However, I do make exceptions for rapes and whatnot. However, these are *my* beliefs, and I don't *believe* in pushing them on others. If someone is like "all abortion is wrong", fine. If someone is all for abortion, fine. I'm not about to go on a useless tirade to claim how MY views are right.
quote:
We were all impressed when Karnaj wrote:
Irrelevant. That's your belief, and...am I repeating myself?
FUCKING. SCARY. SHIT.
I was thinking about posting something almost exactly the same - it even started with "Irrelevant" as a single sentance.
You are my fucking schizophrenic hallucination, aren't you?! AREN'T YOU?!?
quote:
Vorbo Goatboy wrote, obviously thinking too hard:
FUCKING. SCARY. SHIT.I was thinking about posting something almost exactly the same - it even started with "Irrelevant" as a single sentance.
You are my fucking schizophrenic hallucination, aren't you?! AREN'T YOU?!?
Who's he talking to? 
"I know this, because Karnaj knows this."
quote:
How.... »Giantt«.... uughhhhhh:
Who's he talking to?
I think to me, as it he was gonna post a similar rebuttal.
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
quote:
Everyone wondered WTF when Karnaj wrote:
I think to me, as it he was gonna post a similar rebuttal.
Way to ruin it already 
quote:
Khyron had this to say about pies:
then you don't want to be the ones to live with the consequences.
I find this statement to be extremely ironic. 
quote:
Star Collective had this to say about Knight Rider:
I find this statement to be extremely ironic.
That's the point 
The mothers don't want to live with the consequences; hence the reason they want the abortion.
The pro-lifers want the mothers to live with the consequenses, yet how often do you hear them say "YOU fucked up, YOU live with it!".
No, they all say "YOU fucked up, but that is a child with a right to live! We don't care if you don't want it! It's your responcibility to take care of it!"
Which translates into, "It's YOUR responsibility to abide by OUR choice, and our choice is that YOU should take care of the kid. We don't want to take care of it, but we don't want you to kill it either."
The ideal solution, then, is to have the pro-life people, take care of the children they care for so much.
Rodent_King speaks for all the unborn children he's trying to save. So let him go out and do something more than speak; tell a mother not to have an abortion because he'll raise the kid. Then the mother can be happy because she doesn't have to, RK can be happy because he saved the child from abortion, and everyone can sing songs and dance in the wilderness like wild deer! LIKE BAMBI!
Isn't it a bit rude to say "Just because you don't want or can't take care of the baby, means you're stuck with it despite the presence of a solution."
What was it Maradon said elsewhere? You want to get people to choose another solution, offer them a better one. Well, here's your better one. The pro-lifers save the kids and raise them. The abortionist women don't get the abortion and everyone's happy.
And if the pro-lifers complain because the child isn't theirs and they shouldn't have to be the ones to take responsibility, hey, they shouldn't be the ones to make the decision, now should they?
I challenge anyone here to refute my logic! [ 11-17-2002: Message edited by: Khyron ]
And willingness to sacrifice of your own life, not just others! [ 11-17-2002: Message edited by: Zaza ]
quote:
Khyron had this to say about pies:
That's the pointThe mothers don't want to live with the consequences; hence the reason they want the abortion.
The pro-lifers want the mothers to live with the consequenses, yet how often do you hear them say "YOU fucked up, YOU live with it!".
No, they all say "YOU fucked up, but that is a child with a right to live! We don't care if you don't want it! It's your responcibility to take care of it!"
Which translates into, "It's YOUR responsibility to abide by OUR choice, and our choice is that YOU should take care of the kid. We don't want to take care of it, but we don't want you to kill it either."
The ideal solution, then, is to have the pro-life people, take care of the children they care for so much.
Rodent_King speaks for all the unborn children he's trying to save. So let him go out and do something more than speak; tell a mother not to have an abortion because he'll raise the kid. Then the mother can be happy because she doesn't have to, RK can be happy because he saved the child from abortion, and everyone can sing songs and dance in the wilderness like wild deer! LIKE BAMBI!
Isn't it a bit rude to say "Just because you don't want or can't take care of the baby, means you're stuck with it despite the presence of a solution."
What was it Maradon said elsewhere? You want to get people to choose another solution, offer them a better one. Well, here's your better one. The pro-lifers save the kids and raise them. The abortionist women don't get the abortion and everyone's happy.
And if the pro-lifers complain because the child isn't theirs and they shouldn't have to be the ones to take responsibility, hey, they shouldn't be the ones to make the decision, now should they?
I challenge anyone here to refute my logic!
the only flaw is that pro-lifers want to meddle in other people's business, and don't want anyone to meddle in theirs. They want to be able to dictate how everyone else should be, but that's their natural right, because they're morally superior to everyone else. They're better, so they gat to make all the decisions.
No, Really. Bite me.
quote:
And I was all like 'Oh yeah?' and Khyron was all like:
That's the pointThe mothers don't want to live with the consequences; hence the reason they want the abortion.
Do you think a murderer wants to live with the consequences of killing someone?
(And yes, that was a deliberately loaded question.)
quote:
ACES! Another post by Big_Mac:
the only flaw is that pro-lifers want to meddle in other people's business, and don't want anyone to meddle in theirs. They want to be able to dictate how everyone else should be, but that's their natural right, because they're morally superior to everyone else. They're better, so they gat to make all the decisions.
[ 11-17-2002: Message edited by: Star Collective ]
The government likes to meddle in other people's business also. Setting up "laws"
and "armies" and "policing" people. You'd think people would be up in arms by now.
quote:
ACES! Another post by Star Collective:
Do you think a murderer wants to live with the consequences of killing someone?(And yes, that was a deliberately loaded question.)
I think that depends; I doubt some thug in the hood that just blew someone away wants to live with it - on the other hand, take Manson for example - he killed, he's living with the consequences and apparently chose to live with them; if he didn't, he would've offed himself a while ago.
Guess it depends on your state of mind.
ben(at)netmastering(dot)nl
quote:
MadCat the 2nd had this to say about Reading Rainbow:
I think that depends; I doubt some thug in the hood that just blew someone away wants to live with it - on the other hand, take Manson for example - he killed, he's living with the consequences and apparently chose to live with them; if he didn't, he would've offed himself a while ago.Guess it depends on your state of mind.
So let's say we give this murderer the opportunity to avoid the consequences of his actions. We'll call it "abortion" for arguments sake.
Do you think that a majority of persons would willingly submit themselves to the consequences of their actions, or do you think it far more likely that they would opt out in favor of "abortion" instead? [ 11-17-2002: Message edited by: Star Collective ]
MadCat - Give me a few minutes and i will have rather large list of christian contributions.
quote:
Nobody really understood why Star Collective wrote:
So let's say we give this murderer the opportunity to avoid the consequences of his actions. We'll call it "abortion" for arguments sake.Do you think that a majority of persons would willingly submit themselves to the consequences of their actions, or do you think it far more likely that they would opt out in favor of "abortion" instead?
Okay, interesting question but just to point out, your argument is becoming flawed, because right now you're comparing murder to abortion - for sanity's sake (and for appropriate answering of your question), that equasion shouldn't be there
Anyway, if you give murderers the option of getting away without consequences, they'd all do it, ofcourse. Then again, murder generally carries a heavier penalty than abortion
You can't really make a fair comparison based on those two, so the question can't really be answered like that.
ben(at)netmastering(dot)nl
quote:
Star Collective painfully thought these words up:
Do you think a murderer wants to live with the consequences of killing someone?(And yes, that was a deliberately loaded question.)
In some cases? Yes. Serial Killers often display no remorse or regret over what they do, aside from the fact that they may get caught.
In some? Nope. There's accidents, people who go to bed at night, can't sleep because of it... it depends on the purpose.
I'd go into more detail, but then I have to ask, are you considering, for the purpose of that question, that abortion = murder?
quote:
Archon had this to say about Tron:
Khyron - Like i said, it's impractical. As made obvious by legislation and polls, the majority of Americans are pro-abortion. How you can expect a small and steadily dwindling group of people to care for the majority's children because they don't want them escapes me. With over 40 million abortions in the last 30 years and no sign of the explosive growth slowing down, there is no way all the children can be taken in by the small group of people who want to stop it.MadCat - Give me a few minutes and i will have rather large list of christian contributions.
How can I expect a small group of people to take care of the responsibilities for the choices they're trying to push upon a larger group of people?
Rather easily, since it's only fair.
It gives both sides what they want. And if the pro-lifers can't handle the amount of children they want to 'save', then what right do they have to try and force it upon the people who wanted to get the abortion in the first place?
quote:
Archon stumbled drunkenly to the keyboard and typed:
With over 40 million abortions in the last 30 years and no sign of the explosive growth slowing down, there is no way all the children can be taken in by the small group of people who want to stop it.
If those stats are true, then if nothing else doesn't abortion help our overpopulation problem?
I know its a cold way of looking at things, but with no natural predators and our scientists working their hardest to prevent any diseases from doing us in as well, wouldn't 40 million more people only compound our problem?
What I mean, I guess, is that sure life is precious, but death is necessary too. If everyone lived to 120 we would be pretty screwed.
First, Christianity provided important presuppositions of science. The Bible teaches that nature is real, not an illusion. It teaches that is has value and that it is good to work with nature. Historically this was an advance over pagan superstitions because the latter saw nature as something to be worshipped or as something filled with spirits which weren't to be angered. As one theologian wrote, "Nature was thus abruptly desacralized, stripped of many of its arbitrary, unpredictable, and doubtless terrifying aspects."
Secondly, Christianity "played a role in regulating scientific methodology." Previously, the world was thought to work in perfectly rational ways which could be known primarily through logical deduction. But this approach to science didn't work. Planets don't have to orbit in circular patterns as some people concluded using deductive logic; of course, it was discovered by investigation that they didn't. A newer way of understanding God's creation put the emphasis on God's will. Since God's will couldn't be simply deduced through logical reasoning, experimentation and investigation were necessary. This provided a particular theological grounding for empirical science.
And now, freedoms.
Christians took the forefront is the battle against slavery. It was the Christian ideal that "all men are created in the image of God."
Womans rights would be centuries behind where we are now, if not for the early Church taking the first major steps twords equalizing men and women.
One of the favorite criticisms of Christianity is that it inhibits freedom. There are at least two general factors which limit or define freedom. One we might call the "rules of the game." The other is our nature.
The concert violinist is able to play a concerto because she knows the "rules of the game." In other words, she knows what the musical notation means. She knows how to produce the right sounds from the violin and when to produce them. She might want the "freedom" to make whatever sounds she wishes in whatever key and whatever beat, but who would want to listen? Similarly, as part of God's universe, we need to operate according to the rules of the game. He knows how life on earth is best lived, so we need to live according to His will and design.
Our nature also structures our freedom. A fish can try to express its freedom by living on dry land, but it won't be free long; it won't be alive long! We, too, are truly free only in so far as we live according to our nature-not our fallen nature, but our nature as created by God. This is really another way of looking at the "rules of the game" idea. But it's necessary to give it special focus because some of the "freedoms" we desire go against our nature, such as the freedom some want to engage in homosexual activity.
The problem isn't that Christianity is opposed to freedom, but that it acknowledges the laws of our Creator who knows better than we do what is good for us. The doctrines of creation and redemption define for us our nature and our responsibilities to God. His "rules of the game" will always be oppressive to those who seek absolute self-determination.
Now, for healthcare.
Of course, it was Jesus' concern for suffering that provided the primary motivation for Christians to engage in healthcare. In the Middle Ages, for examples, monks provided physical relief to the people around them. Some monasteries became infirmaries. "The best- known of these," says Margotta, "belonged to the Swiss monastery of St Gall which had been founded in 720 by an Irish monk; . . . medicines were made up by the monks themselves from plants grown in the herb garden. Help was always readily available for the sick who came to the doors of the monastery. In time, the monks who devoted themselves to medicine emerged from their retreats and started visiting the sick in their own homes." Monks were often better doctors than their lay counterparts and were in great demand.
Christians played a significant role in the establishment of hospitals. In 325 A.D., the Council of Nicea "decreed that hospitals were to be duly established wherever the Church was established." Note that the hospital built by St. Basil of Caesarea in 370 even treated lepers who previously had been isolated.
There is much more that could be told about the contributions of Christianity to society, including the stories of Florence Nightingale, whose nursing school in London began modern nursing, and who saw herself as being in the service of God; or of the establishment of the Red Cross through the zeal of an evangelical Christian; or of the modern missions movement which continues to see Christian medical professionals devote their lives to the needs of the suffering in some of the darkest parts of the world. It is obvious that in the area of medicine, as in a number of others, Christians have made a major contribution. Thus, those who deride Christianity as being detrimental are either tremendously biased in their thinking or are ignorant of history.
I'm sure i can find more if you aren't satisfied. [ 11-17-2002: Message edited by: Archon ]
quote:
Archon had this to say about Punky Brewster:
Here we go with science( keep in mind these are very very broad categories).First, Christianity provided important presuppositions of science. The Bible teaches that nature is real, not an illusion. It teaches that is has value and that it is good to work with nature. Historically this was an advance over pagan superstitions because the latter saw nature as something to be worshipped or as something filled with spirits which weren't to be angered. As one theologian wrote, "Nature was thus abruptly desacralized, stripped of many of its arbitrary, unpredictable, and doubtless terrifying aspects."
Secondly, Christianity "played a role in regulating scientific methodology." Previously, the world was thought to work in perfectly rational ways which could be known primarily through logical deduction. But this approach to science didn't work. Planets don't have to orbit in circular patterns as some people concluded using deductive logic; of course, it was discovered by investigation that they didn't. A newer way of understanding God's creation put the emphasis on God's will. Since God's will couldn't be simply deduced through logical reasoning, experimentation and investigation were necessary. This provided a particular theological grounding for empirical science.
And now, freedoms.
Christians took the forefront is the battle against slavery. It was the Christian ideal that "all men are created in the image of God."
Womans rights would be centuries behind where we are now, if not for the early Church taking the first major steps twords equalizing men and women.
One of the favorite criticisms of Christianity is that it inhibits freedom. There are at least two general factors which limit or define freedom. One we might call the "rules of the game." The other is our nature.
The concert violinist is able to play a concerto because she knows the "rules of the game." In other words, she knows what the musical notation means. She knows how to produce the right sounds from the violin and when to produce them. She might want the "freedom" to make whatever sounds she wishes in whatever key and whatever beat, but who would want to listen? Similarly, as part of God's universe, we need to operate according to the rules of the game. He knows how life on earth is best lived, so we need to live according to His will and design.
Our nature also structures our freedom. A fish can try to express its freedom by living on dry land, but it won't be free long; it won't be alive long! We, too, are truly free only in so far as we live according to our nature-not our fallen nature, but our nature as created by God. This is really another way of looking at the "rules of the game" idea. But it's necessary to give it special focus because some of the "freedoms" we desire go against our nature, such as the freedom some want to engage in homosexual activity.
The problem isn't that Christianity is opposed to freedom, but that it acknowledges the laws of our Creator who knows better than we do what is good for us. The doctrines of creation and redemption define for us our nature and our responsibilities to God. His "rules of the game" will always be oppressive to those who seek absolute self-determination.
Now, for healthcare.
Of course, it was Jesus' concern for suffering that provided the primary motivation for Christians to engage in healthcare. In the Middle Ages, for examples, monks provided physical relief to the people around them. Some monasteries became infirmaries. "The best- known of these," says Margotta, "belonged to the Swiss monastery of St Gall which had been founded in 720 by an Irish monk; . . . medicines were made up by the monks themselves from plants grown in the herb garden. Help was always readily available for the sick who came to the doors of the monastery. In time, the monks who devoted themselves to medicine emerged from their retreats and started visiting the sick in their own homes." Monks were often better doctors than their lay counterparts and were in great demand.
Christians played a significant role in the establishment of hospitals. In 325 A.D., the Council of Nicea "decreed that hospitals were to be duly established wherever the Church was established." Note that the hospital built by St. Basil of Caesarea in 370 even treated lepers who previously had been isolated.
There is much more that could be told about the contributions of Christianity to society, including the stories of Florence Nightingale, whose nursing school in London began modern nursing, and who saw herself as being in the service of God; or of the establishment of the Red Cross through the zeal of an evangelical Christian; or of the modern missions movement which continues to see Christian medical professionals devote their lives to the needs of the suffering in some of the darkest parts of the world. It is obvious that in the area of medicine, as in a number of others, Christians have made a major contribution. Thus, those who deride Christianity as being detrimental are either tremendously biased in their thinking or are ignorant of history.
I'm sure i can find more if you aren't satisfied.
Hear hear!
quote:
Zair had this to say about Captain Planet:
If those stats are true, then if nothing else doesn't abortion help our overpopulation problem?I know its a cold way of looking at things, but with no natural predators and our scientists working their hardest to prevent any diseases from doing us in as well, wouldn't 40 million more people only compound our problem?
What I mean, I guess, is that sure life is precious, but death is necessary too. If everyone lived to 120 we would be pretty screwed.
If everyone wanted to live in one city at a population density similar to New York City, the world's six billion people could live in Texas.
quote:
Rodent King thought this was the Ricky Martin Fan Club Forum and wrote:
Hear hear!
Yeah! Woohoo! The Church has done 6 good things in it's 2000 year history!
quote:
OtakuPenguin attempted to be funny by writing:
Someone remind me to ever say anything religous again
Never say anything religious again.
quote:
Drysart obviously shouldn't have said:
Yeah! Woohoo! The Church has done 6 good things in it's 2000 year history!
I assume you are taking me up on my last offer? I'd rather get back to what the whole thread is about, but if you and madcat feel that it is necessary to undermine christianity as a contributor to society i can always find more.
quote:
Archon wrote, obviously thinking too hard:
I assume you are taking me up on my last offer? I'd rather get back to what the whole thread is about, but if you and madcat feel that it is necessary to undermine christianity as a contributor to society i can always find more.
And we could always find more examples of the harm Christianity has done to the world, but that's not the issue at hand. If anyone wants to discuss that issue, they should make a separate thread for it.
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
quote:
Drysart had this to say about Robocop:
Yeah! Woohoo! The Church has done 6 good things in it's 2000 year history!
Sorry, because leading a peaceful Christian life can't be measured, it must not count for anything.
quote:
Archon had this to say about Pirotess:
I assume you are taking me up on my last offer? I'd rather get back to what the whole thread is about, but if you and madcat feel that it is necessary to undermine christianity as a contributor to society i can always find more.
Y'know, you're just begging us to start finding references to where christianity had a serious negative impact on society
quote:
Karnaj spewed forth this undeniable truth:
And we could always find more examples of the harm Christianity has done to the world, but that's not the issue at hand. If anyone wants to discuss that issue, they should make a separate thread for it.
Oh, and of COURSE, any sterotyped group that did any harm to society MUST be completely discredited and declared useless, and indeed, dangerous!
quote:
ACES! Another post by Archon:
Here we go with science( keep in mind these are very very broad categories).First, Christianity provided important presuppositions of science. The Bible teaches that nature is real, not an illusion. It teaches that is has value and that it is good to work with nature. Historically this was an advance over pagan superstitions because the latter saw nature as something to be worshipped or as something filled with spirits which weren't to be angered. As one theologian wrote, "Nature was thus abruptly desacralized, stripped of many of its arbitrary, unpredictable, and doubtless terrifying aspects."
And this has done what? Paganism allows for logging, and all the other things we do with nature these days - they just demand proper respect for nature, and actually encourage people to be more attuned to the environment as a whole. I can't see what exactly Christianity has done here.
quote:
Secondly, Christianity "played a role in regulating scientific methodology." Previously, the world was thought to work in perfectly rational ways which could be known primarily through logical deduction. But this approach to science didn't work. Planets don't have to orbit in circular patterns as some people concluded using deductive logic; of course, it was discovered by investigation that they didn't. A newer way of understanding God's creation put the emphasis on God's will. Since God's will couldn't be simply deduced through logical reasoning, experimentation and investigation were necessary. This provided a particular theological grounding for empirical science.
Ah, then explain to me the whole creationism v.s. evolution issue - if, as that piece of text said, Christianity did open up new ways of thinking and new ways of science, then why would they be so against evolution? After all, the evolution theory was mostly empirical science. Again, I fail to see what Christianity has delivered as far as advances in science goes.
quote:
And now, freedoms.Christians took the forefront is the battle against slavery. It was the Christian ideal that "all men are created in the image of God."
Two words: The Inquisition.
"All men are created in the image of God, except the sinners, we can kill those." - that's more like it really.
quote:
Womans rights would be centuries behind where we are now, if not for the early Church taking the first major steps twords equalizing men and women.
Um, bullshit? Most religions (with the exception of Islam and perhaps Buddhism) grant more rights to the man than to the woman. Most religious families that I know, the women have no say in anything. Again, I fail to see what Christianity has done here.
quote:
One of the favorite criticisms of Christianity is that it inhibits freedom. There are at least two general factors which limit or define freedom. One we might call the "rules of the game." The other is our nature.The concert violinist is able to play a concerto because she knows the "rules of the game." In other words, she knows what the musical notation means. She knows how to produce the right sounds from the violin and when to produce them. She might want the "freedom" to make whatever sounds she wishes in whatever key and whatever beat, but who would want to listen? Similarly, as part of God's universe, we need to operate according to the rules of the game. He knows how life on earth is best lived, so we need to live according to His will and design.
Ah, but this assumes that we all obey God, and we all obey the rules God put down. And it's a fact that we don't. To take the example above, most progressive guitarists for example play whatever the hell they want to play. So this point doesn't make sense.
quote:
Our nature also structures our freedom. A fish can try to express its freedom by living on dry land, but it won't be free long; it won't be alive long!
Evolution. Fish did indeed choose to express their freedom on land. They did quite well, we're here because of it. (Or rather, the precursors to fish decided to venture onto land).
And here we have the first problem already; evolution v.s. creationism - evolution has been scientifically proven, whereas creationism hasn't. Spanked.
[snippage]
quote:
The problem isn't that Christianity is opposed to freedom, but that it acknowledges the laws of our Creator who knows better than we do what is good for us. The doctrines of creation and redemption define for us our nature and our responsibilities to God. His "rules of the game" will always be oppressive to those who seek absolute self-determination.
Again, these are not facts. They're opinions, based on the existance of God. Since you can't conclusively prove that God, or any deity, truly exists, these 'facts' are built on a -very- shaky foundation - and therefore hold no value with me.
quote:
Now, for healthcare.Of course, it was Jesus' concern for suffering that provided the primary motivation for Christians to engage in healthcare. In the Middle Ages, for examples, monks provided physical relief to the people around them. Some monasteries became infirmaries. "The best- known of these," says Margotta, "belonged to the Swiss monastery of St Gall which had been founded in 720 by an Irish monk; . . . medicines were made up by the monks themselves from plants grown in the herb garden. Help was always readily available for the sick who came to the doors of the monastery. In time, the monks who devoted themselves to medicine emerged from their retreats and started visiting the sick in their own homes." Monks were often better doctors than their lay counterparts and were in great demand.
In ancient Japan, healthcare was much better there than any Christian monk could imagine. Strange, Japanese are Shintoists(sp?) - so this doesn't exactly count either.
quote:
Christians played a significant role in the establishment of hospitals. In 325 A.D., the Council of Nicea "decreed that hospitals were to be duly established wherever the Church was established." Note that the hospital built by St. Basil of Caesarea in 370 even treated lepers who previously had been isolated.
Ah! Finally - a real true valid one. This has indeed been a decent contribution.
quote:
There is much more that could be told about the contributions of Christianity to society, including the stories of Florence Nightingale, whose nursing school in London began modern nursing, and who saw herself as being in the service of God;
But it was her contribution, not Christianity. Chances are good that she would've done this anyway, even if she weren't Christian.
quote:
or of the establishment of the Red Cross through the zeal of an evangelical Christian; or of the modern missions movement which continues to see Christian medical professionals devote their lives to the needs of the suffering in some of the darkest parts of the world. It is obvious that in the area of medicine, as in a number of others, Christians have made a major contribution.
And so have atheists, agnostics, buddhists, hindu's .. and so on. Look at any modern hospotal these days, and you'll find a very mixed bag as far as religion goes. Invalid point.
quote:
Thus, those who deride Christianity as being detrimental are either tremendously biased in their thinking or are ignorant of history.I'm sure i can find more if you aren't satisfied.
I'm indeed not satisfied - most of these alleged contributions are all based on the existance of God - since, as I said earlier, you can't prove conclusively that God exists, you're basing things on a very shaky foundation.
ben(at)netmastering(dot)nl
quote:
Archon spewed forth this undeniable truth:
Oh, and of COURSE, any sterotyped group that did any harm to society MUST be completely discredited and declared useless, and indeed, dangerous!
Oh, and of COURSE any pros that you post, can't be countered with cons
You're willing to give us all reasons why, in the past, Christianity was beneficial to society. Yet now you're objecting when we offer to bring up points in the past where Christianity was NOT beneficial to society?
Well, shit. This debate sure ain't going anywhere then. That's not called 'debate', that's called 'blindly clutching at only your own opinion and refusing to listen to anyone else's'.
quote:
This insanity brought to you by Khyron:
Oh, and of COURSE any pros that you post, can't be countered with consYou're willing to give us all reasons why, in the past, Christianity was beneficial to society. Yet now you're objecting when we offer to bring up points in the past where Christianity was NOT beneficial to society?
Well, shit. This debate sure ain't going anywhere then. That's not called 'debate', that's called 'blindly clutching at only your own opinion and refusing to listen to anyone else's'.
I don't care if you bring up the harm christianity has done to the world. I'm just saying that you can't discredit the whole deal because of it.
quote:
Archon obviously shouldn't have said:
I wasn't trying to discredit other contributions, or claim that christianity is superior in that area, merely that you can't just state we haven't done anything to contribute. Give me a moment and i'll get to the evolution thing.
Not in this thread. That's a whole separate can o' worms. Make a new one, and we'll address that issue there.
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
quote:
Archon's account was hax0red to write:
I don't care if you bring up the harm christianity has done to the world. I'm just saying that you can't discredit the whole deal because of it.
When did I say that I wast trying to discredit it? This is a debate thread, and you can expect that if one person posts on a topic, I'm gonna debate
quote:
Karnaj had this to say about Tron:
Not in this thread. That's a whole separate can o' worms. Make a new one, and we'll address that issue there.
All right. But just one thing. Evolution has never been proved. There is more evidence supporting a creator than a remote chance as the origin of life. Stating evolution as anything other than faith, goes against the majority of the principals behind the scientific process.
