Churchmouse, please check out Fugazi's thread that I bumped-pro life questions. I'm curious to hear your opinions about it.
Of course they are, just as you have an opinion. The difference is, if you look around you you can see proof of something marvelous. You can't prove it is not a result of God any more than I can provide you with proof you will accept that it is. In fact the laws from the old testament fit the people of that day, and the laws from the new testament fit the people of more recent times. The primary laws such as those in the 10 commandments have stood the test of time very well. Big deal! Not at all. In fact my Church accepts the truths of all religions and I personally believe that most if not all of the worlds primary religions were inspired by God as most follow similar concepts of basic law: Don't steal, kill, lie, commit adultery, envy etc. I lived among Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs and Buddhists. They were all inspiring. - - - Updated - - - Correct! One closed minded fellow!
most of this hasn't a single thing to do with my comment. You have no need to explain the laws to me and even if you did they would only be from the perspective of your brand of Christianity.
The ten commandments have stood the test of time .. really, apart from thou shall not murder and thou shall not steal . .which others are still practiced as laws? Perhaps you can tell me what modern law covers - Thou shalt have no other gods before me Perhaps you can tell me what modern law covers - Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image Perhaps you can tell me what modern law covers - Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain Perhaps you can tell me what modern law covers - Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy Perhaps you can tell me what modern law covers - Honour thy father and thy mother Perhaps you can tell me what modern law covers - Thou shalt not commit adultery Perhaps you can tell me what modern law covers - Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. Perhaps you can tell me what modern law covers - Thou shalt not covet There is no one as close minded as a religious person, they reject anything and everything that doesn't adhere to their own particular brand of religious dogma.
The law says abortion is legal...guess it doesn't do any good to explain that to you. Guess this is now the Abortion/Tout Religion Forum
God is God! Call him God, Allah, Bhraman, Bhudda, Jehova, Shiva etc, they are all the same, just different names. Still valid. Still true! Don't curse God. Still true and valid. No change! Good law. Still valid, good law! I can't believe anyone is ignorant enough not to recognize the goodness of that law. Don't lie. Testify honestly. Perhaps you can tell me what modern law covers - Thou shalt not covet [/quote]Envy of another's possessions gets many in trouble every day. All the laws you specified are valid, good, and serve the purpose of modern man. If fact there is no one as closed minded as an areligious person and they reject everything which does not adhere to their own particular brand of belief. You are a perfect example.
Man's law says it is legal. I accept that law and look to God to burn in hell those who murder innocent babies in the womb and do not reconcile. There can be no separation between abortion and religion when discussing abortion.
Show proof that those who have abortions will burn in hell. (and those who start wars, hate the poor, hate women, hate everyone but themselves(christians) don't/won't.) Show proof of hell. Show proof of god. Ya can't...so No Soup For You!
Envy of another's possessions gets many in trouble every day. All the laws you specified are valid, good, and serve the purpose of modern man.If fact there is no one as closed minded as an areligious person and they reject everything which does not adhere to their own particular brand of belief. You are a perfect example.[/QUOTE] Funny that I ask you to produce evidence that modern law covers the listed items and you revert to the usual religious clap-trap. You asserted the following "The primary laws such as those in the 10 commandments have stood the test of time very well" and yet you cannot find a single modern law that covers the ones I listed.. epic fail on your part.
Well I am staunchly pro life and I disagree. If you look at abortion from a purely secular viewpoint, it still doesn't make sense. It allows homicide at will with no oversight by anyone. What other homicide is legally allowed in this fashion?
Every one of them is still a law in God's eyes. And as I told you before, I believe in the truths of all religions. It is you who revert to clap trap when you can't prove God does not exist. No fail, no fear on my part.
That's what I expected...believers haven't a leg to stand on....IF there was proof god existed you guys would be screamimg it all over the place.....NOT deflecting with ridiculous requests before you show your "proof"...LOL! I never claimed there wasn't a god until someone claimed there was...you first...
There are secular historical records recording the life and cucifiction of Jesus Christ. There are also historical records of his disciples dying because they taught what Jesus had taught them and refused to denounce him or the teachings. I still have a hard time understandning why some people react so violently to a religion that teaches us to love our neighbor as ourselves.
The only two things that the majority of historians agree upon concerning the life of Jesus is that he was baptized and crucified, this is taking into account the historical evidence outside of the bible and with no religious influence. There are a further 8 items that could be seen as historical evidence of Jesus .. however there is much dispute as to the validity of these items among historians. The main historical non-religious references to Jesus are as follows; Josephus - The writings of the 1st century Romano-Jewish historian Flavius Josephus include references to Jesus and the origins of Christianity. Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews, written around 9394 AD, includes two references to Jesus in Books 18 and 20. Tacitus - The Roman historian and senator Tacitus referred to Christ, his execution by Pontius Pilate and the existence of early Christians in Rome in his final work, Annals (written ca. AD 116), book 15, chapter 44 The Talmud - The Babylonian Talmud in a few cases includes possible references to Jesus using the terms "Yeshu," "Yeshu ha-Notzri," "ben Stada," and "ben Pandera". Some of these references probably date back to the Tannaitic period (70200 AD). In some cases, it is not clear if the references are to Jesus, or other people, and scholars continue to debate their historical value, and exactly which references, if any, may be to Jesus. Mara bar Sarapion - Mara (son of Sarapion) was a Stoic philosopher from the Roman province of Syria. Sometime between 73 AD and the 3rd century, Mara wrote a letter to his son (also called Sarapion) which may contain an early non-Christian reference to the crucifixion of Jesus. Lucian of Samosata - (Born 115 AD) a well-known Greek satirist and traveling lecturer wrote mockingly of the followers of Jesus for their ignorance and credulity. Given that Lucian's understanding of Christian traditions has significant gaps and errors, his writing is unlikely to have been influenced by Christians themselves, and he may provide an independent statement about the crucifixion of Jesus. However, given the nature of the text as satire, Lucian may have embellished the stories he heard and his account can not have a high degree of historical reliability. I will ask, though I doubt I will get a reasonable reply, that you provide any evidence you have outside of religious evidence that attests to the historical life of Jesus. There is very little non religious historical data concerning the disciples and how they died, though most historians do agree that all but one died as a result of their faith. There is no evidence outside the gospels that any of the twelve disciples were real, historical people. Scholars have demonstrated that the Gospels of Matthew and Luke were largely copied from Mark's Gospel, and that John's Gospel was inspired in turn by Luke, so the existence of four different accounts does not create proof: at best, only Mark's Gospel can be relied on, but it is unclear where its author sourced his information. The gospels do mention Peter and John, but there is some evidence that the author of Mark knew of Paul's epistles, and it is possible that he used the same names and certain key events from the epistles in order to develop his gospels. The existence of the epistles attributed to John, Jude and Peter does not prove the existence of those apostles, as the six epistles have all been identified as second-century pseudepigraphical works. Also in the second century, traditions began to appear as to the travels, missions and eventual martyrdom of each of the apostles, but there is no evidence to support any of these traditions, which in many cases exist in multiple, contradictory forms. These traditions are not evidence for the former existence of the apostles they portray. So again the question is asked, with no real belief in an answer, can you provide non-religious historical evidence to support your opinion. but, as you have failed on numerous occasions to provide a single piece of evidence for anything you have put forward, I doubt you will bother to here. So I will just expect the usual deriding, evasive comment.
I thought you claimed to have me on ignore, why would you lie about that? You posted nothing that supports your assertion that "there is much dispute". You also failed to post your source, I suppose because it is some extreme Christian hater site. There is no dispute that his followers were put to death for not denouncing his teachings and his claim that he was the son of God.
The burden of proof lies with the one making the claim. If you claim God and Hell exist you must prove they exist first. I don't know if they exist or not, but if they do I would love to see the evidence for it.
As I have posted repeatedly, my objection to abortion is only partially religious, it is primarily a matter of law, and the fact that the abortion law is the sole law out there that allows homicide at will with no oversight by anyone at all. It is inconsistent with the Federal Unborn Victims of Violence Act, and many state fetal homicide laws. When one law stands out as being inconsistent with all others pertaining to similar subject matter, it should be struck down.
when you start posting your links to your source evidence I will do the same, till then your "evidence" is worth as much as you say mine is. I did have you on ignore, but then thought why should I allow a troll to dictate to me.
Still does not prove is was what he was claimed to be - there are even better records for the life of Gautama Buddha does that mean we should all be Buddhists? - - - Updated - - - Given enough time it certainly COULD have happened by accident
Even though your much repeated Federal Unborn Victims of Violence Act specifically states that abortion does not fall under the jurisdiction of said law. You cannot cheery pick the part of that law that suits your agenda and ignore the rest, it is the whole of the law or nothing, or maybe people should cherry pick the parts of roe v's wade that suit them and ignore the restriction on elective abortions in late term pregnancies .. same thing as you are doing. Also despite repeated requests, you have failed to provide one single example of this law being used to prosecute anyone where the pregnant woman has not first suffered injury or death, nor have you supplied a single example of someone being prosecuted where the fetus was under 21 weeks of gestation. You can repeat your failure as much as you like, still doesn't make it right, or are you of the opinion the more often you repeat something the more likely it is to be believed.
The Federal Unborn Victims of Violence act clearly states that the unborn are humans. This isn't just a matter of a woman deciding whether or not she wants to have a baby or not. It's a matter of the government recognizing that the unborn are persons, but having double standards in certain situations.
There is one other thing you non-believers need to consider. So long as you tout the greatness of your beliefs in an affirmative manner just as I tout my beliefs affirmatively we are both on an even keel. The moment you criticize my beliefs or insult them in any way, or I criticize your believes in any way, it becomes bigotry which is against posting rules. I say this to be sure you understand that no one has to put up with bigotry.
