REPORT: Should Gays Adopt? - by Bob Enyart

[webmaster]

Should Gays Adopt? - by Bob Enyart

Michael Galluccio, the homosexual featured on ABC’s Good Morning America, Larry King Live and in USA Today, whom the ACLU helped to adopt a child, is my first cousin. He won this battle but I will not give up. Michael’s homosexuality has brought much heartache to our family. Now, we will grieve anew because we know this ruling will further the destructive influence that homosexuals have on children.

Billions of people in the world oppose homosexuals, as have most cultures throughout civilization. Why? Is it because everyone of those billions is bigoted and narrow-minded? I respect and value racial minorities, even though I am in the American majority. I have learned to honor women, even though my society degrades them. I have long sought out the elderly for friendship and to serve them, though a fraction of their age.

And I welcome disabled men and women to my office each week, because I love them.

So why would I disrespect homosexuals? It is not because they are different but because they are wrong. Liberals fight for personal freedom by knocking down the first moral barrier that restrains them. Once down, they find another restriction that must be thrown off. Hence the notion of the slippery slope as men become more determined to rid themselves of any imposed standards. This process has yielded a nation of sexually obsessed, dysfunctional people living in the world’s violent crime capitol.

Examine the record of those who defend homosexual adoption of children. Jim Joy, the executive director of Colorado’s ACLU, admitted to me during a PBS station’s televised debate that the written national policy of the ACLU defends the right to distribute child pornography. As with many leading voices, the ACLU’s opposition of child abuse is hypocrisy. Every such video sold of a thirteen-year-old sexually exploits the child again. So the ACLU, known to tolerate child abuse, sells children out again by advocating their adoption by homosexuals.

Homosexual leaders blatantly voice tolerance for child sex abuse. A prominent gay magazine, Out, quoted Damien Martin, the head of New York’s homosexual Harvey Milk High School, as saying, “No kid has ever been hurt by [oral sex]” in September, 1994 on page 73. The leading gay publication, The Advocate, in an article titled Getting Over It pondered on May 5, 1992 about how many boys “would have missed out on a valuable, liberating experience—one that initiated them into their sexuality—if it weren’t for so-called molestation?”

The July 1998 Psychological Bulletin of the American Psychological Association worked to normalize pedophilia by undermining the “Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse.”
Time magazine also lacks zero tolerance for homosexual child abusers. They quoted the ACLU in defense of an aggressive advocate of pedophilia. NAMBLA, the North American Man-Boy Love Association exists to promote homosexual sex with young boys. Leading gay-pride organizers in New York and San Francisco allowed NAMBLA to march undisguised in their parades repeatedly during the last two decades. A Time article grotesquely titled For the Love of Kids in November, 1993 quoted the ACLU defending a New York City teacher, Peter Melzer who edits the NAMBLA journal. Melzer published an article In Praise of the Penises, on “how to make that special boy feel good.” As to the police report on Melzer’s alleged sex with a Filipino boy, Time assured its readers, there is no hard evidence that he abused this “or any other boy in the U.S.” In the U.S.?

The media defends homosexuals who want to adopt children, but it also supports homosexuals who openly advocate sex with kids. The national media warmly eulogized Alan Ginsburg this past spring conveniently ignoring this homosexual poet’s public endorsement of NAMBLA. Where I now live, a convicted pedophile, who says today he controls his longings, is running for Denver School Board with the support of many in the homosexual community.

Long-time gay activist David Thorstad, founding member of the Coalition for Lesbian and Gay Rights and former president of the New York Gay Activists Alliance loudly protested when in 1993 the March on Washington organizers broke with tradition and excluded pedophiles like NAMBLA. With all the attention, they feared the media would expose the homosexual acceptance of pedophilia. Talk about paranoia.

The nation’s largest gay publicist, Alyson Publications of Boston, which distributes Daddy’s Roommate and other homosexual books for kids, published Paedophilia: The Radical Case, hundreds of pages of why and how seven year old boys should be brought to climax. Another Alyson book, The Age Taboo on page 144 insists: “Boy-lovers... are not child molesters. The child abusers are... parents who force their staid morality onto the young people in their custody.”

A Florida judge recently ruled unconstitutional their age-of-consent law, following northern European nations in lowering the age at which dirty old men can legally set their sights on boys. Liberal ideas have taken their expected course with lawyers arguing that since adolescents have the right over their own bodies regardless of what parents or legislators think, then they can elect sex whenever and with whomever they choose, with age discrimination ultimately unenforceable.

America’s newspapers are their silent partners. Those who are soft on child sex, or even those boldly endorsing it, have nothing to fear from the mainstream media. Partly because of the media’s silence, the Clinton administration voted to give ILGA, the International Lesbian and Gay Association consulting status at the United Nations even though NAMBLA was a full and active member of that organization, even appearing on its letterhead. Imagine, professed pedophiles advising on international child law. NAMBLA remained at the UN until the outcry of the religious right ousted them.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Thus the broadly overlapping groups, the homosexual community and the open pedophiles, are longtime allies. Both groups work to break down previously unquestioned sexual standards. The national Gay Rights Platform of 1972 called for the repeal of all age-of-consent laws. Gay activist Andy Humm bragged of his influence over the New York City Council in the New York Native, August, 1983 and wrote that, “No one should be denied basic civil rights because of his or her orientation, whether the person be homosexual, heterosexual, transsexual, transvestite, pedophile, sadist, masochist, asexual—whatever one can imagine.”

I am not saying that my cousin will sexually molest a child. I am saying that homosexuals have long given aid and comfort to pedophiles, publicly. And I am saying that the media and other defenders of homosexuals are the silent partners of those who work toward the day when children are a sex commodity. The media rejects but intuitively fears the connection between child molestation and homosexuality. It therefore suppresses reports of the torrent of public advocacy for gay pedophilia. Instead, the media wears out the same worn cliché that homosexuals are no more likely to molest children than heterosexuals.

On homosexual initiation, sex researchers Masters and Johnson wrote in Human Sexual Inadequacy that “Recruitment usually was accomplished by an older male, frequently in his twenties, but occasionally men in their thirties were the initiators… the teenager was left with the concept that whether or not he continued as an active homosexual, he would always be homophile-oriented.” Homosexuals do reproduce sexually, by molesting children. According to a 1994 Out article titled “The Men From the Boys,” the director of a home for runaway youth admits that between 14 and 16 years of age, he “probably had sex with well over a thousand people, most of them much older than myself.” This boy hardly met a homosexual adult who would not have sex with him.

Of Canadians imprisoned for pedophilia, a 1991 report reveals that 91 percent of molesters of non-familial boys admitted to no lifetime sexual contact other than homosexual according to Volume 6, page 323 of the Journal of Interpersonal Violence. In America, about one third of the children sexually molested are boys, and about ninety percent of them are hurt by men. The refereed scientific journal, Psychological Reports in 1986 presented research in Volume 58 starting on page 327 showing that homosexuals commit a far greater percentage of child sex crimes than demographics alone account for.

Every man molesting a boy is committing a homosexual act. Young boys do not excite straight men. To let a homosexual make the point in his own words, the San Francisco Sentinel published a letter on March 26, 1992 headlined, “No Place for Homo-Homophobia” with the common admission that, “The love between men and boys is at the foundation of homosexuality. For the gay community to imply that boy-love is not homosexual love is ridiculous.” Activist pedophiles easily find media outlets.

Families have tried to hide their shame when one of their own gives in to vile passions. Many homosexuals claim to have their parent’s complete acceptance, but almost without exception gays show no physical affection, not even a peck on the cheek, in front of parents and grand-parents. Many are in denial but they fail to hide the truth.

Traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs reflect the Bible’s condemnation of homosexuals. Over a billion mothers in the world, in giving birth, did not wish for their children to be homosexuals. Over a billion mothers cannot be wrong. Human beings have a natural revlusion to contaminates. Hence even the thought of ingesting putrefied meat makes one gag, as does the sight of two gay men kissing. We are born with natural defense mechanisms. Homophobes are born that way. Homophobia is genetic. And no one has a right to suppress us. We are not going back into the closet.

Homosexuality is a crime in a dwindling number of American states. Yet in an effort to normalize it, Hollywood ridicules the traditional family. Why mock a family unit of a mom, dad and kids? Because perversion is self-evident next to wholesomeness. Men will accept depravity if first they scorn goodness. So liberals laud every permutation of the family except for the traditional one. They deride Ozzie and Harriet, scorn the Beaver’s parents and fight tooth and nail against the notion that any such family ever existed. Why the dread of normality? Because if it exists, the homosexual life fails by comparison. Out of concern for children, and for my nation, and out of a desire that my cousin experience justice, I will continue to fight to re-criminalize homosexuality.

Bob Enyart Live
PO Box 583
Arvada CO 80001

Listen to Bob Enyart Live anytime on KGOV radio on the Internet at www.kgov.com.

[beanieboy]

The July 1998 Psychological Bulletin of the American Psychological Association worked to normalize pedophilia by undermining the “Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse.”

Blantantly false. Either misinformation, or a lie.
From a Bob Enyart? Someone pinch me.

"It was talking about the ASSUMED PROPERTIES of sexual abuse, and how they found out that they were different that what was previously thought. They were not trying to normalize anything, and have made statements as such.

"Billions of people in the world oppose homosexuals, as have most cultures throughout civilization."
Ever read about Native American culture? Or read at all ever?

"Homosexual leaders blatantly voice tolerance for child sex abuse."
Again, blantantly false, because "homosexual leaders" are not the ones saying this. This is like saying, "Christian Leaders protest gay funerals" because Fred Phelps is christian. Leader is the key word. It's a lie.

"Thus the broadly overlapping groups, the homosexual community and the open pedophiles, are longtime allies. "
Wait. Another lie? I can't believe it.

So, to sum up, Bob lies his keister off in order to point out that all homosexuals should not be allowed to adopt, due to a fringe group that wants to legalize pedophilia. Hm.
Bob doesn't have a problem with heterosexuals raising kids, even though he is aware that incest happens with more frequency than he wants to admit. For those incidences, he's willing to take a risk. It's not like it's organized or

My question - if you point is so strong, why the need to lie so much?
Is it really honest for me to say, "there are a lot of child abusers who are heterosexual. Therefore, no heterosexual is a fit parent."

The KKK, for example, is very anti gay, among other things. So, does that invalidate all heterosexuals from raising children?

Is that family unit mocked? Not that I have seen. It just no longer pretends to be the Cleavers. It admits that, guess what? Sometimes, Pop molests Kitten, and June has a drinking problem, and Beaver smokes pot, and everyone lives in denial. But that would be dealing with truth. Lying is easier, even when it means lying to ones' self.

Here's another truth. Gay people come from families. We aren't some "enemy." We are part of families. I love my family. I'm happy my parents will celebrate their 50th wedding anniversay. I have friends and co-workers who are married and have children.

But paint me as someone who lives in the shadows, the underbelly, wringing my hands with maniacal laugh. Lie like a pro, and justify it later, and spit on the cross like a serpent.

[Evangelion]

Enyart is an easy target.

His kind usually are.

[beanieboy]

I agree.

I mean, I could write a better argument as to why gays should not be allowed to adopt, and that isn't even my stand.

[Evangelion]

The ridiculous thing is that he has so obviously lied in order to support his argument - but, as you have correctly observed, if his case is strong enough to stand alone, why would he lie in the first place?

I don't believe that gays should adopt - but then, I don't believe that single parents should adopt, either...

...and if I were to formulate an argument for these two positions, there would be no need for me to lie.

[beanieboy]

Right. That's the position and point that I would take - explaining the need for a male and female influence for the child's upbringing. This is my friend's position.

When I ask him if children should be placed in foster homes if one parent dies, and thus, leaving a male or female void, he gets a little tongue tied, especially since he is raising two kids on his own after a divorce, and has full custody.

It's a difficult subject. However, with adoption itself, one has to prove themselves worthy parents, while if you have one yourself, you don't have to pass any kind of approval whatsoever. I've found that a fascinating inconsistancy.

[JGaltJr.]

"Michael’s homosexuality has brought much heartache to our family."

How sad.

[beanieboy]

Somehow, I can't imagine Michael all that excited to go to family reunions with the Enyarts, either.

[Evangelion]

I can't imagine the Enyart family.

It's too scary.

:(

[beanieboy]

Hasn't Enyart been charged with child abuse?
But somehow thinks his words have weight on who is a fit parent?

[JGaltJr.]

The devoutly religious have an astonishing way of justifying their own behavior. Remember, they're not perfect, just forgiven. They seem to think that phrase gives them carte blanche to do pretty much anything they want and then continue to condemn others.

I thank god every day that I don't believe in him.

[Projill]

Me too. I was a horrible person when I did believe in him. I'm much better off now...and I tend to treat people with dignity and respect now.

[ClaypoolKid]

Beanieboy, you’re an idiot and here is the proof.

I am not familiar with what was written in the “Psychological Bulletin of the American Psychological Association”. Therefore, I cannot comment concerning this matter. However. I really don’t even understand your angle of objection. What did the article list as “Assumed Properties”?

Bob says: "Billions of people in the world oppose homosexuals, as have MOST cultures throughout civilization." Bob said “MOST”! “MOST”! He did not say ALL. He said “MOST”. Yet you try to debunk his statement by pointing to Native American Culture(s). Do you realize that there are more countries on the earth other than America? And there were many more cultures that existed throughout history other than Native American Cultures. Christians, Jews and Moslems are opposed to homosexuality. These religions account for a very large percentage of people on this planet.

Bob wrote: "Homosexual leaders blatantly voice tolerance for child sex abuse.” He then backed this claim by quoting from several leaders in the homosexual community and from popular homosexual publications. Yet you try to counter this by saying that "homosexual leaders are not the ones saying this.” While ‘Mabla’ could be considered a fringe group, the other references that Bob gave cannot.

In your message you repeatedly call Bob a liar. But sense you’re a homo, and thus unable to distinguish between right and wrong, I am also convinced that you are unable to distinguish between a truth and a lie.

“I love animals. They’re delicious.”—Bob Enyart

[swordfish]

JGaltJr

>>I thank god every day that I don't believe in him

Romans
"20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse"

beanieboy

Romans
"27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. "

Homosexuality is not the only sin God condemns, but he surely condemns it.

1 John 1:9
"If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness."

ehh, that includes everybody, not just homosexuals.

[JGaltJr.]

Swordfish, a little hint - quoting a fool like Paul is no more significant than hearing you say something. Opinions are a dime a dozen and most of Paul's opinions are pretty worthless.

[Projill]

Originally posted by ClaypoolKid
Beanieboy, you’re an idiot and here is the proof.

I am not familiar with what was written in the “Psychological Bulletin of the American Psychological Association”. Therefore, I cannot comment concerning this matter. However. I really don’t even understand your angle of objection. What did the article list as “Assumed Properties”?

Bob says: "Billions of people in the world oppose homosexuals, as have MOST cultures throughout civilization." Bob said “MOST”! “MOST”! He did not say ALL. He said “MOST”. Yet you try to debunk his statement by pointing to Native American Culture(s). Do you realize that there are more countries on the earth other than America? And there were many more cultures that existed throughout history other than Native American Cultures. Christians, Jews and Moslems are opposed to homosexuality. These religions account for a very large percentage of people on this planet.

Bob wrote: "Homosexual leaders blatantly voice tolerance for child sex abuse.” He then backed this claim by quoting from several leaders in the homosexual community and from popular homosexual publications. Yet you try to counter this by saying that "homosexual leaders are not the ones saying this.” While ‘Mabla’ could be considered a fringe group, the other references that Bob gave cannot.

In your message you repeatedly call Bob a liar. But sense you’re a homo, and thus unable to distinguish between right and wrong, I am also convinced that you are unable to distinguish between a truth and a lie.

“I love animals. They’re delicious.”—Bob Enyart

Welcome to yet another intelligent and enlightened poster.

Seriously, just because a religion says something is wrong does not mean that it is wrong. People throughout history have had their own agendas. Take that into account when you review any archaic piece of "evidence".

[Projill]

I feel so bad for the Romans and Corinthians. They actually had to deal with Paul in person...the man who is, in several circles, regarded as the first corruptor of the Bible. If that turns out to be right, God's gonna be angry at a few people on this forum when he gets back.

[beanieboy]

Originally posted by ClaypoolKid
Beanieboy, you’re an idiot and here is the proof.

I am not familiar with what was written in the “Psychological Bulletin of the American Psychological Association”. Therefore, I cannot comment concerning this matter. However. I really don’t even understand your angle of objection. What did the article list as “Assumed Properties”?

“I love animals. They’re delicious.”—Bob Enyart

I'm kind of an idiot. It was really hard for me to figure out how to find out how to read the APA article quoted. First, I had to highlight the name of the article. THEN, I had to copy it. NEXT, I had to go to a search engine, and paste it in the search window. Somehow, I was able to find many, many sites discussing the article, and the article itself. THEN, I had to read it. Wow. My head hurts. But since I am an idiot, I decided that I would read it, rather than going off on a rant. I have this stupid thing I do where I investigate what is said, and think for myself. I think it's a sin, because a lot of posters get mad when I do that.

Here's what I found:

"The article combined the results of 59 previous studies to examine the long-term impact of child sexual abuse. Using a broad definition of sexual abuse that included incidents ranging from witnessing indecent exposure to experiencing repeated rape, the authors found sexual abuse to be not as harmful as generally believed. They also concluded that some victims, typically adolescents who had sexual relations with adults, perceived the experience as consensual; some even regarded it as positive. The publication of the article led to considerable controversy about both the journal review process and APA's position regarding child sexual abuse.

APA has always condemned the sexual abuse of children. This position is absolutely fundamental to our organization and is demonstrated by our strong record of advocacy on behalf of abused children and our work to educate the public, health professionals, and others about the prevention and treatment of such abuse. We do not support the "normalization" or decriminalization of any form of sexual relations between adults and children. Such behavior must remain criminal and punishable to the fullest extent of the law. APA also totally rejects the contention that much of what we call child sexual abuse is not particularly harmful. While there is doubtless a continuum of harmfulness depending upon the nature, intensity, and duration of the abuse, there is no way to be certain that even the mildest forms of non-contact sexual encounter might not cause serious damage to a vulnerable child. For that reason, it is the position of APA that child sexual abuse is never trivial, never justifiable, and always wrong."

Let's see. Mr. Enyart says:
The July 1998 Psychological Bulletin of the American Psychological Association worked to normalize pedophilia by undermining the “Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse.”

And the article says:
We do not support the "normalization" or decriminalization of any form of sexual relations between adults and children. Such behavior must remain criminal and punishable to the fullest extent of the law.

Now, I don't know. I'm kind of an idiot. But isn't that the OPPOSITE of what the APA says? This has been talked about a lot, because Dr. Laura has made the obscure journal entry infamous. And claiming it says the opposite of what it says spreading misinformation at best, lying at worst.

Here the article. It has a lot of big words, but I didn't see anything about normalization (5 syllables!). In reading the response given to this research, the APA has also condemned organizations, like NAMBLA, (not Mabla) for using the research to draw equally false conclusions.
http://home.wish.nl/~twcafe/helping/rbt_files/examination.htm

[beanieboy]

"Billions of people in the world oppose homosexuals, as have most cultures throughout civilization."

Well, I guess this isn't a lie. It's a half truth. Attitudes in Europe towards gays are very different. France has gays in the military - it's a nonissue. Roman and Greek civilizations, which gave us a lot of art work and literature, also talk about homosexuality. In fact, the word "homosexuality" wasn't even penned until the late 1800s. At the same time, there are Muslim countries where they kill people who are homosexual, and do it with the permission of their families.

Why the half truth? Yes, there are billions of people who oppose homosexuality. And there are billions who don't. By saying, "there are billions of people who oppose homosexuality" and not acknowlegding those who do not, you are making it sound like everyone is opposed to it.

Fifty-four percent of those interviewed said that homosexual relations should be legal, 42% not legal, with 4% unsure.
http://www.gayfortwayne.com/rainbowreader/July2001/07national3.htm
So, I'm kind of an idiot. Someone help me out. Is 54% bigger than 42%?

"In general, do you think homosexuals should or should not have equal rights in terms of job opportunities?" The percentage saying yes has risen from 56% in 1977 to a significantly higher 85% today."

Let's see. 85% in favor of equal rights for gays. Is that a lot?

"Do you feel that homosexuality should be considered an acceptable alternative lifestyle or not?" Of those saying yes: 52%, with 43% saying no.

So, more people are in support homosexuals, and consider it an acceptable lifestyle.

And Enyart says, "Most people/civiliations oppose it." Again, I'm slow, but isn't 52% vs. 43% and outright lie? LIE # 2.

[beanieboy]

Originally posted by ClaypoolKid
Beanieboy, you’re an idiot and here is the proof.

Bob wrote: "Homosexual leaders blatantly voice tolerance for child sex abuse.” He then backed this claim by quoting from several leaders in the homosexual community and from popular homosexual publications. Yet you try to counter this by saying that "homosexual leaders are not the ones saying this.” While ‘Mabla’ could be considered a fringe group, the other references that Bob gave cannot.

In your message you repeatedly call Bob a liar. But sense you’re a homo, and thus unable to distinguish between right and wrong, I am also convinced that you are unable to distinguish between a truth and a lie.

“I love animals. They’re delicious.”—Bob Enyart

What I said was, these are not necessarily voices of the homosexual community. Damien Martin founded The Harvey Milk School, a school for drop outs that are gay and felt unsafe about going to school because they were harrassed for being gay. I've never heard his name before Enyart quoted it. Because he doesn't provide the article, or a link (heaven forbid), I am expected to take his word for it. Unfortunately, at LIE #2, I started to think his word was worth anything. And then he quotes an article from the Advocate (again, with no link) and draws a conclusion.

Now, let me apply this same kind of "truth." Christians protest funerals of people who have died of AIDS, and yell "God hates Fags" to those who are grieving and walking toward the funeral home. Christian leader Fred Phelps, the pastor of his church, even has his own website: www.godhatesfags.com.

Pat Robertson, another prominent Christian leader, claims that homosexuals among others, are the cause for the World Trade Center. It wasn't terrorists. It wasn't government involvement with other countries. It wasn't religious fanaticism. It was homosexuals. Christians don't look at the facts.

Is this fair? Is it honest? No. It's a lie. Most christians don't agree with what Pat Robertson said. They understand that we are at war with terrorism, not homosexuals. Fred Phelps is a small, hateful little man that uses christianity to cloak his ugly hatred and hard, black heart. I am fully aware of that. And while they are christians, they do not necessarily speak for all christians.

So, giving Enyart the benefit of the doubt, which he doesn't deserve, even if these people had made these comments in the article in context, they still don't speak for any organization, or a community as a whole, any more than Pat Robertson or Fred Phelps does.

I understand that. Then again, I am an idiot.

And you have said that because I am a homo, I can't distinguish between right and wrong. LIE #1. Now, I'm not a christian, and I'm a homo unable to distiguish between right and wrong, but isn't lying one of the 10 commandments, and considered a sin?

[beanieboy]

I find it fascinating how good Enyart is at lying. There was part of the article that kept popping up in my head all last night:

"I am not saying that my cousin will sexually molest a child. I am saying that homosexuals have long given aid and comfort to pedophiles, publicly. And I am saying that the media and other defenders of homosexuals are the silent partners of those who work toward the day when children are a sex commodity. The media rejects but intuitively fears the connection between child molestation and homosexuality. It therefore suppresses reports of the torrent of public advocacy for gay pedophilia. Instead, the media wears out the same worn cliché that homosexuals are no more likely to molest children than heterosexuals."

So, while he brings up his gay cousin who is adopting, he talks about his opinion that gays are more likely to molest children than heterosexuals. He writes an extensive article making several false claims, quotes a few people, and says, "see how they all are?" He claims that the media never talks about child molesters, and in so, defends them (He must not read or watch the news.) He claims that homosexuals, in general, are all for having sex with children, it's just no one wants to appear homophobic.

Oh, but he's not saying that his cousin will probably molest HIS kid. No. That's a horse of a different color. That's not what he's saying at all.

It's clever. It is what he's saying. He makes bold statements, most of which are false, using words like "most" and using inference in order to make a point, yet will not come right out and say, "I fear that my cousin will molest his child BECAUSE my cousin is homosexual." He won't come right out and say it, and in so, has a way out. He just implies it. He infers it. He dances around it. Lies like a pro.

[Projill]

Too bad he didn't go into politics. He'd be President by now.

[JGaltJr.]

Originally posted by beanieboy
So, while he brings up his gay cousin who is adopting, he talks about his opinion that gays are more likely to molest children than heterosexuals. He writes an extensive article making several false claims, quotes a few people, and says, "see how they all are?" He claims that the media never talks about child molesters, and in so, defends them (He must not read or watch the news.) He claims that homosexuals, in general, are all for having sex with children, it's just no one wants to appear homophobic.


Statistically isn't there a very high rate of people who were molested who go on to molest their own children? Perhaps we should not allow victims of abuse to raise children for fear that they may repeat the cycle of abuse. Wonder if any of these good Christians around here fit that criteria and would agree that their children would be safer in someone else's care?

[beanieboy]

http://www.corpun.com/usdm9904.htm

I'm still stuck here.
A man spanks a kid with a belt that leaves welts, bruises, and BREAKS SKIN, and says that he did nothing wrong.

And is giving opinions of who should and shouldn't raise children.

[ClaypoolKid]

Ok beanieboy, I have since skimmed through the report published by the ASA and here is what I found. The article begins by stating the purpose of the study to be the following:

“The question that we have asked, and that we will attempt to answer in this presentation, is: For people who have experienced Child Sex Abuse, does the experience cause intense psychological harm on a widespread basis for both genders?”

Midway through the report there is a chart displayed that records how sexual abuse for some children might not be all that bad of an experience. In fact, the report claims that it can be a positive experience. The article states:

“Of the 1,421 female experiences of Child Sex Abuse, 11% were positive, 18% were neutral, and 72% were negative. Of the 606 male experiences, 37% were positive, 29% were neutral, and 33% were negative.”

They conclude the study with the following statement:

“The results of our reviews clearly show that the assumptions of most mental health professionals, legislators, law enforcement personnel, media workers, and the lay public that sexual relations defined as Child Sex Abuse cause intense harm pervasively for both boys and girls are vastly exaggerated.”

In reading what the APA published, it seems reasonable for Mr. Enyart to arrive at his conclusion. And that is all Bob did. He read the article and drew a conclusion. If you do not agree with his conclusion that is fine. But that does not make him a liar. Anyone with any level of moral consciousness would have to question the motives of the APA. Of course, after the report was drug out into public view by Dr. Laura and other conservatives, the APA attempted to defend what they published by saying, “We do not support the ‘normalization’ or decriminalization of any form of sexual relations between adults and children. Such behavior must remain criminal and punishable to the fullest extent of the law”. Would anyone expect the APA to confirm the suspicions of Dr. Laura and Mr. Enyart? If they were not trying to normalize pedophilia, what were their motives?

In your next post you again try to attack Mr. Enyart for writing the following:
“Billions of people in the world oppose homosexuals, as have most cultures throughout civilization.”

You write: “Yes, there are billions of people who oppose homosexuality. And there are billions who don't. By saying, "there are billions of people who oppose homosexuality" and not acknowledging those who do not, you are making it sound like everyone is opposed to it.”

Beanieboy, please explain to me why Bob should feel obligated to mention the billions of people who don’t oppose homosexuality? Is it for the sake of idiots like you who are unable to comprehend what he was trying to convey? Because when I read what Bob wrote I did not think he made it sound like EVERYONE was opposed to homosexuality. Nor did I think that he was implying that the MAJORITY of people oppose homosexuality. If I said that millions of Americans waited until the 15th of April to mail in their tax returns, would you ever assume that I was implying that the majority of Americans had procrastinated?

Bob said that “most cultures throughout civilization” have opposed homosexuality. I believe Bob’s was including ALL cultures throughout the HISTORY of civilization. (This seemed clear to me since he used the verb ‘have’.) Yet you try to refute this statement by showing results from a survey conducted RECENTLY and is focused on ONE modern culture (America). Bob would openly admit that most Americans are rather tolerant of homos. Sorry, but all those stats you gave were a waste of your time.

In your next post you criticize Bob for quoting homos without providing sources. You then make some remarks concerning things said by Pat Robertson without giving any sources. (By the way Pat is a fool, but I would like to see exactly what he said.)

Are you sure Bob is lying or are you just assuming that he is? How many sources would Bob have to offer to establish the accuracy of his observation that many homo leaders seem to want to normalize sex with children? There has been a recent outcry against the Catholic community for the severe problem of priest molesting children. But where is the outcry against the homo community for the severe problem of homos molesting children? Weren’t most of these crimes in the Catholic Church committed by adult MALES on adolescent MALES? Isn’t the same true for most child molestation cases? Sounds like the homo community has a problem.

Oh, and if Bob knew that you laid in bed thinking about him all night, he would probably throw up.

And to answer JgaltJr. let me say this: No, it would be wrong to punish someone for fear that they might do something to a child that was done to them when they were a child. You can’t punish a person for something SOMEONE ELSE did in the PAST. The situation with homos adopting children is different. THEY are PRESENTLY behaving in a manner that distinguishes them as perverts.

And about Bob's spanking incident. He is very proud of what he did to his step son. He has spoken very openly about it on his show many times. So if your trying to embarrass him, it will not work. What Bob did to his step son is called administering discipline. If you spank a 7 year old boy and it does not leave some sort of mark then it was not a good (effective) spanking. For a spanking to be effective on a 7 year old boy it has to hurt. And if it hurts then it will most likely leave a mark.

“I'm kind of an idiot, But since I am an idiot, I'm kind of an idiot.”--- Beanieboy
(I hope I did not take your quote out of context.)

[JGaltJr.]

sheesh - another one

[Projill]

Oh, and if Bob knew that you laid in bed thinking about him all night, he would probably throw up.

Though I don't know beanieboy personally, I'm quite certain the feeling is mutual.

[o2bwise]

Swordfish, a little hint - quoting a fool like Paul is no more significant than hearing you say something. Opinions are a dime a dozen and most of Paul's opinions are pretty worthless.

JGalt, a little hint, this is a Christian forum and (as such), the bulk of the constituency are people who believe in the Bible and believe Paul was wise and not a fool.

So, if I "wear your moccasins" (so to speak), you're talking to a bunch of fools and words like the above being voiced here, are so without influence as to be - well - foolish to even bother voicing them!

[ClaypoolKid]

“So, if I "wear your moccasins" (so to speak), you're talking to a bunch of fools and words like the above being voiced here, are so without influence as to be - well - foolish to even bother voicing them!”--- o2bwise

Translation: Since I can’t find a logical way to refute ClaypoolKid, I’ll just call him a fool and dismiss anything he says.”

[kiwimac]

Claypool,

Nothing you said requires refutation, why? because it was not intelligent enough to be considered an argument! Simply supporting that idiot Enyart does not a useful discussuin make.

Kiwimac

[Knight]

Kiwi - wow stunning retort.

[Projill]

Knight, ditto.

[firechyld]

If you spank a 7 year old boy and it does not leave some sort of mark then it was not a good (effective) spanking.

Sheesh... please tell me you don't have kids. Please. I'll give you money if you promise never to try and raise one...

This whole right-wing Christian stance on Gays/Adoption is one that interests me in a big way. I have a question which I asked a couple of times on other threads, but have yet to receive an answer to.

If you oppose abortion, and think it should be outlawed completely, would you allow non-nuclear family units to adopt unwanted children, as the numbers would surely rise? If not, how would you propose this situation be dealt with?

By "non-nuclear" family units, I mean everything from single parents to gay and lesbian couples to polygamous family units. Feel free to break that down in your response.

*grin*

Presuming someone deigns to grace me with their response this time....

firechyld

[beanieboy]

Polygamous family units:

Go ask you mother; and your other mother; and your other mother.

[Projill]

Originally posted by beanieboy
Polygamous family units:

Go ask you mother; and your other mother; and your other mother.

Wow...I never considered what a nightmare that would be. It was bad enough growing up getting just two parents to agree.

[kiwimac]

Has anyone considered the horror inherent in more than one set of in-laws?

Kiwimac

[Barbiedoll]

Originally posted by beanieboy
Hasn't Enyart been charged with child abuse?
But somehow thinks his words have weight on who is a fit parent?

A lot of parents have been arrested for child abuse when it wasn't child abuse. Its abusive to not correct your child in the right way.

What are parents supposed to do, let them grow up to die in the electric chair? That might hurt their little feelings.

[missedmarks]

Spanking is lazy parenting,

Yeah, I used to spank my kid, but mainly because I was mad, not because it did him any good.

If you believe "Spare the Rod, Spoil the Child" means hit your kids with a stick, you need to have a chat with someone who can interpret scripture a little bit better.

"What are parents supposed to do, let them grow up to die in the electrict chair? That might hurt their little feelings."

That quote right there shows the three elements of the ArchConservative argument for anything. First a throw your hands in the air black or white choice between one of two extremes. Then the dire end of the world consequence that will justify any means necessary. Then the dismissive statement that shows that the conservative is "Tough" and any alternatives to that viewpoint is "Wimpy, touchy feely nonsense"

As for me at my house, Im done beating the kid, when he gets in trouble, he gets some kind of unpleasant chore to do. I think it provides a consequence and he learns a little something as opposed to learning that dad is bigger and can hit hard.

[wcgreer]

So called Christians today regard the Bible like a selective Windows install...I'll take this, one of those, let's uncheck that one, and soon you'll have a religion to fit your world view.
Nowhere in the Bible does God ask, "Can we make a deal", he repeatedly says 'This is the deal'.

One post ask us to ignore Paul. Without Paul, we have no Grace, saving Grace. You would like to keep the salvation he brings, but reject everything else he says. Just for the sake of argument, I'll leave Paul out for now.

What did Jesus say? The Old Testament is the word of God down to the last dot. Jesus himself confirmed the Old Testament is true down to the last detail. You mean just the names, right? Maybe the places? Perhaps just major events? No, down to the last detail. If Jesus tells me the Old Testament is his fathers word, I believe him. The Old Testament very specifically states homosexuality is an abomination.

Even up to the last decade, homosexuality was still hidden, and concealed. Coming out of the closet is an adequate phrase as it is confirming that is was something to be hidden. Shortened to just 'coming out' now, still means to make public, which implies it was once a secretive thing. So why was it ever necessary to to hide, to be ashamed, or to conceal homosexuality? Was it just after 1930 it became wrong? After 2000 years of ignorance, not to mention the 4000 years before that, suddenly in 1996 you figured it out? The Bible, surely it didn't mean me?

"Many will say Lord, Lord, but I hear them not". Just who is he talking about? Who is calling out to him and who, after calling his name, will Jesus turn his back on? It's got to be someone or he wouldn't have said it. We're not talking about the millions of Muslims calling to Allah, they're not calling out to Jesus, he said many are saying MY name, and I hear them not.

I don't think God is going to be impressed with your fancy lawyering tricks, play on words, stretched meanings. Many are calling to him and he is turning a deaf ear to them. So many think they're 'in', and Jesus isn't hearing a word of it.

It's going to be your soul burning in hell if you're wrong.
What a chance to take.

I would give everything, everything but my soul of course, to have God come seek me out, personally, and speak to me. What a great honor that would be, but an awesome responsibility to have placed on my shoulders, to go save the world. How so many of you can just discount Paul, it just laughs in the face of God.
1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud,...
3 Without natural affection.....
4 ....lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof:
from such turn away.
7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the
truth.
8 Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith.

When you specifically exclude parts of the Bible you don't like, then you need to reexamine your faith.

[Barbiedoll]

Originally posted by missedmarks
Spanking is lazy parenting,

Yeah, I used to spank my kid, but mainly because I was mad, not because it did him any good.

If you believe "Spare the Rod, Spoil the Child" means hit your kids with a stick, you need to have a chat with someone who can interpret scripture a little bit better.

"What are parents supposed to do, let them grow up to die in the electrict chair? That might hurt their little feelings."

That quote right there shows the three elements of the ArchConservative argument for anything. First a throw your hands in the air black or white choice between one of two extremes. Then the dire end of the world consequence that will justify any means necessary. Then the dismissive statement that shows that the conservative is "Tough" and any alternatives to that viewpoint is "Wimpy, touchy feely nonsense"

As for me at my house, Im done beating the kid, when he gets in trouble, he gets some kind of unpleasant chore to do. I think it provides a consequence and he learns a little something as opposed to learning that dad is bigger and can hit hard.

__________________________________________________ _

As for me, I'll correct mine according to the Word of God. When God said "spare not the rod and spoil the child", he meant to spank them when the need it.

I am well aware there are other forms of discipline, and I think they should be used first (except some actions require immediate spankings), but sometimes a spanking is the only means of getting the message across.

God gave us our children, and he expects us to raise them as he sets forth, not as we think.

[Projill]

God also tells us to smash little kids against rocks and to stone our kids.

If god wants me to do that to any child I love, well, I'll call child protective services on him myself.

[missedmarks]

The Rod being spoke of is comprable to a shepard's rod, (Thy Rod and staff) when was the last time you saw a shepard beat his sheep with his shepard's crook?

The point of the passage is not God's authorization to strike your children. It is saying that good parents will guide and shepard their children to adulthood. God also says "Fathers do not provoke your children to anger"

That is not "what I think" that is completely Biblical. Of course I read the whole book, I did not dig through it looking for an excuse to take a seven year old "out back" and beat him with a belt.

[Barbiedoll]

Originally posted by missedmarks
The Rod being spoke of is comprable to a shepard's rod, (Thy Rod and staff) when was the last time you saw a shepard beat his sheep with his shepard's crook?

The point of the passage is not God's authorization to strike your children. It is saying that good parents will guide and shepard their children to adulthood. God also says "Fathers do not provoke your children to anger"

That is not "what I think" that is completely Biblical. Of course I read the whole book, I did not dig through it looking for an excuse to take a seven year old "out back" and beat him with a belt.


People like you are the reason kids are growing up to be criminals and heathens. Look at King David, he didn't spank his kids, and did you read what all happened with his kids? It was horrible.

[kiwimac]

How do you know David didn't spank his kids?, Were you there?

If not how on earth can you make the statement you just have, there is NO evidence for it in the Bible!!!

Kiwimac

[missedmarks]

Children grow up to be criminals and heathans because parents don't discipline their children. They either,

A. Let their kids do whatever they want, and give them no discipline.

B. They beat their kids to the point of abuse.

My son had a bad day yesterday, he disrispected his mother and lied to us about spilling something. He came clean about the spill later and faced his punishment. He got a lecture on what he did wrong and went this weekend without watching TV. He spent his weekend bored and when he got upset about not being able to watch TV the message that what he did was wrong and that he had to suffer the consequences.

Of course it would've been much easier to yell at him once and whack him on the hind end a couple of times.

We have figured out you can't really train a horse or a dog by beating it, why do we insist that this is the best way to train our children.

I am not the reason that a large portion of parents in this country have decided to not raise their children. I am doing a pretty good job with my son. I wound never beat him the way Enyart did that boy, I don't care what he did, Taking a young boy outside and beating him with a belt is not good parenting, its abuse. I can't see how anyone who has read the Bible could end up thinking this way.

[Chris Chrusher]

Originally posted by JGaltJr.
Swordfish, a little hint - quoting a fool like Paul is no more significant than hearing you say something. Opinions are a dime a dozen and most of Paul's opinions are pretty worthless.
As are yours.

[Barbiedoll]

Originally posted by Projill
God also tells us to smash little kids against rocks and to stone our kids.

If god wants me to do that to any child I love, well, I'll call child protective services on him myself.

You're off your crazy rocker, Projill!! God never told anyone to do that to their kids.

[Projill]

Barbie, check out Psalm 137:9.

[firechyld]

I like that rod/shepherd staff interpretation.

And no-one answered me about the family unit. Again.

[Barbiedoll]

Originally posted by Projill
Barbie, check out Psalm 137:9.


If you're going to go around quoting the Bible, you need to learn the meaning of what you're quoting before you quote it. This chapter was written by Ezra who is praying for vengeance on the children of Edom who rejoiced in the fall of Jerusalem and demanded it to be completely destroyed.

God has never told anyone what you accused Him of.

The way you are always putting down God and Christians, I wouldn't want to be in your shoes for your socks.

[Projill]

Wasn't there also a deal in the Bible about stoning disobedient children? Or did I dream it?

Besides, you're a Christian...You believe the Bible was divinely inspired. What do you think is God's stance on Ezra's prayer if he was so good as to include it in Psalms?

And for the record, I have nothing against the Christian god. I also have nothing against Zeus, Kali, Cernunnos, Pele, Dionysus, Hecate, Ishtar, Mithra, and Santa Claus.

[Barbiedoll]

Originally posted by Projill
Wasn't there also a deal in the Bible about stoning disobedient children? Or did I dream it?

Besides, you're a Christian...You believe the Bible was divinely inspired. What do you think is God's stance on Ezra's prayer if he was so good as to include it in Psalms?

And for the record, I have nothing against the Christian god. I also have nothing against Zeus, Kali, Cernunnos, Pele, Dionysus, Hecate, Ishtar, Mithra, and Santa Claus.

You sure do know a lot about the Bible and the God that you proclaim you don't believe in.

And God is the real God, he's not make believe, He's not a fairytale, and one day you'll discover that, but I fear it will be too late.

[Projill]

Originally posted by Barbiedoll


You sure do know a lot about the Bible and the God that you proclaim you don't believe in.

Thanks! I'm glad you noticed. :)

For the record, I had read the Bible three times cover to cover before I was even in high school. I was a dyed in the wool born-again Southern Baptist Christian when I was younger as well.

And God is the real God, he's not make believe, He's not a fairytale, and one day you'll discover that, but I fear it will be too late.

Where's your proof?

Besides, how do you know that your god is the right one? For all you know the real god is Allah and when you die you'll be in just as much hot water as the rest of us non-believers.

[Barbiedoll]

Originally posted by Projill


Where's your proof?

Besides, how do you know that your god is the right one? For all you know the real god is Allah and when you die you'll be in just as much hot water as the rest of us non-believers.

If you were a born again Christian, you have allowed satan to steal that experience from you and mess up your mind. Satan has got you hook, line, and sinker.

[Projill]

Originally posted by Barbiedoll


If you were a born again Christian, you have allowed satan to steal that experience from you and mess up your mind. Satan has got you hook, line, and sinker.

*shrugs* And according to Muslims you're an infidel unbeliever denying Allah and you're every bit as lost as I am.

Wanna share a seat on the Gehenna charter bus?

Seriously, Barbie...how do you know that you're not the one who's wrong?

[Barbiedoll]

Originally posted by Projill


*shrugs* And according to Muslims you're an infidel unbeliever denying Allah and you're every bit as lost as I am.

Wanna share a seat on the Gehenna charter bus?

Seriously, Barbie...how do you know that you're not the one who's wrong?

Because I have a daily walk, a relationship with God and I know. Projill, if you were really a born again, washed in the Blood, you would know too. You would have no doubt even if you go back into sin, you would still know that God is real.

I pray that I never go back into sin and God takes His Spirit from me. I love Him with all my heart

[Projill]

Originally posted by Barbiedoll


Because I have a daily walk, a relationship with God and I know.

Well, the Sept. 11 hijackers seemed to be pretty sure that they were in the good graces of Allah...their relationship with Allah was so tight that they were willing to lay down their lives for him.
Your supposed "relationship" with God is no more sound than the relationship they felt they had with Allah.

Projill, if you were really a born again, washed in the Blood, you would know too.

That's a stock answer if ever I saw one. Christians always claim that atheists who were once born-agains couldn't have been born-agains if they're now atheists because we would "know" God existed. I was every bit as embibed with the spirit as you are. I brought friends to the church, I tried to get all my friends to come into the fold because I was convinced they would be happier and I didn't want them to go to hell. After a particularly moving sermon I could be found just like everyone else on my knees and weeping for joy because of my "relationship" with God. Sound familiar? But guess what? As I started to examine my faith, when I started really having questions about the validity of the Bible...basically when I started thinking for myself rather than letting my pastor do it...I came to the painful realization that my belief in God was no more sound than the Greeks and Romans believing in their pantheons...in essence, it was exactly like my belief in Santa when I was a little girl. Only, instead of growing out of make believe as I grew up, I was still subscribing to a mythology.

It was a sad realization...it was painful and it was difficult to finally realize that my God was no more valid or real than Zeus, Aphrodite, or Ishtar. No matter how many different ways I tried to spin it to myself...telling myself that my God was different...at the end of the day, my God was no more real than the gods of other mythologies. For a time I became a pagan and even attempted to be a theist pagan...but my heart just wasn't in it anymore. I couldn't believe in a fairy tale.

Then I woke up and accepted it. And I've become a far better citizen within my community than I ever was when I was a Baptist.

You would have no doubt even if you go back into sin, you would still know that God is real.

God is no more real than Santa...sorry. No matter how many emotionally filled stories you have about your "relationship" with God...none of them can make him real.

I pray that I never go back into sin and God takes His Spirit from me. I love Him with all my heart

I love Yoda from Star Wars...but it doesn't make him real. He's still just a puppet voiced by Frank Oz. I'd suggest turning that love you have for your imaginary deity into something productive. Give that love to the human community that shares this planet with you. They could use it a lot more than your God. It sounds like he already has plenty.

[Barbiedoll]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Projill


Projill, I don't want to even read this junk. I don't believe you ever had a true experience with God. You can go to the alter and bawl and sqwual all day and still not receive Jesus into your heart.

But, if you did, then you're in danger of blaspheming, and blaspheming will never be forgiven.

You have allowed satan to brainwash you and you know what? Satan is stupid, and you have listened to him.

I'm not arguing with you on this subject any further, but it hurts to read your junk because I know that I know that I know that God is REAL.

[Projill]

Projill, I don't want to even read this junk. I don't believe you ever had a true experience with God. You can go to the alter and bawl and sqwual all day and still not receive Jesus into your heart.

If it makes you feel better, go right ahead and think that.

But, if you did, then you're in danger of blaspheming, and blaspheming will never be forgiven.

So I'll blaspheme. There is no god to betray.

You have allowed satan to brainwash you and you know what? Satan is stupid, and you have listened to him.

You have allowed satan to brainwash you. Allah is the only true god. Think about it, if you were born in the middle east, you would, in all likelihood, be Muslim. And we'd be having the same conversation only you'd be trying to prove that Allah is the one true god with whom you have a personal relationship.

I'm not arguing with you on this subject any further,

That's fine. So long as you don't bother me with it.

but it hurts to read your junk because I know that I know that I know that God is REAL.

No amount of "knowing" god will make him real. You might as well "know" that the Easter Bunny exists. But it's your choice.

[Barbiedoll]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Projill


Projill, you said:

"That's fine so long as you don't bother me with it".



What then are you doing posting to a Christian website where you know that people believe in God? Just so you can aggravate and aggitate them?

[Projill]

Originally posted by Barbiedoll
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Projill


Projill, you said:

"That's fine so long as you don't bother me with it".



What then are you doing posting to a Christian website where you know that people believe in God? Just so you can aggravate and aggitate them?

Good question. For the record, I have been participating on these forums for well over a year now. When I first started posting here, I was a pagan. I was first made aware of this website when it was cited on the satire website known as Landover Baptist...I believe it was mentioned on their message board by one of the webmasters, if memory serves. So when I first came to this site it was out of amusement. There was a thread discussing homosexuality so I registered and began debating on that thread. Three of my friends actually registered as well when I pointed this forum out to them. One of them was active up until he really had to start working on his thesis (his handle was "funkyspice") and the other two never posted anything.

Ask anyone who remembers my arrival and they'll tell you I signed up to debate. As I have gotten to know people on here I've become more conversational and less formal in my discussions...a common enough occurance.

My atheism came about largely due to the atheists I've met on this website, getting into reading Carl Sagan, and 9/11.

Considering how screwed up the world is, if there is a god...I'm not impressed.

But due to an overwhelming lack of evidence along with my newfound interest in science and learning, I cannot believe in god.

I hope that is a good explaination. Discussing the god issue with you has been a learning experience for me because you're the first person I've actually discussed my lack of belief with in any kind of depth. I know you must stare at your computer screen like it just started talking to you in Swahili whenever you read my posts because I used to see the world like you do. You've really helped me learn to be up front and open and honest about being an atheist...so for that, I honestly thank you. :)

[Prisca]

Which of the following statements best defines your atheism:

"There is no God, that's for sure."

"I have no belief in God because the evidence I have seen so far does not, in my view, warrant such a belief."

"I don't believe in God, because if I did I would have to act differently"

"I don't give a darn, one way or the other."

Feel free to define your atheism in your own words if none of these fits.

Thanks,
Becky

Source of above statements: http://home.teleport.com/~packham/atheist3.htm

[Barbiedoll]

Originally posted by Projill



{QUOTE}Considering how screwed up the world is, if there is a god...I'm not impressed.{QUOTE}

God didn't mess this world up, the human race did that themselves, with the help of satan of course.

{QUOTE}But due to an overwhelming lack of evidence along with my newfound interest in science and learning, I cannot believe in god.{QUOTE}

There is overwhelming evidence everywhere that God exists, you just don't want to see. It will take the Holy Spirit to touch your heart, and He will let you know of His real presence, and then only if you allow Him to.

{QUOTE}I hope that is a good explaination. Discussing the god issue with you has been a learning experience for me because you're the first person I've actually discussed my lack of belief with in any kind of depth. I know you must stare at your computer screen like it just started talking to you in Swahili whenever you read my posts because I used to see the world like you do. You've really helped me learn to be up front and open and honest about being an atheist...so for that, I honestly thank you. :)

No, actually I'm not starring at my computer screen like it started talking in Swahili. I'm not actually shocked at the things you've said, its just that I don't like to hear that junk. You won't realize it, but your kind of thinking comes from satan himself, the father of all lies.

[Projill]

Originally posted by Barbiedoll


No, actually I'm not starring at my computer screen like it started talking in Swahili. I'm not actually shocked at the things you've said, its just that I don't like to hear that junk. You won't realize it, but your kind of thinking comes from satan himself, the father of all lies.

Why don't you like to "hear that junk"? I would hardly qualify my secular worldview is "junk"...it's just the way I happen to see things.

As far as my thinking coming from satan...I'll just quote one of my favorite movie lines: "I know of no god, or the devil. I have neither seen a vision or learned a secret that would damn or save my soul."

There is overwhelming evidence everywhere that God exists, you just don't want to see.

I've looked for proof for years. And I've never seen anything even remotely resembling evidence.

It will take the Holy Spirit to touch your heart, and He will let you know of His real presence, and then only if you allow Him to.

Religious ecstasy and emotionally being "filled with the spirit" is not something Christianity has a monopoly on. All the other world religions feel it too. I don't buy into any of them. One can achieve that kind of euphoria without god.

God didn't mess this world up, the human race did that themselves, with the help of satan of course.

Why would god allow satan and humans to do that? Why would he allow humans to use other humans as weapons of mass destruction? Why would god allow a country to have such barbaric laws that if a woman is raped, she is put to death for it by stoning? Why would god create man and then tell him not to eat from the tree of knowledge? Why does god need to sacrifice himself to himself in order to save the human race from hellfire when he was the one who sent them there for eternity in the first place? Why would he care whether or not we believed in him to the degree that he has instilled so much fear in you that you see satan everywhere. Even in my posts.

Why, Barbie? And why would a god like that be worth worshipping?

[Prisca]

You said, “I've looked for proof for years. And I've never seen anything even remotely resembling evidence.”

Perhaps you have misinterpreted the evidence. The Bible says some pretty amazing things about this universe we live in. For example, it says “since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead.” (Rom 1:20)

Take the butterfly as a one small example. The butterfly comes into the world as a greedy, earthbound creature, only concerned with filling itself. But then something amazing happens. It builds itself a chrysalis which looks suspiciously like a sarcophagus. By means not fully understood, the creature emerges from its “sarcophagus,” now transformed into a beautiful, new creation, no longer bound to the earth.

That is the promise of the resurrection. Those who have faith can attain this heavenly promise of renewal:

Rom 6:3-6 Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection, knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin.

2Cor. 5:17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new.

So, what appears to you to be just another product of evolution is actually a piece of the evidence. God has given us many analogies of our heavenly hope if we would only recognize them for what they are.

http://friends.designwest.com/ruth/images/d_plexipPupa.gif

[Barbiedoll]

Originally posted by Becky


Perhaps you have misinterpreted the evidence. The Bible says some pretty amazing things about this universe we live in. For example, it says “since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead.” (Rom 1:20)

Take the butterfly as a one small example. The butterfly comes into the world as a greedy, earthbound creature, only concerned with filling itself. But then something amazing happens. It builds itself a chrysalis which looks suspiciously like a sarcophagus. By means not fully understood, the creature emerges from its “sarcophagus,” now transformed into a beautiful, new creation, no longer bound to the earth.

That is the promise of the resurrection. Those who have faith can attain this heavenly promise of renewal:

Rom 6:3-6 Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection, knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin.

2Cor. 5:17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new.

So, what appears to you to be just another product of evolution is actually a piece of the evidence. God has given us many analogies of our heavenly hope if we would only recognize them for what they are.

http://friends.designwest.com/ruth/images/d_plexipPupa.gif


Thanks for stepping in and helping, Becky.

I just want to ask how do you guys get those pictures of the cartoons and stuff under your usernames on this post?

[Projill]

Originally posted by Becky


Perhaps you have misinterpreted the evidence. The Bible says some pretty amazing things about this universe we live in. For example, it says “since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead.” (Rom 1:20)

Take the butterfly as a one small example. The butterfly comes into the world as a greedy, earthbound creature, only concerned with filling itself. But then something amazing happens. It builds itself a chrysalis which looks suspiciously like a sarcophagus. By means not fully understood, the creature emerges from its “sarcophagus,” now transformed into a beautiful, new creation, no longer bound to the earth.

That is the promise of the resurrection. Those who have faith can attain this heavenly promise of renewal:

Rom 6:3-6 Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection, knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin.

2Cor. 5:17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new.

So, what appears to you to be just another product of evolution is actually a piece of the evidence. God has given us many analogies of our heavenly hope if we would only recognize them for what they are.

http://friends.designwest.com/ruth/images/d_plexipPupa.gif

Actually, to me it sounds like the men who wrote the Bible looked to nature for inspiration. The idea of dying and being born again was a concept long before Christianity came along. The pagans were familiar with this concept long before Christ came along. Nature came before the Bible. It doesn't prove it's worth nor does it give evidence of a god.

Of course, it's late and I'm really tired and I have a very busy weekend ahead of me so I might have misunderstood your point.

[Prisca]

You said, “Thanks for stepping in and helping, Becky.

I just want to ask how do you guys get those pictures of the cartoons and stuff under your usernames on this post?”
You’re welcome. The truth is, however, that projill (yes you, projill) may be beyond reaching. Isn’t that true, projill? She does not want to be “reached” but I’m not ready to give up yet. There have been many times I’ve wanted to have a good dialogue with her, but I was sick for a while and just couldn’t muster up the energy to do anything but read for a few weeks. But now I’m back!

To get those pictures and cartoons, try the following steps.

1. Find a picture you want to use from a website.
2. Click and hold on the picture. A menu pops down from the picture. Select “open image in new window.” The picture should appear in it’s own browser window.
3. Select and copy the url address (for example: http://friends.designwest.com/ruth/images/d_plexipPupa.gif)
4. Now in you post, paste the url address. Surround it by the following bracketed commands: img /img
5. Preview your post to see if it worked.

You can try it on the chrysalis picture for practice. Hope that helps!

In Christ,
Becky

[Prisca]

I must tell you that I understand your position quite well because I held the same view for many years. I remember, specifically, standing in my mother’s living room and telling her that the Bible was written by a bunch of men who were only trying to interpret what they couldn’t understand.

The truth is that your comments are made by faith. You cannot be sure that what you have said is true. The Bible never compares the metamorphosis of a butterfly with the resurrection. If they were looking for inspiration they would have made the comparison themselves. God tells us, “It is the glory of God to conceal a matter, but the glory of kings is to search out a matter.” Those who seek God can begin to see the incredible mysteries hidden in the creation for what they are. I don’t expect you to jump out of your chair and be amazed. That will not happen!

When I was an atheist, I thought I had it all figured out. You said, “due to an overwhelming lack of evidence along with my newfound interest in science and learning, I cannot believe in god.” That could have been said by me during my college years and early twenties.

Don’t be so quick to think you know it all. If you are truly interested in science and learning the truth, you may be surprised where your education will lead you.
_____________________________________________
Eph. 4:17-19 This I say, therefore, and testify in the Lord, that you should no longer walk as the rest of the Gentiles walk, in the futility of their mind, having their understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God, because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart; who, being past feeling, have given themselves over to lewdness, to work all uncleanness with greediness.

[Projill]

Hi, Becky.

I do assure you, I openly admit to knowing very little. I'm only starting to learn about the complexities of nature. I'm new to the world of science fact and critical thinking. Carl Sagan's book The Demon-Haunted World has made me see the world in a different way. In a way, he looked for God his entire life but, in the end, wound up comparing a belief in God to believing your friend when they tell you that they have an invisible dragon in their garage. If you ask if you can touch the dragon so you'll know it's there, you are told that he can't be felt. When you ask him if the dragon can breathe fire to prove it's existence, you are told that the heat of his fire can't be felt. When you ask if you can put powder down on the ground to get his footsteps in the powder, you are told that you are welcome to do this but that after you powedered the floor you were asked to leave for a short while because he wouldn't make footprints right in front of you. Sure, when you come back there are footprints, but you cannot very well account for the actions of all the people living in the house with the invisible dragon while you were out of the room.

That's how I see Christians and how they interact with their deity. When asked for any kind of testable proof, they never seem to have any. That's my problem with believing in god, especially when something like 9/11 happens.

I was born and raised Southern Baptist and also spent many years being a pagan before I headed down the atheist route. So I've actually been where you are now...I was a woman of faith. But I simply cannot buy that there is an invisible dragon in your garage that breathes fire without heat just because you tell me so and I wasn't in the room when the footprints were made.

[Prisca]

Your thoughts are not unreasonable for someone with your background. I was born into a Catholic family (although not devout by any stretch of the imagination) and as a child I had a great relationship with God. As I grew older and my fascination with science increased, I no longer believed that God was anything but a crutch for those who were afraid of death.

I’ve told my conversion story before, so I won’t bore you with the details. Let me instead ask you to consider the following (I call this my “Virtual Universe” analogy). Because it is only an analogy, it does break down on weightier theological points, but I think it is a good model and one that can be especially understood in this present age of technology:

The Virtual Universe

Assume, for a moment, that you have incredible computer programming abilities. One day, you decide to create a "virtual universe" inside of your computer (God, being spiritual, created a "physical universe"). The manner in which you design the universe will be a reflection of who you are, just as a painting reflects the artist. It will be well designed and fully functional, as soon as you run the program.

In this "virtual universe", you have found a way to create "beings", similar to yourself except for their virtual nature. These "virtual beings" are intelligent, creative, emotional and willful (wouldn't that be a programmers dream?). They have the ability to love you or hate you, believe in you, or doubt you. There is one problem, though; you yourself are not a "virtual being" and so you cannot enter into the universe as your physical self without destroying it.

You can, however, manipulate your universe in any way you choose, appearing as a pillar of fire, separating the Red Sea, etc. In fact, you can even create a "virtual representation" of yourself, through which you can communicate directly with your "virtual beings". This representation of yourself would be in complete communication with you, from inside of your computer, similar to what God did when He came as Jesus Christ.
Philippians 2:5-8 Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross.
In the mean time, you also inspire some of your "virtual beings" to write a book telling them who you are, who they are, how to make their lives better, and how to get to you. The book is to be written as the events in your universe unfold. (Contrary to what many Christians believe, the Bible shows that God is experiencing events in time right a long with us, but that is another topic.) You can't have them write a book about things that have not yet happened, except to make prophesies and then wait for the right time to make them happen.
Isaiah 46:9-11 Remember the former things of old, For I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like Me, declaring the end from the beginning, And from ancient times things that are NOT YET DONE, Saying, `My counsel shall stand, And I WILL do all My pleasure,' Calling a bird of prey from the east, The man who executes My counsel, from a far country. Indeed I have spoken it; I WILL also bring it to pass. I have purposed it; I WILL also do it.]
Your ultimate plan, of course, is to have fellowship with these "virtual beings" and to someday bring them into your "physical universe". You, being wise and loving, gave your beings freewill. The gift of freewill, of course, has consequences. You do not force your beings to love you, nor will you force them to be with you. Those who don't love you, have in effect, chosen to live without you. (Death, in the Bible, means separation from God.) Those who do not love you will be separated from you forever, just as they chose. Of course, the real torment for them will be in the knowledge of their own sin and the eternal separation from God and others.
Psa. 88:4-6, 8I am counted with those who go down to the pit; I am like a man who has no strength, Adrift among the dead, Like the slain who lie in the grave, Whom You remember no more, And who are cut off from Your hand. You have laid me in the lowest pit, In darkness, in the depths….8) You have put away my acquaintances far from me; You have made me an abomination to them; I am shut up, and I cannot get out
Those who do love you, will someday be with you. Although it sounds silly, for the sake of this analogy, imagine that you are able to build "robot bodies" to contain the intellect of the virtual beings who chose to be with you in the “physical universe”.
Phil. 3:20 For our citizenship is in heaven, from which we also eagerly wait for the Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, who will transform our lowly body that it may be conformed to His glorious body, according to the working by which He is able even to subdue all things to Himself.

So that is basically it. I had to trim this version down to the basics. I hope it didn't lose too much of it's cohesiveness in the process. All in all, God’s creation is about relationships. He created us in His image, spiritually , intellectually, and emotionally. I realize that this an analogy sounds like science fiction, but give it some thought if you think its worth your while, and let me know what you think.

[Zakath]

Hi PJ,

Mind if I join in???

:D

[Projill]

Originally posted by Zakath
Hi PJ,

Mind if I join in???

:D

Hi! Feel free, Zakath! :)

I'm in the middle of a hectic month so I barely get a chance to post on here and I'm barely lurking other places. :)

[Zakath]

Hello Barbie and Becky,

It's me, a poor dumb atheist, who was a Christian longer than either of you has been alive. ;)

Since Jill's pretty busy, and in the interest of keeping the conversation going, perhaps you'd care to spread a bit of your evangelical zeal this way and we'll see what develops.

:)

[wcgreer]

MissedMarks: "I can't see how anyone who has read the Bible could end up thinking this way"

Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of
correction shall drive it from him" Pr 22:15

Well okay, that nonsense about shephards rod and all that garbage, or The Liberals Bible pops up, how about this one:

Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die" Pr 23:13

[wcgreer]

Originally posted by kiwimac

If not how on earth can you make the statement you just have, there is NO evidence for it in the Bible!!!

Kiwimac
(Was referring to King David's spoiled children not being disciplined)

Try II Samuel and I Kings.
It's no wonder we have such a hard time converting non-believers when we spend so much time correcting the many Christians who don't know the Bible. :mad:

1K1:6: And his father had not rebuked him at any time (by) saying , Why hast thou done so? and he also was a very goodly (good looking) man, and his mother bare him after Absalom.

As I starting writting all of the examples it began to look like more than I wanted to type.

Trying reading II Samuel (most of that book is full of it) and
I Kings.
If you still can't find it after that, let me know.

[Projill]

Originally posted by wcgreer

(Was referring to King David's spoiled children not being disciplined)

Try II Samuel and I Kings.
It's no wonder we have such a hard time converting non-believers when we spend so much time correcting the many Christians who don't know the Bible. :mad:

1K1:6: And his father had not rebuked him at any time (by) saying , Why hast thou done so? and he also was a very goodly (good looking) man, and his mother bare him after Absalom.

As I starting writting all of the examples it began to look like more than I wanted to type.

Trying reading II Samuel (most of that book is full of it) and
I Kings.
If you still can't find it after that, let me know.

Wc...first of all: welcome from one Oklahoman to another! :)

Second, kiwimac has been banned from TOL for dubious reasons at best so if you would care to debate him you'll have to check out "Fellowship" and look at KurtPh's thread to see the link to the site he's now posting on. :)

[wcgreer]

Originally posted by Projill
My atheism came about largely due to the atheists I've met on this website, getting into reading Carl Sagan, and 9/11.

Considering how screwed up the world is, if there is a god...I'm not impressed.

But due to an overwhelming lack of evidence along with my newfound interest in science and learning, I cannot believe in god.

So you think God, who holds the stars in his hand, should take the time and come do party tricks for you?
I also read your previous post about the dragon in the garage 'just believe it's in there'. 'The evidence of God should be evident in all that is around you.'

What does 9/11 have to do with there not being a God? He should have stopped it, right? You didn't mention anything about the Ok. City bombing. Stop that too, right? How about the airplane crash in China? Well then, lets not go that far.
Okay, I see now, 5000 is just too many people, so God should stop that, but not just a few hundred for OK City? Or would Ok. City qualify? Two in a single engine plane, that certainly isn't enough people to waste my time with?

God should just jump in with anyone, anytime, to make sure we all survive accidents, tragedy, and terrorism and live a long life and die of old age. Why does he get to live to 86 and I have to die at 54?
I often try and remind myself, each time I drop my son off at school, I give him a hug and a kiss. I travel a lot, I know that I may be in an accident and may not come home. He could trip and fall down the stairs and die and I'll never get to hug him again.
Because of that, I love my son more than I would if I knew I was coming back today. 'What's the big deal, I'll see you later', well maybe I won't, so I squeeze him a little harder and love him more.

BTW, the world is so screwed up, because countless thousands are looking to Carl Sagan for answers. It is not what God wants for us, but what we make for ourselves.

[wcgreer]

Originally posted by Projill


Wc...first of all: welcome from one Oklahoman to another! :)


Thank you, was here a few years ago, but lost my login.


Originally posted by Projill

Second, kiwimac has been banned from TOL for dubious reasons at best so if you would care to debate him you'll have to check out "Fellowship" and look at KurtPh's thread to see the link to the site he's now posting on. :)

Oh I don't think I'll follow him there. ;-)
I don't get much time to read and post, usually when I get to, I'm pages behind. Will probably just skip 'em if they are more than just a little old from now on.

[Projill]

Originally posted by wcgreer


So you think God, who holds the stars in his hand, should take the time and come do party tricks for you?
I also read your previous post about the dragon in the garage 'just believe it's in there'. 'The evidence of God should be evident in all that is around you.'

The universe as it exists is not proof of the existance of God. And the dragon post is perfectly appropriate. The God the Christians worship is so all powerful that he should have no problem informing the unbelievers that he exists. Why doesn't he?

What does 9/11 have to do with there not being a God?

How could any god allow 9/11 to happen? So many innocent lives dying in a hail of smoke and fire. A woman I happen to highly respect had a family member die in tower two and she still managed to pull herself together in order to help protect the international students she was responsible for not even 24 hours later. She did this because the good "Christian" twenty-somethings from this state were busy working out plots to attack them.

He should have stopped it, right?

Why wouldn't he? God is the Father, after all. Fathers wouldn't allow something that horrible happen to their children unless they were sadistic.

You didn't mention anything about the Ok. City bombing. Stop that too, right?

Considering I knew people who died...sure.

Snipping the rest of the babble for brevity.

You see...that's the thing. It wasn't just the OKC bombing or 9/11 or right to lifers bombing abortion clinics or women being shot in the back of the head in Afghanistan and women being stoned to death for baring a child out of wedlock when she had been raped by her brother-in-law...it was coming to the realization that there was nothing in the sky but air. That all the warring and fighting and killing done in the name of (any) religion is to satistfy the same bloodlust of the war gods we've created for ourselves. Religion keeps us low by keeping us questioning our motives, by making us deny everything that we are and what we feel (and if you bring up pedophelia into this argument you will officially lose all credibility with me because I've been down that road on this message board more times I'd care to recall and it always makes the fundamentalist Christians look bad at the end of the day.) To paraphrase a movie quote: "He gives us all of these instincts and urges and desires and then he sets the rules in opposition." If that is the only god that there is, I want nothing to do with him because he's sadistic and I'd hate to think of going to heaven to grovel at his feet for eternity.

But I don't believe there is a god. And I've never seen anything resembling proof. Why does god say that without faith he is nothing? Because without the faithful he'll cease to exist. Mankind has spent far too many millennia pitting brother against brother and tribe against tribe and they do so in the name of religion. What would a world without a belief in the adult version of Santa Claus who "sees you in your sleeping and knows when you're awake, etc."? Perhaps we might try putting down our petty differences and working to better the world for now instead of some mythic sky papa making it all better in the afterlife.

I often try and remind myself, each time I drop my son off at school, I give him a hug and a kiss. I travel a lot, I know that I may be in an accident and may not come home. He could trip and fall down the stairs and die and I'll never get to hug him again.
Because of that, I love my son more than I would if I knew I was coming back today. 'What's the big deal, I'll see you later', well maybe I won't, so I squeeze him a little harder and love him more.

I admire you for doing that. That's how I live my life as well. I always tell those that I love just that: I love them. My parents know it, my brother knows it, and my dear wonderful friends know it. You're right. You might not see your son again. The difference between you and me, it would seem, is that I don't function on the illusion that I'll see them again "one day in heaven"...because I know that's a pipe dream.

BTW, the world is so screwed up, because countless thousands are looking to Carl Sagan for answers. It is not what God wants for us, but what we make for ourselves.

Carl Sagan was a brilliant man who wrote some brilliant things. So did Gould...so does Dawkins. So do the myriad of people right now who are working with the NASA project to explore Mars. The only way the human race is going to survive (if we don't blow ourselves to kingdom come first, anyway) is if we eventually get off this rock.

The Bible doesn't have all the answers. Science is working on finding answers. Science has done more good for the world than the Bible has. Sure, science is used to do horrible things such as the Hiroshima bomb, biological warfare, etc...But so has the Bible...and I'd guess the Bible's probably done more.

And for all you know, as I've stated before, you have no guarantee that your god is the right one. If there is a god, he could be Allah...or Vishnu...or Cernnunos. You have no guarantee that yours is the right one beyond "faith" which seems to work to oppose reason. This might be a modified version of Pascal's Wager...but it does stand. You don't know nor can you provide proof that God exists without going into some emotive argument.

It's funny that when theists convert their testimonies are all emotional and "full of the spirit" but when an atheist de-converts it's through logic and reason. If the Christian god is real, why would he bother creating logic and reason? There would be no point.

I just don't want to waste my life denying myself my sexual orientation...denying the wonderful pleasures and happiness of life in general...on a mythical war god...especially on one so cruel.

[Projill]

Originally posted by wcgreer


Oh I don't think I'll follow him there. ;-)
I don't get much time to read and post, usually when I get to, I'm pages behind. Will probably just skip 'em if they are more than just a little old from now on.

Whelp, I've been coming here for well over a year and it's always really great debate. I've actually learned a lot on both sides though coming into this forum a pagan and leaving an atheist probably wasn't what it was designed to do...but the people, for the most part, are good people and I enjoy my time here. :)

[Prisca]

Projill, I once heard a quote from a physicist who said, “If you go back far enough, the origin of the universe always becomes a theological question.” (Sorry, but I don’t recall who said it.) Since you seem to have a fascination with science, I thought you might find the following information a bit interesting. It came from a website I researched for a post on TOL about 3 years ago. As you consider the information, keep in mind the current theories of the origin of the universe. I just watched a program on the Discovery Science Channel called Universe 2001. This program reiterated the claim that all the matter in the universe was once smaller than a grain of sand (http://cmb.physics.wisc.edu/tutorial/bigbang.html). In any case, I don’t see how this theory could be more acceptable than what you are about to read. In fact, the following is a more plausible explanation. It, at least, provides a reason (a greater cause) for the existence of the universe….

Analysis of Genesis 1:1 - 1:19 , day by day:

FIRST DAY
Genesis 1:1-2 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.
[Here we have the creation of space and matter. Notice that the earth was without form. The matter from which earth was made was present, however it was not yet formed.]

Genesis 1:3 Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light.
[Now we have an infusion of energy, or movement. The universe was taken from an inactive state, possibly "absolute zero" to a state of activity. From a theological standpoint, this correlates with John 1. The source of this energy being the entrance of the Son of God into the universe:
John 1:1-5 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.

Genesis 1:4-5 And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day.
[If you study physics, you learn that matter and energy are interchangeable, so the division of the "light from the darkness" may be a description of energized matter being organized in some fashion. This would, naturally, leave "darkness" or the absence of matter/energy within regions of the universe. This becomes even more interesting if you study anti-matter. Our Milky Way galaxy appears to be made up of particles, yet it is thought that for every particle that exists, there is an antiparticle.]

SECOND DAY
Genesis 1:6-8 Then God said, “Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.” Thus God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. So the evening and the morning were the second day.
[Now God turns His attention to describing the actual formation of the earth, its water and its atmosphere. (the "firmament" BTW, is the atmosphere. Many people are confused and mistakenly think that the "firmament" is land.) This is an in-depth study in and of itself, so I won't go into much detail at this time.]

THIRD DAY
Genesis 1:9-10 Then God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so. And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters He called Seas. And God saw that it was good.
[God now forms the inner structures of the earth and separates the water from the other elements to form the oceans and the dry "super continent” called Pangea]

Genesis 1:11-13 Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed is in itself, on the earth”; and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, the herb that yields seed according to its kind, and the tree that yields fruit, whose seed is in itself according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. So the evening and the morning were the third day.
[God has created a fertile new land from which life springs. The sun's light energy was most likely present, yet still not contained in one place.]

FOURTH DAY
Genesis 1:14-19 Then God said, “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years; “and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth”; and it was so. Then God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also. God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth, and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. So the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
[Perhaps only hours after the plant life was brought forth, God formed the sun, the moon, and the stars. (The Hebrew word for light can be found in a Strong's concordance with an index number of 3974. mDaøwr maor or maor or meorah or meorah [22c]; from 215; a luminary:—bright(m)(1), light (12), lighting(2), lights(3), shining(1).) This word also can mean "light holders" or "chandeliers.") In other words, God created some objects to be holders of light energy that was already present in the universe. The sun was given to cast concentrated light on the earth. These heavenly bodies were also to be "time keepers" for us, and indeed, that is what man has used them for throughout the centuries.]

I have one parting thought for you which comes from Hebrews and which ties in nicely with the above explanation:

Hebrews 1:1-6 God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by HIS SON, whom He has appointed heir of all things, THROUGH WHOM ALSO HE MADE THE WORLDS; who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, and UPHOLDING ALL THINGS BY THE WORD OF HIS POWER, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, having become so much better than the angels, as He has by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they. For to which of the angels did He ever say: “You are My Son, Today I have begotten You”? And again: “I will be to Him a Father, And He shall be to Me a Son”? But when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says: “Let all the angels of God worship Him.”

I don't expect this to "knock your socks off." I'm just trying to provide more food for thought.

[Prisca]

You said, “How could any god allow 9/11 to happen? So many innocent lives dying in a hail of smoke and fire.”

Presume for a moment that the Bible is true and that there is an afterlife. Imagine that there is a creator who made us all and desired that we have the gift of free will. How could He intervene in all of life’s tragedies without infringing on the gift He so liberally gave? He would have to violate the very gift of liberty He created us with that allows you to say, “There is no god,” and me to say, “Thank you for making me!”

Yes, we do live with tragedy, but we also possess the freedom that is so treasured by each of us. The freedom to make choices, to love, and to hate. Would you give up your freedom and everyone else’s in order to prevent the possibility of another tragedy from befalling human beings? God does not want us to suffer or experience pain, but that was the risk He was had to take in order to give us our wonderful free will.

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Becky
Presume for a moment that the Bible is true and that there is an afterlife. What does this premise have to do with your arguement that follows?
Imagine that there is a creator who made us all and desired that we have the gift of free will. How could He intervene in all of life’s tragedies without infringing on the gift He so liberally gave? How do you suppose that intervening in say, an earthquake, or volcanic eruption, or a meteor strike violates human free will?

He would have to violate the very gift of liberty He created us with that allows you to say, “There is no god,” and me to say, “Thank you for making me!” Not so. If there were indeed a single omnipotent deity, his presence should be as unmistakable as the star around which our planet rotates and the gravity which holds us to the earth's surface. Unfortunately for religionists arguments, if he exists at all, he's not plainly visible, universally knowable, nor accessible on a regular basis.

Yes, we do live with tragedy, but we also possess the freedom that is so treasured by each of us. The freedom to make choices, to love, and to hate. Would you give up your freedom and everyone else’s in order to prevent the possibility of another tragedy from befalling human beings? Human beings possess a limited freedom of choice based on their innate abilities, local circumstances, and the era in which they live.
Since none of us can actually give up this "freedom", what you suggest is an impossible scenario. We can merely choose not to make choices, we cannot give up the "freedom" to do so. It's sort of like asking "Would you make a circle a square".
God does not want us to suffer or experience pain, but that was the risk He was had to take in order to give us our wonderful free will. If your "God" truly felt that way, then why devise a universe where the exercise of his "gift" (free will) has as one of its possible consequences unending torture? It seems rather silly to attribute that kind of motive to a being that, according to many Christians, plans on sentencing the vast majority of the human race to eternal damnation.

[wcgreer]

Originally posted by Projill
The only way the human race is going to survive (if we don't blow ourselves to kingdom come first, anyway) is if we eventually get off this rock.

Huh? Overpopulation? Too many people? I'm sure life on Mars will be much better, no bad people will be allowed to go? Overpopulation is a myth. The entire population of the world could fit inside whatever Oklahoma county you live in, then we'd have the rest of the world for raising food and recreation. Even the Godless U.N. predicts that by 2040 (? I think that's right) the world will be de-populating.

Originally posted by Projill
Science has done more good for the world than the Bible has.

I think not. The Bible has kept more people in check for thousands of years, true or not, than any dribble of science. Imagine what it would have been like a 100 yrs ago before DNA or blood typing, murder, rape, and general lawlessness to a high degree. God showed us this with the example of Sodom and with Noah. Crime was not punished. Cain killed Abel but wasn't punished. No more punishment, you humans are basically good, you can do the right thing. Well we aren't all good, we became evil and wicked, no crime nor punishment.

Originally posted by Projill
You don't know nor can you provide proof that God exists without going into some emotive argument.
Not true. It is funny, how someone can dig up a bone fragment, and tell us it was a man or woman, what they wore, how they lived, what they ate, what they looked like, what their family life was like. Yet you can look at a thick book with details galore and ignore it as fantasy. If a few details of the Bible were painted on a cave somewhere, it would result in volumes of 'facts' and forensic evidence.

City of Ramesses, we know all Egyptian cities and that isn't one of them, sorry. Wait the Nile used to be over there, lets look there, well what do you know, here it is. What's this writing, plagues, frogs and such? What's this, letting slaves go?
Yeah but no king had 500 horses and chariets. Wait, here are stables. How many? For over 500 horses, wow. But that water moving back business is just nonsense. Wait what are these lava rocks doing on top of this mountain? Volcano? Let's go talk to the people on this island there. Yep, thousands of years ago the water just left and many went and started gathering
fish, baskets full, but then the water came back and many drowned and were killed by the great wall of water. (Tidal wave sucks up the water, it goes out before coming back.) It happened again around 1940 but we remembered what happened and we didn't go get the fish this time ;-). Oh well you're right then, but that wasn't God, it was just natural occurances.
OH, so maybe the Bible isn't so wrong after all, but it is a good historical document, nothing more.

How about your scientific proof? Radiometric dating: One of the biggest frauds of the scientific community. I can't send a rock to be dated. Let's say I was a Ph.D. evolutionist, where did you find this rock? How deep was it? What fossils were found with it, or near it? Why would you need to know this? If it is so exact, put it in the machine, burn it- gas it- blow it up, whatever you do to it, and have it spit out a number. We can't do that. Question: Why? Answer: Because it is a guess! They won't take samples from the general public because they've been embarrased too many times.

Evolution: Another fraud. No evidence, so let's make some up. "Lucy" look this knee, it is the missing link we need to prove we first walked upright. What knee, your book and notes didn't say anything about a knee, Oh.....we found that somewhere else. Huh? Where? Oh it was on another dig about 1 mile away, about 20 feet deeper, but we're sure they go together. How on earth did you figure that? Answer: Fraud! fake. But hey, these are scientist. This is your science.

'The universe couldn't have been created from nothing, that's against the laws of thermodynamics.