>> ^hpqp:

@Contagion21 and @SDGundamX
Indeed, I stand corrected.
The Vatican's stance on evolution is an excellent example of its hypocrisy and doublethink/doublespeak. Without the myth of creation/fall, the notion of original sin is impossible, rendering Jesus' sacrifice (i.e. redemption) unnecessary. That's pretty much the whole creed crumbling right there. So while it officially embraces evolution, it still teaches the mutually exclusive doctrine of Adam/Eve/the Fall.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_evolution#Polygenism



I found these to be interesting reads.

Adam, Eve, and Evolution (Official Catholic Church stance)

What is a Mitochondrial Adam and Eve

You're right. It must have. Check etymology.com:

1922, originally used in English 1920 in its Italian form (see fascist). Applied to similar groups in Germany from 1923; applied to everyone since the rise of the Internet.

A form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion. [Robert O. Paxton, "The Anatomy of Fascism," 2004]

AND

1921, from It. partito nazionale fascista, the anti-communist political movement organized 1919 under Benito Mussolini (1883-1945)


Oh wait, no. No, you're not right actually. That's still the definition we have today.

Man, the red on FDR's face when he, himself a fascist, declared war on his fellow fascist, Benito Mussolini! Oh, how embarrassing!

Unless, of course, your definition is simply a pejorative to put down another person through the use of redefining words as if the English language is your idle playthings like so many of your other comments times before.

Get your facts straight before you press your fingers on that thing you call a keyboard.

>> ^quantumushroom:

"Fascist" had a different meaning pre-1945.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticis
m_of_Franklin_D._Roosevelt#Criticism_of_Roosevelt_as_a_.22Fascist.22
I'm glad you on the left revere Saint Roosevelt, as your children's children's children's children will still be paying off his and the Kenyawaiian's massive, failed welfare state.
>> ^brycewi19:
>> ^quantumushroom:
Ah FDR, that delightful 'benevolent' fascist whose policies prolonged the Depression and whose ass was saved by WW2.

I would downvote this comment 5 times if I could.
Fascist? My ass. Have some respect for the position.

@Contagion21 and @SDGundamX

Indeed, I stand corrected.

The Vatican's stance on evolution is an excellent example of its hypocrisy and doublethink/doublespeak. Without the myth of creation/fall, the notion of original sin is impossible, rendering Jesus' sacrifice (i.e. redemption) unnecessary. That's pretty much the whole creed crumbling right there. So while it officially embraces evolution, it still teaches the mutually exclusive doctrine of Adam/Eve/the Fall.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_evolution#Polygenism

1. You didn't answer whether you'd condemn someone's children for their parents' crime. All you did was spout the usual christian creed about fall/redemption, with which I am perfectly familiar.

I don't know what I would or wouldn't do regarding Adam and Eve. I'm not God, and have no idea what He was weighing on the scales. What I am trying to get you to understand is that although we are born in a corrupted world, because of Adam and Eve, we all still have the same chance as Adam and Eve to get it right. So, although we are born in a less ideal world than the paradise they had, we still have a chance which is equal to the pre-fall state of things. We're all still presented with the same choice He offered them, to obey His law, or to try it our own way, with the exact same consequences.

2. You make numerous assumptions about me, and then base your sorry excuse for an argument on them. No, I'm NOT fine with "humans meting out ultimate justice on other humans", and even if I was, it is nothing like an all-powerful, supposedly all-benevolent being punishing all humanity for the "crime" of two people (and for eternity on top of it). And how in hell can you equate "serious crimes" (I imagine mass murder or serial child rape... oh wait, God condones those), with not loving and believing in a hypothetic being? Thought crime much?

How do you propose that criminals should be handled? Should they get a good talking to and sign a paper promising never to do it again? How should a murder be handled, for instance, if someone is clearly guilty?

The sins that you will stand before God for will be your own. You haven't been punished yet, and it won't be for the crimes of Adam, it will be for the crimes of hpqp.

Now there hasn't been a human being who has ever lived who has not broken Gods laws. That isn't the point. It is not so much sinners that get punished, it is unrepentant sinners who love evil who get punished. God forgives sins, but not wicked people. Your crime isn't not loving God so much as it is loving evil more than God. You see, if you knew who God was you would understand that all the good things that have happened in your life came from Him. You don't know how God loves you, or the ways He has shown it to you. You only see this sad characterization you have of God from your uninformed ideas about who He is supposed to be. You've never understand your practical, experiential relationship with Him because you are spiritually blind. God takes care of everyone, the good and the bad. Every good gift is from the Father of lights. You actually do have love for God but you give the credit to other things.

3. Your "Think about it this way" paragraph is a long convoluted way of rephrasing the "mafia boss" tactic that I had already mentioned, also known as coercion. "It's your choice, you don't like the don, you don't respect his authority, fine, you don't have to pay protection money. He's your friend, you know, the whole neighbourhood's friend, but it's okay, it's your choice, friend. He's not going to force you to pay up. ...just don't be surprised when your bistro catches fire and your wife falls off a balcony."

God doesn't create rules to boss His creatures around. If God wanted to rule over His creatures in that way, He would be sitting on a throne on Earth right now and we'd all be groveling before Him. He creates rules because He knows good and evil. He knows which behaviors lead to death and corruption, and which lead to life and perfection. The rules are for our benefit.

Gods rules aren't hard to live by. Don't lie, don't steal, don't murder, dont worship other gods, dont make idols, dont lust, dont covet, dont blasphemy and honor your mother and father. Love your neighbor as yourself.

Here is the one you have a problem with: Love the Lord thy God with all your heart, and all your mind, and all your spirit and all your strength.

What you hate about God is His authority. You enjoy breaking some of those commandments and you resent that you would ever be held accountable for doing so. You enjoy your autonomy to sin. So you refuse to follow that greatest commandment, to love God. You have all sorts of excuses why not, but the real reason is, you don't want to stop living life the way you do. You love your sin more than the truth. So you hate God and work dilligently to suppress the truth. Look at your profile on this site..a lot of your work is anti-religious, and specifically anti-christian.

4. If you can't see the internal incoherence of your 2nd point (about the HS) than you are absolutely lost logic-wise. And before saying "you're avoiding the issue!!!", I'm not, the dilemma I posed remained completely unanswered, my question remains the same, scroll up if you've forgotten it.

I believe your question centered on the blasphemy challenge, that since you made a little video saying you denied the Holy Spirit that you had committed the unforgivable sin and could never be saved. That's what I was disputing.

At the time, I thought blasphemy against the Holy Spirit was simply rejecting the Holy Spirit by denying Christ while you were a Christian. Since then, I have found that isn't the case. I have frequently sensed the presence of the Spirit in ex-christians, which confused me for a bit until I realized that although they were done with Christ, Christ wasn't done with them. Meaning, if you ever had the Spirit, nothing that you do will necessarily force Him to leave. Basically, when you believe in Jesus, you receive eternal life, not conditional life, so you could not commit an eternal sin.. The concensus is that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit isn't possible today, that it was only possible specifically against Jesus Himself, when people suggested His power came from demons.

5. I'm guessing that your scripture quoting is a way of say - without committing yourself to it - that those who aren't chosen are going to hell.... including all those who are simply not christian?

I don't believe in predestination for all believers, although I do believe God does have plans for specific people, like His prophets for example.

Also, what is this nonsense of God approving of serial child rape? That is patently false. As far as murder, God has used people to execute His sovereign will. That isn't murder. Under the law, the penalty of sin is death. So, His judgement was lawful.

>> ^hpqp:
@shinyblurry
Can you really blame me for being suspicious that a probie named "shinyblurry", posting a shiny and blurry video with a title stating so seriously "God DOES exist!", but which contained nothing but a pathetic argument from personal experience, was not trying to stir the pot (of a rather atheistic-leaning site) in a trollish manner? But you're right, you're not a troll, you're a fundagelical. I'm not sure which one is less flattering.
And no, there really is no debating you intelligently. Just look at your answer to my questions above:
1. You didn't answer whether you'd condemn someone's children for their parents' crime. All you did was spout the usual christian creed about fall/redemption, with which I am perfectly familiar.
2. You make numerous assumptions about me, and then base your sorry excuse for an argument on them. No, I'm NOT fine with "humans meting out ultimate justice on other humans", and even if I was, it is nothing like an all-powerful, supposedly all-benevolent being punishing all humanity for the "crime" of two people (and for eternity on top of it). And how in hell can you equate "serious crimes" (I imagine mass murder or serial child rape... oh wait, God condones those), with not loving and believing in a hypothetic being? Thought crime much?
3. Your "Think about it this way" paragraph is a long convoluted way of rephrasing the "mafia boss" tactic that I had already mentioned, also known as coercion. "It's your choice, you don't like the don, you don't respect his authority, fine, you don't have to pay protection money. He's your friend, you know, the whole neighbourhood's friend, but it's okay, it's your choice, friend. He's not going to force you to pay up. ...just don't be surprised when your bistro catches fire and your wife falls off a balcony."
3. Another assumption about me: "I don't like God". WRONG, I don't believe in god(s); what I don't like is people indoctrinating their kids with lies and fear about supernatural non-entities, killing/hating/preaching at others, keeping science and moral progress back, basing laws and morals on the thoughts of tribal desert-dwellers, etc etc.
4. If you can't see the internal incoherence of your 2nd point (about the HS) than you are absolutely lost logic-wise. And before saying "you're avoiding the issue!!!", I'm not, the dilemma I posed remained completely unanswered, my question remains the same, scroll up if you've forgotten it.
5. I'm guessing that your scripture quoting is a way of say - without committing yourself to it - that those who aren't chosen are going to hell.... including all those who are simply not christian?
Yes, I "ran away" from the "debate", in order to retain my sanity and occupy my time more productively. (only reason why I'm answering you now is 'cause I'm procrastinating something I don't feel like doing... mmm, idleness is such a lovely workshop, I wonder whose is it? <IMG class=smiley src="http://cdn.videosift.com/cdm/emoticon/wink.gif"> )
As for "you never provided an intelligent or comprehensive position..most of it was simply rooted in your amatuer understanding of scripture.", let me simply quote yours truly:
Preach on, brotherman. It's a sick kind of irony to do the very same thing you're accusing someone else of doing, especially whilst doing said accusing.
p.s.: Satan says "Hi"

@shinyblurry

Can you really blame me for being suspicious that a probie named "shinyblurry", posting a shiny and blurry video with a title stating so seriously "God DOES exist!", but which contained nothing but a pathetic argument from personal experience, was not trying to stir the pot (of a rather atheistic-leaning site) in a trollish manner? But you're right, you're not a troll, you're a fundagelical. I'm not sure which one is less flattering.

And no, there really is no debating you intelligently. Just look at your answer to my questions above:

1. You didn't answer whether you'd condemn someone's children for their parents' crime. All you did was spout the usual christian creed about fall/redemption, with which I am perfectly familiar.

2. You make numerous assumptions about me, and then base your sorry excuse for an argument on them. No, I'm NOT fine with "humans meting out ultimate justice on other humans", and even if I was, it is nothing like an all-powerful, supposedly all-benevolent being punishing all humanity for the "crime" of two people (and for eternity on top of it). And how in hell can you equate "serious crimes" (I imagine mass murder or serial child rape... oh wait, God condones those), with not loving and believing in a hypothetic being? Thought crime much?

3. Your "Think about it this way" paragraph is a long convoluted way of rephrasing the "mafia boss" tactic that I had already mentioned, also known as coercion. "It's your choice, you don't like the don, you don't respect his authority, fine, you don't have to pay protection money. He's your friend, you know, the whole neighbourhood's friend, but it's okay, it's your choice, friend. He's not going to force you to pay up. ...just don't be surprised when your bistro catches fire and your wife falls off a balcony."

3. Another assumption about me: "I don't like God". WRONG, I don't believe in god(s); what I don't like is people indoctrinating their kids with lies and fear about supernatural non-entities, killing/hating/preaching at others, keeping science and moral progress back, basing laws and morals on the thoughts of tribal desert-dwellers, etc etc.

4. If you can't see the internal incoherence of your 2nd point (about the HS) than you are absolutely lost logic-wise. And before saying "you're avoiding the issue!!!", I'm not, the dilemma I posed remained completely unanswered, my question remains the same, scroll up if you've forgotten it.

5. I'm guessing that your scripture quoting is a way of say - without committing yourself to it - that those who aren't chosen are going to hell.... including all those who are simply not christian?


Yes, I "ran away" from the "debate", in order to retain my sanity and occupy my time more productively. (only reason why I'm answering you now is 'cause I'm procrastinating something I don't feel like doing... mmm, idleness is such a lovely workshop, I wonder whose is it? )


As for "you never provided an intelligent or comprehensive position..most of it was simply rooted in your amatuer understanding of scripture.", let me simply quote yours truly:

Preach on, brotherman. It's a sick kind of irony to do the very same thing you're accusing someone else of doing, especially whilst doing said accusing.

p.s.: Satan says "Hi"

Well you're wrong on all counts. The theory of evolution is completely incompatible with scripture, and redemptive history.


I fully agree with shinyblurry here. When you combine Christian creationism and evolution in this way, it's not like you get the best of both worlds or something - you just get an inconsistent mess.

I mean, if you believe in the Christian God - if you've already accepted that - then why not go all the way and believe the Bible about how creation happened? And if you doubt, if you don't believe the Bible is true or that creation happened the way the Bible says (or whatever), then you need to re-inspect your overall beliefs because the Christian God doesn't accept half believers.

Shinyblurry's bible reference to being "lukewarm" (Revelations 3:16, I assume, is what he was hinting at) is very apropos: "So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth." The Bible spends a lot of time here and elsewhere explaining that you can't have it both ways. Indeed, I think He's probably more lenient on people who don't believe at all (just my opinion).

Well you're wrong on all counts. The theory of evolution is completely incompatible with scripture, and redemptive history. If evolution is correct then Jesus Christ died for no reason. Death entered into the world through the sin of Adam . If death was already present in the world before Adam and Eve, then there was no fall or original sin. If that is true, the problem of sin isn't related to the law and thus Jesus has nothing to save us from.

It is "non-fanatical" Christians like you who are lukewarm and don't understand your own faith. It's not a personal thing; you are commanded by God to preach the gospel. Instead you're on here trying to get the praise of men by denigrating your brothers in Christ who do the will of God.

John 14:15
"If you love me, you will obey what I command."


>> ^cito:
Theory of Evolution by itself is wrong
Theory of Creationism by itself is wrong
But most non fanatical christians like myself believe both.
big bang or intelligent spark that kicked it all off, then left alone to evolve and grow to our full potentials.
Creation + Evolution is 2 theories combined that makes better sense for me and luckily the private school my children go to are taught that as well. They dont teach one or the other they teach a combined possibility that many scientists also can agree on the "theory". They the big bang started it all, and that big bang occured somehow.
Anyhow I'm not fanatical and I don't care what religious nuts believe or atheist believe,
belief is a personal and family thing and should stay that way, So people who believe otherwise I respect the privacy of their beliefs as well as this I have wrote is my own families private belief.

If you don't believe in original sin, you don't believe in redemptive history. You have to explain the purpose of the law and how it came to be, as well as how Jesus fufilled that law and what the purpose was of His death on the cross. It's a little bit more complicated than you're making out. You can't just cut out the OT and pretend that it still makes sense. Jesus told us in plain words why He was there and what He was doing and for what reasons. He fulfilled prophecy from the OT which predicted His coming, and He spoke about the OT as literal history. To contridict any of that makes it logically incoherent. To say Genesis is a conspiracy is grandiose claim as well. What evidence do you have this is true?

>> ^enoch:
original sin is a fabrication of the church to establish control and dominance but has never really been able to prove this position.though there are many fundamentalists who will defend this position, it still will not hold water when put under proper scrutiny.
for many evangelicals to refute the original sin story is to also refute jesus.
this is untrue,but to attempt to explain that to someone who views the bible as the literal word of god would be an exercise in futility.
they will defend the position of original sin staunchly and vigorously.
to do otherwise would be to reject jesus in their mind.
most theologians agree that original sin put forth by the church is a fallacious argument.
my position is that the book of genesis is the metaphorical representation of kabballah and has nothing to be understood in literal terms but rather an abstract of creation,the godhead and correlation between this physical universe with the "nether".

So where do you cross the line between "part of god's plan" and "minor errors"? What would you base your decision on? >> ^shinyblurry:

Well, I am not one of those who necessarily believes that absolutely everything in the bible we have today is inerrant. I think almost all of it, if not all of it, is accurate. I accept the possibility of minor errors. If someone were to prove that a certain staircase had 5 steps when the bible said it had 6, that wouldn't undermine the bible in my eyes.
However, the main thrust of it is what we call redemptive history. There are definite details of Gods plan which describe how creation came to be and the steps God took to correct mans error, and how this will all end. If any link in that chain could be broken, it would basically undermine everything.
If that were the case I would re-evaluate the bible as a source of truth. It would not cause me to question Gods existence, as I came to that conclusion independently, but it would cause me to question what He expected from us and what was going on on planet Earth. Hope this answers your questions.
>> ^luxury_pie:
@shinyblurry
I hope you are still there. Wouldn't disproving part of the bible then turn the bible untrue as a whole? By your logic or believe or whatever I mean.
Or doesn't it matter if some parts are proven false as long as there remains but one fact which is historically accurate? Please elaborate that part of your commentary.

Well, I am not one of those who necessarily believes that absolutely everything in the bible we have today is inerrant. I think almost all of it, if not all of it, is accurate. I accept the possibility of minor errors. If someone were to prove that a certain staircase had 5 steps when the bible said it had 6, that wouldn't undermine the bible in my eyes.

However, the main thrust of it is what we call redemptive history. There are definite details of Gods plan which describe how creation came to be and the steps God took to correct mans error, and how this will all end. If any link in that chain could be broken, it would basically undermine everything.

If that were the case I would re-evaluate the bible as a source of truth. It would not cause me to question Gods existence, as I came to that conclusion independently, but it would cause me to question what He expected from us and what was going on on planet Earth. Hope this answers your questions.

>> ^luxury_pie:
@shinyblurry
I hope you are still there. Wouldn't disproving part of the bible then turn the bible untrue as a whole? By your logic or believe or whatever I mean.
Or doesn't it matter if some parts are proven false as long as there remains but one fact which is historically accurate? Please elaborate that part of your commentary.

When was this poll posted? I just saw it now. Let me be the tie breaker... I save the bottles and cans so I can get my sweet five cent redemption per can/bottle.

The upside to this is that people know I do this and give me their bottles and cans so I can redeem it for the money too.

>> ^LukinStone:

Howard almost spoiled Red Dead Redemption for me.


He doesn't give anything away; he just says he really enjoyed the ending. He says it like 4-5x, but no spoilers.

Nerd Alert!

These two totally have a man crush on each other; it makes for an interesting talk.

I had to stop at 11:01, they start talking about great game endings. Howard almost spoiled Red Dead Redemption for me.

Enjoyed the fact it began and ended with Shawshank redemption, definitely one of my favorite movies.

Oh, okay, so you believe everything you read. That's not very intelligent, or at least it's not very SMART. The bible was written hundreds of years ago, and has since been translated and re-translated to and from dozens of different languages. Individuals and groups in power throughout different points in history have taken it upon themselves to modify the bible, adding and omitting pieces here and there to suit their agenda. They knew that gullible sheep, unable to think for themselves, are easily swayed by religion, and what better way to control a populace than by attacking their very basis for the way they live their lives?

God pre-exists everything. We know God exists because He lets us know, and He would let you know that if you sought Him out. The New Testament was written 2000 years ago. The Old Testament is at least 1000 years older than that. We have copies of the early manuscripts so we know what the original bibles looked like. So the translations today are accurate, and this idea that they are corrupt is just outright false. Yes, man has used the bible for evil ends, but this is no different from anything else man does. The very reason that Jesus Christ came to Earth is because man is so desperately wicked and needs Gods redemption.

Additionally, if one is intelligent, and they believe in ancient myths, obviously they're going to be some of the greatest minds the world has ever known, right? That's why all the geniuses of the world are devout Christians or whatever religion you want to name, right? WRONG.

NASA is not run by rocket scientists who go to church on Sunday. Great inventors and genius-level individuals such as Stephen Hawking are not religious specifically BECAUSE they are intelligent. They are able to think for themselves, not be told what to think.

Some of the greatest minds in history were devout Christians..and some of the greatest scientists:

Francis Bacon - Originated the scientific method
Johannes Kepler - Laws of Planetary motion
Galileo Galilei - Father of modern astronomy
Nicolaus Copernicus - Heliocentric Universe
James Clerk Maxwell - Electromagnetic field
Neils Bohr - the Atom
Louis Pasteur - germ theory of disease
Rene Descartes - Philosopher and mathematician
Issac Newton - Invented classical mechanics
Max Planck - Founder of quantum mechanics

A lot of modern science is built on the backs of Christian thinkers, as you can see, and that is just a short list. Today, around 10 percent of scientists believe in God. At least 50 nobel laureates believe in God. Now, if you want to talk about great thinkers, how about Albert Einstein? He believed in God. Although not a Christian, here is what he had to say about Jesus:

"To what extent are you influenced by Christianity?"
"As a child I received instruction both in the Bible and in the Talmud. I am a Jew, but I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene."
"Have you read Emil Ludwig’s book on Jesus?"
"Emil Ludwig’s Jesus is shallow. Jesus is too colossal for the pen of phrasemongers, however artful. No man can dispose of Christianity with a bon mot!"
"You accept the historical existence of Jesus?"
"Unquestionably! No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life."7

Of course, religion and science are completely unrelated topics, and one does not have to be non-secular in order to be a scientist, but typically, the two mindsets would conflict, as religionists base their beliefs off of emotion and other irrational concepts. Scientists use a thought process, experimentation, and ruling out possibilities in order to come to conclusions and figure out FACTS about the universe around us. There are scientists who believe in the possibility of a god, but it takes a different form than that of some all-seeing being that created everything. I'll never try to explain that to you, though, as you're too blinded by foolish nonsense that has been force-fed to you since childhood.

I will leave you with this though: Adam and Eve. Here's some fruit. I'm going to tempt you with it, and then create a snake to TALK to you and tell you you should eat some of it, and THEN I'm gunna come back and be all "OH SHIT WHAT THE FUCK?! I SMITE THEE FOR ALL ETERNITY!!!" just to fuck with humanity. Wow. You worship a pretty evil, and vindictive force. Why would you want to do that? The fucker's up there just fucking with us like a little kid with a magnifying glass over an ant hill. Jesus christ, you must really enjoy misery. I'll take the reality of humanity surviving on our own acquiescence and compassion over that bullshit any day!

I base my belief off of personal revelation. I was an agnostic my entire life and raised without religion, and I was a secular humanist and a strict materialist who didn't see any evidence for God or spirit. God woke me up to the truth and let me know He is real. If you want science facts, you only have to examine the first page of the bible:

In the beginning (TIME) God created the heavens (SPACE) and the earth (MATTER)

And God said, “Let there be light (ENERGY),” and there was light.

It took mankind 3000 years to catch up and figure out the Universes foundation is based on these principles. There is also no better description which uniquely fits the big bang theory. Creation ex-nihilio, which is creation from nothing.

The serpent you're referring to was Satan. God put the tree there because He gave mankind free will to follow His commands or not. He also warned them of the consequences if they ate of the fruit. Adam and Eve decided to disobey God and believe the lie because Satan promised them they would have Gods power if they did it. So, instead of trusting God, they lusted after His power and betrayed Him. That's why they were kicked out of the garden. Their sin brought death into the world.

No, God didn't damn us for eternity. It's the very reason God sent His son Jesus to die on the cross, to save us from this fate we created and redeem mankind. So we could have eternal life with God again in the Kingdom of Heaven. We are sinners, and the wages of sin is death. Gods gift of salvation is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.