FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > IIDB ARCHIVE: 200X-2003, PD 2007 > IIDB Philosophical Forums (PRIOR TO JUN-2003)
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 05:55 AM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 02-27-2003, 04:52 AM   #11
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Ill
Posts: 6,577
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Old Man
Christians are permitted to indulge in acts of violance provided it is (a) In self-defence, or (b) Against people whom the bible condemns under the Levitical law. However, as always, the beneficiality of the act of violence needs to be carefully considered, even if it is lawful. Frequently, the consequences do not make the effort worthwhile (as Jesus pointed out).
Could you please quote chapter and verse where it says Christians may commit acts of violence against those people whom the Bible condemns under the Levitical law? I thought Jesus said to 'turn the other cheek'

So Christians can commit acts of violence against who? Active homosexuals? Pregnant young women who aren't married? People who don't worship the God of the Bible?

Helen
HelenM is offline  
Old 02-27-2003, 04:57 AM   #12
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: WI
Posts: 4,357
Thumbs up

Go Christians! We'll find a True Christian™ yet!
hezekiah jones is offline  
Old 02-27-2003, 07:32 AM   #13
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,872
Default

Quote:
I presume, then, Jesus' cleansing of the temple involved mops and detergent? Oh and that Peter, cutting off someone's ear at the tip of a hat. Terrible.
Oh I forgot. He broke a table leg.

Peter was not a Christian. Jesus clearly says he wasn't converted.

Perhaps you should read the Bible before commenting on it. Somebody might listen to you.

Those who have saving faith have works to prove it Helen. James is quite clear on that.

Rad
Radorth is offline  
Old 02-27-2003, 07:51 AM   #14
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Ill
Posts: 6,577
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Radorth
Those who have saving faith have works to prove it Helen. James is quite clear on that.
I think James was stating the obvious, that faith without works is useless, i.e. pointless, of no value.

I don't think he was making a theological pronouncement about eternal destinies. His letter is very practical.

But anyway, the debate has raged on between Christians for centuries over whether all True Christians have works to prove it. If James was that incontrovertible I think Christians wouldn't still be debating the issue...

Anyway, until Christians can even agree on what 'works' are, it doesn't mean a whole lot to say all those with saving faith have works to prove it. It's a test that can't be carried out until there is that agreement.

Helen
HelenM is offline  
Old 02-27-2003, 07:51 AM   #15
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: In a nondescript, black helicopter.
Posts: 6,637
Default

No true Scottsman...
braces_for_impact is offline  
Old 02-27-2003, 09:01 AM   #16
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 4,140
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Radorth
Well he certainly knows how to string assertions together. Reminds me of an old pastor I listened to once.

Let's see.

We know school violence, suicide, vulgar, violent sexist rap music, abortions of convenience, etc is becoming more popular.

We know the number of Christians is decreasing, according to atheists.

I think I get it now.

Rad
Radorth, I certainly hope you are being sarcastic, and that you are ridiculing that pastor for making unfounded assertions. Let's look at some of the numbers, shall we?

Teen pregnancy: after steadily increasing through the 1970's and 1980's, the teen pregnancy rate has decreased steadily (and rather precipitously) since the early 1990's, and is now below the 1970 rates.

Abortion: the number of abortions reached its peak in the United States around 1990, and since then has steadily decreased, approaching the lower levels of the 1970s, shortly after the Roe v. Wade decision.

Suicide: after a slight but steady increase through the 1960's, 1970's, and early 1980's suicide rates have steadily decreased through the 1990's in the United States, and are now approaching the relatively low rates of the 1950's. (Interestingly, the highest rates of suicide are lowest in the northeast and highest in the southeast, southwest and west (with the exception of some parts of California and the Pacific northwest)--in other words, suicide rates are highest in the "bible belt".)

Violent crime: after rising steadily through the 1980's and early 1990's, the rates of both homicide and violent crimes in general have steadily (and rather drastically) decreased since around 1994.

Other crime: property crime rates have been steadily decreasing since the mid-1970's.

Now, I'm sure Radorth will somehow turn these numbers around to show... well, actually I'm curious to see what he does with them since I have no idea if the number of Christians is increasing, decreasing, or staying the same. (Part of the problem is that defining "Christian" is rather slippery, as not even Christians can agree on who is and who isn't. For example, should we include Mormons in that number? How about Catholics? The best data I could find indicates that the total number of Christians, apparently as self-defined, is increasing slightly, but not at the same rate that the population is increasing.)

I might also note that oddly enough, all these things started going down right around the time Bill Clinton became President. Coincidence, Rad???
MrDarwin is offline  
Old 02-27-2003, 11:56 AM   #17
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Sydney Australia and beyond the realms of Gehenna
Posts: 6,035
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Old Man

The bible says that they should have got married. Why didn't they choose that option instead? In fact the whole concept of "girl friends" and "boy friends" is unbiblical. The very fact that you allow "girl friends" and "boy friends" in your church, without requiring them to get engaged or bethrothed, smacks of a whole church out of touch with biblical morals.
so... lemme get this straight... people have to get engaged before they can hold hands, make puppy dog eyes or fall in love?
ju'iblex is offline  
Old 02-27-2003, 12:15 PM   #18
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Gone
Posts: 4,676
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by ju'iblex
so... lemme get this straight... people have to get engaged before they can hold hands, make puppy dog eyes or fall in love?
This would explain why the bible belt has the highest divorce rate in the country.
Yellum Notnef is offline  
Old 02-27-2003, 12:15 PM   #19
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,842
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Radorth
Unllike Muhammed, Jesus never broke a "bruised reed," and neither did his apostles.
But he seemed to have something against figs
Quote:
Matthew 21:19 "And when he saw a fig tree in the way, he came to it, and found nothing thereon, but leaves only, and said unto it, Let no fruit grow on thee henceforward for ever. And presently the fig tree withered away."
Ab_Normal is offline  
Old 02-27-2003, 12:22 PM   #20
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 4,140
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Fenton Mulley
This would explain why the bible belt has the highest divorce rate in the country.
Thanks for bringing up divorce--the divorce rate rose rapidly in the United States between 1965 and 1975, but has been steadily decreasing since then.

But whether divorce rates are highest in the "bible belt", or whether rates in that area have increased or decreased (or decreased at a greater or lesser rate than the U.S. as a whole), I don't have any information.
MrDarwin is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:06 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.