[quote]I can't think of any Christian who started a war. Can you name one? If you're talking about the RCC and the crusades I would agree with you. I wouldn't necessarily say that had anything to do with Christianity other than they used it as a banner. I'm not a big fan of the RCC in case you didn't know. [/quote] But they were still people who claimed to be Christians starting wars even though their own religious text told them not to kill. Many English kings during the dark
[quote]We are not to murder and there is a difference. The call to individuals to not murder and the call to war corporately are two completely different things. One is sanctioned by the bible one is not. I've already said and told you it's because of sanctity of life. When one goes to war it's to protect and defend it's people. We went to war to stop Hitler from further atrocities against mankind. It all fits under the sanctity of life. [/quote] What about wars where you
[quote]My interpretation should have nothing to do with it. You and I could read the same scripture but have diff interpretations especially if we're going with our own opinion. [/quote] Now I'm completely confused. Earlier you were saying that you were a literalist when it comes to the bible and that there is basically only one way to read it. Now you're saying that two people can read the same passage and come away with different interpretations. It can't be both w
[quote]The Bible (and I am not commenting on the "New Testament" here) is as inconsistent as history. Different sources of the same legends put together plus a few hundred years of pretty authentic history form the whole.[/quote] Very true, and for me that is reason enough not to buy into it as a belief system. I make no judgements on those who do, that is their choice. [quote]It's unique in its continuity, its circulation, its translation, its survival, its teaching and
[quote]Yes it does. War is between two groups who are fully capable of protecting and arming themselves for it. That's not the case with a yet unborn baby. The safest spot in all the world should be a mother's womb. Sad to say, today we have made it a battlefield with alot of innocent blood shed. That baby is not capable of protecting itself. You're comparing apples and oranges here.[/quote] War may be between two groups who can protect themselves but what does that have to do with th
[quote]it all falls under sanctity of human life El-D. All of it. Think about it. [/quote] No it doesn't. So just because you're on one side of a war the other side has less of a right to live? [quote]The pro-abort people are NOT consistent. They ok murder in the womb but oppose war and capitol punishment. [/quote] Don't make absolute claims like that. I am pro-choice but I am NOT anti-war or anti-capitol punishment. [quote]We are being forced
[quote]So, a fetus is a baby, not a parasite. Women don't give birth to parasites...what comes out of the womb at birth was in the womb during pregnancy and that would be a baby. What you're saying here is that since a fetus doesn't look like a newborn baby, he/she is not worth protecting like a newborn baby. [/quote] It has nothing to do with what the thing looks like but everything to do with it's abilities. In the first trimester it is nothing more than a parasite
[quote]Yes, absolutely true. He is wrong. Scientific data reveal the dignity of human life from the first moment of fecundation, defined at the moment the sperm and the egg unite...therefore human personhood begins at conception. So, once and for all, .....life begins at conception has been now scientifically determined.It's not a guess, it's not a wish, it's not an opinion...it's a scientific certainity. The biological facts are absolutely conclusive that the fetus is a living hum
[quote]because the two are linked. [/quote] The two are linked for the christian god but not for some other form of a higher power(s). [quote]why are you completely shut off to the possibility that the bible could very well be relevant or inspired especially since none of it has been proven untrue? [/quote] The burden of proof is on the person making the affirmative claim, in this case the bible is the word of god. Seeing as how I have seen some inconsistencies i
[quote]Here's a description of exactly the time period you put in for it being a parasite or tapeworm.[/quote] The primary time period that I use the description of a parasite is in the first trimester, if I was unclear in that I appologize. As I have said once you enter the second trimester the only reason for an abortion should be in the case of the woman's health being at risk, and once the fetus is able to be put on life support outside the womb that should be attempted
[quote]But it is - if you're heterosexual, then you will typically be having 'lower risk' sex that is not a possibility if you're homosexual.[/quote] Heterosexual sex is no less risky than anal sex. The difference is that those having vaginal intercourse will more likely be using a condom to prevent pregnancy which also protects them from AIDS. If those having anal sex were to use a condom they would be equally protected. [quote]Abortion when the mothers life is in
[quote]I think it's illogical not to.[/quote] Ockam's razor would disagree with you. [quote]When I discuss evolution or creation with non believers it always amazes me that we are even having this discussion because they are arguing from a point (illogical) that has already been scientifically disproven. That is, that something can come from nothing. [/quote] Anyone who is arguing that evolution explains how everything got here obviously doesn't understand evolution.&n
[quote]Abortion is the choice to kill your own children.[/quote] Think it cruel if you want but until that fetus (or baby if you prefer) is able to survive outside the womb (with or without life support) I view it more as a symbiotic parasite much like a tape worm. If you want to terminate it that is your choice. If abortion had not been legal it is likely that my wife would have died a few years ago so call it whatever you like I think that it is necessary to keep it lega
[quote]well here I could point to the woman at the well in Samaria. It says in John 4 that she went into town and spoke about this man Jesus she met at the well. All the men of the town followed her to meet this man that knew everything about her. [/quote] But they were following here to meet a man. If she had said the same thing about a woman would they have been as interested? Maybe, we can't know for sure. [quote]Really? Do you believe the holocaust happened? I
[quote]Actually AIDS didn't come from gay males, at least according to one credible theory.[/quote] It jumped from Chimps to humans. How isn't exactly clear but the most likely scenario involved blood transfer of some sort. The reason that the homosexual community has been impacted so severly is because for a long time they had the largest population of people having unprotected sex since there was no risk of pregnancy. AIDS is NOT a gay disease. [quote]Conce
[quote]Too bad for them, its those kind of idiots who refuse to teach their kids for which sex ed was made for.. I knew about sex, anyone whose parents understand proper parenting knows about safe sex... people like him and lula think utter ignorance is somehow more moral, and as such their children get teen pregnant and put more kids for adoption / abortion (or flat out dropout), and spread STDs around the student body.[/quote] I'm going to have to disagree with you here. From
[quote]I'm not quite sure where you're going with this? Are you saying God is both male and female or just genderless?[/quote] Seeing as how God has no need to have sex if he exists then he would be genderless and may not even be humanoid. As I have said the "maleness" from the scripture is mostly due to a lack of a gender neutral pronoun with which to refer to God and so there was a choice to be made: male or female, since the society is a patriach then male was chosen over fem
[quote]It doesn't matter if we do or not. There is she's and he's in the bible. Whenever God is mentioned it's always with the male pronoun and description. [/quote] That's because there are men and women in the bible. God is mentioned using a male pronoun for lack of a better pronoun and to remain consistent. Would you take the text as seriously if they kept switching the pronouns that are used to refer to god? I doubt it. [quote]So Leauki is creating a stra
[quote]Com'on don't be stupid. It says men....it was men. Read it yourself. Scripture also says that we should be careful because we don't know when we might be visited by angels. If God can take on a human body in the person of Christ don't you think an angel could? Who said anything about procreating anyhow? Its clear El-D you're over your head here discussing this subject and since you've not done the reading Homework it's hard to go over every little detail with you. You need to read the
[quote]My kids never had to sign any slips and sex-ed was very comprehensive. Most of the time my kids were taken out of the classes during those times because I requested it. [/quote] Then your school system, and any similar school system, is dropping the ball. Permission slips should be required for sex-ed simply because some parents, like you and Lula, wouldn't want their children in the class. The school should do a better job of educating the parents about what i
[quote]so while angels technically aren't male, Genesis identifies them as "men" and always appearing as male.[/quote] I would imagine that this is the case because at the time period society was very much a patriarch and the female form would not have gotten the respect that the male form would have.
To claim that enforcing our laws is unamerican is absolutely absurd. We need to crack down on illegal immigration and the employers that hire them. There are ways to get in this country legally, over 2 million people do it every year and those that do it illegally ruin it for those that took the time to do it right.
[quote]Really? You may want to revisit the scriptures. Start with Genesis 18 with Abraham entertaining "three men" who turned out to be angels.[/quote] Unless Abraham checked under the robes how would he know if they were really men? Why would Angels have any need to procreate? If they have no need to procreate why would they need sexual organs of any kind? Maybe "three men" was just the best description that Abraham could give to anyone who asked. Just a thoug
[quote]It is forced acceptance and nothing else.[/quote] How does accepting a civil union impact your life? Hell how does accepting impact your life? It doesn't. What we are asking for here is that civil unions be allowed to file joint tax returns, transfer property easier, be present in the hospital room when another member of that union is ill, etc. None of that will impact your life or force you to do anything. However denying civil unions is impacting
[quote]Negative information would be that, proportionately speaking, homosexuality results in higher rates of violence, disease, severe depression and suicide, etc. GRID, "gay related immune disorder" became AIDS, the only politically protected disease.[/quote] The increased violence, severe depression and suicide mostly stem from people being beligerant towards homosexuals. You try not lashing out at people when you are constantly told that you are evil and going to hell.
