All Comments (949)

Ms. Rice:

If you believe in Jesus Christ, that's fine and dandy but why would you want to advertise it? I believe in the strict separation of church and state. It's healthy in a secular society. Sometimes I think that there is more separation of "church" and state in India than it is here in the US where all the politicians are busy portraying themselves as more Christian than the other. Who cares? In a secular society, we the voters only care whether a politician can deliver the goods, make good on his/her promises. Religion should be strictly a private matter.

Hypocritical to say anti-God books are on the bestsellers list consiering you wrote the vampire chronicles. I hate that you're agaiinst fanfic. I love your books. I love your writing. I'm heartbroken that there will be no more Lestat. But...I am happy for you. I'm happy you found god simply because I love your writing and I wish you joy in everything you do.

Don’t ever succumb to the fear that evil is winning in this world, no matter how bad things may appear. Don’t ever succumb to the fear that He does not witness our struggles, that He is not with every single soul.

I love this seriously. But that doesn't change my opinion on your fanfic policies at all. I think you're a jerk to ban fanfic, but I still love your books.

Consciousness extends infinitely. Consciousness creates the 'material' world and the senses merely do the work of consciousness to help create the illusion of materiality. The Laws and theorems of science in general and physics in particular are created by consciousness - no wonder they work so well! Consciousness is the only intelligence to be found, and takes many forms - both large and small. Until consciousness knows itself, it will always assume that the illusion of an exterior world is true - made and controlled by exterior forces.

Self-knowledge is merely the discovery of the 'nothingness' and 'everythingness' of pure consciousness.

Don’t ever succumb to the fear that evil is winning in this world, no matter how bad things may appear. Don’t ever succumb to the fear that He does not witness our struggles, that He is not with every single soul.

note;
Dear Anne Rice,
Thant you for this master piece. I just want inform you that I have copied this information to my page in gospelity.
Dim

Is it scientifically possible that a thing can build something more intelligent than itself? The answer is a big NO.

The only reason why human DNA can transform into a more intelligent human BRAIN is because the transfomation is guided by someone more intelligent. Nothing can create something more intelligent than itself and that's a fact.

There MUST be a MAKER in between. That is science and most of all, that is COMMON SENSE.

Those who say there is no Creator are fools and devoid of common sense.

Is it scientifically possible that a thing can build something more intelligent than itself? The answer is a big NO.

Wonderful article Anne. Thanks for your courage in writing about your faith and the God we love. May His Church and the Body of Christ be lifted up.

To all on this post: blessings and peace to you.

One man's God is another man's Quantum Vacuum.

The idea of God is more comforting with just a touch of the human clinging to the concept.

The idea of the Quantum Vacuum (Nuether = Zero Point Field) as the source of all things is far more likely to be established as a scientific reality in the future.

Science cannot ground its own pressupositions. Its equation of truth with verification is not itself verifiable. Science says: all knowledge claims must be brought before the bar of reason (which, in this case means material verifiability). But if we were to bring this very demand before the bar of material verifiability we would find no such justification. The demand for verifiability is not verifiable. Thus, science is an act of faith: one chooses to believe in this "principle of all principles". Of course the problem is not with science itself, which certainly has its uses. The problem is in the attempt to totalize science's version of truth and knowledge by applying that version to all other regions of existence.

Scientific knowledge is a highly specialized and abstract form of knowledge that is derived from a more originary encounter with the with the concrete world in which we live. Verifiable knowledge is one (quite limited) type of knowledge based on a more fundamental type of truth, namely the truth that happens in our everyday existence when we are confronted with things that matter to us. We do not live scientifically. We live passionately or lethargically, joyfully or anxiously. This concrete life is not composed of neutral "facts" (although we can turn our attention to aspects of this life and view them with dispassionate neutrality--as scientific facts or data) but as a vibrant and meaningful context within which we live our lives.

This concrete context includes all those aspects of life that matter most to us: our relationships to family, friends, beauty, health (a flourishing existence), etc. And it is in this prior context, prior, that is, to the abstract constructs of the natural sciences, that truth first shows itself. Here truth is not verification or adequation (the view that truth is defined as the correct correspondence between a mental proposition and an external state of affairs), but rather the event in which the significance of life becomes manifest to a particular self--those moments, for example, when the weight of the profundity of existence manifests itself in one's life.

Truth then, is first significance, and only secondarilly scientific verification. Rice is fully within her rights as an existing person to articulate what was for her (apparently) a very real experience of truth, an experience moreover, that is (ontologically) prior to--and which forms the ground for--scientifically ascertained truth. To discredit her account because it doesn't "measure up" to a certain (derivative) standard of truth is dogmatic to the hightest degree.

The superstitious spiderman2 calls everything and everybody ignorant who does not follow his particular brand of superstition. It is the most blatant sign of incurable ignorance. Stupidity is the "faithful" conviction and promise to refuse to learn anything new.
Getting rid of this kind of superstitious "knowledge" is a brand of "ignorance" everybody can be proud of: Ignorance of ignorance is a noble cause.

Sp. shows so embarrassingly little knowledge of natural science, that one has the hunch all he reads are the emanations coming out of the particularly funny fundamentalists from Seattle.

We can imagine a state of affairs without the "god" proxy. "God" is a proxy concept for ignorance, adapting to change through history (Zeus does not throw a lightning anymore, the earth ceased to be flat.).

Now, in this "godless" state of affairs, anybody easily could come up with a religious construct: There is not a single thing or event in the universe that could not be attributed to "god", once the concept embraces everything. Everything is everything. God is everything (all-knowing, almighty). Everything is god. With this simple "religious" tautology mindset, you can start killing your neighbors, especially those who are intelligent enough to know a tautology when they see one, who honestly try to explain the incredible complexity of the real world.

Spiderman2 (the alias already shows his megalomania, Harry Potter illusionism, "faith", lol!) and his ilk are the real obstacle of the development (aka evolution) of humanity they deny. They will go extinct, though, even if it takes some time. Reality, no matter how mysterious and full of wonder it may be, cannot in the long run be subdued by "faith", aka as ignorance, opposition to knowledge ("credo quia absurdum", Tertullian).

aul H:
There should be little doubt that strong belief is comforting and that it can generate great happiness and contentment. It would be logical to find that the average child who believes in Santa Claus is happier about the experience of Christmas than one who doesn’t. This is not meant as a trivialization of religion, by the way. Religion is far from trivial, but belief in it or in Santa means little. There is nothing that occurs that can only be explained by religion.

The basic foundation of religion is that there is a god who creates the world – its matter, energy, and laws of physics and chemistry. This same god steps in at times to subvert these laws. Atoms fail to combine as they normally would or items are not subject to gravity for some period of time. If a god does not go outside these physical laws, there is no real purpose for this god. The world would be in the equivalent of cruise control mode. There is nothing, however, to show that it isn’t.

Anne Rice exhibits a level of desperation that is frightening. We all like to feel that someone is watching over us; most of us have such a person when we are infants. The need or desire remains as we grow older. Wanting it to be so doesn’t make it so.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Paul H.
"Wanting it to be so doesn’t make it so."

Deosn't make it not so either.

There should be little doubt that strong belief is comforting and that it can generate great happiness and contentment. It would be logical to find that the average child who believes in Santa Claus is happier about the experience of Christmas than one who doesn’t. This is not meant as a trivialization of religion, by the way. Religion is far from trivial, but belief in it or in Santa means little. There is nothing that occurs that can only be explained by religion.

The basic foundation of religion is that there is a god who creates the world – its matter, energy, and laws of physics and chemistry. This same god steps in at times to subvert these laws. Atoms fail to combine as they normally would or items are not subject to gravity for some period of time. If a god does not go outside these physical laws, there is no real purpose for this god. The world would be in the equivalent of cruise control mode. There is nothing, however, to show that it isn’t.

Anne Rice exhibits a level of desperation that is frightening. We all like to feel that someone is watching over us; most of us have such a person when we are infants. The need or desire remains as we grow older. Wanting it to be so doesn’t make it so.

Luv2Bblonde:

Let's see...

Straw man...check.

Mis-representation....check.

Unwarranted assumption....check

Imaginary abuse...check

Answers to any pertinent questions...not so much

OK then.

Adios

Neal,
As I already explained to you & confirmed, it is my perogative to change my screen, end of story.

Secondly, I, as many others do, will choose what questions to respond too; of which I am sure you do the same.

Lastly, perhaps you do not see your demanding tone in your post that come off as being "demeaning, condeseding, self-righteous, & "my way or the highway" attitude."

As far as cursings you have no room to talk. Your derorgorty statements to me & others surpass any emotional distress that I have ever inflected, if any.

Let's get one thing straight you do not dictate to me when I should stop posting on any public forum.

I bet that you are the type that everytime your girlfriend makes you angry you "threw" her out by telling her to leave because that is your favorite line everytime I upset you.

Doesn't say much about your ability to effectively resolve personal conflicts. But hey I don't want argue with you. I will apoligize and hope that you accept my apology and move on from here.

Take care, friend

Luv2Bblonde:

Neal:--“Are you posting under different user names? It's your prerogative, but it makes things confusing."

Luv2Bblonde:--"If it is my prerogative then why mention it?"

I *asked* because I wasn't sure if you were or not. The reason I brought it up can be found in the second part of the sentence: because "it makes things confusing."

Luv2Bblonde:--"Not dishonest in any way and not trying to deceive anyone, I readily admitted when asked that yes I use different screen names."

Me: --"As if you do not post under other scene names, give me a break! Talk about self-righteous you are it."

As you can see, you did not readily admit to any such thing. When asked, you responded by falsely accusing me of the same thing.

-----

If anyone cares to review this thread (and I certainly couldn't blame them if they didn't) they would see a pattern of me and others asking questions about statements you've made regarding DNA, science in general and the Bible. They would also see you either, (a) completely ignoring the questions, or (b) making other statements which actually refute your own positions, without even realizing it, or (c) diverting the discussion entirely by accusing myself and others of being "mean", or "god haters", for even asking the questions, or (d) snapping in a blizzard of vulgarities.

In view of your demonstrated tactics, I would submit that any "belittling" and "demeaning" which may have been done has been completely self-inflicted.

If you cannot support your statements any better than you have, and cannot tolerate criticism of them, perhaps you should consider not exposing them to a public forum.

Be careful what you ask for.

I couldn't agree more Anne. What a great reminder to read this too. There are times when I get frustrated "with People"....and it's a good reminder to "let it go and let God."

Thank you. :)
Glenda

Neal, “Are you posting under different user names? It's your prerogative, but it makes things confusing. The comment I made to Tommy O had nothing to do with you in particular. This thread does not revolve around you.” March 28, 2008 12:26 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~

If it is my prerogative then why mention it? After all did you think that I would suddenly be a good person when all the while you have done nothing but demean and belittle me? Of course not, your goal like always has been to make me look bad.

There is an old saying when men engage in conversation with a woman will “read between the lines.” Well that should not be done because the woman might not be thinking or feeling at all what the man thinks she is.

Being kind, nice, and paying someone a compliment in no way says “I am interested in you intimately and want you.”

I ran into an acquaintance last night and it appears that he perceives that I was interested in him on an intimate level, that couldn’t be further from the truth. I thought that a friendship was developing based on some personal things that have we had shared but nothing more.

I believe that where this person’s impression came from was because he unknowingly helped me through a difficult time by acting kind and saying things with a positive approach, which helped me put things together in my mind. I complimented him on his approached with great thankfulness and was completely unaware that he would take it as a "I want you" type of indication.

Patrick, unless a person states, “I am interested in you intimately and want you,” don’t assume anything. The best way to know if what you are thinking is on target is to always ask the person, never assume what a person is thinking or feeling.

Asking for clarification is the best medicine; assumptions are like this in most cases “things are not always what they appear to be.”

Neal, things are not always what they appear, stop assuming what I mean or what I am thinking. My screen name sometimes changes because I am state my feelings about what I am commenting on, such as "My heart is so sad" was based on the little girls death.

Not dishonest in any way and not trying to deceive anyone, I readily admitted when asked that yes I use different screen names.

u r a horemonger

Gad:

Thanks for your comments. The funny thing is I was even trying to be nicer than you!

Ever notice that when the questions get tough everyone suddenly has "plans for the evening" or "important matters to attend to"?

Speaking of which, it's way past my nap time...

Aloha

To whoever you are now:

I've used the same user name for months, none other.

You are wise to leave the field.

Neal:

I admire your efforts, but I do believe you have now been cursed at more then me........

Also using different screen names is dishonest, I've never done it, but I especially love how when the righteous get caught doing it they claim it is justified because the bad guys do it........

Neal, ""KMA, m/f'r"

Are you posting under different user names? It's your prerogative, but it makes things confusing. The comment I made to Tommy O had nothing to do with you in particular. This thread does not revolve around you.

Since I began this discussion I've politely asked questions and had them ignored, misdirected, overwhelmed by strawmen or interpreted as "attacks". You've accused everyone who has disagreed with you of being, "rude", "mean", "hateful pagans", "god haters" or Satan's little helpers. Are you the only one allowed to hurl vulgarities and ad homs?

In all fairness, and purely out of a sense of compassion, I feel obligated to inform you that your invective, hand-waving, self-righteousness and simple-minded responses are quickly contributing to you replacing Spiderman2 as "the atheists' best friend". You really aren't doing your team any favors."
??????????????

As if you do not post under other scene names, give me a break! Talk about self-righteous you are it. All you want to do is argue, but know this if you continuall treat someone with disrespect it will come back on you. Consider my "slur" your just due; overdue just due!

Funny, you never seem to mention my kindness and consideration in any of my post and that is becuse you alway look for fault. Knock yourself out, I have plans tonight and I am not going to let you ruin them.

This conversation is over, period.

Have a good evening.

My heart is so sick and sad:

--"That is not trusting in the Lord nor is it Christianity."

If it isn't Christianity, why are you embarrassed "as a Christian"? It seems as though any particular Christian sect can always point fingers at any one of the other numerous sects and claim *they* aren't *real* Christians. These people could say the same about you. How do we know who is correct if you all claim to believe in Jesus and all use the same holy book to justify their beliefs?

--"God can and will use anything and anyone to bring about healing or meeting the need of those who trust in him."

How do you explain the fact that while this girl was suffering for her parents' beliefs there were lots of "god haters" being cured of worse?

--"The parents believed in a false doctrine which stems from taking scripture out of context."

"Amen, I say to you, if you have faith and do not waver, not only will you do what has been done to the fig tree, but even if you say to this mountain, 'Be lifted up and thrown into the sea', it will be done. Whatever you ask for in prayer and faith, you shall receive." (Matt. 21:22).

Was this passage taken out of context? Is it false? What does it really mean? Why should I trust your interpretation?

--"The parents were wrong, wrong, wrong and failed to protect their child entrusted to them by God."

If one believes that God created everything, including diabetes, it seems as though these parents are actually guilty of not protecting their child from God.

Luv2Bblonde, again :

--"YOU DO NOT DICTATE TO ME WHERE AND WHEN I SHOULD OR SHOULD NOT POST, GOT IT!!!!!!!!!!!

KMA, m/f'r"

Are you posting under different user names? It's your prerogative, but it makes things confusing. The comment I made to Tommy O had nothing to do with you in particular. This thread does not revolve around you.

Since I began this discussion I've politely asked questions and had them ignored, misdirected, overwhelmed by strawmen or interpreted as "attacks". You've accused everyone who has disagreed with you of being, "rude", "mean", "hateful pagans", "god haters" or Satan's little helpers. Are you the only one allowed to hurl vulgarities and ad homs?

In all fairness, and purely out of a sense of compassion, I feel obligated to inform you that your invective, hand-waving, self-righteousness and simple-minded responses are quickly contributing to you replacing Spiderman2 as "the atheists' best friend". You really aren't doing your team any favors.

Notice the common theme here of the faithful, they are not to be criticized! But more then that, they are not to criticized by the likes of those who don't believe as they do. And those who do are mean and despicable. Which is to say that they know what they believe is right and righteous and anyone who thinks differently is lowly and beneath them.

So sick and sad:
I'll refer you to my original post for which I was lambasted by spiderman2.

I am willing to be honest enough to say I dont know if god exists or not. You should be honest enough to admit the same. Nobody knows, thats why we are here debating your biblical semantics. Anne Rice in a passing reference was starting to say the same. Your belief is faith. Faith = belief in something you do not know to be true. Its not a jab at religion, its just fact.

If we can start at this point, I am happy. It seems a reasonable place to start a discussion where both parties are willing to take a realistic stance and then use logic, reason and evidence beyond mere scripture to enter a dialogue.

My concern is people that can't relate to anything beyond the bible. Frankly, its scary and sad. Its just a book. Take what you need from it, but keep it in perspective.

"2008-03-27, WESTON, Wis. (AP) — Police are investigating an 11-year-old girl's death from an undiagnosed, treatable form of diabetes after her parents chose to pray for her rather than take her to a doctor."

I'm sure they used their vast "medical and scientific knowledge" to determine that prayer was the best treatment option.......

In any case if god wouldn't keep people who have them selfs beat and nailed to a cross to show their love for him from getting an infection why would he help selfish people praying for their own needs.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7305522.stm

With apologies to Tommy O whose poignant post deserved to be the final word in this long thread.)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

YOU DO NOT DICTATE TO ME WHERE AND WHEN I SHOULD OR SHOULD NOT POST, GOT IT!!!!!!!!!!!

KMA, m/f'r

My heart is so sick and sad: "You can't have it both ways, either he exists and intervenes or he doesn't. How stupid is that family. That is faith in it's most pathetic form, despite their child dying before their eyes, they still believed an as yet unproven deity could save it.That is a fair example that god doesn't exist and prayer is no more than a placebo. I'll take faith in medicine and science anyday."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Bottom line is this, you do what you want and so will I. I do not need your direction to know what I believe in as truth.

It is apparent to me that you do not know scripture at all to know that people can take it out of context and misapply or misuse it. Hell, even Satan quotes and believes scripture, he knows his end. His goal is to lead as many people to hell as possible in the end and it seems that he has succeeded with misleading you.

God chooses when to intervene, not man chooses when God should intervene, get it right.

You have no compassion and are mean-spirited to the core. I want nothing to do with your kind. How anyone can find fault and criticize my post of compassion for the 11 year old child is beyond me.

I regret even posting again and trusting that you could or would be civil, but I see that I was wrong. Keep your forums to communicate at a distance because that is all you know.

All I did was give the opportunity to you to once again demean, belittle, and criticize my efforts to communicate in a civil, compassionate way. And all you have done is drive me away.

You do not know how to communicate effectively and you harbor such hatred that it extends and seeps over to anyone that says they care.

"I believe in Jesus Christ."

We know more about the physical appearance of Socrates, the ancient Greek philosopher (469-399bc), than that of Jesus Christ of which the Bible says nothing.

Jesus is "the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, the God Man who came to earth, born as a tiny baby and then lived over thirty years in our midst" and nobody can remember what he looked like.

Imagine Dragnet's Joe Friday questioning The Apostles: "Did you get a good look at the guy?"

How can u be spiderman2 if you dont believe in evolution?

My heart is so sick and sad:

You can't have it both ways, either he exists and intervenes or he doesn't.

How stupid is that family. That is faith in it's most pathetic form, despite their child dying before their eyes, they still believed an as yet unproven deity could save it.

That is a fair example that god doesn't exist and prayer is no more than a placebo.

I'll take faith in medicine and science anyday.

My heart is sick and so sad:

It seems like the epitome of "trust in the Lord" to me. You seem to be saying: Trust in the Lord, but not too much.

Trust in the Lord

2008-03-27, WESTON, Wis. (AP) — Police are investigating an 11-year-old girl's death from an undiagnosed, treatable form of diabetes after her parents chose to pray for her rather than take her to a doctor.

~~~~~~~~~~

That is not trusting in the Lord nor is it Christianity. Nothing in the bible supports parents eluding their God given responsibility to ensure their child's safety.

Yes Christians pray for healing but if the healing doesn't come in the fashion that you expect then it is time to take another course of action.

God also gave us common sense and we as Christians are supposed to use it. Go to God first in prayer, if there is time, not in the case of an emergency, then look for God's remedy. God can and will use anything and anyone to bring about healing or meeting the need of those who trust in him.

The little girl must have been terrified and lost all faith and trust in a God she was told would be there for her. It is understandable that children who were raised in families like this have difficulty trusting God, and rightfully so.

Even God as our heavenly father set an example of "leaving" his children that were safe and secure to venture out and seek his children that were lost in order to save them.

This story embarrasses me as a Christian. The parents believed in a false doctrine which stems from taking scripture out of context. What weak-minded parents. The parents were wrong, wrong, wrong and failed to protect their child entrusted to them by God.

Luv2Bblonde:

--"Please note that definition 'a' states , 'The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena,' this does not mean that science is based on 'firm empirical evidence...'"

With all due respect...nonsense. Perhaps you're thinking of Creationism? Creationism isn't science. Creationism is pseudo-science. Feelings, personal revelation and the authority of holy books are not regarded as evidence in real science.

--"I find it amazing that God created things in nature to treat medical conditions and provide healing."

Have you ever wondered why an intentional god also created lots of other things that can kill humans at the drop of a hat? Have you ever wondered why an intentional god didn't just create humans to be immune from disease and without medical conditions in the first place?

(With apologies to Tommy O whose poignant post deserved to be the final word in this long thread.)

Trust in the Lord

2008-03-27, WESTON, Wis. (AP) — Police are investigating an 11-year-old girl's death from an undiagnosed, treatable form of diabetes after her parents chose to pray for her rather than take her to a doctor.

Perspecttive, "However, science is based on firm empirical evidence as it must be....religion abides in a different realm altogether at present, so I expect we will all be having discussions and disagreements for some time to come!!"

~~~~~~~~~~

According to American Heritage dictionary the following is the definition of science,

a.The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.

b.Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.

c.Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.

(2)Methodological activity, discipline, or study: I've got packing a suitcase down to a science.

(3)An activity that appears to require study and method: the science of purchasing.

(4)Knowledge, especially that gained through experience

Please note that definition “a” states , “The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena,” this does not mean that science is based on “firm empirical evidence” in fact science is often based on many observations and experiential investigations before it becomes item (2) 4, “Knowledge, especially gained through experience,” or as you called it “firm empirical evidence.”

Forgive me if I do not understand you correctly. It is not my intention to demean you or your reasoning or belief in any way. If fact, you are one of the most reasonable people that I have had any intellectual conversations with. I am a Christian that believes in God, Christ, and the Bible, but that does not mean that I do not give credence to the truth of science or the power of nature to develop into scientific use.

I find it amazing that God created things in nature to treat medical conditions and provide healing. In Brazil there is a plant with a milkish content in the stalk that willl treat the virus that causes warts. Many countries do not use medicine like the US does but I believe in the use of both. I completely understand that not all people believe as I do and am ok with it.
I believe that it is a personal choice that each individual must make.

I don’t like getting criticized when I state my beliefs or being “attacked” verbally for not believing in someone’s else’s way. I give you space to believe what you want to believe and I expect the same respect in return, fair enough?

nice talking to u, take care

LUV2BBLONDE -

Thanks for your comments. While I'm not religious, I'm not a materialist in the strict sense of the work either. I think we need to acquaint ourselves with as much science as possible, but of course this is pretty limited for non-scientists - which includes most of us. On the other hand, sometimes science doesn't see the forest for the trees either. Oftentimes their specialized areas of research are consuming to the point of excluding other points of view.

I've studied religion formally and informally since the 1960's and various mystical traditions in particular - mystics tend to know what they know, but find it difficult to share these 'spiritual' discoveries with others.

In the end (and in my opinion) mysticism and the meditative arts and the deep personal knowledge that can come with the territory is the true and 'essential' form of religion to pursue, if one wants real gnosis, or knowledge of the numinal or spiritual kind.

This is why I find certain schools of Buddhism a good fit with the discoveries of quantum physics as a method of unraveling the 'hidden' mysteries of our only apparently material world. I think religion can benefit from science, and occasionally, the reverse is also true.

However, science is based on firm empirical evidence as it must be....religion abides in a different realm altogether at present, so I expect we will all be having discussions and disagreements for some time to come!!

best to you -

Amen!

Gad, "Speaking of DNA, I am throughly convinced that if Luv2Bblonde were to mate with Spiderman2 their offspring would be the Anti-Christ, tail and all!"
~~~~~~~~~~~~

Your comment was uncalled for and despicable to say the least. However, it just shows the low caliber of a person you are.

I wouldn't bother asking for an apology, which you owe me because "egocentric imbeciles" don't give them.

Luv2Bblonde:

"Wasn't wrapped up at all, all my belief and opinion based on medical and scientific knowledge which obviously you lack severely."

No, thank you for making my day! LOL! "medical and scientific knowledge" LOL!.....LOL!

Speaking of DNA, I am throughly convinced that if Luv2Bblonde were to mate with Spiderman2 their offspring would be the Anti-Christ, tail and all!

Anne,

This is wonderful. I think a couple of people missed your point. Which makes it all the more poignant: our trust is not in the cacophony of voices around us.

A commentary from Chuck Swindoll on Proverbs 1 says:
"In a loud, volatile world marked by surface issues and shallow thoughts, let's commit not to add to it. As we spend time alone with God, we will gain a new respect for His wisdom and a new resolve to live by it."

May the Lord bless you as you seek His wisdom and trust Him to "handle how and when he (will approach) every soul."

Gad, "To be fair to me, Luv2Bblonde was severing up a big steaming pile of BS and acts as if it is beyond reproach because it was wrapped in the love of god. "scientific studies" that prove DNA has never changed, LOL! God is magic, god doesn't need no stinking science, stop trying to use science to disprove science to prove god! Stop the madness and just say god is magic and be done with it all!"

~~~~~~~~~~~
My right to do so, don't like, too bad. But it made my day that my opinion "irritates" you! Thanks for the laugh!

Wasn't wrapped up at all, all my belief and opinion based on medical and scientific knowledge which obviously you lack severely.

FYI God created the science and he doesn't have to prove anything to you or anyone. I can assure you that he is quite capable of taking you out of the game and stopping your arrogance and madness at at time he chooses.

Not that is a man a woman can love, talk about magic......whew!!!!!!!

Neal, "It's not only unfortunate that you regard anyone who disagrees with your strange, unsubstantiated opinions on the physical world as "god haters", but also sadly demonstrates just how uninformed you really are."
~~~~~~~~~~~

I take it that you missed the point that this person was making in their post, "you have proven yourself to be a real as*hole."

Neal:

To be fair to Luv2Bblond, I am a god hater. To be fair to me, Luv2Bblonde was severing up a big steaming pile of BS and acts as if it is beyond reproach because it was wrapped in the love of god. "scientific studies" that prove DNA has never changed, LOL! God is magic, god doesn't need no stinking science, stop trying to use science to disprove science to prove god! Stop the madness and just say god is magic and be done with it all!

"FYI, there are many, many Christians who do not share your Biblically derived view of the nature of the universe"

Well they must be the ones with the best imaginations because there is noway to reconcile what's written in the bible with reality.

Luv2Bblonde:

"The biggest problem is that pagans, non-believers, haters of God, Christ, the Holy Spirit attack you when you post the same which of course is contrary to what they want to hear and believe. This is a very immature response and only drives people away. They do not know how to agree to disagree."

FYI, there are many, many Christians who do not share your Biblically derived view of the nature of the universe. It's not only unfortunate that you regard anyone who disagrees with your strange, unsubstantiated opinions on the physical world as "god haters", but also sadly demonstrates just how uninformed you really are.

PERSPECTIVE:
LUV2BBLONDE -"Don't know if you're still participating, but it's clear you have the swearing gene - which I admire in a spirited woman - making love not war is kind of hot too!! And congratulations, you've done enough research to know that every life form has its own DNA code - but the question remains .... what is so unique about being unique, when the common thread of life under discussion is DNA?? Every critter has it, from the lowest single cell ameoba to the highest - maybe Einsteins' brain??If it's religion we're discussing, then as far as we know that cognitive/cultural complex is unique to homo sapiens, although there is some small amount of evidence that perhaps even our now extinct first cousin, homo neanderthalis may have had religious inclinations - based on burial site artifacts, etc.
As to yet another human creation, physics and mathematics, in an article today regarding discovery of the Higgs boson (often called the God particle) nobel laureate Steven Weinberg, and admitted atheist, was asked in an interview whether or not the discovery of this elusive particle might forever disprove the existence of God. He admitted that even the development of a Grand Unified Theory of Everything would probably not disprove God in the minds of many, but he did say with confidence that religion continues to evolve along with science - humans don't change so much physically these days as they do cognitively - information builds on information until one day we have a whole new view of reality.
Religion tended to provide answers to the deepest mysteries of life in ancient times, and up until the time of Newton, Gallileo, Copernicus, et al, when science began to provide empirical answers to the deep mysteries.
This continues today...smart religionists seldom take on established scientific theorems, such as evolutionary theory, for example. Educated believers know this truth about life is so factually well established as to be beyond doubt. The origins of life in a material world appear without doubt to be materially based.
Granted, some fundamentalists rail on and on about 'all that evolutionary hocus pocus' but they're really the exception rather than the rule in these days of higher education, the internet, and The Discovery Channel.
Atheist/physicist/mathematician Steven Weinberg believes religion will continue to evolve along with science. He states that as far as he's concerned, it would be easier to prove the existence of God than to disprove it, but this would require incontrovertible evidence from God (he doesn't expect proof in his lifetime) - however, for all we know, seemingly divergant paths become parallel roads and then suddenly one day converge!! At that point, it's doubtful that religion will really look anything like it does today as regards, beliefs, rites, rituals, doctrines and theocratic hierarchy.
In the end, change is the only constant......."

~~~~~~~~~
Perspective, I take it that this comment is a compliment, “Don't know if you're still participating, but it's clear you have the swearing gene - which I admire in a spirited woman - making love not war is kind of hot too!!
And congratulations, you've done enough research to know that every life form has it's own DNA code,” if so thank you. In fact this is the first time that anyone has said anything worth noting on a personal level. Meaning that all most all of the post responses I get are demeaning, put-downs, belittling, hateful, and criticisms. So again thank you.

The question was “is there a difference in human dna and animal/plant dna, The original commenter that asked advocated that human dna evolved from animal/plant dna and as a Christian I do not believe that as you can tell by my post.
The biggest problem is that pagans, non-believers, haters of God, Christ, the Holy Spirit attack you when you post the same which of course is contrary to what they want to hear and believe. This is a very immature response and only drives people away. They do not know how to agree to disagree.

There was an acquaintance I met in a bar/pub setting where I frequent and discussions were non-intimate by my choice. Until politics came up in a discussion we seem to have amicable talks about generalities in life. This person immediately attacked me in the sense that his voice became loud as if he thought that I would him better, he was somewhat aggressive with his body language, and he would let me get a word in the discussion constantly overriding my voice as if what I had to say was of no significant. After I noticed that his demeanor had gotten the attention of others around us and I had to make an “excuse” for the way he acted to them because they thought that we were “arguing which was a total embarrassment to me. Needless to say I no longer talk to this individual, so thanks Tim you have proven yourself to be a real as*hole.

This is the some kind of responses I get from what I believe is the same group of commenter’s but using different screen names with their post. The premises is what they accuse Christians of “our way is the right way.” My point there is no discussions and opportunities for sharing ideas and personal experiences that may have an impact on someone else’s life. I am done here; there is no point in dragging this out any further.

I did not want to be rude and not acknowledge you efforts, which I might add are noteworthy as a gentleman that is careful with the feelings of others as not to offend. Even though I don’t agree with you I still like you and your method of appreciating my feelings and post.

I almost didn’t answer you because of Gad’s post that followed your post because he was so rude and obnoxious.

Spot on Gad. I think he might be worse.

For the Aussies, I think Spiderman2 is one of the people in this video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eo8GQvgPbwk

Spiderman2:

Just answer the questions buddy. I know how to spell my own name and as shown before lets not get into correct useage of the english language.

Aussies are no danger to you, a fundamentalist like yourself talking of wars with access to a bomb is however. Isn't that what you are fighting against at the moment?

The world doen't revolve around the bible mate, it may be a great book sure, but it's just a book.

Answer the questions. Your such an easy target because beyond the bible you clearly have nothing other than crude insults and poor grammar from your poor schooling.

spiderman2:
"The good part is that there is no date so you can try to delay it. But I doubt it coz if my interpretations are correct, 3 years is way too long for it not to happen."

Care to place a bet then?

"Craig, satisfied?"

No.

It's beyond ironic that when some religious people attempt to discredit the reliability of science they frequently accuse it of being "just another religion."

perspective:

Nicely stated.

Don't hate the player, hate that you are to ignorant to play the game.

LUV2BBLONDE -

Don't know if you're still participating, but it's clear you have the swearing gene - which I admire in a spirited woman - making love not war is kind of hot too!!

And congratulations, you've done enough research to know that every life form has it's own DNA code - but the question remains .... what is so unique about being unique, when the common thread of life under discussion is DNA?? Every critter has it, from the lowest single cell ameoba to the highest - maybe Einsteins' brain??

If it's religion we're discussing, then as far as we know that cognitive/cultural complex is unique to homo sapiens, although there is some small amount of evidence that perhaps even our now extinct first cousin, homo neanderthalis may have had religious inclinations - based on burial site artifacts, etc.

As to yet another human creation, physics and mathematics, in an article today regarding discovery of the Higgs boson (often called the God particle) nobel laureate Steven Weinberg, and admitted atheist, was asked in an interview whether or not the discovery of this elusive particle might forever disprove the existence of God. He admitted that even the development of a Grand Unified Theory of Everything would probably not disprove God in the minds of many, but he did say with confidence that religion continues to evolve along with science - humans don't change so much physically these days as they do cognitively - information builds on information until one day we have a whole new view of reality.

Religion tended to provide answers to the deepest mysteries of life in ancient times, and up until the time of Newton, Gallileo, Copernicus, et al, when science began to provide empirical answers to the deep mysteries.

This continues today...smart religionists seldom take on established scientific theorems, such as evolutionary theory, for example. Educated believers know this truth about life is so factually well established as to be beyond doubt. The origins of life in a material world appear without doubt to be materially based.

Granted, some fundamentalists rail on and on about 'all that evolutionary hocus pocus' but they're really the exception rather than the rule in these days of higher education, the internet, and The Discovery Channel.

Atheist/physicist/mathematician Steven Weinberg believes religion will continue to evolve along with science. He states that as far as he's concerned, it would be easier to prove the existence of God than to disprove it, but this would require incontrovertible evidence from God (he doesn't expect proof in his lifetime) - however, for all we know, seemingly divergant paths become parallel roads and then suddenly one day converge!! At that point, it's doubtful that religion will really look anything like it does today as regards, beliefs, rites, rituals, doctrines and theocratic hierarchy.

In the end, change is the only constant.......