Why I’m no longer a Christian

“Live Love Laugh”

Since: Aug 07

Rings of Saturn Emporium

#423315 Nov 29, 2012
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you know what the purposes are for each man using Viagra for sex? I don't. How would a company oppose it? On what grounds? Would they have to run personal checks on each employee to see if they are married and then conduct interviews to see if people volunteer whether or not they are having sex for procreation purposes? It would be pretty much impossible to try to oppose it when they have no proof it is being used in violation of church beliefs. If you
Why do you care? You are no longer in the church. It only affects church members. If women wish to belong to an organization that teaches against sex for recreation and do it anyway then that is their choice. But they can hardly expect their church to pay for it.
Have you interviewed each woman to know why she seeks contraceptives?

So you see it ask okay for the government to intervene and make Medicare pay for Viagra (government stepping in to force employers to contribute to something whether they believe in it or not) but it's not okay for government to intervene in birth control issues?

It is not just about women, though that is the main focus. It is about government getting in the lives of citizens.

But, men don't see anything at all wrong with the government forcing Medicare to pay for their ED drugs (which raises the cost of Medicare for all of us..yes, even women) but those same men will stand up and scream about contraceptives.

I don't know if you are purposefully overlooking that, or if you're just dancing around it.

I have not argued that people should pay for something they don't believe in. In fact, I've done just the opposite. My problem still lies in the inequality of how our government treats men and women on almost every level.

If you care to address the issue I raised in my post of whether or not it's right for government to make people pay for something they don't believe in, ACROSS THE BOARD, where any issue of sexual activity is concerned, then I am open to hearing your opinion. Right now, it seems that you are in favor of government stepping in and forcing all of us who pay for Medicare to share the costs of ED drugs for men.

Whether or not I am in church is not the issue. I didn't pay into medicare all those years to pay for ED drugs. Contraceptives keep babies who are not wanted from coming into this world. People who don't have the money to raise another child use these drugs more than any other sector of the country. They don't want another child for many reasons. Financial, emotional, and physical items come under the list of reasons. No one should have to explain why they don't want children. No one should be forced not to have children OR have them because their husband/boyfriend doesn't want to use a condom. The only way to 'enforce' the use of contraceptives is to force everyone to pay for it through insurance premiums. That is no more right than forcing everyone to pay for ED drugs. There just seems to be a disconnect for men when it comes to this issue.

I think people in this country have become so blind that they do not see their freedoms slipping away at an astonishing rate. And I also see that people do not consider what is right when it comes to gender. Gender bias is alive and well.

“let's do this thang!”

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#423316 Nov 29, 2012
AnnieJ wrote:
<quoted text>
This post to you is written with sincerity...not to represent anyone's view but mine...
I do not write to you the things that I do because of what you believe in nor that it is different than my own beliefs. I write to make you think...to make you dig in to your scripture...to understand it.
My problem with you is that IMO you have a way of making your faith and the scripture that you try to use against us seem slimy and sleazy. You turn a "God loves you" into what seems like a come on to pick up women.
You say that it is just "your sense of humor"...I just can not find using the words written in that book as "humor"...especially when it is used to harass or "pick up" someone.
I don't care if you are Christian...or if you are not. However...when one professes to believe then I am uncomfortable with that person using scripture in such a slimy way. Having left the faith but retaining the parts that I once and still do believe in...I just find it apalling how you use it to behave so slimy.
At times you bring God/Jesus down to your level...a pervert slime bucket...all just to maintain "your sense of humor".
I do not dislike you because you claim to be Christian...I dislike you for how you use your faith...to belittle...condemn...and to further your agenda.
I don't know how Kaitlin feels...I don't know her...maybe she enjoys your posts...I do not know. Yet when I read your posts to her...using God/Jesus/scripture to try and get in to her panties...I am sick at my stomach...as if I had just read some porn site. I find them sleazy and slimy.
I just find no "humor" in how you use your faith.
You might not like what I have written...but it is sincere...honest...and just my opinion.
Annie - the entire premise of your letter is that because i confess God & defend my faith, i'm not allowed to have a personality or freedoms to talk about anything else like you and others can. i REJECT that!

YOU'RE NOT THE BOSS OF ME!!!

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#423317 Nov 29, 2012
waaasssuuup wrote:
<quoted text>
BTW- PC-personificationist, you; i don't condemn anybody, but i also don't condone everything. PCers like yourself condone everything accept true godliness & your type has been responsible for the fall of every civilization!
Such a blind and baseless assertion you have there, perhaps, you have evidence to back this up, even a tiny bit of evidence?

From the stand of actual history, based in reality, religion seems to be the cause of almost all civilization collapses, in almost all points in history. The most common reason for a civilization to collapse is a "holy" war, in which a dominate religion likes to wipe out the lesser religions, which destabilizes the region and ultimately leads to the collapse of the regime which started the war in the first place.

Now for you "PC" assertion, yeah, this one's easy. "Godliness" is what dictators are, they control the lives of everyone and who dies. They control who gets what and for whatever reason they desire. So you are saying that not wanting to be a dictator is a bad thing, you are a horrible person.

“let's do this thang!”

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#423318 Nov 29, 2012
love_spell wrote:
<quoted text>
not what i said at all.
why must you be dishonest?????
that's a deal breaker for me.
well than tell me what i need to apologize AGAIN for:)

“IMAGINE no religion!”

Since: Feb 09

usa

#423319 Nov 29, 2012
Kaitlin the Wolf Witch wrote:
<quoted text>
*You* don't get to make that call.
what that jackass for jesus means:

never a christurd like him.

that is a compliment.

“BE BRAVE ENOUGH ”

Since: Oct 09

TO STEP IN MUD PUDDLES

#423320 Nov 29, 2012
waaasssuuup wrote:
<quoted text>
*
true godliness
Does that exist? I have not seen it. I have known a few (oh so very few) that might have displayed a bit of "true doliness" but even they have failed to live that on a consistent basis.
your type has been responsible for the fall of every civilization!
Obviously...Not only do you not read and study your Bible you have also not spent much time reading and studying history.

“BE BRAVE ENOUGH ”

Since: Oct 09

TO STEP IN MUD PUDDLES

#423321 Nov 29, 2012
okay...not sure how "godliness" became "doliness" but oh well...

either way...I have seen neither.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#423322 Nov 29, 2012
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
So you are claiming that the Christian disparaging of homosexuality is in error? They made a mistake?
Well, Skom, that's great. You should let the word out. If it's not in the Bible, I'm not sure how it got into the religion, because the prejudice against homosexuality never seems to end from Christianity.
<quoted text>
Is or is not homosexuality a "sin"? If it is not, your point stands.
In that case, Christians should follow the United Church, which declared both women and homosexuals fit for ministry - they have men, women, homosexuals of both sexes as ministers in that religion.
You do understand how words and sentences work right? You read from left to right and read consecutively. I ask because it is like somehow you read my entire post and didn't understand a single word of what I said.

The Bible does not allow for hate or singling out sins.

I would answer your questions again but the best way I know how is just how I did so in my last post, which it seems you don't understand so I guess we are at an impasse.

“let's do this thang!”

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#423323 Nov 29, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Such a blind and baseless assertion you have there, perhaps, you have evidence to back this up, even a tiny bit of evidence?
From the stand of actual history, based in reality, religion seems to be the cause of almost all civilization collapses, in almost all points in history. The most common reason for a civilization to collapse is a "holy" war, in which a dominate religion likes to wipe out the lesser religions, which destabilizes the region and ultimately leads to the collapse of the regime which started the war in the first place.
Now for you "PC" assertion, yeah, this one's easy. "Godliness" is what dictators are, they control the lives of everyone and who dies. They control who gets what and for whatever reason they desire. So you are saying that not wanting to be a dictator is a bad thing, you are a horrible person.
well PCism won in our latest election so the proof will be what kind of freedoms the US will lose to the 'collective cause' within the next 4 years.

keep your obama 2012 bumper stickers on your hybrids so freedom lovers will know how to find you!

“IMAGINE no religion!”

Since: Feb 09

usa

#423324 Nov 29, 2012
for the posters who do not yet know........

our wonderful, feisty poster known as ROADRUNNER is no longer with us.

she passed away yesterday.

MWD posted it on another thread.

she leaves behind her beloved children and parents.

hoist a toast to this wonderful lady!!!!!!!!!!

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#423325 Nov 29, 2012
waaasssuuup wrote:
<quoted text>
i can see that we've been born morally corrupt and that's why we need to be born-again.
can you NOT see this??? read your local paper.....
My local paper is about the furthest thing you can get from Christianity. Sorry, baby, most Japanese just don't get you people. The concept of being "born again" is kind of silly to us. Just use kata to fashion yourself as a better person.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#423326 Nov 29, 2012
waaasssuuup wrote:
<quoted text>
BTW- PC-personificationist, you; i don't condemn anybody, but i also don't condone everything. PCers like yourself condone everything accept true godliness & your type has been responsible for the fall of every civilization!
Wow, can you add any more generalizations there?

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#423327 Nov 29, 2012
waaasssuuup wrote:
<quoted text>
1 more time: I DON'T CONDEMN ANYBODY!!!
will you please stop condemning christianity?:)
You keep writing that gays are morally corrupt and all that.

I'll stop condemning Christianity when the religion becomes a moral one.

“let's do this thang!”

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#423328 Nov 29, 2012
AnnieJ wrote:
okay...not sure how "godliness" became "doliness" but oh well...
either way...I have seen neither.
without being 'born from above' how could you reckognize it tho it bit you on the nose???

bear in mind, the world rejected Godliness Personified and all His immediate apostles. what makes you think it would be any different (if not worse) near the end???

“BE BRAVE ENOUGH ”

Since: Oct 09

TO STEP IN MUD PUDDLES

#423329 Nov 29, 2012
waaasssuuup wrote:
<quoted text>
Annie - the entire premise of your letter is that because i confess God & defend my faith, i'm not allowed to have a personality or freedoms to talk about anything else like you and others can. i REJECT that!
You do not read...it has nothing to do with Christianity in itself...it is however how I see you display it.

Your Bible speaks of giving up things of the flesh...sometimes those things happen to be what others do.

Colossians 3:5 says it fairly well...

So put to death the sinful, earthly things lurking within you. Have nothing to do with sexual immorality, impurity, lust, and evil desires. Don't be greedy, for a greedy person is an idolater, worshiping the things of this world.
YOU'RE NOT THE BOSS OF ME!!!
Believe me...I have no desire to be your boss...or anything else to you.

However...as long as you continue to come here and use scripture to beat someone over the head...then you will continue to receive an opinion on how that scripture was intended.

If you can't take the heat Wasup...maybe you should stick to prison ministry...those that are looking for an hour or two out of their cells instead of people that can read and study for themselves.

I was sincere in my previous post to you as I am this one...yet you still can not address what was written to you.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#423330 Nov 29, 2012
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>
You do understand how words and sentences work right? You read from left to right and read consecutively. I ask because it is like somehow you read my entire post and didn't understand a single word of what I said.
The Bible does not allow for hate or singling out sins.
I would answer your questions again but the best way I know how is just how I did so in my last post, which it seems you don't understand so I guess we are at an impasse.
Dude, I don't think you can read with the nonanswer you gave above. This seems to be your MO in discussions - claim the other person isn't reading your words.

Whatever, dude. If this is how you fail to discuss, I won't bother with you.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#423331 Nov 29, 2012
waaasssuuup wrote:
<quoted text>
well PCism won in our latest election so the proof will be what kind of freedoms the US will lose to the 'collective cause' within the next 4 years.
keep your obama 2012 bumper stickers on your hybrids so freedom lovers will know how to find you!
Hmm, I don't drive, never have, never needed to because even on a bad day my legs still work.

I didn't vote for Obama, personally I don't like him, he's better than that Romney douche but meh.

I hate environuts, they're idiots who jump on bandwagons, not any different than christians, act first, think afterward, then dump all the consequences on the smaller populace since they can't fight back.

So, care to make anymore baseless assertions? I'm a conservative, lacking the god delusion, it's sad that I have to actually add that second part because morons like you took over the label and twisted into ... well, something really stupid. Obama is no worse than Bush was, and actually probably better than Romney would have been, however you think that the president actually makes the decisions, you think the president has real power, no wonder you can't vote well, you don't even know how our government works.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#423332 Nov 29, 2012
love_spell wrote:
for the posters who do not yet know........
our wonderful, feisty poster known as ROADRUNNER is no longer with us.
she passed away yesterday.
MWD posted it on another thread.
she leaves behind her beloved children and parents.
hoist a toast to this wonderful lady!!!!!!!!!!
Ah...I will do so now. I hope her family and boyfriend are ok - they have my condolences.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#423333 Nov 29, 2012
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>

An adaptation is a way to overcome problems. Let's discuss fever as an example of an adaptation. When you get sick, your body heats up - we call this fever. You feel miserable, etc., but your immune system functions better at higher temperatures while most invading organisms function worse (the exceptions are those that require fever to reproduce, or that use fever to more easily be passed on, like malaria - in this case, inducing fever in you is adaptive for the malaria parasite). So fever is an adaptation of the immune system to invading pathogens - only healthy bodies can produce fever. If you ever have a serious invading pathogen and you are unable to produce fever, you'll probably die.
Adaptations are the product of natural selection (NS). Step by step, NS removes inefficient responses (those that produce more efficient responses leave more offspring behind, on average, and therefore have their alleles increase in frequency in the gene pool). So adaptations in species are shaped over time through differential reproduction.
Adaptations cannot be the product of stochastic evolutionary mechanisms such as genetic drift. It's incapable of building such finely tuned responses.
You probably mean "developmental adaptations in individuals" like what happens if you raise your child at high altitude - s/he will developed larger lungs, shorter overall stature, etc. These are yet the product of evolution, however, and we retain them as a species b/c of gene flow. Some humans require them, their genes remain in our species as people migrate around (genes migrate more), have various lovers, settle down all over.
If I haven't answered your question, you're going to have to be more specific with what you mean by adaptation - if I haven't spoken to what you meant, you're using the word "adaptation" incorrectly.
That was a lot of information which I thank you for but I didn't see anything that separates adaptation from evolution. In fact you seem to make them synonymous when you said this:

"You probably mean "developmental adaptations in individuals" like what happens if you raise your child at high altitude - s/he will developed larger lungs, shorter overall stature, etc. These are yet the product of evolution, however, and we retain them as a species b/c of gene flow."

I understand one is in response to environment although could argue any changes attributed to evolution is simply man in general adapting to his environment. For example it is said that snakes evolved and used to have feet but because they could move faster on land without them they slowly "evolved" to what they are now. But that is the very definition of "developmental adaptations in individuals" isn't it? I mean it was a specific response triggered by environment that affected all snakes and was the end of the changes as far as we know it.

You have said prior it isn't important to know what we evolved from or how as far as needing to start from the beginning which is why abiogenesis isn't important as far as evolution theory goes. I disagreed, especially if the notion behind evolution is that it is ongoing.

But let's just take snakes. Other than losing their limbs, what reason is there to believe they are still evolving?

And don't give my response from my last post to you back to me because I went over everything you said am am asking for parts you still did not address. There is nothing in the post to show why we have any reason to believe humans haven't simply adapted to their environment, especially since evolution takes millions of years and we can't follow it sequentially.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#423334 Nov 29, 2012
love_spell wrote:
for the posters who do not yet know........
our wonderful, feisty poster known as ROADRUNNER is no longer with us.
she passed away yesterday.
MWD posted it on another thread.
she leaves behind her beloved children and parents.
hoist a toast to this wonderful lady!!!!!!!!!!
I didn't know her, but I toast to her memory.

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
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 3 min Gabriel 983,187
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing 9 min bad bob 16,861
slaves and slave masters within philadelphia's ... 32 min Laura 5
So how exactly did O.J. Simpson pull off a doub... 52 min Doctor REALITY 27
i want to know asian or latino shemales in seat... (May '09) 1 hr Jeffrey 10
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 1 hr Anthony MN 683,876
O.J. Simpson is about to be a free man once again. 2 hr common sense 27
More from around the web