Dangers of permitting gambling in Cayman

The United Church in Jamaica and the Cayman Islands has always opposed gambling. This is principally because it is contrary to our Christian beliefs, but it affects all of society, with the evidence that gambling leads to a deterioration of the social fabric as it exploits human weaknesses, undermines work ethic, leads to increased crime, is destructive of family life and promotes personal and institutional greed. It exploits the most vulnerable in society and represents a major transfer of resources from the very poor to the very rich.

The United Church understands that government needs to broaden its revenue base. Various proposals for a national lottery and casinos have been brought up in the past, giving similar reasons, namely that government was running out of options to raise revenue. However, the country has managed to get by and find ways to keep the country prosperous without resorting to legalised gambling. It can continue to do so. An editorial on the subject in the Christian Science Monitor said it well: “A nation that fosters a reliance on chance and officially endorses a culture of irresponsibility all in the name of increased revenues and free enterprise is certainly playing games with its moral foundations.”

Crime is a serious, escalating problem in the Cayman Islands. Statistics from around the world substantiate that gambling increases crime. The poor and the youth are most vulnerable but the problem of gambling can affect anyone regardless of age, gender, race, or social status. The Commonwealth nation of Australia, that has long advocated gambling as a national pastime, is now reviewing its policy because of the growing rate of addiction and the impact on the social fabric of the nation.

It is estimated that 10% of problem gamblers and two thirds of those who are receiving counselling have committed a crime because of their gambling. The first gambling-related crime is often perpetrated in the same year as, or just a few years after, starting regular gambling.

Gambling crime can be divided into four categories: illegal gambling, crimes committed to support a gambling habit, crimes that occur around the gambling locations, family abuse.

The major reason for gamblers to commit crimes is to fund their gambling activities. Gambling crime includes theft, forgery, embezzlement, fraud. It can also include domestic violence, assault, child neglect, suicide, prostitution, vandalism, breaking and entering, and home invasion. A significant amount of the crime related to gambling is not reported to authorities.

Organised crime has a big stake in the gambling industry. One former Florida gGovernor has said, “The Mafia follows gambling like sharks follow blood.” Casinos are particularly attractive to organised crime. Casinos present ideal opportunities for the skimming of profits as well as the laundering of moneys already earned through crime. Related crime such as loansharking and prostitution follow closely.

Local proponents of gambling emphasise the supposedly tremendous employment benefits but have not published hard facts to support this contention. In the US, there have been, instead, reports of the grave economic difficulties faced by many employees of casinos. We certainly cannot afford to have any more people in Cayman being employed in poverty creating jobs. A study published by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis summarised that: “The employment effects of casino gaming are difficult to quantify. A casino may draw labor from outside of the local area, thus leaving local employment conditions unchanged … It is possible that casino gaming may reduce employment in other local industries... The net effect of gaming could be positive or negative depending upon the degree to which casino gaming substitutes for or complements consumption at other local businesses.”

That possibility should not be overlooked here, where existing businesses are struggling to maintain their individual share of the tourist’s wallet. With casino gambling now so readily available in the US and our neighbouring islands, surely the question must be asked as to how will Cayman outshine their gambling industries that would cause tourists to incur the higher expense of a Cayman vacation to do what they can do at home or in one of our lower-cost neighbours. Certainly it seems basic to ask how will gambling differentiate our tourism product from that of our competitors where it is already available. It is widely suggested that this blurring of our tourism product in recent years has been a major factor in its relative decline and instead we must seek to recapture the differential advantage we previously offered.

The Cayman Islands has traditionally been known for its friendly, hospitable, Christian, hard working people. Crime used to be almost non-existent. We must all work together to restore that reputation. Introduction of legalised gambling will not do this. Government has a moral responsibility to enact laws which do not undermine or weaken the moral fabric of society. Let us clearly convey this to our elected representatives as they seek to hear the will of the people. Cayman can learn from the serious problems encountered by other countries that have extensive gambling and not follow down that same path. Any potential short term gain does not justify the long term detrimental effects that gambling will have on our society.

Comments

Is not religion itself a

Is not religion itself a gamble? - if  we win and go to heaven if we lose we go to hell! Then does that make church goers gamblers on the after live because it can never be proved either way!

As with everything there is white collar crime and blue collar crime - a lottery ticket (white collar) and the numbers (blue collar). So either make legal or enforce the laws but don't just turn blind eye to this - as usual.


0
0
0
LOL

The leaders of churches have

The leaders of churches have done more to secure approval for gaming than the persons seeking the licenses. You all are about to come to understand why the Church and State need to be separate. Your pandering to this Premier is going to bring you all down and I hope God has a special punishment for each of you. When you refuse to discipline your members, when you seek revenues over saving souls, when your members publicly support gaming you deserve what’s headed your way.

8
9
0
LOL

  I don't get this topic

 

I don't get this topic "dangers of Permitting gambling in Cayman!"

Gambling is already here !

And the bookies, they are stealing from government and the people!

That money needs to be spent on education.  One or two big belly men wearing t-shirts with a PPM water mark , march to the bank every Monday morning laughing all the way, Why arn't you churches crying out against that? That's not fair, I need some of that money. they had it long enough!

If you  in all your religious glory can not stop liquor sales, you won't stop gambling either, its just not logical. It is morally wrong  for you clergy to behave like this.Gambling must be legalized to be politically correct. The premier regardless of how saved he may be must legalize it in order for government to get their share to help carry the financial weight of the country. So all this big todoo is for nothing!

Ministers Association listen up, as saved as I am, I realize that gambling must be legalized because it is a greater sin to allow people to gamble illegally and allow one or two fat big belly, beer belly men to laugh all the way to the bank every Monday Morning while I'm on my way to ask for an extension to pay my light bill!   sane?

What would Jesud Do?

He would say render to Ceasar that which is Ceasars and Unto God that which is Gods.

Now mInisters you are Gods, so go back to the pulpits and bring sinners to repentance.

The illegal gambling money belongs to Ceasar, Big Mac and the government have to sort it out BECAUSE IT IS A PROBLEM! what part of that do you not understand. So Oh you all are for illegal gambling I get it, more is in the collection plate in illegal gambling funds ! that's not right.

And what about my $10 you all took from me telling me I would win a HD TV?

I want my money back. that's lying, cheating and stealing. All liars shall have their part in the lake of fire.

Until you stop the raffle  ticket business, we can't respect you as clergy, you must set an example. You are no better than these illegal gamblers who want to come out of the shadows and gamble legally. What's wrong with that. It's still sin,

Gamble illegally is a sin

Gamble legally its a sin.

I don't even gamble and here I am giving you advice on something you should know better. This is logic.

AT LEAST GOVERNMENT CAN GET ITS SHARE WHEN IT IS LEGALIZED!

Big Mac is much too smart to let them get away especially when the PPM family is enjoying  so much wealth from the illegal lottery!  .

0
3
0
LOL

Please leave the political

Please leave the political parties out of this. That only muddies the waters.

Every argument you have raised for legalizing gambling could be raised for legalizing prostitution and drugs. They are both immoral, illegal and profitable, and govt. is making no money from them. Govt. could license brothels and advertise sex tourism to boost the profits. It could license drug dealers so long as they only sell the cocaine to tourists.  You have made it clear that your morality is for SALE.  "Lying, cheating and stealing" (your words about gambling) are OK so long as the govt. makes money.  That was the central point of the article which you entirely missed.

"The illegal gambling money belongs to Ceasar, Big Mac and the government have to sort it out BECAUSE IT IS A PROBLEM! what part of that do you not understand".

Allowing casinos for non-residents will obviously not sort out the problem of the illegal numbers games. It didn't sort it out in the Bahamas. Quite the opposite, it will only tend to increase as people are tantalized by the sight of the casino but cannot enter it to gamble. And if all are provided access it will still not stop the illegal numbers racket, it will only mean that we have created more gamblers as people who would not gamble illegally are willing to do it legally.   

Re clergy selling raffle tickets, you are making a gross generalization. It does not apply to the majority of pastors and churches.  Why even bring it up unless you think it applies to the writer of the article?  Funny, you say you are not a gambler but you are demanding back the money you lost hoping to win an HD TV. Your position seems to amount to little more than posturing as you try to attack the clergy for its position rather than address the real issues posed by legalizing gambling. You have stated that gambling is a sin and yet you have the nerve to ask "what would Jesus do?". I think the answer is obvious: he would not condone sin for profit.       

2
0
0
LOL

I love the quote from

I love the quote from Missouri "A casino may draw labor from outside of the local area, thus leaving local employment conditions unchanged".  Do they know a) Grand Cayman is an island and b) how our labour market works?

We are not in Kansas, or Missouri, or Jamaica any more.

6
8
0
LOL

Yes, I think they do know how

Yes, I think they do know how our labour market works. Until very recently the majority of workers came from 'outside the local area' i.e. overseas. It is entirely foreseeable that a casinos might want to bring in its own people.  

9
3
0
LOL

At the end of the day "free

At the end of the day "free will" be it define under the church or otherwise means that all have the right to make their own decision. The church will make its stand known and its members will decide if they will follow. That is the same for every poster on this thread. What is perhaps the difference is that the suggestion is that when the church leadership speaks the membership follows blindly. I dont know if that is true, I pray that whichever church you go to you will make up your own mind. As a christian myself I tell you this we need to judge the words even of our pastors. That is what they teach. hopefully.

8
1
0
LOL

If a gay man buys a ticket

If a gay man buys a ticket for a church raffle is him committing a sin?

 

17
7
0
LOL

One day, all the Pastors of

One day, all the Pastors of the land had a meeting to discuss ecclesiastical matters that could affect church-growth in the region. Gambling was brought up to question, and there was a dead silence and fear over the prospects of gambling becoming legalized.

Chairman: "Ministers, last year, we made 11,500,000 in our offerings and need another 10 million in order to fund the renovations of our homes and pay for our children’s education. We can’t allow any shortages of monies to deter the work of God. So let’s keep on par with the crusades in selling Jesus to the world.”
 
"Mr. Chairman, sorry to interrupt you, I have a deep concern that could halt the work of God!"
 
"Yes, what is it Pastor G?"
 
“What will happen to the monies we suppose to be getting from our church raffles and bingo's if this Government should ever legalize gambling into law?"
 
"This is a good question and has a serious answer. I think everyone knows the answer Pastor G.  What will happen to us?  We will lose out!!!"  
 
Pastor G: "Hence Ministers, the everlasting Gospel of Jesus Christ will not be preached to the world and God will be very upset with us if we don't do something now to stop this EVIL from becoming law!"
 
[Meanwhile after a short silence, a Pastor Q from the back of the room, who hates going to God in prayer and trusting in Him, raises his hand]
 
"My fellow Ministers, I have a bright idea - Why not we form a coalition with the other Churches in the region. We can publicly come together and pay the media and politicians to oppose gambling in all its forms on our behalf. That way monies will continue flowing into our coffers."
 
Pastor G: This is a brilliant idea!  The politicians are scared of us and scared of losing the thousands of votes from our members. Ministers, we can PUT OUR TRUST in them to make a positive difference on our behalf."
 
Chairman: “But what if certain gays and people from the public oppose us?”
 
“No worries, if they oppose us, they oppose the politicians, and we can always have them make laws to enforce our MORAL MANDATES, which is the mandates of Jesus Christ. They do it in East [referring to the Taliban and certain religious sectors that have influence over their governments].
 
* Note this story is not to be taken literally, but is just showing that people need to see the road of danger when you have churches that rely on politics and the powers that be more than God who resides in the hearts of each and every person in the Cayman Islands.
 
Peace
27
16
0
LOL

People like you wrote the

People like you wrote the 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion' in order to engender hatred against another set of people.  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Protocols_of_the_Elders_of_Zion

God does not reside in the heart of each and every person. That is patent nonsense.

13
15
0
LOL

dummy, so God is something

dummy, so God is something outside of us in the sky!

;o)

You betta go back and read your bible and hate books, cause nobody need your expert advise. The fact that you would sit down to read 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion' shows how mixed up you are

10
6
0
LOL

God is not in "each one of

God is not in "each one of us". That is plain from the atrocities committed by so many. 

God may live in you in the form of the Holy Spirit if you are born again of the Spirit.    

7
8
0
LOL

Atrocities are committed

Atrocities are committed because people have ignored God within themselves and have not listen to conscience. It is not because they are devoid of God. God is still in them or else their would be no room for repentance. The Spirit of God is in mankind; it is for mankind to accept the Spirit of God and His grace. It is more accurate to say that atrocities are commited by people who are not "connected" to God that is always in them, than to say atrocities are committed by people who don't have God in them. That is like saying the creature can continue being the creature without the Maker and Sustainer of life within them. 

You want to find God?  Look within! 

You want to Satan? Look within!

That is why Jesus said, "for the kingdom of heaven is within you"

7
6
0
LOL

Sandra, you are following

Sandra, you are following some New Age cult teachings rather than the bible.

The bible teaches that we are dead in sin until we receive the new birth. To be dead spiritually is to be separated from God. Only his covenant people are described as the temple of God and having the Holy Spirit living in them. There is nothing at all in the bible that teaches that the spirit of God is in all humans.  

True repentance comes when the Holy Spirit comes to convict you of sin. Clearly not everyone is convicted of sin or repents.  

"The Spirit of God is in mankind; it is for mankind to accept the Spirit of God and His grace"

The first clause obviously contradicts the second. Why would one need to accept the Spirit of God if he is already in you?

 

6
6
0
LOL

So what is wrong with New Age

So what is wrong with New Age cult?  Don't tell me, it is the devil stuff!  First of all, I am not for any cult!  Do you know what a cult is??? 

I will have you know that the Bible has produced more cults than the Native Indians, my dear  :o)

So pla... eeeze spare me from your ignorance, and branding me as some witch!  Just because I view the truth BEYOND a book, such as the Bible, does not mean that I am some misled follower of a cult or wicked person as you would try to make me look like.

Also, anything you say to me as being true is coming from a book that has been translated hundreds of times and has derived itself from the Roman Catholic Church, which interpreted the book for her own ends. Listen Anonymous, I am not dumb, I know my history and I know the Bible.

My question is to you, do you know the TRUTH?

You ask, "Why would one need to accept the Spirit of God if he is already in you?"

Your own book says to the effect that "Jesus stands at the door and knocks, if any man invites Him in, he would come inside and fellowship with them." Revelation 3. Meaning that Jesus is at the door of your heart, you must allow Him to come in and transform you. This is nothing to be taken literally. God is in each one of us!

There are those who are connected to the Supreme Being, and simply there are those who crucify the Lord (figuratively speaking) within themselves by choosing to live a sinful life, by choosing to not allow Him to rule your life. 

This view of mine, has nothing to do with CULT my friend. Jesus said and I repeat - "The Kingdom of God is WITHIN you" as well as outside of you. To answer your question, look at Nature for Truth as well. 

A seed has the principle of germination in it. It has to basically die before it can grow. Once the seed is sown and watered under the right conditions, the germination principle becomes kenetic and charged with life. The seed begins to grow. So it is with the Spirit of God. I don't care what your preacher tells you, but God's spirit is in us till the day we die. It is for us to "die" or surrender like the seed in order for God to work in our lives. That is when God enters one's heart. He is already in us and everything else, but the heart is His throne. We must come off the throne and allow Him to take over.

There is no CULT in this teaching.

 

4
7
0
LOL

thank you... I have heard

thank you... I have heard that in history lesson before, how the Roman Catholic Church, headed by a Pope put the canon of the Bible together

3
5
0
LOL

Before the Bible there was

Before the Bible there was writings on scrolls. The Bible is a collection of a number of those scrolls. The Roman Catholic claims Peter as their first Pope which essentially means that they were the first Christian Church. As such when the scrolls were being collected and put into one book called the Bible they took the lead position. Not all scrolls that were present were placed in the Bible.

1
4
0
LOL

The Old Testament was Jewish

The Old Testament was Jewish in origin. There was no New Testament canon existing from Apostolic times. The New Testament came out from the Catholic Church. So... only people who are brainwashed, close their eyes to history and diss Catholics, calling them the false church. Some even go as far as to want nothing to do with Catholic! But the fact remains always, the Bible as we know it, was originally compiled by the "Mother Church." Truth was regarded as the "spoken word" because their was no printing press at the time, and the "written word," the Bible. Protestants later broke away from Catholics, limiting truth to only the "written word" although the Bible itself says men were moved by the spirit of God as they wrote.

I hope you consider history as truth.

In the section "Church Fathers" Wikipedia states that - 

"Soon after the establishment of Christianity in the first century, Church Fathers compiled Gospel accounts and letters of apostles into a Christian Bible which became known as the New Testament."

In the section "Development of the New Testament Canon" Wikipedia states further in more detail -

"The writings attributed to the apostles circulated amongst the earliest Christian communities. The Pauline epistles were circulating, perhaps in collected forms, by the end of the first century AD.[2] Justin Martyr, in the early second century, mentions "memoirs of the apostles" as being read on Sunday alongside the "writings of the prophets".[3] A four gospel canon (the Tetramorph) was asserted by Irenaeus, c. 180, who refers to it directly.[4][5]

By the early 200s, Origen may have been using the same 27 books as in the Catholic NT canon, though there were still disputes over the canonicity of Hebrews, James, II Peter, II and III John, and Revelation[6], known as the Antilegomena. Likewise the Muratorian fragment is evidence that perhaps as early as 200 there existed a set of Christian writings somewhat similar to the 27-book NT canon, which included four gospels and argued against objections to them.[7] Thus, while there was a good measure of debate in the Early Church over the New Testament canon, the major writings are claimed to have been accepted by almost all Christians by the middle of the third century.[8]"

If Wikipedia's account holds any water to you, then I will have you know that Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Origen were all Catholics who gave their allegance to the Pope as Peter and his earthly succession.

3
4
0
LOL

Let's deal with the facts. 

Let's deal with the facts.  Try actually studying the issue rather than quoting Wikipedia.

You are falsely equating the Church Fathers and the catholic church (meaning simply the universal church) with the Roman Catholic Church. The Bible did not come out of the Roman Catholic Church.  As is evident from the NT the Church at Rome was not the first established (which was obviously the church at Jerusalem) nor did it have any universal jurisdiction over other churches. This ascendancy came when Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire and therefore the church of its capital, Rome, gained primacy over other churches in the Empire. 

The Roman Catholic concept of a Pope was unknown in the early church. Roman Catholics may claim claim Peter as the first Pope but it is fairly obvious from the NT that Peter did not regard himself as a Pope, and none of the writings of the Church Fathers in the first and second centuries recognize any such office. There is no contemporaneous evidence that Peter was ever the Bishop of Rome. It is clear from his epistle to the Romans (the church at Rome) that Paul considered himself to have oversight over that church. Strange that an epistle written to a church of which Peter was supposedly the head does not address Peter at all. 

"Protestants later broke away from Catholics, limiting truth to only the "written word" although the Bible itself says men were moved by the spirit of God as they wrote". 

I don't how the Bible reference helps your case. You yourself have used the word "wrote".  The Protestant doctrine is that scripture is the only authoritative source of matters of faith and doctrine.  

One could equally say that the RCC is "dissing" Jews since it does not recognize any authority of Rabbis over them notwithstanding that the entire OT is comprised of Hebrew writings.            

4
0
0
LOL

You are a prime example of a

You are a prime example of a cult mentality. Take one verse from scripture out of context and wrest it to your own destruction. The New Age movement is satanic. I recognize it because I used to be immersed in the New Age. Yo should not make assumptions about sombody listening to what their preacher says.

If it were not so tragic it would be funny that you are quoting a verse from Revelations that proves exactly the opposite of what you are claiming. If Christ is standing outside and knocking then he obviously is not inside.

Yes, I do know the truth, but it is clear that you are one confused soul who does not.

6
5
0
LOL

If God is the author and

If God is the author and breath of life, how can you say someone else could live without Him?  Friend, it is either God abide in you or you are dead and don't exist!

11
16
0
LOL

You seem to have a habit of

You seem to have a habit of confusing matters, Sandra. This time you are confusing the spirit of man with the spirit of God.

10
12
0
LOL

I tend to see that the

I tend to see that the "spirit of man" IS the "spirit of God." How can you separate them when one comes out from the other? They are a kin to each other. I don't know, but I believe Sandra has a point. If someone is bad, he or she has just chosen not to be in harmony with him or her self.

10
10
0
LOL

I.e. you think WE are God.

I.e. you think WE are God. LOL.

How can we distinguish? Here are a few ways

The Spirit of God

- gives life, but we have no capacity to give life.

- knows the mind of the Father and knows all things. We do not

- is of infinite intelligence. We are not

- is all powerful, while we are frail.     

Clear enough for you?

 

8
6
0
LOL

whoever we are, we all are a

whoever we are, we all are a part of God and come from Him

3
6
0
LOL

We are not a part of God. We

We are not a part of God. We are a part of his creation. 

Another confused soul deceived by the New Age.  

6
5
0
LOL

We have a little difference,

We have a little difference, in that you were created but I evolved without any help of yours, or anyone else's God. Don't worry though, we both want a more civil, and crime free society ;)
5
5
0
LOL

It takes an extraordinary

It takes an extraordinary amount of faith to believe that our DNA evolved (all the while adding information) by random chance without an intelligent designer. More than I have. The probability of the coincidental formation of the code of an average protein in the human body in DNA by itself is 1 over 1 followed by 600 zeros., i.e. for all practical purposes ZERO.  

5
3
0
LOL

  To sat 24 july

 

To sat 24 july 16:14 

 

Feck, ya los me. Am off for a cocktail.

0
2
0
LOL

 It takes a lot more faith to

 It takes a lot more faith to believe that your "Inteligent Designer" firstly designed itself, then proceed to design everything else.

In the begining God created himself , and saw that he was good. Then he created the heavens and the earth......

Is this how Genesis was supposed to begin?

DNA evolution is a fact. This we know is done by mutation.

4
4
0
LOL

God is the uncreated,

God is the uncreated, causeless cause.

Mutations take place in nature very rarely. Mutuations in DNA would have had to been the rule rather than the exception to explain the diversity of life forms.

Francis Crick, the biochemist who discovered the structure of DNA, won a Nobel prize for the research he had carried out on the subject. Crick, an ardent evolutionist, stated the following scientific opinion in a book he wrote after testifying to the miraculous structure of DNA: "An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that, in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle".

Also, it is interesting to note the conclusion of the famous French zoologist Pierre Grassé, the former president of the French Academy of Sciences. Grassé is also an evolutionist, but he states clearly that Darwinist theory is unable to explain life and makes his point about the logic of "coincidence," which is the backbone of Darwinism:

"The opportune appearance of mutations permitting animals and plants to meet their needs seems hard to believe. Yet the Darwinian theory is even more demanding: A single plant, a single animal would require thousands and thousands of lucky, appropriate events. Thus, miracles would become the rule: events with an infinitesimal probability could not fail to occur… There is no law against day-dreaming, but science must not indulge in it".

I think you should heed Monsieur De Grasse's advice.

DNA mutation cannot explain the origin of life.

4
2
0
LOL

 I did not state (or, said)

 I did not state (or, said) that DNA Mutation explained the origin of life. I only stated that it is a fact that it occurs. However, it is always the position of "Creationist"  that anything science fails to explain, then the alternative must be "God". 

Your very first statement ("God is uncreated, causeless cause"), is as substantial as creationist will ever get to furthering their argument of creation. I guess you also believe that the "Archilles could have never caught-up to the tortoise". 

Science will never be perfect, and may very well never explain "The Beginning". However, it does make a far better attempt than any religion, and creationist theories.

Also, your math on the probability of life form evolving is lacking in consideration of the variable "Time". In this unimaginative view you can never grasp the probability of life form (in it's basic of form) changing, and adapting over billions of years.

Perhaps, you are one to believe the earth is approximately 8,000 years old?

2
3
0
LOL

"I did not state (or, said)

"I did not state (or, said) that DNA Mutation explained the origin of life".

Let's review. You started this whole exchange by stating (I paraphrase) that you are here by evolution without any assistance of or involvement by any God. This can only mean that evolution explains the origin of life and necessarily excludes God as the origin of life. 

I see that you have ignored the quotes I provided from two eminent scientists who are experts on the subject of evolution and DNA respectively. They have not of course ignored the element of time at all as that is at the heart of evolutionary theory. It is virtually impossible that DNA could have arisen from inanimate matter through numerous fortuitous accidents even taking into account the passage of billions of years. That is why they feel compelled to use the term "miracle".

The insistence by some scientists that God is displaced by evolution is based on ideology rather than the application of science and reason. 

Nice try to patronize me with the '8,000 years old'.         

4
2
0
LOL

 In science evolution does

 In science evolution does not attempt to explain the origin of life, this area of science is called biopoesis.  Perhaps, now you may stop drawing your convenient inferences from my words.

Respectfully, I did not comment on any statements of scientist for the mere fact that I am not a scientist, and I am not so arrogant as to think that I can scientifically disqualify any works and theories of any scientist.  As, you may know  (or, do you know?) that in the field of science a “higher bar” of proof exists,  at the minimum one has to use the logical part of their brain (something seemingly discouraged in religion).

Furthermore, the vast majority of scientist are not believers of  the “Intelligent Design” theory . However, I am settled in my conscience that it is very, very, likely that there is no God (as you refer to as Intelligent Designer).  Your position in this is “classic creationist” …”God exist” ..”now you try to disprove it”.  However, scientists have over the ages done a very good job of making the argument for God seem quite feeble.

How do you imagine your God to look? 

3
4
0
LOL

Let me not draw inferences

Let me not draw inferences from your words but quote them directly:

"You were created but I evolved without any help of yours, or anyone else's God".

That is a categorical assertion that the origin of life may be explained by evolution and excludes God. I see you have now abandoned that position and have sought refuge in a new word: "biopesis". Not that that helps much since it is already addressed in the quotes I provided.  

Funny, Eva Lotion still seems to think that evolution explains the origin of life. 

The fact that most scientists may hold to a certain position is more reflective of ideology than any conclusions based on science and reason. The scientific establishment seeks to ostracise and discredit scientists who disagree (and there are many). See "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed". 

Scientists have not succeeded in making the argument for God feeble at all. Indeed, the honest ones are awed and humbled by their new discoveries into recognizing a superior intelligence at work. Nothing does this better than the discovery of the structure of DNA.

Dr. Werner Gitt, an expert in information systems gives the following deduces the following conclusions:

Since the DNA code has all the essential characteristics of information, there must have been a sender of this information.

Since the density and complexity of the DNA information is millions of times greater than man's present technology, the sender must be supremely intelligent.

Since the sender must have encoded (stored) the information into the DNA molecule and constructed the molecular biomachines to encode, decode and run the cells, the sender must be purposeful and supremely powerful.

Since information is a nonmaterial entity and cannot originate from matter, the sender must have a nonmaterial component (spirit).

Since information cannot originate from matter and is also created by man, man's nature must have a nonmaterial component (spirit).

Since biological information can only originate from an intelligent sender and all theories of chemical and biological evolution are based on the premise that information comes solely from matter and energy (with no sender), then the theories of chemical and biological evolution are false.

As recently as twenty-five years ago," says former atheist Patrick Glynn, "a reasonable person weighing the purely scientific evidence on the issue would likely have come down on the side of skepticism [regarding a Creator]. That is no longer the case." He adds: "Today the concrete data point strongly in the direction of the God hypothesis. It is the simplest and most obvious solution . . ." (God: The Evidence, 1997, pp. 54-55, 53).

The last question is another of your silly attempts to patronize me.      

4
3
0
LOL

Seriously do people believe

Seriously do people believe this crap?

4
4
0
LOL

Yes, according to you, 95% of

Yes, according to you, 95% of the earth's population are idiots for believing in a god.

4
1
0
LOL

 Unfortunately they do.

 Unfortunately they do.

2
4
0
LOL

Evidently very eminent

Evidently very eminent scientists have come to these conclusions based on science and reason. I am not sure what qualifies you to term it "crap". In any event, saying something is "crap" is not reasoned argument, its just throwing a tantrum.  How dare anyone express a view different from yours.  

4
0
0
LOL

Try reading The Greatest Show

Try reading The Greatest Show On Earth.  Each chapter can stand as a free standing and independent means of supporting evolution as the only credible means of explaining the origin of mankind.  In terms of scientific analysis there is no debate about the how evolution has lead to the development of species, although there is debate within the framework of evolution as to the specifics of the process. 

I know that gravity works, there is no debate about how gravity will affect me in the day to day world.  We have real debate about what makes gravity tick.  It does not mean there is no gravity.  But that is the logic that creationists try to apply when they try to argue against evolution.

And yes, at the heart of one of the key debates in science is the "birth" of self-replicating DNA.  There are many theories.  And to be honest some sound crazy. 

But these arguments are very narrow and not central to what happened after the intial stages of "life" as we define it.  We developed from a common ancestor with the chimpanzee (ie not from chimps) and we shared common ancestors with other primates, and shared common ancestors with other mammals, and so back it goes.  None of that can be credibly challenged as a matter of evidence and cold hard data.

Evolution.  It sure beats magic.

Of course we are never going to persuade the bible bashers.  The irony is that these literalists are driving many away from Christianity by grasping onto ridiculous concepts like creationism at the expense of carrying the core message brought to mankind by Jesus Christ.

 

3
3
0
LOL

Wow, I have just found out

Wow, I have just found out that I don't exist.

Oh no, I only don't exist if "God" is the "author of life".

Phew, I exist.

That was close.

15
19
0
LOL

And people like you crucified

And people like you crucified Jesus as his message was against the views of the majority

As for "God does not reside in the heart of each and every person. That is patent nonsense."

Sounds like you bear a deep hatred of us Gnostics, maybe you should study more on tolerance

 

9
14
0
LOL

LOL! So anytime you are in

LOL! So anytime you are in the majority you are like those who crucified Christ?! That is so self-evidently ridiculous that it requires no substantive response.

8
6
0
LOL

@ United Church in Jamaica

@ United Church in Jamaica and the Cayman Islands

Agreed.

Gambling can be a distraction from a culture of responsibility. However, I think, as keepers of morality, you should focus your energies more on the proclamation of your Gospel and get out of the law-making process of a nation for the people and by the people, many of whom are not christian. Where in the Bible does it say that the church must get involved in politics? I thought Jesus taught a separation: “Give unto Caesar the things that are Caesars and unto God the things that are Gods.”

The same moral route the Taliban took and later because they had civil support, became oppressive to the Afghan people. The moral route that what's right for us must be right for everybody else. But Christian warfare and jihad should be warfare against spiritual darkness and sin – not against people and society!

Of course, I am against the sins of gambling, but sin in the human heart is the root of all other sins. If the heart is unclean then everything else is unclean! Whether there be gambling or not, it doesn't matter - the church is to preach against sin in the human heart, the love of God, and the attainment of salvation.

The Church should not rely on politics and laws to get what she wants when there is a God in heaven she should be praying to in thanksgiving and supplications.

Please know your role as a Church and study your Bible!

Peace
 

14
9
0
LOL

Cast away the Sandal and

Cast away the Sandal and follow the gourd.

1
0
0
LOL

A very reasoned and

A very reasoned and thoughtful argument from the United Church (of which I am a member) and certainly thought-provoking, as evidenced by the number of comments it has generated. It goes a long way in highlighting some of the many moral and social issues associated with gaming. With numerous ‘charity’ raffles and, by all accounts, a robust illegal numbers game, Cayman is clearly a society already addicted to gambling. Imagine what will happen if it is legalized!

The introduction of gaming will be of questionable economic merit – most studies on the matter are either biased to or against gambling, or are inconclusive. A lottery aimed at local people will not magically produce more money; some people will merely spend their pay differently, siphoning money away from existing local businesses, others will simply spend their money more wisely. Tourists, likewise, will only spend in a casino those funds they would otherwise have spent on restaurants, tours or souvenirs. Existing businesses, not to mention families, will suffer when gamblers fritter away their money fruitlessly looking to ‘get rich quick.’

The introduction of a lottery or a casino, like gambling itself, is a false hope for those who are struggling financially.

13
23
0
LOL

Earth to orbiting United

Earth to orbiting United Church member:

Ever take the time to imagine if casinos are legalised and locals are not allowed to gamble there? No? Why?

0
10
0
LOL

God knows what you are

God knows what you are imagining. If Cayman is a society already addicted, precisely nothing will happen when it is legalised, as everyone will carry on as they were before. The only differences will be that we won't be breaking the law, the Government will take a cut of the profits (see the Bahamas' $20m per year revenues in gambling taxes), and, if anything, those who truly are addicted should be able to find treatment more easily, as it won't be a black market industry.

 

The introduction of casinos is, in my eyes at least, simply another form of entertainment. You pay your money, you enjoy the thrill of the gamble, if you win you have an amazing night, if you lose you only lost what you could afford and you had fun doing it. And lets face it, there really isn't a whole lot to do in Cayman in the evenings.

19
11
0
LOL

Don't ya just love it when

Don't ya just love it when fundies lecture others on morality?  

They believe in the absurd but psychologically dangerous concept of original sin.

They think it's fine and dandy for the majority of human beings to suffer an eternity of torture by the hand of their "god of love".

They hate gay people, equality for women, scientific progress, some medical advances, and human rights.

While most of them are law-abiding people who may mean well, their ranks are filled with some of the most corrupt and depraved people who walk the earth, clear evidence that their demented subculture has no corner on the morality market. 

In general they push for a backward and meaner world at the expense of those of us who are not braindead.

And THEY try to lecture us on moral issues? Give me a break! 

A casino might be a bad idea for Cayman, but not because god will hurl lightning bolts at us if we build one. 

 

46
17
0
LOL

Your hatred for christians

Your hatred for christians has blinded you to the fact that the article was not arguing the issue primarily from a more standpoint, but rather the negative social impact.

Human Rights - the new religion. Those who dissent are heretics and must be persecuted.

7
2
0
LOL

Post new comment

You must be logged in if you are using your real name
The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
Note: the editor toolbar is avaible to registered users.
Read the CNS comment policy
Become a registered user
Login
To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.