The Absolute Power of Christianity!

The context of that was Jesus' temptation by the devil. Expecting some form of proof before blindly believing is not the same as putting god to the test.

and wasnt Jesus supposed to be a an example for us?
so if he was supposed to be an example. than we shouldnt do it either. I mean if it this only applied to jesus, or if he was informing satan(which by the way, satan knows the bible back and forth) than it wouldnt be important to us. so why is it in the bible if it was only applying to jesus?
I think that he meant to anyone to never put God to the test.

so if I love God and I want to put him to the test, he is going to be perfectly fine with me going to the empire state building and jumping off?
no he will not save me. because I would be putting him to the test. something he told us not to do.
so you can jump all you want, but he will never save you. unless he has a different plan and isnt going to let you die yet.

Originally posted by expert999

and wasnt Jesus supposed to be a an example for us?
so if he was supposed to be an example. than we shouldnt do it either. I mean if it this only applied to jesus, or if he was informing satan(which by the way, satan knows the bible back and forth) than it wouldnt be important to us. so why is it in the bible if it was only applying to jesus?
I think that he meant to anyone to never put God to the test.

You've missed the point I think. "put god to the test" does not mean what you're implying. Here's a repost of my response to junglejake. Let me know what part you find inaccurate:

The words Jesus used "Do not put the Lord your God to the test" are a reference to Deuteronomy 6:16 "do not test the Lord your God as you did at Massah".

To understand this, we need to know what this test at Massah is referring to, which is in Exodus 17:7 when the Israelites were demanding Moses provide them water (the water from a stone trick).

And he called the place Massah and Meribah because the Israelites quarreled and because they tested the LORD saying, "Is the LORD among us or not?"

"Test" in the sense used here is not questioning whether he exists, it's a test of his patience. According to the story, these were people who had directly witnessed the hand of god at work, and still wouldn't trust him.

That's a far cry from questioning the veracity of scripture, or even the existence of god himself, when you have not witnessed such irrefutable wonders.






[edit on 1-7-2005 by spamandham]

Originally posted by riley
I suspected you were refferring to that nutter.. that is not reflective of the usual cases and shouldn't influence judgements on other casee.. but if you want to get caught up in the media hype.. my personal opinion: Yes I believe he probably has molested children [sexually mature man shares bed with children that are not his own- what.. they were having pillow fights?]..

If neither of us were there, it would be unfair to state one way or another, yes? In the interview he talks about enjoying their company. Yeah, I don't understand it, but if the kids say it didn't happen and aren't lying, then it didn't happen, yes?

Originally posted by riley
but then again that peticular child's parents should have been charged with soliciting their own children.

Hear here! *applauds* I want to make a law called: Irresponsible guardianship. Not worthy of jail necessarily, but some kind of compensation when the child turns 25 or 30 or something. I'm sure a lot of irresponsible guardians, in their previous demonstration of selfishness, neglect the proper financial support to their family heir. Some data would have to be run, but that's the reasoning.

Originally posted by riley
Michael being found 'not guilty' seemed to be in spite of the kid's mother being after money..

How did you arrive at that conclusion?

Originally posted by riley
I agree she was. . but I also think she deliberately hoared her own child.

Yep. *nods*

Originally posted by riley
Keep in mind also that what women [I use them as an example because it's easier] are still asked what they were wearing.. thus it becomes 'evidence against the victim.. this is relevent as it shows the sexist attitude of the court system.. it's already geared against the victim.

I think if it were soley on the basis of attire, then yes, it is geared against the victim. If however it was what she was wearing + how she was acting + what she was saying and so forth that that could = a miscommunication. In other words if he says "she gave me no indication she was uncomfortable or said/implied 'no' " then she's whistle-blowing for some kind of motivation. I think this is a rare case for the reasons you gave, but there are things like vengence, alimony, court-ordered separation, and other benefits to be gained by a suing party.

Originally posted by riley
Most women won't report if there are no bruises.. [no outward evidence of force even if she did say no] usually after an assault that has needed hospitalisation.. a rape kit is done so most cases that a reported have some evidence.. but it is how that eveidence is interprited [apparently some lawyers argue that it was 'rough sex'] Lately.. there is a trend of drink spiking.. either the drug causes her [or him] not to remember who raped her- or if she was drugged in a bar she can be accused in court of just being a tart and drinking too much. Just some scenarios as to how faking rape would be pointless.. if women are going to be immediately classed as sluts before it even sees a court room there's not much point in reporting and putting themselves up foor more humilation.

I agree. People should not care what other people 'think'. People are always going to 'think' whether justified, prejudiced, or assumed. We cannot change that so we should not worry about that. I'm subjected to self-imposed prejudice. What does that mean? Pretend you don't know me and look at my user name. What does it tell you about me? Now, having met me, how has that changed?

Originally posted by riley
I thought you were refferring to the victims themselves being christian.. if a christian girl [teenager] got raped.. her sexuality would be scutinised by her church as they are more conservative about sexuality and there is much stigma associated with it [Eve caused adam to sin etc].

Oh yeah, the Eve loop. Again, both at fault. Again, even moreso, man blamed woman AND God for the incident. It doesn't get worse than that. Anything else (whether church authority, other members or person being questioned) is a presupposition to 'know' scripture without knowing scripture. The churches offer the Book to read for free! Why people bother getting dressed once a week and sit there without reading it is beyond me.

Originally posted by riley
They should be forced to undergo psychiatric tests.. and if they offend should be immediately kicked out of the church and thown in jail.

Yes.

Originally posted by riley
Unfortuantly they are caught by their superiors they can quickly 'confess' to them.. meaning they are obligated [by church law] cover their arses. This loophole needs to be addressed and removed as it is in opposition to the law of the land and churches should not be excempt from it.

I agree on the whole churches need to be compliant with the law of the land as long as there's the freedom of speech and worship then I have no problems with this. If the government infringes upon these two, then the government and I no longer see eye to eye.

Originally posted by riley
Sounds reasonable [I'm wondering if priest masturbate and if they feel really guilty for it now.. thanks alot!!

.]

Why?

Also, I said nothing about their private lives...so I think you've done more telling of your mind than of priests

Originally posted by riley
Actually ALL the cases I've heared of.. the offender has at one time been a victim.. though I cannot say definitively that ALL rapists/predetors have been.

This is interesting, but want a second opinion. Maybe more research on my part. The root reasoning problem is when did it start if they were all victims? Somebody somewhere had to start it. Was it genetic in his/her case?

Originally posted by riley
Yes [In most cases]. Sexual orientation has little to do with sexual abuse. Rape and molestation are based on power and the degredation another human being..

...or so we're told...

Originally posted by riley
though what causes it can become blurry sometimes as 'mob metality' with the heightened testosterone can also influence the way some men behave.

Back to square one for me then. Yeah, I think it's blurry. Glad I'm not a scientist being forced to decide.

I do like these discussions. It's rare to have reasonable, level-headed discussions especially when there's disagreement. Much appreciated, thanks.


[edit on 1-7-2005 by saint4God]

.

[edit on 1-7-2005 by saint4God]

Originally posted by saint4God
Hey whoa, easy on using less than 1% of the population to represent an entire group. I've gone through how I arrived at this percentage on another thread but will go through it again if it's not convincing. In fact, I'm thinking it's closer to .01%.

Even if they are not child molestors, why would God leave it up to humans to spread his word? I'm not omniscient, but I can still see alot of problems with that plan.

What about Eudoxus and Aristotle? Brilliant scientists. Wrong, but brilliant nonetheless. Who knows, if we end up going faster than the speed of light, Einstein will be wrong too. That doesn't make them useless or unintelligent.
.

Hey whoa, easy on using less than 1% of the population to represent an entire group.

Hahaha, you did the same as me. Aristotle and Euxocdus lived over 2000 years ago and their intelligence should not be compared to Einstein. Actually the only way we would go faster than light is to distort space-time, and therefore would only bend the rules, not break them.

Sure, but it wouldn't be earth-shattering news....unless of course they were seeking to shatter earth

. Either way, it doesn't have much to do with infinity. Eternity I think is a big deal. Much bigger than any events in our 80 +- here in this life.

I won't be around forever, so the only things that matter to me are those that will happen in my lifetime. I guess if you are going to live forever in heaven, things will lose their value.

JungleJake- Another viewpoint could only help so feel free to respond. So much better than Jake1997.


[edit on 1-7-2005 by Charlie Murphy]

Originally posted by Charlie Murphy
Even if they are not child molestors, why would God leave it up to humans to spread his word? I'm not omniscient, but I can still see alot of problems with that plan.

I see a problem with an earthful of droids. Like we love our children, we don't try to live their lives for them, we help them grow and develop into who they can be as individuals. Just one example.

Originally posted by Charlie Murphy
Hahaha

, you did the same as me. Aristotle and Euxocdus lived over 2000 years ago and their intelligence should not be compared to Einstein.

Why not? Intelligence and knowledge are two different worlds.

Originally posted by Charlie Murphy
Actually the only way we would go faster than light is to distort space-time, and therefore would only bend the rules, not break them.

You probably know more about it than I do then. I understood General Relativity, but when the exam came for Special Relativity I wrote something like, "Everything is relative, therefore you and I are related. You think you can give a family member an A on this exam, huh huh? " That flew like a brick through pudding.

Originally posted by Charlie Murphy
I won't be around forever, so the only things that matter to me are those that will happen in my lifetime. I guess if you are going to live forever in heaven, things will lose their value.

That is to underestimate the phrase, "eternal happiness" and the power of God. I know here on earth our 'Everlast' batteries run out of juice but don't think we can template that to heaven. Now this may be off topic, but to illustrate, the one thing a lot of us find interesting is change. If things are constantly changing, how then could anyone slip into the mundane?

Still, the offer is on the table if ever you're interested. Will help however I can. Guaranteed or your money back! Which is easy when it's all free...

Originally posted by Charlie Murphy
JungleJake- Another viewpoint could only help so feel free to respond.

Yeah JJ, I like your stuff too...and don't you dare be afraid to argue with me if you think I'm off-base

[edit on 1-7-2005 by saint4God]

Originally posted by saint4God

I see a problem with an earthful of droids. Like we love our children, we don't try to live their lives for them, we help them grow and develop into who they can be as individuals. Just one example.

Parents raise their children. Parents guide their children. Children with parents know they exist. God is not a parent.

Why not? Intelligence and knowledge are two different worlds.

Touche, I could read everything Einstein ever wrote, but I would never be as intelligent. Knowledge and Intelligence are closely tied though. They could not have been that bright to believe some of the stuff they used to.

That is to underestimate the phrase, "eternal happiness" and the power of God. I know here on earth our 'Everlast' batteries run out of juice but don't think we can template that to heaven. Now this may be off topic, but to illustrate, the one thing a lot of us find interesting is change. If things are constantly changing, how then could anyone slip into the mundane?

Not all change is good, and not all things change. What make some things special, is that they are rare. If you could do live forever things nothing would make you happy.

Still, the offer is on the table if ever you're interested. Will help however I can. Guaranteed or your money back! Which is easy when it's all free...

Can you tell me how you can believe all the stories in the Bible, but yet you find evolution"filled with gaps"?

Originally posted by saint4God
If neither of us were there, it would be unfair to state one way or another, yes? In the interview he talks about enjoying their company. Yeah, I don't understand it, but if the kids say it didn't happen and aren't lying, then it didn't happen, yes?

I initially concluded [from the inerview] that he seemed to have an inapropraite relationship with the kid.. the body language was very telling. If it has happened.. it's unfortunate that the mother's insentive was money and not justice. If it were my kid I would have nailed the offender to the wall straight away and not settled out of court.. I wouldn't wait till the money ran out to expose him.

ear here! *applauds* I want to make a law called: Irresponsible guardianship. Not worthy of jail necessarily, but some kind of compensation when the child turns 25 or 30 or something.

No.. I still think they should be jailed.. for instance when mothers turn a blind eye to their kids being raped for fear of losing a spouse [if they were being abused as well it would be a different matter]. I knew a girl who contracted genetal warts from her step father.. tried to tell her mother and she got thown out and put on the streets for having what her mother called 'an affair' with him. She was about eleven years old ended up becoming a prostitute junkie [I don't see her anymore as she's a bit dangerous.. though I concede she's a product of abuse.

Originally posted by riley
Michael being found 'not guilty' seemed to be in spite of the kid's mother being after money..

How did you arrive at that conclusion?

Many things.. but specifically a juror saying afterwards that he thought Michael probably had molested before.. but the mother was untrustworthy [$ motive] so that kid specifically may not have been.. two wrongs don't make a right I guess.

Originally posted by riley
Keep in mind also that what women [I use them as an example because it's easier] are still asked what they were wearing.. thus it becomes 'evidence against the victim.. this is relevent as it shows the sexist attitude of the court system.. it's already geared against the victim.

I think if it were soley on the basis of attire, then yes, it is geared against the victim. If however it was what she was wearing + how she was acting + what she was saying and so forth that that could = a miscommunication. In other words if he says "she gave me no indication she was uncomfortable or said/implied 'no' " then she's whistle-blowing for some kind of motivation.

As I said earlier.. most rape cases without physical evidence [bruises, vaginal tearing, drugs in system etc.] wouldn't make it to court and the charges would be dropped [or never made].. regardless how a woman was acting.. there'd be no room for miscommunication if she has to be forcibly held down.. and if she was wearing a boob tube and hot pants.. thats just sexual expression not an offer of intercourse [and neither is flirting]. Attire should never be relevent at all as that as that gives lawyers to much room to move.. and if a woman was just dressed for summer she'd have absoloutely no hope for justice.. and what about stippers? They dance.. thats it. If you want to get a better understand of what I mean.. rent a movie called 'the accused' [if you haven't already seen it].. that preety much analises the whole issue.

I think this is a rare case for the reasons you gave, but there are things like vengence, alimony, court-ordered separation, and other benefits to be gained by a suing party.

Yes there would be a minority of women that would do this.. but again there needs to be adequate evidence [mentioned earlier] to build a case.. otherwise it'd be a waste of her time.

I agree. People should not care what other people 'think'. People are always going to 'think' whether justified, prejudiced, or assumed. We cannot change that so we should not worry about that. I'm subjected to self-imposed prejudice. What does that mean? Pretend you don't know me and look at my user name. What does it tell you about me?

Hmm.. 'Saint4god'.. well all that says is that you're religious.. but, unlike many others you seem very consistent with your princibles.

Now, having met me, how has that changed?

If I met you I'd have another facet on which to access you on [I wouldn't say judge as that has a finality to it].. I'd get to find out if you are consitent with your ethics in the real world. I must say though.. you don't contradict Jesus' teachings as others do and I really repsect that.

Oh yeah, the Eve loop. Again, both at fault. Again, even moreso, man blamed woman AND God for the incident. It doesn't get worse than that. Anything else (whether church authority, other members or person being questioned) is a presupposition to 'know' scripture without knowing scripture. The churches offer the Book to read for free! Why people bother getting dressed once a week and sit there without reading it is beyond me.

They prefer to interprite it that way.. it reflects their true opinions and hearts.. unfortuantly there is much room for interpritation of the bible.. [the old 'the bible says I can judge.. 'tell a tree my it's fruit etc'' when it also says not to judge so I can't say they don't actually read it.. they may just 'choose' to ignore things in the bible that are inconvenient.

I agree on the whole churches need to be compliant with the law of the land as long as there's the freedom of speech and worship then I have no problems with this. If the government infringes upon these two, then the government and I no longer see eye to eye.

But is the confessional classed as worship? Should that be protected even if a priest confesses child abuse to another priest? In this instance I think the confidentiality of the confessional should only be reserved for pasirshioners [unless they are sevearly breaking the law and hurting someone.. in which case a priest should be obligated to turn them in to protect victims.]

Originally posted by riley
Sounds reasonable [I'm wondering if priest masturbate and if they feel really guilty for it now.. thanks alot!!

.]

Why?

Also, I said nothing about their private lives...so I think you've done more telling of your mind than of priests

:p okay.. was a kind of a joke but.. you said their lives shouldn't be so private so of course I started thinking.. which led me to thinking about how priests' private lives would be monitered.. and having just watched 'big brother' I started brainstorming about cameras being put into their houses.. how could a priest private life be more open if you are seeing if he's an abuser? Abuse is always done in behind closed doors so short of survelence there'd be no real way to keep an eye on them.

Originally posted by riley
Actually ALL the cases I've heared of.. the offender has at one time been a victim.. though I cannot say definitively that ALL rapists/predetors have been.

This is interesting, but want a second opinion. Maybe more research on my part. The root reasoning problem is when did it start if they were all victims? Somebody somewhere had to start it. Was it genetic in his/her case?

It's been going on for thousands of years.. [from cave men perhaps?] but violence is a natural thing if someone is cornered, oppressed, have sexual rivals or resources are low.. perhaps different types of abuse could trigger other kinds.. I'm just speculating now but it's a subject all it's own.

Originally posted by riley
Yes [In most cases]. Sexual orientation has little to do with sexual abuse. Rape and molestation are based on power and the degredation another human being..

...or so we're told...

It may influence who the victim is in some cases.. but little old ladies get raped frequently so lust seems to play less of a motive than the need to feel power over someone else.

Originally posted by riley
though what causes it can become blurry sometimes as 'mob mentality' with the heightened testosterone can also influence the way some men behave.

Back to square one for me then. Yeah, I think it's blurry. Glad I'm not a scientist being forced to decide.

Even scientists can't find any definents.. I was going to study anthropology/pshycholgy but there always seems to be more questions than answers.

I do like these discussions. It's rare to have reasonable, level-headed discussions especially when there's disagreement. Much appreciated, thanks.

Likewise.. we seem to make some progress and actually learn things from eachother.. alot less frustrating than the usual discourse.

Originally posted by Charlie Murphy
Parents raise their children. Parents guide their children. Children with parents know they exist. God is not a parent.

Ouch, you wound me...but probably moreso Him. Look, if the kid wants to always run away from home, why should the parent chase after them every time? I'm speaking from experience both figuratively and literally.

Originally posted by Charlie Murphy
Touche, I could read everything Einstein ever wrote, but I would never be as intelligent. Knowledge and Intelligence are closely tied though. They could not have been that bright to believe some of the stuff they used to.

I dunno, I have a tremendous amount of respect for both Eudoxus and Aristotle to have the ability to cohesively gel data into a working model even if it was for only a thousand years.

Originally posted by Charlie Murphy
Not all change is good, and not all things change. What make some things special, is that they are rare. If you could do live forever things nothing would make you happy.

That would be true if I were the most superior force. Being that my happiness is in His hands, I doubt he'd let His promise go unfulfilled.

Originally posted by Charlie Murphy
Can you tell me how you can believe all the stories in the Bible, but yet you find evolution"filled with gaps"?

Hehe, the Bible isn't claiming to have data and proof. Science does. When science stops providing data and proof, that's when it asks it's followers to have faith and trust in theories...and we all know what that does to non-believing scientists. The day all scientists accept faith and trust in their belief system is the day I'll accept just about any theory as a credible possibility. Let's research to see if we can fill in the gaps for both science and the Bible. If I'm suspicious of something whether Biblical or scientific, I look for the answers. I don't think God wants us to 'blind-eye' anything. He wants us to learn because it's part of the growth experience. That's from beginning to end in the Book. The Bible isn't just what to think, it's how to think as well.

[edit on 2-7-2005 by saint4God]

[edit on 2-7-2005 by saint4God]

Originally posted by riley
I initially concluded [from the inerview] that he seemed to have an inapropraite relationship with the kid.. the body language was very telling. If it has happened.. it's unfortunate that the mother's insentive was money and not justice. If it were my kid I would have nailed the offender to the wall straight away and not settled out of court.. I wouldn't wait till the money ran out to expose him.

That was suspicious for me too. Why wait so long?

Originally posted by riley
No.. I still think they should be jailed.. for instance when mothers turn a blind eye to their kids being raped for fear of losing a spouse [if they were being abused as well it would be a different matter]. I knew a girl who contracted genetal warts from her step father.. tried to tell her mother and she got thown out and put on the streets for having what her mother called 'an affair' with him. She was about eleven years old ended up becoming a prostitute junkie [I don't see her anymore as she's a bit dangerous.. though I concede she's a product of abuse.

Ouch. I am sorry to hear this scenario. Wish there was something we could do...

Originally posted by riley
Many things.. but specifically a juror saying afterwards that he thought Michael probably had molested before.. but the mother was untrustworthy [$ motive] so that kid specifically may not have been.. two wrongs don't make a right I guess.

Bad juror, no coffee.

Originally posted by riley
As I said earlier.. most rape cases without physical evidence [bruises, vaginal tearing, drugs in system etc.] wouldn't make it to court and the charges would be dropped [or never made].. regardless how a woman was acting.. there'd be no room for miscommunication if she has to be forcibly held down.. and if she was wearing a boob tube and hot pants.. thats just sexual expression not an offer of intercourse [and neither is flirting]. Attire should never be relevent at all as that as that gives lawyers to much room to move.. and if a woman was just dressed for summer she'd have absoloutely no hope for justice.. and what about stippers? They dance.. thats it.

Oh yeah, no motive to entice, right? Not trying to make anyone feel anything, just their own self-expression?

Originally posted by riley
If you want to get a better understand of what I mean.. rent a movie called 'the accused' [if you haven't already seen it].. that preety much analises the whole issue.

I think we're pretty much on the same page, but both parties need to understand what effects they have on the other person. Agreed attire alone doesn't count but you paint a whole picture than it may look different.

Originally posted by riley
Yes there would be a minority of women that would do this.. but again there needs to be adequate evidence [mentioned earlier] to build a case.. otherwise it'd be a waste of her time.

Rightfully so. Still $ talks and if you have a good lawyer...

Originally posted by riley
Hmm.. 'Saint4god'.. well all that says is that you're religious.. but, unlike many others you seem very consistent with your princibles.

Thank you! Feel free to let my boss know I'm doing good work

Originally posted by riley
If I met you I'd have another facet on which to access you on [I wouldn't say judge as that has a finality to it].. I'd get to find out if you are consitent with your ethics in the real world. I must say though.. you don't contradict Jesus' teachings as others do and I really repsect that.

Double thank you! The love goes right back atcha.

Originally posted by riley
They prefer to interprite it that way.. it reflects their true opinions and hearts.. unfortuantly there is much room for interpritation of the bible.. [the old 'the bible says I can judge.. 'tell a tree my it's fruit etc'' when it also says not to judge so I can't say they don't actually read it.. they may just 'choose' to ignore things in the bible that are inconvenient.

You're absolutely right. Jesus accuses the people of doing the same....so you and he have that in common. I think the point was to judge actions as right or wrong, not other people nor accuse others of sinning when we ourselves have our own to deal with. We're here to help each other not blast. Personally blasting each other has never led to anything but anger, resentment, fear, war, more sin and death.

Originally posted by riley
But is the confessional classed as worship? Should that be protected even if a priest confesses child abuse to another priest? In this instance I think the confidentiality of the confessional should only be reserved for pasirshioners [unless they are sevearly breaking the law and hurting someone.. in which case a priest should be obligated to turn them in to protect victims.]

What good is confessing a sin in a closet? No one hears and you yourself know what you've done wrong. I don't understand this concept. Confess to God. Then, confess to those you've wronged. Why is this difficult?

Originally posted by riley
:p okay.. was a kind of a joke but.. you said their lives shouldn't be so private so of course I started thinking.. which led me to thinking about how priests' private lives would be monitered.. and having just watched 'big brother' I started brainstorming about cameras being put into their houses.. how could a priest private life be more open if you are seeing if he's an abuser? Abuse is always done in behind closed doors so short of survelence there'd be no real way to keep an eye on them.

It was a joke right back at ya. I think it was a normal thought process & didn't mean to put you in the confessional .

Originally posted by riley
It's been going on for thousands of years.. [from cave men perhaps?] but violence is a natural thing if someone is cornered, oppressed, have sexual rivals or resources are low.. perhaps different types of abuse could trigger other kinds.. I'm just speculating now but it's a subject all it's own.

I think it's fair to template a modern day statistic and have it reach back through history since people haven't really changed (sorry evolution folk).

Originally posted by riley

It may influence who the victim is in some cases.. but little old ladies get raped frequently so lust seems to play less of a motive than the need to feel power over someone else.

Change scene: frat party.

Originally posted by riley
Even scientists can't find any definents..

LOL! That was beautiful...and I agree.

Originally posted by riley
I was going to study anthropology/pshycholgy but there always seems to be more questions than answers.

T'is the nature of scientific study I think. I say go for it, whether in college or independently.

Originally posted by riley
Likewise.. we seem to make some progress and actually learn things from eachother.. alot less frustrating than the usual discourse.

Ya, you've leveled me out on some points and gave me thought to things I've yet to experience.


[edit on 2-7-2005 by saint4God]

Originally posted by saint4God
Ouch. I am sorry to hear this scenario.

Wish there was something we could do...

I tried myself.. but some people are so accustomed to being treated like sh!t that they naturally gravitate to distructive situations.. I hope one day life she grants her something beautiful enough for her to see the world has more to offer [yeah I know how corny that sounds].

Oh yeah, no motive to entice, right? Not trying to make anyone feel anything, just their own self-expression?

Entice? yes.. [thats part of courtship] rape? no. Rape is not some sort of involentary reflex action to a hard on. Thats what I meant about the 'Eve's fault' attitude- men are responsible for their own actions.. saying otherwise would be insulting to all men.. I don't think they are that weak willed or pathetic.

I think we're pretty much on the same page, but both parties need to understand what effects they have on the other person. Agreed attire alone doesn't count but you paint a whole picture than it may look different.

I'm not sure what you mean.. are you talking about a woman who has had a one night stand who accuses a man of rape.. or talking about a woman who has been flirtatious who gets raped?

What good is confessing a sin in a closet? No one hears and you yourself know what you've done wrong. I don't understand this concept. Confess to God. Then, confess to those you've wronged. Why is this difficult?

Some lazy people will opt to doing it in secret and saying some hail marys as a trade off for their own guilt. I try 'right things' to those I've wronged [I don't believe in god so that parts out ].. it is difficult but I believe it builds charactor and wisdom [as in not repeating the same mistakes].

I think it's fair to template a modern day statistic and have it reach back through history since people haven't really changed (sorry evolution folk).

Yes.. human beings haven't evolved to the extent that society asserts.. at least we have a goal.. I still have faith in people [kinda].

Originally posted by riley

It may influence who the victim is in some cases.. but little old ladies get raped frequently so lust seems to play less of a motive than the need to feel power over someone else.

Change scene: frat party.

Oh gawd.. revenge of the nerds was on the other night. )

Anyway.. that'd probably involve getting a girl that plastered that she can't move let alone say the word "No".
My ex's nephew was 14.. and bragging about how him and his mates got a girl drunk till she was unconcious and 'took turns' [he was trying to impress his uncles and their mates].. he wasn't impressed when I told him that it was rape [neither did he even consider it to be before I said anything]. I'm now counting my blessings that I don't associate with these types now.. though I have had a valuable insight into what humans are capable of doing to eachother.. makes me sick

Ya, you've leveled me out on some points and gave me thought to things I've yet to experience.

Cool.. it's a morbidly interesting subject [anthroplogically speaking].. the humans phyche is a very complex thing.

[edit on 2-7-2005 by riley]

Originally posted by saint4God
Ouch, you wound me...but probably moreso Him. Look, if the kid wants to always run away from home, why should the parent chase after them every time? I'm speaking from experience both figuratively and literally.

A parent should love their child no matter what, it is their job to look after their child. Or do you agree with that mother that Riley spoke of?

I dunno, I have a tremendous amount of respect for both Eudoxus and Aristotle to have the ability to cohesively gel data into a working model even if it was for only a thousand years.

I'm just saying no matter how smart Einstein was, if he was born as a cavemen its not going to do him any good. If he doesn't know anything, being intelligent means nothing.

When science stops providing data and proof, that's when it asks it's followers to have faith and trust

Religion ask for more faith than science by a long-shot. Science at leasts has laws that have been tested time and time again. Science observes the evidence at makes a descision based on it. Religion just asks for faith based on stories.

[edit on 2-7-2005 by Charlie Murphy]

actually scientists make they observations fact when they can demonstrate what they observe. science is things we can observe, test and demonstrate. the only type of evolution we have ever observed is micro evolution. variation within the KIND of animal, many different species may be an outcome or product. but they will always be the same kind (genus)

Originally posted by expert999
actually scientists make they observations fact when they can demonstrate what they observe. science is things we can observe, test and demonstrate. the only type of evolution we have ever observed is micro evolution. variation within the KIND of animal, many different species may be an outcome or product. but they will always be the same kind (genus)

Ok fine. Evolution is false because we have never directly observed a species from one genus transform into a species of another genus (never mind that a genus is nothing more than an ad hoc grouping of species that are more genetically similar than other such ad hoc groupings, and that it is definitionally impossible for such a transformation to be observed since we always classify a new species into the same genus if we observe the speciation).

That proves Biblical creation how?

I started my search in 1930 at age 18. Believe it or not I am now 93 years old. Only now after 75 years of devout seeking all over the world, from the Great Plains of Africa to the council of the wise men of Trah'akn to the Himalayan mistics and painstaking study of all languages, philosophies, religions, Biblical and occult sciences... here below is the absolute Secret of all Secrets. THE only answer and proof of all the intimate Secrets of God, Creation and THE universal Truth...Please, a word of caution...be careful how you use this knowledge...


Η θεολογία συζήτησης είναι τόσο άχρηστη όπως προσπαθώντας να
στραγγίξει τον ωκεανό με ένα κουταλάκι του γλυκού και μόνο οι
ανόητοι το κάνουν, επομένως εάν παίρνετε τα τα βακκίνια και τα μαγειρεύετε σε
κατσαρόλα όπως την πολτοποίηση μήλων, δοκιμάζει ακόμα ακόμα πολύ περισσότερο όπως το ρεβέντι
δαμάσκηνων έπειτα...

[edit on 6-7-2005 by lapi7]

You said the same exact thing on: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Most of us have to pay for advertising space for sticking the same ad in two different locations. Why do you get to be different?

I'll be back with the serious posters here shortly.

Originally posted by spamandham
Ok fine. Evolution is false because we have never directly observed a species from one genus transform into a species of another genus (never mind that a genus is nothing more than an ad hoc grouping of species that are more genetically similar than other such ad hoc groupings, and that it is definitionally impossible for such a transformation to be observed since we always classify a new species into the same genus if we observe the speciation).

Thank you for that admission. I believe that's all the questions I have then.

Originally posted by spamandham
That proves Biblical creation how?

In typical reactionist's style, the backlashing of science upon faith. Science makes claims to have the answer (or at least a working model). Faith makes the claim that if you trust, the answers will come in time.

I'll be back with ya riley and Charlie shortly.


[edit on 6-7-2005 by saint4God]

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by spamandham
That proves Biblical creation how?

In typical reactionist's style, the backlashing of science upon faith. Science makes claims to have the answer (or at least a working model). Faith makes the claim that if you trust, the answers will come in time.

Science does not claim to have a working model, it demonstrates such working models. Science is a process, not a belief system.

But you didn't answer the question. How would discrediting evolution prove Biblical creationism?

Originally posted by riley
I tried myself.. but some people are so accustomed to being treated like sh!t that they naturally gravitate to distructive situations.. I hope one day life she grants her something beautiful enough for her to see the world has more to offer [yeah I know how corny that sounds].

No matter how it sounds, as long as it's sincere that's all that counts. Thanks for trying to help, it's the most we could ever hope from another.

Originally posted by riley
Entice? yes.. [thats part of courtship] rape? no. Rape is not some sort of involentary reflex action to a hard on. Thats what I meant about the 'Eve's fault' attitude- men are responsible for their own actions.. saying otherwise would be insulting to all men.. I don't think they are that weak willed or pathetic.

I can agree with that.

Originally posted by riley
I'm not sure what you mean.. are you talking about a woman who has had a one night stand who accuses a man of rape.. or talking about a woman who has been flirtatious who gets raped?

The first. Flirtatiousness is not a crime. Unjust retaliation I think should be (if it isn't already).

Originally posted by riley
Some lazy people will opt to doing it in secret and saying some hail marys as a trade off for their own guilt. I try 'right things' to those I've wronged [I don't believe in god so that parts out

].. it is difficult but I believe it builds charactor and wisdom [as in not repeating the same mistakes].

We are supposed to change, else we're not truly sorry.

Originally posted by riley
Yes.. human beings haven't evolved to the extent that society asserts.. at least we have a goal.. I still have faith in people [kinda].

*nods* Though I'll put my faith in a higher power.

Originally posted by riley
Oh gawd.. revenge of the nerds was on the other night.

)

Weird movie indeedy.

Originally posted by riley
Anyway.. that'd probably involve getting a girl that plastered that she can't move let alone say the word "No".
My ex's nephew was 14.. and bragging about how him and his mates got a girl drunk till she was unconcious and 'took turns' [he was trying to impress his uncles and their mates].. he wasn't impressed when I told him that it was rape [neither did he even consider it to be before I said anything]. I'm now counting my blessings that I don't associate with these types now.. though I have had a valuable insight into what humans are capable of doing to eachother.. makes me sick

In his case, was it dominance? or sexuality?

Originally posted by riley
Cool.. it's a morbidly interesting subject [anthroplogically speaking].. the humans phyche is a very complex thing.

I'll try not to bring it negative despite the topic. I do think it's important to look at and discuss though. Such life-knowledge is good to have when helping others.

Originally posted by spamandham
Science does not claim to have a working model, it demonstrates such working models.

To-mae-to, to-mah-to. They both make great spagetti sauce.

Originally posted by spamandham
Science is a process, not a belief system.

Rather...it's not 'supposed' to be a belief system, but when you're lacking in evidence, what then is left? Belief. This is why evolution does not fit in with the rest of the science book.

Originally posted by spamandham
But you didn't answer the question. How would discrediting evolution prove Biblical creationism?

It doesn't. I did not claim it did. I hope no-one else did either.

[edit on 6-7-2005 by saint4God]