I whole-heartedly agree. Like I said in my last post, I think the people of those religions are the ones that are the root of the emotional troubles regarding the act of sex, not the actual religion itself. It is the implementation of a moral structure that goes against people's natural acts and...
I completely agree, I might have misspoken. This may be purely conjecture, but I think that a strict view of sex because of the emotional (in)stability might have been intended from the start, but has been perverted by the largely patriarchal groups the moral structures have risen from. just...
Also brings up another point (and this is not meant to demean the "Big 3"). Who is closer to God (or possibly have a better description/explanation) Newer religions that are so meshed with culture and civilization, i.e. human progression, or those indigenous religions that were closer to the...
My thoughts exactly.
Favorite beer.....for excessive drinking? Killians of Becks
For general drinking? Any Shiner Beer, cheifly Shiner Boch or Black Lager
Jumping in here late, but giving my 2 cents anyway. I'm also a deist in this sense, so my response might be irrelevant. I can't sleep so I post incessantly :shrug:
My belief looks at this a little differently. Instead of looking at it in the "God is _____" sense, I look at it as "_____ is...
The idea of a "just war" is certainly not confined to the Catholic Church.
Look at the Crusades. We can go on and on about how the Catholic Church has facilitated the killing of thousands of people in the name of God, but look at the context.The original means for the Crusades were not so...
Honestly, I think it is all about intent. Sex can be a beautiful but it can also be one of the most destructive forces. Rape, Poor intentions, resulting in unplanned pregnancy, loss of self, guilt, etc.
It is very much something that requires pen communication and (here it comes) love. Well...
agreed...which I think is the bottom line. There is nothing saying that we can't learn more of the world around us. There is nothing inherently blasphemous about science or evolution.
But if not one of us can know him, as you've stated, then how can we possibly know who Christ is in his eyes? Is this scriptural, and if so, is it how Christ is viewed in God's eyes, or man's? I don't mean to specifically debate the issue, this is something I've had trouble understanding myself...
If I am confused, this is where it happened.
I did not see how this response was an explanation against my previous post. God seeing fit to deal with Abraham, etc. is not an example God "being" something different than what he "was". He meant to do exactly what he did. Neither does this prove...
That is not the same as what we are speaking about in the case of this argument. You said that the idea of what is being called theistic evolution is a silly concept. You then said that was a copout to have any speculation that wasn't directly founded in scripture. You then said that attributing...
We define who God is by what he does. That is one of the biggest arguments for intelligent design is it not, we do not see God but we see his effects? Why would God "be" anything other than what does, especially when the only access to God is by his action. Otherwise, it would be a contradiction...