oh i understand your point well, ruth. but anybody can answer YOUR original question, "Is the Bible a reliable moral guide?" without reading yet another article. and from the huffington post no less. we all assign credibility individually. i don't come by my thinking based on anything that anybody else on tha planet thinks no matter how much i might admire a person. but still, i can factually state that it is my opinion that that the bible is not a reliable moral guide and base that opinion on more than six dacades of MY learning experiences.

ruth, does any human on the planet read every article that has a different viewpoint from their own? we all have limited time at this rodeo and i don't see it as unreasonable to spend time searching for answers where we think the there's a likelihood that we'll find them. for instance, if a person has read the bible, as i and many have, and concluded that the answers regarding the beginnings of the universe cannot be found there based on what i've learned from theoretical physics and other science disciplines then i'm not about to waste what i consider to be my valuable time reading yet another viewpoint on creation. and i'm sure many faithful are not wraped up in the latest information coming from wmap and the hedron collider as am i. why? simply because they don't see science providing correct answers if they conflict with genesis. perhaps you've read every viewpoint differing from your own of every scietinst or any other religion for that matter. if so, then you are to be commended for what i'd call a superhuman deed. but if not, your lack of doing so is no more or less humanly acceptable as abra's.

morning, i'm not about to spend time reading links regarding creation. i've read all i need on the topic to have discredited creation as not the place likely to answer the questions i'm interested in as regards the universe. i understand that you are highly informed on the writings of creation and you must have devoted and still devote a great amount of time staying abreast of the subject that you accept so strongly. as such you don't have the time or desire to read about the recent events at the hedron collider and discoveries of wmap which are contributing greatly to the data that explains the big bang. i've read the bible, cover to cover in past times so i cannot be accused of ignoring and simply tossing creation outright. as such i think it fair of me to pass on your links to creation as you've obviously passed on science.

jeannie, it was you who brought up the status quo thinking that the big bang is face. look at your first statement in this very quote. i simply asked you to validate your statement by asking for examples of who in the status quo of which you speak has claimed the big bang to be fact. nobody's saying you believe anything to be fact but i don't see any theoretical physicist, of which i think the "status quo" is made up of, believes the big bang to be fact. either you can or you cannot name a few names in this "status quo" that accept any theory as fact.

considering that some of the greatest atrocities of mankind were commited by chritians who swore that their despicable actions, the crsades, inquisition, salem witch trials, etc., were done "in the name of god" and then excused as "god's will" the bible doesn't measure up to my standards as a moral guide.

why ask for people to rate your profile if you already have all the answers? as for age, you can adjust your settings to limit messegase to a certain age group. no need to talk about people as older than your parents. and yes, i'm sure you'll know right away if someone is worth the time as everybody here actually does read every profile word for word.

when i was 21 and married with two kids i was green with envy of my single friends. enjoy the moment. it's all you'll ever have.

hell argue, crack a joke, send a prayer, talk dirty to me; anything but someone please send me a first message. sheesh.

couple problems i see here. first, that you're separated does not mean you're out of the relationship whether or not you say 'no way we are getting back together.' stranger things do happen and you've said yourself that divorce is a long process and few men here will care to go through that process with you and experience your BAD relationship that you've yet to actually put behind you. second, you seem to be rushing into the dating thing. makes it seem you cannot be happy within yourself by yourself. i think people often get on these dating sites before they've recovered their happiness after a breakup. nobody is looking for an unhappy person. not saying that's you but appearances are everything when it comes to dating sites. you've alot of years left so focus on getting divorced, get past it, get happy being alone, build a profile that shows all that and THEN enjoy the men that will surely message you.

works fine in the used trucks for sale section.

like it.

too much negativity for my liking. men look at a lady's profile to she has what THEY want. nobody enjoys reading what you don't want. people only have so much patience for reading profiles. spend your words more wisely by saying things that will entice them to message you and lose the crap that says keep far away. get the guys interested THEN decide if they're your cup o tea.

jeez man. i don't see anybody calling anything fact. the data isn't even expected to be annalysed completely before the end of the year.

i'm not into football. wouldn't miss a baseball game for anybody though.

who has ever maintained that the big bang is fact?

happiness is a state, not something i strive to find. like being pregnant. you is or you ain't. i see self help crap sold mainly to unhappy people who most often remain unhappy after reading it. course the author is quite happy.

interestingly, the country of bhutan does not measure it's gnp, gross national production. it measures gnh, gross domestic happiness.

precisely. so no two differing cognative levels of behavioral expectation (s) can be universal.



ah, so these were the inanimate objects you were speaking of. indeed, physical laws do produce expected results often but your examples do not confirm that that is always the case. a ball thrown into the air on mars would not be expected to fall to earth. salt water does not freeze at 32 degrees nor dose pure water freeze at 32 degrees anywhere but at sea level pressure. being shot in the head often does not kill somebody.

behavioral expections of ourselves and others are far from universal even within ourselves as you yourself said regarding difering cognition. i'd expect the behavior of a kkk klansman to differ from the behavior of myself.

guess i messed them. nevermind.

to perpetuate the species. like these easy questions.

so you cannot name one universally shared behavioral expectation i take it?