Comments
717,701 - 717,720 of 721,881 Comments Last updated 9 min ago

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#758657
Thursday Jul 17
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
So now you're in Murrieta?
Are you taunting and screaming at innocent children out there?
Give it that ole Christian spirit!
People that break the law aren't innocent, even children. You know this.

“THERE IS NO GOD”

Since: Feb 09

Northern California

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#758658
Thursday Jul 17
 
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
Would you like to have a page from my Bible?
Obviously Jesus must be God if he is to save mankind, since no mere mortal can fulfill that role. If Jesus is not God and man simultaneously, then he is no more divine than Mohammed or any other religious figure. His death could not be the stepping stone to salvation for everyone.

But even more importantly, the Trinity provides the only escape available for the tremendously large number of contradicting statements made by Jesus himself with respect to his nature and capabilities. The trinity is Christianity's "Great Backdoor". On several occasions Jesus equated himself with God, although he never directly said he was God:

(a) "I and the Father are one" (John 10:30);
(b) "...he that hath seen me hath seen the Father" (John 17:22);
(c) "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the word was God" (John 1"1).(See also: John 10:38, 14:9-11, 17:11, 21-23, Col. 2:9)

Yet, a far larger number of statements clearly shows Jesus did not equate himself with God, in which case he couldn't be mankind's savior:

(a) "Why callest me good? There is none good but one, that is God" Matt. 19:17);
(b) "for my Father is greater than I" (John 14:28);
(c) "My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me" (John 7:16);
(d) "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" (Matt. 27:46);
(e) "Who has gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God" (1 Peter 3:22); (See also: Mark 13:32, 1 cor. 11:3, John 5:19, 20:17, Matt. 26:39 and many others).

Biblical supporters use the escape mechanism rather freely by alleging the former comments were made by Jesus-the-God; while the latter were made by Jesus-the-man. So, depending on the dictates of expediency, the inconsistent comments by Jesus can be reconciled. Without the Trinity, Jesus would appear to be a hopelessly confused young man, more sick than savior.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#758659
Thursday Jul 17
 

Judged:

1

Proxy Queen wrote:
Stop and think for a minute (it hurts, but do it anyway).
What if ... God didn't care what He was called or around what religion people perceived Him to be?
Then there is no need for religion, and certainly no justification for letting it bleed into in public life. Let's get it out of there

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#758660
Thursday Jul 17
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Joyful8118 wrote:
Not good enough, says you.
Who do you think should decide what's good enough for me?
Joyful8118 wrote:
It isn't a little pocket of sincere charitable assistance. We have seen it and experienced it. It is real-life that can be and is seen every day, all around us.
I'm not interested in the unsupported opinions of the faithful regarding their church, just what they know and can demonstrate.
Joyful8118 wrote:
Go out and see it, like we have. It is not an anecdote. It is true and real-life. Go out and see it for yourself, like we have. So, go out and do that quantifying for yourself. No, you can do it by researching it for yourself, not through media but through going out and showing it.
That is not how the data I seek is ascertained.
Joyful8118 wrote:
So, please go out and do this and then show us your results.
I can give you my results for the last five years. I have seen virtually no Christian charity at all in my community. I am aware of only one Christian charity - a Catholic orphanage, which I reported on at http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TOCO8TE...

Now you have my data, which although from another country than the one I have been talking about, is consistent with what I saw in the States as well, and is exactly the same quality as yours: personal impressions based on my informal observations.

If you don't find that convincing, you can understand why I don't find your reports convincing. We need objective measurements, which in this case can come only from auditing a representative cross-section of Christiandom's congregations and other alleged Christian charities.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#758661
Thursday Jul 17
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Joyful8118 wrote:
Like I have told you, it has nothing to do with having faith that it is true. We see it, because we go out and observe it for ourselves, firsthand.
Me, too.

Did you forget that I had nearly a decade of experience as a Christian? Our congregations did nothing that didn't promote Christianity. I was unaware of any money going to the needy. Our congregation's main benefactor was an outreach facility called the Fisherman's Net, where people could come in out of the cold and hear about Jesus. I took a few classes there myself. One class I remember well was a several week course about the book of Hebrews. It had a textbook with a hard gray cover dedicated to the subject.

My wife and I gave what was a an awful lot of money to a couple in their 20s in the 1970s -$1000 dollars at one time. I have no idea what became of it.

That's my firsthand experience of Christian charity.
Joyful8118 wrote:
Then, if you aren't getting what you are asking for, go out and get those numbers for yourself, firsthand.
Not possible. You'd need a massive effort spanning the nation, like a census or a Pew survey, but with unannounced, random audits of about 5-10% of all churches and other self-described Christian charities by independent accountants...
Joyful8118 wrote:
You don't have them because you haven't went out in the world and researched it and came back with you results.
I just gave you my private, informal, anecdotal results. I'm also willing to look at national data, but not your private, informal, anecdotal results.

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#758662
Thursday Jul 17
 

Judged:

1

1

1

It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
I think I have another choice. I can reject the claims of people who really have no idea how much of the collective receipts of Christianity are returned to the needy, but insist it much be a large fraction supported by no data, or say that I am skeptical of the claim, and find the almost complete absence of data suspicious. I assure you that if I was running an efficient charity in which every cent possible was being returned to the needy, I would pay for independent audits, publish them on the Internet, and use them in fund raising as evidence of what we were doing. I can only assume that there is a reason that almost no Christian congregation or niche Christian charity does that is for a reason.
I think it is you that is in denial. I seek evidence. You have no interest in it. Faith is good enough for you. You have faith that the church does more than it implies. How can that be a path to truth when you can have faith in that idea or any competing idea?
I lean toward the claim being fraudulent because the evidence, which in this case is a severe paucity of expected evidence combined with a handful of damning audits showing very low numbers, suggests that it is.
That's evidence based thought - what you call bias and bigotry.
When you attend a church and you see for yourself the good they do for their community, you don't bother asking for receipts. You don't need to, you've already seen what they do.

I hope you don't take this offensive, but you're using faith-based thinking when you assume that churches do more harm than good or don't spend enough of the revenue on charity. I say it's faith-based thinking because you're making an assumption with a lack of evidence.

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#758664
Thursday Jul 17
 

Judged:

1

1

1

It aint necessarily so wrote:

Disagree. The bible is not only about what passed for science a few millennia ago, but it does include that. The biblical creation myth was thought to be a literally true, accurate account of the early history of the universe.
It may have been passed down for science, but I don't think it was intended to.
Now you're talking about the New Testament. The Christian bible has an Old Testament as well where the paleoscience sections are found. And that material is just as conducive to an understanding of the god that it says exist as any other. Those are its credentials as a god - it created a universe according to a specific timetable.
You know that I don't follow that, I have debated many times with many people that the days in Genesis do not equal 144 hours.
Unfortunately, it's all incorrect. If you'd like to see a more accurate and more modern timetable and unfolding, read Steven Weinberg's The First Three Minutes.


I'm going to take a guess here that Weinberg is talking about the first three minutes after the big bang? If so, that's only speculation and I don't follow that, either.
Life isn't the determiner of the ethical status of abortion. Mind is. A rutabaga is alive until you pick it. It also has unique DNA. But killing it is not a moral issue. Give it consciousness and the ability to suffer, and it is a moral issue. A human fetus represents a potential for consciousness, and lies somewhere in between a rutabaga and a sentient creature capable of suffering. Early term fetuses are more like rutabagas, and a late term fetuses more like babies, which is why we make a distinction between the ethics of ending one life compared to the other..


Oh damn. 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, but:

"Early term fetuses are more like rutabagas"

Really?!?

You're comparing aborting a human life to harvesting a crop? I just.... I'm at a loss.
It is oppression whatever the motive.
The Christian anti-gay marriage position is no more supported by its bible than its anti-abortion stand is. This is pure wedge politics.


On that, we agree. Hypocrite Christians will cite Leviticus to curry favor against gay marriage but ignore all the other Levitical laws.

Since: Sep 10

Long Beach, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#758663
Thursday Jul 17
 
Proxy Queen wrote:
<quoted text>
People that break the law aren't innocent, even children. You know this.
I wrote a response to your post.

After i wrote it, a sense of charity convinced me not to post it.

I gave you a break.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#758665
Thursday Jul 17
 
macumazahn wrote:
He may be confusing Catholicism with the Abassid Dynasty of the Islamic Golden Age. The did advance hospitals (including the very first ones for the insane, or "afflicted of Allah"). They were also avid students of astronomy, medicine, chemistry, physics, poetry, architecture. At a time when the vast majority in Europe were illiterate.
I don't see how you could make such an error inadvertently.

“THERE IS NO GOD”

Since: Feb 09

Northern California

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#758666
Thursday Jul 17
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Proxy Queen wrote:
<quoted text> Hypocrite Christians will cite Leviticus to curry favor against gay marriage but ignore all the other Levitical laws.
If biblicists are going to quote Old Law with respect to executing homosexuals, then why don't they quote verses which prescribe the death penalty for a wide variety of acts other than homosexuality?

All of the following warrant execution:

striking your father or mother Ex.21:15
kidnapping Ex. 21:6 RSV
cursing your father or mother Ex. 21:17 RSV, Lev. 20:9
touching a mountain Ex. 19:12 RSV
allowing your ox to gore someone Ex. 21:29
lying with a beast Ex. 22:19 RSV, Lev. 20:15-16
sacrificing to other gods Ex. 22:20 RSV
failing to observe the Sabbath Ex. 31:14-15
drinking strong drinks while in the tabernacle Lev. 10:9
committing adultery Lev. 20:10 RSV, Deut. 22:22
lying with your father's wife Lev. 20:11 RSV
lying with your daughter-in-law Lev. 20:12 RSV
being a medium or a wizard Lev. 20:27 RSV
being a witch Ex. 22:18
being a priest's daughter and becoming a whore Lev. 21:9 RSV
Blaspheming the name of the Lord Lev. 24:16
cursing Lev. 24:14 RSV
coming near the priesthood Num. 3:10
being a stranger who comes near the congregation's tabernacle Num. 3:38
gathering sticks on the Sabbath Num. 15:32-35
serving or worshipping other gods Deut. 17:2-5 RSV
showing contempt for the Lord's priest or judge Deut. 17:12 NIV
failing to obey one's parents Deut. 21:18-21
not being a virgin on your wedding day Deut. 22:20-21 NIV
being a betrothed virgin who did not cry out when seduced Deut. 22:23-24
having relations with your wife and her mother Lev. 20:14
telling people to seek other gods Deut. 13:2,5
being a false prophet Deut. 18:20

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#758667
Thursday Jul 17
 

Judged:

1

Joyful8118 wrote:
Kentucky is not defending what they did.
I thought that he was pretty defensive. Why do you suppose he was "shouting" so angrily: "WE CATHOLICS DONT GIVE A RATS AZZ IF YOU LIKE US OR NOT ! "

As far as I know, he also refused to answer the embarrassing questions that I posed. Do those answers lie somewhere ahead? I sure hope so, but doubt it.
Joyful8118 wrote:
Read the one that says flat out that the one's involved should be strung up by ... Yeah, that really sounds like he is defending them.
I doubt he means that.

The church is not cooperating, so to do that would mean to seize it records by force or threat of force. The ones involved include the pedophilic priests, the ones who actively obstructed justice on their behalf, and those that turned a blind eye to the crimes of other priests and shame, despair, and self loathing they created. This would include popes, cardinals, and bishops as well as lower levels of the clergy. And it would be followed by billions or trillions on payments.

If he doesn't mean that, then he is only giving lip service to the notion.

Let's see what he says.

“Michin yeoja”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#758668
Thursday Jul 17
 
Proxy Queen wrote:
<quoted text>
People that break the law aren't innocent, even children. You know this.
They were innocent in the respect of being put on a bus by the U.S. government and transported to Murrieta. They were already detained. How many communities do you see blocking prison buses. It's OK to have dangerous criminals transported to your community, but keep those damned children out !!!

What a strange country.

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#758669
Thursday Jul 17
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Proxy Queen wrote:
Exodus 21 says nothing about a fetus and whether it's a life or not.
It aint necessarily so wrote:
Why? Because the word fetus appears in none of the translations?
From the American Standard Version: "And if men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart, and yet no harm follow; he shall be surely fined, according as the woman's husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine."
That's a fetus.
From the Common English Bible: "When people who are fighting injure a pregnant woman so that she has a miscarriage but no other injury occurs, then the guilty party will be fined what the woman's husband demands, as negotiated with the judges."
That's a fetus
And the subsequent scriptures indicate that a life is necessary compensation for the loss of a life, but a fine is necessary is there is only the loss of a fetus. That is because they believed that life was synonymous with breath. Are you aware of the etymological (word origin) history of the words with "spir" in them, like spirit and respiration?
"spirit (n.) mid-13c., "animating or vital principle in man and animals," from Anglo-French spirit, Old French espirit "spirit, soul" (12c., Modern French esprit) and directly from Latin spiritus "a breathing (respiration, and of the wind), breath; breath of a god," hence "inspiration; breath of life," hence "life;" also "disposition, character; high spirit, vigor, courage; pride, arrogance," related to spirare "to breathe"
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php...
The fetus wasn't alive to them until it was imbued with a spirit to give it breath.
Some cultures say life begins with movement - quickening is the word for a fetus' first kick.
Biologists consider not only the fetus to be life, but also the embryo, blastula and zygote. But that's not all. The spermatozoan and egg are living cells as well.
There is nothing objectively true about "life begins at conception." It's a relatively modern notion that gets its greatest impetus from Christian politics.
You can't spin this, man. Exodus 21 says nothing about a fetus and whether it's a life or not.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#758670
Thursday Jul 17
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Proxy Queen wrote:
That's kind of how liberals would like their democratic elections to go. "And the winner is.....not the actual winner, but who we say the winner is !!".
According to you, Lab28. and Joyful, the way to determine national averages such as election returns and the fraction of church receipts allocated to the needy is to walk the streets, look, collect some anecdotes, and report them.

By that method, I would argue that Gore beat Bush in 2000 by about 3:1 because about 3/4 of the people that I talked to said that they voted for Gore over Bush. All you need to do to learn the truth is to look around, right?

If you don't accept that, then you have the chance to understand why I'm not too interested in what you report as your anecdotal observations of your piece of life, either.

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#758671
Thursday Jul 17
 

Judged:

1

1

1

It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
It's both. It's a device to motivate a certain type of voter to get out and vote for certain types of candidates and issues. It does so by agitating them. Get people to take a contrived, emotional stand on abortion and milk them for votes for decades. If you can get some of them to assassinate physicians and bomb abortion clinics, you can certainly get most of the rest out to vote.
And the gay marriage controversy was another wedge issue. Get people agitated by telling them that tradition, civilization, and their god's blessings were all at stake,and out they come to vote for the "traditional" conservative candidate that promises to protect them from evil homosexuals that want to upend society and destroy their marriages.
Stem cell research, right to death with dignity, and the Terry Schiavo media circus - the "right" to a comatose life with no dignity - were also used this way, but with less success.
Alright then, how do we get around the wedge issue? How can we all be copacetic? There will always be issues that aren't universal, that people don't all agree on. Shouldn't we focus on that instead of focusing on the disagreement?
uUIdiotRaceMAkeW orldPeace

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#758672
Thursday Jul 17
 

Judged:

1

1

dirty white boy- wrote:
I'd love to change the world
https://www.youtube.com/watch...
If you like to change the world please don't introduce any idealogy , whether its Religions, politics... and don't let those men in power brainwash , without/lack of moral and without conscience are those Pyscopaths/bullies /Authoritarain of society, teach you to hate, fear... this had produce wars worldwide. S0 Wake up and question everything, you indoctrinated sycophant of a fools for the Fools, corrupted man for greed and power over you simplistic minds.
Bhbahahaaa

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#758673
Thursday Jul 17
 

Judged:

1

1

1

KENTUCKY wrote:
1. First link 2nd paragraph provided by you. Christianity drove the expansion of medical care.
325a.d Hospital construction began in every Cathedral town.
2nd link provided by you.
Notice the word NUNS in the first sentence.
Scroll down to ANCIENT HISTORY
First known nurse Phoebe mentioned in Romans.
2nd paragraph confirms first link provided by you.
Scroll down to Medieval Euro.
Spain has its first hospital founded by a Catholic.
Scroll down to MEDIEVAL EURO.
As other hospitals shut down, the Catholics stayed open.
3RD LINK provided by you.
Scroll down to TRADITIONAL
Christian churches being long term patrons of nursing and notice the word NUNS appear again. Also how influential in the development of ethos and modern nursing nuns were. Give credit to Islam as well.
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_...
Good read for all and further enhances my claim of "The Roman Catholic Church is the largest non-government provider of health care services in the world" as stated the very first sentence.
4. You are supposedly a retired doctor and never heard of Catholic research and advancement ?
From link provided above, halfway through 1st paragraph.
Regarding RCC.
It has around 18,000 clinics, 16,000 homes for the elderly and those with special needs, and 5,500 hospitals, with 65 per cent of them located in developing countries.[3]
None of that supports the claims you made with the force with which you made them. Those items support a claim that the Catholic church was involved to varying degrees at various times, not that it created the hospital system or the nursing system, for example. This is what I challenged:

KENTUCKY wrote: "It was the Catholics who gave rise to systematic nursing and hospitals and remains the SINGLE GREATEST private provider in medical care and research IN THE WORLD ! "
KENTUCKY wrote:
Do you honestly think with all these hospitals, homes and clinics that there is no research going on ? Fleming discovered penicillin at ST MARYS HOSPITAL. Don't know if Catholic or not but sure sounds Christian like to me.
You made a specific claim: "the Catholics ... remains the SINGLE GREATEST private provider in ... research IN THE WORLD ! " [emphasis yours]

My point is that you exaggerated and that you even invented "facts."

My larger point is that faith based thinkers, especially apologists, are unreliable sources of information.

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#758674
Thursday Jul 17
 

Judged:

1

1

It aint necessarily so wrote:
My opinion is determined by the quality and quantity of available evidence and my understanding of what it means. My opinion is no more stagnant than the flow of evidence that you and others have provided to modify that opinion. I have always been open to any evidence you are able to provide as I was open to those church audits you found on the Internet.
Understood. Apologies,'stagnant' was a crappy word to use.
Your repeated exhortations to simply believe without supporting evidence falls on deaf ears. And the longer that Christians that I would assume would be highly motivated to produce such data if it existed fail to do so, the more I am convinced that I am correct about the church. I'm suspicious of the very provision that exempts churches from having to report that data to the IRS. I do if I want to claim tax exemption for charitable gifts. Why not the churches? What do they have to hide?
You know as well as I do that that depends on which church you're talking about. The small "mom & pop" churches likely have nothing to hide. Some of them turn out a negative revenue at the end of the year and the balance is covered by the church owners. However, the mega-churches likely have much to hide. It unfathomable that a pastor of a church has the money for fancy cars, clothes and houses while folks in his own community go starving. It doesn't make any sense.
We would have theocracy if you tax churches? I doubt it.
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.
And which other institutions have disappeared because they paid taxes?
It doesn't matter what you or I say the Founders thought. It matters what they wrote into the Constitution. I see no justification for giving churches special rights not enjoyed by other self-proclaimed charities.
Again I refer you to the separation of church and state, which you normally staunchly defend.
Churches receive advantages that secular non-profits don't enjoy.
http://atheism.about.com/od/churchestaxexempt...
I know.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#758675
Thursday Jul 17
 
It aint necessarily so wrote:
I realize how hard that is on contemporary Christians, who had been protected from this until recently. Those that continue to defend the church (as opposed to their private walk) are being deluged with angry contradiction, like KENTUCKY here. What's he to do? Continue a counterproductive campaign that only inspires others to list off his church's crimes or closet his Christianity? Not much of a choice.
KENTUCKY wrote:
This sounds like a blatant attempt at trying to assassinate my character. You failed whether you know it or not.
Really? Sorry you think so. I thought that it was sympathetic.

What part of your character was addressed here, and how was it impugned?

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#758676
Thursday Jul 17
 

Judged:

1

It aint necessarily so wrote:
It's an emotional psychological experience combined with a cognitive one - feeling and thought or understanding. It's akin to a sense of beauty enhanced by understanding.
Emotional combined with cognitive... I like that.

I'm totally convinced now that spirituality is not just for the religious, I thank you for your aid in learning that.
Why do you use the word "merely"? Isn't a psychological experience enough? Love is a psychological experience. Amusement and fascination are psychological experiences.. So are satisfaction and self-respect. What else is consciousness and mind but a series of psychological experiences?
Sonuvabitch.... I didn't even realized I used that word. Maybe my subconscious threw it in there as a defense.

Yes, a psychological experience is enough. No "merely" involved.
In the sense of a place where I feel most at home? It's Mexico now.
Is that because you fell that your ideas and attitudes better mesh with Mexicans than Americans?

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

479 Users are viewing the Top Stories Forum right now

Search the Top Stories Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 5 min June VanDerMark 533,264
Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 6 min MUQ1 256,837
Cars.......and then REAL CARS 7 min Doctor REALITY 1
Israel's end is near, Ahmadinejad says (Jun '07) 17 min MUQ1 36,543
Of course Obama is sending illegal aliens here. 18 min wild child 22
Blaming Israel for carnage (Jul '06) 26 min Mandela 115,458
Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 41 min Hidingfromyou 93,805
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 1 hr Aura Mytha 224,510
Sims 4 Key Generator (Oct '13) 6 hr SimmerExtreme 85
•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••