Christians have killed again and again in the name of their god. Does this mean we should stop a christian from running for the presidency?
"Because Christians believe that Jesus Christ suffered for the sins of others, they use this belief for their own purposes by "letting Christ suffer while they, the Christians, go on committing sin and crime." That is why the Christians go on slaughtering the Non-Christians, totally worry-free and with a totally clean conscience, because Christ will take care of their sins and crimes, and because they don't have to face the laws of Karma and Re-incarnation or the veritable consequences of these laws. It does not even occur to an average Christian to ask himself/herself a simple question, that if a person commits a murder and he tells the court that his Father will suffer in his place, will the court accept the substitute to suffer the sentence? An average Christian does not even think that if any court accepted this kind of substitution, then the justice system of the world, as we know it, would be totally destroyed and chaos would ensue.
History is witness to the mass destruction of countless cultures, and the almost complete genocide of entire races at the hands of Christianity. History is now proving that most cultures destroyed by Christianity far outweighed in morals and dignity what they were replaced by.
Since the effects of much missionary work, the cultural traditions of a people being replaced by some form of Christianity, are intentional, this means by definition (according to the United Nations) that genocide is the missionary profession: converting other peoples to Christianity and thus destroying them as an ethnical group, and denying the right of native peoples to exist as what they are, with their own culture, language, and religion. For a variety of reasons a massive depopulation, in other words the death of a large percentage of the native population, follows. And this so-called righteous work continues even today around the world in the name of [Christian] humanitarian work.
The plain and simple truth is that people never give up their religion, any more than they give up their children or their parents...except when they are pressured with use of force or are offered attractive allurements. The Christian Slogan that "Faith in Jesus is the only way to Salvation," besides being totally false, is also totally ineffective, in gaining converts. Trickery, treachery, bribery, and bayonetry, therefore, has to be used to obtain converts. The Christian Missionaries know this blatant truth and Christianity's brutal and barbaric record of twenty centuries in winning converts, is a testament to the savage methods of Christianity. "
http://www.burningcross.net/crusades/ch … ities.html
- For you PT.
In the name of God wars have and are being fought .You put up a nice picture of the Mulsim with his Holy Quran and the Christain with his Holy Bible.Conversion by force deosnt make any sense to me but sadly its been the way of the world or rather a part not the whole.There are good people forget Christian or Mulsims doesnt matter he or she is human first.Religions are a beliefs of the Prophets who spoke of the great light pervading this entire universe including this planet and all humans, everything and it is love not war.Like I have said don not blame the Religion but the greed of man.
Yikes...a guy can't take a month off to have a kid without missing out, can he?
I'm sorry I'm getting into this so late, but, quite the contrary. The problem with most Christian missionaries is that they DO NOT follow the example of Paul whose sole purpose was to preach the gospel, and he was without question the most effective missionary in history. When missionaries get back to the original message of the gospel, healing the sick, bringing light to darkness, etc., then the effectiveness that Paul experienced can be experienced church wide. Everything else you speak of, while true for the most part, has hurt the mission, not helped.
I will not reply to that, but if I see such things written again I will. That is far far beyond untolerable.
Please refrain. Whether it is your intention or not, you only infuriate others. I hope that is not your only intention because it serves no other purpose that I can see.
How does he "Only infuriate others"?
He doesn't infuriate me, and I would guess he probably doesn't infuriate anyone other than non liberal christians (in general as regards all his posts and topics).
If you think it is garbage then point out why, and discuss the points the article addresses with resources. If you think it is garbage then please take it to pieces systematically, piece by piece.
If it is lies then please do post why, I would really like to know if it is.
Please do, because all I see from my angle is you making accusations on a topic that was addressed to one person and one person only and was specifically stated to be addressed to ProphecyTeacher and ProphecyTeacher alone by the OP in his initial topic post.
I am so sorry that you have such a slanted an uninformed view of Christianity. While I will not deny that there were misguided zealots in the past, most of them were motivated by power and politics, not spreading the true word of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Seems to me that we have the same problem today with muslim extremists wouldn't you say?
Please refer me to the passage in the Bible that instructs Christians to "slaughter" non-believers. I have not read the entire book, but I've never seen that one or heard a preacher persuade me to do as much. And when has our country ever gone into another country and killed the inhabitants for not converting to Christianity? Please give our forefathers a little more credit than that.
Quotes taken from the Medieval document known as "Malleus Maleficarum"
http://www.burningcross.net/crusades/ma … icarum.pdf
This quote taken from page 11 of 726 pages:
To commence, the expressions of the Canon must be treated of in detail (although the sense
of the Canon will be even more clearly elucidated in the following question). For the divine in
many places commands that witches are not only to be avoided, but also they are to be put to
death, and it would not impose the extreme penalty of this kind if witches did not really and truly make a compact with devils in order to bring about real and true hurts and harms. For the penalty of death is not inflicted except for some grave and notorious crime, but it is otherwise with death of the soul, which can be brought about by the power of a phantastical illusion or even by the stress of temptation. This is the opinion of S. Thomas when he discusses whether it be evil to make use of the help of devils (ii. 7). For in the 18th chapter of Deuteronomy it is commanded that all wizards and charmers are to be destroyed. Also the 19th chapter of Leviticus says: The soul which goeth to wizards and soothsayers to commit fornication with them, I will set my face against that soul, and destroy it out of the midst of my people. And again, 20: A man, or woman, in whom there is a pythonical or divining spirit dying, let them die: they shall stone them. Those persons are said to be pythons in whom the devil works extraordinary things. Moreover, this must be borne in mind, that on account of this sin Ochozias fell sick and died, IV. Kings I. Also Saul, I Paralipomenon, 10. We have, moreover, the weighty opinions of the Fathers who have written upon the scriptures and who have treated at length of the power of demons and of magic arts. The writings of many doctors upon Book 2 of the Sentences may be consulted, and it will be found that they all agree, that there are wizards and sorcerers who by the power of the devil can produce real and extraordinary effects, and these effects are not imaginary, and God permits this to be. I will not mention those very many other places where S. Thomas in great detail discusses operations of this kind. As, for example, in his Summa contra Gentiles, Book 3, c. 1 and 2, in part one, question 114, argument 4. And in the Second of the Second, questions 92 and 94. We may further consult the Commentators and the Exegetes who have written upon the wise men and the magicians of Pharao, Exodus vii. We may also consult what S. Augustine says in The City of God, Book 18, c. 17. See further his second book On Christian Doctrine. Very many other doctors advance the same opinion, and it would be the height of folly for any man to contradict all these, and he could not be held to be clear of the guilt of heresy. For any man who gravely errs in an exposition of Holy Scripture is rightly considered to be a heretic. And whosoever thinks otherwise concerning these matters which touch the faith that the Holy Roman Church holds is a heretic. There is the Faith".
To quote from the 20th Chapter of Leviticus of the King James Bible:
http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/k/kjv/kjv … yte=407964
 A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones: their blood shall be upon them."
To quote from the 20th Chapter of Leviticus of the NIV Bible:
27 " 'A man or woman who is a medium or spiritist among you must be put to death. You are to stone them; their blood will be on their own heads.' "
That portends to the quote from Malleus Maleficarum and demonstrates how scriptures (including Old Testament), have been used to advance documents and doctrinal understandings which were later used to try, torture, and execute people.
I will end by quoting some more of that chapter of Leviticus for good measure:
" 9 " 'Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death. Because they have cursed their father or mother, their blood will be on their own head.
10 " 'If a man commits adultery with another man's wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress are to be put to death.
11 " 'If a man has sexual relations with his father's wife, he has dishonored his father. Both the man and the woman are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
12 " 'If a man has sexual relations with his daughter-in-law, both of them are to be put to death. What they have done is a perversion; their blood will be on their own heads. "
These things were used many many times to force conversion through behavior modification and subsequent genocide if people did not comply.
Also, it wasn't just in the Old Testament times, as that document I quoted from demonstrates how Old Testament scripture was used to attempt to influence the behavior of people who came after the New Testament was written.
The Old Testament? Is that all you have? I suppose that would be the same as accusing all Islamists of being murders as well because of the writings in the Koran.
Please read the new Testament.
Truth is, you can find any source of information to support your point of view if you try hard enough. The church of the New Testament does not practice indiscriminate killing of non-believers and never has. And even though I disagree with you and wish that you would take the time to truly understand Christianity before you started flalling away on this forum, I am aware that the same Jesus that died to wash away my sins has done the same for you. It is Him I ask you to seek. You will be amazed at the clarity and love that will fill your heart and life when you find Him.
All the best to you and Mark. I harbor no ill-will toward either of you.
I said what I have to say to Mark. If he wasnt to discuss it further, so be it. If you think it is correct, that is up to you. I'd rather not spend my night rebutting that BS. It is hate mail at its worst or a bad joke. I'd rather state my opinion and move on. Be sure I am more than capable to debunk it totally, but do you really thank it is necessary?
You want to know what I really think?
I really think you are bluffing and I will take you down, quote by quote and context by context if you dare to qualify your statements.
So far you have not qualified anything, and I have.
See my above posts.
I never once have stooped to your level and accused anyone making serious anthropological claims like the person in that article that Mark printed-where the article was referenced and sources quoted- of putting out "hate mail" or being a "bad joke". I have accused some of lying if their sources were bunk, but I still take the thing written seriously. You obviously do not.
If you think the real suffering of millions of people under various forms of organized Christianity (including the Native Americans), as referenced in that article is a "bad joke" then do please bring it on.
I think you are a joke.
Found it humorous and true. The only people it upsets is you jack!
God does not share your pejudice. He/She wanted us to have a brain and an opinion.
My name is not Jack. Hmm, a little over the edge there?
Perhaps I overestimated the heart of people who would see their fellow man called murders unfairly. A few of you have said that is true of you, so I guess I did in your cases anyway.
It is hardly me that has that prejudice. I guess that is OK with you to call Christians murderers when they are not, but not me. I am proud of my righteous anger, so please continue to heap praisse on me for it. However, Mark and I settled that already. Do you have a point?
I did not group any people together, by the way. There is absolutely NO PREJUDUCE in anything I wrote. I deal with the behavior of individuals. I do not group people together, like Christians, i.e. The prejudice was to group Christians together with something unrepresentative of them, i.e. murderers. Yes, I do defend my brothers and sisters in the Lord. No, I will not just sluff off misstatements against them. I am not a religious hypocrite that calls my fellow Christians my brothers and sisters lightly. That is part of our culture, by the way. You are welcome to join us. It is void of prejudice and evil actions, much less murder.
You are right, though, that God is not prejudiced. You may want to take that up with Jenny, though, who seems to think He is.
VP- It doesn't infuriate me, it saddens me. Mark is truly misguided and it is a shame that he speaks from ignorance. Whether he was trying to inflame or not- he is sorely misinformed and that is truly unfortunate.
It is a shame you speak from flippant ignorance and I just busted you wide open with the above post.
My how you flatter yourself. I discredited this entire thread with my insistance that it has no foundation whatsoever. The Bible NEVER commands me or anyone else to kill anyone. That was the theme of this thread. Come on, Azrm, see if you can get back on track. The burden of truth is now on you to find something to PROVE ME WRONG.
Let me give you a little lesson in logic. I cannot argue with nothing. There is nothing to say that I am commanded to kill. End of argument unless you can prove that there was a reason for this in the first place. In case you don't know, the bible is the source of Christianity. Go there.
That is close. However, a few misplaced "were's" to "are's" blow the deal. Be sure, and you cannot find ANYTHING to the contrary, NOTHING in the Bible gives anyone the right to determine to kill another. Scriptures from God that gave specific commands at the time, ancient times were only done by God's command, and nothing said they could be repeated. There is no such command during my lifetime, at least. Actually there are no commands I know since the Bible, or maybe you have something...
Perhaps you were there or have scholarly knowledge that says that those things were not necessary to accomplish God's purposes at the time. Those were not open ended commands. In fact, the little known part of the Bible - to you apparently - is the command "thou shalt not kill". Be absolutely certain that no Christian kills, people do. Just like no atheist kills, people do. No one can kill in the name of Christainity because they VIOLATE the commandments of God in the Bible. It is stronger in Christianity, than for atheists, in that a Christian is commanded not to kill, but an atheist has to choose himself.
Oh, I'd recommend you consider a new Bible. Tthe King James is very hard for even a scholar to understand. I certainly do not recommend it to you. The NIV is good. Also, read the scriptures before you quote someone else's interpretation of them.
It would have been ROFL and LMAO, it is wasn't that sad...
Zarm shows you proof that people WERE KILLED in the name of Christianity. And you reply with speculations... How very Christian...
Zarm, if you lose your cool, you lose, OK?
There is ZERO proof. Let me explain it to you. The Bible does not command anyone to kill. The Bible is the only instruction manual of Christians. What happened in ancient times is irrelevent to Mark's contention that Christians are killers. As I said, atheists are killers, too. The question is if Christians are commanded by God to kill. If we are not commanded to do so, then we are not killers as Christians, but as men.
Zarm showed nothing and cannot show anything to disprove what I say. What God had to do in ancient times is far over your head, unless you are a historian of ancient times. that is where the social detail comes from to explain Leviticus, for example. It is very lengthy, i.e. 70 volumes or so. It ahs to start with a correct translation, though, Misha. How can you expect me to debate an incorrect translation? By the way, I already told Zarm that he mistranslated. So, where are you getting that there is still any debate here. My scoringe is just common sense.
If he lose his cool and loses, then it is sure over. That was the rest of my scoring, as I guess you see.
Zarm's knowledge of the ten commandments and Bible so far:
Zarm = 0
Viralprospector = 1
Zarm, called VP "a joke". In the scoring of human decency, Zarm = -1 (being generous)
Round one VP +1
Zarm = -1
Anything else? You tire me. I will see you in the am.
LMAO this time
How very Christian, too - trying to play a match and be a referee at the same time
Your opinion is noted. Let's see how it plays out. Name calling is uncivilized. That is a negative, and I scored it as such. You agreed with it in your post, too.
This is about Christian killers. I said that is total BS. It cannot be refuted because it is untrue. That usually ends debates. The bible is the source. Show me where it commands anyone to go kill today? Ancient times seem to me to be over.
Not sure what exactly here is name calling. Also, did not see any proof that Christians did not kill and do not kill. Are you saying that all American soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq are not real Christians? Will you repeat that in their face?
As for the Bible - Zarm pointed out some scritures for you. I am sure there are more that can be dug out if needed. The problem is - you don't hear what other people tell you. There is no point in providing you with more evidence when you ignore already given one.
There is zero point that you made. I said that the Bible never commands anyone to kill beyond things that were necessary in ancient times. Then He commands "thou shalt not kill".
Maybe I can explain it this way. If you need to dig a sewer, you tell the worker to go dig over there. He digs and gets to the depth you want. Then you say, thou shalt not dig. If the worker reaches China, you are not at fault. If the worker is too stupid to listen, it is not your fault. If his only defense is that you told him to dig there, you cannot be blamed.
Thanks. I did not see the preceding. It looked like this was unsollicited.
I think viralprospector is missing the small cultural piece of information that the word used for "person" in the Old Testament actually translates as "tribemate" aka "Jew".
The law was only for Jews, and they were not allowed to kill Jews. Or charge interest on loans to Jews. Gentiles didn't count as "people". The Promised Land was Terra Nullius as far as the Tribes of Isreal were concerned, populated by non-human barbarians who called themselves Canaanites and were good only for killing.
The ancient historical past was a more brutal and xenophobic world than our current cosmopolitan, tolerant, and multi-cultural present.
Even after Jesus died, it was not entirely clear that Christianity would become anything more than a Jewish cult. There were violent disagreements between the disciples, because Jesus only ever spoke to Jews about Jewish matters, and never gave any clear direction that outsiders could join his cult.
Peter won the argument, and he was in favor of converting Gentiles as well as Jews.
Had he lost the argument, the world would be a very different place indeed ...
Reading the NIV of the Bible is like studying the Disney movie of a tale like "Beauty And The Beast" - entertaining and emotionally uplifting, but hardly representative of the original material.
Perhaps you would like to trade your understanding of Hebrew and Greek with me. I am glad to defend the NIV against your inaccurate slams against it. I am quite knowledgeable of both languages, so - no - you are incorrect in your assumption. Unless that is that you have some other manuyscripts that I have not seen. That would be a very valuable thing for you. What is your Hebrew and Greek training? Do you criticize what you cannot defend? I am certain that the NIV is as accurate a translation as there is.
The Bible is not for Jews alone. Jesus did not come to save the Jews, or do you know something no one else has known so far? Can you point out where it says that it is for Jews alone? Can you show where it says that anyone other than a Jew should put it down and ignore it?
The Bible is the Old AND New testaments. It is indeed a progression, but I see that as irrelevent to this thread.
Jenny, thou shalt not kill. That is my simple message here on this thread. The statement was made to the direct contrary. I am not sure how your other comments relate to that, but maybe you can help me understand.
VP - Although I only started this thread to make a point to some one, I feel partly responsible for this current argument and I have to say, your reasoning seems a little weak, in that its only purpose seems to be to defend christianity and your reasoning seems to be this:
1. Although there are many instances in the bible of killing and exhortations to kill and maim, these do not count, and it is not god's fault if people are too stupid to understand that. Leaving aside my interpretation that the the original covenant was with the Jews and ended with the birth of christ, all the calling for killing is discounted with the simple "though shalt not kill" command, and people who kill in the name of the Lord are misinterpreting the bible.
2. The people who have done all the killing in the name of the Lord are not real christians. Real christians do not kill. Therefore this does not count either.
I think we can both agree that many people have been slaughtered by people claiming to be christians or misinterpreting the bible.
So - how do I tell the difference between the real christians and all these others?
Again, Mark, I am glad to continue to dialogue with you. If you have any qeustions for me, please feel free to ask them. I do not want a misunderstanding about this. As you can see, it is very important and serious to me. Thank you for your understanding.
Please forgive me. this is my first time on this forum, and it does not always work for me technically. I know, you hope it is my last time!!! I am copy and pasting your last reply with my response.
Not sure what exactly here is name calling. It was in your thread. Zarm called me "a joke". Enough said...?
Also, did not see any proof that Christians did not kill and do not kill.
Misha, why is proof of that required? That is unprovable. Do you have proof that atheists do not or did not kill? Does that give me the right to say that atheists are killers? My contention is that Christians are COMMANDED not to kill. Atheists just do not kill of their own accord or not. So, Christians trump atheists in this sense. They would have to disobey the laws of man and God. Atheists would just have to disobey the laws of man. Petty, but again, still a victory.
Are you saying that all American soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq are not real Christians?
No, Misha, don't try to twist my words either. I ABSOLUTELY said nothing of the sort, you did by bringing it up. That would be totally cheap shot debating. Deal with my words, not your interpretations. My words are very clear, I think. They are all faiths or lack of faith, but they are AMERICANS fighting for America.
Will you repeat that in their face?
In answer (although it deserves no answer), our soldiers fight as Americans, not Christians. They are Christians, Muslims, atheists, and every other brand. They are not Christians. How could anyone call a Muslim a Christian? to his face or behind his back? Only a fool...
As for the Bible - Zarm pointed out some scritures for you. I am sure there are more that can be dug out if needed. The problem is - you don't hear what other people tell you. There is no point in providing you with more evidence when you ignore already given one.
Misha, Dig out all the scriptures you like as I am prepared to deal with all of them - ALL. I read Zarm's entire post. There was no point. He pointed out MISTRANSLATED scriptures, and the verbage led to nothing of substance that is not covered in my comments so far, as I see it. How many times do I have to tell you that? And you accuse me of not listening. What is the point of those scriptures? That God told people do do tough things thousands of years ago? OK fine. He then said thou SHALT NOT KILL. So anyone that thinks what happened in ancient times goes forward, he is a liar. THOU SHALT NOT KILL, OK?
Misha, please refrain from cheap shots. I am willing to debate anything about the Bible ANYTHING. I put my business on hold because I refuse to yield to cheap shots and misinformation. That is important to me. If it is important to you, show it.
THOU SHALT NOT KILL, OK
I agree with you a religious person will not kill as he sees god in all,he may defend himself .It is not correct to say a religious perdon kills and a non religious person doesnt and is more peace loving.
No, I do not hope this is your last time. You seem to be a nice person generally, so why should I? Yes, we disagree on religious issues and methodology of proving point made, but that does not mean I should wish you leave
I think I mistook your statement for "Christians do not kill, ever" and that's why American soldiers came into the picture. I will gladly let them go.
Now before we move any further, let's try to make sure I understood your point. I think you are saying "Christians do not kill in the name of god, by god command, or to satisfy their god. Bible does not contain any calls for killing" Right?
It's easier to blame the man, for man created religion. Religion, any of them, all of them, are social crutches and coping mechanisms at best, the cause for death, strife and civil unrest at worst.
Maybe you did not mean to get into the middle of something, but this is a defensive territorial thread. I refuse to believe that man created religion. As an atheist, that is your belief. As a Christian, it is belief that it is all divinely inspired. Don't impose your beliefs on me, and I will not impose my beliefs on you. You started it, so if you want some imposing beliefs crap, point it at yourself.
However, know that you started it. Do not give me this radical Christian imposing his beliefs crap. You start it on a thread like this, then I will gladly end it here.
Religion is not a social crutch at all. Again, that is your belief, Again, you started it. I need no crutch. I am still sound thank you.
It is also no coping mechanism. In fact, can't you see how far this is for me from a way to cope? This is more like torture, and yes that is what was promised by Jesus. He told his disciples that they would be persecuted just for saying His name. I know the felling most of the time. No complaints from me, just answering your opinions with mine.
It is no cause for death, strife or civil unrest either. Show me in the Bible where that should be the case. Maybe you make it that way, though, I don't know...
I would have let that comment slide on another thread by the way.
I, being a quite literate and most oft well-spoken individual, find no reason to continue this discussion with you, as you've proven within this first paragraph that you are less interested in actual discussion, and more in being right and righteous in your own opinion and belief.
Did you guys see how my name cahnged to Mohimitsra or something on the reply to Mark. What's up with that? Anyway, it was me.
Oh, sorry, I get it now. These forums are still confusing me. I am so sorry. It was a reply to Mohimisra, (sp) not Mark.
Was adding in the conversation,we were both replying to Marks question,I added on to yours.The picture n the left shows who has answered last sometimes th hubs do get mixed up.
My humblest apology, Mohimisra!
Just more evidence for everyone how dumb I am, huh?
Misha - I see where you are going with this and I have to agree.
My understanding of the bible is the same as VP's
You cannot join the military to kill people and be a christian.
Sorry I'm late - I didn't see this lively discussion. Thanks for the dedication though. (Blush)
I told you in the past, it isn't any fun having discussions with you. But I don't mind giving you a dedication too. With love, of course.
As I was walking up the stair
I met a man who wasn't there.
He wasn't there again today,
Oh, how I wish he'd go away.
by Hughes Mearns -
as quoted by Anthony Flew - the world's most notorious Atheist - who decided after 50 years - Atheism is an untenable position. Does that make you untenable, Mark? Or have you not believed for 50 years yet?
I met a man on the stair
He wanted to repair
The damage of those who lie
And say they heard him sigh
When I turned to be sure
He was gone,
replaced by a boor
You might want to look up the word "untenable" in a dictionary.
Yes, you can trust me on this - one of my major issues is with liars - christian or otherwise
As you know.
As to Mr. Flew - I imagine many will hedge their bets as they look into the abyss.
I hope I am not one of those.
Time will tell.
Yeah, I notice on a lot of Atheist and Infidel message boards - they proffer this theory about Mr Flew - even though Flew denies it. Why can't Atheists take him at his word - that 50 years ago he decided to let the evidence take him wherever it led.
He says it led him here.
Yours and their assertions are only valid if he believed in a Personal God - which as of a few months ago he did not. So it would seem he followed the evidence and not fear in his decision. He concludes a pantheistic type of God - but in any event - he said that if evidence for a Personal God is tenable - then the Christian God leads the pack. (Although he went on to say he did not believe in one)
It's a very interesting book. I think you'd enjoy it deeply. There's some great philosophical debate that I think will help you in your arguments concerning cosmology.
THERE IS A GOD
http://www.amazon.com/There-God-Notorio … 0061335290
Thank you - I had a very pleasant day
Although, I have never heard of Mr. Flew until you told me about him. I tend to operate in an atheistic vacuum despite what some may think. My thoughts are my own lol
I will check out the book.
And while we are having fun, I would postulate that I am less tenable than my position......
1 : not able to be defended <an untenable position>
(Does that make you Mark, as an Atheist - untenable? - a little play on words - lighten up Birthday man)
I believe that. I think you like the sport of it. Perhaps I'm wrong but you like clean arguments - just the facts. You see no reason to believe in A God - especially the Christian God. Ok.
But I believe a person - based on the latest scientific evidences - must believe in Intelligent Design of some sort. This is the conclusion Flew came to and he did it based on the science - not the Monotheistic arguments.
Also, I think many Christians argue blindly about scientific things they have no business discussing - not as proofs anyway. For a person like you and Jenny as well, (and many others) it truly looks amateurish. That's understandable. Never the less - their inefficient arguments - don't make the subject implausible; only their arguments are.
In many discussions about Creationism - many non Theistic people hear God - when the term Intelligent Design is said.
The two are not the same. One can believe in a non-personal pantheistic god - as the explanation for the seemingly necessary explanation of the creation of the universe - in all it's complexity. But that does not force them to believe in the Judeo/Christian God as the author of Creationism as expressed by 6 day literal Bible readers.
When someone supports creationism - it can be done either as Intelligent design or as a Personal God Creator. I think the only one that should be taught in school - is intelligent design - and from there - let everyone choose the Creator according to their own beliefs.
I honestly believe within a few years - the idea of Atheism will have to be left behind as science more and more proves the necessity of a Creator. But the debate will not go away - only some of the choices.
This is ridiculous. "Intelligent design," has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with god or a creator.
Sure, you are attempting to twist the meaning to suit your self. i.e. there must have been a creator and we think we can sneak this twisted lie through and then convince people there is a god (your god) behind it so we can keep the status quo. lol
Creationism is an untenable position and merely saying, "Well when I say god, what I mean is a collective consciousness that the universe manifests, and we are all god," is not going to work.
I honestly believe the idea of a creator with personality has already been left behind. Look to your dwindling church numbers. People are not interested in your political god.
No doubt the current economic climate and threat of "terrorism," will help, but seriously - move on.
Accept the universe the way it is. I do not need an explanation for how the universe came about.
And when I do, I will not be asking someone with a strong vested interest to explain it to me.
I believe in a non personal pantheistic god = I don't believe in god.
And if you are going to present me with "facts" as an argument - try and make them facts.
OK - I have more time to respond now.
That is correct. I see no reasons to believe in a god. Take it from me, if there were some radical muslims here pushing their version, I would be just as opposed. It makes no difference to me which one we are talking about. I just happen to have more christians to argue with than muslims.
This is bunk. What scientific evidences? lol "Intelligent design," is just another twisted way of saying "Creationism."
There is no proof of intelligence behind the existence of the universe. There are several meanings of the word "intelligence," but I will go with the one that this "Scientific theory," lol supports :
"Showing sound judgment and rationality"
I see no evidence of this in the existence of the universe. Neither does anyone else unless they have faith.
Seriously. Politics. BS.
Therefore intelligent design is a misnomer. At best a feeble attempt by theists to suggest that there is some sort of scientific basis for their belief system Nice try.
There is no intelligent design. Therefore this has nothing to do with a creator.
Either that, or it once again proves the lack of one. Typical of your religion/politics I am afraid. The pathetic attempt to get this "scientific theory," to be taught in schools in the US was thrown out by U.S District Judge John Jones. This is a quote from wikipedia:
In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, a group of parents of high-school students challenged a public school district requirement for teachers to present intelligent design in biology classes as an alternative "explanation of the origin of life." U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III ruled that intelligent design is not science, that it "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents," and that the school district's promotion of it therefore violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
So, therefore intelligent design is not only an untenable argument, it is merely twisting and spinning words.
Now, I understand why. You believe, therefore you think everyone else should believe also. This is the way it has always been with your or any other religion.
You start from the assumption that there is a god, and will go to any lengths to "prove" the unprovable. Even lying. Shame on you - lying is a sin.
I can sum up the theory of intelligent design in a few sentences:
1. There is a god
2. He created the universe
3. The universe exists
4. There is scientific proof that the universe exists
5. Even the scientists agree the universe exists
6. Something like the universe could not have happened by chance
7. Therefore there is an intelligent mind behind it
1. Therefore there is a god
Which is the same basic argument theists have been using since scientific studies began.
But I am keen to know the "scientific evidences," you have that prove there was rational thought behind the process.
In your own words please. I don't really want to sift through reams and reams of other people's opinions.
Aside from your 1st amendment saying it does not consider one religion over an other, most religions do believe in a creator, including North American natives.
And the majority of the population belong to a religion that gives reference to a creator.
Seeing this majority, should science not have the responsibility to prove there is not a creator?
Rather than science just saying we can't find proof of a creator yet so it doesn't exist?
By taking creation out of the school curriculum to be replaced by Darwinism (that is also not proven) is this not minority dictating?
Another self fulfilling argument.
Don't you think a majority of the population believing in a creator comes from this having been taught in schools and preached for years?
But I can use your reasoning to jump to a few more conclusions:
MacDonalds sell millions of hamburgers world wide, therefore this is the best food and every one should eat there.
The majority of people watch television, therefore everyone should watch television.
Chinese is the most spoken language in the world, therefore everyone should be made to learn Chinese in school.
I guess you are another one who does not understand the theory of evolution or Darwin's theory of natural selection.
Although, you guys have had your chance, how about we preach "there is no god, the church is a money making, scum sucking political machine which has never once in it's entire existence shown the values Jesus preached," for a couple of thousand years? And see who believes what?
Please educate yourself as to what Darwin said before jumping to the conclusion that it is wrong. If you just open your heart, it will all become clear and you will understand. All it takes is blind faith and a small amount of scientific understanding
I am beginning to think you guys are just plain stupid. If we used your reasoning, we would all still believe the earth is flat and at the center of the universe; and there would be no such thing as the first amendment. Thank goodness for the minority that are prepared to stand up and be persecuted in the pursuit of truth.
I don't blame you and the gang for being left with nothing but nervous laughter.
You had to eat your "Christian killer" words already. You were proven 100% wrong in your previous"argument" that the 1st amendment restricts religion, and you still want to try to sneak it in completely out of context. You lost, Mark, what part of that do you not understand. If you would just quit trying to talk about the issues of your defeat, I would give it up. What a bunch of BS to now claim that anyone wants no 1st amendment. That shows that you have lost reality in this, Mark. Regroup... You were not even bold enough to try to take on my assertion that the Bible is 100% correct.
Now, you sink into totally angry denial, too. "the church is a money making, scum sucking political machine which has never once in it's entire existence shown the values Jesus preached, for a couple of thousand years?" Only a total delusional maniac would use such foolish examples. You might have said the truth, rather than a foolish exaggeration, and it would have been undeniable, by the way. First, Make Money was not talking about the church, so you were just railing, flailing away. Your martyr conclusion had me howling. You said, "Thank goodness for the minority that are prepared to stand up and be persecuted in the pursuit of truth." You are shadow boxing, and wearing yourself out. That is the extent of your martyrdom.
Now, you resort to even being a bigger bigot and say " I am beginning to think you guys are just plain stupid." You need help, and it is counseling you need. You are debating yourself into a delusional state.
How can you lose a nine page debate and make not one single point, but the other guy is stupid? That is pathetic. That is nervous laughter coming from having failed in your attempt to argue with prejudice.
If you have an issue, with the church, you are not alone. Who doesn't? Why just make crazy comments, though, added with McDonalds, TV and Chinese? Why not, instead, get facts on the table? Then we can make a difference.
I'll tell you what, Mark, pick your beef with God, Jesus, Christianity or Christians and let me see if I can put it to rest for you. You cannot come away with one single reason for your anger against God, Jesus, Christianity or Christians. I cannot help you being mad at people, burt delusional prejudice does not help, I know that. Here is the place to go. I really think you will like it, and I do not think this is really what you want for yourself. I promised you a thread for it:
No idea what you are talking about.
Remember - I'm one of the illiterate.
YOU SAID -"Intelligent design," has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with god or a creator.
Me again. Believe me I am not ganging up on you. I have difficulty when people do that to me.
Actually, I lean to your end result of not really saying one way or another how life formed. There is evidence on both sides, but it doesn’t conclusively prove anything. My religion is faith, as you said, so I would just get dogmatic about my facts being right. We just need to state the facts in education. If that is all I had to support my faith, I would be the joke I was called earlier – LOL.
I have a very important point that arises out of your post, and it is off topic, so please ignore it if it does not interest you. It is about the 1st Amendment. I contend that I could easily reverse that ruling in a fiar court (and there is none - yes I think I can prove that, too), since it was based on faulty precedent. The 1st Amendment does NOT say what that ruling supported. Now I did not read that ruling, but the 1st amendment ONLY protects religion from government. It does not limit religion in any way. The 1st amendment protects everyone from government essentially. What is interesting is that our forefathers were more worried about government interfering with religion than with education. I guess they figured that the citizens could not possibly be so stupid as to let government determine our children’s education. We need to get government out of education, in my opinion. People need to take responsibility on sit and stare at the boob tube.
Our forefathers were not worried about religion. They were rightly worried about government. Our government and our people have proven why. Our problems in America are caused by government and the most people missing the entire point of the Constitution. Government is injustice run amok. Using the 1st Amendment to limit religion from schools in incorrect application of that document.
I contend that we must get out all the founding documents of religion and government and quit generalizing. There are facts that support conclusions. People need to know those facts, contemplate them, debate them if necessary and plan a real sensible overall plan. Otherwise, we could just go back to what our forefathers did to begin with. Their work is nothing short of brilliant, but we make a mockery of it.
viralprospector - I have to say, I take issue with just about everything you are saying here, but I will pick a few salient points and take it from there rather than have a huge quote/quote problem . And don't worry - I am not taking it personally.
Let us begin with this one.
There is not evidence on both sides. You too are twisting things and saying, "Well, there are two equally valid, testable theories here. Some people choose to believe one theory, some choose to believe another."
Now, as I have said to others in the past, there are only two options here:
1. You are ignorant of the facts, or
2. You are aware of the salient facts, understand them and choose to continue propagating this lie to support your pre-existing, faith-based beliefs.
Neither of them is acceptable, but one of these is fixable and I am happy to point you in the direction of some facts if you wish.
Your important point:
This is another twisting of words that christians, sorry politicians, oops I mean christians (now I am all confused ) are so fond of.
There is a huge difference between stopping schools from teaching creationism as a scientific theory and teaching what different religions believe.
I favor teaching children about what christians believe.
I do not favor teaching that what christians believe are facts.
And we are once again back to this - there are only two options here:
1. You are ignorant of the facts, or
2. You are aware of the salient facts, understand them and choose to continue propagating this lie to support your pre-existing, faith-based beliefs.
As I just said - Neither of them is acceptable, but one of these is fixable and I am happy to point you in the direction of some facts if you wish.
Which one applies to you?
I am assuming from some of your earlier comments that you are an Anglican of some type, and my own Anglican education was big on telling the truth. And I don't mean the TRUTH
My reading of your document tells me your forefathers were worried about allowing the church to dictate what the government chose to do and sought to separate the two, but that is a different argument.
OK, then, let's argue! Neither one nor two apply to me. Please refrain from labels of me. I am me, just call me VP or something. I doubt if you could get a correct label from a few sound bites I provide.
In fact, I contend that it is you who have proven conclusively that it is you that are dogmatic, by the way. I stated what the 1st amendment says, and you cannot even agree with that. Are you a #1 or a #2, is probably the better question here? No person who can read cannot agree with what I said. It is just simple reading, very simple. Or if you have a case, state it using the actual verbage from the 1st amendment. It is short and can be read in a minute or so. It is totally ridiculous to be debating that. Please read it and tell me if you agree with me or not. Then, I will know if there is any chance of a worthy debate.
You say I am ignorant of the facts. I say that was uncalled for, since you have no idea what I know. I never said I even had an opinion other than that there are facts on both sides. I find that highly unreasonable to then concluede that I do not know the facts.
I say then do not POINT me to facts, as you suggest. My debate will be with you, not others, who allegedly have facts. If you know the facts, indeed, state them here so I can refute them.
You know what dawned on me the other day? No, but I will tell you.
It dawned on me that saying the Universe in 15-20 billion years old is also just a guess.
Or the age of the Earth is just a guess, but I will say it is obviously much, much, much older than a couple thou.
To even begin to estimate these things you need a starting point. So, some guy was like I am gonna guess the Earth is 1 million years old, and another says, naaa I bet it is 4 million years old....
Then some other guys comes up with a formula using these two guesses (hypothesisisisisis hahah) and comes up with a number that seems to work.
Just cause the formula works doesn't exactly make it true. If you take into consideration that their starting point was completely flawed, the same can be said for God.
There really isn't any solid absolute evidence either way.
That reply from me will just cause angst. It was a bad tactic. Instead, let me post the 1st Amendment and dissect it.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
This limits religion in no way. It limits Congress. I apparently must be elementary to be sure that you CANNOT disagree with me. The subject is "Congress", that third branch of our govt. The verb phrase is "shall make no" meaning it will make NO. "Law respecting establishment of religion" direct object phrase. Nowhere in that phrase is there a limit on religion, as you have stated twice already. It is not just you, Mark, it is a great illusion. Heck, the court even did it in your post. Everyone has dumbed down to believe what everyone else says.
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; This builds on the subject Congress and the verb phrase shall make no. As it was written 225 years ago or so, "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" is not a really good direct object phrase, but that is what it is.
This protects religion. Yes the 1st amendment PROTECTS RELIGION. It restricts religion in NO way.
The rest of the 1st amendment is irrelevent to religion.
or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
lolo - Well I will assume you are not being deliberately obtuse here, but it does not PROTECT RELIGION.
It protects ALL religions
And limits ALL religions from having precedence over another in law, which includes what is taught in schools.
So it does limit YOUR RELIGION
It may have escaped your attention, but there are other religions than christianity. Some of them indigenous to America. I can offer quite a few other religions for you to chose from. Should their version also be taught as facts in American schools?
And using ALL CAPS is considered to be shouting online
Now tell me the facts you know about creation vs evolution or "intelligent design"and we will take that argument away
Sorry, but you cannot deal with the facts. I presented clear unrefutable facts, and you ignotred them then twisted them. I am sorry for being blunt, but I have total disrespect for that.
You accuse me of not knowing the facts, then you ignore them. That is a horrific style of debating. You are totally guilty of all the ingnorant prejudiced replies you made to me, but you have zero right to make them against me.
Facts, Mark. You cannot refute mine, and you cannot find any of your own. You are 100% wrong in twisting the first amendment and everyone who reads my post will agree, except Misha and Zarm, LOL.
I dissested the 1st amendment for you, and your blind prejudice will not even allow you to read what I totally correctly posted.
If you cannot refute my writing, don't expect me to be easy on you and let your prejudiced and incorrect replies slide, no way. You are totally wrong to say that the 1st amendment limits religion because you conclude it to be so. That is a lie, Mark, and I do not take this personally either.
Seriously - what is your problem? You stated and quoted the first amendment as saying this:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"
Which we both agree makes it clear that Congress is being limited in what they can write into law respecting an establishment of religion.
Which means they cannot pass a law favoring any one religion. Which limits all religions from being taught as fact in schools.
What are you not understanding about this?
That guy is a meany
I think it is pretty sick thing to sit idol waiting for the world to be destroyed. So that he can be taken up in to Heaven and judge man kind for not believing that he was right.
I think the Bible says that people like that are sick or "wicked". Poopoo on PT.
I stay aside on the 1st amendment, cause my ESL does not allow me to feel this subtle difference you guys are arguing about
Misha - it is not that subtle a difference. The law clearly states that Congress may not favor one religion over another. Which mean there can be no national religion and no teaching of a particular religion in school as facts.
This has been tested many times in court and has always been held up.
Nice try, Mark. Now you change the subject. You wee not arguing that "Congress may not favor one religion over another." You argued against me. I stated that the 1st religion does not restrict religion, and it does not. You had contended that it does.
Also, the 1st amendment does not "states that Congress may not favor one religion over another." However, I want to be sure that the first point is firmly established. Then I will also argue that your second statement is also BS, as it relates to the 1st amendment. Sure, stupid laws get enacted all the time, but they are unconstitutional. People are too stupid apparently to know what the original words even meant, though, so how can we ever get it back on track?
the 1st amendment does limit religion because religion has no power over the governement, and even though relgions are free to practice where and when they want to, they still have to abide by the law, the government enacticed laws that are voted (though I have some doubts about how effective this is anymore) by the majority of the people.
However government is limited also in what they can do as well. Governement cannot chose what kind of church the relgion wants to build, the governement cannot determine for the church what documents are acceptable.
So since the public schools are a governent institution, religion has no place in it. However there are private school that are funded by religious institution and they can teach religious stuff in those schools and the government has no say in which documents they use.
And Mark is absolutly correct in stating that the governement cannot favor one religous group over another, in fact, they have no say either way. However the government can inforce laws that protect religions from each other as long as it shows no "favor" for either party.
The term with respect, is saying to favor.
adding to the discussion for visosorapture
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation … _and_state
Duh, religion is more than Christianity.
You think you know so many things for everyone else. You say that using caps lock means shouting. You have obviously not taken an English class lately. I have. It means emphasis. Sorry, your nerves are wearing thin. I would use underlines and bolds instead, but again, I am new to the forums and they left hyroglyphics when I tried. To read my writing, you need to know what word to emphasize. Otherwise the sentence could have multiple meanings. Sorry, but that is the English language for you. I am not shouting.
Mark, I will give you some advice. Try to learn about others before guessing what they know and believe, then you may understand them. Asking works well... You cannot debate Christianity with me unless you know the Bible. The Bible is Christianity. Only the Holy Spirit adds to that, and I do not expect you to understand that. Even most Christians have no clue about that, in my opinion. All you need to have to debate with me is knowledge, deep knowledge of the Bible. Christianity is faith, so you argue your "facts" (so far unpresented) against my faith. Usually, among intelligent and knowledgeable folks, it is fascinating. Oh well, that is my opinion anyway.
This is a lot of mudslinging. Can we raise the bar?. Don't put me into category #1 or #2 and we can debate. Sorry for reacting, but I hate prejudice. I know the facts of creation very well. If you do, get back on track and present your case. I will present my replies. You said I do not know the facts essentially, I think. I think you will find it interesting. I know I do not want to do verbal jousting to counter mean statements. I prefer reasonble debate. However, if you will ignore clear facts as the ones I made with clear dissecting of the 1st amendment, how can you think that will be productive?
Umm, well, I think I will refrain from discussion with you then. There is not much to be discussed with a person who k-n-o-w-s those *facts*...
Why would someone debate if they did not know the facts? In that instannce, they would listen.
I agree with you,it makes sense to debate or gain knowledge (clarify) from those who know rather than from those who do not.Both need to be wise and on a similar frequency,the one who speaks and the one who listens.
Looks like I have to break it down further.
If someone claims he *knows* the *facts* of creation, no worthy discussion is possible. Because there are no *facts* about creation known to humanity, only speculations and hypothesis. If person claims otherwise, he is either ignorant or deceiving. In either case discussion is a waste of time.
PS And no, several times mistranslated words of ancient Jewish prophets do not count as facts.
according to internet ediquite (however you spell that) using all caps is considered shouting and it is proper to use bold text, different colors or different fonts etc. to show your emphisis.
I said that using all caps is considered shouting online. Which it is in a forum discussion such as this. If you click the button marked "BBCode" at the bottom of the window, a new window will open with instructions how to use the bbcode to add emphasis without shouting.
But we are not strictly debating christianity.
We are debating the first amendment and whether or not this limits religion being taught in schools as fact.
And I think we are also debating creation vs evolution/big bang theory?
I have knowledge, deep knowledge of the bible, and we agree on a few key points, such as the fact that one cannot join the military and also claim to be a christian, because christians do not kill.
Please present me with your facts about creation.
I am unfortunately not aware of any, but if you have some new ones, I am happy to listen and debate with you.
And don't you think the "fact" that Congress cannot favor any one religion over another limits all religions from being taught in school as a fact?
Better debatein. I have asked you twice to present your case, and your response is to ask me to present mine. In debate, that is unacceptable, but no problem. My case is simple, and I am always glad to give away all debate advantages and see if I can still win - LOL.
Since you know the Bible, you know that this is all from the perspective of a believer. I must believe the Bible is inerrant if I am a Christian, so to me the Bible is truth. Thus, in my narrow mind LOL, the Bible gives me facts.
1. I previously stated that Christianity can basically be condensed to the Bible.
2. Creation is the opening of the Bible. Most people want to put a timeline on that. That cannot be done. Here is why. Moses is the person who talked with God the most. He wrote in Psalm 90, verse 4, "for a thousand years in your sight are like a day..." That establishes that Moses knew God had a different time reference than us. In case you want a New Testament validation of that, one is in 2 Peter 3:8, "But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day."
3. The Bible never says that to the Lord a day cannot be a second. It never says that a day cannot be a trillion years. Why?
4. When the Bible is understood, it is understood that God is ominpotent and omnipresent. We cannot conceive of God. We have the little Bible as our instruction manual. It hardly defines or boxes in God.
5. So, no matter what timetable you put on creation, it is irrelevent. The Bible is correct in its treatment of it.
What have you got?
These do not count as facts
They are beliefs.
Not the same thing, sorry.
How bigoted of you. By the way, I am [b]sure[b] impressed by your case
You missed the / before the b in the second box.
Bigoted. First time I have been called that.
I do not see a need to make a case, but of you are interested in the case I have made in the past, you can read much of it here:
"the 1st amendment does limit religion"
Show me where my dissection of it is wrong. Read it again if you need to. The 1st amendment just says what it says. All the Jeffersonian letters cannot change what was voted on by the majority. Yes, the majority ruled, and he was the one dissenter as I know it. Of course, there will be those who disagree, and he disagreed with the law that was enacted to our constitution, called the 1st amendment. He could not change it, but he was free to write about it. Big deal...
Hitler did not agree with our constitution. If I take a letter from Hitler and pass laws on it, I am just a fool. Americans have been fooled. All sorts of laws get passed that are unconstitutional. This is just one area. You cannot change the words no matter how much you may want to. That is why I present this. Americans are ruining our country by trusting that our government is right. Our forefathers wrote the 1st amendment and all our founding documents to warn against exactly this. Of course, government wqants to regulate religion, education and you and me. That is exactly what the Bible says will happen. I am just writing the words. Ignore them if you wish.
Look, I agree that it is hard to believe that we made a mistake as a country and we keep defending that mistake. It is hard to believe that that dumb VP is right. I grant all of you that. Still, just read the words with an open mind, and I think you will have to agree.
I am sorry, but I think you got so heated up in debate that you just confirmed what I wrote and that we are in agreement. Though maybe you wanted to be in disageement because I was agreeing with Mark.
Ps. Hilter wasn't an American.
How bigoted of you. By the way, I am [b]sure[b] impressed by your case. Sorry I just got more hyroglyphics and a smily face...
By the way VP, do you think it would be fair if the governement came to a private school and ordered them to teach evolution, then the same can be said for public schools, the pope or someone coming in and ordering them to teach creationism? wink, wink, nudge, nudge.
Oh wait, maybe I get it. My opening sentence is a quote from you. No, I totally disagree with that statement as I wrote. Sorry, I should have put a Sandra said in front of my quotes. Shame on me.
well anyways agree or not, according the Bible, you still have to obey the law and these are this is the law. You should have read the link about seperation of chuch and state, and you should give some thought the question I posed about government telling private (religous) school that they have to teach evolution to there students, and vise versa. Religious fundementalist demanding that government run schools teach creationism.
It is a fair question and it does make sense.
I sensed in advance that you would agree with Mark. You have every time up to now. I sensed that you all would tell me that I am not correct. I find it funny, though, that you do it in such an immature way. I frankly expected more.
The Bible is my argument. I would emphasize the 'is', but then I would get reamed for it. You and Mark cannot overcome the fact that it is inerrent. If you can, do it. I say it is you guys that have no facts, no decent opinions and even the decency to finish a debate. You state that I am not entitled to an opinion. If I had so little ammo, I would be gasping for excuses to get rid of me, too.
I stated my case. The creation according to the Bible is 100% correct. I will go further to say that the Bible is 100% right. Then, it would be fair to conclude that the only correct path of life is Christianity. Why not, you guys seem to want me to make a case. I make the case, then you guys say it is invalid. Well, that is so pathtic that I find it hysterical. My son is a 16 year old debater, and we have real debates. He wins most of them, so you guys should be really ashamed for debating like this.
You know what VP. I wanted to be a Christain, and I sit and I read and I study with all sorts of different people and I learn, and laugh, and I question, and I also do the same with Islam, and Buddhist, and science, whatever....
What seems to be more dominate is that, lots of christians like to tell me I am not a Christian, and then when I say I am not a Christain, they you are a Christain, but most of all, what I see is that people who are Christians have little or no tolerance at all for people who believe in different things.
Making other people feel bad for what they believe is not a Christian thing to do. As a matter "fact", the Bible says that you should get along with them anyways. It says you should love your enemies, it says you shouldn't make disputes amongts your brothers, it says all these realy nice things that I like which is why I wanted to be a Christain, but anyone who steps outside the Bible box is disobedient, or ignorant, or satanish or whatever else you can think of.
And so what if people have thier own opinions, people disagree with me all the time but it doesn't make me want to say they are wrong when I can fully consider that they may be right.
And then I really dislike when someone says that I have to chose or that I am confused or some other wierd and not very nice thing to say, things, to me.
I think you can believe whatever you want to be true, I think you are wrong to believe that only you and the Bible are right.
I think it preposterous to say that Jesus only died for those who believe he is God and covered only their sins or the sins of His followers. I think that the love you show each other looks good to you guys but your lack of love for the outsiders, "foreigners" is a disgrace.
The bible says you should treat them no differently, and by the way you act (not saying you are such a horrible person etc.) is not love.
Half the time you can hardly show any respect, so why would anyone want to hear what you have to say?
Read your own words. Make your won choices. Think and say whatever you want about me. I am all for your right to do so. I do not know what I should apologize for, but if you would like to state specifics, then I am glad to listen and respond.
I guess you are saying that it is good to say this to me with no apparent stated reason, "Half the time you can hardly show any respect, so why would anyone want to hear what you have to say?" It is not unusual by the way for anti Christians to claim that Christians are intolerant by being intolerant.
I find it interesting that you single me out of the group and claim religious offense from me.
Sorry, I was using you as an example of the Christian population cause you happen to be on this thread doing those things I see other Christians doing and like I said, when I say I am a christain, a christains says I am not, when I say I am not, they say I am.
So I gave it a fair shot. But I like my own way best. If God doesn't like me for it, then what would be the point in givng me my own brian and heart?
If God gave it to me, then it is mine. Maybe the Earth isn't, the Universe isn't, people aren't and to some extent, even my kid is not mine. But my soul is my own.
Now if I said that is the truth, you would say no it isn't. That is what I am trying to say.
That seems very unfair to me. I read the start of your thread, and I did not disagree with it in any way. Really, it felt good to me. Then you said that last sentence, "Now if I said that is the truth, you would say no it isn't. That is what I am trying to say. [/
I guess I don't understand why eveything is a debate when it comes to accepting that one persons truth doesn't have to be true for all.
I am not trying to determine your faith, but truth is not relative. Truth does have to be true for all, whether we like it or not.
Like I said....why would anyone want to hear what you have to say other then for entertainment purposes.
Speaking of which, I am out of popcorn.
Right also....so if people or in your case your belief, were allowed to run thier own affairs we would still have the same problems. Christians fighting with people about the Bible, if it weren't for the governement "us other" people and "other religions" would not be protected from "people" who share the same views as you.
You're talking anarchy.
Try reading the most elementary history book before lashing into me. It is called democracy. Wow, and you criticize me!
By the way, if all you have to offer is insults against me, I would give it up. There is a point at which I will reply to them.
right, I never said anything mean to you, you took it upon yourself to assume that so with that said, you should be thankful I do know what a democracy is and further you should be thankful because if it wasn't for this law, you would probabaly be in danger of other religions because there are other religions out there that don't like Christians.
But I guess that doesn't mean anything to you because so far you everything is about how you feel, are you a communist?
It wouldn't be anarchy Because the next step in the argument is going to be "some people are more qualified to make the decision than others."
Have you read Animal Farm?
All animals are equal.
But - some animals are more equal than others.
Just ask the horse........
Actually we have a fundamental disagreement with Mark. He thinks every god is a joke, I think only Christian/Muslim/Jewish is. Flying Spaghetti Monster is as good as anyone of them, and I myself am thinking of becoming Pastafarian, just for a change
However, we can discuss things with Mark, because we both agree on what *facts* are. This is more fundamental then god, and allows us to have productive discussions. There are several definitions of the word "fact", and we tend to use this one (from Collins Essential English Dictionary 2nd Edition 2006 © HarperCollins Publishers 2004, 2006)
"a truth that can be proved from experience or observation"
Bible does not fit into this definition, sorry. It cannot be proved.
I would expect no less of you in your pursuit of faith.
Bravo, now we can go to the next level. In a religions (with emphasis and no caps lock) debate, faith is substituted for facts in the primary elements of the debate. Anyone who is unable to recognize the key element of religion is faith is unable to debate religion. If you expect facts for religion, move on. That is beyone ridiculous, and I did not expect to fall that far short of sensible debate here. Believe me I have thousands of religious debated with atheists, but absolutely none of them is so ignorant of religion.
Why accuse me of not reading what you wrote. I read it all, and I have replied to it all. Separtation of church and state are an unconstitutional law. I guess all Americans can just do that, say we should be misled by government, cheated out of our rights and just obey. I knew my Hitler analogy would be necessary in this debate.
Why is it that people change the subject when they cannot overcome the argument? Your stuff about the government and schools has nothing to do with that. I do not think the government should tell any school anything, by the way. We should abolish the dept of education. People should be responsible for their affairs. People should run all our affairs. Government is out of control. Those are my personal opinions in reply to the thread that I found off topic. Now, let's get back to the topics.
Mark had said the following that I believe I have debated to be totally 100% false
“That is why the Christians go on slaughtering the Non-Christians, totally worry-free and with a totally clean conscience, because Christ will take care of their sins and crimes”- 100% false, and I think he finally agreed with me. He said “
“You cannot join the military to kill people and be a christian.” That ended that.
I said that the 1st amendment is misused and does not mean that religion is restricted by it. I proved that 100%. I said that in answer to this “the school district's promotion of it therefore violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.”
Mark then said this about creation, “And we are once again back to this - there are only two options here:
1. You are ignorant of the facts, or
2. You are aware of the salient facts, understand them and choose to continue propagating this lie to support your pre-existing, faith-based beliefs.”
That is his accusation. I stated that he is completely wrong by using direct statements about why I do know the facts and am totally 100% correct. He said my beliefs are invalid. That is a worthless tactic on his part.
Perhaps everyone thinks I support PTs original arguments. That was not my point to comment on that, at all.
The open issues here are whether the 1st amendment restricts religion. I initially just said it does not, and I proved that unequivocally.
Then Mark claimed that I am ignorant and unaware. I proved that I have 100% valid reason for my opinions. To which Mark refused to state his case and said mine was invalid. He can give up and lose the argument if he likes. That is all he did. So, he was wrong about Christian killers, wrong about the 1st amendment and wrong about creation. That is fine with me if he wants to leave it there.
Otherwise, he needs to engage in the debate, not just throw in the towel.
I don't really think it is fair to say I threw in the towel, and I did not say your beliefs are invalid, I said they are not facts.
I also said I didn't see the point in making a case, but how about if I make this case? :
You are wrong. There are many gods and yours is not the correct one. The bible is wrong.
I read a book and it said this:
"In the beginning there was an empty darkness. The only thing in this void was Nyx, a bird with black wings. With the wind she laid a golden egg and for ages she sat upon this egg. Finally life began to stir in the egg and out of it rose Eros, the god of love. One half of the shell rose into the air and became the sky and the other became the Earth. Eros named the sky Uranus and the Earth he named Gaia. Then Eros made them fall in love."
This is the correct story. I believe this and it is my life, therefore it is a fact. Therefore you are wrong.
Not only that, but this is the story of creation that should be taught in schools
My advice to you is to precede all potential debates with Christians with that statement. Let them know that you think the world is about facts only (emphasis). That will save them the time of the total waste of debating you. I repeat that I have never, in thousands of debates, ended with such a stupid conclusion as that. For a grown adult to conclude that a religious debate must be based on facts shows a total ignorance of the very nature of religion. I would recommend that you go to a real religion forum and observe how atheists and Christians debate.
Are you saying my religion is invalid?
But - you are right about one thing. I will know a christian by his actions.
You are a christian all right.
Although, I would recommend you buy a dictionary, or at least ask someone to explain the constitution and the meaning of the word "fact," to you.
You made my point exactly. The Constitution is not facts. It is ideals. There is no math and science in it. Well, let's say that it is just like the Bible. The Bible is an instruction manual of God's word, and the Constitution is an instruction manual of man's. It is terrific how closely they follow each other. I am not aware of any discrepancies between the two. Yet, we are allegedly not a Christian nation. Oh yeah, it is that separation of church and state lie that people like you believe. Well, I proved what BS that it.
You like to pick and choose, duck and weave, but you did indeed throw in the towel. You cannot prove your theory that the 1st Amendment restricts religion. I proved that a total lie. You cannot prove that the Biblical account of creation is not correct. You cannot prove that the total Bible is not 100% correct. You gave up on your Christian killers theory. I am willing to debate any of that with you, but you refuse. That is indeed throwing in the towel.
Of course the constitution is ideals.
One of those ideals is the separation of church and state.
Which actually makes a lot of sense to me, and given the historical context it was written in, I understand the reasoning.
You have not proven anything. I will debate all day long if you have something worth debating.
Merely saying "It is a fact because I believe it." doesn't really give me anything to debate against.
OK - You think it is a fact, but it is not a fact by any definition of the word fact so.....
Quite honestly, you have confused me and I have completely lost track of whatever it is you were trying to prove.
Now you are throwing in the thing about America being a christian nation.
This is what I "think" you are saying:
America is a christian nation
The constitution does not allow government to restrict religion
The idea that no religion should be favored is a lie
God created the world and the bible is fact
Evolution is a lie
And you have proven these all to be 100% true by presenting indisputable facts.
Is that about right?
If it is, please pick one and I will debate it with you.
The two points you list that I contend is that
1. the constitution does not allow government to restrict religion and
2. God created the world and the bible is fact.
State your case. You have one from me on both topics. We will go from there.
OK let us start with this one. I am by no means a lawyer, so I will have to use non-lawyerly terms.
This is the part of the first amendment you are speaking about:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
I think we can agree on that part at least. About that you have said:
Now, I am not exactly certain what you are saying here. Religion should not be restricted in any way whatsoever? That seems to be what you are saying.
Congress is not allowed to make any laws respecting an establishment of religion.
So, you are free to establish a religion in any way ,shape or form you choose. I agree.
Or we look at this:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
So, Congress cannot make a law that respects or "favors" religion.
Also, the context needs to be taken into account. At that time, America was keen to break free of the bonds of the Church of England and I completely understand why the politicians of the day would wish to ensure they were free from the constraints of religion.
So, Congress is not allowed to write laws that respect religion.
Therefore they cannot write a law that respects religion.
Which means they cannot allow religion to be taught in school as a fact, or "respecting religion."
Which means this limits religion from being taught in school.
Over to you.
[b]Mark; On any other forum I would have bolded my replies. Please do not accuse me of something, OK? I will try here. [b/]
Sorry, Mark. Please ingnore the last reply. I sure hope I got it right this time.
Yes, darn that English language.
I had a traditional English, christian education, and I was taught to use the word as a preposition.
I am respecting your opinion right now, in that I am giving it due consideration, although I am forced to disagree. The Oxford English dictionary, which unfortunately requires a subscription online defines the word as a preposition and using it as - "with respect," is a perfectly acceptable usage.
And their (abbreviated) definition of the word "respect" is:
"To consider worthy of esteem; to regard with honor."
So, a reasonable way of using the word is to say that Congress is not allowed to write laws that show respect to religion.
And it would seem that your courts agree.
If you are honest with yourself, you do not believe that at all. As a debate technique, it is interesting, but a loser. The Oxford English Dictionary does not win out over Webster's. You would lose the debate on that alone, but there is so much more.
The Oxford Dictionary, what a misnomer. Here is what Wikipedia says about it:
It embraces not only the standard language of literature and conversation, whether current at the moment, or obsolete, or archaic, but also the main technical vocabulary, and a large measure of dialectal usage and slang.
Note that it intentionally uses slang. Wikipedia also states this:
The OED's official policy attempted to record a word's most-known usages and variants in all varieties of English past and present, world-wide. Really, Mark, that essentially means they just tossed in everything but the kitchen sink. I imagine that black means white to them, too.
Let me show you though how you cannot be correct:
Weird, I will restate the 1st amendment for you (gee what is this the tenth time?)
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
If you (or the laughable oxford list of every known word) were correct, then the following phrase would be in complete contradiction to what follows it. Absolutely no rational person would believe the Constitution would do that. If you know sentence construction, that phrase, connected properly reads:
Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion.
That would 100% contradict your attempt to make your point. However, it is totally irrelevent because all you need to look at this sentence. It states clearly that Congress will not prohibit religion to free exercise. Oh I can hardly wait... We can use the gym right? Do we also get free gym memberships? Hey do I need to call Lifetime Fitness and Bally's?
OK, assuming you do not go there, then religion is entitled to practice free of laws against that. Obviously, the meaning is clear. Exactly as I stated all along is true. Congress cannot restrict religion anywhere or any time.
Merely repeating something over and over and over again will not make it come true.
It is an interesting debating technique that I have found many christians to favor, but it cuts no ice with me.
The first amendment was written in the late 1700s and adopted in 1791.
So, I suggest you look up the words obsolete and archaic in a dictionary - and I recommend the Oxford English.
I know you Americans favor simplifying the English language, and it will be difficult for you to understand that there were some meanings of words or even words that are no longer in common usage - probably because they are too tricky for you to grasp, but I was given a classical English education, and this is an acceptable use of the word.
Please do not repeat the first amendment or re-state your case again. I know this is a difficult concept for you to grasp, but many other legal scholars and judiciary bodies have accepted this meaning, and with good reason. Perhaps if you sent them your little dictionary and told them their words are not in it so they don't count, therefore they have misinterpreted the document and are now spreading lies, that would help?
Turning the discussion away from the point at hand and into an argument of which dictionary is better will not persuade me to give up my education, nor will it persuade me to throw out my vocabulary.
If you want to use an abbreviated, simplified American dictionary to try and understand the meanings of English words written by scholars over two hundred years ago, that is your choice, but you will necessarily lose some of the nuances.
One of my favorites.
I will let the Oxford English "dictionary" know they have been proven crap.
Whilst generally amused at the sheer volume of this thread, I have to take issue with this particular interpretation.
I am reasonably sure that the word "respecting" in this case is used in the sense in which is is synonymous with the word "regarding", or as we would say today "about".
But while I disagree with this particular point you make, I am in agreement with your overall assessment that the Constitution aims to keep government secular.
I would express it thusly:
If you teach any ONE religion in public schools, without teaching ALL of them, you are limiting the freedom of religion of the students by effectively forcing them to adopt just one.
Thus, comparative religion courses are fine, but teaching one religious belief as a fact is unconstitutional - in a government school.
It is not as big as it looks - some one doesn't know how to partially quote others
But, if you substitute the word respecting for regarding, i.e:
"Congress shall make no law regarding an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
How do you draw your conclusion?
Not from that paragraph ... although that is the paragraph which makes the thing relevant to public schools, because those are all established under laws, which means that they can't include religion or any impediments to its freedom in the legislation establishing the schools.
So if there is a law which requires the teaching of any religious idea in schools, without giving equal time to all others, that law would be unconstitutional, not because it relates to religion, but because it limits its freedom.
And, as someone else pointed out, there are far too many crackpot religions around to go giving them all equal time in schools - you would have to discard mathematics and literacy to fit them all in.
Therefore, better for all concerned if people do their religious indoctrination in the other 138 hours of the week ...
They all promise the same thing .
Better for all - turns out to be better for a select few
Yeah, I remember that too. It does sound like communism. LOL.
I tend to agree with Mark on this. It is about "democracies", too
vp - do me a favor and clean up your quotes so I can make sense of that a little better please.
You said, "right, I never said anything mean to you, you took it upon yourself to assume that."
Some of what you actually said that is dispicable are all the things below:
1. Like I said....why would anyone want to hear what you have to say other then for entertainment purposes. Speaking of which, I am out of popcorn.
2. Christians fighting with people about the Bible, if it weren't for the governement "us other" people and "other religions" would not be protected from "people" who share the same views as you.
3. what I see is that people who are Christians have little or no tolerance at all for people who believe in different things.
4. I think you are wrong to believe that only you and the Bible are right.
5. I think that the love you show each other looks good to you guys but your lack of love for the outsiders, "foreigners" is a disgrace.
6. Half the time you can hardly show any respect, so why would anyone want to hear what you have to say?
7. Now if I said that is the truth, you would say no it isn't. That is what I am trying to say.
yip, I still don't see why you think these are mean things. You said truth is not relative.
You said, "You said truth is not relative. "[/
That is enough rudeness, OK? I have been very much a gentleman to you, but it requires a lady to get the treatment of one.
I would ask you to not resort to *personal* attacks... Try to differentiate between your religion and yourself...
I will assume you wrote that to Sandra, and I agree that she should do exactly as you suggest. I am sure you read the recap of the stuff she said to me, not my religion.
guess again lady...not me, I used your quote. Really it is too bad you are finding now your own words coming out of someone elses mouth disturbing. What does that tell you?
LOL Here we go again. Mike, search the forums, this issue has been discussed million times....
So what was the conclusion Misha.
Of course it proves the minority are dictating Darwinism over Creationism.
Or are you saying there is proof for Darwinism? How?
vp - I am not sure that even warrants a response, but as you are so persistent, I will try.
I am not sure what other conclusion I can come to when some one tells me that The Oxford English dictionary has been "proven crap" by wikipedia.
Especially when that same source concurs with my assessment of the first amendment and considers (like everyone else) that "Intelligent Design," is not science.
I apparently have no "facts." for you. You already have all the "facts," you need:
And when some one tells me that it is the responsibility of "science," to prove there is not a creator, because a large group believe there was one:
So, I start to wonder. That's what I do, and I ask myself the question: "Are these people just stupid?"
Quite apart from the fact that we already settled my reasoning for starting this thread in the way I did, and you agreed we had settled that:
But if you want actual facts, I can certainly provide some.
The German Nazi party promoted "Christian nationalism," and "positive christianity."
Death toll - between 11million and 16 million.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wa … mitism.htm
The thirty years war
The 30 years war was a religious war between protestants and catholics in the 1600s
Death toll - 3million to 11 million
The French Wars of Religion
Once again, between protestants and catholics
Death toll - 2 million - 4 million
The Spanish Inquisition
Surprisingly poorly documented - Death toll - Unknown
I can go on if you wish. I have used your favorite reference source, so you can't really argue with these facts.
Sorry, I just cannot seem to leave my brain at the door when it comes to discussing these things.
As I have mentioned before, if christians practiced what their book preached, we would not even be having this discussion.
As for the hub you linked to, if you are interested, I know a few good editors who can help you with that......
Darwinism is by the most flawed hypothesis i have ever heard in my entire life. Honestly do you believe you are related to a maggot,somehow? Darwin himself admitted on his death bed tha all he had done was create a 'theory' that would make Athiests like Mark feel safe. I always ask these athiest,werer the hell earth came from.So do you honestly want to tell your child he came from a MAGGOT? What America needs now is to believe in God or else you will be the fullfilments if Revelations.
Mark, Mark, Mark;
Such slight of hand is futile with me.
We can switch subjects infinitely, and waste all kinds of time.
The fact is that you try to twist my messages, to no avail. The 1st amendment does not restrict religion. The Oxford Dictionary tries to give every possible interpretation, so it is worthless in trying to determine what translation is best. Websters deos that better, and Wikipedia showed clearly that the Oxford would be the illogical choice since it includes every possibleinterpretation. Thus, for the purpose we were working on, it was indeed crap. It would be great in another instance.
Yes, in the absense of reasonable efforts to be objective, I have more than enough facts.
As to Hitler and all other killings, people follow fanatics because they are misled. A good example of that would be for fools to blieve that the 1st amendment restricts religion. All sorts of fools cannot read and comprehend, atheists, Christians and particularly those in power. Oh, did you know that atheists also foolowed Hitler? I didn't think so. Blind prejudice masks the true facts from you in your delusional state. It is true of every nut case, Mark, that people of all religions or none at all follow fools who have no knowledge or logic.
Still, the Bible is 100% correct. It commands its followers, all Christinas, "thou shalt not kill". Thus, no Christian can be involved in killing. Nice try, Mark, but it is just foolish prejudice to try to feebly make such childish points.
You just toss out more garbage, and I just shoot it down. You cannot change the facts. Guess what, religion has facts. The Bible commands all Christians "thou shalt not kill", and that is a fact. Surely that is a painful fact for you becvause it refutes all your pointless prejudcide.
I said I was leaving the thread, but I thought I'd come back to say:
I'm requesting this thread be closed.
You have gone far above and beyond any form of debate and into numerous personal attacks that have bred an air of hostility, in my opinion. That should say something, since I enjoy myself a good internet argument every now and then and even I wish you would stop.
Rather than focusing on actually debating the information being passed between the two of you, you have taken every opportunity to insert nasty commentary about people being absolutely wrong, delusional, etcetera..
It's wrong, it defeats the purpose of the forum, and it most certainly does not make any of your points more influential. In the future, please refrain from flaming in the Religion forum.
viralprospector, viralprospector, viralprospector,
I understand that you do not understand that the first amendment was written over 200 years ago and it is appropriate to use a dictionary that includes archaic and obsolete uses of words.
And if you are accusing me of adding that comment myself, please do so directly rather than by inference.
The bible does indeed say "Though shalt not kill," and as I have said before:
"if christians practiced what their book preached, we would not even be having this discussion."
I do not see the point you are trying to make even.
What? That christians do not behave in the way the bible tells them to? I agree with you there. I can only assume that there are not very many christians in the world in that case.
As for the bible being 100% correct - If that was the case, wars would not have been fought over it's interpretation.
So I concede that christians do not follow the teachings of the bible. I also concede that by my definition of what a christian should be, there are not a lot of christians around.
In fact, christianity is probably the least-subscribed to religion in the world.
I agree with you on that one.
Quite right gamergirl, I will stop responding on this one. I can see this going 'round and 'round until hell freezes over.
See you on the next thread vp
What I would easily be able to say is that Christians are better than atheists. I do not need to state the obvious, though. Both kill, but Christians are commanded not to. Both Christians are commanded not to kill by man's law. So, in fact in that regard, Christianity is clearly better than atheism, but I am sure you are unable to follow that logic.
I certainly would quit if I were you, too, Mark. As to Gamergirl, impose your ethics on someone else. I call your assessment prejudice since it was me that was threatened and insulted here. Funny how you ignored that. To impose judgements on one who is not at fault is well heavily baised, don't you think?
I am only stating the facts as I see them. If you do not want to be called prejudiced, don't be prejudiced. There is nothing wrong with being factual. Grouping people unfairly is prejudice whether you want me saying it or not. Being wrong is wrong, as is being unable to see logic, etc. etc. whether I say it or not. If you disagree with my logical conclusions, state your case. You stated no case. So, my logical conclusions stand as presented.
According to the behavior you have displayed on this thread, you are not a Christain either. So if you are not a Christian, then I can understand completely why you take everything personally, your humbiality is very cloaked in pride.
Your own prejeduce has clouded your judgment.
You have be intentionally spiteful, have slipped up and even gotten angry at others on this tread for quoting you, so it does seem that you are angry with yourself.
You have actually dismissed anything anyone has had to say except your own. Anyone can have thier own opinion, anyone can believe that Bible is 100% true.
By your faith, you should be able to humbley appreciate others opinions and keep yours still true to yourself.
I study with all sorts of people about the scripute, and one thing I do recognize, is that the ones who follow the path of good ole JC, is that when there is a disagreement, they are quick to include, 'I respect your belief, but mine is my own."
With that we can study together and we can be spiritual friends making our way to understand as many things as we can, and we do it together, not apart.
A good Christian shows interest in other things besides the bible, and mainly this is with understanding other people and understanding them in themselves as well because athiest and christians or all people do have the same emotional vulnerablilites, a Christain is expected to understand this.
For the most part, the people on this forum are fair in their understandings and for the most part respectful to others interpretations and opinions, and they do try to present them in a way that will indicate "to each his own".
There is nothing wrong with this. In your faith, you should not be picking arguemetns with people in a quest to make people believe what you believe because anything done by force heeds ill will. Maybe you should think about what this really implies. Especially with respect to the use of God in vain, and vain here being that you wish to be right and you wish to use God as your reason but through actions that are not condoned by Jesus.
I do expect that you will tell me that I have no business with the Bible and that what I say are lies, and I would ask that you examine yourself before you pass the buck on to someone else. When your faith is good, you should have no problem with others opinions or thoughts because you should know in yourself whether or not you will be "saved".
With any luck you would actually try to see what I and others are saying about your demeanor.
by Captain Redbeard22 months ago
I just read a post from someone stating that Christianity is based on the Bible which stands to reason, "If Christianity is based off the bible then that means it would have never come to furition since the book...
by Julie Grimes8 months ago
I think that the Christian religion would have been entirely different, if Apostle Paul hadn't screwed things up. It is my firm belief that if Christians really want to be Christ-like, they need to have a dual...
by Claudette Coleman Carter3 years ago
"Celebrations like Halloween are in conflict with Bible teachings. The Bible warns: 'There must never be anyone among you who . . .practices divination, who is soothsayer, augur or sorcerer, who uses charms,...
by Ben Bush8 years ago
Many people in this World seem to have many different ideas about what a Christian is or should be.What do you think a genuine Christian Is? What does the life of a genuine Christian look like?And what is the standard...
by Andrew02087 years ago
RELIGION VS THE BIBLE.This is a striking subject as it has being somehow controversal in all ages regarding it's relationship with the Bible. Anyway, I know Religion could be man made in nature as it is widely claimed...
by marty19686 years ago
Topic: Difference Between Christianity and Religion Christianity is unique in the fact that it is the ONLY faith which is not a religion- as a 'religion'- by definition means "to be bound"...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.