UndecidedFrog Posted November 21, 2004 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 2 Topic Count: 16 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 2,063 Content Per Day: 0.29 Reputation: 15 Days Won: 1 Joined: 08/02/2004 Status: Offline Share Posted November 21, 2004 Dear artsylady, This is just my opinion. You don't have to accept it if you dislike it. DISCLAIMER: I am not a christian. I didn't 'claim' that at all. I asked that. I asked because it seems preposterous that you would be more grateful to someone who didn't shoot you than to someone who went out of their way to help you. I think you misunderstood my question from the beginning, but that's okay. I asked it again. It is not preposterous that I or anyone would be more grateful to live than to get a ride to the nearest service station. I think it is common sense. If you have your priorities the other way around, please tell me. You asked it again, but you changed the parameters. So with your new hypothetical example, where someone will try to kill me, or help me, I chose to be helped. What part of this choice is not understandable? Obviously, you do not grasp the notion of the silver rule, Do not do to others what you do not want done to you. If someone doesn't want to be killed, then that someone should not try to kill others. I would much rather this someone not try to kill me, which represents the opposite of your example (where someone will try to kill me), making your choices irrelevant. Well, you corrected me earlier to say that the laws governing the USA were not Christian, they were Judeo Christian... So now you're saying the laws of the USA are NOT based on Judeo Christian law? I think you'll have a hard time proving that. Please do not put words in my mouth. I never said that US laws were based on Judeo-Christian laws. I said: Yes, I realize that the laws governing the US are based on Judeo-christian morals. However, that does not validate that these morals are more or less correct than another set. I said the US laws were based on Judeo-Christian morals. Morals stem from societal beliefs. And as we know, beliefs can be wrong, depending on who you ask. Yes, I know why you say you are here. You say you are actively seeking answers. It seems to me that you are trying to deny anything that might sound like an answer. I only deny things that are irrational. I've asked twice now for your list of pros for Christianity that you've gathered so far. If you were actively seeking answers, I'd think you'd have a proverbial 'weigh scale', where you are weighing the options. You might have "God's laws being good ones" on the pro side of the scale. You might have 500 peices of archaological evidence on this side. You might have prophesies that have come to pass on that side of the scale. You may very well believe there is such a thing as god's laws. I do not. I only see man's (and woman's) laws. I see no evidence that god exists to author any law. Most all cultures prohibit murder. Most all cultures do not prohibit killing. Some of these cultures are godless. It would be irrational to attribute god to be the author of these man-made laws? As to archeologic evidence....what might that be? Did god leave some DNA for us to test in the strata or a fossil or two to prove his existence? I do not understand. If you can show me the Mississippi River exists, does it mean that I must believe that Tom Saywer or Huck Finn existed? That would also be irrational. As to prophesies...what might that be that is specific and not vague and subject to interpretation? If Nostradamus prophesized correctly, am I to believe he is god? If a gypsy in town prophesizes my 2006 IRS reportable income correctly, am I to believe she is god? That too would be irrational. Right now, there is nothing on this pro side of the scales except some examples of extraordinarily good behaviour balanced out on the con side by some examples of extraordinarily bad behaviour. Do tell me what is the difference between a christian and a non-christian. What are the benefits that can be validated? I have a feeling that you just wish to dismiss arguments or points for Christianity. Maybe i'm all wrong on that, but that's the way it seems right now. I don't know if you really beleive you are open or not, but it sure seems you want to dismiss each and every point for Christianity as quickly as you're able. You may feel however you wish to. I am not offended by your feelings. As I have stated before, I am a rational being. I dismiss things that cannot be rationally believed. Whether these irrational things are arguments that support the invisible pink unicorn or fairy tales, it is irrelevant to me, I do not believe them. But if you wish to tell me why these things are rational, I'm all ears and eyes. Regards, UndecidedFrog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UndecidedFrog Posted November 21, 2004 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 2 Topic Count: 16 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 2,063 Content Per Day: 0.29 Reputation: 15 Days Won: 1 Joined: 08/02/2004 Status: Offline Share Posted November 21, 2004 Dear artsylady, This is just my opinion. You don't have to accept it if you dislike it. DISCLAIMER: I am not a christian. Well, if it were true Christianity, they'd be threatening the culture with forgiveness, helping the poor and things of that nature and offering hope for eternal life. Does it matter what kind of doctrine they were spreading? Ah yes, the conundrum of the true christian....if only all christians were true christians. Unfortunately, from my observation, no one can agree what a true christian is. For some governments, subversive doctrine is against the law. The key here is that different governments view different doctrines as subversive. Examples: 1) Radical islamicist preaching in the US conversion to Islam or face violence from the loyal followers of islam. 2) Missionary christians preaching in China conversion to christianity or face eternity in the fiery lake of hell. In the Ottoman Empire many ages ago during the crusades and in the name of their god, Christians killed many muslims in their own land in an attempt to capture Jerusalem. Do you find this 'right' or 'moral'? No I don't find it right or moral in any way shape or form. Nor do I find it 'Christian'. Do you find it right or moral? Maybe you think it would be moral if they believed the muslims were 'trying to spreak unholy doctrine or being a threat to their culture"? Maybe the christians of the crusade era felt that the muslims were trying to 'spreak' unholy doctrine or that they were a threat to the christian culture. So I guess they felt they were justified in attacking them in their own land to halt such a 'spreak.' Regards, UndecidedFrog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slippery Slope Posted November 21, 2004 Group: Junior Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 4 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 105 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 09/19/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 03/24/1965 Share Posted November 21, 2004 SS: ChadB: #1 as far as I know, no culture ever ate other people as a source of food. I am pretty sure cannablism was practiced by various cultures as a ritual. They would eat certain parts of a vanquished foe to gain strength over their enemies. I don't think it's ok for people to engage in this practice but then again I'm not part of their culture and it is not my place (nor yours) to go to them and impose my belief on them. Suppose they thought that eating peas was the most horrible thing imaginable, you wouldn't think to kindly of them coming to you and telling you what a disgusting person you are. So you believe that for them, it's okay to kill. I believe this type of killing and cannablism took (takes) place during conflict (i.e. war). So, since I do believe that war can be justified, and since I do believe in the death penalty etc. I would say, yes. As far as the cannablism goes I would still say it's a disgusting thing that I would not engage in (unless it was absolutely the last resort for my survival) nor condone. For me, canablism is wrong which has nothing to do with religion. In some parts of the world, it's okay to molest children. In some parts, it's okay to let baby girls die. In other places in history, it would have been perfectly okay to murder. There are, or were, no laws surrounding these things. What parts of the world is it ok to molest children? I personally don't think it's ok to let baby girls die, nor baby boys... but baby girls and boys die everywhere and I can't stop this from happening. You're right and Christianity is a front runner in the "it's perfectly ok to murder" and there is an abundance of evidence and proof to support this. I believe you are wrong, ALL societies have laws, some of them do not coincide with the laws in the USA. In some societies you may have to give up 3 cows and 2 pigs for murdering someone, in our society you may be put to death in the electric chair for it, who is more civilized in that scenario? I posed the question to Undecided Frog, so I'll pose it to you. Is there anything that is just plain 'wrong'. Wrong, across the board, for everyone at every time in history in every geographical location. Is there anything you could say to everyone on earth and feel just and right in 'imposing' this law because it is simply a just and good one? example...... Thou shalt not........??? I would say murder (which can be different than killing), stealing, adultry, beating the hell out of someone just because you feel like doing it, hording when others around you are in need, pissing on someones food, cutting in line in the grocery store... yeah, I can think of a lot of things that are wrong and they have nothing to do with religion and have always been wrong even in culture or times without and or before Jesus (except the grocery store one). Well, I'm sure that in places in history there were just no laws saying that you couldn't murder. Now if the law 'thou shalt not murder' was not in place, then how can it be wrong? If you believe in evolution, animal species kill each other all of the time? If you beleive in evolution, then why does human law superceed what happens in the animal kingdom - ie, survival of the fittest? If it's wrong, as an non-believer (if you are one) I think you'll have a hard time explaining this. you think I'll have a hard time explaining this? I can't type fast enough to get the explination on the screen. You are wrong, there is evidence that "murder" was wrong long before Moses got the 10 commandments. Humans (primates actually) are just about the only species that "murders" it's own. We kill for sport not just for food, we kill out of anger, jealousy and a plethora of other reasons. A law prohibiting the murder of a citizen of it's society has to be in effect in every society or the society would wipe itself out eventually. It's common sence not to just kill whoever you want because it could happen to you and that would be bad. So no society can function without laws whether they are written down or passed around the community verbally. If you can grasp this then I can't help you. Artsylady: now that you've changed the parameters of your question we have a choice between not being helped or being helped... I'll take the "being helped". Of course now the question has nothing to do with good or evil. Well thank you SS. It sounds like the answer to you is obvious, which it should be. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ellie Posted November 21, 2004 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 36 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 197 Content Per Day: 0.03 Reputation: 3 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/14/2004 Status: Offline Share Posted November 21, 2004 (edited) Please don't go just because some people do not agree with you. Not everyone in life is going to pat you on the back and love everything just the way you do. Perhaps an anger management group would help you a bit. Tolerance is Christian teaching as well... and for the record I am not an Athiest. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Tolerance in itself is not really a Christian teaching, as the definition of tolerance is to literally 'put up' with something. Christian's are not to tolerate evil for example. Jesus did not 'tolerate' the money changers in the temple, he may have still loved them, but He didn't 'put up' with them. I will respect others to have and espouse their own belief, but I will never tolerate evil. Tolerance has led to atrocities in many instances, for instance suppose we had tolerated Hitler's beliefs to eradicate all Jews (and anyone he considered to be defective in the human race)? Not a pretty picture as to what might have happened there. I can have respect for your right to be an agnostic but if that belief then led to mass murder I certainly wouldn't tolerate that. There really is a difference. Many people are confused about this, and that is why so often Christian's are labeled intolerant bigots. I guess the question would be, "would you rather be loved and respected, or tolerated"? In His Love, ellie Edited November 21, 2004 by ellie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slippery Slope Posted November 22, 2004 Group: Junior Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 4 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 105 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 09/19/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 03/24/1965 Share Posted November 22, 2004 Hey Artsylady, do you believe in the mutilation of little boys? It happens right here in the USA, it's called Circumcision and is practiced by Christians. Still waiting -SS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest idied2 Posted November 22, 2004 Share Posted November 22, 2004 Are You a fundamentalist.........Atheist? No. In CHRIST JESUS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ellie Posted November 22, 2004 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 36 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 197 Content Per Day: 0.03 Reputation: 3 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/14/2004 Status: Offline Share Posted November 22, 2004 (edited) Hey Artsylady, do you believe in the mutilation of little boys? It happens right here in the USA, it's called Circumcision and is practiced by Christians. Still waiting -SS <{POST_SNAPBACK}> This practice can be dated to the time of Moses and was given to the Jewish race, it isn't a Christian practice exclusively, it originated as a Jewish practice, some Christians do have their male babies circumcised but I know many unbelievers who do this as well. Done in a hospital setting with anesthesia it is a common practice, and is much more prevalent and ceremonial in the Jewish race. Here it is explained in the books of Acts chapter fifteen beginning in verse three: 3So, being sent on their way by the church, they passed through Phoenicia and Samaria, describing the conversion of the Gentiles; and they caused great joy to all the brethren. 4And when they had come to Jerusalem, they were received by the church and the apostles and the elders; and they reported all things that God had done with them. 5But some of the sect of the Pharisees who believed rose up, saying, Edited November 22, 2004 by ellie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest YouthPastorMarc Posted November 22, 2004 Share Posted November 22, 2004 Hey Artsylady, do you believe in the mutilation of little boys? It happens right here in the USA, it's called Circumcision and is practiced by Christians. Still waiting -SS <{POST_SNAPBACK}> SS, You're comparing apples to oranges.... the removal of a small piece of skin compared to the removal of a pre-teen female's complete external genitalia and the sewing shut of the vaginal opening to prevent easy copulation. Debate the similarities between the two... please. Let me provide some drastic contrast. Circumcision, while still an optional practice offered to today's parents, is highly recommended by most obstetric and pediatric practitioners. It is recommended simply because it increases sanitation, reduces urinary tract infections and makes self-cleaning easier for children. Many pre-Christian laws/practices (I afford you the variation because, while many laws became common practices, not all common practices became laws... as it still is in today's society) were put into place for largely healthful reasons. Many of these have continued in largely ritualistic form as as way of maintain a hold on one's doctrinal roots and beliefs. For example, pork was forbidden due to the fact that there was no refrigeration... the meat would spoil faster than it could be consumed. Thus, being that God's chosen people (the Israelites) shouldn't eradicate themselves through the eating of "poisoned flesh", pork was banned... for several reasons (all of which are common sense). I say pre-Christian, because this law was established in the Old Testament... the largely historical part of the Bible. Practice became law, and law became practice (ritualistically speaking). Do MOST Christians still practice this Old Testament law? Mostly, no. However, some Christians (I know quite a few) do choose to hold to this old way... it doesn't mean that one is right or wrong... simply variations due to changes in society (like the invention of refrigeration). Just the opposite often occurs as well... some ritualistic practices continue largely because of the benefits discovered within the practice itself. Circumcision is just such a practice... largely practiced now (by those from all walks of life including Christians, Agnostics, Atheists, Muslims, Wiccans, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, etc...) simply due to it's sanitary benefits. Please compare the sanitary benefits of complete external genital removal and the sewing shut of the genital opening of a young female? I can quickly list many many UNsanitary reasons why it should NOT be done. Please compare the benefits to the individual that this practice is performed on. Please compare the benefits to others of having this practice performed on an individual. Female genital removal (practiced in a third world tribe) compared to male circumcision (practiced by many nations' peoples) is apples to oranges. In His Service, YouTHPastorMarc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slippery Slope Posted November 22, 2004 Group: Junior Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 4 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 105 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 09/19/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 03/24/1965 Share Posted November 22, 2004 To Elle and YoungPastorMarc: Artsylady was trying to make a point about how something can still be "morally wrong" regardless of a societies or cultures belief/law/ritual/habit... She pushed the mutilation of little girls question without understanding what she is asking. You've both proven the point that things that are acceptable to given society are considered taboo to another. As far as comparing the two types of mutilation I would have thought that you were smart enough not to ask such a question. Since I have to spell it out for you here ya go: To a person being killed does it matter if you're head is lopped off or if you are blown to bits, if you bash me on the head with a 10lbs iron hammer or a 5 pound steel hammer does it matter to me, if I saw your arm off with a hack saw or a tree saw is your arm still gone, is one mutilation better than another mutilation? If you young children don't clean behind their ears should we cut them off for cleanliness purposes or should we teach them how to clean behind their ears? You can't justify your own offensive practices while condemning someone elses. Still waiting -SS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ellie Posted November 22, 2004 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 36 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 197 Content Per Day: 0.03 Reputation: 3 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/14/2004 Status: Offline Share Posted November 22, 2004 (edited) I have to disagree about one practice being like the other. Female mutilation as it is being discussed here is not done in a hospital setting with anesthesia and neither is it performed for the reasons Young Pastor Marc stated circumcision is. By saying 'your own offensive practices' are you saying these are Christian practices exclusively? In His Love, ellie Edited November 22, 2004 by ellie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts