Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Blue Girl said:I did. It all keeps going around in circles... for 30+ screens.
Blue Girl said:Christian's have the right to worship in their churches, and teach anything they want to their children. They have complete access to their children, they have private schools by the dozens to teach all sorts of biblical ideas. Why do they want to force their religious ideas into the public relm, and teach their religion to others that may not think the same way?
You get Christmas off without having to arrange time off with your office, like every other religious holiday for every other religion.
You have the freedom to tell your kids all about abstinance. But everybody should have access to condoms to lower the risk of pregnancy or disease.
Christmas gets much more time and recognition than any other religious event. Just because a few folks have balked at letting their tax money support your religious symbols, and want their kids to have a science class instead of a Book of Genesis class, you're saying that's oppression?
placebo2 said:Why do Christians want creationism taught in public schools? Or "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance? Or, "In God We Trust" on currency? What purpose do the above serve? How do the above benefit the country?
nerdypants said:here's one way to look at our current situation; maybe God WANTS his name off our slogans.. maybe he's embarrassed that we participate in abortion, homosexual practices.. he doesnt want his name on all of that! If we say "under God" we claim that we represent him, and as christians we have to either fight for his name, or conform... the other way to look at it is.. how far will we let this go? Are we going to let them take God's name out of the pledge? then what.. are we gonna let them take His name out of our schools, our books, websites, LIVES?! how far will we go? That's the question I have for you all...
How far will we let them take Christ out of our lives?
ForsakeAll2FollowJesus said:The point is many other religions are being taught in schools, while any mention of Christianity is forbidden.
I didn't say we arnt equal, I am quite fermiliar with the fact that i am just as much a sinner as they, what I'm saying is that God doesn't want his name on our actions... sure he'll forgive us if we go to him.. but we arnt.. are we.. we're rejecting him instead.NFSteelers said:With the first part of what you had to say, I have to staunchly disagree with. God knows we all sin, no one is perfect, everyone of us sins! He died for our sins so that we would be saved, and we are asked to spread His word to the unbeliever... why would he then be embarassed to have His name on our money, or in our pledge? We DO represent God on this earth, the way we act, the way we talk to others, and so much more. And sorry to say, but if a person has an abortion, or is a practicing homosexual, you yourself are no less a sinner then they, or any more a Christian... we are all equal in God's love for us.
nerdypants said:here's one way to look at our current situation; maybe God WANTS his name off our slogans.. maybe he's embarrassed that we participate in abortion, homosexual practices.. he doesnt want his name on all of that! If we say "under God" we claim that we represent him, and as christians we have to either fight for his name, or conform... the other way to look at it is.. how far will we let this go? Are we going to let them take God's name out of the pledge? then what.. are we gonna let them take His name out of our schools, our books, websites, LIVES?! how far will we go? That's the question I have for you all...
How far will we let them take Christ out of our lives?
Shane Roach said:"Godel had established that there were limits to math and logic. The aim of Gottlob Frege, David Hilbert and Russell to create a unitary deductive system in which all mathematical (and therefore all logical) truth could be deduced from a small number of axioms could not be realized. It was, in its way, and as was hinted at above, a form of mathematical uncertainty principle - and it changed math for all time. Furthermore, as Roger Penrose has pointed out, Godel's 'open ended mathematical intuition is fundamentally incompatible with the existing structure of physics.'"
"Added to the uncertaintly principle, his theory described limits to knowledge. Put alongside all the other advances and new avenues of thought, which were then exploding in all directions, it injected a layer of doubt and pessemism. Why should there be limits to our knowledge? And what did it mean to know that such limits existed?"
-Peter Watson, The Modern Mind, Harper Collins Publisers, 2001.
One thing it should mean is that if people are going to discuss a subject, they should discuss it fully rather than pretending one outlook on it is somehow separate from the general uncertainties of life that appear to be universal to all knowledge.
Arikay said:I would agree with you there. There are certain limits to science, and I doubt we will ever have all knowledge. IMHO public school does a bad job at teaching exactly what science is. It should be further explained what science can and can't tell us. Quite frankly I think if they did a better job, there wouldn't be as much debate about ID in science or evolution or creationism.
Shane Roach said:That's precisely the point. You continually talk about the limitations of science, but when it comes to actually talking openly about them in the context if this issue you insist that "it's not science."
Arikay said:Thats because certain things are outside the limits of science, thus they aren't science.
Ummm...no. That would be Chrsitians' trick, as you are demonstrating in this thread.Shane Roach said:I imagine the very instant they are able, the atheists will change the law to forbid religion altogether, since even as a tiny minority they tend to insist on having their way to begin with.
"Clearly"? Hardly. The vast majority of the world's Xians dismiss creationism and accept evolutionary theory. They accept that the opening chapters of Genesis are metaphorical, not literal. Whether you like it or not, creationism is a fringe belief, even within Xianity.disciple73 said:One thing that I find is that you state that Darwinism is a respected hypothesis and Creationism is not...I DISAGREE! THE BIBLE CLEARLY STATES CREATIONISM AND IS RESPECTED BY MILLIONS ACROSS THE GLOBE. The Bible has been around for longer than the modern biological book. Why do you doubt creationism over darwinism? Darwinism can't be proved and yet you believe....
Shane Roach said:And yet to discuss that openly, one would have to discuss what sorts of things are not science, why they are not science, and how they compare and contrast to science.
But you're not interested in discussing that in a science class, and then you act mystified as to why I think you're real motives are someting less than genuine on that point.
=-ReveLationz-= said:...the word is infallible... genesis was not metaphorical... evolution is not only wrong but stupid!
How fortunate that we have people like you - who, I am guessing, is uneducated and unqualified in science - to tell the world's scientists, many of them brilliant, who have studied the matter for decades that what they think is worthy of study is, in fact, "not only wrong but stupid."=-ReveLationz-= said:...the word is infallible... genesis was not metaphorical... evolution is not only wrong but stupid!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?