semaj550

Just how far do you want to take Affirmative Action though? Consider the following.You're trapped in your house which is engulfed in a massive fire. Thankfully your neighbour has called the fire department which is on its way to save you. All of a sudden a fire fighter barges into the room in which you are trapped. Your life rests on this guy's ability to pick you up and safely carry you outside the house as you are mostly incapaciated from smoke inhalation. Would you rather it be the big, strong white guy who scored remarkably well on his fitness testing or the little, skinny black guy who ca

There is simply no legitimate, scientific evidence to suggest that the differences are genetic. If you want to believe that blacks scored lower than whites because of their genetics based on the "evidence" you may as well start writing your letter to Santa Claus.

Why are you so afraid of this church? They don't have anything to do with race-related legislation. They're just a bunch of people banding together as a community to further the common good. Are you afraid that they'll actually succeed in their mission and you might have to complete for jobs and schools on an equal footing with these people? Who gives a crap what the colour of their skin is, they are creating postive change in a community. How the hell can anyone in their right mind rag on someone for doing that? BW was so incredibly on with his Imperial Wizard comment it's not even funny.

I think 11 to 1 has mostly hit the nail on the head these last few posts. I still contend that if the Resurrection and Ascension didn't occur we have no reason to believe anything else about Jesus or Christianity. He certainly is correct about the Incarnation though. That was the point at which a human being became both fully God and fully man. The Resurrection was the point at which He proved that He was both fully man and fully God. Without the proof the Incarnation is just a big lie.

How would the lack of a physical resurrection make the Bible a lie?

Hang on there! You're being a little creative with what people have said to try to incite argument. I didn't say anything about the film's claims and their affect on Christianity. I said that if the Resurrection is a sham so is the rest of the faith. The film that this thread is about has no bearing what-so-ever on that.I will state again that the resurrection of Jesus' worldly bodily is completely irrelevant to the both the divinity of Christ and Christianity as a whole.I can see how the timing of my comments may have led you astray but I'm certainly not claiming anything of the importance of

Nope, that's a misunderstanding. Jesus' divinity has nothing to do with what happened to His physical body. It's the resurrection of Jesus as a spiritual being and God that is important.

I couldn't care less what happened to Jesus' physical body, it's completely irrelevant. What is important is that if Jesus was nothing but a man, died, and stayed dead in every way then Christianity is a big sham.

Not true at all. The Bible isn't one book. The Roman Catholic Bible is a collection of 73 books written by many different authors, for differing purposes, and written across a large time span. If there is an incorrect detail in Daniel it has no bearing on the Gospels. It is very important the Gospels be accurate biographies of Jesus, it is not important if Daniel asked to be tested for 10 days or if it was actually 9. Hell, there could be 11 Commandments and Moses just forgot to tell us about one and it wouldn't really change anything about Christianity. The accounts of Jesus' life being false

Why do you need a religion to have faith, hope and love?If Christ didn't rise from the dead and ascend into Heaven then everything witnessed about Him in the Bible is complete bull. It wouldn't change my mind on things like loving one's neighbour but I wouldn't show up to mass every Sunday anymore. Worshipping something completely false would just be moronic.As for finding another religion; maybe. I've already considered a good deal of them but they all really suffer from the same problem as a Christ-less Christianity would. The God of Christianity is the only being to both claim divinity and

Total denial of what?

I wouldn't be a Christian, simple as that.

If Jesus didn't rise from the dead the rest of Christianity is complete BS.

I think you're pretty much correct but it runs much deeper than that. Love is a lot more than just a warm, fuzzy feeling.

I don't think it matters all that much. Chirst died on the cross, was buried, and disappeared on Easter Sunday. These are all events witnessed by many people. If you can offer an explanation other than the Resurrection the atheists would love to hear it because no one has come up with a viable one. So, basically, if there was a guy who promised ever-lasting life and then proved that He had the power to grant it what reason do we have to not believe Him? If you believe in anything of Christianity there is no reason to disbelieve in the resurrection of the dead.

There are already those who have "sat in his chair" and weren't torn apart at all. I wouldn't expect the evidence to be compelling to you as you've ruled out the possibility of there being anything metaphysical at work in this world. All of your arguments essentially start with the premise that metaphyiscal events are not possible and that anything which would constitute evidence for metaphysical things is necessarily invalid because it involves metaphysical claims. You want repeatable, verifiable proof of the Resurrection? How many times would you like Christ to be born and die so that you ca

So the secular scientific community thought this was as much bs as Christians did?

I think I should be a little more explicit. I am positing that morality is not man-made and cannot be because no one man has a greater right to determine what is moral than another. Just as BW contends that the Bill of Rights exists to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority, a majority consenus is not all that is required to decide issues of morality. Quite simply, I am saying that without God (regardless of any religion's interpretation of Him) an objective, universal morality does not exist.

If it's subjective it isn't really morality. At least not in the sense that we are trying to discuss. One is free to have one's own morality but what we are discussing is an overriding morality which is universally applicable regardless of one's own tastes. Some guys believe that a woman should be treated no differently than a man, does that make them immoral? After all isn't that what the women's lib movement was about?It's these "more important" morals that I would like to focus on. Where do they come from? How can people who are so vastly different agree on a prohibition against killing or

But the original issue was that we were trying to prove that Hilter's actions were immoral. Much to our chagrin, we've yet to actually do that in this discussion. People don't wake up one day and decide, "I want to do something evil." Rather they have a view of the world and of right and wrong that greatly differs from ours and they go on doing what they think is right. I'm pretty sure that Hitler was 100% convinced that he was doing good, I highly doubt he ever considered his actions immoral. So why does American society have the right to trump Nazi society when it comes to morality? Because

Societal norms do not and cannot equate morality, they vary far too much from society to society.

See, herein lies the problem. I don't disagree with your post completely. I suspect you and I share a fairly similar view of morality so it would probably fairly easy for us to sit down and draw up a framework which we can agree constitutes morality. But so what? If morality is as subjective as all that it is worthless. What do you do about the people who don't subscribe to it? Are they immoral? If so, why? Maybe we're the immoral ones because we don't agree with them. I know that you have it in your head (and quite correctly so) that there are these universal truths. But how are they universa

Well happy birthday!Why should we care if it ruins the life of the mother? In your last post you said that immorality was that which stunted the postive growth of the human race.As for it being wrong, illegal, hurtful, life-ruining, etc., where did you get that idea?

I'm soooooo glad you bit. ;)Rape furthers the postive growth of the human race. Many more top future minds, bodies, etc. could probably be procuded if we allowed rape.Shall we go ahead and allow that then?

Okay. Assuming that everything quoted above is true, prove to me that Hitler's attempt to purify the human race was immoral.