Alabama will allow adoption agencies to discriminate against LGBT couples

[homersapien 11,373]

1 hour ago, SaltyTiger said:

Sweet post Grumps. Almost brings me to tears. You forgot to tell Argo to milk a mule the next he wants fresh milk.

Me too.   It was lovely.

[alexava 6,973]

5 hours ago, Grumps said:

I suppose you have proof that the first woman was NOT produced from a man's rib? Your second sentence is even more laughable. Your arguments are more dishonest than normal on this topic.

Proof? Seriously? 

[Grumps 3,704]

6 hours ago, SaltyTiger said:

Sweet post Grumps. Almost brings me to tears. You forgot to tell Argo to milk a mule the next he wants fresh milk.

Sorry for being sappy, I was in a good mood when I posted it. Hee!

 

[Grumps 3,704]

5 hours ago, homersapien said:

Sorry, I am not following you.

If you believe that Genisis is literally true, there's nothing more I can say.

Regarding the second comment, based on my definition of "wicked"  - which is synanomous with evil - why would anyone not want to persecute a wicked person?  Should we tolerate evil?

I don't get what you mean by dishonest.  Please point out any element of what I posted that you consider "dishonest".

Thanks

I forgot, man was created completely by random mutations, right? Your consciousness is completely a random occurrence, right? But if your consciousness is random then why should I not think that your comments are also random?

Rant over. My point is that you don't know how the first woman was created. It is preposterous that a woman was created from a man's rib. It is also preposterous that the first woman was a  random occurrence. It sounds like we are both gullible.

Regarding being dishonest: you intentionally added persecution to the equation knowing that it was not stated or implied. Many people don't want to persecute wicked people. Vengeance is not for me. God has that one handled.

[Grumps 3,704]

3 hours ago, alexava said:

Proof? Seriously? 

Please explain for us how the first woman was created/came into being. Moses stated his view. What is yours?

[alexava 6,973]

47 minutes ago, Grumps said:

Please explain for us how the first woman was created/came into being. Moses stated his view. What is yours?

So you need proof that women were not created from a man's rib. Do you also believe man was made from dirt? 

[ArgoEagle 1,788]

15 hours ago, Grumps said:

I have been trying harder lately to look for value in the posts of everyone who seems to be giving his/her honest opinion, whether or not I agree with them. When homer is honest he can be very insightful and can help me understand things in a more comprehensive way. A few years back, the BBQ House (a joint between Troy and Montgomery) had on a sign out front that said, "What a person sees depends mostly upon what they are looking for." I like that. If I look for value in a person's opinion then I usually find it. If I look for ignorance or arrogance I usually find that also. I advise you to look for the good in homer and the rest of us...maybe you'll find some!

That is some good advice and I will remember it. Some better advice was given by Jesus Christ in Matthew: "But let your communication be yea yea, or nay nay; for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil." We as Christians cannot allow ignorance being disguised as a good cause to be spewed out and sweep it under the rug. Just don't allow yourself to get sucked into this chasm and I will try not to go too far in the other direction.

[ArgoEagle 1,788]

15 hours ago, SaltyTiger said:

Sweet post Grumps. Almost brings me to tears. You forgot to tell Argo to milk a mule the next he wants fresh milk.

Salty, if you were being recruited, your position would be dual-threat instigator.

[SaltyTiger 7,805]

9 hours ago, Grumps said:

Sorry for being sappy, I was in a good mood when I posted it. Hee!

 

I understand Grumps. Good moods often make us say stupid things. 

[homersapien 11,373]

11 hours ago, Grumps said:

I forgot, man was created completely by random mutations, right? Your consciousness is completely a random occurrence, right? But if your consciousness is random then why should I not think that your comments are also random?

Rant over. My point is that you don't know how the first woman was created. It is preposterous that a woman was created from a man's rib. It is also preposterous that the first woman was a  random occurrence. It sounds like we are both gullible.

Regarding being dishonest: you intentionally added persecution to the equation knowing that it was not stated or implied. Many people don't want to persecute wicked people. Vengeance is not for me. God has that one handled.

I can't discuss the origins of man with someone who is scientifically illiterate, much less a religious literalist.

[Grumps 3,704]

4 hours ago, ArgoEagle said:

That is some good advice and I will remember it. Some better advice was given by Jesus Christ in Matthew: "But let your communication be yea yea, or nay nay; for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil." We as Christians cannot allow ignorance being disguised as a good cause to be spewed out and sweep it under the rug. Just don't allow yourself to get sucked into this chasm and I will try not to go too far in the other direction.

I was trying to tell you something in a positive way. You claim to be a follower of Christ and then you make a post  regarding homer that "He is the only one on my list b/c he never has had, does not now, and never will have anything to say worth listening to." You should know that homer was created in God's image just like you were. When you post things like that about homer you make yourself and our God look bad to others. When you use scripture to justify your action then you make yourself and our God look even worse to others.

[Grumps 3,704]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

I can't discuss the origins of man with someone who is scientifically illiterate, much less a religious literalist.

Fair enough. You have me figured out. One last scientifically illiterate comment for you: I KNOW the God that made the first woman. I'll see if He will tell me specifically how He did it. If He does I will let you know!

[homersapien 11,373]

1 minute ago, Grumps said:

Fair enough. You have me figured out. One last scientifically illiterate comment for you: I KNOW the God that made the first woman. I'll see if He will tell me specifically how He did it. If He does I will let you know!

Do I ever. 

I imagine you'll accept the science after He explains it to you.  After all, it's His language.

[Grumps 3,704]

Just now, homersapien said:

Do I ever. 

I imagine you'll accept the science after He explains it to you.  After all, it's His language.

So if there was a God do you think that YOU would be able to understand Him/Her/It completely?

[ArgoEagle 1,788]

Just now, Grumps said:

I was trying to tell you something in a positive way. You claim to be a follower of Christ and then you make a post  regarding homer that "He is the only one on my list b/c he never has had, does not now, and never will have anything to say worth listening to." You should know that homer was created in God's image just like you were. When you post things like that about homer you make yourself and our God look bad to others. When you use scripture to justify your action then you make yourself and our God look even worse to others.

Sorry, I know you mean well, but I don't agree. I love homer, but I hate what he says and what he stands for. I prayed just a short while ago that he would receive Jesus as his savior. I guess in hindsight I should have left the highlighted part above out b/c with God anything is possible. And btw, I have had plenty of other people posting on here agree with me, and a small handful that didn't. Haven't tried to offend you in any way; sorry if I did.

 

[Grumps 3,704]

5 minutes ago, ArgoEagle said:

Sorry, I know you mean well, but I don't agree. I love homer, but I hate what he says and what he stands for. I prayed just a short while ago that he would receive Jesus as his savior. I guess in hindsight I should have left the highlighted part above out b/c with God anything is possible. And btw, I have had plenty of other people posting on here agree with me, and a small handful that didn't. Haven't tried to offend you in any way; sorry if I did.

 

I just want you to remember Who you represent and post accordingly. If that is what you are doing then that is all that matters and what I think is irrelevant.

[homersapien 11,373]

45 minutes ago, Grumps said:

So if there was a God do you think that YOU would be able to understand Him/Her/It completely?

Anyone who appreciates science will have a much better chance of understanding a potential God than someone who dismisses science for ancient manuscripts - written by men - that simply reflect the beliefs and superstitions of their time.

I would never claim I have a "complete" understanding of anything.  No one can.

[AU4life1 5]

Argo Eagle just another closed minded christian that quotes the bible when it suits their belief. Kind of like right to life which it is really right to birth.

[Grumps 3,704]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

Anyone who appreciates science will have a much better chance of understanding a potential God than someone who dismisses science for ancient manuscripts - written by men - that simply reflect the beliefs and superstitions of their time.

I would never claim I have a "complete" understanding of anything.  No one can.

Who is dismissing science for ancient manuscripts? Did anyone here say that?

By the way, do you understand what scientifically illiterate even means? Are you implying that one who believes that the Bible was inspired by a supernatural being is scientifically illiterate? I think that even you will agree that you misspoke there!

Another question, if a scientist experienced a supernatural event then would that scientist be more scientific by dismissing WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED to conform with science or by accepting the truth and realizing the limits of science?

[homersapien 11,373]

17 hours ago, Grumps said:

1) Who is dismissing science for ancient manuscripts? Did anyone here say that?

2) By the way, do you understand what scientifically illiterate even means? Are you implying that one who believes that the Bible was inspired by a supernatural being is scientifically illiterate? I think that even you will agree that you misspoke there!

Another question, if a scientist experienced a supernatural event then would that scientist be more scientific by dismissing WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED to conform with science or by accepting the truth and realizing the limits of science?

1) First, to be technical, it was a generalized statement and I consisider it valid regardless if anyone has said it or not.

But, you were clearly contrasting literal biblical accounts of creation with the science on an equivalent basis.  I simply rephrased that contrast in a way you don't care for.

Now if I am misunderstanding your intent, then please clarify.

2) Anyone who literally accepts a biblical myth of creation over the current science is rejecting science as the definitive source about what we actually know about how we got here.  

But you make a good point. That doesn't logically require they are scientifically  illiterate but it certainly suggests it.  The only other option is they have decided - for whatever reason - that an ancient religious myth is a more valid source of such information than is science. (Thus my assumption of illiteracy.)

This assumption is based on my feeling that it's hard to imagine anyone - including the religious - who wouldn't totally "wonder" at what we now know about the universe via science if they were really familiar with it. It seems to me it would be "natural" for  any sort of thinking deist to see scientific revelation as a revelation of God's work than arbitrarily reject it for the sake of ancient stories in manuscripts which - obviously - cannot be literal.

3) Science does not concern itself with the supernatural, only the natural.

If a "supernatural event" occured, science could not address it, by definition.

But if something "ACTUALLY HAPPENS" then yeah, of course science can evaluate it. That's what science does.

But keep in mind that science may or may not have an explanation.  But science - by definition - cannot even consider a supernatural cause.  

(This pretty much sums up the current situation with the "big bang" theory.) 

[Grumps 3,704]

5 hours ago, homersapien said:

1) First, to be technical, it was a generalized statement and I consisider it valid regardless if anyone has said it or not.

But, you were clearly contrasting literal biblical accounts of creation with the science on an equivalent basis.  I simply rephrased that contrast in a way you don't care for.

Now if I am misunderstanding your intent, then please clarify.

My point was that neither of us knows exactly how the 1st woman came into being. I believe what the Bible says because the God who inspired it has shown me numerous times that what it says is the truth. Sometimes I believe it literally and sometimes I believe the message behind the words. Just because you cannot understand how I can believe the Bible and still believe in science does not mean that I don't. I would be happy to explain my beliefs, but it seems that you already think you know them.

2) Anyone who literally accepts a biblical myth of creation over the current science is rejecting science as the definitive source about what we actually know about how we got here.  

But you make a good point. That doesn't logically require they are scientificly illiterate but it certainly suggests it.  The only other option is they have decided - for whatever reason - that ancient religion myths is a more valid source of such information than is science. (Thus my assumption of illiteracy.)

This assumption is based on my feeling that it's hard to imagine anyone - including the religious - who wouldn't not totally "wonder" at what we now know about the universe via science if they were really familiar with it. It seems to me it would be "natural" for  any sort of thinking deist to see scientific revelation as a revelation of God's work than arbitrarily reject it for the sake of ancient stories in manuscripts which - obviously - cannot be literal.

I have never said that I believe that Eve was literally created from Adam's rib. I don't know how Eve was created. Ultimately, I don't care how God did it but it is fun to think about it. Your assumption of my illiteracy was incorrect. I am a scientist, but I still choose to believe in the Bible since its Creator has revealed its truth to me. To deny evidence given to me by my Creator would be pretty stupid, wouldn't it?

3) Science does not concern itself with the supernatural, only the natural.

If a "supernatural event" occured, science could not address it, by definition.

But if something "ACTUALLY HAPPENS" then yeah, of course science can evaluate it. That's what science does.

But keep in mind that science may or may not have an explanation.  But science - by definition - cannot even consider a supernatural cause.  

(This pretty much sums up the current situation with the "big bang" theory.) 

Science certainly deals with the unknown. Supernatural events are included in the unknown. Regarding the unknown, where did the "singularity" that started the "Big bang" come from?

Just because you cannot comprehend the supernatural because you have not experienced it does not mean that I (and millions of others) have not. The supernatural "ACTUALLY HAPPENS". You should consider being more open minded.

 

[ArgoEagle 1,788]

16 hours ago, AU4life1 said:

Argo Eagle just another closed minded christian that quotes the bible when it suits their belief. Kind of like right to life which it is really right to birth.

I know you meant this as a slam, but you actually unknowingly complimented me. Thanks.

[homersapien 11,373]

 

On 5/23/2017 at 10:58 PM, Grumps said:

My point was that neither of us knows exactly how the 1st woman came into being. I believe what the Bible says because the God who inspired it has shown me numerous times that what it says is the truth. Sometimes I believe it literally and sometimes I believe the message behind the words. Just because you cannot understand how I can believe the Bible and still believe in science does not mean that I don't. I would be happy to explain my beliefs, but it seems that you already think you know them.

Science informs us generally about how the first people came into being and I accept that.

While I can certainly understand how a scientifically literate person who is religiously inclined might see a message or allegory in a creation myth, I don't understand how anyone could accept it literally, for obvious reasons.

And of course my beliefs don't determine what you believe.  

But if you are willing to accept the myth as literally true then you either 1) don't understand the science or 2) understand science but reject it, by definition.  Good luck with explaining the latter to anyone.

I will be the first to admit I didn't get the "God gene".  I found I didn't have the capacity to believe from about the age of 12.  That's not to say I have definitive feelings one way or the other about God, I just don't "know". I think people who think they do "know" have a natural proclivity to believe.  

I am OK with not knowing. I don't feel any compulsion or need to fill ignorance with superstition.  The mystery intrigues me but it doesn't frighten me.

(As an aside, I feel I should mention that talking about creation of the "first woman" - especially as related in the bible myth - is inherently sexist.) 

 

[homersapien 11,373]

10 hours ago, Grumps said:

Science certainly deals with the unknown. Supernatural events are included in the unknown. Regarding the unknown, where did the "singularity" that started the "Big bang" come from?

Just because you cannot comprehend the supernatural because you have not experienced it does not mean that I (and millions of others) have not. The supernatural "ACTUALLY HAPPENS". You should consider being more open minded.

Sorry but you seem to be confusing the unknown with the supernatural.  Science deals with the unknown by studying it.  

Even if a scientist believes in the supernatural, science does not consider it. It is not a scientific option.  Science cannot test the supernatural by definition.

And no one can "comprehend" the supernatural, also by definition.  You are now confusing the terms "comprehend" with "belief".  

But you are right in that I don't really understand belief in the supernatural. Like I said, I apparently didn't inherent that part of human psychology (along with a lot of other people). 

Finally, I am agnostic when it comes to the proposition of a supernatural creator, while you are the one insisting that the supernatural (God) is fact.  

I'd say that makes me more open minded than you, not to mention less threatening.

[SaltyTiger 7,805]

^^^^^^^^^ Interesting reading. I will admit to not praying for Homer. Now if Homer chooses to be placed on my prayer list I charge $25 per month.................