 |
Business Directory |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Coupons |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Classifieds |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
| | Author | Messages | |
Veritas
Posts:315
 | | 10/02/2007 12:46 PM |
 Alert | Posted By Copa Conscious on 10/02/2007 12:44 PM
Since when is the gift of god through salvation in jesus christ free?
The mormons tithe a full 10% of gross pay.
That doesn't sound free to me.
Well, the Mormons also think that Jesus is the half-brother of Lucifer AND therefore NOT the Son of God. I don't think that they'll be giving out any of the free tickets to heaven.
In Christianity, there is nothing financial about salvation in God. | | | |
|
| | Veritas
Posts:315
| | 10/02/2007 12:49 PM |
Alert | Posted By Copa Conscious on 10/02/2007 11:38 AM
So, the entire bible is parable and not to be taken literally?
Let me guess ... you really have no interest in "the truth" about anything, do you? | | | |
|
| | Veritas
Posts:315
| | 10/02/2007 12:54 PM |
Alert | Posted By Copa Conscious on 10/02/2007 12:46 PM Posted By Veritas on 10/02/2007 12:44 PM Posted By Copa Conscious on 10/02/2007 12:36 PM
What percentage of geneticists does MOST mean?
99%?
50.000000000000001%?
Most, in the sense that the tier-one research journals in this field DO NOT accept the hypothesis that there is such a thing as a gay gene. There have been inconclusive and/or failed studies that were widely reported as a basis for the hypothesis, but to date, there is no evidence that a gay gene exists. Being "gay" is not a biological form nor function, and therefore not a "trait" within the context of genetics. This sort of nonsense is just a lame attempt to excuse bad behavior. It is not rocket surgery to take note of the fact that (1) there is no functional advantage in being gay, (2) it is ALWAYS a medical hazard to be gay and (3) there is no evolutionary basis for it in nature. But is you really want a number, 74.22%  Then you just proven that being gay is biology and not a choice. Why would anyone CHOOSE that, unless it was chosen for them.
What planet are you from? Take me to your leader!
Lets see ... think of tab A in slot B ... OK ... tabs do not fit into tabs nor do slots fit into slots, hence the lack of function that Natural Selection would trash. Seems like that is a BIOLOGICAL reason against homosexuality.
So again, from the top ... if I say (1) there is no gay gene and (2) that there is no biological reason for being gay, the you say "you just proved being gay is biology"? Maybe you think 1+1=3? | | | |
|
| | Copa Conscious
Posts:379
| | 10/02/2007 12:56 PM |
Alert | I would like to know the truth. I was raised Catholic, but can not support a church/religion/business that supports priests molesting kids. They have confronted it now, but they hid the truth for years.
And I was an altar boy and I was never molested once and I was a cute kid.
I'm relieved and offended at the same time. | | | |
|
| | Veritas
Posts:315
| | 10/02/2007 12:58 PM |
Alert | Posted By NEZv69.69 on 10/02/2007 12:08 PM
If the Bible said 1+1=3, than that is what you'd believe.
Quit being stupid.
Thankfully, the Bible NEVER says stupid things like that.
Maybe you should quit. | | | |
|
| | Copa Conscious
Posts:379
| | 10/02/2007 1:02 PM |
Alert | Posted By Veritas on 10/02/2007 12:54 PM Posted By Copa Conscious on 10/02/2007 12:46 PM Posted By Veritas on 10/02/2007 12:44 PM Posted By Copa Conscious on 10/02/2007 12:36 PM
What percentage of geneticists does MOST mean?
99%?
50.000000000000001%?
Most, in the sense that the tier-one research journals in this field DO NOT accept the hypothesis that there is such a thing as a gay gene. There have been inconclusive and/or failed studies that were widely reported as a basis for the hypothesis, but to date, there is no evidence that a gay gene exists. Being "gay" is not a biological form nor function, and therefore not a "trait" within the context of genetics. This sort of nonsense is just a lame attempt to excuse bad behavior. It is not rocket surgery to take note of the fact that (1) there is no functional advantage in being gay, (2) it is ALWAYS a medical hazard to be gay and (3) there is no evolutionary basis for it in nature. But is you really want a number, 74.22% Then you just proven that being gay is biology and not a choice. Why would anyone CHOOSE that, unless it was chosen for them. What planet are you from? Take me to your leader! Lets see ... think of tab A in slot B ... OK ... tabs do not fit into tabs nor do slots fit into slots, hence the lack of function that Natural Selection would trash. Seems like that is a BIOLOGICAL reason against homosexuality. So again, from the top ... if I say (1) there is no gay gene and (2) that there is no biological reason for being gay, the you say "you just proved being gay is biology"? Maybe you think 1+1=3?
Slot A and Slot B can have fun, if the Tab is double-headed. I saw it in a movie once.
| | | |
|
|  | Jason
Posts:3378
| | 10/02/2007 1:03 PM |
Alert | Posted By Copa Conscious on 10/02/2007 12:56 PM
I would like to know the truth. I was raised Catholic, but can not support a church/religion/business that supports priests molesting kids.
I strongly suggest you lookup the definition of a straw man argument... | |
Joined: Jul 2005 | |
|
| | Copa Conscious
Posts:379
|
| 10/02/2007 1:07 PM |
Alert | A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent. A straw man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is in fact a misleading fallacy, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted.
Its name is derived from the practice of using straw men in combat training. In such training, a scarecrow is made in the image of the enemy with the single intent of attacking it.Ώ] It is occasionally called a straw dog fallacy,ΐ] scarecrow argument, or wooden dummy argument.
However, people often misuse the statement "straw man argument" as a catch-all to refute an opponent in a debate. This occurs most often in non-realtime debates, such as internet forums, where there is no live conversation.
Thanks Wikipedia | | | |
|
| | Jason
Posts:3378
| | 10/02/2007 1:09 PM |
Alert | | OK great. Now look up ad hominem. You've been doing that one all day too. | |
Joined: Jul 2005 | |
|
| | Copa Conscious
Posts:379
| | 10/02/2007 1:11 PM |
Alert | An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the person", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to an characteristic or belief the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim.
It is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem abusive, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or personally attacking an argument's proponent in an attempt to discredit that argument.
Other common subtypes of the ad hominem include the ad hominem circumstantial, or ad hominem circumstantiae, an attack which is directed at the circumstances or situation of the arguer; and the ad hominem tu quoque, which objects to an argument by characterizing the arguer as acting or arguin in accordance with the view that he is arguing against.
Ad hominem arguments are always invalid in syllogistic logic, since the truth value of premises is taken as given, and the validity of a logical inference is independent of the person making the inference. However, ad hominem arguments are rarely presented as formal syllogisms, and their assessment lies in the domain of informal logic and the theory of evidence.Ώ]. The theory of evidence depends to a large degree on assessments of the credibility of witnesses, including eyewitness evidence and expert witness evidence. Evidence that a purported eyewitness is unreliable, or has a motive for lying, or that a purported expert witness lacks the claimed expertise can play a major role in making judgements from evidence.
Argument ad hominem is the converse of appeal to authority, in which the arguer bases the truth value of an assertion on the authority, knowledge or position of the person asserting it. Hence, while an ad hominem argument may make an assertion less compelling, by showing that the person making the assertion does not have the authority, knowledge or position they claim, or has made mistaken assertions on similar topics in the past, it cannot provide an infallible counterargument.
Thanks again Wikipedia | | | |
|
| | rex
Posts:295
| | 10/02/2007 3:47 PM |
Alert |
The Bible is the Word of God. The Word of God says "..gouge it out and throw it away...". No amount of leaping and dancing with tambourine and harp can dispute that.
| | | |
|
| | Jason
Posts:3378
| | 10/02/2007 4:03 PM |
Alert | Posted By rex on 10/02/2007 3:47 PM
The Bible is the Word of God. The Word of God says "..gouge it out and throw it away...". No amount of leaping and dancing with tambourine and harp can dispute that.
The problem with reading it that way is that you're losing all of the context. It's the context that tells that it is a parable and not a literal command to rip out your eye.
Broadly, it means that it's better to remove things from your life that you cannot resist the temptation of rather than continue to live with something that you cannot resist. | |
Joined: Jul 2005 | |
|
| | Trogdor!
Posts:294
| | 10/02/2007 4:49 PM |
Alert | | Hmm... You would think that something inspired by "God" would be a lot easier to understand. I know that if I was writing such an important book that would have to stand the test of time, I would make sure that I was as clear and concise as possible. | |
 | |
|
| | Java Lover
Posts:0
| | 10/02/2007 4:52 PM |
Alert | Obviously some people really don't want to know. So the answer to the original question is a red hot poker.  | | | |
|
| | JAG
Posts:682
| | 10/02/2007 5:01 PM |
Alert | Posted By Jason on 10/01/2007 7:53 PM Posted By rex on 10/01/2007 6:20 PM
The Bible is very clear on what a Christian should do about Lust/Adultery.
Matthew 5:28 says:
"...anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell."
What's the best way to gouge out my right eye? Has anyone else tried this?
That's a parable... 
Actually I take it quite literally. As should alot of Christian IMO. | | | |
|
| | Trogdor!
Posts:294
| | 10/02/2007 5:08 PM |
Alert | Posted By Java Lover on 10/02/2007 4:52 PM Obviously some people really don't want to know. So the answer to the original question is a red hot poker. 
You're forgetting that most non-theists (myself included) were raised in religious families. I very much want to know, but none of the answers that I received were every satisfactory. The default for not knowing was usually "God works in mysterious ways," but you know what, he shouldn't. | |
| |
|
| | Java Lover
Posts:0
| | 10/02/2007 5:37 PM |
Alert | | But when logical answers are given the non-theist questions even the logical answers and around and around it goes. There is no satisfying some, they just want to argue for arguments sake. | | | |
|
| | Veritas
Posts:315
| | 10/02/2007 5:50 PM |
Alert | Posted By Trogdor! on 10/02/2007 4:49 PM
Hmm... You would think that something inspired by "God" would be a lot easier to understand. I know that if I was writing such an important book that would have to stand the test of time, I would make sure that I was as clear and concise as possible.
You'd think that a person in this day & age would not have such a hard time recognizing the fact that the Bible is a collection of several different types of literature: historical, poetry, theology, etc. ALL of them written by Jews (except Mark & Luke) who used varied types of literary technique (like parables) to convey a message in a timeless and thoughtful way using the thoughts and vernacular of their respective era.
You say that you really want to know, but I think that you are either not genuine in that sentiment OR you are resisting the way things are in favor of the way that you want them to be. Based on the nature of your responses, I can see no other motive that moves you to be the way that you are. I do not mean this as an insult, though it is likely to be perceived this way. I am deadly serious and mean every word that I write here and say it because the truth is precious.
You actually refuse to take note of the shifts from literal to parable to poetry, etc. and you mock the use of metaphor throughout Scripture. God DID NOT dictate the Scriptures, He "inspired" them. Inspiration is also understood as "breathing in" while expiration is known as "breathing out"; together you have respiration, a necessary life process. The Bible attests to the fact that the Bible is "God breathed". Our job is to inhale and exhale this "breath of God".
Think about it. | | | |
|
| | drummer72
Posts:3886
| | 10/02/2007 6:00 PM |
Alert | Posted By Jason on 10/02/2007 4:03 PM Posted By rex on 10/02/2007 3:47 PM
The Bible is the Word of God. The Word of God says "..gouge it out and throw it away...". No amount of leaping and dancing with tambourine and harp can dispute that.
The problem with reading it that way is that you're losing all of the context. It's the context that tells that it is a parable and not a literal command to rip out your eye. Broadly, it means that it's better to remove things from your life that you cannot resist the temptation of rather than continue to live with something that you cannot resist.
Don't take it literal!??!?! What am I supposed to do with this patch over my eye now?
| |
"Everything for everyone and nothing for ourselves" | |
|
| | Jason
Posts:3378
| | 10/02/2007 6:33 PM |
Alert | Posted By JAG on 10/02/2007 5:01 PM Posted By Jason on 10/01/2007 7:53 PM Posted By rex on 10/01/2007 6:20 PM
The Bible is very clear on what a Christian should do about Lust/Adultery.
Matthew 5:28 says:
"...anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell."
What's the best way to gouge out my right eye? Has anyone else tried this?
That's a parable... Actually I take it quite literally. As should alot of Christian IMO.
So are you missing both eyes by now? | |
Joined: Jul 2005 | |
|
| |
| | You are not authorized to post a reply. |
|
| |
ActiveForums 3.6 |
|
|
|