Religion.

486 player · Post by **486 player** » Tue Feb 18, 2003 11:00 am

Does religion then?

John The Ax · Post by **John The Ax** » Tue Feb 18, 2003 12:32 pm

It makes much more sense that some greater being that is not bound by our natural laws created the Earth and universe than the scientifical paradox of the Big Bang, which in itself is unbeliavable by science's own laws. In fact, as science stands right now, it cannot even show that the universe was created, as no matter is created, it just always is, in one form or another.

Science is as much faith as religion. And if I die, and I become nothing, oh well, then I was a better person throughout my life, But if I die and there IS a higher power, the athiests are gonna regret it, if you understand that. There is proof of miracles happening, and it is not explainable by science. People that should be dead right now are alive, and people who have lost their hearing have regained it. No one knows how it happened, and by all scientific laws, it shouldn't have because it was impossible. Science has less proof that there is no god than religion has proof that there is.

Da_Goat · Post by **Da_Goat** » Tue Feb 18, 2003 1:27 pm

Unknown_K wrote:2. (The I beleive what I am told from the church and the rest of the world dont exist crowd) People who believe a god made everything (even today each religion has their own version of the 1 true god). These people are the ones that dont believe in anything scientific that can be shown for evolution but believe 100% in something with absolutely no evidence to support it.

Well, of what you asid, I probably fit in the second category, but:

You said I don't believe in anything scientific? Well, I believe that if I don't have water for 3 days, I'll die from dehydration. I believe that we revolve around the sun, and I believe that the earth is round. I also believe that there are 92 natural elements. If this isn't scientific, what is it?

Also, you have no evidence to support evolution either. It's just a theory. Also, think about it, the theory of evolution didn't spawn until around the 1800's, but religion has been here since God knows when (no pun intended). Now you may say "well, people thought the earth was flat", but, what did Christopher Colombus have to support that idea that we don't have? Proof. Also, you may not believe me, but the round earth was recorded in the Bible well before Christopher Colombus was even alive. In fact, before Jesus was alive as well. I think it was in the book of Daniel, but I may be mistaken.

And, like I said before, what do you have other than skulls to justify your reasoning? That could have easily been the skulls of similar species that went extinct before the creation of man. The dinosaurs went extinct, didn't they?

I believe in evolution through slight adaptation, like I said before. After all, each human being always evolves every day of his life. If he gets fired from a job, he moves to another job, so that he can earn money. In other words, I believe in the meaning of evolution (change over time), but I do not believe in trans-species evolution.

(Now argue this so I can say more

)

John The Ax · Post by **John The Ax** » Tue Feb 18, 2003 2:25 pm

*Applauds Goat*

This'll make up for the french fry thing, okay? Well said, well said.

Bobo · Post by **Bobo** » Tue Feb 18, 2003 2:28 pm

Ague away Da_Goat!!!!

The dinos died when Noah's flood hit, eh. That is how the Ivory cave was formed. "What goes up must com down". When the waters went down they flow to the lowest spots. Thus all the died thingies were swept in to the cave. This has happened many a time. A word for TD, your childhood intrist was just like mine, but now that I'm older I look back, just to see, and boy o boy did I miss alot. Try it agian, it will change for you. Read Revolations.

I got an Idea.
With in 2 years, we will be shooting the terrorists. With help or not. Then Pres Bush will end his part of president. Then a new president will take his place, a peace loving president. (The anti-christ). We will have 7 years peace. Then we will have a rapture! Then there will be destruction. Watch the left behind movie and you will see what I mean.
REMEMBER THIS IS JUST AN IDEA

John The Ax · Post by **John The Ax** » Tue Feb 18, 2003 2:48 pm

Bah. The rapture's a bunch of of hooey. It's not even in the bible, except for two obscure passages where it doesn't even relate to something like that in full context. Revalation is basically a re-iteration of the gospels, done in an allegorical context. No one can really understand it, but don't them tell you it's the end of the world. A lot of it has to do with the destruction of Jerusalem, really.

Bobo · Post by **Bobo** » Tue Feb 18, 2003 3:58 pm

"...And God shall take his people from the earth...". It isn't dooms day for me, eh! "...And there will be a new Jerluserum..." (dang I can't spell!). Or are you confused about the 7 trumpits, 7 seals, and the rest? If you want i'll do some more info quotes.

Unknown_K · Post by **Unknown_K** » Tue Feb 18, 2003 4:16 pm

http://www.truth101.org/vs-evolution-1.html

Is an interesting page.

John The Ax · Post by **John The Ax** » Tue Feb 18, 2003 4:42 pm

Bobo: Have you ever read Scott Hahn?

John The Ax · Post by **John The Ax** » Tue Feb 18, 2003 4:55 pm

Ah. That site has absolutely no basis in fact. Congratlations, 486, you've fallen into the pit of lies that everyone else believes.

This theory is called THE SIX DAYS OF CREATION:

(Also known as "Creation Science" or "Special Creation")

The Origin of the Universe: According to this theory, Genesis, Chapter One of the Christian Bible is a literal description of the origin of the physical universe. Several thousand years ago, God created the heavens and the Earth in six days. (A day is considered to be a Monday, Tuesday type of day -- a 24-hour day.)

The Origin of the Man: Chapter two, verse seven of Genesis in the Christian Bible is considered to be a literal description of the origin of man. According to this belief, God created man on the sixth day of creation. Here's the direct quote from Genesis 2:7: "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."

On What Authority is the Christian One-life-ism Theory Based? The Christian Bible is the only authority. This theory is based solely on the authenticity, believability, and the literal interpretation of the versions of the Christian Bible in use today.** The six-days of creation theory is not subjected to the rules of scientific evidence.

**
Reference is made to "the Bible in use today" because the early centuries of the Roman Catholic Church, the Bible was, on several occasions, edited and intentionally changed to suit the purposes of those controlling the church

Wow. The Catholic church doesn't even take the "Six day" think into account. You can believe what you want with that, I personally take the couple billion years of rock that the earth is into account. Also, have these people actually read the "Faith of the Early Fathers" books? If they did, they would know that the idea that the bible has changed isn't true.

Congratulations. You've proved absolutely nothing by giving my a site that is biased and not based in fact.

Da_Goat · Post by **Da_Goat** » Tue Feb 18, 2003 5:21 pm

Bobo wrote:Ague away Da_Goat!!!!

The dinos died when Noah's flood hit, eh.

Actually, I believe they died before men existed.

John: the french fry thing is an art and should not be mocked

And, on Revelation, I believe it means the end of the world (meaning this system of things, like government and stuff), but not the earth or most of the people residing there-in.

According to this theory, Genesis, Chapter One of the Christian Bible is a literal description of the origin of the physical universe. Several thousand years ago, God created the heavens and the Earth in six days. (A day is considered to be a Monday, Tuesday type of day -- a 24-hour day.)

Actually, in the Bible, it says something like "A day in God's eye is 1,000 in ours".

If they did, they would know that the idea that the bible has changed isn't true.

Actually, it has. Mostly by the catholic church around the time that they were a major power in england. You know, around the time of the crusades. And, it obviously has changed, or else there wouldn't be a New Age version, a King James version, and so on. However, most of the main ideas from the Bible are in tact, even though some religions take it from a different point of view than others.

John The Ax · Post by **John The Ax** » Tue Feb 18, 2003 6:28 pm

Right, but the Catholic church has their own version that's been exactly the same for years. All other bibles were edited from that. The Catholic bible has seven more books, too, the others were removed because they conflicted with the other church's beliefs. Luther wanted to remove James, but the people wouldn't let him.

Bobo · Post by **Bobo** » Tue Feb 18, 2003 6:59 pm

*ponders on information*

catholics, sorry to say, but on the currupt side. Years before now, the catholic' priests didn't allow reading the bible, because they had screwed it up so bad. That they thought that the people would leave. Even today the priests frown on bible reading.

No no no. There is going to be a rapcher. And the people who become christians, during this period of 7 years, "..will be marked on the forehead" and only the christains will see this. I feel sorry, for those who are going to be left. AND THEY ARE GOING TO BE LEFT!!!!!!!!!!!
Then at the end of the 7 years. God will judge those who became christians, during the 7 years. And those who have not will be cased into the lake of fire. Sorry Da_Goat, but I'm a teacher.

And if you don't think I'm right, prove it! I got the "Basic Instruction Before Leaveing Earth" (bible). NIV that is. Give me the Chapter and the Verse. Do you only believe in parts?

Unknown_K · Post by **Unknown_K** » Tue Feb 18, 2003 7:37 pm

The catholic church is pretty screwed up. Cant even pass a law to kick out pedophiles. Back in the dark ages anybody with a few coins could buy the Pope seat.. so much for that. Then there is the sex is bad unless your reproducing, priests cant marry etc. The whole catholic church looks out for nothing but the chirch itself. Its like a huge corperation that answers to nobody, all that matters is that the church goes on.

If going to church makes you a better person then have fun, some people need a path laid out for them to follow.

John The Ax · Post by **John The Ax** » Tue Feb 18, 2003 8:11 pm

catholics, sorry to say, but on the currupt side. Years before now, the catholic' priests didn't allow reading the bible, because they had screwed it up so bad. That they thought that the people would leave. Even today the priests frown on bible reading.

Yep. Actually, I'm in a bible study group right now, organized by my church. About the bible thing, that's because the church teaches pretty specific things, and it was pretty easy to go off on your own tangent. How did the priests screw it up so bad? Now, we have an easy-to-find catachism, so if you interpret something that's against church teaching, it's your own fauly.

Every week, we read a specific set of readings. (Well, every day, actually. There's daily mass.) Every church reads them.

The catholic church is pretty screwed up. Cant even pass a law to kick out pedophiles. Back in the dark ages anybody with a few coins could buy the Pope seat.. so much for that. Then there is the sex is bad unless your reproducing, priests cant marry etc. The whole catholic church looks out for nothing but the chirch itself. Its like a huge corperation that answers to nobody, all that matters is that the church goes on.

I'd like to point out how <b>few</b> priests that actually are. Most pedophile priests aren't even Catholic anyhow, just we get the most attention (for some reason). It's a big thing to do, it affects the entire world, or don't you like the whole idea of a unified organization.

Also, you get voted in for Pope by all the cardinals. Sure, it's been a bit hosed in the past (not now, though), but the main thing is that the core church teachings have not changed for 200 years.

About contraceptives. The idea of church-allowed contraceptives is very very recent. The church has always, for 2000 years, taught that it is wrong. Why? Because sex has a dual purpose. Reproduction, and unification of couples. Without one or the other, it is not complete. Divorce rates are higher in couples that contracept. In fact, we were not once the only church that banned their use. Every other christian church changed their teaching around the turn of the century, maybe more recently (don't know the dates off by heart). So, what's more respectable? Changing your teachings for a pleasing of the masses or sticking to your teachings no matter what the masses say, because you know that God doesn't change what's right and wrong?

Priests can't marry because they are married to Christ. Ask just about any priest and they'll say it's better that way. Let me tell you, I don't know about any other religions, but priests are busy 24/7. Some one's dying, they have to go give last rites. They have to conduct funerals, hear confessions, conduct marriages, visit hospitals, annoint the sick, and they have to run each church. Not to mention all the holidays they have to work.

The whole church does <b>not</b> look out for the church itself. We're the #1 charitable foundation in existance, I believe.

Next time, research all the sides instead of listening to the half-truths you're fed.

Da_Goat · Post by **Da_Goat** » Tue Feb 18, 2003 8:23 pm

So, John, are you a Catholic?

John The Ax · Post by **John The Ax** » Tue Feb 18, 2003 8:34 pm

Yeah. I just told K0 that a little bit ago, perhaps 2 or three days. I thought you knew.

Unknown_K · Post by **Unknown_K** » Tue Feb 18, 2003 8:35 pm

When I said the catholic church looks out for the catholic church itself I mean just that. When cases of child molestation were braught up against a few priests (which is illegal and immoral no matter which way you look at it) they cases were NOT taken to the police, and the documents were filed and the priests were sent to to oher churches where they did the same thing. It seems to me that the higher up church officials wanted to cover this up instead of taking action even after it was braught out to the public. I dont see how having childer suffer so that the church doesnt get a black eye is evened out by being the #1 charity in the world. Thats the kind of decision a corperation would make protecting itself at the expense of others.

John The Ax · Post by **John The Ax** » Tue Feb 18, 2003 8:44 pm

What about the other party? Why didn't they take it to court?

Heck, that's something I just realised.

Unknown_K · Post by **Unknown_K** » Tue Feb 18, 2003 9:13 pm

John The Ax wrote:What about the other party? Why didn't they take it to court?

Heck, that's something I just realised.

Probably because somebody in the church talked them out of it.
Probably said it didnt happen, its been taken care of, the guy has been sent to another church, etc.

The major uproar was because as one guy came out others who were molested by the same guy got pissed the church never did anything about it. The more they digged into the case the more it stank of indifference, illegality, and a church coverup. The child molester played the game of doing his dirty work, if he got caught he was forgiven and sent to a new place to start all over again knowing he would not be turned in by his own church. The same church would not pass a 1 strike your out law meaning nothing has changed (and that went all the way up to the pope).

I am wondering how the lawsuits are going to turn out since it might cause the boston (I think it was boston) parish to go chapter 11 which means the courts decide what to do with church property and funds (very messy).

Now why was cardinal law forced to resign? If he did nothing wrong the church should of supported him, not like they would cave in on other things like gays going to hell. If he did do wrong should they not have asked him to resign from the start? Just sounds like corperate damage control to me.

http://www.boston.com/globe/spotlight/a ... eoghan.htm

"Since the mid-1990s, more than 130 people have come forward with horrific childhood tales about how former priest John J. Geoghan allegedly fondled or raped them during a three-decade spree through a half-dozen Greater Boston parishes.

Almost always, his victims were grammar school boys. One was just 4 years old.

Then came last July's disclosure that Cardinal Bernard F. Law knew about Geoghan's problems in 1984, Law's first year in Boston, yet approved his transfer to St. Julia's parish in Weston. Wilson D. Rogers Jr., the cardinal's attorney, defended the move last summer, saying the archdiocese had medical assurances that each Geoghan reassignment was "appropriate and safe."

But one of Law's bishops thought that the 1984 assignment of Geoghan to St. Julia's was so risky, he wrote the cardinal a letter in protest. And for good reason, the Spotlight Team found: The archdiocese already had substantial evidence of Geoghan's predatory sexual habits. That included his assertion in 1980 that his repeated abuse of seven boys in one extended family was not a "serious" problem, according to an archdiocesan record.

And the St. Julia's assignment proved disastrous. First, Geoghan was put in charge of three youth groups, including altar boys. In 1989, he was forced to go on sick leave after more complaints of sexual abuse, and spent months in two institutions that treat sexually abusive priests.

Even so, the archdiocese returned him to St. Julia's, where Geoghan continued to abuse children for another three years."

Later in the text:

"Mueller testified that she immediately took the boys to see Rev. Paul E. Miceli, a parish priest at St. Mary's in Melrose who knew both Geoghan and her family.

She testified that Miceli assured her that Geoghan would be handled by appropriate church authorities and would "never be a priest again." Mueller also said that Miceli asked her to keep the matter to herself: "Bad as it was, he said, `Just try - don't think about it. It will never happen again.' "