Pastor Olu T:

Smiles, u see urself, u cant even air ur view without insult? This is sure a complex problem, thought u will be attacked so u quickly do the attacking!

Grow up n learn to communicate!

quivah:
You assumed wrong

Lol I'm not ready to mingle

FOLYKAZE:

And you can say that to rationalmind who agrees with a christian rapture-ready. Lol.

joel lala:



This is simply the truth..

This shows that atheism are no different from the other religious sect in the aspect of slicking the white mans as.ss..

quivah:
The cradle ish was just a joke

Joshthefirst: christmas was a pagan holiday before it was changed into a remembrance of Jesus' birth.

Joshthefirst: christmas is actually about one man that was born sometime ago.

Let me educate you then:

This man was special and his words and works have drastically affected the history of mankind like none other.
This man was not just a great teacher. Infact, there are only two implications we can get from what he said:

Its either Jesus Christ was insane, as c s lewis said, or he was exactly who he said he was. I choose to believe this alive man.

He is the implication of christmas, not santa. Do good to educate yourself on the origins of this yearly celebration. And find this alive man. The saviour. Only then will you enjoy Christmas well.

texanomaly:
This is an except taken from an article called, Is America a Christian Nation?
www.catholiceducation.org/articles/politics/pg0040.html

Can America still be called a Christian nation? It is certainly a more religiously pluralistic and diverse society than it was during the 18th, 19th, and early 20th centuries. There are increasing numbers of non-Christians immigrating to this country, and there has been a rapid rise in adherents to Islam among our population. There are millions of Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Shintoists, Unitarians, Hindus, Wiccans, Naturists, Agnostics, and Atheists, but Christians comprise roughly 84% of the population. Our constitutional legal system is still based on the Jewish/Christian Bible, not the Koran or other holy book. We still observe Sunday, the Christian Sabbath, as an official holiday. Easter and Christmas still have a special place in the holiday lexicon. The Ten Commandments are still on the wall behind the Supreme Court Justices when they take the bench. Our coins still display the motto "In God We Trust." The US is still firmly part of a Western Civilization fashioned by a Judeo-Christian religious ethic and heritage. Alexis de Tocqueville observed more than a century and a half ago, "There is no country in the world, where the Christian religion retains a greater influence over the souls of men than in America." That is still true today. We live, not under a Christian government, but in a nation where all are free to practice their particular religion, in accommodation with other religions, and in accordance with the basic principles of the nation, which are Christian in origin. It is in that sense that America may properly be referred to as a Christian nation.



With the bolded information in mind you might wonder, why this thread exists. Why, if we are a predominately Christian nation, is this type of thing even considered?




This is from opposingviews.com
www.oposingviews.com/questions/is-the-us-a-christian-nation

This one is for you LB:


casio - Aug 24 2012 - 5:05am
Is the U.S. a Christian nation? The answer is no. Now for all those who would say otherwise. I could talk to you about the Founding Fathers, I could talk to you about history or the Treaty of Tripoli until you're blue in the face. But for all intense and purposes the simple fact of the matter is this: the First Amendment of the Constitution protects your right to violate the First Commandment. And the second Commandment, and the third and the fourth. How does that feel? In just one beloved Amendment, the US constitution has wiped out nearly half of what many Christians believe to be the blueprint of a perfect human being. Now murder, theft and perjury are illegal sure, but they are not laws that were inspired by your religion as they were law before your religion ever even existed.




While I think this statement would have carried more weight without the sarcasm, the author is correct, to some degree. Let us review. The United States is a nation comprised of an 84% Christian Population. You would think, with that kind of statistic, that there would be no way that Satanists could put up a monument next to the Ten Commandments. I was not familiar with this particular case, but this kind of thing is happening all over the United States. The first thing we need to do is define what type of government the United States has. Many people think we are a democracy. We are not.



Aindriu Colgan: America Is Not A Democracy, Stop Pretending It Is
www.huffingtonpost.com/aindr/america-is-not-a-democrac_b_442963.html

Firstly, America is not a democracy. It is not, never was, nor ever was intended to be a democracy. And for very good reason. Democracy--dēmocratía ("power/rule by the people"--is a horrible system of government. It is maintained by violence, mob rule, and a pernicious envy--an envy that arises when one of its citizens rises too far above the others, an envy that drives that democracy to rip them down. The rights of the individual are always supplanted by "the will of the people".




This might help. It is an excerpt from Republic vs. Democracy - Citizens for Constitutional Government
www.c4cg.org/republic.htm


Just after the completion and signing of the Constitution, in reply to a woman's inquiry as to the type of government the Founders had created, Benjamin Franklin said, "A Republic, if you can keep it."
Not only have we failed to keep it, most don't even know what it is.
A Republic is representative government ruled by law (the Constitution). A democracy is direct government ruled by the majority (mob rule). A Republic recognizes the inalienable rights of individuals while democracies are only concerned with group wants or needs (the public good)…The following comes from Training Manual No. 2000-25 published by the War Department, November 30, 1928.
DEMOCRACY:
• A government of the masses.
• Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of "direct" expression.
• Results in mobocracy.
• Attitude toward property is communistic--negating property rights.
• Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether is be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences.
• Results in demagoguism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy.
REPUBLIC:
• Authority is derived through the election by the people of public officials best fitted to represent them.
• Attitude toward law is the administration of justice in accord with fixed principles and established evidence, with a strict regard to consequences.
• A greater number of citizens and extent of territory may be brought within its compass.
• Avoids the dangerous extreme of either tyranny or mobocracy.
• Results in statesmanship, liberty, reason, justice, contentment, and progress.
• Is the "standard form" of government throughout the world.

The United States Constitution is a sound document. It was designed specifically to protect individual rights, not the rights of the masses. The founding fathers designed it this way on purpose to protect against mob rule. I believe this is important. I do however, begin to wonder when those rights include things like burning the American Flag, or the Westboro Baptist Church boycotting the funerals of fallen soldiers. I am not happy about this monument, but if I want to retain my individual rights, I must give others theirs. Even if I do not agree. I know that sometimes Constitutional law allows what I would consider the absurd. The problem is, that it is my opinion, and opinion is subjective. I love my country. I do believe sometimes we need a Department of Common Sense though.Then again, who decides what common sense is.

quivah:

Lol im not underage

texanomaly:
That goes both ways Babe. I gat sarcasm too.

texanomaly:

Me too what? Seriously. I thought you didn't believe in God or the devil. Am I wrong? Please correct me if I am.

NativeBoy: Nice try with number one. The truth is that when one operates under an atheist mindset, one has no true reason to be moral. This is not to say that atheists aren't capable of doing great good. Of course they are. There is the capacity for good and evil in everyone. The point is that there is no obligation to do good. Many great philosophers and atheists have conceded this point. For western-minded atheists, they just don't want to admit that there morality has its foundation in Judeo-Christianity

With atheism, morality is relative.

texanomaly:

Me too what? Seriously. I thought you didn't believe in God or the devil. Am I wrong? Please correct me if I am.

texanomaly:

I thought you didn't believe he existed.

mumumugu:

HE IS NOT A MUMU. I AM

texanomaly:

fine! you are no fun at all Mr Troll

Reyginus: Lolol. Do you mind showing how?

quivah:
don't be a pedophile

texanomaly:

That was fun, but you are right. Pain in my backside.

I will continue to think about it. Maybe I should just call you troublesome.

quivah:
Heeyah... you sure understood through the 'ignorantly' way ..now.
Thanks to Francis.

FrancisTony: it's damn immoral. It's not compulsory that u'll take him/her to hospital wen u're broke, leave him/her to die naturally.

quivah:
And the suffering?
And bro! If you stop buying the medics ain't you committing murder lil by lil yourself? Then that ain't a natural death dude .you killed him!
This is even worse than euthanasia.. pttfff!

Why not just end it and relief the patient of pains esp if that's what he wants himself?!

advocate666:

too late

FrancisTony: yeah. It is. Talking about people flushing there sperm. A sperm can't form a baby until it mixes with ovum. Dazzall *confusedFELLAS*

FrancisTony: heyy, i thought he was referring to bedwetting. A sperm haven't formed a baby. So it's not bad. Errmmm, before a pregnant woman is ready for abortion a baby would had been formed. And that's killing.

quivah:
1. . If I were to ask persons if they wanted their money taken for societies use and whether they supported taxes I would very probably receive two different answers.
That's just the case of euthanasia... the deed is done with the patients' consents or families'.. to stop the long suffering..


Euthanasia does not harm anyone but the person who has consented. So why is it immoral to die painlessly?l If you are suffering why should it be considered Immoral for you to end that suffering.

Would you rather a living dead sick man continue living on machine for years/months. Imagine the money that could be spent to secure other persons futures being used on a mAn with 5% of survival. Or would you wait on miracles which we both know is a 2 in 50 chances.?
imagine the pains the patient is going through of course you can't,why? You are not in his position..
A family whose savings is about 1.5m got their father in the hospital and 6m is required to carry out the operation(of course its a 30-70% chance of survival or even lower)
Children's educations will come to a halt cause all the money coming in is used on the father..
Mother and eldest children are running helter shelter to raise funds(as we both know helps come hard in this country)..
Along the line,one of the child gained admission he's been looking for. But the money that was sposed to be used for the admission process wasn't available(it surely is).. he automatically loses the adm!

How would it feel for such family if at the end the man dint survive it.?
Double suffering!! All their money has been. ........ wasted!! Now,the real struggles begins...

we have a Moral duty to reduce Human Suffering so why would Euthanasia be immoral? It would not. Euthanasia is merely a Painless way to end ones suffering, and not to prolong the inevitable when life has become a living hell. This is definitely a honourable way.

2.. so you would refer a man suffers for long with just little hopes of survival? Euthasania isn't used if theres a high chance of survival.. but when patient has got a terminal ailment. Euthanasia isn't carried out just after a few days in the hospital. . It takes months,some years before docs and family opt for it.

Seriously your no2 question is worse than people advocating euthanasia(in your sense)..
Is long suffering worse? .. you really mean this q?!

3. In my e.g above,if euthanasia had been used earlier ... hadn't the man died for something? He left a family who's got money to cater for themselves.. his death will only be grieved for a while ..after which the family move on!
But how will they move on when everything had been lost?
Is that something or nothing to die for?


And about your worries concerning the afterlife...

It will only be wickedness If such a man after his long suffering without God intervening and He still got punished there after!

whenever someone is killed in an accident, a War, or even by personal choice; the action that ledup to it is inherently Immoral? Even if it was at the mercy of many other people? War as an e.g.