ifeelfine,

seedplanter was not making a case that the "healthiest" couple would be right, he was only making a secular case against homosexuality (specifically male homosexuality). I do not believe he brought up Christianity once.

Lesbians have their fair share of health risks as well, including depression, and inordinate reliance on substances such as alcohol and tobacco.

I suppose the only thing your case proves (on a secular argument only) is that perhaps a secular society could allow lesbianism only if they deny male homosexuality.

In either case, the Bible is clear, God does not always favor the one who is the most materialisitically blessed, we must go by the Word of God.

Seedplanter: Lesbians must be God's chosen ones then. They have the lowest incidence of HIV / AIDS of any group - that includes heterosexual people. They tend to be monogomous and stay in long term relationships. I know lots of lesbian couples that have been in monogomous relationships for 40+ years. My great-aunt was in one for almost 70 years!

cit, That is an interestingly positive post. I would like to mention that homosexual couples can go to any courthouse and draft an agreement (non-legally binding of course) that expresses the desire to be united together. I don't think this is what they want. It is interesting how the first couple in Mass that was married under the jurisdiction of the court already filed for divorce.

While civil unions may seem like an appropriate alternative in order to issue benefits, the cost of such action should be taken into consideration including those who seek the benefits. Here in Illinois the governor took action to grant state employee same sex couples the same benefits that married couples enjoy. With this step hundreds of employees at the U of I were immediately laid off as a direct repercussion. Let's face it, health care is very expensive for everyone. The health risks involved in homosexuality is not only greater but with various treatments of AIDS it is off the charts. I only know of one homosexual couple that has remained monogamous (after their initial divorces that predicated their relationship of some twenty years). I have been to the gay pride parades. I have watched how the trend was to go from one person to another, kissing, hugging, etc, etc. While this may not be the norm, the data that I am familiar with seems to suggest it is. While hetero-sexual relationships are not always monogamist, it is at least deeply suggested and even inherent to religious beliefs. Homosexuality seems to be more rooted in sexual exploration and self-gratification. Either way there is far more health risks which are directly associated with benefits and their costs.

(I flagged myself)

Well Mr. Chris its hard to find anything you said in your post for me to disagree with, it is logical and reasonable. You come from a Christian position, mine is a bit different, but I largely agree with everything you stated on the post. On the subject of private and home schooling, the government should not interfere. In regard to homosexuality, the church should not be forced in any manner to sanction gay marriage. I do believe though that gays should be entitled to a civil union which has the same legal bindings and protections as a heterosexual union.

i want to make my comment in the form of a recent joke. it is a perfect example of what is the topic above.

A biker at the zoo

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


A biker is riding by the zoo, when he sees a little girl leaning into the
lion's cage. Suddenly, the lion grabs her by the cuff of her jacket and tries to
pull her inside to slaughter her, under the eyes of her screaming parents.


The biker jumps off his bike, runs to the cage and hits the lion square on the
nose with a powerful punch.
Whimpering from the pain the lion jumps back letting go of the girl, and the
biker brings her to her terrified parents, who thank him endlessly.


A reporter has seen the whole scene, and addressing the biker, says:
"Sir, this was the most gallant and brave thing I've seen a man do in my whole
life."


“Why, it was nothing” said the biker, “really, the lion was behind bars.
I just saw this little kid in danger, and acted as I felt right. “


“I noticed a patch on your jacket said the journalist.”
“Yeah I ride with a Christian motorcycle club,” the biker replies.


Well, I'll make sure this won't go unnoticed. I'm a journalist, you know, and
tomorrow papers will have this on first page.

The journalist leaves. The following morning the biker buys the paper to see

if it indeed brings news of his actions, and he reads, on the first page:



Biker gang member assaults African immigrant and steals his lunch.

This sounds about normal for the news media!

scitsonga,

We are in agreement, I too believe that religion (including Christianity) should be kept separate (in some ways) from the public sphere. Any argument that something such as the Ten Commandments should be kept in the court room should be based solely on a historical argument and not based on a Christian argument. I see no reason why things such as, "In God we Trust" on a coin should make any difference to atheists, it isn't as if anyone is saying, "In God you must trust" or anything of this nature. Marriage should be kept between a man and a woman, because that honestly is the only natural way for marriage to exist. If you want to give homosexuals the same rights and responsibilities as married couples then I cannot see why a Christian should care, the Bible is clear that we should not judge those outside of the Christian community and that we should not be concerned with making non-Christians act like Christians.

However if the government tries to force churches to bless homosexual unions, or if it tells churches that they cannot speak out against homosexuality (as a sin), then I think that government has overstepped its boundaries. That being said, homeschooling and private Christians schools must be allowed. (Public schools are in wretched condition, and if you are going to ban religion from them, then Christians deserve to have other options)

As far as public policy and foreign policy, I believe it should be based upon the desires of the American public, now if that public just so happens to desire Christian influenced decisions, then others should not complain.

In short, Christians should be concerned about upholding the moral fiber and strength of the Christian community. Towards the rest, we should show love and concern, and as long as they are not impeding our safety or our right to live as we desire, then there should be no problems. To the "Christians" who put non-Christians in danger or try to impede their right to live as they desire (unless it is extreme or necessary) I say they are wrong and should repent.

This is the Bible's stance, this is actual Chrisitanity's stance, this is my stance.

star2

"Some atheists/agnostics that come to CP only state their opinions and are not derogatory. But many are not that way. Many of the Christians are very tolerant of the ugly comments that atheists/agnostics make. There is a limit to what a Christian will put up with, however. I try very hard to be tolerant of the ugly comments made and I try to control my tongue. I believe that is the Christian thing to do. However, I do get mad and will show my displeasure by occassionaly flagging someone when I get sick and tired of their way.

I have seen hateful stuff to, I understand your point, although perhaps its better to leave those posts so that all can "consider the source" for themselves. I have to admit though, that I sometimes get caught up in the heat of dialog with some on these posts and get a bit on the offensive side, which I later regret and try to apologize for.


"Many Christians on CP try very hard to control their tongue and not respond back to the atheists/agnostics who use ugly language with the same kind of attacks. Some Christians do not. But their comments, at least what I can remember, are more temperate than the atheists/agnostic."

Well, I see plenty of hateful comments directed at me by Christians because of my "wrong" views.


"I don't know why atheists and agnostics even bother coming to CP. I don't know about you, but others of your theological persuation come here to try to convince us poor, decieved, stupid Christians that evolution is correct and creationism is wrong. It hasn't worked and it never will. Some of you all I guess just want to put us down because you were hurt by Christians in your past and it is now pay back time. I really don't know. I don't know why you, scitsonga, come to CP, only you can speak to that."

I visit this site because I am interested not in religion itself, but the politics of religion and religions influence ion society. I strongly believe in the US Constitution that states a person has a right to practice their religion without interference from government. I also believe that the US Constitution says that church and state should be kept seperate. I am here to do my part to prevent Christians, or any religion, from bluring the separation of church and state as they attempt to impose their beliefs on me. Religion is a very personal thing and should be kept out of government, courts and public schools. I


"Now, if you scitsonga are also a guy named citsonga, then, based on what I can remember about any comments you made to me, even though you disagreed with me, were at least respectful in the language you used to express your disagreement(s). I thank you for that."

i am the same guy. Yes we do disagree on many things, but I would say your posts are quite civil and I can see that you put much thought into them. And I thank you too.

asdfg

From the looks of it you are the one who is doing the flagging.

Are you really yyyy/xxxx/oldguy/first/danny2/danny/bob?

"Somebody doesn't like their invisible friend being called a sky fairy. Christians are very sensitive. Their faith is so weak they feel they must censor any criticism of the Christian fairy of the universe.

The management of the CP is also very sensitive. Yesterday they banned 5 atheists just because they don't worship the preacher man Jesus, the dead guy who performed magic tricks to prove his daddy is a god. "

It isn't censorship, it isn't sensitivity, it is the fact that most poeple on this site come here to have a nice peaceful conversation but instead have to deal with someone like you who hates everyone and blames everyone who believes in God for your own problems. Maybe instead of spewing your wrath and anger on everyone on this site maybe you should just leave....

Agentorange,

I do agree that this is not a Christian country, rather it is a culturally Christian country. This country is bona-fide secular. I did not mean to say that 25% are Christians as if I know. It could be 5% it could actually be 75%, only God knows. What I do know is that you can't say, "Well I said a prayer when I was ten and that makes me a Christian" and then go around acting like you are not a Christian all the time. Christ called us to a new life, and to repent, no Christian is exempt from this, we must be changing and becoming more like Christ.

"At least the Muslims don't nail themselves to crosses."

True, but at least christians don't take razor sharp knives to the tops of their heads like Muslims do yearly in honoring the blood spilt over a millenia ago.

agentorange and everyone else

I called CP to find out what happened to the CP article "Ben Stein Brings Star Power to Florida Evolution Debate". The person I talked with said she would have the editor staff look into it and they will email me later with what they found out and will do.

Yes, this is my 3rd name as it seems my past id was flagged.

“While 70+% of Americans may claim to be Christians”

Excellent observation, and I have heard Chris333 and others point this out in which they conservatively argue only some 25% nationally are truly following the doctrine to an extent to warrant them as being ‘Christian’, while many are purely ‘Christian in name only’

Here comes the revelation though. If Chris33 and others here and their inference on ‘what a true Christian is and symbolizes’ is the standard, then as you stated the figure of 75% Christian nationally is a grossly overstatement and this in turn nullifies their sentiment that it’s a ‘Christian country’ in any true extant. Culturally Christian perhaps, but not by the same yardstick that they measure themselves by, and there is the irony. After all, it’s quite hard to say we are a truly Christian country when a minority agree themselves that perhaps only ¼ truly walk the walk so to speak.

I won’t presume to know why it that article was deleted, however Star and I were largely the only 2 conversing on it. I am going to go out on a limb and speculate it was removed b/c the links which referenced particular compelling evidence regarding transitional fossils (which some say don't exist) and the evolution of many species( including humans) was part of the reason the article was dropped.

Either way, It’s been a full week and there is no reason the article couldn’t be re uploaded with all the past-achieved information, I working in IT certainly know it's possible, it's just a question of if it will be done. well, happy easter everyone.

I think the watchdog group got it wrong. While 70+% of Americans may claim to be Christians - the reality is that most of them are just "cultural Christians" and probably include a lot of people who should be called atheists or at most agnostic. I bet the number of Christians and atheists is fairly equal in the US.

Moreover, the onus is on us to prove Christianity - not atheists to prove God doesn't exist. We're trying to prove something exists only when one approaches with faith or is called to the table. We need to be mindful and less militant when it comes to dealing with these issues. Remember, Jesus didn't ever get angry at the unbelievers - it was only the "faithful" that would raise His ire.

BTW: MuggleBorn - I was wondering the same thing about the Ben Stein article. I was looking for it and couldn't find it either. I think CP deleted it for some reason.

"After reviewing stories in 2007 that featured atheism or presented atheist viewpoints, the group found that the media not only gave atheism a more prominent voice in its coverage but also a favorable and even positive report"

Oh, please. The views people have of non-believers is so out of whack that a recent MN poll revealed they are MORE distrusted over any other minority group in America. As a whole such a small minority is never or barely heard from and their views are never expressed anywhere in media till only recently. This is what occurs when religious fundies attack education and science and put an untested, unsupported idea like Intelligent Design that's grounded in religion and attempt to sneak it by and inject it into public schools.

"From the 105 atheist-themed stories that CMI reviewed, eighty percent had a positive tone while 20 percent were neutral. Surprisingly, no feature stories were negative."

Are you kidding? I can recall off the top of my head a CNN interview where the tag line for the topic was. 'Why are atheists hated', and there were 3 speakers and none of which were non-believers.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbjIYvXpvLM

“The most striking example of Newsweek's imbalanced coverage, according to the report, was a story it ran in its May 14 issue, detailing Christopher Hitchens' critique on a book about Mother Teresa’s spiritual struggles”

Oh I see, so we can have news reports about some hic who swears she sees Jesus in a burnt piece of bread or cheese, but the second you have a published author on about atheism and how utterly bankrupt mother Teresa’s faith had become over the years, somehow, that’s not ok? Horrid logic.

“The segment, which aired May 9, led to a full program featuring a debate about the existence of God”

And boy did Kirk Cameron and Banana man look awfully wrong holding up strawman arguments like a ‘crocoduc’. They were luck they weren’t facing of against the likes of Hitchens or others, it would have been like Godzilla vs Bambi.

"If reporters use prominent atheists to offer opposing views on religion themed stories, they should – in equal measure – invite leading believers to provide perspective on stories about atheism," the report advised.”

Are they kidding? There have been numerous debates hosted over the past years, a recent one in Stanford, CA in which Ben Stein was the (somehow) moderator between Hitchens and Richards from the Discovery Institute.

This is so not true. Oprah Winfrey has been on television promoting all the gods you'll ever want. She's teaching the occult Course in Miracles every day for 365 days with Marianne Williamson and she's teaching Eckart Tolle's blasphemous book, "The New Earth" on live webcast, where we learn we are ALL gods. So no. The media is not godless. The idols of America are held up every night: sex, wealth, beauty, professional sports, and now, the cosmic christ of the New Age. We are not godless, we are without the one TRUE God.

to yyyy, None

to muggleborn, i can understand your frustration, i have gotten angry at some people on this site many of times, but i am willing to admit as you are that we need Christ to help us on our paths. God Bless you...

Muggleborn,

I understand how you feel. It is easy to go off the edge when going in these circles. My suggestion, simply ignore yyyy (et. al aliases). I have tried several times now to carry a decent conversation with him, and have found it literally impossible. Anyways, it is just a waste of time. He is doing this to himself, everyone here is willing to have an intelligent conversation if he is.

To Hume, and some others that have posted on other articles; AgentOrange, Huron, TokenSP, et al,

I apologize for my remarks yesterday … particularly the last sentiment. Those thoughts were born out of anger and directed against a few individuals who I’m sure you probably wish would state their inputs a little more appropriately. I was frustrated, but I’ll make no further excuse than that. I admire your intelligence and ability to make discerning points that address the focus of a topic. I look forward to having more civil conversations with you in the future. And I am praying for you.

To the ones I was particularly angry at,

I apologize for speaking contemptuously, and not with a more straightforward loving rebuke. I’m praying for you as well. I love you, but like a brother/sister/cousin that keeps poking a wet finger in my ear during a long car ride.

Star2, Prophet, GMG, Chris333, Slacker et al,
Don’t feel shy about publicly rebuking me when I go to town like that. I will appreciate it later. God uses us to correct each other and it helps me to grow in my relationship with Christ; and not to mention, represent Christianity the way our Lord intended.

God Bless.

"Slacker,

Hampsteadpete has always been very respectful. Should he just shut up because somebody might disagree with him? "

Thats not what i said, I said if you insist on demeaning people, people will flag your post, it isn't censorship, it is common respect. I may not agree with your points but if you propose them in a respectful manner within the context of a debatable argument i will listen and comment as appropriate. For example, Agentorange is very respectful in his post, i don't always agree with what he says but the way he says it is very respectful and no one flags his post at all... Just a thought for you to ponder...