posted 11-08-98 02:35 PM ET        

The spacing in that thread was just driving me nuts scrolling my screen right and left !!!

Anyways .. please read that other thread and then post your responces here !!!

posted 11-08-98 02:52 PM ET            

Should religion be taught in schools ???
(With the exception of history classes of course)

posted 11-08-98 04:01 PM ET            

Public schools exist to serve the community. Has anyone noticed how parents are allowed to participate less and less in the public school system? For instance, when my mom went in to give a lunch to my little sister, she went straight to the classroom and gave it to her. The teacher pulled my mom aside and told her that my mom needed to get a pass in the office and that the secretary had to inform my little sister's teacher that she would be coming in. My mom replied "This is a public school where you are teaching my child and I will come in and see what it is that you are teaching whenever I feel like it." (My mom is a bit strong willed (-8 ) Doesn't it make sense that the parents should be allowed free access to the classroom?

School is for teaching facts and educating students. Not only do I object to teaching of one religion over another in a public school (unless the ENTIRE community is ok with what is being taught) I also object to the teaching of theories and opinions as facts. For instance, how many people in school were taught that evolution and the big bang is a fact in school. I can clearly remember the text books "4.6 billions years ago..." Not "some scientists believe that 4.6 billion years ago..." Both evolution and the big bang are theories and have no place in science class. In the same way, students should not be told that any religion is a fact.

Does this mean that students should not be able to pray in school or read their own religious books??? NO! That is a violation of seperation of Church and state. The public school can neither encourage nor discourage religion. They can neither promote Buddhism, not Christianity, nor Athiesm. Those are my thoughts on that.

As far as whether public school kids or private school kids being better, I guess I don't know. I have always been in the public school system. I personally see a LOT of drugs. I don't know how common that is universally, but I've been in 2 very differeny high schools. One was a small town school in a rural town in Nebraska in a middle class neighborhood, the other in in NJ in a school of 3,000 in the 4th richest county in the US. Both schools have had lots of drug problems and violence problems. It is my personal belief that though the type of school a person is raised in could affect their behavior traits, it would be only a fraction of a percent of what affected their personality. Well, good day all! Love 'ya!

posted 11-08-98 04:49 PM ET            

As for your ideas on teaching .. I don't know where you went to school, but I was tought that the big bang was indeed only a theory, henceforth the name "Big Bang Theory" ... And the THEORY of evolution is based on scientific facts ... that's the huge difference between science and religion (if you could even compare them) ... one is fact the other is fiction !!!

I'll have to say that I have no problems at all of religion being taught from the historical and factual point of view as long as most religions are covered .. but not imposed upon children in its traditional way ... praying to a "god" shouldn't be part of any school's curriculem (sp?) .. mind you, as you said, noone should be prevented from doing it on there own free will either !!!

And you are right .. the surrounding of a child in all aspects (home, school and friends) is virtually the strongest factor in his or her development !!!

I think the violence in schools today is disgraceful and that there should be harsher penalties for adulesents !!!

I know killing and violence was wrong by the time I was 7 or 8 ... by the time you are 14 or even less, anyone is able to understand the concequences of prison and therefore should be punished accordingly !!!

I'm guessing all you pro-lifers are also against the death penalty too ???

posted 11-08-98 05:04 PM ET            

First, I have observed that most US public schools do teach religion, namely atheism. They do this be editting history to omit how religion and churches contributed to the developmentof society. They also tend to teach a morality based on self.

I believe that public schools should offer religious and moral instruction selectable by the parents for all faiths. If there are enough students, It would be permissible to have seperate religous public schools that focus on one religion.

I believe that parents should be able to choose which of the school, public or private, they wish to send their children, and have the standard allocation of funds from the state made for the student. This is commonly refered to as school voachers.

I believe that schools should compete based on quality of instruction for the students and not just be, like most unionized public schools, a production line that moves the students from grade to grade regardless of what they learnt or did not learn and not focused on helping each individual child be the best they can be.

Abortion
========
Interesting how none of those who dislike and oppose what I say, have taken up my challenge and discussed what if they are wrong in their views. I did discuss what if I was wrong.

For me, I must discuss abortion as what it is, not what the leftist media has made it out to be. They have crafted some wonderful arguments, which are not applicable to the basic issue, in particular, whether a child lives or dies. You can apply their crafted arguments to the killing of infants and/or handicapped people as well.

Pro-Choice - what choice does the child have? None. This term is a self-contradiction of itself. It should be Pro-Self, indicating that the individual person's rights far exceed those of another person.

posted 11-08-98 05:09 PM ET            

I think society as a whole has to re-evaluate it's view on all sorts of issues including drugs, alcohol and smoking !!!

None of these should be aloud by anyone who isn't of legal age ... also 21 in most of your states is kind of rediculous !!!

I'm 25 and have never ever smoked or done drugs in my life, but I do enjoy going out and having a few drinks from time to time !!! But I am an adult and I don't drive when I drink !!!

As for smoking, I think smokers should be taxed more to pay for all the cancer cases it creates and all the hospital space it takes up !!! We're lucky enough to have free medicare here in Canada, I hate it when it gets abused, because in the end, I end up paying for other people's habits with my tax dollars !!!

MS .. you're right in your explanation of theories .. but Larry is correct in stating that they should be labelled theories all the same ... I just thought that they were!!!

posted 11-08-98 05:23 PM ET            

That is where you are so blatantly wrong ...
NO ONE should impose religious belief upon anyone ... INCLUDING a childs parents .. they should only be there to answer questions .. a child shouldn't be brainwashed from birth to believe in something the brainwasher can't even prove for him/herself !!!

Imposing a religion on your children is the most destructive step you could take in destroying their freedom to develop free thoughts !!!

Imposing religion to anyone who doesn't yet understand it so so soooo patheticly wrong !!!

Yes religion is accountable for alot of great steps in human history ... but if religion had been replaced with scientism or humanism, we would have already colonized Alpha Centauri by now !!!

The fact is that billions of man-hours have been lost by people practicing religion !!!

posted 11-08-98 05:31 PM ET            

There is no right or wrong when it comes to abortion, one can only have an opinion .. mine is that it should be aloud yours is the opposite !!!

The only difference is that my point of view doesn't impose anything on you, whereas your pro-life stance would violate other people's freedom to self determination !!!

There is a serious difference !!!

You want to violate the freedom we have to choose for ourselves .. you should really think about that !!!

How would you like it if I took away your right to go to church and practice religion ???

posted 11-08-98 05:31 PM ET            

Schools should be completely free from religion. You see this as being Atheist becuase religion is obviously such a large part of your life that you can't understand how to take religion out of it.

There are a lot of teachers who don't properly understand the issue of separation of church and state. These are the sorts of people who would object to a student saying grace before he or she eats lunch, for example. That is clearly ridiculous. The important part of the separation of church and state is that there must be NO coercion. If you can't understand this, I suggest the following thought exercise: Imagine that everyone in your community except you and your family are Satanists (I use this as an example because Thomas would clearly find it offensive, if you don't, substitute your own "offensive religion" here). Would you then not think that every effort should be taken to keep "religion" out of the school that you or your children attended? Schools exist to educate, not indoctrinate.

posted 11-08-98 05:35 PM ET            

Hope you all at least understand what I've said .. although you don't have to agree with my views !!!

posted 11-08-98 07:13 PM ET            

You'd be forcing mothers to bring the children of incest and rape into this world. You may not think this a burden, but would you like to be reminded EVERY day of your life by the presence of your child that you were raped?

How can the person be healed, having to live with such pain and torment? So, you'd be forcing the further torture of the young lady in question, putting her through further anguish.

On retarded people: have you lived with disabled, or mentally retarded people? I have. My brother is mentally retarded, and I can honestly say that, given the choice, if I had the chance to choose whether or not I was to have a child that I knew would be like him, I would choose not. You have no idea of the life he lives, of the frustration he feels at his inability to live a normal life. Of how he bashes my mother, and makes her life a living hell.

And I feel sorry for him. He knows that he is different, and he hates it. And he is only mid-range disabled. The really badly disabled people are FAR, FAR worse.

So, you would be forcing people to have disabled children. To force the horror of a mental disability on a child. This is not a trivial matter.

And being pro-life, you must be against euthanasia. after all, it's still murder. So, if you're wrong, you'd be forcing people to live in agony, probably only being kept alive through the supposed wonders of modern science. You'd be in effect torturing them, by forcing them to live. May as well take a hot poaker and coals to them, it would amount to the same thing.

And what of the dilemma of the mother that WILL die if she goes through with a pregnancy? Do you choose to save the mother, or the child? Either choice is consigning one person or the other to death. Murder in your words.

Frankly, what it really comes down to is your belief that you are wrong, and your wish to impose your beliefs on us. You want to force us to do (or not do in this case) something, all because of your beliefs.

And that is exactly why is is NOT outlawed in "civilised" countries such as America and Australia. Because no-one has the right to force their view on somebody else.

Just like your view is that life begins at conception. At conception, there is a single cell, it hasn't even replicated yet. Fair enough, your view is that it is a life. Mine is that it is a single cell, and that's it. And neither of us can force our view on the other.

All I am advocating is the freedom of choice. You are advocating forcing us to accept your beliefs on when a life is born, and on whether or not it is right to end such a life.

You have your right to your opinion, and I can't argue with that. I respect your faith in your beliefs, and your right to speak them.

I do not respect nor recognise your right to force your views onto others.

Another cleansing rant from Brother Greg. =)

P.S. I also believe that this really isn't the place for such a thread. Already people have been put off by some of the opinions stated here, and if we keep this up, even more people will be sickened by some of the views, and put off these forums.

I honestly appeal to you all to stop such discussions as this, and the religious debate (and don't even get me started on the evils of organised religion). There are Newsgroups set up for such things. Hey, if you want, set up a mailing list, and email everyone.

Personally, I don't want more people alienated by these discussions, and this is only going to provoke strong reactions from both sides of the fence.

That this posting should be the first to make 100 posts is a sad message in itself, and personally, I believe that we shouldn't be encouraging it.

I'd actually like Firaxis to close the whole thread. In fact I might just start up a petition...

posted 11-08-98 07:28 PM ET            

MY views on abortion:

ALL KINDS OF VIOLENCE ARE WRONG!!! ABORTION IS WRONG!!! KILLING ABORTION DOCTORS IS WRONG!!!

posted 11-08-98 08:01 PM ET            

What I am really trying to do is to move it elsewhere (like the newsgroups). It doesn't belong here, and is annoying people to the point that they're leaving the forums.

While I am a strong advocator of freedom of speech, there is a time and a place for everything. I don't think this is the place for this discussion. My belief, I know, and yes, I am trying to force it onto others. Danged paradoxes in life. lol...

Mouthshaft, I wasn't referring to your post about science. I was just using it in my argument.

All I'm really trying to do I suppose is appeal to everyone, that this discussion is annoying people left, right and centre. I don't argue anyone's right to hold it. I do question whether it is good to hold it here. That's all.

posted 11-08-98 08:21 PM ET            

I'd like to know what FNORD means. Someone told me once, but I forget...

Wasn't real clear on using your argument either. I wasn't trying to refer to your argument, as the cases are different. I was just using the case in point to argue my case. No intended reference to your point. Hope that muddies the waters even further. lol...

posted 11-08-98 08:42 PM ET            

As I said, there's a time and a place for everything. I think this isn't the place. I also respect your right to disagree with me though, so if enough people do, then hey, who am I to argue?

Maybe you should start up a petition to keep it on there. State your case, and see what sort of response we get.

posted 11-08-98 11:48 PM ET            

As far as abortion goes, IT DOES VIOLATE RIGHTS! THE RIGHTS OF THE UN-BORN CHILD!!! You pro-choicers (notice me out of respet not saying pro-murders. Proud of me Rebel? (-8 ) cannot claim that your "womans right to kill the unborn baby inside of her" is OK, if the pro-lifers in cannot make the claim the the unborn baby has rights. Are you getting this?

Finally, since I should be working on my repot and never should have come back to this forum tonight. (-8 I am (obviously) pro-life, and I also am for the death penalty for the same reasons as Imram. The child has done nothing wrong, the criminal has. (hence the name criminal) Also, the death penalty is supported in the Bible.

OK, that wasn't quite finally. (-8 In the case of rape victims, and no, I've never been raped so I am not an expert, but by the pro-life position that the un-born child is a human, the life does outweigh the pain that a mother has to go through. Besides, God's grace and peace is more than enough to heal the mother. And one last thing, did you know that the majority of women who have abortions suffer psychological problems and are more than five times more likely to commit suicide? Talk about pain! What about the reminder everyday that you killed your own child? That would ten thousand times worse then the memory of being raped. OK, that's all opinion, go ahead and attack it.

Well, back to the report, and I wish you all a wonderful day tomorrow! (-8 May God shower His blessings upon you!

posted 11-09-98 12:10 AM ET            

(Still don't think this should be here - *grumbles*)

posted 11-09-98 12:40 AM ET            

Larry .. I love your post .. it was the best .. at least we aren't trying to kill each other in here .. (I will be trying to kill you as of Dec 20th though !!! )

As for you BG ... I vote that we close your thread to close this thread since by being here you have by default changed your vote to keep this discussion going !!! lol

Oh ... I love this !!!

Anyways, back to the debate ...
Larry ... you say the mothers have god grace and peace to support them .. what happens if they don't beleave in god ??? How could you validate your argument to them then ???

And who are you to decide when life begins ???

It seems to me in the preceding thread it was stated that even the bible said that until a child has had its first breath it is not alive !!!

NOW ??? WHAT'S GOING ON HERE ???

ARE YOU OF ALL PEOPLE SAYING THAT THE BIBLE IS WRONG ???
*Scratching head in amazement*

As for rape .. that is fundamentaly wrong because it violates a woman's (or man's)rights to have control over her own body !!!
That is not a joking matter !!!

Laws are not wrong because they protect an entire society of induviduals !!!

There is a very thin line between what you thought I was saying and what I actually ment .. but the difference is huge !!!

I think I know why BG was getting upset at this thread ... we have to keep it objective ok ???
I could just say that all pro-lifers are satanists for wanting to commit an unborn child to a life of pain and misery, but I know thore aren't your intentions ... I think the main argument here is still in when a fetus is to be considered human and why someone should have the right to impose their views on anyone else !!!

posted 11-09-98 01:37 AM ET            

Let people deal with their own issues in their own way ...

Larry ??? Have you ever been pregnant before ??? How could you hope to possibly imagine how the mother could feel ???

posted 11-09-98 05:51 AM ET            

ok i'm only in grade 9 here...... but i remember a time grades 1-4 that religion was taught in schools! well not taught but every day we would stand up sing oh canada, god save the queen and recite and pray for a good day! (public school) i found nothing wrong,
bad or other waise harmful in this! choice is choice! go or don't go!

every year in that time we had a christmas play! with christmas CANCLED in schools now
we have dumb ass plays! about nuttin in particular.

we used to put up a tree decorate the class!
damn i miss those days!

"rights" is getting outta hand!! people have to many of them! some harmful ones that shold should be removed and some that we need
(harmful meaning explotable)

posted 11-09-98 06:04 AM ET            

Anyways, thanks for your concern .. sorry to see you're become one of the millions who have been suttly brainwashed during your youth !!! It's too late to save you .. but it may not be too late for others !!!

Your concern for me is very much apreciated .. your thoughts and intentions are good ... unfortunately in my point of view your prayers are a complete waste of time !!!
But the fact that you don't think so and pray for me anyways is appretiated .. as I've learnt to accept, it's the thought that counts !!! So thank you !!!

And no ... it doesn't bother me what-so-ever that you pray for me or anyone else ... I just think you're wasting your time praying to something you couldn't even begin to comprehend !!!

posted 11-09-98 06:08 AM ET            

You're a little young, but I don't think you're too young to understand certain concepts .. feel free to look back at this and the other thread !!!

Your opinions on this matter are appreciated !!!

posted 11-09-98 08:11 AM ET            

In our public schools, we have a subject called Religious Instruction, which has about one hour per week. Parents and children are both consulted as to which class (Jewish, Protestant, Catholic, Muslim, Buddhist, ...), if any, they wish to join
during that hour.

In case someone's needs are not being met, there's no objection if they call someone of their choosing to teach them, or they can have the hour off regular classes to visit the library, do sports training, or any other noncriminal activity.

If children want to pray, they can pray. Who are adults to stop them, or to force them?

Just do the right thing, Americans, and most of your silly debating points will go away.

posted 11-09-98 09:14 AM ET            

You seem to have an interesting policy for religion in school .. it appear to be a good compromise .. the implementation seems rather complicated though !!! Almost too much so !!!

posted 11-09-98 12:00 PM ET            

School doesn't go on 24 hours a day (well, at least not in the US ) so I don't really understand why anyone would have a problem with there being no religious instruction in school. When I was a kid, we had our religious instruction after church on Sundays. That seems to make perfect sense to me, and it doesn't intrude on anyone else's rights, since only those who were interested in attending would show up. (Granted, it obviously didn't do too much good since I'm an atheist now ).

posted 11-09-98 05:21 PM ET            

It was basically ruled that the school could not allow the Gideons to distribute bibles to the students in the manner that they had been(i.e. during instructional time with the supervision and aid of the teacher and possibly the pricipal) because this gave the impression to the student(5th grade in this case) that the school and the authority figures of that school endorsed the bible.

posted 11-09-98 06:31 PM ET            

If the parents had granted permission for that particular version of the bible to be given to the children, I endorse the school's action. If not I am opposed.

posted 11-09-98 06:57 PM ET            

Brainwashed?? This is what i believing! no one forced me!!!

Have your ever heard of prophecies?

The bible says the world is going to ****
and its right! it says that Russia is gonna invade some place (in the bible)
it says there is gonna be a world dictator!
and there probley is gonna be one!
There is this computer in the states called the "Beast" and it can hold info on everyone in the World! DON"T TAKE THE MARK please don't when that time comes! the mark of the Beast is a an identification mark (probley be a barcode) only people with this mark will be able to do banking (which well be in some form of credits . No more cash) and buy stuff.

There will be a blood armagedon in the east!!! big!!!!!!! BIG!!!! war! blood! lots of blood!!!!

if you don't believe me, think i'm nuts! brainwashed or otherwise think poorly of me
thats or choice!

but u will see it happen! And mabey then you will bielieve!

posted 11-09-98 07:03 PM ET            

Basically on Friday mornings (from memory) there was a one hour religious class.

Now you have to understand that in Australia, with our population of 18 million or so, close to 30% (or was it 50%, I forget - a LOT, anyway) of our population is of ethnic background. So we have a LOT of different religions.

And I think that it is because of this fact that there were no problems. Apart from the "ethnic religions" (bad term, I know, but I can't think of a better one - no offence intended) such as muslim, there was also a lot of diversity in the so called "christian" religions.

We have many Catholics, Protestants, Church of England, etc.

So, because of this great mix of religions, the religions are split up quite evenly, and thus, there aren't really many "loners". Children themselves had the choice of whether or not to attend the class or to go to the liubrary. Or was it the parents? Been a while, I tell you.

Anyway, I basically told my mother that, though I was raised a Catholic, I thought they were the biggest bunch of hypocrites on the earth, and in all consciousness, I couldn't attend the classes. My mother respected that, because she always raised me to question anything, and come to the right answer myself. Free Will in other words.

Anyway, I believe that it is just because of our multiculturalism, and mix of religions that it works so well. We don't have too many minorities, because we're all basically minorities. "Christian" religions do dominate alltogether (50%+), but even with the mix there, there was no real problem.

And of course, then there's the fact that we (normally) mix quite well. Most immigrants fit into our culture well, most of the time. There are isolated cases of problems, such as the recent problems in Bankstown, and we do still struggle with problems of ethnic discrimination.

But the average Aussie is open minded, and usually willing to give others a fair go. Unfortunately, some of our kids are being unduly influenced by the "color gangs" of America, and I really fear that we are headed the way of New York (for example). I have faith in the people though that we can overcome our differences, as long as EVERYONE is willing to try.

And that's what being an Aussie means...

Anyway, rambled on a bit there, but hopefully you get the idea...

(STILL don't think this thread should be here... lol )

posted 11-09-98 07:09 PM ET            

Trev: Don't let age discount you at all. Contrary to the belief of many people in this forum, age has little to do with intelligence (especially after like the age of 10 or so when the brain's ability to learn drops a bit). I think that Rebel would agree that a younger mind could bring some interesting new and fresh ideas to this forum that we would all appreciate. As for Rebel and the others, I am praying for them as well. Careful throwing out comments like "Wacko" and "Where you'll be going." That is unnecesarily offensive. Also, remember that Paul (formerly Saul of Tarsus) was incredibly anti-Christian, yet God changed him and used him, and Paul was one of the greatest evangelists, philosophers, and defenders of the faith that ever existed. I don't know about you, but I see Rebel as being a very powerful tool in God's hands (and Rebel, God IS after you. (-8 ) WWJD Trev Buddy.

Octopus: The statistic is actually 7 times as many suicides as a percentage, but I said 5 because generally statistics are extreme. It is possible that suicide and aborting babies are both side effects of a greated cause, like as you mentioned depression, but I think that it is quite obvious that is not the case. I know women who have had abortions, and who almost had abortions, and they weren't depressed before the abortion, only after. It would seem, (but not prove to any worthwile degree) that abortion causes many negative effects on the mother. Another that I previously did not mentioned, is that birth control pills have harmful effects on many people who take them, and the French abortion pill drastically increases a woman of developing cancers, as do several different drugs used to induce abortion (as in the expulsion of the baby from the womb). Woman were not designed (whether by God, or natural selection) to kill their offspring and thus it is harmful to them. And I'm know it is going to come up, yes, birthing a child can be harmful to the mother but combined, rape cases,incest, and abortions that would harm the mother account for a mere 98% of abortions. The very vast majority of them are 'convenience abortions'. I'm just glad it is so convenient to kill children for the mother. It is impossible to (logically) argue that abortion does not have harmful effects on the mother.

Zoetrope: I like the sound of the religion position in your school. I would also like some more information, but I must specifically ask the question: If the parents or the child do not want to attend a particular religion class (or any of them for that matter) can they just not go? That'd make it a pretty cool system. I would ask that you try to avoid vague generalizations about Americans, but its your choice, feel free to speak your mind in these forums whether you think others will like it or not. (-8 Thanks buddy!

Rebel: Yes, I have been pregnant before. (-8 (That was a joke) Of course not silly! Let me explain something to you. I think that you are old enough to understand it now: There is a special time in your life when you begin to change. Boys' bodies and girls' bodies become more different. This special time in your life is known as adolesence... **Larry continues to explain the 'birds and the bees' to Rebel** (-8 OK, given I have never been pregnant, I would go so far as to say that neither have you. (-8 I don't claim to know what it feels like, I am just saying that I HAVE been a person before and I know in my own experience as a human being, that it would ruin my WHOLE day to have my mother kill me. You know what I mean? Someone (and I don't have enough energy to scroll down and see who) said that we don't konw what the child is thinking so it would be oppressive and immoral to assume that they wanted to live thus we should kill them. WHAT!?!?! Where is the logic there? Since they cannot express their opinions to us, at least give them the opportunity to grow up and THEN tell us whether they want to live or not! Let us not become completely murderous and assume that people want to die. That's just silly!

Rebel (cont.): You don't mind if I call you 'Rebel' do you? I have a fond memory of a girl named Rebel (that was her real name), it's not intended as an offense. (Just checking) Do you consider me to be a brainwashed indoctrinated individual? If you do, let me vouch for myself (I know myself fairly well) I rebelled agains Christianity, and only after a few years without it did I truly look at it and WOW! It was amazing! I asked Christ into my heart and WHAMMO! LIFE RULZ! You may be content where you are, but you're only mortal, and I personally know that before I was a Christian (and I did by the way respect myself, and was a generally happy individual) I never experienced anything like the peace that Jesus gives me. It's kRaZY stuff!

Rebel (Even more (I love this guy)): I have never been pregnant and I don't have any memories of before I was born, no. My first memory is at about 1 year old. I can remember 'helping' my dad make lime juice in the blender (Yeah, lime juice... But he makes great pizza!). So that is when my first memory occured. Gosh, that was an ugly kitchen too. Yukky! I don't see how this affects the argument of abortion though. I can't remember what I had for lunch yesterday. That doesn't mean that my brain didn't work. It just so happens that the early brain learns and remembers things incredibally well. For instance, anyone who wasn't born in an English speaking country will tell you that the English language is incredibally difficult to learn. I talked to a Japanese man once who had been studying English for 17 years, and His language skills were not impressive. I also have a friend named Aleks who is from Russia (actually Moldova) and after 3 years of living in the US, he was still far from speaking the langauge fluently. The fact is, that the human mind at young ages is incredible in every aspect except the memory of experiences. What else do you have to say about this issue? It sounded like you were going somewhere important. Interested to hear.

Rebel (Can't get enough of this guy): I don't know about these people who claim the Bible supports the idea that a baby isn't human in all respects until birth... I think I might have heard of such a people, but I assumed them to be a myth. There are all sorts of people who misuse the Bible, and Christianity in general. For instance, I recently discovered that the KKK will not allow anyone to join unless they are a 'christian'. What a bunch of hooey! There are several passages that support a person being human from birth. I'll name a few: Psalm 51:5 says that David was sinful before he was born 'even since my mother conceived me'. Christian doctrine states the only people are sinful (not plants or animals or rocks or anything like that). Humans are the only ones created in the image of God with free will. Thus, if David was sinful, he must have been human. Also, take a look at Psalm 139 (David also speaks of being in his mother's womb, and how God knew Him (his thoughts, feelings, etc...) even then. How could God know the feelings and thoughts of something that doesn't have feelings and thoughts like 'a mass of tissue'? There are several verses that refer to the unborn baby as a 'him' a 'her' a 'me' or 'I' but never 'it'. The unborn baby is consistently referred to by personal pronouns. Finally, Luke in the first chapter makes it obvious once and for all that the unborn baby is just as human as the born child. Take a look at Matthew 1:41, and especially Matthem 1:44 "As soon as the sound of your freeting reached my ears, the baby in my womb LEAPED FOR JOY." Inamite objects don't have joy. Alright, that should be plenty to confirm the Biblical standpoint.

Finally, and most importantly, God loves you all with an undying love. Death had no hold on Jesus, He came back from the dead with all the love that He had, and He'll always have it for every one of you! YEAH!

posted 11-09-98 09:21 PM ET            

--DJREBEL are you a wacko!!!! (DJREBEL meaning all atheists) i'm sorry but i don't wanna go were you'll be going!!!! i'll pray for you (weather u want me to or not! its my choice)-- Trev

Can you supprt your beliefs? What happens if the Greeks were right? Or the Egyptions? Or the Muslims? Where will you be going? So I think you are "wacko" and arrogant to assume Christanity is correct, when there is no evidence. You may say that it is correct because you have a "feeling", but I have a "feeling" about science, so that's no evidence. OTOH, there is plenty of evidence that the Universe is not diety-related, so I choose to go that way.

--Finally, and most importantly, God loves you all with an undying love. Death had no old on Jesus, He came back from the dead with all the love that He had, and He'll always have it for every one of you! YEAH!-- Larry Boy

Please! Stop the preaching! You are, in effect, saying God exists, and we are all wrong. How do you feel if I subtile stated that He doesn't exist, like this:

Finally, and most importantly, you are hydrogen from the Big Bang, given 15 billion years to evolve. You were nothing greater, but you are the Universe Incarnate! True, there is no diety in charge of everything, tinkering with lives and stuff, but you are the Universe! You can think because of a remarkable process called evolution. The ability to think is an evolutionary advantage, nothing more. But what an advantage! That, by pure chance and accident, we can contemplate our existance, our origin! But, be saddened: there is nothing after death. Our neurons stop functioning, and we cease to exist. So make your life a great one! The best you can! But do not be mislead, for you will end up working for nothing. But be the best you can, and you will die happy, in the knowledge that your short existance in this chaotic universe will have an impact. For that is the goal of life: to positivly influence the future, so you will not be forgotten. So you may be, in a way, eternal.

Wow. I never thought I could give a "speech" like that!

posted 11-10-98 05:56 AM ET            

I was looking for some info on the game AlphaCentauri (duh) when I came across these messages. Interesting discussion... I actually read all of those posts
Here is my humble opinion on the subject:

I was raised a Christian by my parents since a young age. Because of this I am often categorized by atheists as "one who has been indoctrinated," can't think for himself because his parents brainwashed him. During the entire course of my education (in public or non-religious private schools) I was constantly �reminded�, almost everyday, that Christianity was false and that God did not exist, but was some manmade creation in order to protect himself from his fear of death. I was taught that theories such as Evolution and the Big Bang had �an incredible amount of evidence to support them,� and that not believing in them would be foolish. I have been violated my right to my opinion countless times. The teachers and schoolmates I had surely did not mean wrong in doing so, and most certainly did not realize that they were causing harm. Religious people are often accused of being close-minded. But I found that growing up the opposite was much more true.
In our day it�s become wrong to be religious. The world around us revolves so much around technology that science has become a sort of �new religion,� everyone preaching its benefits. It�s become wrong to question scientific logic, because the principles science teaches are thought by many as being irrefutable, and because technology is the prime meliorator of our living conditions. However, the accusations that are made against religion can also be applied to science. There is no more certainty behind much of what science teaches than behind what religion teaches. Everyone once believed that the earth was flat, it was admitted as a scientific truth, it was taught in schools. There were so many who believed that way that Galilee was cast into prison because of lack of evidence. In a couple hundred years other men will disprove what we today�s scientific achievements. To me, science is no more rational or logical than any other belief.
People ask me if I have doubted my faith. Of course, I have sometimes questioned my beliefs. �What if I am wrong, what if there is no God, no right and no wrong?� Here�s the conclusion I reached: In that case, when I die, I may have lived my life in denial and ignorance, going to church and believing in God, trying to stand for good when it did not exist. But think about this � I will have lived a happy life.

Now, about teaching religion in schools. My personal belief is that religion of any kind should not be taught in schools, mainly for the many reasons stated previously. Encouraging children in public schools to pray to a certain god is inadmissible. In the same way, discouraging them from believing a certain way is equally unacceptable.
Because religion should not be taught in schools does not mean that good morals should not be taught either. This crucial part of a child�s education seems to be increasingly neglected. Now there are many who ask, "who's morals are we talking about here? Everyone has different morals, you can't go on imposing thoughts on other people!" I believe that this kind of attitude is harmful and unproductive. True, everyone lives by a different set of standards. Nonetheless, there are some principles that need to be taught in schools, such as honesty, respect, and integrity, to name just a few. These are qualities that are at the basis of successful relationships, and should be part of a child�s education.

And then, about abortion. Larry, I�m sorry but I�ve encountered many times people like you who had radical opinions on the matter. You state that the �God's grace and peace is more than enough to heal the mother,� and on this point I agree with you. But you seem to forget that most people do not rely upon God to strengthen them in times of need. It would be plain wrong, a crime indeed, to take away a woman�s right to have an abortion in such a case, because of a principle she does not embrace.
In a certain way I am �pro-life:� I believe that abortion is much overused � it seems nowadays even to the degree of a birth control. Oftentimes women will also fail to foresee the psychological consequences an abortion will carry. But I am mostly �pro-choice,� because a) yes, there are some cases such as rape, incest, or cases when the mother�s life is in danger, in which abortions should be recommended. And b) if you take away a woman�s right to have an abortion, believe me, many will attempt to do it themselves. No need to mention this would be extremely dangerous to the life of the mother.
Another aspect of this issue most people forget to state is that of counseling. Serious counseling should be offered after the operation is performed, but also before the decision is taken. There would be less abortions performed if women knew more in detail the emotional consequences of going through that process. Making abortion illegal is definitely the wrong way to go.

With deep regards,

posted 11-10-98 11:58 AM ET            

Can't believe I came in here but...

I am a strong believer in a persons right to have an opinion as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. I don't mind if people are religious or not but if someone tries to convert me I will go ballistic. It is the one thing that really gets me irrationally angry.

posted 11-10-98 12:01 PM ET            

As for Aussies not being racists ???

From what I've heard, Aussies (in general .. not you) .. are 3rd right behind Germany and S.A. ... you ever hear of Pauline (ummm .. what's her last name ???) Jones (I think)

I've heard many stories of Australia's anti-Asian supporters !!!

posted 11-10-98 01:00 PM ET            

On the other hand, I have yet to see any tangeble shred of evidence that there is a god !!!

In fact, countless things in the bible are such nonsence crap, that I can't understand how any rational human being could believe it !!! Granted there might be some true stories in there, but even then, how can you prove even the stories to be fully acurate ???

The fact remains that god is a religious opinion and nothing more !!!

I understand what you were trying to say in your first paragraph, but you're twisting things way too far, equality of all humans is in most constitutions ... including the US's ... it's a given .. and children should at least be tought that, because if they do end up discriminating against someone in a sexist or racist way, they will be punished by the state .. and children should be tought about anything that they might eventually be liable for .. otherwise they could just plee ignorance !!! (Do you see what I mean now ???)

Larry .. I agree with you 100% with what you said about 10 years olds .. lol .. just don't let BG hear that !!!

You're right about Trev .. I value his input (I think I said that before) .. but he does need to tone it down a slight notch !!!

I miss not being 10 again !!!

Suicide is irrelevant in this issue, whereas it is a horrible thing for anyone to die, again it comes down to choice ... I would personally think those same women would also probably commit suicide anyways because of the whole situation !!!

And what about those who commit suicide because they can't have an abortion ??? You never talked about those ... or what about those so depressed that that can't properly support their newborn that they then commit suicide after giving birth .. then the child has no mother (and most likely no father) .. and you've just needlessly condemed a child to a youth of misery !!!

A mere 98% ??? I think you meant 2% !!! Anyways, what if it was only 1% ... or one person .. by making it law, you're not being fair to that 1% either !!!

I never said we should assume they want to die .. I just ment that we didn't know if they wanted to live in misery and pain !!! Either way we don't know, so don't go saying the baby can't speak for itself (in saying that, I think you're assuming the baby automatically wants to live) .. at this stage of development, the only think we know is that the fetus wan't food and nurishment .. the same as an animal or a plant !!! Anyways .. to reiterate my point, we can't know what the baby wants, so we can't consider it !!! It's not impossible for people to not want to live .. there are countless suicides for all kinds of reasons every day !!! It's a shame that our world isn't good enough for everybody, but it's a sad fact ... so please don't just assume that the baby would automatically want to live ... especially if it is hadicaped severely in some form or another !!!

Not at all LArry .. in fact you're one of the few religious people I respect more than most of the people I know !!! Although I don't know for a fact if you fall into the brainwashed catagory, judging by the way you defend your topic, you've obviouly given the topic alot of thought, so believe it or not, I'm actually happy for you that you've found happiness !!! I'm just saddened that I can't be happy with you ... I just can't possibly believe something so intangeble and made-up !!! If I could, it would make life alot easier, but that would just be the cheap way out !!!

What I was trying to say about your earliest memory was that you can't remember before that if you wanted to live or not ... (you obviously did want to live because you aren't hadicaped in any way ... and are not in constant pain because of some desease that will kill you by the age of 5 !!!)
So I guess it was the same point as before, don't assume the fetus wants to live !!! In fact, it possibly can't even grasp the concept of life at that stage !!!

I DO NOT WANT TO KNOW WHAT YOU WERE DOING WITH THE KKK !!!

Oh .. and please tell me how we know for a fact that God knew David at all ???
An how could someone be considered sinful if he/she doesn't under understand the concequenses ???

OK .. I'll give you all the points for the bible references, unfortunately those points are worthless because unless you can prove everything you just said was in the bible is true, your argument is meaningless !!!

posted 11-10-98 01:07 PM ET            

Although, I really don't mind him saying God loves us .. (Except after the hundredth time ) .. it's just his way of showing he cares for us regardless of what we think !!! He says God, but in reality he is really refering to him !!!

I'd even tell him ... God bless you Larry if I knew he thought I ment it, but he obviously wouldn't, so what's the point !!!

posted 11-10-98 01:27 PM ET            

"I lived my life to the fullest and happily because I thought I had to .. not because I wanted to"

I want to live my life to the fullest and am currently happy of my own free will, you think you have to an so do it by default (I'm not saying you wouldn't want to anyways)

Please don't refer to scientists of the past .. besides they we're mostly religious and suppressed technology !!! That's another argument for another day !!!

Truth be told, if not for technology, you wouldn't have been able to build churches .. print the bible or talk about it on the internet .. you would have an expected life span of 18 to 23 years before you die of something funky !!! Yuo wouldn't have anything electronic, including TV or lights .. you wouldn't be able to communicate with anyone !!!

You wouldn't be able to go anywhere important because you wouldn't have any cars trains or planes !!! You would most likely be working in the fields all day or hunting all day !!! You wouldn't have a warm bed !!!

I could go on forever .. the fact remains .. sciences is based on things that we can mostly prove and God is nothing tangeble .. no-one has ever even tried to prove god exists ... that to me is rather sad !!!

Someone please proove to me that God exists ... I think that would be the easiest way to end the debate!!!

Your other points are well taken though !!!

posted 11-10-98 01:35 PM ET            

OK take care !!!

posted 11-10-98 02:05 PM ET            

MouthShaft: Religion and Science are not unalike in every way. In fact, they're becoming more entwined. I'm a scientist, and I beleive in evolution, Big Bang, etc... However, I'm also a Catholic, and beleive in God. I beleive that evolution, the Big Bang, and all other scientific principles are the tools that God used to create the universe. However, you cannot use science to prove God. Just like you cannot look at a hammer and nails and prove that a carpenter exists. As far as corruption in the Medeival church, everyone agrees that it existed, and there's probably some around today. Whenever you're dealing with people, you're going to have some of that.

DJRebel: As for considering an unborn child a plant/or animal, I disagree with you. We're currently keeping premies alive that are born before some fetuses are aborted. But, since we can't tell what the premies want (They obviously can't speak), can we knock them off if the mother feels like it? Why does having a placenta make a difference?

As for proof of God's existence. I put this task to you. Read the following web page, and disprove the 'Miracle of the Sun' to me:

http://www.fatimatoday.com/fatsun.html

posted 11-10-98 02:30 PM ET            

now+here=nowhere.

Spacetime will collapse! Run (no idea where)!

posted 11-10-98 05:27 PM ET            

Thanks for your interest in my opinions suggested by the replies and comments posted afterwards.

Tolls: I was never implying that science equals religion. However, I tried to have you look at science under a different perspective than what you were taught in school. You are right when you say that �If someone comes up with a theory that is better than a previous one then that theory will become the standard,� (that�s what the Galileo example was all about, proving that science is suggestive) but also forget that many religions are evolutionary.

DeStrider: many thanks for your comments. You have provided some powerful insights. I enjoyed your comments about science. I too believe that the big-bang and evolution might have been tools used by God to create man and the environment he lives in. I also agree with you that women considering abortions should consider the idea of giving the child to some other family who does not have the opportunity to have children. Today there is a real demand for children by parents who are unable to have some. Some families pay up to hundreds of thousands of dollars in order to adopt a child.

MouthShaft: I wish you had thought about what I have posted previously before posting your reply. Your stating that �Science is based purely on fact� Always are right, and will always be right.� is radical. The �facts� that science teaches are results of experimental analysis, and therefore depend on the technology and the means available at the time of the experiment. They are suggestive, not objective. The example I stated about Galileo is a clear illustration of that. If they had access to satellites back at the time, then they would not have believed that the earth was flat. It was then admitted as a fact that the earth was flat. Today we have disproved that, just as tomorrow we might disprove another �fact� at the very basis scientific principles. Besides, today most scientists disagree on many scientific doctrines, even the most basic ones. There is also so much science cannot even aspire to explain -- I do not say this lightly, but as a scientist. Most principles science teaches are not as clearly acceptable as you think.

DJ RRebel: I could not understand your first point. Are you stating there are some who reason as follows: �By exercising my free will, I decide to live a miserable life.� ?? Who would think in such a way? That would not be a reasonable statement. Of course I believe that I should want to live a happy life �by default.� If I am given the option, I�m not going to choose otherwise.
Besides that, I don�t believe my comments hinted that I was against science or technology itself. I�m a scientist myself, and as a PC addict don�t need to be preached the wonders of technology. As for proving that God exists, no one needs to. You cannot have other people to do it for you, as you have to search yourself. Whatever you acquire out of the experiment it will be a positive one, because you will have searched for yourself instead of ingurgitating what others teach you.

Thanks again.

posted 11-10-98 09:00 PM ET            

People of course are entitled to their own opinion. The fact that you are a scientist and are a Catholic doesn't prove there is a god. (I'm not saying you said that it did though). However, the idea of a supreme being is just that, an idea, so if he really is supreme, then even with all our technology now and ever to come, we'd still not be able to prove his existence. What I'm saying is that if there was a god, we'd never be able to detect him. I take the stand point of, "If there is no evidence to support it whatsoever, why waste my time in assuming it is there." One day I might believe in god, if god himself talked to me and did something to prove that he was god. I don't know what that is but if he's god, he'll know.

posted 11-10-98 11:19 PM ET            

About Science vs. Religion: Saying that we've shown that past theories is incorrect, so we should not put more faith in science than religion is a bit misleading. The changes in science in the past several hundered years have been incremental, not revolutionary. It's not necessarily correct to say that relativity makes Newton's laws invalid. Newton's laws are fantastically good approximations in non-relativistic and non-quantum situations. If you are building a bridge or something, Newton is still pretty much king of the hill. This makes "science" feel much more like an approximation that is getting closer and closer to reality with each passing minute.

Science is a process, not a system of beliefs. There are currently a number of theories held by scientists, so that is somewhat analagous to a religion. The major difference between them is that scientists can demonstrate to us every day useful results from their theories (microwave ovens, PCs, the Internet) while religion is still just an "article of faith".

Point of Information, please: Can anyone tell me if and when "the Earth is flat" was a widely held belief? I seem to remember (possibly erroneously) that some ancient Greek used geometry and the angles of shadows at noon to get an approximate measure of the circumference of the Earth, which is kind of hard to do if you belive the Earth is not a sphere. Is "everybody used to believe the flat-earth theory" just another popular misconception, or is there real evidence?

posted 11-10-98 11:33 PM ET            

I'm a bit curious about your position. If God really did set things up at the Big Bang so that everything would work out just right, doesn't that trample on your idea of free will a little bit? Also, if God set everything up at the time of the Big Bang, isn't he taking a pretty hands-off approach to administering the Universe? In that case, does it do any good to pray to God to ask him to change things? It would seem like he had already decided how things would go at t=0, so no amount of lobbying is going to make a difference.

posted 11-11-98 06:13 AM ET            

The ancient greek should be Erathosthenes, IIRC. He measured the circumference by using the distance between Alexandria and Syene (Assuan) and the angles in one place when the sun hit earth at 90� in the other. His result was very close.

In ancient times, the shape of earth was disputed. In the 6th century, the idea of earth as a "ball" was given up, but not completely. For example, Virgil, archbishop of salzburg in the 8th century, favored this idea. Needless to say, he directly ran into trouble: a jealous "colleague" complained to the pope about those heretic ideas.

The idea resurfaced in the 14th/15th century. Columbus had to believe this for his journey to find india by going west; but it is a myth that portugal refused to support him beacuse they thought the earth was flat; they just had a more exact idea of the proportions and saw that the western way to india was muchtoo long. Columbus believed in a map that put earth circumference at about 25.000 to 30.000 km instead of the actual 40.000.

For Copernicus and Galilei, the problem was whether earth or the sun are in the center of the planetary system (and thereby the universe).

posted 11-11-98 04:56 PM ET            

MouthShaft: Aren�t �advanced mathematics and physics... the components used to prove scientific principles� based on previous scientist�s work? If you build upon a foundation, what you end up with will surely verify and validate that foundation.

Octopus: You make some good points. First of all, I believe that being religious is a process, too. As one strives to continually better his or her self, one grows continually� It�s a bit extreme to say that Religion is just an �article of faith� and does not yield anything useful. I believe that most religions teach good principles and morals, and that the people who follow them will live a better life, while have more meaningful and honest relationships with others. It�s not just about living a good �afterlife,� it�s also about bettering your life and other�s right now. If that�s not useful, what is?
Secondly, and more specifically (please pardon me if you are of another faith), there is much historical evidence for Christianity. We have records that testify of that a Christ came to Earth. It�s incorrect to say that religion is just an ideal, and that it does not lie on anything tangible. However I agree with your definition of faith, as the things that are believed but not seen.
The way I see it, science is just man�s way to try and explain God�s ways. I don�t believe that God set up the Big Bang as we know it, but set up the Universe in a way that is unknown to us at this day. The Big Bang theory is just as close as we�ve gotten to understand a part of how the mechanisms he used to do this.

Tolls: I agree with you on the fact that religion is more dogmatic � and it has to be for obvious reasons � but I don�t see how your argument challenges what I was saying.

May you all have a great day.

posted 11-11-98 09:06 PM ET            

It seems to be the opposite: It saddens ME that people can't see past the old traditions and beliefs which people used to explain what they didn't know. That need is no langer persent. Sure, there are many unknowns, but instead of saying we "weren't meant to know" we should throw ourselves at a problem which intrests us. For example, I have a great curiosity of diseases. Religion taught that diseases were divine punishment, but science disproved that, showing that diseases are problems not caused by "divine intervention" but by explainable problems. That was what caused the Dark Ages: churches telling people that we weren't meant to know. Now we find that we can know almost everything as long as we try. That was what the church tried to do: keep people from debunking their doctorines as false. But, somehow, those church beliefs continue, and continue to stunt the findings of science.

--I hope that eventually you will be able to look upon this miracle of creation and believe in the Creator.-- DHE_X2

posted 11-12-98 12:37 AM ET            

Everyone: I say "God loves you!" To everyone. He does love you all. If there is anything in the back of your mind/heart that says there may be a higher being, it is my hope that my excessively used quote could encourage you. If you have ABSOLUTELy no belief is a being greater than yourself (rather arrogant, but believe what you will) then please accept my statement as merely "I love you." 'Cause as Rebby-boy said, I do love you, though my love is only finite. Nevertheless, if there is anything that I can ever do for any of you guys/gals you can count on me. Kay?

Rebellious DJ: First off, I don't think that anyone in this forum is against you. Some have opposing view points. If anyone is really anti-you, I'll beat 'em up kay? I am afraid that I cannot prove to you that God exists scientifically, nor can I do so evidentially. Similarily, I cannot prove to you that science is true with a spiritual argument (The converses of both are also true (you can't disprove either with the other)). The two are on completely different planes. If you experienced the spiritual, there would be plenty of proof for God. Obviously, you have experienced the physical, therefore you have plenty of proof of science. I have experienced both and believe in both.

DEE-JAY and others: There is actually a great deal of evidence that shows God's existence. Are you looking for it or igonring it? Many people call Christianity a crutch for the weak. It is not. Living a life of sacrifice for others is hardly something that the weak do. Taking up your cross and following Jesus is not an easy task. It has certainly made my life more difficult, but infinitely better (This statement is in reference to my own life. Please don't think that I am telling you that my life is any better than yours, I wouldn't say that! I just mean that it has improved me significantly.) My point with that little spiel is that perhaps atheism/agnosticism is a crutch. If there is no God, and no absolute truth, it sure makes living life a lot easier eh? Just a thought. What do you think?

Rebel: How can a study show a moral to be wrong? What about making something illegal makes it immoral? (Two separate questions) Take for instance a law in Las Vegas: It is illegal to pawn your dentures. Does this make it immoral? Of course not! That's just silly! Then what is immoral? Is morality universal? Is there such a thing as universal morality? Don't people have different beliefs? Isn't it wrong to create laws that go against people's beliefs? Isn't it wrong to say that Hitler was wrong and immoral in his persecution? OF COURSE NOT!!! That is ludicrous! Isn't it wrong to say that a murderer kill no more??? OF COURSE NOT!!! Isn't it wrong to say to the cocaine addict that it doing drugs is wrong? OF COURSE NOT! How about the liar? There are no laws against lying (unless under oath) but don't we agree that lying is wrong? How about adultery? Don't we believe that is wrong? There are no laws against it. Obviously, there is some morality that goes beyond law. JCB is right. Morals should be taught in schools. Even if someone believes that lying is OK, and that it is OK to be rascist, these things must be spoken out against. It's indoctrinination, but GOOD indoctrination. Rebel, how can you say that certain things are right, and other things are wrong unless there is something that goes beyond physical laws? OK, that was a lot of questions, but I don't expect you to answer them except to yourself. The only questions that I would especially like to know your opinion on are these: Can we all agree that there is good and there is evil? If not, is it ok for me to slaughter everyone who has blond hair because they are inferior? (I'm blond by the way) If so, what defines good and evil, and what gives any human being the right to judge what practices are good and what practices are evil over anyone elses values? Thanks Reb!

JB (and Reb, or anyone else): Passionate speech. How do I feel about it? I feel sorry for you. (You asked! (-8 ) Rebel and you hold similar opinions on life. But how can your 'good' (which is a relative term without a defined morality or religion) actions be remembered when we nuke ourselves to death, or when the universe colapses, or when somehow, sometime, eventually, the universe as we know it carries no evidence of your existance? You're dead. No matter how many good things you do in this universe, in the end, it means nothing unless there is something greater than the universe. No matter how many bad things you do, the memory of them will eventually be destroyed. The universe forgivse Hitler in some 400 billion years when there is no trace of his ever existing. Seems a bit unjust, eventually everything amounts to nothing. Good dies, evil dies, everything dies. You find meaning in 'one life to live. live it to its fullest' but do you think that the Kazorkians who evolve 900 trillion years from now give a poop? They don't even know that you ever existed (in my scenario). That's all for that.

Tolls: If a Christian uses the name "God" in caps, it means that they mean Yahweh, I AM, Jehova, THE God. Buddhists don't necesarily believe in a god by the way.

Rebel: I am not against technology, but I have never met anyone who has become more happy, or led a more fulfilling life because of it. I know people who have lived longer, and people who have spared themselves pain, but never anyone who can say that they lived a more fulfilling life because of it. In fact, my experience has been quite the opposite. For the past 4 years I have gone on a missionary trip to Reynosa and Monterrey Mexico. My experience is that people there are generally much more happy with what they have, and much more likely to share it. They are loving, and accepting, and thankful, and not materialistic. They recognize (These are generalizations mind you) that things cannot bring happiness, even things that extend life. I agree.

Alright, I started this about 2 hours ago and have gotten pre-occupied with about 1000 other things, so I'll submit it and see what everyone else wrote. God loves you, and so do I!!!

posted 11-12-98 06:41 AM ET            

JCB: The point I was making is that religion is by nature unchanging...or at least incredibly slow...and that science is really quite flexible, it acknowledges that our current theories may not be accurate. That's why they're different.