Does God get nipple hair? If he does, does he pull it out? If he pulls it out, what does he do with it?

If it didn't improve his quality of life he wouldn't be using it. This applies to every product of science, and if everything science produced was shunned, it would cease to exist.

Maybe Kerry Collins should make a deal with the other guy then....






....Al Davis!

Why not?

Because Santa Claus has purview over Big Ten Quarterbacks.

Just go back...read what I was replying about....then you will see why.....

if you need a hint.....

Kerry Collins......


























Leader


I can't even place them in the same sentence.....

Gives it to the fat bearded woman in the carnival freak show.

Thanx much. I wondered what happened to it. I just pull mine out and eat it.

Dont forget about "butt sex" with random females, and talking badly about his "crackwhore" 1st wife(baby momma?)

Unless you're Jewish?

But what about circumcision?

Regarding the Sidetrack of the KJV and accuracy. I'll add that I've had multilple PhD's in Theology state that they felt that the New American Standard was the closest translation to the original text. I've heard one minister proclaim that the NIV was the best. My Father-in-law is fanatical about the Revised Standard(I think that's the one).

On the main topic. I'm a christian, and the kind of bible thumping or chest thumping represented by that sign Is offensive to me. It shows a callous insensitivity to those affected, and pretty much a callous disregard for human suffering. That church is declaring that New Orleans and those that live there deserved what happened. That is just unbelievably presumtuous. First of all it lays some sort of claim to knowlege that can't be possessed by man. Second of all, it shows a presumtion of righteousness on the part of those who purport these kinds of thoughts. It is the assumption that God considers the sins of others greater than our own. I'd think even an entry level theologian would recognize that error.

The people of that church should be embarrassed. I'd not be surprised if the parent organization requested they remove the sign. They might even be able to force them to do so.

It hurts?

This thread has led us to so many different fucked up tangents. :)

But, to provide an answer...

From my point of view, science does not cause death. Tools created by science most certainly do, but you don't often see wars/intolerance/whatever caused by "Your Science Is Wrong, Our Science Is Right". And that there is what religious strife has that science does not.

Insert your standard disclaimers here about how not all religious people (and not even a majority of religious folk) are belligerant fucks out to see all nonbelievers burned. But, the fact of the matter is, as Chris Rock said very simply in Dogma....People die for beliefs. People kill for beliefs.

Yes, science has created new and exciting ways for us to blow each other up. But I maintain that science has not created new and exciting REASONS for us to blow each other up. Religion has for centuries.

Apparently my husband has condemned your daily activities at sometime in the past...I suggest getting counseling to help with anger management.

Condemning, agreeing with....they are all shades of grey aren't they? :D

I disagree. I think people have used religion to rationalize violence - but the teachings of religion (generally) are to embrace peace. Shoot, the Pope was very outspoken against the war in Iraq.

Science and religion are not at odds, despite what some people say. They move in different circles, answering different questions.

ASV or the NASB are the closest to a literal translation. The NIV and the RSV are decent, easier to read translation. I prefer the NKJV because it keeps some of the KJV familar structure, updates the many archiac words and phrases that makes KJV so out of date/misunderstood, and recognizes some of the recent scholarship of translating Hebrew/Greek/Aramiac/Latin. For the most scholarly translation, you can't go wrong with the ASV/NASB.

Which questions does religion answer?

42.

It appears that I have misunderstood the definition of condemning for all these years. :)

\

So i'm guessing you havent read his whole entire catalogue of posts then? Including the hundreds he deleted before you registered? Probably 2000 of his posts involve "The Ladies Man", and actionable anal sodomy. Just calling it like i see it.

Well, a basic start might be:

How to live a good life.
Why to live a good life.
Should we fear death?

Who must you give money to on a weekly basis?

How about why does my pastor need a new car? Wouldn't Jesus just walk?

I can't wait for you to learn who this board's all time advocate of "butt sex" is. Based on what we've heard, I'd think you'd be well aware of this.

Please. That whole "Ladies Man" quote was a bad joke.

Why don't you argue the point instead of trying to slander the messanger? Or is name-calling the best you can do?

As far as anyone's life is concerned, I'm fairly certain that any major harm caused to a loved one is a huge negative.

For instance, my wife's brother's two-year-old son (the unfortunately-named Noah Rexin) died. This caused enormous suffering in our family. For them (devout Christians, actually), do you really want to make the argument that they benefitted from some sort of divine judgment?

Do you want to tell the sisters who lost family and friends to Katrina that they benefit because a significant percentage of the Christian world views the hurricane as a sign that there was too much sin in New Orleans?

As for the Holocaust, on behalf of everyone else who lost family members, do you really want to say there's a "greater good" mixed somewhere in there?

Dilbert's Garbage Man is obviously meant to be a religious figure. My response would be, "yes, I'd like to now, since all knowledge is good." Seems way too convenient that religion is a system where seeking knowledge is the root of much evil.

That seems much more like a method of controlling those who follow the religion. Don't ask about the inconsistencies and don't seek the truth on your own.


As for Franklin's last comment to me, all I'll say is it's everything I don't like about organized religion. That someone could genuinely come up with that kind of belief is proof, to me, that atheism is morally superior to religion in many ways. I feel like saying "nyah, nyah, nyah" now.

Heh, going around in circles now ;). Why do you need religion to show you how to lead a good life and be a good person? Why not come up with your own belief or idea of death? The fact that some people need this feeds my cynical side.

As an extreme example, does hating gays make you a better person and lead to a better life?

So im guessing sarcasm escapes you? MY husband has made his stance on gay sex and marriage well known, maybe you need to revisit some of his posts not I?

I don't mean this as a personal attack, only a statement of fact, which I think does address the issue of why some people here do not take franklinnoble seriously: Why should we recognize a person who has been suspended for posting porn links as any type of authority on Judeo Christian ethics and morality?

Actually, that would be Libel, since its written down. But of course, since its true, its not libel either.

Still waiting for the other shoe to drop.

Because his wife is here now, so he has become a religous zealot?

This thread has gone so far in simply reinforcing everyone's views. So productive.

That's fantastic. I salute you Glengoyne :D.

Scanning through this unfortunate thread, I believe SkyDog had said it best. It truly saddens me that there are those professing the faith but choose to be so dogmatic and legalistic to others. Our Savior had some very choice words to say about the Pharisees.

Is there really any other possible outcome? Has anyone EVER been swayed in a discussion like this?

Well, if you did come up with your own belief that would still be religion in some sense.

My point was not that everybody needs to join an organized religion. I've made exactly the opposite point in other threads.

My point was that religion doesn't compete with science; it complements it. I was responding to the tangent we have since abandonded.

FN's post count is at 10,294 as of this posting. Let's see if it mysteriously drops in a race to expunge the record of incriminating evidence...

I wonder what JeffRutledge thinks of this.

I don't know. I guess I just keep hoping. And then I'm inevitably disappointed by both "sides."

She's read my post history.

I've tried to make an effort to seperate religion and organized religion in my posts, I may have slipped up here and there.

In the end, despite my ravings, I consider myself agnostic more than athiest(though I was raised athiest). Organized religion is what specifically gets under my skin. I believe there could possibly be a greater intelligence out there effecting us, more as an alien lifeform than a deity, and given enough time we could logically break it down and understand them.

How does religion not compete with science? Walking on water? A burning bush that talks? Coming back from the dead? Turning blood into wine???

At least in my opinion (and I admit it's not worth a whole lot), this post makes me feel a lot better about you Jeff. I often have my apprehension and doubt toward organized religion myself. And I certainly don't have all the answers, nor have I ever claimed to. But I would simply say that a belief in a higher power is not necessarily a bad thing. It does not make a person unintelligent, nor weak, nor brainwashed, nor any of the other words thrown around in threads like this.

And it absolutely does not mean a person is as sorely misguided as some others who spout Christianity as their motivation behind hateful acts.

If religion was really competing with science it would attempt to explain miracles; instead, it makes *no* attempt to explain miracles. It leaves explanation for science.

And science says it's impossible.

Yeah, I don't see where religion compliments science. At least not in circles of power, where the money comes from.

You're not even trying to understand what I'm saying.

What purpose does science serve?

What purpose does religion serve?

If you think the answer to those two questions is the same or even overlapping, then we have to agree to disagree. But in that case I would guess you haven't spent much time thinking about it.