Wow. I can't even begin to address all of the misguided, twisted, backwards, illogical thoughts that are posted on page 4. Edial and Reformationist, you have perfectly demonstrated why I have a problem with the Christian faith. I have enough to write a book on what you two have said. However, I have neither the time nor the energy to address everything on
TheMdude said:
Wow. I can't even begin to address all of the misguided, twisted, backwards, illogical thoughts that are posted on page 4. Edial and Reformationist, you have perfectly demonstrated why I have a problem with the Christian faith. I have enough to write a book on what you two have said. However, I have neither the time nor the energy to address everything on that page, but I will address some of it.
Huh? I am accountable on what I said and will answer accordingly.
TheMdude said:
-Abortion:
Reformationist, unlike you I will be providing links for the next few things I discuss. I think I may have found the website that your information came from, and it has alot of interesting additional information that you left out.
womensissues.about.com
Sources are wonderful, use them. The most interesting thing that I found on this website was that 88% of abortions in the United States were performed 6-12 weeks into the pregnancy. Then I wondered how developed a baby could be after only 6 weeks, which brings me to my second source.
religioustolerance.org
At 6 weeks the baby is 1/2" long. That's right, 1/2"! Take out a ruler so you can visualize that. The brain does not even begin to develop until 8 weeks, and the baby is not conscious until 26 weeks! Most states and medical associations have outlawed abortions at that point. Also, the lungs have not developed until about 22 weeks. I think for the baby to be considered living, it should have a brain and lungs. Otherwise, it is just a ball of cells, it is still a part of the mother, it has no life of its own. Cutting a seed in half and chopping down a tree are not the same thing, period!
If you are saying that 1/2" long brainless piece of tissue is a human being, than you might as well say that every sperm and unfertilized egg a woman produces are too. Nope, sorry, not buying it. And don't think I'm just trying to make myself not feel guilty, I don't feel guilty. For some reason, you seem to think that I feel bad about my beliefs, or that I have to lie to myself to sleep at night. I don't, sorry to disappoint you. I have asked myself what I should believe, and what's right, rather than simply accepting what I'm told to believe.
You addressed this to the Reformationist ...
But I"ll ask you the following.
The Ace's argument is that he "believes" that babies are alive ONLY until after their birth.
Any comments on
that from you?
TheMdude said:
-Gays
I can't believe you are trying to say banning gay marriage is to conform to a definition. That definition really depends on where you look and who you ask doesn't it? The definition that you refer to is the one that Christians have adopted.
Well, allow me te enlighten you with the following.
The definition (and not only the usage) are recorded in the Dictionaries including the Webster's as a union between a man and a woman. Today, the Webster's (on-line) added a esage that it also can be one between people of the same sex. Check out printed Webster's dictionary (pre gay-marriage agenda) and you'll see that it is defined as a marriage bewteen a man and a woman.
So, this is not a "Christian" definition, but a human definition.
Any comments on
that?
TheMdude said:
This is just another example of Christians just trying to make gays miserable. For some reason Christians seem to think if they make gays miserable enough, they will just give up and like the opposite sex. Well guess what, it doesn't work that way. Gay people didn't just decide, "hey, I think I want to be gay." No, that doesn't happen, why would you do that anyway, and subject yourself to the descrimination and rejection they have to go through.
Christian's, together with non-Christians do not want to have their own marriage redefined so drastically.
Originally, the marriage was a union between a man and a woman. Are you married? Kids? Any advise to your boy concerning these topics? How about when he tries to experiment between the marriages?
TheMdude said:
There is no good reason to ban gay marriage.
Gay marriage was never in existance to be banned.
TheMdude said:
If you think that this will somehow make straight marriages better, and that this is really an important issue, you need to come back to reality. We have homeless people, starving children, and a failing education system.
Reality? Are you for real? Let's address your statements one by one.
Homelessness - this country does not do enough concerning the homelessness? Checked other countries lately? What is the percentage of the homeless that are using drugs, alchohol?
Starving children - in the U.S.? Where? Checked other countries lately? Any "skin and bone" type of photographs? There are some in the dysfunctional families. If you know some tell us. The children will be removed from these "parents".
Failing education system - did you check the (forgot the exact name) - the gay High Scholl (Robert Milk, I believe) in New York City? Any comments on the problems that are occurring there? And do you think it will be a good ides to tell them that they can have a "gay marriage". Look it up.
Did you THINK about these things or are you just repeating a party line?
TheMdude said:
When all of the real problems are taken care of, then you can complain about gay people getting married. And it still won't matter.
Are you going to tell me when to voiuce my opinion? Really? Should I tell you when to voice
your opinion?
TheMdude said:
-War
I agree that we should have gone to war with al Queda, but Iraq was a mistake. I've already talked about the revolution needing to come from within, and that democracy is not necessarily right for every culture. Having said that, al Queda, and particularly Osama bin Laden, is responsible for the deaths of 3,000 of our civilians. They need to be taken care of, and they are a threat that should be addressed. Iraq on the other hand had nothing to do with the attacks.
The attack on the Iraq was not because they specifically carried out the 9/11. That was Osama. The attack was because they broke UN resolutions 17 times. Also, it is a nest of terrorism with a dictator that officially approves of suicide bombings. Did you read of the $250,000 check that Saddam signed to the Hamas suicide bombers? 9/11 was also a suicide bombing and I personally do not have time to investigate whether Sadam had anything to do with that. He is a terrorist. He approves attacks on our land. He broke UN resolutions 17 times, so the war is legal. We see now that this guy was bribing UN left and right and was extremely effective in his bribery. (I still am waiting to see if Ted Kennedy was in his pocket). This powerful terrorist (he has a money AND a country, unlike Osama) wants us dead. With 9/11 it is time we pushed the legal button.
By the way, they voted today. Did you follow that?
TheMdude said:
and had no wmd's. The search has officially ended, there was no evidence that they had any, and there was no evidence that they moved them either.
No evidence that they moved them? What do you want - a moving slip? Saddam was refusing to disarm and allow inspector to inspect him. He had 6 months to prepare for our attack. We warne dhim it is coming. If he destroyed the wmds then he had no paperwork, no evidence. This is his defnce. He could have "sued" us if he prooved that he destroyed wmds accirding to the UN demands. Are you thinking? No wonder you consider babies in the belly non-humans, since they cannot process as a thinking human being.
TheMdude said:
North Korea is a real threat to us, and probably the biggest threat in that region. They have nuclear weapons, they've said they do, and every single citizen of that country knows that we are their sworn enemy.
You gonna tell us whet is the immediate threat? North Koreans and not the Arabs? Any North Koreans suicide bombers in the last 20 years? How about the Arabs? And aren't all the terrorists in a way unified? No? Then why are all of them in Fallujah? Even the Chechens? EVER thought of that?
TheMdude said:
By the way, this is Bush's fault. America is N. Korea's sworn enemy because Bush insulted them.
I am speechless.
TheMdude said:
Not only has Bush done to little to deal with the real enemy (bin Laden), he has increased the threat to us by angering and insulting people who already didn't like us.
You philosophy is not to anger terrorists? We angered them at 9/11 then? Our fault? Huh?
TheMdude said:
-Progressive ideas
This is probably the most disappointing thing that I've read in the recent past. Trying to say that the ideas ace and I are talking about are regressive, and that Christian ideas are progressive, is absolutely absurd. I cannot begin to convey how serious this error in logic is. These words are complete opposites and you got them completely backwards, congratulations. Progressive means new and moving forward, and regressive means old or going back. Since Christianity is based on ideas that are thousands of years old, and most liberal ideas have come about in the past few decades...do I really need to explain this any further?
Please no need to explain it any further. You said enough.
Not every "new" idea is progressive. Makes sense?
Christianity is progressive because is applies (according to Christ) to all time including the future.
TheMdude said:
-If you can't come up with better arguments than what was on page 4, please just stop posting. Do some real research and support your claims with sources. By the way, "I saw it on a reputable website" is not a source, that's another claim.
God Help America,
M
You did not yet answered my existing argument.
Ed