Quebec bans religious teaching in publicly subsidized daycares

[giblets]

Funny how you think you never get personal either

I'm guessing you're too stupid to understand the meaning of "instead of". I don't care if someone's arguments are accompanied with insults.

[Kidlicious]

I'm guessing you're too stupid to understand the meaning of "instead of". I don't care if someone's arguments are accompanied with insults.

I won't ask you to understand anything that you don't want to.

[Elok]

I won't ask you to understand anything that you don't want to.

What if he doesn't want to understand your sentence about letting him not understand? Is it better to make him understand that one sentence so that he won't have to understand in the future, or not say anything and have him feel bad about not living up to your wishes?

[Kidlicious]

What if he doesn't want to understand your sentence about letting him not understand? Is it better to make him understand that one sentence so that he won't have to understand in the future, or not say anything and have him feel bad about not living up to your wishes?

I won't ask him to understand anything if he doesn't want to.

[Kidlicious]

Elok,

About the Bible. I believe Paul said that the Gentiles shouldn't have to get adult circumcision, because then they would be able to become Christians. To say that we should say that someone can believe that they are already moral when they become a Christian so that it will make it easier to become a Christian is not the same thing and it's wrong.

[Elok]

I didn't say anything about adult circumcision. I referred you first to Paul's adapting his sermons to his audiences (see "To the unknown God" at the Areopagus"), then to the bit in Romans about gentiles with the law written on their hearts. The second bit, in particular, directly contradicts you. Anyway, acceptance of Christ doesn't magically make your conduct moral, it only enables you to be justified in spite of your failings (though not sola fides, check James, etc.).

Oh, and it was the decision of a church council at Jerusalem that abolished the need for circumcision, IIRC, not Paul's alone. Actually, I don't think Paul was even a Christian at the time the decision took place.

[Kidlicious]

I didn't say anything about adult circumcision. I referred you first to Paul's adapting his sermons to his audiences (see "To the unknown God" at the Areopagus"),

I don't know what that is. I thought you were talking about the Bible.

then to the bit in Romans about gentiles with the law written on their hearts. The second bit, in particular, directly contradicts you.

I don't think so because what Paul is talking about is a conscience. All humans have a conscience, because they think of themselves as good. That's different from morality.

Anyway, acceptance of Christ doesn't magically make your conduct moral, it only enables you to be justified in spite of your failings (though not sola fides, check James, etc.).

Accepting Christ gives you a passion to be moral. What does an atheist have? He has no passion. He will say "oh well I didn't live up to my principles but at least I've made my life better."

Oh, and it was the decision of a church council at Jerusalem that abolished the need for circumcision, IIRC, not Paul's alone. Actually, I don't think Paul was even a Christian at the time the decision took place.

Well, again I thought you were talking about the Word of God.

[Jon Miller]

Read Acts, Kid.

JM

[giblets]

I won't ask you to understand anything that you don't want to.

Unprovable claims about the mindset of other posters are not arguments.

[Elok]

Rom 2:14, NKJV

"for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves."

How does that not plainly refer to human beings who lack awareness not only of Christ, but even of the OT, yet who nevertheless act in a manner that could be called righteous? Do you suppose St. Paul was referring to a hypothetical that never occurs, in the vein of "for when water, unmoved by man, beast, angel, God or power of nature, flows uphill?"

[Lorizael]

Well at least someone agrees with me.

So... you're not even going to pretend to respond to my argument?

[Imran Siddiqui]

To support Elok in his statement that Paul adapted his sermons to his audience:

1 Corinthians 9 (NIV 2010)
"19 Though I am free and belong to no one, I have made myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. 20 To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. 21 To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. 22 To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some. 23 I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings."

[Imran Siddiqui]

I don't know what that is. I thought you were talking about the Bible.

He is, you silly person. As Jon says, Acts. More specifically Acts 17:16-34, detailing Paul's time in Athens.

[Kidlicious]

Rom 2:14, NKJV

"for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves."

How does that not plainly refer to human beings who lack awareness not only of Christ, but even of the OT, yet who nevertheless act in a manner that could be called righteous? Do you suppose St. Paul was referring to a hypothetical that never occurs, in the vein of "for when water, unmoved by man, beast, angel, God or power of nature, flows uphill?"

Yes, but atheists are aware of Christ. Paul is talking about people who live in societies where people are not aware of Christ. I'm not saying that people are immoral because they are unaware of Christ. In fact, other people who have different religious beliefs are moral in my book. But the atheist? No. The atheist is proud and does not do the things of the law unless it benefits him.

[Kidlicious]

So... you're not even going to pretend to respond to my argument?

You aren't arguing against me.