somethingcleverhere

I didn't like Evan Almighty, not because I thought it was sacreligious, but because I thought it was poorly written and HORRIBLY cheesy. The acting was OK but the script was really terrible, very predictable, and not very funny. I guess it's an alright movie for kids who like poop jokes and it won't completely bore the parents, but I wouldn't see it again. Entirely mediocre, IMHO.

I do agree with the suggestion that the mods should pick up one of these threads and pin it as I know that I personally was confused by the whole "G-d" thing when I saw it the first few times (fortunately people answered my questions in chat). It'd probably help quite a few people. Also, hahahaha "t-d".

What's the big deal? Isn't somebody who believes in something other than Christianity more likely to keep their oath if they swear on the book of their own belief? I happen to think it is perfectly fair to allow the Quran for oaths. Can someone please explain the outrage to me?

What the answer to your question boils down to is that because (natural process here) is scientifically provable (or disprovable) and God is not, the evolutionist can shuffle through his (natural process)-did-its until he finds one that he feels is proved well enough and then settle on that one. But since God is not scientifically provable or disprovable, He is tossed out as a possibility altogether.

Happy birthday! How old are you now?

Ouch... You know, I am continually amazed at the venom that arises in conversations like this one. Now, I am not about to do the "you might hurt someone's feelings" hokey-pokey, but even I flinched at that little gem. Would it be at all possible to discuss the topic at hand without viciously lashing out at each other? I am sorry to post off-topic.

I really have no opinion on this topic at large, and I tend to not bother myself with questions like "is the earth young or old", but I am slightly bothered by the claim that evolution implies only change and not progress. As I understand it, natural selection favors those within a species that have the most useful traits. Over time as these individuals reproduce their favorable traits are passed on to their children and then the most favorable of those do the same and etc etc. Now given that natural selection says that the most favorable traits are passed on (unless I have misunderstood it) how could you say with a straight face that there is no mention of progress in evolution? Of course species progress according to evolution, their ancestors reproduced because they had the traits which were the most beneficial. How could you not make a "value judgment"? After all, isn't that why they lived through natural selection to pass their traits on in the first place?

I am not really the sort of person who indulges in a bunch of America-bashing but I think the posted notion that when you attack an idea you attack the people who believe in that idea is silly. If people on this board indeed can not tolerate an attack on some idea they believe in whether it's Christianity or some political party or anything else, I think this board has put its self in a sad corner with little room for serious discussion on just about any topic. It seems to me that when someone disagrees with you (no matter how tasteful that disagreement may be) instead of wagging your finger you should either try and find proof to the contrary or consider their point of view. This is not pointed at you Giaour it's just my 2c

People cheer for different groups because they like the group, it's as simple as that. I don't see anything wrong with cheering for someone you like, no matter what they are doing, if they do a good job and you enjoy their work I think it is fine to "glorify the people performing." As far as the purpose of a Christian concert, I'd have to say it is largely dependant on the hearts of the people in the audience and in the band and probably varies from concert to concert.

Love is, to the best of my understanding, and in the simplest way I could put it, the action of putting someone else before yourself. I don't have any particular scripture to back this up but I think it describes love pretty well!

No, "was there a crime" refers to the fact that nobody was ever convicted or even charged with outing Valerie Plame as a crime. That is the "crime" they are referring to, releasing a CIA agent's name, (I did watch that segment), not lying to investigators or perjury. But people sure can fly off the handle with those screencaps, can't they?

I aspire to be a professional pilot and I am actually at college learning aeronautics and working on my private pilot's license. Terrorism is pretty far from my mind though lol.

This may be a topic for a different thread...but why are people still circumcised? Wasn't circumcision part of the covenant between God and Abraham? And what about Paul's pronunciation of circumcision being of no value? Even placing all that aside, does circumcision as practiced today (in the US anyway)...just standard medical procedure, still mean anything? I'm not sure what about circumcision, exactly, God was "correct on" about.

If the Dems really think they are going to win the conservative Christian vote with this program (or any program) they are misguided, to say the least. They may even end up alienating some of their base which believes very strongly in seperation of church and state, of which this program could be seen as a breach.