is a scientific hypothesis worthy of scientific research...creationism/intelligent design is a topic for comparitive religion courses.

>(Before you conclude that I'm cherry picking, I'll get to the other points in a moment.) The double-standard is this: many people on this blog have demanded irrefutable proof that God exists. Fair enough. But then those who do not believe in God claim that the same standard of proof is not needed for such theories as evolution. Not right. We can't have it both ways.



Wow - that's BS again

No-one has demanded irrefutable proof of god - just some reasonable evidence that is not better explained by science

No single Christian posting here has done anything better than the self referential 'the bible says so'

They've shown no god, no evidence, no processes, no theory - just 'POOF' and pink smoke

I think that you're being deliberately intellectually dishonest. You assert a belief in nuclear science and what it tells us about the scale of and age of the universe. You accept the age of the fossil record and the mechanics of biochemistry.

Yet, when presented with a reasonable scalable theory such as evolution operating over Billions of years, you proclaim an unsupported and unsupportable revelation that it was all done by some invisible, undetectable being of infinite complexity (and no explained origin, structure or mechanisms) who cunningly leaves no evidence (and maybe red-herrings to trick the unwary) and that the constant god-tinkering works at the fine grain detail over all universal space and time.


An appeal to the supernatural when the intellectual going gets tough is like crying for mommy


>In other words, we seem to be saying that the fossil evidence is so compelling that the only possible explanation for the increasing sophistication of life on earth is mutation + natural selection. To me that's a statement of faith, not fact.

No, its a theory in line with the observed evidence of the fossils themselves, the geological record and the evidence within the genomes of existing species - exactly as operated in the development of the physical sciences. Science is doing what science does - in labs all over the world, scientists are running experiments at the chemical level, at the biological level, at the genetic level and at the field observational level to fill out the picture - and they are not finding inconsistencies.

By comparison, all that Christians are doing is winging about what the science shows them and predicting the impending apocalypse



>Now don't get me wrong--I certainly do admit that there is strong evidence that evolution might have occurred--the fossil record, frame mutations, speciation in plants--all argue that it might be correct

Perhaps you could speed the discussion by providing evidence of a similar quality for a god-based explanation and a detailed god-based theory with proposed mechanisms

we wait with baited breath

Dark Star Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thanks everyone for your responses to my post
> about the old earth and evolution, there's so much
> written it's hard to respond to everything, but
> here's some info.
>
> First, I certainly do admit some of my
> misconceptions, for example, my assertion that
> virtually all mutations are harmful to the species
> is not correct, after doing some research on the
> matter.
>
> However, I still do defend my assertion that
> science has not shown a series of chemical
> reactions that demonstrate evolution.

I provided just an example of this, with the Nylon bug.

> First there are some (rather comical, IMHO)
> attacks on my character, which are quite odd
> because the individuals attacking no nothing about
> me or where I come from or exactly what I believe.
> An example of such an attack is the statement:

Let's see what you come up with regarding my statements.


> "But I think you know all this - my guess is that
> you're a scared christian hanging on desperately
> to the dying gasps of an outdated religion -
> happier ignoring and misrepresenting the well
> documented science that reduces your faith to mere
> superstition than facing up to the truth about the
> way the world works."

This wasn't mine, but I think it's a warranted conclusion as your argument is very similar to Behe's demands in the Edge of Evolution.

> "The chemical reactions are not needed for
> reasonable belief."

This is not an attack on your character - it is a comment regarding reasonable belief. This is a comment directed specifically towards your level of proof you require. HOW on earth do you regard this as a personal attack??

> 1. Proofs are for math and alcohol, not science.

This is a comment regarding epistemology. AGAIN, how on earth is this a personal attack???


> (Before you conclude that I'm cherry picking, I'll
> get to the other points in a moment.) The
> double-standard is this: many people on this blog
> have demanded irrefutable proof that God exists.

I certainly don't - you are creating a strawman.

> Fair enough. But then those who do not believe in
> God claim that the same standard of proof is not
> needed for such theories as evolution. Not right.
> We can't have it both ways.

Nonsense. Not only has your burden been fulfilled (I provided the Nylon bug), but you are confusing a demand for certainty (a logical proof of God's existence) with science - which works from abduction/induction and thus is not *certain*. In short, you are confusing or obfuscating your epistemological standards.

> Here's a common argument:
>
> <<
> 3. We do not need the exact biochemical breakdown
> to what happened in order to conclude that it
> happened. Your question is setting an absurd
> demand of proof - akin to asking the exact
> details, down to the nano-second of how a murder
> occurred.
> >>
>
> Sure we do.

No we don't, not for science. Seriously, what in science has been absolutely proven?

> Let me discuss what I would consider
> "proof." Consider how well scientists understand
> nuclear fusion, for example, two hydrogens forming
> a helim atom. We understand the chemical reaction;

These things have not been 'proven' in the same sense you are requesting that evolution be proven. You are equivocating. We have good evidence that nuclear fusion happens, but the fact is, we are not certain. After all, we could all be brains in a jar that are being tampered with by a malevolent doctor.

> we understand the number of neutrons that are
> produced; we understand the pressure the system
> has to be under for the reaction to occur. We
> understand it so well that we can recreate it by
> engineering a Hydrogen Bomb. We also see it
> happening in nature, i.e. the Sun is fusing
> hydrogen to form helium as we speak.

Another point I could point out is that since we do not have an underlying theory of everything then you are necessarily missing a point in your equation. Therefore since you are missing this point, we should reject this evidence. This is akin to your rejection of evolution because we don't know the chemical pathways of all common descent.

> The same understanding is not present in
> evolutionary theory. "We do not need the exact
> biochemical breakdown to what happened in order to
> conclude that it did happen" seems like a
> statement of faith to me.

Your personal feelings also led you to believe that most mutations were negative. Seems like your personal feelings are irrelevant. I provided you an example of a biochemical breakdown and you IGNORED it.

Were I to conclude anything from your posts it would be that you aren't interested in the actual evidence.

> In other words, we seem
> to be saying that the fossil evidence is so
> compelling that the only possible explanation for
> the increasing sophistication of life on earth is
> mutation + natural selection. To me that's a
> statement of faith, not fact. (A statement of
> fact, for exmaple, would be something like the
> Sun's energy is derived through nuclear reactions
> whose properties we understand very well).

That's also not what I have been saying. Natural selection is not the only factor and fossils aren't the only evidence. You are cherry picking my quote here. You ignore the Nylon bug which provides you with exactly what you ask for and you ignore the twin nested heirarchy.

> It is not unreasonable for a skeptic to ask the
> biochemical community to produce the sequence of
> reactions in which a strand of DNA not only copies
> itself, but creates a more advanced copy of
> itself. I did read the information about frame
> mutation (the nylon bug) and it is very
> interesting--thanks for the link.

No, it's not - however this is not a question for the biological community. You are asking about abiogenesis and I gave a model (WHICH YOU IGNORED) on how it could have occurred.

I don't think you read the link, as it provides adequate evidence of what you are demanding.

> But we still do not understand the chemical
> reactions in which advanced organisms arise from
> simpler ones.

How are you defining 'understand' and 'advanced' here - since the nylon bug is 'more advanced' by several criteria then it's predecessors (as it can digest nylon)!

You are being vague.

> The earliest single-cell organisms
> on earth had very simple DNA strands; we have much
> more complicated ones.

This is an assumption. You are assuming that the earliest single celled organisms had DNA. I have provided evidence for abiogenesis (you ignored it), but this is irrelevant since you are pushing back the goal posts FROM evolution to abiogenesis.

Abiogenesis could be totally false, yet the theory of evolution could be true - do you know why?

> To get from there to here
> is a sequence of biochemical reactions. At least
> one such set of reactions, for example showing how
> a single-cell organism "evolved" to a
> multiple-cell organism (the simplest example I can
> think of) will suffice. Until we have figured out
> such biochemical reactions, I rest my case that
> evolution is unproven.

This is a strawman. You are asking for abiogenesis to be demonstrated (while dishonestly not even touching my presentation of it) and then declaring that unless we have the specific pathway then evolution couldn't have occurred.

This is akin to saying that unless we have a theory of everything then relativity is 'unproven'. Which is ridiculous.

The fact is, I provided an example which showed the chemical reactions of the Nylon bug - exactly what you asked for and now you are shifting the goal posts to include abiogenesis.

That is dishonest.

> I did read about, and previously already knew, the
> theory that the amino-acid rich environment in
> early earth, coupled with other processes, may
> have produced the first strand of DNA. Again,
> it's faith until they can show the reactions.

You are confusing faith with science. It is a model that has empirical support. It shows how it could have happened.

This is different from faith which has no empirical support.

> Now don't get me wrong--I certainly do admit that
> there is strong evidence that evolution might have
> occurred--the fossil record, frame mutations,
> speciation in plants--all argue that it might be
> correct. But "might be correct" is different from
> it absolutely being correct.

Another strawman - science doesn't work off of being 'absolutely' correct. Nothing in science is absolute. Think about it, science is empirical. Is empiricism absolutist?

No.

Therefore you are being dishonest in requesting absolute certainty (and you are relegating all science into the 'might be correct' category, which you probably won't agree with).

> We believe nuclear
> fusion because we know it so well we can reproduce
> it. For evolution, the belief is largely hinged
> on faith:

This is a double standard - you say we trust nuclear fusion because we can reproduce it.

YET I showed you how we reproduced evolution - the nylon bug - yet you have the audacity to say it's a belief hinged on faith?

>it must be true because we have no other
> explanation, and if anything is missing from the
> theory, it's only a matter of time until we
> discover it. A statement of faith as great as any
> God-believing Christian has.

I gave several other explanations - this is another demonstratably false statement of yours. What of saltation, lamarkianism, lysenkoism? Those were 'other explanations'.

> As for alternatives to evolution, many people
> responding to me claim that I am arguing for
> intelligent design, or Larmackian evolution, or
> some such variant. Not at all. Just because I'm
> arguing that evolution is a theory, not a fact,

This clues me in on the fact that you aren't very familar with science. Evolution is both fact and theory. Common descent is a fact, the theory of evolution EXPLAINS that fact.

That's what theories in science do. They do not 'become facts' as you seemingly suggest.

Here are some other 'theories'

Relativity (according to you, gravity is 'only a theory')
Germ theory (Germs getting you sick is 'only a theory', it's not certain and therefore faith!)
Heliocentric theory (the earth going around the sun is only a theory)

CREATIONIST organizations actually ADVISE creationists NOT TO USE that argument. Don't believe me? Here's a Young Earth Creationist website: http://creation.com/arguments-we-think-creationists-should-not-use

"‘Evolution is just a theory.’ What people usually mean when they say this is ‘Evolution is not proven fact, so it should not be promoted dogmatically.’ Therefore people should say that. The problem with using the word ‘theory’ in this case is that scientists use it to mean a well-substantiated explanation of data. This includes well-known ones such as Einstein’s Theory of Relativity and Newton’s Theory of Gravity, and lesser-known ones such as the Debye–Hückel Theory of electrolyte solutions and the Deryagin–Landau/Verwey–Overbeek (DLVO) theory of the stability of lyophobic sols, etc. It would be better to say that particles-to-people evolution is an unsubstantiated hypothesis or conjecture. "

> does not mean that I am arguing for those other
> alternatives. I am not, And in the case of
> Lamarckian evolution it has shown to be incorrect
> and I would not argue for it at all.

I'm not so sure I believe you. You don't seem to have a good grasp on science.

> The real truth is: no one knows what actually
> happened to cause life on this planet. People
> have opinions, and some rest on very strong
> evidence, but there's a leap of faith in every
> viewpoint. If you believe in evolution, note that
> the chemical reactions have not yet been worked
> out to show the mechanism of evolution.

Utterly and demonstratively false - You ignore the examples provided. This is YOUR mistake and misconception.

> It is not
> unreasonable to ask for this, given that other
> areas of science have been so thoroughly
> explained. And if you believe in God, although
> there's some evidence for His existence, there's
> certainly a leap of faith in there as well.


It is unreasonable to expect evolution, which is a theory that explains the diversity of life, to explain the origin of life.

Such demands show that you don't know what you are talking about. When I provide you evidence of the chemical process behind a speciation event and you then ask for the chemical processes behind abiogenesis, that shows me that you DON'T actually CARE what you are talking about.

Your mind has been made up. You don't think evolution happened and no evidence will change your mind.

This is the problem with creationists. They do not want to believe. They will fight and pretend and repeatedly make the same assertions over and over again.

Holocaust deniers, moon hoaxers, and 9/11 conspiracy theorists have the same pattern of argumentation.

Pretending to be interested in the truth when you really aren't is dishonest Dark Star.

Were you actually interested in the truth, Dark Star, you would have relinquished your position when the evidence you specifically asked for was provided.

Instead you pushed back the goal posts, demanding evidence for abiogenesis - which doesn't make a difference in whether or not the theory of evolution is correct.

That's simply dishonest.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/09/2009 08:47AM by Professor Pangloss.

This is the problem with darwinists. They do not want to believe. They will fight and pretend and repeatedly make the same assertions over and over again.

Holocaust deniers, moon hoaxers, Flat Earth Advocates, Bigfoot Enthusiasts, and 9/11 conspiracy theorists have the same pattern of argumentation.

Pretending to be interested in the truth when you really aren't is dishonest Pangloss.

Were you actually interested in the truth, Pangloss, you would have relinquished your position when the mountain of evidence rejected the absurd claims of the darwinists fundies .

Instead you pushed back the goal posts, demanding evidence for Creation - which doesn't make a difference in whether or not the theory of evolution is correct.

That's simply dishonest.

Professor Darwin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This is the problem with darwinists. They do not
> want to believe. They will fight and pretend and
> repeatedly make the same assertions over and over
> again.

Darwinists died with Darwin. Haven't you heard of the modern synthesis?

> Holocaust deniers, moon hoaxers, Flat Earth
> Advocates, Bigfoot Enthusiasts, and 9/11
> conspiracy theorists have the same pattern of
> argumentation.

> Pretending to be interested in the truth when you
> really aren't is dishonest Pangloss.

Point out some evidence of this, as I did, and maybe you have a point.

> Were you actually interested in the truth,
> Pangloss, you would have relinquished your
> position when the mountain of evidence rejected
> the absurd claims of the darwinists fundies .

No such thing as a darwinist fundy. Further, what evidence did I reject? Have you not been paying attention to this thread? Dark Star brought up questions, not evidence.

> Instead you pushed back the goal posts, demanding
> evidence for Creation - which doesn't make a
> difference in whether or not the theory of
> evolution is correct.

Where did I demand evidence for creation?

> That's simply dishonest.


Sorry, your parody FAILED as it simply ignored the relevant facts.

Professor Pangloss wrote:
"
"Sorry, your parody FAILED as it simply ignored the relevant facts"


Sorry there fella, but your "criticism" of my post FAILED as it simply ingored the critical facts.

I'm just curious as to why you aren't logging in under your regular user account.

Lol @ Darwinism, Im actually missing Elliot ness' posts... atleast they were fun to respond to

eyGku Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> re: scam church Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Whoever posted above, you have very inaccurate
> > information. Neither figure is close to being
> > correct, especially his salary.
>
>
> Where can we get better information? We'd be
> interested in the correct numbers.

It's easy to look up the correct numbers. Go to the Washington Post's online Real Estate section and there is a tool for looking up tax assessments on people's homes. Lon Solomon's home is assessed at $1.154 million. Solomon has been around at least 20-30 years. The average Fairfax County home that is assessed at $1.1 million was much less expensive (even factoring in inflation) back then and would have been considered a really modest place when he purchased it.

MBC did attempt to widen/adjust the traffic pattern to Route 7 before we even moved in, but their new neighbors wouldn't let them. They're also utilizing the money us suckers give them to set-up other locations for members to meet to help alleviate the congestion on Route 7. It also allows members to meet "neighbors" they would otherwise have difficulties doing at the main campus.

As far as his salary goes, I don't think he makes nearly as much as you think he does, but nobody is forcing anyone to give what they give to the church. A lot of money given goes to support other people besides the staff, i.e. missionaries, their food bank, people in desperate need of financial assistance, The House in Anacostia, Jill's House that supports families of children with disabilities, etc. I'm sure you get the idea. So I'm not sure what a person and their staff who help to facilitate programs that lend assistance to thousands of people should be paid, but I've personally seen and heard stories from people positively affected by them; so I guess I'll continue to be one of the suckers that keeps giving them my money. By the way, they also have meetings for members of the church that go over how money is spent.

To those who attend MBC or similar churches and think that if they're pissing people off they are doing something right:

No you are not. If your mission is to spread the word of God and Jesus and you are causing people to turn away, then you are failing at your mission.

Take accountability for your actions. Apologize to those whom you have angered, and use your God-given MINDS to come up with up with strategies that are more reasonable and less offensive.

Here's an idea to get you started: Accept people for who and what they are and get to know them individually before you try to change them. They just might have something to teach you as well. A Disciple is always a student first.

As Jesus said many times, "I demand mercy, not sacrifice."

The argument between Creationism and Evolution is moot for many reasons. What people on both sides seem to leave out is Physics. Time is relative. The true answer, if there is one, probably does lie somewhere in the middle.

Time as we experience and measure it, is surely not how God experiences and measures it, if God indeed does exist.

And to add another small thought to that. . . Time as we experience and measure it now is most likely different from how it was experienced and measured when Genesis was written.

not a sermon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> To those who attend MBC or similar churches and
> think that if they're pissing people off they are
> doing something right:
>
> No you are not. If your mission is to spread the
> word of God and Jesus and you are causing people
> to turn away, then you are failing at your
> mission.
>
> Take accountability for your actions. Apologize
> to those whom you have angered, and use your
> God-given MINDS to come up with up with strategies
> that are more reasonable and less offensive.
>
> Here's an idea to get you started: Accept people
> for who and what they are and get to know them
> individually before you try to change them. They
> just might have something to teach you as well. A
> Disciple is always a student first.
>
> As Jesus said many times, "I demand mercy, not
> sacrifice."

I consider it a 'plus-minus for Jesus.'

If my life inspires three to come to Christ and none to turn away or close her/his mind, that's +3.

If someone else inspires 100 and turns off 500, that's -400.

The fact that these people are interested in Mclean Bible Church suggest that they hunger for something. They are a pitty. We Christians are obliged to forgive them. Hope we get our reward one day. We ought not to retaliate or even say something bad about this people because we know better. We all are sinners but the only difference is: we are forgiven because we did ask for it. This is something that we need to reflect on. "Let us try to walk our talk."

Just when you thought this stupid thread had finally gone, here it comes back again!

Cwhite Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The fact that these people are interested in
> Mclean Bible Church suggest that they hunger for
> something. They are a pitty. We Christians are
> obliged to forgive them. Hope we get our reward
> one day. We ought not to retaliate or even say
> something bad about this people because we know
> better. We all are sinners but the only difference
> is: we are forgiven because we did ask for it.
> This is something that we need to reflect on. "Let
> us try to walk our talk."


The fact that these people are questioning the establishment simply mean that there are questions the establishment should answer.

zomg! thank you for rezzing this thread... ive been waiting for a long time but didnt want to be the douche that did it. Thank you for being a douche!

Please do not take what you are about to read as an order, but rather a suggestion.

Let's start from the top........you heard a radio ad that "basically" said "everyone but us is going to hell". Just kinda curious how you came to that conclusion...since we didn't hear the actual commercial, and you didn't take the time to write a good amount of it out we simply are forced to take your word on it. And as they say, one man's word has no grounding.

Secondly, why do you care how much he makes? For one thing I say that's between him and God. Also, you shouldn't be giving if you feel like you are being forced to give. Give what your heart tells you to give.......my grandparents went to a small country church in PA that the pastor actually worked part time as a postal worker just to make ends meet. I go to a large church in MD, and I don't know nor do I really care how much my pastor makes because I believe it is none of my business. I wouldn't say that I am best friends with the guy, but from the few times I've had to interact with him I can tell his heart is pure. On another note why is it we always pick on pastors......why not lawyers or stock brokers, IRS agents, Movie and TV Show producers, actors, directors, musicians, comedians?

Have you considered the fact that maybe the house was donated by his church because of his daughter. I have a friend who when he was in high school (might have been college), during a basketball game was diving for the ball, but slid and hit his head on the wall. Today he is paralyzed from the neck down, but he still has his sense of humor. Anyway, their church donated not only a pretty good sized house, but also a van for him to ride around in, and also an electric wheelchair which if you don't know cost a good amount of money.
Lastly, I don't know Lon Solomon on any kind of personal level. I've never met the guy. I do have friends that have gone to the church, and they don't seem to have any beef about the guy. But, as I say, I don't feel it's any of my business.

In any religion you have the zealots and the half-asses...the ones who try their best to follow and the jokers. And just because you call yourself an atheist, an agnostic, or even an animist does not me you have no god or religion. Is your god your stomach, your wallet, your body, sex, your ancestors? Your god could be anything.......if you are wondering what it is you worship, maybe you should start by writing down what you do on a daily basis. See what you spend time doing more than anything else. Your religion is how you spend time with your god. And remember, Christian breaks the first commandment (no other gods) all time. Just because I'm a Christian doesn't mean I'm perfect. I'm a sinner saved by grace. Thank you for your time.

Jack Sprat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In any religion you have the zealots and the
> half-asses...the ones who try their best to follow
> and the jokers. And just because you call yourself
> an atheist, an agnostic, or even an animist does
> not me you have no god or religion. Is your god
> your stomach, your wallet, your body, sex, your
> ancestors? Your god could be anything.......

Equivocation doesn't help your argument.

> if you
> are wondering what it is you worship, maybe you
> should start by writing down what you do on a
> daily basis. See what you spend time doing more
> than anything else.

So everyone worships sleep?? Your position is absurd.

Jesus - and McLean Bible Church - rocks!!!!

In order to worship sleep..........that would mean you would have to sleep probably at least 13 hours a day..........Sorry, but that's not healthy

So you're saying that, in order to worship something, you have to devote at least 13 hours of your day to it?

Jack Sprat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In order to worship sleep..........that would mean
> you would have to sleep probably at least 13 hours
> a day..........Sorry, but that's not healthy

McLean Bible truly sucks. They are out to make money.
Frontline is bullshit.

I'm curious how many "Creationists" actually believe in the creation theory and how many just defend it for political or economic reasons.

I can't imagine that in this time period there can still be that many delusional people left that actually believe in giants, talking snakes, magic and that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old.
This is inconceivable for anyone over the age of 10.

In fact, religion should be treated like alcohol. There should be an legal age limit for indoctrination.

The pastor is a typical Jews for Jesus guy. In NY, their the guys who get no respect in the Synagog. So, they start up a JFJ shop. I hate the MFer.

I attended Wesley UMC in Vienna several times many years ago. Wesley UMC is a Hindu Temple and NOT a Christian church. I heard Mr. Jim Winkler "preach" there one Sunday and denied the clear teachings of the Christ as recorded in the Bible. I never set foot in the place again. I don't know if every UMC "church" is like this or not but Wesley is certainly NOT a Christian church. Go somewhere else if you want to learn anything about Christianity. If you want to be a Hindu, go to Wesley!

McLean is not at all a gay-bashing church. It,as most Bible Preaching churches, does just that..It preaches from the Bible. The Bible and Christian values are what this country was founded on. We are supposedly a Christain country. Perhaps if we went back to the core beliefs and values that our nations founders had we wouldn't have so many problems in this world. The Bible teaches us that Homosexuality is wrong. They do not bash Gays, they teach what God has told us in the Bible. You cannot take parts of the scripture and only believe those that fit your lifestyle. Many pastors just want to preach "feel good" sermons. You have to believe in the whole truth and the entire Bible as being true or you might as well not believe in it at all. The Bible tells us that if you are not saved and have not accepted Jesus Christ as your personal Savior that you do not have eternal life. McLean Bible does not preach that only "they" are going to Heaven. They preach that only the followers of Christ are going to Heaven which is 100% Biblical... We all will go to either heaven or Hell.. maybe it is time you start reading the Bible and listen more carefully before carelessly judging a church that actually preaches the truth and does so much for its surrounding community.. Their ministries are too vast to even put on paper right now..

They're just a gay-oppressing one.

Jenn Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Bible teaches us that
> Homosexuality is wrong.They do not bash Gays,
> they teach what God has told us in the Bible.

Hi, Jenn, I'm Harry Tuttle and I am very ignorant of the Holy Scriptures... Pleased to make your acquaintance.

Would you mind posting a link to, or telling me in what chapter I can find, where The Bible discusses homo-sex? I've heard a lot of people mention that God says homosexuality is a sin, but I've never heard where in the bible I can find it written explicitly.

Is it in the Ten Commandments?

> You
> cannot take parts of the scripture and only
> believe those that fit your lifestyle. Many
> pastors just want to preach "feel good" sermons.
> You have to believe in the whole truth and the
> entire Bible as being true or you might as well
> not believe in it at all.

Would you mind telling me where, in The Bible, it says this?

> The Bible tells us that
> if you are not saved and have not accepted Jesus
> Christ as your personal Savior that you do not
> have eternal life.

So you don't spend eternity in Hell?

LOL I'd love to see Jenn and Numbers in a room together.

Blessed are the murderous.

God told me she didn't write the Bible, and in fact much of it completely misrepresents her.

Jenn Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> McLean is not at all a gay-bashing church. It,as
> most Bible Preaching churches, does just that..It
> preaches from the Bible. The Bible and Christian
> values are what this country was founded on. We
> are supposedly a Christain country.

This country has a majority of Christians, that doesn't make it a Christian country.

> Perhaps if we
> went back to the core beliefs and values that our
> nations founders had we wouldn't have so many
> problems in this world.

This is a myth of the 'golden age'. There are always problems in the world - religion should do it's best to try not to create those problems.

> The Bible teaches us that
> Homosexuality is wrong. They do not bash Gays,

Stating that homosexuality is wrong is bashing Gays - it's setting up a hierarchy based on orientations that people cannot control.

> they teach what God has told us in the Bible. You
> cannot take parts of the scripture and only
> believe those that fit your lifestyle.

I'd be willing to bet that this is exactly what you do, actually. I'd also bet that you attempt to justify your cognitive dissonance with some sort of baseless rationalization.

> Many
> pastors just want to preach "feel good" sermons.
> You have to believe in the whole truth and the
> entire Bible as being true or you might as well
> not believe in it at all.

Why believe any of it?

> The Bible tells us that
> if you are not saved and have not accepted Jesus
> Christ as your personal Savior that you do not
> have eternal life. McLean Bible does not preach
> that only "they" are going to Heaven. They preach
> that only the followers of Christ are going to
> Heaven which is 100% Biblical... We all will go to
> either heaven or Hell.. maybe it is time you start
> reading the Bible and listen more carefully before
> carelessly judging a church that actually preaches
> the truth and does so much for its surrounding
> community.. Their ministries are too vast to even
> put on paper right now..

I've read the bible, cover to cover. Have you?

I attend a large non-denominational church north of Baltimore, and we run into the same thing. People who don't understand Christianity (belief, not RELIGION) just plain don't understand. We, too, are called names and not always identified in flattering terms by individuals who are both IN the world and OF the world, and don't know the difference. It's sad ... NONE of us are perfect ... but when people let the little (and they ARE little!) inconveniences of life affect their opinion of a church, not asking "what happened and why?", they are letting their "of the world" viewpoint keep them from becoming part of something truly amazing and life changing. I may change churches, and am looking to McClean Bible when I relocate to the area later this year. It won't be perfect, any more than I am, or my current church home is, but a church is also WHAT YOU MAKE IT. If you're not part of the solution, part of the TEAM, you really don't have the right to judge it.

Marsha Resch Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I attend a large non-denominational church north
> of Baltimore, and we run into the same thing.
> People who don't understand Christianity (belief,
> not RELIGION) just plain don't understand.

Are you trying to differentiate your religion from all the others?

> We,
> too, are called names and not always identified in
> flattering terms by individuals who are both IN
> the world and OF the world, and don't know the
> difference.

Not in the world, eh? Sounds very nihilistic to me.

> It's sad ... NONE of us are perfect
> ... but when people let the little (and they ARE
> little!) inconveniences of life affect their
> opinion of a church, not asking "what happened and
> why?", they are letting their "of the world"
> viewpoint keep them from becoming part of
> something truly amazing and life changing.

Am I interpreting you correctly that you are trying to stifle any sort of criticism of the authority of the church?

> I may
> change churches, and am looking to McClean Bible
> when I relocate to the area later this year. It
> won't be perfect, any more than I am, or my
> current church home is, but a church is also WHAT
> YOU MAKE IT. If you're not part of the solution,
> part of the TEAM, you really don't have the right
> to judge it.

So since none of us were part of the solution of ending the holocaust, none of us has the right to judge it as wrong?

Reason doesn't work that way.

Jenn Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
The Bible and Christian
> values are what this country was founded on.
So freedom of religion is a christian value? I doubt that people burned at the stake in the inquisition would agree. Or the people who don't agree with christianity and according to you and the bible are goign to be cast unto hell.

I missed the point in the bible about gun owership.

Or quartering troops.

The bible preaches that we are to turn the other cheek and forgive, yet the country's founders seemed to think that a fair and speedy trial was more important.

There's plenty of cruel and unusual punishment in the bible - being flooded, turned into salt, plagues, sacrificing, etc, but the founders thought that this was a bad idea.

We
> are supposedly a Christain country. Perhaps if we
> went back to the core beliefs and values that our
> nations founders had we wouldn't have so many
> problems in this world.

Our nations founders were slave owners who drank excessively compared to today's standards. They were also radical liberals who wanted to completely change the system. How many of the world's problems are because of foreign nations looking upon us as christian fundamentalists who wish to force our religion upon them? Maybe we should just go back to the old methods of blankets laced with smallpox to give to the heathens who won't embrace christianity. It worked for the previous indigenous owners of the tract of land you're probably writing from.



The Bible teaches us that
> Homosexuality is wrong. They do not bash Gays,
> they teach what God has told us in the Bible. You
> cannot take parts of the scripture and only
> believe those that fit your lifestyle.

Yes you can! It's called Free Will. It's the greatest gift that God gave us. It's what makes us different from being subservient slaves.


Many
> pastors just want to preach "feel good" sermons.
> You have to believe in the whole truth and the
> entire Bible as being true or you might as well
> not believe in it at all. The Bible tells us that
> if you are not saved and have not accepted Jesus
> Christ as your personal Savior that you do not
> have eternal life. McLean Bible does not preach
> that only "they" are going to Heaven. They preach
> that only the followers of Christ are going to
> Heaven which is 100% Biblical... We all will go to
> either heaven or Hell.. maybe it is time you start
> reading the Bible and listen more carefully before
> carelessly judging a church that actually preaches
> the truth and does so much for its surrounding
> community..

Yet we have that Free Will that god gave us, which allows us to do so. We also have the first amendment, which was created by those good ole christians that according to you was based on the bible.

Their ministries are too vast to even
> put on paper right now..

Actually, they're not. As a tax exempt religion they are required by law to document all of their activities. So what you're saying is that McLean Bible Church is breakign the law? The laws that according to you were established based on the bible?

My favorite quote on religion was made by sir Ron Bennington he said, "Im with the john lennon school of thought 'whatever gets you through the night'. Its ok if you want to warship a golden duck, but dont tell me we need a golden duck in every fucking building".

I often marvel at folks who condemn or deny GOD (who is perfect) by citng the acts of mortal humans (who are far from perfect). As a Christian I do believe that believing on Jesus is the ONLY way to Heaven, and that the alternative is everlasting torment in Hell. What people do not understand is that GOD does not send anybody to Hell. People go to Hell under their own power and of their own free will. And the tradgedy is, that when they get there; they will realize that they had to fight GOD every step of the way. The LORD GOD is in no way willing that ANYONE shall perish, but that ALL be saved and have ETERNAL LIFE. Which way you go is entireky up to you. The Lord is not about forcing you. Make your choice and live with it. For ever and ever.

Allen Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I often marvel at folks who condemn or deny GOD
> (who is perfect) by citng the acts of mortal
> humans (who are far from perfect).

"Perfect" is not an objective term.

> As a Christian
> I do believe that believing on Jesus is the ONLY
> way to Heaven, and that the alternative is
> everlasting torment in Hell.

What a horribly immoral thing to believe. So God/Jesus are like the mob in that they extort belief through fear of punishment?

> What people do not
> understand is that GOD does not send anybody to
> Hell. People go to Hell under their own power and
> of their own free will.

Nonsense. There is no hell and if there *was* one, no one would go there out of their own choice. You are simply attempting to water down your dogma so that the pablum is easier to swallow.

> And the tradgedy is, that
> when they get there; they will realize that they
> had to fight GOD every step of the way. The LORD
> GOD is in no way willing that ANYONE shall perish,
> but that ALL be saved and have ETERNAL LIFE.

Yeah, your vision of God is an immoral monster. I'm sorry, but I would never create or allow to be created a place of eternal torment - if I had the power to stop it.

> Which way you go is entireky up to you. The Lord
> is not about forcing you. Make your choice and
> live with it. For ever and ever.

You can either pay "Uncle" Tony or you can have your knee caps broken. The choice is up to you. Make your choice and live with it.

and none of you know what your talking about... its funny the people who leave comments on this website YALL always have something negative to say. Y DNT YALL GET A LIFE LIKE REALLY..... u dnt like the church??? ok well keep it movin!! ooo n for everyone to kno LON always says where the money goes to BUT NONE OF YOU WOULD KNOW BECAUSE YOU DNT GO THR!!!! OH N THE 2 VACATIONS A YEAR IS TO ISREAL ON A MISSIONS TRIP!!!! STOP TALKING ABOUT WHAT YOU DONT KNOW!!!

oh n to the ppl who say they dnt teach from the bible!!! well maybe yall r slow or somthin cuz wen lon preaches he reads verses out OF THE BIBLE n the half way thro he applys them to our world today. so um yea how doesnt he preach the word

I attended MBC for about six months. The positives are that it is a church that does a lot of good work within the community. Also, Lon Solomon is a powerful preacher and very effective communicator.

The biggest negative for me is that despite protestations to the contrary by Lon Solomon, they cater to a basically right-wing congregation and Lon's message is geared to that point of view. I am an independent - have voted for both Democratic and Republican candidates but a church that espouses - however covertly - the viewpoint of either party will not be one I can continue to maintain membership - and so I moved on.

I also found it troubling when he would cite his parents - and especially his mother - in a negative way in his sermons in terms of his life experiences. To do so to people who are not there to defend themselves is fundamentally unfair. Not sure how public criticism of his parents fits in with the commandment to "honor thy father and thy mother".

As far as his compensation is concerned, I did not realize that he made the kind of outrageous amounts that have been cited here - to me, if true, that is obscene. No matter how successful he is as a preacher or as a fund raiser, I cannot see the justification for a preacher - any preacher - to make that sort of money. The one reason that I suspect he makes a lot of money is that it is kept so confidential. If he felt what he was making was appropriate and reasonable, he would not have any problem with it being information that is part of the public domain. MBC is, after all, a tax-exempt organization, so why not be upfront with the compensation Lon earns?

how is that wrong??? Being rich isn't the issue... it is the LOVE for the money that keeps a rich man from heaven...King Soloman was rich, Kind David was rich. Jesus never said u had to be middle class to be a follower. He preached to everyone and even saved plenty of "rich" people.

Reading through this thread is like watching retards scuffle.

Allen Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I often marvel at folks who condemn or deny GOD
> (who is perfect)

Im not denying or accepting god, I am denying the beliefs of your religion and many of the others around the world. I am open to the idea of pretty much anything, there is just no proof either way.

by citng the acts of mortal
> humans (who are far from perfect).

i forget, who wrote the bible? humans? by your logic your own faith is based on imperfection.

As a Christian
> I do believe that believing on Jesus is the ONLY
> way to Heaven, and that the alternative is
> everlasting torment in Hell.

well according to the bible which you probably pick and choose from, believing in jesus christ is not good enough to get you into heaven, you must follow the words of god to the T. And if we go by that, than i would say 1% of 1% of the world will be getting into heaven, and the rest (most likely including you) will burn in hell. Narrow is the path to heaven, wide are the gates of hell.

What people do not
> understand is that GOD does not send anybody to
> Hell.

If he is all knowing and all powerful than he has the power to either send or keep people out of hell. Thus i think he is responsible.

People go to Hell under their own power and
> of their own free will.

God created hell, or atleast allows it to exist, which to me signifies his imperfection.

And the tradgedy is, that
> when they get there; they will realize that they
> had to fight GOD every step of the way. The LORD
> GOD is in no way willing that ANYONE shall perish,
> but that ALL be saved and have ETERNAL LIFE.


then why send people to hell.

> Which way you go is entireky up to you. The Lord
> is not about forcing you.

really? "believe in me and worship me or burn forever." is that choice, is that free will? is that love?

Make your choice and
> live with it. For ever and ever.

done and done.

krys Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> oh n to the ppl who say they dnt teach from the
> bible!!! well maybe yall r slow or somthin cuz wen
> lon preaches he reads verses out OF THE BIBLE n
> the half way thro he applys them to our world
> today. so um yea how doesnt he preach the word


holy shit i hope this was a joke, you do your church, and humanity a disservice. The reason people get so up in arms about religion is that it has been jammed down their throats consistently. It is part of the media, part of politics, and part of our social habbits. If atheism or god forbid (pun intended) islam was jammed into your face on a consistant basis, i cant even imagine the shit you would be saying.

how is that wrong??? Being rich isn't the issue..

If there is no problem with the type of money that Lon Solomon makes, then why the secrecy regarding his compensation. Just make it public knowledge and let him then justify it to his congregation, if necessary, by citing any biblical support for it.

Lon, like other highly paid evangelists will not do that because they know full well that, at least, some of their congregation would be repelled by compensation levels that most people would deem excessive.

The reality is that Lon is a charismatic and very effective preacher who is able to motivate his congregation to contribute large sums of money - but that gravy train could come to an end very quickly if some in his congregation felt that he was over-paid.

They have a food court and you can have smoothie while worshipping.

mmm sacralicious.

This is what happens when someone stands up for the truth, BIBLICAL truth! Absolutely not true and i will pray that you find salvation because IT IS THE ONLY WAY INTO HEAVEN, like it or NOT!!

we've already WON CHRIST is the prize and you also can find salvation and find some peace, i wish you luck!

THEY HAVE A SMOOTHIE BAR WHAT ELSE SO YOU WANT

Sandra Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This is what happens when someone stands up for
> the truth, BIBLICAL truth! Absolutely not true and
> i will pray that you find salvation because IT IS
> THE ONLY WAY INTO HEAVEN, like it or NOT!!

where do they find these impressionable knuckleheads

no invisible man in the sky,
no soul,
no heaven,
no salvation,
you live, you die - finito benito
only the math remains

come up with a shred of evidence, or even a rational argument, for anything else - then we can have a reasonable conversation

By accepting Jesus Christ as your personal savior you enter into a relationship that allows you to be connected with the living GOD of the universe. You can have eternal life you just have to accept Christ as Lord of your life. He loves you and wants you to accept Him, but it is your free will to accept Him. Just as you as a parent do not force your child to love you, He does not force you. We all want our children to come love us willingly this is the same way He wants you to love Him.

MrMephisto Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> kl Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > just something to think about:
> > what is your salary?
>
> I make around 70k/yr (before taxes) for working,
> not by telling people my interpretation of a book
> written about a bunch of desert nomads and a
> jewish zombie.
>
> I also do not receive any tax breaks, government
> benefits, or any of the other perks that a church
> enjoys, which is probably why...
>
> > How much is your house worth?
>
> ... I rent a one-bedroom apartment for about
> $1,300 a month, instead of owning a mansion.
>
> Fuck you.


that is one well paid janitor.

Christ LOVES!!! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> By accepting Jesus Christ as your personal savior
> you enter into a relationship that allows you to
> be connected with the living GOD of the universe.

do i need internet access for that, or is it wireless?

> You can have eternal life you just have to accept
> Christ as Lord of your life.

not really what the bible says, but ill let you keep thinking it.

He loves you and
> wants you to accept Him, but it is your free will
> to accept Him. Just as you as a parent do not
> force your child to love you, He does not force
> you. We all want our children to come love us
> willingly this is the same way He wants you to
> love Him.


yes and we come to love our parents by them threatening us with hellfire, and eternal suffering

ok, pretty interesting how people that don't know each other can start arguments online, trying to prove each other wrong...also, interesting how eager we are to look into the neighbor's yard instead of taking care of our own household...I realize it has been a couple of years since the discussion started, I still need to make a point or two:

1. to err is human: nobody is perfect, except God, so people are pretty much prone to error, no matter if pastor, president, home-stay mom, student, etc. So, I think that everyone should mind its own life and be preoccupied with his/her own sins and mistakes, because those are the ones everyone is responsible for...

2. if God decides to reward his disciple- in this case Lon Solomon down here on Earth, so be it. God is just, so I'm taking LS must have done something right ...Being jealous of his house doesn't really lead anywhere, except maybe to some inner bitterness...

3. MBC is huge indeed (not sure why they made it so big) and it's easy to feel lost and alone in the beginning, but I believe attending regularly and joining a small group, or community group can help building relationships among people...

4. the post about absolution vouchers is just RIDICULOUS...too many movies seen, I think...

Anyway, hope we all find inner peace and the right church to belong to....

abc123 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ok, pretty interesting how people that don't know
> each other can start arguments online, trying to
> prove each other wrong...also, interesting how
> eager we are to look into the neighbor's yard
> instead of taking care of our own household...I
> realize it has been a couple of years since the
> discussion started, I still need to make a point
> or two:
>
> 1. to err is human: nobody is perfect, except God,
> so people are pretty much prone to error, no
> matter if pastor, president, home-stay mom,
> student, etc. So, I think that everyone should
> mind its own life and be preoccupied with his/her
> own sins and mistakes, because those are the ones
> everyone is responsible for...
>
> 2. if God decides to reward his disciple- in this
> case Lon Solomon down here on Earth, so be it. God
> is just, so I'm taking LS must have done something
> right ...Being jealous of his house doesn't really
> lead anywhere, except maybe to some inner
> bitterness...
>
> 3. MBC is huge indeed (not sure why they made it
> so big) and it's easy to feel lost and alone in
> the beginning, but I believe attending regularly
> and joining a small group, or community group can
> help building relationships among people...
>
> 4. the post about absolution vouchers is just
> RIDICULOUS...too many movies seen, I think...
>
> Anyway, hope we all find inner peace and the right
> church to belong to....


at the risk of repeating myself to people who don't have the sense to realize that there is no god and that all churches/religions are scams to fleece the unthinking and scared

every few Sundays one of the religious nutters turns up with their inane attempts to get in a mid ranking god-bother's good books

where do they find these impressionable knuckleheads

no invisible man in the sky,
no soul,
no heaven,
no salvation,
you live, you die - finito benito
only the math remains

come up with a shred of evidence, or even a rational argument, for anything else - then we can have a reasonable conversation

finito benito Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> abc123 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > ok, pretty interesting how people that don't
> know
> > each other can start arguments online, trying
> to
> > prove each other wrong...also, interesting how
> > eager we are to look into the neighbor's yard
> > instead of taking care of our own household...I
> > realize it has been a couple of years since the
> > discussion started, I still need to make a
> point
> > or two:
> >
> > 1. to err is human: nobody is perfect, except
> God,
> > so people are pretty much prone to error, no
> > matter if pastor, president, home-stay mom,
> > student, etc. So, I think that everyone should
> > mind its own life and be preoccupied with
> his/her
> > own sins and mistakes, because those are the
> ones
> > everyone is responsible for...
> >
> > 2. if God decides to reward his disciple- in
> this
> > case Lon Solomon down here on Earth, so be it.
> God
> > is just, so I'm taking LS must have done
> something
> > right ...Being jealous of his house doesn't
> really
> > lead anywhere, except maybe to some inner
> > bitterness...
> >
> > 3. MBC is huge indeed (not sure why they made
> it
> > so big) and it's easy to feel lost and alone in
> > the beginning, but I believe attending
> regularly
> > and joining a small group, or community group
> can
> > help building relationships among people...
> >
> > 4. the post about absolution vouchers is just
> > RIDICULOUS...too many movies seen, I think...
> >
> > Anyway, hope we all find inner peace and the
> right
> > church to belong to....
>
>
> at the risk of repeating myself to people who
> don't have the sense to realize that there is no
> god and that all churches/religions are scams to
> fleece the unthinking and scared
>
> every few Sundays one of the religious nutters
> turns up with their inane attempts to get in a mid
> ranking god-bother's good books
>
> where do they find these impressionable
> knuckleheads
>
> no invisible man in the sky,
> no soul,
> no heaven,
> no salvation,
> you live, you die - finito benito
> only the math remains
>
> come up with a shred of evidence, or even a
> rational argument, for anything else - then we can
> have a reasonable conversation

That is why it is called FAITH. However, it remains truth that the more that is dug out of the ground, the more the Bible is proved to be true. Is it what it is because Jesus said it is. Period. End of story. No further discussion required.

Matt0681 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That is why it is called FAITH.

Faith is believing in something while admitting there is no evidence for it. Why believe in that something instead of some other thing? In other words, since both Zoroastrianism and Christianity are equal in terms of lack of evidence, why be a Christian?

> However, it
> remains truth that the more that is dug out of the
> ground, the more the Bible is proved to be true.

No it doesn't. In fact, the more that is uncovered the more unreliable the bible is shown to be. The earth is not the center of the universe. There was not a world wide flood. There most likely was no exodus. I could go on and on.

> Is it what it is because Jesus said it is.
> Period. End of story. No further discussion
> required.

Nonsense - we should question authorities. Remember, people held the same position about Stalin. Using your reasoning, that was the exact right thing to do.

> > come up with a shred of evidence, or even a
> > rational argument, for anything else - then we
> can
> > have a reasonable conversation
>
> That is why it is called FAITH. However, it
> remains truth that the more that is dug out of the
> ground, the more the Bible is proved to be true.
> Is it what it is because Jesus said it is.
> Period. End of story. No further discussion
> required.


'fraid I have to call BS on that


Just because you find some walls in cities mentioned in the Jewish mythologies does not vindicate any of the supernatural claims of the bible or any other religion.

Just because we have the acropolis doesn't mean that we should go around believing in cyclops and just because we have viking ship burials doesn't mean we should start bowing down to the Valkyrie

Ancient societies had to explain the world with the intellectual tools that they had at the time - which is why you have N+1 faiths which all hold mutually incompatible and outdated beliefs. We now have better tools and aren't stuck with being scared of Zeus' bolt or Odin's hammer

The more we dig out of the ground, cosmology, our DNA and the way our minds work the more it destroys the fundamental basis of Christianity and all religions

Faith is for the lazy - when the facts don't line up with your faith, you have to stop ramming it down society's throat.

Wake up and smell the roses

OK... If I'm wrong about my faith, (I'm not) I've lost nothing in this life by following the Word of God. If you guys are right, and we do in fact fade to black upon death, what did you gain by consistently denying the living Christ?

I'd rather err on the side of caution so I know I won't spend an eternity in hell.

I've found a home at McLean Bible Church and am proud to say that I am Christian. It's not a religion, it's a relationship.

Matt0681 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> OK... If I'm wrong about my faith, (I'm not) I've
> lost nothing in this life by following the Word of
> God. If you guys are right, and we do in fact
> fade to black upon death, what did you gain by
> consistently denying the living Christ?

well if you are wrong, you have waisted this life in preperation for the next. The human experience is not simply limited to obeying laws from on high. what we gain is freedom. freedom to think for ourselves, freedom to make moral decisions on our own with out being told how to.
>
> I'd rather err on the side of caution so I know I
> won't spend an eternity in hell.

again, one of my biggest problems with religion. Fear of punishment should not be a factor in making moral decisions. Ive seen people who have no faith in god, or any religion, make much more ethical decisions than the most devout christian.
>
> I've found a home at McLean Bible Church and am
> proud to say that I am Christian. It's not a
> religion, it's a relationship.
thats too big for a bumper sticker i think.

I dont understand this new form of christianity, where you simply need to "believe jesus is your savior". In order to be considered a true christian, shouldnt you follow the bible to the T? which clearly shows that the path to heaven is narrow, and the gates of hell are wide. Thus meaning , if you miss a sunday of church, straight to hell, you lie to your parents about staying up late, straight to hell, etc. This selectively picking and choosing which rules or beliefs we follow is bullshit. "god is loving" , bullshit the bible is full of his wrath and his unsimpathetic anger. Why do you need to follow a book, or another person to have a relationship with "god", or a creator, or existance, whatever the fuck you want to call it?

Matt0681 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> OK... If I'm wrong about my faith, (I'm not) I've
> lost nothing in this life by following the Word of
> God. If you guys are right, and we do in fact
> fade to black upon death, what did you gain by
> consistently denying the living Christ?
>
> I'd rather err on the side of caution so I know I
> won't spend an eternity in hell.
>
> I've found a home at McLean Bible Church and am
> proud to say that I am Christian. It's not a
> religion, it's a relationship.


religion is not a neutral act - especially in the US - it has consequences

Christians :

expect to be able to distort the minds of young children even in our schools

expect to have 'under god' in the pledge (unconstitutionally) - parotted by kids everyday

whine that 'faith' groups should have more influence in government

demand tax breaks

clog up the roads on sundays

demand laws based on religious mumbo jumbo rather than reason

enable the justification of unnecessary wars through religious bigotry

demand that US supports continued wars of aggression which threaten to drag us all into chaos - just because you think that Armageddon is coming

deny birth-control in poor developing nations dooming them to cyclical poverty

justify discrimination against women, homosexuals etc


religion is not a relationship - its a poison which should be stripped out of society

apart from that, I don't have many problems with religion (well that, and its provably wrong - see exhaustive explanations in the threads above)

[if you belong to a sub-cult that doesn't agree with 1 or more of these - please explain in exhaustive detail why you shouldn't be bundled in with the other sub-cults that do]

finito benito Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > > come up with a shred of evidence, or even a
> > > rational argument, for anything else - then
> we
> > can
> > > have a reasonable conversation
> >
> > That is why it is called FAITH. However, it
> > remains truth that the more that is dug out of
> the
> > ground, the more the Bible is proved to be true.
>
> > Is it what it is because Jesus said it is.
> > Period. End of story. No further discussion
> > required.
>
>
> 'fraid I have to call BS on that
>
>
> Just because you find some walls in cities
> mentioned in the Jewish mythologies does not
> vindicate any of the supernatural claims of the
> bible or any other religion.
>
> Just because we have the acropolis doesn't mean
> that we should go around believing in cyclops and
> just because we have viking ship burials doesn't
> mean we should start bowing down to the Valkyrie
>
> Ancient societies had to explain the world with
> the intellectual tools that they had at the time -
> which is why you have N+1 faiths which all hold
> mutually incompatible and outdated beliefs. We now
> have better tools and aren't stuck with being
> scared of Zeus' bolt or Odin's hammer
>
> The more we dig out of the ground, cosmology, our
> DNA and the way our minds work the more it
> destroys the fundamental basis of Christianity and
> all religions
>
> Faith is for the lazy - when the facts don't line
> up with your faith, you have to stop ramming it
> down society's throat.
>
> Wake up and smell the roses

Amazing isn't it - how science has yet to explain why some of the ancient civilizations had technology that no can explain how they could have had much of it back then.

I have to laugh at your last post - denying birth control? Sure, the religious groups don't give out condoms to everyone - but oh yeah, they are the only ones there really giving a shit about the third world countries. When the large atheist group gets together to send folks down to Africa and the poorest third world countries to help them out, then please, get up on your high horse. Maybe the French should spend a little less time down there destabilizing those countries so they can continue to take all their mineral wealth - or are you too shallow to understand WHY those countries over there are so poor and destitute?

Yeah, those secular French folks - they are the saviors huh? Motivated by nothing other then their care for the poor and downtrodden... lol

I know it is inconvenient history for you, but the Constitution does not mandate a separation of Church and State. It merely says that Congress can pass no law establishing religion, or the free exercise of religion. That people have twisted this somehow to mean that funding an institution that teaches on religious principles is mandating a state religion, or inhibiting the free exercise of religion is an amazing twisting of logic and facts in evidence.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

Bible thumpers, the god squad, religious freaks...it really doesn't matter what you call them, because they are all mindless idiots giving up their hard earned money...the poor saps.

>The more we dig out of the ground, cosmology, our DNA and the way our minds work the more it destroys the fundamental basis of Christianity and all religions


Funny how you have all the facts and you end up drawing a wrong conclusion...
In our quest to unfold the mysteries of the universe we try to dig everything out, try to find a scientific explanation for everything, and in many instances we do manage to understand the world around us...But after a while we get to a dead end, because there is a limit to what our brain can process...In fact, the more you look into things, the more you realize how little you know and how little you are...What is sillier: to have all the facts and to believe that we owe everything to chance? or to have all the facts and believe that there is a mastermind behind creation of the world?

>Fear of punishment should not be a factor in making moral decisions.

True. We should give our lives to God because He gave everything for us. It should be an act of gratitude, but one cannot take this step unless he truly understand the mercy of God.

>apart from that, I don't have many problems with religion (well that, and its provably wrong - see exhaustive explanations in the threads above)

Well, this is a fine example of stereotyping people or groups...Only because you have had some negative experiences with people who claim to be christians, it doesn't mean that all christians are the same, believe the same, or act the same...Christianity is a way too broad concept, it is inaccurate to put everyone under the same umbrella. The benchmark for christianity is the Bible. If someone claims to be Christian, but it does not follow the Bible, than something is wrong.


>I dont understand this new form of christianity, where you simply need to "believe jesus is your savior".

James 2:14-17 (NIV)

What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, “Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it not accompanied by action, is dead.

Just stating that I'm Christian is not enough...Ones life has to be a living proof of ones faith...And yes, we are not perfect, even though we commit to living by the word, we still fail to do the right thing every time...This is where mercy comes into the picture...

> I'd rather err on the side of caution so I know I
> won't spend an eternity in hell.

In that case, why not thoroughly hedge your bets and subscribe to all religions? And I do mean "all," not just the Middle Eastern ones like Christianity and Islam.

This is what many folks in Hong Kong do. Pragmatic.

> I have to laugh at your last post - denying birth control?
> Sure, the religious groups don't give out condoms to everyone -
> but oh yeah, they are the only ones there really giving a shit
> about the third world countries

Like the Baptists who were caught scavenging Haitian non-orphans to sell to Protestant Christian foreigners?

A few weeks ago I was driving by that church and there were ex-members or current members out with signs protesting Lon Solomans's secret salary & benefit package. I stopped on the service road and spoke to one of them but couldn't talk much because some media lady was there interviewing one of the protesters for an article in the Washington post (so she claims). We may be reading all about the guys huge salary soon, LOL. Apparently he has a compensation package of around $800,000 and gets three months off every year. Pretty funny that a bunch of suckers are giving to such a massive scam, but picketing a church is bizarre.

Matt0681 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> OK... If I'm wrong about my faith, (I'm not)

How do you know you aren't wrong about your *FAITH*?

> I've
> lost nothing in this life by following the Word of
> God.

Pascal's wager is singularly unimpressive. What if the Egyptian worldview is right? Then you are screwed since you didn't bother to memorize the book of the dead!

> If you guys are right, and we do in fact
> fade to black upon death, what did you gain by
> consistently denying the living Christ?

For one thing, I get to think for myself and I don't burden myself with a slave relationship based on extortion as the Christians do.

> I'd rather err on the side of caution so I know I
> won't spend an eternity in hell.

But you *aren't* actually erring on the side of caution, you are taking the lazy way out and accepting the beliefs of your parents/society. What if Zoroastrianism is true? Then you are working for Ahiriman and will be destroyed at the judgment.

> I've found a home at McLean Bible Church and am
> proud to say that I am Christian. It's not a
> religion, it's a relationship.

All religions are 'relationships', yours is nothing special.

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Amazing isn't it - how science has yet to explain
> why some of the ancient civilizations had
> technology that no can explain how they could have
> had much of it back then.

?

I'm not sure why you find it amazing that there are things about the past that haven't been uncovered.

> I have to laugh at your last post - denying birth
> control? Sure, the religious groups don't give out
> condoms to everyone - but oh yeah, they are the
> only ones there really giving a shit about the
> third world countries. When the large atheist
> group gets together to send folks down to Africa
> and the poorest third world countries to help them
> out, then please, get up on your high horse.

What *large* group of atheists? This is a strawman.

> Maybe
> the French should spend a little less time down
> there destabilizing those countries so they can
> continue to take all their mineral wealth - or are
> you too shallow to understand WHY those countries
> over there are so poor and destitute?
>
> Yeah, those secular French folks - they are the
> saviors huh? Motivated by nothing other then their
> care for the poor and downtrodden... lol

Strawman.

abc123 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >The more we dig out of the ground, cosmology, our
> DNA and the way our minds work the more it
> destroys the fundamental basis of Christianity and
> all religions
>
>
> Funny how you have all the facts and you end up
> drawing a wrong conclusion...
> In our quest to unfold the mysteries of the
> universe we try to dig everything out, try to find
> a scientific explanation for everything, and in
> many instances we do manage to understand the
> world around us...But after a while we get to a
> dead end, because there is a limit to what our
> brain can process...In fact, the more you look
> into things, the more you realize how little you
> know and how little you are...

This is a logical fallacy known as an appeal to ignorance. We don't know the cause of X, therefore it's magic/god/etc.

> What is sillier: to
> have all the facts and to believe that we owe
> everything to chance? or to have all the facts and
> believe that there is a mastermind behind creation
> of the world?

Atheistic worldviews do not require things to be because of 'chance'. The 'sillier' option is the one that requires magic, which is the one you hold to.

> >Fear of punishment should not be a factor in
> making moral decisions.
>
> True. We should give our lives to God because He
> gave everything for us. It should be an act of
> gratitude, but one cannot take this step unless he
> truly understand the mercy of God.

And if one doesn't understand it, they are cast into the pit of hell. This is called extortion.

> >apart from that, I don't have many problems with
> religion (well that, and its provably wrong - see
> exhaustive explanations in the threads above)
>
> Well, this is a fine example of stereotyping
> people or groups...Only because you have had some
> negative experiences with people who claim to be
> christians, it doesn't mean that all christians
> are the same, believe the same, or act the
> same...Christianity is a way too broad concept, it
> is inaccurate to put everyone under the same
> umbrella. The benchmark for christianity is the
> Bible. If someone claims to be Christian, but it
> does not follow the Bible, than something is
> wrong.

I broadly agree with this although you are setting yourself up for a no true scotsman fallacy.

Hey PP - bite me.

My point was that even with all the folks looking into issues from the past they still don't know everything, nor have scientists unlocked all the secrets of the universe. While I don't subscribe to formal religion myself, I don't spend my time trying to tear it down - no one here has proven there isn't A GOD - of whatever religion it might be. Folks want to believe in deities or not, that is their choice. And for some people it is probably good for them. Just because you are a smarmy prick, doesn't mean everyone else is.

The person that put forth that folks were not given birth control in third world countries was pushing a stupid, and "strawman" argument. Perhaps you can prove that person wrong in your own way. Their point was that religious groups were behind why these countries couldn't get birth control, and that somehow that was the key to keeping them in perpetual poverty. Feel free to argue against their point.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hey PP - bite me.
>
>
> The person that put forth that folks were not
> given birth control in third world countries was
> pushing a stupid, and "strawman" argument.


well - that would have been me

The catholic church - the one with the best established record of being christian and probably the worst record of wiping out dissent and native societies of anyone since the Romans, has been a rabid opponent to birth control in developing nations.

But for an organization that has systemically condoned the physical and sexual abuse of children in many countries, this shouldn't be surprising

They are against birth control EVERYWHERE.

What a stupid argument you made.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Amazing isn't it - how science has yet to explain
> why some of the ancient civilizations had
> technology that no can explain how they could have
> had much of it back then.

What?

A Von Danikan moment - I haven't seen one of those of years :)

Give an example?

Are you suggesting that the technologies used by ancient civilizations must have been given to them by aliens/angels/demons/leprachauns/step-by-step instructions on tablets of gold?

The fact that we have not been a stone based society for thousands of years would suggest that we don't train for the extremes of stone engineering - or the scales of labor and time available to some of the most impressive feats

I've yet to see anything that indicates any supernatural or extraterrestrial involvement in terrestrial engineering






>
> I know it is inconvenient history for you, but the
> Constitution does not mandate a separation of
> Church and State. It merely says that Congress can
> pass no law establishing religion, or the free
> exercise of religion. That people have twisted
> this somehow to mean that funding an institution
> that teaches on religious principles is mandating
> a state religion, or inhibiting the free exercise
> of religion is an amazing twisting of logic and
> facts in evidence.


We have to disagree - I read the constitution to include using my tax dollars (under law) to fund a religious institution for any purpose as an 'institution'.

Given that the constitution was written as the pillars of religion were only just beginning to crumble, this was quite insightful of the framers.

The final intellectual foundations of religion were destroyed in the late 19th century (as we began to understand the evolutionary process), the early 20th century (as we began to understand physics) and the late 20th century as we began to really understand cosmology, biochemistry and neuroscience.

The framers didn't kill the intellectual underpinings of god, but copernicus, newton, darwin, mendel, crick, watson, einstein and NASA did.

As dawkins point out, until we understood many of these things, there was no supportable alternative to an appeal to faith and superstition. But now we do, faith has been shown to be a dead-end, and the world as we see it is best explained by science. In fact, faith does not even offer any explanations for the remaining gaps that scientific observation and experimentation are currently filling in.

Q. How does gravity work?
A. God's got strings attached to all the bits and tugs continually

Q. how does the mind work?
A. God snuck this invisible bit in there because he loves you

Q. why are the stars moving apart?
A. God dropped some of the strings

Time to put aside childish things

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> They are against birth control EVERYWHERE.
>
> What a stupid argument you made.

Exactly - and by attempting to force this on developing nations they condemn millions to poverty and early death

They should feel free to not use birth control in their own homes but keep their views out of other people's lives

The strangle hold that the Catholic church has built up over poor nations over centuries continues to have terrible consequences.

This is an example of why you cannot be neutral on religion

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hey PP - bite me.

No.

> My point was that even with all the folks looking
> into issues from the past they still don't know
> everything, nor have scientists unlocked all the
> secrets of the universe.

Yes, and this is relevant how?

> While I don't subscribe
> to formal religion myself, I don't spend my time
> trying to tear it down - no one here has proven
> there isn't A GOD - of whatever religion it might
> be.

No one has to prove there isn't a God - to demand that would be to demand that an appeal to ignorance is rational. However people do demand that others follow their belief in God, that their God's morality be included into law, that their book be taught as a literal truth - all of this without evidence and in some case without reason.

So those religions *SHOULD* have evidence, if they want a place at the table.

> Folks want to believe in deities or not, that
> is their choice. And for some people it is
> probably good for them. Just because you are a
> smarmy prick, doesn't mean everyone else is.

I have no problem with people believing whatever they want - it's when they step on my toes or my children's toes that it gets annoying. Yes, you can believe in a God who extorts belief through threats. I don't care.

When you want to introduce a silly creation story into a science classroom I *do* care. When you want to introduce bigoted laws because your god doesn't approve of X or Y, I *do* care and furthermore, so should you.

> The person that put forth that folks were not
> given birth control in third world countries was
> pushing a stupid, and "strawman" argument. Perhaps
> you can prove that person wrong in your own way.

The catholic church doesn't support birth control. How is this a strawman?

> Their point was that religious groups were behind
> why these countries couldn't get birth control,
> and that somehow that was the key to keeping them
> in perpetual poverty. Feel free to argue against
> their point.

I'm not arguing that. I would argue that the catholic church impinges on the believers safety by including ridiculous proclamations against birth control.

Professor Pangloss Wrote:
I would argue that the
> catholic church impinges on the believers safety
> by including ridiculous proclamations against
> birth control.


I'd go further - I'd suggest that such proclamations impinge on the safety of non-believers - particularly in the issue of over population -and even worse with the peculiarly American, Palinist concept of man's 'dominion' over nature in the run-up to the end-times aka "use and destroy at will because it just doesn't matter as the millennium's nearly here"

If religious groups just stayed inside their compounds, then we'd all be much safer

Ok, so it seems to me that the discussion has narrowed down to Christianity=Catholic church...In my head these two concepts can barely relate to each other...Although the Catholic church claims to be the founder and corner stone of Christianity, boy, they got it down wrong; they are very far from what the Bible teaches...When I stand up for Christianity, I do not use the term as equivalent to Catholicism...just wanted to make this clear...

>When you want to introduce a silly creation story into a science classroom I *do* care.

Well, I don't want my kid brain washed with silly evolution stories that do not stand.
Probably it would be best to have all theories presented in the classroom in an unbiased way, so that everyone can practice its own free will in deciding what to accept as the ultimate truth.

abc123 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ok, so it seems to me that the discussion has
> narrowed down to Christianity=Catholic church...In
> my head these two concepts can barely relate to
> each other...

Your head sounds like a strange place then... ;-)

> Although the Catholic church claims
> to be the founder and corner stone of
> Christianity, boy, they got it down wrong; they
> are very far from what the Bible teaches...When I
> stand up for Christianity, I do not use the term
> as equivalent to Catholicism...just wanted to make
> this clear...

I'm sure they, and 40,000 other sects would claim the same of whatever version of Christianity you accept.

> >When you want to introduce a silly creation story
> into a science classroom I *do* care.
>
> Well, I don't want my kid brain washed with silly
> evolution stories that do not stand.

I see, so you don't understand biology. I'm betting this coincides with your religious training. You shouldn't punish your children by denying them a quality scientific education based on your ignorance.

> Probably it would be best to have all theories
> presented in the classroom in an unbiased way, so
> that everyone can practice its own free will in
> deciding what to accept as the ultimate truth.

All theories? Including lamarkianism and lysenkoism? Guess what, let's say that science should teach all theories, including the two that i mentioned, that would still mean that creationism has no business in the science class room, since creationism is *NOT* a scientific theory.

The truth of the matter is that you don't want all theories to be taught. You want *your religious nonsense taught*. You can teach your kids that all you want. You can take them to church and have them learn that crap. Go ahead.

Seriously, I don't see your types trying to get Egyptian creationism taught in the science classroom. Why not, if you want all 'sides' taught (Notice I didn't say 'theories' there?)?

You don't advocate teaching the children every idea out there because you don't actually want every idea taught. Keep your delusions to your own family, but don't force science to teach mythology as though it were validated through the scientific method.

abc123 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ok, so it seems to me that the discussion has
> narrowed down to Christianity=Catholic church...In
> my head these two concepts can barely relate to
> each other...Although the Catholic church claims
> to be the founder and corner stone of
> Christianity, boy, they got it down wrong; they
> are very far from what the Bible teaches...When I
> stand up for Christianity, I do not use the term
> as equivalent to Catholicism...just wanted to make
> this clear...


This is the bit I love - my cult is more christian than your cult

excellent

just in time for some burning of heretics - excuse me while I go and count the the angels on my pinhead



>
> >When you want to introduce a silly creation story
> into a science classroom I *do* care.
>
> Well, I don't want my kid brain washed with silly
> evolution stories that do not stand.
> Probably it would be best to have all theories
> presented in the classroom in an unbiased way, so
> that everyone can practice its own free will in
> deciding what to accept as the ultimate truth.

Actually, there is a fundamental difference.

There is substantial evidence for evolution - see something like Dawkins' Greatest Show as a primer...

...but none for religious 'faiths' and nothing other dogma and myths than to separate them


faith is not a theory

see 9 long pages of fluff above from the pro-religionists

>I see, so you don't understand biology. I'm betting this coincides with your religious training. You shouldn't punish your children by denying them a quality scientific education based on your ignorance.

Funny conclusion you drew here. I'm not punishing my kids, don't worry. Didn't I just say that people need to hear all the aspects of a problem and than decide for themselves?

For those of you outraged by the fact that I said that all theories should be taught, I rephrase and say all "points of view" should be presented. Hope this is less offensive...


>This is the bit I love - my cult is more christian than your cult.

okaaaay, what are we debating here? My point was that Christians are those who believe the word and live by the word. I did not say that belonging to any group out there makes you better or takes you to heaven...only saying that "I am Christian, Catholic, Protestant, Pentecostal, Adventist, Baptist, etc" it does not mean a thing...belonging to a denomination, wearing a name doesn't prove anything...How we act day by day does...once again, the Bible is the etalon to Christianity..

Ever since NWF sold the property to MBC they've become pretty much a non-entity. Are any of the trails or trees left on the MBC from the old NWF days?

Ever since NWF sold the property to MBC they've become pretty much a non-entity. Are any of the trails or trees left on the MBC property from the old NWF days?

abc123 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >I see, so you don't understand biology. I'm
> betting this coincides with your religious
> training. You shouldn't punish your children by
> denying them a quality scientific education based
> on your ignorance.
>
> Funny conclusion you drew here. I'm not punishing
> my kids, don't worry.

My conclusion is based on experience. If you'd like to prove it wrong, then go ahead. Please explain the following in your own words:

What does science mean by:

Theory
Hypothesis
Evolution
Common Descent
Abiogenesis

> Didn't I just say that
> people need to hear all the aspects of a problem
> and than decide for themselves?

Do you believe that holocaust denial should be taught in history? That the earth could be the center of the universe? That the earth is flat?

> For those of you outraged by the fact that I said
> that all theories should be taught, I rephrase and
> say all "points of view" should be presented. Hope
> this is less offensive...

No, this is more nonsense. So you'd have it taught in science that the reason we don't float into the sky is because angels hold us down? That people get sick because one of the four humors is out of balance? That aids was created by the government?

No, of course you wouldn't, you wouldn't be that silly.

> >This is the bit I love - my cult is more
> christian than your cult.
>
> okaaaay, what are we debating here? My point was
> that Christians are those who believe the word and
> live by the word.

So *you* determine what a 'Christian' is? Who gave you this authority?

> I did not say that belonging to
> any group out there makes you better or takes you
> to heaven...only saying that "I am Christian,
> Catholic, Protestant, Pentecostal, Adventist,
> Baptist, etc" it does not mean a thing...belonging
> to a denomination, wearing a name doesn't prove
> anything...How we act day by day does...once
> again, the Bible is the etalon to Christianity..

And who determines whether someone is acting as a Christian or not?

The argument of atheists:

"We are so smart - we know all the facts about everything, therefor your faith is pointless"

The problem is, again, if you want a secular society go to France. That was the result of their revolution. If you want a state religion, go to the UK - that was their result. If you want to live someplace where all beliefs are welcome, come to America - at least that was the original intent. Today it seems folks who choose to NOT believe in religion means that everyone else has to follow their lead. Sorry, it doesn't work that way in America.

You can choose to go the way that science is proving everything, and that is fine. If you want absolutes taught to your values, then enroll your kids in private schools and cry about how you have to pay taxes for everyone else. Of course if everyone approved school vouchers that would solve a good bit of the problem. But just because science has made great discoveries in how things work - it still has not proven - proven - the origins of the universe and many other related topics. Lots of theories, no proof. Folks that choose the faith based approach have every right to do so. Period. As far as public schools go - that is why they have school boards - argue your case there for curriculum.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The argument of atheists:
>
> "We are so smart - we know all the facts about
> everything, therefor your faith is pointless"

Strawman.

Put up or shut up, attempting to denigrate your intellectual opposition does not actually help your case. If you want creationism/theism/etc to be respected in the market place of ideas then you must provide rational arguments in favor of it.

> The problem is, again, if you want a secular
> society go to France. That was the result of their
> revolution. If you want a state religion, go to
> the UK - that was their result. If you want to
> live someplace where all beliefs are welcome, come
> to America - at least that was the original
> intent. Today it seems folks who choose to NOT
> believe in religion means that everyone else has
> to follow their lead. Sorry, it doesn't work that
> way in America.

I don't know what you are babbling about here - it is certainly not a mirror of my position since I am all for freedom of religion. I am just also in favor of freedom *FROM* religion.

> You can choose to go the way that science is
> proving everything, and that is fine. If you want
> absolutes taught to your values, then enroll your
> kids in private schools and cry about how you have
> to pay taxes for everyone else.

Again, you seem to be off on a tangent here. I will leave you to it - what I am arguing for is science to be taught in science class. That history is taught in history class.

Not mythology.

> Of course if
> everyone approved school vouchers that would solve
> a good bit of the problem. But just because
> science has made great discoveries in how things
> work - it still has not proven - proven - the
> origins of the universe and many other related
> topics.

I'm sorry, you are laboring under a misunderstanding. Nothing in science is 'proved'. Proof is for math and alcohol, not science. Science works on induction, abduction, and falsification. What you are demanding is deduction.

You are demanding that since we don't know everything then we should teach mythology - if that's not what you are demanding, then be clear about why you keep bringing this nonsense up about 'proven' and 'not proven'.

> Lots of theories, no proof.

Do you know what a 'theory' means in science? Do you think that well established theories become 'laws'?

> Folks that
> choose the faith based approach have every right
> to do so. Period.

Who is arguing otherwise? You can believe the holocaust never happened as far as I'm concerned - just don't teach it in schools.

> As far as public schools go -
> that is why they have school boards - argue your
> case there for curriculum.

Yes, we see how well that worked in texas. School boards do not have 'experts' in the relevant fields. Ergo, idiots get elected and promote idiocy in the schools.

Again, see texas.

What I am saying PP - but your overbearing mind keeps getting in the way...

To each his own. Toleration, not denigration. Yes, science class is science class - they should also have religion classes (for those who choose to take them) and do comparative teachings on creationism vs evolution. Pretty basic stuff.

Your use of far radical beliefs is indicative you don't want to hear it. You are the only one attempting to use things like the holocaust to justify yourself. I am merely pointing out that until you can DISPROVE religion (and obviously, you can't atm) then arguing for some absolute that says it is BS is just that - BS. Just because you choose to not accept the teachings of religion (your choice) does not mean others should not be able to ask for their inclusion in curriculum choices. I suppose the "adult" in you can't figure out how to be accommodating, or perhaps use your common sense, to be creative in figuring how to let both ideas of thought co-exist in schools.

As I said, if you would like freedom FROM religion - move to France. They have the best setup for that. Trying to change the US to emulate them is a non-starter.

Everything is a strawman to you. Typical PP MO when you don't want to have a conversation on an issue, just overwhelm everyone with your obviously superior intellect. Russians (in technical fields) do that a lot too if you have ever worked with them. Not that they are necessarily right - they just like to show everyone else how superior they are - and I am talking from direct experience, not speculation.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/16/2010 04:36PM by Registered Voter.

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What I am saying PP - but your overbearing mind
> keeps getting in the way...
>
> To each his own. Toleration, not denigration. Yes,
> science class is science class - they should also
> have religion classes (for those who choose to
> take them) and do comparative teachings on
> creationism vs evolution. Pretty basic stuff.

They do have religion classes.

> Your use of far radical beliefs is indicative you
> don't want to hear it.

What are you babbling about - be specific. What are my 'far radical beliefs'?

> You are the only one
> attempting to use things like the holocaust to
> justify yourself.

I am arguing positions into absurdity - hence the holocaust denial stuff. This is a fairly standard rhetorical attack.

> I am merely pointing out that
> until you can DISPROVE religion (and obviously,
> you can't atm)

This is called an argument from ignorance - it does not need to be disproven since it is already a logical fallacy.

> then arguing for some absolute that
> says it is BS is just that - BS.

What are you babbling about here? I am not arguing for 'some absolute'.

> Just because you
> choose to not accept the teachings of religion
> (your choice) does not mean others should not be
> able to ask for their inclusion in curriculum
> choices.

I have not argued that just because I don't accept something therefore it should not be taught. I have consistently argued that you shouldn't teach mythology in science class. You are simply making up positions and then claiming I hold them.

That's dishonest.

> I suppose the "adult" in you can't figure
> out how to be accommodating, or perhaps use your
> common sense, to be creative in figuring how to
> let both ideas of thought co-exist in schools.

This is more nonsense. I have no problem with religion being a course on its own or included in some fashion in a philosophy course. You are, again, dishonestly making up a position and then claiming I hold to it. Then you are attempting to denigrate me by casting aspersions toward my maturity. That says something about how desperate you are.

> As I said, if you would like freedom FROM religion
> - move to France. They have the best setup for
> that. Trying to change the US to emulate them is a
> non-starter.

I accept the US as the constitution intended, not whatever you are making up currently.

> Everything is a strawman to you.

More strawmen. I have no indicated this - this is a desperate attempt to alleviate yourself from having to demonstrate that your strawmen are accurate.

> Typical PP MO
> when you don't want to have a conversation on an
> issue, just overwhelm everyone with your obviously
> superior intellect.

This is an attack on character - notice how you don't actually try to defend any of the arguments you made or attack any of the arguments I made? Instead you attempt to persuade me to forget about the actual conversation and to focus on my character.

Please be rational and stay on topic.

> Russians (in technical fields)
> do that a lot too if you have ever worked with
> them.

Ah, stereotyping... I suppose you find stereotypes easier to attack then arguments?

Otherwise, why bring this nonsense up?

> Not that they are necessarily right - they
> just like to show everyone else how superior they
> are - and I am talking from direct experience, not
> speculation.

This is just your (apparent) inferiority complex showing through. Nothing I've stated warrants this. You are just retreating from the argument and trying to attack my character.

Please get back on topic and address what is being argued. Quit playing armchair psychologist, quit making up easier positions to pick on, and actually address what i wrote.

A quick tip, if you quote the text that you are arguing against, then it's harder to unintentionally strawman a position.

Maybe you should try the "Debaters-R-Us" site PP.

You spend much more time showing everyone why they are wrong, and very little as to why you are correct. Maybe you should actually state what you believe, and how it should be done, versus telling everyone else they are wrong because you obviously have all the answers.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

Damn, I'm digging the Regis vs. Pangloss "dialogue"...

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> To each his own. Toleration, not denigration. Yes,
> science class is science class - they should also
> have religion classes (for those who choose to
> take them) and do comparative teachings on
> creationism vs evolution. Pretty basic stuff.

Okay, I'll bite. How are creationism and evolution comparable?

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Maybe you should try the "Debaters-R-Us" site PP.

Since we are apparently in the 'despencing advice' style of argument, I suggest that you stay out of topics you can't rationally defend.

> You spend much more time showing everyone why they
> are wrong, and very little as to why you are
> correct.

Two things here:

1. I have argued why I believe as I do, in this thread and throughout the intrawebs.
2. You are still attempting to take the focus off the argument by trying (desperately) to switch the topic.

But lets play with this, what exactly should I try to show I am correct on? Why creationism isn't science? Why science should be taught in science classes?

These are the issues that I've specifically targeted. Do you want me to defend either of these, is this what you are now belly aching about?

> Maybe you should actually state what you
> believe, and how it should be done, versus telling
> everyone else they are wrong because you obviously
> have all the answers.

Where have I stated I have all the answers? Where have I stated that what I believe should be taught in school? As to some of my metaphysical beliefs, they are in this very thread.

Face it, this is just your newest attempt to distract from the topic. Your prior ones of linking me to the Russians and attempting to link me to a banning of religion have failed.

I'm guessing this one will fail as well. So do you want to get back on topic? Or are you next going to attack the color of my skin?

Jesus is my friend....America is my home.

NegativeDreamStealer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Registered Voter Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > To each his own. Toleration, not denigration.
> Yes,
> > science class is science class - they should
> also
> > have religion classes (for those who choose to
> > take them) and do comparative teachings on
> > creationism vs evolution. Pretty basic stuff.
>
> Okay, I'll bite. How are creationism and evolution
> comparable?

Creationism speaks to God creating the world, the skies, the animals, the people, etc. Christian religions have adjusted (somewhat) through the years/decade/centuries as science has advanced in trying to fit many points of what science has been able to prove within the bible teachings. Evolution could be said to be a granular breakdown of creationism (could be) - in particular since the bible wasn't written until after man had evolved to a point of looking to better understand the processes/events going on around them.

Although, my point on religion wasn't just the bible and creationism. They should teach other religions/beliefs as well. And as part of that, they should do comparative religion and show the commonalities and differences between them, the common myths of religion, and how religion has either helped or hurt the development of modern civilization.

You do understand - I am not someone who believes the bible is the word of God. There are a lot of different religions in the world. What I don't want to see is this absolute dedication to science that just says because you have religious beliefs you are somehow a lesser person because of it. That seems to be what I am hearing argued here. There are folks that are firm believers in their respective religion, and they attempt to live their lives to a standard they believe is correct. There are others who say they are "of a religion" and act anything but. There are people claim atheism, and then act like that gives them the moral authority to tell everyone else that isn't an atheist what they should/shouldn't believe.

These days, for the most part, religion plays as large a role in keeping the peace as it does in causing strife. Most of the strife is caused by folks who cling to seriously outdated beliefs, and those who indoctrinate their children with the more violent passages of their respective religions (see radical Islam and some minor christian cults - Branch Davidian as an example). Essentially the folks who want to manipulate religion to serve their own ends. Most folks are "religious" in the US because it gives them comfort in their lives - maybe they aren't as well learned as some other folks, maybe they are looking for guidance or a purpose so they are not depressed, etc. The folks you want to look out for are the manipulators of faith that use it to their own ends. But if you want to gain acceptance for the reasons why science is better than religion, you need to setup programs that can teach the reasons why without making it a confrontation on why they are stupid or lazy or just outright loons for believing what they believe. The way most people go about it, they just get people's backs up, or back them into a corner - at which point they will most certainly redouble their efforts to make sure you don't succeed.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/16/2010 05:30PM by Registered Voter.

Tim McGraw Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Jesus is my friend....America is my home.

What a terrible combination - religion and patriotism

just add guns, racism, wife beating and prescription drug abuse and you have the full set