Should a woman's bodily autonomy be disregarded when it comes to pregnancy?

[leibowde84]

You said we cannot trust it because fallible men recorded it. That can mean only a few things. The most common being how do we know what we have is what Jesus said.

I know what it is. I can't very well point to an abstract construct so I simply put it in a written form for convenience. It lacking a written form only makes my points stronger. Rights can exist for a thing regardless of whether the thing acknowledges them. That's what makes people constantly put the word inherent before the word right.

None of this is getting any closer to answering my question.

You claim a mother has rights to autonomy. No social contract, no opinion, no natural law, not one natural thing can grant them. The only thing that can (God) has not granted that right as far as I know. Where are you getting any actual right from?

I explained this already. You just don't agree. Legal rights come from social contracts. You believe that they are inherent. I disagree, because rights do not exist unless they are enforced. Freedom of expression, for example, doesn't exist in some places.

If God were the one and only originator of "rights," how are rights taken away when someone commits a crime? Why are felons denied the right to vote? You claim that God is the source of all rights, but can you prove this? I am all ears if you can without using circular logic (basing your claim on the existence of God, scripture, or the nature of God ... as no one in history has been able to prove any of these things), but I think that the natural explanation I have provided in that society is the creator of rights is much stronger than anything supernatural.

 

[Revoltingest]

My own position is that evolution contains all behaviors so it would justify al behaviors and would make the worst basis for laws possible.

This is to look at evolution incorrectly. It only explains a process, & origins of traits. This offers no guidance or moral truths whatsoever.

Now your getting into the true nihilistic spirit atheism ultimately ends in. Happy nihilism to us all. Deck the nothing in streams of nothing and light the nothing log.

I don't detect a nihilistic "spirit" among my nihilistic fellows....it's just a philosophical perspective (not an emotional affliction). Nonetheless, we still have values, & find that there are still rights. The difference is that we don't see these rights as objective or absolutely true....they're rights because we agree they're rights, & we behave accordingly.

 

[1robin]

Again, you defined the wrong term. "Secular" means what you claim, but "secular" means that one feels that religious beliefs and ideals have no place in Government.

That is not what it means, that is the result of what it means. It is like defining a hammer a crushed grapefruit. That is not what a hammer is it is what a hammer can be used for. As far as I know there is no official term for a person who believes in the divine but won't apply it to civil matters.

I am a Christian with my own Christian identity, I say Christian prayers every day, and I speak to Mary and Jesus (mostly). But, I understand that to even attempt to legislate based on moral principles is to assault the beliefs of my fellow citizens, which are, most likely, different than my own.

Neither of those make anyone a Christian. Let's take a look at what does make a person a Christian because the differences can cost us everything, Before we do I am not making any moral judgments here. There are bad Christians and good atheists. But what makes a Christian is a very specific thing which will ultimately make the greatest possible difference.


The most emphatic and specific place where Jesus explains what it means to be a Christian is in John.

1Now there was a Pharisee, a man named Nicodemus who was a member of the Jewish ruling council. 2He came to Jesus at night and said, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the signs you are doing if God were not with him.” 3Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again. 4“How can someone be born when they are old?” Nicodemus asked. “Surely they cannot enter a second time into their mother’s womb to be born!” 5Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. 6Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. 7You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You must be born again.’ 8The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.” 9“How can this be?” Nicodemus asked. 10“ You are Israel’s teacher,” said Jesus, “and do you not understand these things? 11Very truly I tell you, we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen, but still you people do not accept our testimony. 12 I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?
John 3 NIV

Keep in mind some facts here.

1. Nicodemus not only believed in Christ and God but was even a teacher of the faith.
2. He was a moral man.
3. He believed in the bible and knew it better than we do.

Yet Christ said how can you be a teacher of Israel and not know these things, and that he did not even belong to the kingdom. That he must be born again and have the Holy Spirit come to live within his heart and only then was he a Christian. Prayer will not do it, intellectual consent to biblical propositions won't do it, only being born again will.

So that is the test. Are you born again? I can't possibly know concerning you but if you have been then you know it for your self. It is not a subtle or mistakable event. You do not even have to respond to me but that is what makes a person a Christian. Now as for each other all we can do is see what a person does and guess. So far you have defended only positions which conflict with the bible and so something seems amiss to me, but your actual status is between you and God. I can only wonder what is going on here.

 

[leibowde84]

That is not what it means, that is the result of what it means. It is like defining a hammer a crushed grapefruit. That is not what a hammer is it is what a hammer can be used for. As far as I know there is no official term for a person who believes in the divine but won't apply it to civil matters.


Neither of those make anyone a Christian. Let's take a look at what does make a person a Christian because the differences can cost us everything, Before we do I am not making any moral judgments here. There are bad Christians and good atheists. But what makes a Christian is a very specific thing which will ultimately make the greatest possible difference.


The most emphatic and specific place where Jesus explains what it means to be a Christian is in John.

1Now there was a Pharisee, a man named Nicodemus who was a member of the Jewish ruling council. 2He came to Jesus at night and said, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the signs you are doing if God were not with him.” 3Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again. 4“How can someone be born when they are old?” Nicodemus asked. “Surely they cannot enter a second time into their mother’s womb to be born!” 5Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. 6Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. 7You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You must be born again.’ 8The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.” 9“How can this be?” Nicodemus asked. 10“ You are Israel’s teacher,” said Jesus, “and do you not understand these things? 11Very truly I tell you, we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen, but still you people do not accept our testimony. 12 I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?
John 3 NIV

Keep in mind some facts here.

1. Nicodemus not only believed in Christ and God but was even a teacher of the faith.
2. He was a moral man.
3. He believed in the bible and knew it better than we do.

Yet Christ said how can you be a teacher of Israel and not know these things, and that he did not even belong to the kingdom. That he must be born again and have the Holy Spirit come to live within his heart and only then was he a Christian. Prayer will not do it, intellectual consent to biblical propositions won't do it, only being born again will.

So that is the test. Are you born again? I can't possibly know concerning you but if you have been then you know it for your self. It is not a subtle or mistakable event. You do not even have to respond to me but that is what makes a person a Christian. Now as for each other all we can do is see what a person does and guess. So far you have defended only positions which conflict with the bible and so something seems amiss to me, but your actual status is between you and God. I can only wonder what is going on here.

Why do you deny the truth so much when it comes to defining terms. "Secular" has a different meaning than "secularism." Pick up a dictionary and you will see. Here is the definition from Webster online:

"Secularism is the prrincipple of the separation of government institutions and persons mandated to represent the state from religious institutions and religious dignitaries."

Are you actually claiming that you understand the meanig of the word "secularism" better than Websters?! Because that would be absurd. It's kind of hard to believe that you don't already know this. Are you just messing with me?

 

[leibowde84]

That is not what it means, that is the result of what it means. It is like defining a hammer a crushed grapefruit. That is not what a hammer is it is what a hammer can be used for. As far as I know there is no official term for a person who believes in the divine but won't apply it to civil matters.


Neither of those make anyone a Christian. Let's take a look at what does make a person a Christian because the differences can cost us everything, Before we do I am not making any moral judgments here. There are bad Christians and good atheists. But what makes a Christian is a very specific thing which will ultimately make the greatest possible difference.


The most emphatic and specific place where Jesus explains what it means to be a Christian is in John.

1Now there was a Pharisee, a man named Nicodemus who was a member of the Jewish ruling council. 2He came to Jesus at night and said, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the signs you are doing if God were not with him.” 3Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again. 4“How can someone be born when they are old?” Nicodemus asked. “Surely they cannot enter a second time into their mother’s womb to be born!” 5Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. 6Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. 7You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You must be born again.’ 8The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.” 9“How can this be?” Nicodemus asked. 10“ You are Israel’s teacher,” said Jesus, “and do you not understand these things? 11Very truly I tell you, we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen, but still you people do not accept our testimony. 12 I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?
John 3 NIV

Keep in mind some facts here.

1. Nicodemus not only believed in Christ and God but was even a teacher of the faith.
2. He was a moral man.
3. He believed in the bible and knew it better than we do.

Yet Christ said how can you be a teacher of Israel and not know these things, and that he did not even belong to the kingdom. That he must be born again and have the Holy Spirit come to live within his heart and only then was he a Christian. Prayer will not do it, intellectual consent to biblical propositions won't do it, only being born again will.

So that is the test. Are you born again? I can't possibly know concerning you but if you have been then you know it for your self. It is not a subtle or mistakable event. You do not even have to respond to me but that is what makes a person a Christian. Now as for each other all we can do is see what a person does and guess. So far you have defended only positions which conflict with the bible and so something seems amiss to me, but your actual status is between you and God. I can only wonder what is going on here.

I didn't say I was "secular," as that would only signify the separation of church and state. I said I was a "secular Christian," which means that I have Christian beliefs, but do not believe that they should be considered in Governmental actions. Make sense? Just do me a favor and look up the term "secular" in the dictionary (not "secular" which is a different, but related, term) and let me know what it says.

 

[leibowde84]

That is not what it means, that is the result of what it means. It is like defining a hammer a crushed grapefruit. That is not what a hammer is it is what a hammer can be used for. As far as I know there is no official term for a person who believes in the divine but won't apply it to civil matters.


Neither of those make anyone a Christian. Let's take a look at what does make a person a Christian because the differences can cost us everything, Before we do I am not making any moral judgments here. There are bad Christians and good atheists. But what makes a Christian is a very specific thing which will ultimately make the greatest possible difference.


The most emphatic and specific place where Jesus explains what it means to be a Christian is in John.

1Now there was a Pharisee, a man named Nicodemus who was a member of the Jewish ruling council. 2He came to Jesus at night and said, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the signs you are doing if God were not with him.” 3Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again. 4“How can someone be born when they are old?” Nicodemus asked. “Surely they cannot enter a second time into their mother’s womb to be born!” 5Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. 6Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. 7You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You must be born again.’ 8The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.” 9“How can this be?” Nicodemus asked. 10“ You are Israel’s teacher,” said Jesus, “and do you not understand these things? 11Very truly I tell you, we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen, but still you people do not accept our testimony. 12 I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?
John 3 NIV

Keep in mind some facts here.

1. Nicodemus not only believed in Christ and God but was even a teacher of the faith.
2. He was a moral man.
3. He believed in the bible and knew it better than we do.

Yet Christ said how can you be a teacher of Israel and not know these things, and that he did not even belong to the kingdom. That he must be born again and have the Holy Spirit come to live within his heart and only then was he a Christian. Prayer will not do it, intellectual consent to biblical propositions won't do it, only being born again will.

So that is the test. Are you born again? I can't possibly know concerning you but if you have been then you know it for your self. It is not a subtle or mistakable event. You do not even have to respond to me but that is what makes a person a Christian. Now as for each other all we can do is see what a person does and guess. So far you have defended only positions which conflict with the bible and so something seems amiss to me, but your actual status is between you and God. I can only wonder what is going on here.

Beyond assuming that the Scriptures are the word of God, why do you think Christians are limited to what is defined in the Bible (again, without just relying on what the Bible says about itself)? If you have a reasoned argument, I'm all ears, but if you are just going to spew scriptural passages at me, I don't consider it convincing at all. I want to know WHY you feel that the Bible is accurate about these things.

 

[leibowde84]

That is not what it means, that is the result of what it means. It is like defining a hammer a crushed grapefruit. That is not what a hammer is it is what a hammer can be used for. As far as I know there is no official term for a person who believes in the divine but won't apply it to civil matters.


Neither of those make anyone a Christian. Let's take a look at what does make a person a Christian because the differences can cost us everything, Before we do I am not making any moral judgments here. There are bad Christians and good atheists. But what makes a Christian is a very specific thing which will ultimately make the greatest possible difference.


The most emphatic and specific place where Jesus explains what it means to be a Christian is in John.

1Now there was a Pharisee, a man named Nicodemus who was a member of the Jewish ruling council. 2He came to Jesus at night and said, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the signs you are doing if God were not with him.” 3Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again. 4“How can someone be born when they are old?” Nicodemus asked. “Surely they cannot enter a second time into their mother’s womb to be born!” 5Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. 6Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. 7You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You must be born again.’ 8The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.” 9“How can this be?” Nicodemus asked. 10“ You are Israel’s teacher,” said Jesus, “and do you not understand these things? 11Very truly I tell you, we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen, but still you people do not accept our testimony. 12 I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?
John 3 NIV

Keep in mind some facts here.

1. Nicodemus not only believed in Christ and God but was even a teacher of the faith.
2. He was a moral man.
3. He believed in the bible and knew it better than we do.

Yet Christ said how can you be a teacher of Israel and not know these things, and that he did not even belong to the kingdom. That he must be born again and have the Holy Spirit come to live within his heart and only then was he a Christian. Prayer will not do it, intellectual consent to biblical propositions won't do it, only being born again will.

So that is the test. Are you born again? I can't possibly know concerning you but if you have been then you know it for your self. It is not a subtle or mistakable event. You do not even have to respond to me but that is what makes a person a Christian. Now as for each other all we can do is see what a person does and guess. So far you have defended only positions which conflict with the bible and so something seems amiss to me, but your actual status is between you and God. I can only wonder what is going on here.

It seems so obvious that this was put in Jesus' mouth to encourage people to convert. It contradicts much of what he said about those who will reach the kingdom. In many of his parables, the person who was right and reached the kingdom was not a Christian. So, I think that passage and others like it were merely an attempt to convert as many people as possible by the early church.

 

[1robin]

This is to look at evolution incorrectly. It only explains a process, & origins of traits. This offers no guidance or moral truths whatsoever.

Today seems for the day for my examining the world view of another and what would be true of it and having it be applied to my own views. I agree with you that evolution makes a horrible basis for informing on morality. The problem is the your side of the isle uses the argument in large quantities. I get three types of non-theistic responses to moral foundations. All of them equal preference and opinion so they are the same type to me but you guys really care which version of preference you support.

1. We are to look at natural history and by some bizarre equation which in the end is simply preference select behaviors from it and apply them.
2. That looking at nature is not where moralist comes from but nature produces it and by some bizarre equation we select from what it has produced as we prefer them.
3. Or the always favorite invention of a goal and by some even more magical means selecting behaviors which we think may meet the goal we invented.

To me they are all one side on an equality and opinion and preference on the other so they seem the same in a truth context but to those who have a cherished choice, one or more beats the rest.

I don't detect a nihilistic "spirit" among my nihilistic fellows....it's just a philosophical perspective (not an emotional affliction). Nonetheless, we still have values, & find that there are still rights. The difference is that we don't see these rights as objective or absolutely true....they're rights because we agree they're rights, & we behave accordingly.

I did not mean nihilism as an emotion, (no atheist actually acts as if atheism is true anyway), I meant nihilism as an unavoidable necessary conclusion in a category of truth. I agree we can invent rules without God but without God those rules do not reflect anything we should or should not actually do. We cannot find that anything still has rights without God because nature does not contain the right to anything. We can assume they exists even without a source for them and pretend, but we do not actually have them. Rights are things inherent to other things not granted to them. Rights are assumed to exists (atheists as I said above in this respect are not acting as if atheism is true) and we make laws to stop others from infringing upon them.

 

[1robin]

Why do you deny the truth so much when it comes to defining terms. "Secular" has a different meaning than "secularism." Pick up a dictionary and you will see. Here is the definition from Webster online:

First the words you used were secular and secular. I did not mention or define secularism, your title is nor secularism Christian (it was secular Christian), you did not even mention secularism in our discussion until now. So whatever you think it means was not a part of the discussion. I do not like wasting time on semantic technicalities unless there is compelling reason. So far there has been none.

"Secularism is the principle of the separation of government institutions and persons mandated to represent the state from religious institutions and religious dignitaries."

That is not what your title says, not what I said, and not what you replied with. This is the first time you have mentioned secularism to me.

It is still contradictory but maybe if you changed your title to Christian secularism it would be less glaring.

Are you actually claiming that you understand the meaning of the word "secularism" better than Webster's?! Because that would be absurd. It's kind of hard to believe that you don't already know this. Are you just messing with me?

No, I never mentioned that term and neither did you until now.

Here is my statement: "The definition of secular is: denoting attitudes, activities, or other things that have no religious or spiritual basis. So it is literally the denial of what you affirm. It is as self contradictory as even theoretically possible for anything to ever be."

Here is your response: "Secular means what you claim, but "secular" means that one feels that religious beliefs and ideals have no place in Government."

And I hope you know what your title says since you typed it.

 

[leibowde84]

First the words you used were secular and secular. I did not mention or define secularism, your title is nor secularism Christian (it was secular Christian), you did not even mention secularism in our discussion until now. So whatever you think it means was not a part of the discussion. I do not like wasting time on semantic technicalities unless there is compelling reason. So far there has been none.

That is not what your title says, not what I said, and not what you replied with. This is the first time you have mentioned secularism to me.

It is still contradictory but maybe if you changed your title to Christian secularism it would be less glaring.

No, I never mentioned that term and neither did you until now.

Here is my statement: "The definition of secular is: denoting attitudes, activities, or other things that have no religious or spiritual basis. So it is literally the denial of what you affirm. It is as self contradictory as even theoretically possible for anything to ever be."

Here is your response: "Secular means what you claim, but "secular" means that one feels that religious beliefs and ideals have no place in Government."

And I hope you know what your title says since you typed it.

My mistake, but either way, the term "secular Christian" is widely used. Do a simple Google search and you will see that it refers to what I described. A secular Christian is one that does not think his or her religious beliefs should be considered in Governmental action. I'm not coining a term here, I am using one that has already been widely accepted.

 

[1robin]

I didn't say I was "secular," as that would only signify the separation of church and state.

Yes you did. This:

secular Christian

is how you labeled yourself. That is exactly what I said you said.

I said I was a "secular Christian," which means that I have Christian beliefs, but do not believe that they should be considered in Governmental actions. Make sense? Just do me a favor and look up the term "secular" in the dictionary (not "secular" which is a different, but related, term) and let me know what it says.

This is just plain weird. You said

"secular" in the dictionary (not "secular"

They are the exact same word.

Can you find the term secular Christian in a scholastic dictionary like Webster's. I can't. The only place I could find it is in one persons blog like site.

Lets just drop it. The terms don't make sense used together but you have said what you think they mean. That is good enough.

 

[1robin]

Beyond assuming that the Scriptures are the word of God,

I did not assume it, I in fact showed how that can be deduced suing methods that have been scrutinized for thousand of years.

why do you think Christians are limited to what is defined in the Bible (again, without just relying on what the Bible says about itself)?

I did not say they were and in fact they are not.

If you have a reasoned argument, I'm all ears, but if you are just going to spew scriptural passages at me, I don't consider it convincing at all. I want to know WHY you feel that the Bible is accurate about these things.

So you do not care what Christ himself said the path to himself is, you invented your own?

I have already explained or provided many of the primary steps to accomplish what your asking me how to do. I went into the data about textual accuracy. Asked what other category you wanted to debate. provided how you establish a reliable original if you do not possess one. Where did they go, why have you forgotten them, why are you claiming to be inline with a being whose words you consider as spewed forth and unknowable? Your the most self contradictory poster I have seen in a long long time.

 

[leibowde84]

Yes you did. This: is how you labeled yourself. That is exactly what I said you said.

This is just plain weird. You said They are the exact same word.

Can you find the term secular Christian in a scholastic dictionary like Webster's. I can't. The only place I could find it is in one persons blog like site.

Lets just drop it. The terms don't make sense used together but you have said what you think they mean. That is good enough.

Dude, I am starting to think you are messing with me. I said "secular Christian", not just "secular." The term "secular Christian" uses the definition of the term "secularism" specified by the term "Christian." This is a simple grammar rule put in place because "secular" is the adjective form of "secularism," which is a noun. In short, my title means that I am a Christian who practices secularism. This is common practice in the English Language.

 

[Revoltingest]

Today seems for the day for my examining the world view of another and what would be true of it and having it be applied to my own views. I agree with you that evolution makes a horrible basis for informing on morality.

No, it's excellent at informing us about the origins of morality. But we needn't use it to determine our morality.

The problem is the your side of the isle uses the argument in large quantities.

Those people don't let me sit with them....they won't even let me in the building!

I get three types of non-theistic responses to moral foundations. All of them equal preference and opinion so they are the same type to me but you guys really care which version of preference you support.

Of course I care about the morals I have. The only difference between us is the opinion about their origin.

I did not mean nihilism as an emotion, (no atheist actually acts as if atheism is true anyway), I meant nihilism as an unavoidable necessary conclusion in a category of truth. I agree we can invent rules without God but without God those rules do not reflect anything we should or should not actually do. We cannot find that anything still has rights without God because nature does not contain the right to anything. We can assume they exists even without a source for them and pretend, but we do not actually have them. Rights are things inherent to other things not granted to them. Rights are assumed to exists (atheists as I said above in this respect are not acting as if atheism is true) and we make laws to stop others from infringing upon them.

I act in complete accord with atheism.....which is to say that I don't practice belief in gods. And without religion, we're left to our own devices in deciding what's a right & what isn't. Absolute truth? I ain't got none. (Neither does anyone else, but they just aren't aware of this.)

 

[1robin]

It seems so obvious that this was put in Jesus' mouth to encourage people to convert. It contradicts much of what he said about those who will reach the kingdom. In many of his parables, the person who was right and reached the kingdom was not a Christian. So, I think that passage and others like it were merely an attempt to convert as many people as possible by the early church.

I am just about out of patience. You simply deny reality and substitute your own. No it does not seem obvious anything was put in anyone's mouth, it is not out of line with the rest of what he said, it is not out of line with any biblical authors, the great commentators say the opposite, textual critics say the opposite, theologians say the opposite, the apostles say the opposite, hundreds of millions of Christians have experienced the opposite, the foundational doctrines of almost every denomination say the opposite, creedal statements external to the bible that date within months of Christ suggest the opposite, hymns that predate the NT say the opposite, thousands of scriptural harmonies say the opposite of what you have said, etc....... The foundations for what you believe seem to be invented by you. I can't debate an emotional preference that contradicts fact and reason. Jesus was teaching Jews who had never heard the term Christian before, it would have made no sense to them. Maybe biblical doctrine is just not a thing your prepared to debate. Not that the term Christian was even in the what I quoted to begin with. I am going to explain this as one final attempt to clarify what being a Christian is about, but I am undecided whether to continue discussing the issue with someone who is not prepared to evaluate properly the issues that have been well established for thousands of years.

To be a Christian literally means to be a little Christ. The relevant context that this necessitates is that we inherit his righteous standing with God. The spiritual mechanics that take a sinful person who is guilty before God and make him legally perfect before God (though he is yet a sinner) is to be born again. You cannot possibly earn heaven, you have nothing to offer God to atone for your sins, only God could pay the infinite debt we have. Only God can make us righteous before him. We can't learn to be such, we cannot try hard enough, the standard is perfection and the distance between the best of us and it is infinite. Only Christ actually could accomplish it. Only by being born again does what he did for us get applied to us. In ten thousand sermons and theological writings the difference between faith (the mere intellectual consent or agreement to a proposition) is contrasted with saving faith which actually results in our being baptize into Christ, being born from above, being born again, being made alive with Christ, participating in his death and resurrection. All those countless verses point to this single event, it is the purpose and pinnacle of faith. It is the whole climax of the entire bible. Without it the bible is merely philosophy and history. I spent three years studying nothing but salvation, I have written papers on it, I have continued to study it for 20 years. I have lived it. I have read hundreds of accounts of it. Hundreds of millions testify to it. No one is making it up, no one is putting words in Christ's mouth. I can and have written thousands of words on it but explaining it to someone who does not believe in it and so has not experienced it is like trying to explain what being in love is like to a person who has never been and doubts it in principle or trying to tell someone who has never been but thinks the north pole is hot that it is actually cold because we have been there and know.

You can say you do not believe this, you can say it is not true, but you cannot say this is not Christianity. To deny this is to deny the bible and Christ. Being that you have said that you deny being born again and deny there is even such a thing everything else you have been saying fits neatly into a tidy context. It appears your a secularist who has found things in the bible they agree with and prefer and you call that Christianity.

 

[oldbadger]

My mistake, but either way, the term "secular Christian" is widely used. Do a simple Google search and you will see that it refers to what I described. A secular Christian is one that does not think his or her religious beliefs should be considered in Governmental action. I'm not coining a term here, I am using one that has already been widely accepted.

Secular = Not religious
Christian = ....of or believing in Christianity.
Christianity = The religion based on the teachings and works of Jesus.

Secular Christian = A non-religious religious person....

.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Is any of this relevant to the OP?

 

[1robin]

No, it's excellent at informing us about the origins of morality. But we needn't use it to determine our morality.

Of course you didn't. It is such an absurd idea no society has ever done so. The closest one ever got was Hitler's Germany (read his later writings about his evolutionary justifications after he dropped his earlier fake veneer of courting the church's influence and revealed what he truly thought) and it was so horrible I hope no one tries it again. Nature read in tooth and claw would produce a morality red in tooth and claw. However despite no one ever actually doing so many atheists claim we have done so. In actuality they simply invent morality based on preference. Keep in mind it ultimately equals preference but it is not merely arbitrary.

Those people don't let me sit with them....they won't even let me in the building!

I would not want to go in their building.

Of course I care about the morals I have. The only difference between us is the opinion about their origin.

Chesterton said it best. We can generally agree about what is wrong but we disagree about what wrongs to excuse. Without God there are no moral truths out there to find. The universe without him does not contain a single moral property or a single law that says what anything should do. The universe only contains what is. You can call whatever furniture in the universe that simply is and that you like as morality if you want.

I act in complete accord with atheism.....which is to say that I don't practice belief in gods. And without religion, we're left to our own devices in deciding what's a right & what isn't. Absolute truth? I ain't got none. (Neither does anyone else, but they just aren't aware of this.)

I disagree. You assume (or at least you would be the first I have heard who did not assume) that life has inherent worth, human life has sanctity, humanity has a claim to equality, humans have sovereignty over other entities (actual all of them), etc....... Atheism can't sufficiently justify any of those. Theism can perfectly justify them all. You can't decide or determine what the truth is if there is no actual truth of the matter to discover. You can only decide what to attempt to allow or prohibit, not what is right.

What right would you say is inherent to any human life?

 

[1robin]

Dude, I am starting to think you are messing with me. I said "secular Christian", not just "secular." The term "secular Christian" uses the definition of the term "secularism" specified by the term "Christian." This is a simple grammar rule put in place because "secular" is the adjective form of "secularism," which is a noun. In short, my title means that I am a Christian who practices secularism. This is common practice in the English Language.

I can take it any more today. I will leave it here for now.

 

[Revoltingest]

What right would you say is inherent to any human life?

If I understand your question, I don't think there's anything "inherent" to human life. We, live, we do stuff, we die.