Why is it so important to refute Christianity?

Coastal Rat:

You said:

Quote:

I am still wishing to know why a person should be kept out of governmental jobs just because they hold a particular religious belief? So what if they don't believe in and work to oppose certain things which they see as wrong (abortion, gay marriage, just to name a couple)? Don't people coming from other colleges where they are taught from a liberal viewpoint get into government and work to promote their views as right (again, such as abortion and gay marriage)? So if you wish to rail against one, why are you not railing against the other?

I have read many college commencement speeches, and in nearly all of them, young people are told to go out and change the world. Should this only apply to graduates who choose not to base their beliefs on Christian principles?

Nobody should be held out of a job because of their religious belief! So long as they can draw a line between their beliefs and society's values. Society tends to value the freedom to do as much as we choose based on our own belief systems, rather than someone elses.

Anti-Abortion: Limiting a woman's right to have control over her body is taking away a freedom from someone other than yourself.

Anti-Homosexual Marriage: Is taking away somebody else's freedom to wed. It doesn't effect anyone but the people who are being married.

The problem is when you use your powers to take away someone else's control over their existence and in turn, use religion, which is a belief, to support your actions.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Unless you can show me how these young people are subversive, unAmerican, bent on overthrowing government, etc. etc., I just don't see a problem Mesquite. Interestingly, the writer doesn't show the college affiliation of the other interns. Should be be frightened if it turns out six or seven or eight are from Harvard or Yale?

Since you previously wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

I'll admit I cringe when the nightly news puts on a Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson as representative of the Christian view

I thought that perhaps you would recognize them as a fundamentalist fringe group with extremely narrow views and an unusually high representation in our government.

If you cannot see that a college with an enrollment of 240 alumni providing 7% of the congressional interns is unusual or at least worth discussing, then so be it. And please try to refrain from attributing terms such as " subversive, unAmerican" to me.

Would you see it the same way if a college promoting Wahabi style Islam had made a similar penetration?

0 Replies

Jer wrote:

Coastal Rat:

You said:

Quote:
I am still wishing to know why a person should be kept out of governmental jobs just because they hold a particular religious belief? So what if they don't believe in and work to oppose certain things which they see as wrong (abortion, gay marriage, just to name a couple)? Don't people coming from other colleges where they are taught from a liberal viewpoint get into government and work to promote their views as right (again, such as abortion and gay marriage)? So if you wish to rail against one, why are you not railing against the other?

I have read many college commencement speeches, and in nearly all of them, young people are told to go out and change the world. Should this only apply to graduates who choose not to base their beliefs on Christian principles?

Nobody should be held out of a job because of their religious belief! So long as they can draw a line between their beliefs and society's values. Society tends to value the freedom to do as much as we choose based on our own belief systems, rather than someone elses.

Anti-Abortion: Limiting a woman's right to have control over her body is taking away a freedom from someone other than yourself.

Anti-Homosexual Marriage: Is taking away somebody else's freedom to wed. It doesn't effect anyone but the people who are being married.

The problem is when you use your powers to take away someone else's control over their existence and in turn, use religion, which is a belief, to support your actions.

And what would be society's values? What only you wish them to be? Last I checked, Christians are a part of society and should have a say in society's values. But no, I guess we are to be excluded in helping to shape society's values because you arbitrarily decide we are wrong. Funny how that works, isn't it.

I believe life begins at conception and thus taking that life is wrong. You may believe differently. That is fine. I accept that. And for a long time now, our laws have given support to your view. I accept that. But that does not mean I cannot try to change that view, using reasoned arguments to hopefully change peoples minds and using legal methods to change laws. What is wrong with that? It is the same thing gay activists are currently doing to change marriage laws. They are using reasoning to try to change minds and legal methods to change laws. Which is their right to try.

So I guess gay activists and abortion activists have a right to try to impose their values on society while I do not have the right to fight for my values.

0 Replies

Quote:

So I guess gay activists and abortion activists have a right to try to impose their values on society while I do not have the right to fight for my values.

No one is forcing anyone else to have an abortion, or to enter into a same sex marriage, but some are attempting to force their views on others!

0 Replies

Phoenix32890 wrote:

Quote:
So I guess gay activists and abortion activists have a right to try to impose their values on society while I do not have the right to fight for my values.

No one is forcing anyone else to have an abortion, or to enter into a same sex marriage, but some are attempting to force their views on others!

(I don't mean to speak for you CoastalRat, but I think I understand your point...)

I think CoastalRat is saying that he has the right to try to change the values and rules of the society he lives in. And I'm sure he does have this right, whether we like what he wants to do or not.

While I agree that there's a difference between controlling the actions of others directly, and controlling the form of a society, I can see how both things affect the people caught up in them. So, in an indirect way, our rules do affect CoastalRat's life, even if it's only because he feels hurt by being included in a society which differs from his view on things.

0 Replies

Quote:

I think CoastalRat is saying that he has the right to try to change the values and rules of the society he lives in. And I'm sure he does have this right, whether we like what he wants to do or not.

rosborne979 - Oh, I agree that he has a perfect right to attempt to change society. I question the motivations though, of people who try to modify the behavior of others, in areas that do not directly affect them.

0 Replies

I agree Phoenix except when it comes to those areas that do impact on Christians and that which Christians find offensive and/or against their conscience.

For instance I am all for same sex couples, gay or heterosexual, or any combination of people being able to have a civil union forming a family unit that provides all the benefits enjoyed by heterosexual married couples. But, as I believe a mother and father in the home is the best possible scenario for raising children, I want them to call it something besides marriage so that the definition of the traditional family unit is not further weakened or blurred.

I am pro life but do not wish for my government to tell me I have to be and I would not vote for Roe v Wade to be overturned. I can appreciate, however, those who believe that life begins at conception and that abortion ends a human life. These people should not be required to have the schools indoctrinate their children that abortion is okay.

These are just two examples off the top of my head but there are many more such issues that are bones of contention with one side or the other or both. And many of these include peculiar bias, bigotry and prejudice on one side or the other or both.

It is hardly tolerance to see White House staffers who attend a particular Christian college as somehow subversive or coercive.

0 Replies

Phoenix32890 wrote:

Quote:
I think CoastalRat is saying that he has the right to try to change the values and rules of the society he lives in. And I'm sure he does have this right, whether we like what he wants to do or not.

rosborne979 - Oh, I agree that he has a perfect right to attempt to change society. I question the motivations though, of people who try to modify the behavior of others, in areas that do not directly affect them.

Forget Chrisitianity. The right to murder ones unborn child and gay marriage does effect everyone in a profound negative way. A woman
has society's blessing to blow her own brains out, but an
unborn child is not her body just because it is attached and it
it not her right to have its brains sucked out. As for gay marrige,
even my dog sees any sane society's problems with that.

0 Replies

Phoenix32890 wrote:

Quote:
I think CoastalRat is saying that he has the right to try to change the values and rules of the society he lives in. And I'm sure he does have this right, whether we like what he wants to do or not.

rosborne979 - Oh, I agree that he has a perfect right to attempt to change society. I question the motivations though, of people who try to modify the behavior of others, in areas that do not directly affect them.

Forget Chrisitianity. The right to murder ones unborn child and gay marriage does effect everyone in a profound negative way. A woman
has society's blessing to blow her own brains out, but an
unborn child is not her body just because it is attached and it
it not her right to have its brains sucked out. As for gay marrige,
even my dog sees any sane society's problems with that.

0 Replies

Foxfyre- You strike me as a reasonable person, and your stand on these issues reflect this.

Quote:

These people should not be required to have the schools indoctrinate their children that abortion is okay.

Personally, I agree that sex education in the schools should not be taught with a bias. Abortion, IMO, needs to be presented as one of a number of alternatives. It is up to the student, based on his own personal values, to decide which of the alternatives is appropriate.

Quote:

But, as I believe a mother and father in the home is the best possible scenario for raising children, I want them to call it something besides marriage so that the definition of the traditional family unit is not further weakened or blurred.

Everything else being equal, in the case of mature and loving parents, a mom and dad IS the best situation for the raising of a child. But that is not the reality. A year ago I would have agreed with you that "civil union" is a good way to describe other than traditional heterosexual couples. Reading and absorbing a lot, I finally came to realize that a civil union would create a separate, and unequal category.

I was involved in a thread which postulated that in the best of all possible worlds, all legal unions would be "civil unions". Marriage would be in the purview of the religious institutions. A couple could be joined through a legal civil union contract, and then, if they wanted, could be married by the clergy. How does that sit with you?

0 Replies

Coastal Rat,

Women, as human beings, have the right to control of their own bodies. The same way we men have always had that right.

Gays, as human beings, have the right to love whoever they want to love. The same way straight people have always had that right.

What I'm saying is that if you believe that life starts at conception, that's fine and dandy - I don't have a problem with that. Don't have an abortion and ask your significant other not to have one either.

Where the problem lies is you telling me that it's not okay for me to have an abortion - when you've got nothing to do with me. And my decision doesn't effect you.

The way you're looking at it is that you want everyone to live by Christian rules. I'm saying - live by Christian rules - by all means go for it.

But let everyone choose what rules they want to live by.

"Live and let live" is a pretty basic concept I think.

0 Replies

Jer, your statement lacks a huge aspect of freedom. Rights are defined as inalienable, only until they infringe upon the rights of others.

I don't mean to say that I disagree with your opinion--regardless of whether I do--only with the way you stated it. The decisions that people make can very much affect the lives of others. Abortion obviously affects the child, and if a mother considers abortion and decides against it, that child will affect her life. You can't pretend that freedom is everyone being allowed to do whatever they want. The freedom that we enjoy comes very largely from the fact that people are restricted from doing whatever they want.

0 Replies

CoastalRat wrote:

I believe life begins at conception and thus taking that life is wrong. You may believe differently. That is fine. I accept that. And for a long time now, our laws have given support to your view. I accept that. But that does not mean I cannot try to change that view, using reasoned arguments to hopefully change peoples minds and using legal methods to change laws. What is wrong with that? It is the same thing gay activists are currently doing to change marriage laws. They are using reasoning to try to change minds and legal methods to change laws. Which is their right to try.

Of course, the right to believe as you wish doesn't give you the right to impose those beliefs on others. Gay activists aren't imposing anything on you. You don't have to get married to a homosexual. You just can't stop people who want to do so from being able to. Same with abortion. Nobody is forcing you to have an abortion, you just can't stop people who want to have abortions from having them.

What other people do is none of your business. In neither case are you affected in any way, shape or form. Stay out of other people's lives and you'll probably be much happier.

0 Replies

zgreatarteest wrote:

Forget Chrisitianity. The right to murder ones unborn child and gay marriage does effect everyone in a profound negative way. A woman
has society's blessing to blow her own brains out, but an
unborn child is not her body just because it is attached and it
it not her right to have its brains sucked out. As for gay marrige,
even my dog sees any sane society's problems with that.

Ah, so you're ignoring the fact that there are gay dogs, huh? You seem to be ignoring an awful lot, which is mighty convenient.

I guess when people start discriminating against you for your beliefs, we should all just sit back and watch because obviously, you don't deserve the same rights as everyone else. After all, gays and women certainly don't deserve the rights you enjoy.

Hypocracy anyone?

0 Replies

SCoates...

I agree fully with:

Quote:

Jer, your statement lacks a huge aspect of freedom. Rights are defined as inalienable, only until they infringe upon the rights of others.

I had initially put in a sentence about that and then deleted it during revision...believing that "Live and let live" would imply not infringing on others' rights.

As far as the child/abortion thing goes...we can argue that until we're blue in the face...

Thanks for pointing that out so I didn't look like a complete idiot for too long. Wink

Cheers.

0 Replies

Zeegreetarteest,
I had hoped that we might meet again. Smile

How can you say that abortion effects everyone in a profound and negative way Question

Unfortunetly for the arguement this cannot be shown as a fact. You are welcome to try though Smile

.

If you have ever read Thomas Maltheus he explains the practical necessities for population control. Unless of course you prefer Armageddon.

If you agree population control is necessary and practiced on Earth then it behoves us, as thinking persons to evaluate the various methods utilised Shocked

Abstentation, not very effective among free people. ( There could be no contact between the different sexes until the chances of surplus pregnancies are removed. If women were not bred until approximately their thirty fifth birthday populations would stabilize.)

Starve females of breeding age so that they do not menustrate.

Birth control pills. Eliminate menustration and resultant fertility.

Homosexuality--Pederastity--Child Rape, Works for many Christian leaders. However the rest of society (including yourself) seems to have some reservations about alternative sexual practices especially with prepubescent humans.

Birth control devices--- That prevent sperm and ova from connecting. Condoms, spermicidal jellies and the like.

Conception termination-- Prevent uterus from implanting or carrying fetus.

Expulsion, Saline introductions or quinine (The bitter water discussed in the Christian Bible) Approved in the book of Numbers. Should I look it up for you Question

Dilation and curettage-- The common D+C often used to remove undesirable growths- warts, boils, cancers and embryos.

Partial Birth Abortion--Kill a viable infant and remove it. Closely followed by ---

Infanticide, Particularly female.

Let baby die, No medical care and inadequate food for nursing mother.

Starve the baby, Happens often when the wage earner must keep up his strength to work and survive.

Kill them in wars as children ( Look at the child soldiers in Africa and the young, unwitting)suicide bombers.

Kill males as they approach reproduction age. ( A dead soldier has no children) but in order for this to be effective you have to kill a lot of them. Due to the exigencies of biology one man can easily impregnate several women. Thousands if really needed by the society.

Let die those who get sick. (withold medical care, vaccinations and simple clenliness)

Let die those who get old. There would be some economic ramifications Smile

to say the least, as the old usually control money, power etc. and they don't get to stay old by being stupid.

So since population control is deemed necessary,and abortion is approved by God, how can you determine that one practical method is more moral than another? I'd kind of like to know Exclamation

Unfortunetly, the more facts about anything you trouble to find out the less the easy answers provided by religion or faith are appropriate. Sad

(That of course is only in my opinion) but I suspect that it could be shown if not proven. Confused

Think about it, please.

As part of your Christian education I reccommend that you study Numbers 5 verses 14 thru 30 and Numbers 31 verses 17 and 18. I'd love to see you paraphrase them Exclamation

Read them carefully as I do not like to be accused of taking things out of context. Frankly it's never necessary except given the exigencies of time---- ( And my Bibical typing Very Happy

)

0 Replies

Cephus wrote:

I guess when people start discriminating against you for your beliefs, we should all just sit back and watch because obviously, you don't deserve the same rights as everyone else. After all, gays and women certainly don't deserve the rights you enjoy.

Hypocracy anyone?

They already have started. 2,000 years ago more or less.
In this country, a lot more recent. And it is going to get
worse. And when we are gone, you will understand what
was holding your roof up.

0 Replies

akaMechsmith wrote:

As part of your Christian education I reccommend that you study Numbers 5 verses 14 thru 30 and Numbers 31 verses 17 and 18. I'd love to see you paraphrase them

Read them carefully as I do not like to be accused of taking things out of context. Frankly it's never necessary except given the exigencies of time---- ( And my Bibical typing )

As part of your Bible education I recommend you get the
four gospels and Acts under your belt before you even
attempt to discern the rest of the Bible. So far, most anything
you have said about the Bible is totally devoid of understanding,
whether in context or not. In fact, I have not read anything about
anything you have written that made sense. As long as you are
happy, I can stand it.

0 Replies

Zegreetartist,

I can stand it also, as long as your God remains locked up in your imagination. It's when He gets loose that our troubles are magnified.

Like I suggested, read your book. We probably all love to hear why God didn't mean what He said. (I have a similar problem with Sen. Kerry and Geo.W. Bush. It's an all too human failing Sad

)

Jesus said that He did not come to change one wit of the law (my paraphrasing) (thats the Gospel Truth) Very Happy

So logically Christians approve of abortion and genocide, along with Jews and Muslims. (The Abrahamic Religions) Do you wonder that they must be refuted Faithfully by the Faithless Question

.

0 Replies

Jer wrote:

SCoates...

I agree fully with:

Quote:
Jer, your statement lacks a huge aspect of freedom. Rights are defined as inalienable, only until they infringe upon the rights of others.

I had initially put in a sentence about that and then deleted it during revision...believing that "Live and let live" would imply not infringing on others' rights.

As far as the child/abortion thing goes...we can argue that until we're blue in the face...

Thanks for pointing that out so I didn't look like a complete idiot for too long.

Cheers.

Oh, I didn't intend to bring up an argument in favor of or against abortion. Merely to show that whether you are for or against abortion, it does affect more than one life. Anyway, as I said earlier, I only wanted to address the way you expressed your point. It always makes me cringe when people say we are free to do whatever we want, even when I know they don't mean it the way I take it.

0 Replies

Why is it so important to refute Christianity?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know