Why is your belief good for me?

[Subordinationist]

If you don't like the comparisons to Nazis, don't act like them.

Good point. I happen to think that Bush and the Republicans have hijacked Christianity for their own benefit. Considering the majority of Americans are "Christians" or at least heavily respect it. Its just like Hitler claiming to be a Christian because it was popular and made him more likable. The key conponent of Nazism, besides anti-Semitism, German nationalism, and love for the Aryan race, is coercion and force. Christians need to stop being coercive to those outside the church and instead win souls to Christ by love and sound reasoning.

Preach the Gospel at all times, if necessary use words.
St. Francis of Assisi

I feel that you are trying to legislate your belief into law.

Legislating morality has always led to either persecution, foreign war, or civil war. Morality is to be taught by the family, promoted by the church and community, enacted by Christians, and respected by government.



.

 

[Phred]

Good point. I happen to think that Bush and the Republicans have hijacked Christianity for their own benefit. Considering the majority of Americans are "Christians" or at least heavily respect it. Its just like Hitler claiming to be a Christian because it was popular and made him more likable. The key conponent of Nazism, besides anti-Semitism, German nationalism, and love for the Aryan race, is coercion and force. Christians need to stop being coercive to those outside the church and instead win souls to Christ by love and sound reasoning.

Amen! Far too often I find myself sounding like I'm against Christianity... which couldn't be more false. Thank you.

Legislating morality has always led to either persecution, foreign war, or civil war. Morality is to be taught by the family, promoted by the church and community, enacted by Christians, and respected by government.

Two for two.

.​

 

[12volt_man]

There were TWO President Bushes.

I'm aware of that, but when you don't specify which one you're slandering, I have to assume it's the current one.

Please, feel free to look the document up at the Bush Presidential Library. It's archived as Item # CF01193-002.

Since it's your point and, thus, your responsibility to demonstrate it, why don't you show us this document?

But, since this doesn't impress upon you my feelings... let's take a journey thru what I feel.

What was at this address: http://www.bju.edu/letter (and was quickly removed) can be viewed at numerous other places, let's start here:

First of all, the link you gave shows no such letter.

Second, the letter you quote does not show that President Bush made such a statement. In fact, the statement is never even mentioned.

Third, Bob Jones University is not a journalistic entity of record.

I still find it curious that the one source you were able to find says that this happened at a "formal news conference", yet, you can't find one record of it. Don't you find it a little odd that such an outrageous statement is allegedly made at a presidential news conference, many of which draw as many as one hundred journalists and not one journalist among them reports it?

Most of the divisive issues in America today come down to one thing. Either you believe "Goddidit" or you don't. Abortion... comes down to believing in a soul and when "ensoulment" occurs. Stem cells... comes down to the same argument as abortion. Our right to die... God decides, not man. Homosexuality... once again, God decided it's wrong. Teaching creation in a science class... "Goddidit."

I disagree. The arguments against abortion and stem cell research are not predicated on "souls", but the morality of taking a human life. This is something that is agreed upon by Christians and non-Christians, alike.

Similarly, the argument against euthanasia is based on the question of whether or not a doctor or family member has the moral right to supercede the patient's implied consent.

Obviously, you can't teach creationism without theorizing the existence a creator but why is it wrong to present both views? If you believe that you're being persecuted because someone is teaching that there is a creator, then why is the opposite not true? How are you not persecuting Christians when you suggest that we should teach that there is not a creator?

]And that was my original post. I feel that you are trying to legislate your belief into law.

And you still haven't given me an example.

It's what Jefferson was afraid of, the tyranny of the majority.

He was also afraid that the state would interfere with the free exercise of religious beliefs, but you seem to be for that.

We know how dangerous it can be. Our good friend Adolf Hitler was elected you know.

Yes, and he was in favor of abortion and euthanasia, two things you're also in favor of.

If you don't like the comparisons to Nazis, don't act like them.

That's a pretty strong accusation. How about being a man and backing it up? In what way have we acted like Nazis?

 

[12volt_man]

Amen! Far too often I find myself sounding like I'm against Christianity... which couldn't be more false. Thank you.

You equated us with Nazis.

If that doesn't mean that you're against Christianity, then the only logical conclusion is that you're in favor of Nazis.

 

[zbignew]

The arguments against abortion and stem cell research are not predicated on "souls", but the morality of taking a human life. This is something that is agreed upon by Christians and non-Christians, alike.

Please be accurate. Stem cell research has to do with fertility clinics' supply of extra fetuses from donors, which, after donor has given birth to a child or wishes to end treatment, is usually disposed of. Instead of disposing them, stem cell research uses these (so instead of being destroyed anyway, it is used to find cures for the paralyzed, etc.). If you're against this practice, then maybe you should also be against fertility clinics since they also "take human life" if that's how you term what they do.

 

[Phred]

You equated us with Nazis.

If that doesn't mean that you're against Christianity, then the only logical conclusion is that you're in favor of Nazis.

I will continue to equate you with Nazis until you change your behavior. I see Fundie Evangelical Christians doing just what Hitler did. Scaring the **** out of the people in order to legislate your belief. I'm not against Christianity, I'm against the people abusing Christianity. There's an immense difference...




.

 

[Phred]

<snip> (spin and misdirection removed) The arguments against abortion and stem cell research are not predicated on "souls", but the morality of taking a human life. This is something that is agreed upon by Christians and non-Christians, alike.

Spin spin spin... in the end, we'll argue for days and you will eventually say that a person is ensouled at conception, thus anything you do after that point is considered murder. It's what it always boils down to... souls. Souls and you legislating your unsupported belief.

Similarly, the argument against euthanasia is based on the question of whether or not a doctor or family member has the moral right to supercede the patient's implied consent.

Again, it comes down to your belief that your deity will decide and that supercedes everyone and everything. Everytime you say "moral" what you're really saying is "my deity."

Obviously, you can't teach creationism without theorizing the existence a creator but why is it wrong to present both views?

Creationism is a falsified scientific theory. If you wish it taught in a science class what will be taught is that in the mid-1800s this theory was falsified by Christian scientists. To teach it as a valid theory means you also have to teach that the Earth is flat, that it's in the center of the Universe, that the Earth rides on the back of a giant tortoise and that Aliens might also be the creators. Eventually you teach nothing at all.

"Teaching both views" really means, "teach Christianity." That's what's wrong with it.

If you believe that you're being persecuted because someone is teaching that there is a creator, then why is the opposite not true?

If forcing students to listen to your belief just because you want them to is persecution... that's a new meaning of the word. I see it as just ignorance.

How are you not persecuting Christians when you suggest that we should teach that there is not a creator?

And that's one of the largest mistakes you make... nobody is saying there isn't a creator. What we're saying is that IF there is a creator, evolution is the method by which the creator works. I suggest we should teach the facts and leave the religion where we can choose it, not where it's forced upon us.

That's a pretty strong accusation. How about being a man and backing it up? In what way have we acted like Nazis?

Discussing with you is like watching the WWF... much bluster and no real substance. You've acted like Nazis in forcing your belief into government. Just like Adolf did. You're screaming about activist judges, liberal this and liberal that... all to force your belief into every branch of government. Once entrenched, you'll be able to rewrite laws in favor of your belief.

But you have yet to offer any verifiable evidence that YOUR particular belief is the correct one. It's what you BELIEVE and what you're FORCING upon the nation. You've got a majority for now, but that doesn't make you right. Hence, the comparison to Nazis.




.

 

[12volt_man]

Spin spin spin... in the end, we'll argue for days and you will eventually say that a person is ensouled at conception, thus anything you do after that point is considered murder. It's what it always boils down to... souls. Souls and you legislating your unsupported belief.

Actually, I don't say that and no prolife person I know says that. The fact that you can't give an example to back up your claims shows me that you know this, too.

Again, it comes down to your belief that your deity will decide and that supercedes everyone and everything. Everytime you say "moral" what you're really saying is "my deity."

Or so you say but you haven't answered the question. The issue of implied consent is a legal one, not a theological one.

Creationism is a falsified scientific theory. If you wish it taught in a science class what will be taught is that in the mid-1800s this theory was falsified by Christian scientists.

Irrelevant. The fact that you disagree with Creationism is beside the point and doesn't answer the question.

To teach it as a valid theory means you also have to teach that the Earth is flat, that it's in the center of the Universe, that the Earth rides on the back of a giant tortoise and that Aliens might also be the creators.

Why must you teach these things when teaching creation? If you know so little about creationism to know that creationism (or, at least Biblical creationism) doesn't teach anything even remotely resembling these things, are you really qualified to say that we shouldn't teach it?

"Teaching both views" really means, "teach Christianity." That's what's wrong with it.

No it doesn't. First of all, creationism and Christianity are two different things.

Second, Christianity is not the only religion that believes that a design requires a designer.

And that's one of the largest mistakes you make... nobody is saying there isn't a creator. What we're saying is that IF there is a creator, evolution is the method by which the creator works.

Except that evolution is inconsistent with the idea of an intelligent creator.

I suggest we should teach the facts and leave the religion where we can choose it, not where it's forced upon us.

I agree.

Discussing with you is like watching the WWF... much bluster and no real substance.

I beg your pardon, but I've backed up my statements, you haven't. You're the one who makes outrageous accusations and refuses to back them up.

You've acted like Nazis in forcing your belief into government. Just like Adolf did.

And yet, you can't give one example?

You're screaming about activist judges, liberal this and liberal that... all to force your belief into every branch of government.

So then, we're Nazis for decrying activist judges, when activist judges are the very model of facism, which is what Nazism was?

I think you're a little confused about who the Nazis were.

How are we "acting like Nazis" for standing up for the Constitution? If we're acting like Nazis for decrying liberal beliefs, then why aren't liberals acting like Nazis for their attacks on conservatives?

Once entrenched, you'll be able to rewrite laws in favor of your belief.

Who? What laws? Don't you think there have been enough Christians in Congress in the last 230 years that someone would have tried this by now?

But you have yet to offer any verifiable evidence that YOUR particular belief is the correct one.

You're right. I haven't. That's not my job and it was never my point in this thread.

My point was just to point out the utter stupidity of your statements.

It's what you BELIEVE and what you're FORCING upon the nation. You've got a majority for now, but that doesn't make you right. Hence, the comparison to Nazis.

So, you can't show that anybody's being persecuted and we're Nazis because you claim that Christians are a majority, a fact you have not proven and which I do not believe.

Do you have a clue at all what an idiot you're making yourself out to be?

 

[12volt_man]

I will continue to equate you with Nazis until you change your behavior. I see Fundie Evangelical Christians doing just what Hitler did. Scaring the **** out of the people in order to legislate your belief. I'm not against Christianity, I'm against the people abusing Christianity. There's an immense difference...

You haven't shown that any one is scaring anyone or trying to legislate Christian beliefs. You haven't shown that anyone has abused Christianity. You haven't drawn any links between Christianity and Nazism.

And then, when I'm the one who has demonstrated my claims and shown you the respect of offering thoughtful responses to you, you call me "all bluster and no substance".

Is this hypocrisy and bizzare behavior typical?

 

[12volt_man]

Please be accurate. Stem cell research has to do with fertility clinics' supply of extra fetuses from donors, which, after donor has given birth to a child or wishes to end treatment, is usually disposed of. Instead of disposing them, stem cell research uses these (so instead of being destroyed anyway, it is used to find cures for the paralyzed, etc.). If you're against this practice, then maybe you should also be against fertility clinics since they also "take human life" if that's how you term what they do.

Excuse me, I never said I was for or against stem cell research. Had you bothered to ask, rather than attack me, you would have seen that I favor stem cell research but please don't let that stop you from trying to smear me.

I was just explaining that, among the mainstream, the argument against it has nothing to do with when the soul enters the body.