Jump to content


Photo

Greetings & Hellos


  • Please log in to reply
22 replies to this topic

#1 menes777

menes777

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 91 posts
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Wichita, KS

Posted 06 January 2010 - 12:31 PM

Hello all, I have been lurking at this site for a few days and figured I might as well register and maybe make a few posts. Of course you can tell I am an atheist. Wasn't always one though. I was born into a Christian family (Baptist to be exact) and naturally was indoctrinated with those beliefs, but they didn't really mean much to me till I was a teenager. That's when I become a devout YEC and follower of Carl Baugh. I joined the military for a few years, got to see a bit of the world. A few years after that I began my journey into atheism. Which where I come from is very similar to coming out of the closet, people automatically think you are Satan worshipping or worse. Anyway, here is a simple run down on what I believe.

Evolution - The ToE being a scientific theory (and not the laymen's term for theory, which really means guess) I find it to be a fact (as a theory is supported by facts). I think the theory is in it's infancy however, and it will take many generations before it's fully explained or understood.

ID - Just seems like a cop out to me. Also life seems to be more jury rigged then designed from the ground up.

Creationism - I use to fight for this side, but after looking at the facts it just doesn't add up anymore.

Big Bang Theory & Abiogenesis - Don't know and for the most part don't care. These may be two questions that are never fully answered to anyone's liking. We may never know and that's perfectly ok with me. I look at those two like the General Theory of Relativity looks at gravity. Yes it requires it in it's theory but not knowing what causes gravity exactly (a graviton particle for trekkie fans) does not ruin Einstein's theory.

So why am I here - I guess I am just a masochist :). Maybe to backup the few atheists that come here. I also found the title of this site to be interesting. Many times I see Christians get their panties in a knot when someone tells them the bible is a myth or just a fairy tale. It's refreshing to see the creationists POV that isn't a tantrum as well. At least for the most part.

Oh yeah and maybe see if I could end up on CTD's ignore list :P LOL j/k

#2 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 06 January 2010 - 12:34 PM

Hello and welcome to the asylum :)

#3 falcone

falcone

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 497 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 36
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Scotland

Posted 06 January 2010 - 12:59 PM

Hi menes, welcome to 'our team'! Hope you have fun.

#4 Mankind

Mankind

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 212 posts
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Southeast

Posted 06 January 2010 - 09:06 PM

Welcome to the forum. As an fyi, the ToE doesn't qualify as a theory because it isn't testable, it is just a model to explain how we got here. A theory is the strongest term to describe a scientific phenomon that can be tested. Like the theory of gravity, it can be tested and so we can create a theory.

Also the world and life forms look designed for a purpose. This is backed up by Richard Dawkins. Legs look designed to walk, lungs look designed to breath, blood and blood vessels look designed to carry blood and oxygen through our bodies, eyes look designed to see. An Atheist's job is to take something that looks designed and show how it can come about by random mutations. In other words they discount what they see and come up with imaginary maschinations.

(I hope I helped to start you off with a Big Bang) :lol:

#5 Javabean

Javabean

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 950 posts
  • Location:Harrisburg Pa
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Harrisburg

Posted 07 January 2010 - 04:44 AM

Oh yeah and maybe see if I could end up on CTD's ignore list  :lol:  LOL j/k

View Post



Welcome Menes777!!! Its a prestigious place to be ;)

#6 menes777

menes777

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 91 posts
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Wichita, KS

Posted 07 January 2010 - 12:50 PM

Thank you all for the warm welcome. :)

Mankind - Did you make your avatar so that someone could say "Look, even Mankind agrees with me!" or "... even Mankind agrees, ToE isn't really a theory!"? :P
LOL j/k just ribbing ya, since you must have a weak spot from that missing one. :P
the jokes never end ;)

#7 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 07 January 2010 - 12:59 PM

Hello all, I have been lurking at this site for a few days and figured I might as well register and maybe make a few posts.  Of course you can tell I am an atheist.  Wasn't always one though.  I was born into a Christian family (Baptist to be exact) and naturally was indoctrinated with those beliefs, but they didn't really mean much to me till I was a teenager.  That's when I become a devout YEC and follower of Carl Baugh.  I joined the military for a few years, got to see a bit of the world.  A few years after that I began my journey into atheism.  Which where I come from is very similar to coming out of the closet, people automatically think you are Satan worshipping or worse.    Anyway, here is a simple run down on what I believe.


Well being a theist means you are for God. Being atheist means you are "against God". Maybe you need to claim agnostic instead? You can be a evolutionist agnostic. It just means you believe in evolution, but have not totally rejected the idea that there maybe a God. So you are not really against Him, you are not promoting Him either. Does that sound more like where you are at?

Evolution - The ToE being a scientific theory (and not the laymen's term for theory, which really means guess) I find it to be a fact (as a theory is supported by facts).  I think the theory is in it's infancy however, and it will take many generations before it's fully explained or understood. 


I could do several pages of posts of why you would be wrong on this issue. And anyone who has been here for a little while knows this. But to break all those pages down into one question that sums it all up. How many actual observable real time processes arte there for the claims made? Out of all the claims made about how far we can evolve, only about 2% is observable.

Which also means that evolution is not really being proven by what is claimed as empirical evidence. It's being proven by interpreted evidence that is restricted to always support a naturalistic answer.

Example: Did abiogenesis actually prove that life can spring up from lifelessness? No, but it is implied that it does in every text book that talks positively about it. In fact abiogenesis is not even a theory. But is that mentioned in those same text books that promote it? Nope. But it's implied.

Why is abiogenesis important to evolution? If one cannot prove that life can happen naturally instead of supernaturally, then one cannot even start the evolution process. There has to be a starting point, and if that starting point cannot be proven. Then evolution from that claimed point cannot happen. So it's a claim with "zero" observable" evidence for the actual process of life.

The definition of:
Abiogenesis: a hypothetical organic phenomenon by which living organisms are created from nonliving matter

Basically life from lifelessness. Science is no where near proving this. And they have done the Miller experiment more times with better results. But still no life.

This is like the question: If God exists, produce Him. So I ask: If evolution happened, produce the process where life comes from dead matter? If one cannot produce the starting point foundation, the rest is just an assumption that requires faith to believe. Why? If I claim another more perfect being created God, but could not produce that being or any evidence for this. My idea falls flat on it's face, right? So if evolutionists claim, and make all this interpreted evidence to support evolution coming from dead matter. But cannot prove or produce the process that life comes from dead matter. Then what does that say about the rest that is built upon a starting point that has not been proven for 150 years?

The reason you missed this point is because evolution is really not about proving an idea, but about "selling" an idea. Don't believe me? Okay, let's remove the selling mechanism that makes evolution believable.

1) Let's remove all interpretation from the evidence and allow the evidence to stand on it's own for people to judge for themselves.
2) Let's remove the animated processes of ideas that cannot be observed, and just allow those claims for processes to stand on their own.
3) Let's remove all written material of claimed processes that cannot be observed or tested and see how small evolution text books become.
etc...

You see if evolution were so provable, selling points of the idea would not be needed because the evidence "alone" would prove this to you and everyone else.

Example: If you go to a used car lot, and the used car sells man says nothing to hike up your interest in any of the cars. Are you likely to buy from them if all the cars there are average and really do not appeal to you?

Or would you be more than likely to buy if you tells you how good someone took care of it. How swell it runs. And it gets good mpg?

Evolution works the same way. Millers abiogenesis experiment did not even define the definition of what abiogeneisis is. There was no life, but guess what? We came close so that proves it. The car gets great mpg so buy it. Same difference.

In fact here a challenge for you. If evolution is so provable, that you would give up one idea for it. List 10 things that evolution claims happened that are observable real time processes? Example:

1) Abiogenesis. Nope.
2) Micro-evolution. Yes.
3) Macro-evolution. Nope. Micro to infinity does not prove macro. It's not an observable process.
etc...

The mountains of evidence should allow you to list ten things that are observable processes. If not, then they are only selling points for an idea that is only true through interpreted evidence by people who "want" evolution to be true. And it also means that evolution does not even meet the same standards that they say debunks creation. Which is ironic.

ID - Just seems like a cop out to me.  Also life seems to be more jury rigged then designed from the ground up.

Creationism - I use to fight for this side, but after looking at the facts it just doesn't add up anymore.


A person who is a good salesman can usually convince another over an idea that does not have to be sold. Like I said earlier: If evolution were as provable with mountains of evidence. The evidence standing on it's own would do it. And there would be no debate. But instead selling, which also includes debating, is needed to convince people. If 10 times the words are needed to sell you of the evidence, then something is wrong with the evidence.

Big Bang Theory & Abiogenesis - Don't know and for the most part don't care.  These may be two questions that are never fully answered to anyone's liking.  We may never know and that's perfectly ok with me.  I look at those two like the General Theory of Relativity looks at gravity.  Yes it requires it in it's theory but not knowing what causes gravity exactly (a graviton particle for trekkie fans) does not ruin Einstein's theory.


You see, this is where the main problem exists for old earth and life from dead matter. For if you ponder it to much, you soon realize it cannot happen naturally. So to believe in a all natural origins of life and the universe. One has to ignore the very foundation of what started it all because the laws of physics deny it could ever happen.

Example:
1) Can something come from nothing? Nope. So the matter that created everything cannot exist or be created in a natural sense. So the laws that exist deny this could ever happen.
2) Can life come from dead matter? Nope, and has "never" been proven to have.

To believe the rest of what is claimed, you have to "ignore" the very foundation of what is claimed to have started it.

1) If you cannot prove life can come from lifelessness, can you really prove that life evolved to the point that is implied?
2) If you cannot prove that something can come from nothing, can you prove the big bang?

Amino acids does not equal life. Or life would have been already created in a lab.
Expanding universe does not equal big bang, or something from nothing would have already been proven in a lab.

So why am I here - I guess I am just a masochist  :P.   Maybe to backup the few atheists that come here.  I also found the title of this site to be interesting.  Many times I see Christians get their panties in a knot when someone tells them the bible is a myth or just a fairy tale.  It's refreshing to see the creationists POV that isn't a tantrum as well.  At least for the most part.


It will be interesting to see you prove you stance by listing 10 observable real-time processes that prove the implied claims made by the evolution theory. You can start a thread on this if you like, and list them.

Oh yeah and maybe see if I could end up on CTD's ignore list  ;)  LOL j/k

View Post


CTD is gone. So you missed that chance.

And welcome to the forum. :P

#8 menes777

menes777

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 91 posts
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Wichita, KS

Posted 07 January 2010 - 02:59 PM

Well being a theist means you are for God. Being atheist means you are "against God". Maybe you need to claim agnostic instead? You can be a evolutionist agnostic. It just means you believe in evolution, but have not totally rejected the idea that there maybe a God. So you are not really against Him, you are not promoting Him either. Does that sound more like where you are at?


On certain days when the wind is blowing just right, I feel more like an agnostic than a atheist. It could just be me trying to slip back into my comfort zone (I was a Christian for 20 some years) or maybe I just want to hope for something better. I mean who doesn't want to think that they are going to better place when they die? There is a less happy side to that though. What if a god did create everything (a BB of sorts) but didn't intend to create us and has no afterlife plans for us? What if god is like Q and there is no Jean Luc Picard around to stop him from wiping us out?

However, I must disagree with you on the "against god" part. I use to believe that people who didn't believe in god were against him. Angry against god you could say and that they worshipped Santa (err satan :P ). I can understand this more from what I consider to be "Angry atheists" who are only mad at god for whatever reason. I pity these people because they will never be at peace till they pick a side. I sometimes call them "militant atheists" because they blatantly attack anyone or anything related to religion. Yet later I realized that to believe in satan you must believe in god. I just don't believe in a god (or gods). Similar to not believing in Santa (the Xmas one), I am not against Santa I just don't believe in him.

I have also heard that before that by not believing in god I am against him even if I mean to be or not. That satan's goal has been achieved and by default I am against god. I think that is similar to what I said above though.

I don't mind people who are religious and want to believe in a god (although if Islam went away I wouldn't shed any tears). What I dislike is when those same people use religion as a weapon to hurt others. When things like the inquisition, the crusades, prohibition of G*y marriage, killing in the name of religion and so on happen, that's when I start to question the value of it. If you have or need religion to make it through a difficult time in your life or even just to make through the day (without having to hit the sauce) I am behind you 100%. I don't see anything wrong with believing in a deity that is beyond our understanding. It's when I am being burned at the stake in this deity's name because I don't go to church that really puts a crimp in my day. ;)

So if that is what atheism (against god) means around here, I guess I am not an atheist. Maybe I am one of those new atheists. :P

#9 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 07 January 2010 - 10:51 PM

On certain days when the wind is blowing just right, I feel more like an agnostic than a atheist.  It could just be me trying to slip back into my comfort zone (I was a Christian for 20 some years) or maybe I just want to hope for something better.  I mean who doesn't want to think that they are going to better place when they die?  There is a less happy side to that though.  What if a god did create everything (a BB of sorts) but didn't intend to create us and has no afterlife plans for us?  What if god is like Q and there is no Jean Luc Picard around to stop him from wiping us out?

However, I must disagree with you on the "against god" part.  I use to believe that people who didn't believe in god were against him.  Angry against god you could say and that they worshipped Santa (err satan  :lol: ).  I can understand this more from what I consider to be "Angry atheists" who are only mad at god for whatever reason.  I pity these people because they will never be at peace till they pick a side.  I sometimes call them "militant atheists" because they blatantly attack anyone or anything related to religion.  Yet later I realized that to believe in satan you must believe in god.  I just don't believe in a god (or gods).  Similar to not believing in Santa (the Xmas one), I am not against Santa I just don't believe in him.

I have also heard that before that by not believing in god I am against him even if I mean to be or not.  That satan's goal has been achieved and by default I am against god.  I think that is similar to what I said above though. 

I don't mind people who are religious and want to believe in a god (although if Islam went away I wouldn't shed any tears).  What I dislike is when those same people use religion as a weapon to hurt others.  When things like the inquisition, the crusades, prohibition of G*y marriage, killing in the name of religion and so on happen, that's when I start to question the value of it.  If you have or need religion to make it through a difficult time in your life or even just to make through the day (without having to hit the sauce) I am behind you 100%.  I don't see anything wrong with believing in a deity that is beyond our understanding.  It's when I am being burned at the stake in this deity's name because I don't go to church that really puts a crimp in my day.   ;)

So if that is what atheism (against god) means around here, I guess I am not an atheist.  Maybe I am one of those new atheists.   :)

View Post


The crusades were done by a person who controlled his army and only "claimed" to be Christian. He never really converted and worshipped the sun god named Sol in secret. History will write that because he claimed to be Christian, and his army claimed to kill people in God's name that it was all done for this reason. But his army did not believe in God or His Son Jesus. They did what they did out of greed.

It was never recorded that God ever said: Kill these people in my name. Constantine claimed to have saw a sign in the sky that told him to conquer using it. God has never used a pagan symbol to conquer or quest anything in the Bible.

The inquistion was something one religion did, and also claimed they did it in the name of God. God stopped telling people to kill when the new covenant came into effect. Do you know why?

In the Old Testament, when a person died their soul did not go to Heaven or Hell. Their souls stayed with their bodies waiting for the ressurection. This soul sleep was called: slept with his fathers.

1kings 2:10 So David slept with his fathers, and was buried in the city of David.
1kings 11:21 And when Hadad heard in Egypt that David slept with his fathers, and that Joab the captain of the host was dead, Hadad said to Pharaoh, Let me depart, that I may go to mine own country.
1kings 11:43 And Solomon slept with his fathers, and was buried in the city of David his father: and Rehoboam his son reigned in his stead.
1kings 14:20 And the days which Jeroboam reigned were two and twenty years: and he slept with his fathers, and Nadab his son reigned in his stead.
1kings 14:31 And Rehoboam slept with his fathers, and was buried with his fathers in the city of David. And his mother's name was Naamah an Ammonitess. And Abijam his son reigned in his stead.
1kings 15:8 And Abijam slept with his fathers; and they buried him in the city of David: and Asa his son reigned in his stead.
1kings 15:24 And Asa slept with his fathers, and was buried with his fathers in the city of David his father: and Jehoshaphat his son reigned in his stead.
1kings 16:6 So Baasha slept with his fathers, and was buried in Tirzah: and Elah his son reigned in his stead.
1kings 16:28 So Omri slept with his fathers, and was buried in Samaria: and Ahab his son reigned in his stead.
1kings 22:40 So Ahab slept with his fathers; and Ahaziah his son reigned in his stead.
1kings 22:50 And Jehoshaphat slept with his fathers, and was buried with his fathers in the city of David his father: and Jehoram his son reigned in his stead.
etc...

What this means is that punishment or reward was not given after death as we have now in the new covenant. So these things were carried out here on earth. That is why if the sin committed was worthy of death, death was carried out. If a group of people were committing evil, God's people were told to kill them. But now we don't have that. And here is the example of now happens after we die.

Luke 16:19 There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day:
20 And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores,
21 And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores.
22 And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;
23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.
25 But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.
26 And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.
27 Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house:
28 For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.
29 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.
30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.
31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

In each instant, each person woke up in the place where they were supposed to be. One in torment, the other in Heaven.

I guess the rest of my post gave you something to think about?

#10 Scanman

Scanman

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 641 posts
  • Age: 49
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • West Virginia

Posted 08 January 2010 - 12:03 AM

Menes,

Welcome.

You can still play for the TE side!

Excepting science, evolution and an ancient universe, does not require a rejection of God...or the Bible.

Peace

#11 menes777

menes777

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 91 posts
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Wichita, KS

Posted 08 January 2010 - 10:05 AM

What this means is that punishment or reward was not given after death as we have now in the new covenant. So these things were carried out here on earth. That is why if the sin committed was worthy of death, death was carried out. If a group of people were committing evil, God's people were told to kill them. But now we don't have that. And here is the example of now happens after we die.


So pretty much, under the old covenant, what happens on earth stays on earth? I am curious why the change though? Also how does the old covenant fit under making yearly (or whenever) sacrifices to atone for oneself? How does this fit into the plan of salvation? It almost seems as if you are telling me that if I am a good person that I won't go to hell. I was always taught that even if you obeyed the laws better than even the pharisees that you would still go to hell when you died. I am probably just confused, but if so that would be a refreshing take on Xianity that I am not familiar with (but do not dislike).

The crusades were done by a person who controlled his army and only "claimed" to be Christian. He never really converted and worshipped the sun god named Sol in secret. History will write that because he claimed to be Christian, and his army claimed to kill people in God's name that it was all done for this reason. But his army did not believe in God or His Son Jesus. They did what they did out of greed.

It was never recorded that God ever said: Kill these people in my name. Constantine claimed to have saw a sign in the sky that told him to conquer using it. God has never used a pagan symbol to conquer or quest anything in the Bible.

The inquistion was something one religion did, and also claimed they did it in the name of God.


That last sentence really hits the nail on the head with "...they did it in the name of God". Constantine made have very well been a pagan, but it still remains that he used religion in the name of conquest. Whether for spiritual gains or greed, it still was still in the name of God. Now is Xianity a violent religion? It could very well be the most peaceful one we know or one of the most violent. That will be debated as long as there are good and bad apples in any group.

Let me use an example closer to home. Scott Roedor shot Dr. Tiller in a church in full view of several people. Immediately after this happened the Pro-Life movement scrambled to disassociate themselves with him. Was he a member of the Pro-Life movement or just some crazed lunatic that killed in the name of God? The former just makes the movement look bad but either way it was still a killing in the name of religion (or God). Now if we remove religion from the picture (think John Lennon's Imagine :( ) would Roedor have killed Tiller? Probably not as he actively had to seek Tiller out. If he were indeed a crazed lunatic it's highly probable he would have killed someone he was more familiar with. There is also the possibility he might not have killed at all and just been some grumpy old man. That maybe without religion (and the pro-life movement) he would not have had anything to focus his anger on. Sure he wouldn't be pleasant to be around but he wouldn't be a killer either.

To come full circle, if Constantine didn't use Xianity I would be railing against his Paganistic beliefs (which if what you say is true, I still could anyway). He could have started his own paganistic crusades just as easily. Killing (and other vile things) in the name of trees, in the name of God, for a Goddess, because there is no god(s) and I can get away with it, and on and on are all the same to me. Now killing to stop a child molester, a tyrant, etc, etc... That I have no problem with (and other things as well). It's when it becomes "because I believe my god told me to kill you" that I have a serious problem with. I hope that's clear as mud. :)

I guess the rest of my post gave you something to think about?


It might be hard for some of you to believe, but many atheists (but not all or even the majority) seriously consider every idea that is presented to them. I am that way, I have read through your questions and I have given them serious thought. I did sort of pass them by as I didn't want to get OT in my own thread. :D Also I kind of figured it was taboo to debate in the welcome section.

You can still play for the TE side!

Excepting science, evolution and an ancient universe, does not require a rejection of God...or the Bible.


I think we could find some common ground on which to share. :)
However, we would have to part ways (or agree to disagree) when it came to God and the Bible part. Not that I wouldn't enjoy hearing your take on it with those views in mind though. :)

#12 Scanman

Scanman

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 641 posts
  • Age: 49
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • West Virginia

Posted 08 January 2010 - 10:16 AM

Menes,

Welcome.

You can still play for the TE side!

Excepting science, evolution and an ancient universe, does not require a rejection of God...or the Bible.

Peace

View Post


'Accepting' not 'Excepting'...darn those Homophones.

#13 menes777

menes777

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 91 posts
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Wichita, KS

Posted 08 January 2010 - 10:53 AM

'Accepting' not 'Excepting'...darn those Homophones.

View Post


:( Shows how much I was paying attention, I just now noticed it.

#14 menes777

menes777

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 91 posts
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Wichita, KS

Posted 08 January 2010 - 01:22 PM

:( Shows how much I was paying attention, I just now noticed it.

View Post


Oh yeah, Scanman, would Mr Freeman as your avatar make you a Half Life fan?
If so, I think we could definitely get along well. :D

#15 Mr.Tuesday

Mr.Tuesday

    Newcomer

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 2 posts
  • Age: 20
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Mississippi

Posted 08 January 2010 - 08:28 PM

Helloooo friends and neighbors and any other creatures with four legs! I am glad to have found a forum such as this. It looks like a good place to start many discussion so discuss I shall when felt the need. Hope all is well! God bless!

#16 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 08 January 2010 - 08:44 PM

Helloooo friends and neighbors and any other creatures with four legs! I am glad to have found a forum such as this,thanks to a fellow cohort. It looks like a good place to start many discussion so discuss I shall when felt the need. Hope all is well! God bless!

View Post


Hey, Mr.Tuesday... Just go to the top of the page to start new topic, and you should be able to start your own welcome thread.

It's nice to have another Creationist on board. :lol:

#17 Scanman

Scanman

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 641 posts
  • Age: 49
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • West Virginia

Posted 08 January 2010 - 09:02 PM

Oh yeah, Scanman, would Mr Freeman as your avatar make you a Half Life fan?
If so, I think we could definitely get along well. :D

View Post


Absolutely!

Maybe before I die, they will come out with HL3.

LOL

Peace

#18 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 08 January 2010 - 09:07 PM

So pretty much, under the old covenant, what happens on earth stays on earth?  I am curious why the change though?  Also how does the old covenant fit under making yearly (or whenever) sacrifices to atone for oneself?  How does this fit into the plan of salvation? It almost seems as if you are telling me that if I am a good person that I won't go to hell.  I was always taught that even if you obeyed the laws better than even the pharisees that you would still go to hell when you died.  I am probably just confused, but if so that would be a refreshing take on Xianity that I am not familiar with (but do not dislike). 


1) No. What happens on the earth stayed on the earth until a way was made for most everyone to enter Heaven.

mt 27:52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,

When Christ rose from the dead, many (not all) of the saints came up out of their soul sleep and enter unto the Holy City (City of God). The reason some did not rise is because this was a judgment type ressurection. Only those worthy rose. The ones that stayed are called the "dead in Christ".

1thess 4:16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:

Christ came to give life. There cannot be anyone in His covenant that is considered dead. So what this means is that those left behind from the old covenent, who were not worthy to rise during Christ's ressurection, did not transfer to the new covenant. And because of this, Christ cannot help them and is the very reason the term dead in Christ is used.

2) Christ became the sin atonement. There is no need to us to atone for our sins. His blood was perfect and covered all our sins. So when we enter the covenant, it's already done for us. That is why Christ said on the cross: It is finished.

3) There are two types of works.

a) Kingdom works. Which are works you do for God "after you are saved". Like bringing others to salvation etc...
b) Carnal works. Which mean nothing because the person doing them is not saved.

Sin is what separates us from God. So in order for the works to count, sin has to be removed through salvation. There is no way for someone to enter Heaven without salvation. So works (living a good life) won't do it.

4) Losing salvation? Yes you can lose salvation. A covenant is a "two sided agreement". Both sides have to hold up their end of the agreement. Christ never breaks His end of the deal. And we can be forgiven when we do because we are not perfect. But, we do not lose salvation everytime we sin either. God suffers our sin until we ask for forgivness and try to repent (abstain) from doing it again. You see as long as we truly try (make an effort) to repent, God will always forgive us. It is when we don't because we don't care is when our security through salvation can be in danger.

James 5:19 Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him;
20 Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins.

Brethren, if any of you = The believer, not the unsaved sinner. You can fall far enough away you need to be recoverted. And you can put you soul in danger of death. Soul death is called the "second death".

rev 20:14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.rev 21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

Second death is the lake of fire which is eternal damnation. There is no escape from eternal damnation.

That last sentence really hits the nail on the head with "...they did it in the name of God".  Constantine made have very well been a pagan, but it still remains that he used religion in the name of conquest.  Whether for spiritual gains or greed, it still was still in the name of God.  Now is Xianity a violent religion?  It could very well be the most peaceful one we know or one of the most violent.  That will be debated as long as there are good and bad apples in any group. 


Question is, what god did he do it in the name of? Plus, in the Bible God never had the people he told to kill others for their evil to take their stuff (spoils of war). Constantine always took from the families he killed or let live. God even punished king Saul for disobeying this command and another by allowing a king to live who was sacraficing Children (shedding innocent blood). God took His blesings away from King Saul. And allowed him to be conquered by his enemies and his whole family wiped out.

Now does that sound like Constantine was following God when God does not allow certain things? Nope. Many people will say often they believe in God, and are Christian. But when you really pin them down on the issues, the truth comes out.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/jf5heuUEUE0&hl=en_US&fs=1&color1=0x006699&color2=0x54abd6%22></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/jf5heuUEUE0&hl=en_US&fs=1&color1=0x006699&color2=0x54abd6 type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Oprah on many occassion has said or implied she is a Christian and believes in God. But when pinned down on the issue in this video, the truth comes out. Many people front themselves as Christians because they want to fit in with everyone in that group. Or do not want to be bothered with questions as to why they are not one. Or they will use the term to dupe others. True Christians walk the walk, and talk the talk. And they never deceive someone on purpose.

Let me use an example closer to home.  Scott Roedor shot Dr. Tiller in a church in full view of several people.  Immediately after this happened the Pro-Life movement scrambled to disassociate themselves with him.  Was he a member of the Pro-Life movement or just some crazed lunatic that killed in the name of God?


Every group is going to have it's funactics. If you decide to judge a whole group on one person's action then that is your bussiness. It would be the same as me saying that because Hitler used evolution to justify his actions, all evolutionists are Nazis. Don't make any sense now does it? Hitler even claimed to be Christian, but here again he never lived like one. And choosing to kill God's choosen people certainly was not an example of being one.

The former just makes the movement look bad but either way it was still a killing in the name of religion (or God).  Now if we remove religion from the picture (think John Lennon's Imagine  :D ) would Roedor have killed Tiller?  Probably not as he actively had to seek Tiller out.  If he were indeed a crazed lunatic it's highly probable he would have killed someone he was more familiar with.  There is also the possibility he might not have killed at all and just been some grumpy old man.  That maybe without religion (and the pro-life movement) he would not have had anything to focus his anger on.  Sure he wouldn't be pleasant to be around but he wouldn't be a killer either.


Attached File  Slide208.jpg   34.29KB   34 downloads

Putting people on display to prove evolution makes the movement and all that follow look just as bad. I can show several things people have done in the name of evolution, just as you can show things as well. Shall we go down this road or not? I have a whole archive of stuff.

To come full circle, if Constantine didn't use Xianity I would be railing against his Paganistic beliefs (which if what you say is true, I still could anyway).  He could have started his own paganistic crusades just as easily. Killing (and other vile things) in the name of trees, in the name of God, for a Goddess, because there is no god(s) and I can get away with it, and on and on are all the same to me.  Now killing to stop a child molester, a tyrant, etc, etc... That I have no problem with (and other things as well).  It's when it becomes "because I believe my god told me to kill you" that I have a serious problem with.  I hope that's clear as mud.   :)
It might be hard for some of you to believe, but many atheists (but not all or even the majority) seriously consider every idea that is presented to them.  I am that way, I have read through your questions and I have given them serious thought.  I did sort of pass them by as I didn't want to get OT in my own thread.   :D  Also I kind of figured it was taboo to debate in the welcome section. 
I think we could find some common ground on which to share.   :)
However, we would have to part ways (or agree to disagree) when it came to God and the Bible part.  Not that I wouldn't enjoy hearing your take on it with those views in mind though.  :)

View Post


Constantine was conspiring with the current Ceasar to bring Christians out into the open to count them and discredit them. What better way than to claim to be one, and do evil against the people and claim it's in God's name? The people would hate the Christians, which means Ceasar had the population working with him to rid his cities of them. He hated them so he would take several every night and tie them to posts in the ground. Pour oil upon them and light them up so that he could see his rose graden at night while they screemed and died.

It's not taboo to debate here when the poster makes comments that need to be addressed.

#19 menes777

menes777

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 91 posts
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Wichita, KS

Posted 11 January 2010 - 01:28 PM

1) No. What happens on the earth stayed on the earth until a way was made for most everyone to enter Heaven.

.................................

Second death is the lake of fire which is eternal damnation. There is no escape from eternal damnation.

View Post


Ok that seems more like what I remember. Some of it was refresher course, but still what I was taught to believe.

Question is, what god did he do it in the name of? Plus, in the Bible God never had the people he told to kill others for their evil to take their stuff (spoils of war).

View Post


That really is the million dollar question many times isn't it? What were his motives? Was he really attempting to do the Christian god's works, was he still following his sun god or was he just some jerk that liked killing people? From my viewpoint he was the latter but used religion or the belief in a higher power to not only achieve it but justify it. Now there have been many times in history when leaders could get their people to conquer (and plunder) just for the glory of it. However in the scope of the crusades it is most definitely religious driven. What would happen if Xianity never existed, would the Crusades have happened? Perhaps his paganistic beliefs may not have been enough to rally the people to go on a slaughter or maybe it was enough. Maybe it could have been worse and all of Islam could have been wiped out (or vice versa)? Either way it's still brought on my religion, whether Christian or Pagan. The using of a higher powers name to not only rally the cause but justify it as well. Now the ultimate question is what would happen if Constantine had an atheistic point of view? Would they have just bettered science and improved humankind as a whole with their power? More than likely not, the world back then was a pretty brutal place. The underlying causes that would make them do evil deeds in the name of religion would also be there even if they didn't have religion to justify it with.

It would appear that I am stating that he would have murdered the crap out of a bunch of people with or without religion. The thing is that we don't really know what a world would be like without religion of some kind. Would it be better or worse? Consider this trend in religion. Humans have gone from polytheism to monotheism over several thousand years in the past. That would seem like humans are discovering that we need the supernatural less and less as times goes by. We no longer need a god of thunder to explain the rain and the thunder and lightning. The same as we really don't need religion to do evil things (we do that fine all by ourselves) and we don't need a religion to tell us that we should do good things. consider this, when in history has there been the opposite of the inquisition or the Crusades(something immensely positive or beneficial to everyone, not just the religion)? I am willing to bet almost never or what has happened doesn't match the scale of the opposite. Because it's easier to use religion (and speak for an unseen god) to do horrible things, than it is to do good things.

As far as God never telling his people to never take the spoils of war I disagree with you. I do agree that there is no provision for taking a prostitute's money GTA style after stoning her to death (or any other sinner's belongings). If there is, I am not aware of them. Spoils of war though are a different story.

Genesis 34:13-29 The Israelites kill Hamor, his son, and all the men of their village, taking as plunder their wealth, cattle, wives and children.

Deuteronomy 20:13-14

13And when the LORD thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword:
14But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee.

Deuteronomy 21:10-13

10When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive,
11And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife;
12Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house, and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails;
13And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife.

So it appears that there are several instances where god told them to take some spoils of war. Not that any conqueror will quote the bible to justify their actions. They could just as easily say "God told me that we should plunder their wealth, livestock, wives and children! Because this is Sparta!" Ok that's a little over the top but you get the point. Just because something is or isn't in the bible doesn't mean that humans will follow by it.

Now does that sound like Constantine was following God when God does not allow certain things? Nope. Many people will say often they believe in God, and are Christian. But when you really pin them down on the issues, the truth comes out.

Oprah on many occassion has said or implied she is a Christian and believes in God. But when pinned down on the issue in this video, the truth comes out. Many people front themselves as Christians because they want to fit in with everyone in that group. Or do not want to be bothered with questions as to why they are not one. Or they will use the term to dupe others. True Christians walk the walk, and talk the talk. And they never deceive someone on purpose.

View Post


Ok one of my pet peeves is when someone distorts what someone else says simply to stir up discontent. It also leads to some bias as to what is actually said by the individual when a distorting headline is used. Harpo does not deny Christ in what she said. If you watch that thinking she is going to deny Christ then sure you could distort it to fit that picture. All Harpo said was that there is more than one way to get to heaven. She also had a legitimate question to ask. If Jesus is the only way to heaven, what about those poor people who never have heard about Jesus? Too bad so bad, god is going to punish some Christians for it? Even the ladies rebuttal of that Jesus won't come back till the gospel is everywhere doesn't help. What about all the poor slobs that died before it got there? Not that I am any fan of Harpo (as you can tell I make fun of her name), but she does make a big target. She's a smart, lucky and clever woman who has done well with her life. Do I consider her a strong Christian? Not by any stretch of the imagination, but if she claims to be a Christian what right does anyone have to say that she is not? She has done a lot of good with her money. Is it everything she could be doing as an Christian? Nope, but I think that comes back to the mote and beam thing.

As to Constantine, it's not an issue if he really was an Christian or not. The issue is with him using Xianity for what did use it for. If he were the only one that did so and other things were different I could see your point. It would be as if I went to a church but since one person wasn't really an Christian there I stopped going. When that is not the case at all.

Every group is going to have it's funactics. If you decide to judge a whole group on one person's action then that is your bussiness. It would be the same as me saying that because Hitler used evolution to justify his actions, all evolutionists are Nazis. Don't make any sense now does it? Hitler even claimed to be Christian, but here again he never lived like one. And choosing to kill God's choosen people certainly was not an example of being one.

View Post


That's interesting how you spelled fanatics, made me think they were having fun while being crazy. :lol:

That's not really I was saying at all. I was simply stating that the pro-life movement would look bad if they did claim him. It would be contradictory to say pro-life but advocate pro-death to stop something. Also if he were the only one that did this sort of thing I would understand your point. However, Tiller was shot before, clinics have been bombed, acid thrown, etc etc. Do I consider the pro-life movement an evil or terrorist organization? Nope, but I do think they could better spend their time and resources towards other avenues than attempting to shame or shock people out of getting abortions. Do I blame the pro-life movement for Tiller's death? I do not, I blame Roedor for it. However, I think that Roedor's hatred was based on the anti-abortion stance.

Interesting you bring up Hitler because I have heard so many times how Hitler had evolution to justify his actions. First, Hitler and the Nazi Party did not justify their actions at all. They simply did what they did. Secondly, it would be ignoring history entirely to say that Hitlers actions were based on evolutionary thinking. Hitler himself did not decide the final solution nor did he come up with the Eugenics programs (among every other atrocity). This is not to say Hitler is innocent, but the real culprits were Hitlers lackeys. The German Eugenics program was copied directly from the American Eugenics program (that was short lived). The final solution was the culmination of centuries of an anti-Semitic continent. The Nazi's simply had the means and the technology to implement it. The Europeans were hating Jews just about as soon as Jewish communities started springing up. The Holocaust was not the real first time Jews were slaughtered for being Jews. Nor will it be the last. One of the justifications for killing Jews that was given was that Jews killed Jesus, so killing Jews was doing God's work. Was it a valid one? It's not for me to decide, but what is considered one person's good Christian is another one's false Christian.

Putting people on display to prove evolution makes the movement and all that follow look just as bad. I can show several things people have done in the name of evolution, just as you can show things as well. Shall we go down this road or not? I have a whole archive of stuff.

View Post


I think we shall, because again what you have shown me is really ignoring the history surrounding the thinking of the day. It's also very easy to put a caption on a picture and then add in some information that makes it seem credible. Then bank that no one will buy the book just to prove you wrong. The caption could be verbatim except for someone added evolution to it. The point is that you don't really know until you check & I did some digging.

1. W. J. McGee worked for the Bureau of Ethnology from 1893-1903, and he was the chief of the department of anthropology for the 1904 World's Fair.
2. Was he an evolutionist: Inconclusive, however, considering how he wrote a book about the Pleistocene History I am willing to gamble he was one.
3. Was the exhibit considered to be about evolution? Inconclusive. However considering that the exhibit was considered a human zoo which have been around prior to anyone even suggesting evolution it would be a stretch to think that.

Even if it did have evolution stamped all over it with big red letters, it wouldn't really show much. Considering at that time in the US blacks still weren't considered equal to whites. Also this was directly after the US had defeated Spain and acquired territories with what were considered savage races. This seems more like more racist banter at the time, where only Englishman were civilized and all whites were supieror. The US had just become a world power so to speak, it could also be a "look at how superior Americans (the non-black kind) are" ploy.

#20 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 12 January 2010 - 12:20 AM

Ok that seems more like what I remember.  Some of it was  refresher course, but still what I was taught to believe.


Was there something wrong with it?

That really is the million dollar question many times isn't it?  What were his motives?  Was he really attempting to do the Christian god's works, was he still following his sun god or was he just some jerk that liked killing people?  From my viewpoint he was the latter but used religion or the belief in a higher power to not only achieve it but justify it.  Now there have been many times in history when leaders could get their people to conquer (and plunder) just for the glory of it.  However in the scope of the crusades it is most definitely religious driven.  What would happen if Xianity never existed, would the Crusades have happened?  Perhaps his paganistic beliefs may not have been enough to rally the people to go on a slaughter or maybe it was enough.  Maybe it could have been worse and all of Islam could have been wiped out (or vice versa)?  Either way it's still brought on my religion, whether Christian or Pagan.  The using of a higher powers name to not only rally the cause but justify it as well.  Now the ultimate question is what would happen if Constantine had an atheistic point of view?  Would they have just bettered science and improved humankind as a whole with their power?  More than likely not, the world back then was a pretty brutal place.  The underlying causes that would make them do evil deeds in the name of religion would also be there even if they didn't have religion to justify it with.


When people have to justify an act deceitfully. it means they know they have done wrong and are trying to cover for what they did

It would appear that I am stating that he would have murdered the crap out of a bunch of people with or without religion.  The thing is that we don't really know what a world would be like without religion of some kind.  Would it be better or worse?  Consider this trend in religion.  Humans have gone from polytheism to monotheism over several thousand years in the past.  That would seem like humans are discovering that we need the supernatural less and less as times goes by.  We no longer need a god of thunder to explain the rain and the thunder and lightning.  The same as we really don't need religion to do evil things (we do that fine all by ourselves) and we don't need a religion to tell us that we should do good things. consider this, when in history has there been the opposite of the inquisition or the Crusades(something immensely positive or beneficial to everyone, not just the religion)? I am willing to bet almost never or what has happened doesn't match the scale of the opposite.  Because it's easier to use religion (and speak for an unseen god) to do horrible things, than it is to do good things.  

Being that Ceasar had to be convinced of everything Constantine did. Everything had to have an agenda with the conclusion being in favor of what the Ceasar wanted. Being that Ceasar was burning Christians at the stake, what do you think Constantine had to do everytime he needed approval? All he had to do was show that his actions would mortorally wound the Christians in one way or another.

As far as God never telling his people to never take the spoils of war I disagree with you.  I do agree that there is no provision for taking a prostitute's money GTA style after stoning her to death (or any other sinner's belongings).  If there is, I am not aware of them.  Spoils of war though are a different story.

Genesis 34:13-29 The Israelites kill Hamor, his son, and all the men of their village, taking as plunder their wealth, cattle, wives and children.


God did not condone what they did. The people were enraged because the kings son had raped one of the girls of the Israelites. Jacob, head of the tribe, was very mad about what they did behind his back.

Deuteronomy 20:13-14

13And when the LORD thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword:
14But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee.


There is a difference between war with an enemy, and having to kill those who do evil.

Deuteronomy 20:1 When thou goest out to battle against thine enemies, and seest horses, and chariots, and a people more than thou, be not afraid of them: for the LORD thy God is with thee, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.


Deuteronomy 21:10-13

10 When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive,
11And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife;
12Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house, and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails;
13And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife.


Same as above post.

So it appears that there are several instances where god told them to take some spoils of war. Not that any conqueror will quote the bible to justify their actions.  They could just as easily say "God told me that we should plunder their wealth, livestock, wives and children!  Because this is Sparta!"  Ok that's a little over the top but you get the point.   Just because something is or isn't in the bible doesn't mean that humans will follow by it. 
Ok one of my pet peeves is when someone distorts what someone else says simply to stir up discontent.  It also leads to some bias as to what is actually said by the individual when a distorting headline is used.  Harpo does not deny Christ in what she said.  If you watch that thinking she is going to deny Christ then sure you could distort it to fit that picture.  All Harpo said was that there is more than one way to get to heaven.  She also had a legitimate question to ask.  If Jesus is the only way to heaven, what about those poor people who never have heard about Jesus?   Too bad so bad, god is going to punish some Christians for it?  Even the ladies rebuttal of that Jesus won't come back till the gospel is everywhere doesn't help.  What about all the poor slobs that died before it got there?  Not that I am any fan of Harpo (as you can tell I make fun of her name), but she does make a big target.  She's a smart, lucky and clever woman who has done well with her life.  Do I consider her a strong Christian?  Not by any stretch of the imagination, but if she claims to be a Christian what right does anyone have to say that she is not?  She has done a lot of good with her money.  Is it everything she could be doing as an Christian?  Nope, but I think that comes back to the mote and beam thing.

As to Constantine, it's not an issue if he really was an Christian or not.  The issue is with him using Xianity for what did use it for.  If he were the only one that did so and other things were different I could see your point.  It would be as if I went to a church but since one person wasn't really an Christian there I stopped going.  When that is not the case at all. 
That's interesting how you spelled fanatics, made me think they were having fun while being crazy.  :lol: 


It was never recorded that God directly told Constantine to kill anyone. And because most of who they killed were not even considered enemies, he would have had to kill them for their evil if he was doing this for God. But whom he was killing was innocent civilians. So your logic here does not work.

That's not really I was saying at all.  I was simply stating that the pro-life movement would look bad if they did claim him.  It would be contradictory to say pro-life but advocate pro-death to stop something.  Also if he were the only one that did this sort of thing I would understand your point.  However, Tiller was shot before, clinics have been bombed, acid thrown, etc etc.  Do I consider the pro-life movement an evil or terrorist organization?  Nope, but I do think they could better spend their time and resources towards other avenues than attempting to shame or shock people out of getting abortions.  Do I blame the pro-life movement for Tiller's death?  I do not, I blame Roedor for it.  However, I think that Roedor's hatred was based on the anti-abortion stance. 


Shall I start naming people who have killed, torture, racism, deception in the name of evolution, atheism, communism, humanism?

Interesting you bring up Hitler because I have heard so many times how Hitler had evolution to justify his actions.  First, Hitler and the Nazi Party did not justify their actions at all.  They simply did what they did.  Secondly, it would be ignoring history entirely to say that Hitlers actions were based on evolutionary thinking.  Hitler himself did not decide the final solution nor did he come up with the Eugenics programs (among every other atrocity).


Darwin's cousin Sir Francis Galton headed up Eugenics. They did experiments for the Nazis. http://www.eugenicsa...ader.pl?id=1589

Notice the head measuring device in the window from link above. That is how they determined how evolved a person was from being an animal, or in this case a highly evolved human. Evolution experiments were done upon animals in the name of eugenics: http://www.eugenicsa...images/961.html

This is not to say Hitler is innocent, but the real culprits were Hitlers lackeys.  The German Eugenics program was copied directly from the American Eugenics program (that was short lived).  The final solution was the culmination of centuries of an anti-Semitic continent.  The Nazi's simply had the means and the technology to implement it.  The Europeans were hating Jews just about as soon as Jewish communities started springing up.  The Holocaust was not the real first time Jews were slaughtered for being Jews.  Nor will it be the last.  One of the justifications for killing Jews that was given was that Jews killed Jesus, so killing Jews was doing God's work.  Was it a valid one?  It's not for me to decide, but what is considered one person's good Christian is another one's false Christian.


I see you bought into the changed history of those who want no connection to it. I suggest you research the eugenics archive instead of depending upon opinionated information website like the wikipedia, or sites that have an agenda by distorting history.

I think we shall, because again what you have shown me is really ignoring the history surrounding the thinking of the day.  It's also very easy to put a caption on a picture and then add in some information that makes it seem credible.  Then bank that no one will buy the book just to prove you wrong.  The caption could be verbatim except for someone added evolution to it.  The point is that you don't really know until you check & I did some digging.

1.  W. J. McGee worked for the Bureau of Ethnology from 1893-1903, and he was the chief of the department of anthropology for the 1904 World's Fair.
2.  Was he an evolutionist:  Inconclusive, however, considering how he wrote a book about the Pleistocene History I am willing to gamble he was one.
3.  Was the exhibit considered to be about evolution? Inconclusive.  However considering that the exhibit was considered a human zoo which have been around prior to anyone even suggesting evolution it would be a stretch to think that. 

Even if it did have evolution stamped all over it with big red letters, it wouldn't really show much.  Considering at that time in the US blacks still weren't considered equal to whites.  Also this was directly after the US had defeated Spain and acquired territories with what were considered savage races.  This seems more like more racist banter at the time, where only Englishman were civilized and all whites were supieror.  The US had just become a world power so to speak, it could also be a "look at how superior Americans (the non-black kind) are" ploy.

View Post


You see, here we have the double standard. Regardless of what evolutionists do in the name of evolution, it's okay. Why is it okay? The individual defines the morals of the actions of everyone involved, as you just demonstrated above with that last comment. There are no moral standards or you would not have been justifying putting people in a zoo for display like animals. What if I had justified that same thing by making the same comment? You'd be all over it.

You basically have all the ear markings of a professional Bible scoffer. One whom presents himself as a fallen Christian in the attempt to take down the Christian faith while all along making his own belief look perfect and without flaw by justifying actions you hold against us, to be okay for yourself. It is not only bias, but prejudice.

Now Bible scoffing is not calling anyone names because I don't determine it by just a name I want to call someone. I determine it by their actions against the Bible and the Christian faith. You have basically shown here that you are 100% against all that. So no matter how you try and soften it, it shows with every word. Your refusal to use the name Christ in your wording, but would rather X-Christ out also confirms this.

Also, the human zoo still goes on today. Here is a site that did this and promoted it: http://www.humanzoo....u/thehumans.htm

My, the link seems to be broken. I wonder why. It seems that when evolutionists do things that hurt evolution more than it helps. They remove the website, or the whole page. But luckily, I have a few links that show it was actually done. And that the site actually existed: http://www.cbsnews.c...ain798423.shtml
http://news.bbc.co.u...900/4188996.stm

The problem is with the web is that once you put up anything of interest, others will promote it. And even though it's take it down for whatever reason. The others usually don't.

I have more respect for people's honesty about what they believe whether I agree or not, when they can just come out and say it. Then I do for those who present themselves as someone halfway between two beliefs, but when pinned down actually show which belief they will stick by in every situation. And then use the most common Bible scoffing subjects to try and discredit the book they despise.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users