Chris in KW

Discussing anything with you is a waste of time. I'm not sure why we bother.

I admit to nothing of the sort. I said I'm not an expert NOT that I know "very little". In your last two posts you've ignored my main point and focussed on some phrase that you didn't like. Come on ToadBrother, you're better than that! My point ws that the atheist/christian non-discussion is characterized by un-necessary polarization on both sides, and that personally, I don't see evolution and Christianity as necessarily contradictory.

Well, even though I disagree with the first half of that slogan, I also like the 'Stop worrying and go live your life' part. If (whether you're a Christian, Atheist, Buddhist, Muslim, or whatever) your fear of hell is keeping you up at night, I think you've got the wrong idea.

I'm not an expert on Darwinism, and I'm sure you can blast me out of the water with science... But I'll try to rephrase to explain what I mean without using the word "Darwinism". I don't think that evolution adequately explains the abundance of strange life on earth, and the odd things that living creatures have done here, up to and including the debates on mapleleafweb. But that doesn't mean that I think evolution doesn't exist. I don't have a problem with a god-created universe that is evolving. I also don't think that Genesis chapter 1 is a science textbook, and I have no issue with the world being billions of years old. I don't see these views as contradictory to the things that are important in (my interpretation of) Christianity. To me, being Christian doesn't mean coming up with a warped pigmy view of science. And yes, I know, there are lots of Christians who jump through hoops rather than admit that some of what atheists say is true. There are a lot of un-necessarily bipolar issues in the Christian/Atheist non-debate. Some of them are evolution, age of the earth, biblical literalism, etc etc. Basically, what I'm trying to describe in this thread is the fact that there are a lot of (or at least some) Christians out there who don't hold the extreme polarizing views that tend to characterize the Christian side of the debate.

I think common ground *might* be found in something as simple as mutual respect for other peoples' opinions. Ok, yes, those are great examples of issues that rational people can discuss. You're the one using words like "specious nonsense", not me. I don't even think that Darwinian notions are entirely wrong, or can't be part of a universe that was created by God. But if we did get into serious debate, I strongly suspect it would end with you reiterating that I'm infantile/specious/believe in fairies, etc.

Slightly to the northeast of Gandhi: Economic Left/Right: -3.75 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.67

Right - I can't prove god exists, and you can't prove he doesn't. But at least, I should be able to come up with better reasons than "because" and you should be able to come up with better reasons than "you're an idiot". Statement 1... I *think* God exists because I have a hard time believing that things like shopping malls, pansies, cathedrals, manatees, little old ladies who stroll around with big floppy hats, and many other fanciful things in the world are the result of nothing more than darwinian evolution. That's a statement that can be argued with. Feel free. Statement 2... Believing in God means that you're an infantile fool who thinks the whole world is run by fairies I can argue with that, but as you said, what's the point?

Mr Canada, in future, PLEASE don't agree with me... It doesn't help!

An imaginary world? Like the internet? Or maybe MapleLeafWeb? Also, that is just about one of the most useless, pointless generalizations I've ever seen.

True, women are supporters of the veil as well, and some women make the choice themselves. My main point is valid, which is that the point of the veil is to prevent "strange men" from looking at a woman's face, and thereby being tempted/whatever. I'll also add that in my (admittedly limited) experience, a couple young muslim women I know have put on hijab at the request of their boyfriend/husband. I also know an older woman who wears it occasionally (ie during Ramadan) of her own free will.

That's a fairly lame one that says more about you than about faith. You can put any word at the beginning of that sentence, and the only thing it shows is that you KNOW you're right and your opponents are wrong. Well, if you say you're right, you MUST be right!

Well, it's certainly clear that you aren't capable of nuanced discussion on this topic.

Mr Canada, I've begun to suspect that you're actually a lefty. This is the only way your posts make sense to me: You're posting all the most blatantly stupid right-wing nutcase opinions you can think up, because you WANT all the rational people on these forums to show how silly these opinions are. Anyway, I hope that's the case. If so, well done.

Yikes! No thanks, I really don't think more denominations are the answer. I go to one of the many mainstream Christian churches in KW. It's certainly not perfect, but I find that like most churches, it has some people who I like, who are genuinely trying to answer the question "ok, in light of what Jesus taught, how should we live"? You know WIP, you sound a bit dis-illusioned yourself. Christianity doesn't make people better. There are some Christians who are successfully becoming better people. But trying to follow Jesus (that's my definition of Christianity) doesn't MAKE people better. Yep, a toxic brand of Christianity. The tv preachers (and many Christians, sadly) would like you to believe that being a Christian is just a matter of saying some words and then living happily ever after, or magical healing. (And sending them some money). Well, I hope everyone takes that with a grain of salt. No, as far as I'm concerned, you should be able to challenge any belief of Christianity. The unfortunate thing is that so little actual atheist/christian debate really happens, other than on the level of "your faith is ridiculous" or "you're going to hell!".

Yep, that sounds more like a catholic answer. My point is, I don't remember Jesus saying "and on this rock I will build my church. Oh, and by the way Peter, you can't get married. Sucker!!!"

Ok, I don't know if it's just me, but in the context of everything else Jesus said, this sentence: Whoever shall believe in me shall not suffer but have eternal life does NOT sound like "follow me or go to hell". I guess I lack that bloodthirsty edge that a lot of Christians enjoy (relishing all those bad people burning in hell), but I've always thought that this is more of an offer than a threat. Jesus did a lot to relieve peoples' suffering -- physically, emotionally, etc. I don't think he spent a lot of time telling people they were going to hell. I certainly don't see that a lot in his words. It was other people who were busy religion-building that added all this hell stuff to Christianity.

So anyone who works night shift can't be married? That seems odd.. Also, I know that many teachers are also married. Any real reasons?

Wow, yes. Other than tradition, is there any particular reason why catholic priests have to be celibate? I don't recall seeing anything to that effect in the New Testament...

Trudeau, yes. Mulroney, yes. Chretien? If I recall correctly, the Chretien/Martin LIBERAL governments paid off more than $100 Billion of debt. Where are you getting your numbers from?

Are you proposing an Un-Canadian Activities committee so that we can start blacklisting everyone who doesn't fit your ideas of what's normal? Nice one, Senator McCarthy! By the way, yes, there probably are some people in Canada who really don't like our country. And guess what, there are also some things I hate about our country. But none of that gives you the right to decide, BY LOOKING AT SOMEONE, who "deserves" to get citizenship.

Argus, your original point was that the hijab or niqab is a signal, from someone who wears it, that they somehow don't like Canada, and want to be separate. Two points: 1. The niqab is a signal that the husband doesn't want YOU to see his wife's face. That's all. It's probably also a signal that the family is morally conservative, but I don't think that's a crime here. 2. There is a long tradition in Canada of people living in separate communities (Amish, Hutterite, etc). These groups are very conservative, and they don't like many of our society's values. Again, you or i might not like that, but we don't kick people out of our country just because they're not mainstream.

Well said!

Good point Molly! All four of my grandparents were German, which means I must be a Nazi. Similarly, all Somalis are pirates. All Chinese are communists (especially the ones who own businesses). All British are colonial oppressors. Come on everyone, there must be more stereotypes we can dredge up to feed our fear of Muslims!

Well, I said that "many" atheists seem to be extremely negative about the christian church. I may be wrong, but that's the impression I get. Not only negative, but also disappointed and disillusioned. I'm not attacking that viewpoint -- I actually think there's quite a bit of reason for disillusionment with Christianity as it has been practiced and abused over the centuries. However, your point that not all atheists are alike is well taken. I concede that there may be a lot of atheists out there who are not reactionary, and who aren't obsessed with attacking religion, and have well-constructed value systems that have nothing to do with hating religion. I also suspect that your viewpoint is not well represented in the sad Christian/Atheist debate. Nice turn of phrase Of course, I think you're wrong!

Of course you shouldn't have been arrested. You're even allowed to be disgusted by the fact that some people eat cats. You're allowed to have cultural norms and opinions. Calling all Chinese people cat-eaters? I'm not sure.... It's like Muslims calling all westerners pig-eaters. However, let's say those statements are both true. In the west, we eat pigs. In the east, they eat cats. We're both disgusting to someone. That doesn't bother me. I don't feel that I have to enjoy the notion of eating cats to prove that I accept Chinese people. I can both like them and feel disgusted by their cat-eating ways. Labelling or stereotyping is not prejudice. But it is an un-intelligent way to approach things. The sort of folks who define other cultures by what they eat, are probably defining them in an un-intelligent and derogatory way. Labelling is cheap, and distracts us from the kind of debate that should be going on. Labelling tends to be a tactic of those who don't bother to think for themselves. Even though I will happily eat a piece of well-cooked pig, when i hear a middle eastern guy talking disgustedly about pig-eaters, it feels like an insult.