PDA

View Full Version : New Jersey Governor RESIGNS...and says that he is GAY.



Section126
08-12-2004, 07:30 PM
This guy was always considered a star in the Democratic Party...he was mentioned as a possible 2008 candidate for President as well as a Senate candidate in 2002....

Here is a snippet of the story: I know the rules..... :D

NEW YORK -- In a stunning declaration, Gov. James E. McGreevey announced his resignation Thursday and acknowledged that he had an extramarital affair with another man. "My truth is that I am a gay American," he said.

"Shamefully, I engaged in adult consensual affairs with another man, which violates my bonds of matrimony," the married father of two said at a news conference. "It was wrong, it was foolish, it was inexcusable."

The Democrat said his resignation would be effective Nov. 15. ............

PhinPhan1227
08-13-2004, 12:39 AM
I'm strongly in favor of gay rights...but this pisses me off. The guy lies to his wife, and has kids. I have no problem with gay marriage, and I don't even have a problem with homosexuals adopting kids. I have a HUGE problem with someone screwing up SEVERAL lives just because they refuse to face who they are. One note...I don't excuse the individual, but those Right Wing bigots who think they can push gays back in the closet have to share some blame here. Maybe if those people pulled the sticks out of their a$$es this guy would have come out BEFORE he got married to a woman and had kids.

Karl_12
08-13-2004, 01:14 AM
Well I don't agree with adultery, but I respect his courage and hope he will be happy with his decision. I feel bad for his wife and kids, what a bomb to drop on them.

P4E
08-13-2004, 01:39 AM
I'm strongly in favor of gay rights...but this pisses me off. The guy lies to his wife, and has kids. I have no problem with gay marriage, and I don't even have a problem with homosexuals adopting kids. I have a HUGE problem with someone screwing up SEVERAL lives just because they refuse to face who they are. One note...I don't excuse the individual, but those Right Wing bigots who think they can push gays back in the closet have to share some blame here. Maybe if those people pulled the sticks out of their a$$es this guy would have come out BEFORE he got married to a woman and had kids.
I know the guy a bit, PhinPhan, and what you said is right on all counts. He was a State Senator in the minority party when I was an aide to the Senate President. Being that we controlled the votes, I didn't need to communicate with the guy much. But he seemed to hold his ambition above anything else, and many people saw his marriage as a sham he undertook for political purposes.

Orientation is not even an issue to me when it comes to who I'd vote for.

ABrownLamp
08-13-2004, 02:45 AM
This guy was always considered a star in the Democratic Party...he was mentioned as a possible 2008 candidate for President as well as a Senate candidate in 2002....

Here is a snippet of the story: I know the rules..... :D

NEW YORK -- In a stunning declaration, Gov. James E. McGreevey announced his resignation Thursday and acknowledged that he had an extramarital affair with another man. "My truth is that I am a gay American," he said.

"Shamefully, I engaged in adult consensual affairs with another man, which violates my bonds of matrimony," the married father of two said at a news conference. "It was wrong, it was foolish, it was inexcusable."

The Democrat said his resignation would be effective Nov. 15. ............
Jesus, man "The Democrat said..." Give it a rest. REPS have their marital issues as well. Remember Newt Gingrich. Much worse.

PhinPhan1227
08-13-2004, 02:58 AM
Jesus, man "The Democrat said..." Give it a rest. REPS have their marital issues as well. Remember Newt Gingrich. Much worse.


Um...a gay man being married to a straight woman is about as bad as "marital issues" gets.

PhinPhan1227
08-13-2004, 03:01 AM
"Courage" would be either coming out of the closet BEFORE you are married and make two kids, or just NOT getting married at all. Hijacking three lives because you want a whloesome image to further your political career is the scumiest thing I can imagine a politician doing. And fo the record, I couldn't care less about the mans politics...this is strictly character. I'd say the EXACT same thing about a Republican, with an added bump for the irony and probable hypocracy.

Section126
08-13-2004, 09:41 AM
Jesus, man "The Democrat said..." Give it a rest. REPS have their marital issues as well. Remember Newt Gingrich. Much worse.


As far as that term appearing in the story...Take it up with the AP writer...I posted a snippet of the story to comply with the TOS.....I couldn't get a link because I got it second hand......Jesus..............

Bling
08-13-2004, 10:46 PM
Jesus, man "The Democrat said..." Give it a rest. REPS have their marital issues as well. Remember Newt Gingrich. Much worse.


get over it. He's not the only one.

Bling
08-13-2004, 10:51 PM
I'm like PP, and I have no problem with homosexuality, but to see him come out of the closet with a daughter at the age of two? I can only imagine the pain she'll go through.

finguy
08-14-2004, 07:15 PM
I do not agree with adultry or homosexuality. They are both equally bad, but be married and have kids. This is all around wrong. This man has had no thought of anyone but himself. :pray:

PhinPhan1227
08-14-2004, 10:33 PM
Adultry and homosexuality are equaly wrong? Adultry is a choice. Homosexuality, in the vast number of instances is not. Nobody is born an adulterer. And before you throw back the thought that homosexuality is a choice, tell me what day you chose to be straight.

DolFan31
08-14-2004, 11:12 PM
Adultry and homosexuality are equaly wrong? Adultry is a choice. Homosexuality, in the vast number of instances is not. Nobody is born an adulterer. And before you throw back the thought that homosexuality is a choice, tell me what day you chose to be straight.

I used to think homosexuality is a choice, thinking that homosexuality was just a lifestyle of choice. As I got older, more mature, more educated, and more social with homosexuals, I began to reconsider what I thought was the way things were regaurding sexuality. Then I thought to myself "when did I choose to be straight?" And since then, Ive thought otherwise about sexuality and that homosexuality is something people are born with. It just happens. But even if it were a choice, whats the harm in that? Isnt this country founded on the freedom of choices regaurding your own personal freedom?

MikeO
08-15-2004, 01:48 AM
This is all about being gay. Numerous politicans cheat on their wives. Do they lose their jobs? Rudy moved his girlfriend into the Govoners mansion when he was still married for pete sakes.

So, the cheaing on your wife isn't the issue. It's the being gay thing! Which is wrong.

PhinPhan1227
08-15-2004, 02:01 AM
This is all about being gay. Numerous politicans cheat on their wives. Do they lose their jobs? Rudy moved his girlfriend into the Govoners mansion when he was still married for pete sakes.

So, the cheaing on your wife isn't the issue. It's the being gay thing! Which is wrong.


Actually the issue is that the man is accused of sexual harassment from a male employee. The issue is also lying to your wife and kids about your orientation. The first issue is the reason why he's resigning...the 2nd issue is the more despicable of the two in my opinion.

MikeO
08-15-2004, 02:09 AM
Lying to your wife and kids is a moral issue. That is decided upon by voters when election time comes around. Nobody should lose a job because they cheated on their wife and lied about it. I don't agree with that kind of lifestyle, but that isn't a reason to lose your job.

The harrassment issue could be legit or bogus. For him to resign it probably means it might have some merit.

I just believe the GAY issue in this whole story makes it cloudy. If a female accused him of this, he wouldn't have resigned. He would have faught it.

I don't know, the fact he quit probably means he is guilty of something so he shouldn't be in office anyway.

PhinPhan1227
08-15-2004, 02:10 AM
Lying to your wife and kids is a moral issue. That is decided upon by voters when election time comes around. Nobody should lose a job because they cheated on their wife and lied about it. I don't agree with that kind of lifestyle, but that isn't a reason to lose your job.

The harrassment issue could be legit or bogus. For him to resign it probably means it might have some merit.

I just believe the GAY issue in this whole story makes it cloudy. If a female accused him of this, he wouldn't have resigned. He would have faught it.

I don't know, the fact he quit probably means he is guilty of something so he shouldn't be in office anyway.

Exactly. There are gay congressmen, and a gay Governor(or two?). But the fact that he is resigning so quickly does lend merit to the harrasment case.

iceblizzard69
08-15-2004, 10:37 AM
He's resigning because he made the guy who he had a relationship with the head of homeland security in New Jersey. That is wrong and is something he should resign for doing. I don't think he should resign for cheating on his wife. I don't care what his sexuality is or if he cheats on his wife. He should resign because he gave someone a job because of their relationship even when he wasn't qualified for the job. Making this man the head of homeland security in the state put the state at risk.

P4E
08-15-2004, 04:22 PM
He's resigning because he made the guy who he had a relationship with the head of homeland security in New Jersey. That is wrong and is something he should resign for doing. I don't think he should resign for cheating on his wife. I don't care what his sexuality is or if he cheats on his wife. He should resign because he gave someone a job because of their relationship even when he wasn't qualified for the job. Making this man the head of homeland security in the state put the state at risk.
Blizz, are you SURE you're just 16? Sometimes I agree with you on political issues and sometimes I don't, but I'm almost always impressed with the maturity and intelligence with which you assess issues and the coherent reasoning you offer in showing how you arrive at your conclusions. Your critical thinking skills and issue analysis are on a par with what is generally expected of college juniors and seniors in political science programs. It really is commendable, and I hope the path you take in life lets you bring your voice to social and political issues, -- even if we might not agree.:)

In regard to your post, you are focusing on the critical issue at play here: McGreevey's attempt to place this guy as NJ's Homeland Security Advisor. There are other debatable aspects, of course, and anyone is free to consider real or perceived moral issues as more important, but I think most people familiar with what transpired here would be MOST concerned about the UTTERLY OUTRAGEOUS attempt by the Governor to put the safety and lives of the people of New Jersey in the hands of his almost unimaginably unqualified boy-toy. This is the critical factor that is driving McGreevey out of office, as well it should.

Wanna know what's gonna happen?

Notwithstanding his stated resignation date of Nov. 15, McGreevey will be forced to resign prior to September 3. Each party will choose a gubernatorial candidate who will be on the ballot at the same time as this fall's presidential contest. The NJ Dems will choose Senator Jon Corzine, and he will win in a walk. He'll finish out the remaining year of McGreevey's term and he'll then be reelected.

DolFan31
08-15-2004, 04:41 PM
Blizz, are you SURE you're just 16? Sometimes I agree with you on political issues and sometimes I don't, but I'm almost always impressed with the maturity and intelligence with which you assess issues and the coherent reasoning you offer in showing how you arrive at your conclusions. Your critical thinking skills and issue analysis are on a par with what is generally expected of college juniors and seniors in political science programs. It really is commendable, and I hope the path you take in life lets you bring your voice to social and political issues, -- even if we might not agree.:)

In regard to your post, you are focusing on the critical issue at play here: McGreevey's attempt to place this guy as NJ's Homeland Security Advisor. There are other debatable aspects, of course, and anyone is free to consider real or perceived moral issues as more important, but I think most people familiar with what transpired here would be MOST concerned about the UTTERLY OUTRAGEOUS attempt by the Governor to put the safety and lives of the people of New Jersey in the hands of his almost unimaginably unqualified boy-toy. This is the critical factor that is driving McGreevey out of office, as well it should.

Wanna know what's gonna happen?

Notwithstanding his stated resignation date of Nov. 15, McGreevey will be forced to resign prior to September 3. Each party will choose a gubernatorial candidate who will be on the ballot at the same time as this fall's presidential contest. The NJ Dems will choose Senator Jon Corzine, and he will win in a walk. He'll finish out the remaining year of McGreevey's term and he'll then be reelected.

What about me? :goof: j/k

Anyway, I agree what he did was BAD, you dont just appoint someone a cabinet position, especially one as important and critical as HOMELAND SECURITY just because you like them. Its alright though, Corzine is one of the better Democratic Senators anyhow.

iceblizzard69
08-15-2004, 09:07 PM
Blizz, are you SURE you're just 16? Sometimes I agree with you on political issues and sometimes I don't, but I'm almost always impressed with the maturity and intelligence with which you assess issues and the coherent reasoning you offer in showing how you arrive at your conclusions. Your critical thinking skills and issue analysis are on a par with what is generally expected of college juniors and seniors in political science programs. It really is commendable, and I hope the path you take in life lets you bring your voice to social and political issues, -- even if we might not agree.:)
.

Thanks. :) I've actually thought about minoring in political science (I'll probably major in something related to communications) in college but I still have some time before I have to make that decision. :)

DolFan31
08-15-2004, 09:12 PM
Thanks. :) I've actually thought about minoring in political science (I'll probably major in something related to communications) in college but I still have some time before I have to make that decision. :)

Thats great. Im planning on majoring in Political Science and minoring in either Government or Law.

finguy
08-17-2004, 10:35 PM
Everything we do is a choice. We do choose to be straight or gay, that's why they call it sexual preferance. When you prefer one thing over another you have chosen one thing over another. Homosexuality is not like being black, white, hispanic, or asian. Your parents made that decision for you.

DolFan31
08-17-2004, 10:43 PM
Everything we do is a choice. We do choose to be straight or gay, that's why they call it sexual preferance. When you prefer one thing over another you have chosen one thing over another. Homosexuality is not like being black, white, hispanic, or asian. Your parents made that decision for you.

So, tell me, when did you choose to be straight/gay?

PhinPhan1227
08-18-2004, 12:48 AM
Everything we do is a choice. We do choose to be straight or gay, that's why they call it sexual preferance. When you prefer one thing over another you have chosen one thing over another. Homosexuality is not like being black, white, hispanic, or asian. Your parents made that decision for you.

Ok...so you decided to find women attractive rather tha men. Any decision made can be reversed. Therefore you could decide to find men sexually attractive. Congrats...you're gay.

PhinPhan1227
08-18-2004, 02:20 AM
More likely than not, homosexuality is not a choice, take some of the latest general psychology classes and find out why....

You can just learn by listening to a radio show such as Loveline....the first thing that comes out of Dr. Drew's mouth when a person of homosexual orientation calls to express their problems is "did u have any traumatic events when you were younger"....

Being sexually molested when you were a child, growing up with a single parent (no father figure?), witnessing a murder as a child, etc..... can all qualify as traumatic events.......this can set something off in the brain that can make someone gay, more likely than not....its not a choice....

I'm not sure if you think I said it was, but just to be clear I think that sexuality is almost NEVER a choice. I firmly believe that sexuality is set in people just like left handedness, or color blindness. There is a minority that probably had their sexuality "altered" by some trauma such as sexual abuse, but that is a small segment of the gay community from what I have read, and probably accounts for almost all "bisexuals". Bottom line, and this is a pretty simple litmus test...any choice that one person can make, ANY person can make. You choose NOT to commit robbery. You choose NOT to commit assault. You don't CHOOSE to find a man attractive. You either do, or you don't. BTW, I wouldn't count not having a father figure as affecting your actual sexuality. It might make a person a "sissiy", but that sissy would still find women attractive...barring any more significant trauma.

TerryTate
08-18-2004, 02:57 AM
Adultry and homosexuality are equaly wrong? Adultry is a choice. Homosexuality, in the vast number of instances is not. Nobody is born an adulterer. And before you throw back the thought that homosexuality is a choice, tell me what day you chose to be straight.

More likely than not, homosexuality is not a choice, take some of the latest general psychology classes and find out why....

You can just learn by listening to a radio show such as Loveline....the first thing that comes out of Dr. Drew's mouth when a person of homosexual orientation calls to express their problems is "did u have any traumatic events when you were younger"....

Being sexually molested when you were a child, growing up with a single parent (no father figure?), witnessing a murder as a child, etc..... can all qualify as traumatic events.......this can set something off in the brain that can make someone gay, more likely than not....its not a choice....

TerryTate
08-18-2004, 04:17 AM
Ok...so you decided to find women attractive rather tha men. Any decision made can be reversed. Therefore you could decide to find men sexually attractive. Congrats...you're gay.

I think i read this line and thats where i misunderstood....i dont understand why the preceding post shows as if it was made after you replied to it though...wierd
:confused:

PhinPhan1227
08-18-2004, 10:10 AM
I think i read this line and thats where i misunderstood....i dont understand why the preceding post shows as if it was made after you replied to it though...wierd
:confused:

I saw that...the server somehow moved yours down as a new post.

P4E
08-18-2004, 11:02 AM
In that NJ Gov situation, it is going to be shown (eventually) that the gay guy and his attorney were put up to threatening the sexual-harassment lawsuit as a part of a sting operation initiated by the U.S. District Attorney, Chris Christie. This sting was assisted by Gov. McGreevey's chief fundraiser, Charles Kushner, who was cooperating with investigators because he had recently been caught tampering with witnesses in an investigation of (his) illegal campaign contributions. (Kushner had hired a prostitute to lure his brother-in-law into a videotaped encounter that he then attempted to use for blackmail to keep the brother-in-law from testifying against him.)

The negotiations to privately and quietly settle the threatened lawsuit involved a cash payment, but this was just camouflage for the true mechanism of the sting because a cash payment from private hands to the gay guy would not be an indictable offense in itself. The REAL lure in the sting was a request made by the gay guy that the Governor take favorable action on an application by a private college to open a medical school in NJ. Had the Governor indicated he would do ANYTHING for this college as part of an agreement to settle the lawsuit he was facing, it would have been an indictable offense.

The Gov didn't take the bait, but it was clear that it was about to become public that the outrageously unqualified man he had tried to make NJ's Homeland Security Advisor was actually his extramarital boy-toy. He resigned, rather than trying to ride out the political heat over that.

There will be no sexual-harassment case, because the case couldn't be won in the first place and the threat of the suit was really just a political threat designed to pressure the gov to take the sting bait. And there will not be an application for a new medical college, as this was nothing but a charade.

Ain't NJ politics something?

Remember... you read it first here at FinHeaven.

finguy
08-19-2004, 10:44 PM
I know of girl who has went straight and is now married with children. She chose to straight.
So, tell me, when did you choose to be straight/gay?

finguy
08-19-2004, 10:53 PM
I have also decided to pray for you. :cool:
Ok...so you decided to find women attractive rather tha men. Any decision made can be reversed. Therefore you could decide to find men sexually attractive. Congrats...you're gay.

PhinPhan1227
08-21-2004, 12:39 AM
I know of girl who has went straight and is now married with children. She chose to straight.


Either she was abused or had some other trauma which temporarily switched her over to lesbianism, or she is now living a lie. This Governor was living a lie...some would say he "chose" to be straight...we can all see the result of that choice. In the instances where no abuse is involved(the majority by far), homosexuals are homosexuals. Again, you can't "choose" who you are attracted to. If you can, I'd suggest seeking therapy.

finguy
08-22-2004, 12:00 AM
There is a Christian organization called exodus who say they have seen homosexuals come out that life through making Christ their savior and study of the bible. I do not know the precentage of those who switch, but they say they have good results.
Either she was abused or had some other trauma which temporarily switched her over to lesbianism, or she is now living a lie. This Governor was living a lie...some would say he "chose" to be straight...we can all see the result of that choice. In the instances where no abuse is involved(the majority by far), homosexuals are homosexuals. Again, you can't "choose" who you are attracted to. If you can, I'd suggest seeking therapy.

PhinPhan1227
08-22-2004, 05:42 AM
There is a Christian organization called exodus who say they have seen homosexuals come out that life through making Christ their savior and study of the bible. I do not know the precentage of those who switch, but they say they have good results.


Yeah, they're about as unbiased as Drew Rosenhause talking about on of his players. Again, in cases of abuse, people CAN behave in a fashion counter to their actual orientation. But I have several friends who are gay. Virtually every one of them prayed for years to be "normal". As far as I'm concerned, it's a birth defect. It's like being born color blind. With training a person can learn to "fake it" but that doesn't change the fact that they are still color blind. The only difference is, drunk rednecks won't beat you to death because you can't tell the difference between blue and green.

ABrownLamp
08-22-2004, 02:35 PM
There is a Christian organization called exodus who say they have seen homosexuals come out that life through making Christ their savior and study of the bible. I do not know the precentage of those who switch, but they say they have good results.

Why is it that virtually every person who thinks homosexuality is driven by choice is either younger than 20 or devoutly religious (or both)? I just don't understand why you people would think anyone would want to make a conscious CHOICE to be a member of a part of culture that is ridiculed and hated. Let's flip this around. I think heterosexuality iis a choice. And I think with time that my religious organization can change the way you think about men. We've had good results in the past. Hey, come on down...I think we can convince you. What do you think...sound possible...or would you just be faking it?

PhinPhan1227
08-22-2004, 02:59 PM
Why is it that virtually every person who thinks homosexuality is driven by choice is either younger than 20 or devoutly religious (or both)? I just don't understand why you people would think anyone would want to make a conscious CHOICE to be a member of a part of culture that is ridiculed and hated. Let's flip this around. I think heterosexuality iis a choice. And I think with time that my religious organization can change the way you think about men. We've had good results in the past. Hey, come on down...I think we can convince you. What do you think...sound possible...or would you just be faking it?


Lol...I love their suspension of disbelief. "Yep, sounds like the lifestyle I want to live...my parents disown me, rednecks want to beat me to death, and it's ok to descriminate against me. SWEET!!".

finguy
08-22-2004, 03:07 PM
Do you believe in God? because I don't believe that homosexuality is a birth defect. Now I know that this is going to probably get your feathers ruffled, but i believe it is spiritual problem. I believe there is a difference between body and spirit and that God who made us can fix us if we are broken. IF we make bad decisions or if they're something that we can't help God can do something about it. God can deal with the physical and spiritual.

We seem to be dealing a lot with what is physical and physical is not always the problem. Science doesn't have all the answers and neither do I, but God does. :)


Yeah, they're about as unbiased as Drew Rosenhause talking about on of his players. Again, in cases of abuse, people CAN behave in a fashion counter to their actual orientation. But I have several friends who are gay. Virtually every one of them prayed for years to be "normal". As far as I'm concerned, it's a birth defect. It's like being born color blind. With training a person can learn to "fake it" but that doesn't change the fact that they are still color blind. The only difference is, drunk rednecks won't beat you to death because you can't tell the difference between blue and green.

finguy
08-22-2004, 03:22 PM
People of faith have always had to choose between what society says and what their faith says. People die every day for the choice they make. Other countries kill christians everyday and yet there are still christians in those countries even though they know at anytime if the government found out they would be inprisoned or killed. They have chosen just as I have to be part of a culture that is hated and persecuted on a daily basis. Maybe not so much in the U.S. but if I go to other coutries I would have to practicly sneak in because of my faith:)
Why is it that virtually every person who thinks homosexuality is driven by choice is either younger than 20 or devoutly religious (or both)? I just don't understand why you people would think anyone would want to make a conscious CHOICE to be a member of a part of culture that is ridiculed and hated. Let's flip this around. I think heterosexuality iis a choice. And I think with time that my religious organization can change the way you think about men. We've had good results in the past. Hey, come on down...I think we can convince you. What do you think...sound possible...or would you just be faking it?

ABrownLamp
08-22-2004, 03:33 PM
People of faith have always had to choose between what society says and what their faith says. People die every day for the choice they make. Other countries kill christians everyday and yet there are still christians in those countries even though they know at anytime if the government found out they would be inprisoned or killed. They have chosen just as I have to be part of a culture that is hated and persecuted on a daily basis. Maybe not so much in the U.S. but if I go to other coutries I would have to practicly sneak in because of my faith:)

What does any of this have to do with what I said? Point blank...Do you think I could sway you into becoming a homosexual... Just answer that...and then tell me why you think gays have the option that you don't.

Actually, you could use the same philosophy for Christianity. In the countries you are speaking of where Christianity is punishable by death, do you think those that convert to a different religion convert because they want to BY CHOICE...or do you think they convert because they have to. It's the exact same thing. These people are still Christians at heart... not whatever it is that you FORCE them to be.

ABrownLamp
08-22-2004, 03:44 PM
Do you believe in God? because I don't believe that homosexuality is a birth defect. Now I know that this is going to probably get your feathers ruffled, but i believe it is spiritual problem. I believe there is a difference between body and spirit and that God who made us can fix us if we are broken. IF we make bad decisions or if they're something that we can't help God can do something about it. God can deal with the physical and spiritual.

We seem to be dealing a lot with what is physical and physical is not always the problem. Science doesn't have all the answers and neither do I, but God does. :)

Are you serious? If we make bad decisions God will be there for us...what planet are you from? Everyone is "broken" in some sense or another. God doesn't change those things. A physical and spiritual cleansing will not get me straight A's, and it sure as heck won't change a person into being straight.

If God has all the answers then ask him how to cure AIDS. Can't get that from him can you? Can you get any answers from him (not from a book written by some guy)? Has he spoken directly to you? I hope you don't say yes..

finguy
08-22-2004, 05:28 PM
You could not convince me to be homosexual, just as you cannot convince me to be a drug addict or an alcoholic. There are those who believe that these things are in your genes also, but there are children of alcoholics and drug addicts who chose to not be what there parents are.

A person who converts from one religion to another was not forced. They still made the decision. If you convert from christianty to islam then you are no longer a christian, you are a muslim. If a government says convert or die they are giving that person what seems to be no option but there is an option. They have a choice.

My family is for the most part overweight;I have the choice to over eat or I can chose to eat modestly. I am not overweight because my family is or because it is in my genes.:)

What does any of this have to do with what I said? Point blank...Do you think I could sway you into becoming a homosexual... Just answer that...and then tell me why you think gays have the option that you don't.

Actually, you could use the same philosophy for Christianity. In the countries you are speaking of where Christianity is punishable by death, do you think those that convert to a different religion convert because they want to BY CHOICE...or do you think they convert because they have to. It's the exact same thing. These people are still Christians at heart... not whatever it is that you FORCE them to be.

finguy
08-22-2004, 06:18 PM
I believe that God loved me enough to send his Son to die for me; Why would he then not help me through bad decisions?

There is nothing that I can do to make myself get straight A's with God but if i let him do the work, if I let him do the cleansing then you are cleansed. I am not saying that the decision to be straight or gay would an overnight thing but I do believe in change.

I know woman who God healed of AIDS if you will not except scripture. I believe that the Bible is the infallible word of God and it speaks to me so yes he has spoken to me.:)
Are you serious? If we make bad decisions God will be there for us...what planet are you from? Everyone is "broken" in some sense or another. God doesn't change those things. A physical and spiritual cleansing will not get me straight A's, and it sure as heck won't change a person into being straight.

If God has all the answers then ask him how to cure AIDS. Can't get that from him can you? Can you get any answers from him (not from a book written by some guy)? Has he spoken directly to you? I hope you don't say yes..

PhinPhan1227
08-22-2004, 10:19 PM
Do you believe in God? because I don't believe that homosexuality is a birth defect. Now I know that this is going to probably get your feathers ruffled, but i believe it is spiritual problem. I believe there is a difference between body and spirit and that God who made us can fix us if we are broken. IF we make bad decisions or if they're something that we can't help God can do something about it. God can deal with the physical and spiritual.

We seem to be dealing a lot with what is physical and physical is not always the problem. Science doesn't have all the answers and neither do I, but God does. :)


Sure he does. But how often does God fix birth defects? How often does a person born blind regain their sight? Physical attraction is a PHYSICAL manifestation. We aren't talking about who you fal in love with(a spiritual issue), we're talking about who makes the glands in your brain release all those happy hormones that cause your woody. It's a physical reaction man, that's well documented. Certainly if God wanted to he could fix the problem. If God wanted to he could fix all problems. But that would defeat the purpose of us being here now wouldn't it? Once again, you fail to address the bottom line issue. If sexuality is a choice for any, it's a choice for all. If any NORMAL person can choose to be gay, than ANY normal person can choose to be gay. It's that simple. God made man in his image with free will...he didn't give some people more free will than others.

Bling
08-22-2004, 10:37 PM
Look finguy, I'm probably one of the only guys here that's as Christian as you. People that hate religion piss me off. Abortion is the main reason why I'm a Republican. I have a problem with taking God out of the Pledge of Allegiance, but when it comes to gay people, I embrace them. Go ahead, be gay. Why should I care? I know the Pope says it's not right for gay people to be gay. I know God doesn't want people to be gay (or so I'm told), but let God deal with it. If they're not hurting someone, then let them be gay.

PhinPhan1227
08-22-2004, 10:43 PM
You could not convince me to be homosexual, just as you cannot convince me to be a drug addict or an alcoholic. There are those who believe that these things are in your genes also, but there are children of alcoholics and drug addicts who chose to not be what there parents are.

A person who converts from one religion to another was not forced. They still made the decision. If you convert from christianty to islam then you are no longer a christian, you are a muslim. If a government says convert or die they are giving that person what seems to be no option but there is an option. They have a choice.

My family is for the most part overweight;I have the choice to over eat or I can chose to eat modestly. I am not overweight because my family is or because it is in my genes.:)


Wrong. If you begin to take heroin, your body will eventually become addicted to heroin. Same thing with morphine and many other drugs. Same thing for that matter with alcohol. Now, the CHOICE to take drugs is one that every person makes. The choice to commit crime is a choice every person makes. There are scenarios which would cause almost any person to commit almost any crime? You say you would never commit murder? What if the man you KNOW raped and murdered your child was in front of you and had gotten off scott free? If you say there's no chance you could kill that man you are lying. You'd never steal? Your family is starving...I hope you would steal. Now, tell me a scenario where I could choose to find a man attractive. That's not a choice I am capable of making. If I am incapable of making that choice, nobody else is either The only exception being victims of abuse. Science has already shown those victims have their neurochemistry altered by severe abuse. The mistake you are making is the same mistake that causes the "Creationists" and "Evolutionists" to manufacture a conflict where none exists. God created the universe as an orderly universe, with rules and function. There are a million miracles a day, but that doesn't mean that any of them are supernatural. Sexuality is a function of chemistry. Just like lefthandedness. Just like photographic memory. The first organ your body started developing was your brain. It was also the last organ your body finished developing. It is also the organ most susceptable to error. I find it funny and a bit tragic that people can believe that God would allow war, famine, natural disasters...a whole plethora of ills that any individual has ZERO control, ZERO choice over...but if a person is a homosexual, they MUST have made that as a choice, because there's no WAY God would allow THAT to happen. BTW, are you aware that people thought that phyisically and mentally handicapped people were in league with the Devil. Heck, it was less than 100 years ago that many people in THIS country held those beliefs. Because afterall, God would NEVER make a person that way from birth.

finguy
08-22-2004, 11:38 PM
Hey guys thanks for the debate, it has sharpened me up some. It seems i won't convince you. I am going to try debating something else for awhile. See you on the other threads.

Really it has been good:)

PhinPhan1227
08-22-2004, 11:46 PM
Hey guys thanks for the debate, it has sharpened me up some. It seems i won't convince you. I am going to try debating something else for awhile. See you on the other threads.

Really it has been good:)

So I guess that means that you don't want to address the points I brought up. God doesn't want blind faith...that was Lucifers idea.

ABrownLamp
08-23-2004, 01:10 PM
The mistake you are making is the same mistake that causes the "Creationists" and "Evolutionists" to manufacture a conflict where none exists.

I don't know about this...I think while it's possible to beleive in parts from both of them, they are still two separate philosophies.

Creatonism...boom, there's Adam and Eve (which according to the Bible happened 5000 years ago)
Evolution...billions of years of change, survival of the fittest, receding foreheads, erect spines...all of which is counter to the foundation Creationism where God just creates.

PhinPhan1227
08-23-2004, 02:30 PM
I don't know about this...I think while it's possible to beleive in parts from both of them, they are still two separate philosophies.

Creatonism...boom, there's Adam and Eve (which according to the Bible happened 5000 years ago)
Evolution...billions of years of change, survival of the fittest, receding foreheads, erect spines...all of which is counter to the foundation Creationism where God just creates.


Now you're putting words into the Bibles mouth. I never read the word "boom" anywhere...what it says is that God created man. Nifty. It doesn't go into the mechanism of that creation. In fact, Genesis follows the same order of creation espouced by Evolution. First fish, than crawling things, then birds, than animals, than man. In fact, the two theories don't even talk about the same thing. Darwin discusses the mechanics of evolution...he discusses the process. The Bible discusses the origin of the process. And before you discuss God creating man in a "day", ask yourself what a "day" means to God. He created the Earth in a "day" well that's kind of difficult since a "day" is the amount of time it takes for the earth to rotate once around it's axis. So a biblical day could be 1 million years, 5 million years, whatever. Bear in mind that at the time the Bible stories were organized, man couldn't really concieve of millions of years...people still thought in terms of seasons. Bottom line, God created a universe that follows laws. It's an orderly place. Why do people assume that God would create this wonderfully complex system of nature and then have to work around it? People are always selling God short. BTW, it's not according to the Bible that it happenned 5000 years ago...it's according to biblical scholars who interpreted that date. Again, lets not put words in the Bibles mouth.

ABrownLamp
08-23-2004, 05:31 PM
Now you're putting words into the Bibles mouth. I never read the word "boom" anywhere...what it says is that God created man. Nifty. It doesn't go into the mechanism of that creation. In fact, Genesis follows the same order of creation espouced by Evolution. First fish, than crawling things, then birds, than animals, than man. In fact, the two theories don't even talk about the same thing. Darwin discusses the mechanics of evolution...he discusses the process. The Bible discusses the origin of the process. And before you discuss God creating man in a "day", ask yourself what a "day" means to God. He created the Earth in a "day" well that's kind of difficult since a "day" is the amount of time it takes for the earth to rotate once around it's axis. So a biblical day could be 1 million years, 5 million years, whatever. Bear in mind that at the time the Bible stories were organized, man couldn't really concieve of millions of years...people still thought in terms of seasons. Bottom line, God created a universe that follows laws. It's an orderly place. Why do people assume that God would create this wonderfully complex system of nature and then have to work around it? People are always selling God short. BTW, it's not according to the Bible that it happenned 5000 years ago...it's according to biblical scholars who interpreted that date. Again, lets not put words in the Bibles mouth.

The first thing is that you are assuming that the Bible is the word of God. In actuality it has been proven that the Bible was written by many, many, many different people. To think that all of these people received God's word is absurd. Second, I beleve there are actually two different versions of how man was created by God in Genesis, but I don't remeber the discrepancies between the two.

Of course the Bible doesn't go into mechanisms of creation, because creation is a one step process. God creates. That's it. You have found some obscure liason between these two philosophies and made a connection. The fact is, creationism is philosophy based on beleif. Evolution is a philosophy based on factual evidence. There is a stark contrast between the two. When people argue over these two issues, what side do you assume each party takes if not the Creationism vs. Evolution? What is the debate then if the two overlap?

As far as the word "day" goes...I don't care what era in history or prehistory it is...earth is created, sun is created...if you're on Earth and sun comes up, day one. Sun sets and rises again, day2. Anything else would have a different name than "day"

Dude, if Biblical scholars say that the Bible says Earth was created 5000 years ago, and that is pretty much the consensus, why would you think differently. Oh, and can you explain why there is no mention of dinosaurs in the bible. Or neanderthals.

finguy
08-23-2004, 06:14 PM
Dinosauers: many theologins believe leviathen in the book of Job is a description of a dinosaur. look it up see what you think. BTW I don't know much about creation days and all that stuff so I 'll just see what you guys say. :)
The first thing is that you are assuming that the Bible is the word of God. In actuality it has been proven that the Bible was written by many, many, many different people. To think that all of these people received God's word is absurd. Second, I beleve there are actually two different versions of how man was created by God in Genesis, but I don't remeber the discrepancies between the two.

Of course the Bible doesn't go into mechanisms of creation, because creation is a one step process. God creates. That's it. You have found some obscure liason between these two philosophies and made a connection. The fact is, creationism is philosophy based on beleif. Evolution is a philosophy based on factual evidence. There is a stark contrast between the two. When people argue over these two issues, what side do you assume each party takes if not the Creationism vs. Evolution? What is the debate then if the two overlap?

As far as the word "day" goes...I don't care what era in history or prehistory it is...earth is created, sun is created...if you're on Earth and sun comes up, day one. Sun sets and rises again, day2. Anything else would have a different name than "day"

Dude, if Biblical scholars say that the Bible says Earth was created 5000 years ago, and that is pretty much the consensus, why would you think differently. Oh, and can you explain why there is no mention of dinosaurs in the bible. Or neanderthals.

finguy
08-23-2004, 06:17 PM
I am just a little burned out, not much rest. We'll discuss it again sometime.:)
So I guess that means that you don't want to address the points I brought up. God doesn't want blind faith...that was Lucifers idea.

PhinPhan1227
08-23-2004, 06:38 PM
The first thing is that you are assuming that the Bible is the word of God. In actuality it has been proven that the Bible was written by many, many, many different people. To think that all of these people received God's word is absurd. Second, I beleve there are actually two different versions of how man was created by God in Genesis, but I don't remeber the discrepancies between the two.

Of course the Bible doesn't go into mechanisms of creation, because creation is a one step process. God creates. That's it. You have found some obscure liason between these two philosophies and made a connection. The fact is, creationism is philosophy based on beleif. Evolution is a philosophy based on factual evidence. There is a stark contrast between the two. When people argue over these two issues, what side do you assume each party takes if not the Creationism vs. Evolution? What is the debate then if the two overlap?

As far as the word "day" goes...I don't care what era in history or prehistory it is...earth is created, sun is created...if you're on Earth and sun comes up, day one. Sun sets and rises again, day2. Anything else would have a different name than "day"

Dude, if Biblical scholars say that the Bible says Earth was created 5000 years ago, and that is pretty much the consensus, why would you think differently. Oh, and can you explain why there is no mention of dinosaurs in the bible. Or neanderthals.


#1-What, God has less coverage than CNN? If God wanted to make sure that people accurately recounted the events of creation down through millenia, why would that be a challenge for him? Hardly way up there in the miracles category.

#2-Kindly show me the language in the Bible that discusses process? Where does it say that God creates in a one step? Where you there? Did you observe this? Are you even aware that when these stories were being handed down there wasn't even language to describe the process? The thing wasn't remembered in English afterall. Try expanding your mind just a smidge.

#3-The conflict between Evolution and Creationism is artificial. Just because people argue doesn't mean that there is actually any basis for that argument. Those who want to prove that God exists extrapolated from Evolution that God wasn't needed. Those religious persons who fear science see evolution as a threat. But the FACTS are that Darwin was a Christian. HE never said a thing about Gods existance(and we aren't talking about the Middle Ages where he was in fear of his life), and was a regular church goer. Likewise, the Bible never says anything about evolution. Why doesn't it mention dinosaurs? MAybe because they weren't much of an issue for ancient man. Why doesn't the Bible mention cockroaches? They're MUCH more of a problem than Dinosaurs ever were. Ditto Neanderthals...not much of an issue for ancient Semites.

#4-I'll say this slowly...if you measure a day by the time it takes for the sun to rise and set(that's only a 1/2 day btw), than how is the earth created in a day? Where do you start from if there's nothing for the sun to rise ON?

#5-SOME biblical scholars say 5000 years. Consensus? These people can't agree on Catholicism versus Protestantism...you expect them to be able to guess at dates?

ABrownLamp
08-24-2004, 02:33 PM
#1-What, God has less coverage than CNN? If God wanted to make sure that people accurately recounted the events of creation down through millenia, why would that be a challenge for him? Hardly way up there in the miracles category.

#2-Kindly show me the language in the Bible that discusses process? Where does it say that God creates in a one step? Where you there? Did you observe this? Are you even aware that when these stories were being handed down there wasn't even language to describe the process? The thing wasn't remembered in English afterall. Try expanding your mind just a smidge.

#3-The conflict between Evolution and Creationism is artificial. Just because people argue doesn't mean that there is actually any basis for that argument. Those who want to prove that God exists extrapolated from Evolution that God wasn't needed. Those religious persons who fear science see evolution as a threat. But the FACTS are that Darwin was a Christian. HE never said a thing about Gods existance(and we aren't talking about the Middle Ages where he was in fear of his life), and was a regular church goer. Likewise, the Bible never says anything about evolution. Why doesn't it mention dinosaurs? MAybe because they weren't much of an issue for ancient man. Why doesn't the Bible mention cockroaches? They're MUCH more of a problem than Dinosaurs ever were. Ditto Neanderthals...not much of an issue for ancient Semites.

#4-I'll say this slowly...if you measure a day by the time it takes for the sun to rise and set(that's only a 1/2 day btw), than how is the earth created in a day? Where do you start from if there's nothing for the sun to rise ON?

#5-SOME biblical scholars say 5000 years. Consensus? These people can't agree on Catholicism versus Protestantism...you expect them to be able to guess at dates?

1) So all of these people heard the word of God. And then wrote it down. We're talking about hundreds of people here. Come on man, tell me you don't find that hard to beleive.

2) I don't know the Bible very well so I can't recite lines to you. But I know it claims God created man out of dust.

3) The conflict of evolution and creationism is artificial? Wow. All those debates with people holding their fancy pants Ph.D's in theology and evolutionary biology and you know better than they do. Again, you can beleive in God and evolution at the same time, but you have to pick and choose parts to believe (mostly Biblical things though, because otherwise you would have to ignore scientific evidence). The purpose of evolution isn't to prove God doesn't exist. There are all other kinds of things he could have done in lieu of evolution that can never be proven. For instance, what created that ameoba which mutated and mutated and mutated into what humans are today.
As far as dinosaurs and neanderthals go...I was in a rush when I wrote that...I meant to tie that into the whole 5000 years ago debate.

4) Thank you for saying that slowly. I am aware that sun rise-sunset is a half day...that's why I wrote sun rise day1- sun set- sun rise day2. Second, man and everything else that was created on Earth, was created (of course) after Earth was created. Makes sense doesn't it? So if Earth is created then there can be a "day." Right? And I promise you that the day that we know today in 2004 is the exact same day they knew 5000 years ago.

DolFan31
08-24-2004, 04:48 PM
1) So all of these people heard the word of God. And then wrote it down. We're talking about hundreds of people here. Come on man, tell me you don't find that hard to beleive.

2) I don't know the Bible very well so I can't recite lines to you. But I know it claims God created man out of dust.

3) The conflict of evolution and creationism is artificial? Wow. All those debates with people holding their fancy pants Ph.D's in theology and evolutionary biology and you know better than they do. Again, you can beleive in God and evolution at the same time, but you have to pick and choose parts to believe (mostly Biblical things though, because otherwise you would have to ignore scientific evidence). The purpose of evolution isn't to prove God doesn't exist. There are all other kinds of things he could have done in lieu of evolution that can never be proven. For instance, what created that ameoba which mutated and mutated and mutated into what humans are today.
As far as dinosaurs and neanderthals go...I was in a rush when I wrote that...I meant to tie that into the whole 5000 years ago debate.

4) Thank you for saying that slowly. I am aware that sun rise-sunset is a half day...that's why I wrote sun rise day1- sun set- sun rise day2. Second, man and everything else that was created on Earth, was created (of course) after Earth was created. Makes sense doesn't it? So if Earth is created then there can be a "day." Right? And I promise you that the day that we know today in 2004 is the exact same day they knew 5000 years ago.

How can God create man out of dust when dust is made up of mostly dead human skin cells?

And the Bible has been proven wrong many times, as many historians and scientists have said the eath was created billions of years ago, not like 10,000 years or whatever it said.

*This isnt an attack on you, Im just adding to your debate thats all.

DolFan31
08-24-2004, 05:02 PM
finguy- Tell me what special skills you have, such as: Are you better at math or reading? Are you left or right-handed?

Homosexuality is a choice, thats true, but is it a choice because its out of free will, or is it a choice because we're born with a certain gene that makes us that way?

There are certain genes we have that we inherit from our parents and their parents and so on. Some genes can be turned on at birth, some are left off. Certain things like obesity, alcoholicness, tendency to do crime, things like that, are genetic and explains why obesity runs in your family and you dont happen to be obese. Homosexuality is a gene, I believe, and some people have that gene turned on, thus making them attracted to the same sex. Heterosexuals also have a "gay" gene, but its turned off, naturally. We're all "gay" by definition because we all have "gay" genes, technically, but since its turned off, for heterosexuals, our heterosexual genes are turned on, so therefore, we're attracted to the opposite sex. We all have the same set of genes, only some are turned on, some are turned off. We all do however make choices, some we can make out of pure free will, some we make because we have genes that, well, make us that way.

Some choose not to act on those genes. Take homosexuals for example. Some of them choose not to be gay, and try to live a heterosexual's life. Sooner or later, they realize that it wont work for them, their genes do not allow them to be attracted to women, even if they try, resulting in a breakup or divorce. Sooner or later, they may eventually act on the gene thats turned on for them. Another example: you may choose a job that you think is right for you, but sooner or later you realize that you dont have the special skills you were born with to do the job right. So hopefully, you quit that job and find the job thats right for you. The same thing with relationships. You understand now?

PhinPhan1227
08-24-2004, 07:18 PM
How can God create man out of dust when dust is made up of mostly dead human skin cells?

And the Bible has been proven wrong many times, as many historians and scientists have said the eath was created billions of years ago, not like 10,000 years or whatever it said.

*This isnt an attack on you, Im just adding to your debate thats all.

Lol...HOUSE dust is mostly dead skin cells. "Dust" refers to any tiny particulate matter. Diamond dust is still "dust". As for the Bible being proven wrong, you are equating the work of biblical scholars with the Bible itself. A group of old men a few hundred years ago decided to extrapolate through the births listed in the Bible. It's their interpretation of the Bible. The Bible itself says nothing about how old the earth is. Further, and as I have stated, the Old Testament is a compilation of stories dating back hundreds of thousands of years. Some of those stories relate events which took place when nobody but God was around to see them. Now, try to understand how ancient storytelling worked, handed down from sage to sage. The current debate revolves around the word "day". Problem is, when these stories were first being handed down, there were no words for any period longer than a season. And there were no numbers larger than 10. Exactly how were these people going to relate millions or billions of years? The language just didn't exist.

PhinPhan1227
08-24-2004, 07:25 PM
1) So all of these people heard the word of God. And then wrote it down. We're talking about hundreds of people here. Come on man, tell me you don't find that hard to beleive.

They didn't need to hear it...just remember it correctly from the person who told them. HArdly a tough thing for an entity that created the world

2) I don't know the Bible very well so I can't recite lines to you. But I know it claims God created man out of dust.

Nifty way of describing evolution. Early man had no concept of microscopic organisms from which we evolved. What better way to describe that evolution than saying "dust"?

3) The conflict of evolution and creationism is artificial? Wow. All those debates with people holding their fancy pants Ph.D's in theology and evolutionary biology and you know better than they do. Again, you can beleive in God and evolution at the same time, but you have to pick and choose parts to believe (mostly Biblical things though, because otherwise you would have to ignore scientific evidence). The purpose of evolution isn't to prove God doesn't exist. There are all other kinds of things he could have done in lieu of evolution that can never be proven. For instance, what created that ameoba which mutated and mutated and mutated into what humans are today.
As far as dinosaurs and neanderthals go...I was in a rush when I wrote that...I meant to tie that into the whole 5000 years ago debate.


Those people have agenda's, I don't. There are people who want to disprove God. There are also people who fear science. They created this conflict. Here's a question for you...if there's a conflict, why didn't Darwin recognize one? He was a devout Christian. He never said ONE word about God in Origins of Man. And we aren''t talking the Middle Ages here...he could have if he wanted to.

4) Thank you for saying that slowly. I am aware that sun rise-sunset is a half day...that's why I wrote sun rise day1- sun set- sun rise day2. Second, man and everything else that was created on Earth, was created (of course) after Earth was created. Makes sense doesn't it? So if Earth is created then there can be a "day." Right? And I promise you that the day that we know today in 2004 is the exact same day they knew 5000 years ago.

Not when man was created...when the EARTH was created. If the earth was created in a day, how was that measured? Catch-22...the object you want to measure the creation of is required for the measurement. Come on man, this isn't a complicated concept.


....................

PhinPhan1227
08-24-2004, 07:26 PM
Homosexuality is a choice, thats true, but is it a choice because its out of free will, or is it a choice because we're born with a certain gene that makes us that way?




Living a homosexual lifestyle is a choice...being a homosexual isn't. Unless you have found a way to choose who you are sexually attracted to?

DolFan31
08-24-2004, 07:31 PM
Living a homosexual lifestyle is a choice...being a homosexual isn't. Unless you have found a way to choose who you are sexually attracted to?

You practically stated the main idea of my entire post. I wasnt saying people choose who they are sexually attracted to, its just some "choose" to be heterosexual even though theyre homosexual, because of society and other reasons, but in the end hopefully they make the right choice, which is what theyre body already made for them. You see what Im saying?

PhinPhan1227
08-24-2004, 08:18 PM
You practically stated the main idea of my entire post. I wasnt saying people choose who they are sexually attracted to, its just some "choose" to be heterosexual even though theyre homosexual, because of society and other reasons, but in the end hopefully they make the right choice, which is what theyre body already made for them. You see what Im saying?


I do and I wasn't disagreeing with you...just that one sentence.

DolFan31
08-24-2004, 08:22 PM
I do and I wasn't disagreeing with you...just that one sentence.

Alright, you just misunderstood me. Glad we cleared that.

ABrownLamp
08-25-2004, 12:27 AM
They didn't need to hear it...just remember it correctly from the person who told them. HArdly a tough thing for an entity that created the world

Nifty way of describing evolution. Early man had no concept of microscopic organisms from which we evolved. What better way to describe that evolution than saying "dust"?

Those people have agenda's, I don't. There are people who want to disprove God. There are also people who fear science. They created this conflict. Here's a question for you...if there's a conflict, why didn't Darwin recognize one? He was a devout Christian. He never said ONE word about God in Origins of Man. And we aren''t talking the Middle Ages here...he could have if he wanted to.

Not when man was created...when the EARTH was created. If the earth was created in a day, how was that measured? Catch-22...the object you want to measure the creation of is required for the measurement. Come on man, this isn't a complicated concept.



1)Oh, so heard it from someone who heard it from God. Oh, OK. That's credible. And passing stories along through generations and civilizations without using a written language...Come on man.

2)Early man couldn't possibly have had even an inkling of a notion that evolution existed. Why would they have even thought about this back then? God created us as far as they were concerned. There was no basis for research. Were talking about 1000s of years later before a theory was created. With how little we knew about how the human body existed, there is no way anyone could have even had a foundation for thinking in this direction.

3)Dude, you can be religious and still beleive in evolution. But it is impossible to beleive in Creationism and Evolution at the same time.

creationism

n : the literal belief in the account of creation given in the Book of Genesis; "creationism denies the theory of evolution of species"

taken from dictionary.com and you will find a similar definition in any Webster's.

4)I know it's not a complicated, so listen to what I'm saying. I am talking about the word "created in a day" in regards to human beings. HUMANS. NOT EARTH. If Earth is created, (which it must have been before humans) and then God made it rotate and orbit around the sun (pppfffttttt) then that one unit of rotation, where the sun goes up, goes down and then up again...is one day. That is one day now, and one day when the folks who wrote the Bible were around. Not the creation of Earth. I understand that. The creation of humans.

PhinPhan1227
08-25-2004, 01:02 AM
1)Oh, so heard it from someone who heard it from God. Oh, OK. That's credible. And passing stories along through generations and civilizations without using a written language...Come on man.

Ok...education time...written language is a relatively recent development in human history. For the vast majority of human existance stories, lineage, property, ALL knowledge, was passed bay word of mouth and memory. It's only been in the last several thousand years that ANYONE was able to write anything down. Consider this...the people who erected Stone Henge, a structure so perfect that even today you can predict lunar and solar eclipses with it...was created by people with no written language. Think they developed that in one generation? Their science was handed down through HUNDREDS of generations before they were able to build it. Now how tough would it be to keep some relatively simple stories straight if you can already manage feats like THAT?

2)Early man couldn't possibly have had even an inkling of a notion that evolution existed. Why would they have even thought about this back then? God created us as far as they were concerned. There was no basis for research. Were talking about 1000s of years later before a theory was created. With how little we knew about how the human body existed, there is no way anyone could have even had a foundation for thinking in this direction.

You're missing my point, and it was a bit of a joke. If God wanted a creative way to explain to primitives that man was created from much simpler materials, describing us as coming from "dust" would be a nifty way.


3)Dude, you can be religious and still beleive in evolution. But it is impossible to beleive in Creationism and Evolution at the same time.

creationism

n : the literal belief in the account of creation given in the Book of Genesis; "creationism denies the theory of evolution of species"

taken from dictionary.com and you will find a similar definition in any Webster's.

That's because of the conflict which has been created. Yes, "Creationism", as it is widely held denies evolution. But that is a mistake on the part of the "Creationists". Look, people screw up religion all the time. Do you think the Koran really calls for people to fly planes into buildings? Do you think it says that women should be circumsized? Just because some people interpret the Bible one way, that doesn't make it right. Jesus, these people can't even settle on Catholicism versus PRotestantism. Your description of a "consensus" when dealing with religious scholars almost made me fall out of my chair. Give me a group of religious scholars with more than 10 members and I defy you to get them to come to a consensus on anything more complicated than lunch.

4)I know it's not a complicated, so listen to what I'm saying. I am talking about the word "created in a day" in regards to human beings. HUMANS. NOT EARTH. If Earth is created, (which it must have been before humans) and then God made it rotate and orbit around the sun (pppfffttttt) then that one unit of rotation, where the sun goes up, goes down and then up again...is one day. That is one day now, and one day when the folks who wrote the Bible were around. Not the creation of Earth. I understand that. The creation of humans.

Sorry, you can't pick and choose. Yes, man was created during the time when there was an earth to measure by. BUT THE EARTH WAS ALSO DESCRIBED AS HAVING BEEN CREATED IN A DAY. You can't ignore that and just jump forward. If a "day was a day", than how was the earth created in a day? You need to resolve THAT issue before you can jump forward to man being created in a day. And LASTLY, you're ignoring the fact that NO OTHER WORDS EXISTED TO DESCRIBE TIME when these stories were created, much less written down. Are you going to deal with these facts, or just keep parrotting "a day is a day"?


..................

DolFan31
08-25-2004, 04:42 PM
1)Oh, so heard it from someone who heard it from God. Oh, OK. That's credible. And passing stories along through generations and civilizations without using a written language...Come on man.

2)Early man couldn't possibly have had even an inkling of a notion that evolution existed. Why would they have even thought about this back then? God created us as far as they were concerned. There was no basis for research. Were talking about 1000s of years later before a theory was created. With how little we knew about how the human body existed, there is no way anyone could have even had a foundation for thinking in this direction.

3)Dude, you can be religious and still beleive in evolution. But it is impossible to beleive in Creationism and Evolution at the same time.

creationism

n : the literal belief in the account of creation given in the Book of Genesis; "creationism denies the theory of evolution of species"

taken from dictionary.com and you will find a similar definition in any Webster's.

4)I know it's not a complicated, so listen to what I'm saying. I am talking about the word "created in a day" in regards to human beings. HUMANS. NOT EARTH. If Earth is created, (which it must have been before humans) and then God made it rotate and orbit around the sun (pppfffttttt) then that one unit of rotation, where the sun goes up, goes down and then up again...is one day. That is one day now, and one day when the folks who wrote the Bible were around. Not the creation of Earth. I understand that. The creation of humans.

You had to be talking about humans anyway because "God" created the Earth in 6 days according to the bible.

PhinPhan1227
08-25-2004, 07:06 PM
You had to be talking about humans anyway because "God" created the Earth in 6 days according to the bible.


Actually, the Earth was created on the 3rd day.

"
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
And the evening and the morning were the third day. "

ABrownLamp
08-25-2004, 09:41 PM
PhinPhan

I think the problem here is our difference in beliefs. I do not believe in a higher power. I don't beleive in heaven and I think the notion of a hell is absurd. We're humans. We're living organisms just like anything else.

The reason I keep harping on the issue of "day" is because I feel it is a man made term. We can sit here and argue back and forth about what it means, but the bottom line is that I don't beleive the word goes any further than sun rise to sun rise. And the reason for that is because I don't think a higher power had anything to do with the term's creation. Personally, I don't think the Bible's authors had anything more in mind than that (since I don't think it is God's word) when they created it. 7 full rotations of the Earth is all it took God is what I think they meant. Anything else would be a capitulation to the idea of God's existence.

As far as Creationism goes, regardless of how you feel the word has mutated, that is the meaning behind the philosophy today. The basis of which is almost the complete antithesis of what Evolutionary scholars beleive in. I guarantee you you won't find more than a few Biological professors that subscribe to its beliefs, and there is a reason for that. One view presents facts that can be falsified, the other is based on beliefs which can't be tested. That's where the discrepancy comes in...and that's why I choose science.

PhinPhan1227
08-25-2004, 11:14 PM
PhinPhan

I think the problem here is our difference in beliefs. I do not believe in a higher power. I don't beleive in heaven and I think the notion of a hell is absurd. We're humans. We're living organisms just like anything else.

The reason I keep harping on the issue of "day" is because I feel it is a man made term. We can sit here and argue back and forth about what it means, but the bottom line is that I don't beleive the word goes any further than sun rise to sun rise. And the reason for that is because I don't think a higher power had anything to do with the term's creation. Personally, I don't think the Bible's authors had anything more in mind than that (since I don't think it is God's word) when they created it. 7 full rotations of the Earth is all it took God is what I think they meant. Anything else would be a capitulation to the idea of God's existence.

As far as Creationism goes, regardless of how you feel the word has mutated, that is the meaning behind the philosophy today. The basis of which is almost the complete antithesis of what Evolutionary scholars beleive in. I guarantee you you won't find more than a few Biological professors that subscribe to its beliefs, and there is a reason for that. One view presents facts that can be falsified, the other is based on beliefs which can't be tested. That's where the discrepancy comes in...and that's why I choose science.


You're perfectly within your rights to reject the existance of God(thus Free Will), but you should be aware of the fact that you have traded one faith for another. "Science", beyond the basics, is based more on a lack of "disproof" than proof. Ever see a proton? Nobody has, but it fits with what we think and we can't disprove it. Quantum phyiscs? The best experts in the field don't even understand it. They just find things that work and run with them. Best of all, ever see the study on the chances of the universe existing randomly? There are a number of universal "constants". 11 or 17, I can never remember which. But they include numbers like the attractive force of atomic nuclei, gravity, etc. These constants are EXACTLY where they need to be. Alter them by .00000000000000000000000000000000000001% either way and the universe never develops beyond a random collection of gases. The odds of all of these constants being EXACTLY what they need to be is 1:a figure so long that if I started typing zero's now I would be dead long before I was finished. So you tell me which is less likely....a superior being(we are superior to many other creatures, what makes it even "unlikely" that there is a creature superior to us?), or the perfect confluence of numbers so unlikely you have a better chance of winning the lottery a million times in a row? All that aside, explain to me why natural selection would bother to endow me with an appreciation for a really nice sunset? Hardly a survival trait. Oh, one other thing...I know plenty of biologists, and quite a few scientists in other fields. Only a few are athiests. Probably for the reasons I've been discussing...there's no inherent conflict unless someone wants to create a conflict.

ABrownLamp
08-26-2004, 12:31 AM
Actually, we CAN see protons and electrons. Back in 1997 I worked in my father's laboratory over the summer. We used very large and powerful microscopes like the Transmitting Electron Microscope, (which allows visualizaion of electrons) and an Atomic Force Microscope which permit a human to see groups of protons. That was in 97, I'm sure we can see individual protons today.

You have predicated your beleif system on the fact that, just because things are complicated and defy odds, that there is a God. This is the kind of information used in Intelligent Design philosophies. I feel that there is an answer far more complicated than that.

The fact is that in order to understand evolution, you have to understand cellular and molecular biology, something which Darwin predated. Darwin had no knowledge of genetics or cellular mutations or any other Mendellian process, which is what made his discoveries so amazing.

What you are forgetting is that evolution doesn't just occur in animals, but in bacteria and viruses as well. This isn't a process exclusive to us. This is an aspect that Creationism ignores, as well as the Bible. I mean Penecillin kills 99.9% of the targetted bacterium...and the part that doesn't die...if it multiplies, that's evolution. Insects which are immune to DDT...How does Creationism explain away these things.

And finally, as far as only a few biologists being atheists..that's just not true. Most reject the idea of a God, and even fewer accept Creationism. The reason I say this is because my father is and has been a professor of Biology at FIU for 30 years. We've had many discussions about this and one of his fundamental statements is...why do you think everyone in the Biology department is an atheist. Sorry. Nothing you say is going to convince me otherwise on this one.

PhinPhan1227
08-26-2004, 02:06 AM
Actually, we CAN see protons and electrons. Back in 1997 I worked in my father's laboratory over the summer. We used very large and powerful microscopes like the Transmitting Electron Microscope, (which allows visualizaion of electrons) and an Atomic Force Microscope which permit a human to see groups of protons. That was in 97, I'm sure we can see individual protons today.

You have predicated your beleif system on the fact that, just because things are complicated and defy odds, that there is a God. This is the kind of information used in Intelligent Design philosophies. I feel that there is an answer far more complicated than that.

The fact is that in order to understand evolution, you have to understand cellular and molecular biology, something which Darwin predated. Darwin had no knowledge of genetics or cellular mutations or any other Mendellian process, which is what made his discoveries so amazing.

What you are forgetting is that evolution doesn't just occur in animals, but in bacteria and viruses as well. This isn't a process exclusive to us. This is an aspect that Creationism ignores, as well as the Bible. I mean Penecillin kills 99.9% of the targetted bacterium...and the part that doesn't die...if it multiplies, that's evolution. Insects which are immune to DDT...How does Creationism explain away these things.

And finally, as far as only a few biologists being atheists..that's just not true. Most reject the idea of a God, and even fewer accept Creationism. The reason I say this is because my father is and has been a professor of Biology at FIU for 30 years. We've had many discussions about this and one of his fundamental statements is...why do you think everyone in the Biology department is an atheist. Sorry. Nothing you say is going to convince me otherwise on this one.

Again...I'm not trying to convince you of anything. You want to be an athiest...knock yourself out. One mistake you made however...my belief system isn't based on the complexity of the universe. That's merely an interesting notation and something I find curious since athiests are willing to embrace a "coincidence" much more unlikely than a superior intelligence. That aside, my belief system is based on the fact that I know there is a God. Plain and simple it's based on faith. It's not based on the Bible(which I view as a guide, not an absolute), it's not based on my upbringing(I was raised by a non-practicing Catholic and an athiest), it's not based on some late life epiphany or event. My faith is based simply on the fact that I believe in a superior intelligence. It's based on the presence of sublime beauty in the world. It's based on the fact that no other animal on this planet, despite some high intelligences, feels the need to have this discussion. We're the only animal on this planet that asks "why". My dog can handle who, what, when, where, and even how, but "why" is not in his capacity. Oh, one other thing...ask dad why we find a sunset appealing? What survival trait passed that one on? I could understand if we founf sunsets that foretold nice weather appealing, but a good solid oncoming thunderstorm is appealing as well. Again Brown, please do NOT think that I am trying to convert you...that's not my job. But I just suggest that you understand that we all put our faith in one thing or another. It's part of being human.