leave the christians alone...

Originally posted by rwingett
Why don't you tell me why you think a christian constitution does not infringe upon the rights of non-christians?

A bit of legal theory will come in handy here. You are the one that made the statement that a Christian constitution infringes on the rights of non-Christians. The burden of proof therefore falls on you to substantiate this claim. I will then happily seek to refute your claim, but you may need to wait until this evening because I have a job.

Originally posted by princeoforange
A bit of legal theory will come in handy here. You are the one that made the statement that a Christian constitution infringes on the rights of non-Christians. The burden of proof therefore falls on you to substantiate this claim. I will then happily seek to refute your claim, but you may need to wait until this evening because I have a job.

I will not oblige you.

Originally posted by rwingett
I will not oblige you.

Very well, then maybe you will kindly retract your statement since you cannot substantiate it.

Originally posted by princeoforange
Very well, then maybe you will kindly retract your statement since you cannot substantiate it.

No. I stand by my statement.

Originally posted by rwingett
No. I stand by my statement.

But you cannot prove it. And you are the one that called me ignorant!

Originally posted by princeoforange
But you cannot prove it. And you are the one that called me ignorant!

If I chose to waste my time on lengthy debates with the likes of you, I could. But that would be a waste of my time. Its just a productive, and less time consuming, to trade insults with you.

Originally posted by rwingett
If I chose to waste my time on lengthy debates with the likes of you, I could. But that would be a waste of my time. Its just a productive, and less time consuming, to trade insults with you.

I don't think you could. If you could you probably would. Anyway, I need to get to work so, adios.

Originally posted by eatmybishop
just don't understand the amount of christian abuse on this forum.... i'm not a christian but even i understand it from their point of view.... their religion is based on faith!!!

all these non believers coming up with all these scientific and in depth questions trying to catch out the christian belief... don't you get it??? religion is not based on s ...[text shortened]... science, you can blame that instead, it has still to come up with a cure for cancer and aids

Faith is a belief in the absence of a provable explanation. There is now reason to believe that there is no God. There wasn't before, so having faith was the only option. Now that there is something approaching an explanation, the need for faith is diminishing. At what point do we say 'look, this God idea is incorrect'...?

On the one hand you have science, which is the steady build up of what we believe to be true after conducting experiments and a drawn out process of conjecture and refutation. On the other hand we have faith, which is the absolute belief in something that you have no means of knowing to be true.

I know which approach i believe to be the correct one. I will try my best to respect peoples beliefs, but i will NOT conceal my own out of some God given respect for others. I will speak the truth as i see it, as i would expect a Christian or a Jew to do also.

Originally posted by princeoforange
I don't think you could. If you could you probably would. Anyway, I need to get to work so, adios.

Oh, no, you're wrong. I could. Yep, I definitely could. But, sadly, its far more effort than I wish to expend on your behalf.

Originally posted by princeoforange
A bit of legal theory will come in handy here. You are the one that made the statement that a Christian constitution infringes on the rights of non-Christians. The burden of proof therefore falls on you to substantiate this claim. I will then happily seek to refute your claim, but you may need to wait until this evening because I have a job.

I'll have a go..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theocracy

Theocracy

Most modern descriptive dictionaries explain that the word is used in most carefully edited texts in English to mean either government by doing immediate divine guidance (close to the usage described above) or, more commonly, as government by or subject to religious institutions and priests (or a state ruled in this way). In other words, for people who do not believe in a theocracy's religion or feel that its religious institutions do not represent the religion well, a theocracy is a form of oligarchy or even tyranny that purports to fulfill a divine intention but instead simply fulfills the goals of the ruling priests.

This is what he is suggesting i believe...

EDIT: See also...

Democracy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy

Representation of all facets of society, not based on Race, sex or religion!

Originally posted by Marinkatomb
I'll have a go..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theocracy

Theocracy

Most modern descriptive dictionaries explain that the word is used in most carefully edited texts in English to mean either government by doing immediate divine guidance (close to the usage described above) or, more commonly, as government by or subject to religious inst mocracy

Representation of all facets of society, not based on Race, sex or religion!

Yes, that is what I was suggesting, more or less. But your post is more effort than I wished to expend on princeoforange's behalf.

Originally posted by rwingett
Yes, that is what I was suggesting, more or less. But your post is more effort than I wished to expend on princeoforange's behalf.

Yes but you did argue over why you weren't going to reply for two pages, surely that was more effort in the long run? There was no need to be deliberately confrontational, that only distracts the attention away from your argument.

Originally posted by Marinkatomb
Yes but you did argue over why you weren't going to reply for two pages, surely that was more effort in the long run? There was no need to be deliberately confrontational, that only distracts the attention away from your argument.

Deliberately confrontational? DELIBERATELY CONFRONTATIONAL?!?!?! I'll argue for 100 pages, if necessary, to ram it down your throat that I am NOT deliberately confrontational! As a matter of fact...etc, etc.

Originally posted by rwingett
Deliberately confrontational? DELIBERATELY CONFRONTATIONAL?!?!?! I'll argue for 100 pages, if necessary, to ram it down your throat that I am NOT deliberately confrontational! As a matter of fact...etc, etc.

LOL

So...does anybody else out there want to have a confrontational, unproductive exchange of abusive posts? The more ad hominem, red herring, and strawmen arguments you can pack into each post, the more points you will get. Of course, such a potentially colorful exchange runs the risk of being moderated. So to avoid this possibility, I recommend that you instead PM your posts directly to princeoforange.