[What is Christianity? (A CALM discussion of what it's about)]

Christian doctrine explicity states that children should be raised in a Christian environment, it's part of Jesus' message. Since children are too young to weigh up the facts objectively if you tell them that in The Bible it says that the world was created in 6 days they'll believe it.

 

 

 

Yeah, the Bible says that children should be raised in a Christian environment. The situations you are describing are children being raised in a fundamentalist Christian environment, which is different.

 

 

 

 

 

Your right, God and science are not mutually exclusive, but Christians don't just believe in a higher power do they?

 

 

 

What are you getting at?

 

 

 

 

 

It's hard to outline explicitly what it would involve, but I think I would let my child come to her own decisions about fairly deep philosophical questions such as the existence of God when she was old enough to weigh up all the arguments for and against.

 

 

 

Ah, but in your passiveness, you are raising your child in a secular environment and thus they will be predisposed towards secularity. It's kind of impossible to raise a child in an "objective" manner, I would think.

 

 

 

 

 

Oh really? So when you read the Bible to children, or tell children to read the Bible, and they read the rather horrifying passages about the threat of hell that isn't damaging?

 

 

 

I don't think so. At least it wasn't damaging in my case, or in any of my friend's cases. The Christian view is that Christ saved us from the threat of hell so it's not really something I've ever really worried about. The Bible contains a lot more passages on how to bring heaven into your life here on Earth than how to bring heaven into your afterlife. Either way, children's Bible stories are mainly picture books about Christ's parables and telling the children to live a life of love; they aren't full of fire and brimstone tactics. As a child, what scared me more than the heaven vs. hell talk was the possibility of there being nothingness after death. At least when hell existed, heaven existed too, and I'd rather have that choice than having nothing to look forward to.

 

 

 

 

 

The effects of Christianity extend far beyond what the Bible explicity tells people to do, reading the Bible is supposed to be an important part of being a Christian, but some of it rivals works of horror.

 

 

 

The point of horror novels is to scare; the horrific parts of the Bible are histories about the Jewish people and the wars they were involved in. It's like saying Julius' Caesar's Gallic Wars are horrific so we shouldn't read it for its historical content. There's alot more to reading the Bible than just reading the text in a shallow manner, and that is why children are introduced to it in a gradual manner, just like children are introduced to math in a gradual manner. You don't start learning calculus in kindergarten, just like you don't start trying to teach a child about the theology behind hell before they understand other fundamental truths to Christianity.

 

 

 

It's bedtime, I'll write more some other time.

[Why can't atoms change shape?]

All an atom is is a tiny weeny nucleus with electrons orbiting it. Most of the atom is empty space. I think the analogy is the atom was the size of a football stadium, the nucleus would be the size of the football.

 

 

 

Anyway, an atoms shape is presumably determined by the electrons orbiting it, and because you cannot pin down a single electron with a position and velocity they kind of blur as to where they are, you can only represent the probability of where an electron might be at any moment in time. Electrons inhabit certain discrete orbitals, which are necessarily mainly circular in shape because that's the way they "orbit" the nucleus. A sphere is a preferred shape in physics for orbits of electrons.

 

 

 

It's a funny thing to think about, you can't really compress electrons into appearing into different areas and therefore change the shape of the atom. You can compress an atom, but that requires spectacularly large amounts of gravitational strength or pressure.

 

 

 

A lot of it is quantum mechanics, which I don't know that much about, so i'll just leave my speculation at that.

 

 

 

Well the shape of orbitals change during hybridization don't they? The atom would be changing shape, but it is a predefined shape and another atom is getting involved, but still.

[What is Christianity? (A CALM discussion of what it's about)]

1. True, but even those who don't present it to their children as fact. My parents are not Biblical fundamentalists by any means, they're not even that Christian, but when I was young I was told that the world was created in 6 days by God. It's a story which is told with a surprising degree of conviction given the fact that most of the adults who are telling it might not even believe it themselves. But your point has little consolation towards the children of any Christian parents or any kind of faith, who, like me were brought up believing the creation story literally.

 

2. I didn't call Christianity a fairy tale, I called most of the creation stories of the various religions fairy tales, which when you examine them they are. Read about the Hindu creation story, sounds pretty far fetched, but it arose with the same intentions as the Christian version, to try and explain what we could not know at the time. To take it as historical fact nowadays when we know better is like basing all your scientific knowledge on Aristotle.

 

 

 

All this shows is that you are unhappy with how some Christians bring up their children. What does this have to do with Christian doctrine? Does it tell us in the New Testament to bring up our children on fundamentalist views? If you can prove that parents that do this are doing so because of a Biblical command, then sure.

 

 

 

1. Biblical literalism and science are mutually exlusive. You cannot believe that the Earth was created 6000 years ago in 6 days and the scientific version. They just don't fit.

 

 

 

I said God and science aren't mutually exclusive. One can easily believe in God creating the universe and science as well. You're relying on a literal interpretation of the Bible to support your argument, which is a straw man.

 

 

 

Thankfully it doesn't, they come to Christianity for their own reasons, often in times of need and when they feel like they need some kind of support. Clearly you don't have to be indoctrinated into a religion to believe in it, but i'm willing to be that if you raised one generation of children in a neutral, objective manner you wouldn't get them growing up thinking of the existence of God or validity of the Bible as obvious.

 

 

 

What does raising a child in an objective manner look like?

 

 

 

Do you think knowing that it's fiction that takes away any of the enjoyment?

 

 

 

Yes, I've seen children cry when they find out Santa Claus is a myth. I don't think children cry when they're enjoying something more.

 

 

 

I don't think you get kids growing up terrified of the consequences of the existence of Santa Claus

 

 

 

The Bible doesn't tell us to scare our children with fire and brimstone. This is another action that you're interpreting as an application of Christianity and thus using it to refute Christianity. Another straw man.

 

 

 

You mean like actually thinking about how God was asking a man to kill an innocent child for the sins of the man? Doesn't that disgust you?

 

 

 

I thought I already addressed the fact that from a Christian viewpoint, everybody's life belongs to God and that nobody is innocent?

 

 

 

Oh, and there's the fact that God never actually had Abraham sacrifice his son. I'm sure if you'll remember, once Abraham proved faithful God provided another way out.

 

 

 

We are all deserving of death? How tragic, how self-deprecating that you should submit your precious life to the whim of an apparently fickle creator.

 

 

 

This is something we will never agree on. We disagree on the nature/benefits/consequences of pride/humbleness and so this argument will never be resolved.

 

 

 

If God is omnipotent, and omniscient why place the child in the world in the first place if he knew Abraham would have to kill it?

 

 

 

Abraham didn't kill it.

 

 

 

It doesn't make any sense that God should have put a child in the world for the sake of testing the faith of Abraham.

 

 

 

Are you aware of the circumstances under which Abraham's child came into the world originally?

 

 

 

Not to mention this entire argument about Abraham is ridiculous because it's prior to Judaism AND Christianity, and Christianity is quite separate from Judaism as far as sacrifices and atonement for sins is concerned.

 

 

 

does God approve of animal sacrifice? Yes.

 

 

 

Post Christ?

 

 

 

 

 

It wasn't an aside at all, I was pointing out that there are numerous contradictions in the telling of this particular story. How do contradictions give the Bible any more authority?

 

 

 

Because if you and I were going to try and doctor two separate biographies to be the same we wouldn't load it full of minor inconsistencies, would we?

 

 

 

I wish it was. The sad truth is that the charge of deicide was only recently dropped by the Vatican, look it up.

 

 

 

I didn't know what the Vatican laying charges on someone has to do with my salvation. That's what I don't understand.

 

 

 

 

 

Hell isn't part of Christianity? The last part maybe, but the first is still relevant.

 

 

 

Terrifying children with Hell isn't part of Christianity.

 

 

 

You might not be told to, but the promise of an afterlife can lead people to be so.

 

 

 

I don't see how someone ignoring Biblical commands (not taking life flippantly) has anything to do with the validity of Christianity. Again, stop confusing bad application with bad principle.

 

 

 

So do I, but by commanding people to do something which they cannot hope so achieve with the threat of hell if they don't I do disagree with.

 

 

 

Me too. That's why Christ's forgiveness exists.

 

 

 

Based on who's experience? Calling something untrue without evidence isn't much of a refutation, there's clear psychological evidence of people feeling immense guilt most of their lives for "sinning". And if you don't believe the second then look no further then certain pastors or preachers who do indeed violently denounce other sinners.

 

 

 

I'm not denying it happens, I'm just saying that it's got nothing to do with Christian principles.

[What is Christianity? (A CALM discussion of what it's about)]

Bear in mind I am responding to your post from a Christian standpoint, as we are assuming the Christian faith here.

 

 

 

Presenting a false picture of the world to the innocent and the credulous. Fairly self-explanatory, but i'm sure we all know that as a child you're likely to believe in non-truths which a lot of people grow up to reject. Santa Claus, the tooth-fairy etc. Telling children that God made the world in 6 days in a particular order is just a such a fairy-tale.

 

 

 

1. Not all Christians believe in 6-day-creation.

 

2. Calling Christianity a fairy tale makes it easy to refute since you're already assuming that it is invalid. This is called circular reasoning.

 

 

 

 

 

The only reason children brought up in a Christian environment often carry on accepting it well into their adult-hood is because it's so well imprinted on kids at an early age. If you told a rational 18 year old adult who's well versed in the scientific big-bang model and evolution, the creation story would sound silly, childlike.

 

 

 

1. You're assuming that God and science are mutually exclusive, which they are not. This has been reiterated on so many threads, so many times I'm surprised someone like you would still attempt that this argument.

 

2. You're leaving out those who become Christians later on in life. How does your idea of child imprinting work here?

 

 

 

The same applies to me when I learnt about for example the Hindu or Sikh creation stories. They sound absurd, but in reality why are they any more absurd than the Biblical creation story? What gives either any more validity than the other? The religious creation stories are little more than folk myths passed down the generations, and to present them as fact to children who are too young to know otherwise is unfair and manipulative.

 

 

 

So I guess you won't be telling your children about Santa Claus then? You will always tell your children 100% truth? Why do you get to choose which lies children believe are moral and which aren't? Guess you'd better throw out fairy tales or fiction novels. Or at the very least, tell your children before you read them any story that it didn't actually happen. That would be consistent.

 

 

 

But again, see above. If the Christian God exists, the creation story could totally be 100% true. Or, it could be symbolic. Science and creation aren't mutually exclusive.

 

 

 

There is one example of blood sacrfice which stands out as particularly awful to me. Abraham's wilingness to sacrifice his only son is a story common to all three monotheisms, and for some reason was always held up to me when I was a child as an example of perfect faith in God. If you step back and look at this story objectively, it's actually pretty repulsive.

 

 

 

1. What is this incredibly "objective" view from which you look at this story?

 

2. What does this isolated event have to do with Christian doctrine?

 

 

 

Naturally, Abraham was praised from the clouds above for showing his willingness to murder an innocent child for his own crimes

 

 

 

1. What crimes?

 

2. We're assuming God exists since this is a discussion about Christianity. That makes all creation belong to God. That means God can take life, just as he gives it. From a Christian perspective, no person is innocent, either. We are all sinful and deserving of death. Since Abraham is acting for God, it is not murder.

 

 

 

because a voice in his head told him to.

 

 

 

This is offensive and circular in logic.

 

 

 

Some Christians do indeed still practice ritualised animal slaughter to celebrate Easter.

 

 

 

Some Christians rape children. What does this have to do with Christianity?

 

 

 

The idea of vicarious atonement troubled even C.S. Lewis. Again, in the Christian doctrine we have a father subjecting his own son to death by torture, but this time the father is not trying to impress God. He is God, and is trying to impress humans.

 

 

 

Impress humans? Give me a break. This is a joke, right?

 

 

 

Ask yourself, if you were told the following what would you think? 2000 years ago a human sacrifice took place against your wishing and under circumstanes so horrible and vicious that if you had been around at the time and able to, you most likely would have tried to stop it.

 

 

 

The Disciples were Jesus' best friends. They did not try to stop it.

 

 

 

But, ignoring all the contradictions between the tellers of said story,

 

 

 

I know this was an aside to try and insult Christianity one step further, but I honestly think contradictions are proof that the Gospels were not a doctored story.

 

 

 

let's assume it's basically true. It goes on, in order to actually gain the benefit of this generous offer you have to accept that you are in someway responsible for the flogging, torture and crucifixtion in which you had no say and no part.

 

 

 

Funny, I thought the Bible stated that we had to accept the fact that we are sinners and that Christ died for us. But of course, your Bible knowledge is obviously greater than mine.

 

 

 

 

 

Of course, if you really think about the original sin of Adam he was created by God with an insatiable discontent and curiosity and then forbidden to exercise it. Therefore, your own guilt in the matter is deemed original and inescapable. Of course, God generously gave us free will to allow us to refuse this offer, but should you exercise this choice you face an eternity of torture.

 

 

 

I believe I posted about this earlier. Did you miss it?

 

 

 

A central tennent on Christianity, Jesus dying for "our sins" is in fact a shallow charade, Jesus both needed and wished to die and came to Jerusalem at Passover in order to do so, and all who took part in this murder were actually doing God's will. There is also a passage in one of the Gospel's that the Jews who condemned Jesus asked for his blood to be on their heads for future generations. Odd as it seems, this is then what lead the Vatican to maitain their it was the Jews who had killed Christ, not just some or a few, but the Jews. The charge of deicide was only recently dropped by the Vatican. Jesus dying for "our sins" is scapegoating, plain and simple, the offer of offloading our sins onto someone else is supposed to be loving, but in reality it's just not right.

 

 

 

None of this makes any sense at all. Sorry, maybe you can explain it better, but this seems to be some crackpot theory you dreamt up on the spot.

 

 

 

False hope and children terrified of hell. Need I say more? I suppose I will. What else could drive a suicide bomber to blow themselves up except for the absolute conviction that there will be an afterlife with 72 virgins waiting for them.

 

 

 

This isn't Christianity.

 

 

 

What else but the idea of pearly gates could lead people to be so flippant with this life, treating it like a temporary state, a borrowed body?

 

 

 

This isn't Christianity either. We are not told to be flippant with our lives.

 

 

 

 

 

As for eternal punishment, that's fairly self explanatory, and i'll elaborate more on it in the next point.

 

 

 

I've addressed it in a previous post.

 

 

 

 

 

The commandment at Sinai which forbade people to even think about coveting goods is the first clue. There's also a passage in the NT from Jesus saying that a man who even looks at a woman in the wrong way has committed adultery, as well as the Christian (now no longer used) and Muslim prohibition on charging interest on money. All these try and place restraints on basic human initiative and instinct (which God made in the first place). They are in effect, thought crimes.

 

 

 

The Law was established to realize how much we cannot do, and to point us to God - what really saves us is not the Law, but the dependence on God that comes from a failed attempt at observing the Law.

 

 

 

I guess what you're suggesting is that if a Law cannot always be followed it, to just abolish it? I disagree with that notion.

 

 

 

This leads to two possible things, eternal guilt and feelings of sin about 'impure' thoughts. These in turn lead to hysterical confessions, false promises of improvement and loud and often violent denunciations of other 'sinners'.

 

 

 

That train of events is a slippery slope and, just untrue.

 

 

 

The other possibilty is that a large enough donation to the right religious authority and cleanse you of your sins. Or, you can bend the rules, the Dalai Lama tells us that you can visit a prostitute as long as someone else pays her, Shia Muslims offer a temporary marriage selling men the permission to take a woman as his wife for an hour or two with all the usual vows then divorce her straight afterwards. St. Peter's was financed by a similar arrangement.

 

 

 

This is nothing but a anger-filled hate-fest against all religion. There's nothing to even respond to here. Your post has degraded, and thus I disgress. Maybe I"ll respond to the rest later on.

[What is Christianity? (A CALM discussion of what it's about)]

 

Okay, for everyone that thinks going to hell is unfair:

 

 

 

I believe it is the heart behind the choice - saying no to God is saying "I can do life on my own" - the whole message of Christianity is "I can't do life on my own, I need God" - and this independent attitude of doing life

 

It's not just atheists who go to hell, but also people who believe in other gods.

 

 

 

It's irrelevant to my point, but yeah, you are correct from a Christian standpoint.

[What is Christianity? (A CALM discussion of what it's about)]

Presenting a false picture of the world to the innocent mind.

 

 

 

What is this false picture and what makes a mind innocent?

 

 

 

 

 

The doctrine of blood sacrifice.

 

 

 

I thought blood sacrifice ended with Christ's blood sacrifice (his own blood). Am I wrong?

 

 

 

 

 

The doctrine of atonement.

 

 

 

See above. Christ atoned for us.

 

 

 

 

 

The doctrine of eternal reward and/or punishment.

 

 

 

Okay, for everyone that thinks going to hell is unfair:

 

 

 

I believe it is the heart behind the choice - saying no to God is saying "I can do life on my own" - the whole message of Christianity is "I can't do life on my own, I need God" - and this independent attitude of doing life without God is what God so strongly dislikes, or hates, if you will.

 

 

 

All of this "It's my life, I can do what I want, worship what I want, believe what I want", I believe is coming from a selfish and flawed mindset - if God exists (which is what this topic assumes), then it's not *your* life - God is creator, and you belong to Him whether you like it or not.

 

 

 

And just like aerodynamics can be applied incorrectly, so can free will, so can Christianity. Just like there are bad Christians, there are bad choices, we can freely choose not God, and it's a bad choice. So if you do choose "not God" during your life on Earth, why is it unfair for God to give you "not God" after your life on Earth? Hell is simply the absence of God; fire and brimstone is quite symbolic.

 

 

 

I don't see it fair for atheists who think they should be able to choose "not God" during life - and then find it unfair when that's what they get after life - to expect God to put them in heaven (which by defintion, is the presence of God - the very thing an atheist would abhorr). This seems ludicrous to me.

 

 

 

The imposition of impossible tasks and rules.

 

 

 

And these are?

[Quoting pics.]

I believe it was done in the past (along with removing nested quotes), but removed for some reason.

[Nervous, Someone please Calm me Down...]

I'd say that your biggest problem is your neighbors. I have had really bad experiences with my gf's neighbors being friends with her parents -.-

 

 

 

Qft. They can call the cops on you and/or talk to your parents later on. No amount of Febreeze will cover them up ;)

[For a while I thought that Algebra was the spawn of Satan...]

When I had acne I used Minocin, which is an antibiotic. It takes a couple months to take effect, and then you're pretty much set. It's expensive though, so don't go for it unless you've got medical coverage.

[My issues with Athiests.]

Edit. Ignore this (again, forgive my half a brain for clicking quote instead of edit). :wall:

 

 

 

You know these two posts totally destroy your credibility :P

[Fast Food Nation - What goes into your burger?]

I love how there are more topics on animals rights than humans rights on this forum. Priorities, people.

[My issues with Athiests.]

If religious people were persecuted during the French revolution, is this because they follow the doctrine of atheism? Atheism says nothing of what others should believe or lack belief in and nothing of forcing anyone to do anything. Atheism is a position of an individual for the individual which entails lack of belief in a supernatural notion. The fact that atheists have done bad things is irrelevant to what atheism subscribes to, in other words. Same goes for religion. The fact that the crusades happened is irrelevant to christian culture as killing is not part of it

 

 

 

This is a point I have made at least ten times on this board, yet nobody gets it. So I think we've resorted to using their own faulty logic against them. At least they understand that.

[My issues with Athiests.]

To put it simply, science, which measures natural systems, does not impose itself on the realm of the supernatural. Some religions, however, which are only supposed to deal with the supernatural, attempt to impose themselves on natural systems.

 

 

 

What does that have anything to do with objectivity?

 

 

 

 

 

Science is only trying to find truths. Science is based around trying to prove a hypothesis. But for in order to the hypothesis to be considered, it must be falsifiable (IE being able to be proven wrong). Things that cannot be tested or proven wrong then go under the philosophy category. Also science must be supported by several independent lines. Scientists never claim to have absolute knowledge. All scientific theories are open to revision in light of new discoveries.

 

 

 

Thank you for an overview of the scientific method. Now please prove to me that it is objective.

 

 

 

 

 

The fact that nothing is absolutely certain in the universe...

 

 

 

That's a self-refuting statement. A fact that isn't absolutely certain? :lol:

 

 

 

Christianity is not objective because they are trying to convert whoever they may be talking to.

 

 

 

That doesn't make any sense. What does explaining your position have anything to do with objectivity?

 

 

 

Christianity is like that stuck up kid who never can be wrong and if he is, he just calls you the three letter G word.

 

 

 

Your entire post leads me to believe you don't understand the concept of objectivity. Maybe you could explain it to me, so I can better understand your position.

[What is your actual post count?]

Having less posts found in search as compared to your post count is the result of posts being deleted.

 

 

 

Or posts being made in boards you no longer have access to.

[My issues with Athiests.]

What is your method for finding absolute truth?

 

 

 

There are no absolute truths. We use experimentation and observation to form facts that group together into theories that are more accurate than their predecessors.

 

 

 

Being able to tell if something is "more accurate" requires an objective measure. Saying 5 is closer to 2+2 than 6 can be measured as "more accurate" because there is an objective answer to which we are comparing it (4). If there are no objective truths, then there is nothing to measure against, making it impossible to call something "more accurate" than something else.

 

 

 

 

 

Because science is objective Korskin, religion is not.

 

 

 

What makes science objective?

[My issues with Athiests.]

Truth isn't dependant on who has the most popular ideas about what truth might be.

 

Yep, too bad many people don't get the concept. No matter how many subjective opinions you add together, the sum is still a subjective opinion, just like it's constituents. There's no getting past that, no creating objective truth from subjective POV's :-$ .

 

 

 

What makes truth objective? What is your method for finding absolute truth?

[What is your actual post count?]

Post count: 4228.

 

Actual post count: 2385.

 

 

 

That's alot of posts in the staff boards :P

[Is it really a problem? (MP3 piracy)]

It is true (at least as far as studies go) that downloading music has helped, or at least hasn't hindered, the sales of CDs.

 

 

 

It is estimated that from 1999 to 2002 (P2P file sharing was significantly popular first in 1999), the number of albums sold in the USA dropped from 1.05billion/yr to 825million/yr . This is a decrease of almost 20%. While it may be true that .mp3s are not the cause of this, another successful explanation has not been given for this drop in album sales.

 

 

 

[Source]

[Is it really a problem? (MP3 piracy)]

Why is it ok to record songs off the radio but not off the internet?

 

 

 

When did I say it was okay to record songs off the radio? Even if I did say it was okay, it's a false analogy. Artists choose to release songs onto radio airwaves; they don't choose to release their songs onto internet servers...

 

 

 

But artists don't choose to release their songs onto the radio to have them copied. It's still taking the place of a bought CD if you copy all your music off the radio, no? So the analogy still works, and highlights the problem with a blanket statement like yours.

 

 

 

What's the problem with the blanket statement that I made?

 

Secondly, what is the blanket statement that I made?

 

Thirdly, I don't agree with the logic you used to attempt to piece back together BlueLancer's analogy. What kind of radio station plays all the songs from an album? Usually an album has just one single on the radio. These are songs that the artists put on their myspace accounts and such because they want that song out there to promote the album. The problem begins when people use the internet to steal the entire album and defeat the purpose of the artist's single radio song.

[Is it really a problem? (MP3 piracy)]

Stealing is when you take something from someone and they no longer have it.

 

 

 

Downloading is simply taking a copy of the file in question.

 

 

 

Who cares what you define stealing as, you're still ripping an artist off. Using a technical definition of stealing to justify your actions is pretty cowardly.

 

 

 

Are the millions of people, possibly including your parents, thieves too because they recorded audio cassettes from the radio back in the 1980's, copied them forward to their friends and they copied it onwards?

 

 

 

When did I use the word thief? You're throwing an emotional term onto my parents to try and bolster your argument. In spite of that, I see no difference. The artist is still getting ripped off, no?

 

 

 

If you want to get technical, an artist isn't getting ripped off when you download an MP3.

 

 

 

If it takes the place of you buying a CD, then yes, the artist is getting ripped off. If you aren't willing to pay for intellectual property being sold, then I don't see how you can possibly claim to have the right to enjoy it.

 

 

 

And for the record, an artist typically makes around a dollar per CD sold.

 

[Source]

 

 

 

 

 

Why is it ok to record songs off the radio but not off the internet?

 

 

 

When did I say it was okay to record songs off the radio? Even if I did say it was okay, it's a false analogy. Artists choose to release songs onto radio airwaves; they don't choose to release their songs onto internet servers...

[Is it really a problem? (MP3 piracy)]

Stealing is when you take something from someone and they no longer have it.

 

 

 

Downloading is simply taking a copy of the file in question.

 

 

 

Who cares what you define stealing as, you're still ripping an artist off. Using a technical definition of stealing to justify your actions is pretty cowardly.

[My issues with Athiests.]

I chuckled when I read the title. But it really isn't helping, just making more resentment and even dumber stereotypes between Christians and non-Christians.

 

Just let it die, take the slugging to where it came from and not make new threads.

 

Oh for the record, preaching isn't shoving religion down someone's throat, to the many people who seem to have that kind of idea.

What about preaching in a public space, surely that's invasive?

 

 

 

I'd think smoking is much more invasive.

[My issues with Christianity.]

Hark!, I be a robot.

[Evolution in public schools]

Creationism isn't science though. Science studies natural theories and evolution fits that, whereas Creationism is a supernatural theory. Teach creationism in religion/philosophy class and keep evolution in the science classroom.

[Homosexuality: Right or Wrong?]

Perhaps the loophole for me is that the wife (or even husband) doesn't consent to the adultery of the other partner. :P

 

 

 

But the wife isn't committing the act, the husband is. Of course, the loophole for THAT is if you are a Christian, the husband and wife become "one flesh" so the wife would be participating... but I don't think you want to be arguing for Christian ethics, do you now :P