DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Rant >> Ashamed to be Texan
Pages:   ... ... [51]
Showing posts 476 - 500 of 1256, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 11/12/2005 02:04:35 AM · #476
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by nomad469:
Ron... Are you saying that you are bothered by simply the use of the term "marrage"...If they called it "legally regognized commited union" or some such... you would have no problem with the concept at all???

Yes.
...
I would have a personal dislike for the idea, just as I would/do for an unmarried heterosexual couple living together now. I would still consider both to be sinful. BUT, I don't go out of my way to harangue people who are shacking up, don't write letters to the editor about it, and see no reason why I would do so if they were homosexual and either legally partnered or not.


Ron... I am going to have to buy you a beer my friend...
I was about to put you wholey in the same catagory as many of the right wing cool-aid drinkers on this issue...but actually I kinda agree with you.

The problem is that many of these Gay marrage bills go way past defining marrage between One man and one woman and go to out and out legal discrimination.

For instance the TX prop (now Statute) says:

"The constitutional amendment providing that marriage in this state consists only of the union of one man and one woman and prohibiting this state or a political subdivision of this state from creating or recognizing any legal status identical or similar to marriage."

So therefore... the good people of the state of TX have banned civil unions also (and some would argue common law situations also)

This thing was driven by the use of the word marrage. GAY MARRAGE as it has been marketed. The term GAY MARRAGE was chosen by the same folks that are pushing INTELLEGENT DESIGN. They have chosen marketing phrases that will move their base to or not to support a concept on a flim flam of wording.

Ron you said it yourself

Originally posted by RonB:
I don't go out of my way to harangue people who are shacking up, don't write letters to the editor about it, and see no reason why I would do so if they were homosexual and either legally partnered or not.


but add the word MARRAGE and you are moved to action because to you (and to me also, frankly) Marrage does mean something.

To my way of thinking... this anti-Gay marrage thing is simply seeped in the most vile form of bigitory pushed by those (not aimed at you Ron or others that share your view) who have no tolerance for folks that dont share there belief system.

Same make the weak argument that there is nothing that prohibits "private contracts" that would not be recognized by the state. and strictly speaking they are correct... but those contracts would be open for challenge in court.

Oh well... Life goes on... I have images to process :)


Message edited by author 2005-11-12 02:06:47.
 11/12/2005 02:07:15 AM · #477
Ron,

You're at it again. That's circular. It's not that I'm saying "semantics" are unimportant. I'd be the last person to say that. What I AM saying is that every time someone answers you, you reply with a circular or semantic riposte, so it's literally impossible for any of us to pin you down to any clear-spoken statement. Whenever we disagree with anythign you say, or debate it rather, you "refute" our position by redefining your terms, or further defining them, or whatever.

It's immensely frustrating.

What I was trying to show in my last post is that you've carried this so far that ALL that verbiage reduces itself (in your eyes at least, according to your own most-recent "clarification") to a semantic distinction, and how you feel about it. I am NOT denying the importance of semantics, I repeat. Don't try to pin me down that way. That's not what's happening here, and I suspect you know it :-)

There are far more direct ways to your point, assuming you're not just playing games with us.

Robt.
 11/12/2005 06:26:26 AM · #478

I took a day off from this thread - work to do, dinner party to arrange and too much wine after my guests had left to read.
I came back this morning hoping to see some forward movement and find it has gone back 10 pages! The question of semantics and the concern over the word "marriage" was being discussed and it appeared it was the word that offended people not the ceremony. Marriage is a word that has evolved from its original meaning and moved into common useage as a word to mean the amalgamation or union of two things. Nothing has moved on from there except the discussion has gone full circle. ]
I also posted the new laws in UK and got no response. In fact the whatever the Law says in its documentation, everyone ( media and general public) is referring to this as gay "marriage". Nothing anyone says or does will stop this! The phrase will be used and become common or plain English and will be accepted. So people with the same persuasion as RonB will have to accept this however THEY refer to the civil union of homosexuals.

To save anyone trolling back through this thread I shall quote my previous posts to demonstrate the circularity of this thread!!!
[
I'm still a little confused!
In the UK, even when a couple take part in a ceremony at the registrar's office or a non religious venue such as a country house and they are joined as husband and wife, they are said to be married. To have taken part in a marriage. This is not under the umbrella of the Church in any way, shape or form. It is a civil marriage. So where does it say that marriage can only take place in a religious form?
Aren't we just playing with words? Now if it was referred to as holy matrimony ( as in the church wedding service) then fine but marriage as a word just means the union of two people.
So I am confused why there is this big problem with calling the union of homosexuals as a marriage.

Is this an American cultural difference from the UK? If so then I will pack up my camel and leave quietly because I am obviously unable to understand the American use of the ~English language.
P


FYI
A change in the law in the UK will take place next month, legalising homosexual unions, the fifth country to to do so after ~Spain, Belgium, Canada and the Netherlands. The Civil Partnership Act will enable homosexuals to have enhanced property, pension, social security,and inheritance rights and create a legal status of "civil partners".
These same sex union ceremonies will take place in Register Offices where hetrosexual marriages take place at present and where, up to now, same sex "committment ceremonies" have been taking place.
Partners will be able to dissolve the partnerships in the equivalent of a divorce.

A big step towards equal rights for all people IMO!

P

11/12/2005 06:39:11 AM · #479
John and I are now going out for the day to shoot some pics at the coast ( wild seas hopefully) so it will be interesting to see where this thread has got to when we get back! OR HAVE I MANAGED TO KILL THIS MONSTER?????
:))
P
 11/12/2005 10:36:24 AM · #480
Originally posted by bear_music:
Ron,

You're at it again. That's circular. It's not that I'm saying "semantics" are unimportant. I'd be the last person to say that. What I AM saying is that every time someone answers you, you reply with a circular or semantic riposte, so it's literally impossible for any of us to pin you down to any clear-spoken statement. Whenever we disagree with anythign you say, or debate it rather, you "refute" our position by redefining your terms, or further defining them, or whatever.

It's immensely frustrating.

What I was trying to show in my last post is that you've carried this so far that ALL that verbiage reduces itself (in your eyes at least, according to your own most-recent "clarification") to a semantic distinction, and how you feel about it. I am NOT denying the importance of semantics, I repeat. Don't try to pin me down that way. That's not what's happening here, and I suspect you know it :-)

There are far more direct ways to your point, assuming you're not just playing games with us.

Robt.


APPLAUSE FROM THE PEANUT GALLERY
 11/12/2005 12:01:48 PM · #481
Originally posted by bear_music:
Whenever we disagree with anythign you say, or debate it rather, you "refute" our position by redefining your terms, or further defining them, or whatever.


More applause, but I'm not at all surprised. The foundation of religion rests entirely on circular references and the ability to reinterpret. The bible's own characters are held as proof of it's authenticity (Wendy and the Lost Boys witnessed Peter Pan, so he must be real). Without that flexibility, ancient texts held as absolute fact would crumble under the advancement of science and exploration (Galileo, Columbus...). The notion that it could have rained several hundred inches per hour for 40 days is patently absurd if taken literally, as is the thought that Adam and Eve named all the animals ("Honey, what did we call that black and white critter from Antartica again... giant squid? We're up to 2 million, maybe we should start writing these down"). According to the bible, God created light, separated it into Day and Night, and then went on creating the earth and plants BEFORE creating the stars and Sun on the fourth day. So um... how was there day and night and grass without a sun? Shhhh! Don't question it- it's all fact beyond questioning.

When a natural disaster strikes an area like New Orleans, some will call it punishment for their wicked ways, yet when the exact same disaster hits a church congregation, we're told that God taken them home or has something special planned for them. The reason will always change to fit the desired result (or in this case, bias).

Ron's premise appears to be (until he redefines it) that homosexual marriage will corrupt his notion of marriage, although he still hasn't explained how. I have personally attended Jewish-Catholic weddings, and that didn't affect my marriage one bit, though the bible specifically forbids marriage between religions (Exodus 34:10-16, among others).

Problem: sexual orientation can be either a physical predisposition (and thus God's creation) or it's all sin freely chosen despite an otherwise-universal tendency (which leaves those born as transsexuals...?).

FWIW, I happen to be happily civil-unioned to my wife (for those who prefer that approach).

Message edited by author 2005-11-12 12:09:48.
 11/12/2005 12:30:57 PM · #482
Originally posted by theSaj:
An atheist says there is no god. That is an absolute claim. And therefore requires absolute knowledge.
Were you to say I see no evidence of a god. Which would place you under the agnostic category. I'd have no issue.


Well, you would call me an agnostic, but I and others like me prefer âweak atheistâ or âatheistâ for short or âhandsome devilsâ while handing us boxes of chocolates if you really want to get on our good sides. (While heterosexual myself, this is a gay rights thread, after all.) I donât say there are no gods. I say I donât believe in the existence of gods. Nor do I believe in the existence of ghosts, psychic powers, or Bigfoot, but thatâs another conversation. Regardless of all that, since the methods of scientific inquiry are methodologically naturalistic, youâre still dead wrong in claiming that a âstrong atheist,â who do claim there are no gods, cannot perform science.

UPDATE: See ScottKâs and my discussion on this issue. We appear to be at the same impasse regarding definitions and terminology. I can only say that you would call me an agnostic by your definition and I would call myself an atheist by my definition. The vast majority of atheists I know would also fall under the category of agnostic by your definition and fall under the category of atheist by their own and my definition. I know very, very few âstrong atheistsâ (the minority within the minority, if you will) and I disagree with their reasoning. However, I will continue to define myself as an atheist and so will, Iâm certain, the other âweakâ or ânegativeâ atheists I know.

Originally posted by theSaj:
Neigh, I am equating the fact that you leave no room for a search for a search for god. But accept a search for other intelligent life as scientific. We currently have neither the means nor evidenced for finding either.


Sure thereâs room to search for gods. What scientific methods are you suggesting be used for such a search? Beyond using methodologically naturalist means, postulating the existence of leprechauns is just useful, or useless, as postulating the existence of ghosts when comes to testing anything beyond the natural world. Itâs a matter of faith, not science.

Originally posted by theSaj:
And if we can not even find life on par with our level of development and existence.


You speak as if were an easy thing to listen for something that may or may not exist within the thousands of light years around earth.

Originally posted by theSaj:
How can you have even the mediocre ability to find evidence of it on a much higher plane and/or development level?


If you can propose a repeatable test for the discovery of the existence of gods, I would like to hear it. Hopefully something that could be done under laboratory conditions.

Youâd have to have evidence that such levels exist, wouldnât you? Can you present any evidence for these supposed âhigher planesâ levels or âdevelopment levelsâ?

Originally posted by "milo655321":
we âknowâ that there is life on the planet Earth in our universe. We even define some portion of this life on Earth as intelligent. It is possible to extrapolate that there is the âpossibilityâ of life on other planets within the same universe consisting of billions of other stars and possibly billions of other.


Originally posted by theSaj:
Interesting...as I applied the same extrapolation to intelligent design. We have evidence of informational and processing code that was written by programmers. We see code that is similar in design. How is it illogical to extrapolate that it too might have been written by a programmer. Heck, the programmer could even be a much more intelligent form than us.


Itâs possible. Perhaps someone could propose a repeatable test for finding this programmer. The ID hypothesis certainly doesnât. ID is an argument for incredulity for complex systems mixed with a proposed necessarily âmoreâ complex designer for which it propose absolutely no test for discovery. Iâll spot you a âGâ and an âOâ on the identity of this unnamed, untestable designer. (Tips hat to Mr. Rothchild, plaintiffâs attorney in Kitzmiller v. DASD, closing statement for that last sentence.)

In your profession, how often do you intentionally add millions of lines to of code that are extraneous, repetitive, filled with coding errors and donât work when the program is running?

Originally posted by "milo655321":
Since the supernatural falls outside the realm of testing via methodological naturalistic means, science cannot comment on it. It doesnât make it true no matter how many times you say otherwise.


Originally posted by theSaj:
How do you know that....in fact, if one believes that God created the universe...the entire natural was a super-natural act. The question of observability. I have yet to observe an alien. Therefore they do not exist. They are super-natural. Can you show me observed evidence of aliens in the natural world? no....so then ALIENS DO NOT EXIST. Why, because if you apply the logic you do to God. Then how do you know there are not natural observances that you just haven't witnessed. Or even more, understood.


So if something happens unobserved you reserve the right to claim its occurrence is supernatural? The existence/non-existence of extraterrestrials stands apart from your belief in them just as the existence/non-existence of gods stand apart from your belief in them. You could believe in the non-existent aliens just as you could believe in a non-existent god. Your belief is separate to their existence/non-existence.

Originally posted by theSaj:
What if the "weak force" was in fact an act of God. And you were merely observing it. Can you explain WHY the weak force attracts and acts like it does? Or do you simply accept that it does. Are you so very sure that you have not in fact observed the acts of God?


Arenât you merely repeating the âGod-of-the-Gapsâ argument? Itâs a theologically dangerous place to be. If we find the cause of weak force and itâs not some god, youâve just made the proposed god that less necessary. There should be some good criticism (made by theologians) to be found online of the theological thin ice one which your god-of-the-gaps argument stands.

Originally posted by "milo655321":
No, it is not âin fact magicâ to those who lack understanding.


Originally posted by theSaj:
Please, go read Mark Twain's "A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court". Go visit an unbefore discovered tribal nation. Bring your technology and see if they do not think it magic.


See, thatâs where you failed with your words in your previous post, people thinking something is magic does not âin factâ make it magic. Thinking something is magic and something being magic are two different things. Incidentally, I donât believe in magic.

Originally posted by theSaj:
One can easily argue there is no magic...there is simply knowledge and it's application.


Agreed. I expected you to garner that from my âNo, it is not âin fact magicâ to those who lack understandingâ response to you.

Originally posted by theSaj:
And right now, much is hypothesized regarding the possibility of an intelligent influence on our design.


And so far itâs been a fruitless hypothesis, no peer-reviewed papers nor any testable theory.

Originally posted by theSaj:
The fact that we have not directly observed god does not negate the potentiality of god's existance.


Nor have I claimed that it does negate the potentiality of the existence of any gods.

Originally posted by "milo655321":
Youâve really got a screwy idea of what science is and does, donât you? Seriously. Read some books on actual science and stop making things up. Science is about method, itâs not about philosophy. You run into the troubles youâre apparently having when you confuse the two.


Originally posted by theSaj:
Mine are quite well grounded. And furthermore, I find it rather insightful that you constantly avoid my questions and arguments and simply dismiss them unaddressed and repeatedly return to ad hominems.


I didnât answer some your questions because I preferred to address the premise behind your questions. I didnât feel the need to address the questions after I had addressed that premise behind the question. I could throw a hundred questions at you and you could throw a hundred questions at me, but I feel it more important to address the premises behind the questions. Asking and answering questions is secondary to addressing the premises behind the questions. Show me which premises I haven't addressed.

I havenât committed any ad hominems. I think the closest Iâve come is to observe that some of your ideas are âscrewy.â And I only say that because youâve repeated confused methodological naturalism for philosophical naturalism even after itâs been pointed out to you that youâre wrongfully equating them. Your statement about atheist not being able to perform science is a prime example. In essence youâve been saying âphilosophical naturalists cannot conduct methodologically natural experiments, make methodologically natural observations or propose any methodologically natural hypothesis,â which is, of course, nonsense. Itâs not an attack on you; itâs an attack on your reasoning.

Originally posted by theSaj:
You think that is some challenge for me? Goodness gracious. I am a programmer. I've watched the computer system crash and corrupt a file. I also am fully aware of the scientific evidence compiled regarding the effect of solar radiation and environmental damage on the DNA code. Thus, to tell me that the code is damaged in certain places is no big leap of understanding.


Hmm ⦠and you accuse me of handwaving? I have no doubt that you have the ability to explain away an example I used to support a point. That, however, has done nothing to diminish or address the point that I was making in the first place. The genetic code appears messy and inefficient and it gives appearances consistent evolutionary theory. Can your position give any indication as to why the pseudogene for Vitamin C gene in all the great apes (including humans) is broken in the exact same place? Youâve suggested solar radiation and environmental damage, which we can agree causes damage to the genetic code, but there are more known pseudogenes than the one Iâve just listed that are shared across related species in patterns consistent with evolutionary development. Are you suggesting that all, most or many shared pseudogenes across all, most or many species sharing said pseudogenes are due to factors such as solar radiations and environmental damage affecting all, most or many genes in the exact same way independent of evolutionary lines?

Iâve come the realization that in order to continue our discussion in any meaningful fashion I need asked what kind of creationist you are. In other words, how much evolution do you accept? There are a variety of creationist movements and in order to continue this debate with you I need know what you accept and donât accept with respect to modern mainstream science. Hereâs a list of the types of creationist from which to choose ranging from the Flat Earth Creationism, which I donât believe you subscribe to, to Material Evolution, which is the current mainstream science position for which Iâm arguing. Feel free to further define the categories presented if they donât exactly match what youâre arguing for:

Flat Earth Creationism
Geocentrism
Young-Earth Creationism
Old Earth Creationism
Gap Creationism
Day-Age Creationism
Progressive Creationism
Intelligent Design Creationism
Evolutionary Design Creationism
Theistic Evolution
Material Evolution

For further clarification of what each group accepts go here. Thank you in advance for your help in this matter.

Originally posted by "milo655321":
Originally posted by "theSaj":
This is very much akin to the "programming languages" used by us. These are designed.


Originally posted by "milo655321":
Or theyâre not, but have the appearance of design. As Iâve written, in some cases, with a jury-rigged design.


Originally posted by theSaj:
A jury rigged design. Oh please Great Milo....tell me of what program have you written that was not designed. Java, C++, Fortran, etc. And they all go to machine code which still had to be designed. And even if you wrote your own language from scratch at the hardware binary level. That still requires quite a bit of intelligence.


Your example would hold up if the comparison between a computer code and the genetic code were a one-to-one relationship. Itâs not. The genetic code is much messier and repetitive than anything youâll find rolling of the line of Microsoft ⦠and I hear thatâs some feat. (*rimshot*) To paraphrase what one researcher, whose name I inconveniently forget, said, âI could buy their idea of a designer if they could buy the idea that the designer is a complete moron.â Somehow I donât think he thought they werenât willing to make that concession.

It is interesting to bring up the fact that youâre a programmer. The ID movement seems to have a much greater support among the engineers and programmers â people used to dealing with design; it isnât supported by the vast, vast majority of microbiologists, geneticists or biologists â the people actually studying the subject that the ID movement is claiming is designed. (The microbiologists and geneticists are also the ones claiming that these systems appear âjury-rigged.â)
11/12/2005 12:48:43 PM · #483
Just thought I'd throw this into the mix re: Robinson Jeffers' (an American poet of the mid-20th century) understanding of the "proof" of God's existence:

The beauty of things
is in the beholder's brain â
the human mind's translation
of their transhuman, intrinsic value...

Look how beautiful
are all the things that He does:
His signature is the beauty of things...

...as mathematics, a human invention
that parallels but never touches reality, gives the astronomer
metaphors through which he may comprehend
the powers and the flow of things: so the human sense
of beauty is our metaphor of their excellence, their divine
nature: - like dust in a whirlwind, making
the wild wind visible.

Robt.
 11/12/2005 01:42:22 PM · #484
I have a simple question. If God created everything, and everyone, etc., he created gay people. If God loves all his children, why would he discriminate against them by denying them the chance to get married in his churches? I know, it's written in the bible that being gay is a sin, and that marraige is between a man and a women, but he did create homosexuals, right?

FWIW this is a serious question because I know nothing about what the bible says. I am NOT trying to argue or antagonize with anyone. You guys have been doing a great job of that for me
 11/12/2005 01:45:04 PM · #485
Originally posted by milo655321:

Admit it. You used to pull the wings off of flies, didn't you? :P


You know they are called "walks" once the are de-winged right :-))

I have not idea if there is a god or not and neither does anybody else unless they cannot differentate proof from faith (yeah, one persons proof is another faith but they are different). Unfortunatly it's too often used as a crutch to push the speakers own predjustice.

The bottom line is that the more extrodinary claim required the proof. Feel free to provide some so the world can get on with bigger issues - but please don't give me your version of faith and call it proof :)
 11/12/2005 01:50:23 PM · #486
Originally posted by pidge:
I have a simple question. If God created everything, and everyone, etc., he created gay people. If God loves all his children, why would he discriminate against them by denying them the chance to get married in his churches? I know, it's written in the bible that being gay is a sin, and that marraige is between a man and a women, but he did create homosexuals, right?

FWIW this is a serious question because I know nothing about what the bible says. I am NOT trying to argue or antagonize with anyone. You guys have been doing a great job of that for me


Short answer: God created the first people free of sin. Eve was tempted by the snake, and she and Adam ate of the tree of knowledge. They were cast out of the Garden of Eden, and ever since then we've been on our own. When we acquired free will, we picked up as baggage the capacity to sin; we were no longer in a state of innocence.

So, no, God did not "create" homosexuals, or any other form of "sinner" for that matter. He created His children in His own image, and they broke the rules.

It is argued that without free will "faith" has no meaning. In order for purity to have value, impurity must be possible.

This is a gross oversimplification, and I know it, so hopefully I won't get called out on this by Bible scholars :-) I'm also not expressing this as "my belief" but just trying to give a short version of what the Bible says happened.

R.

Edited for unfortunate juxtaposition of terms :-)

Message edited by author 2005-11-12 14:13:31.
 11/12/2005 01:56:52 PM · #487
Originally posted by bear_music:
Originally posted by pidge:
I have a simple question. If God created everything, and everyone, etc., he created gay people. If God loves all his children, why would he discriminate against them by denying them the chance to get married in his churches? I know, it's written in the bible that being gay is a sin, and that marraige is between a man and a women, but he did create homosexuals, right?

FWIW this is a serious question because I know nothing about what the bible says. I am NOT trying to argue or antagonize with anyone. You guys have been doing a great job of that for me


Short answer: God created the first people free of sin. Eve was tempted by the snake, and she and Adam ate of the tree of knowledge. They were cast out of the Garden of Eden, and ever since then we've been on our own. When we acquired free will, we picked up as baggage the capacity to sin; we were no longer in a state of innocence.

So, no, God did not "create" homosexuals, or other 'sinners', or whatever. He created His children in His own image, and they broke the rules.

It is argued that without free will "faith" has no meaning. In order for purity to have value, impurity must be possible.

This is a gross oversimplification, and I know it, so hopefully I won't get called out on this by Bible scholars :-) I'm also not expressing this as "my belief" but just trying to give a short version of what the Bible says happened.

R.


Ahhh, ok, thanks Bear (the all knowing), for clearing that up.

Edit: edit quotes from other posts


Message edited by author 2005-11-12 20:38:47.
 11/12/2005 02:00:28 PM · #488
One important addendum to bear's summary: Adam and Eve ate the fruit not of the "tree of knowledge" but of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. It was that specific knowledge, and not education in general, which triggered their fall from Grace.

And it was more likely an apricot than an apple ...

Message edited by author 2005-11-12 14:01:42.
 11/12/2005 02:05:06 PM · #489
Originally posted by GeneralE:


And it was more likely an apricot than an apple ...


Or a banana. After all they slipped on that one.
 11/12/2005 02:08:19 PM · #490
Not sure I fully appreciate/understand the association of homosexuals with murderers and rapists either (wish other more relevant examples could have been used, but please continue...)
 11/12/2005 02:11:29 PM · #491
Originally posted by SJCarter:
Not sure I fully appreciate/understand the association of homosexuals with murderers and rapists either (wish other more relevant examples could have been used, but please continue...)


Hmmm... You have a point there. Sorry about that. The principle obtains, though. I have edited the original reference to remove the association.

Robt.

Message edited by author 2005-11-12 14:13:59.
 11/12/2005 02:12:01 PM · #492
Originally posted by GeneralE:
One important addendum to bear's summary: Adam and Eve ate the fruit not of the "tree of knowledge" but of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. It was that specific knowledge, and not education in general, which triggered their fall from Grace.

And it was more likely an apricot than an apple ...


Not a pomegranate?

R.
 11/12/2005 02:14:19 PM · #493
Originally posted by bear_music:
Originally posted by SJCarter:
Not sure I fully appreciate/understand the association of homosexuals with murderers and rapists either (wish other more relevant examples could have been used, but please continue...)


Hmmm... You have a point there. Sorry about that. The principle obtains, though.

Robt.


Please forgive my opportunistic comment, but it's not the first time... :-) And on a completely serious note, thank you for the editorial comment.

EDIT: Oops - corrected double negative!

Message edited by author 2005-11-12 14:19:15.
 11/12/2005 02:15:06 PM · #494
Pomegranate is another popular possibility. Or maybe dates -- there aren't too many fruiting trees in that part of the world. Of course, given the supernatural status of Eden, it could really be anything you want it to be -- I just highly doubt it was a MacIntosh or Winesap.
 11/12/2005 02:19:01 PM · #495
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Pomegranate is another popular possibility. Or maybe dates -- there aren't too many fruiting trees in that part of the world. Of course, given the supernatural status of Eden, it could really be anything you want it to be -- I just highly doubt it was a MacIntosh or Winesap.


There aren't NOW, for sure, but there was a time when that area was known as the "fertile crescent" and was an extremely fruitful area (pun intended). ho knows WHAT the Good Lord had in His garden?

Robt.
 11/12/2005 03:12:01 PM · #496
Most apples (and pears) require a period of cold weather. Whatever descriptions I've read of a lush Eden or the Fertile Crescent it always seemed to describe a semi-tropical lushness. One the other hand, I know it snows in Jerusalem.
 11/12/2005 04:06:33 PM · #497
Originally posted by bear_music:
...she and Adam ate of the tree of knowledge. They were cast out of the Garden of Eden, and ever since then we've been on our own. When we acquired free will, we picked up as baggage the capacity to sin; we were no longer in a state of innocence.


That's an interesting paradox. They were punished because they ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil (apparently without free will), even though they wouldn't know the difference between good and evil until they did something that God provided for them to do and allowed a coach in there to talk them into it. Nice.
 11/12/2005 04:39:02 PM · #498
Originally posted by bear_music:
Short answer: God created the first people free of sin. Eve was tempted by the snake, and she and Adam ate of the tree of knowledge. They were cast out of the Garden of Eden, and ever since then we've been on our own. When we acquired free will, we picked up as baggage the capacity to sin; we were no longer in a state of innocence.

So, no, God did not "create" homosexuals, or any other form of "sinner" for that matter. He created His children in His own image, and they broke the rules.

A nice summarization, bear. Not surprisingly, I would suggest two modifications:
1) Eve was tempted by the serpent ( Satan ), not "a snake". I realize that you will think this a "semantic" game - but to believers ( or to ME, if you prefer ), there is an important difference - that from the very beginning, mankind's struggle has been against the powers in the world; not against men or nature.
2) I would also replace the introductory phrase "When we acquired free will..." with "Since we were created with free will...". If Adam & Eve had not had free will from the very beginning, the rest could not have followed.

Note: This modification is needed to counter the speculation of SCalvert that they did not have free will until after they exercised it. I find it amusing that he will believe YOU before he will believe scripture.

On another note of biblical proportions - this one to SCalvert: Scripture does not say that Adam named ALL of the animals on earth; only that he named the birds of the air and the beasts of the field. I believe that, to date, zoologists have recorded around 9,000 bird species and 15,000 mammal species. At any rate, nowhere near the estimate of 2 million that you gave, which must include amphibians, reptiles, fishes, insects, and other non-bird, non-mammal species.

And finally, the word for "fruit" in the Greek is periy - and the same word is used in the phrase "fruit of the womb" ( meaning child ). It has no specificity.
 11/12/2005 04:48:38 PM · #499
Originally posted by RonB:
Scripture does not say that Adam named ALL of the animals on earth; only that he named the birds of the air and the beasts of the field. I believe that, to date, zoologists have recorded around 9,000 bird species and 15,000 mammal species. At any rate, nowhere near the estimate of 2 million that you gave, which must include amphibians, reptiles, fishes, insects, and other non-bird, non-mammal species.


Ron, just two quick clarification questions. Why does beast of field only include mammels (does this include whales and dolphins of the ocean?) and who named everything else then? Thanks in advance
11/12/2005 04:55:47 PM · #500
Originally posted by bear_music:

Short answer: God created the first people free of sin. Eve was tempted by the snake, and she and Adam ate of the tree of knowledge. They were cast out of the Garden of Eden, and ever since then we've been on our own. When we acquired free will, we picked up as baggage the capacity to sin; we were no longer in a state of innocence.

So, no, God did not "create" homosexuals, or any other form of "sinner" for that matter. He created His children in His own image, and they broke the rules.

I separated this post from my prior, because some may counter that it is "opinion" not "fact" and/or is "circular". But to the point. Your contention that "ever since then we've been on our own" is disputed by scripture. If one believes in the teachings of scripture, then they will believe that you are wrong. If one does NOT believe in the teachings of scripture, then they may agree with you. However since the post is an attempt to summarize the scriptural account, it is illogical to corrupt it with a non-scriptural premise. Toward that end, I would remove the qualifying statement, beginning with the word "and" altogether. But that's just me.
Pages:   ... ... [51]
Current Server Time: 03/13/2025 02:35:21 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/13/2025 02:35:21 AM EDT.