• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Reasons to Reject Christianity

Casado said:
Because you know the intent behind my using it? Obviously not.
Click to expand...

There was no disguising it; same as all the others who benightedly cite that verse out of context.


OM
 
Casado said:
Are you saying the word pigs is insulting? How dare you malign those noble animals! :lamo
Click to expand...

Well, if you think it's a compliment , please , go up to your friendly neighborhood police officer and tell him he's a pig.

Particularly during a demonstration, so he knows he's appreciated.
 
Omega Man said:
There is nothing silly whatsoever when it comes to context. What is truly silly is for a Gentile Christian to direct a biblical verse about Gentiles to Gentile non-Christians.


OM
Click to expand...

Whether directed to anyone or not, it still holds meaning today for a Christian...do not waste your time spreading the truth of God's Word to those who do not appreciate it...move on to those who do...
 
Logicman said:
It wasn't the last Christian, it was Christ, the founder of Christianity who died on the cross.

Christians are still dying and being martyred.
Click to expand...

You missed the irony or sarcasm of whoever made that comment.
 
Elvira said:
Whether directed to anyone or not, it still holds meaning today for a Christian...do not waste your time spreading the truth of God's Word to those who do not appreciate it...move on to those who do...
Click to expand...

God's Word should never be spread falsely.


OM
 
Omega Man said:
God's Word should never be spread falsely.


OM
Click to expand...

They can't agree on the 'Truth". And of course the JW have falsely spread the word about the end of the world. Many times.
 
Elvira said:
What rock do you live under?
Click to expand...

That is, in essence, the question I have been asking Gentile Christians who continue to toss the "pearls before swine" out of context at others.


OM
 
Omega Man said:
That is, in essence, the question I have been asking Gentile Christians who continue to toss the "pearls before swine" out of context at others.


OM
Click to expand...

The rock with "No JW prophecy has ever came true" painted on it?
 
Omega Man said:
That is, in essence, the question I have been asking Gentile Christians who continue to toss the "pearls before swine" out of context at others.


OM
Click to expand...

It is not out of context if it still has meaning today...
 
Elvira said:
It is not out of context if it still has meaning today...
Click to expand...

Yes, non-contextual meaning. The verse refers to Gentiles, as the author attempted to frame the narrative that "salvation" was reserved exclusively for the Jews. The non-contextual meaning being tossed about today continues to bastardize and betray the original text.


OM
 
Omega Man said:
Yes, non-contextual meaning. The verse refers to Gentiles, as the author attempted to frame the narrative that "salvation" was reserved exclusively for the Jews. The non-contextual meaning being tossed about today continues to bastardize and betray the original text.


OM
Click to expand...

Non-believers today...some, not all...can act just as piggish as the Gentiles did back then...the meaning/context still stands...
 
Elvira said:
Non-believers today...some, not all...can act just as piggish as the Gentiles did back then...the meaning/context still stands...
Click to expand...

*Sigh* That is a red herring.

Let's get back to square one, shall we? As written, the verse didn't address "non-believers". It is FALSE TESTIMONY to continue saying it does. What the verse DID address was GENTILES (whether they "believed", or didn't), as the entire premise of that book involves "salvation" as being something only a Jew can achieve. Both Matthew and Mark came from this particular position.

Continuing to cite it as directed to "non-believers" (and not Gentiles) is a direct betrayal of the original texts.


OM
 
Omega Man said:
*Sigh* That is a red herring.

Let's get back to square one, shall we? As written, the verse didn't address "non-believers". It is FALSE TESTIMONY to continue saying it does. What the verse DID address was GENTILES (whether they "believed", or didn't), as the entire premise of that book involves "salvation" as being something only a Jew can achieve. Both Matthew and Mark came from this particular position.

Continuing to cite it as directed to "non-believers" (and not Gentiles) is a direct betrayal of the original texts.


OM
Click to expand...

When it has apt application today, no it is not...
 
Elvira said:
When it has apt application today, no it is not...
Click to expand...

*Sigh*. Again, "application" should involve context. What you continue to state, what you have just admitted to, is that you find it perfectly acceptable to read into the Bible - rather than read the Bible.


OM
 
Omega Man said:
*Sigh*. Again, "application" should involve context. What you continue to state, what you have just admitted to, is that you find it perfectly acceptable to read into the Bible - rather than read the Bible.


OM
Click to expand...

Your reading comprehension is lacking...not what I said at all...
 
Elvira said:
Your reading comprehension is lacking...not what I said at all...
Click to expand...

You specifically said it "has applications today". The ONLY application a biblical verse has, it its context - which you admittedly tossed aside in favor of directing that verse towards "non-believers" (your own words).

Sorry, it is what you said.


OM
 
Omega Man said:
Religious euphoria has been around since before the concept of monotheism.


OM
Click to expand...

I never said it wasn't. I am pointing out to you that the medical approach to boost dopamine isn't very effective at relieving depression, which would indicate the issue if more complicated than your answer would suggest.

So Religious euphoria occurs from the elevation dopamine...cool. That would be an interesting argument in favor of religiosity for those suffering from depression, not against it. Moreover, since we humans have emotions driven by neurotransmitters, it doesn't prove one way of the other the existence of God. If you assume there is a God who built humans to have emotions driven by neurotransmitters then you'd expect God's grace and peace in that the faithful brain would be detected as an elevation in neurotransmitters...

Understanding the mechanisms of a clock doesn't disprove the existence of a clock maker.
 
jmotivator said:
I never said it wasn't. I am pointing out to you that the medical approach to boost dopamine isn't very effective at relieving depression, which would indicate the issue if more complicated than your answer would suggest.

So Religious euphoria occurs from the elevation dopamine...cool. That would be an interesting argument in favor of religiosity for those suffering from depression, not against it. Moreover, since we humans have emotions driven by neurotransmitters, it doesn't prove one way of the other the existence of God. If you assume there is a God who built humans to have emotions driven by neurotransmitters then you'd expect God's grace and peace in that the faithful brain would be detected as an elevation in neurotransmitters...

Understanding the mechanisms of a clock doesn't disprove the existence of a clock maker.
Click to expand...

"Holy spirit" = religious euphoria.


OM
 
Omega Man said:
What is truly silly is for a Gentile Christian to direct a biblical verse about Gentiles to Gentile non-Christians.


OM
Click to expand...

How much wood would a woodchuck chuck...
 
Logician Man said:
Doesn't matter whether the facility is secular or not. That is a just a red herring you are tossing out. Volunteer work is volunteer work, regardless of who does it, where it is done, and by whom it is done. and FWIW, I have a lot of non-religious, as well as religious friends who do volunteer work. The important thing isn't whether or not the volunteer worker is religious or not.....what matters is the work gets done and the needy get helped. If you think a religious person's work is any more important than a non-religious person's, that's on you and your priorities are questionable to say the least.
Click to expand...

You're moving the goal posts. Your initial statement was that there cities are "chock full of secular homeless shelters", my point is that most of those who work in homeless shelters are religious people. Your attempted counter argument is that the government employees in the not-at-all-a-homeless-shelter detention facility you volunteer in don't openly express their religiosity...

You kind has filed lawsuit after lawsuit specifically to quell the expression of religious belief by employees of the state... what you see in that detention facility is almost certainly the product of anti-religious lawsuits than an indication of the religious persuasion of those employed there.

Leave it to the Atheist to assume that squashing the expression of free expression of religious belief has changed the religious persuasion of those you silenced. :roll:

Also, as an aside, can you give me some examples of secular homeless shelters you have volunteered with?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom