I'm sincerely sorry, but I just can't be bothered arguing with you any more. I've done all this before (three concurrently occuring threads in NS late last year) and quite frankly don't see the need to justify myself or my faith to you. I don't expect you to do that for me, so I say we're even.Originally posted by aud
blah blah blah
Path analogy: I agree to a point, but for the most part that is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Yes, in any faith system there is a certain level of "calling" to which any adherent is bound to respond, though it is ultimately up to the individual to determine whether or not they wish to accept this call.
Debating against me: Debating is totally impersonal. Here you utterly fail because rather than attack the validity of Christianity and its methods you choose to attack its integrity, unforgiveable practice because it renders anything else you say invalid. Nobody cares if you make the most brilliant point against Christianity unless you can argue in a detached and impersonal manner.
Homosexuality: Not even going to bother. If you choose to subscribe to the idea that Christianity is the big bad monster coming to kill your gay lover then I don't see the point in correcting you. Homosexuality as an ACT is the only thing rejected by the church. The reason we don't hate homosexuals (or rapists, or thieves, or adulterers, or even atheists) is that Jesus specifically said to hate the sin but love the sinner. We are all sinners, and to hate each other for our actions would contradict the very nature of our faith.
"New-Age" concept: This is a term I didn't think I'd have to define. It is a reference to the modern and postmodern rejection of the "old world" cultural norms. Basically anything that wasn't traditional or popular in the Western paradigm before 1900 is considered New-Age (though the term applies more to the rise of Hippy culture of the 1960s and its subsequent peace movement, drawing many obscure practices from Indian and Celtic culture). It's not a reference to time.Another term I should reintroduce is antitheist. This is the small group of people who call themselves atheist but rather than ignore religion actively seek to destroy it. These people I truly despise, because by maintaining their grip on the term "atheist" they do an injustice to all the conscientious objectors you have mentioned above.Originally posted by olay
before you said it was the "athiest majority" that were pressuring "people to abandon their religious values". and that they believe that "popular morality is "more right" than that taught by my faith."
athiests don't really follow "popular morality". its the very reason why they're atheist - they have their own beliefs on spirituality. i tend to find they're the ones with more individual thoughts on religion. which is why they do not follow any religious affiliations. and i don't see anyone telling them to abandon their religious values. i see athiest saying "you think your thoughts but please don't try to make them mine."I won't argue the point of the text's validity (since this thread is really tiring, what with all the other Christians sudden silence) though I agree totally with you regarding the socialists. I approached their stall once, since I wanted to at least give them a chance to explain their position on things, and was immediately pressured into signing a powerfully worded petition against the police. When I refused the girl pulled some warped moral reasoning (oppressed Aborigines rising up against brutal, racist police) so I pulled into defensive. Grabbing a pamphlet I explained that I didn't think I knew enough about the issues to commit my name to them, but if the information session this pamphlet advertised was open to everyone I'd gladly turn up. As soon as I turned the corner I trashed the flyer and never went near that group again.Originally posted by Generator
I am amazed that people still think that an ancient text should determine how we act as a society today
However, neither group is as annoying as the socialists...