Posted by DougOut on 11/26/2021 7:04:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dahsdebater on 11/25/2021 10:45:00 AM (view original):

Posted by DougOut on 11/25/2021 8:41:00 AM (view original):
I respectfully disagree. Evolution is NOT a fact. It is a theory. It cannot be proven by any observational standard and therefore by the creed of science itself, can never be more than a theory.

This IS a hill I will die on. Should you wish to have a discussion....you know where to find me.

Happy Thanksgiving.

False. We have observed plenty of evolution, even things that might be considered macroevolution.

MRSA didn't exist until the 1960s.

As a result of poaching, African elephant populations are dramatically altered from only a few decades ago. Females without tusks are exploding in population in spite of the fact that this gene is deadly to male offspring. The mechanism here is obvious and the results are both predictable and undeniably occurring.

I believe what you refer to as evolution, and the term is loaded with equivocation, is instead more related to mutations or things like horizontal gene transfers. From this point forward when I refer to evolution, I do it strictly in the darwinian sense. That would be your macroevolution. That has never been observed.

MRSA is an example a bacterium that has beed damaged. Far from evolving into a stronger resistant cell, it's DNA has switches that are "turned off" or broken and genetic material; that is missing. In other words there is less genetic material. And that's why it survives. The mechanism used by the anti-body to kill the virus, starvation-membrane damage-loss of functions like reproduction...etc, are now gone. Once the antibodies are removed, the mutated gene carrying microbes will eventually die off and be replaced by the stronger original strain. That is not evolution. Not in the Darwinian sense.

I generally agree, at least big picture, with this characterization of how MRSA evolved. And I completely agree with the assertion that in the absence of antibiotics - not antibodies - MRSA would almost certainly be outcompeted by good old fashioned Staph. aureus. However, what I completely disagree with is your last 2 sentences. This is EXACTLY what Darwinian evolution entails. The species is presented with a new challenge and develops a means to survive and thrive that the ancestral species lacks. Darwin's finches would not have evolved as they did without the Galapagos. They would not have been competitive on a larger body of land. How is that different from the case of MRSA? When Darwin did most of his work DNA had not been discovered. There is no requirement to Darwinian evolution that DNA be added. It is a purely phenotypic theory given that the idea of a genotype was decades away when On the Origin of Species was published.

Modern evolutionary biologists have largely divorced themselves from Darwinian theories of evolution in favor of gene-level selection. This does a better job predicting evolutionary outcomes, for example in cases of serious intraspecific competition. However, if what you want to discuss is Darwinian evolution exclusively, MRSA was a great example. For all the reasons you outlined in your post, the development of MRSA is essentially the prototype of what Darwinian evolution is supposed to look like.

Posted by DougOut on 11/26/2021 8:09:00 PM (view original):
dahs: Is this just a list of vaguely related jargon you found to try to intimidate me out of the conversation? What do UV rays have to do with evolution? I've been pretty clear about this, but nobody reads everything, so I'll just ask... you know I'm a working scientist, right?

Well then, allow me to explain.

My understanding is evolutionists believe life originated by natural processes 3.8 billion years ago. I'm going to assume you are going with the primordial soup scenario. This introduces our probability factor which I will not dwell on here. Suffice to say there are over 300 different types of amino acids but only 20 are present in living matter. For starters, your soup needs a pretty defined recipe. Each amino acid comes in two shapes commonly referred to a left-handed and right-handed. ONLY left-handed amino acids are used in biological proteins. Next, these various left-handed amino acids must bond in the correct order or it will not function properly. Next you need an energy source. (My side says the sun isn't powerful enough as an energy source, however I PERSONALLY THINK A BOLT OF LIGHTNING would suffice. I'm going against my side and giving you an energy source.) .............................................

THIS IS WHERE OXYGEN comes in. Also water and ultra-violet radiation. Your goop has just been jump started into it's evolutionary function except...the chemistry goes the wrong way. You haven't developed a cell membrane. You haven't had time. Your bonding requires polymerization which releases water but excess water breaks up polymers. Your newly forming DNA cannot last long in water (hydrolysis) outside a cell, which is a very sophisticated membrane requiring time, you don't have, to evolve. The suns radiation will destroy these unprotected chemicals as will oxygen. (More about that in a moment.)

Finally, natural selection cannot be invoked at this pre-biotic level. You can't do that until you have your first living cell which cannot be produced under those conditions

Were you aware that scientists have created "life" in laboratory conditions? Well......they call it life. It took a lot of trial and error and many experiments until they made their version of the SOUP. They were quite meticulous about it. The proper chemicals introduced at the right times in the needed amounts at the right temperatures and so on. They wrote a paper on it. There was one small problem. The experiment was done in an atmosphere devoid of oxygen. You can't make the stuff if oxygen is present.

Of course there's always an explanation. Now it's "Well. there was no oxygen on early earth and the first life lived on carbon dioxide like plants do and they expelled oxygen and that's why we have an oxygen atmosphere."

Finally, I am up to my elbows in books and notes looking for this stuff. Let's take a step back please.

ALLS I SAID WAS - EVOLUTION IS A THEORY and not a fact. I often look up the theory of evolution. I've never looked up the fact of evolution. I would prefer not to go through this every evening, however I would be more than willing to give you a list of books OR you can search up some books on counterpoints to evolution yourself. There is another side you know. And it's based on science.

Here's an easy thing for starters. Go to your you tube and enter antibiotic resistant bacteria. You will find several that support your view. You will also see one entitled Antibiotic resistance and bacterial evolution: What's the real story.

I'm going to have cake and ice cream now. Have a good evening.

I generally agree with you here. I meant to point out that I would differentiate between evolution and the origin of life.

I've said for years that the existence of life is a great argument for the existence of God. I've never seen a convincing argument for the spontaneous development of prebiotic precursors to life. What I always think about is the minimum viable piece of biological material that can start on a pathway to becoming life as we understand it today. Whether it's a piece of genetic material or a protein, it needs to be able to A) harvest energy B) use that energy to reproduce itself C) survive until the population becomes widespread. That's a huge barrier. If you want to follow the conventional wisdom and assume that it started with proteins, the number of amino acids that need to be combined in the correct order would have to be at least hundreds. Some substitutions would be viable, but even so, the odds are so long. And then it needs to fold itself at the right time to be functional, and stay folded. I've actually said the exact opposite of what you did about lightning strikes. One of the big problems is that precellular life precursors would almost certainly not have active motility. They'd rely on diffusion to distribute themselves. That leaves them horribly susceptible to thunderstorms, volcanic eruptions, etc. that would denature the proteins.

I believe firmly in evolution. Going from one cell to the life we see now makes all the sense in the world. It's telling that virtually the entire scientific community believe in the same set of mechanisms for how this works. People are much more divided on the origin of life. It's because none of it really makes sense. Sure, amino acids polymerize themselves spontaneously. So what? The jump from anything that isn't a cell to something that is a cell is enormous.

I know that I am hardly knowledgeable on the subject but I am interested. I thought that originally molecules combined setting off a chain reaction leading to cells.
maybe the molecules combined with something else in that process.

The posts are phenomenal.

On evolution or any hailed scientific theory that has never been disproven, as a layman I believe it convincingly when the consensus is very very strong by the finest of the finest throughout the world and especially when it has been tested over many years and confirmations have been made.

I also look to the minority dissenters to see if any possible agenda is possibly involved and the credentials and standing and how strong of a contingent there is.
Based on all of that I believe in evolution and it also seems like common sense.
Evolution to me is like a law of nature in all things thZt are living perhaps even the universe itself.

And in the case of climate change again the skeptics are even less and most are politically aligned and not generally held in the highest confidence.


I really appreciate these science postings enthusiastically. Two opposable thumbs up!

Israeli officials finally tell truth about Trump's Iran policy: 'it was all a big lie... the overall strategy... ended in failure. Iran was closer to nuclear military capability on day he left office than it was when he first entered the WH'

dahs: I generally agree with you here. I meant to point out that I would differentiate between evolution and the origin of life.

I've said for years that the existence of life is a great argument for the existence of God. I've never seen a convincing argument for the spontaneous development of prebiotic precursors to life. What I always think about is the minimum viable piece of biological material that can start on a pathway to becoming life as we understand it today. Whether it's a piece of genetic material or a protein, it needs to be able to A) harvest energy B) use that energy to reproduce itself C) survive until the population becomes widespread. That's a huge barrier. If you want to follow the conventional wisdom and assume that it started with proteins, the number of amino acids that need to be combined in the correct order would have to be at least hundreds. Some substitutions would be viable, but even so, the odds are so long. And then it needs to fold itself at the right time to be functional, and stay folded. I've actually said the exact opposite of what you did about lightning strikes. One of the big problems is that precellular life precursors would almost certainly not have active motility. They'd rely on diffusion to distribute themselves. That leaves them horribly susceptible to thunderstorms, volcanic eruptions, etc. that would denature the proteins.

I believe firmly in evolution. Going from one cell to the life we see now makes all the sense in the world. It's telling that virtually the entire scientific community believe in the same set of mechanisms for how this works. People are much more divided on the origin of life. It's because none of it really makes sense. Sure, amino acids polymerize themselves spontaneously. So what? The jump from anything that isn't a cell to something that is a cell is enormous.

***

Well, it seems you aren't completely adverse to intelligent design and for that I'm thankful. The difference then becomes seeing evolution as a vehicle of change (taught by some Christian organizations) or interpreting the Biblical creation account literally, as in a six day event. I would be the latter.

Now, how could one defend that? The same way on a cellular level I can't explain an evolutionary jump from a prokaryotic cell to a eukaryote, which it presumably preceded. I would be looking for the missing link. You would think it would be easy to do, if not on that level, then at least in the human record. But I find no such links. I remember a little bit of our high school science. There was Nebraska man, Java man, Piltdown man and more recently, Lucy. I wonder if anyone reading this still believes any of those examples are still legitimate. I wouldn't doubt it.

If I'm going to defend my faith, I'm going to reach into every tool in the tool box. We can go from math to biology to paleontology to geology and the fossil record, to name just a few, but here's the point: An evolutionist will look at the fossil record and see long ages and millions of years. A creationist will look at the fossil record and see a catastrophic world-wide event called the flood. Both will use science and and reasoned logic to support their belief. We will look at the solar system and see the same thing and explain it differently. I would argue a Christian is and should be more concerned with faith and will use science and apologetics's as support just as I would argue evolutionist base their beliefs on science first, but you can never eliminate the fact that it is also faith based.

I'm denoting all that to make this final point. The time for attacking Christians for their beliefs because they are uneducated and backwards should be put to rest. Christians are scientists and engineers, pipe fitters and store clerks. They are moms and dads and sons and daughters. More importantly, they are neighbors. They do not eat babies or spend their time devising ways to hurt poor people. Quite the opposite. As Christmas approaches we celebrate the birth of God in the flesh. A prophecy fulfilled. This is the season for hope, joy and peace. If you believe Christ came once, you believe he is coming again. Soon. Christ had something to say to those who abused the weak and poor. Suffer not the little children. So please remember this (edit: I mean everyone in general) the next time we differ on any subject.

Have a wonderful day. I'm going shopping now....only because it's an excuse to put off cleaning the house until later.

Posted by DougOut on 11/27/2021 11:50:00 AM (view original):
dahs: I generally agree with you here. I meant to point out that I would differentiate between evolution and the origin of life.

I've said for years that the existence of life is a great argument for the existence of God. I've never seen a convincing argument for the spontaneous development of prebiotic precursors to life. What I always think about is the minimum viable piece of biological material that can start on a pathway to becoming life as we understand it today. Whether it's a piece of genetic material or a protein, it needs to be able to A) harvest energy B) use that energy to reproduce itself C) survive until the population becomes widespread. That's a huge barrier. If you want to follow the conventional wisdom and assume that it started with proteins, the number of amino acids that need to be combined in the correct order would have to be at least hundreds. Some substitutions would be viable, but even so, the odds are so long. And then it needs to fold itself at the right time to be functional, and stay folded. I've actually said the exact opposite of what you did about lightning strikes. One of the big problems is that precellular life precursors would almost certainly not have active motility. They'd rely on diffusion to distribute themselves. That leaves them horribly susceptible to thunderstorms, volcanic eruptions, etc. that would denature the proteins.

I believe firmly in evolution. Going from one cell to the life we see now makes all the sense in the world. It's telling that virtually the entire scientific community believe in the same set of mechanisms for how this works. People are much more divided on the origin of life. It's because none of it really makes sense. Sure, amino acids polymerize themselves spontaneously. So what? The jump from anything that isn't a cell to something that is a cell is enormous.

***

Well, it seems you aren't completely adverse to intelligent design and for that I'm thankful. The difference then becomes seeing evolution as a vehicle of change (taught by some Christian organizations) or interpreting the Biblical creation account literally, as in a six day event. I would be the latter.

Now, how could one defend that? The same way on a cellular level I can't explain an evolutionary jump from a prokaryotic cell to a eukaryote, which it presumably preceded. I would be looking for the missing link. You would think it would be easy to do, if not on that level, then at least in the human record. But I find no such links. I remember a little bit of our high school science. There was Nebraska man, Java man, Piltdown man and more recently, Lucy. I wonder if anyone reading this still believes any of those examples are still legitimate. I wouldn't doubt it.

If I'm going to defend my faith, I'm going to reach into every tool in the tool box. We can go from math to biology to paleontology to geology and the fossil record, to name just a few, but here's the point: An evolutionist will look at the fossil record and see long ages and millions of years. A creationist will look at the fossil record and see a catastrophic world-wide event called the flood. Both will use science and and reasoned logic to support their belief. We will look at the solar system and see the same thing and explain it differently. I would argue a Christian is and should be more concerned with faith and will use science and apologetics's as support just as I would argue evolutionist base their beliefs on science first, but you can never eliminate the fact that it is also faith based.

I'm denoting all that to make this final point. The time for attacking Christians for their beliefs because they are uneducated and backwards should be put to rest. Christians are scientists and engineers, pipe fitters and store clerks. They are moms and dads and sons and daughters. More importantly, they are neighbors. They do not eat babies or spend their time devising ways to hurt poor people. Quite the opposite. As Christmas approaches we celebrate the birth of God in the flesh. A prophecy fulfilled. This is the season for hope, joy and peace. If you believe Christ came once, you believe he is coming again. Soon. Christ had something to say to those who abused the weak and poor. Suffer not the little children. So please remember this the next time we differ on any subject.

Have a wonderful day. I'm going shopping now....only because it's an excuse to put off cleaning the house until later.

But the scientist uses carbon dating and the creationists reject carbon dating and the creationist scientists are not from the elite class of scientists.
When you say Christian you mean Protestant denominations because the Catholic Church accepts almost all of the scientific explanations except origin of humans.

I support defending one’s faith but I can’t agree that the creationists accept the same science as the scientific community.
Also most creationists believe that the earth is 5800 years old and that the Dinosaurs coexisted with humans and that carbon dating only works going back 5000 years.

As for intelligent design maybe Darwinian evolution is the intelligent design and the major observations of the scientific community are valid.

I can’t help but to wonder why create an infinite ongoing universe to have everywhere most planets inhospitable for life. Why not just have Earth and the sun and the moon and not waste time and space with the rest.

Posted by Jetson21 on 11/27/2021 12:16:00 PM (view original):

Posted by DougOut on 11/27/2021 11:50:00 AM (view original):
dahs: I generally agree with you here. I meant to point out that I would differentiate between evolution and the origin of life.

I've said for years that the existence of life is a great argument for the existence of God. I've never seen a convincing argument for the spontaneous development of prebiotic precursors to life. What I always think about is the minimum viable piece of biological material that can start on a pathway to becoming life as we understand it today. Whether it's a piece of genetic material or a protein, it needs to be able to A) harvest energy B) use that energy to reproduce itself C) survive until the population becomes widespread. That's a huge barrier. If you want to follow the conventional wisdom and assume that it started with proteins, the number of amino acids that need to be combined in the correct order would have to be at least hundreds. Some substitutions would be viable, but even so, the odds are so long. And then it needs to fold itself at the right time to be functional, and stay folded. I've actually said the exact opposite of what you did about lightning strikes. One of the big problems is that precellular life precursors would almost certainly not have active motility. They'd rely on diffusion to distribute themselves. That leaves them horribly susceptible to thunderstorms, volcanic eruptions, etc. that would denature the proteins.

I believe firmly in evolution. Going from one cell to the life we see now makes all the sense in the world. It's telling that virtually the entire scientific community believe in the same set of mechanisms for how this works. People are much more divided on the origin of life. It's because none of it really makes sense. Sure, amino acids polymerize themselves spontaneously. So what? The jump from anything that isn't a cell to something that is a cell is enormous.

***

Well, it seems you aren't completely adverse to intelligent design and for that I'm thankful. The difference then becomes seeing evolution as a vehicle of change (taught by some Christian organizations) or interpreting the Biblical creation account literally, as in a six day event. I would be the latter.

Now, how could one defend that? The same way on a cellular level I can't explain an evolutionary jump from a prokaryotic cell to a eukaryote, which it presumably preceded. I would be looking for the missing link. You would think it would be easy to do, if not on that level, then at least in the human record. But I find no such links. I remember a little bit of our high school science. There was Nebraska man, Java man, Piltdown man and more recently, Lucy. I wonder if anyone reading this still believes any of those examples are still legitimate. I wouldn't doubt it.

If I'm going to defend my faith, I'm going to reach into every tool in the tool box. We can go from math to biology to paleontology to geology and the fossil record, to name just a few, but here's the point: An evolutionist will look at the fossil record and see long ages and millions of years. A creationist will look at the fossil record and see a catastrophic world-wide event called the flood. Both will use science and and reasoned logic to support their belief. We will look at the solar system and see the same thing and explain it differently. I would argue a Christian is and should be more concerned with faith and will use science and apologetics's as support just as I would argue evolutionist base their beliefs on science first, but you can never eliminate the fact that it is also faith based.

I'm denoting all that to make this final point. The time for attacking Christians for their beliefs because they are uneducated and backwards should be put to rest. Christians are scientists and engineers, pipe fitters and store clerks. They are moms and dads and sons and daughters. More importantly, they are neighbors. They do not eat babies or spend their time devising ways to hurt poor people. Quite the opposite. As Christmas approaches we celebrate the birth of God in the flesh. A prophecy fulfilled. This is the season for hope, joy and peace. If you believe Christ came once, you believe he is coming again. Soon. Christ had something to say to those who abused the weak and poor. Suffer not the little children. So please remember this the next time we differ on any subject.

Have a wonderful day. I'm going shopping now....only because it's an excuse to put off cleaning the house until later.

But the scientist uses carbon dating and the creationists reject carbon dating and the creationist scientists are not from the elite class of scientists.
When you say Christian you mean Protestant denominations because the Catholic Church accepts almost all of the scientific explanations except origin of humans.

I support defending one’s faith but I can’t agree that the creationists accept the same science as the scientific community.
Also most creationists believe that the earth is 5800 years old and that the Dinosaurs coexisted with humans and that carbon dating only works going back 5000 years.

As for intelligent design maybe Darwinian evolution is the intelligent design and the major observations of the scientific community are valid.

I can’t help but to wonder why create an infinite ongoing universe to have everywhere most planets inhospitable for life. Why not just have Earth and the sun and the moon and not waste time and space with the rest.

"I'm denoting all that to make this final point. The time for attacking Christians for their beliefs because they are uneducated and backwards should be put to rest. Christians are scientists and engineers, pipe fitters and store clerks. They are moms and dads and sons and daughters. More importantly, they are neighbors. They do not eat babies or spend their time devising ways to hurt poor people. Quite the opposite. As Christmas approaches we celebrate the birth of God in the flesh. A prophecy fulfilled. This is the season for hope, joy and peace. If you believe Christ came once, you believe he is coming again. Soon. Christ had something to say to those who abused the weak and poor. Suffer not the little children. So please remember this the next time we differ on any subject."

Doug, IF you want the rest of the Globe (non Christian population) to NOT attack Christians for their/any "uneducated and backwards" beliefs then you must ALSO grant the same consideration to (say) Muslims. You must accept that YOU (AND the Christian community) are equally wrong when you "attack" the Islamic Community for THEIR beliefs..........I would think this even includes (their) Sharia law. You willing to do that?

You think the Christian community at large is willing to NOT attack other faiths?
When has their EVER been a time on this Globe when the Christians were NOT attacking some other religious (Natives had their OWN religion!) peoples of this Globe?

I've seen ON THIS FORUM, your own Christian Brother (the Canuck!!) attack Catholics and call them the Enemy of true Christianity.
You endorse that?

Edited to Add:

Simply put. Why shouldn't ANYONE call out "uneducated and backwards" religious beliefs if that's IN FACT what they are??
Just take the word religion out of it. Uneducated and backwards is generally symptomatic of Ignorance!!

The Apostle Paul once bemoaned (in a letter to the Church) the "ignorance" of the body of the Church. His words were "my people suffer from ignorance"......I think were the words.

For all of known mankind Christians have been persecuting and attacking people of OTHER Faiths and NOW, you want the Globe to NOT call out the ignorance of Christians?? Sorry Charlie. I won't comply. I won't refrain from calling out ignorance disguised as God's teachings!!

Of ANY Faith or religious stripe. It's my sacred duty.
My Jesus told me so!

You go ahead and handle all the snakes you want. I ain't stopping you, but I WILL call your ignorance OUT for thinking GOD has something to do with that.

Persecution should not beget persecution.
I say unto you let people believe as they wish.
Do not bring abuse upon the religious beliefs of others.
Lo, encourage the freedom of religious expression in equal measure and learn from the mistakes of the past which has been a shame upon the nations and the peoples.
Refrain from proselytizing and trying to make people of other faiths feel an onerous burden upon the free expression of their connection to the divine which provided the ability to exercise free will instead of blind faith.
Eat kosher salami.
Be nice to mommy.
Do not attempt to make collect calls to God.
In doing all of these things it will be pleasing to your God.
Go in peace.

Quote post by laramiebob on 11/27/2021 1:16:00 PM:
"The Apostle Paul once bemoaned (in a letter to the Church) the "ignorance" of the body of the Church. His words"

I'm going to assume this and the later requote were honest mistakes, not intentional malicious convenient misspoken misapplied cheery-pick attempts. YOUR ignorance is bliss, yet I forgive you. Better still, so too can He who forgives best, but that's as much up to you than me or Him.

1Timothy, Paul speaking in the past tense, pre enlightenment : Even though I was once a blasphemer and a persecutor and a violent man, God had mercy on me because I did it in ignorance and unbelief.

Smugness? Fight? Misery?

That's YOUR world buddy. It's all about fear and condemnation.

DON'T put that crap on me.
I have no misery, nor no one to fight, and I'm certainly not smug in ANYTHING concerning the spirit world.
I'm quite open about the FACT that I know nothing of your God, nor the Muslims, nor the Catholics.
I know what I was taught in the denomination I was raised amongst and I KNOW what a bunch of fearmongering BS that theology was/is.
ALL about controlling people NOT finding any oneness with a Creator.
God is just their tool to TRY to harness you and KEEP you from being truly one with the Creator.

You sound VERY similar to me.
Walk in Beauty brother!

Posted by Mwett on 11/27/2021 2:51:00 PM (view original):
Quote post by laramiebob on 11/27/2021 1:16:00 PM:
"The Apostle Paul once bemoaned (in a letter to the Church) the "ignorance" of the body of the Church. His words"

I'm going to assume this and the later requote were honest mistakes, not intentional malicious convenient misspoken misapplied cheery-pick attempts. YOUR ignorance is bliss, yet I forgive you. Better still, so too can He who forgives best, but that's as much up to you than me or Him.

1Timothy, Paul speaking in the past tense, pre enlightenment : Even though I was once a blasphemer and a persecutor and a violent man, God had mercy on me because I did it in ignorance and unbelief.

Also Quote post by laramiebob on 11/27/2021 1:16:00 PM:
"For all of known mankind Christians have been persecuting and attacking people of OTHER Faiths"

Since the beginning of Christ's ministry and walk on earth, I believe I can count on 0 fingers the occasions Christians have been sent off on some Holy War mass destruction endeavor upon others. How many non Bible believing Christ-centeted 'religions' can say the same ? The numbers aren't good. By the way, and it's an old saying but true nonetheless, Jesus isn't about religion in His name, it's about relationship with Him and doing the the best you can with others. I wish I could say I was perfect. I'm not. Does that disqualify me for prize ? Some who live for themselves would say yes you hypocrite ! Who's side are you on besides yourself ? Good luck with that.

Here's the thing. I'm not a paid church pastor with a doctorate in theology and I'd fail miserably in a sermon on salvation without the Spirit's helping hand leading the way, not of my own doing. I'm just a simple guy who luvs real and fantasy baseball. I don't have all the answers of evolution, pre mid or post tribulation, how long earth has existed and whether or not we walked with dino27saurs, or why other planets exist that we'll never reach or why God put them in place to begin with, or why there were rules in the Old Testament that today appear silly to us that we're persecuted for that our God must be nuts. But I still luv Him exactly for being what's most important and that's for His love of us until one says they don't love him often and long enough that finally He says fine have it your way. There will always be something the next person can poke at me and/or Him about that I don't know everything about, if that's what helps you sleep better in your smugness. Why don't you ask Him, and be willing to truly listen ? Who and why and what is your fight and misery exactly about ?

I expressed in my own way how I also disagree with the sentiment expressed by Laramiebob.
But how do you ignore the inquisitions and the crusades and the forced conversions over hundreds of years.
I totally and strongly agree that time has passed and now is now
but you can never try to blot out historical fact.

I really liked the Dino27saurs. Touché.

Posted by laramiebob on 11/27/2021 3:07:00 PM (view original):
Smugness? Fight? Misery?

That's YOUR world buddy. It's all about fear and condemnation.

DON'T put that crap on me.
I have no misery, nor no one to fight, and I'm certainly not smug in ANYTHING concerning the spirit world.
I'm quite open about the FACT that I know nothing of your God, nor the Muslims, nor the Catholics.
I know what I was taught in the denomination I was raised amongst and I KNOW what a bunch of fearmongering BS that theology was/is.
ALL about controlling people NOT finding any oneness with a Creator.
God is just their tool to TRY to harness you and KEEP you from being truly one with the Creator.

You sound VERY similar to me.
Walk in Beauty brother!

So harsh and so many assumptions.
I do not equate passionate devotion to a religious belief no matter how much it is outside my realm of thinking with a fascist intent.

Im sure you did have a bad experience and you should be saluted and I salute you for being your own person but that was your congregation and not a lot of people.

I really hate proselytizing and it is dangerous and unamerican but talking about one’s beliefs in forums like this is not that.

I commend your dedication to democracy of religion but one should not fear or be concerned with pure expression.

While every religion has it's zealots who do terrible things in the name of their God, to point to the crusades as an example of Christian aggression ignores the preceding few hundred years of Muslim conquest.

If it weren't for the crusades we'd all be Muslim, as they had reached the Iberian peninsula and would have continued conquering the rest of Europe.

WRT the young Earth theory (ie. A literal 6 day creation), I will point out that several of the stars and/or star clusters we can see at night with our naked eye are farther than 6000 light-years away from us. That alone would seem to indicate creation happened a much longer time ago and refute a literal 6 day creation. No?

Posted by bruceleefan on 11/27/2021 5:10:00 PM (view original):
While every religion has it's zealots who do terrible things in the name of their God, to point to the crusades as an example of Christian aggression ignores the preceding few hundred years of Muslim conquest.

If it weren't for the crusades we'd all be Muslim, as they had reached the Iberian peninsula and would have continued conquering the rest of Europe.

WRT the young Earth theory (ie. A literal 6 day creation), I will point out that several of the stars and/or star clusters we can see at night with our naked eye are farther than 6000 light-years away from us. That alone would seem to indicate creation happened a much longer time ago and refute a literal 6 day creation. No?

Crusades AND the Inquisitions in lands already Christian controlled throughout Europe and the Americas. Never leave that out of the discussion. It occurred over HUNDREDS of years long after the crusades and it led to silence and cowardice during world war 2. It wasn’t until after world war 2 that the Catholic Church strove to amend past wrongs.
In the southern United States the reign of terror from 1865 to 1965 was by various Protestant denominations with the KKK as its enforcement and the public enemies were African Americans and Catholics and Jews. An unbelievable number of people were killed or maimed or driven into poverty or had their lives ruined and lived in perpetual fear and terror and segregation.

Not to mention even in the north the quotas for blacks and Jews and exclusions from sports and clubs and housing. All was in control of a Christian nation.

It didn’t start to break until LBJ took control and slow and gradual progress since then.

Looking back on the history someone as myself has a much different view of BLM then those who are afraid to teach unblemished history to students who need to know the truth.