You Can't Steal My Christmas!

[ExoticSpotting]

Originally Posted by drunken monkey

I'm fairly confident that just as many Christians attack non Christians and other non-believers as non-believers attack Christians. In any case, what right do people of any faith have to criticise "attacks" on their faith when people of their faith attack others?

"Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but don't consider the beam that is in your own eye?"

Christians attack athiests because of what they support, athiests attack christians because of what they believe.

The big reason christians are at odds with athiests isn't that athiests don't believe in god (I don't speak for all of us), it's because athiests support issues that conflict with our beliefs.

If I found an athiest who was anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, pro-states rights I could easily be friends with him.

[thegladhatter]

Garth: Thanks for shopping. Merry Christmas!
Customer: I don't celebrate Christmas.
Garth: Bummer. Merry Christmas anyway.

[drunken monkey]

Originally Posted by ExoticSpotting

I don't speak for all of us

and this is where/why most of these discussions fail.
I cannot speak for all people who share my beliefs just as you cannot speak for all people of your beliefs.

Originally Posted by ExoticSpotting

Christians attack athiests because of what they support, athiests attack christians because of what they believe.

what's the difference here?
a person does not (usually) give support to something if they do not believe in the thing. This is also where one of the Christian anti abortion arguments fail because their belief does not result in a rational reason; it is simply because they believe it is so.
The typical pregnancy from rape scenario is perfect case for discussion.

Originally Posted by ExoticSpotting

If I found an athiest who was anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, pro-states rights I could easily be friends with him.

Interesting way of putting this which puts a few questions in my head.
If a person is gay and wishes to make a lifelong commitment to his/her partner, does that mean they cannot be Christian?
If a person believes that the individual has a right to choose an abortion, they cannot be Christian?
Not entirely sure what being pro-state's rights has to do with this...

[CL8]

Originally Posted by fredjacksonsan

Who presumes to know the mind of God? I think that if God exists, that an atheist that has good moral standards and was a good person in life would be given the opportunity to see God and believe before being cast into hell - for only through God can you reach everlasting salvation (pardon me if I quoted incorrectly) but we do have free will and are all different. Add to that, that God is a good and forgiving God.

The atheist that lives a good life has more chance of going to heaven than the hypocrite that goes to church on Sunday, believes, and does evil during the week then is granted forgiveness again later.

Only if that "good life" leads him to repent and believe on Christ for salvation.
(No one can "work" their way to heaven.)

[CL8]

Originally Posted by drunken monkey

Interesting way of putting this which puts a few questions in my head.
If a person is gay and wishes to make a lifelong commitment to his/her partner, does that mean they cannot be Christian?

1 John 5:18 says that "...whosoever is born of God sinneth not..." that actually means a Christian doesn't continually live in sin ( Christians do fall from time to time) so if a person is living IN sin and not feeling guilty about it, no he would not be a Christian.

If a person believes that the individual has a right to choose an abortion, they cannot be Christian?

There's nothing wrong with a Christian believing a person has the "right" to an abortion, as long as they also believe they also have the "right " to suffer the consequenses for killing a human life.

Not entirely sure what being pro-state's rights has to do with this...

[MagicRat]

Originally Posted by drunken monkey

Interesting way of putting this which puts a few questions in my head.
If a person is gay and wishes to make a lifelong commitment to his/her partner, does that mean they cannot be Christian?

For issues like this, it may be best not to think of Christian as a unified belief system. There are many, many issues like this that has rendered Christian faiths and produced the wide variety of Protestant franchises that we see today. <cough Martin Luther cough>

For example, The Anglican Church of Canada (thats Episcopal for you folks) has been split in two by this very question. Half want to endorse gay priests. The other half believe a practicing homosexual is sinful and is not fit to represent Christian values. There is a strong likelihood that the 'pro gay-Christian' half will break away entirely and form their own group of churches. I am pretty sure the 'anti gay' half would not regard that breakaway church as being Christian.

Indeed, historically, such divisions in opinion, thought and practice has created such a vast range Christian ideology it is almost impossible to identify many specific positions as being 'Christian'.

I know people may not want to hear the 'A' word from me, but such divisions do reinforce my opinion that all religious belief systems cannot be taken as being literal fact.

[drunken monkey]

and another question,
if one of the defining aspects of America is Democracy and Democratic right, how does Christianity fit into being American if there are things where decisions may be made simply because "the Bible says so"?

Logic says that while occasionally, there may be issues that the majority do indeed match with the religious (or perhaps more accurately, one religious) perspective, there will be cases where it doesn't.

in other words, doesn't religion defy democracy?

[03cavPA]

monkey, I'm not sure what you're getting at. Are you saying that there is no place in America for Christians, or are you saying that we have no right to call ourselves Americans?

If you are suggesting that government decisions are being made "because the bible says so," I don't buy it. Lots of decisions are being made that have no basis in scripture whatsoever. If anything, I'd say our "democracy" in its present form defies religion (whatever "religion" means; there are a lot of "religions" out there.).

I'm not attacking, I'm just not sure what you're trying to say.

[CL8]

Originally Posted by drunken monkey

and another question,
if one of the defining aspects of America is Democracy and Democratic right, how does Christianity fit into being American if there are things where decisions may be made simply because "the Bible says so"?

Logic says that while occasionally, there may be issues that the majority do indeed match with the religious (or perhaps more accurately, one religious) perspective, there will be cases where it doesn't.

in other words, doesn't religion defy democracy?

If you look at the Christian Church in the new testament, it was run very democratically. Decisions were brought before the wholw congregation.

What Christianity and the Bible does is gives a set of pirameters to allow a democracy to run effectivly.
As was stated, not all our laws are taken directly from the Bible, especially one that go against the Bible, like abortion.
But "thou shall not steal, kill, commit adultery" etc. are very much a part of our system of law in our democracy.
Without abiding by these rules a democracy breaks down.

[ExoticSpotting]

Originally Posted by drunken monkey

This is also where one of the Christian anti abortion arguments fail because their belief does not result in a rational reason; it is simply because they believe it is so.

So its not rational to oppose abortion because:
-Human life is sacred. (there are even some athiests who agree with that)
-Abortion can lead to mental trauma for the mother.
- It devalues human life and desensitizes people to death.

Originally Posted by drunken monkey

If a person is gay and wishes to make a lifelong commitment to his/her partner, does that mean they cannot be Christian?

The Bible classifies marriage as the union of one man and one woman for the purpose of creating a good family structure to raise children.

Originally Posted by drunken monkey

If a person believes that the individual has a right to choose an abortion, they cannot be Christian?

The Bible teaches that human life is sacred, so technically no.

Originally Posted by drunken monkey

Not entirely sure what being pro-state's rights has to do with this...

The federal goverment has a tendency to ignore the wishes of the people to please a small group of people or make themselves look good.

[ExoticSpotting]

Originally Posted by drunken monkey

and another question,
if one of the defining aspects of America is Democracy and Democratic right, how does Christianity fit into being American if there are things where decisions may be made simply because "the Bible says so"?

Logic says that while occasionally, there may be issues that the majority do indeed match with the religious (or perhaps more accurately, one religious) perspective, there will be cases where it doesn't.

in other words, doesn't religion defy democracy?

'Because the bible says so' is a very good standard to base your decisions on.

You can't deny that the majority of the teachings in the bible have very positive effects.

For example:

Traditional marriage - ever watch 'Cops' and see all the trailer parks where one mother is in charge of 5 or 6 delinquints? Having a family led by a mother and father provides the perfect enviroment to develope necessary skills and behaviours.

Abstinence - Remember the sexual revolution back in the sixties? The one that was supposed to 'liberate' people from the constraints of a christian society? THAT ended well, by the end of the decade there were millions of illegitamate children running around and everybody had an STD.

Respect thy mother and father - Remember the kid down the street who cussed at his parents and got everything he wanted? Those kids almost never turn into productive, responsible adults.

[ExoticSpotting]

Originally Posted by 03cavPA

Actually, they've been very effective in the courts and they continue to chip away at every aspect of religion in American life. They've been far too quick to find fault and offense where none exists or was ever intended.

The courts have lent a ready ear and the ACLU has been decidedly anti christian in its activities.

Personally, I believe that our society is paying the price for doing its best to exclude God from our lives.

Nailed it.

The only time the Athiest Coalition of Liberal Usurpers (catchy, ain't it )
supported a christian group is in the case of The Westboro Baptist Church.
They're the ones who shout obscenities at soldiers' funerals while the families are trying to cope with the tragic loss of a loved one.

Isn't it just shocking that the ACLU would support a cult that tarnishes the image of real christians?

[drunken monkey]

Originally Posted by 03cavPA

monkey, I'm not sure what you're getting at. Are you saying that there is no place in America for Christians, or are you saying that we have no right to call ourselves Americans?

If you are suggesting that government decisions are being made "because the bible says so," I don't buy it. Lots of decisions are being made that have no basis in scripture whatsoever. If anything, I'd say our "democracy" in its present form defies religion (whatever "religion" means; there are a lot of "religions" out there.).

I'm not attacking, I'm just not sure what you're trying to say.

I'm not making any comment on what qualifies a person to be an American; merely posing the question of whether true democracy can exist in a place that is run in part by a religious aspect or where a part lets religious aspects decide what is or isn't allowed and in that context, posing the question of where religion stands in relation to democracy with regards to America.

The case cited most often and one that causes a lot of discussion is abortion.

What real religious reasons are there against abortion and do they really stand against reason?
Is a pregnant woman really expected to keep an unwanted child?

I don't believe that any real world case is ever truely represented by any law passed by committee or by religion adn this is in part why our legal system is the way it is and that everything is judged and tried case by case.
There often seems to be a flexibilty in modern laws that the more vocal religious voices seems to be blind to.

Where do the anti-abortionists stand on euphanasia?

Originally Posted by ExoticSpotting

Traditional marriage - ever watch 'Cops' and see all the trailer parks where one mother is in charge of 5 or 6 delinquints? Having a family led by a mother and father provides the perfect enviroment to develope necessary skills and behaviours.

Abstinence - Remember the sexual revolution back in the sixties? The one that was supposed to 'liberate' people from the constraints of a christian society? THAT ended well, by the end of the decade there were millions of illegitamate children running around and everybody had an STD.

Respect thy mother and father - Remember the kid down the street who cussed at his parents and got everything he wanted? Those kids almost never turn into productive, responsible adults.

Irrelevent.
For every example you cite, one can just as easily find examples of the opposite.

[03cavPA]

Originally Posted by drunken monkey

Is a pregnant woman really expected to keep an unwanted child?

No. Put the child up for adoption. I've watched childless couples literally go through hell trying to adopt.

I've watched my niece and her husband go through untold heartache to conceive and deliver a set of twins, only to lose one and have the other spend weeks in the hospital before they could bring him home. They were just here this past weekend and he's a pretty cool little dude. It's nice they went to all that trouble to bring him into the world.

Aren't you glad your mom didn't abort you? Of course, if she had, you wouldn't exist to be aware of it, so it's more a rhetorical question than anything else.

[MagicRat]

Originally Posted by ExoticSpotting

The only time the Athiest Coalition of Liberal Usurpers (catchy, ain't it )
supported a christian group is in the case of The Westboro Baptist Church.
They're the ones who shout obscenities at soldiers' funerals while the families are trying to cope with the tragic loss of a loved one.

Isn't it just shocking that the ACLU would support a cult that tarnishes the image of real christians?

Utter and complete nonsense!!!!! Your statement is a complete fabrication.
You are making a rhetorical comment that is factually incorrect.

The VAST majority of ACLU issues and actions are entirely secular in nature and have no religious context at all!
Take a look: http://www.aclu.org/newsroom/viewall...ses_21660.html

When perusing the press releases, you can see the latest religious issue shows the ACLU protecting the religious freedom of an individual:

http://www.aclu.org/religion/discrim...s20081203.html

As for the Westboro Church, they are a fine example of how the inherent inconsistencies in Christian ideology can be interpreted in a harmful way. IMO they simply are doing what other Christians do; pick-and-choose parts of theology to suit their own ends.

Sure, they hate gay people and feel the gay lifestyle is against god's teachings, but so do most Christians. In this case, the Westoboro Church is (tragically) prepared to do something about it.