Jump to content

Akiko

Advanced Member
  • Posts

    211
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Akiko

  1. These are the ones who may have been pressured into getting one. Like the gay marriage advocates, the pro-choice movement has alot of influence and have affected/infected enough people that this 10% may very well have been pressured or tricked into their abortions despite their better judgment. I believe those women who have miscarriages also suffer similar occurances of the same mental anguish. I don't know about the gropu surveyed. I got my facts from standtrue.com, which is a pro-life website. They were not specific about their interviewing process, but their results matched up with other sources I checked. So is the figure that about 20% of Canadians will have a mental health problem at some point in their lives. Its not really outside of actual statistical mental health numbers. I might add I've been on the recieving end for treatment from the Canadian medical system for that. I agree that a percentage of the population has some kind of mental illness, but there is a difference between having mild depression and having serious psychological problems. Plus, the twenty percent includes the elderly and children (Alzheimers, ADHD), neither of which frequent the abortion clinic. I'm just saying that having an abortion does not simply make a women 'sad,' it can and does cause mental health problems for many women. After doing the debate and really finding out the facts, I can barely even think about it...! After finding out the procedures for abortion, I was just heartbroken. Four thousand children every day, denied the chance of living by their parents. Onelight, you're right about men being left out the equation; it's stereotypical. I'm sorry for your loss.
  2. I did a debate on abortion and found that 10% of all women who have them have severe psychological repercussions and/or have to go on medication for mental reasons. It's staggering.
  3. Check out Skillet too... they're AMAZING. One of my all-time favorite bands.
  4. Oh, wow.... I could name off pages! What kind of music do you like?
  5. No reason to get upset, OK? We're just discussing anatomy. All I know is that the pictures I have seen of the human abdominiopelvic cavity show the spleen directly to the left of the stomach and underneath the lower left end of the rib cage. I would imagine palpation being done from the inside (right side of the left rib cage and going in). As for the spear, I just think that a pierce from the left side would be more difficult to hit the spleen, since it is the furthest left of the upper abdominal organs and against the rib cage. But even if you are correct - does not the Scripture state that Jesus was dead before the soldier pierced His side? And where did the water come from? This is according to Lee Strobel's book "The Case For Christ." The sustained rapid heart rate of Jesus on the cross that would have contributed to heart failure resulted in the collection of fluid in the membrane around the heart and lungs (called pericardial and pleural effusion, respectively). When the spear was stuck into Jesus' side, this 'water' came out with the blood. Speaking medically, I believe Jesus died of cardiac arrest (the irregular breathing caused carbon dioxide in the blood to dissolve into carbonic acid, which makes the blood's acidity go up and leads to an irregular heartbeat).
  6. --shakes head-- "The message of the cross is foolish to those who are headed for destruction! But we who are being saved know it is the very power of God. As the Scriptures say, "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise and discard the intelligence of the intelligent."
  7. o_O... paperwork now has the power to strike someone dead. wow. *shakes head* i wonder how you would write a check to someone who's dead?
  8. do they serve lavabread with that?
  9. Well, I originally wanted to go see Hot Rod, but it wasn't playing. So I picked another comedy....It was Superbad. I definitely recommend that you DON'T see it. Not only was it lame, but it was filthy and absurd. There were some funny moments, but overall, it was trash. The only reason I chose it was because Bill Hader from SNL was in it, and I'm a big fan!! Oh, man, Superbad? Yeah, I've heard it really is super bad! A really good movie to see is Akelah and the Bee. Kid-friendly, good, and just encouraging. I saw Hairspray, and that was pretty good too. I've never heard of that one. Hairspray was also playing at the theatre I went to, and I'm thinking I should have seen that. I just remembered the original, and how much I dislike John Waters, so I opted not to see it. I still want to go see Hot Rod, but now I'm a little afraid to. Does anyone know anything about this movie? I don't know anything about it. *shrug* And yeah, Akelah and the Bee didn't hit a lot of the main theatres... which is depressing. It's an AMAZING movie. You can check around online about Hot Rod; probably any site like Yahoo! or that Pluggedinonline.com will have something.
  10. Well, I originally wanted to go see Hot Rod, but it wasn't playing. So I picked another comedy....It was Superbad. I definitely recommend that you DON'T see it. Not only was it lame, but it was filthy and absurd. There were some funny moments, but overall, it was trash. The only reason I chose it was because Bill Hader from SNL was in it, and I'm a big fan!! Oh, man, Superbad? Yeah, I've heard it really is super bad! A really good movie to see is Akelah and the Bee. Kid-friendly, good, and just encouraging. I saw Hairspray, and that was pretty good too.
  11. I have to screen all my movies through "Plugged In" which is a Christian site that reviews this stuff... I'm a teen, and I like to know what I'm walking into. o_O What was the movie?
  12. As you've cited AiG, allow me to point you towards the Talk Origins page dealing with transitional fossils. I think you'll find it a very reasonable explanation for the lack of transitional fossils. If anyone is hesitant or resistant to even look at the page, allow me to state that fossilisation of any kind is a very uncommon event. There is no reason to expect billions of transitionals. Now please take a look at the page for a more exhaustive presentation of the issue. If anyone believed in a flat Earth in the past, it was not due to substansive evidence. This is not the case with evolution. And as for the constant nature of the Bible - animist religions and supersitions have existed in hunter-gatherer tribes for thousands of years, even predating the great monotheistic religions of the Middle East. Doesn't make them any less false. It does not follow that older equals more valid. If you're still itching to use the "evolution hasn't been proven" statement, please have a read of http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA202.html In plain speak, what is the explanation for no or extremely few transitional fossils? I'm still completing science classes, so the knowledge I have past general sciences is all of my own research. From my standpoint, if it took such a long time to get from species to species, there should be a majority of transitional fossils, since the majority of the time is spent evolving. If this statement is incorrect, please correct me. It seems like common sense to me. Even taking that fossilization is very uncommon, there should still be a respectable amount of transitional fossils, taking into account how many fossils we have of species. Er, with all due respect, the evidence for a flat Earth was everywhere around them. If something is round, you expect to see a curve (such as if you look at a kickball, you see a curved edge). If you go outside and look, the Earth does not have a curve. It is flat. In fact, with the evidence and maps that they had, they had no reason to believe that the Earth was round. It was Aristotle who provided that evidence that changed that view drastically, with something that no one, or very few people, had ever considered. He was also mocked for his 'crazy theroies'. The evidence for a flat Earth was literally staring people right in the face. Sorry if I step on your toes, but evolution has not been proven. There are still issues that are being worked out; take a look at the news!! You'll find recent articles with findings that challenge the view of evolution today. Ask any science teacher. They will tell you that they believe nearly all of it is right, there are still kinks being worked out but science will figure that all out eventually. If evolution has been proved, it would not still be changing. Because if it is changing, that means parts are being disproved and therefore having to change. I completely agree with you that just because something is old does not make it true. Akiko
  13. This isn't an evolution board, so I'm not turning it into one. However... (you knew that was coming!) one major question. If everything evolved, why have we found a pitiful amount of 'transitional' fossils? Shouldn't they be EVERYWHERE? That's one thing that keeps confusing me. I could go on. The best explanation I've heard was in an AiG seminar. Instead of the evolutionary tree of life, you'd get the Creation forest of life. Such as, God created a dog. This dog can vary within its species, creating many different types of dog from one dog! Such as, you could get to a pug, collie, whatever. I'm not going to explain it now; if you really want to know what I'm talking about, go to Answers In Genesis' website and seach, "orchard of life" or something along those lines. It should come up. Also, with the statement, "99+% of scientists believe evolution"... what do you think was the percentage of the scientists who thought the world was flat before Aristotle? Probably around 99+%. Just because something is widely believed doesn't mean it's true. Science and beliefs change. The Bible does not. And this sounds so narrow-minded, but it's true: where science contradicts the Bible, it's because science hasn't caught up yet. Sound arrogant? Take it to God... I'm merely passing on the word. Just a few thoughts.
  14. Sure, it's been considered... but I find the notion pretty outlandish. I've heard rumors, but never gotten into it much: why do we think that the gospels are "anonymous" now? They're titled for their authors... Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Jesus is not a made-up figure (non-Christians like Joesephus; excuse the horrible spelling; mentioned Jesus in his writings). Also, the motive for "making up" a religion would be pretty suspect. Why would you make something up, then voluntarily be killed for something you know is false? This seems stupid to me! The droves of people that SAW Jesus is amazing, also-- people that saw him preach, etc. Since the Gospels were written only around 60 or 70 AD, and Jesus died 30 AD, people who had seen Jesus would notice that these kooks were writing things that weren't true. Why would this be allowed, and more importantly, why would people begin following something that they KNOW is false from first-hand witnesses who saw Jesus? Sorry if I"m not making much sense. It's late and I'm tired. In any case, the difference between ancient Greek and Roman gods is that they are taught today as stories. You don't see people erecting temples to Artemis and Mars. They're stories, and everyone knows it. However, it's extremely different with Christianity-- few people would deny that Jesus ever existed like people deny that Artemis and Mars existed... people know that the Greeks and Romans made up stories. Not so with Christianity-- and we've got the evidence to prove that we have something worth following. That whole thing was pretty vauge and random. So please pick out points and ask for clarification... I am way too tired to try and sort it out now. Akiko
  15. Welcome to Worthy! Glad this thread helped you out.
  16. Hmm, I might know what you're asking, I might not. But here's my example. Say that my father is an alcoholic, and my grandfather, and my great-grandfather. God would not punish ME for being an alcoholic-- I'm not! But the TEMPTATION to drink would likely be greater for me, as I was raised in a family where drinking was the norm. You might have been more tempted to fall into the same area of sin, because it was common; you grew up with it. But this temptation is not a punishment from God. Oh, yeah-- my father was not an alcoholic, nor my grandfather or great-grandfather. Just an example! Tell me if that helps, or if that's not the answer you're looking for. Akiko
  17. I agree with part of that... but I do think that every single person has a born knowledge that there is a god out there. You look at the hills and the trees, and I doubt that the first thing that would come into a person's mind would be, "That's a pretty amazing feat of scientific chance and billions of years of the Earth's developing." You woudl wonder, "Who made this?" I can accept that as people explore the idea of a god that some would choose that there one... it's another path you can take (just think of all the crazy religions man has come up with!). I agree that people try and figure out the "best" way to worship... that's why we have so many different faiths out there.
  18. Hmmm... o_O that's weird. Gerioke's suggestion is good. Also, maybe try defragmenting your computer... ?? I have no idea. Just found out what defragmenting actually does.
  19. I've heard about this museum: if I ever get to Kentucky I plan to visit.
  20. I don't think I could put it better than what everyone else has said.
  21. Wayne hit the nail on the head.
  22. Yes. You still go to Heaven. You've just turned your back on God. We have all turned our backs on God. http://www.worthyboards.com/index.php?show...mp;#entry861851 If needed, I'll copy-paste all my posts from that thread to here. Most of the main stuff is below. "(35)Can anything ever separate us from Christ's love? Does it mean he no longer loves us if we have trouble or calamity, or are persecuted, or hungry, or destitute, or in danger, or threatened with death? (36) (As the Scriptures say, "For your sake we are killed every day; we are being slaughtered like sheep.") (37) No, despite all these things, overwhelming victory is ours through Christ, who loved us. (38)And I am convinced that nothing can ever separate us from God's love. Neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither our fears for today nor our worries about tomorrow, not even the powers of hell can separate us from God's love. (39) No power in the sky above or in the earth below, indeed, nothing in all creation will ever be able to separate us from the love of God that is revealed in Christ Jesus our Lord." (Romans 8:35-39) As has been said... having to be saved multiple times (sinning and getting blotted out of the Book, then repenting and getting back in) means that Jesus' first sacrifice wasn't good enough. It can't cover our sins. Which is a total falsehood; Jesus was the perfect sacrifice. He covers all of our sins, what we've done and what we will do. God knows that we will sin. If God knew that He was going to blot us out of the Book, why would be save us in the first place? Jesus preached that you were saved by grace and mercy, not by earning it. The Bible says, "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." I'd like to note that it doesn't say, "Unless you're already a Christian, you will have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Otherwise, you've got to be perfect." It says that everyone has. God forgives us multiple times, as Jesus says when he talks about the seventy times seven... which hardly means that you should forgive your friends 490 times, and on the 491st... you're toasted. Turn your back and refuse to forgive. Jesus implied that you were to forgive them so many times, it could not be counted. Another main point that has been glossed over is that Jesus made a NEW covanent, so that we didn't have to sacrifice to atone for our sins. It's already done. We don't have to worry about it. Quite honestly, this seems to me like a human trying to be "good enough" for God to keep them. Sorry if I stepped on your toes there. The context of the Old Testament verses is under the old covanent, where you had to sacrifice to atone for your sins. No sacrifice, no forgivnees. (My assumption is that when you sacrified, you acknowledged your sin. If you didn't, than you are spitting in God's face and spurning Him). However, Jesus came and made a new covanent. John 10:28-30 reads, "(28)I give them eternal life, and they will never perish. No one can snatch them away from me, (29) for my Father has given them to me, and he is more powerful than anyone else. No one can snatch them from the Father
  23. Is there any reason no one comments on my posts? If you agree with everything in them, I don't see why we're having this discussion... and if you disagree, please, say something.
×
×
  • Create New...