Who believes in the OT?

Abbey Normal said:
Boy, you sure sound like someone who has been dying to pull that one out. Too bad you chose an illogical time to use it, sweetie. My explaining why I believe some people feel the need to debunk the Bible, has nothing to do with religious intolerance. Come on and tell me of which religion I am being intolerant?

What religion are you being intolerant of? How 'bout every one that doesn't believe the bible is literal. Oh...and btw, most sects of Judaism believe that the bible is allegorical. So you were saying, oh madame tolerance?

But then again, your M.O. is to claim Christian intolerance in just about every other post. :boohoo:

Only when it's there. And you give me such fodder for it. ;)

Hey btw, Jillian, can't we conservative girls have some of the winky and smiley icons and flirtatiousness you like to use with the conservative guys? All we females ever get is the Jillian (unwarranted) condescension. Sheesh, you'd never make it as a feminist. ;) :)

You feeling a bit jealous there, Abbey??? Maybe try not being nasty in every post and you'll get smilies, too.

ah....gave ya one for the heck of it...cause I'm just that kinda gal. :poke:

Gotta run now...

Laterz
 
jillian said:
What religion are you being intolerant of? How 'bout every one that doesn't believe the bible is literal. Oh...and btw, most sects of Judaism believe that the bible is allegorical. So you were saying, oh madame tolerance?



Only when it's there. And you give me such fodder for it. ;)



You feeling a bit jealous there, Abbey??? Maybe try not being nasty in every post and you'll get smilies, too.

ah....gave ya one for the heck of it...cause I'm just that kinda gal. :poke:

Gotta run now...

Laterz

*watching Jillian run like a striped ass ape *
 
jillian said:
What religion are you being intolerant of? How 'bout every one that doesn't believe the bible is literal. Oh...and btw, most sects of Judaism believe that the bible is allegorical. So you were saying, oh madame tolerance?



Only when it's there. And you give me such fodder for it. ;)



You feeling a bit jealous there, Abbey??? Maybe try not being nasty in every post and you'll get smilies, too.

ah....gave ya one for the heck of it...cause I'm just that kinda gal. :poke:

Gotta run now...

Laterz

You'll be fine once you to learn to differentiate between logical arguments and your subjective Christianphobic views. It's really quite simple, Ms. Deliberately Confused; people who post in order to debunk the Bible are intolerant of my religion. For you to try to claim the reverse is laughable.

And Jilly, how can I be intolerant of your religion, when you refuse to tell anyone what it is?

As for the smilies and the flirting, that's okay. I don't really need them. It is enough for me to shine a light on your anti-female ways.

Sisters, unite! :banana:

Laterz.
 
Jillian, in the interest of a clear debate, would you please provide your definition of "tolerance"?
 
Nienna said:
Jillian, in the interest of a clear debate, would you please provide your definition of "tolerance"?

Tolerance means people believing or not believing as they wish so long as they don't hurt anyone else.

We could talk about how religion shouldn't be politicized with the president making religious judgments for the rest of us, but I don't think that's what you were asking about.
 
Mr.Conley said:
Here's my question, how could Adam and Eve be thed sole progenators of the entire human race without massive, incest-induced, species-crippling, genetic flaws?

certainly explains the behaviour of a lot of liberals in california i know :cof:
 
Just to jump in here from a **qualified Christian perspective** ie. *Catholic*, we believe only the words of Christ, ie the Gospels, are to be taken 'literally,' and even with that, one must be careful as He was often speaking in analogies, allegories. The rest, esp. the OT were 'inspired' by God, so the 'interpretation' always has been fraught with warnings about 'deceivers'...We are not even crossing the problems with the Middle Ages and the monks...
 
jillian said:
Tolerance means people believing or not believing as they wish so long as they don't hurt anyone else.

I'm a little confused... No one can MAKE someone believe something, or STOP them from believing. I guess I'm wondering what you think tolerance means in terms of expression.
 
jillian said:
Tolerance means people believing or not believing as they wish so long as they don't hurt anyone else.

We could talk about how religion shouldn't be politicized with the president making religious judgments for the rest of us, but I don't think that's what you were asking about.
What does the President have to do with judgements on any of us? Are you speaking of him as President or him as an individual? See, I have tolerance enough to allow 'evangelicals' the right to speak from their heart. I may not agree with all they say, but I have tolerance enough to allow them to speak it, without demanding 'proof'. For 'proof' from any of us, from whatever perspective we come from, will come after we are gone. It's just the nature of faith.
 
Kathianne said:
What does the President have to do with judgements on any of us? Are you speaking of him as President or him as an individual? See, I have tolerance enough to allow 'evangelicals' the right to speak from their heart. I may not agree with all they say, but I have tolerance enough to allow them to speak it, without demanding 'proof'. For 'proof' from any of us, from whatever perspective we come from, will come after we are gone. It's just the nature of faith.

I was talking about his comments when he vetoed the stem cell research bill. 70 or 75% of the U.S. population wanted that bill. Almost 60% of Congress wanted it. Bush inserted his religious judgment into the equation.

I have no problem with evangelicals or anyone else speaking their mind if it doesn't hurt anyone else. I have great objections to them trying to replace science with their religious beliefs.
 
jillian said:
I was talking about his comments when he vetoed the stem cell research bill. 70 or 75% of the U.S. population wanted that bill. Almost 60% of Congress wanted it. Bush inserted his religious judgment into the equation.

I have no problem with evangelicals or anyone else speaking their mind if it doesn't hurt anyone else. I have great objections to them trying to replace science with their religious beliefs.
and you think those who disagreed with him didn't? I wouldn't want a President that didn't have moral fiber. I may not or might agree with him/her, but want them to be honest. You don't?
 
Kathianne said:
What does the President have to do with judgements on any of us? Are you speaking of him as President or him as an individual? See, I have tolerance enough to allow 'evangelicals' the right to speak from their heart. I may not agree with all they say, but I have tolerance enough to allow them to speak it, without demanding 'proof'. For 'proof' from any of us, from whatever perspective we come from, will come after we are gone. It's just the nature of faith.

I agree about faith, Kathianne.

It seems to me that there is major confusion, sincere or feigned, I'm not sure, between morals and religion. Being pro-life, for example, is not necessarily based on a particular religion's tenets, as evidenced by the fact that people of any and all religions are pro-life. Christians are the overwhelming majority in this country, so we are heard more. There are Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, perhaps even some agnostics and atheists, etc., who are also avidly pro-life. There are some things, like child abuse, that most people instinctively believe are wrong, without needing a book or a religious leader to tell them so. These are primarily value judgements. If organized religions are also pro-life, so be it.

Here's a question for the pro-choice folks out there: Since you think the President and others, by trying to outlaw abortion or fetal stem-cell research, have sinister "religious" motives for doing so, what do you think he and other Christians stand to personally gain from outlawing them? Do we have a plot for all those un-aborted or not experimented-upon babies to one day rise up and force you at gun point to confess Christ as your Savior?

As a corollary: What do you gain from outlawing murder?
 
jillian said:
I was talking about his comments when he vetoed the stem cell research bill. 70 or 75% of the U.S. population wanted that bill. Almost 60% of Congress wanted it. Bush inserted his religious judgment into the equation.

I have no problem with evangelicals or anyone else speaking their mind if it doesn't hurt anyone else. I have great objections to them trying to replace science with their religious beliefs.

divert divert divert....clang clang clang.........

1. i doubt if you put it to a general vote of the people it would win 3 to one....

and B.

which law have the evil neocons passed that replaces science with religious beliefs?.....
 
manu1959 said:
divert divert divert....clang clang clang.........

1. i doubt if you put it to a general vote of the people it would win 3 to one....

and B.

which law have the evil neocons passed that replaces science with religious beliefs?.....

You mean, which law have they vetoed by replacing science with their religious beliefs.

And which laws are they trying to get undone because of their religious beliefs....

And which laws are they trying to pass because of their religioius beliefs?

As for the vote... gee, maybe they should try it.
 
jillian said:
You mean, which law have they vetoed by replacing science with their religious beliefs.

And which laws are they trying to get undone because of their religious beliefs....

And which laws are they trying to pass because of their religioius beliefs?

As for the vote... gee, maybe they should try it.

Actually, it wasn't so much religious as it was moral beliefs. Bush has this crazy idea that unborn babies are actually alive and that they shouldn't be slaughtered wholesale on taxpayer dollars. It isn't because God says so. There's nothing in the Bible about it. It's just because he thinks it's wrong.
 
Hobbit said:
Actually, it wasn't so much religious as it was moral beliefs. Bush has this crazy idea that unborn babies are actually alive and that they shouldn't be slaughtered wholesale on taxpayer dollars. It isn't because God says so. There's nothing in the Bible about it. It's just because he thinks it's wrong.

Those "babies" could never be turned into a living being without the presence of embryonic stem-cell research. Yet, Bush displayed those "snowflake" kids behind him during the speech to prove his point.
 
jillian said:
You mean, which law have they vetoed by replacing science with their religious beliefs.

And which laws are they trying to get undone because of their religious beliefs....

And which laws are they trying to pass because of their religioius beliefs?

As for the vote... gee, maybe they should try it.

Certainly, there are religious grounds to objections to stem cell research. There are also religious grounds to objections to pedophilia and slavery. That doesn't make them less valid than objections based on science.

And how do you logically prove that slavery is wrong or pedophilia for that matter? I think you start with a definition, don't you? Something is morally wrong if it hurts someone else, or something like that. But isn't that what abortion does? Then you might claim that fetuses aren't human. OK, I'll assert, neither are blacks or Jews, so it must be OK to enslave or kill them. Who defines what a person is? What magic occurs when a fetus is delivered from its mother's womb to suddenly transform it into a person with legal rights? I could also ask, if it is legal for a woman to abort her fetus because it isn't a person, then, if a woman goes into labor before her due date, why can't a hospital refuse treatment stating that, no life is at risk since that thing the woman has in her belly is not a person. Or better yet, what if a woman is giving birth to a baby and there are complications, why shouldn't the physician be able to abort the baby on the spot? Is it simply because the woman wishes to have a baby that suddenly it's entitled to legal protections? So, my mother is the one who decides whether I should live or die? Isn't that the same as the massah/slave paradigm of the antebellum South? If there's a difference, it seems to be a small one.


Fetal stem cell research, from what little I've read about it, has yielded little, if any results.

In fact, the assertion that only "religious zealots" are opposed to fetal stem cell research isn't valid. This speech, given in 2001 by the president of the National Order of Rare Diseases is also critical of the hype for fetal stem cell research

http://www.rarediseases.org/news/speeches/stemcell

From this speech, it seems that the many who who advocate the research into gene therapy and into fetal stem cell research also work for companies that stand to benefit from these technologies. That should cast some doubt as to the objectivity of those who make claims for fetal stem cell research.

Frankly, I believe that some individuals who support embryonic stem cell research may be taking that position because merely because it is a means of justifying abortion rather than saving lives.

The is article also raises doubts about embryonic stem cells:

http://www.linacre.org/stemcell.html

1. Embryonic stem cells are very difficult to control.
2. They are difficult to keep alive
3. Issues of the body of the person rejecting the cells, i.e. adverse immune response.
4. Stem cells differentiate into cells other than brain cells, e.g. hair or bone cells.
5. Stem cells sometimes become cancerous.

Therapies involving adult stem cells seem to be very promising as a treatment and have already yielded results.

The potential for embryonic stem cell research is just that, a potential. It isn't proven, and may not yield results. On the other hand, if it does yield results, will our society then be in a position where it must manufacture embryos just for the purpose of harvesting them for parts? That seems pretty barbaric to me.
 
Hobbit said:
Actually, it wasn't so much religious as it was moral beliefs. Bush has this crazy idea that unborn babies are actually alive and that they shouldn't be slaughtered wholesale on taxpayer dollars. It isn't because God says so. There's nothing in the Bible about it. It's just because he thinks it's wrong.

There's a huge difference between ripping a baby out who is almost fully developed and a bunch of cells that havejust been created. He refers to the cells as kids, which is taking this a step too far. Life begins at conception, the human being begins later in the pregnancy.
 
liberalogic said:
There's a huge difference between ripping a baby out who is almost fully developed and a bunch of cells that havejust been created. He refers to the cells as kids, which is taking this a step too far. Life begins at conception, the human being begins later in the pregnancy.

At what point in the pregnancy?
 

Forum List

Back
Top