WeAreAllHypocrites

I saw a response from a christian claiming sin was a genetically inheritable trait and that we are born with it. Being that babies are technically sinners, you would think someone would isolate this gene and stamp it out! I'm just curious if this has occurred or at least proposed. 10 points to the first person that shows even a reasonable attempt was made regardless of their personal faith or feelings on the subject.

I know my question contains an opinion, but I seriously wonder. Every time i turn around people seem to be collectively "outraged" over something. You would think that all these psychic people who somehow "know" exactly what happened would use their skills to clean up at Vegas. Seriously though, are events like this an indicator that hate seems to be a greater uniter in thic country than positive things?

Every time I turn around am getting a message from Yahoo telling me an answer was removed for some mysterious violation. Some are obviously just some person who has decided to just hit the abuse buttons for personal reasons. Does Yahoo just assume guilty until proven innocent and let these people abuse the system?

1. Have you personally ever adopted a child? Please do not tell me about what your friends or relatives have done but only answer yes if YOU have adopted.

2. If you answered yes, was the baby a minority or unhealthy child born in the US?

3. Based on the high number of unwanted minority and disabled kids unable to get adopted, do you have an answer as to what to do with all the additional unwanted children banning abortion would create in addition to the tons sitting around?

Please don't (although i know you will anyway) give me the standard "don't have sex" lines because the church has been trying that for 2000 years without success and does not give an answer as to what to do with the babies once they are here. Prior to abortion being legal it did not work and still doesn't always work in even the most religious and conservative homes (ask Sarah Palin). I would appreciate someone with a viable or at least theoretical solution and not religious rhetoric or racist comments.

The question about Kirk "let's watch creepy men jerk bananas" Cameron brought up the absurd claim that he was a "devout atheist" (I'm sure as a teenager shooting a weekly series he was just so busy "preaching the gospel of atheism"...yeah right) from one of the responders.

Will one of the people who use this term please explain the glaring contradiction in meaning:

Devout means (according to Meriam-Webster)

1: devoted to religion or to religious duties or exercises

2: expressing devotion or piety <a devout attitude>

3 a: devoted to a pursuit, belief, or mode of behavior

Atheism is a lack of belief in God. What abstract twist logic could possibly create such an oxymoron as a "devout" lack of belief?

I know there are people who are more adamant about it than others (and yes they can be just as annoying), but it still seem like a paradox.

I'm open to a logical answer.

My question is based on the creepy comments I got when my answer was chosen as "best" regarding Pallin: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/?qid=20080922171...

The whole topic of the bible never being wrong is one we will just agree to disagree on in this question. My question is do you truly believe that US leaders should make all decisions based on the Bible or 'speaking to God'?

Do you really think that someone say using the holy spirit as an expletive is worse than a guy brutally raping an infant? I know that is an extreme example and i am not trying to be smart. it just has always blown my mind that of all the vile things on this planet to be seen as unforgivable the only one would involve something as petty as pride. Do any of you actually understand the logic behind that and if so could you explain without giving me a bunch of scriptures that simply repeat that blasphemy is bad? It just blows my mind that Hitler can theoretically go to heaven but if a 5 year old decides to blaspheme the holy spirit he can never be forgiven no matter what he does the rest of his life.

I have seen a number of answers here that refer to Satan's "powers" and i have to wonder :

1) Exactly how powerful do Christians think Satan is ?

2) Since he was an angel, wouldn't he have no more than whatever his abilities as an angel were prior to getting the boot?

3) Semantics aside, wouldn't attributing powers to him that can be carried out independent of God technically make him an "evil god" and thus make Christianity polytheistic?

You would think the experts on Judaism would be Jewish people, particularly Jewish clergy or Jewish theology scholars. Yet, Christians rely on other Christians when it comes to interpretation of Jewish scripture and practices. I think more Christians would at least wonder about the origins of what they believe if they actually knew a little about the religion theirs is loosely based on.

When I look at the powers attributed to Angels in Judaism, Islam and Christianity, it brings to mind similar powers attributed to minor Gods in various polytheistic religions. In fact, many of the minor Greek Gods seem to have lesser powers than Angels. There is nothing to indicate that a being like Pan could destroy a whole army over night like the Angel that destroyed Sennacherib's army did. It seems to me that in any other religion, "Angels" would be classified as Gods or at the very least demigods. Can someone give me a good reason as to why that would not be so?