Religion III

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

You made the claim. The burden of proof is yours.

And you haven't made a counter claim?

But...since you want solid evidence, I would suggest you feast your eyes on Deut 28:15-68 which details the curses God would bring on Israel for breaking His covenant. All Jesus did in the Olivet Discourse is basically reiterate and reinforce the promise of those curses.

Also see Deut 18:18-19. And, yes, the prophet spoken of here is Jesus.

[boxcar]

[quote=Actor;2713842]"...the club is open to all students...". Yes, but it's leaders must be Christians.

It could therefore be argued that the club discriminates against non-Christians. We also are not told what is in the "statement of faith." Christianity is quite diverse so it is conceivable that the statement of faith has something in it that some Christians would not agree to. Not enough information here to determine whether I agree or disagree with the ruling.

Non sequitur. If potential members don't agree with the statement of faith, they don't have to join.

The fact is that the university discriminated against the Christians for not allowing Christians to make its own rules for membership. Other clubs on the campus make their own rules, so why not Christians? Why a double standard?

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

The fact is that the university discriminated against the Christians for not allowing Christians to make its own rules for membership. Other clubs on the campus make their own rules, so why not Christians? Why a double standard?

But the club did make its own rules for membership and those rules included membership for non-Christians. But only Christian were allowed to be club leaders. As I read it this is a discussion group. If so why not allow non-Christians (Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc.) to participate on an equal footing. The club seems to be practicing false advertising. Instead of being a discussion group it's a conversion group. Non-Christians are second class members.

And we don't know what's in the statement of faith. Would it be equally acceptable to you as well as to Roman Catholics?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

But the club did make its own rules for membership and those rules included membership for non-Christians. But only Christian were allowed to be club leaders. As I read it this is a discussion group. If so why not allow non-Christians (Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc.) to participate on an equal footing. The club seems to be practicing false advertising. Instead of being a discussion group it's a conversion group. Non-Christians are second class members.

And we don't know what's in the statement of faith. Would it be equally acceptable to you as well as to Roman Catholics?

Wow! So, you're against the club because, among other things, it desires to evangelize people? Why can't the club make its own rules? People are free to accept or reject the rules. Why should the university interfere? All the other clubs get to make up their own rules.

Statement of faith is a non-sequitur. Assuming potential members can read, they should get to decide if the statement is suitable for them.

You really do have a big totalitarian stripe running down your back, don't you? Control, control, control. Here's a novel idea: What about allowing people to control their own personal lives?

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

And you haven't made a counter claim?

I have not. Your claim dates back centuries and cannot be proven. In effect an argument from ignorance, i.e., you make an unprovable statement and then argue that if it cannot be disproven then it must be true. It just does not work that way. If it did then all sorts of ridiculous statements would be taken as true. Google "Russel's Teapot."

Originally Posted by boxcar

But...since you want solid evidence, I would suggest you feast your eyes on Deut 28:15-68 ... Also see Deut 18:18-19.

Scripture Proves Nothing.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Wow! So, you're against the club because, ...

No, I'm not against the club. As I stated, there is not enough information here for me to take a position either way. I'm simply pointing out a few things that seem relevant.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

No, I'm not against the club. As I stated, there is not enough information here for me to take a position either way. I'm simply pointing out a few things that seem relevant.

The aren't relevant and the judge didn't think so either.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

I have not. Your claim dates back centuries and cannot be proven. In effect an argument from ignorance, i.e., you make an unprovable statement and then argue that if it cannot be disproven then it must be true. It just does not work that way. If it did then all sorts of ridiculous statements would be taken as true. Google "Russel's Teapot."

Scripture Proves Nothing.

I just proved my claim which Christ made about 2000 years ago and Moses made more than 1,000 years earlier.

Scripture Proves Alot.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

The aren't relevant and the judge didn't think so either.

Could be. But then the judge probably had a lot more data than I.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Scripture Proves Alot.[sic]

Only to the gullible. Every religion has their own holy book. You only believe it because you were born into a Christian culture. You would believe differently if you were born in India.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Only to the gullible. Every religion has their own holy book. You only believe it because you were born into a Christian culture. You would believe differently if you were born in India.

Nah. There's millions around the world who believe who were not born into a "Christian culture". China. India. Korea. Indonesia. Vietnam. Africa. But you do have the "born" part right. All Christians, regardless of culture, believe because they've been born again.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

There's millions around the world ...

I'm not talking about millions around the world. I'm talking about you. You only believe this stuff because you were taught it.

I was taught it too. I believed it. But then came the day when the Sunday School teacher revealed that she could give no reason to believe. Have you any idea how devastating that was? And to this day, over 60 years later, no one has ever come up with a reason to believe it. Not the priests. Not my friends. Definitely not you.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

I'm not talking about millions around the world. I'm talking about you. You only believe this stuff because you were taught it.

No, growing up and attending all the Catholic schools I did, I was never taught the Gospel. I only responded to the message of life much later inlife.

I was taught it too. I believed it. But then came the day when the Sunday School teacher revealed that she could give no reason to believe. Have you any idea how devastating that was? And to this day, over 60 years later, no one has ever come up with a reason to believe it. Not the priests. Not my friends. Definitely not you.

No...you like me, you were taught a bunch of religious stuff but not the gospel.
You should believe because there is no other book in this world like the Holy Bible. But you don't want to believe that, plus you have an anti-supernatural bias, which is why you can't believe.

[TJDave]

Originally Posted by Actor

But then came the day when the Sunday School teacher revealed that she could give no reason to believe. Have you any idea how devastating that was?

I would have thought it would have been a relief.

At what age?

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

... you have an anti-supernatural bias, which is why you can't believe.

Because the supernatural does not work. The natural, i.e., science, does work.

Germs cause disease, not pissing off God.

Airplanes fly because of aerodynamics and internal combustion. They are not levitated by the supernatural.

The earth is 4.5 billion years old, not 6000.

Scripture says "Thou shalt not test the Lord thy God.," with good reason. He fails the test.