Jump to content
Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Sign in to follow this  
Walesdad

Intelligent Design or Pure Chance.........

Recommended Posts

Hold on, Silver Rider, and think about exactly WHY these families are "forced onto welfare".

Let's begin: Sincere and responsible people don't have sex before marriage, because they know their actions could result in a pregnancy and then they might have to raise the child as a single-parent, which is always difficult on the child.

When a sincere and responsible couple decides to have children, they decide to get married first .

Then, knowing that staying together is always best for the family, they remain faithful to each other, which drastically reduces the probability of divorce - which always ends up damaging the children emotionally and economically, whether we want to admit it or not.

The best way to remain faithful to one's spouse is to take good care of him and the children, which means most (if not all) married women should not work outside the home, even if they are forced onto welfare to remain at home.

Be honest and admit the basic problem: wives and mothers have changed and no longer wish to remain faithful and/or remain at home. Husbands have changed and no longer want a "dependent wife" - they want the extra income.

So, what happens is that all the world wants to "go to work" to produce billions and billions of widgets and whatnots and whatevers, polluting the world so that everybody can stay busy being miserable.

Sorry, but all this craziness has got to stop somewhere, somehow, sometime - and it stops when we stop our selfish desires for ego-satisfaction - which is really what most people are looking for nowadays.

:blink:

:wtf:

:thumbsup: You said it, sis! :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's say in this case they are a married couple, each of whom must work to make ends meet to cover the basic costs of food, housing, transportation, medicine, clothing and the children's needs in an area of high unemployment. Giving them the benefit of the doubt, hypothetically they are faithful.

In that case the wife should stay home and take care of the kids and her husband even if it means they must go on welfare, because otherwise nobody is taking care of the family .

The next problem, a widow who survives her husband may be forced to work for a living, even if she never envisioned such a scenario. Let's say she also must care for an aging, disabled parent, alone, and she needs her career.

Widows aren't wives.

How can she care for an aging and disabled parent if she is at work all day?

There is no guarantee that a wife will have children who will survive to look after her needs.

... or their own needs either ... :unsure:

Edited by sweetredwine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In that case the wife should stay home and take care of the kids and her husband even if it means they must go on welfare, because otherwise nobody is taking care of the family .

That explains why people go on welfare.

Edited by Silver Rider

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My 2 cents is that maybe govts. should SERIOUSLY start giving the "man" of the house (not necessarily the male :):)!!) a substantial pay rise (after tax :):)) so that many women could look after the children and the family....having said that, I'm NOT saying women should not be working at all :):):)!!!!

Edited by spidersandsnakes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In today's world when jobs are scarce and money basically worthless (thanks Fed) it's not easy for only one spouse to work while the other stays home and tends to their family. I do agree, that would be the idea situation but it's very difficult in the modern world.

I'm not referring to breeders who produce babies either, I mean married people who despite all best plans find themselves caught up in a financial disaster of a world. It's not their fault really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My 2 cents is that maybe govts. should SERIOUSLY start giving the "man" of the house (not necessarily the male :):)!!) a substantial pay rise (after tax :):)) so that many women could look after the children and the family....having said that, I'm NOT saying women should not be working at all :):):)!!!!

Women need to make a living. They do not always have a man to hold their hand and support them. Sometimes they must pay their own bills and be responsible. And when she goes into a job interview as at times she must, the employer will not ask her about what is on her husband's resume. And if she mentions her children, the employer is likely to discriminate in hiring, and hire the childless, but eager and energetic worker instead (the one who doesn't have to hire a babysitter).And her less than saintly husband is not guaranteed to stay married to her, to provide for her even if he should, or to be immortal other than in spirit. She needs her own foundation for the times in her life when she must support herself. Yes, there is a God in heaven, but not everyone around you is a saint.You render to Caesar what is Caesar's.Caesar demands that the rent is paid on time.And sorry, lady, if your husband isn't around to pay the rent, but it's due, and you have to pay it.That's in addition to taxes, groceries and so on.Often a woman is the head of a household and must absorb all the costs; naturally she seeks employment in order to do that.

Edited by Silver Rider

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's begin:  Sincere and responsible people don't have sex before marriage, because they know their actions could result in a pregnancy and then they might have to raise the child as a single-parent, which is always difficult on the child. When a sincere and responsible couple decides to have children, they decide to get married first .  

There are many ways to prevent a pregnancy. Sex doesn't necessarily equal reproduction. It's NOT inevitable.

Maybe a guy and his girl just wanna have fun and enjoy each other instead of having kids.

Your post reads like something in Catholic Digest or somesuch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No way of proving this one catagorically one way or the other.I've got to admit that I waver between,"When you see some of the appalling things going on in the world,how can there be a God?",to "When you look at all the diversity of life on the planet and all the real beauty all around us,surely it can't be the result of pure chance".Anymore for anymore?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are many ways to prevent a pregnancy. Sex doesn't necessarily equal reproduction. It's NOT inevitable.

Maybe a guy and his girl just wanna have fun and enjoy each other instead of having kids

I agree that sex does not always result in reproduction.

I agree that responsible people don't have sex before marriage. As for their sincerity, that may prove itself yet. Some people don't stop to think about whether they are about to conceive because the heat of the moment and their passions distract them; that's human nature.

Should you have sex outside of wedlock? No. But we know that people do; that's why we call them sinners. But they are not precluded from the hope of salvation, and it would be wrong to condemn them and their offspring. They can still parent their child together; after all, if they are the child's parents, that is what they are supposed to do. Maybe they will marry each other at some point, or possibly marry all new people.

Fidelity is not easy. People are tempted. They make mistakes. It's nice to have fidelity in a relationship, because you also enjoy a high level of trust between one another, making life better all the way around. But you can't take fidelity for granted.

So I would say that chance is definitely an element of the human experience, while the Creator has an intelligent design meant for people to discover.

Edited by Silver Rider

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Should you have sex outside of wedlock? No. But we know that people do; that's why we call them sinners. But they are not precluded from the hope of salvation

You should hear what they call you lot.

Here's a little conundrum for you all, paraphrased from my son's recent UK A-Level Religious Education examination paper:

Two men are born at exactly the same time. They have identical idyllic upbringings, go to the same schools, achieve the same grades, get identical jobs and work equally diligently, get married & have the same number of kids, and earn the same amount of money in their lifetimes. Neither considers himself to be a christian or a member of any other religious group. Both die at the same time.

Whilst he is alive, Mr A leads what would generally be considered by an objective bystander to be a blameless and sinless existence. Purely by chance (because he has never read the bible), he also espouses and practises all of the non-devotional positive behavioural patterns advocated in the good book. Sadly, he suffers catastrophic injuries in a road accident, and spends his final weeks in a deep coma.

Mr B, on the other hand, is a serial adulterer and constant drunkard, lies & blasphemes at every opportunity, repeatedly hospitalises his wife, sexually abuses his kids, and loses count of the number of people he has beaten up, raped or murdered. Unlike Mr A, he is lucid to the end.

The questions are:

1. Given the above, and assuming you get to heaven, who would you prefer to spend all eternity with - Mr A or Mr B? (3 marks)

2. Despite his evil life, what step could Mr B take a minute or so before his death to guarantee his place in heaven? (5 marks)

3. Since Mr A was incapable of copying Mr B's final act, is there any chance that he might avoid his fiery fate, and instead get a 'wild card' entry upstairs? (7 marks)

4. 'Regardless of any step taken by Mr B in (2) above, it is actually Mr A who deserves a place in heaven' - Discuss (15 marks)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You should hear what they call you lot.

Here's a little conundrum for you all, paraphrased from my son's recent UK A-Level Religious Education examination paper:

Two men are born at exactly the same time. They have identical idyllic upbringings, go to the same schools, achieve the same grades, get identical jobs and work equally diligently, get married & have the same number of kids, and earn the same amount of money in their lifetimes. Neither considers himself to be a christian or a member of any other religious group. Both die at the same time.

Whilst he is alive, Mr A leads what would generally be considered by an objective bystander to be a blameless and sinless existence. Purely by chance (because he has never read the bible), he also espouses and practises all of the non-devotional positive behavioural patterns advocated in the good book. Sadly, he suffers catastrophic injuries in a road accident, and spends his final weeks in a deep coma.

Mr B, on the other hand, is a serial adulterer and constant drunkard, lies & blasphemes at every opportunity, repeatedly hospitalises his wife, sexually abuses his kids, and loses count of the number of people he has beaten up, raped or murdered. Unlike Mr A, he is lucid to the end.

The questions are:

1. Given the above, and assuming you get to heaven, who would you prefer to spend all eternity with - Mr A or Mr B? (3 marks)

2. Despite his evil life, what step could Mr B take a minute or so before his death to guarantee his place in heaven? (5 marks)

3. Since Mr A was incapable of copying Mr B's final act, is there any chance that he might avoid his fiery fate, and instead get a 'wild card' entry upstairs? (7 marks)

4. 'Regardless of any step taken by Mr B in (2) above, it is actually Mr A who deserves a place in heaven' - Discuss (15 marks)

Sex out of wedlock is generally not considered to be exemplary behaviour. Sorry if that puts anyone in the sinner category, but that's life. What, you thought they were saints? :lol: Some of us just aren't the saint type. We may often have good intentions, but fall a little short of the saint mark. That's why Christ has blessed us with the hope of redemption so that we are not forever cursed. Think of Him as overdraft protection similar to what people have on their checking accounts, if you visualize your soul having overdraft protection. Because in the end you pay, so it's nice that He is there to help you through the snags.

1. Mr. A

2. I would say that Mr. B is in trouble. He's committed a bunch of mortal sins and his soul is in jeopardy. He would need to follow a path of atonement determined by the Creator.

3. Mr. A already has an express lane to heaven due to his blameless life. St. Peter can cover any details that he may have missed at the gate, but Mr. A is already there.

4. Mr. A gets my vote as he appears to be well on the path to redemption without having to think too hard about the details. His soul is unstained.

Edited by Silver Rider

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pure Intelligent Design by Chance, and God is there if you need him. :wacko:

Regards, Danny

awwwwwwwww..............Big Dan's back from his hiatus...............let the "loudmouthing" begin

anywayssssssssss.........think this one's been covered kids :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sex out of wedlock is generally not considered to be exemplary behaviour. Sorry if that puts anyone in the sinner category, but that's life. What, you thought they were saints? :lol: Some of us just aren't the saint type. We may often have good intentions, but fall a little short of the saint mark. That's why Christ has blessed us with the hope of redemption so that we are not forever cursed. Think of Him as overdraft protection similar to what people have on their checking accounts, if you visualize your soul having overdraft protection. Because in the end you pay, so it's nice that He is there to help you through the snags.

1. Mr. A

2. I would say that Mr. B is in trouble. He's committed a bunch of mortal sins and his soul is in jeopardy. He would need to follow a path of atonement determined by the Creator.

3. Mr. A already has an express lane to heaven due to his blameless life. St. Peter can cover any details that he may have missed at the gate, but Mr. A is already there.

4. Mr. A gets my vote as he appears to be well on the path to redemption without having to think too hard about the details. His soul is unstained.

Poor attempt, Silver Rider. 9/30. FAIL.

You clearly haven't been very diligent in your bible studies. (1) and (4) are of course subjective assessments, but the correct answers to (2) and (3) are 'Confess, repent, and make a genuine commitment to god', and 'No', respectively.

Your cited 'saints and sinners' dichotomy is a typical artifical & divisive christian construct, designed to facilitate judgementalism and to instil fear. In the secular world, people simply don't think like that. There is usually a middle ground, and it is often very broad. Only the feeble-minded see things strictly in black and white, or require an indoctrinated moral code to define or distinguish 'right' and 'wrong'.

As for sex out of wedlock being a sin, does this also apply to rape victims?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My 2 cents is that maybe govts. should SERIOUSLY start giving the "man" of the house (not necessarily the male :):)!!) a substantial pay rise (after tax :):)) so that many women could look after the children and the family....having said that, I'm NOT saying women should not be working at all :):):)!!!!

Spidersandsnakes,governments have no money except what they accrue from taxpayers.As a taxpayer in the U.K.,where I am ripped off left,right and centre with a quarter of my wages taken away from me even before I get it,why the **** should I subsidise someone elses wife/partner/soul mate etc,so that she can stay home and more than likely produce more kids for the rest of the population to pay for? :slapface:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Poor attempt, Silver Rider. 9/30. FAIL.

You clearly haven't been very diligent in your bible studies. (1) and (4) are of course subjective assessments, but the correct answers to (2) and (3) are 'Confess, repent, and make a genuine commitment to god', and 'No', respectively.

Your cited 'saints and sinners' dichotomy is a typical artifical & divisive christian construct, designed to facilitate judgementalism and to instil fear. In the secular world, people simply don't think like that. There is usually a middle ground, and it is often very broad. Only the feeble-minded see things strictly in black and white, or require an indoctrinated moral code to define or distinguish 'right' and 'wrong'.

As for sex out of wedlock being a sin, does this also apply to rape victims?

2. Despite his evil life, what step could Mr B take a minute or so before his death to guarantee his place in heaven? (5 marks)

3. Since Mr A was incapable of copying Mr B's final act, is there any chance that he might avoid his fiery fate, and instead get a 'wild card' entry upstairs? (7 marks)

A minute or so before his death he has time to confess, repent, and make a genuine commitment to God? That's cutting it pretty close. Your hypothetical needs help. As for Mr. A, if he has lived blamelessly, what does he need to confess and where does he need to repent? In a minute's time? It's a little late in the day for that. When they wait that long, they leave it in the hands of the Creator to guide them in their passage, because this world for them has already reached the point of passing.

Your cited 'saints and sinners' dichotomy is a typical artifical & divisive christian construct, designed to facilitate judgementalism and to instil fear. In the secular world, people simply don't think like that. There is usually a middle ground, and it is often very broad. Only the feeble-minded see things strictly in black and white, or require an indoctrinated moral code to define or distinguish 'right' and 'wrong'.

I'm quite aware there is a middle ground. But in any case, I would not designate anything that Christ has said as designed to facilitate judgementalism and instill fear, unless He had good reason. As for the saints and sinners dichotomy being artificial, history tells us that many of the Christian saints were martyred. Perhaps they committed sins in their life, but yet they are deemed as saints. Saint Peter, the Apostle who denied Christ three times before the cock crowed (Matthew 26:71-75), was martyred and is considered to be a saint. But he is not revered as a saint because he denied Christ, but because he chose eternal life rather than spare his physical life and renounce his faith.

Regardless of what people think in the secular world, this world is temporary. A person's flesh and blood lifetime is roughly a hundred years, give or take. It is the soul that has the capacity for eternal life, not the body. Too many mortal sins, and your soul is gone; then you need salvation. It's similar to being overdrawn on your checking account, if you think of your soul being like a checking account; you must deposit more funds to redeem the account. But your soul doesn't need money, it needs love.

In regard to rape, rape is a crime of force against the victim, and is not the victim's fault. A criminal can harm a victim's body, but not the victim's soul. As for sex out of wedlock being a sin, neither you nor I have the capacity to determine if it is a sin, and if so, how much, because we are not God; please keep that in mind before you take everything I say too seriously.

Edited by Silver Rider

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An interesting story I came across earlier today -- Tennessee passed a state law honoring the Ten Commandments. Why they'd waste time doing that I don't know, but let's see if they actually follow through with their beliefs and start passing blasphemy laws, criminalizing disrespecting your parents, banning working on the Sabbath, banning other religions aside from their version of Christianity, and criminalizing adultery.

Also, barring the worship of any other deities. Their god is a insecure and petulant god, who often stalks you, chain-calls you and hangs up. He'll beat up the other gods that you start talking to, and slash your tires when you go to worship at a different church.

In short, if he can't have you, he'll smite you. Because he loves you. CAN'T YOU SEE THAT HE LOVES YOU?

God: the original angry, drunken, abusive boyfriend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An interesting story I came across earlier today -- Tennessee passed a state law honoring the Ten Commandments. Why they'd waste time doing that I don't know, but let's see if they actually follow through with their beliefs and start passing blasphemy laws, criminalizing disrespecting your parents, banning working on the Sabbath, banning other religions aside from their version of Christianity, and criminalizing adultery.

Also, barring the worship of any other deities. Their god is a insecure and petulant god, who often stalks you, chain-calls you and hangs up. He'll beat up the other gods that you start talking to, and slash your tires when you go to worship at a different church.

In short, if he can't have you, he'll smite you. Because he loves you. CAN'T YOU SEE THAT HE LOVES YOU?

God: the original angry, drunken, abusive boyfriend.

God and Tennessee are two different beings. That law is destined to be challenged when it infringes on civil liberties, as it inevitably will.

A ban on working on the Sabbath would conflict with the individuals' freedom to choose religion, as would a ban on other religions.

Criminalizing adultery could result in at least 50% of the state of Tennessee being penalized, and it would be like Peyton Place and Harper Valley PTA.

Criminalizing disrespect for one's parents could result in 99% of the population of Tennessee being penalized, depending on what is deemed as disrespectful.

Blasphemy laws and the right to freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution would eventually conflict.

Edited by Silver Rider

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really? A nebulous concept like "God" and the state of Tennessee aren't the same things? I had no idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really? A nebulous concept like "God" and the state of Tennessee aren't the same things? I had no idea.

Maybe they want people to think they are God?

Is Tennesee still heavily Republican? Not that all Republicans think they are God, but there may be a few who do.:lol:

Edited by Silver Rider

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A minute or so before his death he has time to confess, repent, and make a genuine commitment to God? That's cutting it pretty close. Your hypothetical needs help. As for Mr. A, if he has lived blamelessly, what does he need to confess and where does he need to repent? In a minute's time? It's a little late in the day for that. When they wait that long, they leave it in the hands of the Creator to guide them in their passage, because this world for them has already reached the point of passing.

Maybe I was being a little too subtle for you. To clarify:

Unless Mr A acknowledges god/'becomes a christian' at some point in his life, he will go to hell, regardless of his exemplary lifestyle. In other words, non-believers are de facto sinners. (Can't quote you chapter & verse on that, but that's what the bible says.)

A life-long sinner who repents/'becomes a christian', however late in life and regardless of the nature & extent of the sins he has committed, will go to heaven. (Ditto.) I admit that he might need more than a minuite or so to close the deal, but you take my point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe I was being a little too subtle for you. To clarify:

Unless Mr A acknowledges god/'becomes a christian' at some point in his life, he will go to hell, regardless of his exemplary lifestyle. In other words, non-believers are de facto sinners. (Can't quote you chapter & verse on that, but that's what the bible says.)

The Bible says a lot. What is important is that God has acknowledged the man as having lived an exemplary life. The man will smile at St. Peter when he reaches the gate, and they can go over any details that he may have missed during his life. God has a way of looking into men's souls and helping them to clear their paths so they don't stumble on their way to Heaven. He's known for His divine mercy.

A life-long sinner who repents/'becomes a christian', however late in life and regardless of the nature & extent of the sins he has committed, will go to heaven. (Ditto.) I admit that he might need more than a minuite or so to close the deal, but you take my point.

Yes, with some guidance from Heaven and whatever atonement (remorse and repentance) the Divine considers as applicable. But having erred so greatly during his lifetime, the man has widened the gulf; it may have been awhile since the man has chatted with God (prayed).

If the man has found Christ for the first time, then he has found new life. God can see into his soul and will know the extent of his awakening to the Immaculate Heart, made of pure love and light, and to the Holy Spirit, who is without guile.

At the time of the man's passing, his soul will be crying out in the wilderness of the abyss because he is already so far from Heaven, having created hell in the lives of his neighbors. The man's soul will get an answer and eventually find his way to God, if the man's soul is so willing. But his soul will already have been compromised by the mortal sins (murders) that he has committed, and he will need a lot of redemption, which may take some time, however time is measured in the afterlife. His soul will be like a car that has not had a tune-up in ages, been in several serious wrecks, been left out in a flood and a sandstorm, and needs a lot of work at the shop to make it driveable.

Heaven does not give up on us only because we are like the prodigal son.

wiki

bible.cc/john/10-14

stjohndc.org/Russian/parables/e_Par_2_10

Edited by Silver Rider

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hate to put a pinhole in anyone's rubber.

Intelligent Design.

A fucking no brainer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×