1
   

Why is it so important to refute Christianity?

 
 
BoGoWo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 May, 2004 08:04 am
Foxfyre wrote:
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.


MyOwnUsername wrote:
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


i think you are both right!

being the figure head of a nation, a president (or equivalent) should apologize for misdeeds perpetrated in the name of the country, and its citizens, but not for unrelated incidents; however apologizing without making amends, and taking measures that ensure such things will not recur is worthless, and indeed offensive.
0 Replies
 
Jer
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 May, 2004 09:33 am
Here's a good example.

Quote:
God back in EU debate
Tue 18 May, 2004 15:51

BRUSSELS (Reuters) - God is back in the debate on the draft EU constitution as several states renewed demands to make a reference to Europe's Christian roots.

Predominantly Roman Catholic Ireland and Poland as well as Italy and Spain have long sided with the Vatican in demanding a reference to God, or at least Christian values, in the charter, against strong opposition from secular France.

The issue was raised again by Italy and Poland at a meeting of European Union foreign ministers on the constitution, which the 25-member bloc hopes to approve in June.

"We are aware of the difficulties but we believe that a small inclusion in the text would not alter the preamble too much," Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini told reporters on Tuesday.

France says it is happy with the current draft of the EU constitution, which makes reference to Europe's religious -- but not Christian -- traditions, to highlight the separation between church and state enshrined by most EU members.

"The problem cannot be swept under the carpet to please those who do not want to discuss it," said deputy Polish Foreign Minister Jan Truszczysnki.
0 Replies
 
Thor
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 May, 2004 01:56 pm
zgreatarteest wrote:
I knew we had a lot of folks running around in bad shape, but this forum let me know that it is a lot worse than I ever thought.


I concur.

This forum has been a huge eye-opener for me.
0 Replies
 
zgreatarteest
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 May, 2004 02:19 pm
Cephus wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
The only question I have, is why does it make you so angry and why do you care so much about what Christians believe?


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.


How about US just putting some dumb butt shoes on your
other feet also? I'll have to shop for something to put on your
other head. I am sure it will have to be a hat that screws
on.

THE LAW IS THE LAW

So, if the U.S. government determines that it is against the
law for the words "Under God" to be on our money, then,
so be it.

And if that same government decides that the "Ten Commandments"
are not to be used in or on a government installation, then, so be
it.

And since they already have prohibited any prayer in the schools,
of which they deem their authority, then, so be it.

I say, "so be it", because I would like to be a law abiding U.S.
citizen.

I say, "so be it", because I would like to think that smarter people
than me are in positions to make good decisions. I would like to
think those people have my best interest at heart.

BUT, YOU KNOW WHAT ELSE I WOULD LIKE?

I'd like my mail delivered on Christmas day, Good Friday, Easter
and every single solitary Sunday. Rain, sleet or snow.

I'd like the U.S. Supreme Court to be in session on Christmas,
Good Friday, Easter and Sunday should not be considered a normal
off day. AFTER ALL.....it was the government that deemed these
as religious observances. I would like for them to continue to open
their sessions with "God bless this honorable court", even though
they have denied school children the right to do the same. And
they can leave all the Christian motifs on and in their building too.
(Aren't these the same idiots that misinterpertated the Constituation
to say "seperation of church and state" when it actually says "there
will be no establishment of a state religion/church"? Not to make
the same mistake as England, Arab countries, etc. did.)

I'd like for the Senate and House of Representatives to not have to
worry about getting home for the "Christmas Break" that school
children now have to refer to as "Winter Break" so as not to offend
some thin skinned whatever. I would like to see them continue to
open their sessions with prayer and leave their Christian motifs and
Ten Commandments about their buildings.

I am thinking that a lot of my taxpayer dollars could be saved, if all
government offices and services would work on Christmas, Good
Friday and Easter and all other Sundays. It shouldn't cost any
overtime since those would be just like any other day of the week to
a government that is trying to be "POLITICALLY CORRECT'. Just
reasonable service, wouldn't you think?

This would not effect any "non-government" business, Since everyone
else still has the freedom of religion, we could all still enjoy our
holidays. Or effect any non-government business that is trying to
be "POLITICALLY CORRECT", so they can be as two faced as the
government and would have the same freedom to do so.

So, I guess if the government continues to bow to the wishes of the
few, they should at least enjoy what they have done along with the
rest of us.......
"For they sow the wind and they shall reap the whirlwind. The
standing grain has no heads; it shall yield no meal; if it were
to yield, strangers and aliens would eat it up. (Hosea 8:7 AMP)

What? Me cynical? Maybe just a little.
0 Replies
 
Cephus
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 May, 2004 02:34 am
zgreatarteest wrote:
How about US just putting some dumb butt shoes on your
other feet also? I'll have to shop for something to put on your
other head. I am sure it will have to be a hat that screws
on.


Grow up, you immature twit.

Quote:
So, if the U.S. government determines that it is against the
law for the words "Under God" to be on our money, then,
so be it.


You are aware that the words "Under God" were only added to the currency of the US in 1956 under the height of the McCarthy communism scare? That's the same time that "One nation under God" was added to the Pledge of Allegiance. Both were done under the very bizarre belief that the communists that were apparently hiding under every bed would rather starve to death than get cooties by touching money that had the word "God" on it.

Quote:
And if that same government decides that the "Ten Commandments" are not to be used in or on a government installation, then, so be it.


It's amazing that separation of church and state only seems to mean separation of EVERYONE ELSE'S CHURCH and the state and it doesn't apply to Christianity.

Quote:
And since they already have prohibited any prayer in the schools,
of which they deem their authority, then, so be it.


Again, it's hypocracy in action. If they tried to have Hindu prayers in school or tried to lead the students bowing down to Mecca, Christians would crap their pants. But suggest that they practice fair play and they get up in arms.

Besides, you can't stop prayer in school or anyone else. Anyone who wishes to pray can do so silently to themselves. As the saying goes, so long as there are tests, there will be prayer in school. The only thing that is outlawed are the hypocritical public displays of false piety.

Quote:
I'd like my mail delivered on Christmas day, Good Friday, Easter
and every single solitary Sunday. Rain, sleet or snow.


Fine, are you willing to work on all of those holidays? After all, if you eliminate the holiday for one, you must eliminate it for all.

Quote:
I'd like the U.S. Supreme Court to be in session on Christmas,
Good Friday, Easter and Sunday should not be considered a normal
off day. AFTER ALL.....it was the government that deemed these
as religious observances. I would like for them to continue to open
their sessions with "God bless this honorable court", even though
they have denied school children the right to do the same. And
they can leave all the Christian motifs on and in their building too.
(Aren't these the same idiots that misinterpertated the Constituation
to say "seperation of church and state" when it actually says "there
will be no establishment of a state religion/church"? Not to make
the same mistake as England, Arab countries, etc. did.)


As soon as you start doing so, let us know. Personally, I don't think they should be blessing Congress, I feel that is a problem, but so long as the individual Congressmen and women don't mind, or wish it to be done without dissenters, then it's fine with me.

BTW: You are aware that most of Europe, including England, are much less religious than the US, right? The number of people who profess Christianity is going through the floor. In many areas, atheism is the predominant philosophical position. The United States, being much younger, is the only place on the planet where religion still plays a major role, but don't worry, we'll get there as well.
0 Replies
 
akaMechsmith
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 May, 2004 05:22 pm
Personally I would settle for four holidays.The first days of the seasons. ( The state could call them social time Smile ) The people could call them what they want to. Confused

Twelve 30 day months and a yearly five or six day celebration of the past year in order to keep the calender working well. A work week of four on and two days off would be a normal schedule. Double time on societal days, Time and a half on Calender Break. A few other details but they belong on another thread.

thats reasonable,

Another thing, I really don't mind that you wear a chador, doily, or a beard as long as you don't mind my skinny dipping and sunbathing:D I don't mind your heterosexual marriages till death, as long as you don't mind my kids having two fathers or two mothers or a stabilized group arrangement.

I don't mind you teaching abstaining as birth control, if you don't mind me teaching reproductive science.

I don't mind you teaching "Creation Theory" if you don't mind me teaching "Science" Theory".

But I do resent it when you teach dreams, imaginations, and superstitions as FACTS, even to your children as they must necessarily share this Earth with mine. And it's not helping Exclamation

If Christians (and Theists in general) would quit that that then I would have no reason to attempt to refute Christianity.

I think it only reasonable that reasonable persons examine the source of their beliefs-- Honestly and factually.

That may help Very Happy but I won't bet the farm on it Sad
0 Replies
 
swolf
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 May, 2004 08:17 pm
Cephus wrote:


You are aware that the words "Under God" were only added to the currency of the US in 1956 under the height of the McCarthy communism scare? That's the same time that "One nation under God" was added to the Pledge of Allegiance. Both were done under the very bizarre belief that the communists that were apparently hiding under every bed would rather starve to death than get cooties by touching money that had the word "God" on it.



Funny thing, there just about WERE commies hiding behind every tree, at least in the state department, towards the end of the Truman administration.

You might want to get yourself a copy of Ann Coulter's "Treason" and check it out.

I mean, you had this Henry Wallace, FDR's last veep prior to Truman, who'd actually visited gulags in Siberia and came back telling people he'd seen a Russian vision of the WPA. When a chicken or a pig or some other farm animal suffers mental disfunction to that extent, the farmer takes him out behind the barn and shoots him.

http://membres.lycos.fr/aquelbichou/piss.gifhttp://www.conservababes.com/darwinpics/jk1.gif
0 Replies
 
zgreatarteest
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 May, 2004 10:29 pm
cepus needs a numismatic study as well. "In
God We Trust" started appearing on coinage
(that's money also} in 1864. Wording passed
into law in 1908. Not to long after our Supreme
Court handed down an opinion, "this is a religious
people......a Christian nation", in 1892. A much
smarter bunch of black robes than we have now.
It must have been a wonderful period in our
nations history in spite of a bloody and terrible
civil war raging. Atheist were mute for the most
part or still in Europe. The sexually disoriented
were hiding in their closets where they belong.
At least we could recuperate from the war. Not
so with the afore mentioned of society that are
now trying to plague us to detriment.

As for the rest of cephus' last post. It is as upside down
as my last one. The difference is that he believes
his jokes. He is really serious. Notice the part about
seperation of church and state. Any crackpot religion
can do anything they want to without flack. The Christians
are the ones catching the flack. I don't know why the
doofus can't see that. He probably can if it's out of focus.
I don't think he can see any better that he can reason.
The same old recycled denial garbage over and over.

Have a good week. I'll be back next week. Maybe.
Going to China. But not to check out the Buddist.
At least they recognize something was greater than
themselves, even if they are off track about it.

Webpage Title "IN GOD WE TRUST'
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 May, 2004 10:29 pm
This story from the bible most people missed.
*********


After three weeks in the Garden of Eden, God came to visit Eve.
>
>
>"So, how is everything going?" inquired God.
>
>
>
>"It is all so beautiful, God," she replied, "the sunrises and sunsets are breathtaking, the smells, the sights, everything is wonderful, but I have just one problem. It is these breasts you have given me. The middle one pushes the other two out and I am constantly knocking them with my arms, catching them on branches and snagging them on bushes. They are a real pain," reported Eve.
>
> >
>
>And Eve went on to tell God that since many other parts of her body came in pairs, such as her limbs, eyes, ears, etc., she felt that having only two breasts might leave her body ore "symmetrically balanced" as she put it.
>
>
>
>
>That is a fair point," replied God, "but it was my first shot at this you know. I gave the animals six breasts, ! so I figured
that
>you needed only half of those, but I see that you are right. I
will
>fix it up right away."
>
> >
>
>And God reached down, removed the middle breast and tossed it
into
>the bushes.
>
> >
>
>Three weeks passed and God once again visited Eve in the Garden
of
>Eden. "Well, Eve, how is my favorite creation?"
>
> >
>
>"Just fantastic," she replied, "but for one oversight on your
part.
>You see, all the animals are paired off. The ewe has a ram and
the
>cow has her bull; all the animals have a mate except me. I feel
so
>alone."
>
> >
>
>God thought for a moment and said, "You know, Eve, you are
right.
>How could I have overlooked this? You do need a mate and I will
>immediately create a man from a part of you. Now let's
see....where
>did I put that useless boob?"
>
> >
>
>Now, doesn't THAT make more sense than that bullshit about the
rib?
0 Replies
 
zgreatarteest
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 May, 2004 10:38 pm
Hey, that's old as dirt, but still funny.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 May, 2004 10:43 pm
It should be "old as dirt." It's from the bible. Wink
0 Replies
 
zgreatarteest
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 May, 2004 10:45 pm
Reminds me of one equally as old. Short version.

Adam told God he was lonely and wondered if
He would make him a mate that would be sweet,
kind and loving all the time. Cook for him and
wash his clothes. Rub his back and always be
in a good mood and never ever get mad at him
about anything.

God paused for a moment and said, "Yes, I can
do that, but it will cost you an arm and a leg".

Adam paused and asked, "What can I get for a
rib?"
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 May, 2004 10:55 pm
hearty har har..... The only problem is that Eve always had a headache.
0 Replies
 
zgreatarteest
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 May, 2004 11:09 pm
Yeah, but God clued him in on willow bark (asprin).
She claimed it didn't work.

Did you hear the one about the pharmacist that came
home drunk early one morning? He stumbled into the
bedroom and found some asprin in the nightstand.
He crammed a couple in his sleeping wifes mouth and
she woke up spitting and sputtering. "Why did you
you put those aprin in my mouth? I don't have a
headache!", she exclaimed louldly.

"That's all I wanted to hear.", he replied.
0 Replies
 
Cephus
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 May, 2004 09:38 am
zgreatarteest wrote:
cepus needs a numismatic study as well. "In
God We Trust" started appearing on coinage
(that's money also} in 1864.


Which is why I said currency. Learn to read.
0 Replies
 
zgreatarteest
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 May, 2004 10:35 am
Cephus wrote:

You are aware that the words "Under God" were only added to the currency of the US in 1956 under the height of the McCarthy communism scare?


You were talking about paper only in 1956. Why didn't you
say that. You either didn't know it went back to 1864 or you
figured everyone would think you were talking about paper
and coin, as if it were a more recent issue, or you can't
understand your own writing. You judge.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 May, 2004 11:59 am
zgreatarteest wrote:
... Wording passed into law in 1908. Not to long after our Supreme Court handed down an opinion, "this is a religious
people......a Christian nation", in 1892. A much smarter bunch of black robes than we have now.


Actually it wasn't a bunch of black robes, it was only one; David Brewer.

In the Supreme court's 1892 Holy Trinity Church v. United States decision Justice David Brewer wrote, "This is a Christian nation." Brewer's statement occurred in dicta, a legal term meaning writing that reflects a judge's personal opinion, not an official court pronouncement that sets legally binding precident.

And the opinion of one obscure Supreme Court justice does not amount to an official decree that the United States is a Christian nation. If a Christian republic had been the goal of the framers, that sentiment would have been included in the Constitution.

Luckily for the world, the United States was founded as a secular nation, and has successfully maintained that status to date. We enjoy a governmental foundation which provides the greatest range of religious freedom and tolerance possible. And is possibly the single greatest example ever offered to humanity for the role of religion in government.
0 Replies
 
Thor
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 May, 2004 02:15 pm
Indeed, the founding fathers would be spinning in their caskets at the notion of a "Christian nation".
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 10/15/2019 at 10:55:23