It's sickening how closed minded and ignorant people can be, and to go to the extreme to take someone's life away, amirite?

*cough* Muslim terrorists *cough*

by Anonymous 13 years ago

*cough* any type of terrorist *cough*

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Is there any other kind?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I thought you would be smarter than that, Phil. Domestic (which aren't usually Muslim...), those who bomb abortion clinics (which often happen to be extremist Christians....). In fact, most terrorist attacks on US soil aren't from Muslims. We've had this conversation on here before.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I don't recall. But tell me, just how many abortion clinics are bombed each year? Cause I haven't heard anything about any recently.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

That, I am not sure but it's happened, it was in the news sometime last year I think. Not to mention the doctors themselves are often targets when things like this DO happen. I'll put a link on your profile if I find one. But like I said, a majority of terrorist attacks on US soil aren't by muslims..

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Whn did I say anything about America? What about the car bombing and stuff like that?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

My name isn't Phil, BTW.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

How appropriate for you to comment on this post, one about close minded-people.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I'm only closed minded to things that go against the Bible.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Exactly. You refuse to open your mind to things you don't believe. That is what angers me most about you.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

No, I refuse to open my mind to things that contradict God's word.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

That is what I just said, and it angers me you refuse to see the other side of your opinion.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Only when it's wrong.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

You don't know that. And I said opinion, not fact.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Well when do I ever debate opinions, instead of facts?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

All the time. You have with me several times.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

When? Examples plz.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Are you serious? The health care debate Evolution Whether or not to take the Bible literally Those

by Anonymous 13 years ago

None of those are opinions. Health care: It's not based on opinions if you say "It's good for us" and it causes the country to go bankrupt. (Not saying it will, just an example) Evolution: We can use facts to prove it wrong. Bible: Ultimatly one person is right, and it is me. Either it's supposed to be taken literally or not. An opinion can not be wrong. Thus those are not opinions.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Exactly. You are closing your mind to the other side of you opinions, and it pisses me (and many other people) off.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I just proved to you how those are not opinions. Thus, I don't debate opinions.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

You proved nothing wrong. They are opinions, and you are too much of a fool to see otherwise. And back to the question: Who are you to say the Bible should be taken literally?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

How is evolution an opinion? You sir, are a idiot. Let's say you have a math book. It says "2 + 2 = 4". It has no indictaion that it is meant to be taken metaphorically, so we take it literally. Same with the Bible.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

How is evolution not an opinion? There are more facts for evolution than for creationism. And 2+2=4 can be proven. The Bible cannot.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Because it is (supposedly) science. Things that can be proven are not opinions. The Bible can (and will) be proven, just not in this life.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

As of this point in time, macroevolution has not been proven or disproven, therefore, it is an opinion whether to believe it or not. Prove that the Bible will be proven.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I never said that believing in evolution wasn't an opinion. Whether or not evolution happened is not an opinion. When you die, ask God about the Bible, before he sends you to Hell. He will prove it to you.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I quote from above "How is evolution an opinion? You sir, are a idiot." You are there saying that evolution is not an opinion. Prove that God exists.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I know. Evolution is not an opinion. You'll have to wait until you die.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I quote from two of your posts ago "I never said that believing in evolution wasn't an opinion. Whether or not evolution happened is not an opinion." Is evolution an opinion or not? You've given me two different answers. And that does not prove that God exists. If you cannot prove that God exists, your opinion holds no value as fact. As opinion, yes, but not as fact.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

If you choose not to believe in evolution, it's your opinion to believe in it or not. But not believing in evolution doesn't make it not happen, or vice versa. I never said *I* could prove it. I said it could be proven. Which is true:

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Same goes for creationism, just because you believe it, doesn't automatically make it fact, which is what you think, and don't say you don't, because you do. You CANNOT deny that. Well if the existence of God can be proven, and you can't, show me someone who can.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

No, I will deny it because it is an utter lie. I believe creation because the Bible says so. God. If He exists, He will prove it to you, after you die.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

You cannot prove that God exists, therefore your entire argument, both of God existing and creationism being true, holds no ground in fact.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I didn't say either was a fact. Now did I?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

No, but you are asserting your opinion as fact. Since you, nor anyone else, cannot prove God exists, your opinion holds no ground as fact.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

It's not an opinion. Either God exists or He doesn't. Either creation is true or it it's not. It has nothing to do with an opinion!

by Anonymous 13 years ago

But whether they are true or not is subject to opinion, since neither can be proved.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

No. Whether or not you believe them is an opinion. If God is real, He's real, regardless of your opinion.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

But there is no way to know if God is real, no proof of existence. Therefore it is a personal belief/opinion as to whether or not He exists.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Whether or not you believe in Him is an opinion. But He will/will not exist regardless of your opinion.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

That is true. But without proof of the existence of God, creationism holds no ground in fact. If God does not exist, which is possible, creationism would be impossible.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I didn't say creation was a proven fact. And no, creation would still be possible if God didn't exist.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

You're certainly preaching creationism like proven fact. How is creationism possible without God?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

When do I preach creation as a proven fact? A god could have done it.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

ALL THE FRICKEN' TIME But wouldn't a god doing it be the same thing as God doing it? Isn't creationism the belief that a divine force set the world exactly as it is, be that force a god or God?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Examples?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Of what?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Me preaching it as fact? And yes, I just said that. God or a god could have done it. It still could have happened without God.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

You really need me to show you where you preach it as fact? Are you really that ignorant as to what you do? You said creationism is possible without God (or a god, for purpose of this argument) You never answered how that is possible.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

As far as I remember (I could be wrong, I don't know) I say that the Bible says creation is true, thus I believe it, and since evolution is false, creation is the logical choice. No. It's possible without God. But there has to be some sort of god. I never said it was possible without both of them.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

What proof do you have that evolution is false? And proving it not true is not the same thing as proving it false. Also, what evidence is there for creationism?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Proving it isn't true is the EXACT same thing as proving it is false. What are you smoking? I just said. Since evolution isn't true creation is the logical next choice.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

You never said what proof you had against evolution. Yes, those are the same. I apologize, my wording was off. I meant to say proving creationism (impossible) is not the same as disproving evolution. I was going to say it the other way around, I fixed one, but forgot to do the other. My apologies, I'm focusing on several different things right now and that slipped my mind when I posted.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

101 evidences for a young age of the earth and the universe: http://creation.mobi/age-of-the-earth Young earth = no evolution. It's fine.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Most of those say something to the tune of "nothing can be dated to millions of years ago." While that is true, it is due to entropy, the general property to go to disorder. Everything goes to disorder, and when it is reorganized, it gets a different date to put on it, the old one can't be recovered.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

http://creation.mobi/young-age-of-the-earth-universe-qa

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Get back to me when you have a link that works.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

icwatudidthar!

by Anonymous 13 years ago

icwatididthar2

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Teehee...

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I must ask, after the proceedings in Tuscon, are you still pro gun rights?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Yes... Nothing is ever going to change my view on gun rights. Also, if there had been someone with a concealed handgun in tht crowd, I bet the shooter would have been shot before he could use one mag, let alone reload and continue to fire 31 shots.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. If someone had a concealed weapon shot him, someone else might not know the intent and pull out their concealed weapon to stop him and the chain would repeat with many more dead. If guns were outlawed in the first place, the Congresswoman would not have been shot.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Maybe. But that doesn't matter. You can not take away peoples rights to gun ownership! And if they did try to take away my/my family's guns, I would shoot them, as my family needs a way to defend themselves.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Nevermind that getting rid of all guns would be for the greater good of the country. Countries with strict gun laws (Australia, Japan) have the lowest murder rates. So you're advocating for murder and you call yourself a Christian. Hmm...somehow that doesn't quite fit.....

by Anonymous 13 years ago

One word: Chicago. They have gun restrictions but they still have one of the highways murder rates in the country. Murder? No, there is a difference between killing and murder. Killing is necessary to survive. Do you know I (along with my whole family) would probably be dead right now had my dad not had a gun? Twice out house has been broken into, both times my dad used his pistol to scare him away. Don't tell me guns are bad.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Lucky you, guns have saved you. You are one family that has been saved by guns. Can you look beyond yourself for once and realize how many families have been torn apart by them? Everyday I hear on the news "A man has been fatally shot outside his home", or "Police are interrogating a suspect in a shooting last week". The gun that shot the Congresswoman and killed the Federal Judge was bought legally by a sociopath, and he could get one because he hadn't committed a crime before. Are you really that blind to what is happening?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

And I'm very thankful for it. Yes, obviously I'm the only person every saved by a gun, cause guns are obviously evil. Yeah, sorry, I'm just being selfish for wanting to live, and being thankful for the tool used to save my family's life, I'm such a horible person. And do you think all of those guns were obtained legally? No. Sure, the few, isolated inccidents where people snap and go postal are legal guns. But the guns that actaully criminals use are illegal. No, I'm not blind, I just don't hold honest respectable gun carriers who might save a life with their gun at some point, accountable for a murder by an insane man.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

But if we make gun laws really strict, there will be less guns overall, which will stop the flow to the black market. Countries with strict gun laws have the lowest murder rates. Stop being a dumbass and realize guns are bad.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

No, that doesn't work. They'll just get them from somewhere else. Gun are not bad, they save lives, lots of them.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

How do you live being so f*cking close minded to facts in front of your face?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

(Vitaminb):Proverbs 29:9: When a wise man has a controversy with a foolish man,     The foolish man either rages or laughs, and there is no rest.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Are you raging or laughing?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Neither. You are raging.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

The quote said the foolish was either raging or laughing, so I'm asking you which one you are doing, as you are the foolish one. Anyone but you can see that.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

No, you're foolish.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Of course I'm foolish, because I look at the larger picture instead of just myself (like you). I apologize for wanting people I have no relations with to have a good life. I'm sorry for being selfless. Because according to you, the good thing to do is think only of yourself an no one else. People like you are the biggest problem this world faces.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Well, since this argument has been reduced to childish name-calling and/or "I'm a better person than you!" points, I am ending it.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

You're just saying that because you have no points. You have nothing to say, because I'm right, and you know it, you just refuse to admit that.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

No, I will re-open the debate if you stop claiming that you're a better person than I, which isn't what this argument is about at all.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Do you have something to say to the last comment? Then say it. And I still stand by what I said. I don't take the last sentence back. (Mostly because it's true, the close-minded people are the biggest problem for the world.)

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Yeah, I'm leaving.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Yep, I didn't think you had anything to say, because the truth is irrefutable. I guess you just can't handle the truth.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

No, but I won't sit here and let you insult me.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Then get your head out of your @$$ and stop being close minded and see facts that are plain to see to anyone but you.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

O.o now that's a long arguement. Bravo to you for putting up with that.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Do you agree with me?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Not only do I agree with you, but I think you deserve a metal. A ginormous, shiny, sold-gold medal.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I just fell in love with you.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

People like you, sir, are the reason that Christians are thought of as close-minded.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Don't bother with that. He takes things like close minded as a compliment.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

And I should care... Why?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

As a geology major, I'd like to say that the link you posted is almost complete bullshit.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

who the heck knows you are nobody when you are anonymous

by Anonymous 6 years ago

This is the saddest statement I've ever read. If you've opened your mind to other possibilities, thoroughly questioned the Bible, and still decided it all made sense to you, then you would have a strong, respectable faith. Closemindedly living by a book bc that book says you should means your life is just regurgitated spoonfed nonsense. It's posts like these that turn people completely off God. That and the "You're going to hell posts"... No one takes those seriously because how would you know? If I told you you'd come back as a banana slug after you died you would think I was an idiot. But what if I read it in a book? Why is your book right and mine isn't?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I do read the Bible, and I have yet to find something that doesn't make sense.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

That is because you are so close minded into following it that you refuse to see anything wrong with it.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

No, there actually is nothing wrong with it.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

That is because you are so close minded into following it that you refuse to see anything wrong with it.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Because there actually is nothing wrong with it.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

And no man hath ascended up to heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven. - John 3:13 ... and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven. - 2 Kings 2:11 I and my father are one. - John 10:30 ... I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I. - John 14:28 [Jesus was the speaker in both of these quotes] I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved. - Genesis 32:30 No man hath seen God at any time. - John 1:18 http://www.evilbible.com/Biblical%20Contradictions.htm

by Anonymous 13 years ago

1. It says ascended. Not gone. Since it isn't very specific, it could have meant any kind of "ascension". It could be saying no man has gotten into Heaven by his own works, or that no man has litterally ascended into heaven eg Tower of Babel. I honestly don't know what the author meant. 2. Yes, they are one entity, in three seperate forms. They are all one, but in three seperate forms. 3. Hold on, I'll get back to you on this one.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

1. The first statement says no one will ascend into heaven. The second statement says Elijah, a person, was taken into heaven, body and all. It doesn't say the soul or spirit of Elijah, it says Elijah went into heaven. 2. If they are all parts of the same, how is one greater than another? 3. Please get back to me on that one

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Yes, as I said, it could have meant any kind of ascension. Like literally, how they tried to get to get to heaven in the tower of Babel. No man ascends to heaven, they get there thought Christ alone. Because that's the way it is. There are 3 branches of the gov't, and they are all part of the gov't, but they are different. Besides, humans aren't meant to be able to comprehend the trinity. He wouldn't be much of a god if puny human minds could understand Him.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

No part of the government is stronger than any other part. Yes, there are three parts, but they are all equal. And answer number 3 please

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Well, that's the best example I could think of. As I said, humans can't understand the trinity. http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/3870

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Well your example only helped my argument. You say to take the Bible literally. Doing that, it would be said that face to face would mean exactly that, face (eyes, nose, mouth, etc) to face. But there are other verses that explicitly state that God will never be seen. Taking this literally, God will never be seen. However that was contradicted in a different verse.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

How so? Did you even read the link I gave you?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

How it helped: Federal gov. has three parts. The gov. is one thing with three equal parts. No one part is greater than the other. Yes, did you read my response?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Ok, point? Jesus is still God, and God the Fafther is greater than Jesus. Yes, did you read my link?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Have Christ be C and God be G. I and my father are one. - John 10:30 They are one, so therefore: C = G ... I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I. - John 14:28 It says G > C, which contradicts the first statement. Yes, have you read my response? I will repost here for convenience. "You say to take the Bible literally. Doing that, it would be said that face to face would mean exactly that, face (eyes, nose, mouth, etc) to face. But there are other verses that explicitly state that God will never be seen. Taking this literally, God will never be seen. However that was contradicted in a different verse." Please read.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

How does it contradict? They are three seperate forms of one entity, each is different. If you had actually read the article you would know that it explained it.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

If Christ and the Father are one, that means the are the same. Neither is greater. Would you agree on that point? The article said face to face meant as friends, and that would not be taking it literally, an act you uphold.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I told you, they are three different forms (Father is greater) of one single being/entity/God (The Father and I are one). Well, I guess we don't see eye to eye on this issue.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

If they are one, does that not mean that they are the same? Ah, you have no rebuttal. Victory for me.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

No, I already told you. They are 3 different forms of one being, three different forms means they are different. No, actually, that was my rebuttal. You just apperently weren't clever enough to see it. I used a figure of speech similar to "face to face". I said we don't see eye to eye. Was I saying that we aren't looking directly into eachother's eyes? No.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

The verse says "The Father and I are one". If they are one, how are they different? If there are three different ones, how are two of them one? Yes, it was a figure of speech. You are always saying the Bible should be taken literally, no exceptions. So face to face in the Bible would mean exactly that, face to face. Once you take that metaphorically, the entire basis of your Christianity is gone.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

The are both part of one being (The Holy Spirit is the third). No, I didn't say the Bible should be taken literally "no exceptions". I said it should be taken literally when there is no indictation that it shouldn't be. Here it has indictation.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

But then how are both different and the same at the same time. Name another that can be both different and the same at the same time. What is that indication and why are you the one that gets to decide whether to take it literally at a certain point or not.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

So I know I'm not part of this or anything but I was explained the trinity like an uncooked egg; three parts, three different jobs.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

No response, eh? And don't say you didn't have enough time for amirite and you weren't on. Your account has had plenty of activity.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Oh, sorry. You replied right before I had to leave, so I bookmarked it and then forgot about it. Name another thing that is as powerful as God. Well, in one verse it says no one has seen God, and in another it says Moses saw Him face to face. This indicates that it one of them is metaforical. But I'm pretty sure it says elsewhere in the Bible none have see God, so it is obviusly the "face to face" one that is metaforical.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

No problem You failed to answer the first part. Allah, Brahman The entire basis of what you preached as Christianity has been completely abolished. You preach to take The Bible literally, and you just took something metaphorically. You did that just to prevent the contradiction of your views. You twisted it to fit the argument here. If that one part should be, who is to say the rest shouldn't be. Leviticus says that homosexuals are an abomination. Homosexuals were an abomination at the time. Perhaps that means the use of the word homosexual in Leviticus was a metaphor for the abomination at the time. They are not an abomination now, so homosexuality is no longer a sin, even though it was in the time of writing.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

They are different and the sane because They are GOD. They God doesn't follow your logic nor mine nor anyone else's. I mean't sething that extists. Yes, taken litterally when it there is no indictation that you shouldn't. No, I did not contradict myself. I neversaid the Bible is supposed to be taken litterally even when there is indictation it should not be. The reason I take this metaforically is because there is a verse that says otherwise, thus one of them is supposed to be taken literally, the other figuritively. Give me a verse that indicates that the verses about homosexuality are meant to be taken metaforically. There are none. How would it be an abomination then but not now?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Christ proclaimed love and respect for all. Condemning homosexuals is not love and respect. I gave you the indication, and you're too full of yourself to see otherwise. And if you say "It says so in Leviticus", I will bring back the face to face verse, because your argument faults there, anyone but you can see that. How could it be an abomination then but not now? The world changes, that is undeniable fact. (Btw, that's also a reason for evolution, the world changes)

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Live and respect, huh? When did Jesus say "Respect thine brethren" or anything close. Yes, He said to love, but I do love them. I love them enough to warn them that if they don't repent of their sins and turn to Jesus they will go to Hell. No, that was simply you making groundless assumtions about the Bible. If you find me a verse that contradicts the verses about homosexuality, get back to me then. It says so in other verses too. Yes but God never changes, thus sin never changes. Besides, maybe God decided that murder was no longer a sin, who are you to tell me I can't murder. (Yeah, no)

by Anonymous 13 years ago

My response has taken a couple days because I was just on a Confirmation retreat in which we could ask our priest anything we wanted. One question I asked was whether or not the Bible should be taken literally. Without hesitation, he said no. My other question was if he believed in evolution. Yes, he did. He also pointed out that nowhere in Genesis did it say that evolution was untrue. He said the Bible should be taken not as a historical text. The events are not true, but it should be taken as to why it happened. Homosexuality also came up in conversation. It was said that it is ok, and not a sin. Why? Because homosexual is how God made them, and they shouldn't be punished for it

by Anonymous 13 years ago

You said priest and I didn't pay any attention to anything after that. I am not a Catholic. Even if the pope himself walked up to me and said "the Bible isn't supposed to be taken literally" it wouldn't change my mind.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

How can you say you love homosexuals? If you did love them, you would want them to have rights. So if someone devoted their entire life devoted to Christ, helps the homeless, lives justly, but is homosexual, would they go to Hell? How do you know that God has never changed? Do you personally know Him? After this conversation, I would highly doubt that. Out of curiosity, what denomination are you?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

(You mind if I answer your questions with a question? Good) How can you say you love them? If you loved them you wouldn't want them to go to Hell. This statment makes no sense. You can't be devoted to Christ and be a homosexual. Le Bible: Hebrews 13:8 8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever. And yes, I do personally know Him. Southern Baptist. But moreso than believing a certain denomination, I believe the Bible. The reason I'm Southern Baptist is because they're closest to the Bible (from what I've heard).

by Anonymous 13 years ago

(Amish_Allosaurus):(Yes I do, please answer mine, yours is here answered) I love them and all people should be equal. Whether that is said in the Bible or not, they should be equal, that is basic morality. Yes you can. I've seen people like that. They devote themselves to service to others and love and respect, just as Christ did, yet they are gay. And if you ask me, they will get into heaven way before you. The Bible was written thousands of years ago, how would the writers know? You personally know God? Bullshit. You cannot prove His existence, you therefore cannot say you personally know Him. Once again out of curiosity, do you support the people who have the signs "God Hates Fags"?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

How can you say you love people under 16 when they can't drive? Or people under 18 cause tey can't vote? Or people who are under 21 cause they can't drink? Well, where does morality come from? You can't be in continual unrepentant sin and still be devoted to Christ. Because God wrote it, I'm pretty sure He knows Himself better than you know Him. Yes, I do. No, the only thing God hates it evil. So He hates homosexuality, but not the homosexuals.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I'll pretend like that made sense. Morality is what you do to be a good person. (Judge. lest ye be judged, love and respect toward all, common sense stuff like that) Yes, you can, stop being a close-minded bigot. Homosexuality is not a sin. Where does it say in the Bible that God wrote it? (I was under the impression that some authors put their names on the books, the letters were written by Paul (Saul), Gospels written by the Apostles, Pentateuch passed down by oral tradition and written down at some point) I'm sure you do (sarcasm hand is raised). Also a note: Where in the Bible does it say evolution is false?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Yeah, whatever. Who decided what's "good"? Technically, according to evolution, shouldn't we simply do what is best for ourself and ourself alone? Survival of the fittest. According to evolution we should be laughing and celebrating that we are dominant over other species. 2 Timothy 3:16 16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness *rolls eyes* Genenis.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Society decides what is acceptable. According to evolution, yes, we should. But according to humanity and morality, you should help others. The people who don't are cast out as douchebags. Nothing, not even the Bible, can be used to prove itself. Circular logic doesn't work. Where in Genesis? Show me.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Yeah, but who decides what is humane and moral? What if society doesn't agree? Does that mean we can do whatever we want? So then, why are we going against evolution? Why would we want to stop that thing that is (supposedly) making us better, faster, stronger? ono

you just told me to show you where in the Bible it said God wrote it, then you say "That's illogical!!! *derp*" Genesis 1-2. It explains how God made everything.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

It is not one person. It is society as a whole. Yes, it changes from place to place, that is what makes different regions different. The Mid-Eastern countries would be appalled by how much skin women in the US show. They hide everything but their eyes. Yes, evolution does make us better, but there is still a human aspect. Not being a douche is important. You can't use something to prove itself, circular logic doesn't work. And in the statement above, it says God-breathed, not God-written. Yes, but where does it say evolution is false?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

What if society is split down the middle on an issue? That is because of a religion, not because middle eastern society decided that woman aren't suppose to show skin. No, isn't being "human" simply following our feral instincts? You told me to tell you where in the Bible it said God wrote it. I did. That means He was the one who spoke the words ie told them what to write. Genesis 1-2

by Anonymous 13 years ago

When society is split down the middle, that is where issue arise and political parties differ. Yes, it is because of religion, because that is what society deemed they would follow. What indication is there that what you just said is the correct interpretation of that verse? Could it not also mean God inspired, and therefore written by man, and therefore fallible? Nowhere is Genesis does it say that nothing has changed since God created life.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Tell me, where did all the original morality come from? Plenty of out laws are from the Bible. Don't murder, don't steal, don't rape. That is what I just said, God told them what to write. It yeah, but it does say how made everything.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Yes, and those laws are still around. But as society has changes, so has the meaning of Biblical law. You don't know that. It could be God inspired, He may have not told them what to write, but the authors felt compelled to write something. Evolution is not the making of stuff, it is how stuff changes over time. It is entirely possible that God created a few different life forms, which then evolved as the world changed. A couple different species may have come out of one. I don't know. You don't know. No one knows. Therefore both your and my beliefs are possible.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

How has the meaning changed? It said God breathed, that means it's His words. Yeah, no. It said how He made all the animals, not a few.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

What was once unacceptable is now acceptable. Google stupid laws. They exist because society has changed. They were needed at one point in time, and society changed, so now they seem stupid. All law is susceptible to this. God-breathed can have several interpretations. Who are you to say your interpretation is the correct one? Prove it. Where does it say he created all of them? It only says God created this group, and He created this group, it doesn't say things haven't changed

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Yeah, but I'm sure A. Half those laws are made up. B. That have nothing to do with moral issues. What other interpretations? Either way, evolution is impossible if you believe in the original sin, which is the entire basis of Christianity!

by Anonymous 13 years ago

You never know I ALREADY TOLD YOU!!!!! Breathed could be inspired, rather than told. The authors may have been compelled to write something, so they wrote. God may not have told them anything, but rather He gave them the compelling force to write. And when you say that is wrong, my response will be who are you to say what the interpretation of that verse should be, as there are many possible interpretations. Do explain how original sin makes evolution impossible. And is not the entire basis of Christianity to live like Christ?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Find me one. Fine, let's take it literally. God breathed and the words appeared. I still win. Willions of years of evolution means millions of years of death before the original sin, and one of the punishments for the original sin was death. No, without the original sin there is no need for Christ.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I am going to take just the second point at this second, I'll reply to the others in a bit. I have responses, I just want to pinpoint this one, as you have never actually answered it. How do you still win? There are other interpretations, who is to say you are correct? Why am I not correct? Who are you to say those things?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Because it is meant to be taken literally.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

By what ground do you say that? (You: There is nothing that says don't, so do) Me: But nothing says to do, so therefore don't. Who are you to say how the Bible should be interpreted?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I'm saying the Bible doesn't need to be interpreted. (Except for stuff like revelations with all that symbolism) Ok, I say there used to be a ginant ninja koala that lived 1000 years ago right where my house is. You say "There is no evidence for that, it obviously didn't happen" (Which is how I'm thinking) I say "there is nothing that says it wasn't here, so it must have been here" (Which is how you're thinking)

by Anonymous 13 years ago

The entire Bible is symbolism. Everything means something. No, I say "There is no solid evidence, so it may not have happened. It might have, there is no way to know." There is nothing that explicitly says to take the Bible literally. Therefore, it is both acceptable to take it literally and to take it metaphorically, as there is no way to know the true meaning.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

How do you know? Yes, when it says "God made the Heavens and the earth" it means "God made the Heavens and the earth"! There is no indictation that it is meant to be taken metaforically!

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Taking that metaphorically, it could stand for just how powerful God really is. A stated event may not have happened, but rather it is symbolic of something. I'm not saying that it is impossible that God created the earth, He may have. No one was around to see the start of the world, so it is impossible to know. Nor is there indication to take it literally!

by Anonymous 13 years ago

http://creation.mobi/should-genesis-be-taken-literally

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Here is one of the first few lines of that site: "Creationists are often accused of believing that the whole Bible should be taken literally. This is not so! Rather, the key to a correct understanding of any part of the Bible is to ascertain the intention of the author of the portion or book under discussion." Bam. It there says not to take it literally, but rather take the intention of the author.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

*blink blink* did you read any further than that? It clearly stated later that the intention of the author of Genesis was for it to be taken literally. And you have to read the article, because you gave Scranton heck when he supposedly didn't read your article. If you don't read it you would be a hypocrite.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Yes, I did read the rest of it, that section just stood out and allows the following point: Do you know the author? No? Then you don't know the intention. No one knows the author. Anyone can give their views as to what they think the author was getting at, which opens the door to a variety of interpretations. Also. this section: "Chapters 12–50 of Genesis were very clearly written as authentic history, as they describe the lives of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and his 12 sons who were the ancestral heads of the 12 tribes of Israel. The Jewish people, from earliest biblical times to the present day, have always regarded this portion of Genesis as the true record of their nation’s history." Is saying, "It is true because of the content nature, and it is true because it is"

by Anonymous 13 years ago

You honestly think it is impossible to ascertain the intent of the author without knowing who the author actually was? *It is meant to be taken literally because it is very clearly meant to be a history.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Not always, but it can be. With the Bible, there are so many interpretations of everything that the true intent is not known. You can't prove that.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

And it's apperently impossible in this situation. I am just speechless... You always say that the Bible is meant to be taken metaphorically. You obviously don't believe half the Bible, why don't you just make up your own religion called "Believe-whatever-you-want-ism" instead of crapping up Christianity?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Without knowing for sure who the author is and the background they have, it is close to impossible to guess what the true intent was. It is NOT that I don't believe what the Bible says, it is that I do not believe some of the LITERAL INTERPRETATIONS of the Bible. I believe that the Bible should be taken metaphorically, as a spiritual book, rather than literally, as a history book.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Just please stop! You call yourself a Christian yes you deny the word of God. I am done, there is no reasoning with an insane man.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I DO NOT DENY THE BIBLE!!! I BELIEVE IT SHOULD BE TAKEN METAPHORICALLY!!!!! HOW CAN YOU NOT GET THAT THROUGH YOUR HEAD? BOTH LITERAL AND METAPHORICAL INTERPRETATIONS OF THE BIBLE ARE COMPLETELY VALID, JUST BECAUSE YOU DON'T BELIEVE ONE SIDE DOESN'T MEAN IT IS WRONG!!!! PLEASE GET YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR ASS AND REALIZE THIS!!!! You call yourself a Christian and you are against treating everyone justly and equally (you're against gay rights) and for murder (you're for gun rights)? Both of those are directly against the teaching of Christ. And you call yourself a Christian.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

No, in the end one of them is correct, literal or metaphorical, and the other will be incorrect. I tried to explain why it should be taken literally, but you wouldn't listen. When did the Bible command us to condone sins? Are you that mentally retarded? Just because someone owns a gun doesn't mean they're going to murder. Yeah, because Jesus told us to be against guns. *derp*

by Anonymous 13 years ago

You never once had a solid argument. Everything was either opinionated or had a huge-ass bias. Your argument sucked. I do not condone sin. My version of sin is different from your version of sin. I do not believe in punishing someone for the way God made them. You do. How the hell is that Christian-like at all? A larger portions of guns bought will be used to kill than to aid. THINK FOR YOURSELF FOR ONCE!!!! GUNS TAKE AWAY LIVES. ISN'T IT COMMON FUCKING SENSE THAT WOULD TELL US GUNS ARE BAD.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

R u 4 srslys? You ENTIRE argument was "IT DOESN'T SAY "This is supposed to be taken literally" SO IT MUST BE TAKEN ANTI-LITERALLY!!!!" There are not two versions of sin. Either it is a sin or it isn't. You say "Both interpretations are valid" yet you make it seem like I am evil for taking my (non) interpretation of it. There is no evidence that being gay is not a choice. How can you aid with a gun other than the way Joe Horn ("American Hero") did, by shooting the bad guys. Also, this statment has no basis, you are literally pulling random facts out of you butt! Most guns are used for A. Target shooting. B. Hunting. C. Law enforcment. At least all the legal ones. I would bet my life that if everyone in America owned a gun (Everyone 21+) and was willing to use it to shoot the bad guys, crime would drop to near zero. The criminals have no prey if everyone can defend themselves. No, common sense would tell us that you are a moron.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I don't think your a douchbag because of your opinion. I think you're a douchebag because you have no respect for anyone's opinion other than your own. I still stand by my statement of "people like you are what is wrong with this world." Yes, the majority of guns overall are used for law enforcement and hunting. But of just the guns are used for hurting and helping, guns are used far more to hurt than to help. And just a question: How many people need to get shot and killed before you are against gun rights? How many? Yes, my views are based upon respect, and I'm the moron (sarcasm hand is raised).

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Yes I do, at least IRL. I think anyone should have the right to practice any religion (that is of peace) they want. You just bring out my bad side. D'aawwww. Thanks :'( this statment makes not any sense. In infinite amount. I will NEVER stop supporting gun rights. So are mine.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Imagine if everyone had concealed weapon. If one person shoots someone, just one person shoots someone, someone else would pull a gun on them. And another would pull a gun on them for shooting someone, and another, and another, and another, and soon, dozens are dead. All because of concealed weapons being allowed It's not impossible, people are stupid creatures, quick to act rather than think. If someone shoots someone else, wouldn't you shoot them without thinking that it might be a reaction instead of an action?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

No, one person would see someone shoot someone in cold blood, then they would shoot them, maybe (If they were awesome enough) they would hang up the body and they could all use it for target practice, I'm joking, of course. They wouldn't all shoot eachother because not everyone is a moronic as you. No, I wouldn't, I have a brain.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

But how would someone tell the difference between the action and the reaction? They're both shooting someone.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Because everyone would hear the first gunshot, them shoot him/her. Also, when I said everyone had conceals guns and would actually use it I meant they were trained how to use it, thus they would know how to use it and know that not everyone who has a gun is a bad guy.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Say you hear a gunshot behind you. You turn to see someone shooting. What would your first thought be?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Depends on what they're shooting.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

A person

by Anonymous 13 years ago

It all depends. See, I actually would use my brain and I wouldn't say "ZOMG THEY HAVE A GUN TEY MUST B TARROISTS LOLOLOL SHOOT EVRY1 WHO HAS GUNS CUZ GUNZ ARE BADS!!!"

by Anonymous 13 years ago

You hear a gunshot and you turn around to see someone shoot anther person. How would you tell if it was an action or a reaction? And yes, guns are bad. They may have saved your family, good for you. But what about the thousands of families that have been destroyed by them. Would you tell them, to their faces, that guns are good? And another point: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-maher/new-rule-football-sociali_b_815673.html I don't want to debate over this, it is just a point.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Because I have common sense, I wouldn't shoot the second I saw someone with a gun. No, guns win wars, they provide food for some people, and a very small amount of guns obtained legally are used for illegal stuff. Yes, guns can be good, and most of the time are. You can't punish legal gun owners for people who use illegal guns.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

But if they were a killer and you didn't shoot them, they would be able to shoot more people in your moment of hesitation. If they are not the killer and you shot them, you killed an "innocent" person. (I put innocent in quotes because they still killed someone) While yes, most used guns for murder were obtained by the killer illegally, chances are high that the gun was bought legally by someone. With stricter gun laws, less guns would be purchased, and less guns would be on the black market, and the less criminals have guns, the less murders committed. Would you tell a family, to their faces, destroyed by guns that guns are a good thing? I asked that question last post and I wasn't quite sure of your answer, it seemed like you just said yes, guns are a good thing.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

All I'm saying is that I would be able to tell the difference between a crazy person going on a murderous rampage, and a respectable gun carrier who was stopping the afformentioned murderer. They would just buy them from a different country. Also, there are ways to murder people without a gun. Yes, normal sane people who have brains blame the MURDERER for the murder, not the gun. GUNS ARE A GOOD THING!!!

by Anonymous 13 years ago

How? And what if stricter gun laws applied to imports as well, as I would hope it would be. Other ways to murder people are far more difficult than shooting, but yes, they do exist. Yes, people kill people, but it should not be as easy as it is to get a gun. Guns are far to efficient for everyone to carry around on their person all day. People are stupid. You might not, great. What about the stupid people with tempers who will? You would seriously tell that to that family's faces? Wow, you're more of a douche than I thought. Get that stick your ass and step into other's shoes.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Because (contrary to popular belief) I am not a moron! They're bring 'em in illegally. Do you honestly think banning thing works? If banning stuff worked, I have an idea: let's ban crime! Fine, crazy angry people won't get guns. Why must you punish law abiding citizens? Thanks. :')

by Anonymous 13 years ago

How would you tell the difference? Saying you would is not a how. Crime is banned, that is why it's called crime. With access to guns people have, crime is way to easy. Because the way it is now, anyone who hasn't committed a crime can get a gun. The guy that did the shooting in Arizona a couple weeks ago bought the gun legally, even though he was mentally deranged. A news report I saw on it said if anyone had sat down and talked to him, they would have seen he was deranged. People who are law abiding right now could buy the gun with that intent. And if it saves a life, just one life, wouldn't that be for the better?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Because, did you see 20 people whip out guns at the Tucson shooting? No. I know, that's my point. BANNING THINGS DOESN'T WORK!!!!! And how many times have there been shootings like that? Um... Like maybe a few? Here's the best part: Congressman Giffords OPPOSES GUN CONTROL! No, it wouldn't be for the better.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

How would you tell the difference between action and the reaction? If everyone whips out a gun, and one person shoots someone else, how would you know if that was the action or the reaction? Nevermind that countries with strict gun control have the lowest murder rates in the world. Wait, sorry, that goes against your view, you therefore won't see it. The Arizona got more coverage than any shooting I've ever seen. That doesn't mean other shootings don't happen, they just aren't covered nearly as much. Every night if I watch the news, I see at least one shooting death covered. Can you grasp at all what that does to families? It destroys them. WHAT THE FUCK!!!!! LIVES WOULD BE SAVED!!! IS NOT ALL LIFE SACRED????? STOP CALLING YOURSELF A CHRISTIAN, YOU'RE NOT. YOU JUST SAID SAVING LIVES WOULD NOT BE FOR THE BETTER. HOW THE HELL IS THAT CHRISTIAN AT ALL?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

just explained to you, did you see 20 people, 4 or 5 even, whip out their gun at the shooting, pointing it randomly saying "OK WHO IS THE BAD GUY HERE?" *Cough* Chicago *cough* Know why it had more coverage? Because it was a Congressman who was shot. Liberals honestly don't give a crap about normal people. Ya know what could have prevented those supposed 365 murders per year? The murderee having a gun. There is a big difference between gun control and saving lives. Do you realize that if they took away our guns, cops would be getting jumped and murdered simply for their weapon? Dozens of police officers getting killed every day! And honestly, I hold a cop's life in higher regard than some brain-dead liberal who hates America.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

No, what's your point? Chicago is one city. You can drive to the next town over, and bring it back. Going one city over is easy compared to importing it from another country. Liberals care more about the average person than Conservatives. You cannot refute that. The average person is in the middle class. What did conservatives want to do? Tax them even though they are already living month to month. My state just got a new (Conservative) Govenor, and one of the greatest teachers at our school is retiring because of what the governor is doing-taxing them more than they already are. I don't watch the news every night, once a week maybe, I'm really busy and usually not home when the nightly news is on. And oh yeah, I'm sure everyone having a gun would make murders less common. (sarcasm hand is raised) That is complete fiddly-dee. That is why cops have weapons, to prevent that. And they are cops, not the common folk

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Bump? What? It might be a little more difficult, but it is would still be easy to smuggle them in. Yes, I can and will refute that. How mush have you heard about the other 6 people killed in Tucson? Nothing, other than one was 9. The liberal media covers Giffords like crazy, but you don't here Jack crap about the normal people. Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't the state representitives make the laws? It's not like the governer writes tax laws. Murderers have to have prey to murder, and if everyone has guns, they are no longer prey, they are capable of defending themself. So you're saying a cop could fend off a bunch of gang bangers from taking his weapon? Espesially these days when people freak out when a cop shoots someone. Yes, they are normal people.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Bump- Internet term meaning to bring attention back to. I wasn't done with this argument. Failed refute is failing. You never said how Conservatives care about the average person, which is actually quite hard, because they don't. In the history of the country, liberal agendas have done so much more to help than Conservative agendas. That is a fact. Look at any history book. I'm not totally sure, but I know it is the governor's plan, and I believe this tax only applies to teachers. If the smugglers you're talking about are illegal immigrants: I would bet that most of them are not coming here to kill Americans, they are coming here for a better life. I'm not saying to let them all in, as illegal immigration causes other problems (but this argument is not getting into that). And besides, illegal immigrants do the jobs that Americans won't do anyway. If guns were taken away, I am certain extra precautions would be taken as so cops would not be harmed.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

And another point about liberal "socialists": http://www.amirite.net/480739 And you say liberals hate America?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

bump

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Or to snatch your people up...

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Holy crap, that was a long conversation ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ And I read all of it.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Can you give me the cliff notes? I stopped reading after the second comment.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Well, Amish_Allosaurus made a lot of baseless claims and contradicted himself. All the while, vitaminb supported his opinions with evidence and did so in a calm manner. They argued about many things, from gun rights to creationism vs evolution.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

They're having another argument on Vitaminb's profile page. Scrantoncity joined in too. This is amazing!

by Anonymous 13 years ago

OMG NO WAY! I am so there.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Damnit... I can't even read the date. Sorry, I got all excited when I saw that all of the comments on the profile were from both of them. I'm trying to do calculus, type, and eat at the same time...

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Lol.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Huh?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Those messages on my profile are from a while. The convo above is still going.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

The argument has been a lovely diversion from studying for calculus. I'm rooting for you!

by Anonymous 13 years ago

w00t w00t!!!!

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I stopped reading when Amish_Allosaurus denied preaching creation as a fact. That wa waaaay to long.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I tried reading a little further but had to stop when they both tried to disprove/prove the existence of God. Trying to do either of those things is like butting against a brick wall: you'll waste energy, you won't get anywhere, and you'll just be confused at the end.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

so true

by Anonymous 13 years ago

So... how about that post way up there?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Everyone knows the comments is where it's at.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Yes it is sickening. Especially when they use a 'religion' to excuse their simple lust for violence and moronic barbaic ways. Sad that the religion is blamed for something that a few retards have done - retards who do not follow their supposed religion at all, and in fact kill many of their own people from that religion, including children... wtf?

by Anonymous 6 years ago

This. THIS.

by Anonymous 6 years ago

Killing for any reason other than self defense is ignorant and criminal as well, why aren't the laws killing off the killers instead of letting them free??

by Anonymous 6 years ago

Yes, unless it is a proven criminal who deserves it. Take a life, lose your own.

by Anonymous 6 years ago