AlAyeti wrote:Jose,
Please follow what I say.
Stem Cell research has not been presented to society in any other way than taking humans in the embryonic stage, and making medicines that will cure Steve Reeves and Michael J. Fox. If I missed something I'm not alone. I believe that is why it was called embryonic stem cell research.
Your embryonic stem cells are long gone Jose.
Sadly so is Steve.
But if I have to take a life to save my own, please, even you know that that is anti-Christian.
It has not been sold as using a patients own stem cells.
Of course it hasn't been sold that way. To do so would undermine the agenda of the Religious Right. They are so dead-set against creating stem cells for
any reason that they misrepresent the facts in order to invoke a visceral reaction against the research. It is the same tactic as misrepresenting the facts of evolution, or global warming, or even air pollution, in order to evoke a visceral response against it.
You may note that it is not the scientists who are going around saying that stem cell research will result in women selling their embryos for profit. It is the anti-stem-cell activists. Obviously, if they are the only ones we listen to, theirs is the only message we will hear.
So, look at it this way: I've summarized the science--the facts as we understand them to be. I would suggest that the appropriate response might be to say "ah--the media hasn't described this accurately." It might not be the best response to say "the media, non-scientists all, have described this as some kind of sci-fi horror story, so I have to believe them."
AlAyeti wrote:Now, on evolution, you cannot be serious. First, as is easy to prove on this website, the label hung on those that do not cowtow to evolution are condemend as an idiot. I wish "dodo" was the worst.
"Male and female created He them."
"Let us make man after our image, after our likeness."
God is not a blind watchmaker. That comparison is wrong.
You've lost me here. Are you saying that you really believe that Christians are called idiots if they don't understand evolution? I haven't seen that done here. I
will suggest that we in the education business have done a lousy job of teaching what evolution really is, given the poor understanding of it in the US. I
will suggest that the public, vocal anti-evolutionists are purposely and knowingly misleading their audiences. But, I will
not imply that people who didn't learn about evolution adequately in school, and who have been misled by the charlatans, have any "failing" other than a certain lack of knowledge. There is no shame in that, since it applies to all of us in one way or another.
AlAyeti wrote:We were not created in the image of pool of ooze.
...and does anyone say we were?
AlAyeti wrote:Evolution is used 100% to disprove and denigrate Christianty. You cannot possibly disagree with that.
I can disagree with it because it is flat-out wrong. Evolution is used 100% to explain the data that thousands of researchers over hundreds of years have obtained
from studying god's creation.. If there are Christians who think the bible is so weak as to be undermined by a mere scientific finding, then I might suggest that they study it harder, and learn that the bible is far more important than that.
AlAyeti wrote:Aren't pedophiles and sociopaths "born that way?" I will presnt the evidence that pornography spreads both like a virus into others. I saw the Ted Bundy interview with James Dobson.
I'm not talking about pedophiles and sociopaths. I'm talking about homosexuals. I have not said that "being born that way" is an excuse for anything. I have repeatedly said that actions that involve consenting adults, and that
you don't even know about, except by fantasizing are not ours to condemn. You may note that pedophiles and sociopaths do not ply their trades among consenting adults. Theirs is predatory behavior, and harms others. But, if two guys live together down the street, and harm no one, why should anyone care?
AlAyeti wrote:Now what we do with and by our actions seperates us from the animals and the miscreant. Homosexual sex is a cognitive act. It is a choice behavior. Absolutely empirically proven. No Christian can "respect" sin and certainly not celebrate it.
No, what you do is often exactly the same as what animals do. As for "miscreants," their actions break the "rules" that we have established for the smooth running of society--so yes, you are right about that. You are also right that sex acts are cognitive, and actions of choice. But that's not what I'm disputing. I'm disputing your claim that
being homosexual is a choice. If it were, it would be chosen only by really, really stupid and masochistic people. Look how mean Christians have traditionally been to homosexuals, and ask yourself if you would choose to have that kind of persecution.
AlAyeti wrote:Homosexuals are demanding to "have" children, of course violating their own "orientation." Which of course puts e.them biologically into heterosexual classification. Even, by your own perspectivive. They are doomed to a life without procreation, IF, they were homosexual by orientation. But, we see different.
You think that the gender of a person's brain should erase their natural instinct to want children? You're being either silly or intentionally obtuse. You may have observed that gay "parents" get their children by adopting them, not by procreation. This does not make them heterosexual. Nor does it make their adoptive kids come out homosexual.
AlAyeti wrote:What we see is the final destructive act to the system of the human family in legalizing same-sex marriage. Fatherless children are the majority of "troubled youth" in our society now. Now, children's human developement, will be forced by a new "progressive" cause, to be raised in an unnatural environment.
What does same-sex marriage have to do with single-parent households? If single-parent households are your main issue, why don't you work on solving that problem, rather than going off on a tangent about gay sex?
AlAyeti wrote:Democrats have and are voting against Christians. As well as, putting into place, the Judges that are outlawing us. Denial of the attack on Christianty is not logical.
Sure it's logical. What's not logical is the paranoia of claiming that Democrats are trying to outlaw Christians. A great many Christians
are Democrats (or are they Pretenders in your mind?). Sure, we've voted against dingbats who happen to be Christians, but Christianity doesn't have any special claim to dingbats. There are dingbats everywhere. Voting against a dingbat who happens to be a Christian is a vote against the dingbat, not against his religion.
AlAyeti wrote:Christians cannot unequally yoke themselves to unbelievers. "Christians" that celebrate sinners and sin are in the camp of unbelievers. Most Bible-believing Christians (which excludes Liberals) see the destruction of the family, the redefinition of marriage, the unjustifiable murder of tghe unborn for convenience, as major topics.
So, what do you call bible-believing liberals? I'd call them Christians. I think you're going a bit overboard here.
AlAyeti wrote:The city of New Orleans and its citizens are not the fault of anyone but those living within the area, AND NOT REALLY even theyare guilty of anything. Much of the city is UNDER sea level. The best help we can give those people is to invite them to live in our communities. Then, we can love them like we love ourselves. I do not want to live under the sea.
If I live under a crumbling overpass, please do not blame George Bush (or Democrats) if I get crushed by the bridge sooner or later.
Ah, the Right-Wing explanation. It's their own damn fault for living where hurricanes happen to hit. It's their own damn fault for being poor or old or sick. It's their own damn fault that our society has institutionalized the marginalization of so many people who's parents aren't rich. So, why does FEMA react so differently when hurricanes hit Florida? Why didn't FEMA or the Bushies do anything in response to the calls for disaster-readiness plans? Why did Bush cut funding for the levee repair project? Why did FEMA take the money given to them to develop an evacuation plan, and use it instead to write a 15-year plan for the causeway over Lake Ponchatrain?
It is true that the city is below sea level. It wasn't at one time, but it is now. What good does it do to invent federal bureaucracies that are supposed to fix problems like this, if they don't do it?
AlAyeti wrote:Those that do not want to believe in right and wrong as is immutably spelled-out in the Gospels, can go their own way, but not with the votes of those that kjnow the Truth.
For example, YOU,
You're so charming. Tell me this: how do I know that the Gospels are truth? How do I know they have anything to do with god? The only evidence for this is that the book tells me it's god's word, but people write lots of books that say lots of things, so it seems likely that this is just another of those books that people wrote. Other than that, we just have a bunch of people telling me it's god's word, and therefore truth. Why should anyone believe a bunch of random people? How can you convince anyone that what you say is actually true?