Dan56

Monotheism doesn't allow for much diversity or open-mindedness, but neither does atheism. Its really impossible to accept or respect something that you don't believe in. I personally hate Islam, so I can't respect it even if I wanted to because it goes against everything that I do believe in. So while I can be completely intolerant of Islam in my own life, I can't infringe upon the right of others to believe what they choose, nor can I demand they accept what I choose. Public tolerance yes, personal tolerance no. And no society should be forced to live by any religious creed or law, which is why I accept gay marriage for the general public, but reject it personally. True freedom demands tolerance and recognition of everyone's right to choose for themselves, no matter how crazy we may deem it to be. Intolerance is only necessary when a persons belief becomes harmful to others or is forced on others. I don't mind if some here hate Christianity or think its foolish, because its a reflection of my own dislike of Islam. If something is contrary to everything you hold sacred and true, its difficult not to revile it. But in the end, manners must prevail, because tolerance is a 2-way street. jmo

I don't personally think that creationism is a theory, its a hypothesis at best. But then, I feel the same way about macro-evolution. Creationism is more of a philosophy, its presented as something to be believed and not as anything that can be substantiated by evidence. Creationist accept God as the uncaused cause of all that is, and no one can prove or disprove that except God himself.

Politicians often sway off topic to avoid answering a question. This is done by questioning the question. I believe when a person doesn't have a counterpoint or their argument falls apart, they resort to similar tactics to avoid answering a question head-on. I often use a bible verse to answer a question or render support to what I'm saying. The response is inevitably an attack on the bible. The purpose is to change the subject and put the other person on the defensive. I'd rather they just say; 'Your right, the bible does say that, but I don't believe the bible, so I disagree'. That would be a respectable response and not an effort to dodge the question. My conclusions are generally backed by the bible, so I certainly understand why a nonbeliever would question my source, But I do agree with your point about nitpicking over how something is phrased, or even a single word.. i.e; Obese and Fat pretty much relay the same message to me, it just means a corpulent creature, or to be blunt, a tub of lard

Businesses are created by those who recognize a need and fill it. No one motivated me, gave me the ambition, money, or entrepreneurship to succeed. What I believe your saying is that since I have customers, they are responsible for my success? But I created something they want and need, which is why they are handing me their money. Of course supply and demand are 2 sides of the coin, but needs alone never made anyone rich. My point was that if you take the motivation away from someone who's supplying a service, no one makes a dime, because goods and services won't be there to fill the needs of the public. I agree that when no one intercedes on bad behavior, neither the parents or the village is much good. I just personally believe that the parents should be responsible for their own children and not rely on their neighbors to raise their kids. When I was a kid, all a teacher would need to do is call my parents... problem solved. Today, we have mayors telling the cops to "Let them loot" and teachers that are prohibited from punishing a child.

The way the constitution is set up, that's the reason we have 3 branches of government, to prevent one person from dictating. While the executive branch can make some independent decisions, it is limited by the Supreme Court and can be over-ridden by congress. And there are occasions when one person must set an agenda, facilitate an action, or exercise some immediate authority. Congress can't agree on anything, its a hung jury 90% of the time, so we can't always rely on a committee to reach a conclusion, which can certainly impede progress when decisive attention or action is required. We need a captain at the helm, but not a king. As the Fonz once said, organizations aren't great, individuals are.

Your describing progressive liberalism? Obama said; "If you've got a business. you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen." And Hillary said; "It takes a village to raise a child." I've got a business, and nobody else made it happen..... I've seen the kids down the street, and I don't want the village to raise my child. Imo, its just socialism, which attempts to minimize individual effort and make everyone part of the collective. The idea is not to have equality for all, but to make everyone equal.. Its done by removing individual responsibility and spreading the wealth around. The problem is that once you squash entrepreneurship, you remove the incentive for betterment, and there won't be any wealth to spread around.. Punish the ambitious, and everyone is eventually reduced to poverty, leaving the government as our pimp.

When Jesus sent out his 12, he instructed them to; "Provide neither gold, nor silver, nor brass in your purses, Nor scrip for your journey, neither two coats, neither shoes, nor yet staves: for the workman is worthy of his meat" (Matthew 10:9-10). I suspect he knew that money is problematic and interferes with carrying the gospel message, so I doubt he wanted his apostles to get all bogged down with things that would misdirect their focus away from their primary objective. Its good that you put your foot down against all the additional responsibilities that distracted you from a simple goal, which never included building a business. That's a problem with many churches. they get all tangled-up in non-spiritual matters; "Whose God is their belly, and whose glory is in their shame, who mind earthly things" (Philippians 3:9).. Keep it simple and free

The Sermon on the Mount could essentially be summarized by; Do unto others as you would have them do unto you (Matthew 7:12). Or as Paul put it; How to live peaceably with everyone by overcoming evil with good (Romans 12:18-21). But Jesus was not inspiring people to make themselves willing victims of the wicked, nor was he preaching extreme pacifism. Yes, Jesus inspired us not to take personal vengeance or to escalate a problem by returning evil for evil, as did Paul (Romans 10:17). Its also important to note that he was speaking to Jews, which would make his sermon centered and relevant among brethren. I would not expect someone to throw money at me if I were a bum who refused to work, so likewise, I would do unto a bum as I'd expect others to do unto me under similar circumstances. Turning the other cheek simply means to turn away from someone you've offended in order to avoid further conflict. And examine the verse; "And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also" (Matthew 5:40). Someone who sues and takes your coat would insinuate that they were entitled to it by law. Jesus was not saying that if someone wants the change in your pocket, to also give them your wallet. Treating everyone equally is the Christian message, but you don't ever take on the characteristics of an oppressor by becoming like them. Remember the harsh words Jesus had for the Pharisees, the anger he displayed with the money changers in the Temple, and the fact that when one of Caiaphas officers struck Jesus, he didn't turn the other cheek, but instead asked: “Why smitest thou me?” (John 18:23). Praying for your enemies or those who mistreat you is an act of love, its not supporting, condoning, or praising those who abuse you. Imo, all of Paul's letters support the context of the Sermon on the Mount (2 Timothy 2:24-26). No need to apologize, you've got my number and articulated my position accurately. The "Word" and the "Spirit" work in conjunction, but aren't the same thing. The Holy Spirit convicts a person, it guides, comforts, and empowers them with the Truth. The "Word" is Christ, and its been the Truth from the beginning.

That's the old evolution verses creationism debate.. Will the more advanced androids come from some other very android-like, yet not an android-like device? Or do you think something of superior intellect will make androids? I highly doubt they could evolve from a lesser form, although I'm smarter than my mother, so who knows? Yes, that's essentially what I was saying, You can take credit for making (baking) a cake, but you didn't make the ingredients necessary to create the cake. Mankind has invented many things, but we've created nothing, we simply discover what was always there.

I don't read those verses as contradictory, I don't think Jesus was referring to people who were too lazy to work, but was inspiring us to help the poor and those in need. Paul was telling us not to enable a bum.

Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Your parents made a baby, they didn't invent the process by which babies are created. It would be unintelligent to attempt to eliminate your creator, especially if his knowledge and power superseded your own.. If our creator came and walked among us, do you think people would be dumb enough to try and kill him? Whoops! Bad example If a creator has no authority, control, or power over what he's created, then perhaps he should find another line of work

I would think they would worship whomever created them, especially since whoever created them would also have the power to destroy them.

Nothing was added to Revelation, it was the last book of the canon, and those verses were the last instructions (Revelation 22:18-19). This was the testimony of Christ revealed through John (Revelation 1; 1). The entire new testament was written by apostles and completed before the end of the first century,.. Imo, nothing is contradictory, including Paul's letters, none of which contradict the Sermon on the Mount.. Its not my intent to chastise others who believe books that were added later, I just don't think they are inspired works because they do contradict what's written, and when controversial material is added, it inevitably results in the formation of new religions (denominations).

Compare the teaching of Joseph Smith, it contradicts the new testament big time (2 Peter 1:20). And Ellen White wrongly prophesied that the world would end several times in the mid 1800's, which is sure-fire evidence of a false prophetess (Jeremiah 28:9). Divine writings were the result of God given inspiration via apostolic authority and prophetic insight at specific times, for a specific purpose, and to certain people. God has never assigned a prophet who contradicted what's written. For myself, and according to the bible, the test of a so-called modern day prophet is in what they write, if its incompatible or contradictory to the canonized word, its simply not a God inspired work.

The first century apostolic writings of Paul and Matthew were inspired, I don't believe the testimony of latter day people who add, subtract, or dilute what was inspired and preserved is comparable. All Christians expound on what's written, but in my opinion, changing it by adding new material is a no no.

No, they can't both be right, but they can both be wrong.. Its one reason that I'm nondenominational, I personally don't make a religion over following Christ.. I believe the bible is essentially non-changing, the teachings of Christ and his commandments have not changed, but various religious denominations have added their own prophets and books, which inevitably spin the simple truth. Seventh-day Adventist rely on Ellen White, LDS on Joseph Smith, Catholics on the Pope, etc. Many endorse the rapture theory of Margaret MacDonald or ramble in tongues, while others whorship the sabbath instead of Christ.. I'm leary of any who ignor what's written and invent their own religion; "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book. And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book" (Revelation 22:18-19 KJV).

Absolutely... As I've said before, belief is a choice, it can't be mandated. And I agree that pushing religion on people like ISIS is trying to do, just creates a negative reaction. "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction" (Newton's 3rd law)

Science can be as speculative as religion. The origin of the universe, the age of the earth, evolution, etc, are all scientific hypothesis or theory, all of which require as much "faith" to believe as the biblical record of creation. Religion is not ready to change its views because of the absence of new evidence, there's just no scientific proof (facts) that disprove what I've chosen to believe, with the exception of biblical miracles, which have no explanation, e.g: Jesus walking on water, etc.

I'm not naturally cynical, but after being burned and lied to repeatedly, the better part of wisdom has taught me that 90% of everything you hear in this world is b.s... I just walked away from what might have been an incredible deal on a house, simply because the owner wasn't being straight with me. What's sad is that she could have sold the house if she just answered my questions instead of trying to hide the truth. I guess we all learn to not fall for something by previously falling for something Years ago I bought stock in Worldcom, not because of what I heard, but because they say the numbers don't lie. Turns out the numbers were a lie, the company reported $11 billion in revenues that didn't exist, and the ceo Bernie Ebbers went to jail. And he was a freaking Christian too! Who can you trust?

I used the self check-out once, but found myself to be incompetent...

Because feelings aren't logical per se ... You can't program something to have feelings, even if it can think or deduce things for itself. A robot could possibly have compassion, but it could never feel compassion..I speak from experience, my ex was an android

No, androids could never have souls. Even if they could think, they could never feel.

There is biblical support which suggest Jesus was literate (Luke 4:16-20). But to your point, the attack on ULC was exaggerated and reduced to insults. I'm fine with someone not recognizing ULC as an official "church", but the writer's objective was to denigrate people he doesn't agree with, which is one of the very tenets that ULC opposes. And his reference to ULC as a cult is ridiculous since cults share the exact same belief. If we were a cult, I would have been shunned or excommunicated long ago .

"[5] Apparently the Universal Life (Cult) never lost it's appeal to illiterate and even STUPID people!" I liked this particular insight.. How do all you illiterate people post on this board?