Wierd homework, your oppinion?

[Draklar]

Originally posted by ArcaneFalcon

But today? What would you call trying to remove pagans from army or making their religion illegal in all?

What the dickens?  Bush is president of a country that was founded for the purpose of freedom of religion.  There\'s no way he will ever make any religion illegal, not a chance.  I know that, you know that, he knows that.

uhuh... yeah, like USA constitution wasn\'t \"bent\" in the past
And it\'s quite easy to keep telling people that pagan = satanist and that they are doing bloody rituals.
After that it would be easy to make it illegal.

Originally posted by ArcaneFalcon

Dear brothers and sisters in Christ, these people of Wicca have been terribly slandered by us. They have lost jobs, and homes, and places of business because we have assured others that they worship Satan, which they do not. We have persecuted them, and God will hold us accountable for this, you may be sure, for He has said, \"Assuredly I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me.\" (Matthew 25:40)

Uh huh, that\'s great.  Giving us a one paragraph quote from some random source does nothing for anyone.  Maybe if you could post the link to this article you could begin to argue something worthwhile.  Also, while the topic being argued here may be somewhat credible, the verse used to argue it is really a poor choice.  In this particular section of the Bible Jesus is talking about helping the needy, not about oppressing anyone.  The focus of the passage is on helping, and the lack thereof, not on oppression.

I don\'t see how giving link to the article would change anything. I gave the paragraph to point out that even some christians aknowledge the opressings. You said you don\'t see any opressings. I give you text where it is pointed out together with the cause of opressings. And yet it doesn\'t give you anything? I stand by my statement: You don\'t want to see it.
About interpretation. That\'s hilarious.
If he said \"Assuredly I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me.\"
Then he meant that for any situation. I would think that\'s obvious.

Originally posted by ArcaneFalcon

Heck, I even saw comic where teaching tolerance for homosexuality is work of satan...

Let\'s see here, homosexuality=sin.  While I don\'t think this is a very comic worthy issue, I wouldn\'t argue against that.

So tolerance is work of satan? And still he\'s the \"bad guy\"?

Originally posted by ArcaneFalcon

it must be terribly smart to hate something that you knew will exist as a result of your actions... and yet not change them...
Everything that exists was created from God\'s will. If so then he willed it to be as it is. If he didn\'t then he would make it different. How can you hate something you wanted to exist? That\'s retarded...

It\'s not an issue of retardedness, it\'s an issue of you not understanding.  Stick with me for a minute.  Let\'s say you build a computer.  Wouldn\'t you expect your computer to go ahead and do, oh, say, computerish things?  Maybe you need to do some powerpoint presentations, listen to some music, play some PS, etc.  You go and build this nice new computer.  Fabulous.  However, a week after formating it, it comes down with a bad virus.  Suddently powerpoint doesn\'t work, winamp is crashing every 5 minutes, and PS lags like nobody\'s business (except it\'s the virus\' fault this time, not the devs ).  All you wanted was a computer that did stuff for you, not some hunk of metal that wastes your time.  Wouldn\'t you try to fix the computer?  Maybe get some anti-virus stuff, tweak some security settings, etc.  You built your computer intending to do work more efficiently, and to have some entertainment.  However now it is doing exactly the opposite.  That\'s exactly what God did.  Humans were made to bring God joy.  However, they came down with a virus (sin, it started when Adam at the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the garden) and now they are doing something completely opposite of their intent.  God put the tree in the garden so that humans wouldn\'t be forced to love him.  What is more satisfying, having someone love you because they have to, or having someone love you because they choose to?  I know I would prefer the latter.  Once humans gained the knowledge of good and evil they lost their innocence.  There is no way they could uphold everything that is good to the T.  Sin entered their lives, and because of this they can\'t be in the presence of God.  However, God wasn\'t finished with humans.  He gets some antivirus software (Jesus dieing on the cross for our sins) and suddenly there is a way out!  All we have to do is believe, and we are cleansed of that which would otherwise seperate us from God forever.  We can then enter back into fellowship with God, and do that which we were created for.  It\'s not retarded, it\'s fulfilling.

:emerald:

Yeah, sure... being all-powerful I would make computer that I (from the very beginning) knew would break down and still hate it...
So to make it clear.

- I\'m all-powerful
- I make computer and I know it will break down
- Still it is computer created from my will
- I start to hate it when it breaks down

conclusion: Since it was created from my will, I wanted it to be like that and not any different. I wanted it to break down at certain moment (since it was created from my will). I knew it will from the very beginning. Still I get mad at it when it does even though I wanted it to do that.
Completely retarded.

- Swords

[ArcaneFalcon]

Boldstorm:

First of the United States was founded on the purpose of freedom for \"THEIR\" religion. Do you think someone who believed in Buddah was respected and included in their thoughts, NO.

Buddhists weren\'t around in the US during early colonial times.  Now they are, and they are free to meditate and do whatever else they do all they want.  The only religions that have any bit of \"oppression\" from the US are religions that sacrifice things (and yes, some Wiccans do perform sacrifices, I\'ve seen newspaper articles about such incidences in my home town), and religions that allow marrying more than one person (and in both of those cases, only those specific practices are stopped, not the religion altogether).  Heck, even the peotists (spelling?) are allowed.  The US even made an exception to let them consume their precious illegal halucinogens for religious practices.  I\'d say that\'s pretty accomodating to religions other than Christianity.  Moreover, I\'ve never actually seen outright oppression of other religions in modern times.  If you think there have been, find me an example (an article making a general statement doesn\'t count, I\'m talking something specific here, a news article at the very least).  While Christians will speak out against religions that have opposing views, they will not \"oppress\" them.  That\'s like telling democrats and republicans that their speaking out against each other is classified as oppression, and that they need to completely stop and be tolerant of one another.  Yeah right!

The bible is not factual. It has been stated many times by many respected members of the church that the bible is not a factual book in all parts and should be taken more for it\'s moral stories then for it\'s truths.

Some people may say that, but \"respected members of the church.\"  I doubt that.  Anyone who says the Bible is nothing but a bunch of fictional stories and morals is not a Christian.  Being a true Christian requires faith in Christ, faith in all those \"fictional stories.\"  You can\'t call them fictional stories and still claim to be part of the Christian church, it\'s an oxy-moron.  And actually, you are partially correct in that the Bible is not the definitive manual for everything, but for what it does cover (in general, God\'s will for humans) it is definitive.

How in the world can you condeem someone so much for their sexual preference yet over look other people who commit far greater \"sins\"? Isn\'t greed a sin, isn\'t envy a sin, isn\'t anger a sin, only one of the deadly sins that homosexuality would fall under might be lust and that is if you just take it for the physical aspect and not for the emotinal aspect.

 Firsty, we are focusing on homosexuality here because that happens to be the topic at hand (note the last 4 pages of posts).  As for the rest, how can I condemn people committing small sins as much as greater sins?  Romans 3:23, that\'s how.  Any and all sin is equal in God\'s sight.  You may be a world better than the serial killer on death row, but if you have been stained by any sin at all (all of us) then you can\'t be in God\'s presence (heaven).  In fact, that verse says that you deserve death, eternal seperation, from him because of even that slightest sin.  Also, the 10 commandments are not the definitive law.  There are two whole books dedicated to it in the old testament (of which all but the specific punishments, and laws concerning animal sacrifices apply - so long as you get to the original intent of the law, and don\'t always take it at face value) and other smaller portions in the new testament.

The thing that really bothered me alot though was the thoughts and views on homosexuality as being purely about sex and the particular comment about what homosexual would save sex for marriage.

 I want you to find me one, just one, homosexual who is planning on saving sex for marriage.  All I ask is one.  I never said it meant that they were automatically whores, I just stated that it simply isn\'t a part of their lifestyle.

Unless you are talking with the specific person who wrote this story you do not know the exact meanings of everything, and since the earliest copies we have of the bible are from what like 45AD I don\'t think we have the defnitive answers. Also which version of the bible are we talking about since to my knowledge there has been a few different versions.

First, some of the dead sea scrolls date to about 250BC, and there are a few other incomplete texts even older.  About different versions, yes, there are different versions in English.  That is because no language translates perfectly to any other language.  Therefore you get tons of different versions floating around out there.  It is usually a good idea to use 2 or more translations (I use 3, NKJV, NIV, and The Message: Remix) to read scripture from, to get a good idea of what the original language said (or you can just learn the original language - greek, hebrew, and I think there was 1 other language the original manuscripts were written in, escapes me now).  And actually we can get a pretty good idea of what the original author meant from writings that old.  While it is ~2000 years later, the language from that period hasn\'t changed, and we still understand that original language.  The only place I can see confusion coming from is local customs, and even those can be pretty easily hammered out through other historical documents.

Draklar:

So tolerance is work of satan? And still he\'s the \"bad guy\"?

Lets see here, where did I say this?  Oh yeah, I didn\'t.

Heck, I even saw comic where teaching tolerance for homosexuality is work of satan...

Let\'s see here, homosexuality=sin. While I don\'t think this is a very comic worthy issue, I wouldn\'t argue against that.

And just where do you get the idea that all tolerance is the work of satan out of that?  Like I said before, these people are destroying their lives with sin, and toleration is not the answer.  Just like we shouldn\'t tolerate people who commit suicide, and people who support euthenasia.  It\'s for the good of everyone.  Friends don\'t let friends go to hell.

conclusion: Since it was created from my will, I wanted it to be like that and not any different. I wanted it to break down at certain moment (since it was created from my will). I knew it will from the very beginning. Still I get mad at it when it does even though I wanted it to do that.

Maybe I should\'ve bolded the key point there.  Here, let me do it now.  What is more satisfying, having someone love you because they have to, or having someone love you because they choose to?  If you give people a choice whether or not they want to love you, some obviously will choose not to.  But it is so much more satisfying to see all the one\'s that want to of their own free will rather than forcing them all to.

And to niether of you:
I think a couple posts back someone asked what the Bible said about sexual morality, and I forgot to answer that.  Sorry.  Leviticus 18 gives a good overview of this.  There are other places also.  Basically it is this, no sex before marriage, no sex with someone married to another, no sex with someone closely related to you (including cousins, aunts/uncles, children, etc.), no sex with the same gender, no sex with animals.  Basically, the only sex you should be having is with your human spouse of the opposite gender (who isn\'t related to you).

:emerald:

[Adeli]

Firstly, I\'d like to thank Arcane for successfully managing to avoid almost all of my points. Well done. I wish people would read my post again, then read his rebuttal, see what is missing? Instead, I (because I enjoy it) will point out shortcomings.

Dry humour is lost on you isn\'t it Arcane? Let\'s see here.

Me: Icefalcon, to add to your comment, if gays were to save sex for marriage (oops, forgot, they can\'t in the US), AIDS would be spread less by your reasoning, seems a good reason to allow it.

You: Give me a break, what homosexual is going to save sex for marriage? Yeah right.

Little inconsistent here.[/quote] You claim that... yet you will never know because you vehemently oppose the possibility, because you are bias.

Hell, is a theory. It is a theoretical construct, ever been there? Know anyone who has? I think not! (See here, this is a phrase laced with condescension, you didn\'t pick up on it last time, thought I\'d be helpful and point it out). My old religion is no less Christian than yours, certainly no less bias, but they do not believe in hell, and know they will never get into heaven. (heard of the 144 000?).

Your denomination is not the only one, you seem to have missed this point. As for you book... I can give you a bible if you want... there is no mention of going to hell in it at all. Would you like to see? This bible is used by many denominations and millions are sold world wide. Therefore they believe in the whole bible... therefore in your own words they are Christian. You will not win this argument due to your stubborn bias (and my exams are over today, so I\'ll have plenty of free time).

Another misunderstood point (did you do it on purpose?)

Me: You\'re doing it again, it is ignorant to believe that you are not judging them.

You: No, you simply don\'t understand. I already posted the references to 2 verses (there are more) that condemn homosexuality. God hates sin, and homosexuality is sin. Therefore God hates homosexuality. I am not speaking for God here, it\'s all there in His book!

I note you cut out the other part... allow me... \"You say you don\'t judge these people, \'God\' does. Yet you openly admit to judging their actions. You are indeed judging them, by their actions.\" There we go, bold makes things stand out. You never answered me, is it blasphemous to speak for god? I genuinely want to know. Now read carefully... really, really carefully...
You do not like what they do, you see it as wrong. You are judging their lifestyle, not your book, not your god, YOU.

How do you know your perceived interpretation is the absolute truth? Did you write the bible? I think not. (Ooh, I did it again!)

Did I say I read the article? Note the use of the words \"may,\" \"have a feeling,\" and \"I would bet.\"

I never said you did either. In fact... I clearly pointed out your stupid assumptions because I know you didn\'t.

I think you need some reading lessons. If you\'ll notice, my entire last post was an evolution of thought. At the end, and note again the use of conjectural phrases, I decided that the article may be credible, in which case Draklar was twisting it. I have not read the article, and therefore it is difficult for me to dispute it.

Well, talk about not answering anything... that is exactly what I was berating your for. You do not think you can ever be wrong. Everyone else is always wrong to you.

The suicide example is irrelevant. We are talking about you forcing your religious beliefs on others, not stopping a friend from ending their life.

I was of the belief that the constitution gives you the freedom to pursue happiness... not religion? And not the freedom of Happiness, but to pursue it.

Will add more, off to my last exam

[Draklar]

What is more satisfying, having someone love you because they have to, or having someone love you because they choose to?

Had that argument with another christian two days ago... my final statement \"If you love someone, let him go\"
sending plagues and threating with hell isn\'t letting go. It\'s forcing people to love you. Same thing, really.
But that\'s different topic. Why did God decide to turn predator into highly intelligent being? Wasn\'t it obvious that predator would have natural instincts to kill? Why didn\'t he choose sheep or something? Peacefull beings would be more likely to love him. He could make perfect beings and give them \"free will\" (Another thing that commandments are cancelling freedom). But he didn\'t. It\'s his own fault.

Moreover, I\'ve never actually seen outright oppression of other religions in modern times. If you think there have been, find me an example (an article making a general statement doesn\'t count, I\'m talking something specific here, a news article at the very least).

would christian article showing pagans as satanists who kill their own children be enough? Because I doubt anyone on news websites would stand in defense of people who are said to worship satan.
Plus you will probably find warning about Ralph Reed on most pagan websites...
And sorry, but firing someone from job because of religion is opressing. That\'s why wiccans always try to hide who they are.
Another thing that christians tell lies about satanists as well..

And just where do you get the idea that all tolerance is the work of satan out of that?

From my society class, extended definition of no-tolerance will include rejecting people of different sexual preferences.
Ever heard of that joke \"I\'m tolerant, but I hate jews and gays\"?
Either you are tolerant or aren\'t. You can\'t pick what you tolerate and what not and then say you\'re tolerant.
Thus tolerance includes accepting all behaviours, religions, races and so on that differes from your own.
So \"all tolerance\" is mostly tolerance for what christianity calls sins.
Personally I prefer statement \"tolerance for everything besides no-tolerance\". Thus I hate nazism and christianity...

Oh yea, there was something about non-christians not being allowed to go to heaven. My friend told me few months ago that Church announced that heretics are allowed in heaven because they aren\'t aware of their sin. I don\'t know anything about that, but he\'s the most religious guy I ever knew (and I do live in country where there\'s like 97% of christians...) so I\'ll believe in his word.

- Swords

[Boldstorm]

Ok so you believe that the men who wrote \"All men are created equal\", but didn\'t think that applied to women or blacks or American Indians, felt that all religions were equal and allowed the same freedoms.  ?(

Also I would like to know how many homosexual people you know? Any? Have you ever spent anytime with someone who you knew was a homosexual? If you have I would love to see how you can generalize someone who has a different sexual preference then you so poorly. I have known just as many gay people as I have known straight people who view sex as something  more sacred then just sex. These same people either abstain from sex until marriage, or in the case of some homosexual couples abstain until they can solidify their partnership in some meaningful way since the US doesn\'t allow gay marriages in most places.

Maybe I wasn\'t entirely clear when I was talking about the factualness of the Bible. What I was trying to say is that sections of the bible are not entirely factual, not that the whole thing was one big story. Many points of the bible have been proven true by science but this is just as many things that have been proven true by Darwin

[Icefalcon]

Heh, do some research, Darwin\'s theory has been proven false.

Now, I know someone is going to disagree with what I just said, and there will always be some who believe it no matter what evidence is against it. Same with the other side, those who don\'t believe it won\'t change their belief no matter how much evidence is for it.

Now, take that and compare it with Christianity. To believe in Christianity, you must have faith. It can\'t be proved scientifically. You can argue and debate all you wan\'t, but you will never prove Christianity scientifically true. You can\'t prove God\'s miracles using science.

Now back to Evolution, you can\'t prove evolution true either, scientifically. Cells do not evolve into different cells. Every time a cell reproduces, it reproduces the exact copy of the parent cell, therefore, it doesn\'t change its function. Macro evolution is scientifically impossible.

Now, notice I said both Christianity and Evolution cannot be proven. It all comes down to faith. I have studied extensively arguments of Christianity vs Evolution, and I have seen that both sides run in to problems that cannot  be solved.  You believe in your religion, not because it has been proven, but because you have faith.

-Doesn\'t really have anything to do with homosexuality.  :rolleyes:

[ArcaneFalcon]

Quite right Icefalcon.  And now, to continue with our unsightly bickering  This is going to be a long one, brace yourself...

 Adeli: Icefalcon, to add to your comment, if gays were to save sex for marriage (oops,
forgot, they can\'t in the US), AIDS would be spread less by your reasoning, seems a good reason to allow it.

AF: Give me a break, what homosexual is going to save sex for marriage? Yeah right.

Adeli: Little inconsistent here.

You claim that... yet you will never know because you vehemently oppose the possibility, because you are bias.  [/QUOTE]
If I am not mistaken, several countries already allow homosexual marriage.  Surely, if there is an example to be found, you could find it there.  Yes, I vehemently oppose the possibility where it is still a posibility, and not already in effect (IE here in the US).

A bit of a side not, I don\'t get how you can un-hipocritically claim I am \"biased\" and am \"forcing my ideas on others.\"  Am I?  In a way, yes.  First, I\'m commanded to (great commision, though it isn\'t quite regarded as \"forcing of ideas,\" more like \"spreading of word\").  Second, there are two sides to this coin.  Everyone is biased toward whatever they believe.  And are you not also trying to force your opinions on others every time you argue and discuss (like now)?  Yes, you are.  It is impossible to not be biased, and to not \"force your ideas\" on others.  The only way to do such a thing is to never discuss, argue your beliefs, or stand up for yourself, ever!

Another thing, some clarification on the term \"Christian.\"  There are many \"Christian\" denominations, yes.  However, when I use the term, I mean someone who believes Jesus died on the cross for your sins, and if you choose to have faith in this, your sins will be forgiven because of God\'s grace (not because of things you do) and will be with Him for eternity. They also believe that if you don\'t do this, you will be seperated from Him for eternity (Hell).  While I happen to be an \"evangelical\" or \"non-denominational\" Christian, there are several other large denominations I can get along with.  However, the denomination doesn\'t mean so much to me as does the belief in the previously stated.

1st Amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

There you go, from the horse\'s mouth.

Hell, is a theory. It is a theoretical construct, ever been there? Know anyone who has? I think not! (See here, this is a phrase laced with condescension, you didn\'t pick up on it last time, thought I\'d be helpful and point it out). My old religion is no less Christian than yours, certainly no less bias, but they do not believe in hell, and know they will never get into heaven. (heard of the 144 000?).

I never said hell was scientifically supported.  You claimed that among Christians Hell is a theory, which it definitely is not.  You claim the Bible doesn\'t mention Hell?  So what do you have to say to:
Matthew 5:29-30
Matthew 8:12
Matthew 10:28
Matthew 25:41
Matthew 25:46
Romans 2:8-9
2 Thesselonians 1:9
2 Peter 2:4
Revelation 19:20
Revelation 21:8
I don\'t know, seems pretty obvious to me (and that\'s just a portion of all of them!).  As for the 144,000: they aren\'t the only one\'s going to heaven.  What were you, a Jehova\'s Witness (who are NOT Christians btw)?  Those 144,000 are the first to receive God\'s seal after the 2nd coming of Christ (the rapture).  They are those who were left behind because of unbelief, yet have come to believe after the fact (but not too late!).  You can read about them in Revelation 7 and 14.  

\"You say you don\'t judge these people, \'God\' does. Yet you openly admit to judging their actions. You are indeed judging them, by their actions.\"

Let\'s get two things to pick apart here, what I take as the summary of your \"judgment\" argument, and the verse that brought this all up:

Adeli: You are judging their lifestyle, not your book, not your god, YOU.

\"For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the same measure you use, it will be measured back to you.\" (Matthew 7:2)

Now, let\'s simultaneously pick both of these statements apart.  \"For with what judgement you judge...\"  Oh wait, what did that say?  I know what it didn\'t say! (see, I have sarcastic humor too Adeli).  It did NOT say \"don\'t judge others.\"  It said, \"with what judgement you judge.\"  So technically, yes, I am judging them.  But this verse is not condemning judgement is it?  \"...you will be judged; and with the same measure you use, it will be measured back to you.\" So if I use unfair judgement I will be judged back with unfair judgement.  Make sense so far?  It is telling us to be careful of how we judge others, not to never judge them.  Now how did I get the \"I am not judging\" statement.  I may have been unclear on what I meant by this, and for that I appologize.  Let me exlain. Let\'s grab a piece of your statement now: \"not your book...\"  On this you are directly wrong.  It is right there in the scripture I already posted (twice in one case).  \"not your god,\"  Again, directly wrong (and it\'s God, not god).  The Bible is God\'s word, so: Yes, my God.  It is clear that God is also judging these people.  Now how does this translate into me doing the judging?  Well, if God is judging someone a particular way, then it is safe for me also to judge them that way.  Not to make up judgements, not to guess about who may need judgement, but for those that are clearly going against God\'s word.  Homosexuals are clearly going against God\'s word.  God hates their sin (but loves them as humans).  If god is judging this way, then I also will judge this way.  Now, however, this judgement will come back on me.  That\'s 100% ok with me, because I am judging them based on God\'s judgement, I would be judged that way anyway!

The suicide example is irrelevant. We are talking about you forcing your religious beliefs on others, not stopping a friend from ending their life.

Quite the contrary!  The suicide example is not directly related, but it is indeed an example.  If you don\'t believe God\'s word you will go to Hell (which I believe as truth, though I know others do not).  In essence, you are killing yourself.  I have the knowledge to save you, therefore it is my job (again, great commision) to do what I can to spread God\'s word.  Call it \"forcing my beliefs,\" fine, but you are doing the same thing.  Though, I don\'t see how you can classify this as \"forcing.\"  I am not making anyone here adopt my beliefs.  Even if I wanted to, I couldn\'t.  I am, however, spreading God\'s word, which is what I am commanded to do.  

Draklar:

You\'re asking questions about predestination and God creating evil.  I\'m not extremely well versed in this, but I feel I know enough for my own peace of mind.  Think of it this way, if you have a room full of light, and you turn off the lights, what happens?  The room gets dark.  Now, is there another switch you can flip to turn on the \"darks\" to make the room even darker?  No!  Darkness is simply the absence of light.  Same thing with evil and good.  God created the ability to do good, but at the same time allowed the possibility to not do good.  In addition to this, he allows the evil to take place in order to turn it into something to glorify Himself even more!  Evil is the toy of the devil, but whenever anything evil happens, God can turn it around for His greater good.  Everytime anything evil happens, it is being used as part of God\'s plan to, in the end, glorify Himself more than anyone could possibly imagine.  In fact, God and his plan are outside the bounds of time, and impossible for man to comprehend (even if he revealed them to us).  I can\'t really say more than that, as I don\'t know more than that.  It is honestly a sort of a gray area, with several opposing theories, but in the end I know it will all be used for God\'s glory, so I have no worries.

Oh yea, there was something about non-christians not being allowed to go to heaven. My friend told me few months ago that Church announced that heretics are allowed in heaven because they aren\'t aware of their sin. I don\'t know anything about that, but he\'s the most religious guy I ever knew (and I do live in country where there\'s like 97% of christians...) so I\'ll believe in his word.

Meh, this has partial truth twisted around a bit.  For people that truly have no idea of what they are doing (babies) I believe this is true.  However, Romans 1:20 says: \"For since the creation of the world God\'s invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature-have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.\"  (NIV) Even if you have never heard of a Christian, you can see the work of God in the things he has created so that no one has an excuse.

This will be my last post for a while, I\'ve got quite a bit of work to do over the next few days.  Until then, hack away!

:emerald:

[Moogie]

As per polite request, this will be closed now. This topic has far outserved its original purpose, but like all religious debates (which funnily enough, is not even on-topic anymore for this thread\'s intended discussion), it will go on forever if left open. Thus as always, if you have a dire need and a very good reason to post here again, send me a PM and I\'ll reconsider.

That said, this was a pretty fun debate to read. Hopefully nobody got overly offended by any comments here... if you did, you shouldn\'t.