My comments are verifiable facts. The people who wanted unlimited sex, drugs and conflict were oppressed? How so? Who was stopping them? They could have gone to each other’s homes or apartments all day, every day, and had too much of everything until the day they died.
No. Their goal was violent confrontation. That is wrong.
The goal of the Radical Anti-God groups is similar: create conflict and confrontation against the religious in this country and turn it into their image and likeness. That’s a fact.
To my Christian brothers and sisters, now is the time of prayer and repentance. Now is the time to realize that those who confront you are against God. Pray for them and live as Christ commanded. I encourage you.
There is no “propaganda” angle in his argument. In fact, labeling that as propaganda is stemming exactly from what I am saying about nearing End of Days. :mad:
Of course atheists will label it as something other than the truth, because they themselves can’t handle the truth. And don’t go and say “But I’ve never lied in my life”. That’s not what I mean. You all know what I mean. :mad:
Besides, why are atheists even posting on this board in the first place? I’m not saying they have the right, but I seriously doubt any of us will convert them. :mad:
My specific point is that right now, the propaganda machine is going full tilt against religion, specifically Christianity in the United States and in Western Europe. It’s in the news or what passes for the news.
Back to the 1960s. While living in the richest nation on earth, a bunch of radicals demanded something that they could do on their own. Take all the drugs and have all the sexual encounters they wanted, but they claimed to be “oppressed.” By who? That’s the question. Who was stopping them?
Now, 40 years later, the same people and their children, have created an atmosphere in this country where their way is being promoted as OK. In fact, everything is OK. Abortion? OK. Embryonic Stem Cell research? OK? Prostitution? OK. Celebrities dressing like hookers? OK. Divorce? Not only OK but what’s the big deal? Just be accepting and tolerant of everyone and everybody no matter what they’re doing because there are NO absolutes according to them. And the irony is, they are ABSOLUTELY sure about that.
The world of the Christian is black and white. It is clearly defined and based on the life of the Prince of Peace, Jesus Christ. Most of today’s issues involve human sexuality and war. Jesus spoke out against a murderous and adulteress generation. I urge you brothers and sisters, turn away from these things.
Abortion - Of course she wants to keep her body her own. Every woman does. That type of answer is just concealing the fact that abortion is murder.
Prostitution - Cheapens and disrespects the marriage vows. That is…marriage vows between heterosexuals.
Hooker Dressed Celebs - This causes men to lust. Lusting is a primitive feeling. One that can cause a man to go and rape a woman who is putting it all out for the world to see. No mandated dress codes are needed, but modesty sure as hell needs to be mandated.
Divorce - Cheapening heterosexual marriage vows. Promotes adultery. Out of wedlock babies. STDs.
Sigh. Punisherthunder, the nature of proof does not include that. If you make the positive assertion ‘God exists,’ (or ‘Canadians are leprechauns.’’ etc and so forth) then the burden of proof is on you. And negative proof is inherently fallacious This also applies to the positive statement ‘God does not exist.’ The burden of proof is again on the person asserting it. Both the 'strong-theist and the ‘strong’-atheist positions are equally under this burden, ie ‘God exists because you cannot prove God does not exist,’ and ‘God does not exist because you cannot prove God does exist’ are both equally poor logic.
Very few nontheists are silly enough to make such a positive statement. I think you will find that, barring a few chuckleheads, very few nontheists take any position other than ‘There is no empirical evidence for any supernatural force, and in that absence of evidence, it’s pointless to make any assertion either way.’ This is often referred to as the ‘strong’-agnostic or ‘weak’-atheist stance, the two being pretty much the same thing.
Of course, I suspect I might as well be telling all this to my goldfish.
I will say that xenophobic, uncharitable ranting does not reflect well upon other theists, however. Perhaps moderating your tone would be advisable? As I recall, YOUR BIBLE also has a few things to say about such behavior. Just a suggestion. Sigh.
Anyway, I do strongly agree with those who object to blind fanaticism of any kind, whether it calls itself atheism or religion or political affiliation, or what have you. I have never met such an ‘extremist atheist’ in person, however. But I’m sure there are a few nutters out there – there always are! People who want to behave like jerks generally find some sort of banner or screed (pretty interchangeably) in which to wrap themselves and their actions.
So rape is justified when women are dressed immodestly? How would we define modesty so that it can be mandated? How would we mandate it?
I’m not saying that there is any reason for women to dress as street-walkers. Women who dress in such a fashion are incurring sin of their own- they are disrespecting themselves as well as potentially incurring lustful thoughts in those around them. That is where their sin stops. They are NOT responsible if a man chooses not to control his lust and instead inflicts an act of great violence and indecency on her. That is his sin alone.
I’m really tired of hearing the argument that women’s clothing causes men to rape them. The men do the raping, and time and time again they choose not only to rape scantily clad women, but also women at home in bathrobes and nightgowns, small girls on their way to school, little old ladies who live alone. It has always been my understanding that men have a choice over whether or not to commit rape. If men truly do not have a choice over whether or not to rape a woman, shouldn’t we worry more about maintaining control over men?
And back to my original questions: what is modesty? I agree that breasts, backsides, bellies should be covered with clothing that is not tightly fitted. Skirts should not be so short that a woman cannot sit down without showing her private parts to the world, etc. But some men have foot fetishes. To protect them, women would all need to wear big, ugly boots. Some men are aroused by hair. So we would all need to wear hijab. Some men are aroused by the mere outline of a woman’s shape. So we would need to wear heavy, baggy garments that do not define our waists. Some men prefer women in skirts because the skirts provide “easier access”. So pants would always need to be worn under the baggy garments. Some men are aroused by lips. So we would need to wear niqab, covering our faces except for eyes. But some men are aroused by eyes, especially if that is all they can see. So a burqa with screens covering the eyes is the only option.
Do you see where I’m going with this? Yes, women need to dress with dignity and basic modesty, but on the flipside, men need to control their lust. Women should help men to do that, but we cannot control their lust for them. And we cannot be blamed if they act on their lust in such a violent fashion.
punisherthunder, these issues have been around for centuries.
Prostition is referred to in the Bible. By the way, why was the prostitute the only one brought before Jesus? That has always bugged me.
Many prostitutes are in the business unwillingly, or because they feel they have no other option. Enslaving women and children, yes children, and forcing them into prostitution is on the rise. It a profitable trade for slave trafficers, even more lucrative than the drug trade. Prostitution is NOT a victimless crime. Prostitution isn’t to blame for cheapening the marriage vows. The person seeking prostitutes is the one cheapening the marriage vows. that’s not to say I agree with prostitution. I’d love to see it go out of business, but I’m not going to kid myself by believing it will.
Clothing, well, I’ll admitt I’m not happy with the styles lately. Still, what a woman wears does not mean she deserves to be raped. Rape is NOT a crime of lust, it’s a crime of anger. Some sicko has a grudge against women and needs a power trip, so he rapes a woman, or man, or child to make himself feel powerful. What she’s wearing is just his excuse. Grandmas in flannel nightgowns have been raped. Nuns have been raped. A whimple does NOT protect against a freak on a power trip.
Divorce doesn’t promote adultery. If a person is going to mess around on their partner, they’ll do it regaurdless of wether they want a divorce or not. My ex did it because it made him feel manly. Hence my divorce. Well, that and the fact that I got tired of being smacked around. Divorce or death were the only ways of getting away from the abuse.
Out of wed-lock babies? Well, most of the women I’ve seen having babies outside of marriage, have never been married to start with. Hense the term, no? This has nothing to do with divorce. Honestly, I don’t think there are any more or any less out of wed-lock babies now, than in the 50’s. You just don’t see women hiding their pregnancies the way they did then. Also, more young women are choosing to keep their babies rather than put them up for adoption the way they did, 10, 20, and more years ago.
End of days? I honestly don’t think so. Human nature is more like it. There are pervs in every century. Every era has had it’s problems with prostitution, and unsavory lifestyles. And every era has had it’s group crying, “end of days”. We don’t know when God will choose to end life on earth. Why try guessing? Leave it to God to decide and just try living the best life YOU can.