Creation vs. Evolution

[Gombessa]

The nature of our work and travel has changed some but have we really gained anything and have we given anything up? . . . Are we outsmarting ourselves? Maybe we aren't quite as smart as some of us think.

Science is not about replacing religion (science really has nothing to say about true matters of "faith"). I don't think any astrophysicist believes that racism, war or starvation will be ended by uncovering the origins of the universe, nor must all of science seek to do so in order to be "worthy" of our pursuit; exploration and discovery are the measure of human history, and a scientific understanding of the cosmos or of the mechanisms of life merely continues what we've been doing from the very beginning.

 

[MikeFerrara]

Mike, I live in Australia. I get free health coverage, so yes, I am given medicine (well everything except dental ;p)

It's not free. Whatever is "given to you" was first taken from someone else.

Ok here is an article that actually has some data on peace so check this out The global peace epidemic. - By Timothy Noah - Slate Magazine. If you have any opposing study that shows that the world is getting more violent overall, please, post it here. Also interested to hear your response to how crime is going down in most Western countries?

Also, my sister is in the Navy and soon to be shipped out to the Gulf so I am well aware of the danger out there in the world, however it is far less dangerous these days than it has been in the past. I didn't say things were perfect, just better.

Less dangerous for some.

Re quality of life. Well the way people define quality of life can be many different things. When I have done studies in the past I have generally looked at infant mortality, education rates, life expectancy, crime rates, income per capita, self-reported happiness and so on. These are all much better in the West than they have ever been in the past.

Yes, half the free world is eating prozac, LOL. I did recently hear some data that suggests "conservatives" report being "happy" more often than liberals and "give" more dispite averaging a slightly lower income.

Also as far as taxes taking away freedom, well yes, you will notice I said "we have freedom to make many day to day decisions in our lives". I did not say 'all'. I do think we are overtaxed because a lot of the money is wasted via collection, enforcement and the like. However I don't have a problem with some form of taxation as it is required for governance. I think again, some small form of governance is important to protect property rights, etc.

Just living near other people limits freedom. Giving government the power or responsibility to do for the individual what the individual should do for themselves just about puts an end to freedom or at least a very important part of it.

I think most of us would agree that there must be some form of taxation if we want any sort of infrastructure or shared resources. So...I should pay for part of the road that I use. We don't stop there though. Since there are people who won't take care of their very young children or very old parents, the government comes to my door with a gun to take resources from me in order to pick up the slack...ok, they don't pull the gun unless my payment is late. I pay for medical care, schools, transportation systems and who knows what else that I don't use and, in some cases, don't even approve of. Whatever that is, it isn't freedom.

In the past women had NO control over their day to day life. None. They were totally at the whim of their husband.

When in the past and where? Are you talking about the Biblical version of marriage? If so, to say that a woman has/had no control isn't really accurate. Read 1 Cor 7

The US had slavery for many years, I hardly think slaves got to make decisions about their lives hey?

There has been slavery all over the world going way back before there was ever a United States.

I don't know a great deal about the Amish but I do know a great deal about fundamentalist Christianity as that was my upbringing. It was incredibly boring as I couldn't read, watch or think about what I wanted, it taught me to not question anything and it created an incredible sense of guilt and fear in me until the age of 15 when I decided to leave the church. So that is how religion has affected me.

What were those restrictions based on? What is it that you wanted to read or watch that you couldn't? How would you relate it to Romans 14

What I do know about the Amish is that they are given exceptions to child labour laws and there have been a number of cases of sexual abuse of children being covered up over the years (much like the Catholic church controversies) , so I guess it is not much fun to be an Amish child?

Are you saying that there is something about the Amish that commonly makes them sexual abusers of children? I think we can find examples of such behavior all over the place.

I love technology, I work in IT and I love computers. So yea, I think I have a great deal more in my life that would make me happy than as an Amish person. But whatever floats your boat really, their lifestyle doesn't suit me at all but it does suit some people. You need to realise people all have different likes and interests mate. I love my life actually and it seems you don't. So my advice is if you don't like sitting around in hotel rooms, get out and do something about it.

I don't have anything against technology. I guess I didn't do a great job of it but I was trying to illustrate the difference btween technological know-how and wisdom. What do you have a great deal more of than an Amish person and how does it make you happy? Do things like comuters, TV sets, cars and dive gear really make you happy? If so, do you think they will make you just as happy 10, 20 or 30 years from now?

 

[MikeFerrara]

Science is not about replacing religion (science really has nothing to say about true matters of "faith"). I don't think any astrophysicist believes that racism, war or starvation will be ended by uncovering the origins of the universe, nor must all of science seek to do so in order to be "worthy" of our pursuit; exploration and discovery are the measure of human history, and a scientific understanding of the cosmos or of the mechanisms of life merely continues what we've been doing from the very beginning.

Science isn't about replacing religion but part of modern secularism seems want to use science as evidence that we're too smart for religion.

 

[Thalassamania]

The conflict between science and religion has a long history. It finds it roots in the very structure of today's universties, modeled as they are on the medieval university. In the medieval university the were four basic cirricula (in ascending order of importance), arts, law, medicine, and theology. University studies took six years for a Bachelor's degree and up to twelve additional years for a master's degree and doctorate. The first six years were organized by the faculty of arts, where the seven liberal arts were taught: arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, music theory, grammar, logic, and rhetoric. The primary emphasis was on logic.

Once a Bachelor of Arts degree had been conferred, the student could leave the university or pursue a master's and/or doctorate degree, in one of the three other faculties – law, medicine, or theology. Theology was the most prestigious area of study, and the most difficult. Back in those days, when your son told you that he was going to be a Doctor or a Lawyer you'd have rather had him go into the church.

Starting at the millennium, scientific methods were, once again, being applied to optics and planetary orbits. The findings threatened both the Theology faculty's position at the top of the academic food chain, and by extension and collusion, the Church's sacred dogma that said faculty had established and guarded.

Is it surprising that Christianity asserted religious certainty at the expense of scientific knowledge, by giving explicit sanction to "officially correct" views of nature and scripture? This approach, while it tended to temporarily stabilize doctrine, made philosophical and scientific orthodoxy less open to correction, as entrenched dogmas where transubstantiated into religiously sanctioned science. Add to that the Spanish Inquisition (which in large part came about to rid Europe of the Islamic scientific knowledge that was viewed as heretical) and it is easy to see how observation and theory became subordinate to dogma. In Europe, scientists and scholars of the Enlightenment responded to such restrictions with increasing skepticism that has grown, and continues to grow, up to the current day.

The phenomenon of religious fundamentalism, especially Protestant, Christian fundamentalism which has arisen predominantly in the United States, originated in reaction to the Enlightenment. The scientific community is entirely committed to (came about in large part because of) the Enlightenment, and has incorporated, into its understanding of the scientific method, an antipathy toward all interference of religion at any point of the scientific enterprise, and especially in the development of theory.

By definition fundamentalists are not very open to compromise and harmonization schemes. While they make strict identification between religiously sanctioned science, and religious orthodoxy; and yet, they share with their early Enlightenment (e.g., PROTESTant) forebears the same optimism that religion is ultimately in harmony with "true" science. This is reflected also in their historical-grammatical approach to scripture and tradition, which they increasingly view as a source of scientific and religious certainty. Most significantly, they are openly hostile to the scientific community as a whole, and to what they call "scientific materialism."

The Protestant fundamentalist approach to modernity has been adopted by various Islamic movements today. The Enlightenment view of the cosmos (which is accepted as fact) is read back into ancient texts and traditions, as though they were originally intended to be read this way. Fundamentalists also claims modern interest in fields like psychology, nutrition, genetics, physics and even space travel, are addressed by their archaic traditions, "foretold" in, and thus validating, their religion's texts. Some Muslim fundamentalists claim that quantum mechanics and relativity were predicted in the Koran and some Jews think that the Torah can be understood according to modern sciences.

 

[Sas]

Mike, actually, less dangerous for the majority. Please, give me some evidence that the world is becoming more dangerous if you are going to make that kind of claim. But yea, you are religious so I am guessing evidence is not something you think highly of.

Again, I must repeat, I did not say we were totally free or happy or perfect. Just more free to make decisions in the past and that overall conditions are improving. There is a long way to go yet.

I am not talking about the Biblical version of marriage, but marriage in reality. Women had no power. It was enshrined in legislation to remove property rights from women on marriage and they also couldn't vote. But yea, seeing as you've raised it the Biblical version of marriage is pretty terrible too. It involves the woman having to submit to the man. Most Christians I know defend this as that in return the man will protect his wife, but yea, to me I'd rather have control than be protected.

The US slavery was just an example to show how there has been an improvement. Just an example. Sorry but I didn't have time to type up every country that has ever been involved in slavery. The US just happens to be a particularly famous example of a country that built up to be a big power due to free labour they got from their slaves (that is not the only reason for sure but it is a big part of how the US built up their economy).

Regarding my background - as a child I was not allowed to do many things just because my parents thought it would be sinful. Romans 14 has nothing to do with a lot of how Christians treat others and certainly wasn't how I was treated as a child by the church. I remember my cousin committing suicide when I was 6 and the Sunday school teacher telling me how he was now burning in hell for being so evil. That was pretty much my childhood, I was taught if I thought anything bad, off to hell I would go. So yea, I found my religious upbringing quite damaging.

I didn't say there was something about the Amish that makes them sexual abusers. I said they have had a number of cases where the community has covered up sexual abuse. And I compared it to the Catholic priest controversy. See the difference?

Playing with computers and diving with my gear does make me very happy thank you. Especially as my partner is very into computers as well so we have a shared passion, which is always nice. I don't think you can actually understand that people in the world like different things than you do, and are happy for different reasons....

 

[Gombessa]

Science isn't about replacing religion but part of modern secularism seems want to use science as evidence that we're too smart for religion.

That's only really true to the same degree that some facets of religion insist on attacking reason and science in a way that insults our intelligence. Again, science don't reject religion, it merely, by definition, does not concern itself with the supernatural. In reality, religion is probably best served by doing the same.

 

[MikeFerrara]

Mike, actually, less dangerous for the majority. Please, give me some evidence that the world is becoming more dangerous if you are going to make that kind of claim.

You speak of "the world" as though it's a single place that we all live in. I doubt that the several children that are killed by drug/gang violence in the City of Chicago or their parents, every day care that the world is safer for the majority. Please explain the significance of the average level of safety for the worldwide majority as it relates to the people who were in the twin towers in New York when they fell. Then just work your way through the various wars and genocides that are going on around the world. Should we even address the safety of our modern world for the unborn child...last I checked about 800,000 abortions/year in the US alone. If that's enlightenment, I'll have none of it. Thank you very much.

People don't get killed in the world, they get killed on their own street...should they make it that far.

But yea, you are religious so I am guessing evidence is not something you think highly of.

Wow, that reads like an insult. I am religious. I also spent almost 17 years as an engineer so I have a lot of experience making decisions based on data, using scientific methods to gather and analyze data and in designing solutions accordingly.

Again, I must repeat, I did not say we were totally free or happy or perfect. Just more free to make decisions in the past and that overall conditions are improving. There is a long way to go yet.

"More free" than what? Personally, I find the increasingly socialist leaning of society somewhat smothering. You think it's great because you get "free" medical care. I don't want anything for free.

I am not talking about the Biblical version of marriage, but marriage in reality. Women had no power.

I think that if you're going to discuss "marriage in reality" you need to be a little more specific. I witnessed something of the married life of my parents, grand parents and great grandparents who were/are people that were effected little or not at all by any sort of civil rights or feminist movement and it all seemed to work pretty well for everybody. What kind of power do you want?

It was enshrined in legislation to remove property rights from women on marriage and they also couldn't vote.

Why should we need legislation between a man and woman that are married?

But yea, seeing as you've raised it the Biblical version of marriage is pretty terrible too.

My wife and I have a marriage that we believe to be consistant with Biblical teaching and it isn't at all "terrible". In fact, I doubt that either one of us would care to even try to imagin life without our marriage.

It involves the woman having to submit to the man.

Again, not quite accurate. 1 Cor 7:3 says "Let the husband render to his wife the effection due her, and likewise also the wife to her husband. 4, The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. And likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does."

So the Bible teaches that a husband should submit to his wife just as the wife should submit to her husband. It's all part of "the two shall become one" thing.

Perhaps you object to this?...please don't stop reading after the first sentence.

Ephesians 5:22, "Wives submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is head of the wife, even as Christ is head of the church; and he is the savior of the body. Therefore as the church is subject to Christ, so let wives be to their own husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wife as Christ also loved the church and gave himself for it... 28, So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. For no man ever yet hated his own flesh but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church . . . 31,For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother and shal.1 be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh".

Indeed what a terrible thing for a husband to love, cherish and nourish his wife as his own body and as Christ loved the church which he gave himself for. What a truely awful thing for a husband to give himself for his family...we're really abusing this poor woman now. LOL

The Biblical role of the husband is one of responsibility, loving and teaching. Responsibilities, that a Christian husband would expect to be held accountable for.

You can focus on implications of authority if you want to but accountability and authority go hand in hand. The husband and wife share responsibility for the physical and spiritual support of eachother and their children.

Most Christians I know defend this as that in return the man will protect his wife, but yea, to me I'd rather have control than be protected.

This Christian doesn't believe that any defense is necessary, though, I don't mind trying to correct misunderstanding.

But...you want control? oh..and earlier you said you want "power". What level of responsibility/accountability do you accept along with that power and control and to whom are you willing to be accountable.

The US slavery was just an example to show how there has been an improvement. Just an example. Sorry but I didn't have time to type up every country that has ever been involved in slavery. The US just happens to be a particularly famous example of a country that built up to be a big power due to free labour they got from their slaves (that is not the only reason for sure but it is a big part of how the US built up their economy).

The US may be an often spoke of example but rarely do you hear "the rest of the story"...like who the slave traders were and where/how, they got the slaves.

Regarding my background - as a child I was not allowed to do many things just because my parents thought it would be sinful. Romans 14 has nothing to do with a lot of how Christians treat others and certainly wasn't how I was treated as a child by the church. I remember my cousin committing suicide when I was 6 and the Sunday school teacher telling me how he was now burning in hell for being so evil. That was pretty much my childhood, I was taught if I thought anything bad, off to hell I would go. So yea, I found my religious upbringing quite damaging.

That doesn't sound like Christianity to me and Romans 14 (and the rest of the Bible) should have plenty to do with it. Earlier in this thread (and some other) I spent quite a bit of time trying to correct some really off-base statements concerning Christian doctrin so I'll be short here. See those earlier posts for the many Biblical references I provided if you're interested but the short version is that we are all guilty of sin and spiritually dead in sin (headed for hell if you please) until rebirth in the Spirit of God when Christ becomes our savior and pays that debt for us.

None of us are, or ever can be, perfect. None of us can ever live up to God's standard and that's where Christ comes in. So, those "bad thoughts" you were so afraid of were/are evidence of the need for Christ rather than a go-directly-to Hell sentence.

I didn't say there was something about the Amish that makes them sexual abusers. I said they have had a number of cases where the community has covered up sexual abuse. And I compared it to the Catholic priest controversy. See the difference?

ok but you left out all the incidences of child abuse in private homes, public schools, Boy Scout and Girl Scout troops, by little league coaches and anybody else who is in a position of authority and control of children.

Playing with computers and diving with my gear does make me very happy thank you. Especially as my partner is very into computers as well so we have a shared passion, which is always nice. I don't think you can actually understand that people in the world like different things than you do, and are happy for different reasons....

Of course I understand that different people like different things. My point was that many of us eventually find that the "happiness" gained from "things" or even activities like diving is a fleeting sort of happiness.

 

[MikeFerrara]

That's only really true to the same degree that some facets of religion insist on attacking reason and science in a way that insults our intelligence. Again, science don't reject religion, it merely, by definition, does not concern itself with the supernatural. In reality, religion is probably best served by doing the same.

No argument here.

 

[Sas]

You speak of "the world" as though it's a single place that we all live in. I doubt that the several children that are killed by drug/gang violence in the City of Chicago or their parents, every day care that the world is safer for the majority. Please explain the significance of the average level of safety for the worldwide majority as it relates to the people who were in the twin towers in New York when they fell. Then just work your way through the various wars and genocides that are going on around the world. Should we even address the safety of our modern world for the unborn child...last I checked about 800,000 abortions/year in the US alone. If that's enlightenment, I'll have none of it. Thank you very much.

I asked you a simple question. Provide me evidence that the world is becoming more dangerous as a whole. You haven't so far so I am guessing you have had no luck? Your very original question was "I wonder. For all our knowledge and science, have we answered any of the important questions? Don't we have pretty much the exact same problems that we've always had? We still have war, disease and suffering of all sorts only with some "new" more complicated, and even silly, twists. Most of us still spend most of our time working to procure the basic necessities...still trying to "build that shelter" and put food on the table."

I answered by talking about the huge achievements we as a species have made. I'll repeat once again as you don't seem to have listened: things aren't perfect, far from it, but things are a lot better than they have ever been in the past for the majority [not all of course] of the world's population. I will ask direct questions as you continue to ignore what I have said in this area: do you believe that rights have improved for women in the West? do you believe that rights have improved for non-whites in the West? If you answer yes to even the first question, that takes care of over fifty percent of the population...

You keep bringing up anecdotes of people in Chicago. Please provide me evidence that crime has gone up in Chicago as I do not live in the US and do not know the local situation. I am not saying I disagree with you, just that I would like evidence before I will accept your argument.

Wow, that reads like an insult. I am religious. I also spent almost 17 years as an engineer so I have a lot of experience making decisions based on data, using scientific methods to gather and analyze data and in designing solutions accordingly.

I was pointing out that you define your life by faith and not by evidence. I think very poorly of that kind of attitude but I guess insult might be too harsh of a word to describe what I meant.

More free" than what? Personally, I find the increasingly socialist leaning of society somewhat smothering. You think it's great because you get "free" medical care. I don't want anything for free.

Good for you! I do however find it great that I get medical cover yes. You have to realise you are not the world. In my country, the majority of the people want free health care and thereby accept the responsibility to provide for other people with their taxes. So do you think the government should just do what they want instead of listen to what the people they govern want? Our last government tried that [war on Iraq, industrial relations changes, and so on]. Voted out last election. If I am unhappy with what the majority of people in my country wanted I would probably do my best to move to a country where the majority of people agree with my viewpoint. Not sit and complain about how I was being smothered.

I think that if you're going to discuss "marriage in reality" you need to be a little more specific. I witnessed something of the married life of my parents, grand parents and great grandparents who were/are people that were effected little or not at all by any sort of civil rights or feminist movement and it all seemed to work pretty well for everybody. What kind of power do you want?

Ahh again with the life stories and your own experience. Your experience counts for little as does mine. You wanted specifics, I already gave them to you. Women in the West, once they were married, had no rights over any property that they owned, their children or any money. They couldn't vote. It all passed to their husband. Outside of the West this is still common. These days women have control over their own property and children [more accurately they share control with their husbands unless they have made a decision to sign a contract stating otherwise] and they can vote. A vast improvement I must say. Though given I work in IT and my sex is paid on average eighty percent of male wages for exactly the same type of work I think we still have a long way to go.

Why should we need legislation between a man and woman that are married?

What? I didn't say that. I said we used to. Please reread my comment.

My wife and I have a marriage that we believe to be consistant with Biblical teaching and it isn't at all "terrible". In fact, I doubt that either one of us would care to even try to imagin life without our marriage.

Great, though, how is this relevant to our discussion?

Again, not quite accurate. 1 Cor 7:3 says "Let the husband render to his wife the effection due her, and likewise also the wife to her husband. 4, The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. And likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does."

So the Bible teaches that a husband should submit to his wife just as the wife should submit to her husband. It's all part of "the two shall become one" thing.

Perhaps you object to this?...please don't stop reading after the first sentence.

Ephesians 5:22, "Wives submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is head of the wife, even as Christ is head of the church; and he is the savior of the body. Therefore as the church is subject to Christ, so let wives be to their own husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wife as Christ also loved the church and gave himself for it... 28, So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. For no man ever yet hated his own flesh but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church . . . 31,For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother and shal.1 be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh".

Indeed what a terrible thing for a husband to love, cherish and nourish his wife as his own body and as Christ loved the church which he gave himself for. What a truely awful thing for a husband to give himself for his family...we're really abusing this poor woman now. LOL

The Biblical role of the husband is one of responsibility, loving and teaching. Responsibilities, that a Christian husband would expect to be held accountable for.

You can focus on implications of authority if you want to but accountability and authority go hand in hand. The husband and wife share responsibility for the physical and spiritual support of eachother and their children.

I don't know if you are familiar with the term 'great in theory but not in practice'? Also there is nothing in Ephesians 5:22 that says that a man has to submit, only the woman. And yes, the general implication of 'authority' is having control over something. This is how many Christians interpret the Bible's teachings on marriage. You may not but a lot of Christians do. I would rather have love AND equality in my relationship, and luckily I do. Anyway, I find the whole concept of marriage archaic and am quite happy as defacto. Luckily I live in a country that does not require a marriage certificate to have my relationship with my life partner recognised as equal to marriage.

But...you want control? oh..and earlier you said you want "power". What level of responsibility/accountability do you accept along with that power and control and to whom are you willing to be accountable.

I am accountable to myself and others. I want power and control over my life as much as is reasonably possible. Often this is hard for someone of my gender. My life philosophy is basically that you should do what you want as long as it does not direcly harm another person.

The US may be an often spoke of example but rarely do you hear "the rest of the story"...like who the slave traders were and where/how, they got the slaves.

You would have preferred I went into the history of slavery in my post? What for? My example was enough to illustrate the point I was trying to make.

That doesn't sound like Christianity to me and Romans 15 should have plenty to do with it. Earlier in this thread (and some other) I spent quite a bit of time trying to correct some really off-base statements concerning Christian doctrin so I'll be short here. See those earlier posts for the many Biblical references I provided if you're interested but the short version is that we are all guilty of sin and spiritually dead in sin (headed for hell if you please) until rebirth in the spirit of God when Christ becomes our savior and pays that debt for us.

It doesn't sound like YOUR version of Christianity. But other Christians have different versions of your religion. Like the Christians who attempt to take away a woman's reproductive right, Christians who try to stop legislation passing allowing homosexuals to form partnerships even though it has ABSOLUTELY NO IMPACT on their day to day life and in fact contributes to the high suicide and depression rates in homosexual teens. Christians who try to teach abstinance only sex education or teach that birth control is unnecessary, which has lead to increases in HIV and other STDs. Christians who try to stop proven science being taught in the class room and instead promote something that whilst it cannot be proven wrong, has all evidence pointing to the contrary. This is what your religion has taken part in for whether you agree with it or not.

None of are perfect or ever can be perfect. None of us can ever live up to God's standard and that's where Christ comes in. So, those "bad thoughts" you were so afraid of were/are evidence of the need for Christ rather than a go-directly-to Hell sentence.

*yawn* Only heard that line about five thousand times from most of my family. That is not how it comes across to a 5yo. It makes me sick to see things such as Jesus Camp or those Hell Shows as I know how terrifying myself and many of my peers found these types of activities. It is brainwashing, pure and simple. Your comments about how your God sees me or my life means nothing to an atheist so please save yourself the typing time.

ok but you left out all the incidences of child abuse in private homes, public schools, Boy Scout and Girl Scout troops, by little league coaches and anybody else who is in a position of authority and control of children.

Yes they happen too of course. You somehow expect me to type up a list of every example of one of my arguments that I make. My point was that you held the Amish up as some kind of ideal and asked me to address your comments on that. My point was to show that their society [like all societies] is far from ideal.

Of course I understand that different people like different things. My point was that many of us eventually find that the "happiness" gained from "things" or even activities like diving is a fleeting sort of happiness.

Sure. Some people find that the 'happiness' gained from 'God' or even activities like religion is a fleeting sort of happiness. Whatever floats your boat.

 

[MikeFerrara]

I asked you a simple question. Provide me evidence that the world is becoming more dangerous as a whole. You haven't so far so I am guessing you have had no luck? Your very original question was "I wonder. For all our knowledge and science, have we answered any of the important questions? Don't we have pretty much the exact same problems that we've always had? We still have war, disease and suffering of all sorts only with some "new" more complicated, and even silly, twists. Most of us still spend most of our time working to procure the basic necessities...still trying to "build that shelter" and put food on the table."

I answered by talking about the huge achievements we as a species have made. I'll repeat once again as you don't seem to have listened: things aren't perfect, far from it, but things are a lot better than they have ever been in the past for the majority [not all of course] of the world's population. I will ask direct questions as you continue to ignore what I have said in this area: do you believe that rights have improved for women in the West? do you believe that rights have improved for non-whites in the West? If you answer yes to even the first question, that takes care of over fifty percent of the population...

You keep bringing up anecdotes of people in Chicago. Please provide me evidence that crime has gone up in Chicago as I do not live in the US and do not know the local situation. I am not saying I disagree with you, just that I would like evidence before I will accept your argument.

I didn't say that the world has become more dangerous. Yes, I continue to ignore your request that I support an argument that I never made.

I was pointing out that you define your life by faith and not by evidence. I think very poorly of that kind of attitude but I guess insult might be too harsh of a word to describe what I meant.

I don't think I've talked about how I define my life.

Good for you! I do however find it great that I get medical cover yes. You have to realise you are not the world. In my country, the majority of the people want free health care and thereby accept the responsibility to provide for other people with their taxes. So do you think the government should just do what they want instead of listen to what the people they govern want? Our last government tried that [war on Iraq, industrial relations changes, and so on]. Voted out last election. If I am unhappy with what the majority of people in my country wanted I would probably do my best to move to a country where the majority of people agree with my viewpoint. Not sit and complain about how I was being smothered.

We've probably gone far enough into what I think of socialism.

As far as moving to another country because I don't approve of everything that's being done in this one...well, running just isn't in my nature.

I don't know if you are familiar with the term 'great in theory but not in practice'?

Above you asked how my example was relevant. It was an example of how it can really work in practice...not theory.

Also there is nothing in Ephesians 5:22 that says that a man has to submit, only the woman. And yes, the general implication of 'authority' is having control over something.

You really want to pick only select words or phrases rather than read all content in context but, leadership, whether in government, business or the home is about service, not about being served. I try to serve God, in part, by serving my family. I'm a servent, not a master.

This is how many Christians interpret the Bible's teachings on marriage. You may not but a lot of Christians do.

I can't speak for "many Christians".

I would rather have love AND equality in my relationship, and luckily I do.

I guess you missed all the references to love in the references I provided?

Equality? Husband and wife joined are one. Isn't a thing "equal" to itself? If we take a thing apart are the individual parts necessarily "equal"? Is my right hand equal to my left hand? How can they be? One is the right and the other is the left. You might say they are complementory or opposite yet I highly value both.

Anyway, I find the whole concept of marriage archaic and am quite happy as defacto.

Well, to each their own but sometimes I need to double check to see what planet I'm even on.

Luckily I live in a country that does not require a marriage certificate to have my relationship with my life partner recognised as equal to marriage.

Recognized by who and in what regard? Again, the word equal, meaning the same. It's either the same or it isn't.

AND, I thought you said that you "find the whole concept of marriage archaic". You want your relationship to be recognized as archaic?...ie marriage = arcaic, your relationship = marriage = archaic.

I am accountable to myself and others. I want power and control over my life as much as is reasonably possible. Often this is hard for someone of my gender.

You sound very victimized.

It doesn't sound like YOUR version of Christianity. But other Christians have different versions of your religion.

Again, I can't speak for other Christians.

Like the Christians who attempt to take away a woman's reproductive right,

If by "woman's reproductive right" you refer to abortion, I don't believe that morality can be legislated though my personal belief is that it's murder and that an unborn child has (or should have) the right to live.

Still, I don't try to stop anyone, though, I do strongly object to being made an unwilling party to it by the fact that some of my tax money is used to finance it.

Christians who try to stop legislation passing allowing homosexuals to form partnerships even though it has ABSOLUTELY NO IMPACT on their day to day life and in fact contributes to the high suicide and depression rates in homosexual teens.

I think we addressed this earlier in the thread but much of the legeslation that has been proposed in this country most certainly would have an impact on day to day life.

I think I referenced specific bills earlier in the thread (or maybe it was another thread) but some of that legislation would do things like require public (government) school texts to give "equal" representation to homosexual unions as marriage...no more dick, Jane, spot, puff, mom and dad unless we also have a version with "dad and dad" or "mom and mom".

I don't care what the folks down the street do but I am absolutely against all such legislation. If my vote counts suicide rates and depression will have to be addressed some other way.

Christians who try to teach abstinance only sex education or teach that birth control is unnecessary, which has lead to increases in HIV and other STDs.

If one is abstains, birth control is unnecessary but I don't teach sex education.

Are you trying to blame Christian values for HIV? In western countries anyway, the primary culpret here seems to be behavior and I think the "blame" (if we want to use the term) belongs with those who exibit the behavior.

I certainly don't approve of the government school passing out pills and condoms to my children or grandchildren.

Christians who try to stop proven science being taught in the class room and instead promote something that whilst it cannot be proven wrong, has all evidence pointing to the contrary. This is what your religion has taken part in for whether you agree with it or not.

I think it's pretty clear that science should be taught in science class, language in language class, math in math class, ect and that the school, especially government schools, should stay out of subjects that they aren't chartered to be teaching in the first place.

My religion? Please don't confuse what some people do or how they vote as being what "my religion" is. For reference regarding "my religion", see the Bible.

*yawn* Only heard that line about five thousand times from most of my family. That is not how it comes across to a 5yo.

All five year olds or just you?

It makes me sick to see things such as Jesus Camp or those Hell Shows as I know how terrifying myself and many of my peers found these types of activities. It is brainwashing, pure and simple.

Sorry, I don't know what Jesus camp or hell shows are.

Your comments about how your God sees me or my life means nothing to an atheist so please save yourself the typing time.

Yes, yawn...again, I was only trying to correct your apparent misstatement of Christian doctrin. .

I wouldn't think that anything to do with "my God" would mean much to an athiest which is why I can't help wondering why they seem to put so much energy into commenting on the matter. It's further hard to understand why they don't make some attempt to do so with any accuracy. It's always a straw-man argument. First they misstate the doctrin and then procede to base an argument on the misstatement...naturally they usually declare themselves the winner of the argument.

LOL and I've found out the hard way, as is well documented on this board, that they don't usually like being corrected. They just don't seem to like being reminded of what the Bible actually says while they are busy arguing against what it doesn't say.

Yes they happen too of course. You somehow expect me to type up a list of every example of one of my arguments that I make. My point was that you held the Amish up as some kind of ideal and asked me to address your comments on that. My point was to show that their society [like all societies] is far from ideal.

No. I didn't hold the Amish up as any ideal. I simply used them as a lifestyle contrast. The contrast wasn't in regard to religion at all but rather to the use of science and technology.

For some reason you thought it somehow relevant to point out that some Amish and Christians have engaged in sexual abuse of children.