atheism

[Charles_Darwin]

Ok, so I’m “vegetarianistic” towards other meats except chicken. That all makes sense now.

Well yes you would be. I am a vegetarian. If you did not eat any animal other that chicken for the same reason i am a vegetarian then that would make you for want of a better word “vegetarianistic” towards those animals.

 

[gearhead]

1. It is based in history, whereas most religions make little or no historical claims.

They don’t?

Islam, Judaism, Buddhism and Hinduism all certainly do. AFAIK, most other religions have myths about the past; I think the extent to which history is emphasized in a religion depends how dependent the religion is to history.

Shinto, for example, wouldn’t be too badly effected with a different sense of history. Christianity, OTOH, suffers from the problem that if certain key events didn’t actually happen, the faith as a whole is undermined.

In any case, I don’t really see this point as a strength.

2. Only Jesus ever claimed to be God. (or a god)

So? The Muslims would count this as a strike against Christianity, not a point for it. Why is this a good thing?

Also, Christianity probably isn’t unique in this regard. Off the top of my head, there’s apparently some dispute over whether Haile Selassie claimed to be God, as the Rastafarians held (and still hold) him to be.

**3. **The places and events in the Bible are (unlike other faiths) always being confirmed by secular archaeology and history.

Many of the places and events of the movie Casablanca can also be confirmed by secular archaeology and history, but the key points of the plot are entirely fictional.

As far as the Bible goes, it has major problems with archaeology and history:

• the whole “young Earth” thing, which I realize you have resolved by declaring the Genesis myth to be some sort of allegory or metaphor, but was still a problem for centuries.
• evidence against the Exodus from Egypt (which I can go into if you want)
• incorrect historical details; for example: Jesus was supposedly born during the reign of Herod and while Quirinius was governor of Syria. Yet Herod died before Quirinius became governor.
• conspicuously absent historical details, like Herod’s slaughter of the infants that’s described in the Gospels. Why would Josephus, who described this era in detail and was no fan of Herod, omit this major event from his writings?

4. Jesus did not write one book in the Bible, even though he is the central figure of our faith.

Why is this a point in your favour? IMO, if it points to anything, it points to Jesus being either wholly or substantially mythic and not historic.

5. Christianity is completely certain in its faith, and does not leave anything to be “vague,” or “uncertain” in terms of how to achieve its purpose(salvation).

Really? Then why the Reformation? Why the Marcionites, Gnostics, and all the other groups that you find when you look up “heresy” in the Catholic Encyclopedia?

6. Salvation is by faith; other religions teach it is by “good works or deeds.” (In other words, they say you save yourself.)

By faith and the Sacraments, right? So you do “save yourself” in a manner of speaking, don’t you?

7. Grace. What this means is that, unlike other religions, our God’s love is “free of charge, no catch.” Only our Christian faith teaches that our God’s love is unconditional.

The doctrine of Hell is incompatible with the idea that God’s love is unconditional. And this contradiction, I doubt that Christianity is the only religion that preaches that God’s love is “free of charge”; there are quite a few religions with universalist views of salvation. There are many others that have no concept of salvation at all, because they have no concept of damnation in the first place.

Also, another problem that atheists have when criticizing Christianity is that they seem to not understand God as we do. In their criticisms they show a very minimal(if any) understanding of our theology and our scripture/tradition, creating a god in “their image and likeness.” They set up a “false” god, claim it as the God of Christianity, then knock it down. Hmm…

Well, if you have any issues with anything I’ve written, please feel free to correct my assumptions, whether in this thread or elsewhere.

Personally, I’ve found that I know the Bible and the Catechism better than many Catholics I know, so the problem you describe probably isn’t limited to atheists.

 

[Madaglan]

Originally Posted by Gearhead:

Many of the places and events of the movie Casablanca can also be confirmed by secular archaeology and history, but the key points of the plot are entirely fictional.

Casablanca was presented as fiction.

It was made by Hollywood and not presented as documentary nor the re-creation of a story that actually happened.

Of course, there are movies like *A Beautiful Mind *and Schindler’s List, which, wild as they may seem, have foundation in actually occurring events with real people–including real imaginary people, in the case of A Beautiful Mind.

As far as the Bible goes, it has major problems with archaeology and history:

• the whole “young Earth” thing, which I realize you have resolved by declaring the Genesis myth to be some sort of allegory or metaphor, but was still a problem for centuries.
• evidence against the Exodus from Egypt (which I can go into if you want)
• incorrect historical details; for example: Jesus was supposedly born during the reign of Herod and while Quirinius was governor of Syria. Yet Herod died before Quirinius became governor.
• conspicuously absent historical details, like Herod’s slaughter of the infants that’s described in the Gospels. Why would Josephus, who described this era in detail and was no fan of Herod, omit this major event from his writings?

Why is this a point in your favour? IMO, if it points to anything, it points to Jesus being either wholly or substantially mythic and not historic.

The Genesis story of creation long has been understood as allegory (e.g. Augustine). It’s traditional exegesis has been in relevance to liturgical time rather than to scientific time, although there are Christian writers (e.g. Gregory of Tours) who understand the years in a literal sense, going back to the beginning of Creation.

Josephus between his The Jewish War and The Jewish Antiquities openly contradicts himself on innumerous occasions. Yet, even where there is significant conflict of descriptions in his own works, he is not forthwith discredited in his words.

Depending on the size of the massacre, it may not have attracted Josephus’ notice.

The Matthean account specifies that Herod was behind the massacre, but besides this, we don’t know who actually committed the murders, the reasons given, the actual number of infants killed, etc. It could even have been staged as banditry so as to protect Herod.

 

[josie_L]

actually the history is a little more sketchy than you think. The ancient Chinese & ancient Romans both had same sex marriages (even holding elaborate ceremonies for these events).

In ancient Roman society (as in ancient Greek society) marriage and divorce required no special ceremony and no special government or religious approval. During this period same sex marriages did happen (until 342 AD, when the practice was banned under Codex Theodosianus, a compilation of laws by Christian emperors who ruled between 312 and 342).

Therefore, you have no historical argument (moreover, the Romans were quite successful during their first six or seven centuries of history when they paid no special notice to whether or not gay people wanted to marry each other … yet soon after becoming Christianized the greatest empire the world has ever seen fell to a bunch of impoverished barbarians).

Excuse me, but I did say traditionally, historically, and religiously-speaking marriage was and is between man and woman, so just because you found one example of same sex marriages between men during Roman times (by the way, Nero was the first who supposedly allowed gay marriage) does not change the overall view of marriage in almost every era of human history.

p.s. I heard no mention of same sex marriages (unions, yes, but not marriage) in Ancient China.

I wish you to read this and then if you can give me your thoughts (although I’m sure as heck you’ll disagree):

“The introduction of legalized gay marriages will lead inexorably to polygamy and other alternatives to one-man, one-woman unions.”

“In Utah, polygamist Tom Green, who claims five wives, is citing Lawrence v. Texas as the legal authority for his appeal. This past January, a Salt Lake City civil rights attorney filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of another couple wanting to engage in legal polygamy. Their justification? Lawrence v. Texas.”

“The ACLU of Utah has actually suggested that the state will “have to step up to prove that a polygamous relationship is detrimental to society”-as opposed to the polygamists having to prove that plural marriage is not harmful to the culture. Do you see how the game is played? Despite 5,000 years of history, the burden now rests on you and me to prove that polygamy is unhealthy. The ACLU went on to say that the nuclear family “may not be necessarily the best model.” Indeed, Justice Antonin Scalia warned of this likelihood in his statement for the minority in the Lawrence case.10 It took less than six months for his prediction to become reality.”

 

[gearhead]

"The ACLU of Utah has actually suggested that the state will “have to step up to prove that a polygamous relationship is detrimental to society”-as opposed to the polygamists having to prove that plural marriage is not harmful to the culture. Do you see how the game is played? Despite 5,000 years of history, the burden now rests on you and me to prove that polygamy is unhealthy.

Yes, that’s how a free society works: if you want to deny someone the freedom to do something, you have to justify it. Exactly what do you think is wrong with this principle?

The ACLU went on to say that the nuclear family “may not be necessarily the best model.”

It probably isn’t. And it’s certainly not traditional. Historically, a family wasn’t typically just parents and children as an isolated unit; it was also grandparents, cousins, uncles, aunts, etc., all tightly linked and living in close proximity, if not actually under the same roof.

This “Leave it to Beaver”-style family that the anti-same-sex marriage movement seems to be putting forward is a very recent creation.

 

[yankee_doodle]

Excuse me, but I did say traditionally, historically, and religiously-speaking marriage was and is between man and woman, so just because you found one example of same sex marriages between men during Roman times (by the way, Nero was the first who supposedly allowed gay marriage) does not change the overall view of marriage in almost every era of human history.

no Nero wasn’t the first to allow gay marraige, he was just the first emperor who was said to marry a male. Homosexual marriage was never banned in Roman history until the 4th century. Moreover, it’s not an isolated example, there was also the Greeks and ancient Chinese.

Indeed regulating marriage as we do today is the exception historically, not the norm.

p.s. I heard no mention of same sex marriages (unions, yes, but not marriage) in Ancient China.

they were marriages in the same sense men and women were married. Do you really think the ancient Chinese came up with preposterous distinctions like civil unions? Sounds like you’re grasping at straws.

“The introduction of legalized gay marriages will lead inexorably to polygamy and other alternatives to one-man, one-woman unions.”

that’s absurd

“In Utah, polygamist Tom Green, who claims five wives, is citing Lawrence v. Texas as the legal authority for his appeal. This past January, a Salt Lake City civil rights attorney filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of another couple wanting to engage in legal polygamy. Their justification? Lawrence v. Texas.”

first of all Lawrence was a case involving men who were engaged in a consentual sexual act (in the privacy of their own home); it had nothing to do with marriage. Secondly, I never suggested that some people out there won’t try to use all sorts of absurd arguments to advance their twisted agenda. However, how far did Green get with his legal arguments? If you don’t know allow me to enlighten you… 5 to life!!

Let me create an analogy to show you how fallacious your logic is. Imagine someone would like to institute Shariah law as the law of the land in the United States. The Supreme Court has decided in favor of religious advocates on occasion. For instance, high school students can participate in voluntary extracurricular religious clubs on school property. If our good friend who proposes national enactment of Shariah law relies on the cases which won the right for those high school students to participate in student religious organizations, does that give me license to create a nexus between the two? Of course not … yet this is exactly what you’re doing.

“The ACLU of Utah has actually suggested that the state will “have to step up to prove that a polygamous relationship is detrimental to society”-as opposed to the polygamists having to prove that plural marriage is not harmful to the culture. Do you see how the game is played? Despite 5,000 years of history, the burden now rests on you and me to prove that polygamy is unhealthy. The ACLU went on to say that the nuclear family “may not be necessarily the best model.” Indeed, Justice Antonin Scalia warned of this likelihood in his statement for the minority in the Lawrence case.10 It took less than six months for his prediction to become reality.”

again … you’re creating a nexus where none exists. Frankly I find your intellectual dishonesty either underhanded or simply not well thought out.

 

[yankee_doodle]

Now I know that the common response would be to nitpick at it with vague criticisms, so bring it on babe!

defender of the faith huh?

 

[josie_L]

Yes, that’s how a free society works: if you want to deny someone the freedom to do something, you have to justify it. Exactly what do you think is wrong with this principle?

What is wrong with this principle, you ask? Well let’s see now, because we have and are attempting to uphold “rights” at any cost despite the fact that this will irrevocably change our whole social infrastructure might have something to do with it. And the change of which I speak of is not good.

It probably isn’t. And it’s certainly not traditional. Historically, a family wasn’t typically just parents and children as an isolated unit; it was also grandparents, cousins, uncles, aunts, etc., all tightly linked and living in close proximity, if not actually under the same roof.

This “Leave it to Beaver”-style family that the anti-same-sex marriage movement seems to be putting forward is a very recent creation.

The family nucleus has always included a mother, a father and children. The remediate family is or consists of grandparents, cousins, uncles, aunts . . . etc. Do not confuse the two.

p.s. If you are an ex-Christian than surely you know that a son who marries leaves is mother and father to cleave to his wife and vice versa (and the two become one).

 

[gearhead]

What is wrong with this principle, you ask? Well let’s see now, because we have and are attempting to uphold “rights” at any cost despite the fact that this will irrevocably change our whole social infrastructure might have something to do with it. And the change of which I speak of is not good.

You didn’t actually respond to my point.

In a free society, we begin (conceptually, at least) with absolute legal freedom. Then, limits are imposed on individuals, but only when these limits can be reasonably justified.

If same-sex marriage actually causes harm like your rhetoric suggests, then you should have no problem coming up with a reasonable justification for why it should be prohibited. On the other hand, though, if you can’t come up with a reasonable justification, then you have no business prohibiting it.

The family nucleus has always included a mother, a father and children.

Again, no, it hasn’t. Historically, when one of the leading causes of death in women was childbirth, it was common for a child to be raised by just one parent, or by one biological parent and a step-parent.

p.s. If you are an ex-Christian

Nope. But I’ve read the Bible.

than surely you know that a son who marries leaves is mother and father to cleave to his wife and vice versa (and the two become one).

This kinda speaks against your argument you just made about polygamy, doesn’t it?

 

[josie_L]

no Nero wasn’t the first to allow gay marraige, he was just the first emperor who was said to marry a male. Homosexual marriage was never banned in Roman history until the 4th century. Moreover, it’s not an isolated example, there was also the Greeks and ancient Chinese.

Indeed regulating marriage as we do today is the exception historically, not the norm.

The Greeks and ancient Chinese did not call homosexual unions marriage. You talk about calling me underhanded, I don’t think so, marriages were for the most part in almost every civilization the preserve of man and woman. Here is what wikipedia said:

Same-gender romantic love or sexual desire has been recorded since ancient times in the entirety of the continent of Asia, right from the Middle East to South Asia to East Asia. The most common form of same-sex unions were usually age-structured relations between men. There is far less information available on relationships among women in ancient times.

In Japan , Shudo, the Japanese tradition of pederasty was prevalent in samurai society from the medieval period until the end of the 19th century. Shudo, in its pedagogic, martial, and aristocratic aspects, is closely analogous to the ancient Greek tradition of pederasty (paiderastia).

Some early Western societies integrated, and even celebrated, same-sex relationships, though it should be noted these relationships were generally substantially different from traditional marriage and in some cases co-existed with traditional marriage. The practice of same-sex love in antiquity often took the form of pederasty, which was limited in duration. (It is important to note, however, that marriages in Ancient Greece between men and women were commonly age structured, with men in their 30’s taking wives in their early teens.)[citation needed] There were also marriage between men, at least among the Romans, as this practice was outlawed in 342 AD by the Christian emperors Constantius II and Constans.

In Hellenic Greece, the pederastic relationships between Greek men (erastes) and youths (eromenos) were similar to marriage in that the age of the youth was similar to the age at which women married (the mid-teens, though in some city states, as young as age seven), and the relationship could only be undertaken with the consent of the father.[citation needed] This consent, just as in the case of a daughter’s marriage, was contingent on the suitor’s social standing. The relationship consisted of very specific social and religious responsibilities and also had a sexual component. Unlike marriage, however, a pederastic relation was temporary and ended when the boy turned seventeen.

Now tell me if what was said is refering to marriage or sexual unions/relationships between men?

 

[yankee_doodle]

That’s exactly what I said (btw I love how you bolded the two or three references that you think somehow helps your argument).

Oh yeah, and we’ve deviated quite a bit from your original position (which was there is no historical precedent for same sex marriages). That’s OK … because at least you’ve taken the time to do some rudimentary research (although I would encourage expanding beyond Wikipedia … look at their footnotes, they usually provide pretty good references where you can really learn something).

 

[josie_L]

In a free society, we begin (conceptually, at least) with absolute legal freedom. Then, limits are imposed on individuals, but only when these limits can be reasonably justified.

I am not imposing nor is anyone else who believes as I do trying to deny Gays the rights they would receive with marriage (we want them to have these rights but within their civil unions), what we do ask is that they not call it marriage? The reason being is that they would be redefining marriage and as such opening up a pandora’s box that will allow others to further redefine marriage, do you think that such a thing is impossible?

If same-sex marriage actually causes harm like your rhetoric suggests, then you should have no problem coming up with a reasonable justification for why it should be prohibited. On the other hand, though, if you can’t come up with a reasonable justification, then you have no business prohibiting it.

"The Kerista commune collapsed in 1992, but the polyamory movement has taken hold in academia where, according to First Things, its proponents “are now so influential, if not dominant, in the academic field of marriage and family law.” Scholars enamored with polyamory argue in favor of "a social revolution that would replace traditional marriage and family law."5

"Kurtz concurs that the “gradual transition from gay marriage to state-sanctioned polyamory, and the eventual abolition of marriage itself, is now the most influential paradigm within academic family law.” One prominent advocate of polyamory, David Chambers, professor of law at the University of Michigan, argues: "By ceasing to conceive of marriage as a partnership composed of one person of each sex, the state may become more receptive to units of three or more."6

frc.org/get.cfm?i=bc04c02

There is an academic/social movement to undermine marriage as we know it, and by allowing gays to marry we attempt to redefine and further the agenda of those who wish to see traditional marriage gone.

Again, no, it hasn’t. Historically, when one of the leading causes of death in women was childbirth, it was common for a child to be raised by just one parent, or by one biological parent and a step-parent.

How does this change the fact that the nucleus of the family begins and consists of a mother, father, and children?

This kinda speaks against your argument you just made about polygamy, doesn’t it?

I suppose you refer to the polygamous “practices” that occured in the Bible which was not the will of God, but rather the will of men, since God made it clear that in the beginning the covenant called marriage consisted of one man and one woman.

 

[gearhead]

I am not imposing nor is anyone else who believes as I do trying to deny Gays the rights they would receive with marriage (we want them to have these rights but within their civil unions),

I’m glad you want this; in my experience, many anti-same-sex marriage activists don’t.

what we do ask is that they not call it marriage? The reason being is that they would be redefining marriage and as such opening up a pandora’s box that will allow others to further redefine marriage, do you think that such a thing is impossible?

With enough political will, polygamy could be made legal even if same-sex marriage were banned. Without political will, polygamy will not be made legal even if same-sex marriage were made legal.

And if your real gripe is with polygamy, why not legislate against it directly and leave the gay and lesbian people alone?

There is an academic/social movement to undermine marriage as we know it, and by allowing gays to marry we attempt to redefine and further the agenda of those who wish to see traditional marriage gone.

Sure there is. Don’t believe everything the Family Research Council tells you.

How does this change the fact that the nucleus of the family begins and consists of a mother, father, and children?

I’m just pointing out that throughout history, it’s been commonplace for children to be parented by one parent who’s a blood relative of the children and one parent (or step-parent, if you prefer) who isn’t.

I suppose you refer to the polygamous “practices” that occured in the Bible which was not the will of God, but rather the will of men, since God made it clear that in the beginning the covenant called marriage consisted of one man and one woman.

Actually, I was referring to something else. If marriage is really two people becoming one flesh, then polygamy really isn’t a matter of separate, distinct marriages that have nothing to do with each other besides the husband. Can your arm marry someone while your leg stays single?

 

[josie_L]

This country was founded by men who were far from zealous Christians. To the contrary most of them were deists (notably Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, Ethan Allen, and perhaps most famously Thomas Paine, who authored “The Age of Reason” which popularized deism in the colonies).

Take a read of Jefferson’s “Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth” (where he exhibits the strong deist tendency of stripping away all the supernatural and dogmatic references from Jesus’ story).

The Age of Enlightenment (the precursor for our Declaration of Independence) is where concepts like individual freedom, democracy, self-governance, the application of reason, the revolutionary departure from monarchy, theocracy, oligarchy, aristocracy, and the divine right of kings were formed. Yet you guys act as if western history is a product of Christianity.

Immanuel Kant was the quintessential enlightenment thinker … an absolute atheist. Francis Bacon, Descartes, Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, David Hume, Leibniz, Rousseau, Adam Smith, Spinoza, Voltaire, etc. Pascal accused Descartes (who was born Roman Catholic) of harboring secret atheist or deist beliefs (and doing “his best to dispense with god” in his philosophy). David Hume is known to have been an atheist (who held back on making a public announcement of his views during his lifetime, in light of the likelihood he would be hanged or worse). Hobbes is also thought to have been atheist, Voltaire … atheist, Spinoza was excommunicated from Judaism (called a writ of cherem), Locke IMO was a Christian (although a very soft-theist); and yes even Adam Smith was a religious skeptic (who was greatly influenced by Hume).

Oh yeah, all the founding fathers I mentioned above are considered enlightenment era heavy weights as well.

Gee wiz … even George Washington (although he was a regularly attending member of his Anglican church) held a very secular outlook and seemed to find kinship with deists (and there is considerable questions surrounding his religious perspectives). I’m struggling to find any of these so called fundamental Christians you guys keep saying founded our country; but guess what … there were virtually none.

Indeed it seems our founders would have viewed the growing influence and political power of the very dogmatic brand of fundamental protestantism found in the US these days & Catholicism a threat rather than a welcomed diversion from our so called wickedness.

It was spanish theologians in the 16th century that created the basis for internation law concerning the dignity and rights of man.

An excerpt taken from: “How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization” by Thomas E. Woods Jr. Ph. D

“At this point, the king, faced with dramatic testimony regarding Spanish behaviour in the New World, called together a group of theologians and jurists to develop laws that would govern Spanish officials in their interaction with the natives. In this way were born the Laws of Burgos (1512) and the Valladolid (1513), and similar arguments influenced the so-called New Laws of 1542. Much of this legislation on behalf of the natives proved disappointing in its application and enforcement, particularly since so much distance separated the Spanish Crown from the scene of activity in the New World. But this early criticism helped to set the stage for the more systematic and lasting work of some of the great sixteenth century theological jurists.”

“Among the most illustrious of these thinkers was Father Francisco Vitoria. In the course of his own critique of Spanish policy, Vitoria laid the groundwork for modern international law theory, and for that reason is sometimes called “the father of international law,” a man who propose[d] for the first time international law in modern terms.” With his fellow theological jurists, Vitoria “defended the doctrine that all men are equally free; on the basis of natural liberty, they proclaimed their right to life, to culture, and to property.” In support of his assertions Vitoria drew from both Scripture and reason. In so doing he “furnished the world of his day with its first masterpiece on the law of nations in peace as well as in war.” It was a Catholic priest, therefore, who brought forth the first grand treatise on the law of nations- no small accomplishment."

It was not atheism or any other “ism” that gave equality before the law, but the equality under natural law as was put forth by Spanish theologians of 16th century (these are my words not the author’s):

“In sum, Spanish theologians of the sixteenth century held the behavior of their own civilization up to critical scrutiny and found it wanting. They proposed that in matters of natural the other peoples of the world were their equals, and that the commonwealths of pagan peoples were entitled to the same treatment that the nations of Christian Europe accorded to one another. That Catholic priests gave Western civilization the philosophical tools with which to approach non-Western peoples in a spirit of equality is quite an extraordinary thing.”

 

[josie_L]

I’m glad you want this; in my experience, many anti-same-sex marriage activists don’t.

With enough political will, polygamy could be made legal even if same-sex marriage were banned. Without political will, polygamy will not be made legal even if same-sex marriage were made legal.

And if your real gripe is with polygamy, why not legislate against it directly and leave the gay and lesbian people alone?

Sure there is. Don’t believe everything the Family Research Council tells you.

I’m just pointing out that throughout history, it’s been commonplace for children to be parented by one parent who’s a blood relative of the children and one parent (or step-parent, if you prefer) who isn’t.

Actually, I was referring to something else. If marriage is really two people becoming one flesh, then polygamy really isn’t a matter of separate, distinct marriages that have nothing to do with each other besides the husband. Can your arm marry someone while your leg stays single?

My rationale is: I do not wish for anyone to redefine marriage, to do so would unleash something so radical that it would endanger in my opinion the fabric of society as we know it. God bless.

 

[rinnie]

Here is the thing. atheism is people who do not believe in God. It is as simple as that.

Now Christians are people who do believe in God its as simple as that.

For a person to be a Christian and believe in the teachings of CHrist they cannot believe in something that goes against these teachings.

So to push gay marriage on a Christian would cause a Christian to go against the teachings of Christ. It is unacceptable. Case closed. Its a sin, and if you want God in your life you cannot sin.

Now for a atheist to say that a person can live anyway they want and sin all they want because there is no God anyway, what do they have to lose. Nothing. THey do not believe in God so they accept sin because they really don’t believe in it.

So to say that you do not agree with gay marriage because you want eternal life with God that you do believe in, you have but no choice but to disagree with gay marriage. So all you can do is not vote for it, and to have no part of it. Jesus warned us we would be called names etc. But we trust him so could care less.

So for a Christian to sin and go against God they have everything to lose.

For a atheist to agree with (and they love to go with the opposite of what God says) what do they have to lose. Nothing. Nothing at all. Because they have no faith. They say God is not real anyway. SO instead of saying I can see how you believe in your God and you have your right to your belief and way of living they will not do that. They turn it around and say you must accept our way of living or you are a bigot.

Christians do not push their faith on no one. You can’t make someone to believe in God.

My proof. Easy If we could push our faith on people there would not be atheism at all now would there.:tiphat:

 

[StillWondering]

They don’t?

Islam, Judaism, Buddhism and Hinduism all certainly do. AFAIK, most other religions have myths about the past; I think the extent to which history is emphasized in a religion depends how dependent the religion is to history.

Shinto, for example, wouldn’t be too badly effected with a different sense of history. Christianity, OTOH, suffers from the problem that if certain key events didn’t actually happen, the faith as a whole is undermined.

In any case, I don’t really see this point as a strength.

I would like to disagree with this claim. Judaism as far as I can tell are against any individual human beings to claim they are God. Islam claims the creator of the world is their God from what I know. Hinduism is a totally different story and I do not see any Hindu teachers to claim they themselves are their deities that were considered orthodox Hindu. The same with Buddhism who talks about this enlighten state which is not God. Shinto does not claim any person who have lived to be a diety either right? Only aspects of their lives and or their existence, not the individuals.

Now there are other groups that have deistic claims, however, those are generally considered to be cult or cult-like and none of the ones listed above.

Correct me if I’m wrong. If I am not wrong, then the quote you are trying to refute still stands. Jesus teaches us he is the Son, whom we understand to be the second person if the Trinity.

 

[yankee_doodle]

It was spanish theologians in the 16th century that created the basis for internation law concerning the dignity and rights of man.

An excerpt taken from: “How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization” by Thomas E. Woods Jr. Ph. D

Vitoria was a great thinker, yet his claim to fame was in areas such as just war theory and international law (not democracy, individual liberty, revolution from monarchy, theocracy, etc.). To stretch that into a claim like the CC built western civilization is absurd. Western civilization as we know it today is premised on the ideas of secular thinkers.

Ideas like liberty find their roots as far back as the Code of Hammurabi. Freedom of religion dates back to the Persian Empire. In the Maurya Empire of ancient India all ethnic groups enjoyed freedom, tolerance, and equality.

But even that’s besides the point. No Catholic priest such as Vitoria ever proposed a departure from monarchy (or objected to the concept of the divine right of kings, particularly his own pope). Absolutism was one of the central road blocks in the way of progress and democracy (and the Spanish, who you seem to admire so much, had a particularly brutal monarchy).

Your incomplete (or perhaps dishonest) assessment of history strips your posts of any real intellectual value. IMO you’re just a partisan for your church & partisans can rarely be trusted to speak honestly.

 

[josie_L]

That’s exactly what I said (btw I love how you bolded the two or three references that you think somehow helps your argument).

Oh yeah, and we’ve deviated quite a bit from your original position (which was there is no historical precedent for same sex marriages). That’s OK … because at least you’ve taken the time to do some rudimentary research (although I would encourage expanding beyond Wikipedia … look at their footnotes, they usually provide pretty good references where you can really learn something).

I wasn’t aware of homosexual marriage within the early roman empire, although one has to wonder whether this was accepted by the people or not, either way, I wished to convey that historically (for the most part), traditionally and religiously marriage was viewed as a covenant/contract between man and woman.

p.s. No, that is not exactly what you said because they refered to unions (as in sexual/social relationships with men) but not marriage.

 

[josie_L]

Vitoria was a great thinker, yet his claim to fame was in areas such as just war theory and international law (not democracy, individual liberty, revolution from monarchy, theocracy, etc.). To stretch that into a claim like the CC built western civilization is absurd. Western civilization as we know it today is premised on the ideas of secular thinkers.

Ideas like liberty find their roots as far back as the Code of Hammurabi. Freedom of religion dates back to the Persian Empire. In the Maurya Empire of ancient India all ethnic groups enjoyed freedom, tolerance, and equality.

But even that’s besides the point. No Catholic priest such as Vitoria ever proposed a departure from monarchy (or objected to the concept of the divine right of kings, particularly his own pope). Absolutism was one of the central road blocks in the way of progress and democracy (and the Spanish, who you seem to admire so much, had a particularly brutal monarchy).

Your incomplete (or perhaps dishonest) assessment of history strips your posts of any real intellectual value. IMO you’re just a partisan for your church & partisans can rarely be trusted to speak honestly.

Why are you assuming so many things about me, I don’t understand your attacks? Furthermore, I only responded to your post to add a little perspective because you were implying that the Church is somehow “anti-freedom”, which is indeed your position. I wasn’t exactly expecting ANOTHER put down by you.