What is Tim Duncan's religion?

[Dunc n Dave]

Here's an ironic story for you atheists out there:

http://now.msn.com/now/0318-atheists...s-highway.aspx

A group of Floridian "free thinkers" converged on a strip of U.S. Route 98 Saturday with mops and a giant vat of "unholy water" to cleanse the thoroughfare of the blessing it received from a Christian group a year ago. The atheist group, "Humanists of Florida" says it scrubbed the road "of the oils of intolerance," claiming that the original roadside annointment by Christian group Polk Under Prayer was an insult to non-Christians and that the highway should be "about welcoming everybody." PUP director Richard Geringswald counters that his group's blessing was merely meant to ward off "evildoers." One tip for the atheists: Complete all spiritual spring cleaning on your checklist before next week's Reason Rally in DC.

[underdawg]

You miss the point. To side against God, heaven must not be that great to begin with. Who would want to spend eternity in a place where power struggles are happening? Might as well stay on Earth.

Did God create the angels?

Doesn't the whole thing become really cartoonish after a while, and isn't that why most Christians prefer to remain in a safer zone that's covered by apologetics and thousands of years of edits and misdirection?

There is no point - Lucifer's happiness had nothing to do with heaven and entirely with his vanity. You're making a point that's not there and and has no evidence behind it to suggest that the angels were unhappy with their surroundings. Their rebellion was strictly based on vanity and power - vanity is a theme that is consistently brought up in the Bible and is at the very root of sin and evil.

Unless you have some specific information, I've never heard of these edits and misdirections that you speak of and to call someone's beliefs cartoonish really is low. I could say Stephen Hawking's belief in aliens is cartoonish, but that doesn't prove him wrong - it only makes me look like I'm less concerned about finding truth and more concerned about insulting a person's beliefs.

2 quick notes -
-Christians are supposed to seek truth as that is what we believe in.
-Also, I don't know any fellow Christians that are interested in hindering science. Are there people out there that claim to be Christians and ignorantly attack science - sure but they're not basing their attacks off instructions from the Bible. Stem cell research that is based on stem cells taken from embryos is a different situation. The fight for the unborn (and situations that can cause future harm to the unborn) is not anti-science.

[DMC]

Here's an ironic story for you atheists out there:

http://now.msn.com/now/0318-atheists...s-highway.aspx

A group of Floridian "free thinkers" converged on a strip of U.S. Route 98 Saturday with mops and a giant vat of "unholy water" to cleanse the thoroughfare of the blessing it received from a Christian group a year ago. The atheist group, "Humanists of Florida" says it scrubbed the road "of the oils of intolerance," claiming that the original roadside annointment by Christian group Polk Under Prayer was an insult to non-Christians and that the highway should be "about welcoming everybody." PUP director Richard Geringswald counters that his group's blessing was merely meant to ward off "evildoers." One tip for the atheists: Complete all spiritual spring cleaning on your checklist before next week's Reason Rally in DC.

There are idiots everywhere, nothing ironic about that.

[pgardn]

There is no point - Lucifer's happiness had nothing to do with heaven and entirely with his vanity. You're making a point that's not there and and has no evidence behind it to suggest that the angels were unhappy with their surroundings. Their rebellion was strictly based on vanity and power - vanity is a theme that is consistently brought up in the Bible and is at the very root of sin and evil.

Unless you have some specific information, I've never heard of these edits and misdirections that you speak of and to call someone's beliefs cartoonish really is low. I could say Stephen Hawking's belief in aliens is cartoonish, but that doesn't prove him wrong - it only makes me look like I'm less concerned about finding truth and more concerned about insulting a person's beliefs.

2 quick notes -
-Christians are supposed to seek truth as that is what we believe in.
-Also, I don't know any fellow Christians that are interested in hindering science. Are there people out there that claim to be Christians and ignorantly attack science - sure but they're not basing their attacks off instructions from the Bible. Stem cell research that is based on stem cells taken from embryos is a different situation. The fight for the unborn (and situations that can cause future harm to the unborn) is not anti-science.

When exactly are cells classified as unborn (btw unborn implies human being to me, is this your preferred use)? I have not the foggiest idea when we can call a cell or cells in development a human. It seems that most Christian groups prefer conception.

What exactly is vanity?

Not trying to take sides, just trying to understand arguments. The words used are sometimes ancient and have a very different meaning today. Truthfully, I understand most of the so called atheist better as the vocabulary used is clearer. I have completely stopped with the physics stuff as mr. lightning has just shot wildly into the air.

[DMC]

There is no point - Lucifer's happiness had nothing to do with heaven and entirely with his vanity. You're making a point that's not there and and has no evidence behind it to suggest that the angels were unhappy with their surroundings. Their rebellion was strictly based on vanity and power - vanity is a theme that is consistently brought up in the Bible and is at the very root of sin and evil.

Lucifer was in heaven, in the presence of God. How could he be unhappy at all? Was he created by God to be that vain?

Unless you have some specific information, I've never heard of these edits and misdirections that you speak of and to call someone's beliefs cartoonish really is low. I could say Stephen Hawking's belief in aliens is cartoonish, but that doesn't prove him wrong - it only makes me look like I'm less concerned about finding truth and more concerned about insulting a person's beliefs.

The way theists depict their religion is indeed cartoonish. If God created Lucifer perfect in his ways, how did Lucifer create evil within himself? How did God create something can could create that which did not exist (evil)? Wouldn't it be required that God created Lucifer imperfect before he could be imperfect? Any ability to create something undesirable is imperfection.

Just admit it's a myth, makes more sense that way, otherwise we have to ask about Zeus and Odin.

2 quick notes -
-Christians are supposed to seek truth as that is what we believe in.

You have it backwards though. You have to find it before you can believe it. Belief in and belief of are two different things. Theists get the two confused ergo they believe everything because they feel they must.

-Also, I don't know any fellow Christians that are interested in hindering science.

Wow. Ever heard of Ken Ham?

Are there people out there that claim to be Christians and ignorantly attack science - sure but they're not basing their attacks off instructions from the Bible.

No true Scotsman would do that, right?

Stem cell research that is based on stem cells taken from embryos is a different situation. The fight for the unborn (and situations that can cause future harm to the unborn) is not anti-science.

Christians called it "playing God" and that's just one of the examples.

Science is akin to examining a room, ordering the furniture and pictures, then setting out to place them where they belong.

Religion is akin to moving into a home where there are already nails on the wall and you must make your furniture and photos fit those spaces. You are told you must believe that is how they were meant to be, that it requires faith to understand it. You are told it cannot change, and you find every creative way under the Sun to pass it off as perfection when to everyone else it's an obvious clump of patched excuses and supers ions that have been swept under the rugs by "open minded" theists reluctant to accept new information that clashes with their dogma, and religion digresses even more as science has progressed the understanding of the world.

Science and religion are not compatible. You cannot have an unchangeable outlook and successfully interface that with an evolving one.

[pgardn]

-Also, I don't know any fellow Christians that are interested in hindering science. Are there people out there that claim to be Christians and ignorantly attack science - sure but they're not basing their attacks off instructions from the Bible.

Im guessing fellow Christians means Christians you know. In Texas, there was a concerted attempt by Christians on the board of Education to clearly interject religion into science text books.

This of course has happened in a number of other States in the past. Usually coming under the guise of Intelligent Design, thats the latest fad name. It will reappear yet again with some other name at a later time I should think.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

There is no point - Lucifer's happiness had nothing to do with heaven and entirely with his vanity. You're making a point that's not there and and has no evidence behind it to suggest that the angels were unhappy with their surroundings. Their rebellion was strictly based on vanity and power - vanity is a theme that is consistently brought up in the Bible and is at the very root of sin and evil.

Unless you have some specific information, I've never heard of these edits and misdirections that you speak of and to call someone's beliefs cartoonish really is low. I could say Stephen Hawking's belief in aliens is cartoonish, but that doesn't prove him wrong - it only makes me look like I'm less concerned about finding truth and more concerned about insulting a person's beliefs.

2 quick notes -
-Christians are supposed to seek truth as that is what we believe in.
-Also, I don't know any fellow Christians that are interested in hindering science. Are there people out there that claim to be Christians and ignorantly attack science - sure but they're not basing their attacks off instructions from the Bible. Stem cell research that is based on stem cells taken from embryos is a different situation. The fight for the unborn (and situations that can cause future harm to the unborn) is not anti-science.

lol at the pantheon of angels as the days of our lives. I'm sure this was well chronicled on E!

i will say it again. you can point most christians to the absurdities in other religions like flying elephants and flying horses but all of their own hokey just gets a pass.

You see a lot of that when you see fundamentalists trying to debunk cults. LDS has a lot of whoppers as does JW et al. Getting your own planet, a had count of how many are chosen, hiding spirits in volcanos or Jesus teleporting over to the US while dead is obviously stupid right?

after a certain point there is the reality that people like to make up stories and that instead of some guy really getting born without his mother having sex and then banishing demons into pigs before coming back to life after being asphyxiated on a cross that people like to make up stories. At least hindus and shintos don't have the hardcore exclusionary morality.

most christians nowadays realize that most of the stories on the bible never really happened and they try to hide behind some notion of 'mystery' as they pick and choose which ones to 'believe.' The Old Testament nobody even tries to front for anymore. Whales and hair and bushes et al.

Just makes no sense to me.

[pgardn]

Science and religion are not compatible. You cannot have an unchangeable outlook and successfully interface that with an evolving one.

Personally I would not even use the word compatible.

Both are so very different, very human attempts to understand the world around them. Religion takes on questions that Science cannot even attempt to answer.

One relies on very strict rules that make it useful because it can be predictive. But the questions asked must be limited.

The other requires the supernatural to formulate explanations and is used to answer much more difficult questions that in some cases may not even be be valid questions.

And as you stated, one is supposed to be unchanging (I personally dont think it is) and the other does us no good if models that are predictive dont change as new evidence arises.

[underdawg]

When exactly are cells classified as unborn (btw unborn implies human being to me, is this your preferred use)? I have not the foggiest idea when we can call a cell or cells in development a human. It seems that most Christian groups prefer conception http://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/ar...yoquotes2.html
My understanding is that most scientists feel that life begins at conception

What exactly is vanity?
Vanity is pride and arrogance that is driven by the need to satisfy one's own desires. I'm sure you can find a better definition, but that's how I understand it.

[all_heart]

Science is akin to examining a room, ordering the furniture and pictures, then setting out to place them where they belong.

Religion is akin to moving into a home where there are already nails on the wall and you must make your furniture and photos fit those spaces. You are told you must believe that is how they were meant to be, that it requires faith to understand it. You are told it cannot change, and you find every creative way under the Sun to pass it off as perfection when to everyone else it's an obvious clump of patched excuses and supers ions that have been swept under the rugs by "open minded" theists reluctant to accept new information that clashes with their dogma, and religion digresses even more as science has progressed the understanding of the world.

Science and religion are not compatible. You cannot have an unchangeable outlook and successfully interface that with an evolving one.

Creative analogy, but it doesn't quite work that way. Religion is not a puzzle, where things must be a certain way and that's that. That's not the best way to describe religion.

Christians believe in science plenty. We also believe science is something that God has given us as a blueprint to figure things out. I think science is awesome like most people. There is no reason science can't be compatible with religion and vice versa.

Can you give an example of "new information" that clashes with dogma?

[all_heart]

lol at the pantheon of angels as the days of our lives. I'm sure this was well chronicled on E!

i will say it again. you can point most christians to the absurdities in other religions like flying elephants and flying horses but all of their own hokey just gets a pass.

You see a lot of that when you see fundamentalists trying to debunk cults. LDS has a lot of whoppers as does JW et al. Getting your own planet, a had count of how many are chosen, hiding spirits in volcanos or Jesus teleporting over to the US while dead is obviously stupid right?

after a certain point there is the reality that people like to make up stories and that instead of some guy really getting born without his mother having sex and then banishing demons into pigs before coming back to life after being asphyxiated on a cross that people like to make up stories. At least hindus and shintos don't have the hardcore exclusionary morality.

most christians nowadays realize that most of the stories on the bible never really happened and they try to hide behind some notion of 'mystery' as they pick and choose which ones to 'believe.' The Old Testament nobody even tries to front for anymore. Whales and hair and bushes et al.

Just makes no sense to me.

It makes no sense to you cause you really don't understand religion and/or Christianity.

[pgardn]

I would say that any scientist who claims that a human life begins at conception is completely overstepping a very important boundary... Making a judgement on when a human life begins.

You can argue that the cell is unique in that 23(mom) + 23(dad) making a completely unique individualgenetically, but is this when a human life begins? That is a huge leap. Huge.

There are many women each year who form zygotes that never divide further and then embroys that do not even attach to the uterine wall or the uterine wall is shed immediately. No one knows the difference, and I have yet to see any outcry about these very natural events.

This is not semantics or nit picking, this is very difficult.

btw, the site referenced is indeed slippery. Life begins at... in large colored font and then references that do not attempt to assert when a Human Life begins.

[underdawg]

Lucifer was in heaven, in the presence of God. How could he be unhappy at all? You keep saying that he was unhappy - please give me evidence from the Bible that shows that. Was he created by God to be that vain? He was created to have free will
The way theists depict their religion is indeed cartoonish. Your opionion and disrepectful at that. If God created Lucifer perfect in his ways, how did Lucifer create evil within himself? God didn't create Lucifer to be perfect. How did God create something can could create that which did not exist (evil)? He gave his creation the ability to perform evil acts - this was necessary for them to have free will and chose to have a relationship with God. Wouldn't it be required that God created Lucifer imperfect before he could be imperfect? No - Lucifer's choice was the imperfection and not how God created him. Any ability to create something undesirable is imperfection.

Just admit it's a myth, makes more sense that way, otherwise we have to ask about Zeus and Odin. Is there any archaeological evidence of Zeus or Odin?
You have it backwards though. You have to find it before you can believe it. Belief in and belief of are two different things. Agreed - Christians believe in Christ because they have found him to be true. Theists get the two confused ergo they believe everything because they feel they must.
Wow. Ever heard of Ken Ham? I don't know Ken Ham - I was speaking of Christians I knew firsthand.
No true Scotsman would do that, right? what?
Christians called it "playing God" and that's just one of the examples.
what Christians call it playing God? the fight against stem cell research deals primarily with preventing an excuse to kill unborn humans.Science is akin to examining a room, ordering the furniture and pictures, then setting out to place them where they belong.

Religion is akin to moving into a home where there are already nails on the wall and you must make your furniture and photos fit those spaces. You are told you must believe that is how they were meant to be, that it requires faith to understand it. You are told it cannot change, and you find every creative way under the Sun to pass it off as perfection when to everyone else it's an obvious clump of patched excuses and supers ions that have been swept under the rugs by "open minded" theists reluctant to accept new information that clashes with their dogma, and religion digresses even more as science has progressed the understanding of the world.
Nice try at simplifying our beliefs, but you are wrong - a Christian believes that we were created with a purpose to have a relationship with our creator, to help humanity and to have a place God's kingdom for eternity. Please explain to me what supers ions have been "swept under rugs" by Christian leaders. Please explain to me how Christianity has digressed as science has progressed. Science and religion are not compatible. I'm glad that there are Christian scientists that don't believe as you do. You cannot have an unchangeable outlook and successfully interface that with an evolving one. That assumes that evolution is a fact that is your opinion and fortunately there are scientists that don't believe the same actually there are scientists that disagree with you: http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/-

[all_heart]

I would say that any scientist who claims that a human life begins at conception is completely overstepping a very important boundary... Making a judgement on when a human life begins.

You can argue that the cell is unique in that 23(mom) + 23(dad) making a completely unique individualgenetically, but is this when a human life begins? That is a huge leap. Huge.

There are many women each year who form zygotes that never divide further and then embroys that do not even attach to the uterine wall or the uterine wall is shed immediately. No one knows the difference, and I have yet to see any outcry about these very natural events.

This is not semantics or nit picking, this is very difficult.

Yes, it's very difficult. IMO, human life begins when 2 human cells come together for the purpose of creating a new human life.

[disciple]

Christians lose time and money to the church if they are wrong.

Political Christians also up the happiness of others that don't want Bible law to be American law.

those are all temporal things. Let's focus on true value.

[DMC]

Lucifer was created perfect in all his ways, but iniquity was found in him. It was not put there by God. Lucifer created it.
( this is found in Ezekiel 28:15 )

King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.

Saying Lucifer had free will and he was free to choose evil is painting yourself into a corner, because prior to Lucifer, evil did not exist. How can you chose that which does not exist, and if he had free will, why was he eternally punished for exercising it? A three sided box, you have one exit, is that free will? No.

Cartoonish and theists ignore that and talk more about how nice Jesus was.

As for "helping humanity", you sound like some tweener starry eyed choir boy. Ever read about the Crusades? You might consider checking up on it.

[disciple]

There is no heaven or dummy....lol

Because we believe something doesn't make it true. You or me.

Whether it is truth determines whether it is true.

Now, we need to determine who decides what is true.

[DMC]

Because we believe something doesn't make it true. You or me.

Whether it is truth determines whether it is true.

Now, we need to determine who decides what is true.

Why? Why can't you decide that for yourself? You've allowed the Council of Nicea to decide the 66 books they included are the written word of God, and you've just adopted it like everyone else in your religion. You haven't decided .

[disciple]

If you had just stopped before the bolded. Damn.

When you state the bolded, then you leave yourself open to questioning about how you came to this conclusion/judgement. "Do you have a phone line to the big-fella" etc... This is where people of faith get themselves in deep do-do. You make these judgements based on your belief, with is faith based, and then people delve into where your faith arises. And then they twist you like a pretzel. Faith does not happen out of nowhere.

Then you attempt to scramble out of the mud using logic. Its a losing game. God should have exempted us from reason, it would have been so easy. But no we dont want it easy, we want you to go against reason, make a choice, and have faith, which is also based on a type of reason, which is based on upbringing and or the bible for most on the board who choose to argue in this manner.



Darn it...

Twist away my friend.

[Cow Eye]

mfw spurstalk thinks it's theologian/philosophytalk

[DMC]

Personally I would not even use the word compatible.

Both are so very different, very human attempts to understand the world around them. Religion takes on questions that Science cannot even attempt to answer.

Yes, by inventing bull stories to appease the mentally lazy. Don't act like religion is the therapist for the down trodden. It's a tool to fleece the out of them.

One relies on very strict rules that make it useful because it can be predictive. But the questions asked must be limited.

Because it's easily exposed for the fraud it is and doubt sets in (good old doubt,the real savior of the world). Imagine saying that in a product presentation "you can ask questions, but they must be limited".

The other requires the supernatural to formulate explanations and is used to answer much more difficult questions that in some cases may not even be be valid questions.

Can you spin this any more than you have? Here's what you just said in every day lingo:

The other requires make believe as an excuse when the answer isn't known, and we don't even know if it can be known.

And as you stated, one is supposed to be unchanging (I personally dont think it is) and the other does us no good if models that are predictive dont change as new evidence arises.

Unless the Bible is morphing, it's not changing. You can adopt a neo-theist view all you like, it doesn't bail you out.

Models don't need to change. New models are created. What you call "new evidence" often leads to huge changes in how we see things.

How that Ark hunt going?

[disciple]

Why did God create ?



lol audience

Why did he allow children to be killed by bears because they called a prophet "baldy"?



The concept of a fiery, eternal damnation is an awesome motivational tool preachers use to put butts in the pews and money in the plate.

totally agree with the 'fire and brimstone' motivation many preachers use. As far as the other consider that the earth we now live in is nothing like it used to be. Man's decisions have changed it dramatically. We have free will and that free will has changed the world.

[DMC]

actually there are scientists that disagree with you: http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/-

The first "scientist" website has the following:

For inspiring/controversial/interesting views from John Piper, go to the Desiring God web site.

The 2nd is from "Coventry University"

There are only 4.

Evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution could be patchy, but evolution itself is a fact.

But you might want to check this site out, I cannot speak for it's accuracy:

http://mcb.harvard.edu/biolinks/evolution.html

[underdawg]

[QUOTE=DMC;5711357]Lucifer was created perfect in all his ways, but iniquity was found in him. It was not put there by God. Lucifer created it.
( this is found in Ezekiel 28:15 )

King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.
Lucifer was perfect in his ways until iniquity was found in him - he wasn't a perfect being but acted perfectly until his rebellion.
Saying Lucifer had free will and he was free to choose evil is painting yourself into a corner, because prior to Lucifer, evil did not exist. How can you chose that which does not exist, and if he had free will, why was he eternally punished for exercising it? A three sided box, you have one exit, is that free will? No.
Not at all - God is incapable of evil but humanity and his angel Lucifer were and are capable of evil.
Cartoonish and theists ignore that and talk more about how nice Jesus was.
Name one of your "theists" that ignore this idea. As for "helping humanity", you sound like some tweener starry eyed choir boy. Ever read about the Crusades? You might consider checking up on it. What about the Crusades - can you please quote the part of the New Testament that was used to carry out this war?[/QUOTE]

[disciple]

Why? Why can't you decide that for yourself? You've allowed the Council of Nicea to decide the 66 books they included are the written word of God, and you've just adopted it like everyone else in your religion. You haven't decided .

Those who must discuss anything with their emotions, which are displayed for all to see through their name calling and accusations, can not rely strictly on what they believe. Why is that? Anyone with the confidence to discuss freely what they believe without the fear of being changed or just looking bad will do so without any display of emotions. This is present in those that get none of their iden y from what others think of them.

You know nothing of how, why or what I believe. You accuse me of something you have not asked me about. I will be more than glad to discuss my beliefs with you. PM me.