Originally posted by lukeskywalker1
Moses, or God? Id have to look it up. If you dont like it, tell it to God.
Interesting.
If it was Moses, following your logic, he should go to hell for killing people.

If it was God telling him to do it... what then makes Moses any different then a serial killer that murders because he believes God is commanding him to do so?

Who draws the line between delusional [crazy] and a divine command from the almighty himself?

And for that matter, why not worship the homeless man on the street that proclaims himself Jesus? How can you be sure it's not him, and that he is not somehow testing you?

Originally posted by ShockV1.89
I understand it's possible. Anything is possible, in my opinion. I just think it's pretty messed up to condemn someone to eternal damnation for something like not wanting to change their entire belief structure just because someone "says" that it's wrong. You can claim all you want about the bible, but to someone who is not of that faith, it's just a book to them. They have no more reason to believe in the bible than they do something that I may have written.

Sure, they could do a little research and maybe see that the bible has some historical authenticity. But then, so does the Quran! That means very little, and moreover, they probably wouldnt bother. After all, they are happy where they are. Why should they change? Because you say so? Because the bible says so? Well, we're back to the same circle, then...
Right on. And besides, there's no more proof that Christianity is the "correct" religion than there is that Islam or Judaism or anything else is the "right" religion. So how do you know that you're not just telling lies? Faith? Followers of other religions have just as much or more than Christians do.

I want to take a moment to remind everyone here that the topic of this thread is "why is it okay to bash chrisianity?" not an invitation to do so.

My posting of the Moses - War Criminal piece was an attempt to get this back on track.

However, many seem to think that this is a good outlet for releasing their frustration and anger, rather than engaging in a reasonable discussion of the same. The arguments have become circular and their perpetuation hasn't been the fault of just one side of the argument. i.e. lukeskywalker1 isn't the only person who keeps saying the same thing over and over.

What we need to do is offer "reasons" why we feel that christianity is "bashed" (ridiculed, criticized, frowned upon, etc.) followed by our feelings on the issue. For instance, is it fair/unfair to do so in the manner described.

I could even agree with substituting the word 'christianity' for the word 'religion' so as to open it up to mulitple religions... just say so in the beginning of the post to make it clear. As an example, "Islam also gets unfair/fair treatment from critics because....."

As a warning, I'm considering paying close attention to this thread as far as editing and perhaps splitting threads off of it. If your post disappears or things don't look quite the way they did the last time you were in the thread, you know why.

My goal is this: keep the discussion civil, reduce the anger, avoid flames, maintain the topic, yet preserve free speech!

Please don't respond to this post In-Thread, but PM me if you have questions or comments. This is only because I don't want to start a sub-topic "about the thread." :cool:

Should have checked this out earlier...

SkinWalker, your arguement is false because:



NIV BIBLE

Numbers Chapter 31 Verse 1-2

The LORD spoke to Moses and said, "Pay back the midianites for what they did to the Israelites; after that you will die."



So.... God was having his revenge. In other words, like when i said earlier theres more than one punishment (hell) he does other things as well. Also, God is justified in his revenge:



NIV BIBLE

Romans Chapter 12 Verse 19

My friends, do not try to punish others when they wrong you, but wait for God to punish them with his anger. It is written: "I will punish those who do wrong; I will repay them," says the Lord.




In the end, isnt it right to punish people when they do wrong? (this is on topic, because it applies to what skin said with his verses) So really, Moses isnt a war criminal, it was form of self defense (kind of) And if you dont believe what the bible says about Moses, you cant make that claim, because you dont believe he existed, so he couldnt have been a war criminal, correct? Because in your veiw, he wasnt real. (not saying you dont believe, because I dont know, but i know someone here doesnt believe he was real)

Ahh.. whether he was a real person or not is irrelevant.

We can critique Moses as we would Ahab and compare him to other characters, fictional or real.

Moses was allegedly doing god's work (the revenge), but did god instruct him to employ a method of ethnic cleansing? In a fraternally relevant society, this form of ethnic cleansing would be effective since it stops the blood lines of the people he was at war with.

If this form of punishment was acceptable back then (3000 - 10000) years ago, why wouldn't it be today? Why wouldn't it during the time of Christ? Are the characters of the Bible governed by a different god after the New Testement?

This kind of inconsistency is why I think a lot of groups (theist and non-theist alike) attack christianity. There is much said within the bible, particularly the Old Test., that is not consistent with modern times.

Personally, I think it is a wonderful source of wisdom... Proverbs are among my favorite books. Wisdom can be found in nearly all works of great literature, however, and I think that if people would accept that much of what was written, particularly in the Old Test., is meant to guide people of a different time who have different needs and therefore different values, they would be more tolerant of christian fanatism.

But bible inconsistency isn't the only thing that creates animosity toward christians. The 'holier than thou' attitude can be unnerving as well. Perhaps it is true, perhaps it is not. But to non-christians, this attitude comes off very matter-of-factly as "I'm right and you're wrong."

Case in point: the deal with the 10 commandments monument in Alabama. Very clearly, this was a violation of the edict of separating church from state. Having a christian idol in the center of the public area of the place where people must come to settle legal differences sends the wrong message. It says, "if you are not christian, then your case is lost." Think of the owner of a chinese restaurant coming to fight a law suit. Or the Pakistani cab driver who is trying to get a fair hearing regarding vehicular accident. What about the atheist that has a civil rights case that she's trying to get heard?

I'm not suggesting that the court is biased, but to these people, there is a certain amount of bias before they even present their cases. In places like this community, a certain amount of animosity toward christians is inevitable.

I just had a thought, and this isn't really profound or anything, but this might explain a lot.

I think some of the notion that "it's okay to bash christianity" comes from a misunderstanding of christianity.

Let's use an example:

You're a Christian who doesn't know anything about Islam or other faiths.

You turn on the TV and you see Osama Bin Laden saying "I'm a Muslim, I call on all faithful Muslims to kill the Christians and the Jews... JIHAD!!!"

Then you read an article about some Islamic Militants blowing up cars or suicide attacks in Israel and Iraq. You see pictures of Muslims calling America "the Great Satan" in Iran and them watch people burn the American Flag.

Then you read a Jack Chick comic about how Muslims worship a false god and promote terrorism in their religion.

You decide: gee, all the Muslims I've seen are violent and hateful, it must be a violent religion and therefore false. Therefore, it's okay to hate Muslims.


The trouble is, this hypothetical Muslim hater would be seeing Islam as an impersonal, monolithic entity that shares commonality with its negative elements.

It's the same kind of bias that one might see watching shows like "Cops" and then make the assumption that only black people commit violent crimes (or that most crimes are committed by blacks).

Likewise, I think people who don't understand the diversity of belief in Christianity see people like Phelps, abortion clinic bombers, televangelists like Robert Tilton and Jim Baker, and assume "ah, Christians are all corrupt and hateful, therefore its okay to hate them."

They may see that Christians are the majority in their country and assume that at any moment they will be persecuted because these negative elements are in power and they are not. I think you're right about the "holier than thou" attitude problem. Of course this is not something limited to Christians. But since some Christians are this way, and Christianity is the majority religion in America, perhaps all Christians are assumed to be this way?

And yes, there is a difference between hating a religion or philosophy and hating people, but in practice it usually ends up being that you already assume you hate a person because they belong to a group you hate.

Just a thought.

Likewise I think some Christians have misconceptions about other faiths and about atheists. Assuming millions of people all think and act alike, and thus stereotyping them.

Education can help some of this, but sadly a lot of people just make up their minds and won't listen to anyting that disagrees.

I'm talking here mainly about the US, because I know in some parts of the world what group you belong to determines "what side you're on" in civil wars and conflicts and stupid stuff like that.

Then you read a Jack Chick comic about how Muslims worship a false god and promote terrorism in their religion.

Eplain this, is he right? I think thats where i got the catholic and muslim stuff from...

If this form of punishment was acceptable back then (3000 - 10000) years ago, why wouldn't it be today? Why wouldn't it during the time of Christ? Are the characters of the Bible governed by a different god after the New Testement?

This kind of inconsistency is why I think a lot of groups (theist and non-theist alike) attack christianity. There is much said within the bible, particularly the Old Test., that is not consistent with modern times.



Wish I had my bible, but i only have about 5 mins and im school...

Anyways, the book of mciah (spelling :) ) says that God never changes. The people have changed, but God hasnt. He never will. The technology has changed, back then they had swords and spears, now they have missiles and bombs, or other explosives. Its still happening (suicide bombers, things like that) You also read in the bible about God using Nebuchadnezzer (spelling?) even though nebuchadnezzer didnt worship God, until near the end of the book of Daniel. Therefore, God used him to attack the israelites. Why couldnt God use the terrorists, or other groups? Why couldnt he use the US, or Israel? (not saying he is, but its possible) Really, the only thing thats changed is our technology, and the "way" we fight...

Back then, they would burn villages, and whole cities to the ground. Thats kind of like what happens today, just not to the level that it was back then.

Case in point: the deal with the 10 commandments monument in Alabama. Very clearly, this was a violation of the edict of separating church from state. Having a christian idol in the center of the public area of the place where people must come to settle legal differences sends the wrong message. It says, "if you are not christian, then your case is lost." Think of the owner of a chinese restaurant coming to fight a law suit. Or the Pakistani cab driver who is trying to get a fair hearing regarding vehicular accident. What about the atheist that has a civil rights case that she's trying to get heard?

I'm not suggesting that the court is biased, but to these people, there is a certain amount of bias before they even present their cases. In places like this community, a certain amount of animosity toward christians is inevitable.

I could see how the person would feel that way, but it should be fair, as long as the judge doesnt have any prejiduces... The examples you listed, did that happen, or are they just examples? But I see your point. Even so, the 10 commandments is much more than a religious symbol, its a symbol of right and wrong, of morality. If you get what im saying. Why remove what says is right, and what says is wrong. We know the stuff was made by the christian God, and it has a lot to do with christianity. But doesnt it have anything to do with today? Whether christian or not, its still a symbol of whats right.


There is a greek idol in a court room, but no one cares to take that out. But they take out the christian symbol, which can be appiled to everyday life.

Kurgan,

I understand what your saying.
MOST times, I clarify things by saying 'fundemental' christian as opposed to just christian.
Of course the word 'fundemental' can be prefixed to ANY religion. So I'm not actually critizising christianity, I'm critizising ALL fundamentalism - in ALL faiths.

If a fundemental muslim were to be posting on these boards - saying that his beliefs are just the way it is and ignoring any evidence anyone else bought to the table, then I would be JUST as critical of him / her as I have been of any fundemental christian.

So - to be perfectly clear. It's not christianity I am taking issue with - it's fundementalism, in any form it takes, and within any religion.

You Kurgan, for one, certainly don't fall into the 'fundemental' category...

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1
Eplain this, is he right? I think thats where i got the catholic and muslim stuff from...
Of course not. There are violent and nasty people in every religion. Islam actually promotes many of the same things Christianity does (and even shares some of the same prophets) - things like non-violence, tolerating other's beliefs / religions, etc.

The problem arises when fundamentalists take the "word" too literally and misinterpret passages, or selectively apply others (like some Christians do with Leviticus). Unfortunately, fundamentalists can be found in most religions; this includes people like Osama bin Laden, or the Christians who kill abortion doctors, or the Catholic / Protestant war in Northern Ireland.
Even so, the 10 commandments is much more than a religious symbol, its a symbol of right and wrong, of morality. If you get what im saying. Why remove what says is right, and what says is wrong. We know the stuff was made by the christian God, and it has a lot to do with christianity. But doesnt it have anything to do with today? Whether christian or not, its still a symbol of whats right.
It's a symbol of what's right and wrong to Christians (original Hebrew scripture for Jews even has a slightly different version). It's wrong for Hindus to kill or eat a cow, for they are considered sacred... but there's no "Thou shalt not kill the cow, for it is sacred" commandment. So it's hardly representative of what's right or wrong for all religions. It represents only the moral ideals or Christianity. If you want to put a book of rules in the courthouse, I suggest a listing of all the criminal codes for the state.

Besides, like Skin said, we have a little thing called "separation of Church (meaning religion - any religion) and State" (meaning government regulated bodies). The idea is to keep bias out of it entirely... Justice is supposed to be blind (Lady Justice is not Greek, btw - although she may share some similarities to a old Greek mythological (non-religious) figure).

I understand what your saying.
MOST times, I clarify things by saying 'fundemental' christian as opposed to just christian.
Of course the word 'fundemental' can be prefixed to ANY religion. So I'm not actually critizising christianity, I'm critizising ALL fundamentalism - in ALL faiths.

If a fundemental muslim were to be posting on these boards - saying that his beliefs are just the way it is and ignoring any evidence anyone else bought to the table, then I would be JUST as critical of him / her as I have been of any fundemental christian.



Just so you know, in past debates, ive changed my views, not for a while though.

Besides, like Skin said, we have a little thing called "separation of Church (meaning religion - any religion) and State" (meaning government regulated bodies). The idea is to keep bias out of it entirely... Justice is supposed to be blind (Lady Justice is not Greek, btw - although she may share some similarities to a old Greek mythological (non-religious) figure).

Ive argued this before. There is a mandatory class (not sure about all schools) called world geography, which touches on islam, buddhism, hinduism, judaism, and christianity (although, leaving important things out... and barley mentioned... like 2 sentences worth, they say they wont talk about it because we go to church and we should know about it, ok fine... even though really, its that law.) I asked the teacher about seperation of church and state, and she said it was only if she was preaching it. Even though, it was only touched upon, it wasnt preaching. But how does having a statue of the 10 commandments violate seperation of church and state (from her view... i doubt its right... so ill check it out in a few mins) the statue cant preach, you dont even have to look at it.


@Eldritch- most of our laws are based on the 10 commandments, the 10 commandments is basically a very short version of our law. But I do see what your saying.

Of course not. There are violent and nasty people in every religion.

Ive read at different sites about allah, but then again, rumors spread, and are followed. Even though the stuff they said was convincing. The catholic one, isnt as convincing, so they may be wrong about the baal worship... maybe. I dont know. But I do know, there are big differences in the religion. The bible does teach one thing, and they do different things.. not all different, but what they do, is enough. But maybe they have a different bible, compared to mine... Ill forget about the baal worship... but i still dont believe that its christianity, because the bible teaches a different road.

Let me ask, how do you become a christian?


(like some Christians do with Leviticus).

How do you get this? it says dont do this, so it means dont do it. What are you saying?

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1
I asked the teacher about seperation of church and state, and she said it was only if she was preaching it.
Uh, no.
Even though, it was only touched upon, it wasnt preaching. But how does having a statue of the 10 commandments violate seperation of church and state (from her view... i doubt its right... so ill check it out in a few mins) the statue cant preach, you dont even have to look at it.
I think this quote says more than I could to help you understand:

"When the government puts its imprimatur on a particular religion it conveys a message of exclusion to all those who do not adhere to the favored beliefs. A government cannot be premised on the belief that all persons are created equal when it asserts that God prefers some."
-Supreme Court Justice Harry A. Blackmun in the Lee v. Weisman ruling, 1992.
@Eldritch- most of our laws are based on the 10 commandments, the 10 commandments is basically a very short version of our law. But I do see what your saying.
Really? Wow, how simple. Perhaps to gain a better understanding, let's look at each of the commandments.

ONE: 'You shall have no other gods before Me.'
Interesting... didn't know that one was illegal. I'm pretty sure we've got freedom of religion.

TWO: 'You shall not make for yourself a carved image--any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.'
Same as number 1.

THREE: 'You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.'
Man, just LOOK at all the similar laws! Wait, nope... I don't see a law prohibiting that one either.

FOUR: 'Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.'
This is more of a request than a law, but it's still not illegal to work on Sundays in our justice system.

FIVE: 'Honor your father and your mother.'
Again, this is a request - not a law.

SIX: 'You shall not murder.'
Ok, you got me here. Murder is prohibited, but Christianity is by far NOT the only religion to state this.

SEVEN: 'You shall not commit adultery.'
No law against this one - unless there's a prenuptial agreement involved.

EIGHT: 'You shall not steal.'
See number 6.

NINE: 'You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.'
Don't tell lies - only time it's illegal is when you're under oath, as far as I know.

TEN: 'You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's.'
I've seen some weird episodes of Judge Judy, but this one's never come up. You know why? Coveting ISN'T illegal. Stealing it would be, though.

So that makes it what? 2 out of 10? And it's nothing other religions don't say as well? Perhaps you've got stronger evidence our laws are "based" on the 10 commandments.

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1
Ive read at different sites about allah, but then again, rumors spread, and are followed. Even though the stuff they said was convincing. The catholic one, isnt as convincing, so they may be wrong about the baal worship... maybe. I dont know. But I do know, there are big differences in the religion. The bible does teach one thing, and they do different things.. not all different, but what they do, is enough. But maybe they have a different bible, compared to mine... Ill forget about the baal worship... but i still dont believe that its christianity, because the bible teaches a different road.
This was a little incoherent. Can you say what you mean more clearly, or perhaps less reference to "stuff" and more reference to actual material proof / arguments?
Let me ask, how do you become a christian?
You're either raised as one or you convert (from nothing or from another religion).
How do you get this? it says dont do this, so it means dont do it. What are you saying?
I'm saying that when people misinterpret the bible, or only obey selective parts of it, you can have problems. Let's take the widely publicized James Kopp murder of an abortion doctor in 1998 (a crime for which he was just convicted). He told his lawyer to ask his detractors, "What's your plan to save babies?" and is quoted as saying that killing abortion doctors is justifiable homicide. This is an example of a fundamentalist (and anti-abortion extremist) - of what can go wrong when you take the "word" too literally.
The bible says it's wrong to kill, but he did it anyway. That's what I'm saying. He saw that part of the bible, but I guess he interpreted or reasoned that "Thou shalt not kill" doesn't apply to abortion doctors. :rolleyes:

On a side note, I don't see any of these anti-abortion protesters rushing to adopt the babies that the mothers don't want (but would have to give birth to if abortion was made illegal). So who will take them? What about victims of rape? Another topic for another time, I suppose.

I dont think theres anything wrong in givinig a baby up for adoption... But killing someone because of another reason would make him a hipocrite...

I only have 2 mins, so ill post when i get home

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1
I dont think theres anything wrong in givinig a baby up for adoption...
Nor do I. I wasn't implying that. What I was suggesting was that all of these pro-lifers are not willing to adopt all the babies that would otherwise be aborted. Especially minority babies or ones that are born addicted to drugs or have fetal alcohol syndrome because of the mother.
Until they're willing to help out the system, they should have no cause for complaints. I wish there were a better option for these babies, as I don't want to see them killed either - but for many it's a better option than what they would've had... being raised in an orphanage or dying young because of birth defects.
But killing someone because of another reason would make him a hipocrite...
Exactly my point. Kopp's view was, "It's wrong to kill, but it's not wrong to kill abortion doctors."

Here's a story found on MSNBC about the anti-abortion killer Paul Hill (just executed for his crimes in Florida earlier today):

STARKE, Fla., Sept. 3 — Paul Hill, a former minister who said he murdered an abortion doctor and his bodyguard to save the lives of unborn babies, was executed Wednesday by injection. He was the first person put to death in the United States for anti-abortion violence.
HILL, 49, WAS condemned for the July 29, 1994, shooting deaths of Dr. John Bayard Britton and his bodyguard, retired Air Force Lt. Col. James Herman Barrett, and the wounding of Barrett’s wife outside the Ladies Center in Pensacola.
As he has since the slaying, Hill showed no remorse and urged abortion foes to use whatever means necessary to protect the unborn.
“If you believe abortion is a lethal force, you should oppose the force and do what you have to do to stop it,” Hill said as laid strapped to a gurney in the execution chamber. “May God help you to protect the unborn as you would want to be protected.”
Hill was pronounced dead at 6:08 p.m., Gov. Jeb Bush’s office said.
Death penalty opponents and others had urged Bush to halt the execution, some of them warning Hill’s death would make him a martyr and unleash more violence against abortion clinics. The governor said he would not be “bullied” into stopping the execution.
Florida abortion clinics and police were on heightened alert for reprisals. Several officials connected to the case received threatening letters last week, accompanied by rifle bullets.
“Paul Hill is a dangerous psychopath,” said Marti McKenzie, spokeswoman for Dr. James S. Pendergraft, who runs clinics in Orlando, Ocala, Tampa and Fort Lauderdale.

HILL DIDN’T FIGHT EXECUTION
Outside Florida State Prison, extra law enforcement officers, explosives-sniffing dogs and undercover officers were in place to prevent protests from getting out of hand. About 50 abortion and death penalty foes quickly left following the execution as rain fell and lighting struck near the prison.
Hill, a former Presbyterian minister, had final visits with his wife and son, his mother and father and two sisters. His two daughters visited him earlier in the week. His religious adviser stayed with him until just before his execution.
Since losing his automatic appeals, Hill did not fight his execution and insisted up to the day before his death that he would be forgiven by God for killing to save the unborn.
“I expect a great reward in heaven,” he said in an interview Tuesday, during which he was cheerful, often smiling. “I am looking forward to glory.”
Hill suggested others should take up his violent cause.
Fringe elements of the anti-abortion movement that condone clinic violence have invited attacks on Web sites that proclaim Hill as a martyr. Members of the mainstream anti-abortion movement have denounced the calls for violence.
Most abortion clinics in Florida reached by The Associated Press on Wednesday declined comment. McKenzie said security is always high at their clinics, but they are particularly cautious now because of Hill’s call for people to follow his actions.
“The bottom line is when you work in the industry you’re aware those people are out there every single day,” she said.
Inspired by the 1993 shooting death of another abortion doctor in Pensacola, Hill purchased a new shotgun and went to a gun range to practice. The morning of the murder, as Britton and the Barretts entered the clinic parking lot, Hill shot James Barrett in the head and upper body. He then reloaded and fired again, hitting Britton in the head and arm. June Barrett was wounded in the arm.

KILLINGS TOOK PLACE NINE YEARS AGO
Hill put down the shotgun because he did not want to get shot by police and walked away. When officers arrested him within minutes without incident, he said, “I know one thing, no innocent babies are going to be killed in that clinic today.”
Hill was the 57th inmate executed since Florida resumed executions in 1979 and the third in Florida this year.
The killings of Britton and Barrett happened during a time of increased violence at clinics nationwide.
Another abortion doctor had been killed in Pensacola in 1993 by Michael Griffin, who is serving a life sentence. Two receptionists were killed at Boston-area abortion clinics in 1994 by John Salvi, who committed suicide in prison two years later.
Earlier this year, James Kopp was convicted of killing an Buffalo, N.Y., abortion doctor in 1998, while fugitive Eric Rudolph was captured and charged with a 1998 bombing that killed an off-duty police officer at an Alabama abortion clinic.
The article can be found here (http://www.msnbc.com/news/960563.asp) if you're interested.

I see what you say, and i do agree.

except this:

I wish there were a better option for these babies, as I don't want to see them killed either - but for many it's a better option than what they would've had... being raised in an orphanage or dying young because of birth defects.

Whos to say abortion isnt painful to the baby? You could argue that they couldnt feel anything, but still, we dont know for sure.

With your point (not saying you ment this, just a little different perspective) but its like saying they would have died anyways, which justifies the murder. You dont really know how there lives would have gone. There have been many people will disabilities, that have made a huge difference in the world. (once again, not saying you said that...) We dont even know if they would have died.


This was a little incoherent. Can you say what you mean more clearly, or perhaps less reference to "stuff" and more reference to actual material proof / arguments?

i posted this before, so your probably read it. But i dont remember any arguements.. i dont know.Islam (http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/moongod.htm)

And then with the catholic stuff, purgatory, mary interceding for us, different ways to get to heaven, confession, church setup, and i guess thats all... im not sure.

The bible never mentions purgatory. The bible says christ is interceding for us, and christ said there is only one way to get to heaven, the bible also teaches about pasters and deacons, not popes, nuns, monks, preists, and bishops. And with the confession, the bible says to confess your sins to God, only God can fogive you of your sins. And you cant make up for your sins, so theres no point in trying.

There may be more differences, but thats enough to get my point accross... i know ive said it all before.


You're either raised as one or you convert (from nothing or from another religion).

Ok, ill refrase it, how do you become a born again christian?

NINE: 'You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.'
Don't tell lies - only time it's illegal is when you're under oath, as far as I know.

slander?
Stealing can come under many different forms though...

like copying CDs and selling them. Or, conterfeit money... things like that. Alright, point taken though.

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1
Whos to say abortion isnt painful to the baby? You could argue that they couldnt feel anything, but still, we dont know for sure.
Depending on the point in their development, the brain may or may not have the capacity to understand pain. So they may not feel anything.
With your point (not saying you ment this, just a little different perspective) but its like saying they would have died anyways, which justifies the murder.
That's not at all what I meant. I'm not trying to justify it - I'm only saying that there are many babies that due to choices of some mothers will be stillborn, born addicted to drugs, born with defects, etc. There are very few people that would adopt children like this, and I especially don't see any pro-lifers rushing to do so.
You dont really know how there lives would have gone. There have been many people will disabilities, that have made a huge difference in the world. (once again, not saying you said that...) We dont even know if they would have died.
I don't know where there lives would have gone - I'm not a seer. But we can reasonably predict what will happen to some babies if certain factors are met during pregnancy. It's extremely likely that if the mother drinks during pregnancy, the baby will be born with fetal alcohol syndrome, whose hallmarks are low birth weight, severe retardation, and physical deformity. I'm not talking about disabilities here.
If you've ever been to an orphanage (although now I think the PC term is Group Home) and seen how these kids live... you might change your mind. Especially if they are severely impaired, or are born with addictions - no one wants them, so they grow up unloved or with severe health problems that can be very painful, and often don't have the money for proper treatment. Their deaths can be agonizing and slow. So given the choice between an agonizing and slow death for a child, or a quick (and possible painless) one...

As a side note - all these aborted fetuses weren't Christian, so by your logic, wouldn't they be in hell?
i posted this before, so your probably read it. But i dont remember any arguements.. i dont know.Islam (http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/moongod.htm)
From biblebelievers.org? Hmm,you think they report biased or slanted information? I wonder... :rolleyes:
And with the confession, the bible says to confess your sins to God, only God can fogive you of your sins. And you cant make up for your sins, so theres no point in trying.
So then what the hell is the point of confession, penetance and all that stuff? That's a Jewish belief, you know - that only God can forgive your sins.
Ok, ill refrase it, how do you become a born again christian?
You want me to say something like, "They see the TRUTH!" or "They accept the LIGHT! What's RIGHT! The MIGHT of the Lord!" "Hallelujah!"
... bull s---. Same as before, you become a born again Christian by converting (either from nothing or another religion).
slander?
Stealing can come under many different forms though...
like copying CDs and selling them. Or, conterfeit money... things like that. Alright, point taken though.
I'll grant you slander. But 3 out of 10 is hardly the basis for our entire justice system, and that was my point. Plus the 3 weren't even exclusive to Christianity - the Code of Hammurabi outlawed many of those acts many years before Christianity was even invented.

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1
painful to the baby? You could argue that they couldnt feel anything, but still, we dont know for sure.


Even though all sense nerves are complete after 20 weeks, it is only after 29 weeks, when there comes a connection between the sense nerves and the brain, that the fetus can feel any pain at all.

As a side note - all these aborted fetuses weren't Christian, so by your logic, wouldn't they be in hell?

They were never born! When did they sin! How could they hear about God? They would have never heard about God, so they never had the chance to change.

be back later

back...

anyways, even with a young child, do they really have a sence of right and wrong? Not really, not till around age 3 or 4. They really cant make a decision to follow christ. They arent held accountable for their sins...

Sorry about the triple post


the Code of Hammurabi outlawed many of those acts many years before Christianity was even invented.

Are you sure? I know hammurabi was before christianity, but was it before the desert wanderings?



From biblebelievers.org? Hmm,you think they report biased or slanted information? I wonder...

What other site would post it online? Not many. Like you say im closed minded, you have been shown to be closed minded, because of the name of a site. Well, all of it could have been made up, but also, how do you know someone didnt just type up a crap load of stuff about a scientific expermiment? You dont.

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1
Are you sure? I know hammurabi was before christianity, but was it before the desert wanderings?
Yes. Which desert wanderings were you refering to? The Jews went through many different periods of wandering and settling. Even so, Hammurabi's code predates it.
What other site would post it online? Not many.
How about an islamic site? Or better yet, one that independently showcases many world religions without focusing exclusively on one or the other.
Like you say im closed minded, you have been shown to be closed minded, because of the name of a site.
I'm not closed minded because of the name. I'm not closed minded at all. But that site did not accurately report facts - after all, it's job is to get you to believe in the bible (hence biblebelievers.org), not some other religion.
Well, all of it could have been made up, but also, how do you know someone didnt just type up a crap load of stuff about a scientific expermiment? You dont.
Because there's no reason to type up a "crap load of stuff" about a scientific experiment. For findings to be posted, there is a process that must be gone through. The results are tested at least once more by a totally different team using the same procedures to see if the results are the same. If they are, the findings are reported.
And even if that process wasn't followed, other scientists would test their findings, and it'd be proved as fraudulent.
They were never born! When did they sin! How could they hear about God? They would have never heard about God, so they never had the chance to change.
Doesn't matter. Ask obiwan13, your fellow Christian - if they're not Christian, they're going to hell.
anyways, even with a young child, do they really have a sence of right and wrong? Not really, not till around age 3 or 4. They really cant make a decision to follow christ. They arent held accountable for their sins...
No, most don't have a sense of right and wrong at that age. Not that it would matter, since that implies there's a "right" religion and a "wrong" religion (both equally believeable). I've said it before - there's no more proof for Christianity being true than there is for Islam or Judaism or any other religion.

Because there's no reason to type up a "crap load of stuff" about a scientific experiment. For findings to be posted, there is a process that must be gone through. The results are tested at least once more by a totally different team using the same procedures to see if the results are the same. If they are, the findings are reported.
And even if that process wasn't followed, other scientists would test their findings, and it'd be proved as fraudulent.


Hmm, that does make sense. Even though it is possible, it does seem extremly doubtful. There are plenty of reasons, just to convince others of your opinion, or whatever.

Yes. Which desert wanderings were you refering to? The Jews went through many different periods of wandering and settling. Even so, Hammurabi's code predates it.

Ill try and find a date. But then again, hammurabi was the babylonian king right? It probably was after him...

Doesn't matter. Ask obiwan13, your fellow Christian - if they're not Christian, they're going to hell.

I doubt he was talking about children, especially unborn children! You dont know what a religion is at that age. Why would God send you to hell especially when you probably cant control your actions, or your not really aware of whats going on around you? The bible doesnt mention anything on this, so its up to God to decide, if you believe that.

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1
Hmm, that does make sense. Even though it is possible, it does seem extremly doubtful. There are plenty of reasons, just to convince others of your opinion, or whatever.
If you actually believe that, then you really are ignorant of what science is truly about.
I doubt he was talking about children, especially unborn children! You dont know what a religion is at that age. Why would God send you to hell especially when you probably cant control your actions, or your not really aware of whats going on around you? The bible doesnt mention anything on this, so its up to God to decide, if you believe that.
No, he was quite clear. I believe children were used as an example after he made the statement. He must be from one of those "wrong" versions of Christianity, eh?

No, he was quite clear. I believe children were used as an example after he made the statement. He must be from one of those "wrong" versions of Christianity, eh?

I dont know what he said...


If you actually believe that, then you really are ignorant of what science is truly about.

I was agreeing with you sort of... saying ok, but its possible that someone could make up something, and get away with it, but it is doubtful.

There are evil people out there who will try to manipulate things for their own self gain correct? That doesnt exclude scientists. It would probably get cought soon after though, like you said...

Of course it's possible. Anything is possible. But when has a scientist completely made something up and gotten away with it? The fact that he/she must publish how they did it prevents such a thing from happening. No one would ever say "Oh, great. They figured that out - no need to test it and make sure."

And there are malicious people out there that do manipulate things for their own self-gain. But the difference is that a claim made by a scientist can be tested and confirmed or refuted. No such thing can be done with religion.

People keep saying that there is no more proof for Christianity that any other religion. I beg to differ. First off, nearly every event in the Bible that can be confirmed by historians and archeologists at this time have.

Secondly, and more importantly by far, is this. If the disciples of Christ were simply making up His resurrection and all, would they have been willing to die for it? Remember, every one was martyred. How logical is that? Think back to Watergate - men were jumping out of the boat in droves at the mere threat of exposure. Would anyone stay for mere power or respect? I don't think so.

Thirdly, the extraordinary of very early manuscripts of the Christian texts all line up nearly word for word. We're talking one or two-word discrepancies per epistle, and maybe five or six for the gospels. Moreover, there are thousands of copies of these, dating less than fifty years after the events actually occured. MInd you, Aristotle is regarded as an historic and valid figure - and the earliest manuscript referring to him comes some 1200 years after his death. And there's not many in that range of age. This is remarkable. How can one doubt the validity of Christianity, and believe that Aristotle actually existed?

Running in circles, chasing our tails
Coming back as we are

Nobody said it was easy
Oh it’s such a shame for us to part

ColdPlay, The Scientist.

Sorry for the spam :)

Remember, every one was martyred.

John wasnt martyred, he was the only one who wasnt, i think...

Anyways, I agree with every thing you said, and that was a good question.

Originally posted by Homuncul
Running in circles, chasing our tails...

Sorry for the spam :)

I don't know.. it seems relevant to me.... these discussions can become quite circular. But as they come back around, let's hope we are improving our understandings of each other and ourselves... in the end, this is what matters most, regardless of where you stand on a subject/topic.

Also, in case you were wondering... I deleted a couple of posts... spam is also complaining about spam :cool:

I cant wait till Jesus comes back and goes "you havent listened to a thing I said for 2000 years" while God says "I told you so"


(yes even me =S but I try.. :) )

Originally posted by TheJackal
The Pope doesnt allow people to use anti-contreceptive pills, why not? Your speaking of a catholic rule.

Here is one thing to remember about christianity,
There is MANY different branches/denominations, and we all believe different things, although we hold many things in common.
It all depends on how you translate scripture.

I would also add, I'm a VERY open minded person, who believes you should be able t believe what ever you want to, which is why I dont force my beliefs on to other people...

Christ said not everyone will go to heaven. Only the people who do God's will. What christ said was,
"I am the way, the truth and the life, and noone gets to the father except through me." it was also said "anyone who calls on the name of the lord will be saved." so many christians try to add all these strings and attachments. God isnt about what you CANNOT do, but what you CAN do through christ.

Last thing, has when will people understand, Pointing out how "bad" God was in the old testement does NOTHING. The old testement is mearly history.

Excuse my jumpness in this post, I need to get going, just skimmed over the last page of this thread.

What christ said was,
"I am the way, the truth and the life, and noone gets to the father except through me." it was also said "anyone who calls on the name of the lord will be saved." so many christians try to add all these strings and attachments. God isnt about what you CANNOT do, but what you CAN do through christ.



Zdawg, i know what your talking about, but christ also says more than that, read MATHEW Chapter 7, verse 21-23 i think ive quoted it somewhere... but it says what im talking about.

I have a hard time understanding why people would still go to hell for worshipping god but not jesus. (according to christianity)

Seems to me that people often come to certain conclusions about certain topics, and then turn to scripture to prove their point. Not the other way around. The end result is people interpreting scripture with an extreme bias towards a certain viewpoint.

Would make more sense if they turned to scripture in the first place without any pre-conceived conclusions, if they really feel the need to live by the bible.

im really confused by the last 2 comments; what are you two talking about? Where did you get that sith? And who are you talking to shock?

Hmm, I should not have put that comment here. Apparently I put it in the wrong thread. I meant to put it in my "Oh..my..god.." thread about Rev. Phelps and his campaign of idiocy....

But I'm gonna leave it here, perhaps it will spark discussion. After all, some people might bash Christianity because of people like Phelps...

A good reason to "bash christianity" is missionary work.

Christian missionaries have done irrepairable harm to socio-cultural traditions the world over. Often (nearly always prior to the turn of the century), missionary work is a tool, albeit unwitting at times, of colonialism and capitalism.

Missionary work has:

Community ownership of land and forest, which was the traditional means for subsistence was lost due to their commercialisation and barter economy was replaced by the market economy of the west.
Practices of making social decisions on the basis of consensus, which was a form of tribal democracy, was replaced by the concept of democracy with Christian tradition. Egalitarian practices gave way to more stratified social norms, which didn't fit the need of the culture (they were Western/christian norms that fit Western/christian needs).
Traditions of the cultures, even the languages themselves, were frequently criticized, demonized, and even prohibited by the missionaries.
Missionaries nearl always brought and bring diseases.
Ethnocentric and religiocentric views were/are imposed by extortion and bribery with food/clothing/shelter and other basic and essential needs like medical care, particularly in war torn nations. In short, christian missionaries take advantage of the distraught and weakened.
With the assistance of colonial rule and capitolistic exploitation, christian missionary work has destroyed, and is now destroying, many cultures of indiginous peoples.

But wouldn't it be fair to also say that MIssionary work can help as well as hurt? I remember going to a church thing with a friend of mine once (she wanted to go, and I liked her), and there were missionarys there talking about what they were doing to help this third world country they had spent a year in. Not everybody was converting to Christianity in droves, but at least they were getting a square meal and immunizations.

I ended up donating $20 to the basket going around, mostly because I didn't have any $1s, and I wanted to look good in front of the girl. :p :o Not that it worked or anything. :rolleyes:

Ethnocentric and religiocentric views were/are imposed by extortion and bribery with food/clothing/shelter and other basic and essential needs like medical care, particularly in war torn nations. In short, christian missionaries take advantage of the distraught and weakened.

Thats a bit judgemental now isnt it? There are some, ive heard, that go in a basically rob the people through offerings (somewhere in africa) the people really want to serve God, so they continue to pay these people money. Thats just plain wrong. But with what your saying, it makes it sound like all missionarys have bad intentions, which is not always so! Some missionaries truly really want to do the will of God (if you believe that)


In the early church when Paul, and other apostles came to help out, they actually helped out! They worked for their food. Paul said, if he ate their food, he always made sure he paid for it. He had rules, such as if you dont work, you dont eat. In my opinion, thats a good rule. They all worked, and did there fair share.

But I'm gonna leave it here, perhaps it will spark discussion. After all, some people might bash Christianity because of people like Phelps...

ill be posting there in a sec ;) but still, just because of one or a group of christians is wrong, doesnt mean they all are right? If the missionarys are doing wrong, i trust that God will punish them accordingly, maybe they can leanr of there wrong doings, and repent, and hopefully undo the damage they have done. The same with this guy your talking about in the other thread.

But maybe whether or not something is wrong should be judged by the outcome which we can observe.

For example. Communism is a great idea, in theory, right? I mean, everyone is equal, no want for anything, nobody lording over you. It's more complicated than that, but you get the idea.

But look at it in practice? Sucked pretty hard, right? I mean, corruption, starvation, and so on.

In short, it's a great idea, but it's not something that people are even remotely capable of pulling off with any degree of success or prosperity.

Perhaps Christianity is the same thing? Say what you want about "Those people were not true Christians." But they were the result of Christianity, or religious fervor in general. It sucks for those who were more moderate about it and didn't burn babys in the name of God, but those others were the result of the religion. That is what it produces.

Christians are not capable of living to the standards they hold themselves to. Furthermore, this drive to "spread the good word" cannot be trusted in the hands of humanity. Look what it's done. I'm sure many hundreds of thousands were "converted" to death over the past 2000 years....

Say what you want about "Those people were not true Christians."

This is a common and repeated phrase for those that justify christianity. The fact is, however, that many of the missionaries that travel the world in the periphery doing good have ulterior motives. In fact, I would say that they are the same motives that created the failure of communism: the capital of status.

It is considered necessary by some christian-based religions to embark on missionary work in order to advance within the religion. In other christian denominations, missionaries of the church are highly praised and revered (worshiped even... though no christian would ever admit it) and a status of high honor is obtained. Greed of status is probably as much a motivation for embarking on missionary work as "doing god's will."

Once the missionary arrives at a region populated by indigenous people, it is assumed that because their lives are simpler and different, that they "need to be helped." It is also assumed that they are in need of salvation. Regardless of their own religions. In these cases, missionaries often have little success, since the indigenous people have little reason to listen to the missionaries.

However, during times of calamity or deprivation (such as after war, natural disaster, or famine -which, incidently, usually has political causes), missionaries are unusually successful. This is because they have what the people need. Food. Medicine. Clean water. This amounts to extortion.

It's interesting to note that in the highlands of Mexico's rural countryside, missionaries set out to provide medical assistance in return for spreading the gospel. What they offered, in particular, was pre-natal and post-natal care for pregnant women.

That all sounds good on the surface, in fact, the women thought so too. After all, who wouldn't want the best possible care for their unborn or newly born child?

The problem is, that the Mexican women, of Mayan descent, in this area are small in stature and would be considered petite. The prenatal vitamins offered by the missionaries, among other treatments, increased the birth=weights of infants. Again, this sounds good to Westerners. Unfortunately, the low birth-weights were an adaptation of the small Indian women. Many complications occured and many women died in childbirth.

That is but one of many examples of ethnocentric/religiocentric assumption that had deleterious affects on indigenous people.

Communism is a great idea, in theory, right? I mean, everyone is equal, no want for anything, nobody lording over you. It's more complicated than that, but you get the idea.

To which I say that communism failed due to its capitalistic shortcommings. Communism would have worked had the Soviet Union's leaders adhered to strict Marxist ideology. Unfortunately, this type of ideology is likely only possible in theory with humans. The need / drive for status among peers is overwhelming. (just look at those in LF who are concerned with their post-counts and want to be mods... ;) ).

The Elite Minority of the Soviet Union held the power and the wealth. They were the ultimate downfall of the "empire."

Another good reason to bash christianity:

Pat Robertson, former Presidential Candidate, leader of the "Religious Right," and host of the "700 Club," made a terroristic threat against the United States Government.

See this link (http://cryptome.org/xtian-fatwah.htm)

As stated in the text of the article linked above, "If an Islamic cleric in the United States were to say what Robertson said, I am sure he would now either be under arrest or detained incommunicado under the provisions of the Patriot Act."

I'm a man, which means all I want to do is rape women and play football.

I'm a musician, which means I can play "Stairway to Heaven."

I'm a liberal, so I must hate soldiers in the US Army, and call them "baby killers" when I meet them.

I speak English, so it follows that I'm familiar with the works of Keats.

I'm white, which means I hate any person of an ethnicity other than mine..

I'm German (one half, anyway) therefore I must hate Jews and want to kill them all.

And I'm a Christian, so I must hate gays and people who believe differently than myself.

Please, don't make massive generalizations about people just because they belong to a specific group. It's like saying that ALL muslims supported the WTC bombing, or that ALL native Americans were savages who lived in teepees and scalped enemies.

I dont think anyone is really saying that.

Nope. Nobody is saying that at all... that would be the non-existent "Why is it okay to bash christians?" thread.

Nope. What we're discussing is why is it okay to criticize a set of paradigms that may, or may not, be out-of-date. The criticisms so far, are valid. That's not to say that these criticisms imply that all christians hate gays, jews, or muslims. Though I think it's safe to say that nearly every christian would like to "save" these "wretched" beings.

Nope. What we're discussing is why is it okay to criticize a set of paradigms that may, or may not, be out-of-date. The criticisms so far, are valid. That's not to say that these criticisms imply that all christians hate gays, jews, or muslims.

Exactly my point, so in other words you just admitted its not ok to bash christianity, but the people who are doing these things you dislike. (if thats even a reason to "bash" them)

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1
Exactly my point, so in other words you just admitted its not ok to bash christianity, but the people who are doing these things you dislike. (if thats even a reason to "bash" them)

What I said was, I prefer to be very critical of the paradigm (or the way of thinking) but understanding of the majority of the culture. A leader of the culture, however, is fair game to harsh, even brutal, criticism since he/she represents the culture as an institution.

I wouldn't say, "christians are *******s" for instance, but I might say that Pat Robertson is. If I do, though, you can rest assured I'll provide some reasons why I think that.

It's okay to "bash" christianity. As long as by "bash" we're talking about criticisms backed with reasons. Several of my posts above have done this well.

This thread isn't fair. Its a representation that all Christian's think everyone is out to get them. Sure, I've done my share of Christian bashing, and I continue to this day. That isn't to say that I haven't been bashed for being a 'heathen', 'wretched', 'sinner', 'hellbound', and 'heretic'(I used to go to church, so that kind of applies to me) by the Christian's who are so apposed to bashing, but only if the bashing is directed at them. VERY few atheists will complain if you make fun of their religion (well, their lack-there-of).

Not to flat out say that Christian's are insecure, but they do get offended with mind numbing quickness.

You're making a generalization, Kain. Actually, most Christians are supposed to ignore threats and bashing. Christianity is supposed to be one of the most secure religons.