Belly,

If you mean the obvious can't a distinction be drawn between the writings of a science fiction writer and religious people following someone who rose from the dead?

Locking thoughts quite often creates problems. But some believe that for this to be real there must be a truth to be discovered and we don't have to go around in relative circles forever.

You take offence from Philo’s generalisations yet you seem so atypical for an atheist. You are more open to thinking about religion more than any continuing atheist I have ever encountered. I'm not saying you will but if you chose to convert it wouldn't shock me.

When you said: “Philo I can not let you put that on non believers heads without reminding you…” I think you were a bit steep with your targets but that isn’t such a bad thing as you were responding to someone doing the same thing. It might drive home the need to explain the benefits of Christianity more carefully.

Philo,

You need to realize that not all atheists are extreme or the same and not all societies in which they are formed are the same. The Netherlands have a strongly Catholic history but many have rejected the religion while retaining the anti-abortion ethic. Contrast that with the atheists you have encountered. Without God's wisdom ethics become relative and anything is arguable but that doesn't determine whether or not people adopt some type of ethical system and have some kind of conscience. Their conscience might not align with God's wisdom but it is insulting to them as you if you question whether or not they have a conscience.

KJ,

“But then Logic doesn't seem to a necessary decision making tool for a large percentage of society these days.”

You can say that again. We live in a busy world. We are in information and persuasion overload. Things get so busy that we don’t tend to get beyond short soundbytes never stopping to think.

Is it fair to call a secular leader professing to be Christian a Christian Leader?

Belly,

To correct the previous comment. You don't take offence but you assume it is directed toward you and could be offensive. I suspect that the people who have triggered Philo's comment are unlike you.

Also sorry if you find my candour about the conversion thing offensive. I disclosed it to try to explain the above point.

But Boaz, I do question your motives. And while I am about it, I'll question the integrity of the way you go about pursuing them.

>>So, rather than questioning my report.. which was more that of another than my own... you should be questioning my motives. My motive.. is to encourage belief in Christ as Saviour.<<

Here's an example of how motives as vague as these can be perverted, in the words of a prominent Christian spokesperson:

"You know, I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we're trying to assassinate [Venezuelan President Chavez], I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it. It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war ... We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability. We don't need another $200 billion war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator. It's a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with."

You may agree or disagree with Pat Robertson's sentiments, but you cannot get past the fact that he speaks for Christianity. His motives for speaking this way are, without doubt, "to encourage belief in Christ as Saviour". That's his job, as the leader of a major Christian movement.

But seriously, this is the winner of the Boaz_David Porkie-of-the-Day award. Or perhape, being generous, it is simply symptomatic of the level of self-delusion that surrounds you like a London smog.

>>I certainly don't want that to rest on anything other than the plain simple Gospel.<<

Oh, puh-leeeaase!

While it is indeed true that you spin biblical references around like so much candy-floss, you spend most of your time dredging up selected quotes from the Qur'an, and bagging the life out of them.

In fact, it wouldn't be one tenth as objectionable, if you were to confine your references to the Gospels. At least then we would have a single point of reference to work with.

mjpb of course not! your debating style is in no way offensive, none taken.
I a believer in evolution think man is hard wired to need or is it want? a God.
I also understand not all, from any faith think only those who follow that brand of God are worthy.
I maybe understood Philo did not think of me, but as is my habit took to the defense of those he aimed at.
Find me a God. single one that claims every one is equal, no one lessor , and while not believing I could fall in behind.
Like a warm doona in a winter night the comfort of forgetting to think May be good but it is still cold when you get out of bed.

Belly,
I argue from a point of thought [view]position or idea that produces moral action. Persons who destroy perfectly healthy foetus [original point] or rape children do not act from a Christian moral position accountable to God. They act from a self determined position suposedly placing themselves as the highest accountable being [in place of God].

Jesus is clear about causing offence to children - such persons he states, "deserve drowning"; [Matthew 18: 5 - 6; Mark 9: 42; Luke 17: 1 - 2]. People identifying themselves as Christian frequently place themselves as the highest authority and act outside an informed conscience. They are not performing these evil acts in the revealed authority of divine morality.

Philo
I have been reading this thread and I remember you quite well.
Here you go again with you preaching about womans right to choose to have or not to have children - despite be it rape or in a parntership.
I debated you before on this topic a long time ago. Well before belly came along.
I have also read the other posts you put up defending chistians and christian church leaders in particular regarding their silence on not only the cruelty of live exports but the cruelty in general of intensive farming. Soon it will be Christmass. You will encourage everybody to have a nice Chistmass.
As you sit at the table just think of this.
It would be impossible to inflict as much pain on something the size of less than half a grain of rice as it is the poor pigs such as the ones caged in Amanda Vanstones and many other hell holes where an animal cant turn roll dig. Where they SCREAM in Frustration and NOW The bars unto their theeth bleed to get out. They are driven mad- quite litterally.
I have btw five children which is enough school fees and expenses.
I choose NOT to have more.
Thats is none of your business.
You are always on about womens private sexual lives- be in pregnacy or something else.
I think you are offensive to all women.
Oh and I philo am a much better person than you are because I actually do care about Gods Creatures unlike some hypicrits that hang out for over two years in every and any thread to do with womans bodily functions.
I think thats sick.