Religion & Spirituality - 2 December 2006

A common thread to theist theories is that God(s) have an important hand in creating us. So if we could create something that, like us, could act and perpetuate itself without our further intervention, would we be considered to have god-like status?

2006-12-02 18:18:48 · 15 answers · asked by Subconsciousless 7

I mean 100% secure, when you leave your house of worship - you have no questions or doubts? How do you know your faith is based on truth?

2006-12-02 18:17:56 · 14 answers · asked by baperone 2

2006-12-02 18:15:56 · 29 answers · asked by Anonymous

1) Where was the prophet Mohammad buried?
2) What is the Muslim view on suicide?

2006-12-02 18:14:57 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous

2006-12-02 18:14:14 · 25 answers · asked by Ajax Spade 2

2006-12-02 18:11:08 · 26 answers · asked by Anonymous

I am a Christian who has been with my boyfriend for a year and half. We are going to get married and have already started having sex. I am confused as to if that's a sexual sin. I would really love some clarification, preferabley from a Reverend/Minister/Pastor. I know that sex is intended for intimacy and to be shared with only one person, but that's what I'm doing. Also, I know it's meant for procreation and I'm not ready for that, but a lot of married couples aren't ready right away and use birth control and things like that. I have lots of confusion and would appreciate any help. Thank you.

2006-12-02 18:10:45 · 21 answers · asked by dancin_chik49735 1

Thanks:-)

2006-12-02 18:09:14 · 19 answers · asked by GODZILLA 3

2006-12-02 18:07:36 · 4 answers · asked by Red Eye 4

http://www.venganza.org/

2006-12-02 18:07:18 · 8 answers · asked by thebraindamaged1 2

It had to be in the 60's. It was this little Catholic boy and little Jewish girl and they were friends. I think their parents did not want them to be friends. I remember seeing it in Catechism It was in black and white. That is about all I can remember. It sticks in my head though.

2006-12-02 18:07:07 · 3 answers · asked by Pesty Wadoo 4

I just want honest opinions. If you think that they are one and the same. Or if you believe that there is a difference, please explain what do you believe it is? Thank you!

-PEACE

2006-12-02 18:03:47 · 7 answers · asked by Mitchell B 4

2006-12-02 18:03:43 · 34 answers · asked by Blast 1

I'm about a 2/3

2006-12-02 18:03:07 · 24 answers · asked by Blackout 3

2450. If a woman is rendered helpless by her disease, and if the only helpful treatment to her can be given by a male doctor, she can refer to him. And if that male doctor must look at her to be able to treat her, or to touch her for that matter, there is no objection. However, if he can treat her by looking at her, he should not touch her body, and if he can treat her by touching her body, he should not look at her.

Shouldn't a doctor be more concerned with helping his patient, than whether or not he should be touching her body and not looking or looking and not touching?

2006-12-02 18:02:34 · 3 answers · asked by The Ministry of Common Sense 4

I mean I've read many answers to some questions from Christians and they act like they decide who goes to heaven and who doesn't. Some examples would be: O you're gay, alcoholic,drug addict, etc. you're going to hell.
These people can be saved from their sins. To all of you who think like this, you're whats giving Christians a bad name.

2006-12-02 18:02:15 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous

2006-12-02 18:01:19 · 3 answers · asked by Anonymous

Where does that hate come from? This is a serious question.

2006-12-02 18:01:11 · 7 answers · asked by White Male Feminist 1

If you knew a friend that was of the same religion as you was in a realtionship with an atheist would you try to talk them out of the realtionship?

2006-12-02 18:01:00 · 4 answers · asked by Ajax Spade 2

the prophet Abraham and Ishmael?

2006-12-02 17:59:04 · 18 answers · asked by sam 2

2006-12-02 17:58:14 · 2 answers · asked by chuck 3

if you think he is coming in the next few years, i will give you the best gambling odds ever. please let me know if your interested.

2006-12-02 17:55:40 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous

Can Life Emerge From Non-Living Matter?

No one has ever observed the creation of life from non-living matter, or spontaneous generation. Even given ideal laboratory conditions, scientists haven't been able to create life from non-living matter. Life has been found only to come from life. This has been seen so consistently that it's called the Law of Biogenesis.

Even if scientists could demonstrate spontaneous generation, it's unlikely that life on earth began this way. Two basic components of life, proteins and DNA, have characteristics that make their spontaneous generation unlikely. Proteins couldn't have evolved if the early earth had oxygen in its atmosphere, because the parts that make up proteins, amino acids, can't join in the presence of oxygen. There had to be oxygen in the atmosphere, however. Without oxygen, there could be no ozone in the upper atmosphere and without the ozone layer, the sun's ultraviolet radiation would quickly destroy life. How then, can evolution explain both ozone and life?

Scientists have also found that the long chains of amino acids necessary for life cannot be formed in water. This fact seriously impacts the theory that life began in "the waters of some unknown seacoast."

The creation of DNA, the basic building block of life presents an interesting evolutionary problem. DNA cells contain thousands of genes that direct the functioning of living beings, including inherited characteristics, growth, organ and system structure. The DNA for each species is unique. Certain protein molecules or enzymes must be present for DNA to replicate, however those enzymes can only be produced at the direction of DNA -- the DNA itself has the blueprint for the specific enzymes it needs to replicate. Each depends on the other and both must be present for replication to take place. How evolution could explain this has never been answered.


How Was the First Living Molecule Formed?

Evolutionists think that the early earth contained a primordial "soup", consisting of all the components necessary for life. Through random processes, the components combined in exactly the right way to form the first living organism. Mathematical probabilities show that for all practical purposes, it is impossible for complex living systems that consist of many inter-relating parts to come about through random processes. Let's look at the mathematical chances for life to come about in this way.

Probabilities Show Random Processes Cannot Create Life

The most basic type of protein molecule that can be called "living" has 400 linked amino acids, each composed of 4-5 chemical elements. Each chemical element consists of a unique combination of protons, electrons and neutrons. To simplify our calculations, let's look at the probability of chance formation of an even simpler system, one that would contain only 100 elements.

We'll assume that all the necessary components were readily available in the "soup" and that the components had to come together in the right order to form a functioning system. Let's call our 100 element system "Fred".

All the elements that make up "Fred" would have to combine in the correct order to get a functioning "Fred". It's likely that most of the possible combinations of the components would have to be tried before "Fred" was formed.


The gray box describes the procedure for calculating probabilities. The probability of chance formation of "Fred" would be 1 in 100 factorial (or 1 x 2 x 3 x 4...x 99 x 100) or 1 in approximately 10158 (1 followed by 158 zeros). To get an idea of how large this number is, there are only 1080 (1 followed by 80 zeros) electrons in the universe.

Insufficient Time For Creation Of Even Simplest Organisms

Evolutionists claim that the evolutionary process occurred over billions of years, so they feel there was plenty of time to make all the necessary trial combinations and eventually get the correct ones. Let's test this theory for "Fred".

Astronomers estimate the universe to be less than 30 billion years old, which is 1018 seconds. Let's assume that it takes a billionth of a second for components to combine to form a trial 100 component "Fred". Let's also assume that the number of electrons in the universe, 1080, is representative of the number of basic components available for trial combinations of "Fred". This would allow 1078 trial combinations of 100 component "Fred" to occur at a time. With these assumptions, from the origin of the universe until today, 10105 trial combinations could be made (1018 x 109 x 1078). Unfortunately, to be sure to get a functioning "Fred" we would need 10158 combinations. The chance of one of our 10105 combinations being the correct, functioning "Fred" is approximately one chance in one hundred million billion billion billion billion billion (1 in 1053). It would take over three billion billion billion billion billion billion billion years to try all the possible combinations to be sure to create Fred. Written out, that's over 3, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000 years.

There hasn't been nearly enough time to create even simple "Fred" in the universe's supposed 30,000,000,000 years of existence!

2006-12-02 17:53:33 · 34 answers · asked by ? 4

If there was an unknown time period in his life, it was suggested that he traveled and learned from Druid mysteries. This would also answer how he performed his magic (mysterious ways), how he was a leader of his 12 disciples (a coven?) and how he was learned of healing techniques, in the ways of herbals. He was said to travel to India as well. Maybe he learned Reiki Healing while there too?

2006-12-02 17:52:29 · 9 answers · asked by Marlevane (High Priest/Druid) 1

They're upset about anything that have to involve sex...I mean how did they got their children didn't they had to have sex? or maybe they were a virgin like mary? oh I forgot they tampered with the bible and made mary some virgin...

2006-12-02 17:52:19 · 16 answers · asked by candy 1

Ok this is not meant to cause any offence, but when christians or any religious people say i talked to god , do they really talk to god ? and does he reply back to you? obviously he might not directly talk to you but do you see signs or symbols that indicate he might is sending a message. When i used to talk to god, and he never responded to me. Whats happens when u lot talk to god? i'm just really interested to know? No wise crack answers either, save your energy if your gonna do that.

2006-12-02 17:51:13 · 9 answers · asked by Blackout 3

I asked God what Fornication meant and got a different answer then the one i learned in Bible school--thats when i realized that i better ask HIm what things mean rather then a teacher--it really makes a difference

2006-12-02 17:49:59 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous

a guy rose from the dead 2000 years ago, b/c it says it in a book, what else can you be made to believe? I am frightened.

2006-12-02 17:47:59 · 13 answers · asked by Poo 3

2006-12-02 17:46:26 · 1 answers · asked by Olivia 4

2006-12-02 17:45:52 · 4 answers · asked by Olivia 4