Let's all move to... South Carolina?
 

http://christianexodus.org/

I saw one of these people on the news today. They want to emigrate thousands of Christians to the state of South Carolina and make it independent from the United States so that they can have their own "moral" Christian government. You have to read the site to really believe it.

Discussion time!

Having been born and raised in South Carolina, I can assure you that no such invasion will take place. We've got Bob Jones, yes, but they aren't exactly fond of any denomination other than southern baptist. Not surprisingly, the SC has just as many heathens as anywhere else. It's just that our jerks are surprisingly loud.

Let them do it. Then just tell all those Muslim and Paki hijinkers that the Christians are holding captive and torturing Iraqi prisoners...then, step back and watch the merrymaking commence. Wheee...and so on and so forth.

OMG! Schools continue to teach the discredited theory of evolution? You American monsters! Seriously, this in itself is a massive discussion, and one that I suppose I shouldn't bring up. But it still irritates me that they use the term "discredited" when a more accurate expression would be "doesn't account scientifically for all the evidence."

And what's with homosexuality being called sodomy? These people are upset that Free Speech is being impounded (incidentally, while trying to say people are not allowed to be themselves), and then go and spoil their point by getting words integral to their arguement wrong.

But Jacob has (somewhere in his glee) a point. If these people want to go off and desicrate humanity, let them do it all together, to themselves. We don't need their kind "diluting" the population.

I do not know my American geography, so tell me, is South Carolina easily cut off and pushed out to the ocean away from the rest of the country?

It's on the east coast, so bonus points for that. It's not on a sticky outy bit, though, so one has to wonder. It's north of Georgia and Florida.

Some of you know I'm a pretty devoted Christian. But hopefully you all also know my opinion that most "christians" are ignorant and confused. This is ridiculous. Plus, it isn't Biblical. The Bible teaches Christians to go out into the world and teach people. Not hide in some secluded area and pretend that Christians are perfect people and that the world is the Devil.

'Not hide in some secluded area and pretend that Christians are perfect people and that the world is the Devil.'

Now, now, if they want to rid society of their incessant ramblings and idiocy by moving somewhere...away, let them. Don't be putting sensible ideas into their heads, who do you think you are, eh? God?

This is kind of on another tangent, but still related ... but there is a few US states that I notice don't have any major sporting teams and it is common for rock bands to not play concerts there [I don't know which ones off hand]. Someone told me once that there is a "bible belt" in the US which is some states that are really religious. Is this related to those states that I mentioned.

[directed to someone in the US I guess]

Abe Babe...

I'm not American but I have always assumed that the "Bible Belt" is indeed as it says... a row of states crossing the continent of America across the area known as the South...

These states are extremely Christian and fundementalist.... certain literature, music and scientific theories are banned due to the beliefs held to be "gospel" (no pun intended)

Thats what I've always thought... but it would be nice to get someone from the US to confirm!

I think the "Bible Belt" as you put it is just an exageration of the fact that most southern states are conservative. Then again, I live near Seattle, WA which is one of the liberal cities in the US so I wouldn't really know. Sure some states are more conservative than others, but most places have a pretty wide mix of people and opinions. I know that some individual schools, towns or counties ban music, books, etc... but not whole states.

Haha... No, whole states don't ban music or literature, and definitely no scientific theories. I don't know of any state that does. We may have problems but we's not that ****ed-up. :fuzemb:

At the end of the world, these "religious" people will be thrown into a burning pit where they can only have contact with people who either share their ideals or the antithesis of them. Trust Me. It's in the 4th chapter of the 20th Book of Statikk, verse 69.

At the Atlanta Olympics the athletes had to be told not to use contraceptives or sex toys as they were illegal in Georgia.

:rolleyes:

SCIENTIFIC THEORY: Darwinism!

But then if you live in one of those states you won't know about it!!!!! :D

...
 

I say let them. I have no problem with really devout people closing themselves off from the rest of the world. Maybe the rest of us will be able to move on without all the quarreling over theological beliefs and morality, and accomplish some more things.

Yes, because the phrase "God hates queers" is soooooo misunderstood.

My God, that's barbaric! Sex toys I can understand, but contraceptives? That pretty much brings the opportunity for sex for any sane, sensible and life-caring person to zero.

I suppose the only arguement against it is that the reasonable people living in South Carolina would either have to be swamped by these people or move from their homes.

The god people moved to one area? GREAT! I can take them all out with one push of this red button here.

'GREAT! I can take them all out with one push of this red button here.'

No, that's your mothers G-spot, pushing that would cause her to feel pleasure she's never felt since having you.

'Yes, because the phrase "God hates queers" is soooooo misunderstood.'

It's more like "Our Lord Jesus Christ despises the sin that Sodomites pleasure themselves with".

If you go onto the forum and read some of the things they say it's really funny, such as one mother worried because her teenager has a boyfriend. Heee!!

I can't join the forum though, which is rrrreally poo.

If these "religious" fanatics controlled the world it would be like living in a never-ending showing of Equilibrium. These people use religion as a tool and wield it for power. Well, I say anybody who uses anything religious for political gain owes taxes. You wanna get into to the carney that is Washington Ave.? Well, you gotta buy your ticket, bitch!

Okay that comment was just uncalled for Jacob.

I'm just not sure that South Carolina is the best place for a fundamentalist migration. It is part of the "bible belt" as it were, but hardly secluded. It seems that the major reason for choosing it is based on the fact that it was the first to seceed during the civil war. But all those people are dead now, so it might be silly to try.

By the by, the last time I was in georgia (2 years ago) sex toys, contraceptives, and indeed, porn stores were all still alive and well. But that was just in Athens and Atlanta. Maybe its different elsewhere.

Hmmm, I just now looked at this thread. The title wasn't very exciting I guess. :p

Really though, I hate calling myself a Christian if people associate me with idiots. People like that just make me cringe.

Reminds me of "The Village" in a way. If you've seen it...ya know what I mean.

-oddguy

I read a really interesting article last week about this devout christian woman who sells sex toys in texas.

Anyone in Melb or Syd read that in the Good Weekend last week?

ClaireBear, I told you it's not banned. It's taught in every public school. I thought I just told you that...

In South Carolina yeah.. but in other states? Are you sure? And if not states what about in certain towns/cities and non-public schools... private schools and denominational schools...

The very fact that some Bible belters even see fit to question evolution in favour of a theory put forward in a load of allegories written in the middle ages to simply control the masses makes me put my "These people are stupid" X marks the spot over the entirity of the southern states!

...
 

Does the bible explain why some whales and snakes have leg bones inside their bodies, and why marine mammals have fingerbones in their flippers? I don't see how you can ban something that could be the one way of explaining the origins of species.

The theory of evolution is only the basic element of explaining the origins of the species. Additional studies have found that evolution has often happened in leaps and bounds followed by long sustained periods, followed by a period of accelerating levels of extinction, often culminated in a mass extinction. Undoubtedly there's a link between the environmental factors that caused the extinctions and the need for species to adapt, but that's not the whole story. If only I'd have actually watched that documentary, my words would have more force to them. :p

Religious people, too, have plenty to argue against the theory of evolution. All I remember is Khanz's arguement that when designing creatures, he prefered a set basis, hence the similarities between species. It can't be proved, I know, but then neither can God in the first place.

I'm more concerned about the children of the Holier-than-thou. Because 99.9% of the time, the parents force their children to follow their Religion. Which is bad, if not damaging.

EVOLUTION
 

Here's my breif creationist response to what has been said about evolution.

When God created the Earth, He created it perfect. Meaning the first animals, plants and even Adam and Eve, where perfect specimens containing all the genetic traits for their species. Over time, these species have speciated and become many different species. The difference between this and evolution is that evolution requires all species in the world to have evolved from one tiny simple organic cell that created itslelf. In creationism, the animals "devolve" meaning they split apart into different species by losing uneccessary traits. An example would be the first "super cat" spreading out. Over time, the jungle cats lose traits they don't need in favor of traits that they already have that are more favorable. Cats in the mountains would keep other traits and lose different ones.

This makes much more sense to me than the evolutionary theory from a scientific standpoint becuase there has NEVER been a recorded case of an organism developing traits that weren't already somewhere in the gene pool.

Thanks for that, Khanz. That's actually a brilliant theory, the best alternative to evolution I've ever seen. For clarification, though, what would these 'perfect' specimens have for characteristics? Today, the cats you described are pretty much perfectly suited to their environment, so under what conditions was this perfection aplicable? I er... don't expect you to have been around at the time, but I'm interested nonetheless.

As for organisms developing traits not in the gene pool, I can offer an arguement against that statement. On the other hand, Down's Syndrome is not inherited, not carried in the genome, and can occur with no history of the condition in the family's past. The simple counter arguement to that is that since it's not inherited, it can have no place in evolution.

However, evolution takes many centuries to be recognisable (except in small isolated instances, and on a microcosmic scale) - and humans have not been around to study genes for anywhere near long enough to see a trait occur out of the blue.

The microcosmic scale of which I speak refers to pockets of bacterial organisms. The case I have in mind is of so-called superbugs (the oh-so-informative media won't explain to me what they actually are, since it doesn't take devout religion to be stupid and demand things to be dumbed down). It is feared they will adapt faster to existing treatment if we use that treatment (as those that do survive the treatment will be the only ones left to reproduce). Now, as I said, I don't know the specifics of this, but according to your statement, the resistence for this is already carried in the genome of these 'bugs'. How is it meant to have come about?

Bah, I could probably continue arguing against my own arguements, but I fear that would just lead to a less clearly defined discussion.

ClaireBear, of course some private schools don't teach it. They're private schools. They're not funded by the government, so they can teach whatever they want (I went to one until the 5th grade). There are no states that ban Darwinism. Believe me. I live here, you don't.

Hmmmm... even private schools in Blighty have to function under guidance... I just find it very demoralising to think that there are certain peoples and areas so backward... still following dark ages values after all the advancements and scientific findings to the contrary.

Sorry Joe but I hope you're comfortable living under mine (and a lot of other British people's.. those I know anyway) red cross of "here lie-eth peoples of very little intelligence"

GAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH!!!
I just typed a very thoughtful answer to your question's Max but it disappeared somehow. You'll have to get the condensed version for now.

Perfect is not the right word. Super would probably be more appropriate. In creationism, God created the first super animals so that they could diversify and become many different species adapted to their environment. For example, we can look at Darwin's finches, who according to evolution all evolved from one simpler common ancestor. In creationism, all those finches descended from one super finch that allready carried the traits that are now the distinguishing features between the species. To me the second makes much more sense from a scientific standpoint... once you decide to believe in God of course.

As for evolution taking to long to be abserved. Assuming that is true, there is a lot of evidence that the Earth isn't as old as scientists would have us believe. I can't think of anything offhand other than the fact that carbon dating and such are shams and can only measure up to about 5,000 years. Yet scientists pretend they can accurately measure into the billions. Or something, I forget the real argument.

As for the viruses and such developing immunity to vaccines. I'd guess that it works the same way as our immune system does to battle new diseases. And since vaccines and medication all come from nature somehow, it is possible that the immunity of the disease is indeed an inherited trait. Not sure though, those are just my guesses.

I'm going to post this now before it disappears. I think it might be longer than the first one...


EDIT: Two seconds after hitting the post button my internet closed itslelf down for no reason. I feel lucky..

God did not create man.
Man created god.

Very deep Lucifer, if a bit vaque. However, I find it more likely that humans were created by some sort of ultimate ALL BEING than reality itself having been created by our limited physical minds. I think it makes more sense for everything to come from something than for everything to come from nothing.

Does the Bible say anything about how God isn't very active anymore? Because from what i've heard, in the "old days" he was very active - banishing this and destroying that. Popping up to tell someone to kill their son and then being all "Ha, you actually listened to me!" but then he just...disappears.

To be honest, compared to Christianity, Raelianism is quite believable. And i don't know why anybody laughs at it, because we've followed the whole "Eye in the sky" reason for life for, like, ever [or, atleast since people realised how stupid others were].

I prefer to believe in both God and evolution. If you put God ito a more likely role, such as being the very essence and balance of the universe rather than being a singular conscience, it makes way more sense to me. It's only partially right that we created God, because I think we just created an identity for god in our subjective world in trying to understand something so immense and beyond our concept of existance.

I swore to myself I would never argue about evolution again and I'm not about to start. Can everybody please stop infesting the boards with their bullshit, canned responses? Its tired and tiring so just cut that shit out.