Religion & Spirituality - 21 January 2007

Please don't tell me stuff like "we send ourselves to Hell because God is just." He's all-forgiving! No one should go to hell if that's true

2007-01-21 16:52:33 · 29 answers · asked by Mark Kany 2

But I have not closed my mind up so tightly inside a cocoon of ignorance that I can't ask a question about something I don't know about like some of you have. Whether I bealive in a thing or not is immaterial. Now does anyone have the nerve to give me an honest answer. My question Why is it a sin for Catholics to eat meat on Friday. Seems like a simple enough question. Is it a secret or something. Or do you just not know the answer your self Catholics?

2007-01-21 16:49:04 · 38 answers · asked by Anonymous

give me some fact that euthanasia is moral although it is not and how come mercy killing is the best way to illuminate pain?

2007-01-21 16:49:00 · 24 answers · asked by Ana Lady S 1

Does anybody else find it strange that there are so may atheists on this spirituality and religion section...it doesn’t make sense

By the way any athiests who answer will just prove the absurdity of them being in this section...so actually I hope you reply........come on I dare you

2007-01-21 16:48:37 · 22 answers · asked by digger 1

2007-01-21 16:47:00 · 9 answers · asked by 1-life 1

I seriously want to discuss the Holy Scriptures (the Bible) with solid, serious, conservative, compassionate, faithful, mature knowledgeable Born Again Christians. Are their any Internet web sites where I could do this? I have lots of questions about the Bible and about living as a Christian. I have found some Christian forum or discussion sites, but they seem to be full of immature people with little or no knowledge of the Holy Scriptures. Any suggestions? (P.S. I completely rule out these denominations: Catholic, Mormon, Jehovah's Witnesses, Episcopalian, Eastern Orthodox, Methodist, United Church of Christ, Presbyterian Church USA, ELCA, Reformed Church in America)

2007-01-21 16:45:14 · 11 answers · asked by Dr. SC1ence 5

I am not Jew!
Serving God is the ultimate privilege!
Most people are serving Satan,but they think they are serving God,killing other people,eating cruel food from slaughterhouses,taking liquor,and other drugs..and accumulating more money thant necessary.....By doing the opposite,you canstart spiritual life!

http://krishna.com

2007-01-21 16:44:23 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous

Like is it a law to do, or is it just safer because of the evil spirits that roam earth.

I mean I like to only cast a few spells here and there, but I sometimes dont feel that I should cast a circle first, but yet I feel it would be better to take the time to do it. Whats your say in this?

2007-01-21 16:44:17 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous

And The Ground Is Parted by Tremendous Earth Quake. The Seas Are Raging with Typhoons, and the Skies are Red with Fire:

What if Mario from Super Mario Bros. Drops Down from The Sky and he's like: Itsa Me Mario!

What would you think or say?

2007-01-21 16:44:08 · 25 answers · asked by BerlingBurg 1

If so, then provide an answer to the following questions. "Evolution" in this context is the idea that natural, undirected processes are sufficient to account for the existence of all natural things.
Something from nothing?
The "Big Bang", the most widely accepted theory of the beginning of the universe, states that everything developed from a small dense cloud of subatomic particles and radiation which exploded, forming hydrogen (and some helium) gas. Where did this energy/matter come from? How reasonable is it to assume it came into being from nothing? And even if it did come into being, what would cause it to explode?
We know from common experience that explosions are destructive and lead to disorder. How reasonable is it to assume that a "big bang" explosion produced the opposite effect - increasing "information", order and the formation of useful structures, such as stars and planets, and eventually people?

Physical laws an accident?
We know the universe is governed by several fundamental physical laws, such as electromagnetic forces, gravity, conservation of mass and energy, etc. The activities of our universe depend upon these principles like a computer program depends upon the existence of computer hardware with an instruction set. How reasonable is it to say that these great controlling principles developed by accident?
Order from disorder?
The Second Law of Thermodynamics may be the most verified law of science. It states that systems become more disordered over time, unless energy is supplied and directed to create order. Evolutionists says that the opposite has taken place - that order increased over time, without any directed energy. How can this be?
ASIDE: Evolutionists commonly object that the Second Law applies to closed, or isolated systems, and that the Earth is certainly not a closed system (it gets lots of raw energy from the Sun, for example). However, all systems, whether open or closed, tend to deteriorate. For example, living organisms are open systems but they all decay and die. Also, the universe in total is a closed system. To say that the chaos of the big bang has transformed itself into the human brain with its 120 trillion connections is a clear violation of the Second Law.

We should also point out that the availability of raw energy to a system is a necessary but far from sufficient condition for a local decrease in entropy to occur. Certainly the application of a blow torch to bicycle parts will not result in a bicycle being assembled - only the careful application of directed energy will, such as from the hands of a person following a plan. The presence of energy from the Sun does NOT solve the evolutionist's problem of how increasing order could occur on the Earth, contrary to the Second Law.

Information from Randomness?
Information theory states that "information" never arises out of randomness or chance events. Our human experience verifies this every day. How can the origin of the tremendous increase in information from simple organisms up to man be accounted for? Information is always introduced from the outside. It is impossible for natural processes to produce their own actual information, or meaning, which is what evolutionists claim has happened. Random typing might produce the string "dog", but it only means something to an intelligent observer who has applied a definition to this sequence of letters. The generation of information always requires intelligence, yet evolution claims that no intelligence was involved in the ultimate formation of a human being whose many systems contain vast amounts of information.
Life from dead chemicals?
Evolutionists claim that life formed from non-life (dead chemicals), so-called "abiogenesis", even though it is a biological law ("biogenesis") that life only comes from life. The probability of the simplest imaginable replicating system forming by itself from non-living chemicals has been calculated to be so very small as to be essentially zero - much less than one chance in the number of electron-sized particles that could fit in the entire visible universe! Given these odds, is it reasonable to believe that life formed itself?
Complex DNA and RNA by chance?
The continued existence (the reproduction) of a cell requires both DNA (the "plan") and RNA (the "copy mechanism"), both of which are tremendously complex. How reasonable is it to believe that these two co-dependent necessities came into existence by chance at exactly the same time?
Life is complex.
We know and appreciate the tremendous amount of intelligent design and planning that went into landing a man on the moon. Yet the complexity of this task pales in comparison to the complexity of even the simplest life form. How reasonable is it to believe that purely natural processes, with no designer, no intelligence, and no plan, produced a human being.
Where are the transitional fossils?
If evolution has taken place our museums should be overflowing with the skeletons of countless transitional forms. Yet after over one hundred years of intense searching only a small number of transitional candidates are touted as proof of evolution. If evolution has really taken place, where are the transitional forms? And why does the fossil record actually show all species first appearing fully formed, with most nearly identical to current instances of the species?
ASIDE: Most of the examples touted by evolutionists concentrate on just one feature of the anatomy, like a particular bone or the skull. A true transitional fossil should be intermediate in many if not all aspects. The next time someone shows you how this bone changed over time, ask them about the rest of the creature too!

Many evolutionists still like to believe in the "scarcity" of the fossil record. Yet simple statistics will show that given you have found a number of fossil instances of a creature, the chances that you have missed every one of its imagined predecessors is very small. Consider the trilobites for example. These fossils are so common you can buy one for under $20, yet no fossils of a predecessor have been found!.

Could an intermediate even survive?
Evolution requires the transition from one kind to another to be gradual. And don't forget that "natural selection" is supposed to retain those individuals which have developed an advantage of some sort. How could an animal intermediate between one kind and another even survive (and why would it ever be selected for), when it would not be well-suited to either its old environment or its new environment? Can you even imagine a possible sequence of small changes which takes a creature from one kind to another, all the while keeping it not only alive, but improved?
ASIDE: Certainly a "light-sensitive spot" is better than no vision at all. But why would such a spot even develop? (evolutionists like to take this for granted). And even if it did develop, to believe that mutations of such a spot eventually brought about the tremendous complexities of the human eye strains all common sense and experience.

Reproduction without reproduction?
A main tenet of evolution is the idea that things develop by an (unguided) series of small changes, caused by mutations, which are "selected" for, keeping the "better" changes" over a very long period of time. How could the ability to reproduce evolve, without the ability to reproduce? Can you even imagine a theoretical scenario which would allow this to happen? And why would evolution produce two sexes, many times over? Asexual reproduction would seem to be more likely and efficient!
ASIDE: To relegate the question of reproduction to "abiogenesis" does NOT address the problem. To assume existing, reproducing life for the principles of evolution to work on is a HUGE assumption which is seldom focused on in popular discussions.

Plants without photosynthesis?
The process of photosynthesis in plants is very complex. How could the first plant survive unless it already possessed this remarkable capability?
How do you explain symbiotic relationships?
There are many examples of plants and animals which have a "symbiotic" relationship (they need each other to survive). How can evolution explain this?
It's no good unless it's complete.
We know from everyday experience that an item is not generally useful until it is complete, whether it be a car, a cake, or a computer program. Why would natural selection start to make an eye, or an ear, or a wing (or anything else) when this item would not benefit the animal until it was completed?
ASIDE: Note that even a "light-sensitive spot" or the simplest version of any feature is far from a "one-jump" change that is trivial to produce.

Explain metamorphosis!
How can evolution explain the metamorphosis of the butterfly? Once the caterpillar evolves into the "mass of jelly" (out of which the butterfly comes), wouldn't it appear to be "stuck"?
It should be easy to show evolution.
If evolution is the grand mechanism that has produced all natural things from a simple gas, surely this mechanism must be easily seen. It should be possible to prove its existence in a matter of weeks or days, if not hours. Yet scientists have been bombarding countless generations of fruit flies with radiation for several decades in order to show evolution in action and still have only produced ... more (deformed) fruit flies. How reasonable is it to believe that evolution is a fact when even the simplest of experiments has not been able to document it?
ASIDE: The artificial creation of a new species is far too small of a change to prove that true "macro-evolution" is possible. A higher-order change, where the information content of the organism has been increased should be showable and is not. Developing a new species changes the existing information, but does not add new information, such as would be needed for a new organ, for example.

Complex things require intelligent design folks!
People are intelligent. If a team of engineers were to one day design a robot which could cross all types of terrain, could dig large holes, could carry several times its weight, found its own energy sources, could make more robots like itself, and was only 1/8 of an inch tall, we would marvel at this achievement. All of our life's experiences lead us to know that such a robot could never come about by accident, or assemble itself by chance, even if all of the parts were available laying next to each other. And we are certain beyond doubt that a canister of hydrogen gas, no matter how long we left it there or what type of raw energy we might apply to it, would never result in such a robot being produced. But we already have such a "robot" - it is called an "ant", and we squash them because they are "nothing" compared to people. And God made them, and he made us. Can there be any other explanation?

2007-01-21 16:43:59 · 15 answers · asked by mcmahon 2

Mine is that a huge nuclear explosion will occur in the north pole with in the next year, and Hot rain will fall as a result.
This will be the beginning of a new world order

2007-01-21 16:42:05 · 15 answers · asked by Messenger 2

suppose person1 kills person2, which prevented person2 from repenting before he died, what happens to person2's unrepented sins? will person2 still be held accountable for his unrepented sins, or will person1 be the one who will be held accountable for person2's sins, since he's the one who prevented person2 from the possibility of repenting?

what's your opinion about this matter?

2007-01-21 16:41:15 · 26 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-01-21 16:39:55 · 23 answers · asked by CHEESUS GROYST 5

Ever read what they are quoting. I just saw 14 verses quoted as an answer to a question, and not one of them answered the asker's question, nor did they have anything to do with it.

i am all good with a bible quote to back up a belief, but lately i am seeing alot of seemingly random quots just thrown around.

and do these people ever have a thought of their own. can they function without their e-bible to cut and paste from?

2007-01-21 16:39:24 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous

I am Catholic, so Catholic results would be good, but at this point, I'm okay with any kind of answer.

2007-01-21 16:38:13 · 20 answers · asked by Mark Kany 2

It's just a question that just hit me . =]

2007-01-21 16:35:43 · 12 answers · asked by Aye Nikki Beezy 1

I have chosen to court enstead of date and people always ask me what the difference is...I try my best to explain it to them but most the time they look at me like I am the weirdest person alive but I know this is what God wants me to do!!! How would you expalin it? if you can help that would make my day !!! God bless!!!!!!!!

2007-01-21 16:35:03 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous

Yes, there are billions and billions. But most stars are really far away? Does it not stand to reason that we are too far to be in contact with them?

I've not read all his treaties on the subject. I heard he claimed, mabye civilizations don't last long enough.

2007-01-21 16:34:48 · 11 answers · asked by rostov 5

It bugs me when something rotten happens and my mom tells me "everything happens for a reason".

2007-01-21 16:34:25 · 12 answers · asked by Link 5

2007-01-21 16:33:47 · 20 answers · asked by ALEIII 3

In the Gospel of John, there are four verses (John 13:23; 19:26; 21:7; 21:20) which refer to the "disciple whom Jesus loved", generally interpreted to be John himself.

Several scholars have used these verses to argue that Jesus and John had a homosexual relationship, recently most notably by Jennings (2003). Jennings argues that these verses and the intimacy displayed between Jesus and John, especially at the Last Supper where John is described (John 13:23) as "reclining next to him" (TNIV) or "leaning on Jesus' bosom" (KJV), strongly implies that they were in a homosexual relationship.

However, this interpretation is rejected by most Biblical scholars. For example, Vasey (pp.121-124) uses the "deepest intimacy" of the friendship of Jesus and John to affirm homosexual relationships, but rejects the idea that Jesus and John themselves were in a homosexual relationship.

What are your opinions?

2007-01-21 16:33:23 · 20 answers · asked by Scarlet Crusader 1

2007-01-21 16:31:41 · 5 answers · asked by jesseecuh123 1

Why did God invent Harlequin type Ichthyosis? Could our path to salvation do without that maybe?

http://www.answers.com/topic/harlequin-type-ichthyosis

WARNING: Do not google up Pubmed photos. You will lose your sanity!

2007-01-21 16:31:04 · 10 answers · asked by Zeek 3

...or is it just another one of those "made up and overlooked" things?

2007-01-21 16:29:40 · 11 answers · asked by Lara 1

2007-01-21 16:28:14 · 10 answers · asked by CHEESUS GROYST 5

2007-01-21 16:27:14 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous

You know, I'm all up for religious debate, but this is pretty stupid. I don't know about everyone else here, but I live in a country where everyone has a constitutional right to be whatever religion they want. And I was brought up to live by the golden rule... does anyone here remember what THAT is? R & S looks more like mudslinging to me.

2007-01-21 16:26:35 · 13 answers · asked by gimmenamenow 7

2007-01-21 16:26:19 · 18 answers · asked by Zhukov 4

Are they going to heaven or hell?

2007-01-21 16:26:06 · 23 answers · asked by heartspiritdivine 3

Just curious. Why does the bible say that we should wait until marriage? Marriage does not determine whether 2 people will be together for life or not, the couple determines that. So if two people are deeply in love, why can't they make love?

2007-01-21 16:25:41 · 16 answers · asked by Nicky_Nolstorm 1