Print

[MonroeMonkey]

Less, no one ever said you couldn't have rights, etc...

BUT we WILL NOT base our morality off the commandments of a book, which bases its authority off the absurd and arbitrary whims of an invisible god. Advanced society is growing out of this, and you know you're side is in trouble.


You *completely* overlooked the evidences I showed for evolution, and committed another logical fallacy. You know, I once read in a book on logic that politicians are the greatest users of logical fallacies. I think you add support to that, but I think creationists could have them topped.

And we have COUNTLESS examples of beneficial mutations in nature. Peppered moths are a good example and easy to understand.

Less, go the lake here. You'll find large rocks full of fossils. Then look in the sands and see the dead species of today. You'll notice something! You will NEVER find the ones alive today fossilized with the extinct species in the rocks, and you will not find those species in the rocks alive today. You know why? They never lived together!

If God created all things in six days, and death began at the fall, then all the species lived together, and then at the fall of Adam began to die together; therefore, logically, we should find them fossilized together.

Anyways, we can return to the homosexuality and marriage issue. I will continue to expose your faulty logical and add scientific view points.

[marilyn.monroe]

In the twentieth century, the definition of energy was broadened. It was found that particles that have rest mass and those that do not, are subject to interconversions of form. Thus, matter in some cases was not conserved. This happens during creation and annihilation of (ponderable) matter particles, and imponderable non-matter particles.
In general relativity conservation of energy-momentum is expressed with the aid of a stress-energy-momentum pseudotensor. The theory of general relativity leaves open the question of whether there is a conservation of energy for the entire universe.
from wikipedia

Xerx, I am open to your ideas of an expanding universe, but again, I think that would prove intelligent design. Can't you see the genius of the invention?

[marilyn.monroe]

Church isn't a rest home for saints, it's a hospital for sinners. How would Jesus treat homosexuals?

[T-M-T]

How would Jesus treat homosexuals?

Maybe very well.

Was Jesus Gay?  Probably

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2012/apr/20/was-jesus-gay-probably

[MonroeMonkey]

In the twentieth century, the definition of energy was broadened. It was found that particles that have rest mass and those that do not, are subject to interconversions of form. Thus, matter in some cases was not conserved. This happens during creation and annihilation of (ponderable) matter particles, and imponderable non-matter particles.

In general relativity conservation of energy-momentum is expressed with the aid of a stress-energy-momentum pseudotensor. The theory of general relativity leaves open the question of whether there is a conservation of energy for the entire universe.
from wikipedia

Xerx, I am open to your ideas of an expanding universe, but again, I think that would prove intelligent design. Can't you see the genius of the invention?

Marilyn, I'm talking about the energy of the vacuum, as opposed to the energy distribution in our corner of the woods. From the research I've done you cannot add or take away from a vacuum, which is fluctuating energy that redistributes itself and, in a sense, static pops out a universe. Brain Greene's "Fabric of the Cosmos" explains this. You can watch it on Youtube. He explains how Universes may arise out of the vacuum.

And, no, I don't see it as a genius invention, as much as a marvelous natural growth.

We create thoughtfully when awake, but we also create even greater when asleep and not calculating. We spontaneously become the entire dream-world. We are the people, the trees, the mountains. The dream world comes together instantly within our consciousness and is made of that consciousness. We didn't think to design ourselves into dream worlds, we just become them according to our inherent nature.

So, it may be that the Universe isn't thoughtfully designed, but grows from the eternal source that puts out seeds of universes, according to its intrinsic nature beyond thoughtful calculations. In Christianity God creates the world. In Hinduism God becomes the world. The universe may be thoughtfully designed, but I doubt it. It could also be an organism that grows into planets and people. The atheists say it's a dead mechanism and not an organism. One is free to pick whatever option makes best sense to them.

In my opinion, there is an eternal source that brings forth universes, like seeds, out of its intrinsic nature, beyond thoughtful calculation. It, according to its nature, gives rise and grows into people. It's a wonderful thing and it's completely natural. And you and I are that, so our highest nature is that eternal source that is and becomes myriads forms forever.

[ussoccer26]

Church isn't a rest home for saints, it's a hospital for sinners. How would Jesus treat homosexuals?

There you go. That's the ticket right there. What would Jesus do?

[MonroeMonkey]

Maybe very well.

Was Jesus Gay?  Probably

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2012/apr/20/was-jesus-gay-probably

I've done a TON of historical research on Jesus over the past few years. There is no grounds for saying he was homosexual.

The ONLY credible historical texts we have for Jesus is the four gospels, maybe Thomas, according to scholars. Some try to make an argument for Josephus, but his mentioning of Jesus a hundred years after Jesus died holds little water. And those gospels aren't strong for establishing real history, in relation to the historical method.

BUT when taken in its contextual credibility, in relation to the historical method, it's absurd to think married Jewish men, like Peter, etc., followed a spiritual teacher that was homosexual in a Jewish culture where homosexuality was considered an abomination.

These people pull this crap out of the thin air... Nonbelievers can be as extreme as believers. And gay preachers that try saying Jesus was gay have no historical grounds to stand on in relation to contextual credibility.

[ussoccer26]

Maybe very well.

Was Jesus Gay?  Probably

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2012/apr/20/was-jesus-gay-probably

Maybe, but doubtful.

Here is two other options:

1. He was really devoted to his work, and didn't have time for an earthly relationship.

2. Mary Magdalene. Maybe he was tapping that. :O

[MonroeMonkey]

That site TMT posted says:

The idea that he had a romantic relationship with Mary Magdalene is the stuff of fiction, based on no biblical evidence.

But the idea of Jesus being gay has biblical evidence?

Some scholars believe Nazarenes were tied to the Essenes, of which the spiritual authorities were often celibate.

Matthew 2:23

...that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.

Also, Jesus taught about celibacy as being the highest way. Why would Jesus be saying the highest way is celibacy but he a practicing homosexual?

Matthew 19:

Jesus said...and there be those celibate, which have made themselves celibate for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.


There is one verse that says John rested his head on Jesus's chest at the last supper. That means Jesus was a homosexual? GTFO! Lol. I am very close to my nephew, who is 17, and I put my arm around him and we sit on the couch in each other's arms. There is nothing homosexual going on there. It's called affection, which many straight men show towards each other without sexual feelings being involved.

And this site tries to say Jesus had some "special" love for John, when it merely says "the disciple whom Jesus loved." It never says this disciple was more loved than the rest. People need to read rightly before they make silly claims. Actually, John is NEVER mentioned in that gospel as the writer. His name was put on that book later, but no one knows who really wrote it.

Also, in John chapter 3 there is evidence John, who was said to be illiterate never wrote it. It comes from Nicodemus misunderstanding Jesus on being "born from above." In its contextual credibility it doesn't make sense Jesus and Nicodemus would have been speaking in Greek, but Nicodemus could have only misunderstood Jesus if the conversation was in Greek, as there is no double meaning in Aramaic for "Born from above." Many scholars conclude Jesus and Nicodemus may have never had that conversation; and John certainly didn't write in Greek, according to the context of Acts, etc...

[LessGovernment]

we WILL NOT base our morality off the commandments of a book, which bases its authority off the absurd and arbitrary whims of an invisible god.

Who is "we"?

I commit no "logical fallacies"; I assert my position, and I do so NOT to persuade anyone - people may choose for themselves to believe in creation or evolution; that's not my problem...you are the one with an axe to grind, you are the one worrying about defeating "my side"; yet, where our rule of law mimics/derives those commandments you believe are not binding upon any human being, it functions quite well in either deterring/punishing crimes oftentimes - the real problem we have today is politicians not obeying the laws they create, as well as a whole host of people doing the same because the hypocrisy/lack of punishment "at the top" is rampant.

Now, "at the top" also relates to your evolution religion, that uses lies to support that dumb theory.  There is no length to which your side will harm others to force everyone to believe God doesn't exist; only government does ... that makes your side not only stupid, but dangerous.

Immorality without consequences is a BAD thing; there is a standard, and, it is those commandments whether you like them or not.  Your Jesus bashing doesn't help prove you have any intelligence either, it is childish - like a temper tantrum, the same one the homosexuals are having to make gay marriage a domestic policy; all so they can get the Christian conservatives to lose control and proceed to the next round of creating laws that will give them an excuse to begin imprisoning all government dissenters for "hate crimes", insensitivities, and other offences.

Our side is not in trouble, they are merely intimidated right now because the government is out of control; not because evolution has any FACTS to back it up.

Peppered moths - really???  Didn't he pin the dead moths back onto the tree to get/keep his grant money - confess that he lied about it later?

Let the curious watching this thread that has exploded since I have engaged you watch and decide for themselves; again, each man is individually responsible for his/her OWN relationship with the Creator - I am advocating the repentance and faith route, known as born-again(John 3:3) biblical salvation in Jesus Christ, the Creator.

Skip ahead to the 51:00 minute mark and watch a little about "mutations"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=b8GgrUposII#t=3135s

 

[MonroeMonkey]

Less, being you responded to my post, I hope you weren't saying I was bashing Jesus. That would mean you didn't read any of my post. I was defending that he was *not* homosexual.


And, YES, peppered moths.

Less, you went to the whole "pinned" on trees! LMAO!

Peppered moths are nocturnal. They rest on trees during the way when birds eat. The pollution caused the trees and lichen to darken, which caused the birds to see them, thus punctuating the stable equilibrium. The mutations of grays were selected, in that the birds selected the whiter ones.

Notice they rest all over the trees in the daytime, being they are nocturnal. They don't need to glue them to trees. Geez. Lol...

During an experiment in Cambridge over the seven years 2001–2007 Majerus noted the natural resting positions of peppered moths, and of the 135 moths examined over half were on tree branches, mostly on the lower half of the branch, 37% were on tree trunks, mostly on the north side, and only 12.6% were resting on or under twigs.

Michael E. N. Majerus (August 2007). "The Peppered Moth: The Proof of Darwinian Evolution"
Steve Connor, Science Editor (25 August 2007). "Moth study backs classic 'test case' for Darwin's theory". The Independent.

Less, do you know anything about them and how they showed mutations and selected beneficial mutations in relation to environmental pressures? I don't want a two and a half hour video of Kent Hovind I've already seen. I know all his arguments, and can easily refute them.

[MonroeMonkey]

Less, I watched at 51 minutes, to refresh myself on what he says.

He is a liar and uses deceptive tactics on the uneducated among Christians.

He showed unbeneficial mutations, which are usually extreme, such as two headed turtles, etc... Extreme mutations, such as those, are not productive to a species's survival. Beneficial mutations are not extreme ones. They are mutations that slightly alter the appearance, so the environment can work on them over time! Look at the difference of the peppered moths before and after the environmental pressures; look at the difference between the standard and flightless cormorant over a few millions years. See how beneficial mutations are not drastic like the unbeneficial ones?

And he says you cannot get new information, yet he never mentions gene duplication, or how nucleotide bases CAN and ARE added in the replication of cells, where information is copied, etc...

Then he uses a straw man saying, "You can get many words out of the word CHRISTMAS, like Him, Sam, etc., but you can't get Zebra!"  WTF? He shows he has no understanding of evolution, or he is out to con DUMB Christians out of money... Maybe that's why he's in *prison* for breaking the law.

[marilyn.monroe]

Maybe very well.

Was Jesus Gay?  Probably

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2012/apr/20/was-jesus-gay-probably

Jesus was gay at times. God intended man to be happy.

[LessGovernment]

he's in *prison* for breaking the law.

What specific law did he break?  http://www.lewrockwell.com/sardi/sardi143.html

But not enough of your guys are...funny how that works, isn't it?

http://ori.hhs.gov/images/ddblock/vol12_no1.pdf

[MonroeMonkey]

I know why he's in prison.

On July 11, 2006, Hovind was charged in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida in Pensacola with twelve counts of willful failure to collect, account for, and pay over Federal income taxes and FICA taxes under 26 U.S.C. § 7202, forty-five counts of knowingly structuring transactions in Federally-insured financial institutions to evade the reporting requirements of 31 U.S.C. § 5313(a), in violation of 31 U.S.C. § 5324, 18 U.S.C. § 2 and 31 C.F.R. sec. 103.11, and one count of corruptly endeavoring to obstruct and impede the administration of the internal revenue laws under 26 U.S.C. § 7212. Twelve of the charges were for failing to pay employee-related taxes, totaling $473,818, and 45 of the charges were for evading reporting requirements by making multiple cash withdrawals just under the $10,000 reporting requirement (a technique known as "smurfing"). The withdrawals, totaling $430,500, were made in 2001 and 2002.

The government charged that Hovind falsely listed the IRS as his only creditor in his bankruptcy, filed a false and frivolous lawsuit against the IRS in which he demanded damages for criminal trespass, made threats of harm to those investigating him and to those who might consider cooperating with the investigation, filed a false complaint against IRS agents investigating him, filed a false criminal complaint against IRS special agents (criminal investigators), and destroyed records.

This guy is clearly a charlatan or just plain dumb, when it comes to evolution. Not surprised he'd be dishonest in other things. As Jesus said, "He who is unfaithful in little is unfaithful in much." Right?