• 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!

The Farce of Religious Freedom

Omega Man said:
In the original texts, "son of man" merely referred to the distinction of a mortal man who believes in an immortal God.


OM
Click to expand...

Yes, son of man means a human being. So, Jeuss is a human being who can not bring salvation.
 
RAMOSS said:
The son of man is the son of man, is the son of man.. an idiom meaning human. And, it quite plainly says, the son of man can not bring salvation. No matter how you try to twist it, it plainly says the son of man can not bring salvation, and Mathew plainly says Jesus is the son of man.
Click to expand...

Wrong...Adam was a perfect mortal man who lost everlasting life for mankind, Jesus was a perfect mortal man who paid back what Adam lost, regaining the chance for mankind to obtain everlasting life again...

"For the wages sin pays is death, but the gift God gives is everlasting life by Christ Jesus our Lord." Romans 6:23

“For just as in Adam all are dying, so also in the Christ all will be made alive.”​ 1 Corinthians 15:22
 
Elvira said:
Wrong...Adam was a perfect mortal man who lost everlasting life for mankind, Jesus was a perfect mortal man who paid back what Adam lost, regaining the chance for mankind to obtain everlasting life again...

"For the wages sin pays is death, but the gift God gives is everlasting life by Christ Jesus our Lord." Romans 6:23

“For just as in Adam all are dying, so also in the Christ all will be made alive.”​ 1 Corinthians 15:22
Click to expand...


The story about Adam is not hsitory you know. If you read it in the original hebrew, you can see the puns and humor that indicate that is entirely made up.
 
RAMOSS said:
The story about Adam is not hsitory you know. If you read it in the original hebrew, you can see the puns and humor that indicate that is entirely made up.
Click to expand...

lol...
 
CLAX1911 said:
Well it isn't really religious. The argument from the pro-life position is that life begins at conception. That's a science based observation not a religious one.

The argument is whether it's wrong to terminate it or not.
Click to expand...

The science based observation is that life began over 4 billion years ago. It began long before conception, because sperm are alive, and eggs are alive.
 
CLAX1911 said:
if someone did that I would think that would probably spend time in jail.

what medical procedures are being banned because of religious viewpoints?
Click to expand...

Abortion immediately comes to mind. Stem cell research is another.

And that's just Christianity. Extend that to other religions and non medical and you could fill a book.
 
Elvira said:
Wrong...Adam was a perfect mortal man who lost everlasting life for mankind, Jesus was a perfect mortal man who paid back what Adam lost, regaining the chance for mankind to obtain everlasting life again...

"For the wages sin pays is death, but the gift God gives is everlasting life by Christ Jesus our Lord." Romans 6:23

“For just as in Adam all are dying, so also in the Christ all will be made alive.”​ 1 Corinthians 15:22
Click to expand...

"Adam" was a myth reduced to writing in the hopes of preserving national religious cultural heritage in the face of possible cultural assimilation into a majority host "pagan" culture. The fact that Christianity, in the 21st century of the Common Era, depends upon a literal interpretation of a myth, is rather telling.

The fact that our species has been around for 200,000 years or more is a testament to the mythical nature of "Adam and Eve" (and by extension, Christianity).


OM
 
Last edited:
Omega Man said:
The fact that Christianity, in the 21st century of the Common Era, depends upon a literal interpretation of a myth, is rather telling.
Click to expand...

It's a fair response to the person you're quoting. Technically though, Christianity doesn't necessarily depend on literal interpretation (although some groups do believe in that). Others see them more as stories that have a point, are allegorical, but not necessarily to be read literally.

Personally (as a non-Christian), I think the only way to read these religious scriptures is one that takes a more philosophical approach and tries to see them as a way of looking at life, rather than as simply a list of stuff that maybe happened or didn't. But that's just me. :)
 
PersianCavalry said:
It's a fair response to the person you're quoting. Technically though, Christianity doesn't necessarily depend on literal interpretation (although some groups do believe in that). Others see them more as stories that have a point, are allegorical, but not necessarily to be read literally.

Personally (as a non-Christian), I think the only way to read these religious scriptures is one that takes a more philosophical approach and tries to see them as a way of looking at life, rather than as simply a list of stuff that maybe happened or didn't. But that's just me. :)
Click to expand...

The very premise of Christianity involves the belief that a "redeemer" for mankind is required on account of the decisions made by "Adam and Eve". That's no different than punishing all mankind because somebody dared accept fire from Prometheus.


OM
 
Omega Man said:
The very premise of Christianity involves the belief that a "redeemer" for mankind is required on account of the decisions made by "Adam and Eve". That's no different than punishing all mankind because somebody dared accept fire from Prometheus.


OM
Click to expand...

Talkin' genetics, huh...
 
Elvira said:
Talkin' genetics, huh...
Click to expand...

No "Adam and Eve" = no "forbidden fruit". No "eating the forbidden fruit" = no "original sin". No "original sin" = no divine need of a "redeemer". No need for a "redeemer" = nothing more than an ancient story.


OM
 
Omega Man said:
No "Adam and Eve" = no "forbidden fruit". No "eating the forbidden fruit" = no "original sin". No "original sin" = no divine need of a "redeemer". No need for a "redeemer" = nothing more than an ancient story.


OM
Click to expand...

It is genetics...we inherited imperfection/sin/death from our first parents...
 
Elvira said:
It is genetics...we inherited imperfection/sin/death from our first parents...
Click to expand...

...but there was no set of "first humans" 6000 years ago who succumbed to temptation by eating a piece of "forbidden fruit" offered to them from a trickster "talking serpent" as the storytellers behind Christianity would have us believe. Literal belief of this is the very cornerstone of Christianity itself. Without belief in that story, Christianity would not exist.


OM
 
Cougarbear said:
The 1st Amendment concerning religion doesn't state a specific religion, church or belief. It's simply the right to live our lives based on our conscience. That includes voting for someone we feel will support our conscience, which will be different for all people. It's not an amendment for Christianity. What it does do is keep the Government from eliminating religion. So, every Church is free to decide what the conscience for that Church will be. If they go along with Romans Chapter one and denounce homosexual acts as sin, they have a right to the freedom they choose to express. The Government doesn't have a right to step in and prevent a Church or individual to teach homosexual acts are sin. The Bill of Rights are for the people to be protected against the Government. Not the other way around.
Click to expand...

And that Constitution protects women as well as men from the religious beliefs of others.
 
Omega Man said:
...but there was no set of "first humans" 6000 years ago who succumbed to temptation by eating a piece of "forbidden fruit" offered to them from a trickster "talking serpent" as the storytellers behind Christianity would have us believe. Literal belief of this is the very cornerstone of Christianity itself. Without belief in that story, Christianity would not exist.


OM
Click to expand...

Sounds like genetics to me...

"That is why, just as through one man sin entered into the world and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because they had all sinned."Romans 5:12
 
it's just me said:
The grotesque silliness of that claim is laughable.
Click to expand...

What do you think making abortion illegal means? If you make a law(s), dont you have to enforce them? In a manner that is Constitutional?
 
Elvira said:
Sounds like genetics to me...

"That is why, just as through one man sin entered into the world and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because they had all sinned."Romans 5:12
Click to expand...

"One man" = "Adam". "Adam" = myth. "Original sin" = myth. Genetics has nothing to do with any of this, especially since the very premise of Christianity involves belief that our species is only 6000 years old.


OM
 
Lursa said:
What do you think making abortion illegal means? If you make a law(s), dont you have to enforce them? In a manner that is Constitutional?
Click to expand...

Don't you people know where babies come from?
 
RAMOSS said:
No , those are going to medical procedures that do not address that 'birth control' verses medical necessity.
'
In both cases though, the legislators were pandering to their religious constituents to impose their religious morals and judgements on everyone.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Not only that, it's a BS reason to object to abortion anyway. Why does it matter how the dead fetus is removed from the woman? The procedure protects the woman from further internal damage.

By law, all fetuses receive a lethal & anesthetic injection before any such removal takes place. So why does it matter 'how?'
 
calamity said:
The religion comes in by putting more value on that life than it merits. A 6-week-old fetus has no more value than a rose bud until some moron attributes a "soul" to it.
Click to expand...

Exactly...a religious, philosophical or other subjective belief. Science is objective, it applies no value to any life, period.

That's why we have the (also subjective) man-made concepts of rights and laws.
 
Omega Man said:
"One man" = "Adam". "Adam" = myth. "Original sin" = myth. Genetics has nothing to do with any of this, especially since the very premise of Christianity involves belief that our species is only 6000 years old.


OM
Click to expand...

It is genetics...it is the way we were created...science has proven that...what science has not been able to set aside is the truth of the words of the apostle Paul in Romans 5:12:...
 
calamity said:
The government is making religious people get abortions, be gay, become Muslim or Jews? :shock:

Oh, I get it. You’re complaining because the government won’t let you force people to carry each pregnancy to term or discriminate against gays, Muslims and Jews. Got it.
Click to expand...

it's just me said:
The grotesque silliness of that claim is laughable.
Click to expand...

What do you think making abortion illegal means? If you make a law(s), dont you have to enforce them? In a manner that is Constitutional?

it's just me said:
Don't you people know where babies come from?
Click to expand...

How about answering my questions please?

Then I'm happy to answer yours.
 
Elvira said:
It is genetics...it is the way we were created...science has proven that...what science has not been able to set aside is the truth of the words of the apostle Paul in Romans 5:12:...
Click to expand...

Nope. Science has NOT proven that we require a "redeemer" on account of mythical people eating "forbidden fruit".


OM
 
Omega Man said:
Nope. Science has NOT proven that we require a "redeemer" on account of mythical people eating "forbidden fruit".


OM
Click to expand...

That is not what I meant...:roll:

Genes and 'Sin'
As scientists understand more about our genetic makeup, one thing they are beginning to explore is the possibility of links between genes and behavior. Already it has been reported, that there may be genetic predispositions for alcoholism, violence, and even sexual orientation. Some people believe that much of our personality and behavior is genetically determined. For Christians, the notion of genetic determinism raises serious theological questions, because if our behavior is largely determined by our genes then what becomes of the idea of free will - the notion that we have a choice about how we act? If we don't really have a choice, but are compelled to do things by our genetic makeup, then how can we be held morally accountable?

This question came to the fore in 1993 when Dean Hammer and his team at the National Cancer Institute announced they had found a genetic predisposition for homosexuality. The news was welcomed by many gay rights groups who felt that if homosexuality was written in their genes then it must be seen as natural, and not a moral choice. If it was part of their bodily makeup, so to speak, then in could not be a sin. Theologian Ted Peters, who has written extensively on this subject, has pointed out, however, that the theological argument is not so simple. From a theological standpoint, Peters says, we all have in-built tendencies towards sin - be it gluttony, anger, or whatever. But according to Christian tradition, our moral duty is to try to rise above these dispositions and to "transcend" our bodily "weaknesses". Looked at from this stand point, even if homosexuality is built-in that does not necessarily serve as a justification.

Peters' point is not to argue for or against homosexuality, but to highlight the dangers of simplistic deterministic thinking. Take the case of alcoholism, for example. If we come to think of alcoholism as genetically determined, then will we start denying people with the relevant genes the right to drink at all? Likewise, if we discover genes associated with violence, will we screen everyone at birth and lock up those who possess the genes? There are no easy answers here. The point is that scientific discoveries can often be interpreted in many different ways, and nowhere more so than with the science of genetics. For better or worse, genetics is challenging our ideas about what it means to be human in powerful and often disturbing ways. Before we rush to conclusions, we would do well to think through these issues carefully.
Click to expand...

Genes and 'Sin'
 
Last edited:
Elvira said:
That is not what I meant...:roll:



Genes and 'Sin'
Click to expand...

I was discussing the premise of Christianity, and its literal belief in "first humans" only 6000 years ago eating "forbidden fruit". If the premise of a religion is mired in myth, then that means the religion itself is mythical.

And your continual use of dismissive "eyerolls" and "lol's" are not a very good reflection when it comes to the exchange of ideas in an intellectual manner.


OM
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom