ToriAllen

Is there a younger picture of her. Maybe she was the worlds most beautiful woman.

Actually it is. The guilty party is responible for two reasons: 1. Had they not committed the crime in the first place then no one would have been put in jail. 2. Had they turned themselves in when the innocent person was charged with the crime then the innocent man would not have been convicted. I do not think the police/DA's can or should be held liable. Their job is to locate the person most likely to be guilty and put it to the jury to determind the person's innocence. You can not hold them liable for doing their job.

Nope. The problem is DNA is still a relatively new technology and so this issue is not going to have any precedent. It will be interestig to see how the law developes with respect to this issue over the next ten years.

That would be a good issue to look up. Can a person convicted of a crime sue the person who actually committed the crime. That would be an interesting case. I'll have to think about that. What cause of action could he use?

You're telling me to read the Bible? Have you ever read it? Going on some anti-Christian website and finding verses that someone has abstracted from the Bible is not the same thing as reading it for yourself. Some things must be put into context. God is merciful, loving, and forgiving. There are many verses which show that. Again you are quoting verses from the Old Testiment. This contained the old law. In the new testiment Jesus came and died for our sins, doing away with the covenent of the Old Testiment. That is a major part of Christianity to miss, especially if you are trying to argue against it. In fact, it is kind of the basis for the whole religion. I'll look into the context of the verses when I get time. If they rewrote the Bible to cover that up, I wonder how it is you found all those verses.

I know that's what you said. That's what I was making fun of. I certainly wouldn't say that we have no need for words that mean the same thing. There is a whole book devoted to words that have the same or similar meaning. I guess I should have put that is quotes. I was repeating the part of what you said that I was teasing you about, not making the statement myself. Silly man. Is it easier to understand with the quotes?

I was picking on the way you stated that...If two words mean the same thing then there is no need for both of them. ;) I think what TJ meant was that your contempt shows your intolerance.

Just because these men were inspired by God does not mean they did not use their own words and understanding to translate his message. The first two are easy. They are referring to the civilized world at the time. Kind of like the flood. Why flood the earth when flooding the Mediterranean area will accomplish the needed goal? Not saying the whole of the earth wasn?t flooded, I don?t know, but I?m saying just because the Bible referred to the whole earth, that doesn?t mean it wasn?t referring to the populated areas of the earth. The second one doesn?t even make sense. Insect is a man made name, not a scientific concept, so how can you know what the original text was referring to? It could easily have been a translation problem. Perhaps ?all fours? was just a figure of speech used at the time of the translation to refer to anything that didn?t walk up right. We have ?figures of speech? nowadays, too. The King James version states ?and the pillars thereof tremble?. How do you know the original version wasn?t talking about the pillars of the buildings, or that the original referred to pillars at all? Once again it could have been a translation issue. And time you are translation from one language to another there are going to be subtle differences. There are many words in Hebrew that we do not have an equivalent for in English. It is that way with a lot of languages. I never feared an angry God. My children don't fear an angry God either. That wasn't necessary for my parents to raise me and it isn't necessary for me to raise my children. It certainly isn't a necessary part of being a Christian. None of the Christians I know live in fear. Most have almost no fear of death at all. Most live in anticipation of the reward, not fear of some kind of punishment. The idea of hell is actually a sort of comfort. The knowledge that the murderers that were never caught or the rapists or child molesters that slipped by the authorities will not escape an ultimate judgment and justice will eventually be done, is comforting. Nope, no fear here.

Not the same thing at all. God created everything. If he is unhappy with his creation, he can destroy it. Hell, I think he is pretty damn merciful. I probably would have wiped out the majority of the earths population by now. I don't think it is anything like Muslims. Mohammad was warlike during his lifetime. He never taught forgiveness or love for those who did not believe like he did. Although I see where the Muslim argument fits in, I don't see where the pedophilic priests fit in. Did I misunderstand that scandal? Did they molest in the name of the Church or of religion? I was under the impression they were sickos that took advantage of a career that would put them in close proximity to children. That has nothing to do with the religion or the teachings of the Church.

Where? Point it out. Give me the verses you are referring to. Like I said. Nothing anyone can say would convince you because you have already made up your mind.

Then I wonder what good there is in using a Thesaurus?

You seem to misinterpret the word 'Christian'. If Christians were truly Christ-like they would embrace the unbelievers as Jesus did. You are referring to Old Testament books of the Bible. The reason Jesus was sent to earth was to do away with the old ways of sacrifice and bloodshed. The more recent 'bloody' history of the Church came from power and manipulation of the ignorant by those in power. It had nothing to do with true Christianity. As Christians we are supposed to take a page from Christ, also known as Jesus, and love thy neighbor, forgive those who have wronged us, dine with the outcasts, and help those who need help. You, and others, just have a skewed view of Christianity.

The Bible is not flawed, it is just written on a very 'dumbed down' level. Like how a Physicist would explain quantum physics to a three years old. The creation of the world takes up one page of a 1086 page book. Some how I get the feeling that is wasn't the most important part of the Bible. The Bible was meant to speak to the hearts of man, so what happened before the creation of man really isn't important. The lack of 'all scientific principles' does not show any limitations of God. It shows the scientific limitations of the physical world. At that point a lot of scientific principles were unknown and could not have been easily explained. I never said the Bible was manmade, I said it was transcribed by man. There is no way to know how God spoke to them. Perhaps in visions? Maybe the man who wrote Genesis had one vision a day for seven days. I don't know. You don't know either. The Bible also says that to God a day is like a thousand years. I am not a literalist, so I see no conflict between the Bible and science. I understand that people are generally stupid, and were even more so back then, so I see no problem with the simplicity of the Bible. I think human history in the Bible is much more accurate than scientific earth history, because the point of the Bible was to talk to man, to point out the faults of man, and to guide man into a better way of life. Quit trying to make it into something it isn't and the conflict disappears. Why I believe the Bible? There is a lot of wisdom in the Bible and it has affected many lives. There is an experience that can not be explained to those who have not experienced it. You will never have someone properly explain it to you. It would be like explaining an encounter with a ghost to someone who does not believe in ghosts. No explanation would be enough for you.

Quote: Come on now. How many libraries could be filled with science, history, philosophy... You can not possibly expect all of that information to be condensed into one book. The Bible is a figurative moral compass written on a very basic and generic level so as to include even the stupidest or youngest of individuals in understanding the principles contained inside. Quite a bit of the Bible was written either thousands of years after an event or thousands of years before an event, which means that the person writing had to interpret what they were told/envisioning/whatever according to their own understanding of how the world worked at the time. Before you talk about the Bible being so wrong about creation from a scientific view, go back and look at the order in which things were created. Time is man mad, so it is impossible for the Bible to be wrong on the time frame, because God has no time frame that can be measured by man.

I understand that. I just don't agree with the lashing out. If you think someone else?s actions are wrong, then why retaliate by acting in a similar manner? I feel the opposite. Maybe it is just my perspective but the mere mention of the name Jesus, and people look at you like you are some kind of fanatic or something. The ignorant people in movies are always made out to be the 'super religious' ones. It has become a big Hollywood joke to make the inbred or psychopath the Christian in a movie or on TV. Atheists tend to be more outspoken. I know who quite a few of the atheists at my school are, but I'm not really sure who is a Christian or what denomination they are. I've seen that happen many, many times before, and what can I say, I don't believe in pushiness from either 'side of the fence'. I don't believe in walking around and telling people that they are going to hell. I don't think I am the best judge of who is going where and I certainly wouldn't be so bold as to condemn some one else. Did you ever say, "See you there, hypocrite"? Well, the point made, hopefully, is that 'rising from the dead' is not a typical event and the only reason Jesus did it is because he is God and can do anything. At least that's how I learned it. Happy to entertain... As I said, I don't agree with pushy behavior on either side. There is just something very hateful and unchristian-like about, "You're going to hell". I think there is a much better way of addressing people who don't believe the way you do. I have never once in my entire life, even as a child, told someone they were going to go to hell. Now, I told plenty of people that they could go to hell, but that is different. Point being, this website is different than most Christian websites out there. Most Christian websites are meant to strengthen the community and family of the Church, not to bring down the atheists. I would have a problem with a Christian site against atheists called 'To Hell With You', because it is inflammatory and obviously meant to ruffle feathers. Sure Christians talk about non-believers, and I would only expect atheists to talk about theists, but this isn't just a group of atheists talking about theists. You know that.

I never said it was sick. I have no problem with someone having a different belief than me. My problem is with the adolescent way in which the idea is presented. The 'us against them' mentality is just annoying. Atheist ideas that are presented in a way that is obviously meant to offend Christians and to be an 'in your face' approach to showing atheist ideology is very different than having a website that is meant to be an atheist community/support group. It is the same adolescent 'rebellious' attitude that I associate with any minority trying to force their views into the face of the majority as loudly and offensively as possible. The idea that somehow atheists are more 'enlightened' than Christians is what bothers me and what I was discussing. That's not true. Anyone can question anything. Who is preventing it? So now Christianity is sick? Isn't that kind of 'tit for tat' mentality a little counter productive? I was under the impression you were an agnostic. Was I wrong? I would think you would be a little more open minded than that. BTW- Your 15 year old supports my 'rebellious teen' attitude example above. Edit: That is what is troubling. Not, we reject religion, or we reject God, or we reject all beliefs in a higher order. Nope. We reject Christ and Christians. Kind of seems like a personal attack on one particular religion. Wouldn't a true atheist group who is not purposefully trying to offend, as I believe this one is, be more generic in their assertions. Why not denounce Buddha and Mohammad, too? What about all of the Hindu gods?

I've noticed that too. The Dems are made up of the 'leftovers' of society at large. That is why they have no real platform. There is too much diversity within the group for them to really stand for anything rational. A bunch of misfits held together by a common goal: Forcing the majority to cater to and take care of them. Dem motto: Give us your poor, your ingorant, your lazy, your freaks, and we can take over the country. Sorry, off topic. Please continue... Edit: I've figured out that Dems can be divided into four main categories: Orphan causes (aka. Causes without a political party of their own); Ignorant - Subcategories: Ignorant due to poor education, ignorant of the issues ('My parents were Democrats so I am even though I agree with all the republican issues and values' or 'The democrats helped me during the great depression'); Power Hungry (they know the ignorant are easily manipulated, they encourage dependence through government funding); Delusional (they have good intentions but poor methods, they would rather support the ignorant than educate them)

LOL at Eddo!!! I was about to say...I know you are not going to complain about him not knowing how to use the 'quote function' in a post where you screw it up.

Obviously not all Churches preach that stuff. I've already pointed out the only three things that are not in dispute by the different denominations of the Church. Which denomination was that? Sounds like Catholic or Episcopal.

I'm confused. So if I decide I don't want to be a Christian anymore I have to...What? Announce it in front of witnesses? If so, how many? Is that even enough? Maybe I should have it published. Have to be sure I get this right. Wouldn't want to end up in heaven when I die having Saint Peter explain to me that I did not properly revoke my membership. Aren't you the one that pointed out that there are many people who go through the motions but do not actually believe? I would think a persons actions would be enough proof of renouncing the religion.

That sounds great in theory, but there are many adults that choose to become Christians with little to no imprisonment involved. I was never told I had to believe anything. I was not forced to attend church, not that my parents went to church on a regular basis. My parents questioned different concepts of religion and taught me to do the same. As I said we went to many different churches and from the time I was old enough to think my father would encourage me to discuss alternative views on religion and my mother would ask if I thought certain parts of the Bible were meant to be literal or figurative. Neither one ever gave me the answers to any of the questions. They let me figure out what I believed for myself. The fact is I have yet to find any proof that God does not exist, and find no reason not to believe in Him. It is difficult to figure out what you believe if you are not exposed to a variety of views and ideas. What if I raised my ‘impressionable children’ to believe there is no God and tell them that people who believe in God are ignorant and brainwashed? Is that not ‘brainwashing’ as well? Wouldn’t the only true way to not brainwash a child be to leave them as a blank slate not telling them any of your personal views. That seems a little unreasonable to me. Just out of curiosity, what was your childhood like? I have the least respect for them of anyone. Believe, don’t believe, it is a personal choice, but what kind of weak minded people would allow others to so rule their lives as to pretend to believe something they don’t. That’s just pathetic. No it can’t. It can offer theories which you yourself stated are not fact, only conjecture. Again, there is no explanation for the cause of the ‘big bang’. No viable theory for what put everything into motion. I fully embrace the sciences. I believe that a God that could create would be smart enough to make His creation adaptable to the environment. Now you are equating religion to science? Above you made it sound as if science was superior. Most scientists have accepted these theories as fact. Research is based on them. New theories are framed around them. The only thing that keeps them from making these theories law is the lack of proof. There is no certainty that they will ever find proof, but that doesn’t stop these scientists from believing them. You aren’t looking. There is a problem in scientific research. It is most often talked about in statistics. The problem is bias. When you begin an experiment with a particular result in mind you mentally block anything that goes against your belief and single out only the results that fit that belief. It is easy to miss evidence that way. You bring a lot of things into the conversation that you have heard in movies or seen in artwork. The concept of wings on angels, little creatures with pitchforks, and most of the visual conceptions of Heaven, Hell, God, and Satan are man made. These are just some people’s ideas of the Biblical concepts. It has nothing to do with the belief in a higher power and since I personally don’t think anyone has a clue what any one of these things may look or feel like, don’t bother trying to use them to ‘debunk’ Christianity. I believe because no one has been able to disprove the existence of God. There are still too many things in the world that science has no explanation for. There are too many gaps and too many things that science chooses to ignore. I left my quote above because you seem to have misunderstood what I wrote. Choosing belief and not choosing belief is at the root of free will, so why would you loose free will by choosing not to believe. Not doesn’t make any sense and has absolutely nothing to do with what I wrote. Read this slowly, it is a hypothetical. Assuming that God exists, if there was incontrovertible proof of His existence, then according to the rules of science, that existence would become a law like that of gravity or any other provable law. People would have to accept the existence of God, therefore doing away with the need for faith and the concept of free will in belief. In case you didn’t notice, I’m not in the debate about who killed who and how many. I think it is a stupid debate. Men kill men regardless of religion and would kill each other over land, trading rights, resources, food, or any other reason they can think of. As the population in an area grows and the resources become scarcer, men will find a reason to fight. It is in their nature. I do not think it has a place in a discussion on the existence of God. Religion is man made, religion can be manipulated by those in charge, so religion will always be used as a cloak for the motives of men, that does not disprove the existence of God. No dear, you are thinking of Moses. Moses got the Ten Commandments from God after freeing the Jews from Egypt and passing through the Red Sea. Abraham gets the credit for his contribution to the religions because it was his impatience with God that caused the split in religions. Jews through Isaac and Muslims through Ishmael. I’m shocked In other words you are willing to discuss and agree with the things that fit into you view but not the ones that don’t. You’ve skipped an awful lot of what I wrote. If you continue to do that I will be forced to declare myself the victor in this discussion. You’re such a nut. Again mine has been around longer, so I think I’ll stick with that. When it starts raining chocolate in your garden, give me a call.

Who decides what is rational and what is irrational. Where is that line drawn? Is any belief that is 'total' irrational? Does that mean Christians and Atheists are irrational because they leave no room for doubt one way or the other, leaving agnostics as the only rational beings? What about those scientists that I referred to above? Is their belief that a certain theory is true irrational? You mention groups that are specifically held to be bad or evil. What about NASCAR fans or football fans that believe that is the best sport on earth and schedule their entire lives around the sports season. Aren’t they irrationally brainwashed as well. I bet some of them are even atheists or agnostics. Just because a belief is total, doesn’t make it irrational. I have a total belief in God. I have a total belief in the Bible. I have a total belief in Jesus. My belief in God, though complete, is not irrational. Science has no explanation for the cause of the ‘big bang’ or any other theory of how the universe came into existence; therefore it is rational to believe that there was some greater power that was the cause of everything else. Believing that matter can appear out of nothing without acknowledging God, now that is irrational in my opinion. I believe that God did his best to reach out and talk to man through the Bible but as we are stupid, he had it written on a 2nd grade level and left out all of the deep and extensive scientific explanations. We would eventually find that stuff out for ourselves. The Bible is full or morals and stories of what to and what not to do. Anyone who would expect to open the Bible and find all of the information contained in the volumes and volumes of scientific articles and history books is irrational. Finally I believe that God came to earth as a man and walked around, because it is difficult to understand anyone until you have walked in their shoes. If your choices of ‘God in the flesh’ come down to a guy that fed the hungry and healed the sick eventually allowing himself to be crucified without putting up any fight and without trying to raise his followers up into a rebellion, verses a guy that got his followers to poison themselves and their children because he was too much of a coward to die alone, I think I’ll choose the first one. Anyone that would attempt to compare the two is irrational. Anyone who would try to claim Jesus was ‘in it for the money’ is irrational since I seem to remember a quote about a rich man, a camel, and the eye of a needle. The faith is not flawed, the belief is not flawed, but much of the ‘religion’ is. I will give you that. I am not sure who told you that Christians give up their freedom of thought. I am a non-denominational Christian. I have been to just about every different denomination of church and I do not agree with some of the concepts that are taught by some of the churches, but that comes down to man interpreting the will of God. Because man is flawed, this interpretation is sometimes flawed. The fact is, anyone is free to think anything they want. You are free to think God doesn’t exist, and I am free to think he does. Even within the Christian religion there is a great deal of variety in the thoughts of Christians. The only constants within the Christian religion are a belief in God, a respect for the Bible as the word of God (whether taken as strict meaning or figurative meaning), and a belief in Jesus as God incarnate. Really, I think those are the only ones that matter. As for consequences and disregard for life, this has nothing to do with the belief in God. You seem to be referring to the manipulation of religion by men in order to fulfill their own intentions. This is very different than belief in God. I put my faith in no man. Men are inherently flawed and too often have their own motivations driving them. Those that follow these men are usually not very strong in their own beliefs and convictions. They are weak minded and their actions have more to do with their own ignorance than with their belief in God. King James I had the Bible translated because many of the common folks that could not read Latin were being manipulated by the clergy and other political leaders and were willing to do whatever the church asked of them ‘in the name of God’. It was not their faith that was to blame, but their ignorance of that faith. That is still true today in a lot of situations.

I think you have this backwards. I think those that fight against certain parts of science are ignorant. They do not understand that there is no contradiction between religion and science. I think brainwashed is a very strong word to use for people who believe in God. I’m not sure what you mean by ‘Sunday only’ theists just going to avoid nagging. Nagging from who? There is this one huge concept in Christianity that I think is too often underplayed. It is a little thing called ‘free will’. No one can make anyone believe. You either do or you don’t. I do. I believe in God. I believe in heaven. I believe in hell. I believe in Jesus, the bloke who walked on water, turned water into wine, healed the sick, was killed, flew to hell, and then flew to heaven. I generally stay out of religious debates because I also believe in free will. Believing in God does not make me brainwashed any more than not believing makes you brainwashed. It is a choice I have made based on my life experiences and what I have seen of the world. There is plenty of evidence for God. You are here aren’t you? Do you know that a great deal of modern science is made up of these things called theories? Why are they called theories? Because, they can’t be proven. Sure there is evidence, but no proof, and yet many people believe in these theories. They teach these theories to other people and many scientists will tell you that these theories are correct. They just know these theories in their minds are fact even though they can not yet prove them. Some of us just know that God exists. There is evidence everywhere, but no proof. There will never be proof because religion is ‘faith based’. Again we are back to free will. If there was proof of God then there would be no reason for people to make a choice, no reason for faith, and ultimately, no free will. It is no great feat to believe in something that is right in front of you. There is no test in character involved in that. I couldn’t imagine a life without faith, where everything was already known and easily proven. How boring that would be. I would much rather believe that there is something more to life and science and the world than what I see. The idea of God has been prevalent in every civilization in the world. I would hardly attempt to attribute that idea to ‘some old guy a few millennia ago’. I would agree that there are a few preachers and churches out there that treat religion like a business, but there are many who don’t. What of them? What about the churches that use the money they get to help the community? Personally, I give my tithe to charity, but there are plenty of churches out there that are not in the ‘take your money’ business. First of all, most preachers are only preachers, and as they must feed and clothe themselves and their families and also pay the same house payments, electricity bills, and water bills as everyone else, they do take part of the tithe as a pay check. Isn’t it a little unrealistic of you to expect them to pull food and clothes out of thin air? You keep referring to God as a ‘sky-faerie’. Don’t you think that is a little derogatory? Kind of a bit rude to me as well considering I believe in this ‘sky-faerie’ you are trying so harm to insult. It would be nice if you would at least respect me enough not to be deliberately demeaning to my beliefs, even if you don’t agree with them. I have a much different view of God. The ultimate scientist, artist, and philosopher. LOL. Okay, first of all, since you don’t believe in God, and have made that quite clear, I would question any claim by you about a special relationship with Him. Those questions would obviously deepen when you start asking for money. If you are referring to people in general and not just me, I’m sure you could find a nice little following for your new Rock religion, Rockists if you will. Just look at Scientology. Some people are really stupid. The difference with Christianity is it is actually connected with the Jewish religion which can be traced back almost as far as written history. That means my religion is much more likely to be true, and much more likely to be traced back to the source.

Baptism is symbolic of the new birth into Christianity. Giving up the old and becomeing the new. Obviously the symbolic act is not necessary but it is a nice jesture.

I'm not sure what the point of this conversation is. What does it matter if one psycho was or was not a Christian. I'm sure there are many examples of atheist psychos and many examples of psychos claiming to be Christian. Yes, the difference in wording is on purpose and makes perfect sense if you stop to think. It is not possible to think you don't believe in anything or follow any faith when you actually do, but it is possible to claim Christianity while falling terribly short of following the principles of the faith. You all seem to be ignoring the 99 percent of the Christian and atheist population that is not psych. Honestly, mental instability doesn't have a place in a discussion about the validity of religion. If you would like to talk about the link between mental illness and 'talking to God' or 'religious purposes', I think that could be an interesting conversation far removed from the current context of the thread. A great example is Schizophrenia. Most everyone has heard of God at some point in their lives and whether you actually believe in God growing up, when you start hearing a voice that isn't coming from you or anyone around you, you will try to attribute the voice to the only logical person you can think of, no matter how illogical it seems. Not that schizophrenics are really thinking straight anyway. Of course not all Schizophrenics think they are talking to God. Some think they are talking to Batman or Santa Clause. It is a fascinating study. That brings up another point. How many of you are willing to blame a movie for some crazy person going on a killing spree in the name of that movie. Does that make the movie bad or evil? What about some crazy trying to emulate a video game? Is it the fault of the game or the person? Do you think that these people are just inherently crazy to begin with? If so, then why would it be so difficult to accept the fact that some crazies distort religion to fit into their own twisted purposes? To believe that religion is not naturally bad and that the majority of people who believe in religion are not evil people?