There is hereditary sin and personal sin, of course it's not your fault you are born with a disease ..

John 9:2, 3 And His disciples asked Him, saying, Teacher, who sinned, this one, or his parents, that he was born blind? Jesus answered, Neither this one nor his parents sinned, but that the works of God might be revealed in him.



True.

You have to be nuts from a point of view to believe in God and the Bible.

øwned said:



Huh? Read again carefully verses 6 and 7: Abimelec believed a lie, but acted with clean heart, and God apreciated that. After Abimelec finds out the truth, he does again the right thing - gives Abraham's wife back and nothing bad happens. Only if he had held Sarah after knowing the truth God would have had the right to punish them.
So, what's weird in that?


øwned said:


Israel was a theocratic nation at that time. God gave them the Law. They all said they will obey it. But God knew that no man can obey the entire law. The punishment for every disobedience of the Law was death in the end, physical and spiritual. That's why after giving them the Law, He also gives them the tabernacle, where they had the oportunity to transfer their punishment to the animals, so they won't die.

But i agree this is not an easy verse to understand.

Following that logic, you should also have to be nuts to randomly follow any explanation for the origin of our existence.

If you really think about it, no one has observed evolution. While it could POSSIBLY be AN explanation, you should also see that science FITS with creationism.

If you look at our country this way: Our country was founded on people who believe in the Judeo-Christian faith and built our country, wrote our documents and lived this out in their every day lives. A lot of fundamentalists vote in accordance with these principals.

If you study the Old vs. the New testaments in the Bible, the old law given to the Israelites was extremely strict and ridged and perfection was required. God was impersonal and man was required to go through a priest to access God. In the new law given in the New Testament, basically, God breaks the impersonal barrier and man answers directly to God.

And no, I don't believe in a Theocracy. Theocracies are siwwy.

P4 wrote:

That is a paradox. Creation is 'active' but evolution is 'passive' (even if reproduction is active). Surely to sin you must actively do something rather than have something happen to you.

no, because evolution can actually be backed up by proof.



Actually, yes we have. Not counting the countless fossil records, there have been some things, such as butterflies changing color after a bomb recently went off in their area (I think it was to absorb more heat.)




How does it?


Remember that this is an international forum, not only Americans go on this site.
Anyways, the American's founders may have been of Judeo-Christian faith, but our country was not built on those tenets. Why else for the separation of church and state? The founders of this country tried to block, not integrate religion into our culture.



Yeah, the New Testament is much less strict, what does that have to do with anything?



I agree.

@emmy ok, I misunderstood the first quote, but the second still stands. How is it right to kill any person, especially a child, who breaks the law? Even transfering it to livestock is bad. (btw, the livestock is the parent's property, not the kid's.)

@kyle. Our system is good, I agree with that. But it is not perfect, it still has some flaws that we need to fix up.

@owned, most flaws have been caused by corruption and the evolution of the system

but not all

heh when i said most i was thinking that most of the changes caused corruption, there were some changes that were needed to update the system for today's technology.

The fossil record shows no sign of evolution because of the complete lack of fossils supporting the transitional phases between species. If Darwinian evolution happened, the fossil record should show gradual changes from the bottom layers to the top layers between all forms of life. There are no life forms earlier than the Cambrian rocks, and there are no transitional forms.

Read the Federalist Papers. On the contrary, the only mention of separation of church and state is one of our founding fathers' concern that the first amendment may be INTERPRETED as a separation of church and state. It was never separated, and neither was it established.

and to say that America was not built on the tenets of Christianity is a display of complete ignorance of the early history of our country, signers of the constitution and DoI.

I realize this is international, and I thought the original topic WAS the U.S. change in leadership...

On the creationist-evolutionst subject, i think it's another endless debate, because there will always be pros and cons on both theories on a logical reasoning. You cannot totally prove either of them without including an element of presumption. The bad part in both theories is that nowadays both of them are strongly influenced by religion (yes, evolutionism too), so how can you know the source you rely on is trustworthy?
However, i suggest one very reliable source from my point of view, because it's very objective and also strongly scientific supported : "Unlocking the mystery of life" - 1 hour documentary about intelligent design.

Evolution is not based on religion at all but let's end this debate now...we will never agree.

Agreed.

THREAD HIJACKED FOR BETTER USE!!!

Post a funny lolcat pic




THREAD HIJACKs SUCKS!!!

bleheheehee

EDIT: Who the hell edited my post to add the above 2 lines???

yes gratz to Obama... My mom voted for him
And all the democrats here went to the Hilton hotel to celebrate... Unfortunately I didn't go... But my mom took pictures and showed me how was it...
It was great with lots of American food. ;P

The time is almost hear just a little more than 14 hours. I am a bit sad . I really don't want to see more rights taken away and have Americans powerless. Have our nations debt climb higher and see the elimination of the middle class. I can already see that this will most likely be 2 terms (8 years). This is because Obama will spend money on what people think they want and that will make the people happy even at the expense of raising the national debt as much or more than the bush administration did. And if Obama get enough of the people happy with him who knows if congress will revoke the 2 term limit and let him be dictator longer. I'm sure their will be riots but like all riots the media will be on the opposite side making millions believe that the rioters are in the wrong. I guess I'll have to stick it out for 16 more years when i can run for president (i guess i could just wait 6 years and run for a member of the house, that's a start anyway)

I'd vote for you kyle, at least if I was to have an evil dictator, it would definitely be you. But ya, Obama, not good, not good. I have to watch the inaugural speech during the last hours of school, at least it's better than class.