Why is it so important to refute Christianity?

Quote:

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?

Because it's advertising a set of beliefs that I don't subscribe to. On my real estate.

0 Replies

Jer wrote:

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?

Since we do not seem to be on the same wavelength here, let me try to clarify if I may. I will admit my examples were not the best in explaining my point. But your creche example is really a good one, so I will borrow it if you don't mind. We as a society cannot "live and let live", otherwise I would be allowed to put a creche anywhere I wanted. You insisting that it be removed is not living and letting live. A creche on a courthouse lawn does not harm you in any way. Society is guided by rules and laws. You made a specific statement that everyone should be allowed to live by their own rules. That is what I was asking that you clarify. Did you really mean that, or did you mean something else? I would hope that you meant that we should be free to live by our own rules, subject to any laws passed by society (the government).

I am not trying to be smart, and believe me I really am not stupid. I think I knew what the "intent" was in your statement. But if I begin debating your intent, and I am wrong about said intent, then I am wasting both of our time.

Finally, I do take a bit of offense when you make such remarks toward me as you did in your last post. If you think I am being dense, have the guts to say so. I am man enough to take it. Although in my opinion snide remarks and name calling really don't get us very far and will only serve to lessen my opinion of your viewpoint.

0 Replies

Jer wrote:

Quote:
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?

Because it's advertising a set of beliefs that I don't subscribe to. On my real estate.

But it is not your real estate. It is the community's real estate. That is a difference. Now, if you want to subscribe to the idea that a small minority should be allowed to determine what is acceptable, then I guess we could debate that idea. But I really don't think you wish to go there. Or do you? Smile

0 Replies

Coastal Rat:

Quote:

Finally, I do take a bit of offense when you make such remarks toward me as you did in your last post. If you think I am being dense, have the guts to say so. I am man enough to take it. Although in my opinion snide remarks and name calling really don't get us very far and will only serve to lessen my opinion of your viewpoint.

I'm sorry if you've taken offense to what I said:

Quote:

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.

You'll notice that I put "in this case" into that sentence - so you would know that I thought it applied to "this case" as opposed to you in general.

You're obviously bright and articulate. I felt that was obvious. I simply couldn't understand why you were being, what I perceived to be, intentionally difficult.

Quote:

But it is not your real estate. It is the community's real estate. That is a difference. Now, if you want to subscribe to the idea that a small minority should be allowed to determine what is acceptable, then I guess we could debate that idea. But I really don't think you wish to go there. Or do you?

Ahhh...but it is my real estate as much as it is yours...that's the point I'm making. We all have our own front lawns to make our personal statements on. Society's front lawn shouldn't be adorned with with one sect's symbols unless everyone's symbols are entitled to the same privilege.

*Note that in reality I couldn't care less if there's a creche on the front lawn of the courthouse or not - but in principle, which is how we're talking, these are my views.

If I were a Satanist living in the community and wanted a Satanic symbol on the front lawn of the courthouse beside the creche, because it represented my belief, would you be okay with that?

That's where these problems come from.

I've built a little chart and posted it here for you:

http://www.lathamcommunications.com/a2k/rights.gif

Re: The Chart

My body = My rights.
Your body = Your rights.

My private space = my rights unless they are infringing on your rights.
Your private space = your rights unless they are infringing on my rights.

Public space = Individual rights are superceded by our collective right to freedom*.

Quote:

the condition of being free; the power to act or speak or think without externally imposed restraints
www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn

Coastal - I've gotta run...so I haven't had time to fully flesh this out. Please look at it and let me know where I've erred. I'll have a look when I get back.

Have a good day. Very Happy

-Jer-

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

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.

I do not understand how a person can take two totally unrelated items and attempt to link them in order to try to show someone how they are wrong.

Yes, I am against abortion. But how does my being against abortion have anything at all to do with the killing of civilians in this war? Does this make any sense to anyone? Please tell me. I am against abortion. Bush is against abortion. Military troops ordered to Iraq by Bush have killed civilians, thus I am not being consistent in my belief. Could you try to use your brain a little bit here CI. I mean really.

Somehow you have deduced that I am happy civilians are dying in Iraq, thus I am not being consistent in my beliefs. Well, just to keep the record straight, I am not happy about any civilian dying in Iraq. I am not happy about any soldier who dies in Iraq. It would be my hope that civilian deaths would be totally avoided. But that is not possible in war. I truly wish it were though. So are you happy now?

I have never, in my limited posts on this board, sunk to a level of name calling or even questioning a person's intelligence. But if this is the type of reasoning you use on a regular basis, then either you are not too very thoughtful or the education system in this country has truly failed you.

0 Replies

zgreatarteest wrote:

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.

Oh really? Do show us where you've been thrown out of your churches and put in jail and all that. Show us something at least. Or are you referring to the fact that you're not being able to run the show and force everyone else to follow your silly religion?

Sounds like "They won't let me rule your life, therefore they're restricting my freedom!"

0 Replies

CoastalRat wrote:

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.

The problem here is that rights are granted by the society in which you live. A fetus has not been granted the right to life under the law. The woman has. As such, she is perfectly within her societal-given rights to terminate her pregnancy without violating the rights of the fetus. Now some people might argue that the fetus SHOULD have rights, but "should" and "has" are two different things.

And your views on marriage are extremely narrow. Marriage is a WORD! You're arguing semantics. You'd have no problem if they called it "artichoke" but you don't want them calling it marriage? Isn't that ridiculous? You're arguing that somehow, you own the word "marriage" and don't want anyone else using it. That's patently silly.

Quote:

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.

Your right to swing your fist ends at the other person's nose. If you don't like abortion, don't have one. If you don't like gay marriage, don't get married to someone of the same sex. You wouldn't like it if they tried to control your life, why do you think that you should be able to control theirs? It's hypocracy, pure and simple.

0 Replies

CoastalRat wrote:

But it is not your real estate. It is the community's real estate. That is a difference. Now, if you want to subscribe to the idea that a small minority should be allowed to determine what is acceptable, then I guess we could debate that idea. But I really don't think you wish to go there. Or do you?

It is the property of everyone who pays taxes to maintain it. Therefore, if some members of the community find displays on public land offensive, then those displays should be taken down. I'm sure you wouldn't want a Satanic display on the courthouse lawn because you'd be offended, but the same can be said of Satanists who are offended by your display.

You can't have it one way and not the other.

0 Replies

Jer wrote:

Re: The Chart

My body = My rights.
Your body = Your rights.

My private space = my rights unless they are infringing on your rights.
Your private space = your rights unless they are infringing on my rights.

Public space = Individual rights are superceded by our collective right to freedom*.

Quote:
the condition of being free; the power to act or speak or think without externally imposed restraints
www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn

Coastal - I've gotta run...so I haven't had time to fully flesh this out. Please look at it and let me know where I've erred. I'll have a look when I get back.

Have a good day.

-Jer-

Hey Jer. I know I can be difficult at times. I tend to like giving people a hard time when what is written does not seem to say what I think they mean. Let me try to expound upon my views on individual rights, because believe it or not, we don't differ too much.

Going back to your example. If I lived in a community where the majority wanted a symbol of some religion other than Christianity to adorn the court house lawn, then I would have two choices. I could move, which granted would not be too practical. Or I could work to change things. Maybe I would be successful, maybe I would not. In either case, that is my right to try. I am not in this instance imposing my belief on anyone, I am just trying to persuade others to my way of thinking.

Now, the current topic of this thread concerns my right as a Christian to try to move society toward what I believe would make it better. I do not wish to IMPOSE my will on anyone. But I have a right to try to construct laws that will conform our society to what I think is best for society. Just as you do. I would hope you would agree with this.

Since the crux of our discussion has involved abortion and gay marriage, I will address that briefly, not to try to persuade you or anyone else to my viewpoint, but just so you understand my viewpoint and how I see it relating to my rights to work to change laws (or prevent laws from being changed).

Abortion: A woman does have a right to decide what is best for her body. No doubt. But her rights cannot trump the rights of another's life. It is from that viewpoint only that I disagree with abortion. I believe life begins at conception. Others believe life begins at some other point (birth, when the baby can survive outside the womb, to which there is not vast concensus as far as I know). One side is obviously wrong. I would rather err on the side that says life begins at conception than to err on the other side. That would be unacceptable to me. Thus I will exercise my rights to work toward changing the abortion laws to what I believe is more beneficial than killing what I see as a life. You and any other abortion activists are free to disagree and work to strengthen abortion laws. If a majority of people within society believe abortion should be legal, it will stay so. If not, it will change. But in either case, I have not IMPOSED MY WILL, but society as a whole has imposed the group's will.

Gay Marriage: I am actually not as sure of things when it comes to gay marriage. Again, I do not wish to IMPOSE my beliefs on anyone. And just to be clear, I do believe that homosexuality is wrong and is an abnormal behavior. But anyone who wishes to live that lifestyle is free to do so as far as I am concerned. They have as much freedom to do so as I have to live my life as a heterosexual. Where I have a problem is simply the attempt to change the definition of marriage. In nearly all of history, the definition of marriage has been the union of a man and a woman. They are attempting to change society (which they have a right to do mind you) by changing the definition of marriage. I will argue against that change based on historical and moral beliefs. I have a right to do that also. Just because that belief is moral and at least in my case based on my Christian beliefs does not negate my right to attempt to argue against them. I truly don't know how this will end, but I know one side or the other will have to at some point accept what society as a whole decides. But again, in either case, it is not my will which will be imposed on anyone, it will be what society as a whole decides.

I am sorry I have been so long-winded, but my wife tells me she always has had trouble shutting me up. Oh well. The point is, at least in my opinion, is that nobody is really free to live under their own rules for we are all governed by rules we would not live under if we had a choice. And all of us have a right to bring our own beliefs and morals to the table when it comes to the writing and changing of laws/rules that govern us all.

I know you may not agree with all I've said, but I hope it at least makes some sense and that you can see and at least understand the point I have tried to make.

Have a good day.

0 Replies

Cephus wrote:

CoastalRat wrote:
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.

The problem here is that rights are granted by the society in which you live. A fetus has not been granted the right to life under the law. The woman has. As such, she is perfectly within her societal-given rights to terminate her pregnancy without violating the rights of the fetus. Now some people might argue that the fetus SHOULD have rights, but "should" and "has" are two different things.

And your views on marriage are extremely narrow. Marriage is a WORD! You're arguing semantics. You'd have no problem if they called it "artichoke" but you don't want them calling it marriage? Isn't that ridiculous? You're arguing that somehow, you own the word "marriage" and don't want anyone else using it. That's patently silly.

Quote:
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.

Your right to swing your fist ends at the other person's nose. If you don't like abortion, don't have one. If you don't like gay marriage, don't get married to someone of the same sex. You wouldn't like it if they tried to control your life, why do you think that you should be able to control theirs? It's hypocracy, pure and simple.

I don't think you are understanding the concept I am trying to point out, so let me try again. You are right. My right to swing my fist ends at your nose. But we are not talking about that. We are talking about my right to attempt to change laws (or maintain laws, as the case might be) which I believe are not in the best interest of society for one reason or another. You have every right to oppose those changes, but don't try to argue that I have no right to push to change laws just because the change I wish to make is based upon my moral beliefs. Because I could turn the equation around and begin to claim that the gay community has no right to attempt to change the laws to fit their beliefs of what is right and wrong. And they have every right to attempt to change the law, just as I have every right to oppose that attempt. For whatever reason.

0 Replies

Coastal Rat:

Thanks for your reply Smile

You're right - I do disagree with you on just about all that you said since my departure. But I'm sure glad you have a right to say it.

In your reply to Cephus you said:

Quote:

don't think you are understanding the concept I am trying to point out, so let me try again. You are right. My right to swing my fist ends at your nose. But we are not talking about that. We are talking about my right to attempt to change laws (or maintain laws, as the case might be) which I believe are not in the best interest of society for one reason or another.

I think that laws need to work to ensure that peoples' rights work as Cephus said "Your right to swing your fist ends at the other person's nose."

When laws start getting in closer than that they are starting to mess with peoples' freedoms.

Ie. Who you can marry. Who you can/can't hire. What pastimes are acceptable. How you can have consentual sex...

...that stuff shouldn't be governed by law.

As far as determining when an embryo turns into a "person" I think the doctors and scientists are the best ones to deal with that.

I'm a pretty laid-back kinda guy and I appreciate all the different cultures and beliefs that we've got in North America, and around the world. I like to be able to see them all. And to see them all get along.

I argue for people's right to choose in almost any matter - because the right to choose encompasses all areas of the spectrum. When people aren't given the right to choose - it's because someone believes they know better than the person who's dealing with their own situation.

Father may be right a lot of the time - but father doesn't always know what's best.

Peace.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

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.

Did I say that the Patrick Henry College alumni were evil, insincere, dangerous, unAmerican, subversive, or coercive? I did not. Did I say that the Patrick Henry College alumni have less right to speak out about what they believe is right for America than the nonreligious do? I did not.

Do you think that the Patrick Henry College alumni represent the mainstream American Christian? I do not. Do you think that getting into influential positions such as whitehouse staff equates to "speaking out"? I do not.
These are the facts.
75% of PHC alumni were home schooled. (read limited exposure to real world).

PHC alumni must sign a statement of faith professing belief in the most literal interpretations of the old nad new testaments.. (read fundamental to the core)

The faculty is selected based on their belief in and agreement to teach only the most literal interpretations of the Bible.(read continued limited exposure to real world).

The stated mission of PHC is to produce leaders to help shape the nation to their way.

Do they have a right to do what they are doing? Most certainly.

Do I have a right to be concerned that such a fundamentalist group is gaining a percentage of non elected positions far and above their percentage of the populace? I think I do. Does this make me evil? I think not.

Quote:

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.

My example was "Wahabi style Islam" which is more parallel to PHC in terms of fundamentalism.

Quote:

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.

You just can't get over Clinton, can you? Laughing

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

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.

Many non-Christians would agree with you, I do however remember a while back that some Christians were objecting to being exposed to art that was not to their taste.

0 Replies

Clinton's administration is the most recent one we have for comparisons and included the first left wing wacko types that we've had in a while. So yeah, it's hard to resist. Smile

I still say that making assumptions about people people on where they went to college or for what they may or may not believe is prejudice however unintended that may be. It's what people say and/or do that counts.

0 Replies

You mean like making assumptions about well meaning public servants and calling them left wing wackos?

Attending PHC is saying and doing something.

0 Replies

CoastalRat wrote:

I don't think you are understanding the concept I am trying to point out, so let me try again. You are right. My right to swing my fist ends at your nose. But we are not talking about that. We are talking about my right to attempt to change laws (or maintain laws, as the case might be) which I believe are not in the best interest of society for one reason or another. You have every right to oppose those changes, but don't try to argue that I have no right to push to change laws just because the change I wish to make is based upon my moral beliefs. Because I could turn the equation around and begin to claim that the gay community has no right to attempt to change the laws to fit their beliefs of what is right and wrong. And they have every right to attempt to change the law, just as I have every right to oppose that attempt. For whatever reason.

That's fine, everyone has that right. That doesn't mean that while the laws are in force, you aren't bound by them. There are legitimate, legal methods in place to change laws that you don't like. It's the people who think that they have some misguided moral obligation to break the law because they don't like it that I have a problem with.

As I've said before, the laws tend to reflect the views of the community. Anyone who wishes to attempt to change the views of the community is welcome to do so. That said though, everyone has a responsibility to the community to be fair and open and honest about things. It's no more fair to be against homosexuals than it is to be against blacks or women.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Clinton's administration is the most recent one we have for comparisons and included the first left wing wacko types that we've had in a while. So yeah, it's hard to resist.

And Bush's administration is the most recent one that included ultra-right wing wacko types. You had a point?

0 Replies

Point, Marriage is a religious institution that has been used by the state to confer benefits and protections that unmarried persons do not enjoy. Indeed often are prohibited from.

This state of affairs has come about largely due to bureaucratic laziness and legislative incompetence. (The state accepted-accepts religious definitions which it had-has no business doing.)

I feel that the state should not confer any benefits due to the "sacrament of marriage". No more than it should insure that communion wafers are not allowed to touch the lips.

But it may have some business regulating contracts (civil unions)

IMO it would be fair to everybody to "marry" anything they pleased, subject only to the approval of their "God".(and the protection of animals and minor children Confused

)

But when it comes to sharing the states benefits--- Then, and only then, is it our "public" business. Mad

So civil unions, to who ever wishes to enter into one should factually describe that arrangement much as "Articles of Incorporation" do for businesses. Then the members of that arrangement will be elegible to any and all benefits due that class.

The facts of the matter are that many people are denied taxpayer supplied benefits that are availiable to people who have accepted a "religious sacrament".

0 Replies

Zgreatarteest,

I stand by my paraphrase--- I think it fair Smile

As for the second part-- I have been diagnosed as a "naive realist" by J.L.Nobody here on A2K. He's as good as enneybuddy. Smile

I have never taken a "Rorschach Test". There is too much faith and too little fact for me to believe in them Laughing

. Abrahamists are not the only class of people that suffer from an excess of faith unwarranted by observations. Regretably Sad

And, less you think me as simply an opportunist looking for weak arguments I can assure you that I was able to look them up due to remembering them from a previous "Bible Study". And I read the whole chapter before I posted.

(Also I have Asimov's "Guide to the Bible handy")

When one looks to refute the Ideas that have enslaved mankind over thousands of years IMO it's a good plan to have the "facts" of the matter at hand Exclamation

Thats when I took umbrage at your "abortion" comment. Facts were sorely lacking Crying or Very sad

0 Replies

Thanks mesquite,

I feel that the online Bible is a bit incomplete but it's handy. I have about four versions of "The" Holy Bible kicking around and have sometimes amused-confused myself by directly comparing passages. Very Happy

0 Replies

Why is it so important to refute Christianity?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know