EKen132
-
Posts
2.036 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by EKen132
-
-
OK this appears to be too hard?
It states that matter is actually created at a rate to keep a "steady" pressure of matter in the universe as a whole. It's actually kind of old now.
How bout this- go ahead and use sources for this question-
What are the odds of getting a royal flush when given 5 cards
-
For the sake of simplicity, we should say no God throughout history.
-
Wow, I'm already on the edge of my seat
! -
Then I entered
-
Is he supposed to Black Op?
-
hobbit
-
Music, running, and "knowledge".
-
English forums have no doubt lessened my knowledge of English grammar.
-
Faith definately does not make for a good arguement, but what I've said about faith is true. And I'm not trying to make anyone look bad. I think most of us in these forums can manage to try and be unaffected by any connotation of words, not to say we shouldn't avoid loaded words.
-
OK So it's not exactly a gameshow, that's just to attract you to read my post and participate in it.
But here's how it goes: I ask a question (a trivia one) and you answer. Please don't consult Google or a dicitonary or go look it up real quick- just use your knowledge, like you would if you were on a gameshow. The first question...
What does the steady state theory state?
You answer, and then ask the next (with choices if it's a toughie).
-
Wahoo!
I'll go with Arwen on one arm and Galadriel on the other. Haha actually there aren't many Lord of the Rings fans who are girls in my school. In fact- I know of none...
Actually, I doubt I'll be able to see the midnight showing, I may go after school the next day. And that Friday, and again with friends... What good times!
-
My AP world history class is by far the most informative, usefull, and fun.
-
Well I actually think that that would be impossible, seeing that man's heart, througout history, has always looked for a higher being rather than vice versa.
I'll break it up into the "sprite" categories I learned in AP world history
Social- More "rampant" immorality, a missing "meaning of life"-> increased depression, suicide?, doubt of afterlife would definately give people no reason to obey any type of religious law, heck, some even any governmental law, societies more based on self gratification
Political- No theocracies, no (oh no) Mandate of Heaven, no "under God" in US pledge, no rulers claiming divine guidance/son-of-heaven/divine representation on earth, etc. Um there's more but gotta type fast before I forget everything
Religious- Wow lots happening here. I'd judge that Confucianism would be incredibly more popular.
Intellectual- Secular explanations to seemingly "supernatural" things- beginning of universe, etc. Delay European education during middle ages even further? Nothing done by religious people for religion that helped the secular world would've happened.
Technological- NOt much... would've missed out on some pretty sweet buildings dedicated to God/gods/higher-power.
Economic- Oooh bigger than one would think. No post-classical trade with Africa possibly from ME. A lot less imperialism (economic or religious). Geez there's a lot. It affects almost everything, but I gotta go. I'd love to see what others put.
Overall- everything would be backwards... For one, Europe would have never gained power over the East.
-
Adam good point. I believe they use to set thermometers to zero (or thirty two) by dipping them in water in which ice and water were present simoltaneously (sp) and for a long time (ie water didn't freeze and ice didnt melt).
-
Cougar, are you saying that if I accept Jesus, i'm going to heaven, regardless of the sins I do, as long as I still accept Jesus?
Yes.
This doesn't make sense. Why do Catholics and Christians believe in sin if it apparently has no meaning?
(Wow that's a lot of quoting)
Catholics don't belief that sin has no effect. In fact, according to Catholic teaching, merely accepting Jesus as your savior won't get you into heaven unless you lead a good life. So no wonder it doesn't make sense, "yes" is the wrong answer.
When was Psalms written? As far as I know, cruxifiction was a widely used form of torture for many years before Jesus' birth....Cruxifiction was invented by the Romans and I'm almost positive Psalms was written many many years before Rome was born...
You can't call someone perfect if you a good portion of his life is unaccounted for.In this instance, you can. And it's called "Faith".
So are you saying someone who is born with the extra-chromosome 21 has downs-syndrome because the extra chromosome appeared as a result of the environment?How could you take it that way??? I said people are not born gay, and there is no gay gene. So that's totally inapplicle to something that does have to do with genes and is based solely on it!
Where is the evidence that these people actually were dead, or crippled?Oh I know- the Gospels!
If people today are able to fool people on these matters, what is stopping people back then from doing the same?WOW. I bet Jesus laughed after all those lepers thought they were cured but it was really an elaborate trick with makeup, smoke and mirrors!
-
big fat ol'
-
homo erectus
-
Wow good posts everybody... I don't have much to say though. Well, I do, I just don't have the time.
I'll post some more later if something contraversial comes up.
-
The liberal side of anything... no I'm just kidding. BTW, how are we supposed to "reason our thoughts" when you're asking what fires us up?
Good topic idea though
-
Quacker, correct me if i'm wrong, but don't only Catholics believe in the holy trinity? Still, how does that make sense? If God came before Jesus, and he created Jesus, how does that make him the same as God? Isn't that two different "entities?"
First of all, as far as I know, it is only Catholics. Second of all, it's one of those things that is basically a mystery of the faith. You can say "hey that doesn't make sense, you guys made all this crap up" but then that wouldn't be faith. You either belief it or you don't. It's something that those who belief it, belief it out of faith rather than logic. Kind of like the question "When did time begin". I believe that is almost the surest question that brings humans rationally to search for a higher power.
I actually haven't met a Christian that prays to a cross, some Catholics might, but no Christian's i've met do.You're kidding me Quacker... I know you claim not to belong to one religion or another but you've obviously had some protestant "training".
There is no way that Jesus did not perform sins, like the rest of humans doWow, that's a pretty confident statement. If you belief it, you have faith. And if you don't, then you don't.
The chemical imbalance in homosexuals was there from the start, not added afterwards.No. If there was anything about a chemical imbalance, it occured as a reaction to the environment. There's no gay gene.
When Jews did bad things, God made sure they never did them again (Soddom and Gamorrah). That is supreme governance, Jesus' message obviously isn't.Do I misunderstand you? That's God practicing supreme governance, not the people Jesus preached to.
if Jesus is God, then shouldn't he have that supreme governance, and if he does, he sure does a bad job of using it. Besides, if Jesus is God, then why isn't he vengeful and wrathful like the Jewish God? When did this transition occur?Jesus was not meant to use it (supreme governance) on Earth, IE kill all who opposed him or whatever. Just because someone can do something doesn't mean they will. Does the US do a bad job of bombing France? It doesn't bomb France even though their policies are at odds. And it certainly has the power to go shell Paris.
Well I gotta read what the other 6 people reading this right now put down...
-
. Then he said
-
Deselyn (a name)
-
Gladiator was one of the best movies I've ever seen. And I'm going to see Master and Commander in a coupld minutes!
-
One Nation under God, by Frank Monaldo
www.suite101.com
This article is pretty interesting as there is a big contraversy between the US Pledge "...one nation under God..." and the Constitution's First Amendment "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…"
Well, give feedback, critique, counter-arguements, etc.
+++++
A government, almost by definition, cannot help but endorse religion; a religion, at least, that is defined broadly enough. Religion is an explanatory world view or perspective on meaning based on essentially improvable axioms. Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, and even atheists arrive at their positions based on faith. Political systems, too, have their faith components and the two are subtly related and even interdependent.
The United States is a particularly instructive example since its establishment was not the result of the gradual accretion of tribal groups, but rather of a self-conscious political decision on the nature of man. The beliefs behind the decision to institute a new country are explicitly embodied in the Declaration of Independence. The document asserts on faith "...these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." This assertion by the Founders was undoubtedly informed by their experience. These truths were so obvious to them that they believed them "to be self-evident." It was certainly the product of an emerging political philosophy, but the Declaration was also a statement of faith about the nature of man. In a very fundamental sense, the Declaration of Independence is a religious document underpinned by those articles of faith. For a government to pass on its political beliefs to children and to nurture the acknowledgment of these articles of political faith are, in a broad sense, religious enterprises.
Indeed, the Founding Fathers explicitly asserted that the acceptance of the notion that God grants rights was essential to the long-term stability of the country. Thomas Jefferson asked rhetorically "can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath?"
Moreover, the Founders believed that those governments that did not honor the inherent rights of man would ultimately suffer and that there was a Providence that was calling Americans to a higher moral and political duty. In 1776, George Washington wrote in his general orders, "the peace and safety of the Country now depends, under God, solely on the success of our arms."
Abraham Lincoln at Gettysburg, consciously believing that the carnage of the Civil War was perhaps retribution for the sin of slavery, vowed that "this nation under God shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth."
What then do we make of the First Amendment's proscription that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…" as it applies to the recent case taken up by the Supreme Court to determine the whether students reciting the words "under God" as part of the Pledge of Allegiance violates the Constitution?
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled in the favor of a father seeking to protect his daughter from the words "under God" as recited as part of the Pledge. It has long been recognized that people cannot be compelled to recite the Pledge. Parents can arrange to have their children opt out of the Pledge. However, this father is a devout atheist and demands further protection. He does not want his daughter to be embarrassed by being singled out for not reciting the Pledge. Now there is a question as to whether the father has standing to sue. The custodial mother and daughter have no objection to reciting the pledge and indeed are far more embarrassed by the father's legal jihad, but let us leave that aside for a moment. Does asking students to recite the phrase "under God" as part of the Pledge violate the establishment clause?
The Supreme Court has long held that ceremonial evocation of "God" does not rise to the level of "establishment." Is that the case we would wish to make here? Do we wish to argue that the words "under God" constitute just a throw away phrase used for rhetorical flourish but not having a real significance? If that is what we think, then why are we upset at the possibility that "under God" might be stripped from the Pledge?
At that time the First Amendment was written the Founders were trying to prohibit the national government from "establishing" a religion in the conventional sense of supporting churches and clergy. They wanted to prohibit Congress from declaring an official religion and supporting associated institutions financially and with other special privileges. Since then, the incorporation doctrine has extended this constraint to state governments as well. However, the original understanding of the clause did not include denuding the public square or even public discourse of religion. Indeed, does not the deliberate exclusion of religion from the public square constitute an endorsement of a non-theistic view of the world?
The thesis here is that governments have a right and obligation to teach and instill those principles necessary for its propagation. This is particularly true of governments based upon the inherent dignity of man, even if some find that dignity in a belief in God while others may find a different, less sacred, route to that conclusion. These precepts are part of a larger concept of religion that governments can not help but endorse. The phrase "under God" in the context of the Pledge means that our rights are not simply a convenient convention but a bedrock tenet of our collective faith. The phrase "under God" represents a conviction that we are called upon to meet our civic obligations.
Yes, the phrase "under God" is an endorsement of a religion, a civic religion whose precepts overlap what we generally consider religious faith. But it is the conventional, more all encompassing religion and religious institutions, the Founders did not wish us to formally establish. The pledge with the phrase "under God" is no more unconstitutional than the Declaration of Independence or the Gettysburg Address.
Religion
in Hall of Intellectuals
Posted
I'm not quite sure what you mean, but there is a major difference in human and animal evolution. Animal evolution is basically undeniable, and the evolution Creationists deny is human evolution, although I think some creationists only remember that they can't like "evolution" and are against the theory of animal evolution too.
And the odds that evolution demands... It's not unreasonable to say that the odds of evolution are minutely fractional compared to the odds of life being created by itself. If a living organism needs change, it will change (simply put). If it needs to go from A to B, it will find, somehow, a way- a unique characteristic of life (life used as the "essence" that sets living creatures apart). However, the thought that life just sprung up on it's own when molecules formed the right way is very slim. Nonexistant, in my opinion. There was nothing that needed to get from A to B because life was ultimately responsible for getting from A to B, but life was not there before it was made (duh?).
I just read that and it's very confusing, and kind of off topic, but it does make sense if you read it close enough.