Christians

[~Marisa~]

Here

This means that there's a theoretical window of 2 weeks. The 2 days is only the optimum time for conception, but not the only time.


I think that's an exaggeration. It's mostly 20 somethings that are (apart from swingers, older porn stars and the unfaithful). Indeed, the concept of a 'girlfriend' or 'boyfriend' is not catered for, unless you count them as 'friends', but even so, one can be in love with a friend. Or are you trying to say that people have sex outside of a relationship?

I think the whole concept of 'sex' is dealt with very badly in both US and UK. Nobody really get's told the truth (Sex education lessons don't really provide enough information, and we get people not realising things like anti-biotics counteract the pill, or pulling out before climaxing means that you cannot get pregnant - both are the cause of some teenage pregnancies). Instead of saying stuff like "You should only have sex after marriage", perhaps what we really need to do is educate our children better. Perhaps something like the dutch model:

Source: Sex education

I was refering to sex outside of a relationship. and I completely agree...sure, this is not a perfect world and we will certainly not get people to comply with waiting for marriage, so why not do what we can as a society and educate our children rather than having parents who don't have enough guts to talk about it.

 

[ssbb_lover]

Sry to go totally off topic of this relationship business...but, I feel like starting a new argument! I finally got some time off of school and tennis *sigh*.

For all you evolutionists and "big-bangists" out there, here's some things I would just like to point out...

Scientists (those who believe in the big-bang and whatnot) propose that the universe is around 7 billion years, however they think some stars are 20 billion years. :wtf: Maybe the science we rely on so much isn't as true as we right as we thought....You can't have something older than the thing it's existing in. :lol: Also, spontaneous generation (or evolution) takes would take much longer than 7 or 8 billion years. This just plain does not make since....

Here's another thing w/ the big-bang theory. I'm sure most of you respect the "mind", the thing that makes you think, helps you make decisions, etc. Well, how much do you respect....a rock? I mean sure they make great objects for slingshots, maybe a paper weight (you get my point). So...imagine you have a scale, on one side you put the human mind (the only known living being to possess this) and in the other hand...a rock, or some type of matter. Which one do you respect more? I think you're going to choose the human mind. I'm sure most of you are asking yourself why the hell your reading this, so i'll tell you. The big-bang suggests that matter created the mind, however Christianity proposes that mind created the matter. I know the rock is a bad comparison to the mind, but still, it doesn't matter what you compare to the mind (in the Christian's case, God's mind), it's going to fail to match up.

I remember some of you asking how it is possible that God has always...just existed. How about I ask you the same question? If you believe in the big bang, then something had to exist to trigger it, so even when believing evolution or spontaneous generation, you still have to beieve that the universe has and will be infinite. It couldn't have just randomly triggered. Christianity explains that God has always been, is, and will be, and that he divined the universe, earth, and everything there is. I find that much easier to believe. (and if universe has been for eternity, it doesn't match up w/ the other things that science has *cough* "proven" *cough*.)

Sorry for changing the subject so drastically, plz don't flame me or get too pissed.

 

[NateTheGreat]

^Interesting thoughts there. Of course, that is why both are called theories. They're backed by logic and data. Could they be wrong? You bet. Could they be right, yep. But, can you prove that some ultimate being or mind or whatever created all that is here today either? No. That's not the point of religion. Christians and believers in some other religions keep trying to prove their god created everything with usually misinformation from Christian propaganda sites. You shouldn't have to prove your point and you shouldn't be trying to disprove the scientific theories unless you find there is a better scientific/logical theory that should be used instead. Christians and all believers in higher beings are supposed to take the information in their religious texts on faith.

I'll use this quote again to make my point:

"In other words, a person who is fanatic in matters of religion, and clings to certain ideas about the nature of God and the universe, becomes a person who has no faith at all." - Alan Watts

 

[Gaz]

Sry to go totally off topic of this relationship business...but, I feel like starting a new argument! I finally got some time off of school and tennis *sigh*.

For all you evolutionists and "big-bangists" out there, here's some things I would just like to point out...

Scientists (those who believe in the big-bang and whatnot) propose that the universe is around 7 billion years, however they think some stars are 20 billion years. :wtf: Maybe the science we rely on so much isn't as true as we right as we thought....You can't have something older than the thing it's existing in. :lol: Also, spontaneous generation (or evolution) takes would take much longer than 7 or 8 billion years. This just plain does not make since....

Here's another thing w/ the big-bang theory. I'm sure most of you respect the "mind", the thing that makes you think, helps you make decisions, etc. Well, how much do you respect....a rock? I mean sure they make great objects for slingshots, maybe a paper weight (you get my point). So...imagine you have a scale, on one side you put the human mind (the only known living being to possess this) and in the other hand...a rock, or some type of matter. Which one do you respect more? I think you're going to choose the human mind. I'm sure most of you are asking yourself why the hell your reading this, so i'll tell you. The big-bang suggests that matter created the mind, however Christianity proposes that mind created the matter. I know the rock is a bad comparison to the mind, but still, it doesn't matter what you compare to the mind (in the Christian's case, God's mind), it's going to fail to match up.

I remember some of you asking how it is possible that God has always...just existed. How about I ask you the same question? If you believe in the big bang, then something had to exist to trigger it, so even when believing evolution or spontaneous generation, you still have to beieve that the universe has and will be infinite. It couldn't have just randomly triggered. Christianity explains that God has always been, is, and will be, and that he divined the universe, earth, and everything there is. I find that much easier to believe. (and if universe has been for eternity, it doesn't match up w/ the other things that science has *cough* "proven" *cough*.)

Sorry for changing the subject so drastically, plz don't flame me or get too pissed.

The age of the universe, aka from the start of the big bang, is 13.7 million with a margin of error to be about 1%. have you got a good source for that star being 20 billion years old? without that, that comment is totaly ingnored imo.

What has respect got to do with it? in the end, the rock and the human brain, is made of the same stuff, just different qunatities.

not really, time exisists only inside the universe, what ever was there before is not relavant. that is something hard to grasp but it is fundimental in the big bang theory. which extends to say that the universe will eventualy stop expanding and then come in on it's self, and thus it is possible there will be another big bang, and that is what could have cuased the last one.

 

[ssbb_lover]

^Interesting thoughts there. Of course, that is why both are called theories. They're backed by logic and data. Could they be wrong? You bet. Could they be right, yep. But, can you prove that some ultimate being or mind or whatever created all that is here today either? No. That's not the point of religion. Christians and believers in some other religions keep trying to prove their god created everything with usually misinformation from Christian propaganda sites. You shouldn't have to prove your point and you shouldn't be trying to disprove the scientific theories unless you find there is a better scientific/logical theory that should be used instead. Christians and all believers in higher beings are supposed to take the information in their religious texts on faith.

I'll use this quote again to make my point:

"In other words, a person who is fanatic in matters of religion, and clings to certain ideas about the nature of God and the universe, becomes a person who has no faith at all." - Alan Watts

Actually what i'm trying to do is not exactly "My religion is so much betta den ur's OMG! Science is wrong and so is yo' mama!" Lol, i'm just trying to say that Christianity is nott he only thing that people have to have faith to believe in it, and that there are a lot of weaknesses in science, we shouldn't take it hook line and sinker (which is what the government is trying to do through their schools, as well as colleges [IMO]).

A book I recommend a good reading to is Understand the Times, i'm sure most of you won't read it, let alone pick it up. However, it's very intriguing no matter what you believe, it is directed towards a more Christian view, but it's not biased. Make sure if you read it, you give it a very thorough reading, it's got a lot of interesting theories...

Also, Nate, that quote is written based on a man's theory, and could therefore be flawed. :ciappa:

 

[Brawny]

One question to ssbb_lover: are you a person that takes the Bible extremely literally? Do you believe creation was 6 24 hour days? I am very left-brained so this seems more logical to me. I will have to look for that book next time I go to B&N. I like how nate thinks Christianity is propganda. That made me laugh.

 

[NateTheGreat]

Actually what i'm trying to do is not exactly "My religion is so much betta den ur's OMG! Science is wrong and so is yo' mama!" Lol, i'm just trying to say that Christianity is nott he only thing that people have to have faith to believe in it, and that there are a lot of weaknesses in science, we shouldn't take it hook line and sinker (which is what the government is trying to do through their schools, as well as colleges [IMO]).

How is the government promoting the big bang/evolution over Christianity? Shoot, it's run by Bush, an evangelical. You do realize k-12 schools don't teach either of these right? Oh sure, some teachers may tell you they believe in those theories, but other will tell you the opposite. The point is, by the time most are out of highschool, they have their own opinion. When they go into college, they will find more people believing in those theories, but if you go to a religious college or military college, I'm sure you'll find the opposite there as well.

And who said science isn't flawed? Look, for instance, at the multiple diagrams for the atom. First it looked one way, then it changed, then again, and again. Who knows if it will stay the same or change again. That's why science is different from the bible; it changes with new information. The bible does not and shouldn't if that's supposed to be the word of god.

A book I recommend a good reading to is Understand the Times, i'm sure most of you won't read it, let alone pick it up. However, it's very intriguing no matter what you believe, it is directed towards a more Christian view, but it's not biased. Make sure if you read it, you give it a very thorough reading, it's got a lot of interesting theories...

So it's "directed towards Christians," yet it isn't biased?:shifty:

Also, Nate, that quote is written based on a man's theory, and could therefore be flawed. :ciappa:

It's not really a theory, it's just logic. Most Christians would agree with that. You are supposed to take things you read in the bible on faith and faith alone. If you feel the need to prove creationism, then you are showing you don't have much faith in the word of your god.

 

[Gaz]

Actually what i'm trying to do is not exactly "My religion is so much betta den ur's OMG! Science is wrong and so is yo' mama!" Lol, i'm just trying to say that Christianity is nott he only thing that people have to have faith to believe in it, and that there are a lot of weaknesses in science, we shouldn't take it hook line and sinker (which is what the government is trying to do through their schools, as well as colleges [IMO]).

A book I recommend a good reading to is Understand the Times, i'm sure most of you won't read it, let alone pick it up. However, it's very intriguing no matter what you believe, it is directed towards a more Christian view, but it's not biased. Make sure if you read it, you give it a very thorough reading, it's got a lot of interesting theories...

Also, Nate, that quote is written based on a man's theory, and could therefore be flawed. :ciappa:

LMAO!!!
Science is flawed, built on facts, figures and logic. ex. 2+2=4. OMG THATS FLAWED therefore you can't trust science.

a book that is aimed towards christains and is not biased, woow thats a first.
How about you read a book called "the God Dilusion" it is not biased at all, infact it actualy tells you why you should believe in God.

 

[NateTheGreat]

One question to ssbb_lover: are you a person that takes the Bible extremely literally? Do you believe creation was 6 24 hour days? I am very left-brained so this seems more logical to me. I will have to look for that book next time I go to B&N. I like how nate thinks Christianity is propganda. That made me laugh.

No, now you are putting words in my mouth.

I said:

Christians and believers in some other religions keep trying to prove their god created everything with usually misinformation from Christian propaganda sites.

I was talking about Christian websites, books, etc. that are filled with propaganda that attempt to disprove scientific theories with misinformation.

Please try to read carefully before accusing people like that.

 

[Squall7]

The thing about science is that it is the pinicle of understanding. If something in science is proved wrong, then even the most fundamental basics can be changed to accomodate it, so that it can be correct. Religion doesn't do this. It ignores or rejects any new situations or ideas that don't fit into it's ideal world - for example, homosexual marriages or female vicars/priests etc...

 

[Brawny]

Gaz, tell me what religion is built on in your opinion. I believe it is built on facts, figures, and logic too. To me, God and science are not on the same level. Science ,or rather your version of science brags about only dealing with things that are empirical. You can't be a scientist and study religion. You can be a devout person and study science though. Sorry that I can't explain myself very well.

To overly literal Christians, who says that when God spoke, he didn't create a big bang? I don't see how the big-bang and the creation have to be mutually exclusive.

 

[Gaz]

Gaz, tell me what religion is built on in your opinion. I believe it is built on facts, figures, and logic too. To me, God and science are not on the same level. Science ,or rather your version of science brags about only dealing with things that are empirical. You can't be a scientist and study religion. You can be a devout person and study science though. Sorry that I can't explain myself very well.

To overly literal Christians, who says that when God spoke, he didn't create a big bang? I don't see how the big-bang and the creation have to be mutually exclusive.

a big part of any religion, is a god, a supernatural being, correct? and with that, how can you say it is built on facts and figures, there is nothing now that you nor i can do that will prove there is a god. so how can you say it is built on facts, figures and logic?

 

[NateTheGreat]

Gaz, tell me what religion is built on in your opinion. I believe it is built on facts, figures, and logic too. To me, God and science are not on the same level. Science ,or rather your version of science brags about only dealing with things that are empirical. You can't be a scientist and study religion. You can be a devout person and study science though. Sorry that I can't explain myself very well.

Sorry, but could you explain that in more depth? "Empirical?" "Your science?"
Christianity might be based on logic, but logic that is thousands of years old. Do you believe all the animals in the world could fit on an Arc made by one man? Do you believe a snake can tempt a girl into eating an apple? Today, probably not, but back then, when science was in it's infancy, you bet it was logical and there's nothing wrong with that if you have faith in it.

 

[Brawny]

Empirical just means things that you can sense. When I said "your science", I meant that your view of, and what you call "science". Isn't nessesarily the same as someone else's definition.

Do you also know that the things you think are basic, such as gravity or whatnot were discovered a long time ago? I think that we should stop believing it because it is too old </sarcasm>

Satan did not turn into a snake until after he tempted Eve.

"you bet it was logical and there's nothing wrong with that if you have faith in it." You could say the same thing about Christianity.

I myself do not believe that you should interpret Genesis extremely literally. It is very symbolic.

 

[Brawny]

The thing about science is that it is the pinicle of understanding. If something in science is proved wrong, then even the most fundamental basics can be changed to accomodate it, so that it can be correct. Religion doesn't do this. It ignores or rejects any new situations or ideas that don't fit into it's ideal world - for example, homosexual marriages or female vicars/priests etc...

Apologies for the double post but I think that the previous one was long enough ago to not edit it, especially with a quote.

Sorry I must have missed this post to respond to.

This makes no sense to me. You're arguing that changing basic ideas is better than having strong core beliefs to encounter new things with? You want religion to incorporate everything to make it correct? Christianity doesn't ignore or reject homosexuality or female church leaders. Homosexuality is not new. It is mentioned in Genesis, before "science" starts. Christianity condemns homosexuality, not homosexuals. Acting on the temptation is sin, not the temptation itself. Just to get that out of the way.

Objection to females in office is not mentioned in the Bible either. It is just a tradition that older, more stubborn people accept. Again, I am Christian Reformed so we place much less importance on tradition than Catholics (going by people I know, so corrections are welcome). Please think of some more issues that Christianity has ignored.

To sum it up incase I rambled too much, you want a religion that changes its basic beliefs so that it doesn't offend you? Is this correct?