it seems natural, we love christ, we love climbing. we love to share our loves with others (christ and climbing, lets not get rude here).

if you saw me at the crag one day (we are both from pdx area) you would not know me from anyone else. unless i happened to be wearing my srcfc shirt! or you heard me and my friends talking about christ.

if i got to know you at the crag, i would probably bring the subject up...

...but if you let me know you werent interested, that would be the end of it.

I guess my general question in this sort of discussion is why you would ever feel compelled to bring up the subject at all if we were out climbing...

Yes, it's always in the bigger picture alright, like a several thousand year history of torture, murder, genocide, and the odd coincidence that Jesus and/or God always turns up on both sides of every war. Crusades, inquistions, genocide of aboriginal cultures. In the case of the experience of my wife's and most other tribes in the America's, missionaries with smallpox were at the vanguard of [premeditated] cultural and physical genocide. And hell, it's still going on to today all around the world too with Bush and the other christian neocons on their current adventerously dangerous crusades.

And in historical perspective, I personally find it (religion) an insulting and devisive tool used principally to divide, subjugate, and pit societies against one another. I'd be way more impressed with god's ability to bring people together if I could open the Hood River phone book and find one religion/church listed instead 77 variations on a sub-theme (christianity) so weak it's adherents can't even agree on it.

If anything, when I look out at our future the most dangerous thing threatening our us that I see is fundamentalism in all forms - muslim and christian alike. As far as I'm concerned, the influence of you and your suburban brethren is only vaguely less dangerous to the world in the long run than that of a Palestinian or Iraqi suicide bomber. It's already begat one of the most dangerous presidencies we've ever seen.

Aside from that I have no problem climbing with you so long as you don't bring it up...

There are followers of the un-compromised word of God.

1. Compatibalism is still determinalsm in the end (that's sort of stupid of me to say), meaning that though the choice itself is free, under the exact same circumstances it would be made the same way, or rather it could not be made any other way. Under this I am morally responsible to say, my fellow man because my actions are a product of me, of what I am, even if I could not have done otherwise.The problem with introducing God into this is that God set this all into motion from the start, set into motion the circumstances that define my actions and even my conception. Can I be morally responsible to God in this circumstance? That's kind of like me throwing a baseball through a window and then holding it morally responsible for the end result. Hmm... I didn't say that very well. I guess what I mean to say is that in this case 'free will' is only a practical term as is 'moral responsibility' so though it is as reasonable as it is unreasonable for God to place moral responsibility on me it is likewise for me to reject said responsibility. Right and wrong lose value and we're reduced to 'who's the bigger kid on the playground?'.
2. i) incredible insight is incredible insight and omniscience is omniscience just as really dark grey is really dark grey and black is black. ii) But yeah, it would work if a contingency could exist. I'm not saying that it can't, but I can't rationalize it. Still, even under determinalism omniscience wouldn't absolutely mean knowledge of the future. If omniscience is to know all things that there are to be know that could be taken to limit that knowledge to the present and past. Given that future things and events have not yet happened they do not exist yet, nor does any knowledge of them by any means other than prediction made by applying existing knowledge of past and presewnt. If the omniscient entity lacked the ability or will to make that application it would not know the future.

Keep in mind that creationism and evolution are BOTH theories, meaning that neither has been proven conclusively. An objective scientist will consider the possibilities of both and disregard neither.

Trophy (honorary, this being the Community forum).

-Jay

I'm not sure I recognize that trophy based on the underlined text alone ('cause I'm just that kind of jerk). That and I fail to see how science differs so greatly in this regard.

Incorrect,

Creationism (and the existence of God) are both supported by substantial arguments, arguments proven throughout history to be persuasive to both the layman and academic alike. The mere fact that many billions of individuals throughout our history have been won over, or at least significantly influenced, suggests that such arguments worthy of consideration.

I will list 7 theistic arguments that have each survived more than at least several centuries. I will also list the known author, and any more modern proponents that I’m aware of, and will try to give at least a one-sentence explanation, which will obviously seem inadequate to most:

1. The ontological argument- St. Anselm, Isaac Newton, etc. God’s existence proven to be reasonable apriori in a short 9-premise walk through truths accepted even by die hard atheists.

You can't demonstrate that god doesn't exixts either. no way.

Creationism is not a scientific theory either because it cannot be tested and falsified by scientific methods.

Yes, it's always in the bigger picture alright, like a several thousand year history of torture, murder, genocide, and the odd coincidence that Jesus and/or God always turns up on both sides of every war. Crusades, inquistions, genocide of aboriginal cultures.

The reality is: you can't demostrate the existance of god. no way. You can't demonstrate that god doesn't exixts either. no way. One has to decide what to believe, even in presence of a few, well-identified antinomies.

I'm very glad you are finally starting to understand!

The only people who think that either creationism or evolution are theories are Christians. That evolution has occurred and continues to occur is a scientific fact, supported by overwhelming molecular, laboratory, and field evidence. Creationism is not a scientific theory either because it cannot be tested and falsified by scientific methods. Quite the contrary to your claim, an objective scientist would not consider creationism at all because there is no way that he can objectively test it.

-Jay

The only people who think that either creationism or evolution are theories are Christians. That evolution has occurred and continues to occur is a scientific fact, supported by overwhelming molecular, laboratory, and field evidence. Creationism is not a scientific theory either because it cannot be tested and falsified by scientific methods. Quite the contrary to your claim, an objective scientist would not consider creationism at all because there is no way that he can objectively test it.

-Jay

Yes, and you can't demonstrate that anything in science exists either, in fact you can't demonstrate the existence of anything except yourself (descartes).

Every single criticism levelled at christanity to invalidate it here also invalidates science. Get a new argument please.

To completely deny that there's any possibility at all that science is wrong, or that religion is right, is completely unscientific, and coming from a scientific person reveals only prejudice and dogma.