Time For This Challenge Again

[OldWiseGuy]

lol

Well, except for Australia.....of course.

 

[AV1611VET]

The part of Jesus's message that I find the most appealing is what is described in Matthew 25 where he tells his disciples to do good for the least among us. To feed the hungry, to shelter the poor and to help the sick. I think it might be possible to make the case that if you live according to these teachings that you are in effect taking Jesus in to your heart. Just a thought. Welp that's just something else to research.

And when John the Baptist was cast into prison and had a lapse of faith, Jesus reaffirmed it by telling John's disciples to go back and tell John ...

Luke 7:22 Then Jesus answering said unto them, Go your way, and tell John what things ye have seen and heard; how that the blind see, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, to the poor the gospel is preached.

Yet when Christians do the same thing today -- appeal to cause-and-effect to reaffirm Jesus' divinity --- they get scoffed at.

I like to present Christian edifices, literature, iconography, holidays, and martyrs as physical evidence that God exists, but it doesn't work.

You might be, in effect, taking Jesus into your heart, but you're taking Jesus, the son of man, into your heart; not Jesus, the son of God.

 

[AV1611VET]

This is not the topic, but I have no problem with elective abortion. That's between the patient and her doctor.

And what if the husband wants the child?

And what if the child would want to live?

And what if I don't want my taxes to support 'elective abortions'?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

You might be, in effect, taking Jesus into your heart, but you're taking Jesus, the son of man, into your heart; not Jesus, the son of God.

My sister, who was a very good and generous person, was fond of saying (when we were 'discussing' religion) that she was as "good a Christian as anyone". (Of course she meant that she was as good a Christian as I was.) I challenged her once.... if she would confess Jesus Christ as her lord and savior.

She just looked at me.

Sometime later she told me that she would no longer discuss religion with me, that it was too distressing for her. I honored that and we never spoke of it again.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

And what if the husband wants the child?

And what if the child would want to live?

And what if I don't want my taxes to support 'elective abortions'?

I can respect that position as well.

 

[AV1611VET]

My sister, who was a very good and generous person, was fond of saying (when we were 'discussing' religion) that she was as "good a Christian as anyone".

Doesn't it bother you though, when you see atheists talk about love-thy-neighbor Christianity one day, and the next day they're equating Christianity with convert-or-die Islam?

 

[AV1611VET]

I can respect that position as well.

Abortion is murder.

Do you respect that position?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Abortion is murder.

Do you respect that position?

I don't respect it, but I won't stand in the way (of suicide either). I guess I'm too old and tired to "sigh and cry" over it anymore (interesting to opine however).

 

[HitchSlap]

This is not the topic, but I have no problem with elective abortion. That's between the patient and her doctor. Who am I to insist that a woman have a child that she doesn't want. There are enough unwanted, unloved, and uncared for people as it is.

I agree with you here.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Doesn't it bother you though, when you see atheists talk about love-thy-neighbor Christianity one day, and the next day they're equating Christianity with convert-or-die Islam?

That would be an interesting discussion. We'd have to include Galatians 4 however.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I agree with you here.

There is evidence that those unplanned, unwanted, unloved, and uncared for kids that are born are much more problematic to society than abortion is (if one wants to prioritize social problems).

 

[HitchSlap]

There is evidence that those unplanned, unwanted, unloved, and uncared for kids that are born are much more problematic to society than abortion is (if one wants to prioritize social problems).

Yep.

 

[Silmarien]

There is evidence that those unplanned, unwanted, unloved, and uncared for kids that are born are much more problematic to society than abortion is (if one wants to prioritize social problems).

Prioritize what's "good" at the societal level and we end up with arguments for eugenics again. Should we be judging the value of a life based on how productive a member of society you end up being?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Prioritize what's "good" at the societal level and we end up with arguments for eugenics again. Should we be judging the value of a life based on how productive a member of society you end up being?

Are you equating abortion with eugenics, and what do you mean by "again"?

 

[Kylie]

Well, except for Australia.....of course.

No, I was laughing at the idea that anyone actually thinks that poor people in America are looked after.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

And what if I don't want my taxes to support 'elective abortions'?

Jesus, in his own words, says you should suck it up.

Matthew 22:20-22
20 And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription?
21 They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.
22 When they had heard these words, they marvelled, and left him, and went their way.

Now stop complaining, start marveling and go your way

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Doesn't it bother you though, when you see atheists talk about love-thy-neighbor Christianity one day, and the next day they're equating Christianity with convert-or-die Islam?

It's very rarely in respect of the same Christians. Some are love-thy-neighbor. others are convert-or-die. Very few (if any?) are both. You really shouldn't complain about atheists talking about reality.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Do you even read your own posts?

Yes. Care to link to a single post of mine where I am apparantly attempting to "disprove god"?

Isn't your handle "DogmaHunter"?

Yes. Which is synonymous to "god disprover".

What "dogma" are you hunting?

Any and all dogma. Religious or otherwise.

ps: a dogma, is a belief held that is unquestionable. It means that the belief will be kept no matter what. Even if reality disagrees - one will then simply assume that reality is wrong. That's what a dogma is. And pointing them out, is not the same as "disproving gods". There's more types of dogma then just religious dogma, you know....

To me 'dogma hunting' means hunting down and destroying dogma. And if the topic is religion, God, or creationism, that is the target 'dogma'. Do I have it right?

Get over yourself, it's just a nickname.
Secondly, again: pointing out dogmatic beliefs, is not the same as "attempting to disprove" something.

To believe something dogmatically, is always irrational - no matter the subject matter.

Now, I'll ask for the 4th time: a single link to a single post of an atheist "attempting to disprove god".

Got any?

Alternatively, you could also simply admit that you don't know about such posts and retract the claim.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Regarding the credentials of scientists of I.C.R., they say the following regarding one of their newest scientists.
"Like the rest of ICR’s scientists, Dr. Clarey’s credentials are extensive. He received his Ph.D. in geology and hydrogeology from Western Michigan University in 1996 and has two master’s degrees in the geosciences. From 1984 to 1992, he worked for Chevron U.S.A., Inc., using seismic data to locate oil and gas prospects. He has published many papers on various aspects of the Rocky Mountains and has authored two college laboratory books.

That's 1 person out of millions.
Also, none of his publications are relevant to creationist ideas.

You are welcome to link a single paper published by the dude in (actual) scientific journals, where he claims that dino's lived together with humans or whatever.

Secondly, you completely dodged the point...
Are you really going to deny that the science of biology is pretty much settled and that the vast, vast, VAST majority of publishing scientists universally accept evolution by scientific consensus?

And before you plan on replying with a silly list of a few dozen "scientists" who are creationists, I'll just ask you to google "project steve".

 

[DogmaHunter]

Ah, I get it. Of course. God cares about the unborn babies who might otherwise be born into a rough existence, but never mind the 3,100,000 kids who die from hunger each year. Screw those kids.

Got it.

Or the many more millions that were unfortunate enough to be born in a country where christianity doesn't have a foothold.