Religion & Spirituality - 17 June 2007

2007-06-17 18:56:33 · 9 answers · asked by bornonaplatein1988 4

I kinda feel like I want to be one of the ones that is left behind during the rapture so that I can lead people to Christ. I know I would probably be killed, but it'd be worth it. I would want to see fellow believers rising up with me to defeat the beast. Then, in the end of all of it, Wee would alll be standing at Jesus' side over Satan in victory and those who were once lost would now be found. I really want to stay behind and lead others to Christ, but I also want to live for God. To be left behind you have to be a non-Christian or you haven't excepted Jesus into your heart. I'm afraid that if there aren't any believers, then no one will be won for Jesus. Does anyone else feel like this??

2007-06-17 18:56:32 · 22 answers · asked by Jen 2

Doesn't being duped presupose that the duper has an agenda? What kind of agenda would a scientist have to dupe you? Here, want some candy little girl?

2007-06-17 18:53:36 · 18 answers · asked by Anonymous

http://www.thechurchofgoogle.org/

2007-06-17 18:52:21 · 9 answers · asked by John 3

They call it "witnessing", but really it is about peer pressure.

Peer pressure is a term describing a person's changes, or temptations to change, in attitude, behavior and morals as directly influenced by their peer group.
http://www.reference.com/search?q=peer%20pressure

Why, if the belief is so worthy of faith, is it necessary to use peer pressure "witnessing" to get people interested in the "faith"?Wouldn't a "faith" be something people would seek out?And if they seek it out, wouldn't it be more worthy of a belief if they chose it with out people telling them which faith to believe in?

2007-06-17 18:50:24 · 17 answers · asked by Demopublican 6

Jesus: Man, Messiah or Fictional

Here is an interesting though. Not meant to prove or offend people.

Throughout the years the thought of Jesus existing has helped many. Given people hope and stopped some violence. Some wish to be like Him and better their lives. Others seek to better the lives of others in service to Him. Sacrifices were stopped because of Him, and happiness has spread across the lives of millions because of Him. He could have been a big hoax, and if He was then that betters my point. Assuming that Jesus was fictional or a man.... and tricked us into thinking He was a Messiah...

Why is it that a lie has done more good then bad?

Should we re-think our whole stand on truth vs lie? I mean here the lie has done more good and helped millions if not billions of people.

So then how can one say that lieing is bad?

(just a thought i am kind of bored and this ran across my mind so.... it may not seem good or well thought out but....)

2007-06-17 18:49:05 · 21 answers · asked by Chris 5

2007-06-17 18:47:58 · 21 answers · asked by Anonymous

On Y!A,

Or is it just Atheists?

2007-06-17 18:46:27 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-06-17 18:45:58 · 5 answers · asked by Mercury 2010 7

2007-06-17 18:45:44 · 33 answers · asked by Lover of God 3

Evolutionary biologists passionately debate diverse topics: how speciation happens, the rates of evolutionary change, the ancestral relationships of birds and dinosaurs, whether Neandertals were a species apart from modern humans, and much more. These disputes are like those found in all other branches of science. Acceptance of evolution as a factual occurrence and a guiding principle is nonetheless universal in biology.
Unfortunately, dishonest creationists have shown a willingness to take scientists' comments out of context to exaggerate and distort the disagreements. Anyone acquainted with the works of paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard University knows that in addition to co-authoring the punctuated-equilibrium model, Gould was one of the most eloquent defenders and articulators of evolution.

2007-06-17 18:44:56 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous

I have finally "fully" accepted my atheism in the past few months. It isnt as though I would choose to be an atheist if l had a reason to believe in a higher being. However, seeing that there is little to no proof that there is a "God" figure roaming around the cosmos, I have reluctenly accepted the fact that there is no reason to believe in one... and I now find myself a bit more cycnical.

1) Is this Cynicism a normal tranistion for most atheist to go through, and enventually l will shake free of it?

2) What helps you (as an atheist) to find purpose in life? Or should l just get over myself and come to terms with the fact that I am sitting on a rock in the middle of nowhere.

By the way, I am not married and I don't have children (nor do l want to ne married or have kids at this moment in my life).. So I am keen to quit my job and live out the rest of my days on an Island in Southeast Asia.

2007-06-17 18:44:31 · 8 answers · asked by Da_Paulie_Lama 2

I am planning to start reading the bible soon, and educate myself by way of courses - so please dont prejudge me as being lazy or whatever. I am really busy with my studies(professional), that i currently have very little time to focus on educating myself on spiritual matters, so im asking this question in all humbleness and gratitude. I am 18 atm.

I want to know - what are the implications of mortal sin in the bible ?
And what is considered as mortal sin in todays world, as regards bible.
And it is decided before-hand who goes to heaven and hell; before creation. But i want to know whether i have commited mortal sin or not.

2007-06-17 18:43:02 · 13 answers · asked by bornonaplatein1988 4

2007-06-17 18:42:48 · 6 answers · asked by Adia Azrael 4

We do many things in daily routine life, do we do these as we wish, desire or like or nature is forcing us to do the same. Do we have any control on our action and whether we could do some thing else what we do?

2007-06-17 18:42:11 · 10 answers · asked by M&I 1

Actually, paleontologists know of many detailed examples of fossils intermediate in form between various taxonomic groups. One of the most famous fossils of all time is Archaeopteryx, which combines feathers and skeletal structures peculiar to birds with features of dinosaurs. A flock's worth of other feathered fossil species, some more avian and some less, has also been found. A sequence of fossils spans the evolution of modern horses from the tiny Eohippus. Whales had four-legged ancestors that walked on land, and creatures known as Ambulocetus and Rodhocetus helped to make that transition [see "The Mammals That Conquered the Seas," by Kate Wong; Scientific American, May]. Fossil seashells trace the evolution of various mollusks through millions of years. Perhaps 20 or more hominids (not all of them our ancestors) fill the gap between Lucy the australopithecine and modern humans.

2007-06-17 18:41:37 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-06-17 18:40:08 · 23 answers · asked by Anonymous

In a previous question, someone stated that God had changed DNA for the Mormons. Here is a series of questions related to this:

1) How exactly does God change someones DNA
2) Why would he change DNA for someone, but hasn't done anything else for anybody in thousands of years
3) Is this argument about "Changing DNA" the most absurd thing you've ever heard?
4) Does this crazy argument make you wonder what other absurdities the Mormon church has taught you?

BTW, In case you are wondering.. This IS in fact a real deal. It's not a rumor, not made up. So don't go there with your answers.

Here's a source that talks about it:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/lds_migr1.htm

Here's the Mormon Inc. Church trying to wash this under the rug:
http://www.fairlds.org/Book_of_Mormon/DNA_Studies_and_the_Book_of_Mormon.html

2007-06-17 18:39:24 · 15 answers · asked by Cheese and Rice 2

Either hauntings, manifestations and possessions...

2007-06-17 18:38:59 · 18 answers · asked by Mr. PiB 2

"Creation science" is a contradiction in terms. A central tenet of modern science is methodological naturalism, it seeks to explain the universe purely in terms of observed or testable natural mechanisms. Thus, physics describes the atomic nucleus with specific concepts governing matter and energy, and it tests those descriptions experimentally. Physicists introduce new particles, such as quarks, to flesh out their theories only when data show that the previous descriptions cannot adequately explain observed phenomena. These particles do not have arbitrary properties, moreover--their definitions are tightly constrained, because the new particles must fit within the existing framework of physics.
In contrast, intelligent-design theorists invoke shadowy entities that conveniently have whatever unconstrained abilities are needed to solve the mystery. Rather than expanding scientific inquiry, such answers shut it down. (How does one disprove the existence of omnipotent intelligence..?)

2007-06-17 18:38:15 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous

. . . he (Muhummed pbuh) shined forth from mount Paran (in Arabia), and he came with ten thousand saints. DEUTERONOMY 33:2. (Referring to the conquest of Makkah). (d) " . . and I (God Almighty) will move them (the Jews) to jealousy with those (the Arabs) which are NOT A PEOPLE (a non-entity): I will provoke them (the Jews) to anger with a FOOLISH NATION," |the pre-Islamic Arabs) DEUTERONOMY 32:21

2007-06-17 18:37:38 · 25 answers · asked by Anonymous

rhymes with karma???

2007-06-17 18:36:52 · 9 answers · asked by booyah™ 7

This blanket dismissal of evolution ignores important distinctions that divide the field into at least two broad areas: microevolution and macroevolution. Microevolution looks at changes within species over time--changes that may be preludes to speciation, the origin of new species. Macroevolution studies how taxonomic groups above the level of species change. Its evidence draws frequently from the fossil record and DNA comparisons to reconstruct how various organisms may be related.
These days even most creationists acknowledge that microevolution has been upheld by tests in the laboratory (as in studies of cells, plants and fruit flies) and in the field (as in Grant's studies of evolving beak shapes among Galápagos finches). Natural selection and other mechanisms--such as chromosomal changes, symbiosis and hybridization--can drive profound changes in populations over time.

2007-06-17 18:34:59 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous

Many people learned in elementary school that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty--above a mere hypothesis but below a law. Scientists do not use the terms that way, however. According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution--or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter--they are not expressing reservations about its truth.

In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution. The NAS defines a fact as "an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as 'true.'"

2007-06-17 18:29:38 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous

in the bible does it say somewhere about adam and eve and what went on? such as eve had taken a bit of the apple as well but a handsome man(the devil) helped her get it out then he had sex with her and she became pregnant with his child also that handsome man who also had sex wtih adam is why God hates gays is this true?

2007-06-17 18:28:48 · 22 answers · asked by Anonymous

Just wondering. I came to this site originally to see if there were people who might actually need prayer or help. But instead all I find is unbelievers posting their justification for their unbelief.
And please don't answer with some stupid remark. I really want to know what the atheist hopes to accomplish here.
And do not say your angry because Christians judge you or try to convert you. If that were really true, you wouldn't ever go to a religion or spiritual site would you?
And don't say atheism is a religion, and if you do, then please tell me where I can find your bible so that I can begin pointing out all the mistakes in it.
And if you say science is your bible, then your not atheist because you believe in science as a higher power, authority, and a means of justification. If you do that, fine. I am not judging, I just want to try and understand you, as far as I can figure, you all just like to argue about God. Am I wrong?

2007-06-17 18:28:25 · 32 answers · asked by Anonymous

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2595276176688867963&q=Crazy+Christian&total=972&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

Discuss.
How can a religion possibly indoctrinate someone to this extent?

2007-06-17 18:28:22 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous

People can't explain the mystery of the Trinity. How then, can people be so presumptious to attest that God knows everything; or even that they know what God knows. If God does know everything that alone would preclude you from knowing what God knows.

2007-06-17 18:27:54 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous

Having a resource like the Internet makes it much easier to expose the lies, whereas just a few years ago, it was very difficult to learn anything except what was specifically taught at chuch.

How will this impact the future of Mormonism? Will the overall church growth continue to slump? Will more and more people find the truth and leave the church? Why? Please be specific.

2007-06-17 18:27:46 · 13 answers · asked by Cheese and Rice 2

Why do the Atheists on yahoo ask questions they know they won't believe Christian responses to?

2007-06-17 18:25:24 · 29 answers · asked by John 3