NationStates Jolt Archive

Followers of Christ, rally!

ArMinasiria

31-05-2004, 08:25

Sub-Dominant Modes

31-05-2004, 08:53

I must set the record strait.

You can't undo past resolutions in this game. PERIOD.

I agree that some resolutions that I dislike have passed, but that's life.

I don't wish to sound rude, but I feel I must.

You can either accept the UN rules or leave. There's not really a third option available.

Sorry about your luck.

Majesto

31-05-2004, 08:58

Did you read the forum sticky, before you make a proposal (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=77286) before you made the proposal? Most likely not as it looks like that proposal falls into the "flagrant offense" category and could warrant UN ejection. I'm not a moderator, but I'm just point out the obvious facts. Everything Sub-Dominant Modes said is true and I'm just expanding on his post.

I've also reported the proposal to the Getting Help Page.

ArMinasiria

31-05-2004, 10:07

I've read the UN records. I've seen the UN resolutions affect internal issues of each contry. I've read many proposals willing to change UN resolutions already approved.
I do not intend to break the rules. I am trying to use the rules to protect Christian Nations from the intromission of a "too Pagan already" assembly, where the rights of plants are considered more important than those of unborn children. From a Christian point of view that is unacceptable. I am trying to make the Un acceptable for Christian Nations.

If holding my faith dear is going to take me out of the UN, so be it.

_Myopia_

31-05-2004, 11:48

So what if we make gay marriage etc legal? It doesn't force Christians to partake of those activities. And surely by refusing to do "sinful" things when it's legal will just show your devotion to your religion's laws more clearly?

Contino

31-05-2004, 13:42

Very good point myotopia.

Also are you not being a tad close minded here? Are all christian sects against gay marriage? No is the answer. Does it anywhere in the bible explicitly say God is against gay marriage? No. Last time I checked when moses was ambling down the mountain with the ten commandments there wasn't an 11th saying same sex relationships are 'wrong.' But then it was on a seperate stone slab and thus he couldn't carry all of them?
Anyway not all christians are as right wing and or conservative as you yourself are. I'd appreciate it if you could at least aknowledge that.
(please note I am niether for nor against christianity)

Sovatec

31-05-2004, 15:32

Actually, the Bible does say "for a man to lie with a man is an abomination." and it refers to women too, though I cannot remember the exact words. But the people of the United States of Sovatec voted that we cannot force the bible on people who do not believe in it, even though Believers are a major voting block. As a Believer myself, I am against it in a religious sense, I am in favor of choice in a political sense.

President Sand
New Washington
The United States of Sovatec
Former Sovatecan Empire

Conagra

31-05-2004, 15:42

If you're smart, you'll probably leave the UN anyway. For some reason, everyone in the UN thinks it's supposed to be some big brother thing, telling eveyone what to do. The UN shouldn't pass any proposal that deals with things internal to a nation. It's supposed to be for rules governing how nations interact. That's why I finally left, because some people think that passing international rules is more important than my nation's soverenty. I don't want you telling me that I have to have bibles everywhere, just like you don't want me telling you that you can't have prayer in schools.

No offense bud, but you wanting to force religion on the entire world through the UN is just as offensive to me as I'm sure the gay rights thing was to you. I wish someone would pass a UN rule that says the UN has to stay the heck out of individual nation's business.

Flibbleites

31-05-2004, 17:04

I wish someone would pass a UN rule that says the UN has to stay the heck out of individual nation's business.

Unfortunatly Conagra, I believe that that would be classified as game mechanics and wouldn't stand a chance of reaching the floor.

Bob Flibble
UN Rep.
Rogue Nation of Flibbleites

Vivelon

31-05-2004, 17:35

How about this one: FELLOW FOLLOWERS OF CHRIST, WHAT'S DONE IS DONE! IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT, TOUGH! SIT DOWN AND SHUT UP!

And, God gave those laws to Jews, wandering the desert in 1200 BC. Now it's a bunch of people of different religions, or no religion at all (like komokom) all over the world, in the year 2004 AD. Isn't some of Leviticus subject to change? Inspired or not, it's for a different group of people in a different time.

+His royal highness:
Prince Tony of Vivelon
Unofficial UN Dead Horse beater (but only on ethics topics)
http://img71.photobucket.com/albums/v215/TonyS37/vivelon_flag.jpg
"An eye for eye only ends up making the whole world blind." ~Mahatma Gandhi

Bahgum

31-05-2004, 19:25

The Black New World

31-05-2004, 19:30

And, God gave those laws to Jews, wandering the desert in 1200 BC. Now it's a bunch of people of different religions, or no religion at all (like komokom)
The honourable representative Desdemona breaks out in a fit of giggles.

"He was trying to keep that secret"

Vivelon

01-06-2004, 02:29

Insainica

01-06-2004, 05:52

Why don't most Christians practice turning the other cheek and just letting these rules go through (as said earlier you still don't have to marry someone of the same sex)? Maybe they do, and it's just the noisy ones we keep hearing.

Well, I for one am noisily trying to tell the noisy ones to turn the other cheek, but it's not working.

+His royal highness:
Prince Tony of Vivelon
Unofficial UN Dead Horse beater (but only on ethics topics)
http://img71.photobucket.com/albums/v215/TonyS37/vivelon_flag.jpg
"An eye for eye only ends up making the whole world blind." ~Mahatma Gandhi

And if thine example were shared by all then the NSUN forum would be a peaceful and boring place and all mods would likley be fired. But for now thank you. And on a more on topic note, the people of Insanica would like to know how excatly ArMinasiria intends to accomplish their mission without either A)Attempting to repeal something. B)Make a proposal with some vague change of text that states, we repeal resolution X, without actually repealing it or C)Creating a proposal which dissallows the creation of other proposels which puts it in the lovely land of "game mechanics" and all the fun that consists of.

ArMinasiria

01-06-2004, 09:17

And on a more on topic note, the people of Insanica would like to know how excatly ArMinasiria intends to accomplish their mission without either A)Attempting to repeal something. B)Make a proposal with some vague change of text that states, we repeal resolution X, without actually repealing it or C)Creating a proposal which dissallows the creation of other proposels which puts it in the lovely land of "game mechanics" and all the fun that consists of.
I made a carefully balanced proposal consisting more in A) than in anything else. It was rejected one hour later by the "impartial" moderators, who consider it OK to force legal abortion in all UN nations, but not trying to defends one's faith in one's nation.

_Myopia_

01-06-2004, 13:26

The Black Czar

02-06-2004, 16:38

these issues arent about your religious beliefs, they are about giving people the freedoms they deserve, and that were given to them BY GOD. we should give people the freedom to choose between right and wrong. the people should choose right because it is the right thing to do, not because they are afraid of the government's wrath. give the people their freedom, thats how GOD wants it!!!

Heian-Edo

02-06-2004, 17:32

For those who love quoting Leviticus,the hapters involved 18 and 20,specifically deal with Isrealites not playing around in Pagan temples....

Glitziness

02-06-2004, 17:35

Ok, Christianity doesnt allow homosexuality, I will accept that. I may not agree with it at all but I will accept it. But just because you want to obey God doesnt mean you should restrict others free will to choose what they want to do. You can follow your religion but you cant force others to.

Actually its not even a choice they have. Homosexuality is a part of life and just like you dont choose to have brown hair you do; its a part of life. You wouldnt condemn bronw hair cause there is nothing the person can do about it. yet you condemn someones sexuality which they equally can do nothing about.

As for them marrying, someone else said quite rightly, dont you use the fact that God gave us free will, as an answer to why there is sin and suffering? God gave us free will so we could turn from him or follow him. He gave us that choice. Is it your right to take away the choice that God gave us?

If abortion and gay mariage are allowed (which gay marriage already is I think and if so you can do nothing about that) how does that really affect you? Abortion affects the mother and father of the faetus. Gay marriage affects the two men. No one else. You may not like it. You may judge it. But you cant stop people from having that choice. No one gives you that right.

The Terribian

03-06-2004, 00:36

The Terribian

03-06-2004, 00:40

I am a follower of christ. And I am a UN delagate, voting for this resolution.

I am for it, not from a biblcal standpoint, but from a politcal standpoint. Yes, I do support abortion rights, but that's beside the point. A follower of christ is not defined anywhere as someone who believes every word of the bible, goes to church every sunday, or is a straight man or woman who has never had an abortion.

Truth is, church is church. "Love your neighbor as you love yourself" aplies in situations where people attack others based on their religous beliefs. Which comes first for you? The old law, or Jesus' teachings? Part of love is respecting right's I'd say. Right's to choose, rights to live their life as they please. "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" and "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image". When you go around saying God this and God that, you are violating both of those. Your religious beliefs may be different, but don't bring God into a debate such as this. "It says in the Bible" is a much more appropriate way of putting it, no?

It's a right to choose. If your entire country is anti-abortion, then this resolutin will not effect you in any way will it? If your country is split, then it sipmly means that those in favor of rights can get abortions, and those against the right to choose can't stop them. It does not mean that those in favor of the right to choose may force those not into getting abortions.

All in all, if your entire country falls into the anti-abortion boat, this resolution does not effect you at all.

Insainica

03-06-2004, 04:19

Vivelon

03-06-2004, 04:22

The problem is, without infringing on free will by making a national religion, if said laws pass, the uber-conservative lawmakers will have no way to force a public opinion that prevents said operations. By the way, you forgot Euthanasia.

+His royal highness:
Prince Tony of Vivelon
Unofficial UN Dead Horse beater (but only on ethics topics)
http://img71.photobucket.com/albums/v215/TonyS37/vivelon_flag.jpg
"An eye for eye only ends up making the whole world blind." ~Mahatma Gandhi

Knights of Saint Mikel

03-06-2004, 04:55

"A follower of christ is not defined anywhere as someone who believes every word of the bible, goes to church every sunday, or is a straight man or woman who has never had an abortion. "

And by who'se authority do you speak to define what a follower of Christ is? Your personal interpretation of Holy Scripture? Man alone is fallible. That is why Christ built his church with Saint Peter.

This abortion resolution will pass, there will be more than 2,000 defections from the United Nations.

I support this proposal

The Lost Ways

03-06-2004, 09:20

ok how about some input from another perspective.

i am NOT, quote NOT, a follower of christ, allah, or yahweh(sp?)! and this is my real life religious view.

by modern definition i am a pagan, pure, 100% unadulterated pagan. if u want the details i am an animist eclectic pagan. long story very short i believe in spirits. I believe that they reside in EVERYTHING and exist for EVERY concept.

with all this talk about commandments and bible quotes, i must make this point: first off, jews, muslims, and christians all recognize and believe in the 10 commandments. one of the commmandments says "thou shall not murder/kill" or something like that. that means thousands, if not tens of thousands of muslims, jews, and christians break their holy scriptures ever hour of every day of their and our lives. some call it fighting for what you believe, but it's still killing, so based on that motto(which i realize not all go by) some people are fighting (and killing horribly!! :evil: :x ) for the _*right*_ to disobey, falsify, and renounce the validity of their own holy writings. and yes i realize that there are hundreds of millions of each sect that are very peaceful/follow their religion quite well. for instance, i am trying to date a friend of mine, she is a moravian christians, they are openminded.(yes i know this is an off topic rant, just using this thread's religious running to prove a point) and of course i am quite positive that in at least some(if not all) christian nations in this game get involved in serious conflicts, which again breaks that commandment.

so please, get your own citizens to cooperate before chanting at us "Follow God's Will" trust me, some christian soldiers(by NO means all!!) would want to get home safely to their families after laying waste to an area in the name of God before they gave an arse about abortion rights. if you want, i mean really want to roleplay/represent your nation properly, either take care of it or torture it, but don't do one while claiming to do the other.

ArMinasiria

03-06-2004, 09:50

The Black New World

03-06-2004, 11:29

According to my religion notes The Bible provides, amongst other things, 'guidance for how believers should live'. Why should non-believers also be bound by the text?

Christians are free not to take advantage of the laws.

Desdemona,
UN representative,
The Black New World
Do you know what ‘gay science’ is?
Meet The Reps (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=132588)

Leit

03-06-2004, 22:41

As this is my first time taking part in forum activities, I apologize for if this particular post is, shall we say "not up to par" or inaccurate.

Actually, the Bible does say "for a man to lie with a man is an abomination."

In the same passage in the Bible where it condemns homosexuality, it also condemns many other practices, eg drunkeness, gossiping, and a wide range of others. Yet many of us ignore these things and continue to commit them, while at the same time condemning others for going through with the other acts.

I believe Christ himself had friends from all walks of life: homosexuals, prostitutes, and others. Many of these peoples were condemned in the Bible. But the Christ figure preached tolerance, love, and compassion, not a "I'm holier than thou" stance. To follow in his steps would be to practive what he preached: love. Though I myself am near-atheist, I believe in what he was for.

Our Own Laziness

04-06-2004, 04:50

Christ was a revolutionary, I don't think he'd want people to be boxed into a mindset of Christianity. Christ said "I am the Way and the Truth and the Life. No man comes to the Father except through Me" but he never said that he was the last stop, he is but a way station. Jesus is a step closer to God, he may be your first or your last, but he is definitely not the only one

Magdhans

06-06-2004, 02:07

You can believe what you want. When the "atheist/pagan/inmoral" nations pass resolutions on such topics as abortions and gay marriage, we are not forcing you to abort or gay marry, so to speak. You are merely forced to allow choice in your people. Also on the "atheist/pagan/inmoral" nations, I know several christians/catholics/jews/muslims who have a life and voted to allow choice. So maybe not all pro-choice nations are "evil" or "satanic".
Your post was pretty cool Leit, everyone has to start somewhere.

Tekania

06-06-2004, 03:05

The Republic of Tekania will pass no law that endorses any religion, nor prohibits the free exercize thereof. The only exceptions we make is in the case of malicious mutilation or murder. Most religious laws passing our legislature is simply dismissed.

http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/tekania.jpg

"Qui Desiderant Pacem Preparate Bellum"
("Those who desire peace, prepare for war.")

Asheboro

06-06-2004, 04:30

"Christ said "I am the Way and the Truth and the Life. No man comes to the Father except through Me" but he never said that he was the last stop, he is but a way station. Jesus is a step closer to God, he may be your first or your last, but he is definitely not the only one"

Our Own Laziness, you just contradicted yourself badly right there. Saying "No man comes to the Father except through Me" does mean that Christ is the only way to heaven. There's just no other way around that obvious teaching. The teachings of Christ's apostles also confirm this. I know this won't convince you otherwise, but just felt like I had to speak up on this.

Arizona Nova

06-06-2004, 04:50

The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen.
Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

ArMinasiria

07-06-2004, 09:36

After that shameful UN proposal about abortion was passed, the Holy Empirte of ArMinasiria resigns from the UN. There shall be no legal abortions in ArMinasiria.

Daryn

07-06-2004, 10:17

May I ask this of our more religious members and former members. If somone wishes to commit a sin, but does not, not because their belief system stopped them, or their conscious, or some other internal matter, but the consequences of breaking the law, are they still a moral person? I suggest you read <I>A Clockwork Orange</i> -- it's quite a fascinating read, if quite a bit disturbing.

As for our country, well the UN resolution cannot remove the social stigma of an abortion, and the vast majority of our doctors and nurses are affliciated with our dominant religion, which frowns upon abortion,save in medically necessary cases. Our government refuses to force a doctor to perform a procedure he feels unethical.

Minister Mar Darenka,
Ambassador to the UN
The Most Serene Republic of Daryn

TransArMinasiria

07-06-2004, 10:19

Abortion is murder. Human life begins at conception.

The Black New World

07-06-2004, 10:52

Having my ethics folder on file is sometimes useful:

From the time the ovum is fertilised a new life is begun which is neither that of the father or the mother. It is a new human being with it's own growth.

…We therefore believe that abortion is an evil… And that abortion on demand would be a very great evil. But we also believe that to withhold compassion is a evil, and in circumstances of extreme distress or need, a very great evil… Christians need to face frankly the fact that in an imperfect world the 'right' choice is sometimes the lesser of two evils.

It is right to consider the whole environment within which the mother is living or likely to live. This will include the children for whom she is already responsible and there will be occasions when she is unable to add particular responsibilities she is already carrying. Again there are social conditions… particularly those connected with bad housing and family poverty… It is clear that abortion is often sought as a response to these and similarly intolerable situations. In the particular circumstances indicated in this statement abortion is often morally justifiable.

Never assume you speak for all followers of Christ, or that they want there morality forced on others.

Desdemona,
UN representative,
The Black New World
Do you know what ‘gay science’ is?

Romanum Imperium

07-06-2004, 13:17

Having my ethics folder on file is sometimes useful:

…We therefore believe that abortion is an evil… And that abortion on demand would be a very great evil. But we also believe that to withhold compassion is a evil, and in circumstances of extreme distress or need, a very great evil… Christians need to face frankly the fact that in an imperfect world the 'right' choice is sometimes the lesser of two evils.

It is right to consider the whole environment within which the mother is living or likely to live. This will include the children for whom she is already responsible and there will be occasions when she is unable to add particular responsibilities she is already carrying. Again there are social conditions… particularly those connected with bad housing and family poverty… It is clear that abortion is often sought as a response to these and similarly intolerable situations. In the particular circumstances indicated in this statement abortion is often morally justifiable.

Never assume you speak for all followers of Christ, or that they want there morality forced on others.

Salveto omnes!

After the passing of said Resolution, We, Earendilyon, Elevated Caesar, Dictator and Imperator of Romanum Imperium, have decided to resign from the United Nations, because it goes directly against God's Laws.

Honourable Representative of the Black New World, because some denominations have stated that it would be all right to abort babies, doesn't make that the truth. Abortion is wilfull murder of unborn children. It's not a "medical procedure", it's not a "foetus", it's a child that is murdered. Murder is against God's Will.

Avete,
Earendilyon, Caesar Elevatus et Dictator Imperatorque Romani Imperii.

The Black New World

07-06-2004, 13:45

If them believing it is right doesn’t make it right how does you believing it is wrong make it wrong?

Desdemona,
UN representative,
The Black New World
Do you know what ‘gay science’ is?
Meet The Reps (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=132588)

Aelov

07-06-2004, 14:00

Heian-Edo

07-06-2004, 14:27

"I am the Way and the Truth and the Life. No man comes to the Father except through Me"

This Biblical citation has led to the Church sponsored murder of tens of millions of Jews,Muslims,Pagans,American Indians,andso on. It is at the root of all forms of Anti-Semitism (in fact,a large part of the Gospel of John, Acts,and Revelation are used to form a Christian Bilical base for hatred of Jews).

Matharania

07-06-2004, 14:31

All this crap about gay marriage and abortion should be done away with. I'm a Christian and I'm right.

Of the New Empire

07-06-2004, 16:40

Followers of Christ, Rally?

What are you? Some sort of religious nutcase?

Screw you and all the other nutcases you've stirred-up. I'm a Christian, also a more learned and wiser one than you.

Do not try to convert the 'heathens' like this, you make yourself look silly and they hold you in contempt. Your arrogant "I believe in God therefore i am right" cuts no ice with anyone except those nutcases already on your side.

Use only real argument which appeals to people's common sense. Otherwise they'll just laugh at you.

Get a grip.

Regards,

TNE

_Myopia_

07-06-2004, 17:50

Romanum Imperium

07-06-2004, 19:46

If them believing it is right doesn’t make it right how does you believing it is wrong make it wrong?
Exd 20:1 - Thou shalt not kill.

Do you realize TransArmanseria before abortion became legal in the United States women would abort their babies with cloths hangers or even worse overdose on drugs? Do you realize that you are opressing your people with your laws whether you know it or not. Not everyone in your country would be a strict christian trust me.

Anyways Jesus taught love, compassion and caring, even for those who where your enemies. He taught you should love everyone equally. Why don't you do that?
That's no reason to legalise what's wrong. The use of drugs, or murder, or theft, or rape, etc are neither legalised, just becuase it does happen anyway.
Abaortion to remain illegal is more loving than legalising it. Banning it doesn't mean that we, Christians, do not love the people who do/have done it anyway. But the right of the baby to have a life is much greater than the needs of the mother.

This Biblical citation has led to the Church sponsored murder of tens of millions of Jews,Muslims,Pagans,American Indians,andso on. It is at the root of all forms of Anti-Semitism (in fact,a large part of the Gospel of John, Acts,and Revelation are used to form a Christian Bilical base for hatred of Jews).
I've never heard anyone using that verse to try and justify murdering those people you name. Also, there is no Biblical basis for hating them, nor for hating anyone else, but every basis for loving them ("love thy neighbour", "love thy enemy").

What are you? Some sort of religious nutcase?

Screw you and all the other nutcases you've stirred-up. I'm a Christian, also a more learned and wiser one than you.

Regards,

TNE
OtNE, do you know the representative of ArMinastiria, so that you know that you are "a more learned and wiser" Christian than him? Also, the way you react on his post, makes me wonder whether you are really a Christian; you seem not to speak like one. Your closing "regards" are highly contradictory to the names you called him and others before.

JRV

08-06-2004, 07:58

The Terribian, Glitziness and Vivelon I would just like to say that JRV agrees wholeheartedly with what you have had to say.

And for the record I am Christian Humanist.

The Black New World

08-06-2004, 09:53

If them believing it is right doesn’t make it right how does you believing it is wrong make it wrong?
Exd 20:1 - Thou shalt not kill.
Some churches do not consider it 'killing', you do. Now tell me why does your opinion count more then there's?

Desdemona,
Former UN representative,
The Black New World
Do you know what ‘gay science’ is?
Meet The Reps (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=132588)

Romanum Imperium

08-06-2004, 11:18

Ave,
Some churches do not consider it 'killing', you do. Now tell me why does your opinion count more then there's?
Because the babies in question are indeed killed, even murdered.

Vale,
Earendilyon, Caesar Elevatus et Dictator Imperatorque Romani Imperii.

http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/romanum_imperium.jpg

The Black New World

08-06-2004, 11:27

And then I tell you to prove it is alive and you come up with some form of proof.

You can't prove, beyond a doubt, that they are alive.
You can't prove, beyond a doubt, what makes someone alive.
You can't prove, even if it is alive, that this 'murder' isn't the lesser of two evils.

In my opinion you do not have a good base for a law. Christians are still free not to have abortions if they feel it is wrong.

Desdemona,
Former UN representative,
The Black New World
Do you know what ‘gay science’ is?
Meet The Reps (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=132588)

Adams Empire

08-06-2004, 11:34

The Black New World

08-06-2004, 11:41

A page back I gave the official statement of two churches that disagree.

Desdemona,
Former UN representative,
The Black New World
Do you know what ‘gay science’ is?
Meet The Reps (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=132588)

Punk Daddy

08-06-2004, 12:17

Black New World....

a. you would agree that you are 'alive'. By alive I mean
-Can move without being first moved up; i.e. you are not a rock that must have something to move it.
-Consume other materials internally. When a cheeseburger enters you it leaves you changed. Your 'body' uses the materials and in some cases creates other matter from the material utilized.
-You are able to reporduce yourself. Again, no rock can do such things.

So if we look at a fetus, per se, then at minimum we can say that the fetus-barring any outside interference will become alive. Outside interference refers to abortions, heavy drug/alcohol/tobacco use by the mother, the mother's death, internal diseases of the fetus, etc. the fetus will grow into an alive person.

Hence, when we stop this process it is 'killing' something and at minimum stopping the potential of something that would otherwise become alive.

So my question is...if you are in favor of abortion, you must come to terms that you are stopping the potential life of a person. That is what happens when a fetus, embryo, baby, whatever...is aborted.

To me if you state that a woman's choice to stop or nurture the potential of life growing within her body is of more importance than the potential life that is growing within her body-there's the issue. For both sides of the argument you must be able to sleep at night with your decision.

But to trivialize the act of abortion by simply stating it is not 'killing' is akin to saying that it is only killing when the mother wanted the child (i.e. Laci Peterson) but not when the child is unwanting. You can't have it both ways.

Instead, either be for a mother's right to choose acknowledging the effects or against the mother's choice to kill acknowledging what may happen if abortions are outlawed.

As a personal note, I am a product of an adopted parent and my parent's were on the 'pill' when I was conceived(Punk D will not be denied!! 8) . I consider myself alive and had they aborted me...i would be just as dead as if I had been killed at 1 day or 25 years old.

Punk Daddy

08-06-2004, 12:20

The Black New World

08-06-2004, 12:42

Black New World....

a. you would agree that you are 'alive'. By alive I mean
-Can move without being first moved up; i.e. you are not a rock that must have something to move it.
-Consume other materials internally. When a cheeseburger enters you it leaves you changed. Your 'body' uses the materials and in some cases creates other matter from the material utilized.
-You are able to reporduce yourself. Again, no rock can do such things.
My point was that you can't prove, beyond reasonable, what makes something alive. Even if it is alive would that make it a person with rights, if being alive guarantees rights why don't we give equal rights to all animals? This issue is full of questions with answers can be proved to be right.

So if we look at a fetus, per se, then at minimum we can say that the fetus-barring any outside interference will become alive. Outside interference refers to abortions, heavy drug/alcohol/tobacco use by the mother, the mother's death, internal diseases of the fetus, etc. the fetus will grow into an alive person.

Hence, when we stop this process it is 'killing' something and at minimum stopping the potential of something that would otherwise become alive.

So my question is...if you are in favor of abortion, you must come to terms that you are stopping the potential life of a person. That is what happens when a fetus, embryo, baby, whatever...is aborted.
Agreed but every time birth control is used the same potential is lost, every period, every miscarriage. Every action stops something from happening. Potential is abstract, it's not tangible and who's to say that the potential to cure cancer isn't the potential to murder (I know you never used tis argument but some have) .

To me if you state that a woman's choice to stop or nurture the potential of life growing within her body is of more importance than the potential life that is growing within her body-there's the issue. For both sides of the argument you must be able to sleep at night with your decision.

But to trivialize the act of abortion by simply stating it is not 'killing' is akin to saying that it is only killing when the mother wanted the child (i.e. Laci Peterson) but not when the child is unwanting. You can't have it both ways.

I didn't say it wasn't killing I just said that some people didn't view it as such and both sides can't prove there case.

Instead, either be for a mother's right to choose acknowledging the effects or against the mother's choice to kill acknowledging what may happen if abortions are outlawed.

As a personal note, I am a product of an adopted parent and my parent's were on the 'pill' when I was conceived(Punk D will not be denied!! 8) . I consider myself alive and had they aborted me...i would be just as dead as if I had been killed at 1 day or 25 years old.
Oh.

Desdemona,
Former UN representative,
The Black New World
Do you know what ‘gay science’ is?

_Myopia_

08-06-2004, 16:50

Hence, when we stop this process it is 'killing' something and at minimum stopping the potential of something that would otherwise become alive.

You could just as easily argue that every sperm is a potential human life, so even when having sex for the purpose of recreation, we still commit mass-murder, as only one of the millions of "potential lives" is allowed to progress and become a child. Ditto ova, which are denied the chance to develop whenever a woman has a period.

The Black New World

08-06-2004, 16:53

You could just as easily argue that every sperm is a potential human life, so even when having sex for the purpose of recreation, we still commit mass-murder, as only one of the millions of "potential lives"
*Uncontrollably bursts out laughing*

Altogether now!

"Every sperm is sacred,
Every sperm is great…"

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World
Meet The Reps (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=132588)

Romanum Imperium

08-06-2004, 17:10

Romanum Imperium

08-06-2004, 17:11

Ave,
And then I tell you to prove it is alive and you come up with some form of proof.

You can't prove, beyond a doubt, that they are alive.
You can't prove, beyond a doubt, what makes someone alive.
You can't prove, even if it is alive, that this 'murder' is the lesser of two evils.

In my opinion you do not have a good base for a law. Christians are still free not to have abortions if they feel it is wrong.

When the sperm joins the egg, life is created. After that, removing the fertilised egg, is killing a life.
A fertilised egg (an embryo) is alive.
I never stated that the murder of the child is the lesser of the two evil, for it isn't.
As we, Earendilyon, Elevated Caesar etc., are Emperor of Romanum Imperium we are responsible for issuing the Laws of our Empire. As this law is issued by the UN and is made valid in all their member states, there's no other way than to resign from that union of degenerated nations.

Vale,
Earendilyon, Caesar Elevatus et Dictator Imperatorque Romani Imperii.

http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/romanum_imperium.jpg

_Myopia_

08-06-2004, 21:58

Altogether now!

"Every sperm is sacred,
Every sperm is great…"

:lol: :lol: :lol:

When the sperm joins the egg, life is created. After that, removing the fertilised egg, is killing a life.

But is it ending a sentient life?I would say no, because sentience has not been achieved until later on in the pregnancy.

Mockian

08-06-2004, 22:20

I would also have to say no, a unborn human is not alive, depending on its time in the womb.

What we find barbaric about killing an unborn creature, is that its one of us. We step on a roach, when that roach has more of a developed brain than a being in the womb.

Being alive, is being conscience, conscience of thought, sound, smell, physical movement, etc. And a unborn human doesn't have any of that. Not a purpose at that time, and not a thought in its mind. So we can easily kill a creature that doesn't know its dead.

Thats just my thought on this topic, and as you can tell, I'm not a religious person. :)

GMC Military Arms

08-06-2004, 22:50

When the sperm joins the egg, life is created. After that, removing the fertilised egg, is killing a life.

Given that the majority of fertilised eggs never implant and a woman's body naturally aborts a large percentage of early-stage foetuses, does this mean a woman is some kind of perverse baby-killing machine?

Tekania

08-06-2004, 23:45

Altogether now!

"Every sperm is sacred,
Every sperm is great…"

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World
Meet The Reps (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=132588)

"Look at them! Bloody Catholics filling up the bloody world with bloody people that can't afford to bloody feed!"

"What are we dear?"

"We're protestant, and fiercly proud of it!"
....
"When Martin Luther nailed his protest to the church door in 1517, he did not know the full ramifications of what he did. But 400 years later, thanks to him my dear. I can wear whatever I want on my John Thomas...."

Sorry.... :oops:

http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/tekania.jpg

"Qui Desiderant Pacem Preparate Bellum"
("Those who desire peace, prepare for war.")

The Black New World

09-06-2004, 09:38

Hirota

09-06-2004, 10:37

As we, Earendilyon, Elevated Caesar etc., are Emperor of Romanum Imperium we are responsible for issuing the Laws of our Empire. As this law is issued by the UN and is made valid in all their member states, there's no other way than to resign from that union of degenerated nations.

Bye then, close the door on your way out.

I just love fundamentalist christians. :roll:

Komokom

09-06-2004, 11:05

Altogether now!

"Every sperm is sacred,
Every sperm is great…"

Giordano,

And, if I remember right,

" And if a single sperm is wasted ... Then god gets quite irate ! "

:lol:

- T.R. Kom
Le Représentant de Komokom.
Ministre Régional de Substance.
http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/komokom.jpg (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/24401/page=display_nation)
<- Not A Moderator, Just A Know It All.
" Clowns To The Left of Me ... Jokers To The Right, Here I am ... "

The Black New World

09-06-2004, 11:23

It also says
"Let the heathens spill theirs,
O'er dusty ground,
God will make them pay for,
Every sperm that can't be found."

Some people could learn a lesson from that…

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World
Meet The Reps (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=132588)

Canary Land

09-06-2004, 11:44

Black new world,

is your proposal still going? if so where is it?

Canary Land

The Black New World

09-06-2004, 11:46

What proposal? 'Family planning centres'?

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World
Meet The Reps (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=132588)

Komokom

09-06-2004, 11:56

It also says
"Let the heathens spill theirs,
O'er dusty ground,
God will make them pay for,
Every sperm that can't be found."

Some people could learn a lesson from that…

I could go, "Thank heck I am an Atheist" but that could raise way to many questions, cue evil lol ... Now, if I was going to be less then my usual mature, and no, not key for all you good people to laugh, self, I could interpret that above comment as noting the many so called, well, more though of as being, "wankers" on this family of forum-i at times

- T.R. Kom
Le Représentant de Komokom.
Ministre Régional de Substance.
http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/komokom.jpg (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/24401/page=display_nation)
<- Not A Moderator, Just A Know It All.
" Clowns To The Left of Me ... Jokers To The Right, Here I am ... "

Punk Daddy

09-06-2004, 11:58

So I inspired the sperm song...LOL

You could just as easily argue that every sperm is a potential human life, so even when having sex for the purpose of recreation, we still commit mass-murder, as only one of the millions of "potential lives" is allowed to progress and become a child. Ditto ova, which are denied the chance to develop whenever a woman has a period.

This is what is typically called a 'straw man' argument. Taking a little nugget of a position setting it up, and knocking down the 'straw man.'

Give me a break.....

A sperm and an ova have the potentiality to become life. However, both the sperm and the egg have to at some point come in contact with one another (cloning aside) in order to do this. Hence, am I 'killing' something if I wake up in the morning with something moist in the sheets? No.

However, once that egg and that sperm have come together an outside force MUST get involved to stop that sperm and that egg from becoming a human life...

You took potential to mean 1 in one million chances. In this case potential, means all things being equal an event would occur....better stated, once a sperm and egg do come together unless internal disease, lack of a strong womb of the mother, there is an eventuality that life will be formed.

..........so please keep the sperm songs for someone else, thanks, and attack the point head on or not at all.

_Myopia_

09-06-2004, 15:20

This is what is typically called a 'straw man' argument. Taking a little nugget of a position setting it up, and knocking down the 'straw man.'

Give me a break.....

A sperm and an ova have the potentiality to become life. However, both the sperm and the egg have to at some point come in contact with one another (cloning aside) in order to do this. Hence, am I 'killing' something if I wake up in the morning with something moist in the sheets? No.

However, once that egg and that sperm have come together an outside force MUST get involved to stop that sperm and that egg from becoming a human life...

You took potential to mean 1 in one million chances. In this case potential, means all things being equal an event would occur....better stated, once a sperm and egg do come together unless internal disease, lack of a strong womb of the mother, there is an eventuality that life will be formed.

Actually, as has already been pointed out, once the sperm has fertilised the egg, it is still very common for that not to develop into a child:

Given that the majority of fertilised eggs never implant and a woman's body naturally aborts a large percentage of early-stage foetuses, does this mean a woman is some kind of perverse baby-killing machine?

Therefore, the difference you claim to exist between my point and yours is not true - the waste of a fertilised egg is definitely comparable to the waste of sperm, as both have the potential to lead to a human life, but are likely not to do so.

The Black New World

09-06-2004, 17:43

So I inspired the sperm song...LOL .... ..........so please keep the sperm songs for someone else, thanks, and attack the point head on or not at all.

'Every sperm is sacred' it a satire of catholic beliefs. Particularly that you can't masturbate without wasting a human life. _Myopia_'s post reminded me of it, I was not implying that you held the same beliefs by posting the song (or at least I didn't mean to and I'm sorry if I did). I just like to mention Monty Python in casual conversation.

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World
Meet The Reps (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=132588)

Romanum Imperium

09-06-2004, 21:21

But is it ending a sentient life?I would say no, because sentience has not been achieved until later on in the pregnancy.
Maybe not sentient in that stage, but life nevertheless.

Being alive, is being conscience, conscience of thought, sound, smell, physical movement, etc. And a unborn human doesn't have any of that. Not a purpose at that time, and not a thought in its mind. So we can easily kill a creature that doesn't know its dead.
So, a plant is not alive? It thinks not, smells not, moves not etc. An unborn baby is certainly alive, whether it's one hour old or nine months.

Given that the majority of fertilised eggs never implant and a woman's body naturally aborts a large percentage of early-stage foetuses, does this mean a woman is some kind of perverse baby-killing machine?
I'm sure you know that that are natural processes.

the difference you claim to exist between my point and yours is not true - the waste of a fertilised egg is definitely comparable to the waste of sperm, as both have the potential to lead to a human life, but are likely not to do so.
A fertilised egg is a living being, whereas sperm is not. That's the difference between the two points.

Warriorman848

09-06-2004, 21:55

all i can say is that christ is a myth and the bible is the biggest work of fiction ever!

Warriorman848

09-06-2004, 21:55

all i can say is that christ is a myth and the bible is the biggest work of fiction ever!

Pantteri

09-06-2004, 22:28

Veiktorya

09-06-2004, 22:30

all i can say is that christ is a myth and the bible is the biggest work of fiction ever!

Then what will you believe in during, God forbid, the darkest moments of your life? What will you turn to for guidance and hope?

Your "humanity" and "common sense?"

And by the way, its really inconcievale to deny the simple existance of Christ, even if you don't believe in the Bible or whether Christ did anything special.

Btw, I am a Jew, not a Christian, but I believe Christ existed. I follow my own religion, but im not foolish enough to say Jesus never walked the earth.

Veiktorya

09-06-2004, 22:42

But is it ending a sentient life?I would say no, because sentience has not been achieved until later on in the pregnancy.
Maybe not sentient in that stage, but life nevertheless.

Being alive, is being conscience, conscience of thought, sound, smell, physical movement, etc. And a unborn human doesn't have any of that. Not a purpose at that time, and not a thought in its mind. So we can easily kill a creature that doesn't know its dead.
So, a plant is not alive? It thinks not, smells not, moves not etc. An unborn baby is certainly alive, whether it's one hour old or nine months.

Given that the majority of fertilised eggs never implant and a woman's body naturally aborts a large percentage of early-stage foetuses, does this mean a n is some kind of perverse baby-killing machine?
I'm sure you know that that are natural processes.

the difference you claim to exist between my point and yours is not true - the waste of a fertilised egg is definitely comparable to the waste of sperm, as both have the potential to lead to a human life, but are likely not to do so.
A fertilised egg is a living being, whereas sperm is not. That's the difference between the two points.

To further the point, they know that third-term fetuses can feel pain.

When you stab the metal spike into its skull and collapse its cranium, its legs are kicking and its hands are still moving. How anyone could butcher a baby like that is beyond me.

If you are arguing for abortion rights, you need to go look up on the net and find a video of an abortion. Watch either the skull-piercing or the dismemberment, then come back here and tell us its the true civilized thing to do.

Insainica

10-06-2004, 00:45

all i can say is that christ is a myth and the bible is the biggest work of fiction ever!

Actually I think the biggest work of fiction ever was some novel in Japanese. War and Peace is close though. :P

Sorry couldn't help myself there.

Mockian

10-06-2004, 05:26

It depends on how the Bible is read. I don't think that the truth is exactly the same thing that the Bible says. I don't think the first people were Adam and Eve. I think being a gay cannot be a sin, because nobody can decide whether he is or is not a gay.

And if we talk about abortion or birth control...
"God blessed Noah and his sons, saying to them, 'Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth.'"
Mission accomplished! Our planet is over-populated!

Its better to kill when the creature (unborn child) has no feeling. When the child is just born and the abortion is considered, your killing a child who has feeling. So thats why I say, just-born babies are more alive than unborn babies. Savvy??? :?: :?:

Komokom

10-06-2004, 07:46

Initial Post, Points Against, By T.R. Kom.

Originally I had about two A 4 pages for this, but quite frankly, I just want to get something down on the original point of this debate, and stop being distracted by the "spermicidal" nature of some of the posts here,

:wink:

Ahem :

In the past, some UN resolutions have attented clearly against the dictates of Christ.

1) Yet, they reflect the will of the majority of the U.N. Funny thing that, maybe thats because people do not follow or have belief in such teaching as from the bible, etc, etc, etc.

Live with it, love thy neigbour, and please, stop preeching at him.

Abortion and Gay rights are only the peak of the iceberg.

2) Yes, and there are many more, prepare not for the second coming of christ, but the second age of reason.

Far too long we have tolerated this state of affairs..

3) Yes, just consider the terrible nature of the future, where man kind could finally stop burning its heretics but embraces them as human beings and love one another. Where individuals of man kind rule their own individual bodies, rather then be subjected to the rulling by others.

I have proposed the Christian Emancipation Bill to stop this.

4) And here we see the great and final argument against your proposal.

You did not paste a bloody copy of it where we could see it.

Actually, come to think of it, its the only reason I am posting here,

:wink:

I hope every-body else learn'd from that. :roll:

- T.R. Kom
Le Représentant de Komokom.
Ministre Régional de Substance.
http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/komokom.jpg (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/24401/page=display_nation)
<- Not A Moderator, Just A Know It All.
" Clowns To The Left of Me ... Jokers To The Right, Here I am ... "

GMC Military Arms

10-06-2004, 07:56

The Black New World

10-06-2004, 10:37

Given that the majority of fertilised eggs never implant and a woman's body naturally aborts a large percentage of early-stage foetuses, does this mean a woman is some kind of perverse baby-killing machine?
I'm sure you know that that are natural processes.

So?
OOC:
We know that human beings can in many ways intervene in natural processes and shape the world for greater human happiness

Or as we say 'you can't build the Vatican without cutting down trees'

Romanum Imperium

10-06-2004, 11:13

Avete!

Its better to kill when the creature (unborn child) has no feeling. When the child is just born and the abortion is considered, your killing a child who has feeling. So thats why I say, just-born babies are more alive than unborn babies. Savvy???
No savvy. So, you think it's okay to kill a baby an hour gefore it's born?

1) Yet, they reflect the will of the majority of the U.N.
But does this majority know what's the right thing? It appears not.

2) Yes, and there are many more, prepare not for the second coming of christ, but the second age of reason.
I'd rather not depend on human reason ....

3) Yes, just consider the terrible nature of the future, where man kind could finally stop burning its heretics but embraces them as human beings and love one another. Where individuals of man kind rule their own individual bodies, rather then be subjected to the rulling by others.
As Christians, we are commanded to love our neighbours and our enemies. Burning socalled heretics at the stake is (and was) not Christian behaviour.
Christians are not subjected to the ruling of other humans, but by Christ's.

Given that the majority of fertilised eggs never implant and a woman's body naturally aborts a large percentage of early-stage foetuses, does this mean a woman is some kind of perverse baby-killing machine?
I'm sure you know that that are natural processes.

So?
So? That means that a women is not "some kind of perverse baby-killing machine".

Valete,
Earendilyon, Caesar Elevatus et Dictator Imperatorque Romani Imperii.

http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/romanum_imperium.jpg

GMC Military Arms

10-06-2004, 11:23

Given that the majority of fertilised eggs never implant and a woman's body naturally aborts a large percentage of early-stage foetuses, does this mean a woman is some kind of perverse baby-killing machine?
I'm sure you know that that are natural processes.

So?
So? That means that a women is not "some kind of perverse baby-killing machine".

It does? Fertilised zygotes which do not implant [most of them, by some figures I've seen] will die. This is a natural aspect of a woman's body. Therefore, any belief that life begins at conception faces the barrier that the majority of such lives end almost immediately.

Hirota

10-06-2004, 11:45

Avete!
1) Yet, they reflect the will of the majority of the U.N.
But does this majority know what's the right thing? It appears not.

Careful, it sounds like you are endorsing a dictatorship system. The masses might be uneducated on what the right thing is, but just because you disagree with them does not mean they are instantly wrong.

2) Yes, and there are many more, prepare not for the second coming of christ, but the second age of reason.
I'd rather not depend on human reason ....

Why not? As long as they are well educated, what is wrong with reason?

3) Yes, just consider the terrible nature of the future, where man kind could finally stop burning its heretics but embraces them as human beings and love one another. Where individuals of man kind rule their own individual bodies, rather then be subjected to the rulling by others.
As Christians, we are commanded to love our neighbours and our enemies. Burning socalled heretics at the stake is (and was) not Christian behaviour.

Even though the Christian church actively encouraged it in certain epochs of time? The primary reason we don't do it now is because people (hopefully) know better. Given more education, what is wrong with people deciding what is right and wrong.

I do agree with you though that many nations in the UN choose not to review the issues surrounding some proposals, and that would certainly benefit the UN as a whole.

Christians are not subjected to the ruling of other humans, but by Christ's.

Good thing I'm aethist then, I'd be waiting a long time to hear anything from him ;)

Romanum Imperium

10-06-2004, 11:47

Ave GMC Military Arms,
It does? Fertilised zygotes which do not implant [most of them, by some figures I've seen] will die. This is a natural aspect of a woman's body. Therefore, any belief that life begins at conception faces the barrier that the majority of such lives end almost immediately. Why would God set up such an absurd system?
They are naturally aborted. I think this can be attributed to the fallen state of the world, not to God's initial Creation. It's not as it was meant to be.

Vale,
Earendilyon, Caesar Elevatus et Dictator Imperatorque Romani Imperii.

http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/romanum_imperium.jpg

The Black New World

10-06-2004, 11:47

I think the most recent one is the top one.

What about when the fertilised egg splits into two and becomes twins. Do they become 2 halves of a person, or create one new person?

No savvy. So, you think it's okay to kill a baby an hour gefore it's born?

Rather then kill someone who is already a human being, or force it to lead a low quality of life we would. As it is without self awareness and incapable of making a rational decision we feel that this action would cause more good then harm but we would go out of our way to make it as painless as possible.

I'd rather not depend on human reason ....
Silly me, I thought you were Catholic. Human reason is the only way to interpret 'natural law'.

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World
Meet The Reps (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=132588) ~ What can the UN do and what can it do for me?
(http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=132588)

Romanum Imperium

10-06-2004, 12:03

Ave Hirota,
Careful, it sounds like you are endorsing a dictatorship system. The masses might be uneducated on what the right thing is, but just because you disagree with them does not mean they are instantly wrong.
I'm not endorsing a dictatorship system, just putting question marks by Komokom's apparent idea that what the majority decides is good.

Why not? As long as they are well educated, what is wrong with reason?
Human reason is tainted with sin, so I'd rather not depend on it, but on God.

Even though the Christian church actively encouraged it in certain epochs of time? The primary reason we don't do it now is because people (hopefully) know better. Given more education, what is wrong with people deciding what is right and wrong.
The Church of Rome is not the Church of Christ. It's a fallible human institution. Christ didn't tell His followers to put non-believers to death.

Good thing I'm aethist then, I'd be waiting a long time to hear anything from him ;)
Just read the Bible :)

Ave Giordano,

What about when the fertilised egg splits into two and becomes twins. Do they become 2 halves of a person, or create one new person?
They are both a whole person ofcourse. I don't know when or how that happens.

Rather then kill someone who is already a human being, or force it to lead a low quality of life we would. As it is without self awareness and incapable of making a rational decision we feel that this action would cause more good then harm but we would go out of our way to make it as painless as possible.
So, an baby is not a human being an hour before it's born? And who are you to decide whether the life it will lead has a "low quality"?
Babies get only two months after they're born selfawareness (and much later the capabilty of making rational decisions). Do you think it's ago to kill them during that period?
So, in your opinion it's better to murder someone than to let that person live?

Silly me, I thought you were Catholic. Human reason is the only way to interoperate 'natural law'.
I'm a follower of Christ, not a follower of some fallible man called 'pope'. I also don't belief in a 'natural law' but in God's Laws.

Valete,
Earendilyon, Caesar Elevatus et Dictator Imperatorque Romani Imperii.

http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/romanum_imperium.jpg

Of the New Empire

10-06-2004, 12:06

This thread should have died days ago. RE: My last post a million pages back on this pointlessness.

Komokom

10-06-2004, 12:08

I find hilarity in the fact my post was aimed at high-lighting the lack of a copy of a proposal, I thought it to be clear that the rest was simple space filler aimed to bulk up the post, impress the point, and be a foil to my cynical response and sarcasm over how this thread has evolved. Or possibly devolved. Ah well, maybe I'm just not obvious enough.

Did I mention I'm atheist ? ? ? :D

- T.R. Kom
Le Représentant de Komokom.
Ministre Régional de Substance.
http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/komokom.jpg (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/24401/page=display_nation)
<- Not A Moderator, Just A Know It All.
" Clowns To The Left of Me ... Jokers To The Right, Here I am ... "

The Black New World

10-06-2004, 12:16

...how this thread has evolved. Or possibly devolved. Ah well, maybe I'm just not obvious enough.

It didn't evolve it was always like this…

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Ironic New World
Meet The Reps (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=132588) ~ What can the UN do and what can it do for me?
(http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=132588)

Komokom

10-06-2004, 12:25

:) ...

- T.R. Kom
Le Représentant de Komokom.
Ministre Régional de Substance.
http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/komokom.jpg (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/24401/page=display_nation)
<- Not A Moderator, Just A Know It All.
" Clowns To The Left of Me ... Jokers To The Right, Here I am ... "

Hirota

10-06-2004, 12:41

I'm not endorsing a dictatorship system, just putting question marks by Komokom's apparent idea that what the majority decides is good.

Well....it would be if the majority was well informed. Sadly that's not always the case. BUT, I would argue that the only reason that Christianity is losing popularity is that people are becoming more well informed and more educated, and more aware.

Good thing I'm aethist then, I'd be waiting a long time to hear anything from him ;)
Just read the Bible :)

I already have - boring book, full of nice ideas, but completely hypocritical of itself and fails to actually spell out in black and white anything (especially with the 100s of different translations out there).

If god was trying to tell us something, he could have done something sensible like provide an update now and then.

The Black New World

10-06-2004, 13:20

Komokom

10-06-2004, 13:23

I tried to read it, found it boring, and never really liked the idea of it, it always seemed like the instruction book to life, yet as with any translation or interpretation, it always changes from what it should be to something else. I always found it odd, the automatic assumption the book was right. Ahem ...

But that aside, what are we debating again ?

Oh look, I am atheist all over, how rude, pardon me. :wink:

- T.R. Kom
Le Représentant de Komokom.
Ministre Régional de Substance.
http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/komokom.jpg (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/24401/page=display_nation)
<- Not A Moderator, Just A Know It All.
" Clowns To The Left of Me ... Jokers To The Right, Here I am ... "

The Black New World

10-06-2004, 14:02

If god was trying to tell us something, he could have done something sensible like provide an update now and then.
In my old church we used the KJV. Lot's of death, not brilliant writing, can't stay focused on the plot, character range from the one dimensional to the annoyingly perfect. I thinks it's a 'shock novel' personally.

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World
Meet The Reps (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=132588) ~ What can the UN do and what can it do for me?
(http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=132588)

_Myopia_

10-06-2004, 17:14

Romanum Imperium

10-06-2004, 19:49

Avete,

Well....it would be if the majority was well informed. Sadly that's not always the case. BUT, I would argue that the only reason that Christianity is losing popularity is that people are becoming more well informed and more educated, and more aware.
Even if well informed, mankind cannot decide for what is right. It will always err.
The only reason why Christianity is losing popularity (in parts of the Western world, that is, for in the rest of the world many people accept Christ) is because people think they know better than their Creator.

If god was trying to tell us something, he could have done something sensible like provide an update now and then.
He tells mankind Who He is in the Bible, through His Creation and trough Christ's offer. Through those three things, we can get to know Him.

yet as with any translation or interpretation, it always changes from what it should be to something else.
How do you know that the translation used is not the same as the original, that it is not 'what it should be'?

Valete,
Earendilyon, Caesar Elevatus et Dictator Imperatorque Romani Imperii.

http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/romanum_imperium.jpg

JRV

11-06-2004, 00:25

*Sigh.*

It is about time something or we all just shut up, and this thread was removed.

It is impossible for us all to come to one agreement and it is impossible to please everybody, so that is why you aim to please the majority - the most you can.

The Conservative Christians (and indeed there are many types of Christians who hold many different views) here must accept that they are the minority in this particular argument.

They must also accept that nobody has taken their views and their way of life away from them. It has not happened, nor should that be allowed to happen. They still have the same freedom of thought, the same freedom of speech, and the same views/beliefs as before.

The majority just does not hold those same views and beliefs.

Yet we always respect theirs, even if they don't respect ours.

As I've already made my position clear on abortion (I would probably prefer people just gave their children adoption - but I do not believe the right to abortion should be denied), that is all you will hear from me on this matter (not that I've said much :wink: ).

Arikastan

11-06-2004, 02:28

Arikastan is an Islamic nation, with an Islamic government, we follow the rules of the Qu'ran.

imported_NightHawk

11-06-2004, 03:03

Darinia

11-06-2004, 03:46

Why not create some sort of alternate forum based International organization that would abide by certain ideals? Or has this already been suggested?

Aelfhaven

11-06-2004, 05:15

While it is true that we will probably never all agree on the subject, that doesn't mean that everyone and everything is right. Also, it is important to talk these matters over, otherwise no one ever learns anything.

I'm baffled by the idea that many people posting here have about Christianity and life in general. I've read over most of the prior posts and have seen interesting thoughts on both sides (or perhaps more aptly put; each side) of the argument. One thing that I am confused about is the very definition(s) of 'Christian'. I believe that the name 'Christian' was first given to Jesus Christ's desciples in Antioch. The word means: "Little Christ". If I'm not mistaken, that implies that Christians are those who try to emulate Christ in His life and in His thoughts and goals. Just a few things that strongly stand out to me about His life and thoughts that are relevant to some of the arguments in this forum; CHRIST certainly believed the Scripture (ALL of it), Christ did say that He was the Son of God and that He and His Father were one and that His followers must go through Him to reach heaven, and Christ did make friends with people of all walks of life. I believe Christ's friendships with these people usually started with something like;
'Come, follow me.'
And then they would tend to leave whatever they were doing (and their previous lifestyles) and follow and emulate Him.

I also noticed an abundance of people saying that a Christian's ideal and perspective (and, logically following) anyone's ideal and perspective could not be forced upon others and that people must be free to make their own descisions for right and wrong in their lives. If that is so, what is the point of any of these laws, restrictions, and regulations that our government has put upon us? If man is basically good, and the majority decision is usually right, wouldn't an anarchy system of government with trials by mob (only when the masses deem it necessary, of course) be the 'best' way to do things? What happens when the majority and minority are almost equal in size? What happens, ultimately, if there IS absolute truth and a definite guide to right and wrong?

This whole thought on abortion happening all the time naturally is rather a silly idea to me. I don't know of any woman who can control whether and when she has a period or if a fertilized egg will grow. There are many differences between that situation and an abortion. The difference that I can see most clearly being; an abortion is the WILLFUL AND PLANNED destruction of an unborn child/fetus.
Many argue that this is not murder as the 'life' of the child has not yet begun. Someone please tell me then, what happens if the child's life hasn't begun by the time they're born? Are they truly sentient when they're lying there drooling and messing up diapers, when they gaze up at you with those blank, but adorable little eyes? When do they become human children with rights? Most babies seem about as intelligent as a puppy, but without the instincts (or tail). The humanity which makes a child clearly different from a dog comes later. What about mentally impared children who may never gain any more intelligence than what they posessed when they were infants? What will the cut-off age for an abortion of an unwanted child (or 'overgrown fetus') be?
Others would argue that abortion is sometimes necessary to save the life of the mother. What about all the unecessary abortions that put the mothers in physical and emotional danger? And who is to decide whether a mother or her child has the greater right to life? Some say that the child hasn't experienced humaity yet and that, therefore, they should die. By that very argument I would say, therefore, they should live! Some would say that the potential for the rest of the mother's life is wasted, but what about the infinite potential in the child's life? It has been proven time and again that, even if you're born into a painful family situation, if you have the will and are willing to find the way you can overcome that life and make something beautiful and inspiring from it.

Well, those are some of my thoughts and questions on the subject. If anyone would answer them, please do so politely, logically, plainly, and on the point. The whole matter has left me somewhat queasy, however, so I will sign off now.
-Chari
Founder and Representative of Aelfhaven

Necros-Vacuia

11-06-2004, 05:49

The Dominion of Necros-Vacuia, under our Lord Praetor Thraakan Naal, will continue to remain in the UN due to the fact that the Lord Praetor believes most strongly in the seperation of church and state.

We approve of the legislated freedom of gay marriage. It affects no one, as far as we can see, in a negative manner; "if you don't like gay marriages, don't GET one."

We approve of abortion under appropriate circumstances, as well.

However, we are alarmed at how intensively Christianity seems to be driving some of the UN member nations, and at its own spread in our Dominion. Therefore, we alert the UN that our Lord Praetor is considering legislation to outlaw public religious practice within Necros-Vacuia; of *any* belief.

Thank you.

--Ellion Kev, Necros-Vacuia Ambassador to the U.N.

Komokom

11-06-2004, 07:31

yet as with any translation or interpretation, it always changes from what it should be to something else.
How do you know that the translation used is not the same as the original, that it is not 'what it should be'?

1) I know, because from my research ( read as a while back I got stuck in a lecture I did not want to be in, and the peverse nature of the universe means I actually got some of it stuck in my head, unlike most of my old HSC maths class, go figure ... ) the bible was not written in the Queens good English, if you know what I mean, I am sure there are some more biblically inclined scholaristic figures amoung us who could follow up on that for me.

2) I know, because no translation is ever, ever, perfect, especially in such a text as the bible, in the fact that there are so many nuances and variations in meaning in all languages, no translation is ever "true", its a fact that some where along the line, something has, through accident or purpose, probably been interpreted incorrectly. In fact, the bible has been if I remember correctly, translated through several languages in time, from one to the other, and into its current form.

3) I know, because before being sent to earth by some mighty powers above, I had the choice of being able to throw bolts of lightening, live for-ever, or be a smart-arse. Guess.

:wink:

- T.R. Kom
Le Représentant de Komokom.
Ministre Régional de Substance.
http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/komokom.jpg (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/24401/page=display_nation)
<- Not A Moderator, Just A Know It All.
" Clowns To The Left of Me ... Jokers To The Right, Here I am ... "

Romanum Imperium

11-06-2004, 07:48

Avete!
They must also accept that nobody has taken their views and their way of life away from them. It has not happened, nor should that be allowed to happen. They still have the same freedom of thought, the same freedom of speech, and the same views/beliefs as before.
We know we still have these freedoms and views, but we also have the responsibility of ruling our Empire as best as we can. That's why we reacted against this Resolution and that's whay we resigned from the UN.

How do you know that the translation used is not the same as the original, that it is not 'what it should be'?

1) I know, because from my research ( read as a while back I got stuck in a lecture I did not want to be in, and the peverse nature of the universe means I actually got some of it stuck in my head, unlike most of my old HSC maths class, go figure ... ) the bible was not written in the Queens good English, if you know what I mean, I am sure there are some more biblically inclined scholaristic figures amoung us who could follow up on that for me.

2) I know, because no translation is ever, ever, perfect, especially in such a text as the bible, in the fact that there are so many nuances and variations in meaning in all languages, no translation is ever "true", its a fact that some where along the line, something has, through accident or purpose, probably been interpreted incorrectly. In fact, the bible has been if I remember correctly, translated through several languages in time, from one to the other, and into its current form.
1) Of course, the Bible was not written in English (nor in Dutch, German, French etc for that matter) but in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Most translations are direct translations from these source languages, not translations of translation of transl... etc.

2) I agree that no translation is ever perfect in the sense that it can convey all the connotations and details of the original. But when the Bible is translated, the translators don't do the job in a week, nor in a month or a year, but take many years. Just to be sure that the eventual translation is as close to the original as possible. The content of the translation (the meaning, the message) is the same as the original's.

Valete,
Earendilyon, Caesar Elevatus et Dictator Imperatorque Romani Imperii.

http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/romanum_imperium.jpg

Punk Daddy

11-06-2004, 09:14

Black New World wrote
In my old church we used the KJV. Lot's of death, not brilliant writing, can't stay focused on the plot, character range from the one dimensional to the annoyingly perfect.

In regards to the KJV...one of the most renowned authors Shakespeare was heavily involved in its translation.

There is plenty of death...perhaps someone forgot to mention to you that at some point in all of our lives we will all die...

Not brilliant writing? This doesn't deserve a response (read: psalms)

Can't stay focused on the plot...Perhaps someone forgot to also mention that this is a history...the plot is the human experience focused on a group of people living in the southeastern mediterreanean. First few books are in chronological order and as you read them all you see little intricacies in one that illuminate the other i.e Isaiah and Chronicles(I or II)

Lastly (and this made me laugh the most) characters range from the one dimensional to the annoyingly perfect.

Let's take a look at some not so one dimensional characters.
David,
Dimension One - Slew Goliath...Hip Hip Hoorah. Good Guy
Dimension Two - Slept with the wife of Uriah, Bathsheba...oh my goodness did someone in the Bible just sin?
Dimension Three - Had Bathsheba's husband killed...a murderer, ack!
Dimension Four - Danced and worshiped God all of his clothes fell off except for his loin cloth...MC Hammer be envious

If need be, I can list more. Your lack of depth of the Bible is disconcerting since you're calling it basically a book of nothing. However, you fail to realize that millions of people base their lives on it. Even if you grant that it is not true, you also need to grant that it has some very thick intellectual meat to it. So much so that throughout much of western history it has been the primary book of knowledge.

Komokom

11-06-2004, 09:41

Not brilliant writing? This doesn't deserve a response (read: psalms)

1) No pictures, thus not very well focused at the younger reader demoghraphic. Also I failed to find the name of the author and suspect he may have (holy) "ghost" written it.

Well, now we established I could possibly end up in hell, moving on :

:roll: at me and my ways, tsk, tsk, tsk.

2) ( I'd rather not read : psalms :wink: )

Can't stay focused on the plot... My Edit : Argument against this point was here, removed to minimise post length.

Yeah, well, when xxxx begat xxx begat xxxxx begat xxxxxx I guess I practically begatted myself to sleep by trying to read it all. And yes, before you all giggle, the atheist is aware as to what begat means.

:)

Lastly (and this made me laugh the most) characters range from the one dimensional to the annoyingly perfect.So much so that throughout much of western history it has been the primary book of knowledge.

Which makes perfect sense, once you remember the multiple organisations and on-going use of the book by saids groups who not only pushed the bloody book on people, but forced it as the way of life, and made it the only book available in most places. As with hard drugs, its not too difficult to be the main source of something if you control the only supply.

:wink:

- T.R. Kom
Le Représentant de Komokom.
Ministre Régional de Substance.
http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/komokom.jpg (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/24401/page=display_nation)
<- Not A Moderator, Just A Know It All.
" Clowns To The Left of Me ... Jokers To The Right, Here I am ... "

Hirota

11-06-2004, 09:48

Which makes perfect sense, once you remember the multiple organisations and on-going use of the book by saids groups who not only pushed the bloody book on people, but forced it as the way of life, and made it the only book available in most places. As with hard drugs, its not too difficult to be the main source of something if you control the only supply.

never thought I'd see the bible being compared to drug dealing. :lol:

ArMinasiria

11-06-2004, 09:51

Do you realize TransArmanseria before abortion became legal in the United States women would abort their babies with cloths hangers or even worse overdose on drugs? Do you realize that you are opressing your people with your laws whether you know it or not. Not everyone in your country would be a strict christian trust me.

Anyways Jesus taught love, compassion and caring, even for those who where your enemies. He taught you should love everyone equally. Why don't you do that?
1: I don't want legal abortion. I don't want ilegal abortion either. Saying that "people would do it, anyway" does not justify crime.
2: I am oppressing no one. People should be responsible for their actions. If a woman gets pregnant she should have her baby.
3: Love, compassion and caring is what forces me to outlaw abortion. Abortion is murder, and therefore the opposed to love.
Followers of Christ, Rally?

What are you? Some sort of religious nutcase?

Screw you and all the other nutcases you've stirred-up. I'm a Christian, also a more learned and wiser one than you.

Do not try to convert the 'heathens' like this, you make yourself look silly and they hold you in contempt. Your arrogant "I believe in God therefore i am right" cuts no ice with anyone except those nutcases already on your side.

Use only real argument which appeals to people's common sense. Otherwise they'll just laugh at you.

Get a grip.

Regards,

TNE1: You don't know me. You have no I dea how learned I am. Do not talk of what you don't know.
2: Being a Christian is not saying sso, and doing nothing. It is behaving like one. Try doing it.
3: I have tried to convert no one. I have tried to create a proposal allowing Christian Nations not to obey UN resolutions that go directly against Christ's preachings.
And then I tell you to prove it is alive and you come up with some form of proof.

You can't prove, beyond a doubt, that they are alive.
You can't prove, beyond a doubt, what makes someone alive.
You can't prove, even if it is alive, that this 'murder' isn't the lesser of two evils.

In my opinion you do not have a good base for a law. Christians are still free not to have abortions if they feel it is wrong.
1: Something that grows, feeds, and develops is alive. Without any doubt.
2: Lesser of two evils? There is only one circumstance where I agree it is the lesser of two evils, when the mother cannot survive the pregnancy and both her and her baby would die. Then, and only then is abortion acceptable. it is better to save one life than losing two. In any other circumstance I don't see how a murder is the lesser of two evils.
When the sperm joins the egg, life is created. After that, removing the fertilised egg, is killing a life.

Given that the majority of fertilised eggs never implant and a woman's body naturally aborts a large percentage of early-stage foetuses, does this mean a woman is some kind of perverse baby-killing machine?Those eggs are not fertiliced.
all i can say is that christ is a myth and the bible is the biggest work of fiction ever!All I can say is that you are absolutely mistaken and can only hope you will see the error of your ways before it is too late.
Here you have it:
The Christian Emancipation Bill

In the recent past, some UN resolutions have been approved that go directly against Christian values. Other proposals, still waiting to be aproved, go in the same direction.
This, for Christian nations, is intolerable, and has induced many Christian nations to leave the UN.
Seeing that this can only impoverish the level of the UN I propose this:

1 - To create a roll of Christian Nations, that all Christian Nations, be they Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Protestant or other followers of Christ would be free to join or not. All nations that join that roll, shall from now on be considered Christian Nations.
2 - To create a Christian commitee that shall decide what laws are considered as going against Christian values.
2.1 - This commitee shall be composed of 10 members: 3 Catholics, 2 Orthodox, 4 Protestants and 1 non-denominational follower of Christ. There would be alsoone surveyor appointed by the Holy Empire of Arminasiria.
2.2 - The 3 Catholic member of the comitee would be appointed by the Pope. Other members shall be elected as follow:
a) Orthodox candidates for the commitee shall be nominated by Orthodox Churches.
Protestant candidates for the commitee shall be nominated by Protestant Churches.
Any follower of Christ not defined in the other categories (Catholic/Orthodox/Protestant) shall be considered acceptable as non-denominational candidate.
b) All nations in the Roll of Christian nations shall vote for each post. Each post shall be elected in a different election.
c) The candidate with more votes shall be appointed.
2.3 - All members of the comitee shall be appointed for periods of 6 years, though they are free to resing sooner if they consider it convenient. Their replacements shll be elected as in 2.2
2.4 - All members of the comitee shall have the same value. All decisions in the comitee shall be apporved by mayority.
2.5 - The survetor appointed by the Holy Empire of ArMinasiria shall act as mediator between the members of the comitee when necessary, and his vote shall have value when the members of the comitee have got a draw in their votes. In other circumstances his vote will have no value whatsoever.
3 - That from the moment this resolution is approved, all Christian Nations shall be free not to obey UN resolutions that have been considered as going against Christian values.
Avete!
1) Yet, they reflect the will of the majority of the U.N.
But does this majority know what's the right thing? It appears not.

Careful, it sounds like you are endorsing a dictatorship system. The masses might be uneducated on what the right thing is, but just because you disagree with them does not mean they are instantly wrong.

2) Yes, and there are many more, prepare not for the second coming of christ, but the second age of reason.
I'd rather not depend on human reason ....

Why not? As long as they are well educated, what is wrong with reason?

3) Yes, just consider the terrible nature of the future, where man kind could finally stop burning its heretics but embraces them as human beings and love one another. Where individuals of man kind rule their own individual bodies, rather then be subjected to the rulling by others.
As Christians, we are commanded to love our neighbours and our enemies. Burning socalled heretics at the stake is (and was) not Christian behaviour.

Even though the Christian church actively encouraged it in certain epochs of time? The primary reason we don't do it now is because people (hopefully) know better. Given more education, what is wrong with people deciding what is right and wrong.

I do agree with you though that many nations in the UN choose not to review the issues surrounding some proposals, and that would certainly benefit the UN as a whole.

Christians are not subjected to the ruling of other humans, but by Christ's.

Good thing I'm aethist then, I'd be waiting a long time to hear anything from him ;)1: the massesa aren't always wrong. But it is stupid to follow them when they are wrong.
2: God is the Ultimate Truth. God is the Ultimate Reason. God is the Ultimate Logic.

Btw: it is usually spelled "Atheist".
Rather then kill someone who is already a human being, or force it to lead a low quality of life we would. As it is without self awareness and incapable of making a rational decision we feel that this action would cause more good then harm but we would go out of our way to make it as painless as possible.

I'd rather not depend on human reason ....
Silly me, I thought you were Catholic. Human reason is the only way to interpret 'natural law'.

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World
Meet The Reps (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=132588) ~ What can the UN do and what can it do for me?
(http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=132588)
1: Low quality of life? Who are you to decide a life isn't worth living?
2: If you bothered to ask before you posted, you would know that Earendilyon is not Catholic. I am, however, and I can tell you that the Church depends on God's inspiration through the Holy Ghost to decide about doctrine.

It is impossible for us all to come to one agreement and it is impossible to please everybody, so that is why you aim to please the majority - the most you can.

The Conservative Christians (and indeed there are many types of Christians who hold many different views) here must accept that they are the minority in this particular argument.

They must also accept that nobody has taken their views and their way of life away from them. It has not happened, nor should that be allowed to happen. They still have the same freedom of thought, the same freedom of speech, and the same views/beliefs as before.

The majority just does not hold those same views and beliefs.

Yet we always respect theirs, even if they don't respect ours.

As I've already made my position clear on abortion (I would probably prefer people just gave their children adoption - but I do not believe the right to abortion should be denied), that is all you will hear from me on this matter (not that I've said much :wink: ).We may be the minority, but we know we are right.
Majorities aren't always right. A German Majority elected Hitler, and we all know what happened.

Komokom

11-06-2004, 09:52

:shock: I do my best you know, Hirota :D

- T.R. Kom
Le Représentant de Komokom.
Ministre Régional de Substance.
http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/komokom.jpg (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/24401/page=display_nation)
<- Not A Moderator, Just A Know It All.
" Clowns To The Left of Me ... Jokers To The Right, Here I am ... "

The Black New World

11-06-2004, 11:05

A. I was generalising, it’s a very big book, and I wasn’t being all that serious. I love psalms.

B. Shakespeare wasn’t an author he was a playwright and a poet. Even if he translated it (not all people agree on that) he wouldn’t have put his own stories in it.

If need be, I can list more. Your lack of depth of the Bible is disconcerting since you're calling it basically a book of nothing. However, you fail to realize that millions of people base their lives on it. Even if you grant that it is not true, you also need to grant that it has some very thick intellectual meat to it. So much so that throughout much of western history it has been the primary book of knowledge.

Just because it’s influential and philosophical doesn’t believe it is beyond mocking…

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World
Meet The Reps (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=132588) ~ What can the UN do and what can it do for me?
(http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=132588)

The Black New World

11-06-2004, 11:15

1: Low quality of life? Who are you to decide a life isn't worth living?
2: If you bothered to ask before you posted, you would know that Earendilyon is not Catholic. I am, however, and I can tell you that the Church depends on God's inspiration through the Holy Ghost to decide about doctrine.

1. The people involved doctors, parents, and, in the case of euthanasia, the person. Generally speaking we weigh up if it would do more good then harm. Christians are free not to take advantage of the laws.

2. I thought I was addressing Romanum Imperium, sorry for the misunderstanding. I still stand by the fact that ‘natural law’ (which the Catholic Church follows) is based on human interpretations of what is natural. It was one of Luther’s problems with the Catholic Church.

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World
Meet The Reps (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=132588) ~ What can the UN do and what can it do for me?
(http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=132588)

Hirota

11-06-2004, 11:36

3: I have tried to convert no one. I have tried to create a proposal allowing Christian Nations not to obey UN resolutions that go directly against Christ's preachings.
Game mechanics. That's that shot down in flames.

1: Something that grows, feeds, and develops is alive. Without any doubt.

Such as bacteria? It's foolish and irrevlevent to base anti-abortion arguements on the basis that a foetus might or might not be alive. It's sentience that is relevant, and that does not occur until well into the second trimester, if I recall correctly.

all i can say is that christ is a myth and the bible is the biggest work of fiction ever!All I can say is that you are absolutely mistaken and can only hope you will see the error of your ways before it is too late.

All I can say is that other assertions or facts made by the bible, and by established christian organisations such as the catholic church have been proven over the course of time to be falsehoods, lies, or myths. It's not difficult to see the bible sliding to a similar fate.

Here you have it:
The Christian Emancipation Bill...

Well, that's not going to pass - game mechanics. :roll:

It gets really boring explaining to nations why they can't, so I really cannot be bothered. Suffice to say it will be removed if submitted, and you'll probably be warned about doing it again.

Learn from it, and don't be an idiot. You claim to be pretty smart, so go read and learn from previous mistakes of other nations who have done the same as you in the past. It'll do you wonders in the long term.

1: the massesa aren't always wrong. But it is stupid to follow them when they are wrong.

It's also stupid to follow induvidual nations that have got it wrong.....not naming any nations in particular.....

2: God is the Ultimate Truth. God is the Ultimate Reason. God is the Ultimate Logic.
:roll: wow, really original thinking...so typical of christianity. :roll: It's not as if I've heard the same old propaganda from other christians dozens of times before.... :roll:

We may be the minority, but we know we are right.
Obviously so. :roll: Just like christianity thought the earth was flat yeah?

You are SOOO original! It's not as if this topic pops up every so often with similar responses and similar outcome?

CLUE: The outcome is not what you are after. Trust me. I've seen it all before.

Majorities aren't always right. A German Majority elected Hitler, and we all know what happened.
And a majority was christian in the past. So yes, you are right, a majority is not always right. Or intelligent. Good thing that times have improved and changed then.

The Black New World

11-06-2004, 11:40

Well, that's not going to pass - game mechanics. :roll:

It gets really boring explaining to nations why they can't, so I really cannot be bothered. Suffice to say it will be removed if submitted, and you'll probably be warned about doing it again.

Learn from it, and don't be an idiot. You claim to be pretty smart, so go read and learn from previous mistakes of other nations who have done the same as you in the past. It'll do you wonders in the long term.

OOC: Try-What can the UN do and what can it do for me?
(http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=132588)

Romanum Imperium

11-06-2004, 11:40

Ave!
2. I thought I was addressing Romanum Imperium, sorry for the misunderstanding.
You were indeed addressing me. But the ruler of ArMinasiria and we know eachother from another (Tolkien related) board (http://www.minastirith.com). I assume that's why he reacted, beside the fact that he's a Roman Catholic. At the other board people react on everything posted in the thread :)

Vale,
Earendilyon, Caesar Elevatus et Dictator Imperatorque Romani Imperii.

http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/romanum_imperium.jpg

The Black New World

11-06-2004, 11:45

Sorry, my mistake it was your character name. Duh. Just let me find a copy of ‘war and peace’ to whack myself over the head with. I thought Earendilyon was a different country…

OOC: I’ve just been in an exam it’s not like I have brain cells left… /OOC

Sorry

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World
Meet The Reps (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=132588) ~ What can the UN do and what can it do for me?
(http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=132588)

GMC Military Arms

11-06-2004, 11:51

1: Something that grows, feeds, and develops is alive. Without any doubt.

By which definition a tumor and a moving firestorm are alive.

When the sperm joins the egg, life is created. After that, removing the fertilised egg, is killing a life.

Given that the majority of fertilised eggs never implant and a woman's body naturally aborts a large percentage of early-stage foetuses, does this mean a woman is some kind of perverse baby-killing machine?Those eggs are not fertiliced.

You seem to think I'm talking about all eggs. I'm not. Most eggs that are fertilised do not implant in the wall of the uterus and develop. They die.

Romanum Imperium

11-06-2004, 11:55

Avete!
Such as bacteria? It's foolish and irrevlevent to base anti-abortion arguements on the basis that a foetus might or might not be alive. It's sentience that is relevant, and that does not occur until well into the second trimester, if I recall correctly.
Why is it irrelevant to base the argumant on the basis that the baby is alive, and why is it relevant to base it on the sentience of the baby? Abortion is the killing of a human being that's alive.

All I can say is that other assertions or facts made by the bible, and by established christian organisations such as the catholic church have been proven over the course of time to be falsehoods, lies, or myths. It's not difficult to see the bible sliding to a similar fate.
The Bible won't face a similar fate, for it will be around till the end of time, like God promised.

wow, really original thinking...so typical of christianity. It's not as if I've heard the same old propaganda from other christians dozens of times before....
It's 'typical of Christianity' and you've heard it before of Christians, because it's the simple Truth.

Just like christianity thought the earth was flat yeah?
This is an error made by many people. "Christianity" never taught that the earth is flat. Not even in the socalled "Dark" Middle Ages this was taught, nor believed, at least not by people who had some learning.

Sorry, my mistake it was your character name. Duh. Just let me find a copy of ‘war and peace’ to whack myself over the head with. I thought Earendilyon was a different country…
No problem :) We, Earendilyon, are the Elevated Caesar, Dictator and Imperator of Romanum Imperium.

Valete,
Earendilyon, Caesar Elevatus et Dictator Imperatorque Romani Imperii.

http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/romanum_imperium.jpg

GMC Military Arms

11-06-2004, 12:28

Just like christianity thought the earth was flat yeah?
This is an error made by many people. "Christianity" never taught that the earth is flat. Not even in the socalled "Dark" Middle Ages this was taught, nor believed, at least not by people who had some learning.

There are verses that can be used to support said theory; specifically, Isaiah 11:12 [the Earth has four 'corners'], Isaiah 40:22 [the Earth is a flat disc] Ezekiel 7:2 [four 'corners'] Daniel 2:35 [a great mountain 'fills the whole Earth,' impossible on a sphere] Daniel 4:10-11, 20 [A great tree is visible 'from the ends of the Earth'] Matthew 4:8 and Luke 4:5 [The devil shows Jesus 'all the kingdoms of the Earth' from the top of a mountain] and Revelation 7:1 [Angels stand on 'the four corners of the Earth.']

And there are statements that 'the world is set upon pillars' [implying a flat object] in 1 Samuel 2:8, Job 9:6 and Psalms 75:3.

Given that, it's hardly unreasonable for them to have reached the conclusion they did.

Hirota

11-06-2004, 13:18

Why is it irrelevant to base the argumant on the basis that the baby is alive, and why is it relevant to base it on the sentience of the baby? Abortion is the killing of a human being that's alive.

So is standing on an insect - the two have comparable attributes based purely on your definition as "alive". Indeed, a fly is probably more worthy of being kept alive because it has a very limited awareness - an embryo/foetus does not until well into the second trimester.

All I can say is that other assertions or facts made by the bible, and by established christian organisations such as the catholic church have been proven over the course of time to be falsehoods, lies, or myths. It's not difficult to see the bible sliding to a similar fate.
The Bible won't face a similar fate, for it will be around till the end of time, like God promised.

God is always truthful then?

Jeremiah 20:7 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?passage=JER%2B20:7)#uage=english&version=NIV&showfn=on) - of course their is the alternative translations - which merely prove the bible is inaccurate and vague and unreliable, rather than God is a liar.

Ezekiel 14:9 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?passage=EZEK%2B14:9)#uage=english&version=NIV&showfn=on)

Thessalonians 2:9-12 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?passage=2THES%2B2:9-12)#uage=english&version=NIV&showfn=on)

Genesis 2:16-17
And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. - nobody died.

I'm sure you are going to say it's translation that is responsible for the confusion - so why on earth is it written so badly?

wow, really original thinking...so typical of christianity. It's not as if I've heard the same old propaganda from other christians dozens of times before....
It's 'typical of Christianity' and you've heard it before of Christians, because it's the simple Truth.

Or because it is simple retoric mindlessly incanted time and time again....

Just like christianity thought the earth was flat yeah?
This is an error made by many people. "Christianity" never taught that the earth is flat. Not even in the socalled "Dark" Middle Ages this was taught, nor believed, at least not by people who had some learning.

Thanks GMC Military Arms for explaining it already.

_Myopia_

11-06-2004, 14:41

The only reason why Christianity is losing popularity (in parts of the Western world, that is, for in the rest of the world many people accept Christ) is because people think they know better than their Creator.

For those who convert from Christianity to atheism, agnosticism, or a religion that does not believe in a creating deity, it is nonsense to claim they think that they know better than their creator. They reject christianity because they have doubts about said creator's existence, often because they have actually sat down and thought about the philosphical arguments (like I did). You can't believe that you're cleverer than something you don't think exists!

For those converting to other theistic religions, the issue is again not that they believe they know better than their creator, it is that they have come to believe that said creator's nature is different to that described by christianity.

I think what upsets you is that those who reject christianity believe that reality is not what you believe it to be - i.e. they believe they know better than you.

Why not create some sort of alternate forum based International organization that would abide by certain ideals? Or has this already been suggested?

Many times. It can't be done because it would require a fairly significant overhaul of the game's programming. Plus, if the christians got their own organisation, then every group with common ideals would want one, and I would guess that pretty soon even the jolt servers we're about to move to would collapse under that weight.

However, we are alarmed at how intensively Christianity seems to be driving some of the UN member nations, and at its own spread in our Dominion. Therefore, we alert the UN that our Lord Praetor is considering legislation to outlaw public religious practice within Necros-Vacuia; of *any* belief.

I think this would contravene several past UN resolutions, plus restricting religious freedom is not the answer. Simply demand, in a constitution if necessary, that any law passed in your nation must be backed by reasoning that is not dependent on religous doctrine.

2) I agree that no translation is ever perfect in the sense that it can convey all the connotations and details of the original. But when the Bible is translated, the translators don't do the job in a week, nor in a month or a year, but take many years. Just to be sure that the eventual translation is as close to the original as possible. The content of the translation (the meaning, the message) is the same as the original's.

And yet some meaning must inevitably be lost, due to a variety of factors - the translators are human and so have (sometimes incorrect) prejudices and preconceptions of what they think the bible means; meanings within languages can change subtly over time; even if the translator understands a subtle implication of a word of phrase in the original, it may not be possible to adequately translate that subtlety, so meanings are lsot even when they are known; and finally we can actually lose knowledge about older languages.

Additionally, since the bible has been translated through more than 2 languages, these problems can build up over time (butterfly effect - chaos theory!).

Even if you grant that it is not true, you also need to grant that it has some very thick intellectual meat to it. So much so that throughout much of western history it has been the primary book of knowledge.

When other thinkers know that, if they produce sources of knowledge that contradict the bible, they will suffer greatly for it, it becomes inevitable that the bible will remain mostly unchallenged.

1: Something that grows, feeds, and develops is alive. Without any doubt.

Why is it irrelevant to base the argumant on the basis that the baby is alive, and why is it relevant to base it on the sentience of the baby?

Actually, the biological list of processes that are carried out by all living things is:

-Movement
-Respiration
-Sensitivity (this is the ability to receive info about surroundings, process and respond to it)
-Nutrition
-Excretion of wastes
-Reproduction
-Growth

But the point is, a bacteria can fulfil all these criteria, and we kill bacteria in their billions on a daily basis. That is why the issue is sentience, which, as has been pointed out, emerges in the second trimester. I would advocate this as the cut-off point for abortion.

Given that the majority of fertilised eggs never implant and a woman's body naturally aborts a large percentage of early-stage foetuses, does this mean a woman is some kind of perverse baby-killing machine?
Those eggs are not fertiliced.

Um...the use of the words "fertilised eggs" in GMC's posts would suggest that they are.

As to your "Christian Emancipation Bill", ArMinasiria:

A. Blatant game mechanics
B. Why should christians get special concessions? Why can't muslim nations be exempted from resolutions demanding measures which offend those following the teachings of the Qu'ran? And if you then grant concessions for religious reasons, why not political ones? I'm sure capitalist nations hate the socialist resolutions we pass, and since political beliefs are often more justifiable with reason than religious ones, we should give nations the ability to ignore resolutions which go against their political beliefs too. So basically, if you let one group ignore resolutions, you have to let everyone do so, which would destroy the point of UN membership in this game.

2: God is the Ultimate Truth. God is the Ultimate Reason. God is the Ultimate Logic.

Prove it to me, or at least give some valid argument to support it.

We may be the minority, but we know we are right.

No, you think you are right. You can't prove it.

Majorities aren't always right. A German Majority elected Hitler, and we all know what happened.

Actually:

When Hitler finally became chancellor on Jan. 30, 1933, it was not on the crest of a wave of popular support but as the result of backroom political intrigue by Schleicher, Papen, and the president's son, Oskar von Hindenburg.

He was appointed. And:

The elections of March 5, 1933, were preceded by a brutal and violent campaign in which Nazi storm troopers under the command of Ernst Röhm figured prominently. Hitler was also able to take advantage of the Reichstag fire (probably the work of a lone and deranged Dutch communist) of February 27 to suspend civil liberties and arrest Communist as well as other opposition leaders. Despite this campaign of terror the Nazis did not win a majority, gaining only 43.9 percent of the total. The 8 percent acquired by the DNVP, however, was sufficient for the two parties to wield a majority in the Reichstag. At its first meeting on March 23 this Reichstag, under great pressure from the SA and Heinrich Himmler's SS (Schutzstaffel; “Protective Echelon”), voted in favour of an Enabling Act that gave Hitler power to ignore the constitution and to give his decrees the power of law.

(My bolds) So really, the Nazis were elected by a minority, and even then only on the basis of an undemocratic election and an unconstitutional (the constitution was democratic), coerced ruling by the legislature.

Necros-Vacuia

11-06-2004, 18:44

The Lord Praetor has no wish to contravene the UN; after consultation, he and I have scrapped the legislation.

However, we still feel religious zeal is becoming quite a problem, and we would like, in the interest of law and order, to pass legislation that would prevent religious practices that run contrary to our national security.

We are amused by the notation that "restricting religious freedom is not the answer." We note to the honorable ambassador that the Dominion for the most part does not consider human or civil rights very necessary.

--Ellion Kev, Necros-Vacuia Ambassador to the UN

JRV

12-06-2004, 01:55

All right, I realize this goes against what I said about not posting again, but I feel it is necessary...

"We may be the minority, but we know we are right.
Majorities aren't always right. A German Majority elected Hitler, and we all know what happened."

This is exactly why you are unpopular and disliked. You are entitled to your beliefs, you are entitled to make them clear, and you are entitled to stand up for issues, which concern you. But, you do not have the authority to say that just because the majority doesn’t agree with you, they are wrong and misinformed. No my friend, just like nobody has the authority to call you a non-Christian – you wouldn’t know a quarter of the people who voted for the Abortion Rights Resolution.

Yes, the majority can be wrong. I don’t deny that - but we are trying to run a democracy here. Now, if you are a Conservative Christian, why do you care? If you believe what the Bible teaches, then surely you must believe that Jesus is coming back and he is going to punish the wicked (such as myself) and save the good (such as yourself). So, again I ask, why do you care? My sins aren’t going to send you to hell. God gave us all free will, whether we misuse that free will or not, it is up to the individual. A very Conservative Christian once told me, we are answerable to God only. So what I am saying is, why can’t we just get on living? I respect your beliefs; I respect Christianity even though I am not a Christian. You are entitled to think I am wrong, and you are right. But honestly, nothing you say here is going to change the majority’s views, just as nothing I or anybody else can say will change yours.

If the majority is wrong, then God will punish them, if you are right then you will be given eternal life. You still have the freedom to live your life as a good Christian, regardless of what we are doing.

Romanum Imperium

12-06-2004, 11:32

Avete,

There are verses that can be used to support said theory; specifically, Isaiah 11:12 [the Earth has four 'corners'], Isaiah 40:22 [the Earth is a flat disc] Ezekiel 7:2 [four 'corners'] Daniel 2:35 [a great mountain 'fills the whole Earth,' impossible on a sphere] Daniel 4:10-11, 20 [A great tree is visible 'from the ends of the Earth'] Matthew 4:8 and Luke 4:5 [The devil shows Jesus 'all the kingdoms of the Earth' from the top of a mountain] and Revelation 7:1 [Angels stand on 'the four corners of the Earth.']

And there are statements that 'the world is set upon pillars' [implying a flat object] in 1 Samuel 2:8, Job 9:6 and Psalms 75:3.

Given that, it's hardly unreasonable for them to have reached the conclusion they did.
Most of these verses you quote have to be read figuratively, they're from prophesies and from visions. They're not meant as actual geographical descriptions. I agree they can be read as saying that the Earth is flat, if read as an actual description of the Earth's shape.

NB, Isa 40:22 says: "It is he who sits above the circle of the earth", not 'flat disc' and Eze 7:2, "The end has come upon the four corners of the land", meaning the land of Israel.

Indeed, a fly is probably more worthy of being kept alive because it has a very limited awareness - an embryo/foetus does not until well into the second trimester.
So, to you the killing of a fly is worse than the killing of a human being?

God is always truthful then?

Jeremiah 20:7 - of course their is the alternative translations - which merely prove the bible is inaccurate and vague and unreliable, rather than God is a liar.

Ezekiel 14:9

Thessalonians 2:9-12

Genesis 2:16-17
And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. - nobody died.

I'm sure you are going to say it's translation that is responsible for the confusion - so why on earth is it written so badly?
Jeremiah is claiming that God deceived him. But did God? Humans do not understand God's ways fully and expect of Him things He won't do. When God does something someone did not expect, that person can feel decieved by God, while he deceived himself.
The text of Ezekiel should be read in its context (as should be al texts): God will deceive people who don't worship Him, but idols, but do come to prophets of God to seek God's guidance and help. But God will not help them, because they do not worship Him. 2Thes tells us the same thing: God will send delusions to those who do not love the truth.
Gen: Do you think nobody died? Death is all around us in this world! Worse still than phisical death is the spiritual death tha came into this world with the Fall of human kind.

For those who convert from Christianity to atheism, agnosticism, or a religion that does not believe in a creating deity, it is nonsense to claim they think that they know better than their creator. They reject christianity because they have doubts about said creator's existence, often because they have actually sat down and thought about the philosphical arguments (like I did). You can't believe that you're cleverer than something you don't think exists!

For those converting to other theistic religions, the issue is again not that they believe they know better than their creator, it is that they have come to believe that said creator's nature is different to that described by christianity.

I think what upsets you is that those who reject christianity believe that reality is not what you believe it to be - i.e. they believe they know better than you.
I believe that deep inside, every human knows that God exists. Ever since the Fall in Paradise, humans want to be master of their own lives, whereas God is, for He created us.
All religions who not point to God through Jesus Christ are false religions, for Jesus is 'the Way, the Truth, and the Life'.
I'm not upset by people rejecting Christ, but I am saddened by it

And yet some meaning must inevitably be lost, due to a variety of factors - the translators are human and so have (sometimes incorrect) prejudices and preconceptions of what they think the bible means; meanings within languages can change subtly over time; even if the translator understands a subtle implication of a word of phrase in the original, it may not be possible to adequately translate that subtlety, so meanings are lsot even when they are known; and finally we can actually lose knowledge about older languages.

Additionally, since the bible has been translated through more than 2 languages, these problems can build up over time (butterfly effect - chaos theory!).
I'm aware of the problem of translating from one language into another. However, I think the overall meaning of the original can be retained in a translation.
As I said before, the Bible is mostly translated directly from the languages it was written in (Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek), and not via intermediate translations.

That is why the issue is sentience, which, as has been pointed out, emerges in the second trimester. I would advocate this as the cut-off point for abortion.
Why is the issue sentience? I asked that before (but got no answer from Hirota). Is a baby before becoming sentient not an human being?

Um...the use of the words "fertilised eggs" in GMC's posts would suggest that they are.
It was ArMinasiria's representative who wrote that, not me.

But, you do not have the authority to say that just because the majority doesn’t agree with you, they are wrong and misinformed.
We do not claim to have authority over anyone else. We just point out what we know to be the truth.

Yes, the majority can be wrong. I don’t deny that - but we are trying to run a democracy here. Now, if you are a Conservative Christian, why do you care? If you believe what the Bible teaches, then surely you must believe that Jesus is coming back and he is going to punish the wicked (such as myself) and save the good (such as yourself). So, again I ask, why do you care? My sins aren’t going to send you to hell. God gave us all free will, whether we misuse that free will or not, it is up to the individual. A very Conservative Christian once told me, we are answerable to God only. So what I am saying is, why can’t we just get on living?
The democracy you're talking about is the international body of the UN. The abortion issue was at vote in that body and we were against the passing of the Resolution, so we pointed that out, from which this discussion originated. We do not want to push our believes trough the throats of the inhabitants of other countries, we are just acting against other countries trying to do that to us trough UN Resolution that are against God's will.
The reason why we care, is that we care for all non-Christians and because we love God and want people to also know and love Him, for His sake and for the sake of those people themselves.

Valete,
Earendilyon, Caesar Elevatus et Dictator Imperatorque Romani Imperii.

http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/romanum_imperium.jpg

GMC Military Arms

12-06-2004, 11:40

NB, Isa 40:22 says: "It is he who sits above the circle of the earth", not 'flat disc'

Doesn't matter. A circle isn't a three dimensional shape.

Romanum Imperium

12-06-2004, 11:44

Ave,

NB, Isa 40:22 says: "It is he who sits above the circle of the earth", not 'flat disc'

Doesn't matter. A circle isn't a three dimensional shape.

Doesn't matter. A prophecy isn't a geographical description.

Vale,
Earendilyon, Caesar Elevatus et Dictator Imperatorque Romani Imperii.

http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/romanum_imperium.jpg

Superpower07

12-06-2004, 16:45

In the past, some UN resolutions have attented clearly against the dictates of Christ. Abortion and Gay rights are only the peak of the iceberg. Far too long we have tolerated this state of affairs.
I have proposed the Christian Emancipation Bill to stop this. It is still a UN proposal. If you are a Christian and a UN delegate, please endorse it.

*turns on Megaphone*
"Will all UN Members and Delegates please remember to keep religion and government separate! that will be all"
*turns off Megaphone*

Randomocitia

12-06-2004, 17:23

I am a Christian, but my aim, is not to leave or boycott, the UN, but to change it from the inside.

NationStates Political Alliance

1. Any nation with conservative views, a proposal worth submission, or who is genuinely concerned about the UN, may join.

2. The alliance’s goal is to have 150 delegates in it.

3. Delegates would be divided into 25 groups.
A. Each group would have 7 delegates in it.
B. One delegate would be “over” the 25.
C. The purpose of this arrangement would be to make the task of telegramming delegates easier.
D. These would be elected by members to one month terms.

3. Members would send in any proposals they have submitted to
the UN to the top delegate.
A. He would send it to the 25 “under” him.
B. They would send it to the 7 each under them.
C. These 151 would approve the proposal.
D. The delegates would inform their endorsees of the proposal.

4. The delegates by entering the alliance, agree to consider the
proposal in an unbiased manner.
A. Any proposal would be accepted to be sent to these delegates.
B. Stupid or ridiculous proposals would be rejected.
C. Liberal proposals such as “Abortion Rights” would be rejected.
D. If delegates simply felt that they could not approve it in good conscience, they would not have to.

5. This organization’s goals are:
A. To get member proposals to vote in the UN.
B. To get conservative resolutions passed.
C. To fight liberal resolutions that hurt our world.

If you are interested please telegram me.

And why don't we all try something called, being cio

Tricantri

12-06-2004, 17:34

My nation is a nation following the word of the Lord, Jesus Christ, and no UN resolution will force me not to. It's my nation.
Also, Tricantri reserves the right to propose a free relegion act which allows the nation to govern according to the relegious beleifs of the country, in this case Roman Catholicism, or "The Church of Tricantri." I suggest someone puts thru a proposal stating this:

It is a countries full right to Govern based on the teachings of the Religion of the Country, be it Christianity, Judeaism, Islam, Aethiesm, Paganism, Hinduism, Buddhism etc. No other nation shall dictate the religious beleifs of a country, nor shall the UN.

Someone propose this, I don't have enough endorsments.
-Caporegime of Tricantri of CC.
aka. Capo

_Myopia_

12-06-2004, 17:36

For those who convert from Christianity to atheism, agnosticism, or a religion that does not believe in a creating deity, it is nonsense to claim they think that they know better than their creator. They reject christianity because they have doubts about said creator's existence, often because they have actually sat down and thought about the philosphical arguments (like I did). You can't believe that you're cleverer than something you don't think exists!

For those converting to other theistic religions, the issue is again not that they believe they know better than their creator, it is that they have come to believe that said creator's nature is different to that described by christianity.

I think what upsets you is that those who reject christianity believe that reality is not what you believe it to be - i.e. they believe they know better than you.
I believe that deep inside, every human knows that God exists. Ever since the Fall in Paradise, humans want to be master of their own lives, whereas God is, for He created us.
All religions who not point to God through Jesus Christ are false religions, for Jesus is 'the Way, the Truth, and the Life'.
I'm not upset by people rejecting Christ, but I am saddened by it

The fact that you believe this proves nothing. It is quite reasonable to suggest that any such "gut feeling" could be an instinct which humans evolved, because belief in a divine being and an afterlife grants individuals hope, which can aid survival.

And yet some meaning must inevitably be lost, due to a variety of factors - the translators are human and so have (sometimes incorrect) prejudices and preconceptions of what they think the bible means; meanings within languages can change subtly over time; even if the translator understands a subtle implication of a word of phrase in the original, it may not be possible to adequately translate that subtlety, so meanings are lsot even when they are known; and finally we can actually lose knowledge about older languages.

Additionally, since the bible has been translated through more than 2 languages, these problems can build up over time (butterfly effect - chaos theory!).
I'm aware of the problem of translating from one language into another. However, I think the overall meaning of the original can be retained in a translation.

But details can be lost, so over time something which, say, condemned to some sort of sexual perversion such paedophilia, might have been translated to homosexuality.

That is why the issue is sentience, which, as has been pointed out, emerges in the second trimester. I would advocate this as the cut-off point for abortion.
Why is the issue sentience?

I answered this right before the point where the quote you put in from my post begins. Many things are alive, and we think nothing of killing some of these, so clearly merely being alive is not a good enough argument.

Um...the use of the words "fertilised eggs" in GMC's posts would suggest that they are.
It was ArMinasiria's representative who wrote that, not me.

My response was directed to him/her.

But, you do not have the authority to say that just because the majority doesn’t agree with you, they are wrong and misinformed.
We do not claim to have authority over anyone else. We just point out what we know to be the truth.

No, what you believe to be the truth. However sure you are of it, it is still just belief until it is based on evidence so that it is beyond reasonable doubt.

Yes, the majority can be wrong. I don’t deny that - but we are trying to run a democracy here. Now, if you are a Conservative Christian, why do you care? If you believe what the Bible teaches, then surely you must believe that Jesus is coming back and he is going to punish the wicked (such as myself) and save the good (such as yourself). So, again I ask, why do you care? My sins aren’t going to send you to hell. God gave us all free will, whether we misuse that free will or not, it is up to the individual. A very Conservative Christian once told me, we are answerable to God only. So what I am saying is, why can’t we just get on living?
The democracy you're talking about is the international body of the UN. The abortion issue was at vote in that body and we were against the passing of the Resolution, so we pointed that out, from which this discussion originated. We do not want to push our believes trough the throats of the inhabitants of other countries, we are just acting against other countries trying to do that to us trough UN Resolution that are against God's will.
The reason why we care, is that we care for all non-Christians and because we love God and want people to also know and love Him, for His sake and for the sake of those people themselves.

But the principle of allowing people to do what they will and leaving it up to your god to judge their decisions can apply on a national law level too. Legalise gay marriage etc., and your christian majority doesn't have to take advantage of the rights, but the minorities can, and when we all die we'll see who was right (or alternatively, we just won't see anything, depending on who was right). It won't affect you, because you will have chosen not to do these things.

Powerhungry Chipmunks

12-06-2004, 18:21

We do not claim to have authority over anyone else. We just point out what we know to be the truth.
No, what you believe to be the truth. However sure you are of it, it is still just belief until it is based on evidence so that it is beyond reasonable doubt.

Hm. That sounds convenient. What you seem to be saying is that one person cannot "know" something until you give the OK, until in your eyes there is not a reasonable doubt. Doesn't that seem like overreaching a little? I mean what is your problem with other people thinking something to be fact and aligning themselves to it. Sure, you're free to have your own brand and algorithmic sense of logic and law and absolute knowledge, but so can everyone else, right? I mean, in his mind I'm sure it's beyond a reasonable doubt that what he "knows" is truth. You seem to be nit-picking about his wording (which true I'm doing it, too, but I'm a rodent and no one ever listens to them). Just because you would term it "belief" rather than "knowledge" doesn't mean that you have to force that rationale on other.

Just my observation. Hopefully it can lead the opposing sides towards a happier less "flaming" coexistence (no pun intended).

JRV

14-06-2004, 04:33

All religions who not point to God through Jesus Christ are false religions, for Jesus is 'the Way, the Truth, and the Life'.
I'm not upset by people rejecting Christ, but I am saddened by it

Well bloody well don't. You only make us angry. You trying to change our views is just as much use as me trying to change yours - IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN. EVER.

Like I said, individuals are answerable to God and God only. If I doubt God’s word, it’s MY PROBLEM NOT YOURS.

As I have already stated I am a Humanist, and will be right to the day I die. I once was a Christian in the sense that you are but am no longer, and never will be again. I am not an atheist, I still believe in a 'God'. My reason for leaving the faith was due in part to:

a) The too literal taking of the Bible to be fact by conservatives.
b) The fact that things written in the Bible can be interpreted to mean different things and not just what the radicals say.

It’s not that I don’t have faith in God, it is that I do not have faith in the Bible and the people such as yourself who claim to be authority.

And one more thing, it wasn’t long ago that your religion was used by conservatives to justify racism in the United States and elsewhere. The Bible has also been used to justify sexism towards women – especially since the New Testament states, among other things, which could also be used to justify sexism, that women should not be able to speak in church. The impression it gives is of women being inferior to men. Things which surely any loving and caring God would not condone.

The moral of the story: don’t ever tell me the Bible should be taken literally – especially when the Vatican has plenty of texts locked away from us, which we are not allowed to see. As somebody on these boards said, I can’t remember where I read it, it was probably in this thread, but “the Bible is for a different people in a different time.”

The democracy you're talking about is the international body of the UN. The abortion issue was at vote in that body and we were against the passing of the Resolution, so we pointed that out, from which this discussion originated. We do not want to push our believes trough the throats of the inhabitants of other countries, we are just acting against other countries trying to do that to us trough UN Resolution that are against God's will.
The reason why we care, is that we care for all non-Christians and because we love God and want people to also know and love Him, for His sake and for the sake of those people themselves.

Yes. I understand what you are saying, but you are dodging the point I was trying to make. We are not trying to ‘push our beliefs through your throats’, we are simply making so that those who do not share your beliefs can by law obtain an abortion. How can that possibly be pushing our beliefs through your throats? If the majority of your country’s population disagrees, nobody is forcing them to get all go and get abortions - are they? If the minority in your country supports the right to chose then they have the right to chose – as your country would be predominantly radicals, there would be a lot of anti-abortion views in society. These views would be forced ‘through the throats’ of this minority, and in reality most would probably stay clear of abortion for fear of being social outcasts or discriminated against. You would probably find those who felt strongly about it even leave your country (if that were possible). Your countries can still hold their traditional views on this complicated subject, and still influence individuals – that has not changed. As somebody said if 5000 women get pregnant, they aren’t all gonna rush out and get abortions. In your countries were the majority are conservative, I’d bet you a quarter of them wouldn’t. Of course, I can’t prove that.

Glenpillok

14-06-2004, 07:35

Arent we supposed to be playing a game here? Dragging this subject out is not going to change peoples beliefs and definately doesnt help UN decision making! Politics will continue to be politics and religion must be held dear by the people who believe, BUT, within the confines of their own Nations. Whether your people are forced to accept gay freedom or YOUR idea of religion is nothing that should be discussed in lengthy arguments which end nowhere and merely tie up the UN with needless arguments. How about some issues which we can all discuss without biting each others heads off.

Ron

Spokesman of free speach

Glenpillok tourist board

Hirota

14-06-2004, 08:32

ArMinasiria

14-06-2004, 10:40

1: I already suspected that my proposal would be considered as "going against game mechanics" but I wanted to try it, because without trying there is no achievement. I had the hope that it would be considered acceptable.
2: I wanted that proposal to be voted. If the majority of UN nations didn't want it it wouldn't have been approved. My rpoposal was in no way anti-democratic. The real democratic thing would have been to vote against or for it.
3: My proposal in no way made Christian nations superior to others. It could have been imitated by other nations who could have issued similar proposals, acording to their beliefs.
4: My proposal was destinied to stop the UN intromission in internal affairs and laws. The UN should deal with international bussiness, as it does (or fails to do) in the real world.
5: Saying that Christians shouldn't care about anti-Christian behaviour being legal cause they have the coice not to follow those options is like saying that we shouldn't care about murder being legal because we have the option of not murdering.
6: I refuse to discuss about religion with any of you. It is tiresome and probably pointless. If I wanted to do it I'd do it in other forum where there are people whose opinions I respect. I don't know you and I don't care about your opinions.
7: From this moment on I tell you: You shall not see me in the UN forums. I am tired of so much crap. From this moment on, if you want something of Arminasiria you shall have to mail me directly.

Ave, Hidalgo Imperator Sacer Imperrii Arminasiriae.

Romanum Imperium

14-06-2004, 13:08

Avete,

The fact that you believe this proves nothing. It is quite reasonable to suggest that any such "gut feeling" could be an instinct which humans evolved, because belief in a divine being and an afterlife grants individuals hope, which can aid survival.
Nor is your believe that it'd be an instinct.

But details can be lost, so over time something which, say, condemned to some sort of sexual perversion such paedophilia, might have been translated to homosexuality.
As I pointed out before, the Bible is not a translation from a translation etc, but directly from the original text, so there's no X turning into Y through diffrent translation mistakes.

I answered this right before the point where the quote you put in from my post begins. Many things are alive, and we think nothing of killing some of these, so clearly merely being alive is not a good enough argument.
The argumant is that the baby is alive and human.

My response was directed to him/her.
You wrote that I had stated that, so I just pointed at this error.

No, what you believe to be the truth. However sure you are of it, it is still just belief until it is based on evidence so that it is beyond reasonable doubt.
We believe it to be true, because we know it to be so. Why would we otherwise be Christian, if we wouldn't do that?

But the principle of allowing people to do what they will and leaving it up to your god to judge their decisions can apply on a national law level too. Legalise gay marriage etc., and your christian majority doesn't have to take advantage of the rights, but the minorities can, and when we all die we'll see who was right (or alternatively, we just won't see anything, depending on who was right). It won't affect you, because you will have chosen not to do these things.
As I am the one who issues laws in my country, I have to make laws of which I know that they are right. I will not pass laws that allow people to sin. So, I will not pass laws legalising abortion, euthanasia etc.

You trying to change our views is just as much use as me trying to change yours
I'm not trying to change your views, I'm just stating mine.

And one more thing, it wasn’t long ago that your religion was used by conservatives to justify racism in the United States and elsewhere. The Bible has also been used to justify sexism towards women – especially since the New Testament states, among other things, which could also be used to justify sexism, that women should not be able to speak in church. The impression it gives is of women being inferior to men.
What the Bible is used for can be (and often is) quite different from what it actually says.

we are simply making so that those who do not share your beliefs can by law obtain an abortion. How can that possibly be pushing our beliefs through your throats?
The UN are pushing it through our throats because these laws are automatically put into effect in our countries when we're member state of teh UN, we're not able to let them not be put into effect. They just are issued in our countries, against our wills!

No, God was talking to the man, not to the whole of humanity. He told the man he cannot ear it else he will die.
Adam was the sire of the whole of mankind and through him the whole of humanity was affected. We're all affected by physical as well spiritual death through Adam. Also, he did indeed die, not immediately, but he did. God didn't say he would drop that then and there, but that he would die, and he did.

Valete,
Earendilyon, Caesar Elevatus et Dictator Imperatorque Romani Imperii.

http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/romanum_imperium.jpg

Hirota

14-06-2004, 13:25

Not my own work, but useful nonetheless to highlight hypocracies in the bible....

One of the most important concepts in Christianity is original sin or the belief that all mankind has inherited a sinful nature brought about by the acts of Adam and Eve.

Rom. 5:12 "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:"

Rom. 5:19 "For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners,..."

1Cor. 15:22 "For as in Adam all die, ..."

Yet, no amount of theological reasoning can make an inherently unjust idea seem right. Punishing billions of people for the acts of one is not only inherently unfair and unwarranted but also in opposition to other Biblical verses such as:

Deut. 24:16 "The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers (2Chron.25:54) :every man shall be put to death for his own sin." (2 Kings 14:6)

Ezek. 18:20 "The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bearthe iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him."

Ezek.33:20 "O ye house of Israel,I will judge you every one after his ways."

Jer. 31:29-30 "In those days they shall say no more, The fathers have eaten a sour grape, and the children's teeth are set on edge. But every one shall die for his own iniquity: every man that eateth the sour grape, his teeth shall be set on edge."

Rom. 2:6 "Who will render to every man according to his deeds."

Ezek. 18:4 "... the soul that sinneth, it shall die."

Each of these verses shows that every person should only be punished for those sins which he commits, not those of others.

Original sin makes about as much sense as if I were sitting at home one evening and the following occurred. The police came to my door and stated I was under arrest because my father in Europe just shot and killed someone. I responded by asking what that had to do with me and they said, "He's your father isn't he?"

Another false conception held by many Christians is that the Bible is without contradictions. Few beliefs are more erroneous. For this reason, contradictory statements will be highlighted not only in this issue of Biblical Errancy but all thoses that follow. The following examples are only a fraction of those that could be mentioned:

Rom.3:23 "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God."

1Kgs. 8:46 "...for there is no man that sinneth not,...."

(2Chr. 6:36)

Prov.20:9 "Who can say, I have made my heart clean, I am pure from my sin?"

Eccl. 7:23 "For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not."

Mark 10:18 "And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God."

Rom. 3:10 "As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one."

(Also 1 John 1:8 & 10, Rom. 3:12, 5:12, Gal. 3:22)

Versus

Gen. 6:9 "Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God."

Job 1:1 There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil.

Job 1:8 "...my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil?" (Job 2:3)

Gen. 7:1 "And the LORD said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation."

Luke 1:5-6 "In the days of Herod, the king of Judaea,there was a priest named Zacharias, of the division of Abia: andhe had a wife of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth. And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.(RSV)

Another clear contradiction concerns whether or not God repents.

Num. 23:19 "God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent."

1Sam. 15:29 "And also the Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent: for he is not a man, that he should repent."

Versus

Jonah 3:10 "And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not."

1Sam.15:11 "It repenteth me that I have set up Saul to be king...."

Exod. 32:14 And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.

Psalms.42:10 "... for I repent me of the evil that I have done unto you."

Gen. 6:6 "And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart."

1Sam. 15:35 "...and the LORD repented that he had made Saul king over Israel."

One final contradiction is worthy of note. It concerns the question of whether or not God's face has been seen.

John 1:18 "No man hath seen God at any time;..."

Exod. 33:11 "And the LORD spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend."

John 6:46 "Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is ofGod, he hath seen the Father."

1John 4:12 "No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us."

Versus

Gen. 32:30 "And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved."

Exod. 33:11 "And the LORD spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend."

Num. 14:14 "...that thou LORD art seen face to face,..."

Job 42:5 "I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear: but now mine eye seeth thee."

Deut. 34:10 "And there arose not a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses, whom the LORD knew face to face,..."

Deut. 5:4 "The LORD talked with you face to face...."

(also Psalm 63:2 Isa.6:1 & 6:5, Amos 7:7-8, Ezek. 20:35, Ex 24:9-10)

Does God keep anger forever?

... for I am merciful, saith the Lord, and I will not keep anger forever.
- Jeremiah 3:12

versus

Ye have kindled a fire in mine anger, which shall burn forever.
- Jeremiah 17:4

Is revenge OK?

... thou shalt give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
- Exodus 21:23-25

versus

... resist not evil; but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
- Matthew 5:39

Salvation by faith or by works?

For by grace are ye saved through faith... not of works.
- Ephesians 2:8-9

versus

Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
- James 2:24

Is it OK to judge?

In righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbor.
- Leviticus 19:15

versus

Judge not, that ye be not judged.
- Matthew 7:1

How many stalls of horses?

And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen.
- I Kings 4:26

versus

And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen; whom he bestowed in the chariot cities, and with the king at Jerusalem.
- II Chronicles 9:25

How many Gods?

There is none other God but one.
- I Corinthians 8:4

And God said, Let us make man in our image.
- Genesis 1:26

Interpreted: In Corinthians, the author, Paul, is writing to the Church of Corinth. The issue he is discussing is sacrifice to idols and if the meat that is sacrificed can be eaten. He says in verse 4 that Idols are nothing for we have knowledge that there is only one God.

In Genesis 1, God is setting about the creation of man. Using the first person plural we see that the author viewed multiple Gods or a multiplicity to God.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Who has seen God?

And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.
- Genesis 32:30

No man hath seen God at any time.
- John 1:18

Interpreted: Genesis 32 is the chapter where God changes Jacob's name to Israel. In verse 29 Jacob asks God for his name. God replies by asking where it was that Jacob was asking from. Jacob replied the above verse.

John 1:18 is pretty self explanatory. He is describing Jesus and how he declared the Lord God. He makes it clear that No man has ever seen God. I guess John was not familiar with the Old Testament.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Who has seen God, again?

Thou, Lord, art seen face to face.
- Numbers 14:14

Not that any man hath seen the Father.
- John 6:46

Interpreted: Very similar to the previous contradiction, but this time we have Moses talking directly to God and Jesus speaking instead of John speaking for Jesus.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Who is punished for sins?

The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father.
- Ezekiel 18:20

... I the lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation.
- Exodus 20:5

Interpreted:Here we have again two authors putting forth what they believe to be the word of God. These two so obviously contradict each other that an interpretation is almost unnecessary.

What is neccessary to point out is that both of these verses are God speaking. The first being God speaking through Ezekiel, and the second being God speaking directly to Moses.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Who finds Wisdom?

Those that seek me early shall find me.
- Proverbs 8:17

Then shall they call upon me but I will not answer; they shall seek me early, but shall not find me.
- Proverbs 1:28

Interpreted: The first is from Proverbs 8. It is Wisdom claiming who and what she is. Verse 8:17 says first, I love them that love me.

The second verse is from an earlier Proverb and is saying that those who do not listen to Wisdom and go astray will suffer the consequences. The verse goes on to say that the later verse in Proverb 8 is incorrect.

I have changed this contradiction from reading God to Wisdom. This was pointed out to me by several Christians who caught my error. I thank them.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

6. Does God keep anger forever?

... for I am merciful, saith the Lord, and I will not keep anger forever.
- Jeremiah 3:12

Ye have kindled a fire in mine anger, which shall burn forever.
- Jeremiah 17:4

Interpreted: The first verse is in reference to the backsliding Israel, telling them to mend their ways. It goes on to say that because the Lord is merciful, he will not keep his anger forever.

Apparently, the Lord was not so merciful with Judah for this second verse is aimed at them. They will not be given the chance to mend their ways and fly straight. Apparently, the author of this particular book was from the northern kingdom of Israel.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Contradictions on Law

The following contradictions are those verses that instruct mankind how to behave and generally followed by a verse that contradicts either by a righteous man acting differently or by a new instructor changing the law.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

7. Is lying with your sister really bad?

Cursed is he that lieth with his sister, the daughter of his father, or the daughter of his mother.
- Deuteronomy 27:22

And Abraham said... She is my sister; she is the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife.
- Genesis 20:11-12

Interpreted: The chapter of Deuteronomy 27 is Moses and the Levites giving the people the law of the Lord God. Verse 27 makes it quite clear that a man is cursed if he lie with his sister being the daughter of his father or his mother.

Genesis 20 is the telling of Abraham lying to Abimelech about Sarah being his sister and not his wife, much as he did in chapter 12 of Genesis. God came to Abimelech in a dream and told him that Sarah was actually Abraham's wife and when Abimelech confronted Abraham, he admitted that it was true. Abraham did go on to say that she was also his sister being the daughter of his father.

We know that Abraham was indeed not cursed, but one of the most beloved of God's men.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

8. Is it OK to kill?

Thou shalt not kill
- Exodus 20:13

Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side... and slay every man his brother...
- Exodus 32:27

Interpreted: Exodus 20 is the chapter with the Ten Commandments. Thou shalt not Kill is verse 13 and self explanatory.

12 chapters later the Ten Commandments have not been delivered and the people have grown restless. They make the infamous Golden Calf, and worship it. Moses, infuriated, asks who is on God's side, and the sons of Levi respond. Moses then relates the words of God telling them to kill.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

9. Is revenge OK?

... thou shalt give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
- Exodus 21:23-25

... resist not evil; but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
- Matthew 5:39

Interpreted: Exodus 21 is more giving of law. Verses 23 through 25 are the famous eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth verses. Broken down, it is basically the golden rule reversed. Do unto another exactly as they have done to you.

Matthew 5 is part of the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus says in verse 38 and 39 say that the author of eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth was wrong, and that to respond in this way is not to resist evil. Boiled down, this is Jesus saying that the Law of God is incorrect and he knows better.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

10. Did God speak of attonement?

On the tenth day of this seventh month there shall be a day of attonement; it shall be a holy convocation unto you; and ye shall afflict your souls and offer an offering made by fire unto the Lord.
- Leviticus 23:27

For I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offering or sacrifices.
- Jeremiah 7:22

Interpreted:Leviticus 23:27 is part of the Holiness Code. It is the law given from God to Moses. There are 614 articles given ranging from what types of textiles can be used to make clothing to the method of punishment for adulterers. 23:27 is specific instructions for the day of atonement known as Yom Kippur. We clearly see God giving instructions for a burnt sacrifice to God.

Jeremiah 7:22 is God speaking his word through the prophet Jeremiah. Either God forgot something, or the author of Jeremiah never read Leviticus.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

11. Is monetary wealth good or bad?

Blessed is the man that feareth the Lord... Wealth and riches shall be in his house...
- Psalms 112:1-3

It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.
- Matthew 19:24

Interpreted:The first reference is in Psalms and can not be written off as spiritual riches for the chapter goes on to say that the man shall lend his riches and guide all of his affairs with discretion. This is clearly a reference to monetary wealth.

The Matthew verse is a quotation from Jesus, himself. He is telling the wealthy to sell all that they have, for the rich can not go to heaven.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

12. Is monetary wealth good or bad, again?

The rich man's wealth is his strong city.
- Proverbs 18:11

It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
- Mark 10:25

Interpreted: This is quite easy to see. The first verse saying that a man's wealth is what will keep him safe, while the second verse says that this safe man will not gain entrance into Heaven.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

13. Salvation by faith or by works?

For by grace are ye saved through faith... not of works.
- Ephesians 2:8-9

Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
- James 2:24

Interpreted: Here we have Paul vs. James. Paul is clearly saying that all that is needed for salvation is faith, and that works are not the issue for he wanted no man to boast. He makes it clear that it is a gift from God based on simple belief.

James, on the other hand, was trying to get the message across that faith without works is dead, thus faith was not enough. To get this message across he used the example of Abraham offering his son Isaac as a sacrifice to God.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

14. Is it OK to judge?

In righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbor.
- Leviticus 19:15

Judge not, that ye be not judged.
- Matthew 7:1

Interpreted:Leviticus 19 is part of the Holiness Code, in which God tells Moses the laws that the people shall follow. The whole verse talks about how one should not respect the poor or honor the mighty.

The second verse is self explanatory. It is Jesus talking to his followers in the now infamous Sermon on the Mount. Quite clearly a contradiction from the previous instruction given by God.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Contradictions on Names & Numbers

The following are contradictions where a name, number or some other type of statistic is given and then a completely different name, number or statistic is later given.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

15. Did Michal have children?

Therefore Michal, the daughter of Saul, had no child unto the day of her death.
- II Samuel 6:23

The five sons of Michal, the daughter of Saul.
- II Samuel 21:8

Interpreted:Here we see an author who could not follow his own story line. These two verses are obviously from the same book, and are assumed to be written by the same author. I will not interpret this at all, for the absurdity of it shall be it's own interpretation. One note of importance is that the name Merab appears in some Bibles, but it does not appear in the Masoretic texts which are used by most Jews today. And Samuel is a Jewish book, after all.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

16. Who commanded David to count the people of Israel?

And the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel.
- II Samuel 24:1

And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel.
- I Chronicles 21:1

Interpreted: Here we see a very interesting thing. This is not so much a contradiction as it is something to ponder. This is clearly the retelling of the same story. David was inspired by something to take a census of Israel and Judah. One verse here says it was God's anger and the other verse says that it was Satan. Can this possibly be the same thing?

There is no way to know who wrote these books. Whether they were written by separate people or the same person is unknown. I think a case can be made for two separate authors, though, for it would seem redundant for the same person to tell the same story twice.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

17. How old was Ahaziah when he began to reign?

Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign.
- 2 Kings 8:26

Fourty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign.
- 2 Chronicles 22:2

Interpreted:This is just poor reference. Nothing can explain this away, just like nothing could explain away the contradiction about the five sons of Michal. Just poor homework if it was two separate authors, or poor memory if it was just one author.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

18. Just what was the population of Israel? And, how many fighting men did they have?

And Joab gave up the sum of the number of the people unto the king: and there were in Israel eight hundred thousand valiant men that drew the sword; and the men of Judah were five hundred thousand men
- 2 Samuel 24:9

And Joab gave the sum of the number of the people unto David. And all they of Israel were a thousand thousand and an hundred thousand men that drew sword: and Judah was four hundred threescore and ten thousand men that drew sword.
- 1 Chronicles 21:5

Interpreted: There's two contradictions here!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

19. How old was Jehoiachin when he began to reign? And, how long did he reign?

Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months. And his mother's name was Nehushta, the daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem.
- II Kings 24:8

Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem: and he did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD.
- II Chronicles 36:9

Interpreted: There are two contradictions here, too!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

20. How many stalls of horses?

And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen.
- I Kings 4:26

And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen; whom he bestowed in the chariot cities, and with the king at Jerusalem.
- II Chronicles 9:25

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

21. How many overseers?

And Solomon told out threescore and ten thousand men to bear burdens, and fourscore thousand to hew in the mountain, and three thousand and six hundred to oversee them.
- II Chronicles 2:2

Beside the chief of Solomon's officers which were over the work, three thousand and three hundred, which ruled over the people that wrought in the work.
- I Kings 5:16

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

22. How many baths?

And it was an hand breadth thick, and the brim thereof was wrought like the brim of a cup, with flowers of lilies: it contained two thousand baths.
- I Kings 7:26

And the thickness of it was an handbreadth, and the brim of it like the work of the brim of a cup, with flowers of lilies; and it received and held three thousand baths.
- II Chronicles 4:5

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

23. How many freed Israelites?

Are the numbers of Israelites freed from Babylonian captivity in Ezra correct?
- Ezra 2

Or are the numbers of Israelites freed from Babylonian captivity in Nehemiah correct?
- Nehemiah 7

Interpreted: If you compare the totals of the numbers they do not match, nor do the numbers of people in the individual groups match. The totals do not even add up to the numbers that the authors say that they should! Both agree that the total was 42,360 (Ezra 2:64, Nehemiah 7:66), but they add up to 29,818 (Ezra) and 31,089 (Nehemiah).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

24. How many singers?

Beside their servants and their maids, of whom there were seven thousand three hundred thirty and seven: and there were among them two hundred singing men and singing women.
- Ezra 2:65

Beside their manservants and their maidservants, of whom there were seven thousand three hundred thirty and seven: and they had two hundred forty and five singing men and singing women.
- Nehemiah 7:67

Interpreted: While this contradiction belongs with the previous one, I wanted to point out that the numbers counted in the two lists were inclusive of both men and women, and not just men as some apologists have suggested.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Contradictions Based on Different Authors

Many of the following contradictions are based on the gospels themselves and show how their are clear differences between the tales told. There are, however, some from the Old Testament and other New Testament books, showing that their was not always one clear teaching of an event.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

25. How many animals?

And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female.
Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive.
- Genesis 6:19-20

Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.
Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth.
- Genesis 7:2-3

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

26. Who did the Midianites sell Joseph to?

Then there passed by Midianites merchantmen; and they drew and lifted up Joseph out of the pit, and sold Joseph to the Ishmeelites for twenty pieces of silver: and they brought Joseph into Egypt.
- Genesis 37:28

And the Midianites sold him into Egypt unto Potiphar, an officer of Pharaoh's, and captain of the guard.
- Genesis 37:36

Interpreted: While these verses are only 8 verses apart, they are written by two different authors. The Documentary Hypothesis maintains that the first verse is written by the "J" (Yahwist) source and the second verse by the "E" (Elohist) source.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

27. What did Jesus drink on the cross?

They gave him vinegar to drink, mingled with gall.
- Matthew 27:34

And they gave him to drink, wine mingled with myrrh.
- Mark 15:23
(Him being Jesus in both cases)

Interpreted: This is two different authors account of the same event.... Jesus on the cross. The first is Matthew saying that they gave Jesus to drink vinegar (old wine) mixed with gall, which is a product that comes from the oak tree. It is used in inks and medicines.

The second verse is from Mark, and it says wine mixed with myrrh, which is a gum resin used in the making of incense. Mark clearly wrote his gospel first, and Matthew must have not been clear on what Mark meant.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

28. Who can be forgiven?

He that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness.
- Mark 3:29

And by him that believe are justified from all things.
- Acts 13:39

Interpreted: This first verse is Jesus speaking to his disciples. He is basically saying that the one thing that can not be forgiven is blaspheming against the holy ghost. He continues by saying that they run the risk of eternal damnation.

The second verse is from Acts, written by the same author who (apparently) wrote the Gospel of Luke. It is Paul addressing the congregation at Antioch. Paul is saying that through belief in Jesus the Christ, all things are forgivable. No exception is made, making me think that Paul was not aware of Jesus' teachings.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

29. Just what were Jesus' last words?

A Triple Contradiction:
The following are the supposed last words of the living Jesus.

Eli, Eli, lama sabachtani? that is to say, ;My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?
- Matthew 27:46, & -Mark 15:34, though it is Eloi instead of Eli in Mark.

Versus

Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit
- Luke 23:46

Versus

It is finished
- John 19:30

Isn't Jesus supposed to be part of the Godhead? The mythical trinity? Why would God ask why God had betrayed God? And why would God commend God's spirit to God? Christian confusion of Christian mythology

Did Jesus allow his disciples to carry a staff on their journeys?

And commanded them that they should take nothing for their journey, save a staff only; no scrip, no bread, no money in their purse:
- Mark 6:8

Versus

And he said unto them, Take nothing for your journey, neither staves, nor scrip, neither bread, neither money; neither have two coats apiece.
- Luke 9:3

Is Jesus in danger of hellfire?

Whosoever shall say Thou fool, shall be in danger of hellfire.
- Matthew 5:22

versus

[Jesus said] Ye fools and blind.
- Matthew 23:17

Is Jesus to be trusted?

If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true.
- John 5:31

versus

I am one that bear witness of myself...
- John 8:18
(Jesus speaking in both quotes)

Did Jesus think that he was God?

I and my father are one.
- John 10:30

versus

... I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.
- John 14:28
(Jesus speaking in both quotes)

Hirota

14-06-2004, 14:11

incidentally according to this (http://robertandtim.topcities.com/quiz/christ/christquiz.html) I am

http://robertandtim.topcities.com/quiz/christ/atheist.jpg

What a suprise!

_Myopia_

14-06-2004, 16:24

The fact that you believe this proves nothing. It is quite reasonable to suggest that any such "gut feeling" could be an instinct which humans evolved, because belief in a divine being and an afterlife grants individuals hope, which can aid survival.
Nor is your believe that it'd be an instinct.

Thing is, I'm not saying that my explanation is fact, or that I know it to be true. I'm just saying that this too is possible, and since there are at least two possilibities, neither of which has been proven to be wrong, neither can be known to be true, only believed to be true.

But details can be lost, so over time something which, say, condemned to some sort of sexual perversion such paedophilia, might have been translated to homosexuality.
As I pointed out before, the Bible is not a translation from a translation etc, but directly from the original text, so there's no X turning into Y through diffrent translation mistakes.

Are you absolutely sure about that? I'm fairly sure I've heard about one version being translated to another, or at least old english being updated repeatedly from the King James Edition onwards.

I answered this right before the point where the quote you put in from my post begins. Many things are alive, and we think nothing of killing some of these, so clearly merely being alive is not a good enough argument.
The argumant is that the baby is alive and human.

I'm sorry, I simply am not persuaded by that argument. The quality of humanity I believe to hold value is that which requires sentience.

My response was directed to him/her.
You wrote that I had stated that, so I just pointed at this error.

oops sorry must have copy-pasted the wrong name into the qutoing BBCode.

No, what you believe to be the truth. However sure you are of it, it is still just belief until it is based on evidence so that it is beyond reasonable doubt.
We believe it to be true, because we know it to be so. Why would we otherwise be Christian, if we wouldn't do that?

What I was trying to object to was your implication that your unproven beliefs are fact.

But the principle of allowing people to do what they will and leaving it up to your god to judge their decisions can apply on a national law level too. Legalise gay marriage etc., and your christian majority doesn't have to take advantage of the rights, but the minorities can, and when we all die we'll see who was right (or alternatively, we just won't see anything, depending on who was right). It won't affect you, because you will have chosen not to do these things.
As I am the one who issues laws in my country, I have to make laws of which I know that they are right. I will not pass laws that allow people to sin. So, I will not pass laws legalising abortion, euthanasia etc.

As a Christian, are you not supposed to emulate Christ, and therefore emulate God since Christ is believed to be God? And doesn't your religion say that God gives us free will - he allows us to choose to sin? If God/Christ allows us to choose to sin, shouldn't you, as a Christian, do the same and leave it to god to do the judging (as he commands you to - "Judge not etc.")?

Aredith

14-06-2004, 18:35

And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. - nobody died.

I'm sure you are going to say it's translation that is responsible for the confusion - so why on earth is it written so badly?
Gen: Do you think nobody died? Death is all around us in this world! Worse still than phisical death is the spiritual death tha came into this world with the Fall of human kind.

No, God was talking to the man, not to the whole of humanity. He told the man he cannot ear it else he will die. It's that simple.

And he did die, eventually. If he had not eaten the fruit then it would not have been so.

First of all, I don't believe religion to be a substitute for science. Science involves logic and empirical thinking, whereas religion involves emotional and spiritual thinking that may not always follow the laws of logic. Both are equally important for a balanced and happy life: the empirical side, and the spiritual side.

The bible is not a foolproof lawyer-revised legal document, nor is it a scientific document. So stop trying to disprove it. Try as you might, nobody EVER is going to be able to "disprove" the bible, because its prinicpal arguments (the teachings of Jesus Christ) are not scientific, factual arguments, but arguments for doing what is right over what is wrong, and guidelines for an ideal lifestyle. The Bible is to be viewed as a large scale set of moral guidelines, not to be nitpicked for every technicality.

By the same reasoning, the bible cannot be used to "disprove" science. As it is NOT a technical document, the Bible can NOT prove the earth to be only 7000 or so years old, and it can NOT prove the theory of evolution to be false.

All elements

14-06-2004, 22:26

Abortion is murder. Human life begins at conception.

on this note you could say the same about taking somthing to cure an illness you are killing as many if not more bacteria then than you are killing cells if you destroy a zygote

Romanum Imperium

15-06-2004, 12:34

Avete,

Thing is, I'm not saying that my explanation is fact, or that I know it to be true. I'm just saying that this too is possible, and since there are at least two possilibities, neither of which has been proven to be wrong, neither can be known to be true, only believed to be true.
I know God exists, so I belief in Him. The fact that one doesn't belief God exists, doesn't change the fact that He does.

Are you absolutely sure about that? I'm fairly sure I've heard about one version being translated to another, or at least old english being updated repeatedly from the King James Edition onwards.
I'm quite positive about it. There are indeed some versions that are basically re-wordings of older translations (like the Good News Bible), but those explicitely state that and are normally not used in church services (as far as I know).

I'm sorry, I simply am not persuaded by that argument. The quality of humanity I believe to hold value is that which requires sentience.
Then we seem to disagree.

oops sorry must have copy-pasted the wrong name into the qutoing BBCode.
No problem.

What I was trying to object to was your implication that your unproven beliefs are fact.
So, we disagree once more. I regard my beliefs to be proven, though, in the Bible and in Creation.

As a Christian, are you not supposed to emulate Christ, and therefore emulate God since Christ is believed to be God? And doesn't your religion say that God gives us free will - he allows us to choose to sin? If God/Christ allows us to choose to sin, shouldn't you, as a Christian, do the same and leave it to god to do the judging (as he commands you to - "Judge not etc.")?
Yes, we have to follow Jesus. That also means we have to fight sin as much as we can. In this game, I'm the head of state of Romanum Imperium. As such, it's my duty to fight sin in my country and oppose behaviour and acts that are not right. So, I won't issue (or let the UN issue) laws that allows people to sin. However, I do not judge the actors, but the acts.

on this note you could say the same about taking somthing to cure an illness you are killing as many if not more bacteria then than you are killing cells if you destroy a zygote
Bacteria are not human, a foetus is.

Valete,
Earendilyon Magnus, Caesar Elevatus et Dictator Imperatorque Romani Imperii.

http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/romanum_imperium.jpg

Hirota

15-06-2004, 13:27

I know God exists, so I belief in Him. The fact that one doesn't belief God exists, doesn't change the fact that He does.

This argument cannot be argued with as there is nothing to it. This is nothing more than circular reasoning with nothing to support it other than itself.

In other words, that is about as stable and sturdy an arguement as a house made of tracing paper is an effective shelter against a tropical storm.

The Black New World

15-06-2004, 13:37

OOC: Through my PRIS (philosophy and religion really, that's just what my college calls it) course I went to a lecture on proving God's existence. We learned how people prove God was real and how, no matter how much you know, you can't prove his existence to a non-believer. It works both ways.

As much as one person is convinced that God exists another one is convinced he doesn't not to mention the ones who see him differently.

_Myopia_

15-06-2004, 17:25

I know God exists, so I belief in Him. The fact that one doesn't belief God exists, doesn't change the fact that He does.

I could with equal validity say "I know a theistic deity does not exist, so I do not believe in one. The fact that one does believe a theistic deity exists doesn't change the fact that it does not." Saying it doesn't change the fact that what we hold as our beliefs are merely theories (in the scientific sense, like the theory of evolution).

I'm quite positive about it. There are indeed some versions that are basically re-wordings of older translations (like the Good News Bible), but those explicitely state that and are normally not used in church services (as far as I know).

Well ok then, but I still think its possible for misinterpretations to occur even in a single translation.

I regard my beliefs to be proven, though, in the Bible and in Creation.

What factual features of the Bible or the universe are there that can only be explained by your beliefs?

As a Christian, are you not supposed to emulate Christ, and therefore emulate God since Christ is believed to be God? And doesn't your religion say that God gives us free will - he allows us to choose to sin? If God/Christ allows us to choose to sin, shouldn't you, as a Christian, do the same and leave it to god to do the judging (as he commands you to - "Judge not etc.")?

Yes, we have to follow Jesus. That also means we have to fight sin as much as we can. In this game, I'm the head of state of Romanum Imperium. As such, it's my duty to fight sin in my country and oppose behaviour and acts that are not right. So, I won't issue (or let the UN issue) laws that allows people to sin. However, I do not judge the actors, but the acts.

Surely you should oppose sin in the way that you believe god does? - By saying "this is right, this is wrong", allowing people to choose right or wrong, then waiting until judgement day for their decisions to be judged? Obvioulsy, this isn't viable where others are hurt, so rape and theft etc. should still be legal, and I suppose from your point of view abortion should still be banned, but under this reasoning "sins" which only harm those who willfully decide to perform them (e.g. gay marriage, prositution etc.) should be made legal, although the government would say it believes they're wrong.

Since this debate seems to be edging toward the philosophical issue of our beliefs and how they impact our opinions I should probably clarify my beliefs.

I do not completely reject the notion of a creator, I am more a cross between a deist and an agnostic - I believe it is possible that some conscious being caused the universe to come into existence at the moment of the big bang, but also that it is possible that the universe began without being prompted by a conscious being. However, I do reject theism, in that I believe that if something did cause the universe to begin, it was not an all-loving almighty being which intervenes in the events of the universe now.

Aredith

16-06-2004, 20:24

So, we disagree once more. I regard my beliefs to be proven, though, in the Bible and in Creation.

I must respectfully disagree. As a Christian, I realize that my beliefs are NOT proven, at least in an empirical, scientific sense. Yet I accept them to be true anyway, on faith. That is the whole idea of faith: accepting something as true when there is no real, tangible evidence. The Bible could be counted as evidence, yes, but our belief in the Bible is based on faith, not evidence.

The Greeks "invented" logic, and although in a more nebulous form the empirical method of thought had always been present, it was Greece who refined it into the careful method that is today a part of the Western heritage. Many ancient peoples had more nebulous ideas of "fact" and "proof", but because these peoples did not have the same influence on the society of today, there ways are often forgotten.

Who says that logic always applies? If God is all-powerful and all-knowing, then why do we think we can take a set of rules we, the human race, developed 2500 or so years ago and expect that he will follow them? How do we know that things which seem contradictory are really so, when human ignorance is still so vast?

Oh yeah, and as an aside...
Not my own work, but useful nonetheless to highlight hypocracies in the bible....

To be frankly honest, things like this really annoy me and so do the people who say (or write) them. It's people like you who cause so much conflict over religion these days. Of course, every barrel has its bad apples, Christians not excepted: hypocrite greedy televangelists, convert-or-go-to-hell fanatics... I could continue. These people and the "I can 'disprove' your religion, ha ha ha I'm so much smarter than you" athiests get to fighting, which eventually causes either faction to passionately hate the other.

I mean, I don't have anything against a good debate, as long as it doesn't get too personal. Take _myopia_: he/she (sorry, I didn't know which and I didn't want to assume) has beliefs that disagree with my own, but he/she is arguing them without so much contempt or attitude, or at least is disguising the contempt sufficiently. I really respect that.

Basically what I'm saying is: argue, fine, but chill out with the condescending attitude.