Thank you for giving me the benefit of the doubt. Sovereignity isn't as simple for me as you seem to make it out to be. For example, I am sovereign over my beliefs, code of ethics, morals, etc. as you described but I do answer to higher authorities all the time. The State/Federal Government retains sovereignity over certain portions of my life. I pay taxes whether or not I particularly want to. I follow the laws even when it might be enticing to break them.

In a philosphical sense, I also follow natural "laws." I can't just decide to levitate because I feel like it. The law of gravity applies to me -- and all the laws of physics, biochemistry, etc.

Part of my confusion comes because I thought (and I might be wrong) that Christianity recognized a certain sovereignity of self -- ie. free will. It is a choice to be Christian or not to be Christian so it seems as though even you have sovereignity over your free will -- as that is how your God decreed things should be. Even as a follower of Christ, you have described many times in many posts that you have to pick through and apply rules of discernment to find the right path. You are then are 'choosing' which ethics/morals/rules are the right ones to follow (since there seem to be a number of conflicting ones even within Christianity. It's hardly uniform.)


Untrue. I answer to higher authorities.


True. I do not recognize any deities.

Given the wide ranging nature of this discussion to political power vs. morality and ethics, the context truly was a bit confusing.


This might be where we part company because I don't believe anyone knows any more than a truism = or their own sincere beliefs. So, while you might believe that my truisms are not on par with yours (if you believe that yours are objectively true) -- I hold them both to be equal and worth while and worth discussion.


Your belief that athiests do not believe in god(s) is true for athiests. What I felt was over stated was the sovereignity idea -- I recognize that there are much greater powers than I have. I'm not going to go take on a hurricane or blithely disregard the laws of state or nature. I am the 'ruler,' as you say, of my own thoughts and beliefs but ... I guess I see that as something you are the 'ruler' of as well due to my (mis)understanding of free will. It sounds as though you give that up at some point from what you're describing.


I have searched for "truth." I do that periodically in my life. I read some books that you recommended to me (one by Josh McDowell and one about geology who's name/author escapes me at the moment) and I also read some other books that had different things to say.

Nothing I read was compelling enough to change my mind. It doesn't ring 'true' for me.

I could tell you what I believe and why if you're truly interested but I don't think it would be compelling to you as it relates mostly to a mish mosh of observations, experiences, and information that I've cobbled together along the journey.


You misread what I wrote. The underlined portion was specifically stressing that I don't think anyone is willing to change their mind. My point was that my mind wasn't going to be changed by the arguments I've heard thus far on this thread (re: abortion) because I've heard them all before and they aren't compelling enough for me to change my views. It's not that I won't think about them -- it's that I all ready have thought about them and I still come to the same conclusion that I have now. Saying them to me again and again and again isn't going to make me change my mind - even if you change the words around each time.

So, based on what I've read (for the most part) on this thread, my mind isn't going to change regarding abortion no matter how emotional the arguments get or how many people choose to believe I'm a bad/immoral person because of them. I AM open to new ideas and new discussions and new things that haven't been said before like the idea Noodle and I were kicking around regarding cell/embryo/fetus transplantation but, as usual, it's more popular to talk about what's right and what's wrong.


*shaking my head*

No.. no...

Laws impose limits on behavior whether certain segments of the populace are willing or not. I never stated that it wasn't effective to impose laws to change behavior. I said that it never worked to tell someone to agree with you.

You are correct that emancipation did free the slaves but I am correct in saying that those laws did nothing to make everyone AGREE that slavery should be ended. In fact, after emancipation, Jim Crow laws which mandated "separate but equal" are a prime example of how little agreement formerly slave states had with emancipation.

So, insisting someone AGREE with you is ineffective. Insisting someone abide by an enforced law and reflect that in their behavior is VERY effective.


I understand you feel this way but I really would like you to consider for a moment this alternate avenue of discussion.

IF it is technologically possible (or could be in a short time) do you think that an effort to transplant pregnancies would be something that might conquer the divide?

I understand that you want change -- but it seems that the desire for change and finding a solution becomes subordinate to 'convincing the other side you're right and making everyone agree with you.'

If Roe v. Wade is reversed and abortion is outlawed or severely restricted, a movement will spring up to 'bring it back' which might be successful in time. Prochoice/Prolife can't ever rest. I'd like to see something investigated that makes the argument a non-argument.

All this shouting at each other isn't accomplishing a thing, as near a I can tell.


I understand that you feel this way. Why is it, then, that you ignore any discussion of alternatives such as transplantation? I would think that people would jump on that topic and posulate about it and possibly even write someone to ask if it's being looked into. Noodle wants to patent it. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" /> I think that's a grand idea.


Well, Foreverhers, I understand that you feel differently about this but I think everyone is sovereign in their life with regard to morality. Even if you choose to follow an outside code -- you have to choose which code (and sometimes which code among the codes - ex. which Christain code) to follow.

Everyone's chosen moral code is in conflict with someone's code. Does the fact that your code almost certainly conflicts with another (potentially even another that calls itself Christian) upset you? I imagine it does not.


I do the best I can with what I have to work with.

I'm sure you know that many of the slave owners were devoutly religous and used Biblical scripture to justify slavery and the 'insutability' of black people to govern their own lives.

You've implied that I'm the moral equivalent of a slave master. That wasn't very nice of you to do. History is rife with examples of atrocities that were committed by people who were convinced they were following the 'objective truth of the Word of God.' I won't equate you to them, though. It wouldn't be fair and, besides, I don't really believe it anyway.


Your hope will almost certainly be answered as I do review things periodically. At the moment, I'm starting my last semester before I earn my BS degree and I'm just too busy. I spent some time with it this summer and I'm somewhat exhausted from thinking about it. I have looked for faith/god (sincerely) and I've never found Him/It. Actually, the more I've looked the less convinced I've become.

Purely objectively, that does not mean that He/It does not exist and I do know that.

Belief, however, is not an objective thing. It's something that resides within you and speaks to both knowledge and emotion. I search that place within me and I find there is no god. It doesn't make it objectively true, as you say, but it is my truth. Until it becomes not true for me, then I will continue to say that there is no god. It is what I know. It is what I have to share.

My belief in no way needs to detract from your belief.

As a side note regarding intellectual honesty -- does my non-belief spark in you the desire to prove (once again) to yourself that god exists? If not, why not?

Mys

Your friendly, neighborhood athiest

Myschae – Let’s try not to get too “philosophical” here if we can. What we have been, or perhaps I should say ‘should have been’, focusing the discussion of “Sovereignty” on is the PERSONAL, not the societal in general agreement. We all “submit” ourselves (our right to choose what we want to do) to certain societal laws simply because it tends to make things “work better.” That was also true for Nazi Germany or the Slave States or ANY society where people decide to follow the mandates (or “laws”) of their society.

What we are talking about is PERSONAL SOVEREIGNTY. That is the right to command you to do something that you don’t want to do. The area of “morals” and Standards fall into these categories. Society, for example, may dictate that the law of the land is “disposable marriages and ‘no fault’ divorce.” But the individual may choose to disagree with the societal “law” and “morals” and decide that marriage is NOT “disposable,” should be “exclusive” and should be “for life.”

The ISSUE is the “rightness” of a given Standard that someone chooses. It is NOT that someone can choose essentially the SAME Standards, but one believes that those Standards are established by God and are applicable to everyone whether they agree with them or not, AND the other persons simply says, “I like that Standard, but not that Standard, so I will choose the ones I think I like and disregard the others.” It IS the “absoluteness,” not the “relativeness” of a set of Standards that is the question.

So long as “society” and society’s “laws” are in concert with, or even in agreement with, the Standards and Morals “you” have selected for yourself, all SEEMS harmonious and you are not bothered. In fact, you can “lean on those very laws” to provide justification of your Standards and Moral position. The “problem” begins to arise when there is “conflict” between society and personal Standards and Morals. Some “conflicts” are easily resolved and others are “go to the mat” differences that are fundamental in nature.

A couple of quick examples. The power of Eminent Domain is taken by the government in their “Sovereign” right over individuals. They CAN and WILL take your property and land for any reason they deem to be “justified for the common good.” It does NOT matter what you think about your home or land, they take it by force and without your consent. You may strenuously believe that they DON’T or SHOULDN’T have that “right,” but that will not stop them. What is “true” for them is “not true” for you, but you have no say in the matter.

I may think that I have the right to drive my car at any speed that I want to, but I willingly submit that “right” to the government, for the “good of all.” There is no real “harm” done by limiting how fast I can go and it does not alter my MORAL choice or violate my Boundaries. Hence, I willingly “cede” to society that “right of determination of ‘fast speedness’ as NOT being an “essential core belief.” I might think differently if the societal rule was “the leaders get to drive cars and YOU, because you are only 5 feet 2 inches or shorter don’t get the option to drive, you must use ONLY the “ankle express.” Why? Certainly personal inconvenience would part of the equation, the “unfairness” of a rule applied to the entire society that discriminates against anyone 5 feet 2 inches tall or less. In your mind, in that scenario, YOU might think that you are “just as human and just as deserving of the right to drive” as anyone else, regardless of how tall they are. They set an “objective standard” (i.e. height) whereby they could classify you as “less than human” and therefore NOT entitled to all the rights of a “full human.” Your “objections” notwithstanding, the “government” is Sovereign and “gets the right to determine what is right and wrong and you have no voice in the matter.”

From the perspective of God, ALL humans are created equal and would be entitled to all the rights of that “humanness” according to the Standards that God set forth for all of humanity. You COULD drive that care even if you were a “munchkin” in size or a “giant” in size. The “inherent worth” of an individual is NOT determined externally, but internally, by God. IF one rejects God as the Creator (and with it God’s sovereignty over Man) and embraces the concept of evolution as to “how we got here,” and then further embraces the Darwinian notion that “survival of the fittest” determines the “morality” and “rightness,” then ONLY each individual has the right to embrace whatever Standards and Moral they choose for themselves and no one else’s personal Standards and Morals are “better than or worse than” my own choices.


That brings us to your comments about “Free Will.”



I understand your confusion. It IS confusing because God created Man and Woman with “Free Will,” that is, the ability to choose. While I know you don’t agree with that premise, walk with me a little bit and maybe we can part some of the confusion. IF one rejects the very existence of God, then there IS no other alternative for how life got here and how we “chose” various things, including “morals,” other than random chance evolution. The ONLY “rule” that governs this process is the accidental addition of favorable “survival” tool. Babies could have been born from eggs instead of being placental, and the “problem” of abortion today would have been solved. But that’s not reality.

WHY would you or anyone else want to think that creating (through science) the equivalent of an “egg” so that the fetus can develop outside of the mother’s womb “solves the problem?” It doesn’t. All it does is make “selfish indulgement” all the more possible by “removing” some consequences. But other moral consequences would continue. Who would be the mother and father? Who would have the legal responsibilities? Who would raise the children? And a host of other questions.

But all the time PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY in the area of sexual activity is NOT addressed and left on the “altar” of a person’s “sovereign right” to behave any way THEY think is right for themselves. There is NO “outside” set of Standards and Morals that SHOULD, even if they don’t because of people’s “free will,” apply to all people.

“I thought (and I might be wrong) that Christianity recognized a certain sovereignity of self -- ie. free will. It is a choice to be Christian or not to be Christian so it seems as though even you have sovereignity over your free will -- as that is how your God decreed things should be.”
This very issue IS an issue that has been with us from the beginning of time. It is still a major issue among Christian groups (i.e., RCC and Protestant) because “Free Will” exists as a part of being human. It would be very difficult to get too deeply into this area with someone who does not even believe in God, and therefore that “free will” evolved and was not given to us by God. So let me just give you a theological answer that you will likely reject simply because it requires the existence of a “Supreme Being.”

When God created Mankind, sin was not yet in the world and Man did NOT have a “sin-nature.” Man’s “free will” was seen in Adam choosing names for all the animals in whatever manner he chose. Man’s “free will” was to DO the work of God, which was to have dominion over the earth and all that is in it and to DO (that is to submit his free will willingly to God’s will, to walk in concert with, not in opposition to, God.

After the Fall sin corrupted everything, including Mankind’s “Free Will.” Mankind is incapable of “finding God” on their own. Mankind’s will went from “thee (God) to “me” and everything it does is at enmity with God.
Choice IS involved in someone accepting Jesus Christ as their LORD (Sovereign) and Savior, but it is involved because of the Grace of God that “changes” the will to one that IS “willing” to accept Christ.

But that is getting into rather “deep theology” and the issue is NOT vital to our current discussion. The question for all, believers and unbelievers that is Primary is “Who do YOU say that I (Jesus) am?” It is NOT do you believe that God changed your “free will” so you CAN answer “you are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” It is as the blind man said to the Pharisees, “I can’t answer your theological question right now, but one thing I DO know, I WAS blind, and NOW I can see.”

All Christians start out as “infants in the faith” and grow and mature in the faith with time and study, pretty much like most humans start out as infants and learn and grow.



Myschae, this is playing “word games.” When you say, “I don't believe anyone knows any more than a truism = or their own sincere beliefs. So, while you might believe that my truisms are not on par with yours (if you believe that yours are objectively true) -- I hold them both to be equal and worth while and worth discussion, “ you are mixing things.

A “crazy person” may sincerely believe that he is “Napoleon,” but you and I both know he is not. There is NOTHING “equal and worthwhile” in denying reality. All you would be doing is consigning that crazy person to his “truth” and casting him adrift in a world where the reality is quite different. You may “feel good” about being so “understanding” of “his truth” and not wanting to contradict him or help him to see that his “truth” is in reality false.

There were, for another example, many people who sincerely believed (their truth) that the world was FLAT. The reality, despite all that worldwide sincere belief, was that that world really IS round. Truth operates independently of “sincerely WRONG belief” and in “concert with sincere belief in what IS true.”

Can we have an academic “exercise,” i.e. a “discussion,” about “varying truths that individuals hold?” Sure, but at some point we must CHOOSE a “truth” that is “above all other truths.” YOU CAN get to some places no matter which direction you start out with. Some will result in the “short way” and some will be the “long way.” And some will lead to nowhere with no hope of every “getting where we wanted to go.”

In this arena of Free Will, Morals, and Standards, the issue is tied to “direction.” That direction can be toward God or away from God. But the FIRST issue is the existence or non-existence OF God.

Without Jesus Christ, I would submit to you that God could easily become nothing more than a “concept” of “Man’s mind” that is no different than any other religion of the world. But Christianity is different from all other religions because it is founded upon a real person, Jesus Christ, who did not “just” claim things, but who “proved his claims.” As a child may not understand college level courses, they grow into that capacity and knowledge over time. So it is with “new born” Christians. But they cannot even “choose” to accept Jesus Christ unless they are issued an “invitation,” they are first drawn by God to God. Think of it, though it’s a poor analogy, like you wanting to study at a given school, are willing to study at that school, and are willing to discuss with other what that school teaches and believes, but you can’t go there or even accept any of their teachings UNLESS they first invite you, essentially telling you “we chose you, now you can choose us.”



None of it will “compel” you to change your mind. The STARTING point is Jesus Christ. Until that issue is settled and one becomes a “born again” person, the sin-nature continues to rule. The TRUTH IS Jesus Christ, first and foremost. The rest may be more or less “important” but they are all meaningless if Christ is “left out.”

So, having done all that study, what brought you to the conclusion that Jesus Christ was a liar, a crazy lunatic, or someone who really didn’t exist and is nothing more than a fable?



So now, Myschae, you are putting words in MY mouth. I have NEVER said that everyone MUST agree with me. I DO NOT “insist” that everyone agree with me. That can never happen. But that does NOT mean that I should keep my mouth shut when some states their “true belief” that is in direct opposition to “God’s truth.”

The ENTIRE world thought Noah’s truth was crazy, at least up until the time the door to the Ark was closed and the water began to fall in earnest. Noah did NOT “insist” that everyone agree with him, he stated it, went about his business of continuing to STAND in his belief in God, and let the others believe what they wanted. COULD some have “come to believe” as Noah believed? Mankind would answer “yes.” I would answer “no,” because unless God Himself draws us, we CANNOT (not “will not”) come to Christ. That is because of the total depravity of Man as a result of the Fall.



Nope. I don’t need to “prove” that God exists, God exists regardless of anyone’s belief. God is NOT impacted by what WE believe, WE are impacted by what God has established as the TRUTH.

Once truth has been established, is there a need to go back an “revisit” it every time you encounter someone who doesn’t know the truth and wants to substitute their opinion for truth, for “being just as good as the truth even if it might be false?”

Here is the truth. Jesus Christ is a historical person who lived and died and rose again from the dead. He claimed for himself to BE God, the Son of God, and performed many miracles, culminating in his resurrection to give “authenticity” to his “claims.” He provided, if you will the “show me” in “I’m from Missouri, show me.”
But I will have the “desire” to share the truth about God with anyone who seems willing to actually discuss and examine the issue. NOT because I can “win souls,” I can’t without the help of God anyway. All that Christians really are commanded to so is to “plant seeds.” It is God who takes those seeds and makes them grow into adulthood, in the fields of His choosing. Other fields, sown with the very same seeds, will wither and die because the “Master Gardener” has not chosen to work in those fields and someone else masquerading as the Master Gardener, but without the loving care of the Gardener, tries to convince the seeds in those fields that they can “go it alone,” all the while he is also sowing seeds of fast growing, choking, weeds that will “take over” and be the “fruit” of those fields.

Great. But, uh, the only part of this that isn't mythology is that Jesus did in fact exist. We have no proof (save from the Bible, which is at best an epic work of fiction with maybe a few scattered truths) that he ever made any of your claims, we have no proof that he performed any miracles, and we have no proof that he 'resurrected.' So, given thus, there is no 'authenticity' to his 'claims.'

Here's a really great question for you: How can you believe the Bible is true, but not believe that the Quran is true? How can you believe the Bible is true, but not the Torah? The Vedas and the other great Hindu Epics? What about all of the Egyptian and Greek stories? Why is YOUR book true, but all of the others false? On a very basic level, they're all the same!

The Bible is just Christian Mythology passed down over millenia. To believe it to be a LITERAL TRUTH seems to be a bit out there. I believe the same way about the other 'Holy Books' too though. They are great, epic stories and they CAN impart morality (some better than others) upon a person, but that does not make them TRUTH.

Ultimately, though, I guess people will believe what they may. It just sincerely bothers me that people can be so willing to give up logic and reason just to believe in a something that amounts to a giant, violent fairy tale (and it doesn't even have a happy ending!)

Anyway, myschae, yer my new internet atheist best buddy. I hope you don't mind. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

TheRogueX - If I felt that you were sincerely interested a response to your questions rather than just being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative, I might take the time to answer your questions.

But since I don't believe there is any sincerity in your questions let me simply say that if you are really interested in the area of Textual Criticism (as in "Are the Bible documents reliable) there is a plethora of information out there that you can research to your heart's content.

You are biased against the Bible for one reason and one reason only, you don't like the idea that there might actually be a Sovereign God "out there" that will judge you by His Standards.

If you ever do get to the point where you would sincerely like to explore things regarding Jesus, I will be happy to discuss them with you. But you argue from a position of "ignorance" of both history and proof in your poste and I don't intend to waste my time "arguing" with someone who already has his mind made up because to accept Jesus would "interfere" with what you want in your life.

One brief example: You said; "How can you believe the Bible is true, but not the Torah?" Do you even know what the Torah is? If you did, you would not ask such an obvious question that reveals your "ignorance" of the subject matter that you so vociferously condemn.

Just more "Christian bashing" is all I see in your post. Bash away, it won't change the truth because of your opinion against it.

EDIT: Forget it. I'm done. There is no point to arguing this. I believe how I believe, you believe how you believe, and that's that.

So I deleted my post. Enjoy.

TRX:

You're far from the only one. Sadly, WAT had enough of the religious bigotry that's allowed on these boards.

I've chosen 2 ignore FH's posts, though I haven't used the "ignore" button 2 do it yet.

http://www.marriagebuilders.com/ubbt/sho...rue#Post3102894

-ol' 2long

ForeverHers


Heh. Funny that you say that. I often perceive that you are the one taking things into the philosphical arena.


Fine. Just so we're clear. I don't want anyone to think I'm some sort of sociopath that doesn't believe in an ordered society.


This seems contradictory to me. If you disagree with societal laws and choose not to get divorced, commit adultery, have an abortion, et al. then how does that relate to being commanded to do something you don't want to do? If you disagree with doing it -- then you mostly likely don't want to do it.

Most societies don't demaind those things -- with the notable exception being China which tried to limit children to 1 per household (and look at what a mess that made).


I believe that personal standards and morals are just that -- people's own choices. I do, however, judge them on a societal (not religious or against some uniform standard such as the one you speak of that was issued by God) basis with reference to what contributes to an ordered society and what does not.

I do happen to believe that things ARE relative to the society in which we live and what's going on around us.

Let me give you an example:

Stealing is wrong.

When Hurricane Katrina hit, many people were going into drug stores and 'stealing' medication and distributing it. Some of them were behaving ethically and distributing it according to need. Some of them were undoubtably taking advantage of the situation and causing harm. I would not place those two actions on the same objective scale. To me, the goodness or wrongness of their actions is relative to the situation. Normally, it's always wrong to steal from a drug store. In that case, it was not wrong to do it if you were helping others -- it was if you were trying to manipulate the system and disregarding others (worse, even, than just robbing a drugstore in normal times).

So, yes, to me it IS relative.


I believe that life evolved. Yes.


True.


I hadn't seen that suggested until now. What we were talking about was transplantation from one womb (woman) to another womb (woman). Presumably the woman who gave birth would take the responsibility.



*shrugs* Oh, I don't believe that all consequences would be removed from sexual activity because there would still be people who were unable to transplant (give up) their pregnancies. There are still outside standards and morals that apply -- for example, laws against pedophilia, etc. I just don't think pregnancy should be a way to punish women for having sex.


Yes. Mythology.


Well, I'll tell you.

First, I'm not without bias (who is?) and I started looking with the deep suspicion that "Jesus" was a fictional character created to illustrate the moral play of the times much like Aesop's fables or the various mythologies of the world.

That said, I did try to keep my bias in mind and keep as open a mind as I could.

I read that book by McDowell that you recommended and then I went researching to see what other people had to say about it and they had quite a lot. I read, browsed, spoke with, etc. a variety of materials and people and came to the conclusion that there is a lot out there! I didn't keep a record of everything I searched since I wasn't writing a thesis on it -- but rather just exploring my own personal journey so I can't chronicle in detail here what exactly I did.

In the end, I concluded that there just wasn't enough good evidence that Jesus ever did live. There is a lot of things people wrote and said that he did, etc. There is just as much stuff refuting it.

I suppose the lack of truly conclusive evidence (evidence with a high level of agreement/interpretation) tends to lead me to a 'gut' level decision about the whole thing which is that Jesus was a fictional character who never actually existed -- though "he" may be a collection of stories of people who did exist, they all just weren't the same person.

In particular, the part that caused me the most doubt where the "miracles" that were performed. I don't believe they are possible and I don't believe they happened. I think, rather, that they are like the actions of the god mythologies of the world that attempt to explain things using magic. Their appearance in the stories is most likely due to exageration over time.


Has truth been established?

I'm not sure it has been established conclusively for me. Clearly it has for you.

In the meantime, I do have my opinion which I feel comfortable expressing and I shall continue to express it.


I do not believe that to be the truth.

As you've said, if it is the truth then my belief does not make it untrue. If it is not the truth, then your faith/belief will not make it true.

I suppose we'll have to wait and see.

Mys

P.S. To The RogueX and to FH, as well


I don't mind at all.

If you want a board where religious discussions (from the athiest side) are presented, then you might visit http://www.iidb.org/vbb/index.php. Anyone is welcome (Christians, etc) though the board is striclty moderated to ensure that discussions remain appropriate.

I don't visit there much, but I did find it in some of my internet wanderings.

Your friendly, neighborhood athiest

I am a born again Christian. That being said upfront, I would say that I think the stand that TRX takes is very disrespectful at times. However, I am not one the believes that is anything would consititute "proof" that Christ was in fact God. Having worked in a field that required standards of proof... I just have never seen anything that could be considered an incontrovertible set of facts that allow for anyone to say there is proof. There always seems to be something that must be assumed in order to reach that point.
My proof is in my heart... it is in the still small voice that tells me the Lord has called me to His side. To try and prove to anyone that there is a scientific basis for that belief has never measured up for me. It allows for too many "experts" on one side or another to make compelling arguments for their belief.
IMHO.. we take away some of the divinity of our belief when we try and 'prove" that Christ is Lord. Instead... the Lord will call the person to Him in His time and the proof shall be found in their heart... not in a textbook.
JMHO.

2long, I have likewise chosen to stay out of discussion from you when you exhibited your bigotry too. So should we amend your statement to read You're far from the only one. Sadly, others have had enough of the atheistic bigotry that's allowed on these boards.?

I'll tell you what, take it up with the owners of the board. It is their board and they are within their rights to ban you, me, or anyone they want from their system.

Just as in the thread you linked to, you don't like it when when anyone has the "temerity" to actually believe in God and Jesus Christ AND to say so. Okay, I understand your dislike. I dislike the attacks on Christianity in general and on Christians in particular too, but I'm not in the least surprised by it.

So here you are interjecting your opinion in another bigoted and disrespectful post claiming that it is the Christians who are bigoted and disresepectful. I guess the Fog is far reaching after all.

Let's not be so obtuse. You "object" to me just like a previous poster stated that he would like to see Christians just die.

Got anything positive you want to contribute or just more Christian bashing in the middle of a discussion that had NOTHING to do with you?

And I'm supposed to be the bigoted one? If so, I'll move over a tad, there seems to be plenty of room on that bench.

MEDC - Couldn't have said it better myself.

But we are also required to be ready to give someone an answer as to why we believe if they inquire. Whether or not they believe, or even accept, those reasons is not important. All they are are "seeds" that are sown. And we don't know which seeds the Lord will choose to make grow. But that's HIS domain.

God bless.

FH gets the dubious distinction of being the first and only user that I've ever put on "ignore".

Others:

Those of you who know me, including the original poster of this thread, know that FH's description of me is innacurate, 2 put it mildly.

Those of you who don't know me, I only hope that you judge me on my own merits, not on any of FH's rants.

I've never been anti-Christian.

-ol' 2long

Since you won't be reading this I'll keep it short so the others can be assured that your distracting intrusion into the thread is over.

Another very positive contribution to the thread, 2Long.

But that has been your mode of operation, defame and attack those who do happen to believe in Christ and are not willing to roll over and say that 2Long is the all knowing.

As for your claim to never being anti-Christian, I could go back into the threads and pull up some examples from your posts, but what would be the point? As you once said in your cloak of atheism...."Jesus and I are just fine." So it's really quite clear what your attitude toward Christ is, and it's decidedly not Christian. I'll leave it at that.

Have a wonderful day out there.

And that, Myschae, IS the truth. It really is an "either/or" type of thing.

Since you have elected to withdraw from the discussion I will leave it with an open invitation to you that if you ever want to discuss the areas that you have "problems" with, I will endeavor to address them.

Okay, last thing to say.. I must have missed this comment.

Why is Christianity any different than any other religion of the world? Why are all other religions simply "concepts of Man's mind," but Christianity isn't? Christianity is just another one of the world's myriad of faiths. To believe otherwise is arrogance. They are ALL "truth" in their own way. They are all of God, just in different ways. Why? Because everything is of God. God exists in all things, right?

EDIT: Those are all rhetorical questions. Answer them if you wish, I'm done with this thread now. Thanks.

You know we are all atheists to some extent; I bet most here are atheistic with respects to the believe in . . . say . . . Zeus. It just so happens that I am atheistic to one more god than FH and other Christians.

wow... very profound.

Thank you.

I am curious how the people on this thread view capital punishment...??

Do you mean capital punishment as a concept or the capital punishment system as implemented in the US?

I have different opinions based on which one you mean.

Mys

Very opposed to it. There have been too many innocent people executed.
I beleive that the punishment of death should be avoided until there is an infallable system in place to assure no mistakes are possible.
Governer Brown from California (Edmund Brown) who mistakenly sent more than a few people to their death has written a few good books on the topic.
Morally killing even ONE innocent person (when we could just keep them locked up (which BTW is cheaper) so that mistakes can be corrected....) is indefensible. Plus there is not deterrent factor either... which is one of the main reasons the DP is supposed to exist.