“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#758740 Jul 17, 2014
Proxy Queen wrote:
When you attend a church and you see for yourself the good they do for their community, you don't bother asking for receipts.
Been there, done that. It doesn't affect my opinion.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#758741 Jul 17, 2014
Joyful8118 wrote:
Dankeschön.
De nada.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#758742 Jul 17, 2014
Proxy Queen wrote:
I don't mean to be critical and I'm very happy that you and I are getting along better and moving forward with our discussions
Me, too. Let's try to preserve that-

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#758743 Jul 17, 2014
Proxy Queen wrote:
Alright then, how do we get around the wedge issue? How can we all be copacetic?
I'm not sure that we can. The church is intolerant of atheist and atheism. Are you? Do you agree?

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#758744 Jul 17, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
Me, too. Let's try to preserve that-
Agreed. I'm ecstatic about the change and positive about the future.

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#758745 Jul 17, 2014
uUIdiotRaceMAkeWorldPeace wrote:
<quoted text>That what your Xtain Fundies did, so you trying to denied you religion did all these bad things, mass muddering many throughout history, are you even human for not acknowlege you wars /genocidal crimes, are you even human? Go to your room and ruminate if you have human social conscience... you sinned again and too many times! Yep you ignorance shows!
No, I am not denying they done it, I am saying so what, I wasn't there.
I do know a little about the Inception of Christianity and the slaughtering by the Church.
Anything else you want me to prove you wrong?
I think I know a little more about myself and what I believe than you do..
In fact, I think you're an Idiot!

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#758746 Jul 17, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
I'm not sure that we can. The church is intolerant of atheist and atheism. Are you? Do you agree?
There is no "the church", IANS. There is no one absolute authority that IS Christianity.

Be wise and acknowledge that.

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#758747 Jul 17, 2014
Chess wrote:
<quoted text>
So you're not a Christian, right?
By Tradition Yes, By Practice No!
Lab28

Anaheim, CA

#758748 Jul 17, 2014
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
You are here claiming that people born into poverty are simply "unhappy"?
Please read:
"Suffering is certainly a recurrent and expected condition in Haiti's Central Plateau, where everyday life has felt, often enough, like war. "You get up in the morning," observed one young widow with four children, "and it's the fight for food and wood and water." If initially struck by the austere beauty of the region's steep mountains and clement weather, long-term visitors come to see the Central Plateau in much the same manner as its inhabitants do: a chalky and arid land hostile to the best efforts of
the peasant farmers who live here. Landlessness is widespread and so, consequently, is hunger. All the standard measures reveal how tenuous is the peasantry's hold on survival. Life expectancy at birth is less than fifty years, in large part because as many as two of every ten infants die before their first birthday. Tuberculosis and AIDS are the leading causes of death among adults; among children, diarrheal disease, measles, and tetanus ravage the undernourished."
http://compsci.duq.edu/~packer/Courses/Psi410...
I don't think "unhappy" correctly captures the grinding poverty most people on the planet live under.
And we could all be doing more. I wonder if you just spend your time shaking your fist at God for this, or if you're actually doing anything to ease the suffering of the impoverished.
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Like all believers in all religions you "know" your religion is "true." That makes all religions true, since they all create subjective realities for their believers to live within, ways of ordering reality and moral systems.
Likewise, they are all false. No religion has claim to objective reality; no religion can produce evidence to support their claims of reality. Religions are cultural systems that structure your way of knowing the world around you. Certainly for you, the believer, it's subjectively real. Your mistake is to assume that it's objectively real for all humans.
Hence quoting the bible for you represents knowledge and wisdom. For nonbelievers like myself, you're just showing me how much you really really, reaaaaly believe. That's cool. I get it, you've convinced me that you subjectively live in a Christian reality.
But if you want to convince me that your subjective reality is objectively real for all humans, you're going to have to actually use evidence.
Like all believers in all religions you "know" your religion is "true."

I'm just going to copy paste that assertion so you can see how self-refuting the argument is. Just pretend I'm saying it right back to you. The question is, why is your belief more accurate than mine? While you're answering that question you will be hit with the inherent knowledge that nothing you say will change my mind, but you'll continue anyways. And on, and on, and on, it goes. But kudos to you for not denigrating my beliefs.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#758749 Jul 17, 2014
Proxy Queen wrote:
You know as well as I do that that depends on which church you're talking about.
I rarely discuss churches.
Proxy Queen wrote:
The small "mom & pop" churches likely have nothing to hide.
That seems extremely unlikely
Proxy Queen wrote:
There'd be no more separation of church and state if the state can tax churches.
Sure there is. There's no separation if the state gives the church walk.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#758750 Jul 17, 2014
Proxy Queen wrote:
Alright then, how do we get around the wedge issue? How can we all be copacetic?
I don't know that we can or do.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#758751 Jul 17, 2014
scaritual wrote:
<quoted text>We're not talking about Amos 1:13. It has nothing to do with the portion of Exodus 21:22 that states what the law and penalty is for causing a pregnant woman to miscarry or prematurely birth her fetus.
I have explained why Amos 1:13 is relevant to the discussion. Hebrew words which leaves no ambiguity to dead fetus. If Exod 21:22 was referencing a dead fetus then it would be the same Hebrew word used in Amos 1:13. As it is Exod 21:22 uses a Hebrew term most commonly associated with life, not death.
The result is a fine and that is it.
The context of Exod 21:22 is accidental as opposed to deliberate. Big difference. Exod 21:22 depicts a woman with CHILD. You have the two men the woman and child. You are saying the life for life clause in 23 does not apply to the child as depicted in 22. You have not made your case from the Hebrew. There is not one thing to indicate the child is exempt from life for life and that only applies to the mother. There is a fine because of unintentional injury to the child or mother not resulting in the death of either.
There is a good portion of Exodus that is devoted to laws and the punishments for breaking those laws and the death of fetus caused by someone else is treated as a property loss. A fine is paid, as outlined in Exo 21:22 and that is all.
You keep repeating the same old line but you haven't demonstrated any of it. You quote opinions from sites which validates your bias and dismiss sites which counter using excuses you make up as you go along. You decide which verses are relevant and which are not. You don't answer anything so far. The reason you do all that is because you are bible illiterate.All you can do is cite sources. You cannot debate from scripture nor can you demonstrate any of your assumptions the ''child'' as depicted in Exod. 21:22 is sub human.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#758752 Jul 17, 2014
Proxy Queen wrote:
The small "mom & pop" churches likely have nothing to hide.
Although possibly correct, I won't accept that claim without supporting evidence.
Proxy Queen wrote:
There'd be no more separation of church and state if the state can tax churches. Then churches could legally put forth their political influence. Historically not good
So you say. Noted.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#758753 Jul 17, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
I never used the word "subhuman". I said that a fetus was treated as property. Your bible has no difficulty with the idea of human lives as property.
Treated as property is the same as sub human. If you hold to a proabort position then the very nature of the position assumes sub human status of the fetus. Their lives can be snuffed out for any reason or no reason. Sub human is a generous depiction of that mind set.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#758754 Jul 17, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
In the sense of a place where I feel most at home? It's Mexico now.
Proxy Queen wrote:
Is that because you fell that your ideas and attitudes better mesh with Mexicans than Americans?
Yes.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#758755 Jul 17, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
I rarely discuss churches.
<quoted text>
That seems extremely unlikely
<quoted text>
Sure there is. There's no separation if the state gives the church walk.
Why did you ignore the bulk of my post, the parts with all the explanations?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#758756 Jul 17, 2014
Hidingfromyou wrote:
I know that my views are not supportable from a "prove/disprove" point of view - and your position is tenable - but I believe all evidence about human evolution, cognition and experience strongly suggest that such things are impossible. Ergo, parsimony, no deities.
I understand. Nevertheless, we have come to the similar conclusions whatever differences we might have. begun with.

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#758757 Jul 17, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Yes.
Why?
Is it because they're more easily Influenced?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#758758 Jul 17, 2014
Proxy Queen wrote:
"We’re admittedly using a bit of guesswork, but Catholic charity seems to account for 17 percent to 34 percent of all nonprofit social-service charity..."
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/state... -- I don't know what else to offer you, IANS.
Nothing, unless you have more.
Proxy Queen wrote:
Churches aren't required to submit their revenue or expenses, so they just don't.
I know that. It's a problem except for those that assume on faith that churches can be believed.
Proxy Queen wrote:
We either take it on faith that they're doing good or we take it on faith that they're not. We all have to decide for ourselves.
Agreed.

“let's do this thang!”

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#758759 Jul 17, 2014
dirty white boy- wrote:
<quoted text> I am not your partner!
:-(....just :-(....

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Blaming Israel for carnage (Jul '06) 15 min AN NFL FAN 121,339
If you're Christain what kind are you? (Oct '07) 24 min JesusIsResurrection 967
angka toto malaysia di jamin tembus (Aug '14) 31 min hermawan 6
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 39 min truth 608,271
Dubai massage Body To Body full service 0559... (Mar '14) 41 min perfect massage r... 206
10 good tips to lose weight easily 1 hr diettips 1
Weight Watchers diet: how to lose weight? 1 hr diettips 1
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 2 hr truth 574,347
Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 7 hr RADEKT 269,038
Sleeping with mother (Oct '13) 11 hr Jon 19
More from around the web