Why is it so important to refute Christianity?

Cephus wrote:

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.

Cephus, Coastal rat worded his opinion in a very fair and inoffensive manner. And yet, you would pretend the opposite. I only found it amusing, and I don't have any real aim in bringing it up. But I think any rational person who reads both points of view would say that Coastal rat merely stated a point of view, while you, on the other hand, were just being an idiot. That may sound a bit immature of me, but it's the only accurate way I can find to describe your response.

0 Replies

Coastal's quote, "I believe life begins at conception and thus taking that life is wrong." This same George W Bush is against abortion, yet he has no problem that he is responsible for killing over 10,000 innocent Iraqis which included women and children. If you're ready to hold up some ideal on life, at least be consistent.

0 Replies

That is pretty inconsistant of him.

0 Replies

ci,
It only seems inconsistent to you because you are not into literal interpretations of the bible. It seems to me that for one to take the bible literaly in the year 2004, one would have to have a problem with the processing of data.

When you become driven by dogma and develop myopic vision, you are bound to make poor judgements when confronted with complex problems.
That is how we became embroiled in this terrible mess in Iraq. Simple plans from simple minds for very complex problems a mess do make.

0 Replies

I wonder what it is about Bush that made him think he would be any good at solving complex problems when he initially ran.

0 Replies

akaMechsmith wrote:

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

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 .

Jesus said He came to "FULFIL" the Law and did not come to
do away with it. The keyword here is "fulfil". Meaning Jesus
did something you have not grasp, again once more.

As for your "logic" in the second part...........What on earth
was your psychiatric diagnosis the last time you took the
Rorschach test? Never mind, I really don't want to know.

0 Replies

He didn't. It's the supreme court that declared him King. He has royal blood running in his veins, and kings do not ask for advise.

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 )

I doubt you will get any response from the faithful concerning those verses because they are flat out indefensible. My take on Numbers 31:17,18 is that besides genocide God is expressing his fondness for virgins, as he also does in Leviticus 21 along with expressing a dislike for those with physical imperfections.

To make your biblical typing easier I have found http://www.bibleexplained.com/ an easy to use online Bible. It makes grabbing quotes such as this a simple task.
Leviticus 26:27-31

Quote:

.27 And if ye will not for all this hearken unto me, but walk contrary unto me;
28 Then I will walk contrary unto you also in fury; and I, even I, will chastise you seven times for your sins.
.29 And ye shall eat the flesh of your sons, and the flesh of your daughters shall ye eat.
30 And I will destroy your high places, and cut down your images, and cast your carcases upon the carcases of your idols, and my soul shall abhor you.
.31 And I will make your cities waste, and bring your sanctuaries unto desolation, and I will not smell the savour of your sweet odours.

When viewing the above verses that bible provides a link to a similar topic in 2 Kings 6:28,29

Quote:

.28 And the king said unto her, What aileth thee? And she answered, This woman said unto me, Give thy son, that we may eat him to day, and we will eat my son to morrow.
29 So we boiled my son, and did eat him: and I said unto her on the next day, Give thy son, that we may eat him: and she hath hid her son.

And it also showed a link to Ezekiel 5:10

Quote:

10 Therefore the fathers shall eat the sons in the midst of thee, and the sons shall eat their fathers; and I will execute judgments in thee, and the whole remnant of thee will I scatter into all the winds.

Sleep well tonight knowing that our president spends at least an hour a day reading this fine book. Sad

0 Replies

Phoenix writes:

Quote:

Reading and absorbing a lot, I finally came to realize that a civil union would create a separate, and unequal category.

I disagree. "Gay marriage' creates a separate and unequal category. As the law stands now, gays and lesbians have identical rights as heterosexuals. Any adult of reasonably sound mind is free to marry any unmarried willing person of the opposite sex. The fact that some do not wish to marry somebody of the opposite sex is irrelevant. Everybody has the same rights.

But recognize gay marriage as no different from heterosexual and now the heterosexual roommates who would like the same benefits are discriminated against. Then we can get into all the other combinations that would be left out of the equation as well.

Far better to create a new law allowing a civil union that provides desired benefits to any couple or group who wishes to form a legal family unit and leave marriage alone.

This in fact is one of those polarizing issues in which both sides feel the other is infringing on their way of life. But it is NOT the same as segregationist policies of the first half of the twentieth century. Blacks did not have the same rights as whites. As the law stands now, gays already have the same rights as heterosexuals.

The best plan as I see it is for both sides to compromise. Gays pick a different word and the Christian anti-gay marriage crowd shuts up and leaves the gays alone. Everybody should be happy then.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Everybody should be happy then.

I really wish. There would be no end to a compromise
in this arena. There would be more and more and more
demands. There would be no end. Surely you know this.
To expect even a temporary appeasement would be fickle.

0 Replies

Jer wrote:

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

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

This line of reasoning however leads to chaos. Ok, I choose to travel 86 mph when I drive through town. Why should laws prevent that? I am not hurting anyone, right? Why can't I take a gun on an airplane? I don't plan to use it, so why not? I choose to do so and am not hurting anyone else.

Laws are made to protect the society in which we live. Abortion, while a fine choice for a woman, doesn't seem to me to be such a hot deal for the life growing within her. I happen to have no problem with gay couples as such. They are certainly free to live and fulfill their sexual desires as they wish. But marriage it is not. The attempt to redefine the historical meaning of marriage is a sham. What they seek is to have a lifestyle accepted has a valid and proper lifestyle. And I am sorry if my views seem narrow here, but it is not. I have heard all the arguments. Heck, most of the arguments I have heard have come from a good friend who is gay and a relative who is gay.

But the gist of my original argument remains that Christians have as much right to try to shape society to what we believe is right and beneficial as others have to work to shape society to what they believe is best. Making a claim that it is somehow wrong that 7 or so people out of 100 in a governmental capacity happen to come from a particularly strict Christian institution is nonsense. Would you not think it nonsense if I were to get upset if these same 7 happened to be gay activists instead of Christians? You would probably call me homophobic and tell me to get real.

0 Replies

Mesquite writes:

Quote:

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

My comment re Falwell and Robertson was to illustrate that these two guys are far more radical fundamentalist than I am or than most Christians are. When they are usually the 'Christian view' presented by the media, they further the prejudicial notion that most Christians are like they are. Do I believe they are sincere in their beliefs and are decent men? Yes I do. Do I think either of them evil, insincere, dangerous, unAmerican, subversive, or coercive? No I do not. Do I think they have less right to speak out about what they believe is right for America than the nonreligious do? No I do not. Do I share their views? I frequently do not.

If we ever elected a president who's faith was Islam, I would see it as normal that he or she would most likely have other people on staff who were Moslem. I saw nothing unusual, for instance, that the previous administration had a high percentage of cabinet members and staffers with educational and professional backgrounds that I considered to be extremely left wing wacko socialist-minded. I also saw nothing unAmerican or subversive about that or them however much I disagreed with many of their views.

And that prompted my remark about White House interns now. Unless they are behaving or speaking in subversive or unAmerican ways as a result of their attending a particular university, to discriminate against them because they were educated at a particular university is nothing other than pure old-fashioned prejudice.

0 Replies

Having said all that, I agree 100% with Coastalrat. Christians are Americans too, and they have every bit as much right to vote their conscience and speak out their convictions on what is right and wrong and exert their influence to shape the society they want as do any other religious group or as do the nonreligious.

I think everybody sees reasons to impose laws on people even if they don't want them. Laws, for instance, protecting a rare California rat that prevent people from clearing the brush around their homes thus creating a higher fire danger for the homeowners. If 99.9% of the people in a town want their traditional creche on the courthouse lawn but one does not, there are people who will descend on that town to see that the view of the one prevails. Political correctness is a biggie--there are demands that high profile figures be fired for language that some consider offensive while the rights of a talkshow host to utter whatever obscenties he wishes on the airways are staunchly defended.

Many Christians see no reason that all of public society be stripped of all religious trappings, art, music, etc., no matter how historical or how traditional, because a few do not wish to be exposed to these things.

All these things and many more are legitimate debate on the American scene.

And I believe that we can strenuously disagree on any one of them and neither of us be evil.

0 Replies

Thank you Fox. I don't think I could have put it any better.

0 Replies

CoastalRat wrote:

Jer wrote:
Coastal Rat,
But let everyone choose what rules they want to live by.

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

This line of reasoning however leads to chaos. Ok, I choose to travel 86 mph when I drive through town. Why should laws prevent that? I am not hurting anyone, right? Why can't I take a gun on an airplane? I don't plan to use it, so why not? I choose to do so and am not hurting anyone else.

Coastal Rat - earlier in the thread we discussed "live and let live". Scoates didn't get the implication that it included "without infringing on others' rights to do so as well" and let me know that so I could clarify.

Looking at your examples:

86mph - Nobody's perfect, particularly when driving cars, the reason we have laws governing speed is so that people don't inadvertantly infringe on someone else's right to live, by running them down.

Gun on an airplane - it's the same thing. Accidents happen - having a gun in a confined space like that has the potential to lead to a number of people, who are not involved in a situation, suffering harm or death. Which would be infringing on their right to live.

Both of your examples are practical, obviously effect others, and have nothing to do with "belief".

Back to the two examples from before - homosexual marriage and abortion. Can you point me to the "chaos" that will ensue by allowing people their own choice in these matters?

Looking forward to it Smile

Have a great day.

0 Replies

Jer wrote:

CoastalRat wrote:
Jer wrote:
Coastal Rat,
But let everyone choose what rules they want to live by.

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

This line of reasoning however leads to chaos. Ok, I choose to travel 86 mph when I drive through town. Why should laws prevent that? I am not hurting anyone, right? Why can't I take a gun on an airplane? I don't plan to use it, so why not? I choose to do so and am not hurting anyone else.

Coastal Rat - earlier in the thread we discussed "live and let live". Scoates didn't get the implication that it included "without infringing on others' rights to do so as well" and let me know that so I could clarify.

Looking at your examples:

86mph - Nobody's perfect, particularly when driving cars, the reason we have laws governing speed is so that people don't inadvertantly infringe on someone else's right to live, by running them down.

Gun on an airplane - it's the same thing. Accidents happen - having a gun in a confined space like that has the potential to lead to a number of people, who are not involved in a situation, suffering harm or death. Which would be infringing on their right to live.

Both of your examples are practical, obviously effect others, and have nothing to do with "belief".

Back to the two examples from before - homosexual marriage and abortion. Can you point me to the "chaos" that will ensue by allowing people their own choice in these matters?

Looking forward to it

Have a great day.

Maybe I did not clarify to what I was referring when giving my examples. You made a broad-based statement, quoted above, that we should "let everyone choose what rules they want to live by". It is that statement to which my examples were pointed. And to which my point about chaos was directed. Now, if you want to amend that exact statement to indicate that we cannot all just do what we want because we feel like doing it, then I will address that issue. But the statement as made by you indicates that you believe I have the right to ignore laws if I don't want to be bound by them.

You may not really have meant that, but that is what you wrote. So clarify your position and I will happily attempt to debate you on what you really meant. Otherwise, I stand by what I said and I think my examples are a perfect illustration of the folly of everyone following the "rules" they themselves choose to live by.

0 Replies

The question wasn't directed at me, but that rarely stops me from butting in Smile

Does anyone believe it is okay for a mother to kill a one-week old baby or a one-month old baby or a five-year-old child because she decides she doesn't want to be a mother? Those who oppose abortion say no and neither is it okay to kill the child before it is born. It is her right to become pregnant or not. Once she does, then the child she carries is a human life and the issue becomes the child's right to life as much as the mother's dilemma of an unwanted pregnancy.

That issue needs to be decided before the 'extenuating circumstances' such as rape, incest, a badly deformed fetus, the life of the mother, etc. are discussed as separate issues.

In the issue of 'gay marriage', the debate first needs to be whether the traditional institution of marriage is valuable for society and whether that is worth preserving and strengthening. Once that is decided, then the issues of 'gay marriage' and/or formation of other family units can be addressed including the issues of 'special rights' and 'equal protection under the law', etc.

If we reason together instead of attacking each others' points of view, we might be able to arrive at more consensus or compromise than will ever otherwise be possible.

0 Replies

CoastalRat:

you said:

Quote:

Maybe I did not clarify to what I was referring when giving my examples. You made a broad-based statement, quoted above, that we should "let everyone choose what rules they want to live by". It is that statement to which my examples were pointed. And to which my point about chaos was directed. Now, if you want to amend that exact statement to indicate that we cannot all just do what we want because we feel like doing it, then I will address that issue. But the statement as made by you indicates that you believe I have the right to ignore laws if I don't want to be bound by them.

You may not really have meant that, but that is what you wrote. So clarify your position and I will happily attempt to debate you on what you really meant. Otherwise, I stand by what I said and I think my examples are a perfect illustration of the folly of everyone following the "rules" they themselves choose to live by.

Read my posts in the last two days on this forum and tell me if you didn't understand the argument I made. I think you did.

I'm sorry - I obviously gave you more credit than you deserve in this case - when thinking that if I said "Live and let live" you'd appreciate it to mean what it says.

Live - to live
Let live - to allow others to live without interfering in their lives

Common sense should allow you to get here from those thoughts:

If you drive 86mph and hit somebody, well you sure aren't letting them live, are you? Gun/plane - same thing.

Fox/Coastal:

Creche on the courthouse lawn...If 100% of the people in the community are in favour - by all means go ahead. If not, put creches on the lawns of the 99.9% who want them, and leave the public courthouse lawn the way it is. You can also put creches on the church lawns too. Isn't that enough creches?

0 Replies

But if a community wants their creche that has been on the courthouse lawn for generations to be there, why should it bother anybody else? How can it possibly hurt you or anybody for it to be there?

0 Replies

Foxfyre:

You said:

Quote:

Does anyone believe it is okay for a mother to kill a one-week old baby or a one-month old baby or a five-year-old child because she decides she doesn't want to be a mother? Those who oppose abortion say no and neither is it okay to kill the child before it is born. It is her right to become pregnant or not. Once she does, then the child she carries is a human life and the issue becomes the child's right to life as much as the mother's dilemma of an unwanted pregnancy.

That issue needs to be decided before the 'extenuating circumstances' such as rape, incest, a badly deformed fetus, the life of the mother, etc. are discussed as separate issues.

It's not a "child" until it can live on its own - in the care of anyone. Until it can breathe and eat.

Every egg and every sperm are alive when they are in our bodies. Are they entitled to grow into people too? Do they have that right? Where do you draw the line?

If a woman is taking birth control pills it is obvious she is choosing not to have a child. If conception occurs even when she's using birth control she's made her choice but technology or her body has changed her circumstances into a situation that was not her choice. Her choice is to not be pregnant and that is her right and should be.

Spiritual question for you about an aborted embryo:

What do you believe happens when the embryo is aborted? What do you believe happens when a person dies?

I'm curious about this because I often wonder if the uproar about abortion is because the embryo wouldn't be allowed in to heaven because it wouldn't be able to utter its belief. Is this the case?

Quote:

In the issue of 'gay marriage', the debate first needs to be whether the traditional institution of marriage is valuable for society and whether that is worth preserving and strengthening. Once that is decided, then the issues of 'gay marriage' and/or formation of other family units can be addressed including the issues of 'special rights' and 'equal protection under the law', etc.

If we reason together instead of attacking each others' points of view, we might be able to arrive at more consensus or compromise than will ever otherwise be possible.

Marriage is valuable to society. It provides stability for children and for the partners engaged in the marriage.

How does allowing gay people to wed weaken traditional straight marriage? I don't follow.

If I order wonton soup and then the guy at the next table orders it too - it doesn't make my soup any less good, nor does it make the soup any less desireable.

Are you scared that if gays are allowed to marry then everyone is going to want to run out and be married gay people? What is the fear?

Please explain. Smile

0 Replies

Why is it so important to refute Christianity?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know