The Forum > Article Comments > SRI opponents denying kids their cultural heritage > Comments
SRI opponents denying kids their cultural heritage : Comments
By Rob Ward, published 4/5/2011Not content with their choice to remove their kids from SRI, militant atheists seem hell-bent on ensuring everyone else’s kids are blocked from exposure to Christianity.
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- ...
- 27
- 28
- 29
- Page 30
- 31
- 32
- 33
- ...
- 60
- 61
- 62
-
- All
Unbeleivable that those still hanging on to the big bang theory still claim they have no faith. So irrational! Speak of the lenghts god haters will go to deny the obvious.
Posted by runner, Monday, 9 May 2011 12:45:54 PM
| |
What is all this trouble with the big bang theory.
Scientists know exactly how it happened. It was caused by an alien by the name of Ted (translated into English) who foolishly flew his spaceship into a black hole? Sounds ridiculous - it is but it is just as ridiculous as your imaginary friend creating everything. Your imaginary who can be as awesome as you wish, but can do no more than your imagination is capable of. In the last say 6,000 years since man's ability to worship there has never been one demonstrated example of his existence. Please do not start quoting from your bible it is a book of fiction. Posted by ponde, Monday, 9 May 2011 1:04:52 PM
| |
Ponde, it's ridiculous to say the universe has always existed when you don't have proof. Especially when you know that, logically, a thing needs to have a beginning. But each to their own.
At the end of the day it's a choice, it's not about evidence or proof. Either you choose faith in God or you choose to live free from God. They will never be proof to make this decision for you. Atheists seem to have hope that scientists will come up with some answers before it's too late - but sadly, that will never happen. Posted by TRUTHNOW78, Monday, 9 May 2011 1:50:23 PM
| |
TruthNow,
“a thing needs to have a beginning” If everything had a beginning then when did your creator begin? If your creator had a beginning then the universe had a beginning and vice versa. Yes it is a choice a choice between blind faith and logic. I have faith in the flying spaghetti monster (all praise the FSM) it does not mean he exists. With blind faith you will be happy with “God creates rainbows” instead of making scientific investigations into the real cause of rainbows. And that would either have left us in the Dark ages or drive us back into the dark ages. It was only when man told the church it was wrong did we ever leave the Dark ages. You might be happy dying from an infected broken arm but I would put my trust in antibiotics any day. Posted by ponde, Monday, 9 May 2011 2:04:17 PM
| |
Ponde, science may cure an infected arm but it won't stop us dying eventually.
"Yes it is a choice a choice between blind faith and logic" But it's more logical to have a creator than to say it's always been there. So, it's really a choice between a logic-based faith and a secular nothingness. Obviously, a creator doesn't need a beginning because it's in the spiritual realm and not subject to natural laws, etc. (this is where the faith comes in), whereas Earth is the material that logically must have a beginning. Posted by TRUTHNOW78, Monday, 9 May 2011 2:29:52 PM
| |
Appreciate the response, TRUTHNOW78. But it doesn't make particularly impressive reading.
>>...here's a video of a Christian being handcuffed and taken off for re-education<< He was arrested for an offence similar to "breaching the peace", by haranguing some folk waiting for a government office to open. Quite right too, that the law should wheel him away and give him a talking-to about common politeness. Apparently, I'm not the only one who thinks this way: http://mayheincrease.com/2011/05/thoughts-on-the-arrest-of-calvary-chapel-hemet-pastors/ >>The High Court in Britain also recently banned Christians from being foster parents<< Not because they were Christians, though. Did you read the judgment? "It was ruled that there was no discrimination against them as Christians but that their views on sexual morality may be inimical to children." Moving right along. >>Yet another persecuted Christian, this time about the cross<< Nothing to do with her Christianity. It was a health-and-safety issue, applicable to anything dangling from a nurse's neck. The fact that it was a cross was irrelevant to the ban. >>And in Canada, a street pastor get thrown in the clink<< C'mon, you can't be serious? This man isn't a Christian, he's just a one-man "lookit-me" agitator. His "church" has been de-registered, and his sole objective has been to make trouble, and get himself noticed. http://www.benedictionblogson.com/2010/01/25/calgary-church-loses-charitable-status-kings-glory-fellowship/ I seem to recall you stating: >>In secular countries like England, the US, and Canada, Christians are already being persecuted for their beliefs (including fines and prison)<< The sum total of "persecutions" you could find between 2007 and now? Four. Fines? None at all for being Christian. $1 for "placing an electrical cord on a sidewalk". Prison? None at all for being a Christian. But one night in the pokey for Pawlowski... for resisting arrest. If you call that persecution, TRUTHNOW78, then what word, or words, would you use to describe this? http://www.independent.ie/national-news/kneecapping-of-14yearold-causes-outcry-476312.html Or for a more scholarly view on kneecapping, try this official report: http://web.jbjs.org.uk/cgi/reprint/71-B/5/739.pdf Whose opening lines are: "For several hundred years, rival factions within the religious communities of Ireland have had their differences..." Gruesome reading. Puts a couple of street-corner spruikers into perspective, persecution-wise. Posted by Pericles, Monday, 9 May 2011 2:51:15 PM
|