Don't dictate beliefs

Don't dictate beliefs

There are 11177 comments on the The Star Press story from Sep 5, 2012, titled Don't dictate beliefs. In it, The Star Press reports that:

No one else can say otherwise? That is basically saying those who do "believe in God" are better? Hardly.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Star Press.

Langoliers

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#8866 Dec 19, 2012
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>Why do you want to treat gay people less favourably than hetero people?
mar·riage\ˈmer-ij,ˈma-rij\
noun
1 a (1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law:

Gays can have a civil union with all the same rights as marriage. Just don't change the meaning of a word to fit your needs. Like you're trying to change the meaning of atheist to add to your congregation.

Khatru,
How did life start?
How did the first life live long enough to figure out how to reproduce?
Was the first life plant or animal?
How did it split to both plant and animal?
How could a stack of mutation create you? Oh never mind on that last question. We already know the answer.

Langoliers

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#8867 Dec 19, 2012
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>I looked through your post to see whether there was anything in there which placed women as the equal of men.

There wasn't.
I'm surprised you would actually read something other then a comic book.

"The Genesis account of God’s creation of the first male and female gives a clear picture that is extremely different from evolutionary views in our culture. God designed both the man and woman in His own image equally (Genesis 1:26–27).

Adam was created first, but God decreed that it was not good for man to be alone (Genesis 2:18). Therefore, God fashioned Eve out of Adam’s rib. The well-known Bible commentator Matthew Henry said that Eve was “made of a rib out of the side of Adam; not made out of his head to rule over him, nor out of his feet to be trampled upon by him, but out of his side to be equal with him, under his arm to be protected, and near his heart to be beloved.”

That “Submission” Command
Many women believe that the Bible’s command for wives to “submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord”(Ephesians 5:22–23, NKJV) places a woman in an inferior role to her husband. However, this is not the case.

The concept of submission is found throughout the Bible. One of the keys to maintaining the order God desires is recognizing the authority structure He established. Of course, the best example of one who submitted to authority is our Creator and Redeemer, Jesus Christ, who submitted to God and fulfilled the role He was called to by the Father (Matthew 26:36–39; Philippians 2:5–8).

The Creator chose to form man first and to entrust to him the role of leader in the home, for His glory. Obviously, man is not the ultimate authority, but is also under authority (1 Corinthians 11:3). The Bible commands the husband to be a loving servant leader who models the sacrificial love that Christ has showered on the church (Ephesians 5:23–33)—a love that led to His death on the Cross on our behalf.

God designed both the man and woman in His own image equally. Yet they were designed to fulfill different roles.

God assigned the married woman the responsibility of being a helpmate to her husband (Genesis 2:18, 20). A helpmate (or helper) is a position of great responsibility and gentle strength. It is not a position of weakness as often associated with the command of submission (Ephesians 5). A godly helpmate entrusts herself to God, follows her husband’s lead, and uses her gifts and abilities to effectively support and aid her husband.

Josh Harris, author and speaker, reaffirms this biblical teaching in his book Boy Meets Girl.

From the first two chapters of the Bible we learn that Adam and Eve were created equal in God’s sight. Within the context of their equality, God assigned men and women different roles. He made Adam first, signifying his unique role as leader and initiator. He created Eve from Adam and brought her to Adam to be his helper in the tasks God had assigned him. She was made to complement, nourish, and help her husband. God’s greatest gift to man was “a helper suitable for him”(Genesis 2:18). This doesn’t minimize a woman’s role, but it does define it.

Men and women were created equal, yet different. And the fact that we’re different is wonderful.

God didn’t make us to duplicate each other, but to complement each other. The point here is not that Adam was better than Eve, just as God the Father is not “better” than God the Son. Father and Son are equal in essence, power, glory, but they have different roles; and the Son joyfully submits to the Father’s will (1 Corinthians 15:28). So in marriage a husband and wife are equal, even though Scripture tells the wife to joyfully submit to her husband’s leadership."

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v...

Langoliers

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#8868 Dec 19, 2012
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>We see this sort of thing all the time.

Tell a Christian that mutilating a baby's genitals is barbaric and they'll usually respond with some bunk about circumcision being healthful and hygienic.
Most Women truly do enjoy the feel of a circumcised penis. A penis sliding back and forth in its own foreskin has far less sensation for the woman.

Langoliers

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#8869 Dec 19, 2012
Thinking wrote:
<quoted text>Dishonest BSer.
You're another great example of a idiot that can't put together a logical sentence. No worry nothing lost by you
Being muted.

Langoliers

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#8870 Dec 19, 2012
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>I have once already.

Here goes twice.
Derek is post articles on atheist and bad science. Why must you dolts alway think we need to defend or prove to you God? Not too many of us care to share our believes with you. We simple disprove everything you post and get a good laugh out of other posts.
You go ahead and set up your destiny however you want. I could not give a rats ass.

Some of us simply put are not going to stand by and let you and science lie to us. We post against all your attempts at
Justifying your falsified documents and lies.

Yet you keep whining about us not proving our faith. Well keep on whining.
You simpletons just don't get it!
KJV

United States

#8871 Dec 19, 2012
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>I looked through your post to see whether there was anything in there which placed women as the equal of men.

There wasn't.
What you can read? When did this happen?

"So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.

Each of these three lines makes a point. Line one asserts the divine creation of man. We came from God. Line two overlaps with line one, except that it highlights the divine image in man. We bear a resemblance to God. Line three boldly affirms the dual sexuality of man. We are male and female. Nowhere else in Genesis 1 is sexuality referred to;
but human sexuality, superior to animal sexuality, merits the simple dignity given it here. Further, Moses doubtless intends to imply the equality of the sexes, for both male and female display the glory of God’s image with equal brilliance:“… in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.” This is consistent with God’s intention, stated in verse 26, that both sexes should rule:“… and let them rule.…”

Finally, in verse 28, God pronounces His benediction on man. In verse 22, God spoke His blessing out over the mass of the lower creatures. But here in verse 28 we read,“God blessed them and said to them.…” With man alone, male and female alike without distinction, God shares an I-thou relationship. In His benediction the Creator also authorizes male and female together to carry out their mission to rule the lower creation.

To sum up: Man was created as royalty in God’s world, male and female alike bearing the divine glory equally.
KJV

United States

#8872 Dec 19, 2012
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>He's post are dead on target. I love seeing these posting being brought forth for all of us to see what atheists are hidden. All the crimes in the name of evolution.

You on the other hand show a total lack of being able to carry on any discussion on anything of importance.
In fact it's nice to see when you can string together 3 words that actual have any meaning at all.

An unlimited number of you placed in a room with an infinite amount of time all pounding away on type writers might never come up with anything worth reading. I give the odds to your relatives, monkeys coming up with better reading material.
Nice to see you back Langoliers
Nothing new on these pages. Just the normal atheist lies and lack of content on their post. They're just attacking like a cobra backed into a corner. Trouble for them is there are mongooses on here as well. LOL

A real bunch of idiots, the more you read their posting the more obvious the lack of understanding and intelligent stand out.
KJV

United States

#8873 Dec 19, 2012
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>mar·riage\ˈmer-i j,ˈma-rij\
noun
1 a (1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law:

Gays can have a civil union with all the same rights as marriage. Just don't change the meaning of a word to fit your needs. Like you're trying to change the meaning of atheist to add to your congregation.

Khatru,
How did life start?
How did the first life live long enough to figure out how to reproduce?
Was the first life plant or animal?
How did it split to both plant and animal?
How could a stack of mutation create you? Oh never mind on that last question. We already know the answer.
Yes Khatru please do answer

How did life start?
How did the first life live long enough to figure out how to reproduce?
Was the first life plant or animal?
How did it split to both plant and animal?
How could a stack of mutation create you? Oh never mind on that last question. We already know the answer

Nice post Langoliers let's see what puppet boy come up with.

Since: Mar 11

United States

#8874 Dec 19, 2012
So you went back to using this screen name as well half wit?
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
You're another great example of a idiot that can't put together a logical sentence. No worry nothing lost by you
Being muted.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#8875 Dec 19, 2012
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes Khatru please do answer
How did life start?
How did the first life live long enough to figure out how to reproduce?
Was the first life plant or animal?
How did it split to both plant and animal?
How could a stack of mutation create you? Oh never mind on that last question. We already know the answer
Nice post Langoliers let's see what puppet boy come up with.
1. We don't know.

2. What? Are you really that clueless?

3. Way oversimplification, there are five kingdoms, not 2.

4. Unless you are identical to both your parents, and they're identical to each other, you are a mutation, get over it, mutant.

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

#8876 Dec 19, 2012
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
Most Women truly do enjoy the feel of a circumcised penis. A penis sliding back and forth in its own foreskin has far less sensation for the woman.
You are most women? ha, ha, somebody lied to you.

Since: Mar 11

Portage, MI

#8877 Dec 19, 2012
Langoqueers has ran that simulation hundreds of times with hundreds of volunteers from the homeless shelter.
Reason Personified wrote:
<quoted text>You are most women? ha, ha, somebody lied to you.
Thinking

Leighton Buzzard, UK

#8878 Dec 20, 2012
Your second sentence was not put together correctly.
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
You're another great example of a idiot that can't put together a logical sentence. No worry nothing lost by you
Being muted.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#8879 Dec 20, 2012
Givemeliberty wrote:
Hey Derek any chance your off topic spam will have some proof for deities? If not it will all be ignored as usual.
Seriously gang when are you going to start reporting that forum clogging spambot?
I would expect you to ignore my posts. Am I surprised? No. Do I care? No.

Your posts are always “light reading”(short, irrelevant; without substance).

So I hardly ever skip them since they're a breeze.

But, speaking of "off topic" - what do my posts have to do with proof of deities, and when did I say I was in the forum to prove God to you? So, you're off topic.

Why don't you reinstall your avatar of the baby picture? I always thought it was a great symbol of your undeveloped mind. It becomes you so.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#8880 Dec 20, 2012
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
Derek is post articles on atheist and bad science. Why must you dolts alway think we need to defend or prove to you God? Not too many of us care to share our believes with you. We simple disprove everything you post and get a good laugh out of other posts.
You go ahead and set up your destiny however you want. I could not give a rats ass.
Some of us simply put are not going to stand by and let you and science lie to us. We post against all your attempts at
Justifying your falsified documents and lies.
Yet you keep whining about us not proving our faith. Well keep on whining.
You simpletons just don't get it!
The atheists would like to have news reports of fraudulent science removed, and your posts removed as well. In fact, they would like to have everything they disagree with removed so all that remains is atheists agreeing with one another, lol. They think this makes them winners.

Are they winners because they get all posts removed that they disagree with? Unfortunately for them, no. Our posts have already been read, so removing them in the next day or so won't really do much for their cause, lmao.

This forum is about dictating beliefs, which is the specialty of atheists. They do it by attempting to rewrite history and substitute all truth with atheist propaganda. Isn't it sad for them they can't get the news accounts about fraudulent science reported in The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal removed from the internet and censor all news reports?

But if that's the way they want to play, that's fine - I always see a lot of atheist posts that should be removed for various reasons, and reporting works both ways.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#8881 Dec 20, 2012
Langoliers wrote:
How did life start?
We do not know.
How did the first life live long enough to figure out how to reproduce?
This is part of the definition of 'life'. The question is how the chemicals stayed together long enough to reproduce.
Was the first life plant or animal?
No, it was bacterial.
How did it split to both plant and animal?
No. There was a separation of billions of years between the first life and the first plants and animals.
How could a stack of mutation create you? Oh never mind on that last question. We already know the answer.
Well, it did take almost 4 billion years.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#8882 Dec 20, 2012
Thinking wrote:
Dishonest BSer.
<quoted text>
Yes, you are indeed a “dishonest Bser”- thanks for admitting that to the forum.

But there was nothing dishonest in me posting a book review.

Tell you what - since you enjoyed my post, I'll re-post it for your convenience:

“Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False”, by Thomas Nagel

“The modern materialist approach to life has conspicuously failed to explain such central mind-related features of our world as consciousness, intentionality, meaning, and value. This failure to account for something so integral to nature as mind, argues philosopher Thomas Nagel, is a major problem, threatening to unravel the entire naturalistic world picture, extending to biology, evolutionary theory, and cosmology.
Since minds are features of biological systems that have developed through evolution, the standard materialist version of evolutionary biology is fundamentally incomplete. And the cosmological history that led to the origin of life and the coming into existence of the conditions for evolution cannot be a merely materialist history, either. An adequate conception of nature would have to explain the appearance in the universe of materially irreducible conscious minds, as such.
Nagel's skepticism is not based on religious belief or on a belief in any definite alternative. In Mind and Cosmos, he does suggest that if the materialist account is wrong, then principles of a different kind may also be at work in the history of nature, principles of the growth of order that are in their logical form teleological rather than mechanistic.
In spite of the great achievements of the physical sciences, reductive materialism is a world view ripe for displacement. Nagel shows that to recognize its limits is the first step in looking for alternatives, or at least in being open to their possibility.”
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0199919755

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#8883 Dec 20, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
We do not know.
Right.

But we do.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#8884 Dec 20, 2012
Top Science Scandals of 2012

“A widely discussed research study published this year showed that more than sloppy mistakes or accidental omissions, retracted papers are most likely to be withdrawn from publication because of scientific misconduct or knowlingly publishing false data. In fact, more than 65 percent of the 2,000 or so papers studied were retracted because of poor ethical judgment. According to that report, high impact journals have been hardest hit by the increasing rate of retractions over the past decade.

In light of these findings, researchers and other observers have proposed several initiatives to help the scientific community with its apparent honesty issues.”

continued at conclusion:

“Rather than falsify data in order to get published, researchers have taken a new tack this year by writing glowing expert reviews for their own papers. When asked by journal editors to suggest names of experts in their field who were not involved in their research, at least four submitting authors suggested names and emails that then forwarded back to their own inboxes. The trend, first reported by Retraction Watch, was caught by one journal editor when author Hyung-In Moon, assistant professor at Dong-A University in Busan, South Korea, offered up names of reviewers with Google and Yahoo rather than university email accounts.“It should be a wake-up call to any journals that don’t have rigorous reviewer selection and screening in place,” Irene Hames, a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics, told The Chronicle of Higher Education.”
http://www.the-scientist.com/...

[Anyone have a PDF file summary handy on the peer-review info on Darwin's work? LOL]

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#8885 Dec 20, 2012
A favorite mall for atheists:

http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup...

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 32 min IB DaMann 57,828
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 1 hr Joe Momma 27,233
god belief down to 28% in UK 1 hr Eagle 12 123
carbon 14 dating very inaccurate (Jun '12) 1 hr Eagle 12 72
Atheist Humor (Aug '09) 2 hr greymouser 125
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 3 hr Eagle 12 258,479
The Dumbest Thing Posted by a Godbot (Jun '10) 4 hr Eagle 12 5,953
More from around the web