Anti-Christianity Thread

[Yurt]

Pray tell us how destroying sin is bloodthirsty. How protecting God's people from people who would destroy them bloodthirsty?

How is being "slow to anger" bloodthirsty.

Or are you telling us that if your children (assuming you had them) were being attacked by killers, that you would stand by and yell loudly for them to stop or, or, or, else, cause I won't interfere because I am not a bloodthristy person?

For what you have posted as beign bloodthirsty is anything but, it is the reality of sin. That is why the price of sin is death. It all makes sense. Not bloodthristy as you would have us believe.

 

[KarlMarx]

Yes, the Christian Church, the bastion of ignorance and intolerance.

After the fall of the Roman Empire and the burning of the library at Alexandria, the Church took it upon itself to preserve the works of the ancient Greeks and Romans. Because of this, the works of Plato, Aristotle, Euclid, Aeschylus and others survive.

The preservation of the learning of the Greeks and Romans eventually led to the revival of learning during the Renaissance. The Renaissance, which produced the works of Da Vinci, MichaelAngelo, Titian and the advances in science that came afterwards.

The Church is also responsible for the founding of the many centers of learning that still exist today, Cambridge University, Oxford, Trinity College, Harvard, Yale, those were started by Christians.

Yes, gotta hand it to those Christians, just full of ignorance and intolerance.... like the philosophers I mentioned in that other thread, Thomas Aquinas, Descartes (as in Cartesian Geometry ... y=mx+b, remember that?)....

As for being intolerant, the Catholic Church is responsible for the care of 25% of the world's HIV/AIDS victims, it also provides medicine, food, clothing and an education to many poor people throughout the world.

While it is true that during the 2,0000 year history of the church, Christians have on occassion committed atrocites in order to spread the faith, they primarily did so by peaceful means e.g. preaching the Gospel, performing good works. Islam, on the other hand, was spread by the use of force, as was atheistic Communism. Communism, not religion, was responsible for more deaths during the 20th century (more than 100 million people).

 

[Abbey Normal]

Karl, the most intolerant person on the board now is Kal-el. 'Nuff said.

 

[Gunny]

Karl, the most intolerant person on the board now is Kal-el. 'Nuff said.

Not so ..... I distinctly recall his asking for tolerance for those criminals sentenced to death .....

Not to mention he thinks Saddam was done wrong .....

 

[no1tovote4]

Originally Posted by kal-el
Open mind, yes, I like to think ouside the box, not blindly believe wht some book tells me like some little obedient sheep.



My whole point is I'm attempting to make everyone think rationally. I'm not saying there definetly isn't a god, but there's a huge lack of evidence for such an entity.

You wouldn't think that Pascal's Wager is rational?

Just because some people have faith in a Deity doesn't make them irrational any more than suggesting that since there is no evidence you will accept there must not be one at all would be rational. There is an equal lack of evidence to disprove the existence of such a Deity. It takes just as much faith to believe that there is not a God as it does to believe that there is one. The truly rational people would be agnostic, not atheist.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

I think for him...seduce = new jar of lotion.

Dont you mean KY jelly?

 

[Avatar4321]

Which is more plausible?

Mary was really a virgin who was impregnated without sexual intercourse.

Mary had sex out of wedlock and said her pregnancy occured despite being a virgin to keep from being stoned or at the very least ostracized from society. (hint - if so, she surely wouldn't have been the first to try that lie in those days)

Mary didn't try to cover anything up - actually had sex though, and "virgin birth" is simply a mistranslation of a phrase which really means a woman who is pregnant out of wedlock?


?

What is so hard to believe that a virgin could become impregnant without sex? I mean science could do that nowadays. Why would God who knows a heck of alot more than any of us be unable to do it millinium ago?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Some things are better left to faith. No one can prove that Mary was a virgin, nor that Jesus rose from the dead. It's not worth the discussion. ST isn't interested in edifying himself in terms of our faith. He simply wants to attack Christianity.

But, ST has managed to prove is that he's an obnoxious troll that doesn't seem to have any respect for others. He likes to hang labels like "bigot" on others, but then he turns around and shows just how bigoted he is.

ST - here's a word you ought to learn while you're at university --- RESPECT. You'll find that, if you put your attitude aside, you'll manage to get along with people, even those who you don't agree with.

Actually, I was just trying to see which Christians would admit that the story of Jesus as presented in the Bible is rather fantastic and hard to believe and which would be jackasses.


Seems like you must doubt your faith. When I point out how implausible your belief system is, instead of saying that "yes, it is implausible, but I have my faith" you spout off some tirade of insults. You must be hiding something.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Which is more plausible?
Spidey spends time doing some actual thinking before he posts or

spidey just likes to bash conservatives and cares little if it makes any sense or not ?

Where did I bash anyone? The word "conservative" wasn't even in my post. I was talking about Christianity. Why do you have to make everything into some sort of political war? It was a simple question.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Given that:

1. God, through His prophet Isaiah, foretold the birth of the Messiah to a virgin 700 years before the event;

2. God, being perfectly holy, cannot lie;

3. God, being able to do anything that is intrinsically possible to do, is able to create a fertilized egg cell in the womb of a human being;

4. Mary knew that the punishment for fornication/adultery was death, and would have avoided such behavior;

then the most plausible option would be that Jesus really was born of a virgin.

As far as your point #4 goes, are you claiming that the punishment of death was actually such a good deterrent that no one ever had sex out of wedlock in those days?

Because that would seem ridiculous. Ridiculous things have been punishable by death for millenia, yet people continue to do these things. In many Muslim countries - women are killed by their family if they are caught having sex out of wedlock - and women are actually killed for this, because, despite the threat of death, they still do it.


As for your first 3 points, all you've established is that the Messiah will be born to a virgin. What particular reason to you have to believe that Mary was that particular virgin?

How do you know that Isaiah was a prophet of God, anyway?

 

[dmp]

Ever see that fedEX commercial, Tuba? The one where that guy is 'always wrong'.

You, friend, are ALWAYS wrong. It's FRINGE BENEFITS...not FRENCH Benefits...

 

[dilloduck]

Actually, I was just trying to see which Christians would admit that the story of Jesus as presented in the Bible is rather fantastic and hard to believe and which would be jackasses.


Seems like you must doubt your faith. When I point out how implausible your belief system is, instead of saying that "yes, it is implausible, but I have my faith" you spout off some tirade of insults. You must be hiding something.

Oh you trickster you ! You might just try asking if you are really that interested. I very plainly posted that your scenario was more plausible but never stated that the Christian belief was "implausible". Trying to explain faith to a resistant dumbass is sort of pointless but folks are nice enough to try to give it a shot. You should be grateful instead of critical.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Which is more plausible?

Mary was really a virgin who was impregnated without sexual intercourse.

Mary had sex out of wedlock and said her pregnancy occured despite being a virgin to keep from being stoned or at the very least ostracized from society. (hint - if so, she surely wouldn't have been the first to try that lie in those days)

Mary didn't try to cover anything up - actually had sex though, and "virgin birth" is simply a mistranslation of a phrase which really means a woman who is pregnant out of wedlock?


?

according to scientists, isnt it more plausable that bumblebees cant fly?
YET they do.

Limiting God to plausabilities, C'mon man, get real

 

[dmp]

according to scientists, isnt it more plausable that bumblebees cant fly?
YET they do.

Not really...Science has never said "Bumbles shouldn't be able to fly".

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Where did I bash anyone? The word "conservative" wasn't even in my post. I was talking about Christianity. Why do you have to make everything into some sort of political war? It was a simple question.

Which is more plausable

Tubby asked a simple question without any hidden motives (not really so well hidden)

Or Tubby was trying to backhandidly bash Christianity.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Not really...Science has never said "Bumbles shouldn't be able to fly".

so thats just one of those urban myths?

Possible.

Point still stands, plausabilities dont always,in fact, often dont, lead us to the truth.

EDIT: Ok, a little research shows that at one time, maybe when areodynamics was just emerging, some aerodynamic engineers or scientists made the claim.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Oh you trickster you ! You might just try asking if you are really that interested. I very plainly posted that your scenario was more plausible but never stated that the Christian belief was "implausible". Trying to explain faith to a resistant dumbass is sort of pointless but folks are nice enough to try to give it a shot. You should be grateful instead of critical.

Thats damn funny! YOU DID give the answer he was saying he was looking for, but he totally ignored it and focused on the responses that didnt, yet he claimed he was hoping to get a response like yours, but he ignored it. hahahhahaha

 

[LuvRPgrl]

As far as your point #4 goes, are you claiming that the punishment of death was actually such a good deterrent that no one ever had sex out of wedlock in those days?

Because that would seem ridiculous. Ridiculous things have been punishable by death for millenia, yet people continue to do these things. In many Muslim countries - women are killed by their family if they are caught having sex out of wedlock - and women are actually killed for this, because, despite the threat of death, they still do it.
?

This is something you and PM do ALL THE TIME. It is why your world view is so off.

He DIDNT say NOBODY would have sex outside marriage, only that MARY wouldnt, but YOUR CONCLUSION is that HE IS SAYING NOBODY would.

He differentiates Mary from others because she is a devout follower of the law.

Get it?

 

[Abbey Normal]

This is something you and PM do ALL THE TIME. It is why your world view is so off.

He DIDNT say NOBODY would have sex outside marriage, only that MARY wouldnt, but YOUR CONCLUSION is that HE IS SAYING NOBODY would.

He differentiates Mary from others because she is a devout follower of the law.

Get it?

Why bother debating someone whose sole purpose in coming here is to spread his utter contempt for Christianity? Do you think you will change his thinking ? It's worse than a waste of time. I couldn't care less how Spidey chooses to live his bitter and angry life, but he apparently is very much bothered by the way Christians choose to live ours. He is polluting the board with his incessant Christophobic diatribes, and I for one find it predictable, sad, and a huge waste of time.

 

[5stringJeff]

As far as your point #4 goes, are you claiming that the punishment of death was actually such a good deterrent that no one ever had sex out of wedlock in those days?

Because that would seem ridiculous. Ridiculous things have been punishable by death for millenia, yet people continue to do these things. In many Muslim countries - women are killed by their family if they are caught having sex out of wedlock - and women are actually killed for this, because, despite the threat of death, they still do it.

Well, since Mary was favored of God (see Luke 1:28,30), and submitted herself to God's decree (Lk 1:38), then we can make the logical conclusion that she would have sought to follow the Mosaic Law, which forbade adultery and fornication. I'm not saying that no one had premarital sex. I'm saying Mary didn't have premarital sex.

As for your first 3 points, all you've established is that the Messiah will be born to a virgin. What particular reason to you have to believe that Mary was that particular virgin?

How do you know that Isaiah was a prophet of God, anyway?

Check out the 121 prophecies of Isaiah that Jesus Christ fulfilled, to include the prophecy that He would be born of a virgin, and then tell me whether you think we can confirm that Isaiah was a prophet.