Why is it so important to refute Christianity?

I''ll say it again, the whole world is going to have to choose sides shortly, and "secular humanism" is not, in my estimation, going to be a viable side.

I kind of wonder if they haven't already, for the most
part. Except for whatever last minute stragglers
there may be. I saw a tape not long ago of 3.5
million Africans standing packed to hear the
Word of God preached by Rienhart Bunke.
Stretched out as far as the eye could see. Amazing
to behold. People being healed and bringing
their wheelchairs forward over their heads, etc.
I am talking about hundreds and hundreds of them
too. Not just a few. God said He would pour out His
Spirit on all flesh at this time. Those that will let Him.
And we get accused of cramming our Christianity
down peoples throats. That would be funny if it wasn't
so sad.

Deception, hardening of hearts to God is all well
described in the last days of the church age. The birth
pangs (Matthew 24:28 & Mark 13:8) of the pre Tribulation
period we are well into now. It is so obvious and
very apparent and moving so swiftly. Who can
keep up?. Israel is our timepiece in God. That being
so, it is not hard to tell what time it is. (Luke 21:31-33)
The generation that sees Israel reclaim her land for
the first time in over 2,000 years (6 Day War, Oct.
1967) will be that last generation of the age of grace,
spoken of in those verses in Luke. That is us. Exciting
times for us. Terrible for others. God have mercy on them.

God killed Onan for spilling his seed on the ground
Genesis 38:9,10

No He did not and we have already been through this.
There is not a passive tense in Hebrew of that day.
Actually it should have been translated allowed.

Are you ever going to get out of the Old Covenant
and move on to the New, so you can learn something
useful to you?

I don't care what Christians believe so long as it doesn't affect me or my family. However, Christianity has proven itself to be expansionistic. Its followers seek to convert others by falsehood and misrepresentation and if they can't convert you, they'll try to have laws passed which force their religious beliefs upon those who don't want anything to do with them.

If Christians would just mind their own business, atheists would never bother thinking about religion.

I choose broilers. And we will kick NAZI BIGOTS across all Universe.

We already did My. Nazis haven't been all that much of a problem lately.

And Cephas, I will refer you to some earlier comments I think in this thread or perhaps in another active thread in the Spirituality & Religion forum. These clearly show that paradox between those who see Christians as 'forcing their religion on society' and those who see nonbelievers as 'forcing their beliefs on society.' Both sides are equally passionate about this, perhaps at times both are equally guilty, and perhaps at times one or the other or both will be correct.

I would like to see both sides stop trying to demonize the other so that we could have constructive debate and find constructive compromises. (Of course I feel that way about political parties too and it doesn't look likely to happen in my lifetime.)

That's why!

Foxfyre, but there are few left. Ideology remains in heads of bigots. Just short example - there isn't big difference between those that deny Holocaust and those that halfly deny and halfly approve slaughtering of 7,000 Muslim CIVILIANS (mainly women, elderly and children) in Srebrenica and many other atrocities and genocide against few nations. And not even fact that country and nation that was unfortunate to have such a shamefull bunch under their flag is accepting responsibility and prosecuting those that did it is enough for those bigots.

Just out of curiosity, without speaking about ANYONE particular? How would you call person that denies atrocities even after facts like: president apologizing to other nation, war leader stating that he is ashamed and asking forgiveness from other nation, country officialy prosecuting people responsible for slaughtering 200 people taken from hospital....?
I am really wondering - how would you call such person? Isn't Nazi pretty fair?
And how would you feel if you, God forbid, lost few dear people in WTC attacks and then you met someone that is NOT arguing with you about causes of that attack, but is denying it and saying that it's all western plot, and WTC was actually ambush for Arab Americans and from those windows Americans were constantly firing snipers on Arabs? But, nevertheless, WTC attack haven't happened. It's just western plot. Now imagine that some important Arab national or religious leader apologizes for that. Another admits his guilt in front of international court. Leader of some terrorist group states that he is ashamed and asks forgiveness? And there is someone claiming to you that it never happened, and that Arabs are only good and nice nation in the world?
So, honestly, how would you call that person? Not necesserily into his face...but what would be your name for that person?
In addition I can say that that's even not good and appropriate example, because as much huge shock WTC attacks were, in psychical matter they cannot be compare with four years of living under rockets and bombs of particular origin.


IMPORTANT NOTE: given example was purely due to fact that WTC attacks were something that shocked and affected lifes of average american citizens in huge amount. I DO NOT consider Islam militant or agressive religion, NOR do I consider Arabs terrorists. Terrorists are terrorists. They are scum, and by birth they may be Arab, American, Croatian, Serbian, Venezuelan, Nepalese or Australian scum, but are basically member of same "nation".

as for recent debate, Foxfyre, I agree with you generally, and I don't know how it is in USA because I don't live there.
But in Croatia I must say that I never felt atheists are forcing their beliefs into society. To be honest, Catholics are not doing that much as well. At least not directly, they try to use politicians sometimes.
But other Christian groups (most of them, not all of course) are really doing that. Stopping people on streets, knocking on door and it's really rare to find some that...well...tried and then left. No, if you tell them you are not interested they will not leave, they will be even more agressive.

If my "religious" choices should mean something in this debate the closest for my opinion is box you can find in some online surveys that says "spiritous, but not religious". Therefore, I am neither atheist nor Christian, and I am trying to approach subject from kinda neutral position. And I am not saying that I have to be right, but that's what I feel. At least in Croatia.

My writes:


My short answer is that it is evil to deny that evil happened just because it does not fit in with one's personal agenda.

I also think only those who do the wrong to other people are the ones who can properly apologize for it. I think national leaders who apologize for political expediency are politcally pandering and I in fact resent it. To acknowledge to abused prisoners, for instance, that prison guards overstepped their authority and that this practice is immediately forbidden is one thing. If restitution is due any of the wronged, that is the way to demonstrate true compassion and regret. To apologize to the Arab world on behalf of the United States for the actions of a few is ridiculous when 99.99% of Americans neither did nor condoned such behavior.

This discussion, however, is better suited for the political forum than for the Spirituality and Religion forum, though I think people of faith do not easily separate their religious convictions from their political convictions, nor should they.

Well, although it's entirely different topic, I think that national leaders sometimes should apologize because that's what they are - national leaders. I don't think you should apologize for anything any American did. But coming from national leader that's nice gesture.
When german president (I think Willy Brandt) kneeled in front of monument for victims of Holocaust it was very strong gesture, although not only that he was not directly responsible, but it was years and years after WW2, when Germany was completely clear of Nazism.

But demonstrating compassion and understanding and acknowledging a fact is not the same thing as apology. If I wrong somebody, I (usually) apologize for it. An apology should mean something; i.e. taking responsibility for an action and exhibiting regret for it. But what good does it do anybody if I apologize to you for something somebody else did? To me that trivializes what an apology is meant to be.

Neither do I believe I can forgive a wrong somebody else has done to you. Forgiveness I think should be the prerogative of the wronged.

well in that specific example you gave, if we assume that american president had no idea about torturing he should still apologize in my opinion because those are people under his command, and those are american soldiers, therefore "official representatives" of USA.
I don't think american president should apologize for, let's say, some American lunatic that committed terrible crime somewhere on planet, but has nothing to do with US govt. or army.

Well in that specific incident, the president did apologize. If that pleases some, then its all good. I don't think it was appropriate for reasons already stated. I still say the best apology is to correct whatever is wrong and make amends as much as possible.

you are right - it is best apology to correct whatever is wrong - but you can do both things, it's even better in my opinion

shouldn't that read "suppository"!?

it's not about sides swolf; it's about decency.
and no matter what you believe, if one can't be decent, and civil to all one encounters, they're not much of a 'human', "ist", or "secular", or "one of the chosen" - no matter.

exactly!