Yes because we've seen how tolerant religions have been of discussion through history. It's only now that the church is dwindling and has lost it's power that they have liberalised their attitudes.Mandy wrote:I don't agree. I think putting down what one believes in clarifies and allows discussion of the issues.til661 wrote:It doesn't allow for "discussion" because they believe that their books are the infallible word of god. It stifles debate not encourages it.
People have a way to adopt to changing times even if religious.
In the extreme, they change religion (jump ship). Possibly like Old Testament to New Testament.
"God Is Not Great"
Epistle to the Romans 1:26-27Mandy wrote:Any references for where this came from ?til661 wrote:Because of this [idolatry], God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error
Just because we can't spot life, doesn't mean there isn't life. Even on our earth, the scientists have missed lfe for decades :nekokate wrote:On all the other billions of planets that didn't have the right "settings", there isn't life, so there is no one to ponder it. So why, just because this planet is one in a billion billion, should we look at nature and say "There has to be a God"?
[web]https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6661987.stm[/web]
That could be the view of Paul the Apostle, but doesn't mean all Christians believe in it.til661 wrote:Epistle to the Romans 1:26-27
Indeed, there is discussions in Christianity that some items such as the Virgin Birth could be metaphoris.
Last edited by Mandy on Thu May 17, 2007 3:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
You either believe what's in the Bible or you don't. If it is the word of god then it is 100% or nothing.Mandy wrote:That could be the view of Paul the Apostle, but doesn't mean all Christians believe in it.til661 wrote:Epistle to the Romans 1:26-27
1 Corinthians 6:9-10Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God
That's not the point I was making. I was saying that just because we look around us and see all this amazing, beautiful life doesn't mean we should automatically assume, because of it's fantastic complexity, that it is the product of a Higher Being's creation.Mandy wrote:Just because we can't spot life, doesn't mean there isn't life. Even on our earth, the scientists have missed lfe for decadesnekokate wrote:On all the other billions of planets that didn't have the right "settings", there isn't life, so there is no one to ponder it. So why, just because this planet is one in a billion billion, should we look at nature and say "There has to be a God"?
I was actually responding to something Face said - this thread is getting added to so fast that my context got lost! Hehe! I'll make better use of the quote feature in future
God was speaking metaphorically eh?Mandy wrote:That could be the view of Paul the Apostle, but doesn't mean all Christians believe in it.til661 wrote:Epistle to the Romans 1:26-27
Indeed, there is discussions in Christianity that some items such as the Virgin Birth could be metaphoris.
You would have thought that being endowed with omniscience he would have realised mixing facts and metaphors would cause trouble down the lineOoh. Ouch!til661 wrote:No i'm arguing against all religionnekokate wrote:til661 is arguing against religious extremism, not against religion per se, and Mandy is arguing back in defense of moderate religion, am I correct? If so, then I don't really understand where the discussion is going to get us!
nekokate wrote:Ooh. Ouch!til661 wrote:No i'm arguing against all religionnekokate wrote:til661 is arguing against religious extremism, not against religion per se, and Mandy is arguing back in defense of moderate religion, am I correct? If so, then I don't really understand where the discussion is going to get us!
Probably something to do with the centuries of persecution faced by non-believers and the stranglehold that faith has had on the culture in europe until recently and even today in much of the world.faceless wrote:I find that absolutes are the problem - no-one can prove scientifically that there is or isn't a God. Why it bothers those who don't believe that there are many who do believe is always a mystery to me. Agnosticism seems the most logical approach.
You can't base your philosophy on how others have been treated before - that makes for an external reason, rather than internal as I think it should be.
To be "un-american" today is the same as being "un-christian" has been in the past - it's not religion that causes that, it's the desire for control by whatever means.
To be "un-american" today is the same as being "un-christian" has been in the past - it's not religion that causes that, it's the desire for control by whatever means.