Xtianity - Full Of Crap

[All Gods Fail]

Well, let's kick it to the curb. Xtianity is a death-cult based on a misinterpretation of a tribalistic book of fairy tales (the OT), which in turn was made from various borrowed pagan religions (that were also fairy tales).

 

It has no literal truth from start to finish, and in fact has spawned a lot of lies - the most recent being the attack on teaching evolution in science class.

 

The Bible is a book of nothing but mythological/allegorical fables, but written in a deliberate attempt to blend fiction with religious fantasy and xenophobia. It's morals are outdated at best (Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk. ),

and downright evil at worst (Every one should remain in the state in which he was called. 21 Were you a slave when called? Never mind. ).

 

And those aren't even the worst examples.

 

So can any xtian prove this wrong? Does your death cult in any way, shape, or form help humanity, or is it just a great way to push people around with a scary puppet?

[Knightley]

yeah xianity is a disease, what else is new? Its always been a sick, sad disease of mankind. Its held us back in progress and the xian fundies are holding us back even more in this country, like stem cell research. I can't believe how xian hicks are taking this country to the shitter. Fuckwits.

[Guest JP]

I won't go as far as to say that nothing good came from Christianity (Amy Marie cited several examples of that.) I will say that blending Christianity with politics, education, etcetera is a bad mix.

 

There is some truth in the Bible (I think we've discussed this recently in other threads), so I also wouldn't say that it's just a fairytale all the way through. I think real places and real events happened that are documented in the Bible, yet they've been fictionalized and mixed with fantasy.

 

Christianity isn't all good and all touchy-feely as most make it out to be, but it isn't the most evil, vile thing on the Earth as some describe it.

[Thurisaz]

To be fair, we also shouldn't forget that in a "homeopathic" dosage, actually christianity can make people be good and kind.

The damn fucking problem, of course, is to keep the dosage exactly as required. Too little of it and people forget the "be kind" stuff, too much of it and they catch literalism and go over the edge

[mwc]

So then is the concession is that without xianity that the things that Amy listed would not have came to pass in some form? Maybe not the exact forms listed but some form? If they would have existed anyway then xianity cannot take responsibility for simply being "on the bandwagon" so to speak. Remember that xianity opposed AIDS as a "gay" disease and punishment from god for their sinful ways (I sure remember hearing that back in the 1980's so listing that as one of the churches "humanitarian" efforts shows how they'll do an about face when they get it wrong and their own start dying and need to address it). The 12 steppers have to admit they're scum before they can "get help." So you must learn to "help yourself" by turning your life over to an outside power and then doing all the work yourself and giving the outside power the credit for any changes. WTF? Only a xian could have come up with that alright.

 

Anyhow, I think the question being asked is "What has xianity DONE for humanity?" What is its UNIQUE contribution(s) to the world? The evidence points to something less than the claims (to put it kindly). Am I getting this right All Gods Fail?

 

mwc

[willybilly30]

Lets make a new phrase: I was a sinner you created and you threw me into hell

[nick5]

Whatever you do to this least of these My brothers you have done to me

 

This has to work both ways then. Whatever the Lard does to a human person (letting a little girl be raped, ordering mass genocide, letting a tsunami devastate millions of lives) he has done to every single one of us.

I say we get together and teach that asshole not to fuck with us.

[Dra_Mucd_Uha]

Did I say that without Christianity none of these things would have come to pass? The question is "What has Christianity done for humanity?" My list is clear. These organizations are well known for their works of charity and help. When I was in the flood here in New York who was here to help?

The Red Cross, The Salvation Army. When I ride down Clinton Ave lunch time and see the homeless lining up for food it is in front of the Methodist Church. If I was hungry on a Wendsday night and was penniless I could depend on the people at the Baptist church to feed me. The evidence of Christian compassion is right in front of my eyes every day.

Christianity and the existence of helping organizations do not contribute to it's validity. If anything, it just goes to show how blinded our country is by false religion. I believe the OP was focused mostly upon Christianity's validity as a religion, not on how it has affected the world.

[All Gods Fail]

Anyhow, I think the question being asked is "What has xianity DONE for humanity?" What is its UNIQUE contribution(s) to the world? The evidence points to something less than the claims (to put it kindly). Am I getting this right All Gods Fail?

 

mwc

 

Kind of - I just felt like tossing a grenade into the Lion's Den.

 

But my point wasn't so much about xtianity's pros or cons, as much as it's simply full of crap. You start with a lie, you end up with delusion. I don't think delusional thinking is doing the world much good in general, and the bible has contributed to a LOT of delusional thinking over the millennia.

 

Here's a good example - glee over the recent violence in Lebanon (on an end-times BB):

 

I too am soooo excited!! I get goose bumps, literally, when I watch what's going on in the M.E.!! And Watcherboy, you were so right when saying it was quite a day yesterday, in the world news, and I add in local news here in the Boston area!! Tunnel ceiling collapsed on a car and killed a woman of faith, and we had the most terrifying storms I have ever seen here!! But, yes, oh happy day, like in your screen name , it is most indeed a time to be happy and excited, right there with ya!!

 

Yaayy!!! It's the end of the world! Jesus truly is the god of love...

[RHEMtron]

Amy i think you missed MWC's point. MWC asked what contribution have they made that are UNIQUE. The list of organizations you made, and charitable characteristics you claim, are not UNIQUE to Christianity. There are several non-Christian organizations that perform the same functions. There are several non-Christians who are very charitable, loving, and caring.

[Fweethawt]

*yawn*

[Knightley]

^right Fweester, I hear crickets

[mwc]

[blah blah blah]

Did somebody fart 'cuz something sure stinks? Oh...It's just Amy.

 

mwc

[wideawake42]

Oh what fools these mortals

 

First of all, this is the second time I've seen you use some version of "Lord, what fools these mortals be", a quote from A Midsummer Night's Dream, which, by the way, was a story about fairies and enchantments, and I'm pretty sure your god hates witchcraft.

 

by thinking they can give the finger to the Almighty God and face no consequences.

 

We don't believe in a god to give the finger to. Sort of like giving the finger to Santa Claus...doesn't really mean much, does it?

 

They are but finite creatures, dust in the wind, here today and gone tomorrow,

boasting they fear not the Reaper but when the light begins to fade, like many who have gone before them they will wonder, while gasping their last breath, what lies beyond the grave?

 

Fear and wonder are not the same things. Yes, we are finite creatures. No, no one knows what "lies beyond the grave". Yes, everyone wonders. But we have decided that it's illogical to be afraid of the unknown. Fear of the unknown is ridiculous, the adult equivalent of a child's fear of the dark. The dark (and the grave) are inevitable. Why fear what you cannot escape? Rather, enjoy what time you have on earth.

 

They think they know better than the Eternal Mind.

 

No. We don't believe there is an "Eternal Mind" - at least, not the one you speak of.

 

Still He shows them His mercy by blessing them with the very breath to blaspheme and insult His holiness. But they are too blind to see the compassion extended to them, to all of us.

 

Explain to me how it is mercy to allow someone to do something that might damn them for all eternity? Do you allow your children to play in the street, out of respect for their free will?

 

Like the blind leading the blind they will together fall into a bit while ignoring the shouts of "DANGER!"

 

I think you meant to say "fall into a Pit" there, but no matter. Actually, we have heard the shouts of "DANGER!" We have been the shouters ourselves. We realized that there was no pit to be afraid of. Now it is time to help others past their fear of the unknown. That is real compassion.

 

The sad thing is this is their choice and they proudly boast about it.

 

If you are correct about Christianity...then it is not our choice at all. God has preordained those who would "go into the pit". He has "hardened our hearts", etc., etc., for his own pleasure/glory. Dare you find the work of God pitiable?

 

They know better than God.

 

No. We know only what we know, and we've decided to think for ourselves rather than let someone else tell us what to think.

 

They treat Christ with contempt.

 

Just like Christians treat Muslims, Mormons, and the Branch Davidians with contempt. Because Christ was just another messiah. We've decided there is no messiah except humanity. No one can save you but yourself. It's a hard truth, but it's important.

 

They applaud others who do the same.

 

We applaud others who have, through logic and fearlessness, pushed past their fear of death and their groupthink to accept a higher truth.

 

They have stuffed their fingers in their ears

and bolted the door shut.

 

No, like I said before, if you are correct, then God has done that.

 

What a sad terrible deception. "In the last days men will be proud, boastful, arrogant...haters of God."

 

There have always been haters of God. And every generation believes it is living in "the last days".

 

 

 

Well, crap. I have no idea how I screwed up those quotes. Can somebody fill me in on how to fix it?

[mwc]

Well, crap. I have no idea how I screwed up those quotes. Can somebody fill me in on how to fix it?

I believe you get 10 quotes per message. If you go over you need to use color coding or some other method to differentiate your text from what you're quoting.

 

mwc

[Guest From The Inside Out]

To All God's Fail:

 

You said:

[Christianity] has no literal truth from start to finish, and in fact has spawned a lot of lies - the most recent being the attack on teaching evolution in science class.

 

Evolution in the microbe-to-man sense is far from being a proven fact and even evolutionists themselves such as Professor Whitten, Loren Eiseley, and Stephen Jay Gould among man others have admitted.

 

In fact, it can be easily demonstrated that microbe-to-man evolution hardly qualifies as operational or process science as Dr Loren Eisely said in "The Secret of Life" in the Immense Journey:

 

With the failure of these many efforts science was left in the somewhat embarrassing position of having to postulate theories of living origins which it could not demonstrate. After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past.

 

You see, operational science involve doing experiments in the present, making inferences from these results and doing more experiments to test those ideas. Here, the inferences, or conclusions, are closely related to the experiments and hence there is often little room for speculation.

 

However, there is another type of science that deals with the past, which can be called historical or origins science. When it comes to working out what happened in the past, particularly the distant past, science is limited because we cannot do experiments directly on past events, and history cannot be repeated. In origins science, observations made in the present are used to make inferences about the past. The experiments that can be done in the present that relate to the past are often quite limited, so the inferences require a great deal of guesswork or assumptions. The further in the past the event being studied, the longer the chain of inferences involved, the more guesswork, and the more room there is for the non-scientific factors to influence the conclusions - factors such as the religious belief or unbelief of the scientist. (Batten, D. [ed.]. 2002).

 

And yes, scientists have bias. I'm sure that we can both agree that we have the same physical evidence, such as the same fossils, the same rocks, the same stars, the same animals and plants, the same mutations, and so on, right? We have the same evidence because we live on the same planet at the same time. Now, we also use the same science. For example, both evolutionists and creationists use physics, chemistry, biology, genetics, geology, and so on. I hope that you're still with me at this point. The question then has to be asked, if we both have the same physical evidence and use the same type of science, then how is it possible that such different conclusions can be drawn? As explained above, in operational science there is little room for non-scientific factors such as the scientists' bias to get involved as the conclusion is tied very closely to the experiment, but in historical science we often need to use assumptions to fill in the ever present gaps and the further you go back into the past, the more unknowns there are and the more assumptions are needed. These assumptions are based on the scientists' presupposition, or underlying beliefs.

 

It’s like looking at the same evidence through different glasses and these glasses determine how we interpret the evidence through to conclusion. For more information regarding this, please click here.

 

The prominent evolutionist Professor Richard Lewontin said:

 

We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfil many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

 

Now that’s open-minded isn’t it? Isn’t ‘science’ about following the evidence wherever it may lead? This is where the religion (in the broadest sense) of the scientist puts the blinkers on. Our individual worldviews bias our perceptions.

 

The atheist palaeontologist, Stephen Jay Gould, made the following candid observation:

 

Our ways of learning about the world are strongly influenced by the social preconceptions and biased modes of thinking that each scientist must apply to any problem. The stereotype of a fully rational and objective “scientific method”, with individual scientists as logical (and interchangeable) robots is self-serving mythology.

 

So the fundamentally important question is, ‘which worldview (bias) is correct?’, because this will determine the correctness of the conclusions from the data. (Batten, D. 2002).

 

It should hopefully be clear now that evolutionists are not the open-minded unbiased people that you thought they were. They have an underlying commitment to materialism just as Christian creationists do to the authority of the Bible. One example of how different underlying beliefs can affect the conclusion can be seen in Dr Humphreys’ white hole cosmology where he said “It might be suspected that such a startling result requires some fairly creative manipulation, but interestingly, the result “falls out” of the equations of GR (the same mathematical machinery used to generate the big bang theory), just as does the big bang. The crucial reason why such different cosmologies come out of the same mathematics is that two different (but absolutely arbitrary) starting points (initial assumptions) are utilized.” (Humphreys, D. 2002). That is, the big bang assumes an unbounded universe with no centre and no edges, while Dr Humphreys assumed that the universe was bounded and had a centre. It is the same mathematics, but different assumptions were initially used (based on their preconceived beliefs) and this lead to two totally different conclusions.

 

You said:

The Bible is a book of nothing but mythological/allegorical fables, but written in a deliberate attempt to blend fiction with religious fantasy and xenophobia.

 

Wow, that was good and very authoritive. I would respectfully ask you to provide some evidence for your claims rather than just enspousing false rhetoric. :-)

 

You also said:

It's morals are outdated at best (Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk. ),

 

I liked how you took the passages out of context, but other than that, you have brought no real point in what can really only be described as an uninformed rant. What then do you think about loving your enemies and repaying evil with good? Being kind to those who treat us bad (1 Thessalonians 5:15)? Not being jealous, having integrity, working asthough we were working for the Lord Jesus (Ephesians 6:5-9), comforting others who are suffering (2 Corinthians 1:3-7), show respect to all people (1 Peter 2:17), giving to people who need our help (1 Timothy 6:17-19), show mercy (Luke 6:36), among many others. Are these not desirable traits that you would love to have; if everyone had such things this world would be a lot better off. Unfortunately, many people still go by "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" if not more. When someone hurts us we must hurt htem back. Because of their faith in Christ and their love for Him, Christians have been at the forefront in helping the sick, looking after the orphaned and the aged, feeding the hungry, educating the poor, and opposing exploitation through such things as child labour and slavery.

 

On the contrary, atheism, with its evolutionary rationale, says "love" is nothing more than self-interest in increasing the chances of our genes surviving in our offspring or our close relatives. In the "struggle for suvival of the fittest," where is teh basis for compassion? Hitler's death camps grew out of his desire for the "Aryan race" to win the battle for "the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life." (Batten, D. [ed.]. 2002).

 

The good works of Christians cannot be denied, and their effect on the planet has been positive. It is also interesting to note that science has been greatly accelerated by Christians (contrary to what you seem to believe). Did you know that Sir Robert Boyle (pioneer of modern chemistry), Sir Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday (pioneer of elecetric power), Charles Babbage (father of computing), Joseph Lister (father of modern surgery), Wernher von Braun (pioneer of space exploration), among countless others were Christians who believed the Bible? In fact, almost every field of science has either been founded by or greatly influenced by Christians.

 

Also, far from being a "death cult," Christianity offers eternal life when we die and abundant life now through faith in Jesus Christ. I for one do not just believe in Christ now to get into heaven, even if I were going to hell, He as sovereign God deserves to be praised. I praise and worship Him because of who He is, what He has done for me, and how He is always there for me, even when it seems my world is caving in around me. If it were not for Him, I am sure that out of desparation and depression I would have killed myself several years ago. I trusted in God and His love and faithfulness, and He proved Himself by carrying me through the hardest time in my life when I was to weak to walk through life (metaphorically speaking of course).

 

Have a good day friend.

 

~ From The Inside Out.

 

References:

 

Batten, D. (2002). "It's Not Science." Retreived 21 July 2006 from: http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2480/#r1

 

Batten, D. (e.d.). (2002). The Updated & Expanded Answers Book. Triune Press: Brisbane, Queensland.

 

Humphreys, R. (2002). Starlight and Time. Master Books: Green Forest, AR.

 

In my post above, the "please click here" part of my post should have been a hyperlink, but for some reason it didn't show. Anyway, the link is: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/...0020809_131.asp

 

Sorry about that. :-)

 

~ From The Inside Out.

[Lycorth]

*yawn*

 

Careful, that's contagious! *yawn*

[mwc]

Evolution in the microbe-to-man sense is far from being a proven fact and even evolutionists themselves such as Professor Whitten, Loren Eiseley, and Stephen Jay Gould among man others have admitted.

I'm not going to argue evolution. I'm here and there's no bible god so if there's only those two choices it's pretty clear the winner. There are others here much better suited to the task and forums actually designed for the argument.

 

It should hopefully be clear now that evolutionists are not the open-minded unbiased people that you thought they were. They have an underlying commitment to materialism just as Christian creationists do to the authority of the Bible. One example of how different underlying beliefs can affect the conclusion can be seen in Dr Humphreys’ white hole cosmology where he said “It might be suspected that such a startling result requires some fairly creative manipulation, but interestingly, the result “falls out” of the equations of GR (the same mathematical machinery used to generate the big bang theory), just as does the big bang. The crucial reason why such different cosmologies come out of the same mathematics is that two different (but absolutely arbitrary) starting points (initial assumptions) are utilized.” (Humphreys, D. 2002). That is, the big bang assumes an unbounded universe with no centre and no edges, while Dr Humphreys assumed that the universe was bounded and had a centre. It is the same mathematics, but different assumptions were initially used (based on their preconceived beliefs) and this lead to two totally different conclusions.

Uh oh. You mean that two people can look at the same thing and come up with two totally different theories? The hell you say. You know what will also happen? There will be some review and discussion and other people will come up with their very own thoughts and their very own theories and the problem won't be solved overnight and tied up in some with some nice little bow so all the little sheeple can sleep in their beds knowing the "right" answer. An actual dialogue will have to happen. Work will have to be done. Effort will have to be made both in advancing the field and understanding it.

 

Oh, and in case you didn't know...big bang and evolution are not related.

 

But you know what won't happen? The xians won't ever do any of this. They'll sit knowing the "truth" while all the evidence shows them to be wrong. The only efforts they'll make will be in the one area that ever advances in xianity and that's apologetics.

 

Wow, that was good and very authoritive. I would respectfully ask you to provide some evidence for your claims rather than just enspousing false rhetoric. :-)

Uh, yeah, he could have said that the bible fell out of his neighbor's dog's ass and in this forum he'll never have to back it. You should read the rules to find out which forum to go to if you want that consideration.

 

I liked how you took the passages out of context, but other than that, you have brought no real point in what can really only be described as an uninformed rant. What then do you think about loving your enemies and repaying evil with good? Being kind to those who treat us bad (1 Thessalonians 5:15)? Not being jealous, having integrity, working asthough we were working for the Lord Jesus (Ephesians 6:5-9), comforting others who are suffering (2 Corinthians 1:3-7), show respect to all people (1 Peter 2:17), giving to people who need our help (1 Timothy 6:17-19), show mercy (Luke 6:36), among many others. Are these not desirable traits that you would love to have; if everyone

Those are traits we'd love to have. To bad we don't have them. They sound rare and difficult to come by. I bet we'd have to sacrifice 1000 babies to our gods to aquire such things. Maybe even one or two of our finest goats as well. Are you saying we can save our goats? Where might we get them?

 

had such things this world would be a lot better off. Unfortunately, many people still go by "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" if not more. When someone hurts us we must hurt htem back.

Yes, this is our motto. One day we read a book called the bible and we were told it held the highest of all moral standards. It tells the story of a god that orders people to rip open the stomachs of pregnant woman leaving no one alive. It tells how to rape a woman and pay her father to marry her. I've now been married 13 wonderful years (she still cries but not nearly as much). Oh, but I don't want to bore you with our ways.

 

Because of their faith in Christ and their love for Him, Christians have been at the forefront in helping the sick, looking after the orphaned and the aged, feeding the hungry, educating the poor, and opposing exploitation through such things as child labour and slavery.

True enough. When you break it you've bought it.

 

On the contrary, atheism, with its evolutionary rationale, says "love" is nothing more than self-interest in increasing the chances of our genes surviving in our offspring or our close relatives. In the "struggle for suvival of the fittest," where is teh basis for compassion? Hitler's death camps grew out of his desire for the "Aryan race" to win the battle for "the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life." (Batten, D. [ed.]. 2002).

Why quote people that appear on such renown sites as AiG? Also, Hitler was a xian. Oh, not your brand but I doubt I was your brand either (Lutheran with a fundie Baptist overlay). Of course why not invoke the Crusades? Oh, right...Catholics.

 

The good works of Christians cannot be denied, and their effect on the planet has been positive. It is also interesting to note that science has been greatly accelerated by Christians (contrary to what you seem to believe). Did you know that Sir Robert Boyle (pioneer of modern chemistry), Sir Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday (pioneer of elecetric power), Charles Babbage (father of computing), Joseph Lister (father of modern surgery), Wernher von Braun (pioneer of space exploration), among countless others were Christians who believed the Bible? In fact, almost every field of science has either been founded by or greatly influenced by Christians.

And in Muslim countries all those wonderful things are being done by Muslims. Don't they know that only xians can pull these things off? All that stuff that never happened prior to jesus. Those Romans and Greeks and Chinese and Indians who never invented math and engineering or anything. No one did a damn thing before jesus plopped his ass out of Mary's twat because there were no real god's to inspire them. What a specious argument you make.

 

Also, far from being a "death cult," Christianity offers eternal life when we die and abundant life now through faith in Jesus Christ. I for one do not just believe in Christ now to get into heaven, even if I were going to hell, He as sovereign God deserves to be praised. I praise and worship Him because of who He is, what He has done for me, and how He is always there for me, even when it seems my world is caving in around me. If it were not for Him, I am sure that out of desparation and depression I would have killed myself several years ago. I trusted in God and His love and faithfulness, and He proved Himself by carrying me through the hardest time in my life when I was to weak to walk through life (metaphorically speaking of course).

Another specious argument.

 

"I would have killed myself." Neat. You didn't try hard enough. Even crackheads pull this off. God didn't save you because he loves you -- he just didn't want you there. That's why keeps ALL you xians from killing yourselves (during your same sob story "weak" moment). Think about it.

 

mwc

[Guest From The Inside Out]

It's late now, but I'll answer the following point before getting to the rest of your post when ever I have time.

 

Oh, and in case you didn't know...big bang and evolution are not related.

 

Did I claim that they were? I'm starting to get the feeling that you ex-Christians (I would dispute whether or not you were one at all) are not even remotely minded, but rather hardcore atheistic fanatics.

 

If you are capable of reading a post correctly, then you'd find that I was illustrating by use of the example how different conclusions can come from the same evidence because of different underlying assumptions. The fact remains as you never addressed it. I'm just guessing that if you could, you would have...

 

Lastly:

 

Uh, yeah, he could have said that the bible fell out of his neighbor's dog's ass and in this forum he'll never have to back it. You should read the rules to find out which forum to go to if you want that consideration.

 

Did I say that I cared too much for his choice of words? But the title of the sub-forum which "The Lion's Den" is under is "Discussions." I have to say, what is point of repeating such false rhetoric without any evidence?

 

If you wish to remain in your wilful ignorance, then by all means go ahead and I'll move onto a different forum. However, if you wish to sit down and go through all of this logically and rationally, then just say. Until then, responding to such people (your first paragraph says it all) that are around here is pointless and a waste of my time.

 

One last thing before I go, Hitler was not a Christian contrary to what you falsely assert. See Was Hitler a Christian? http://www.answers.org/apologetics/hitquote.html

[Ouroboros]

Yes, science is biased. It is biased to natural understanding of the world, and not supernatural. Metaphysics is impossible to use to establish tests or experiments. Imagine the laboratory:

 

Newton: Today I will try to do an experiment to confirm my theory that a million tiny angels are pulling the apple down to the ground. And I will call those angles: gravipixies. And I will prove that depending on the size and color of the apple, different number of gravipixies will be in action.

 

Rather silly don't you think?

 

Please, can you explain how DNA can be used as evidence (fingerprinting) in criminal cases, unless mutations in meiosis does occur. And likewise, if Noah only took animals of "each kind", then you have to admit that a evolution is true to a certain degree, because you have a lot more species and sub-species of animals today. Do you agree?

 

 

And also, you demand unbiased research by scientists and yet quote AiG, who make this statement about their vision: AiG teaches that "facts" don’t speak for themselves, but must be interpreted. That is, there aren’t separate sets of "evidences" for evolution and creation - we all deal with the same evidence (we all live on the same earth, have the same fossils, observe the same animals, etc.). The difference lies in how we interpret what we study. The Bible - the "history book of the universe" - provides a reliable, eye-witness account of the beginning of all things, and can be trusted to tell the truth in all areas it touches on. Therefore, we are able to use it to help us make sense of this present world. When properly understood, the "evidence" confirms the biblical account.

Is that unbiased from the creationists? Don't let the facts speak for themselves, but they have to be interpreted through the Bible!

 

--edit--

 

What's your view on the current tax evasion charges against Kent Hovind?

[Ouroboros]

One last thing before I go, Hitler was not a Christian contrary to what you falsely assert. See Was Hitler a Christian? http://www.answers.org/apologetics/hitquote.html

Well, we did talk about biased reports. That book is debated if the quotes are authentic or not. They could be made up to discredit Hitler as an christian. What about the quotes from Hitler himself, that points to him supporting Christianity? Shouldn't they be of heavier weight? But anyway, I really don't get to much into debate if Hitler was Christian or not. I think it's possible that he thought he was, but Christians of course would not agree to that he was based on their criteria. Although, we can be certain he was not an atheist, he was a believer of some kind.

 

If it's okay to quote hearsay, so lets:

 

"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow my self to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice… And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows . For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people." –Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922 (Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1 of 2, pp. 19-20, Oxford University Press, 1942)

[Checkmate]

As I've already spotted the "No True Scotsman" fallacy, I believe I know what type of Christian From the Inside Out is. Your garden variety hair-splitter. Since Hitler did things offensive to all mankind, he couldn't POSSIBLY be a True Christian. (Just as WE obviously couldn't have been True Christians, since we fell away. Right?)

 

To this I cry, "Bullshit!" Read this from Wikipedia on Hitler's Religious Beliefs.

 

Hitler was raised in a Catholic home, raised in a Catholic/Lutheran environment, and embraced, albeit loosely, Christian tenets. Hitler DID despise what he viewed as "weak" Christianity, and so he rejected it. He wanted something more powerful. Very much like most of your modern day "Christians", Hitler mangled and shaped his Christian religious beliefs to suit himself. HE USED HIS FAITH TO JUSTIFY THE EVIL HE DID. It was not his love of "atheism" that drove him, but his perverted visions of god, Jesus and his desire to fulfill what he believed was his "divine" mission.

 

Hitler may not have been the "Christian" you would have wanted in YOUR church, but he considered himself "Christian". Much like your pals Fred Phelps, John Wimber, Benny Hinn, the Pope and Pat Robertson. Just because you don't approve of "their" understanding of scripture, and just because you don't like what they do, you can't now deny that they are "Christians" simply because they embarrass your cause.

 

If you wish to argue with OTHER Christians whether or not Hitler was a True Christian™, then be my guess. But don't you DARE come to MY site and try to pass off that MONSTER as an atheist! No matter what bullshit you can conclude, you CANNOT say that Hitler "had no god belief". He very MUCH believed in "God"! Ergo: Hitler was a THEIST, not an A-THEIST.

 

Stop spewing absolute nonsense.

[RHEMtron]

youre posts are longer than mine... we cant have that now

 

Evolution in the microbe-to-man sense is far from being a proven fact and even evolutionists themselves such as Professor Whitten, Loren Eiseley, and Stephen Jay Gould among man others have admitted.

Does that mean it's false? Do you even understand their findings? Or are you one of the many who have misinterpreted them. Let's take Stephen Jay Gould:

 

from Controversies

Gould was considered by many people to be one of the pre-eminent theoreticians in his field. However, a good number of evolutionary biologists have disagreed with the way in which Gould publicly presented his views.

 

<snip>

 

One reason for such criticism was that Gould appeared to be presenting his ideas as a revolutionary way of understanding evolution, which relegated natural selection to a much less important position. As such, many non-specialists became convinced (due to his early writings) that Darwinian explanations had been proven to be unscientific (which Gould never wanted to imply). His works were sometimes used out of context as a "proof" that scientists no longer understood how organisms evolved, giving creationists ammunition in their battle against evolutionary theory. Gould himself corrected some of these misinterpretations and distortions of his teachings in later works.

Keep in mind science is progressive. 600 years ago, people didnt think man would have the ability to fly in the skies. Hence the old cliche: If God wanted man to fly, he wouldve given him wings!

 

In fact, it can be easily demonstrated that microbe-to-man evolution hardly qualifies as operational or process science as Dr Loren Eisely said in "The Secret of Life" in the Immense Journey:

 

With the failure of these many efforts science was left in the somewhat embarrassing position of having to postulate theories of living origins which it could not demonstrate. After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past.

Could not demonstrate anything huh? By studying how "things" work now, scientists can derive how things came to be. But what? Are you saying it's not possible for science to reconstruct the past? Coroners can tell you what happened, and how it happened by examining the evidence. Forensics can tell you exact details of what happened at a crime scene. The Primordial Soup experiments proved organic compounds could be created.

 

You see, operational science involve doing experiments in the present, making inferences from these results and doing more experiments to test those ideas. Here, the inferences, or conclusions, are closely related to the experiments and hence there is often little room for speculation.

 

However, there is another type of science that deals with the past, which can be called historical or origins science. When it comes to working out what happened in the past, particularly the distant past, science is limited because we cannot do experiments directly on past events, and history cannot be repeated. In origins science, observations made in the present are used to make inferences about the past. The experiments that can be done in the present that relate to the past are often quite limited, so the inferences require a great deal of guesswork or assumptions. The further in the past the event being studied, the longer the chain of inferences involved, the more guesswork, and the more room there is for the non-scientific factors to influence the conclusions - factors such as the religious belief or unbelief of the scientist. (Batten, D. [ed.]. 2002).

I had a long response all typed out... i erased it. Instead, i want you to paraphrase everything that has been said. Tell us in layman's terms please.

 

And yes, scientists have bias. I'm sure that we can both agree that we have the same physical evidence, such as the same fossils, the same rocks, the same stars, the same animals and plants, the same mutations, and so on, right? We have the same evidence because we live on the same planet at the same time. Now, we also use the same science. For example, both evolutionists and creationists use physics, chemistry, biology, genetics, geology, and so on. I hope that you're still with me at this point. The question then has to be asked, if we both have the same physical evidence and use the same type of science, then how is it possible that such different conclusions can be drawn?

And what are the different conclusions drawn? Give examples please. But anyhow, Mark, Matthew, Luke, John, and Paul all use Jesus' life in their writings. The question then has to be asked, if we all followed the same savior, why then do we get different accounts of his life?

 

but in historical science we often need to use assumptions to fill in the ever present gaps and the further you go back into the past, the more unknowns there are and the more assumptions are needed. These assumptions are based on the scientists' presupposition, or underlying beliefs.

Riiiiiight. But it's okay for a Christian to make assumptions about Jesus and the bible. To put words, assumptions, and interpretations that arent there.

 

The prominent evolutionist Professor Richard Lewontin said:

 

We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfil many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

 

Now that’s open-minded isn’t it? Isn’t ‘science’ about following the evidence wherever it may lead? This is where the religion (in the broadest sense) of the scientist puts the blinkers on. Our individual worldviews bias our perceptions.

You realize scientists who arent open-minded are frowned upon the scientific community dont you? Quoting biased, individual "scientists" doesnt mean anything. Show me a scientific text book used for education that claims one must be biased in the fields of science. The only time one is biased is when making a hypothesis. You try to prove it true, but if it turns out it's not, then it's accepted as not being true. That's how scientific research works. But let's take a look at Lewontin also:

 

from Richard Lewontin

Lewontin has been criticized by some academics for a rejection of sociobiology for non-scientific reasons. Some credit this rejection to political beliefs (Wilson 1995) (Lewontin has at times identified himself as Marxist or at least left-leaning). Others (Kitcher 1985) have countered that Lewontin's criticisms of sociobiology are genuine scientific concerns about the discipline and claim that attacking Lewontin's motives amount to an ad hominem argument. Researchers such as Steven Pinker (2002) address Lewontin's concerns in a scientific context, but nevertheless believe that Lewontin is attacking a straw man version of sociobiology (or its more modern incarnation as evolutionary psychology) and therefore claim that his arguments miss the target.

 

I liked how you took the passages out of context, but other than that, you have brought no real point in what can really only be described as an uninformed rant. What then do you think about loving your enemies and repaying evil with good? Being kind to those who treat us bad (1 Thessalonians 5:15)? Not being jealous, having integrity, working asthough we were working for the Lord Jesus (Ephesians 6:5-9), comforting others who are suffering (2 Corinthians 1:3-7), show respect to all people (1 Peter 2:17), giving to people who need our help (1 Timothy 6:17-19), show mercy (Luke 6:36), among many others. Are these not desirable traits that you would love to have; if everyone had such things this world would be a lot better off.

Are those the teachings of Jesus? Out of the 6 quotes, you only quotes Jesus once... Dont get me wrong. Those are all desirable traits, but they are not unique to Christianity.

 

Unfortunately, many people still go by "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" if not more. When someone hurts us we must hurt htem back.

I know many Christians who do this. I know many non-Christians who dont do this. Are you implying non-believers are this way?

 

Because of their faith in Christ and their love for Him, Christians have been at the forefront in helping the sick, looking after the orphaned and the aged, feeding the hungry, educating the poor, and opposing exploitation through such things as child labour and slavery.

They were, and are also at the forefront of persecuting, genocide, religious wars, gay bashings, abortion clinic bombings, witch-hunting, invaded lands, slavery, etc. etc. etc.

 

Who has the greater character? A Christian who does good acts because they love Jesus? Or a non-believer who performs acts of charity for goodness sake? So what about folks like Bill Gates and Oprah Winfrey? They are big time humanitarians who arent Christian.

 

On the contrary, atheism, with its evolutionary rationale, says "love" is nothing more than self-interest in increasing the chances of our genes surviving in our offspring or our close relatives.

That is very offensive and judgemental.

 

The good works of Christians cannot be denied, and their effect on the planet has been positive.

I just listed examples of their contributions to the world. The positive contributions they have made are again, not UNIQUE to Christianity.

 

It is also interesting to note that science has been greatly accelerated by Christians (contrary to what you seem to believe). Did you know that Sir Robert Boyle (pioneer of modern chemistry), Sir Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday (pioneer of elecetric power), Charles Babbage (father of computing), Joseph Lister (father of modern surgery), Wernher von Braun (pioneer of space exploration), among countless others were Christians who believed the Bible? In fact, almost every field of science has either been founded by or greatly influenced by Christians.

So they accelerated science because they are Christians? Is that your claim? Then let's hear it for:

 

Howard Van Till (of Calvin College), Kenneth Miller (author of Finding Darwin's God), Denis Lamoureaux (co-author of Darwinism Defeated? The Johnson-Lamoureaux Debate on Biological Origins. Vancouver: Regent College, 1999), Dr. Stephen C. Meyers (manager of bibleandscience.com), Conrad Hyers (author of The Meaning of Genesis), Paul Seely, Michael Denton (one of the "fathers" of the modern day "Intelligent Design" movement), Howard Bloom (author of THE LUCIFER PRINCIPLE and GLOBAL MIND), and , Tippler and Barrow

These are all CHRISTIAN EVOLUTIONISTS

[Golden Meadows]

From the Inside Out,

 

Hi, I do hope you will hang around - I would like to read your views and see how they stand up to other opinions. The forum you have chosen to post in is maybe not the best for calm discussion due to the poor signal to noise ratio - its more like one of the parties is in the stocks have rotting vegetation flung at them by the other party whilst trying to hold an in depth discussion at the same time. Like I say please stay with us for a while and don't be put off by the ribald humour!

 

 

Quote Hansolo: "Newton: Today I will try to do an experiment to confirm my theory that a million tiny angels are pulling the apple down to the ground. And I will call those angles: gravipixies. And I will prove that depending on the size and color of the apple, different number of gravipixies will be in action.

 

Rather silly don't you think?"

No! I think you are a poet at heart! I wish I could paint or draw, your imagery is fantastic.

[Skankboy]

One last thing before I go, Hitler was not a Christian contrary to what you falsely assert. See Was Hitler a Christian? http://www.answers.org/apologetics/hitquote.html

 

bullshit...

 

 

"I believe today that my conduct is in accordance

with the will of the Almighty Creator."

[Adolph Hitler, _Mein Kampf_, pp. 46]

 

Hitler’s involvement with the Church:

 

a) Hitler was baptized as Roman Catholic during infancy in Austria.

 

As Hitler approached boyhood he attended a monastery school. (On his way to school young Adolf daily observed a stone arch which was carved with the monastery’s coat of arms bearing a swastika.)

 

c) Hitler was a communicant and an altar boy in the Catholic Church.

 

d) As a young man he was confirmed as a “soldier of Christ.” His most ardent goal at the time was to become a priest. Hitler writes of his love for the church and clergy: “I had excellent opportunity to intoxicate myself with the solemn splendor of the brilliant church festivals. As was only natural, the abbot seemed to me, as the village priest had once seemed to my father, the highest and most desirable ideal.” -Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)

 

e) Hitler was NEVER excommunicated nor condemned by his church. Matter of fact the Church felt he was JUST and “avenging for God” in attacking the Jews for they deemed the Semites the killers of Jesus.

 

f) Hitler, Franco and Mussolini were given VETO power over whom the pope could appoint as a bishop in Germany, Spain and Italy. In turn they surtaxed the Catholics and gave the money to the Vatican. Hitler wrote a speech in which he talks about this alliance, this is an excerpt: “The fact that the Vatican is concluding a treaty with the new Germany means the acknowledgement of the National Socialist state by the Catholic Church. This treaty shows the whole world clearly and unequivocally that the assertion that National Socialism [Nazism] is hostile to religion is a lie.” Adolf Hitler, 22 July 1933, writing to the Nazi Party

 

g) Hitler worked CLOSELY with Pope Pius in converting Germanic society and supporting the church. The Church absorbed Nazi ideals and preached them as part of their sermons in turn Hitler placed Catholic teachings in public education. This photo depicts Hitler with Archbishop Cesare Orsenigo, the papal nuncio in Berlin. It was taken On April 20, 1939, when Orsenigo celebrated Hitler’s birthday. The celebrations were initiated by Pacelli (Pope Pius XII) and became a tradition.

 

Each April 20, Cardinal Bertram of Berlin was to send “warmest congratulations to the Fuhrer in the name of the bishops and the dioceses in Germany with “fervent prayers which the Catholics of Germany are sending to heaven on their altars.” (If you would like to know more about the secret dealings of Hitler and the Pope I recommend you get a book titled: Hitler’s Pope: The Secret History of Pius XII, by John Cornwell)

 

h) Due to Hitler’s involvement with the Church he began enacting doctrines of the Church as law. He outlawed all abortion, raged a death war on all homosexuals, and demanded corporal punishment in schools and home. Many times Hitler addressed the church and promised that Germany would implement its teachings: “The National Socialist State professes its allegiance to positive Christianity. It will be its honest endeavor to protect both the great Christian Confessions in their rights, to secure them from interference with their doctrines (Lehren), and in their duties to constitute a harmony with the views and the exigencies of the State of today.” –Adolf Hitler, on 26 June 1934, to Catholic bishops to assure them that he would take action against the new pagan propaganda “Providence has caused me to be Catholic, and I know therefore how to handle this Church.” -Adolf Hitler, reportedly to have said in Berlin in 1936 on the enmity of the Catholic Church to National Socialism

From here