Who thinks religion has out lived it's purpose?

wade said:
Zhukov,

The old testament says "an eye for an eye". The new testament says "turn the other cheek". Bush is a born again - a follower of Christ and the new testament. Or so he says.

You seem to think that because Christ told us we are to turn the other cheek and extend mercy to imply he said that justice should not be carried out. I dont think thats what he was saying at all. Mercy cannot rob justice. We may be told to turn the other cheek when we are hit, but that doesnt mean a government body cannot execute justice when a convict has slaughtered innocent people.

I am confused why the left believes that capital punishment is so evil, yet abortion is so good. Why is it bad to execute a murderer or traitor, but good to kill an innocent child?

Also, im not sure whether i should be amused or confused that there are so many nonchristians telling us what we believe. I mean really who is the greater authority on what we believe? The nonbeliever or us? I think ill go with the amused. What i find so amusing about alot of this is its supposed to be the Christians that are so "self righteous".
 
Avatar4321 said:
I am confused why the left believes that capital punishment is so evil, yet abortion is so good. Why is it bad to execute a murderer or traitor, but good to kill an innocent child?

I personally am opposed to the Death Penalty because I do not believe in giving the State the power to take life.

And, I personally am against abortion.
 
Avatar4321 said:
Well it looks like it disagrees with two dictionaries we just cited, but ill take your word fdor it



I happen to be the top authority of what God has or has not told me. I dont appreciate your arrogant assumptions otherwise. There are probably more tha 6 billion people in the world that dont share my belief. So what? doesnt make it any less true. But then i dont tell people to take my word for it. I tell them to go to the source and find out if what im saying is accurate enough.

I wasn't trying to offend. But since you hadn't made the argument that god had "told you", I was making the assumption you were referencing the bible. If that's not the case, I stand corrected.
And truth, like beauty is in the eye of the beholder.


Avatar4321 said:
Probably because its a very silly question. All men and women can be Christians if the have faith in Christ and repent. The steps are the same whether your gay, straight, black. white, jew or gentile. If you dont understand this, then you dont understand the entire point of the Gospel.

It's not a silly question at all. Would you accept a homosexual who lived their life according to the teachings of the bible in all ways except for their sexual habits into your church? Are they unable to be saved unless they denounce their sexuality? If they repent, are they no longer gay?
 
Avatar4321 said:
You seem to think that because Christ told us we are to turn the other cheek and extend mercy to imply he said that justice should not be carried out. I dont think thats what he was saying at all. Mercy cannot rob justice. We may be told to turn the other cheek when we are hit, but that doesnt mean a government body cannot execute justice when a convict has slaughtered innocent people.

I am confused why the left believes that capital punishment is so evil, yet abortion is so good. Why is it bad to execute a murderer or traitor, but good to kill an innocent child?

Also, im not sure whether i should be amused or confused that there are so many nonchristians telling us what we believe. I mean really who is the greater authority on what we believe? The nonbeliever or us? I think ill go with the amused. What i find so amusing about alot of this is its supposed to be the Christians that are so "self righteous".

The "left" does not think abortion is "so good". The position is that a woman has the right to choose whether or not to allow her body to be used as an incubator. But more than that, the position is that if the rich are to be allowed to utilize abortion as an option, so should all women. I personally believe abortion should be restricted, increasingly so, over a relatively short period of time until it is limited to very early in the term only (with exceptions for severe disease or congenital defects and in cases where the mothers life is seriously threatened).

The problem with the death penalty is that it is a fact that innocent people have been executed. I am in favor of the death penalty, but only in cases where the guilt of the accused is beyond all doubt. This basically means recorded clearly on video or witnessed by multiple individuals (and even witnesses would only suffice under some circumstances as mis-identification is all too common), or other overwhelming evidence. And, if it is ever found that an innocent has been executed under these standards, executions should cease. It is totally unacceptable for any innocent person to be executed by the state.

Wade.
 
Avatar4321 said:
You seem to think that because Christ told us we are to turn the other cheek and extend mercy to imply he said that justice should not be carried out.

I am confused why the left believes that capital punishment is so evil, yet abortion is so good. Why is it bad to execute a murderer or traitor, but good to kill an innocent child?

Also, im not sure whether i should be amused or confused that there are so many nonchristians telling us what we believe. I mean really who is the greater authority on what we believe?
I have had Christians lecture about it’s not my decision to pass judgment on another, it was God who would do this. So the doctrine say's it's ok for a Christian Jury to arrange the metting with God?
Was it not Jesus who said he among you is without sin cast the first stone and he then saved a life that was sentenced to death? Didn’t he try to teach his follower to follow his example?

As far as abortion, I think that maybe they get justification is in the conception argument.
It’s funny that the so-called bleeding heart liberals would support the right to kill babies; it would almost seem like that should be a conservative view.

I agree with you. People who do not share your ideology/religion should not be telling you how you to follow it.
 
White knight said:
I know I will rattle some cages on this one.

Who thinks that religion may have outlived it purpose, and may now be counter productive to the world.

Lets hear it.

I don't necessarily think it's "outlived" its purpose.. However, I do feel that too many people use it as a crutch, and others use it as an excuse, and still others use it as a bullying tactic.

I disagree with organized religion as a whole, and believe that people should step up and take responsibility for their actions, and decisions, rather than putting everything in "God's hands", and stating "I found God, and this is what he told me to do"....
 
Shattered said:
I don't necessarily think it's "outlived" its purpose.. However, I do feel that too many people use it as a crutch, and others use it as an excuse, and still others use it as a bullying tactic.

I disagree with organized religion as a whole, and believe that people should step up and take responsibility for their actions, and decisions, rather than putting everything in "God's hands", and stating "I found God, and this is what he told me to do"....

So a spiritual tool is ok with you-----you just don't think some people are using it correctly?
 
dilloduck said:
So a spiritual tool is ok with you-----you just don't think some people are using it correctly?

I'll admit I'm not 100% sure... What I've seen of organized religion (especially Christianity) has pushed me away from it, and made me detest (for lack of a better word) it... I don't have a "spiritual tool" that I believe in.. I don't believe in a higher power, etc. I do believe in myself, and use my own morals as guides in my life. On the other hand, I don't begrudge others what they think they need to get by in life, since it takes all kinds..
 
Shattered said:
I'll admit I'm not 100% sure... What I've seen of organized religion (especially Christianity) has pushed me away from it, and made me detest (for lack of a better word) it... I don't have a "spiritual tool" that I believe in.. I don't believe in a higher power, etc. I do believe in myself, and use my own morals as guides in my life. On the other hand, I don't begrudge others what they think they need to get by in life, since it takes all kinds..

That's why I remain somewhat agnostic but have found Many helpful tenets from studying a variety of religious writings . It's hard to judge a religion by those who are still learning how to practice it
 
MissileMan said:
You blew right past the first accepted definition of tolerance in your own link. Tolerance is not about ignoring, it's about accepting.

Yes, and then I used both the 2nd and 3rd definitions. You can do that. It is unreasonable to expect people to accept something like homosexual behavior if their religious moral code specifically prohibits it. It is not however unreasonable to expect them to tolerate it in the sense of the 2nd and 3rd definitions.


wade said:
The old testament says "an eye for an eye". The new testament says "turn the other cheek". Bush is a born again - a follower of Christ and the new testament.

Last I checked Christian bibles have both books, and Christians follow the whole thing.
 
White knight said:
I have had Christians lecture about it’s not my decision to pass judgment on another, it was God who would do this. So the doctrine say's it's ok for a Christian Jury to arrange the metting with God?

As far as abortion, I think that maybe they get justification is in the conception argument.
It’s funny that the so-called bleeding heart liberals would support the right to kill babies; it would almost seem like that should be a conservative view.

I agree with you. People who do not share your ideology/religion should not be telling you how you to follow it.

But you have no trouble telling religious people how to live I see !
 
Zhukov said:
I accept 'tolerance' as "the capacity to endure hardship or pain."
As in building up a tolerance to bee stings.

Zhukov said:
at worst....

"Leeway for variation from a standard"

As in torque the nut to 70 inch lbs. with a tolerance of +/- 5 inch lbs.

Neither of these definitions have anything to do with tolerance as it applies to other's beliefs or practices. It is like saying that all of your posts are invalid because they aren't part of a fence.
 
Shattered said:
I don't necessarily think it's "outlived" its purpose.. However, I do feel that too many people use it as a crutch, and others use it as an excuse, and still others use it as a bullying tactic.

I disagree with organized religion as a whole, and believe that people should step up and take responsibility for their actions, and decisions, rather than putting everything in "God's hands", and stating "I found God, and this is what he told me to do"....

Nicely put.
 
dilloduck said:
I remain somewhat agnostic but have found Many helpful tenets from studying a variety of religious writings .
I would tend to agree with this statement. Simple life’s truth’s can be found in religious doctrines. One could almost liken them to a road map or blueprint of human behaviors.
Take the last supper for example. Jesus sitting among friends to break bread, some one in his inner group enjoying his company and sharing a meal with him, will stab him in the back.
We can see something similar to this in a lot of humanity’s so called saviors, Gandhi, Martin Luther king, JFK… Or just turn on a reality TV show, and you can watch these micro dramas play out.

dilloduck said:
But you have no trouble telling religious people how to live I see !
No it is them who tell me that I am living wrong. I don’t think there is a lot of tolerance for non-religious people in the holiest of holy lands.
 
Zhukov said:
Last I checked Christian bibles have both books [Old and New Testaments], and Christians follow the whole thing.

Yep. And since the two contradict one another in so many respects, Christians can use the bible to justify just about any action they wish to take. Typically they condem others who do not "turn the other cheek" when they wrong them, yet when they are wronged they suddenly believe in "an eye for an eye". A very convienient aspect to Christianity - choose the book/philosophy which suits your interests as it pleases you, and use God's word as the rationalization.
 
To answer this question, we'd have to first agree on what religions purpose really is. And this would be a major debat in and of itself.
 
MissileMan said:
Neither of these definitions have anything to do with tolerance as it applies to other's beliefs or practices.

Sure they do.

At any rate take the definition you like, now do an internet search on homosexuality, tolerance, and acceptance. You'll see that for most people discussing this topic tolerance and acceptance are treated as two wholly different things.

I'm sorry if you don't like that.
 
wade said:
Yep. And since the two contradict one another in so many respects, Christians can use the bible to justify just about any action they wish to take. Typically they condem others who do not "turn the other cheek" when they wrong them, yet when they are wronged they suddenly believe in "an eye for an eye". A very convienient aspect to Christianity - choose the book/philosophy which suits your interests as it pleases you, and use God's word as the rationalization.


Well, the 'eye for an eye' passage was pretty liberal at the time. The real significance of the phrase is not revenge, it's justice. It wasn't a passage to require punishment, it actually limited punishment. If you lost an eye, you could not take two, or murder the individual, you could only take one. It's about fairness and public legality.

The turn the other cheek doesn't apply to anything serious I don't think. I think that's just for minor insults between private individuals.
 
dilloduck said:
No religious organizations take care of more people than the UN .

Are you referring to the Oil For Food program in which the UN helped feed the starving children of Iraq?

Coffe Anan and his sons are starving. Why hasn't the UN helped them with a few morsels of bread?
 
White knight said:
No it is them who tell me that I am living wrong. I don’t think there is a lot of tolerance for non-religious people in the holiest of holy lands.

You are right of course. In Israel there are people of all faiths including atheists and agnostics living in the land of the Jewish people. All have the same rights to live, work, worship, not worship, vote and have positions in the government of Israel.

This right does not apply to mass murderers and baby killers wanting to murder the peaceful citizens of Israel.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top