Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Gay Marriage as an attack on Christianity
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 945 of 1484 (803797)
04-05-2017 2:28 AM
Reply to: Message 942 by jar
04-04-2017 9:31 PM


weird accusations of pro-lifers etc
So if I'm unable to adopt a child due to my age and my physical problems I'm not allowed to object to the murder of the unborn? And I'm also therefore somehow morally responsible for its murder in the womb? What kind of nonsense is that? I also wouldn't force my single status on a child, I think children need a father and a mother, but actually if I could I think I would adopt a child or three. I love babies. If I had the means, the situation, the physical health, the money, I think I'd do it.
As a matter of fact I have the impression that Christians and conservatives do quite a bit of adopting of children. Often they adopt the older "unadoptables" but there's no reason they wouldn't adopt infants. Do you even have any idea at what rate they adopt or is this just a fun way to call pro-lifers hypocrites? This is a pretty weird accusation.
Seems to me in a rational world objecting to abortion wouldn't be a "religious" thing, it would be common sense. All those pushing for the murder of the unborn COULD spend their time more usefully engaged in the problem of taking care of unwanted children one way or another-- start a campaign on behalf of having children or something like that. Why don't YOU ALL step up to the plate instead of rationalizing murder?
And quite frankly it also seems to me that common sense would tell a person that marriage is for a man and a woman not two of the same sex -- why is this only an issue for "religious" people? This shouldn't prevent sympathy for gay people, it could even stimulate creative solutions, but my impression is that the leftists don't want to DO anything useful, they just like to accuse conservatives and Christians of whatever they can think up. It's SO much fun.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 942 by jar, posted 04-04-2017 9:31 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 946 by Pressie, posted 04-05-2017 5:12 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 947 by jar, posted 04-05-2017 7:34 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 948 by NoNukes, posted 04-05-2017 8:48 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 950 of 1484 (803868)
04-05-2017 11:31 AM


A little compendium of leftist revisionist thought
Of course aborted fetuses are not viable, they've been expelled from their safe haven before they could grow to the stage of viability, or murdered.
Seems "common sense" is one of those terms that has bit the dust lately. "Leftist dogma" might be the latest version.
And I guess if you repeat it often enough murder stops being murder and becomes ..a procedure?
And it seems to me man and woman is a pretty sufficient definition of those qualified for marriage; I didn't add any other qualifications.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 959 by NoNukes, posted 04-05-2017 2:35 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 960 by ringo, posted 04-05-2017 3:18 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


(1)
Message 951 of 1484 (803875)
04-05-2017 12:03 PM
Reply to: Message 949 by jar
04-05-2017 9:39 AM


Re: weird accusations of pro-lifers etc
Yes there were unfortunate conditions for abortions before they were decriminalized but the number attempted under those conditions must have been far far short of the fifty million or so that have been racked up under Roe v Wade.
I had an illegal abortion myself -- in a warehouse in a city I had to fly to. The doctor was a doctor, an Asian, and I had a dream afterward about my child being Asian as she was taken off in a black hearse waving to me out the back window.
It is a really strange delusion some people get into over this "difficult choice to make" idea as if murdering your child could ever be an option, difficult or not, if you really understood that it IS murder. But of course you insist on using different terms to obscure that fact. I'd convinced myself it was just "a piece of tissue," then I had that dream. Weird.
There are situations, often run by churches, where pregnant girls/women can go to be private and cared for during the pregnancy. They get all kinds of help with adoption versus parenting choices, completing their education, getting a job or whatever is needed. Seems to me that instead of teaching women that it's not a child, which their own conscience will haunt them about in many cases, is why there are so many abortions. Try telling the truth for a change and offering help and the slaughtering may be appreciably reduced. The propaganda doesn't always have to be a lie that deceives women into killing their babies.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 949 by jar, posted 04-05-2017 9:39 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 952 by jar, posted 04-05-2017 12:10 PM Faith has replied
 Message 956 by herebedragons, posted 04-05-2017 1:15 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 953 of 1484 (803881)
04-05-2017 12:25 PM
Reply to: Message 952 by jar
04-05-2017 12:10 PM


Re: weird accusations of pro-lifers etc
"Intentional ...killing...of....human... being" = murder. Second degree perhaps? But killing a human being, at any stage of life, any, is killing a human being, and calling it something else is just a lie.
And surely it must be true that if pregnant women were truthfully informed that it IS a human being the abortion rate would go way down.
At this time in history after decades of legal abortion we should have learned enough to be able to provide social services that make abortion unnecessary.
Back in the early days of Christianity people would have babies and put them out to die of exposure. Christians would go around rescuing them. They'd often take them home to raise them, but it got to be too many. That's how orphanages began. Why is it that Christians revere human life so much and others don't?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 952 by jar, posted 04-05-2017 12:10 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 955 by jar, posted 04-05-2017 12:32 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 962 of 1484 (803938)
04-05-2017 8:45 PM
Reply to: Message 961 by LamarkNewAge
04-05-2017 3:22 PM


Re: Your Roman Empire Council "church" Faith?
Please stop the rudeness.
This is too much to deal with, I can only skim it.
Circumcision was the inciting cause. When the Jewish Council in Jerusalem understood that God was doing mighty acts among the Gentiles they realized they shouldn't put unnecessary burdens on the Gentiles, but nevertheless chose some observances to ask them to follow for the sake of fellowship. Yes they gave up circumcision. They COULD have given up all of it because none of it was required of believers in Christ, so the only reason they made it necessary was for the sake of fellowship. They are under grace, there is no more requirement to obey the Law, so the only reason they asked even a few things was to avoid offending the Jews. You can stop arguing and berating me about this. We disagree, leave it at that.
Yes Paul circumcised Timothy for the sake of not offending the Jews, but remember, Timothy had a Jewish mother so circumcision would have been appropriate in his case.
I suspect you are misreading Galatians 2 where you claim Peter and James were circumcising Gentiles because no such thing is going on. They are sent as apostles to "the circumcision," which means to the Jews, while Paul was sent to "the uncircumcision" which means to the Gentiles. I suspect you are misreading this.
The Jewish food laws were clearly shown to Peter in a vision in Acts 10 to no longer be in force, after which he was sent to take the gospel to the Gentile centurion Cornelius. I don't personally have any desire in the matter one way or another, all that matters is what the Bible says and God clearly lifted the dietary laws when the gospel went out to the Gentiles.
I'm simply not up to reading all the stuff you wrote after that. Please cease your bullying.
Thank you.
ALSO THERE IS NO RELATION BETWEEN THIS TOPIC AND GAY MARRIAGE THAT I CAN SEE.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 961 by LamarkNewAge, posted 04-05-2017 3:22 PM LamarkNewAge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 973 by LamarkNewAge, posted 04-06-2017 4:23 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 974 by LamarkNewAge, posted 04-06-2017 4:34 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 980 of 1484 (804183)
04-07-2017 6:56 PM


I think what Dredge is saying is that science doesn't -- and can't -- give any standards for morality. Plenty of evolutionists HAVE moral standards, no doubt about that, but they don't come from the science because they can't --that is, where they happen to agree with traditional morality of western civilization. . The phrase "science says" is a way of saying "the implications of science are..." though in fact science-based "moral" standards are often expressed, such as the idea that human life is no more important than animal life, or morality is relative, there is every kind of morality and there is no way to choose one above the other. So Shariah law is as good as the American Constitution. All that comes from the "science" mentality.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 981 by NoNukes, posted 04-07-2017 8:24 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 983 of 1484 (804198)
04-07-2017 10:05 PM
Reply to: Message 981 by NoNukes
04-07-2017 8:24 PM


I think what Dredge is saying is that science doesn't -- and can't -- give any standards for morality.
The question I would have is whether such statements are the least bit meaningful.
Well, what I said needs some correction. As Dredge was saying, science, meaning evolution, which is false science, but anyway, it has promoted a morality, which is really an anti-morality, the destruction of the moral framework of western civilization.
Evolution has taught us that human beings are not "made in the image of God" but animals that evolved from other life forms. Human life is devalued from any notion of specialness, and in fact don't we often hear people telling us that these days? Any such claim of specialness is supposedly just some kind of conceit we impose on the facts.
What's now to tell us that murder is wrong? Many of course FEEL it's wrong but the point is there is no longer any authoritative standard to tell us it is wrong. As a matter of fact it was evolution that inspired the eugenics movement that then inspired Hitler. Well, if it's all just a matter of survival of the fittest, then as intelligent beings we should do away with those that don't further the fitness of the human species, which of course includes anyone suffering from any kind of physical or mental problems, but Sanger included the black race in her assessment as she promoted abortion. Abortion is a form of murder that is just fine by evolution "standards," in fact it's a plus if it weeds out the unfit, that was the original defense, now it's because it promotes women's "rights." The idea that taking a human life could be a "right" is an absurd effect of evolution-based "morality."
Then there is the deterioration of sexual morality, which so many think is a good thing too. All that "freedom." Based on the elimination of the Christianity-based morality of the west, that has made divorce easy, promoted sexual freedom without restriction, adultery, devalues marriage and the nuclear family, and now treats gay marriage as a "right." So now we have single parenting and all its ills, dependence on welfare, kids left to their own devices, etc.l etc. etc.
If we're just animals what's the basis for any kind of self-control? Many hold on to such a morality but its source can't be evolution, it's just something left over from former times, or it's the distorted remnants of the conscience God gave us, and thank God for that much. But why did He need to give us the Moral Law if it was built into us? Because fallen nature distorts it. But what's left of the command to honor parents, not to commit murder, adultery, theft, covetousness, lying? Let alone love God above all else.
God of course was the first to go anyway. There's nothing but material reality, just physical nature. So God is just an illusion, just a power play, just a myth. No more righteous authority and no more absolute morality. How could anyone doubt this? It's expressed here every day.
What's left? Well Nietzsche spelled it out: the twilight of the gods, the trivialization of Christian morality as a slave mentality, and the arrival of the Superman, the Antichrist, the morality of the master.
Geometry is another subject that does not provide morality standards. But that does not argue against using it to figure out where your property end and your neighbor's begins.
Geometry has no implications for morality as evolution does.
though in fact science-based "moral" standards are often expressed, such as the idea that human life is no more important than animal life, or morality is relative,
Some folks may have such ideas, but they are not required by, nor supported by science anymore than slavery is required by the Bible.
See above, evolution devalued humanity and the devaluation of moral standards is the necessary result. And evolutionist thinking dominates all of us, the whole educational system, the whole culture. Whatever remains of the old familiar traditional morality has no real leg to stand on.
So Shariah law is as good as the American Constitution. All that comes from the "science" mentality.
Total shite.
Wish it were. You haven't heard such opinions? They are out there. How they could possibly exist in anything remotely like western civilization is mind=boggling. Proof I think that western civ no longer really exists. What are all these Hollywood type women doing with their strange "feminist" support of wearing the hijab and the burka?
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 981 by NoNukes, posted 04-07-2017 8:24 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 984 by NoNukes, posted 04-07-2017 10:22 PM Faith has replied
 Message 990 by LamarkNewAge, posted 04-08-2017 1:07 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 1000 by LamarkNewAge, posted 04-08-2017 4:10 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 985 of 1484 (804201)
04-07-2017 10:25 PM
Reply to: Message 984 by NoNukes
04-07-2017 10:22 PM


Wish it were. You haven't heard such opinions? They are out there
People believe a lot of stupid, wrong, and in many cases, destructive ideas based on their impressions of science and theology. Just about anything including pseudo-scientific claptrap easily satisfies as a point of departure for gullible or evil folks.
You are of course glossing over the main point, which is that the doctrine of evolution actively destroys traditional morality.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 984 by NoNukes, posted 04-07-2017 10:22 PM NoNukes has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 991 by jar, posted 04-08-2017 7:41 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 986 of 1484 (804203)
04-07-2017 10:40 PM
Reply to: Message 984 by NoNukes
04-07-2017 10:22 PM


Evolution has taught us that human beings are not "made in the image of God" but animals that evolved from other life forms.
That happens to be what the evidence says. And it turns out that you can still follow Jesus while believing in evolution. Apparently something other than science is to blame here.
The only way you "can still follow Jesus" while believing evolution is true is by denying a lot of the written Word that Jesus considered to be God's word, and making a "leap" of faith that has no solid ground to land on. Evolution eliminates the whole first eleven chapters of Genesis, which are foundational to salvation in Christ. Beyond that its affinity with liberalism which is also man-centered thinking, is part of the kind of thinking that denies most of the rest of Biblical history as well.
Objectively speaking, it's either the word of God or it's evolution. Compromises are made, but they aren't justifiable by any standard of truth.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 984 by NoNukes, posted 04-07-2017 10:22 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 987 by NoNukes, posted 04-07-2017 10:45 PM Faith has replied
 Message 992 by jar, posted 04-08-2017 7:44 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 988 of 1484 (804206)
04-07-2017 10:58 PM
Reply to: Message 987 by NoNukes
04-07-2017 10:45 PM


Here are some things that you may have forgotten:
All of Christianity, including being salvation itself, requires a leap of faith. And the ground you have to land on are the promises of Jesus himself. Nothing else but God's grace is required.
The promises of Jesus along with everything else in the Bible are thrown into doubt by the evolutionist overthrow of the first eleven chapters of Genesis. You hold on to any of it just because you want to, not because there is any ground for it.
Remind me not to bring you and your baggage out in the neighborhoods when we talk to sinners.
Wouldn't want to be part of such an irrational undertaking.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 987 by NoNukes, posted 04-07-2017 10:45 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 989 by NoNukes, posted 04-08-2017 12:41 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 993 of 1484 (804333)
04-08-2017 9:46 AM
Reply to: Message 992 by jar
04-08-2017 7:44 AM


We know a whole lot more today than Jesus knew.
Considering that He's God and knows absolutely everything, that's an amazing claim.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 992 by jar, posted 04-08-2017 7:44 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 995 by jar, posted 04-08-2017 10:37 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 994 of 1484 (804335)
04-08-2017 9:54 AM
Reply to: Message 991 by jar
04-08-2017 7:41 AM


And as expected you have not shown there is anything called traditional morality or that evolution has in anyway effected that critter.
Oh I think I did a fair job of it in Message 983. Not definitive but a start.
Sorry Faith but there is no such thing as "traditional morality".
Oh in the Western world it's pretty much synonymous with the Ten Commandments, and in Message 983 I've shown how evolution has undermined their authority. It's really rather hard to deny, since it's often actively applauded.
Nor has evolution destroyed morality. In fact the argument can be made that society is far more moral today than Jesus was.
Yes, it can be made and it can be debunked, which I believe I've done. And here you are actively applauding it as I said is so popular today. Murder is now morally acceptable for instance; fornication, adultery, divorce, gay marriage are all now acceptable, even "more moral" as you say. What an improvement!
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 991 by jar, posted 04-08-2017 7:41 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 996 by jar, posted 04-08-2017 10:40 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 997 of 1484 (804345)
04-08-2017 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 996 by jar
04-08-2017 10:40 AM


See Message 983 for the way I used the terms and stop calling me a liar.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 996 by jar, posted 04-08-2017 10:40 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 998 by jar, posted 04-08-2017 10:44 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 999 of 1484 (804347)
04-08-2017 10:46 AM
Reply to: Message 998 by jar
04-08-2017 10:44 AM


When you stupidly misread somebody you don't get a right to call them a liar.
ABE: Or perhaps more to the point, disagreeing with me doesn't give you the right to call me a liar.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 998 by jar, posted 04-08-2017 10:44 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1001 by jar, posted 04-08-2017 4:56 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1003 of 1484 (804360)
04-08-2017 7:35 PM
Reply to: Message 1001 by jar
04-08-2017 4:56 PM


How interesting. We no longer need any evidence at all, or any attempt to respond to evidence, just stating our opinion is sufficient. At least if we're not a creationist. Eh?
Also it has apparently become proper to attack the person rather than the argument.
And before that of course calling a person a liar because you disagree with his/her opinion has also become good debate form.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1001 by jar, posted 04-08-2017 4:56 PM jar has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024