NBVegita

That is not the only source I could cite that has used the same statistics. I just figured you'd be more likely to believe an article written by canadians...on a webpage called canada.com. The plain and simple fact is you made an errant claim that you have little to no crime problem, and that the Americans have such a problem with it, when in actuality all of our numbers have been decreasing over the past decade while yours have been skyrocketing. I just love erroneous stereotyping.

My mom is 100% against gay marriage because she doesn't see two gay married people as contributing anything to society. I've actually debated the subject with her, but that is her stand point. Simply put, just because you are not Christian doesn't mean you can't have the same view points as a Christian. I'm sorry to say, but that is a very close minded idea. That would be like stating that you cannot have a liberal republican, or a conservative democrat. Case in point how does it equal having a split personality if you say support guns, are pro life, support gay marriage, and support pulling every american troop out of iraq tomorrow? How do abortion and gay marriage contradict each other? Ect. I thought there was a reason why we all think different...

I completely disagree with what you are saying about an athiest not being able to have the same "morals" or politcal standpoint of a christian. My mother is wiccan, has been for almost 40 years, and she is 100% against gay marriage. Yet she's also 100% pro choice. Her reasons for being against gay marriage have nothing to do with god or any such creature. She has even had gay friends for a very long time. She has a littany of strong liberal ideas, specially pertaining to women, she was a hippie afterall, and she also has a very strong amount of conservative ideas. I know a lot of people like this. The idea that an athiest can't think gay marriage is wrong is rediculous. I know a few athiests who think the whole idea of homosexuality is terribly gross, and are completely against them getting married. So that makes them "sellouts" because they personally detest the idea of two men or women being together? Or are you trying to state that the only way you can be a true athiest is to be completely liberal?

What I find amusing is that you criticize us for our use of force but they just passed policy in england making it legal to taser minors. Oh and for your canada crime... http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/is...75-81061c3cee14 "More broadly: Canada's overall crime rate is now 50% higher than the crime rate in the United States. Read that again slowly -- it seems incredible, but it's true. It's true too that you are now more likely to be mugged in Toronto than in New York City." Maybe you need to use the nightstick more...or invest in some tasers.

And size is completely relevant. Simple physics, a large man is harder to detain than a small man. If a man is so large that a cop(s) cannot detain him, what are they supposed to do, let him go on the account that he's too much for them to handle? Or should they try to beat him to submission with a night stick. What if he becomes violent towards the cops and or the crowd. Now he's injured one officer and a couple of bystanders. Now they have to wait for backup to arrive. Once that arrives they have a hard time getting control over him. Now what do you do? I'm sorry that you've been so sheltered that a non lethal weapon, which can have freak side effects is an unacceptable way to handle someone who has violated the law. I'm sorry that you feel its better to protect our criminals than it is to protect the men and women who defend us from them. I'll tell you one thing, I'd much rather get the taser than a night stick.

Thats exactly why it should be a judgement and not a rule. Example: i'm 5'10"-5'11", 170 lbs, and in good shape. I played football for almost a decade and lots of other sports. My brother although a grown man(I use that loosly) is only 5'2" 110 lbs. Something that would seriously injure my brother, woudln't be close to enough to take me down. Now if I was resisting, and 4 cops were having difficulty restraining me, then tasering me would be a very reasonable solution. Now if 4 cops are trying to restrain my brother and taser him thats a different story. Vice versa, if there was only one cop, and say my brother was drunk, and was resisting to the point where it became difficult for the cop to handle the situation, and he felt that he could become dangerous for other people including himself, then that is a good time to taser him. This kid was taller than all of the cops, and because of his loose clothing you cannot tell how well built he is, but with the difficulty he gave the police he is a strong guy. Stop acting like they tasered some tiny guy with out any reason.

Exactly. You can believe in an a diety, or dieties without believing that christianity, judaism ect. are correct, or believing in them at all.

not even then. At worst I believe they could only get involuntary manslaughter, which they could be proteted against by law due the to freak nature of the attack and victim. Also based upon the groundings for the tasering. Example: If a man is attacking another one violently and there is only one officer and he tasers the man, and he happens to die due to complications, the police are in the clear.

Your ignorance is still astounding. The prior solution to tasers was the nightstick. If someone resisted too much, you hit them with your nightstick until they stopped resisting. Which solution is better? Our police officers are charged with keeping the peace. If someone violates the standards set by our laws/society/forums, the police officer should always use disgression. But I will never support loosening up the laws so that law enforcement ends up getting hurt before they can do something to a person violating laws and or regulations. There are many occasions where it is quite acceptable to shock someone. And the pain isn't senseless. The searing pain of the taser prevents the perp from resisting further and allows the cops to detain and restrain the !@#$%^&*ailant. In self defence it could be the difference between a woman or man being raped, robbed or killed. There are thousands of reasons to use a taser on someone.

Simply because you do not claim a religion doesn't mean you don't believe god exists. You could belive in "God" but not any religion.

The problem is that there are still a lot of people like Pull who walk around saying we're all !@#$%^&*ed unless we convert to Christianity. Christians are still trying to impose their ideas upon non Christians. All of these tragic events started off harmless. You can't expect people to blindly trust a group or groups responsible for many of the man caused travesties of the past two millenia.

Well noted.

Protestants were simply a derivative of the midevil Roman Catholic Christians. Protestants were not even around during the Crusades. As you previously stated: "Did the ancestor's split ruin their future generations chance at getting into heaven? We simply can not know." You are stating that it is possible that God holds men accountable for the mistakes of their ancestors, well men also hold men accountable for the mistakes of their ancestors. It really does not matter what denomination you are, as all denominations are forms of Christianity, and a strike against Christianity is a strike against Christianity. Minus the 4 major sects I believe in early 2000's there were stated to be over 30,000 denominations of christianity. Now there is even more. No matter which of those sects and denominations that you are, you are still a Christian, plain and simple. If you say that seems intolerant, well it's no more intolerant that the god you worship.

But the issue isn't freedom of speach. He was not removed from the forum because of what he was saying, he was removed for how he was saying it. From the moment that he violated the rules of the forum they had the right to end his speach. Plain and simple.

But that still shows that your god condemns over 5 billion people for the sins of their fathers with little no to aspect of redemption. It seems to me that this action would completely contradict everything the christian god is supposed to stand for. The Christian god is supposed to be holy, loving, caring, forgiving, understanding ect. You simply depict him, whether you realize it or not, as a vindictive, vengeful, intolerant, merciless diety. No kind, mercify, loving, forgiving, understanding, ect. diety would !@#$%^&* so many good people. Yes there are a lot of bad people, but for the most part man is good. So wait...what you're saying is that if you are a good man, and you've never had a chance to learn of Christianity, then you can get into heaven, but if you are an exceptionally good man, who has heard references to the Christian religion, but never pursued them, although you had the opportunity to, you would not make it into heaven? Does anyone else see a flaw in this logic? Yet again does anyone see a problem with this? Just because you're not Christian means you cannot have encountered god? So if an islamic man has a wonderful relationship with God, prays daily ect, but is not christian, he can't have encountered god? What if as you say, a man looks around, and discovers god with no formal religion, and is a wonderful servant of God through his own means, he hasn't really met god because he's not Christian? What a lot of Christians fail to see is that we are not all the same people. Christianity will not work for everyone. That is why I believe that God created many religions, so that he may stretch his reach out to many people of many cultures all equally. The problem with a lot of Christians is that they're taught absolutism. So before Jesus, being a good jew could get you into heaven, but after Jesus that just doesn't cut it anymore? You said the previous sacrifices were no longer necessary, but wouldn't that show a greater commitment to god to make sacrifices even though you are not required to? From what you two have said it has made Christianity into a cheap bribe. "Hey it doesn't matter how good you are you cannot get into heaven. But if you come and pray to Jesus, throw money in that collection plate each sunday, and be, not your own man, even though god blessed you with free will, the man we tell you to be, then of course you'll get into heaven." Thats no better than selling heaven for an army during the Crusades. If being a good man is not enough for your God, I say to !@#$%^&* with your God. No one is perfect, and obviously neither is your God.

FF3 (aka VI) FTW! And I <3 chrono trigger.

That has been my point. One of the people on here stated that the only possible way to heaven was through Jesus, and there was no other way. So my point being is that there are about 5 billion people who are not christians, so they are born with no chance at heaven? Even saying that they get a chance to go to purgatory, isn't very comforting as purgatory is not pleasant, and even at the end you may not make it to heaven. And lord knows how many billions of people who came before Jesus were not jews. Basically I was trying to show that the intolerance of at least one particular christian view ASSS over 5 billion people. Doesn't sound like a kind, merciful, forgiving god now does it? As stated prior to this, the Christian beliefs have no more standing than the beliefs of the hindus, buddhists, jews, wiccans, ect. The egotism of the church is a hard thing to overcoe.

But I still feel it would be an injustice to punish a man for the fact that he was not given the opportunity to learn about Christianity. At least following the Christian beliefs.

My whole point is that you stated "They could think an indian god created it." Specially if we're going to say that the christian God coincides with other religions, are we to say that because you don't believe Jesus is the only way to heaven, or even that Jesus is the son of God, that you don't go to "Heaven". My belief is that if you are a good man, a man of good morals and deeds, that you will go to what your religions version of heaven is. I would also feel that a God would hold in higher favor a man, who lives by good morals and deeds without the premise of doing so for eternal salvation. I feel that a man doing right by his fellow man, without being told he must do this, without expecting anything in return, would embody exactly what the Christian god wants from man.

A) He was asked to be removed from the forum by one of the students running the forum for the school. He had ignored all rules of the forum, and when granted the favor, favor as originally they were not going to let him speak as they were out of time, of being able to speak, he abused the favor and the forum. When was asked to leave he made a huge scene, for which he had a friend specifically video taping, which ironically made it onto his website before the news even had the footage. He began yelling and fighting against the security who was trying to escort him away from the podium. He immediately began yelling asking why/that they were arresting him, when originally they had no such thing in mind. C) Now after enough commotion they attempt to escort him out of the building. He still was refusing to leave and fighting back. Now they attempt to detain him for disturbing the police, for which he still resists to the point where the officers warn him multiple times that if he doesn't put his hands behind his back he will be tasered. He keeps fighting and ends up getting tasered. As stated before if this were any other forum, IE a bar, a sporting event, ect. this man would have been tasered earlier, and most likely without a warning.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_force I know its wiki but at least its not a conspiracy article written by a 73 year old retired dermatologist, who also believes there is a global conspiracy to keep the secret of curing cancer a secret because if it became public knowledge that it took so long to find this "simple" solution, it would be a humiliation to the medical field. Oh wait...thats the man you believe concerning the AIDS virus. If you would like me to point out all of the fallacies in his article, I will be happy to do so when I have the time, as it will take a good amount of time.

Why have the christians avoided answering my question? I'm really curious to find out what a christian thinks about it.

I really sincerely hope this is not a serious post either. I mean did you read that AIDS article? I could write a thesis on everything wrong in just that article.