Knocks on MAK’s forehead, thunk thunk thunk. Our country IS divided. What planet have you been on?
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
End wealth redistribution, employment laws, health care mandates, and public education. There, now we could go our way and you could go yours. Christian neighborhoods, with tax money staying local, funding their own schools and running their own businesses how they see fit. Same for you guys. [/quote]
I don’t think you would stop if you got those 4 things. And your really against public education? I guess the only logic I see in that is with no education system the catholic schools would have a monopoly in education and you’d have more children to brainwash.[/quote]
Boy, you have little faith in atheists/secularists to manage their lives and civic society.
[/quote]
Basically, you want to divide your country.
Well done, very patriotic of you.[/quote]
Wow, try to give atheists complete self-governance in their schools, health-care choices, businesses, and they don’t want the freedom. What’s up with that?
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
There isn’t very much morally that is open to interpretations. The scriptures are pretty clear on what is acceptable and what isn’t.[/quote]
Ever heard of a church called Westboro Baptist Church? Mormons?
[/quote]
Well, then some folks prefer Stalin’s angle on secular humanism.
If everyone’s believed the same things, then nobody would do anything weird or unexpected.
You’er killing me with you interpretations of scripture. Again, you take it out of context, it means something else. Jesus was not talking about thoughts, he was talking about designs. Which is different. That is what is meant, by ‘looks at a woman lustfully’…
Seriously walk up to a chick you don’t know and look at her like you are about to fuck her. The look alone will get you slapped.
Yeah, the most moral things in some situations are the very things that are wrong in other situations.
You do have some horrible impressions of Christians, huh? That we are stuck in some 3rd grade moral awareness? The reason for the action is as, if not more important than the action. This is what we mean when we say morality is static, or fixed. The reason, purpose and the true intention behind the action; along with the action, is what makes an act moral. Not the action alone.
[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
Matthew 5:28 is a great scripture. I can also appreciate your reasoning.
Try looking at it a different way. What Jesus was showing us is that all our sins we commit start in the heart, or start with a wrong desire.
Notice what it says at James 1:14-15 "But each one is tried by being drawn out and enticed by his own desire. 15 Then the desire, when it has become fertile, gives birth to sin; in turn, sin, when it has been accomplished, brings forth death.
He is warning us to guard our heart. Adultery is a sin committed when you are a married person. Therefore, you have made a vow to another individual to keep the marriage bed clean. By dwelling on, or keeping the thought of adultery, in one’s heart, and individual is running a risk of letting that desire turn into action if given the right situation.
Let me ask you, is it not loving to your mate to guard your eyes from longing after other women?[/quote]
How can you possibly stop yourself from being attracted to other women? I’m not married, but I can tell you that even if I were, it would be impossible for me to not look at other women lustfully.
Secondly, why is it only a man looking upon a woman lustfully? Why not a woman looking upon a man? It sounds like nothing more than a misogynistic bit of language.
[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
Regarding single people, the desire to engage in sex is a natural thing. However, fornication, or sex outside of marriage is strictly prohibited in the Bible. Therefore, the dating process should remain clean of any wrong actions, such as pre-marital sex. [/quote]
How does this benefit society? What exactly is wrong with two 35 year olds having sex before marriage? Personally, I would like to know what sort of physical chemistry I have with a person before I marry them.
Why is pre-marital sex seen as unclean? What is the justification for that?
[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
Regarding your thought about lying, could you please use a parallel not contained in the Mosaic Law. As stated earlier, the Mosaic Law is no longer.
[/quote]
I don’t understand, I used one of the 10 commandments. Christians constantly prop them up as very important. How does this make any sense?
[quote]pat wrote:
Well, then some folks prefer Stalin’s angle on secular humanism. [/quote]
He wasn’t a secular humanist. He rejected humanist ethical values. He hated everyone and just did what he wanted.
[quote]pat wrote:
If everyone’s believed the same things, then nobody would do anything weird or unexpected.
Yeah, the most moral things in some situations are the very things that are wrong in other situations.
You do have some horrible impressions of Christians, huh? That we are stuck in some 3rd grade moral awareness? [/quote]
Not at all, but I do think you guys fail to realize that you also rely upon secular morals.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
Well, then some folks prefer Stalin’s angle on secular humanism. [/quote]
He wasn’t a secular humanist. He rejected humanist ethical values. He hated everyone and just did what he wanted.
[quote]pat wrote:
If everyone’s believed the same things, then nobody would do anything weird or unexpected.
Yeah, the most moral things in some situations are the very things that are wrong in other situations.
You do have some horrible impressions of Christians, huh? That we are stuck in some 3rd grade moral awareness? [/quote]
Not at all, but I do think you guys fail to realize that you also rely upon secular morals.
[/quote]
You are fucked up with stereotypes, damn. Of course, we follow secular morals, No shoes, no shirt, no service ain’t in the bible.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
Well, then some folks prefer Stalin’s angle on secular humanism. [/quote]
He wasn’t a secular humanist. He rejected humanist ethical values. He hated everyone and just did what he wanted.
[quote]pat wrote:
If everyone’s believed the same things, then nobody would do anything weird or unexpected.
Yeah, the most moral things in some situations are the very things that are wrong in other situations.
You do have some horrible impressions of Christians, huh? That we are stuck in some 3rd grade moral awareness? [/quote]
Not at all, but I do think you guys fail to realize that you also rely upon secular morals.
[/quote]
You are fucked up with stereotypes, damn. Of course, we follow secular morals, No shoes, no shirt, no service ain’t in the bible.[/quote]
Maybe not YOU personally. Is it not fair to say many Christians believe ALL morals are handed down from god?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
End wealth redistribution, employment laws, health care mandates, and public education. There, now we could go our way and you could go yours. Christian neighborhoods, with tax money staying local, funding their own schools and running their own businesses how they see fit. Same for you guys. [/quote]
I don’t think you would stop if you got those 4 things. And your really against public education? I guess the only logic I see in that is with no education system the catholic schools would have a monopoly in education and you’d have more children to brainwash.[/quote]
Boy, you have little faith in atheists/secularists to manage their lives and civic society.
[/quote]
Basically, you want to divide your country.
Well done, very patriotic of you.[/quote]
Wow, try to give atheists complete self-governance in their schools, health-care choices, businesses, and they don’t want the freedom. What’s up with that?
[/quote]
The divide might not be a bad idea. How should it be divided, red and blue states? That’s fine with me as the red states are taking more than they are giving in social services that the blue states so generously provide.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
End wealth redistribution, employment laws, health care mandates, and public education. There, now we could go our way and you could go yours. Christian neighborhoods, with tax money staying local, funding their own schools and running their own businesses how they see fit. Same for you guys. [/quote]
I don’t think you would stop if you got those 4 things. And your really against public education? I guess the only logic I see in that is with no education system the catholic schools would have a monopoly in education and you’d have more children to brainwash.[/quote]
Boy, you have little faith in atheists/secularists to manage their lives and civic society.
[/quote]
Basically, you want to divide your country.
Well done, very patriotic of you.[/quote]
Wow, try to give atheists complete self-governance in their schools, health-care choices, businesses, and they don’t want the freedom. What’s up with that?
[/quote]
The divide might not be a bad idea. How should it be divided, red and blue states? That’s fine with me as the red states are taking more than they are giving in social services that the blue states so generously provide.[/quote]
No need. Simply no wealth redistribution, no public schools. Your communities make your own little community schools and whatever safety nets, and we make ours.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
End wealth redistribution, employment laws, health care mandates, and public education. There, now we could go our way and you could go yours. Christian neighborhoods, with tax money staying local, funding their own schools and running their own businesses how they see fit. Same for you guys. [/quote]
I don’t think you would stop if you got those 4 things. And your really against public education? I guess the only logic I see in that is with no education system the catholic schools would have a monopoly in education and you’d have more children to brainwash.[/quote]
Boy, you have little faith in atheists/secularists to manage their lives and civic society.
[/quote]
Basically, you want to divide your country.
Well done, very patriotic of you.[/quote]
Wow, try to give atheists complete self-governance in their schools, health-care choices, businesses, and they don’t want the freedom. What’s up with that?
[/quote]
The divide might not be a bad idea. How should it be divided, red and blue states? That’s fine with me as the red states are taking more than they are giving in social services that the blue states so generously provide.[/quote]
No need. Simply no wealth redistribution, no public schools. Your communities make your own little community schools and whatever safety nets, and we make ours.[/quote]
You could also just move to Vatican City
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
End wealth redistribution, employment laws, health care mandates, and public education. There, now we could go our way and you could go yours. Christian neighborhoods, with tax money staying local, funding their own schools and running their own businesses how they see fit. Same for you guys. [/quote]
I don’t think you would stop if you got those 4 things. And your really against public education? I guess the only logic I see in that is with no education system the catholic schools would have a monopoly in education and you’d have more children to brainwash.[/quote]
Boy, you have little faith in atheists/secularists to manage their lives and civic society.
[/quote]
Basically, you want to divide your country.
Well done, very patriotic of you.[/quote]
Wow, try to give atheists complete self-governance in their schools, health-care choices, businesses, and they don’t want the freedom. What’s up with that?
[/quote]
The divide might not be a bad idea. How should it be divided, red and blue states? That’s fine with me as the red states are taking more than they are giving in social services that the blue states so generously provide.[/quote]
No need. Simply no wealth redistribution, no public schools. Your communities make your own little community schools and whatever safety nets, and we make ours.[/quote]
You could also just move to Vatican City[/quote]
No I couldn’t. It’s odd, though. I propose a way to make atheists free of religion informing politicians’ moral systems and decisions, and to make the religious free of atheistic progressivism (public funds for abortion/contraception, normalization of homosexuality in the public shcools, etc), and no takers. Why not? Because governmental control of education and health-care is how you plan to undermine religious belief. The rapid growth of home schooling certainly frightened you folks.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
End wealth redistribution, employment laws, health care mandates, and public education. There, now we could go our way and you could go yours. Christian neighborhoods, with tax money staying local, funding their own schools and running their own businesses how they see fit. Same for you guys. [/quote]
I don’t think you would stop if you got those 4 things. And your really against public education? I guess the only logic I see in that is with no education system the catholic schools would have a monopoly in education and you’d have more children to brainwash.[/quote]
Boy, you have little faith in atheists/secularists to manage their lives and civic society.
[/quote]
Basically, you want to divide your country.
Well done, very patriotic of you.[/quote]
The country is already pretty divided. Christianity has little to do with it.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
Well, then some folks prefer Stalin’s angle on secular humanism. [/quote]
He wasn’t a secular humanist. He rejected humanist ethical values. He hated everyone and just did what he wanted.
[quote]pat wrote:
If everyone’s believed the same things, then nobody would do anything weird or unexpected.
Yeah, the most moral things in some situations are the very things that are wrong in other situations.
You do have some horrible impressions of Christians, huh? That we are stuck in some 3rd grade moral awareness? [/quote]
Not at all, but I do think you guys fail to realize that you also rely upon secular morals.
[/quote]
You are fucked up with stereotypes, damn. Of course, we follow secular morals, No shoes, no shirt, no service ain’t in the bible.[/quote]
Maybe not YOU personally. Is it not fair to say many Christians believe ALL morals are handed down from god?
[/quote]
No, so things listed as “morals” are clearly societal based. The core base are the high metaphysical entity.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
You could also just move to Vatican City[/quote]
It is pretty.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
Matthew 5:28 is a great scripture. I can also appreciate your reasoning.
Try looking at it a different way. What Jesus was showing us is that all our sins we commit start in the heart, or start with a wrong desire.
Notice what it says at James 1:14-15 "But each one is tried by being drawn out and enticed by his own desire. 15 Then the desire, when it has become fertile, gives birth to sin; in turn, sin, when it has been accomplished, brings forth death.
He is warning us to guard our heart. Adultery is a sin committed when you are a married person. Therefore, you have made a vow to another individual to keep the marriage bed clean. By dwelling on, or keeping the thought of adultery, in one’s heart, and individual is running a risk of letting that desire turn into action if given the right situation.
Let me ask you, is it not loving to your mate to guard your eyes from longing after other women?[/quote]
How can you possibly stop yourself from being attracted to other women? I’m not married, but I can tell you that even if I were, it would be impossible for me to not look at other women lustfully.
Secondly, why is it only a man looking upon a woman lustfully? Why not a woman looking upon a man? It sounds like nothing more than a misogynistic bit of language.
[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
Regarding single people, the desire to engage in sex is a natural thing. However, fornication, or sex outside of marriage is strictly prohibited in the Bible. Therefore, the dating process should remain clean of any wrong actions, such as pre-marital sex. [/quote]
How does this benefit society? What exactly is wrong with two 35 year olds having sex before marriage? Personally, I would like to know what sort of physical chemistry I have with a person before I marry them.
Why is pre-marital sex seen as unclean? What is the justification for that?
[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
Regarding your thought about lying, could you please use a parallel not contained in the Mosaic Law. As stated earlier, the Mosaic Law is no longer.
[/quote]
I don’t understand, I used one of the 10 commandments. Christians constantly prop them up as very important. How does this make any sense?[/quote]
Most of your standing arguments were addressed in my previous post.
Greek was a male dominated language. This scripture can be applied to both sexes.
Let me answer this with a very simple question: Would there be the huge problem of STDs that we have now if every person only had one partner?
You did use one of the 10 commandments. The 10 commandments were in the Mosaic Law. That law is not in affect.
Considering the OP’s original topic; seems to me that the four horsemen (Hitchens, Harris, Dawkins, & Dennet) have been addressing Christianity’s misconceptions very well for quite a while.
There is no god.
[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
Let me answer this with a very simple question: Would there be the huge problem of STDs that we have now if every person only had one partner?[/quote]
The same could be said if people practised safe sex religiously. Why should your abstinence solution be propped up over contraception? Why is sex so evil to you guys?
[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
You did use one of the 10 commandments. The 10 commandments were in the Mosaic Law. That law is not in affect. [/quote]
I’m sorry I have to call bullshit. You’re the first Christian I’ve talked to who has said he does not follow the 10 commandments. If you don’t want to address it, fine. But I’m not buying either.
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
Considering the OP’s original topic; seems to me that the four horsemen (Hitchens, Harris, Dawkins, & Dennet) have been addressing Christianity’s misconceptions very well for quite a while.
There is no god.[/quote]
That’s not a Christian misconception, it’s an atheistic one.
[quote]therajraj wrote:<<< Why is sex so evil to you guys? >>>[/quote]The marriage covenant including sex is the most wonderful and beautiful of all human relationships. God says that it illustrates the relationship of Christ to His church and as such is blessedly sacred to be enjoyed in complete freedom within that covenant. Accordingly, it’s abuse and denigration is viewed by God and His people as among the most defiling and blasphemous of sins as it is an attack on Christ’s love for His Church bride. My answer to your question in the other thread will of necessity address this as well.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
Let me answer this with a very simple question: Would there be the huge problem of STDs that we have now if every person only had one partner?[/quote]
The same could be said if people practised safe sex religiously. Why should your abstinence solution be propped up over contraception? Why is sex so evil to you guys?
[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
You did use one of the 10 commandments. The 10 commandments were in the Mosaic Law. That law is not in affect. [/quote]
I’m sorry I have to call bullshit. You’re the first Christian I’ve talked to who has said he does not follow the 10 commandments. If you don’t want to address it, fine. But I’m not buying either.[/quote]
therajraj, I am not here to argue. I see threads go on for pages and pages, while making absolutely no progress. That is not my intent here. However, I will genuinely address the concerns you have presented.
The same cannot be said about people who practice safe sex religiously, as “safe” sex only reduces the risk. Nothing is 100% except abstinence. Also contraception is to prevent pregnancy, and I know quite a few that have gotten pregnant while using contraception. If you wish to engage in it, that is your decision. It is just against what the Bible teaches. I was just showing you one of the benefits of such a command.
Abstaining from sex before marriage does not equate with viewing it as evil. Sex, as the Bible lays out, is reserved for husband and wife.
You will hear a lot of beliefs from so-called Christians that are not Bible teachings. This would be one of them.
Proof text:
Romans 7:6 - But now we have been discharged from the Law, because we have died to that by which we were being held fast, that we might be slaves in a new sense by the spirit, and not in the old sense by the written code.
I would be negligent in not saying again, that a lot of the teachings from the Mosaic Law will be found in the new law covenant.
All I asked for was a parallel in a Greek Scriptures.