[N0help4u]

If you had Objective Supported Evidence towards the existence of "God" and for "God" being the "Creator", I would accept that evidence.
But you and I know that such OSE does not exist, and never will exist. And THAT is your real problem, and cause for your frustration!"

As I have asked you before what would you do if you die and then DO [what would your reaction be]have to face God?
And he says here is your objective supportive evidence but now it is too late.

[Credendovidis]

have to face God? and he says here is your objective supportive evidence but now it is too late.

That is similar to asking me "what would you do if you die and then have to face the Flying Spaghetti Monster .... "
It's an irrelevant question as there is no proof for either to exist.

Dear Linda : I am already 40 years passed that type of "Pascal Wager" argument.

:rolleyes:

·

[N0help4u]

See you in the other topics Alt.
It is so much more fun with you :D

Some people just don't get the inconsistency in their arguments.:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[Credendovidis]

Let me guess where he'll post, on the religious boards per chance?

Another deliberate misrepresentation. I hardly ever post an a religious board.
I do post on many non-religious boards, and on the religious DISCUSSIONS board.
Since when do you have to be a theist to post on that discussions board?

I'd never go to an Atheism board

There is not even an Atheism board here. Nor an Evolution board.
And for you not even your personal favorite : a "LIE WHENEVER YOU LIKE IT" board.

:rolleyes:

·

[bushg]

When you clash with me - like here - I have no option. But my preference does not go out to communicate with deliberate lying b*tches...

Lol I knew he was a sexist... wow his true colors keep on shining.:p

[Fr_Chuck]

Ok, let me get bored over a thread and stop reading it and it goes to pot.
Ok after reading and desiding maybe the last at least 3 or 4 pages need to be deleted, after doing it to most of the last page,
It is easier on this one to close it, I won't move it to the removed post board, but for heavens sake, keep on subject

And I will say this, both sides, you don't do personal comments about the other, you address the issues, not the personality of the other.

Post closed

[Credendovidis]

knew he was a sexist...wow his true colors keep on shining.:

As usual an incorrect conclusion : my preference does neither go out to communicate with deliberate lying b*sterds...

:rolleyes:

·

[N0help4u]

When you clash with me - like here - I have no option. But my preference does not go out to communicate with deliberate lying b*tches ....

lol I knew he was a sexist...wow his true colors keep on shining.:p

Nah his true colors are not limited in any way especially when it comes to Americans in general.

[Credendovidis]

... you don't do personal comments about the other, you address the issues, not the personality of the other.

What about the lying and deliberate misrepresentations, Chuck?
Are you so biased that you refuse to see the continuous deliberate personal non-topic attacks by Altenweg. Nohelp4u, and bushg ? Is that an example of Christian honesty and righteousness ?
Had I done that I would have been banned already...

The three of them can't even do without your passive support...

:(

·

[N0help4u]

Posting inconsistencies or pointing out YOUR inconsistencies is not personal attacking
Calling someone a lying b!Tch is personal attacking

[bushg]

Cred over and over I tell you I am not a Christian. I do not have a religious agenda. My agenda is that you treat the Christians terribly and speak ill of Americans which really pi$$es me off.

That being said I will not/do not throw their faith in their face and tell them they are crazy. If they want to pray for me good, I'll accept all the help I can get in this life. If your spaghetti monster wants to send me good wishes I will happily accept them. Maybe you should try it. You might learn to be more accepting of others that have different beliefs than you have... You harp on these poor people demanding one thing or the other from them.

You want to talk about personal attacks... you just called us Bit*hes
As I have said before one set of rules for you one set for everyone else.

[Credendovidis]

Euthanasia , religion , and morality

Italian Beppino Englaro won the right to end the life of his daughter after she has been 16 years in coma due to the consequences of a road accident.

The controversial decision to end the life of Eluana Englaro is the first such ruling by an Italian court. The judgement drew instant criticism from the Vatican, which condemned it as as 'euthanasia'. Miss Englaro, 35, has been in a vegetative state ever since she was involved in a road accident aged 19. The ruling marked the end of a lengthy legal battle led by her parents.

Eluana's father based his appeal on the fact that she had been in good health and of sound mind before the accident and would not have wanted to be kept alive in a vegetative state. He has been campaigning since 1999 through the courts to have the treatment to his daughter suspended and he had been turned down six times until yesterday's ruling in Milan.

What is so special in this case is that it is the first ever Italian court decision to allow suspending of any medical treatment and (artificial) ways of sustaining life. And also that the judgment drew instant criticism from the Vatican, which condemned it as as euthanasia.

Keeping to the legal appeal period of 60 days, medical treatment keeping Eluana alive in a Milan hospital will after that period be stopped (if no further appeal procedure is started).

The Vatican calls this 'euthanasia', while all that is allowed now is stopping all further treatment - a passive process.

I note that in the US yearly many people still get killed by State organized executions.
But I never hear of gigantic protests against that format of killing by huge groups of Christians, while these same Christians made 2 years ago a big spectacle out of the euthanasia of a US coma patient.

Why would this form of euthanasia - letting nature run it's own way - not be a morally correct decision?

Is it not much more morally reprehensible to force a human being - often against his/her will - into a permanent vegetative state to die after many years without any dignity ?

Your opinion please !