Why I Am Not A Christian

[Newby]

There is a difference between not backing up your claims and trying to deliberately deceive someone. I think you're way too quick to call your opponents liars.

Maybe that would be true if she hadn't continued to say the same thing over and over several times after having been asked to back them up but did nothing. I don't see an honest mistake there, I see deliberate intensions.

I see someone who has a bias against Christian activism, and apparent hyprocrisy, not a liar.

And it's your perogative to give the benefit of the doubt, I choose not to in this case, as is my perogative.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Maybe that would be true if she hadn't continued to say the same thing over and over several times after having been asked to back them up but did nothing. I don't see an honest mistake there, I see deliberate intensions.

I see someone who has a bias against Christian activism, and apparent hyprocrisy, not a liar.

And it's your perogative to give the benefit of the doubt, I choose not to in this case, as is my perogative.

Where do I stand with you? You've called me dishonest too.

 

[Newby]

I see someone who has a bias against Christian activism, and apparent hyprocrisy, not a liar.

And it's your perogative to give the benefit of the doubt, I choose not to in this case, as is my perogative.

Where do I stand with you? You've called me dishonest too.

You stand in good stead with me, at least you are respectful, which I appreciate.

 

[Yukon.]

Madeline,

Forgive me my hild if I mislead you. I didnt mean to leave you with the impression that I thought you were trying to shame others. On the contrary. It is your inteligent posts that lead to their shame because they are incapable of responding in kind. Unfortunately idiocy begets idiocy.

 

[CurveLight]

You know what I think Curve, I think it's easy for you to use the rationalization that those of us that oppose abortion are just out to control everyone else's life. Why the hell would I give a damn about what anyone else does with their life? It's about the death of innocent life that we're supposed to be protecting, it has nothing to do with control. But you go on telling yourself that if it's the only way you can understand since you can't understand why I would want to protect innocent life. I think it's amazing how we can condemn murder in our society, but let millions be murdered by their own flesh and blood and call it 'privacy'.

What are common positions among anti-choicers?


Pro-death penalty

Pro-war

Anti-equal healthcare

Anti-equal education

Anti-gay marriage

I know not all positions apply to you but the only common thread throughout those positions are based in control. You revealed yourself when you spent more time justifying your position based on the sexual practices of women versus the pregnancy itself. Let's apply your logic to other areas:

If you get in a car accident....so what? You know driving or riding in vehicles and lead to accidents so people who lose limb and life have no one to blame but themselves.

If you take an airplane and it crashes...so what? You know planes can crash.

Yeah, 'group' people together based on how they feel about certain moral areas, that'll really work.

You've attributed positions to me that I neither said I had or even implied that I had, so there's no point in even further discussing this when the discussion can't be honest. Same goes for Madeline, that's all she knows how to do, maybe someday people will learn to debate and discuss issues honestly.

Oh boy. How did you overlook where I said:

"I know not all positions apply to you ...."

You accuse me of being dishonest after I pointed out not all positions apply to you. Looks like you couldn't handle defending your position so you looked for any escape hatch. Your complaint about "honesty" is sad.

 

[CurveLight]

Anti-choicers? That's a new one.....

Actually, I've questioned my stance on the death penalty as I have gotten older. That's a tough one to deal with. But, even if someone is executed, that is the punishment for their crime. An unborn child has commited no crime.

I'm not pro-war, but I do support our troops and also understand what was done in Iraq was something that had to be done. I'm sure that there are millions of Jews that wish someone had stepped forward and in the case of Iraq, the US was following through with MANY UN resolutions that were ignored by Iraq.

I'm not anti-equal healthcare - but I'm damn sick and tired of going to work everyday, doing the responsible thing, only to have my money taken to cover those who are not nearly as responsible.

I'm not anti-equal education - I believe in the voucher system. It's about educating the children, not pandering to the NEA.

And as for anti-gay marriage, I believe that there is a minority of people who want this. But, as has been proven by ELECTIONS, the MAJORITY of voters are not. In this country, the majority makes the rules.

And your analogy is stupid.

Looks like you fit every single issue so your positions are based on control and not morals or principles. You Godwinned Iraq then accused me of putting forth a bad analogy? We've been killing people in iraq for over 20 consecutive years. We've killed a hell of a lot more iraqis than saddam ever did. We violated the UN with the invasion and occupation but you cite the UN as justification? You really really truly seriously do not understand the first thing about Iraq.

You are not pro-life if you support the death penalty and war and I'm sick of anti-choicers trying to claim a moral high ground using a dishonest term. That is why I reference the term "anti-choicer" because that is exactly what you are if you wish to outlaw abortions.

Your defense of being against gay marriage further reveals the "control" issue. What would you say if the majority of voters stated short people could not get married? Would you really state that is legit? America was built on the idea of equality so a "majority" ruling on equal rights is bullshit. You cannot justify granting bits and pieces of the Constitution based on how many bigots vote.

 

[CurveLight]

For Mad and Sky.

What a surprise, progressive politics bullying people with their 'moral' values, or lack thereof using the force of government. I could probably post a hundred links to similar stories across the country where progressives are using government to force their values on everyone else in their community. But, it's christians that do these sorts of things, right? Why don't you people try for once to be honest with your bullshit claims. They're even over riding what parents feel should be taught to their children or in this case given to their children. Tell me again how Christians are over riding your society with their morals?

School committee in Provincetown, Massachusetts approves elementary school condom distribution plan

School committee in Provincetown, Massachusetts approves elementary school condom distribution plan

June 12, 9:02 AMSex Education Examiner Sarah Estrella

New no-minimum-age condom distribution policy approved for Provincetown SchoolsAccording to a report in the Provincetown Banner yesterday, this week the school committee in Provincetown, MA unanimously approved a new condom distribution policy for the Provincetown Public Schools, including both Provincetown High School and Veterans Memorial Elementary School.

The policy requires students to speak with a school nurse or other trained counselor to receive the free condoms, but is notable because it does not have a minimum age limit and also because the policy explicitly states that "the school district will not honor requests from parents that students not be allowed to receive condoms."

The most controversial portion of the policy seems to have been over requiring students to speak with a nurse or counselor to get the condoms.

So what's the problem? If they really wanted effective birth control they could just post pics of rosie odonnel in a bra on bulletin boards.

 

[Newby]

For Mad and Sky.

What a surprise, progressive politics bullying people with their 'moral' values, or lack thereof using the force of government. I could probably post a hundred links to similar stories across the country where progressives are using government to force their values on everyone else in their community. But, it's christians that do these sorts of things, right? Why don't you people try for once to be honest with your bullshit claims. They're even over riding what parents feel should be taught to their children or in this case given to their children. Tell me again how Christians are over riding your society with their morals?

School committee in Provincetown, Massachusetts approves elementary school condom distribution plan

School committee in Provincetown, Massachusetts approves elementary school condom distribution plan

June 12, 9:02 AMSex Education Examiner Sarah Estrella

New no-minimum-age condom distribution policy approved for Provincetown SchoolsAccording to a report in the Provincetown Banner yesterday, this week the school committee in Provincetown, MA unanimously approved a new condom distribution policy for the Provincetown Public Schools, including both Provincetown High School and Veterans Memorial Elementary School.

The policy requires students to speak with a school nurse or other trained counselor to receive the free condoms, but is notable because it does not have a minimum age limit and also because the policy explicitly states that "the school district will not honor requests from parents that students not be allowed to receive condoms."

The most controversial portion of the policy seems to have been over requiring students to speak with a nurse or counselor to get the condoms.

So what's the problem? If they really wanted effective birth control they could just post pics of rosie odonnel in a bra on bulletin boards.

Something I can agree with.

 

[CurveLight]

Something I can agree with.

I see the condom issue as trying to break the stigma of demonizing sexual aspects of being human. Instead of keeping sex a dirty kind of dark closet secret we should focus more on realizing by making it a taboo subject you are creating more problems than you are avoiding. If you compare alcohol consumption practices between the US and Europe you'll see Europe has far few alcohol related problems. This is because the cultures approach education on alcohol quite differently thus kids growing up in Europe don't reach a tipping point of binges. Plus, how fucking stoopid is it we will give an 18 year old an automatic weapon, fly him 6,000 miles away from home to have him kill people he never met, but will throw his ass in jail if he has a beer?

P-Town is also a rare kind of place so I'm not surprised it passed. If we treat children as being too stoopid or immature to have candid discussions then they will find out basics the hard way.

 

[Madeline]

Thanks to Neubarth and Newby for illustrating my point: mainstream christianity is anti-sexual and anti-female. Anyone who does not fit your model of "sex within marriage" deserves all the horrors than denied medical care can heap on them...because you feel ready, willing and able to judge and decide for someone else, against their will.

If you two weren't being led by the nose, I'd call this delusional self-aggrandizement.

And thanks for proving my point that you believe morality is not absolute.

I am not sure how you drew that conclusion, The Light. I definately think the aim of mainstream christianity is evil in this regard, and the methods used to achieve it are utterly repugnant.

 

[Madeline]

What part of that do you have a problem with?

The part where science courses in public schools are hijacked by "creationists", where scientific discoveries are frustrated by opposition to stem cell research, where safer abortificants are withheld from the US public for "religious reasons", etc.

In short, I have a problem with anyone who elevates his own irrationality and frustrates science.

So since you cannot answer what problem you have with what I have said nor refute it scientifically; what problem do you have with creationists now?

You mean safer murder?

In short you have a problem with anyone who won't let you do what you see right in your own eyes.

I have a problem with people who are driven by religion to remove science from science classes or to withhold medical advances or care from others because they take issue with it.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Thanks to Neubarth and Newby for illustrating my point: mainstream christianity is anti-sexual and anti-female. Anyone who does not fit your model of "sex within marriage" deserves all the horrors than denied medical care can heap on them...because you feel ready, willing and able to judge and decide for someone else, against their will.

If you two weren't being led by the nose, I'd call this delusional self-aggrandizement.

And thanks for proving my point that you believe morality is not absolute.

I am not sure how you drew that conclusion, The Light. I definately think the aim of mainstream christianity is evil in this regard, and the methods used to achieve it are utterly repugnant.

I don't follow your statement. What do you think is the aim of 'mainstream christianity' and how is it evil and repugnant? What is 'mainstream' Christianity?

 

[Madeline]

The question I always love to ponder is " thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife" does that mean I can covet my neighbors husband?

Yep, until you get AIDS, herpes and fifteen other venereal diseases.

Remember, when there is a prohibition in scripture, it is usually there because of thousands of years of seeing the consequence of living without the prohibition. Back when eating pork could kill you, many religions forbade the consumption of pork.

Since liberal sex resulted in the spread of venereal disease and death therefrom, liberal sex was outlawed.

Just think about it, if there was no sex outside of marriage, there would be NO AIDS, and all those other venereal diseases. Makes sense, don't it?

Back when men were more prone to kill somebody for flirting with their wives, all conduct of that nature was prohibited by most religions. It resulted in far fewer men being killed because they "Looked" at another man's wife.

The reality is that if it saves lives and makes sense, most religions pick it up eventually.

You're a Christian that openly advocates incinerating millions of innocent lives purely based on geography. Forgive us if we ignore your opinion like Tiger Woods on a fidelity speech.

Even I know that Neubarth's view on the Bible is in error. Many, many biblicial figures had polyamorous lives. Sex was hardly confined to monogamous marriage beds.

 

[THE LIGHT]

Thanks to Neubarth and Newby for illustrating my point: mainstream christianity is anti-sexual and anti-female. Anyone who does not fit your model of "sex within marriage" deserves all the horrors than denied medical care can heap on them...because you feel ready, willing and able to judge and decide for someone else, against their will.

If you two weren't being led by the nose, I'd call this delusional self-aggrandizement.

And thanks for proving my point that you believe morality is not absolute.

I am not sure how you drew that conclusion, The Light. I definately think the aim of mainstream christianity is evil in this regard, and the methods used to achieve it are utterly repugnant.

Evil in what regard?

 

[THE LIGHT]

I have a problem with people who are driven by religion to remove science from science classes or to withhold medical advances or care from others because they take issue with it.

Same here. We just have a difference of religions. Mine is a religion of life and yours is a religion of death.

Of course, your religion contradicts itself by stating that we humans came from one single cell and YET, you find any way you can to excuse murdering innocent children having NOT ONE, but about 751,879,699,200,000 cells. So if you say life began with a single cell, how is 751,879,699,200,000 cells not life? How is that innocent child that you chop up with a coat hanger not a living thing yet a single cell is?

 

[Sky Dancer]

I have a problem with people who are driven by religion to remove science from science classes or to withhold medical advances or care from others because they take issue with it.

Same here. We just have a difference of religions. Mine is a religion of life and yours is a religion of death.

Of course, your religion contradicts itself by stating that we humans came from one single cell and YET, you find any way you can to excuse murdering innocent children having NOT ONE, but about 751,879,699,200,000 cells. So if you say life began with a single cell, how is 751,879,699,200,000 cells not life? How is that innocent child that you chop up with a coat hanger not a living thing yet a single cell is?

Huh?

 

[THE LIGHT]

Yep, until you get AIDS, herpes and fifteen other venereal diseases.

Remember, when there is a prohibition in scripture, it is usually there because of thousands of years of seeing the consequence of living without the prohibition. Back when eating pork could kill you, many religions forbade the consumption of pork.

Since liberal sex resulted in the spread of venereal disease and death therefrom, liberal sex was outlawed.

Just think about it, if there was no sex outside of marriage, there would be NO AIDS, and all those other venereal diseases. Makes sense, don't it?

Back when men were more prone to kill somebody for flirting with their wives, all conduct of that nature was prohibited by most religions. It resulted in far fewer men being killed because they "Looked" at another man's wife.

The reality is that if it saves lives and makes sense, most religions pick it up eventually.

You're a Christian that openly advocates incinerating millions of innocent lives purely based on geography. Forgive us if we ignore your opinion like Tiger Woods on a fidelity speech.

Even I know that Neubarth's view on the Bible is in error. Many, many biblicial figures had polyamorous lives. Sex was hardly confined to monogamous marriage beds.

There you go again, trying to put down someone else's religion to justify your failing ideologies.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

how is 751,879,699,200,000 cells not life?

Please, don't make up numbers. Your ignorance is astounding enough without you blatantly pooping out whatever happens to be the result of mashing your number pad. Again, please don't make up numbers.

And as for anti-gay marriage, I believe that there is a minority of people who want this. But, as has been proven by ELECTIONS, the MAJORITY of voters are not. In this country, the majority makes the rules.

At one point, the majority of the country was pro-slavery. It is the responsibility of the majority to look out for the interests of the minority, especially when the interests of the minority in no way interfere with the majority. Your reasoning is crap.

 

[THE LIGHT]

how is 751,879,699,200,000 cells not life?

Please, don't make up numbers. Your ignorance is astounding enough without you blatantly pooping out whatever happens to be the result of mashing your number pad. Again, please don't make up numbers.

Sorry for distracting you with numbers. Now, just imagine your favorite number greater than 1 and answer my question.

I'm not holding my breat by the way.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Well you know how you made up numbers that had nothing to do with the actual biology? The answer to your question is that you also make up definitions of terms that have nothing to do with the actual biology. A single celled embryo is a living cell, much like any other tissue in your body. Your intestine, for example, is comprised of living cells. Note how your intestine is not a live person, despite almost having the same number of nerves as your brain. It cannot survive outside the body. Let me know if you need help figuring out how that applies to an embryo.