[DanL]

Originally posted by Ryan_team710
hey sorry guys i havent posted in this thread for awhile, I have been trying to catch up and if i am repetive...forgive me.

On the point of What God looks like:
He is a spirit, He came down to earth in a earthly form to die for are sins.

Big Bang Theory;
So if we start at x how does the big bang come along. You have to have somethign to start something. Its cause and effect, The big bang could not start from nothign you have to have a cause to get a effect (i.e. big bang)

Arrg, this is the most common argument used against the Big Bang theory.

According to your beliefs, God is infinite - He transcends time. This means that you believe the property of being infinite exists. Yet, in your argument, you disprove the Big Bang by stating that something had to create it. In layman's terms, you're saying that the Big Bang can't be real because something had to create it - matter/energy/whatever is not infinite. At the same time, however, you admit that it is possible for something (God) to be infinite. Which is it? Is it possible for something to have to property of being infinite, or is it not possible for something to have the property of being infinite?

Originally posted by shyra1353
Finally, The Truth on National TV.

Billy Graham's daughter was being interviewed on the Early Show and Jane Clayson asked her "How could God let something like this happen?"(regarding the attacks on Sept. 11).

Anne Graham gave an extremely profound and insightful response. She said "I believe that God is deeply saddened by this, just as we are, but for years we've been telling God to get out of our schools, to get out of our government and to get out of our lives. And being the gentleman that He is, I believe that He has calmly backed out. How can we expect God to give us His blessing and His protection if we demand that He leave us alone?" (In light of recent events...terrorists attack, school shootings, etc.)
....

Alright, this post really upset me. Not only is it terribly biased, but it is full of half-truths and it outright insults people who are not Christian by forcing Christian values into their faces.

I'm not going to go over every point the post raises, but I will flame the most insulting ones.

* Let's see, I think it started when Madeline Murray O'Hare (she was murdered, her body was found recently) complained she didn't want any prayer in our schools, and we said OK. Then, someone said you better not read the Bible in school...the Bible that says thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, and love your neighbor as yourself. And we said, OK.

Guess what? Every other major belief system throughout history has said the same exact thing!! Has that ever stopped people from killing? NO! The reason the Bible has no place in our schools is because contrary to the beliefs of some ultra-conservatives in this country, not everyone is Christian! Think of it in these terms: would you be offended if every day I shoved my Athiestic beliefs into your face? Of course you would! For the same reason, in our public schools, we do not shove Christian beliefs into the faces of Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, Daoists, Native Americans, etc.

Then, Dr. Benjamin Spock said we shouldn't spank our children when they misbehave because their little personalities would be warped and we might damage their self-esteem (Dr. Spock's son committed suicide) And we said, an expert should know what he's talking about so we said OK.

Listen to how ridiculous this argument is. The author attributes this entire practice to one particular person whos son tilts the argument into the author's favor. SOCIETY DECIDED THIS, NOT ONE PERSON WHOSE CIRCUMSTANCES COINCIDENTALLY REINFORCE YOUR ARGUMENT!

Then, someone said teachers and principals better not discipline our children when they misbehave. And the school administrators said no faculty member in this school better touch a student when they misbehave because we don't want any bad publicity, and we surely don't want to be sued (There's a big difference between disciplining and beating, smacking, humiliating, kicking, etc.) And we said, OK.

What exactly is the author talking about here? If he isn't talking about beating, smacking, humilating, kicking, etc., exactly what kind of discipline IS he talking about? As far as I know, detention, suspensions, and expulsions are still used everywhere....

Then someone said, let's let our daughters have abortions if they want, and they won't even have to tell their parents. And we said, OK.

I'm not going into the abortion debate, but notice how this point is a blatant ad hominem argument - the way it is phrased makes it seem like "our [teenage] daughters" are the only ones getting abortions.

* Now we're asking ourselves why our children have no conscience, why they don't know right from wrong, and why it doesn't bother them to kill strangers, their classmates, and themselves. Probably, if we think about it long and hard enough, we can figure it out. I think it has a great deal to do with "WE REAP WHAT WE SOW."

Funny... as I recall, there have only been around 20 or 30 kids at most who have killed strangers, classmates, and themselves with no conscience... now, exactly how many of "our children" are there actually? A few hundred million? 20 out of a billion is not a big percentage at all. Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying that Columbine was completely insignificant. I'm saying the way this argument is phrased makes it sound like the great corruption of society is forcing ALL of "our children" to be the Trenchcoat Mafia, which if was the case, you'd probably be dead by now.


Again, what really upset me about this quote is it is completely biased and phrased in half-truths (actually, more like quarter-truths or 20/1,000,000 truths). It is violently Christian. It makes it sound as if the Bible has held the answers to every single problem in society and the reason problems exist is because we rejected the Bible. It completely insults every other set of beliefs. In short, keep this trash out of here. If you want to have a discussion, please use intelligent arguments NOT filled with decieving half-truths.