the_interactionist

I don't understand what you mean by going beyond theory. Are you implying that theory doesn't equal fact? Or are you implying that logical evidence is not as valuable as physical evidence? In my opinion the best evidence for macroevolution is microevolution combined with the fact that no one hs come up with a difference between the two (other than time of course). No, I'm not implying theory doesn't equal fact... I'm stating it. It doesn't. That's why it's theory. It's unproven. I know you don't need that link I provided for it, you already know what theory means, but since you asked the question... Physical evidence isn't necessarily more valuable than logical evidence, but it would definitely help the case for evolution. So why is there not a difference between macro- and microevolution?

I'm guessing he meant "species of organism" and left it at "organism" for short. Whale evolution is fascinating stuff. Yeah, that's basically what I mean - species of organism. I understand evolution includes an entire population, but I'm saying if it can be identified on a very small, subtle level, wouldn't that pretty much provide more than sufficient evidence for evolution in general? This seems to me like a pointless question since you know everyone's answers already. Evolutionists will say yes and Creationists and co will say no. A more productive question would be to ask the creationists how they know (or maybe you were leading up to this question and I'm just being impatient ). When I asked this in the blue eye gene thread I got a lot of nonsense and then artsylady asserted that information can't be added to the DNA, it can only be taken away, and the rest of the thread has basically been me showing her why that's false. My argument boils down to this: Many forms of genetic mutation have been observed that add data to the genetic sequence and information theory says that this is an increase in information. As an example I pointed to genetic duplication which basically just copies segments of DNA. The response was that copying what's already there doesn't add information. However, if you accept this as true you get some nonsensical conclusions, like this one: 1. Copying segments of information doesn't not increase the amount of information. 2. All the English written works in all the libraries of the world contain just the letters of the alphabet and some punctuation. Now, consider the sequence "abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ1234567890,./\;'[]|<>?:"{}+_)(*&^%$#@!~`" Since all the letters and all the punctuation (well I might have missed some punctuation marks but that's irrelevant) in all the English written works are contained in that sequence, all English literature can be created by duplicating segments of the sequence. Therefore, that sequence contains exactly the same amount of information as all the written works of the English language. Ok, so since the conclusion is self evidently false, you must reject one of the logical steps or one of the axioms. My logic is sound (as far as I can tell, point it out if it's not), so your only option is to reject one of the premises. Premise 2 is self evident, therefore premise 1 is false. Therefore information is added by genetic duplication. Therefore the information content of DNA can be routinely increased. Therefore microevolution is exactly the same as macroevolution (or at least Creationists need to look for a different reason they're not the same). How nice of you to make assumptions for me I was actually hoping to get a different answer than what had previously been posted anywhere on here before, but evidently, there isn't one. I was hoping to go beyond theory, but that's obviously not going to happen. Is there anything in evolutionary scientific research that isn't just theory?

I'm guessing he meant "species of organism" and left it at "organism" for short. Whale evolution is fascinating stuff. Yeah, that's basically what I mean - species of organism. I understand evolution includes an entire population, but I'm saying if it can be identified on a very small, subtle level, wouldn't that pretty much provide more than sufficient evidence for evolution in general?

The micro/macro dichotomy strikes me as 100% arbitrary and subjective. I mean, who decides how "big" a mutation has to be before it is considered macroevolutionary? Exactly. That's what I'm saying here. If we can observe microevolution in action within an organism, doesn't that mean the organism itself is changing? Wouldn't that technically be macroevolution? Perhaps the changes in only the very tiny are all we can observe within such a small tenure as 50, 100, even 200 years of consistent research, considering it takes millions of years for the drastic changes to occur. But the organism itself is still changing nonetheless. Is it fair to conclude that?

I haven't been keeping up with the "Blue-Eyed Gene" thread since it started, but I was reading the first few pages and studying the resources everyone provided in their links to other web pages when I came up with a question, so if this has already been addressed in the 18 or 19+ pages in that aforementioned thread, please forgive me. I was studying the image on Wikipedia about the evolution of the horse. The changes in the forefeet and teeth, as illustrated, were indeed dramatic. But even more so was the tenure alleged to complete the evolution of one species to the next: Between Hyracotherium and Mesohippus, there was approx. a 20-million year gap. Between Mesohippus and Merychippus, a approx. 10 million year gap. Between Merychippus and Pliohippus, 20 million years again, then finally, between Pliohippus and Equus (modern horse), only about 9 million years. The time periods vary from 9 million years to 20 million years. That's a long, long time for macroevolution to take place. Considering it allegedly takes so long for evolution to occur in its entirely for any given species, and since the horse is so far the best evidence provided for macroevolution that I've seen to date (if you know of a better one let me know), is there no way possible the nuances and subtleties of this evolutionary process could be observed and identified over the course of 50 years or so? I mean, if the best way to confirm evolution in action is by observing the obvious changes in the stucture of the horse's forefeet and teeth, why wouldn't we hold those under close observation. Certainly, something even on a chemical level would be changing over even a short period of time. Is there no way to observe and identify such changes in one lifetime? If not, what about over several lifetimes, with everone studying the same nuances and details of the subject? If so, wouldn't these basically confirm macroevolution takes place? Don't you think this could be studied in other subjects (animals) as well? I know it's a longshot, but what is your opinion on it? Disclaimer: I'm not looking to prove evolution. I'm a believer and always will be, even if proof was found for it. I believe that even if macroevolution was specifically proven - undeniably and irrefutably - I'd still believe that it was created as process by God (which I do now anyways). I just conjured the question and decided to ask it. That's all this is about. It seems like a legitimate one to ask. You'd think if this were a way to find substantial, surreal evidence for evolution, scientists would be doing it right now. Certainly, I'm not the first to think of this.

Good article. I'd be more prone to accepting the findings as good evidence if it stated specifically how the concluded their studies, instead of simply stating things like, "Our studies found," or "Our research concluded... 'such and such' occurred over 450 millions years ago..." Is there a way to get ahold of the pulbished research put out by Thornton? Or is it not available to the public?

I'm pretty sure that Behe claimed the bactial flagella and the immune response were irreducibly complex. I do not have citations but I am also pretty sure that he has been shown to be incorrect on these 2 at least. No citations? Do you have any resources at all? Where did you hear of the refutation on these two claims of Behe? I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just probing for answers as to where you may have found out about all this in the first place. Sorry, no time to dig out the cites. Fair enough. I'll take your word for it. Gathering info can be quite time-consuming. Do you have any personal preferences you'd recommend though? Books? Articles? Websites? Thanks.

Other then a child, how would you go about punishing someone who acted out against you? Aren't we just suppose to forgive and move on? The OP mentioned, "the person they are forgiving seams to get stronger and more manipulative." If the person is a friend, punishment would be to tell the person (which is hard on someone who is weak, I know - I'm like that) that (s)he is being manipulative, and that you cannot continue with the friendship until the manipulative behavior ceases. If it's a boss, husband, wife, parent . . . that gets more tricky. I honestly don't have the answer, but having grown up with a self-image problem, I often allowed myself to be a doormat in the name of "servanthood." I am learning that the Lord's intent is not for us to become doormats. Humbling yourself and being a servant does not give the other person the right to abuse you, nor should you allow yourself to be abused like this. Plus, a person with manipulating behavior is sinning. To "forgive and forget" the conventional way is only allowing the manipulator to continue in the manipulation. The person needs to be confronted and given some boundaries with some stipulation that if the boundary is crossed, a consequence would be given. Now how to do that with family members . . . I'm still trying to figure that one out. I think that's a good summary of it. I wouldn't say it is our Christian duty to punish someone in a godly sense. It can be punishment enough when we just stop hanging around or talking to certain people who have manipulated us and shown us they're not trustworthy. Chances are, they never received such a reaction to their manipulative behavior in the first place, thus the reason they are still manipulative. I have personal experience with this in my ex-wife! She has been very manipulative with me over the years, sometimes using my own child against me, knowing I was insecure in my rights as a father compared to her rights as a mother. But God eventually showed me the truth behind her manipulations and gave me ways around them. My ex-wife and myself always vowed that no matter what, for my daughter's sake, we would be mature and ethical with one another; however, most of her ethical demeanor was fraudulent, manipulative, and was nothing more than a front. She often only behaved well in the presence of others, but when it was just the two of us, she would say or do things that were definitely not ethical. For many years she has been a thorn in my side and I have people telling me left and right that I need to "get back at her," or "get even" in some way, shape, or form. But I know it isn't the right thing to do. The right thing to do is follow God's commands and Jesus' lead by forgiving her and praying for God to show her the error of her ways, just as He's shown me mine in the past. I no longer stay in contact with my ex-wife in the same manner I use to, which was kind of a "buddy, buddy" relationship, specifically because she is married to another man, and I to another woman, but also because I simply do not trust her and she is starting to realize that. Frankly, forgiveness is essential to the forgiver and to the one needing forgiveness, for spiritual growth and a pure relationship with God, but the "punishment" for the one needing forgiveness often comes when they realize, by the emotional retraction of others, they can't be trusted and that hurts their esteem and penetrates them deeply. Sometimes that's all it takes to open their eyes and hearts, but sometimes, fervent prayer is what actually gets the job done!

I'm pretty sure that Behe claimed the bactial flagella and the immune response were irreducibly complex. I do not have citations but I am also pretty sure that he has been shown to be incorrect on these 2 at least. No citations? Do you have any resources at all? Where did you hear of the refutation on these two claims of Behe? I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just probing for answers as to where you may have found out about all this in the first place.

Agree with you that it is impossible to disprove Jesus, but many try and many others who are not so strong in the faith become confused. And in some places, the majority of those with whom I am in contact spend considerable time, using the bible mostly, in an attempt to disprove Jesus. But you and I walk arm in arm in the certainty of our faith, and against that nothing prevails. Thank you for your support. That's one of the most beautiful ways I've ever heard it put. I like that: "... you and I walk in the certainty of our faith, and against that nothing prevails." I should use that as one of the quotes on my signature! That is true about your statement regarding people using the Bible to make pathetic attempts at disproving it or God and Christianity. I use to be one of those people But I was just poorly misguided.

Dear ineractionist. My concern is that the facts of Jesus Christ are kept simple, and even more than that, that my brothers and sisters in Christ are not confused by unnecessary complications, and if that sounds smug, which it probably is, I apologise for how it sounds but not for what I mean. You have been very open in previous posts about the drug induced hell you have been through, and how you escaped and God bless you for that, as he does. And a great deal of that slippery slope was in following complicated enquiries about the simple issues of life in Christ. Three extracts from your posts might help me explain. They are ""I have learned one great truth Jesus was trying to convey to us all along. I acknowledge this truth in my signature at the end of every one of my posts, too. In Mark 5:36, Jesus sums it up so very short and sweet when he says,

An excellent answer. There will always be many who raise arguments under the disguise of promoting reasoned discussion, usually in an attempt to disprove the glorious fact of Jesus Christ, Son of God, as if that is not already sufficient reason for the faith that is in us as Christians, but it leads to nothing but supposition based on, as you say, 'a null hypothesis'. Even if, as you again say, you do not instantly throw out ID as junk science or pseudo-religion, that, I suggest, is because of your innate courtesy. I have less time for such discussions because I believe they lead nowhere and are not genuinely intended to do so. Jesus Christ, Son of God has come in the flesh is sufficient argument for a simple brain like mine. Are you claiming this thread was posted as a disguise for underlying motives? I hope you're evaluation of my post and your statements aren't misguided and that it is me who is misinterpreting what you've said here. I hide behind no masks, my friend. This thread is for MY information-gathering purposes ONLY. Not for disproving the historicity and miraculous life of Jesus, or of disproving God and, thus, Christianity. I clearly stated my reasons for posting my questions and they are the reasons I posted here. It's a matter of personal interest, not a matter of trying to disprove anything.

Your summary is a pretty good start, so I think I would have trouble expanding on it (especially without putting my own biases into it). I think someone who actually believes in ID would be able to have a go. Exactly. The laws of physics must suit us because otherwise we wouldn't have come to be. Well sure it can, but the point is that the perfection of the laws of physics don't necessarily point to or imply a designer. Articles? Proponents of ID aren't into publishing. I support common descent and all that jazz, 'macroevolution' and such. I generally like to stick to scientific consensus. In regards to the articles, I was actually talking about articles juxtaposed to I.D., not articles that are "pro" I.D. I understand what you mean by everything else now. Thanks Is anyone else going to jump in on this conversation? I know you're not the only non-believer/ athiest on Worthy

As for your answer to #1, I agree. Like I said, I don't have a thorough working knowledge of I.D. or of any evolutionary theory. Perhaps you could expand on what I failed to expand on? Your answer to 2 & 3 states that all the examples you have come across have been explained in reducible terms; what, specifically, are the examples you've come across that would serve as a good model? I hope to find examples of the precise biological systems Behe is referring to and hopefully get them covered on this thread as well. Answer to 4 is agreeable, too. But is there any substantial evidence against this irreducibly complex model? I know this kind of goes hand-in-hand with the answers you may give for 2 & 3 as well. As for your answer for #5, I'm not quite sure I understand your explanation. How is it the universe suits us out of necessity simply because we exist. Are you saying we suit the universe and laws of physics and not the other way around? Even if this is the case, the case of I.D. can still be argued for because the laws of physics could have been planned, designed or created as well as humanity and biological systems themselves. Isn't that the entire premise which I.D. approaches life and the cosmos? That God, being the Designer, created all the universe and life within it? If so, it is still appropriate, from an I.D. viewpoint, to state that the laws of physics suit us just as much as we do them, because either way it goes, God designed and created both. That is, so long as I'm understanding your statement correctly. Thanks, too, for your answers. Do you have any articles/ resources to recommend? Also, what is your specific view of evolutionary theory? I know there are quite a few different "schools" of thought on it, but some deterministic reductionists summarily dismiss several of them out of hand - don't give them the time of day. I.D. is often one of them. And some of the more "hokey" ones, like Integralism or Esoteric Evolution.

This series of questions is probably best answered by atheists, although I'm not going to ignore or dismiss anyone's opinions or contributions to the subject. I basically want to make a point/ counter-point thread regarding Intelligent Design versus whatever "school" of evolutionary theory you may accept as your core system of beliefs. That's why I expect more atheists to answer these questions than believers, because no believer is going to have an alternative theory to evolution (other than I.D.)... well, at least, it's not likely. Anyway, I want to point out that, first and foremost, this is not a debate or argument for me. I'm not wanting this thread to turn into a debate. I have questions. I'm simply looking for the answers from those who oppose Intelligent Design as a legitimate evolutionary theory and why. The reason I use the point/ counter-point scenario is simply because I intend to pose questions that make a point, suggested by experts on I.D. (not myself), and to then have those points counter-pointed and refuted to the best of your abilities. That's it. With that said, I have some questions that follow the following summary I've concluded explains I.D. rather competently. After each question, please answer it to the best of your abilities, also citing as many resources and/ or links as you can to back up your claims and statements. Thanks SUMMARY: From my understanding, Intelligent Design states that certain features of the universe and of the earth's biological complexity (and, of course, the biological complexity of humans) are all best explained by an intelligent agent or cosmic designer, not by an undirected process such as natural selection. Question #1: Is this an accurate summary? Why/ why not? Question #2: Michael Behe, a biologist, and author of Darwin's Black Box, states that proof of a designer lies in "irreducibly complex" biological systems made up of hundreds of cooperative functional parts, like enzymes or antibodies. Are these biological systems truly irreducibly complex, and if so, how does that prove this basic tenet of I.D.? Question #3: Behe also claims that these complex systems cannot have been produced by natural selection because if any one part of the system had been imperfect during the evolutionary process, the system as a whole would not have been functional and would therefore offer no advantage to evolution. I'm not certain of what specific systems Behe is referring to here, or if he means all biological systems as they relate to evolutionary theory. So is this statement true and what is its juxtaposition? Question #4: Behe also claims that one must deduce that these systems were planned. What is the weakness in this claim and why do you believe so? Question #5: Advocates of I.D. invoke a certain spin on the anthropic principle, stating that the laws of physics are so fine-tuned to give birth to life that they chould not have been created by chance (or, natural selection/ random mutation). Is there a weakness in this position and, if so, what is it? I know this is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the different core beliefs of I.D. theory, but I'm new to studying evolutionary theory and want to get the take on it from a non-biased (most likely athiestic) viewpoint and someone with opposing evolutionary biological beliefs other than I.D.-ers. Again, I hope to hear back from as many people as possible, but please make sure you have some legitimate background in biology and evolutionary theory. I don't care if you have went to school for it or not. All knowledgeable input is appreciated and accepted. Thanks and God bless everyone!

Yeah, you're right. I think Jesus was probably a pretty sarcastic guy, too. Wasn't there something in His commandments about "be sarcastic towards thy brethren, for this shall surely bring forth peace"? Maybe not. I don't remember. Seriously... I apologize if I'm coming off too harsh here, but I remain steadfast in believing that God has pre-ordained healing for us by his mercy once we've accepted Him fully and our faith in Him is ready. I waited on God for a long time to heal me from my addiction (and its accompanying symptoms) but only received healing when I came to the point where I surrendered all of myself to Him and stopped relying on rationalization or "reason" to get me by. I think what I'm ultimately saying here is that God does choose when He will heal us, but He chooses to heal us when we are totally and completely accepting of his healing through faith. That is the position of all the scripture I used earlier, if you read it. None of the scripture relies on the position that God must be ready or willing to heal anyone of the people in those accounts. God's mercy wasn't the determining factor, even according to Jesus. Faith was. Only once we believe, will he work through us. According to the Psalms (145:9), God's mercy is already upon all his works. He does indeed choose whom He will bestow it upon, but that doesn't mean it's not already there for the taking, when WE are ready for it. According to David's Psalm, his mercy is already there, waiting for us to embrace it. He has already chosen mercy and healing for those of us who are ready to receive it. That's my position on it. I believe your faith is adequate. Perhaps it's just not time yet. I still believe that it's "time" when we are ready to receive what God has promised us. Maybe it's because you believe it's not your time that you haven't received it? I hope that doesn't come off offensive to you, too. I honestly don't mean for it, too, but I can't really help how anyone perceives what I say. I'm really not trying to be judgmental, just objective. I know that in my experience (and I respect and realize our experiences are different), healing didn't come until I realized it was there all along, ready for me to take it. It was something that relied on my faith, and not merely on God saying, "Well, today is your day, because I'm feeling merciful on you." Please forgive me if I've offended you. I didn't mean to. I only want peace between us. Bless you, my friend.

Brandon's Popo said: It's not God's choice as to whether you're healed or not. It's yours. He has already ordained healing through Jesus death and resurrection. He has already chose healing for us... "Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously:Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed." - 1 Peter 2:23 & 24

So do you believe it's God's way of (or His will) to heal you via medication, even though the vast majority of anti-anxiety and bi-polar medications are potentially dangerous and have myriad side effects. One of my best friends is bi-polar and has OCD, has tried suicide a couple times, and still has terrible, ego-dystonic thoughts, but he is looking for God to heal him because he realizes the medication alone is insufficient and isn't working. He also realizes that the medicine he's taking is making him feel worse, even though his psychiatrist says to keep taking it because it will eventually work. He's been on several medications and none have ever worked. I've experienced suicidal tendencies myself and tried to commit suicide by overdosing on Vicodin and Norco (both at the same time), but was spared because God had greater plans for me! So, yes, I can resoundingly say that I've personally experienced what some would consider "bi-polar symptoms" however my symptoms were linked to a narcotics addiction, which is ALSO considered a disease by mainstream science. I felt like I wanted to die quite a bit during that point in time and I know now that this is not God's will for any of His children. By faith alone is how we are healed. The potential reality exists that belief plays a more vital biological role in healing that medicine does as well. Faith trumps medicine. Besides that, I never assumed I have the answers for everyone. My comments here are purely opinion, but they're backed by Scripture, science, and real-world experience. I don't believe I have all the answers, but I believe God does. He is the only "one size fits all" for healing. By the way, I'm not saying medication can't help, I'm just saying it's not a guarantee and that God is a much more viable option. God's cures come with NO side effects.

Hi, David. I had been a solitary Pagan for several years up until recently (about 2 months ago). I began my journey from Christianity to Paganism, then finally back to Christianity. I got started on the pagan path by my uncle, who I actually use to try to convert to Christianity when I was in high school. I always believed I knew God's Word far better than he did and that my faith was unshakable in the Lord. I found out later, I was wrong. I was easily influenced by paganism and got heavily involved in it and became a solitary pagan, who typically practices on his or her own terms, and doesn't belong to a coven. I had once organized a local Meetup group for pagans in my county and surrounding counties and joined a group of polyamorists as well. I was practicing magick and still trying to stuff my Christian values into the whole mix (because in paganism, you can sort of "create" your own religion) by choosing the term Christopagan, which is a Pagan who believes in the earth-centered idealisms and values of paganism, as well as its magickal practices, Etc. - but also values the teachings of Christ, but typically neglects the rest of the Bible. This is pretty much how I was. I believed in Christ as a prophet of God, not as God in the flesh, and highly valued His teachings and wisdom. But I didn't believe that he was the only way, truth, and light. I, too, am very interested in history, especially history that has scientific evidence to back it up, and I love learning the history behind religions. I was pretty easily persuaded by the accounts of pagan history, many of which are very accurate and true; however, pagan's who use history to avail the legitamacy or respectibility of Christianity aren't really trustworthy because they typically try using it to deface the morality of Christianity's history and how this animousity is evident even in modern religious/ Christian zealots, which was an argument I used myself, both to convey to other Christians why I disagreed with them and to rationalize why I chose the pagan path, who were more peaceful than some of their historical Christian counterparts. But it was history, anthropology, archeaology, and cellular biology that caused me to travel away from the Christian path and onto the pagan path. Yes, surprisingly, it was God's will I took this path because those very same sciences and studies brought me right back to God and Christianity. My personal advice is that no matter how strong you are in God, you have to go through your own personal tests against your faith to truly find out your place with Him. It's good to be so optimistic that you believe you can go to the coven/ meeting just to learn something interesting about history without it affecting you negatively, but you have to take many things into consideration, one of those being how accurate and reliable the history is, as well as what it's even regarding. Also, all it takes is one single intriguing or influential idea to waver your strong faith and cause you to question certain core beliefs you may currently have about God and Christianity. Trust me, I know. I've been there. It's sad, but true, that in this day and age, especially in my generation, beliefs change with the seasons! Our beliefs are so very easily influenced and plastic because we've been raised to question everything and conditioned to be more accepting of new ideas and information. We're gluttons for information, which eventually does nothing more than cause confusion. Stick to The Word and all confusion melts away. Personally, I wouldn't have a problem going to a pagan meeting or gathering/ coven. I've been to them before, I know what goes on and what to expect if I were to ever go to another, which isn't likely. In the Bible, you'll remember that Jesus ate with the publicans and the sinners (see Matthew 9:10-12), so I don't necessarily agree with those on here who say to avoid going at all costs. They may be saying it because they fear your faith and knowledge of the Word isn't strong enough to handle a powerful influence from these pagans, but that's still something only you and God know about your relationship. I state the verse above, by the way, because Jesus chose to eat with the publicans and sinners because he knew that God's Word would work in them through His love, acceptance, and actions of these people who others considered outcasts. They believed they should be avoided and Jesus shouldn't take to their company. To give advice could be futile on whether to go or not. It just depends on you. I would personally if my uncle asked me to because my faith has been through God's test once already and He has opened my eyes to the truth and revealed so very much to me in my experiences. If you go, be very careful of what you allow to persuade your mind. First and foremost, however, I would highly suggest you seek the wisdom of the word of God by praying and asking for discernment as to what He wants you to do. None of our opinions really matter. God's does. Hope this is helpful. God bless, David.

I agree. Thank you. I believe all most brain research is doing is confirming that we have literally been "hard-wired" or designed and created to experience God firsthand. Even some physicists and brain scientists are leaning towards this school of thought as well! But, nonetheless, I try not to get too wrapped up in the myriad of scientific evidence regarding religion. I just try to allow God to work through by His Holy Spirit! Bless you all!

I know I posted this thread already in the Outer Court, but I wanted to ensure every gets to see my testimony! Bless you all! It

Sounds on the mark, is He God come in the flesh? I don't mean to be nitpicky either, we are exhorted to test the spirits. Otherwise it sounds like you and I agree, friend. Let's go further and see if were brethren. Peace, Dave Yes. I believe Jesus was God in the flesh. Hence, the reason I quoted Him as Emmanuel (God with us, Matt. 1:23).

This quote is exactly what I'm talking about. There is no little bit of evil, at all, in Good. Especially when were talking absolutes. That is a lie. If there is a little bit of evil mixed in with the Good then God "could be" a liar. Now, if your speaking on human terms, then there is a distinct possibility that works performed in the flesh can in fact be evil. Yet Christians are called to works that were pre-ordained in Christ Jesus for us and our subsequent Salvations. Therefore when we walk these out, there is no room for us to boast and neither any claim to be made as to their veracity or content, because we are merely doing in the Spirit what we would not naturally be inclined to do. Peace, Dave Re: Jesus - I believe Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life and that no one comes to God except through Him (John 14:6); Emmanuel, God with us (Matt. 1:23) - I believe that Jesus came to "fulfill all righteousness" (Matt. 3:15) - I believe in all the teachings of Jesus Christ, all His commandments, because they are God's commandments. I believe Jesus died for us, that we may have life and have it more abundantly. As for what we were talking about concerning good and evil, I think we're really saying the same thing. I don't believe God is good with a little bit of evil in Him and Satan, evil with a little bit of good. The reference I'm using is in regards to humanity. There is undoubtedly a spriritual influence, either God's or Satan's, in all our lives and we must choose which will govern our decisions. Again, mankind has the potential for evil or for good, and it all goes back to what choices we make.

I can't imagine it would be against God's will for us to want more, so long as we also desire to GIVE more. We can't truly have peace of mind without all of our basic needs met. If we have God, we do indeed have everything, but that doesn't mean we should be irresponsible when it comes to acquiring more than others have, simply because of guilt. Besides, how does it glorify God if we choose to live in poverty or have less than we're capable of having, because we're confused by guilt? Having more than others shouldn't elicit guilt, but rather, joy and peace, because we can aid others in need. People often look at the wealthy as greedy, and sometimes this is the case, but I know many affluent individuals who have done more good for this world - because they had the material resources to do so - than most of us could ever dream of. Some of us may serve no different purpose in life other than to spread the news of the Gospels throughout our communities and workplaces. Others may have a different purpose, the purpose of giving to others from their "deep pockets" and resources. The man I mentioned above, Frank McKinney, is certainly a fine example of this. Great good can be done with money. It's easy to get carried away with the popular idea that desiring to have more is greedy, but this isn't necessarily what desire amounts to. When there is a desire to improve the lives of others as well, possibly even a church in need, or inner city children in need of clothes, food, or education, I fail to see the greed in that. I'm not saying you should get all-consumed with the desire for wanting more. Take it up with God, don't fight it alone, with only your guilt. That won't get you very far. Let me ask you this: Would you still feel guilty if YOU had the resources to help those who you talk about who have so little, who are starving to death and homeless?

And that seems to be where the prosperity theology of today fails Christians and believers: with moderation. These misguided ideas being injected into the minds of those who are listening is detrimental to their understanding of the real meaning behind Christ's message. However, Christ did tell the "haves" to give to the "have nots," but not because reward is reciprocated, but because of the joy that is being given to those in need. Money is essential to life. It can't buy love or salvation, but it ranks right up there with oxygen. It is necessary. And there's no merit in poverty. Poverty does NOT equal humility, or salvation, nor are the two attached to poverty. This isn't to say that humility or salvation are attached or related to wealth or affluence, either. Jesus' poverty wasn't what ensured his righteousness and humility. Those were traits of his own character, because he was perfect. Likewise, the wealthy won't perish because of their wealth, but because they don't know Jesus, they don't have salvation. Neither will the poor and poverty-stricken be saved because of their poverty. It's purely a matter of where the heart is. The financial condition of a person, be it affluence or poverty, doesn't ensure their spiritual humility or guarantee their salvation. Moderation is what's needed and for those Christians who have millions of dollars, such as the Joel Osteen's and the T.D. Jake's of the Church, and I think the more important question is not, "are they rich?" But are they doing things like what this Christian is doing with his money? If you have as much money as the guy on this website - who heads this project - does, you could learn something very valuable about possessing so much material wealth and what giving without expecting to get anything in return is all about. It's obvious that his material possessions haven't gone to his head.