Blackacre

Today, New York Giants football player David Tyree said he would trade the catch he made in 2007 that helped the Giants beat the Patriots in the Super Bowl to prevent gays from being able to marry. This because he believes God let him make the catch in order, four years later, to have a platform to use to oppose gay marriage.

Is he for real? Does this represent the position of Christians in America?

Spiritually speaking, why do some people think they can turn a simple bit of uninformed opinion into a fact simply by writing FACT after it QUERY Has the "caps lock" key on the keyboard a validating function of which I am unaware QUERY

Earlier a question was posted asking atheists for their evidence that no God exists. When people answered that it was up to one alleging the existence of a God to provide evidence, the questioner stated that that was a cop-out, the religious story itself is evidence of the God, and atheists must provide some evidence that no God exists.

As the questioner is so insistent that a story about a God constitutes evidence of that God, and that someone who doesn't believe in that God must have evidence that the God doesn't exist, I'm curious what evidence Christians have that Allah doesn't exist. Or Zeus. Or Odin.

This is directed towards Christians as the questioner revealed his beliefs in his additional details and as the Bible is so often promoted as evidence by Christians who insist atheists provide evidence that there is no God. Others, however, are more than free to answer.

I look forward to being given specific evidence that Allah, Zeus, and Odin do not exist. After that, we can work on all other Gods this type of person does not believe in.

And of course, logically speaking, the presumption is that failure to provide such evidence by one who alleges atheists must provide evidence God doesn't exist becomes conclusive proof that the person's monotheistic belief system is inherently untenable.

According to most of you who appear as Christians on this board, the Bible is the word of God and God is your supreme being/ creator. Most of you claim the Bible as evidence of God's existence, and quote whenever necessary to support your beliefs. You claim the Bible is true, and that one must read the Bible to learn, and to be able to act within the boundaries of, God's plans for humanity. Most importantly, many of you claim violation of God’s specific instructions will land one in eternal torment.

The Bible, however, was written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.

How can you claim to be properly reading the Bible unless you have studied Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek? Not to be facetious, but if I believed that a supreme being had written me an instruction manual explaining life and telling me exactly what to do to avoid eternal disaster, I would want to read the original and not someone else's agenda driven translation. People have been burned at the stake for interpreting the Bible one way instead of another, so obviously people take the message fairly seriously. Why, then, are universities not clogged with Christians studying these languages?

In short, how can you call yourself a Christian when you haven't actually learned the languages in which your sacred texts were written? How can you be a Christian when you haven’t made the effort to learn the language you believe your creator used when speaking to the human race? How can you be sure your sect is the one actually interpreting the Bible correctly?

According to the Bible, Abraham was commanded by God to sacrifice Abraham's son. He set out, had his son assist in building an alter, tied his son to the alter, and put a knife to his throat before God told him it was a test.

This past Sunday, a Florida woman killed her son and then herself because she "had to save (her) son... God made me a queen and I failed. I'm a fallen angel. He turned me into the anti-Christ."

One of the two of these is considered good, and the other insane.

Why?

How is one less insane than the other?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090408/ap_on_re_us/gu...

narrow mindedness?

I was just blocked by a user for expressing the view that money is more useful to a waitress than any "God". Why would one ask a question concerning finances and "God" if one didn't want answers other than the one that the asker specifically already had in mind? And is this just an isolated incident, or will future questions reveal a correlation between people who dislike tipping and people who block other users? Or is the correlation between religious folk and a propensity for blocking when they don't like the answer?

Just wondering.

And as an aside: wouldn't a true Christian rather give the money to a waitress who has none than a church which has plenty? Seems more Christian, ya know...

And insure that our candidates are witch-free before electing them to higher office? Perhaps we should not hold elections so close to Halloween...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080925/ap_on_el_ge/pa...

Why is Palin refusing to let reporters in to her meeting with foreign leaders? Is she really afraid she will perform all that badly?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080923/ap_on_el_pr/pa...

My 6 year old daughter told me yesterday that there is a small group of children in the 1st grade at her elementary school who refuse to play with anyone who doesn't say they believe in the Christian God and Jesus, and who are always telling the other students that they are factual and the others have to believe in them, no matter what their parents say. I know this is not normal instruction by most Christian parents, but I'm curious how many of you approve?

Personally, I'm horrified. And before anyone comments, it is a public school, and I would be just as horrified if the children were talking about Allah, Buddha, Zeus, Atheism, or Agnosticism.

She clearly changed her position on the issue. How is that not a "flip-flop"? There are people on here now claiming Palin never supported the bridge.

Q: Would you continue state funding for the proposed Knik Arm and Gravina Island bridges? [Note: The Gravina Island bridge later became known as the "Bridge to Nowhere"]

A: Yes. I would like to see Alaska's infrastructure projects built sooner rather than later. The window is now--while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist.

Source: Anchorage Daily News: 2006 gubernatorial candidate profile OCT 22, 2006

[On earmark reform], here in Alaska, our administration canceled that "bridge to nowhere." We know that that earmark wasn't in the nation's best interest. So we're going to be a part of that reform also. It's absolutely necessary or the Republican agenda which I do believe is the right agenda for Alaska and for [America].

Source: CNBC "Kudlow & Company" Interview JUL 31, 2008

Although she would later criticize Congressional earmarks like Alaska's infamous "Bridge to Nowhere," proposed for the town of Ketchikan at a cost of about $400 million, as mayor she began the practice of making annual trips to Washington to press for them on behalf of their town.

Source: New York Times, pp. A1 & A10, "An Outsider Who Charms" AUG 29, 2008

I just got blocked by a second ultra-Neo-Con because he didn't like hearing views other than his own. Interestingly, he claims Liberals are intolerant of the opinions of others...

Why do ultra-Neo-Cons block people who hold views other than their own? Are they really that afraid of trying to defend their positions? Are they really that unable to formulate an argument?

Pretty sad.

I should point out that most Neo-Cons debate happily: it is funny, however, how some teenage ones, or ones with fairly recent accounts, feel so inadequate in their views that they cannot actually bear to be questioned.

Just curious. I was recently blocked by a user for nothing more than having different political views. In light of this, has anyone else found that Neo-Cons use blocking when they can't raise a good point in their own defense? Does it go across the board, or is it only people that far on the right who can't defend their views? And why do they post questions that they obviously don't want answered? Seems kind of sad, really.

Please read the article before answering the question.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080716/ap_on_re_us/tr...

The article specifies that the defendant was "almost aborted by his mother." Spiritually speaking, would the world not be a better place had she gone forward with the abortion?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080624/ap_on_fe_st/go...

It was pointed out in a previous question that no one who could amass 2 billion dollars could be "saved". What, then, is the net worth one may have while being "saved"? And is it adjusted for inflation?

Or is one only unable to be saved if one has more money than the person petulantly chanting "you're not saved"?

secessions from the Union, then what has? Back before Evolution was taught in public schools, we had a horribly violent Civil War. How on Earth can you otherwise account for the drop in violent civil wars we have had since Evolution began to be taught?

Direct quote from a Creationism website:

"There’s actually overwhelming evidence that dinosaurs have always lived with humans. We simply called them dragons. Man killed most of them, and there may be a few still alive today. The editors of Scientific American need to watch our video number three (Dinosaurs and the Bible) for more about this topic."

http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=72

My question: how many Creationists hold this belief, and how many Creationists would disclaim any connection to this belief?

And how many Creationists think that this guy is actually hurting their cause?

This is an update and clarification, and not really a question. The previous question regarding the court decision in the Atheist adoption case from 1970 neglected to point out that the case was overturned in 1971 with the NJ Supreme Court finding specifically that you can NOT deny adoption solely on the basis of belief or non-belief in any religion or supreme being. This really isn't an issue these days...

... see the comparison I was trying to draw with the "Protestantism" question back there to the typical Creationist "argument" regarding Evolution? (i.e.: if we came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys...)

Sheesh: sarcasm is dead.

Why is there still Catholicism? Or is it that they have a common ancestor in Judaism?