Command and Conquer: Renegade Official Forums - RDF feed
C&C: Renegade --> Dying since 2003™, resurrected in 2024!
Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality
Source Quote: The last Catholic adoption agency in the UK to refuse to serve gay couples has won its High Court appeal. Leeds-based Catholic Care was appealing against a Charity Commission ruling which said it could not discriminate against gay would-be parents. Today, the High Court allowed its appeal. Mr Justice Briggs ordered the Charity Commission to reconsider the case. A Charity Commission spokeswoman said this afternoon she could not yet comment on whether the commission would appeal against the decision. The charity had pleaded with the commission for an exemption from the law, saying it would close rather than place children with gay couples. Catholic Care had wanted to take advantage of a clause in the 2007 Sexual Orientation Regulations which allows charities to discriminate by amending their charitable objectives. However it was barred from doing so by the Charity Commission. All other Catholic adoption agencies have severed their ties with the church or closed down since the 2007 Sexual Orientation Regulations came into power. They were given a two-year window in which to comply with the law. Earlier this month, bishops for the three areas the agency serves said that children would "suffer" if Catholic Care was forced to close. The agencies have typically worked to find homes for the children with the most troubled histories. In a statement, the Bishop of Leeds Arthur Roche said that children would be "seriously disadvantaged" if the court had not agreed with the charity. He said: "Catholic Care has been providing specialist adoption services for over 100 years. "We have helped hundreds of children through the recruitment, assessment, training and support for prospective adoptive parents as well as offering ongoing and post-adoption support to families that give such security and love for some of the most vulnerable children in our society. "The judgment today will help in our determination to continue to provide this invaluable service to benefit children, families and communities." If anybody has ever made a good moral argument against homosexuality at all, I've never heard it. But more to the point, I've also never heard a good argument as to why a gay couple would be thought of as riskier adoptive parents than a straight couple. Until that argument is made, I'm not sure why that kind of discrimination is considered just. But if there is one organisation in the world who, above all others, ought not to have authority over the welfare of children, it is the Catholic church. It has an official policy of protecting child rapists from the law, set up by Joseph Ratzinger (before he became pope, but it's still there), and the threatened penalty for breaking it (i.e. for co-operating with a police investigation, for example) is the most horrific punishment of the lot: hell. I'm going to say that again. It's worth saying twice; it's worth saying a hundred times a day until somebody fucking does something about it. The Catholic Church has an official policy of protecting child rapists from the law, and the penalty you're threatened with if you broke it is the worst punishment it can think of to threaten anybody with. Sadly, this organisation does have an enormous amount of control over the welfare of children, doesn't it? I can sum this situation up in one word: emergency.
Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality
Utterly unfair - I know more homosexual couples than I do heterosexual ones that I would want children to be raised by. Baseless, unfair discrimination, plain and simple.
Children in the care of any catholic people are seriously in danger to be honest. I don't care if I'm stereotyping but with how many children get abused by catholic priests and such. Also with religious brainwashing etc... I'm not exactly saying they are selling the kids to catholic gays, that is not really what I'm on about. Just the thought of catholics looking after a bunch of kids in a re-homing center gives me the creeps. flame me, whatever.
Yeah, this shit is beyond stupid. Why the fuck can't society stop clinging to retarded, illogical religious beliefs? Fuck, you'd think if anything, the religious types would be MORE accepting...
While there is really no existing argument that can soundly argue why homosexuality is wrong, there is more grounds to want to argue against having a child adopted into a homosexual family. That's not to say that it's necessarily wrong to do that either. What I'm getting at is that it is obvious that, regardless of the lack of logical reasoning, there are many people in the world who hold homosexuals in contempt. People will go to extremes to express their beliefs and fight to the ends of the earth for a cause they don't fully understand themselves. Therefore, it is a likely scenario that if you allow a child to be adopted into a homosexual family, there is a higher chance of risk or harm for the child. It really doesn't matter how capable the would-be parents are. Again, it's not wrong to be homosexual nor is it right to deny a homosexual couple to adopt a kid. But it is something that should be considered appropriately.
R315r4z0r wrote on Wed, 17 March 2010 14:30 While there is really no existing argument that can soundly argue why homosexuality is wrong, there is more grounds to want to argue against having a child adopted into a homosexual family. That's not to say that it's necessarily wrong to do that either. What I'm getting at is that it is obvious that, regardless of the lack of logical reasoning, there are many people in the world who hold homosexuals in contempt. People will go to extremes to express their beliefs and fight to the ends of the earth for a cause they don't fully understand themselves. Therefore, it is a likely scenario that if you allow a child to be adopted into a homosexual family, there is a higher chance of risk or harm for the child. It really doesn't matter how capable the would-be parents are. Again, it's not wrong to be homosexual nor is it right to deny a homosexual couple to adopt a kid. But it is something that should be considered appropriately. well, if this is the best argument against it... i.e. that there is a lot of anti-homosexual prejudice, then this has two implications. firstly this seems to entail that we should also "consider appropriately" every other group who has suffered comparable prejudice. judaism springs to mind, as well as various christian denominations, as well as atheists. secondly, why has there been two thousand years of homophobic feeling even in the civilised world? i'll tell you: two thousand years of christianity. christianity's iron grip on society, especially education, has flooded the western world with propaganda against homosexuality, even though it utterly fails when the subject is actually debated. so the problem is, again, the fact that christianity and catholicism has enormous control over children, specifically education. why is this the case in the supposedly civilised world? this is what needs to be changed. Quote: Children in the care of any catholic people are seriously in danger to be honest. I don't care if I'm stereotyping but with how many children get abused by catholic priests and such. Also with religious brainwashing etc... There is no need to "stereotype" when we talk about sex offence against children by Catholic priests. And I request that you don't call it child "abuse". That's frankly a bit of a wishy-washy euphemism. Call it what it is: child rape. But I digress. No need to stereotype, because like I said, the Catholic Church has an official policy of protecting child rapists from the law, and threatens its employees with hell, the worst punishment it can think of, if they do something to break this policy, such as co-operate with a police investigation. Need an illustration of how this policy works out? I give you Cardinal Bernard Law. He was the Arch-bishop of Boston, Massachussetts (forgive me if i'm spelling that wrong) for a couple of decades. It was conclusively proven that he was extensively involved with covering up sex offences carried out by priests/bishops under him, against thousands of children. Even after this all came out, he didn't resign and wasn't fired or even pressured to resign by the Pope. Eventually his resignation was demanded by virtually the entirety of the state, including many catholics. (ponder for yourself how many of these were genuinely outraged at these crimes, and how many simply decided it couldn't be covered up any more) So he eventually did step down, and went to the Vatican, and was promoted, personally by the Pope. Given a whole list of new titles. I can't recite them and I wouldn't know what the hell most of them mean anyway, but one of his privileges was the fact that he was (i think he still is, actually) part of the council who elects the new pope when the old one dies. That's right. This criminal, this fugitive from justice who actively participated in helping to cover up the rape (like i said, please don't call it abuse, call it rape) of thousands of children by his own staff, was promoted by the pope and was given a vote on who the next pope should be. So, like I said, when you talk about the Catholic Church and sex offences against children, stereotyping is not required.
I think you misapplied my meaning. I didn't mean to say "use caution when letting homosexuals adopt a kid because they put kids in harms way." I was saying that we need to observe the living conditions of the child's would-be home before anyone can be allowed to adopt, regardless of their race, beliefs or life style. The child's safety and future should be the first priority. The would-be parent's parenting abilities should be second priority. The parent's race, beliefs or orientation shouldn't even be considered. (Their background, however, should be looked into in order to determine if they are the right type of person to raise a kid. You don't want to just simply let a convicted felon walk away with a child without as much as a second-guess.)
I also read your post and thought you was saying "Allot of people do not like Homo-sexuals, so kids might be in danger around them because of all the homo-phobes out there".
R315r4z0r wrote on Wed, 17 March 2010 15:33 I think you misapplied my meaning. I didn't mean to say "use caution when letting homosexuals adopt a kid because they put kids in harms way." I was saying that we need to observe the living conditions of the child's would-be home before anyone can be allowed to adopt, regardless of their race, beliefs or life style. Your post didn't really make any sense at all, frankly. Quote: The child's safety and future should be the first priority. The would-be parent's parenting abilities should be second priority. The parent's race, beliefs or orientation shouldn't even be considered. You say beliefs shouldn't be considered... does that include if they were neo-nazis, for example? Or, to take a more likely (and more relevant) case, if they are a member of an organisation with a policy and history of systematically protecting child rapists from the law and permitting them to continue raping the children in their care? Isn't membership of an organisation as evil as that worth consideration? Quote: (Their background, however, should be looked into in order to determine if they are the right type of person to raise a kid. You don't want to just simply let a convicted felon walk away with a child without as much as a second-guess.) You certainly don't. You protect children from these monsters. The Catholic Church does the opposite; it protects the monsters and allows them to go on raping children, and it threatens its employees with the most horrific punishment imaginable if they co-operate with police investigations. Then, after demonstrating a moral standard on sexual matters that's about as bad as I can imagine, it has the fucking nerve to lecture the rest of us on morality. It rails against the real evils of the world... condoms, gay people being allowed to enjoy their lives without harrassment, etc etc etc. I think it's a pity there isn't a hell for Ratzinger to go to.
GEORGE ZIMMER wrote on Wed, 17 March 2010 13:53 Fuck, you'd think if anything, the religious types would be MORE accepting... Yes and no... Yes, some churches of many different beliefs have been openly accepting homosexuals with the idea we are all God's children or whatever else about forgiveness and not judging... Some say that The Bible is not actually against homosexuality. No, some people feel very strongly that marriage should only be between a man and a woman, and the whole idea of what is "natural"... Of course we all know that a man and a man can not reproduce and the same for a woman and a woman, but that is not much of an arguement to most people, while with others that is proof enough. I am sure most of you have heard the saying, "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve"... Going along with the "no" response is a thought about forgiveness that someone said to me a while back. If you view something as a sin (E.g excessive driking, gambling, fornication), but you slip up and do it anyways, are you forgiven? Well the general idea is we are not perfect so we make mistakes, it just depends on how you feel afterwards, and if you just plan on doing it again the next day... Excessive drinking, gambling, and fornication are pretty common "sins" that most everyone will experience at least once in their life. But if you get in a habbit of doing these things consistently there are support groups and programs that are supposed to help you. You may also have a homosexual experience once in your life, but to call it a "problem" or have support groups for this would make a lot of people very upset to say the least. I think I may be going off track so I will just sum it up real fast... If you are a homosexual and you plan on continuing that life style, but you view it as a "sin" yourself, I would not expect you to ask for forgiveness. I don't want to argue is religion right or wrong in this thread, I just wanted to state why I thought some religions/churches may or may not accept homosexuality I hope I didn't say anything offensive, I was trying to be delicate but it is hard for me to tell sometimes what may or may not upset some people's feelings.
Clark Kent wrote on Wed, 17 March 2010 16:02 Yes, some churches of many different beliefs have been openly accepting homosexuals with the idea we are all God's children or whatever else about forgiveness and not judging... Some say that The Bible is not actually against homosexuality. the bible is rabidly homophobic, particularly the old testament. but it's also a pretty shitty moral guide in a lot of other areas too. Quote: No, some people feel very strongly that marriage should only be between a man and a woman ah, marriage. firstly, the idea that marriage is between a man and a woman is actually quite recent. for a lot of history, it was more along the lines of one man and several women. indeed, this is mentioned in the bible, as well as in islamic tradition (the prophet mohammed had several wives, his favourite of whom - aisha - he married when she was six) we did generally evolve past that thinking into the more recent idea of marriage being one man and one woman. but here's something that only became widespread VERY recently: the idea that marriage can be about love. traditionally, marriage was always about wealth and power. form a bond with the right family, to protect your land and your money. the idea of marriage being about love is very new, and yet i think most people would agree that it's a good thing that we generally think of marriage this way now, just as they would probably agree that getting rid of polygamy is probably an improvement too. Quote: and the whole idea of what is "natural"... homosexuality is perfectly natural. it isn't a choice, some people simply are homosexual. it also occurs in other species. and yet another thing that must be challenged is the idea that "natural" is automatically a synonym for "desirable". rape, for example, is very common in nature, very common indeed. most of us condemn rape, even though the bible does not. and if you instead believe that we're created by god, then perhaps you can explain why god would create so many people homosexual, if he disapproves of the lifestyle and has inspired his followers to rail against it for two thousand years, resulting in a really miserable time for the people he created. what a prick. Quote: Of course we all know that a man and a man can not reproduce and the same for a woman and a woman, but that is not much of an arguement to most people, while with others that is proof enough. if you ever come across someone who thinks a particular human right ought to be denied to a homosexual person on the grounds that they can't reproduce, then i will be the first to stand up and say that i don't want kids. i just don't, it's a personal choice and i've never hid it from anybody. shall i be denied the same human right in question? if so, will it also be denied people who for one reason or another are infertile? Quote: I am sure most of you have heard the saying, "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve"... sure, but it's complete crap. firstly, there's no evidence at all to suggest that the adam and eve story is even slightly accurate. secondly, even if it was, even if it was proven that a god did create us and has stern ideas about how we should behave, i'll still be in favour of democracy instead. Quote: Going along with the "no" response is a thought about forgiveness that someone said to me a while back. If you view something as a sin (E.g excessive driking, gambling, fornication), but you slip up and do it anyways, are you forgiven? how do you define "sin"? i generally hear that the word means something that offends a god. well, then... - firstly it's a completely meaningless statement until you've proven that -a- the god exists at all, and -b- he does indeed disapprove of the action you're talking about. - secondly, like i said, even if you proved -a- and -b-, i'll still be in favour of democracy over theocracy. on the question of forgiveness, your question seems rather incomplete to me. what did you do, who was affected by it, what did you do to attempt to rectify the situation, and who do you think is the party to do the forgiving? Quote: Well the general idea is we are not perfect so we make mistakes, it just depends on how you feel afterwards, and if you just plan on doing it again the next day... you tell me. Quote: Excessive drinking, gambling, and fornication are pretty common "sins" that most everyone will experience at least once in their life. see above re: definition of "sin". what is your argument against these three, just so i can be clear? Quote: But if you get in a habbit of doing these things consistently there are support groups and programs that are supposed to help you. sure. Quote: You may also have a homosexual experience once in your life, but to call it a "problem" or have support groups for this would make a lot of people very upset to say the least. and if the homosexual experience was with a consenting adult, why would it be a problem and why would a support group be necessary? Quote: If you are a homosexual and you plan on continuing that life style, but you view it as a "sin" yourself, I would not expect you to ask for forgiveness. I, personally, would expect the Christian churches to ask for forgiveness for spending the last two thousand years brainwashing us that homosexuality is indeed a sin, as well as quite a lot of other things. Quote: I hope I didn't say anything offensive, I was trying to be delicate but it is hard for me to tell sometimes what may or may not upset some people's feelings. Just talk straight would be my advice, and don't dodge questions.
First off I would define "sin" as anything that The Bible says is wrong. Of course if you don't believe in The Bible or God for that matter, than none of that even matters. As I said I didn't want to debate truth in either. I wasn't saying homosexuals should be denied the right to have kids because they could not make them themselves, I am sure there are many homosexual couples that are more than capable of raising kids to be functional and productive members of society (even better than some heterosexual couples). That was more along with the "natural" part, as in nature doesn't allow for them to make kids together, so a lot of people would see it as they are not supposed to have kids... I hope you don't think I am "dodging" questions here, but I don't see any point in discussing the truth in the religion part. I just wanted to say a couple reasons why I would expect some believers to be for or against homosexuality in response to Zimmer's comment.
Clark Kent wrote on Wed, 17 March 2010 18:06 First off I would define "sin" as anything that The Bible says is wrong. That's all that is required to define a sin, then? You don't actually have to make a moral case against it, you only need to say that a book disapproves of it? Well, the Bible disapproves of a great many things and outright prohibits many others, many of which many modern Christians do - various dietary laws, for example. More importantly, if there's anything which makes the biblical god angrier than anything else, it's disbelief in him, or worshipping gods other than himself. Quote: Of course if you don't believe in The Bible or God for that matter, than none of that even matters. It would be nice if that was the case. Sadly those who do believe in god and the bible tend to be very keen to insist that we all follow their rules. Quote: As I said I didn't want to debate truth in either. That's a shame, because I do. Quote: I wasn't saying homosexuals should be denied the right to have kids because they could not make them themselves, I am sure there are many homosexual couples that are more than capable of raising kids to be functional and productive members of society (even better than some heterosexual couples). Cool. Quote: That was more along with the "natural" part, as in nature doesn't allow for them to make kids together, so a lot of people would see it as they are not supposed to have kids... My earlier question re: infertile people seems to apply here. You say "not supposed to". That implies somebody decided that the person would be homosexual and would not be able to biologically conceive a child (not quite true, but at least would not be inclined to enter a heterosexual relationship). If somebody is infertile, is it not the case that this person was "not supposed to have kids", decided by the same somebody who creates certain people homosexual? Quote: I hope you don't think I am "dodging" questions here It was advice for the future, not a reproach for the past. Quote: but I don't see any point in discussing the truth in the religion part. I'm afraid I do. On the day the religious stop endlessly interfering with the lives of others, stop corrupting democratic processes, stop brainwashing children and stop asking for privileges they don't deserve, I'll have nothing to complain about and I won't care whether what they believe is true. Sadly that day has not arrived yet, and until it does, their ideas are fair game for ridicule and contempt. Quote: I just wanted to say a couple reasons why I would expect some believers to be for or against homosexuality in response to Zimmer's comment. It might be a good idea to let people make their own objections.
like cornered cats fight better...old religious bullyies do the same. lol? these morons = have no clue. FUN FACT: sky god concept to dieout in next 150 years
Spoony wrote on Wed, 17 March 2010 18:31 Clark Kent wrote on Wed, 17 March 2010 18:06 First off I would define "sin" as anything that The Bible says is wrong. That's all that is required to define a sin, then? You don't actually have to make a moral case against it, you only need to say that a book disapproves of it? Well, the Bible disapproves of a great many things and outright prohibits many others, many of which many modern Christians do - various dietary laws, for example. More importantly, if there's anything which makes the biblical god angrier than anything else, it's disbelief in him, or worshipping gods other than himself. Quote: Of course if you don't believe in The Bible or God for that matter, than none of that even matters. It would be nice if that was the case. Sadly those who do believe in god and the bible tend to be very keen to insist that we all follow their rules. If I remember correctly, you mentioned in another thread that Christianity basically has a governmental seat in your country, right? That kind of thing is against my belief as well - we are charged to spread his word but not shove it down their throats. If we did what we could and they still don't believe, we don't relentlessly pursue it. Also, we are seperate from Catholicism and Baptism and all the other splinter denominations... that's why stories about this and that church irritate me, because they get associated with Christianity as a whole. As for the last part - would I force a nonbeliever to obey a Biblical rule? No. Would I fight against a governemtal decree legally allowing something I consider a sin? Yes, because not doing so would be allowing it, thus being an accomplice to said sin. Just my thoughts. Like I said, I just want to show that my - and my church's - position doesn't match other denominations.
Altzan wrote on Wed, 17 March 2010 22:22 If I remember correctly, you mentioned in another thread that Christianity basically has a governmental seat in your country, right? Christianity is automatically given a whole block of seats in Parliament. 20-something of them, I believe. (There's never ever been a vote about this - it was set up when the king ran the show and elections were never even thought of.) We the people can vote for one MP for our region, as opposed to Americans who can vote for a senator and a congress member. That's not all. Christianity also has control over thousands and thousands of schools, as does the Catholic church. More recently, Judaism and Islam have been given control over schools too. I'm not sure if any other religions have, Sikhism might do, but the idea that a religion can have control over a school ought to be rather alarming. It's no different than the idea of a political ideology having control over a school. A "Catholic school" or a "Church of England school" or a "Protestant school" ought to be viewed the same as if someone said "a Labour school", a "Conservative school", a "Socialist school", "Communist school", "Neo-conservative school", "Nationalist school", etc. And if you want to see just how well religiously segregating our children works out, just look at Northern Ireland. And that's not all the privileges it has, though I'd say the automatic block of parliamentary seats and the control over thousands of schools are the important issues. Technically the monarch is the head of state. It isn't Gordon Brown, it wasn't Tony Blair. The monarch is also the head of the Church. I will admit that our current Queen is a decent person, but the reason I can say this is precisely because the monarchy doesn't really meddle in politics anymore, which begs the question why we still have it. What else? Blasphemy law. We only just got rid of that a couple of years ago. It used to be illegal to "blaspheme" Christianity. That's right. It has a huge block of seats in Parliament whether we like it or not, it has control over thousands of schools, its leader is the undemocratically elected head of state, but if we criticise it and its power, we're breaking the law, or at least we were until a couple of years ago. Of course, like all other religions, it doesn't have to pay taxes. In the Church of England's case this is quite odd, because it's just about the biggest land-owner in the country, and it's very eager to invest in dodgy companies for its own profits. It's invested in arms dealers who supply countries like Indonesia, for example, an Islamic dictatorship who committed horrific crimes against humanity against the largely Christian society of East Timor, and used British and American weapons to do so. It's invested in the housing market and that all went tits up for the church, of course. And despite all this, despite the fact it's got all this land (which it didn't buy... it was given it by the monarchy), despite the fact it doesn't pay taxes, despite its dodgy financial dealings, it's still financially fucked and it's still always begging the taxpayer to pull it out. Well, I'm sorry, but if a company is doing as badly as that, then going belly-up would be a mercy. I don't see the Archbishop of Canterbury offering to sell either of his two palaces, for example, and living somewhere a little more modest. And this is a man who loves, absolutely loves to lecture we Brits on the dangers of "materialism", which is the best knock at atheism he can think of. That's right - he's basically the CEO of a company which insists on not paying taxes, which has very shady investment practices, which is if not the biggest landowner in the country must come pretty close, and he himself has two palaces both funded by the taxpayer. By comparison, I don't aspire to great wealth or extravagant possessions - give me my basic human rights, the freedom to live my life unharrassed and the freedom to examine and question the world, and to write and play my music, and I'm happy. Who's the materialistic one here, I wonder? Quote: That kind of thing is against my belief as well - we are charged to spread his word but not shove it down their throats. If we did what we could and they still don't believe, we don't relentlessly pursue it. What about children, what do you tell them about Christianity? As for the blasphemy law, well, as ridiculous and immoral as blasphemy laws are, it's in line with Christian teaching. Blasphemy is very sternly prohibited in the Bible, is it not? Quote: Also, we are seperate from Catholicism and Baptism and all the other splinter denominations... that's why stories about this and that church irritate me, because they get associated with Christianity as a whole. I am perfectly happy to recognise the differences between the innumerable flavours of Christianity, so long as they don't deny the similarities (which tend to outnumber the differences) Quote: As for the last part - would I force a nonbeliever to obey a Biblical rule? No. Would I fight against a governemtal decree legally allowing something I consider a sin? Yes, because not doing so would be allowing it, thus being an accomplice to said sin. This seems a rather contradictory position.
There is zero research to support the arguement that there's a relationship between homosexual lifestyle and child molestation. Infact, it is proven that a child molester is unlikely to be attracted to adult males at all. That's a very 1970's attitude, and it was as ignorant back then as it is now. It's worse if you still think it now, as there has been some enlightenment in this area and people's eyes have opened to the matter more. This is akin to calling Jewish people baby killers. Minority groups that are disliked or feared often have the worst stereo types applied to them, even if there is no grounds for it. I think it's a pitiful arguement to suggest that children are in harms way from molestation if the adoptive parents are homosexual. Especially coming from the Catholic church, it's beyond belief they of all people would suggest this. However, there is an arguement against homosexuals adopting children... Quote: American College of Pediatricians (ACP) "Data on the long-term outcomes of children placed in homosexual households is sparse and gives reason for concern. This research has revealed that children reared in homosexual households are more likely to experience sexual confusion, engage in risky sexual experimentation, and later adopt a homosexual identity. This is concerning since adolescents and young adults who adopt the homosexual lifestyle, are at increased risk for mental health problems, including major depression, anxiety disorders, conduct disorder, substance dependence, and especially suicidal ideation and suicide attempts..." Another reference There are areguements against this too in all fairness, but there have been numerous studies that support the basic idea of children raised in a homosexual environment are more likely to be homosexual, or at least sexually confused. Even if you accept this argument as fact, I suppose it depends on your view of whether it actually matters or not? Lets assume that it is true (I know this is an assumption, but let's assume it is). If the child has an increased chance of becoming homosexual because of being raised in a homosexual environment, is this a bad thing?
reborn wrote on Thu, 18 March 2010 06:56 There is zero research to support the arguement that there's a relationship between homosexual lifestyle and child molestation. Infact, it is proven that a child molester is unlikely to be attracted to adult males at all. That's a very 1970's attitude, and it was as ignorant back then as it is now. It's worse if you still think it now, as there has been some enlightenment in this area and people's eyes have opened to the matter more. This is akin to calling Jewish people baby killers. Minority groups that are disliked or feared often have the worst stereo types applied to them, even if there is no grounds for it. I think it's a pitiful arguement to suggest that children are in harms way from molestation if the adoptive parents are homosexual. Especially coming from the Catholic church, it's beyond belief they of all people would suggest this. the irony is, there actually are two good arguments to suggest that catholics are more likely to molest children than non-catholics. the first is the knowledge that if you were a catholic priest and you did rape a child, your company would help you cover it up. of course, the fear of punishment is certainly not what stops most people raping children - basic moral concerns as well as simply not being attracted to kids does the job for most of us - but there you have one of the three reasons not to do it shattered. the second is simply a product of extreme sexual repression. this is well known to have damaging effects on people's mental state. to give a simple example, prison. many people who enter into homosexual acts in prison aren't actually homosexual, they're just desperate. another example, closer to the point, is how common rape is in islamic countries. one reason for this is the fact that their governments do not recognise rape as a crime - indeed some of them recognise rape as a legally sanctioned punishment (i'm seriously not making that up), the other reason is a combination of dangerous sexual repression of men and the teaching that women are worth about halfway between men and cattle. Quote: However, there is an arguement against homosexuals adopting children... Quote: American College of Pediatricians (ACP) "Data on the long-term outcomes of children placed in homosexual households is sparse and gives reason for concern. This research has revealed that children reared in homosexual households are more likely to experience sexual confusion, engage in risky sexual experimentation, and later adopt a homosexual identity. This is concerning since adolescents and young adults who adopt the homosexual lifestyle, are at increased risk for mental health problems, including major depression, anxiety disorders, conduct disorder, substance dependence, and especially suicidal ideation and suicide attempts..." Another reference There are areguements against this too in all fairness, but there have been numerous studies that support the basic idea of children raised in a homosexual environment are more likely to be homosexual, or at least sexually confused. Even if you accept this argument as fact, I suppose it depends on your view of whether it actually matters or not? Lets assume that it is true (I know this is an assumption, but let's assume it is). If the child has an increased chance of becoming homosexual because of being raised in a homosexual environment, is this a bad thing? No. The only reason for the supposed negative effects of being homosexual, the problems a homosexual person could suffer that a heterosexual person would not, is the result of the appalling prejudice they suffer, almost entirely thanks to religion. Secondly, I don't accept the argument in the first place. If somebody is going to say that raising kids in a homosexual environment is going to make them homosexual, how on earth can we explain the existence of homosexuals in heterosexual environments, especially since the societies have always, always persecuted homosexuality?
Spoony wrote on Thu, 18 March 2010 08:54 I don't accept the argument in the first place. If somebody is going to say that raising kids in a homosexual environment is going to make them homosexual, how on earth can we explain the existence of homosexuals in heterosexual environments, especially since the societies have always, always persecuted homosexuality? You followed that through logically, but you have changed what I said. The findings suggest a greater chance, not a certainty. You said "is going to make them homosexual", this implies an absolute; I never said that. They are suggesting that there is simply a greater chance of the child being homosexual, not a certainty. Use that same logic and think of it from this perspective: A hetrosexual couple's offspring have an increased chance of being hetrosexual. Therefore does it not seem logical that a homosexual environment would produce offspring that had an increased chance of being homosexual? I don't know the figures, but it could prove that the child has a 15% chance of being homosexual if raised by homosexual aprents, instead of 10% in a hetrosexual environment. I'm not suggesing certainties, just an increased chance. You must accept that children learn behaviour from parents? It doesn't seem impossible to me that homosexual parents influence the chance fo their children being homosexual. Can you really not accept that there is a chance of this? I'm not saying it's a bad thing, it just seems obvious to me o.0 Spoony wrote on Thu, 18 March 2010 08:54 The only reason for the supposed negative effects of being homosexual, the problems a homosexual person could suffer that a heterosexual person would not, is the result of the appalling prejudice they suffer, almost entirely thanks to religion. I have thought about this, and as I am about to be a father very soon, I took this discussion seriously. I have come to the conclusion that I would prefer my child to not be homosexual. Not because I am a biggot or a homophobe, but because my Brother is homosexual and he has suffered all his life for this. He was bullied at school, he has been ridiculed by people all his life, he is lonely and is often depressed. Using his words, not mine, "Being homosexual is a harder life, and not One many people would willingly choose.". He finds it harder to fit in, and his sexualality affects every part of his life. I love my Brother dearly, and hate seeing him un-happy. It breaks my heart. It's a cowardly thing for me to say, I concede that. But I do not want my child to suffer that same life of prejudice. You could argue that I should teach my child if they was homosexual that these people are ignorant (and they are), but it would still hurt their feelings, and I want them to be as happy as possible. Yes, the only reason for me to not want this life style is because of other people prejudice, but I don't care. I don't think people's views ar going to change any time soon, and I don't want my child to suffer the ignorance of others while the world catches up! Is that so wrong of me? If I apply this to my own child, I would be a hypocrit to say I was fine with another child entering a homosexual environment.
reborn wrote on Thu, 18 March 2010 08:59 Spoony wrote on Thu, 18 March 2010 08:54 I don't accept the argument in the first place. If somebody is going to say that raising kids in a homosexual environment is going to make them homosexual, how on earth can we explain the existence of homosexuals in heterosexual environments, especially since the societies have always, always persecuted homosexuality? You followed that through logically, but you have changed what I said. The findings suggest a greater chance, not a certainty. You said "is going to make them homosexual", this implies an absolute; I never said that. They are suggesting that there is simply a greater chance of the child being homosexual, not a certainty. Use that same logic and think of it from this perspective: A hetrosexual couple's offspring have an increased chance of being hetrosexual. Therefore does it not seem logical that a homosexual environment would produce offspring that had an increased chance of being homosexual? I don't know the figures, but it could prove that the child has a 15% chance of being homosexual if raised by homosexual aprents, instead of 10% in a hetrosexual environment. I'm not suggesing certainties, just an increased chance. You must accept that children learn behaviour from parents? It doesn't seem impossible to me that homosexual parents influence the chance fo their children being homosexual. Can you really not accept that there is a chance of this? I'm not saying it's a bad thing, it just seems obvious to me o.0 That is not the case. Kids brought up by SameSex Couples do not have a higher chance of becoming homosexual.
reborn wrote on Thu, 18 March 2010 08:59 You followed that through logically, but you have changed what I said. The findings suggest a greater chance, not a certainty. You said "is going to make them homosexual", this implies an absolute; I never said that. They are suggesting that there is simply a greater chance of the child being homosexual, not a certainty. Use that same logic and think of it from this perspective: A hetrosexual couple's offspring have an increased chance of being hetrosexual. Therefore does it not seem logical that a homosexual environment would produce offspring that had an increased chance of being homosexual? I don't know the figures, but it could prove that the child has a 15% chance of being homosexual if raised by homosexual aprents, instead of 10% in a hetrosexual environment. I'm not suggesing certainties, just an increased chance. Well, I don't think that can be conclusively stated. Is it not much more likely that, instead, children who happen to be homosexual and have heterosexual parents are more likely to grow up in an environment that disapproves of them, and therefore they will feel that they have to keep their sexuality secret? Quote: You must accept that children learn behaviour from parents? It doesn't seem impossible to me that homosexual parents influence the chance fo their children being homosexual. Well, if parents are: - racist - homophobic - violent - religious fanatics then this will certainly affect the kids and probably make them more likely to grow up with these too. but there are two reasons why "homosexual" doesn't belong on the list. 1. nobody's explained why homosexuality is actually a bad thing 2. i am willing to grant that if a heterosexual child sees his homosexual parents at it, he might be inspired to try a homosexual relationship. i'll grant that. it sounds damn silly to me, but i'll grant it for the sake of your argument. what i can't grant is the possibility that they might, as a result of trying that, "turn gay". Quote: I have thought about this, and as I am about to be a father very soon, I took this discussion seriously. I have come to the conclusion that I would prefer my child to not be homosexual. Not because I am a biggot or a homophobe, but because my Brother is homosexual and he has suffered all his life for this. He was bullied at school, he has been ridiculed by people all his life, he is lonely and is often depressed. Using his words, not mine, "Being homosexual is a harder life, and not One many people would willingly choose.". He finds it harder to fit in, and his sexualality affects every part of his life. I love my Brother dearly, and hate seeing him un-happy. It breaks my heart. It's a cowardly thing for me to say, I concede that. But I do not want my child to suffer that same life of prejudice. I completely understand; you make a good argument, but it still hinges on the case being proven that you could actually make someone more likely to become homosexual if the parents are, and it doesn't change the fact that the over-riding solution to the problem is simply to combat homophobia, and the best way of doing that is to protect children from religion until they're old enough to understand it critically. of course, that solves a multitude of other problems too. and there is a point to be made in the opposite direction. if a child is homosexual, who is most likely to treat them with the understanding they need? homosexual parents, or heterosexual parents? who's less likely to be homophobic? Quote: You could argue that I should teach my child if they was homosexual that these people are ignorant (and they are), but it would still hurt their feelings, and I want them to be as happy as possible. Yes, the only reason for me to not want this life style is because of other people prejudice, but I don't care. I don't think people's views ar going to change any time soon, and I don't want my child to suffer the ignorance of others while the world catches up! Is that so wrong of me? If I apply this to my own child, I would be a hypocrit to say I was fine with another child entering a homosexual environment. it's a good point you make, although see my response to the same stuff above.
I beleive that homosexuals should choose not to have kids, but forcing them not to is wrong i gusse. They shouldn't really have kids because say two females adopt a male baby. Now that baby is going to have two women as parents. That male baby needs a father role model instead of two females. Not to mention in school if other kids find out they will more then likely make of fun him.
WubWub wrote on Thu, 18 March 2010 09:40 I beleive that homosexuals should choose not to have kids, but forcing them not to is wrong i gusse. They shouldn't really have kids because say two females adopt a male baby. Now that baby is going to have two women as parents. That male baby needs a father role model instead of two females. Not to mention in school if other kids find out they will more then likely make of fun him. MALE BABIES NEED FATHERS OR THEY WILL BECOME METROSEXUAL LOBSTERS fucking idiot.
Spoony wrote on Thu, 18 March 2010 10:25 It still hinges on the case being proven that you could actually make someone more likely to become homosexual if the parents are Yeah, I agree. It does all pretty much ride on that. I do tend to think though that you might be putting the cart before the horse with this: Spoony wrote on Thu, 18 March 2010 10:25 Is it not much more likely that, instead, children who happen to be homosexual and have heterosexual parents are more likely to grow up in an environment that disapproves of them, and therefore they will feel that they have to keep their sexuality secret? Perhaps I'm over estimating the influence parents have, or perhaps you're under-estimating their affect. I am a believer in "Monkey see, monkey do". Spoony wrote on Thu, 18 March 2010 10:25 there is a point to be made in the opposite direction. if a child is homosexual, who is most likely to treat them with the understanding they need? homosexual parents, or heterosexual parents? who's less likely to be homophobic? You're right, the homosexual parents might have a greater chance of being empathetic and understanding. I'm going to throw the unconditional love you have for your child in there just not to write off hetrosexual parents ability to support their child, but I concede that there are children too afraid to tell their parents through fear of judgement (arguable that in some cases this may be justifyable fear, and in other cases their own fear being un-justified). However, in my mind, if they do have a greater chance of being homosexual because of their parents being homosexual too, then surely the need for this understanding would be reduced if they was in a hetrosexual environment because there is less chance of them being homosexual? Hmm, kinda weak arguement I suppose, and leaves a prejudice taste in my mouth actually, or at least an ignorant attitude (avoid the issue altogether then we dont need to understand it!1!!!1!!), but I can kinda see this point. Meh, all I know is, I love my child already before it being born, and I only want the best, most happy life for them. I think we can at least agree that the world would be happier if only the homophobes would grow up and learn some understanding. Then whether or not having homosexual parents means there is more chance of you being homosexual would be a mute, irrelevant point. Homosexuals are just people. My Brother has never hurt anyone. I love him with all my heart, I hate seeing the suffering he endures.
Quote: Spoony wrote on Thu, 18 March 2010 10:25 Is it not much more likely that, instead, children who happen to be homosexual and have heterosexual parents are more likely to grow up in an environment that disapproves of them, and therefore they will feel that they have to keep their sexuality secret? Perhaps I'm over estimating the influence parents have, or perhaps you're under-estimating their affect. I am a believer in "Monkey see, monkey do". well, if you see some people kissing and you feel like trying it, aren't you more likely to want to try it with someone you're actually attracted to...? Spoony wrote on Thu, 18 March 2010 10:25 You're right, the homosexual parents might have a greater chance of being empathetic and understanding. i think there's no "might" about it. i'm pretty confident that a far greater proportion of heterosexual adults are overly homophobic than homosexual adults. Quote: I'm going to throw the unconditional love you have for your child in there just not to write off hetrosexual parents ability to support their child i'd like to think that all parents had unconditional love for their children, but i suspect it isn't always the case. Quote: but I concede that there are children too afraid to tell their parents through fear of judgement (arguable that in some cases this may be justifyable fear, and in other cases their own fear being un-justified). and i think it's a much higher number than you probably think. as for whether it's justified, well, it would be difficult to know in advance for sure how your parents would react if you told them you were gay. i wonder how much thought your brother put into it before telling you and your parents? Quote: However, in my mind, if they do have a greater chance of being homosexual because of their parents being homosexual too, then surely the need for this understanding would be reduced if they was in a hetrosexual environment because there is less chance of them being homosexual? Hmm, kinda weak arguement I suppose i must admit i think i should be having an easier time refuting it. Quote: I think we can at least agree that the world would be happier if only the homophobes would grow up and learn some understanding. Then whether or not having homosexual parents means there is more chance of you being homosexual would be a mute, irrelevant point. of course. Quote: Homosexuals are just people. My Brother has never hurt anyone. I love him with all my heart, I hate seeing the suffering he endures. i'll be honest, if you had tried to make the point without giving a touching example of someone close to you, i probably wouldn't have thought the argument was worth much. that is probably more my fault than anything else.
Spoony wrote on Thu, 18 March 2010 11:40 i think there's no "might" about it. i'm pretty confident that a far greater proportion of heterosexual adults are overly homophobic than homosexual adults. Yeah, you're probably right. There could be some special cases, but pretty much across the board, I would imagine you're right. Spoony wrote on Thu, 18 March 2010 11:40 i'd like to think that all parents had unconditional love for their children, but i suspect it isn't always the case. Yeah, it's a sad truth. But having said that, I would guess there is a proportionate amount of homosexual parents lacking this same instinct, too. Spoony wrote on Thu, 18 March 2010 11:40 and i think it's a much higher number than you probably think. Hmm, I would aim pretty high. Some friends of the family are in their 60's and they never told their parents. It's very sad, his mother actually passed in January, and he never found the courage to let her know about that side of him. Two friends of the family in their late Forties do not tell people at work, and at work functions they have a friend to take as their partner. They live a lie, for whatever reasons, this is sad. Spoony wrote on Thu, 18 March 2010 11:40 as for whether it's justified, well, it would be difficult to know in advance for sure how your parents would react if you told them you were gay. i wonder how much thought your brother put into it before telling you and your parents? My parents made a point of letting us both know they would love us no matter what we chose. This I believe was in part because they knew (or suspected) my Brother was homosexual from a young age, and felt it would make it easier for him. However, my Brother still felt he could only tell my Mum, and asked her to let me and my Dad know, he didn't want to talk about it because he was embarrassed. I however felt it was important to tell him I loved him and broke the ice immediately. I think it was the right thing to do. This only further strengthens your arguement about just how many people tell their parents. My brother and I was fortunate to be raised in such a loving environment, and he still struggled with it. Although, I kinda pretty much knew much much earlier than when he let me know through my Mum. Spoony wrote on Thu, 18 March 2010 11:40 i must admit i think i should be having an easier time refuting it. Well, I suppose it's logical in terms or maths, statistics or whatever. But emotionally and in terms of depth of character it's a pretty dumb argument. Avoiding enlightenment purposefully? lol... Spoony wrote on Thu, 18 March 2010 11:40 i'll be honest, if you had tried to make the point without giving a touching example of someone close to you, i probably wouldn't have thought the argument was worth much. that is probably more my fault than anything else. I too am guilty of assuming the worst in people. I often think people hide behind arguments that actually hold no stock in themselves, just to avoid saying what they really feel. I'm glad you can see that I am speaking truthfully, and not just giving possible reasons for the sake of arguing.
As to whether homosexuality may beget more homosexuality: In my experience, which when it comes to people who've been abused, which is regrettably extensive, as well as with people who've had happier lives, I've found that sexuality cannot be "learned", enforced, or changed. It is most definately innate. @WubWub: As to being made fun of for having same-sex parents, children at school are made fun of for any reason whatsoever. That's a sad fact of life. My repsonse (to bullies in general) often used to relate to how my parents were still in a happy marriage. School includes a pointless game of one-up-manship, it's nothing new. Are you sure all children need a male rolemodel? I know someone whose father was a drug-taking psychopath who murdered someone in front of her... I wouldn't want her following his lead... (Oh, BTW, she's heterosexual, despite having this negative male influence in her life...) General point: Good parents (of either sexuality) should not be concerned for which gender their children (adopted or not) express a preference for (or indeed either gender), but should be concerned with their children being happy in whatever relationship(s) they find. I'm not homosexual (despite what JohnDoe (probably) thinks) but I could easily tell my parents I was, and there wouldn't be a problem. I guess I'm lucky. I remember when my cousin "came out" as being a lesbian, and my Mum said "What bothers us is that you felt you couldn't tell us.".
Spoony wrote on Wed, 17 March 2010 17:42 You say beliefs shouldn't be considered... does that include if they were neo-nazis, for example? Or, to take a more likely (and more relevant) case, if they are a member of an organisation with a policy and history of systematically protecting child rapists from the law and permitting them to continue raping the children in their care? Isn't membership of an organisation as evil as that worth consideration? No, their beliefs still should not be considered. If you start disallowing services to people of certain groups or beliefs, then you are: 1. Doing the exact same thing that Christians are doing against homosexuals. 2. Giving Christians ammunition for arguments concerning why their way of thinking is correct. It does not matter what group or party or orientation the would-be parents are. If you take another look at the list of priorities I made, you will notice that I said that the child's safety and future should be made first priority. If said organization is indeed into such heinous acts against children, then it stands to reason that they wont meet the qualifications for the first priority that I laid out. No one should be disallowed a service based on some superficial appearance. They have to be physically proven to actually be either a bad influence or just a bad parent living in poor conditions. And even after a child has been adopted, there should be like a weekly or monthly visit from a child-service agent to check up on the child for at least the first year.
Spoony wrote on Thu, 18 March 2010 02:43 Christianity is automatically given a whole block of seats in Parliament. 20-something of them, I believe. (There's never ever been a vote about this - it was set up when the king ran the show and elections were never even thought of.) We the people can vote for one MP for our region, as opposed to Americans who can vote for a senator and a congress member... And despite all this, despite the fact it's got all this land (which it didn't buy... it was given it by the monarchy), despite the fact it doesn't pay taxes, despite its dodgy financial dealings, it's still financially fucked and it's still always begging the taxpayer to pull it out. Well, I'm sorry, but if a company is doing as badly as that, then going belly-up would be a mercy. I don't see the Archbishop of Canterbury offering to sell either of his two palaces, for example, and living somewhere a little more modest. And this is a man who loves, absolutely loves to lecture we Brits on the dangers of "materialism", which is the best knock at atheism he can think of. That's right - he's basically the CEO of a company which insists on not paying taxes, which has very shady investment practices, which is if not the biggest landowner in the country must come pretty close, and he himself has two palaces both funded by the taxpayer. By comparison, I don't aspire to great wealth or extravagant possessions - give me my basic human rights, the freedom to live my life unharrassed and the freedom to examine and question the world, and to write and play my music, and I'm happy. Who's the materialistic one here, I wonder? Nicely written summary... I think that's way too much involvement in government. I wish you didn't have to put up with that every day. I don't really have any other comment here, unless you want one. Spoony wrote on Thu, 18 March 2010 02:43 What about children, what do you tell them about Christianity? As for the blasphemy law, well, as ridiculous and immoral as blasphemy laws are, it's in line with Christian teaching. Blasphemy is very sternly prohibited in the Bible, is it not? We teach our Children the faith, yes - that's how I was taught - but we don't go overboard with it, although I suppose the term is open to interpretation. That Jesus camp video posted awhile ago - We'd never do anything like that. My parents took me to church and taught me the religion and that's basically it. I could stop going right now if I wanted to and they probably wouldn't put up much of a fight, maybe a discussion at most. What do you mean by blasphemy being prohibited? If I'm reading you right, then I see no problem if someone mouths off about Christianity - I can't make them believe, and I wouldn't badmouth atheism or other back at the person. Spoony wrote on Thu, 18 March 2010 02:43 I am perfectly happy to recognise the differences between the innumerable flavours of Christianity, so long as they don't deny the similarities (which tend to outnumber the differences) True. As far as I know, there are only a few differences separating Church of Christ and Baptists, mainly the "no-baptism" and "faith-only" beliefs they have (which is why they're a larger group, I suspect). Spoony wrote on Thu, 18 March 2010 02:43 This seems a rather contradictory position. It's hard to explain. Abortion might be a good example... when abortion was legalized in some states of the US, we fought the passage of the law because we don't believe abortion is right. But I would not physically attempt to stop someone from getting an abortion, neither would I attack the clinic, as I've heard some do before.
reborn wrote on Thu, 18 March 2010 13:41 Spoony wrote on Thu, 18 March 2010 11:40 as for whether it's justified, well, it would be difficult to know in advance for sure how your parents would react if you told them you were gay. i wonder how much thought your brother put into it before telling you and your parents? My parents made a point of letting us both know they would love us no matter what we chose. This I believe was in part because they knew (or suspected) my Brother was homosexual from a young age, and felt it would make it easier for him. However, my Brother still felt he could only tell my Mum, and asked her to let me and my Dad know, he didn't want to talk about it because he was embarrassed. I however felt it was important to tell him I loved him and broke the ice immediately. I think it was the right thing to do. This only further strengthens your arguement about just how many people tell their parents. My brother and I was fortunate to be raised in such a loving environment, and he still struggled with it. yeah, exactly. he was fortunate to have understanding parents and a great brother. you say he suffered a lot over his sexuality - imagine how much worse it would have been for him if his family, the only people in the world who you ought to be able to expect to love you for who you are, had been less tolerant of homosexuality. i'm sure a lot of people aren't so lucky. there are a distressing number of parents, particularly christians in the US (though it happens here too) who think that homosexuality ought to be and can be cured through counselling, and send their kids there. i think that this is the worst thing a parent can do in the situation. the kid knows he's gay and isn't going to magically become straight, and in response to all the bullying he may have suffered from ignorant kids at school, he's basically getting the message that: you're tempted to an immoral lifestyle, you're the one here who needs to change your ways, not the pricks who pick on you. sure, the parents probably have good intentions but i still think it's the last thing the child needs to hear. Quote: Spoony wrote on Thu, 18 March 2010 11:40 i must admit i think i should be having an easier time refuting it. Well, I suppose it's logical in terms or maths, statistics or whatever. But emotionally and in terms of depth of character it's a pretty dumb argument. Avoiding enlightenment purposefully? lol... just saying that your argument wasn't really any different than the one put forward earlier, i.e. the only real objection is that the kid is more likely to be picked on. my initial reaction to it was basically that we just need to combat homophobia (and you don't do that by taking the child aside and saying these bullies are basically justified in having a go at you every day), and that kids bully each other for all sorts of reasons. it wasn't until you gave a very moving example that it gave me pause. CarrierII wrote As to whether homosexuality may beget more homosexuality: In my experience, which when it comes to people who've been abused, which is regrettably extensive, as well as with people who've had happier lives, I've found that sexuality cannot be "learned", enforced, or changed. It is most definately innate. no shit. the quickest response to anybody who is confused as to whether sexuality is a choice or not is to tell them simply to ask a gay person, preferably one who's your friend already so you don't come across as hostile. Quote: @WubWub: As to being made fun of for having same-sex parents, children at school are made fun of for any reason whatsoever. That's a sad fact of life. My repsonse (to bullies in general) often used to relate to how my parents were still in a happy marriage. School includes a pointless game of one-up-manship, it's nothing new. Good one. Quite cheap, but it's a good response. R315r4z0r wrote No, their beliefs still should not be considered. If you start disallowing services to people of certain groups or beliefs, then you are: 1. Doing the exact same thing that Christians are doing against homosexuals. 2. Giving Christians ammunition for arguments concerning why their way of thinking is correct. It does not matter what group or party or orientation the would-be parents are. If you take another look at the list of priorities I made, you will notice that I said that the child's safety and future should be made first priority. If said organization is indeed into such heinous acts against children, then it stands to reason that they wont meet the qualifications for the first priority that I laid out. it was basically a rhetorical answer. the real issue is that this condemnation of homosexuality in regards to the welfare of children is coming from an organisation whose policy and track record of the children in its care is about as bad as it gets. i wasn't really talking about a catholic couple being about to adopt a kid; that should be fine. i'm talking about the fact that a catholic group (an adoption agency, a school) ought to be given authority over kids' welfare at all should be quite alarming, and yet it has enormous control. Altzan wrote Nicely written summary... I think that's way too much involvement in government. I wish you didn't have to put up with that every day. I don't really have any other comment here, unless you want one. i'm curious to hear your response to what i said about religions having control over schools. Quote: We teach our Children the faith, yes - that's how I was taught - but we don't go overboard with it, although I suppose the term is open to interpretation. That Jesus camp video posted awhile ago - We'd never do anything like that. My parents took me to church and taught me the religion and that's basically it. I could stop going right now if I wanted to and they probably wouldn't put up much of a fight, maybe a discussion at most. That's what I thought. How objectively did they "teach you the faith"? For example, did they teach it as though it were revealed truth? Did they tell you right from the start that there's no evidence at all that the judeo-christian/islamic god even exists, let alone that this book and this religion is a reflection on what he expects of us? Did they point out to you that the book itself can't even get its own story straight? Did they tell you right from the start that there are all these other religions, as well as the possibility of living your life without one? (They probably had to say that two particular religions - Islam and Mormonism - are specifically untrue, because if they were true then you can't really avoid converting to them away from Christianity). Did they tell you the absolutely incalculable damage that the various flavours of Christianity have caused? Just off the top of my head... persecution of other religions every time it thought it could get away with it, two thousand years of horrific anti-semitism and anti-gay people, violently standing in the way of scientific progress, the crusades, the inquisition, willing tool of imperialism and of a huge list of dictators throughout the ages, enthusiastic ally of fascism in europe, and the enormous death toll it's helped to rack up by assisting the spread of AIDS by absurd rules on condoms, especially in africa? if they didn't tell you all that, then you weren't taught fairly. and here's something that you may have been taught: were you at any point told that "faith" is a good thing? Quote: What do you mean by blasphemy being prohibited? If I'm reading you right, then I see no problem if someone mouths off about Christianity - I can't make them believe, and I wouldn't badmouth atheism or other back at the person. when I say blasphemy is prohibited, i refer to the stern warnings in the bible that your god isn't going to put up with it. the death penalty is mentioned a few times. this would appear to be a "sin", then (as is worshipping a different god, or having doubts about your god) Quote: It's hard to explain. Abortion might be a good example... when abortion was legalized in some states of the US, we fought the passage of the law because we don't believe abortion is right. But I would not physically attempt to stop someone from getting an abortion, neither would I attack the clinic, as I've heard some do before. actually, abortion isn't a good example of what i meant, because there are genuine arguments against abortion. when i say genuine argument i mean something better than "god doesn't want this happening", which is a totally meaningless statement until you've proven that -a- your god exists, -b- he does indeed feel that way, and then you still have to make the case that what he wants is more important than democracy. no, i'm talking about things like homosexuality, blasphemy, dietary requirements etc, for which the genuine secular case against them has yet to be made. if these are things that your religion doesn't like, then you avoid doing them yourself, leave the rest of us alone and the town is big enough for the both of us, hmmm? sadly that's not the case with so many religious people, and your statement implied that it's the same sort of thing with you... i.e. if it's a "sin" then you ought to fight to keep it banned.
Spoony wrote on Thu, 18 March 2010 16:53 i'm curious to hear your response to what i said about religions having control over schools. I don't think religious schools work well, or at all - a school implies they are teaching fact, whereas religion is a belief that another may not share. So school and religion don't really mix. If anything, everyone should have a choice as to whether or not they want to attend. Spoony wrote on Thu, 18 March 2010 16:53 That's what I thought. How objectively did they "teach you the faith"? For example, did they teach it as though it were revealed truth? Did they tell you right from the start that there's no evidence at all that the judeo-christian/islamic god even exists, let alone that this book and this religion is a reflection on what he expects of us? Did they point out to you that the book itself can't even get its own story straight? Did they tell you right from the start that there are all these other religions, as well as the possibility of living your life without one? (They probably had to say that two particular religions - Islam and Mormonism - are specifically untrue, because if they were true then you can't really avoid converting to them away from Christianity). Did they tell you the absolutely incalculable damage that the various flavours of Christianity have caused? Just off the top of my head... persecution of other religions every time it thought it could get away with it, two thousand years of horrific anti-semitism and anti-gay people, violently standing in the way of scientific progress, the crusades, the inquisition, willing tool of imperialism and of a huge list of dictators throughout the ages, enthusiastic ally of fascism in europe, and the enormous death toll it's helped to rack up by assisting the spread of AIDS by absurd rules on condoms, especially in africa? if they didn't tell you all that, then you weren't taught fairly. If I had to learn all that first, I'd be too overwhelmed to make an informed decision. The only time it can be taught 'fair' is if you learn it all for yourself, because it's obvious that if anyone teaches you, they'll present their own biased view along with it. Also, I have to point out that all that horrible occurrences you mentioned are committed by men. It's unfair to blame it all on the religion when it's the people's fault, who want to pin all of it on their religion and saying they were commanded to do so, when they often weren't. If I were present at any of the above listed persecution or tyranny, I'd be actively against it as well. Spoony wrote on Thu, 18 March 2010 16:53 and here's something that you may have been taught: were you at any point told that "faith" is a good thing? Seeing as how most, if not all, religions are based on faith, then yes. Spoony wrote on Thu, 18 March 2010 16:53 when I say blasphemy is prohibited, i refer to the stern warnings in the bible that your god isn't going to put up with it. the death penalty is mentioned a few times. this would appear to be a "sin", then (as is worshipping a different god, or having doubts about your god) Blasphemy = sin, then? We don't act against sinners. We believe God will, so I'm guessing that's where the problem lies. There are apparently a lot of people in Christianity who want to take God's judgment and wield it themselves against others. Spoony wrote on Thu, 18 March 2010 16:53 actually, abortion isn't a good example of what i meant, because there are genuine arguments against abortion. when i say genuine argument i mean something better than "god doesn't want this happening", which is a totally meaningless statement until you've proven that -a- your god exists, -b- he does indeed feel that way, and then you still have to make the case that what he wants is more important than democracy. no, i'm talking about things like homosexuality, blasphemy, dietary requirements etc, for which the genuine secular case against them has yet to be made. if these are things that your religion doesn't like, then you avoid doing them yourself, leave the rest of us alone and the town is big enough for the both of us, hmmm? sadly that's not the case with so many religious people, and your statement implied that it's the same sort of thing with you... i.e. if it's a "sin" then you ought to fight to keep it banned. I'd be against it just as much as a non-believer who is also against homosexuality would be. I'm talking in terms of letting our voices be heard. If I don't believe homosexuality is right, I'll stand up and say so, same as those who don't think a religion is right will stand up and say so.
Altzan wrote on Thu, 18 March 2010 17:57 I don't think religious schools work well, or at all - a school implies they are teaching fact, whereas religion is a belief that another may not share. So school and religion don't really mix. If anything, everyone should have a choice as to whether or not they want to attend. and should this not apply to parents too? would it not also make sense for parents not to fill the head of a child with religion before they're old enough to think critically about it? Spoony wrote on Thu, 18 March 2010 16:53 If I had to learn all that first, I'd be too overwhelmed to make an informed decision. but you can't make an informed decision without it, can you? furthermore, is belief really a "decision"? most christian sects say that you will suffer the most horrific punishment imaginable if you believe the wrong thing, or to phrase it differently, if you don't believe the right thing. well, i could make an outward display of christianity. i could pretend i believed all this, i could probably fool anyone who took the time to wonder what my religious beliefs were, but if this god of yours can see and know everything including the contents of our minds, then i wouldn't be fooling god and i wouldn't be avoiding hell. what i can't do is flick a switch and make myself believe any of this, it's not the way the mind works, or at least not the way my mind works. Quote: The only time it can be taught 'fair' is if you learn it all for yourself, because it's obvious that if anyone teaches you, they'll present their own biased view along with it. then see above re: protecting kids from it. i'm an adult. you preach to me as much as you like, you present your case for believing what you believe and why you think it would be a good idea for me to believe it too, i would never tell you to shut up and i don't want anyone else telling you on my behalf. but i'm old enough to think critically, to hear a thing from someone and recognise that it might not be true, they might be mistaken or they might be plain lying, it might not be exactly as they say it is, it's worth asking why they think it or how they think they know it, etc etc etc, as well as what the implications are. it's not the same for children. they're taught to take in what their parents and teachers say. without that idea, education falls apart. Quote: Also, I have to point out that all that horrible occurrences you mentioned are committed by men. It's unfair to blame it all on the religion when it's the people's fault, who want to pin all of it on their religion and saying they were commanded to do so, when they often weren't. If I were present at any of the above listed persecution or tyranny, I'd be actively against it as well. firstly, i did not include events done by people who simply happened to be christian. that would be unfair. only when christianity had a real part in influencing the actions. if you'd like to hear a justification for any of the examples i mentioned, feel free to challenge any of these and i'll defend them. here are all the ones i cited off the top of my head: - two thousand years of horrific anti-semitism and anti-gay people - violently standing in the way of scientific progress - the crusades - the inquisition - willing tool of imperialism and of a huge list of dictators throughout the ages - enthusiastic ally of fascism in europe - the enormous death toll it's helped to rack up by assisting the spread of AIDS by absurd rules on condoms, especially in africa Spoony wrote on Thu, 18 March 2010 16:53 Quote: and here's something that you may have been taught: were you at any point told that "faith" is a good thing? Seeing as how most, if not all, religions are based on faith, then yes. So what's "faith" (i'm just checking that your definition is the same as mine), and why is it a good thing? Spoony wrote on Thu, 18 March 2010 16:53 Blasphemy = sin, then? i'm sorry, but you speak as someone who is not familiar with your bible. the depiction of god is as a ruthless maniac at the best of times, but the things that really, really piss him off the most are worshipping other gods, having doubts about him, and blaspheming him. Quote: We don't act against sinners. We believe God will, so I'm guessing that's where the problem lies. Two questions, then. 1. Why oppose other things that are "sins" being made legal, if you believe God's going to sort it out? That's what you said earlier. 2. Are you OK with the belief that God will act against it? Myself, for example? If your religion is true then I've got a bit of trouble ahead; you've alluded to it yourself. Do you approve of that? Quote: There are apparently a lot of people in Christianity who want to take God's judgment and wield it themselves against others. And how exactly can you fault them? My case against them is pretty straightforward - i don't think the god's real, i think that even if the god is real it would not mean that this book is anything to do with him, and i think a lot of the rules are bullshit anyway. I'm curious to hear what your objection to that is if you do believe in god, if you do believe that the bible is a good reflection of what he expects of us. Spoony wrote on Thu, 18 March 2010 16:53 I'd be against it just as much as a non-believer who is also against homosexuality would be. Really? Most non-believers who are against homosexuality generally just don't want to do it themselves. They don't want to restrict the rights of those who are homosexual, and they don't insist on filling the minds of children with homophobia in schools, and those are the real problems. Quote: I'm talking in terms of letting our voices be heard. If I don't believe homosexuality is right, I'll stand up and say so, same as those who don't think a religion is right will stand up and say so. and i absolutely defend your right to say that.
Spoony wrote on Thu, 18 March 2010 18:55 and should this not apply to parents too? would it not also make sense for parents not to fill the head of a child with religion before they're old enough to think critically about it? It makes sense, yes. Unfortuantely, I don't think the chances of that will rise anytime soon. Spoony wrote on Thu, 18 March 2010 18:55 but you can't make an informed decision without it, can you? Nope. But I have yet to meet or hear of a parent who will give all this info before asking their child to make a decision. Spoony wrote on Thu, 18 March 2010 18:55 furthermore, is belief really a "decision"? most christian sects say that you will suffer the most horrific punishment imaginable if you believe the wrong thing, or to phrase it differently, if you don't believe the right thing. well, i could make an outward display of christianity. i could pretend i believed all this, i could probably fool anyone who took the time to wonder what my religious beliefs were, but if this god of yours can see and know everything including the contents of our minds, then i wouldn't be fooling god and i wouldn't be avoiding hell. what i can't do is flick a switch and make myself believe any of this, it's not the way the mind works, or at least not the way my mind works. Why would it not be a decision? You've seen arguments on both sides and you've decided what you want to believe. That's a decision on your part, and you can't 'flip a switch' because it's considered an important decision, therefore you won't change your mind without heavy consideration. Spoony wrote on Thu, 18 March 2010 18:55 then see above re: protecting kids from it. i'm an adult. you preach to me as much as you like, you present your case for believing what you believe and why you think it would be a good idea for me to believe it too, i would never tell you to shut up and i don't want anyone else telling you on my behalf. but i'm old enough to think critically, to hear a thing from someone and recognise that it might not be true, they might be mistaken or they might be plain lying, it might not be exactly as they say it is, it's worth asking why they think it or how they think they know it, etc etc etc, as well as what the implications are. it's not the same for children. they're taught to take in what their parents and teachers say. without that idea, education falls apart. Very true. I'm curious - if you were to have a child of your own, what method would you use to teach him what theories there are about the origin of man and Earth while being neutral? I'm not asking for a huge explanation. But you support the idea of letting a child become old enough to understand that there are many ideas and theories out there, and allow them to decide for themselves. Spoony wrote on Thu, 18 March 2010 18:55 firstly, i did not include events done by people who simply happened to be christian. that would be unfair. only when christianity had a real part in influencing the actions. if you'd like to hear a justification for any of the examples i mentioned, feel free to challenge any of these and i'll defend them. here are all the ones i cited off the top of my head: - two thousand years of horrific anti-semitism and anti-gay people - violently standing in the way of scientific progress - the crusades - the inquisition - willing tool of imperialism and of a huge list of dictators throughout the ages - enthusiastic ally of fascism in europe - the enormous death toll it's helped to rack up by assisting the spread of AIDS by absurd rules on condoms, especially in africa I can tell by the list that you know your history. I do not possess such knowledge (yet). If you want to defend a few, go ahead, but I won't pick and choose myself. Spoony wrote on Thu, 18 March 2010 18:55 So what's "faith" (i'm just checking that your definition is the same as mine), and why is it a good thing? Hebrews 1:11 "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." (KJV) I know that you don't consider faith to be good enough, that you want proof before belief. I respect that decision. Spoony wrote on Thu, 18 March 2010 18:55 i'm sorry, but you speak as someone who is not familiar with your bible. the depiction of god is as a ruthless maniac at the best of times, but the things that really, really piss him off the most are worshipping other gods, having doubts about him, and blaspheming him. In the Old Testament, he was active against those who didn't believe. This was mainly because he was giving them proof he existed. For example, he threw 12 plagues at Pharoh to convince him to let the Israelites go. Not too long later, Moses goes up Mt. Sinai to talk with God, and they build and start worshipping a golden cow. They knew for a fact he existed, but were against him just the same. (Note that I speak in context of the Bible, in token with your examples being pulled from the Bible as well.) Spoony wrote on Thu, 18 March 2010 18:55 1. Why oppose other things that are "sins" being made legal, if you believe God's going to sort it out? That's what you said earlier. 2. Are you OK with the belief that God will act against it? Myself, for example? If your religion is true then I've got a bit of trouble ahead; you've alluded to it yourself. Do you approve of that? 1. Because I don't think they're morally right. We've seen many cases where a person hears what we have to say and genuinely is interested to learn about it - but they shy away later, because they have this one 'pet sin' (homosexuality, drinking, fornication, etc) that they are too attached to and would rather take the easy road. 2. I don't see why a God should pander to those who refuse to believe in him. If you decide he doesn't exist, I won't bang my head on the wall trying to change your mind (I'd make some effort, but not an overbearing one). But why should he cater to those who disregard him? Spoony wrote on Thu, 18 March 2010 18:55 And how exactly can you fault them? My case against them is pretty straightforward - i don't think the god's real, i think that even if the god is real it would not mean that this book is anything to do with him, and i think a lot of the rules are bullshit anyway. I'm curious to hear what your objection to that is if you do believe in god, if you do believe that the bible is a good reflection of what he expects of us. I don't have an objection to your belief. Unlike others, I won't persecute you because you don't believe in God, even if I had the power to. Spoony wrote on Thu, 18 March 2010 18:55 Really? Most non-believers who are against homosexuality generally just don't want to do it themselves. They don't want to restrict the rights of those who are homosexual, and they don't insist on filling the minds of children with homophobia in schools, and those are the real problems. Bad wording on my part, then. Look to my earlier comment on 'pet sins'. Spoony wrote on Thu, 18 March 2010 18:55 and i absolutely defend your right to say that. Good to know
Altzan wrote on Thu, 18 March 2010 23:02 Spoony wrote on Thu, 18 March 2010 18:55 and should this not apply to parents too? would it not also make sense for parents not to fill the head of a child with religion before they're old enough to think critically about it? It makes sense, yes. Unfortuantely, I don't think the chances of that will rise anytime soon. it's good to hear a religious person who agrees with this view. Quote: Spoony wrote on Thu, 18 March 2010 18:55 but you can't make an informed decision without it, can you? Nope. But I have yet to meet or hear of a parent who will give all this info before asking their child to make a decision. says it all, really, doesn't it? Quote: Why would it not be a decision? You've seen arguments on both sides and you've decided what you want to believe. That's a decision on your part, and you can't 'flip a switch' because it's considered an important decision, therefore you won't change your mind without heavy consideration. see above re: not how the mind works. finding something believable or finding something incredible really isn't a 'decision'. Spoony wrote on Thu, 18 March 2010 18:55 Very true. I'm curious - if you were to have a child of your own, what method would you use to teach him what theories there are about the origin of man and Earth while being neutral? I'm not asking for a huge explanation. But you support the idea of letting a child become old enough to understand that there are many ideas and theories out there, and allow them to decide for themselves. well, i don't want kids of my own but i'll answer anyway. this would also apply to educational policies. nothing religious, nothing that is dependent on 'faith' belongs in a science class. certainly you can tell people that a lot of people believe the genesis story, for example, just so long as you point out that we don't know who even wrote it, when, why, and how they knew what to write. and on that basis, and the fact there's no evidence at all to support the writing, it does not qualify as a "theory", as for example the big bang and evolution do. Spoony wrote on Thu, 18 March 2010 18:55 I can tell by the list that you know your history. I do not possess such knowledge (yet). If you want to defend a few, go ahead, but I won't pick and choose myself. there's no need so long as you acknowledge that christianity does have a bad side. i expect that even if you aren't convinced of everything on my list, you're probably nodding at a couple of them. and if you're really teaching someone about the religion, it's only fair to include the bad bits as well as the good, the way the religion behaved when it really had power. Quote: Spoony wrote on Thu, 18 March 2010 18:55 So what's "faith" (i'm just checking that your definition is the same as mine), and why is it a good thing? Hebrews 1:11 "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." (KJV) I thought you'd say that. I have no idea why people can't see what a really, really stupid sentence it is. Evidence simply means seen, something observable to support a claim. It's a completely nonsensical statement. I generally hear faith to mean the willingness to believe something without proof, and I've never, ever, ever heard why that would be a good thing. Especially since it's usually applied to propositions that, if they were true, would have enormous consequences - things like heaven and hell. So someone says: he'd make a good president because he's a person of faith. You're telling me he's willing to believe extremely important things without having a good reason to believe them? I can't imagine why anyone considers faith a good thing other than the fact they've been told it is. But I'm about to take this in a different direction... read on. Quote: I know that you don't consider faith to be good enough, that you want proof before belief. I respect that decision. It's not that simple. Someone trustworthy tells me they went to the supermarket yesterday, no proof is required. Here's a claim. The one true god has actually provided an update since Christianity, through a series of revelations involving a prophet in the 7th/8th century. The holy books arising from this revelation make it clear that the only way to heaven now is to follow the new religion, and those people who stay Christian are going to end up in hell with all the other infidels. I assume you don't believe that this is true, that you are not convinced that the Prophet Mohammed actually was the real deal. So I'm not the only one who wants proof before believing certain things. Have a good think about why it is you don't believe this. Quote: In the Old Testament, he was active against those who didn't believe. This was mainly because he was giving them proof he existed. For example, he threw 12 plagues at Pharoh to convince him to let the Israelites go. Not too long later, Moses goes up Mt. Sinai to talk with God, and they build and start worshipping a golden cow. They knew for a fact he existed, but were against him just the same. He also instructed his followers that if they find a city containing people who worship other gods, that everyone in the city ought to be slaughtered. Everyone in the city. The same objection can be made to the two examples you mention. Pharaoh and the plagues. Specifically the death of the first-born. The slaughter of innocent children as punishment for the crime of their dictator. Well, why not just kill Pharaoh? Why kill innocent people? Same could probably be said for the golden calf; moses instructs every man to kill his brother, ec etc etc. They were all worshipping the golden calf, were they? And is it really just to have half the men slaughtered and the other half turned into executioners? But hey, I don't regard the bible as being a good source of morals, nor do I have any particular reason to think that any of the stories are true, so these aren't problems from my perspective. (Note that I speak in context of the Bible, in token with your examples being pulled from the Bible as well.) Quote: 1. Because I don't think they're morally right. We've seen many cases where a person hears what we have to say and genuinely is interested to learn about it - but they shy away later, because they have this one 'pet sin' (homosexuality, drinking, fornication, etc) that they are too attached to and would rather take the easy road. Well, I don't think there is anything wrong with homosexuality. I'm not attached to that, but I see the right of gay people to live their lives unharrassed under the same laws as the rest of us as a basic human right, as is free speech (see blasphemy laws). I'm not attached to a homosexual lifestyle, I'm attached to basic human rights. As for taking the easy road, I personally think turning over all moral decisions to a book would count as an easy road instead of using our brains to actually think about actions, which are wrong, and why they're wrong, such as whether they actually cause suffering or not. Quote: 2. I don't see why a God should pander to those who refuse to believe in him. If you decide he doesn't exist, I won't bang my head on the wall trying to change your mind (I'd make some effort, but not an overbearing one). But why should he cater to those who disregard him? Firstly, it's not a case of God "not doing you any favours then". We're told that he will visit appalling punishments upon us. That's not simply god deciding he's not going to give me any more pocket money. Secondly, if disregarding him and thinking he doesn't exist makes him angry, he should have taken the time to come up with a less ridiculously incompetent revelation. Thirdly, what kind of moral system is this? You said religions depend on faith (and you probably didn't realise what a deathblow you dealt when you said that). Here's an extraordinary claim, we aren't going to show you any evidence, you've got to decide it's true and you'll be horribly punished if you've got your doubts? What the fuck? Quote: I don't have an objection to your belief. Unlike others, I won't persecute you because you don't believe in God, even if I had the power to. Yeah, but my question was how are you going to say that these other people are doing anything wrong if they did try that?
I find it absolutely appalling that the Churches have this much influence over governments. Religion has no place in the lawmaking and decision-making bodies of todays governments. I also see this as not a step backwards from acceptance of homosexuality, but a step towards homosexuality becoming illegal again. I'm gay. Does that mean I can't do things as well as someone who is straight? Does it mean that I can't raise a child with all the love and support it needs? Does it mean I can't be a role model for the child? Quite frankly, I could probably do a better job than a lot of straight couples could. Would this mean a child might grow up to be a homosexual because his/her parents are? Probably not. I am a firm believer that homosexuality is something that you are born with, it's NOT a choice. I didn't choose this lifestyle.. who would? It's hard to live as a homosexual. Although more people are open minded nowadays, its still seen as taboo in a lot of places. I could go on for pages on this subject so I'll stop there. Just giving my view on this :>
raven wrote on Fri, 19 March 2010 00:02 I'm gay. You're gay?
Kimb wrote on Fri, 19 March 2010 01:40 raven wrote on Fri, 19 March 2010 00:02 I'm gay. You're gay? I do believe thats what I said. Does it matter?
raven wrote on Fri, 19 March 2010 01:46 Kimb wrote on Fri, 19 March 2010 01:40 raven wrote on Fri, 19 March 2010 00:02 I'm gay. You're gay? I do believe thats what I said. Does it matter? nope, just checking
Kimb wrote on Fri, 19 March 2010 03:34 I do believe thats what I said. Does it matter? nope, just checking[/quote] LOL, you have a book of who's gay and who isn't or something? Raven, as a gay man, do you believe that you're either born homosexual, or not, and that's the only possibility? Or is there any room to become homosexual due to environment? I believe you already answered that quite clearly already, but I just want to make sure. I have always believed that people can be born homosexual, and this probably makes up for most of all homosexuals, no doubt. However, I also am inclined to think that people can become homosexual due to environment. Is this at least plausable, or infact insulting to even suggest?
reborn wrote on Fri, 19 March 2010 02:58 LOL, you have a book of who's gay and who isn't or something? Razz Raven, as a gay man, do you believe that you're either born homosexual, or not, and that's the only possibility? Or is there any room to become homosexual due to environment? I believe you already answered that quite clearly already, but I just want to make sure. I have always believed that people can be born homosexual, and this probably makes up for most of all homosexuals, no doubt. However, I also am inclined to think that people can become homosexual due to environment. Is this at least plausable, or infact insulting to even suggest? the thing is, IT DOESNT FUCKING MATTER EITHER WAY.
I'll pre-empt the response, by quoting myself: Quote: Sexuality is innate.
raven wrote on Fri, 19 March 2010 00:02 I find it absolutely appalling that the Churches have this much influence over governments. Religion has no place in the lawmaking and decision-making bodies of todays governments. I also see this as not a step backwards from acceptance of homosexuality, but a step towards homosexuality becoming illegal again. I'm gay. Does that mean I can't do things as well as someone who is straight? Does it mean that I can't raise a child with all the love and support it needs? Does it mean I can't be a role model for the child? Quite frankly, I could probably do a better job than a lot of straight couples could. Would this mean a child might grow up to be a homosexual because his/her parents are? Probably not. I am a firm believer that homosexuality is something that you are born with, it's NOT a choice. I didn't choose this lifestyle.. who would? It's hard to live as a homosexual. Although more people are open minded nowadays, its still seen as taboo in a lot of places. I could go on for pages on this subject so I'll stop there. Just giving my view on this :> mmhmm ^^ i think that not only is there little reason to think that a homosexual adult would be a worse parent than a heterosexual, there's one particular quality in which a homosexual parent is probably going to do better. take the chance that the child is homosexual. not at all a small chance, i'm not sure what the figures are. everyone ought to read reborn's posts earlier on, for a real story about real suffering homosexual people often put up with, but reborn's brother was very lucky in that he had understanding parents and brother. well, a lot of people are actively homophobic, and let's be honest, homosexuals are not going to give someone grief for being gay, are they? heterosexuals might well do that, even to their kids, especially if they're religious.
reborn Kimb wrote on Fri, 19 March 2010 09:58 Raven wrote on Fri, 19 March 2010 03:34 I do believe thats what I said. Does it matter? nope, just checking LOL, you have a book of who's gay and who isn't or something? Raven, as a gay man, do you believe that you're either born homosexual, or not, and that's the only possibility? Or is there any room to become homosexual due to environment? I believe you already answered that quite clearly already, but I just want to make sure. I have always believed that people can be born homosexual, and this probably makes up for most of all homosexuals, no doubt. However, I also am inclined to think that people can become homosexual due to environment. Is this at least plausable, or infact insulting to even suggest? @your fail quote, what i ment, is that i was just cheking if he ment it, or if it was an example
Kimb wrote on Fri, 19 March 2010 06:36 @your fail quote, what i ment, is that i was just cheking if he ment it, or if it was an example I put a pokey out tongue at the end of the sentence to make light of the comment. I wasn't really trying to suggest you are busy catalogueing everyones sexual preference on renegade forums. It was just humour.
reborn wrote on Fri, 19 March 2010 02:58 Kimb wrote on Fri, 19 March 2010 03:34 nope, just checking LOL, you have a book of who's gay and who isn't or something? Raven, as a gay man, do you believe that you're either born homosexual, or not, and that's the only possibility? Or is there any room to become homosexual due to environment? I believe you already answered that quite clearly already, but I just want to make sure. I have always believed that people can be born homosexual, and this probably makes up for most of all homosexuals, no doubt. However, I also am inclined to think that people can become homosexual due to environment. Is this at least plausable, or infact insulting to even suggest? I believe that you are born as either gay or straight (or both) and that is indeed the only possibility. Environment may influence a choice one makes, to try and experiment in different types of relationships, but at the end of the day you are born as you are born and nothing can change that. It's not insulting to suggest; solid scientific evidence or research hasn't been done in this area that I am aware of so its perfectly fine for people to hypothesize
I don't really buy into the "you're born homosexual" thing, but obviously they're not pretending either. I think of it being like discovering you have a new sexual fetish- you weren't necessarily "born" with it, but you're hardly faking it when you enjoy it. That being said, if anything, an environment makes you LESS likely to be homosexual- considering how overly homophobic society is, and all.
I suppose to suggest that if a hetrosexual can become homosexual due to environment, then it would also suggest that a homosexual can become hetrosexual due to environment also. I don't think the latter is possible, so therefore the former must not be possible either. Then again, look at religion and how parents affect children in this regard. Islam anyone? I am using this example because it demonstrates so clearly the affect parents have on their children, please understand I am not trying to suggest that homosexuals go around trying to brainwash young children.
Don't mention Islam in a thread that Spoony is likely to read, let alone one he started... lol Yes, but sexuality cannot be "learned", enforced or changed.
Spoony wrote on Thu, 18 March 2010 23:57 there's no need so long as you acknowledge that christianity does have a bad side. i expect that even if you aren't convinced of everything on my list, you're probably nodding at a couple of them. and if you're really teaching someone about the religion, it's only fair to include the bad bits as well as the good, the way the religion behaved when it really had power. But I still want to know why it's Christianity's fault for most of these - take a look at what happened, what these people did, and I'll see if there's anyplace in the Bible where they were commanded to do them. And I'm talking New Testament here, not the fools who think the Old Testament is still in power and sacrifices are still demanded and whatnot. Spoony wrote on Thu, 18 March 2010 23:57 I thought you'd say that. I have no idea why people can't see what a really, really stupid sentence it is. Evidence simply means seen, something observable to support a claim. It's a completely nonsensical statement. I generally hear faith to mean the willingness to believe something without proof, and I've never, ever, ever heard why that would be a good thing. Especially since it's usually applied to propositions that, if they were true, would have enormous consequences - things like heaven and hell. So someone says: he'd make a good president because he's a person of faith. You're telling me he's willing to believe extremely important things without having a good reason to believe them? I can't imagine why anyone considers faith a good thing other than the fact they've been told it is. The religion isn't bound to pure blind faith. The problem is that our faith is founded on several factors you consider to be theories. (And honestly, theories probably is a good word for them because I can't provide explicit certain proof that, say, the Bible was written by the will of God.) Spoony wrote on Thu, 18 March 2010 23:57 It's not that simple. Someone trustworthy tells me they went to the supermarket yesterday, no proof is required. Here's a claim. The one true god has actually provided an update since Christianity, through a series of revelations involving a prophet in the 7th/8th century. The holy books arising from this revelation make it clear that the only way to heaven now is to follow the new religion, and those people who stay Christian are going to end up in hell with all the other infidels. I assume you don't believe that this is true, that you are not convinced that the Prophet Mohammed actually was the real deal. So I'm not the only one who wants proof before believing certain things. Have a good think about why it is you don't believe this. Quick answer? The Bible we follow was paved with examples, demonstrations. From Old Testament to Christ. The final version of the Bible that we follow today was finalized shortly after Jesus' death, If I recall correctly. And all up to that point, there were involvements by God and Jesus, and mmiracles by the apostles. Mohammed offered nothing like that at all. But the problem - I didn't see God's message to Mohammed. I also didn't see Jesus himself or the apostles. Our faith, essentially, is built on our ancestor's experiences. Spoony wrote on Thu, 18 March 2010 23:57 He also instructed his followers that if they find a city containing people who worship other gods, that everyone in the city ought to be slaughtered. Everyone in the city. The slaughter of innocent children as punishment for the crime of their dictator. Well, why not just kill Pharaoh? Why kill innocent people? Same could probably be said for the golden calf; moses instructs every man to kill his brother, ec etc etc. They were all worshipping the golden calf, were they? And is it really just to have half the men slaughtered and the other half turned into executioners? They weren't wiped out by God purely for nonbelief. They weren;t wiped out by God just because they worshipped false gods, either. They were doing far worse things, such as sacrificing their children to their gods. As for the children dying - they didn't go to hell. Since they weren't old enough to understand, they went to heaven. If they had lived, though, it would be far worse - they'd have a warped view of what happened that day, and probably rebelled against those people by instinct. Only other option is to let all the people live, and continue their false worship and human sacrifice. Good idea. Spoony wrote on Thu, 18 March 2010 23:57 Firstly, it's not a case of God "not doing you any favours then". We're told that he will visit appalling punishments upon us. That's not simply god deciding he's not going to give me any more pocket money. Okay, but still, why shouldn't he act the way he has promised he will? Are you saying the punishment should be less severe? Spoony wrote on Thu, 18 March 2010 23:57 Secondly, if disregarding him and thinking he doesn't exist makes him angry, he should have taken the time to come up with a less ridiculously incompetent revelation. How is it incompetent? Spoony wrote on Thu, 18 March 2010 23:57 Thirdly, what kind of moral system is this? You said religions depend on faith (and you probably didn't realise what a deathblow you dealt when you said that). Here's an extraordinary claim, we aren't going to show you any evidence, you've got to decide it's true and you'll be horribly punished if you've got your doubts? What the fuck? re: not just faith alone. Spoony wrote on Thu, 18 March 2010 23:57 Yeah, but my question was how are you going to say that these other people are doing anything wrong if they did try that? Sorry, you lost me... EDIT: Can I get your opinion on this passage I found? Quote: Our pre-suppositions can be self-destructive! One is at risk of having built a house on sand. When the rains of existence come down, the house may not stand. We argue that you may have claimed the right to judge the rationality and morality of things. But consider that apart from God you cannot make any of your claims stick beyond your own subjective state. This is so because you cannot explain rationality itself. Why do the laws of logic seem to work? Who says so? Why do we all have moral ideas about right and wrong and the desire to impose them? Why do we expect nature to act uniformly? The skeptic cannot provide a satisfactory explanation for the "why" of the most basic "laws," the very criteria he wants to impose. He has to admit that either he made them up or that he accepts them on the authority of other finite creatures. http://tinyurl.com/yjp4vrx
Altzan wrote on Fri, 19 March 2010 20:37 But I still want to know why it's Christianity's fault for most of these - take a look at what happened, what these people did, and I'll see if there's anyplace in the Bible where they were commanded to do them. And I'm talking New Testament here, not the fools who think the Old Testament is still in power and sacrifices are still demanded and whatnot. firstly, the old testament is no longer in effect, is it? well, jesus said that every jot and tittle of the old laws must be carried out. the closest i can think of to a repudiation of old testament law is he without sin cast the first stone, which essentially means the law's still there but you can't enforce it. secondly, i suppose i do have to justify the examples i cited, to explain how christianity played a credible role in causing such appalling behaviour. here's the list. - two thousand years of horrific anti-semitism and anti-gay people well, the worst anti-semitism throughout history has always come directly from christianity. in modern times, islam is catching up fast, but christianity still takes the gold. christianity's sole basis for anti-semitism is one line in one of the gospels which says that, at the trial, the jewish religious authorities actually called for the blood of christ to be on their heads and on the heads of all successive generations. any atheist will regard this as immoral bullshit. even if the whole story is true, it's a stupid thing to say. i could claim responsibility for a crime, whether i was guilty of it or not. what i can't do is say "and my children, who haven't been born yet, are guilty of it too, as will be their children, and their children..." and yet this one line is the root cause of unbelievable anti-semitism throughout the ages in every society where christianity has ever had power. killing jesus seems like quite a big crime for a christian, and according to the bible, all jews have that guilt, not just the ones who were involved in the trial and crucifixion. you probably weren't taught in schools how dangerous it used to be to be jewish around easter time most years, including in america. like i said, you never get taught the bad side of religion. when you do, you're told that it was somehow a corruption of religion, of an unscrupulous person deciding that he wanted to do something evil and tried to find a religious passage to help him get away with it... - violently standing in the way of scientific progress well, if you take the christian view that you must believe the right things about god and jesus otherwise you'll go to hell, and if you really, really believe in hell, you'll do a great deal to stamp out anything that might make people question the religion. imagine it. imagine you have a child. someone like me who speaks critically of religion, or someone involved in scientific research on the origins of the earth and of the human species... what they say could make your child turn away from christianity. they can make your child liable to suffer the most horrific punishment ever imagined! would this not make us the very worst of criminals, even worse than someone who tried to murder the child, or tried to rape them? would you not do anything to stamp this out? if not, then you probably don't really believe in hell. - the crusades see the particular old testament law i cited earlier, about if a city contains people who worship a different god, you must put the entire city and everyone in it to slaughter. keeping that in mind, the bloodshed of the crusades looks rather tame. it must be pointed out that the christians were not the original aggressors - islam had conquered about half the christian world by the time the crusades finally started - but that's hardly a problem for my side of the argument. - the inquisition see my above commentary on scientific research. if believing the wrong thing sends you to hell, then a little torture to set people straight is basically doing them a favour. if you really, really buy the concept of hell, this is the sort of thing you'll do to protect people from it. blasphemy laws are only the beginning. - willing tool of imperialism and of a huge list of dictators throughout the ages whenever you read about the great historical european empires, you'll find them to be christian monarchies, or successors to them, in every single case. again, if you really believe in heaven and hell, then taking over some foreign country and converting them to christianity, by force if necessary, would be the kindest thing you could do to them. - enthusiastic ally of fascism in europe in every single fascist country in europe leading up to the second world war, and there were a hell of a lot more than just germany and italy, in every single case the fascist powers were either set up directly in collusion with the vatican or the vatican became enthusiastic collaborators with them after they'd taken power. fascism was essentially an exact synonym for "catholic right wing". the very first major treaty hitler signed upon taking power was with the vatican, giving the catholic church all sorts of powers in germany, and that was one of the few treaties hitler didn't break. mussolini did the same in italy, croatia was a catholic puppet state of hitler, salazar was in holy orders, etc etc etc. the last time the catholic church supported a "just war" was when hitler and mussolini helped franco overthrow the spanish republic. the catholic church's relationship with every single fascist country was far stronger than its ties with any non-fascist country. the church even ordered hitler's birthday to be celebrated in churches all over, right up until the very end of nazi germany. even after germany was defeated, the vatican helped numerous nazi war criminals escape to south america. what about hitler himself? well, when he was rising to power, he said over and over and over again that the reason he hated jews so much was because he was a christian. the bible readily accommodates this, as i've outlined above. he said he was doing god's work in combating the jew, and that resonated with a huge number of christians in germany. hitler didn't just flick a switch and made everyone in germany suddenly hate jews... anti-semitism had been bubbling away under the surface for two thousand years, thanks to europe's christian history. - the enormous death toll it's helped to rack up by assisting the spread of AIDS by absurd rules on condoms, especially in africa well, i'd really love to know the christian justification for spreading lies about the effectiveness of condoms, when millions of africans die of aids every year. in other words, you tell me. i can't figure it out, it doesn't make sense to an atheist, especially since christians generally call themselves pro-life. Altzan wrote on Fri, 19 March 2010 20:37 The religion isn't bound to pure blind faith. The problem is that our faith is founded on several factors you consider to be theories. (And honestly, theories probably is a good word for them because I can't provide explicit certain proof that, say, the Bible was written by the will of God.) Quote: Quick answer? The Bible we follow was paved with examples, demonstrations. From Old Testament to Christ. The final version of the Bible that we follow today was finalized shortly after Jesus' death, If I recall correctly. And all up to that point, there were involvements by God and Jesus, and mmiracles by the apostles. Mohammed offered nothing like that at all. But the problem - I didn't see God's message to Mohammed. I also didn't see Jesus himself or the apostles. Our faith, essentially, is built on our ancestor's experiences. So it's not faith at all, then, is it? It's just you're considering things to be evidence when they're either dubious or outright untrue. For starters, the bible you have today was by no means finalised shortly after Jesus' death. the gospels themselves were written decades after the crucifixion is supposed to have happened, and i'd like you to tell me exactly who by, please, and how they knew what to write, and why they contradict each other so often. and they aren't even all the gospels. quite a lot more than just the new testament four existed... it was a council of men, politicians, who decided which bits went into the bible, and this was centuries after the time jesus was supposed to have lived. Spoony wrote on Thu, 18 March 2010 23:57 They weren't wiped out by God purely for nonbelief. They weren;t wiped out by God just because they worshipped false gods, either. They were doing far worse things, such as sacrificing their children to their gods. Firstly how do you know? All you have is an account supposedly written by their slaughterers. Secondly, do you quarrel with the idea of sacrificing a child to your god? The bible appears to be in favour of that. Or is it only if it's the right god? Quote: As for the children dying - they didn't go to hell. Since they weren't old enough to understand, they went to heaven. If they had lived, though, it would be far worse - they'd have a warped view of what happened that day, and probably rebelled against those people by instinct. Firstly, we're still talking about the old testament here, and there is no mention of hell in the old testament. Either god hadn't made it yet, or he hadn't thought it worth telling anybody about it - which seems implausible, given his general enthusiasm for extravagant punishments in the old testament, and his quickness in threatening them. Secondly, I just want to quote the fact that you just attempted to justify the slaughter of innocent children. A rebuttal isn't really necessary - simply quoting the statement for all to see will probably do. Quote: Only other option is to let all the people live, and continue their false worship and human sacrifice. Good idea. There's no small print about human sacrifice in the instructions for genocide on religious grounds. So that just leaves: "the only other option is to let all the people live and continue their false worship, and we can't have that". Oh dear. Bit of a departure from your position on the previous page. Spoony wrote on Thu, 18 March 2010 23:57 Okay, but still, why shouldn't he act the way he has promised he will? Are you saying the punishment should be less severe? I'm saying that there should not be a punishment at all. Disagreeing with him or his rules, or having doubts in his existence, or having doubts that the books which claim to reflect his mind or that the people who claim to speak for him actually do so, is not a crime at all by any sane definition. Quote: How is it incompetent? For starters, it took place in bronze-age Palestine. Not in China, where people could read and write. That was by far the greatest civilisation in the world at the time, and yet it took hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of years for the message of Christianity to reach China, at which point the Chinese asked the pretty good question of what took you so long. To continue, the fact it's so garbled and inconsistent, and to cut a long story short, ridiculous. A huge number of people are not trying not to believe it, as you've put it, but simply find it too stupid to believe. Furthermore, many people think it would be quite horrible if it was true... the greatest dictatorship ever imagined. Quote: Spoony wrote on Thu, 18 March 2010 23:57 Thirdly, what kind of moral system is this? You said religions depend on faith (and you probably didn't realise what a deathblow you dealt when you said that). Here's an extraordinary claim, we aren't going to show you any evidence, you've got to decide it's true and you'll be horribly punished if you've got your doubts? What the fuck? re: not just faith alone. ah, yes. faith based on evidence. well, any time the evidence wants to present itself, there's no rush. it's only been two thousand years. but the important part of that statement was the second half. "Here's an extraordinary claim, we aren't going to show you any evidence, you've got to decide it's true and you'll be horribly punished if you've got your doubts" Quote: Spoony wrote on Thu, 18 March 2010 23:57 Yeah, but my question was how are you going to say that these other people are doing anything wrong if they did try that? Sorry, you lost me... it's simple. we were talking about whether christians should impose their rules on non-believers. you said that many christians don't. well, can you find any fault with the christians that do? Quote: EDIT: Can I get your opinion on this passage I found? k. Quote: Our pre-suppositions can be self-destructive! One is at risk of having built a house on sand. When the rains of existence come down, the house may not stand. sure, that's a rather poetic way of describing the decline of religion, though i don't think that's what the author is talking about. still, it's a nice image... "the rains of existence", we're learning more and more about the world and the universe and ourselves, and "the house" of religion is crumbling more and more by the day. Quote: We argue that you may have claimed the right to judge the rationality and morality of things. But consider that apart from God you cannot make any of your claims stick beyond your own subjective state. Why apart from God? Quote: This is so because you cannot explain rationality itself. Why do the laws of logic seem to work? Who says so? We're doing our best to understand them. It doesn't help that faith gets in the way. Quote: Why do we all have moral ideas about right and wrong and the desire to impose them? Because most of us care about ourselves, our families, and humanity in general. Quote: Why do we expect nature to act uniformly? Who expects that? Quote: The skeptic cannot provide a satisfactory explanation for the "why" of the most basic "laws," the very criteria he wants to impose. Uh? Science is basically the attempt to find out why things happen. As for "wants to impose", he really has lost me there. Quote: He has to admit that either he made them up or that he accepts them on the authority of other finite creatures. Made what up, sorry? As for accepting on authority of people who have no sensible claim to knowledge, well, that's religion in a nutshell.
Spoony wrote on Fri, 19 March 2010 22:46 firstly, the old testament is no longer in effect, is it? well, jesus said that every jot and tittle of the old laws must be carried out. No. Otherwise we'd still be doing sacrifices and basically operating under Moses' statutes. Not every single law in the OT is supposed to be disregarded, but certainly not all of it is still applicable. Spoony wrote on Fri, 19 March 2010 22:46 - two thousand years of horrific anti-semitism and anti-gay people well, the worst anti-semitism throughout history has always come directly from christianity. in modern times, islam is catching up fast, but christianity still takes the gold. christianity's sole basis for anti-semitism is one line in one of the gospels which says that, at the trial, the jewish religious authorities actually called for the blood of christ to be on their heads and on the heads of all successive generations. any atheist will regard this as immoral bullshit. even if the whole story is true, it's a stupid thing to say. i could claim responsibility for a crime, whether i was guilty of it or not. what i can't do is say "and my children, who haven't been born yet, are guilty of it too, as will be their children, and their children..." and yet this one line is the root cause of unbelievable anti-semitism throughout the ages in every society where christianity has ever had power. killing jesus seems like quite a big crime for a christian, and according to the bible, all jews have that guilt, not just the ones who were involved in the trial and crucifixion. They called for it to be on their heads, huh? So why does that make it the Bible's fault for relaying that information? I don't recall any passage demanding anti-semitism to be carried out - sounds more like man's stupid actions. Spoony wrote on Fri, 19 March 2010 22:46 - violently standing in the way of scientific progress well, if you take the christian view that you must believe the right things about god and jesus otherwise you'll go to hell, and if you really, really believe in hell, you'll do a great deal to stamp out anything that might make people question the religion. imagine it. imagine you have a child. someone like me who speaks critically of religion, or someone involved in scientific research on the origins of the earth and of the human species... what they say could make your child turn away from christianity. they can make your child liable to suffer the most horrific punishment ever imagined! would this not make us the very worst of criminals, even worse than someone who tried to murder the child, or tried to rape them? would you not do anything to stamp this out? if not, then you probably don't really believe in hell. I'm not against legit scientific progress, myself. So far, all the scientific theories that contradict the Bible have no more evidence than it does. Spoony wrote on Fri, 19 March 2010 22:46 - the crusades see the particular old testament law i cited earlier, about if a city contains people who worship a different god, you must put the entire city and everyone in it to slaughter. As soon as you quote it. All you've said so far is that God destoryed SOME cities... not every single one they came across. Spoony wrote on Fri, 19 March 2010 22:46 if believing the wrong thing sends you to hell, then a little torture to set people straight is basically doing them a favour. if you really, really buy the concept of hell, this is the sort of thing you'll do to protect people from it. blasphemy laws are only the beginning. No... I wouldn't be doing them a favor at all. As I said before, If you don't want to believe after I've given my case, I won't persist. Spoony wrote on Fri, 19 March 2010 22:46 - willing tool of imperialism and of a huge list of dictators throughout the ages whenever you read about the great historical european empires, you'll find them to be christian monarchies, or successors to them, in every single case. again, if you really believe in heaven and hell, then taking over some foreign country and converting them to christianity, by force if necessary, would be the kindest thing you could do to them. See above. Spoony wrote on Fri, 19 March 2010 22:46 - enthusiastic ally of fascism in europe in every single fascist country in europe leading up to the second world war, and there were a hell of a lot more than just germany and italy, in every single case the fascist powers were either set up directly in collusion with the vatican or the vatican became enthusiastic collaborators with them after they'd taken power. fascism was essentially an exact synonym for "catholic right wing". the very first major treaty hitler signed upon taking power was with the vatican, giving the catholic church all sorts of powers in germany, and that was one of the few treaties hitler didn't break. mussolini did the same in italy, croatia was a catholic puppet state of hitler, salazar was in holy orders, etc etc etc. the last time the catholic church supported a "just war" was when hitler and mussolini helped franco overthrow the spanish republic. the catholic church's relationship with every single fascist country was far stronger than its ties with any non-fascist country. the church even ordered hitler's birthday to be celebrated in churches all over, right up until the very end of nazi germany. even after germany was defeated, the vatican helped numerous nazi war criminals escape to south america. what about hitler himself? well, when he was rising to power, he said over and over and over again that the reason he hated jews so much was because he was a christian. the bible readily accommodates this, as i've outlined above. he said he was doing god's work in combating the jew, and that resonated with a huge number of christians in germany. hitler didn't just flick a switch and made everyone in germany suddenly hate jews... anti-semitism had been bubbling away under the surface for two thousand years, thanks to europe's christian history. Thank God I don't belong to that Vatican/Catholic splinter-group. Spoony wrote on Fri, 19 March 2010 22:46 - the enormous death toll it's helped to rack up by assisting the spread of AIDS by absurd rules on condoms, especially in africa well, i'd really love to know the christian justification for spreading lies about the effectiveness of condoms, when millions of africans die of aids every year. in other words, you tell me. i can't figure it out, it doesn't make sense to an atheist, especially since christians generally call themselves pro-life. I can't tell you - I don't know either, myself. Were they saying condoms were bad and shouldn't be used? ... Most of your above quotes signify events caused by - as you label them - Christianity in general or specific denominations. My denomination doesn't believe in this stuff: Anti-semitism - I see no reason to persecute a race for one historical act. Forced acceptance of religion - No. I DO NOT support that at all. Fascism - Nope, don't care for that either. I'm not defending every denomination, just my own and that which is common to all of them. I'm not trying to disregard these events you describe - I'm trying to say that we're just as against their happening as you are. Spoony wrote on Fri, 19 March 2010 22:46 So it's not faith at all, then, is it? It's just you're considering things to be evidence when they're either dubious or outright untrue. How'd you come to that conclusion? Spoony wrote on Fri, 19 March 2010 22:46 For starters, the bible you have today was by no means finalised shortly after Jesus' death. Okay. Spoony wrote on Fri, 19 March 2010 22:46 the gospels themselves were written decades after the crucifixion is supposed to have happened, and i'd like you to tell me exactly who by, please, and how they knew what to write, and why they contradict each other so often. 1. Each book in the Bible states who wrote it near the beginning or end. 2. God inspired them to write what they did. They didn't write it by their own intuition alone. 3. Why the gospels contradict? Why four seperate people's own written logs of 30 years do not perfectly match up? Spoony wrote on Fri, 19 March 2010 22:46 and they aren't even all the gospels. quite a lot more than just the new testament four existed... it was a council of men, politicians, who decided which bits went into the bible, and this was centuries after the time jesus was supposed to have lived. Where'd you learn that from? Spoony wrote on Fri, 19 March 2010 22:46 Firstly how do you know? All you have is an account supposedly written by their slaughterers. The same account that says there were slaughters int he first place? If you can say "God did this" and point to a Bible scripture, I can do the same. Spoony wrote on Fri, 19 March 2010 22:46 Secondly, do you quarrel with the idea of sacrificing a child to your god? The bible appears to be in favour of that. Or is it only if it's the right god? Since when is the Bible in favor of it? Only mention I know of is the test that was given to Abram. Spoony wrote on Fri, 19 March 2010 22:46 Firstly, we're still talking about the old testament here, and there is no mention of hell in the old testament. Either god hadn't made it yet, or he hadn't thought it worth telling anybody about it - which seems implausible, given his general enthusiasm for extravagant punishments in the old testament, and his quickness in threatening them. Hell existed regardless. There's no seperate place for OT-based people to go. They also had a different set of laws to live under. Spoony wrote on Fri, 19 March 2010 22:46 There's no small print about human sacrifice in the instructions for genocide on religious grounds. So that just leaves: "the only other option is to let all the people live and continue their false worship, and we can't have that". Oh dear. Bit of a departure from your position on the previous page. My position? I thought we were discussing what God did and why. Also, what are you trying to say here - that they didn't do sacrifices? Spoony wrote on Fri, 19 March 2010 22:46 I'm saying that there should not be a punishment at all. Disagreeing with him or his rules, or having doubts in his existence, or having doubts that the books which claim to reflect his mind or that the people who claim to speak for him actually do so, is not a crime at all by any sane definition. I have yet to see parents raise a child, be subject too all of his/her complaints/disobedience/rudeness/etc, and not punish the child in any way. Man was given a paradise with only one rule to obey... one rule. And he broke it. It's all gone downhill from there, what with those taken under God's care constantly complaining and demanding more. Or would you rather God not make any rules at all and let humans do as we please, and abolish Heaven and Hell? Spoony wrote on Fri, 19 March 2010 22:46 For starters, it took place in bronze-age Palestine. Not in China, where people could read and write. That was by far the greatest civilisation in the world at the time, and yet it took hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of years for the message of Christianity to reach China, at which point the Chinese asked the pretty good question of what took you so long. To continue, the fact it's so garbled and inconsistent, and to cut a long story short, ridiculous. A huge number of people are not trying not to believe it, as you've put it, but simply find it too stupid to believe. Furthermore, many people think it would be quite horrible if it was true... the greatest dictatorship ever imagined. Or the greatest paradise. It all depends on how you look at it, and what facts you bring forth and what facts you bury. I also see the implication that the possibility of any being having greater stature than man is horrible to consider. Spoony wrote on Fri, 19 March 2010 22:46 ah, yes. faith based on evidence. well, any time the evidence wants to present itself, there's no rush. it's only been two thousand years. but the important part of that statement was the second half. "Here's an extraordinary claim, we aren't going to show you any evidence, you've got to decide it's true and you'll be horribly punished if you've got your doubts" There are Bible statements that consist with Astronomy, Paleontology, Meteorology, Biology, Anthropology, Hydrology, Geology, and Physics. Also with Prophecy, Textual Evidence, and Historians. So yeah, there's evidence. Spoony wrote on Fri, 19 March 2010 22:46 we were talking about whether christians should impose their rules on non-believers. you said that many christians don't. well, can you find any fault with the christians that do? Yes, because they shouldn't impose their rules on non-belivers. Standing up for what you think is right is one thing, but trying to force someone else to think your way is another. Spoony wrote on Fri, 19 March 2010 22:46 Quote: This is so because you cannot explain rationality itself. Why do the laws of logic seem to work? Who says so? We're doing our best to understand them. It doesn't help that faith gets in the way. "Get the answer book out of my face and let me solve it myself." Spoony wrote on Fri, 19 March 2010 22:46 Quote: Why do we all have moral ideas about right and wrong and the desire to impose them? Because most of us care about ourselves, our families, and humanity in general. Why are we born with that caring attitude? Or are you still trying to figure that out as well?
Altzan wrote on Sat, 20 March 2010 00:39 Spoony wrote on Fri, 19 March 2010 22:46 firstly, the old testament is no longer in effect, is it? well, jesus said that every jot and tittle of the old laws must be carried out. No. Otherwise we'd still be doing sacrifices and basically operating under Moses' statutes. Not every single law in the OT is supposed to be disregarded, but certainly not all of it is still applicable. So you're deciding which ones are not applicable now? How do you decide that? And how do you reconcile that with Deuteronomy 13:1; Whatever I am now commanding you, you must keep and observe, adding nothing to it, taking nothing away. Quote: They called for it to be on their heads, huh? So why does that make it the Bible's fault for relaying that information? I don't recall any passage demanding anti-semitism to be carried out - sounds more like man's stupid actions. Because the Bible is absolutely full of cases where innocent people are punished for the crimes committed by others. If you don't object to these, saying that the bible is a source of morals, and if you're further told that all Jews are guilty of the murder of Jesus... Quote: I'm not against legit scientific progress, myself. So far, all the scientific theories that contradict the Bible have no more evidence than it does. lol... where's the evidence supporting every assertion made by the bible, please? Quote: As soon as you quote it. All you've said so far is that God destoryed SOME cities... not every single one they came across. eh? do you even know what i was talking about? anyone who's read the bible carefully will know which one i mean. along the lines of "if you hear of a town where there are people therein who worship a different god, you must put the entire town to the sword". this is not a case of "god destroying SOME cities"... it's a moral commandment in your holy book. and that's by no means the only example of genocide mentioned in the bible. the slaughter of the egyptian firstborn, sodom and gomorrah, the israelites (numerous occasions), noah's ark... Quote: No... I wouldn't be doing them a favor at all. As I said before, If you don't want to believe after I've given my case, I won't persist. so you're quite content to allow others to go to hell, when you could save them? Quote: Thank God I don't belong to that Vatican/Catholic splinter-group. they're the splinter group, are they? Quote: I can't tell you - I don't know either, myself. Were they saying condoms were bad and shouldn't be used? they outright lie about the properties of condoms, saying they not only don't help prevent aids (of course they help) but actually can increase the chances of aids. not only that, but they declare that aids are sinful. when millions of people are dying in africa every year and we could easily prevent this through a simple campaign of education, just how evil do you have to be to effectively collaborate with the virus? Quote: Most of your above quotes signify events caused by - as you label them - Christianity in general or specific denominations. My denomination doesn't believe in this stuff: Anti-semitism - I see no reason to persecute a race for one historical act. Your god seems to. Like I said, there are plenty of occasions in the bible where he innocent people are punished for the crimes of others. This is no surprise to me, nor does it present a problem for atheists, of course - it was written at a time when humanity's grasp of morality was pretty feeble, so no wonder it's such a shitty source of morals. Quote: Forced acceptance of religion - No. I DO NOT support that at all. but you can't deny the logic that if someone genuinely did believe in heaven and hell, it would make perfect sense to convert people by force if necessary, and they would be doing their victims the highest of favours. Quote: Fascism - Nope, don't care for that either. cool, but you don't seem to mind dictatorships per se. Quote: I'm not defending every denomination, just my own and that which is common to all of them. I'm not trying to disregard these events you describe - I'm trying to say that we're just as against their happening as you are. You're not just as against the slaughter of innocent children... Quote: Spoony wrote on Fri, 19 March 2010 22:46 So it's not faith at all, then, is it? It's just you're considering things to be evidence when they're either dubious or outright untrue. How'd you come to that conclusion? you said it's based on evidence (giving extremely shaky examples) and then basically said "faith" is required to fill in the gaps. how hopeful you must be that you've filled in the gaps correctly... Quote: Spoony wrote on Fri, 19 March 2010 22:46 the gospels themselves were written decades after the crucifixion is supposed to have happened, and i'd like you to tell me exactly who by, please, and how they knew what to write, and why they contradict each other so often. 1. Each book in the Bible states who wrote it near the beginning or end. "exactly who" Quote: 2. God inspired them to write what they did. They didn't write it by their own intuition alone. How do you know that, and how do you know this was not the case for the numerous gospels that were rejected from your bible because a group of politicians decided they should be rejected? Quote: 3. Why the gospels contradict? Why four seperate people's own written logs of 30 years do not perfectly match up? Not even vaguely, in some cases. Quote: Spoony wrote on Fri, 19 March 2010 22:46 and they aren't even all the gospels. quite a lot more than just the new testament four existed... it was a council of men, politicians, who decided which bits went into the bible, and this was centuries after the time jesus was supposed to have lived. Where'd you learn that from? Council of Nicaea, quite common knowledge... perhaps you could explain from where you "learned" that the bible was compiled "very soon after jesus' death"? Quote: Spoony wrote on Fri, 19 March 2010 22:46 Firstly how do you know? All you have is an account supposedly written by their slaughterers. The same account that says there were slaughters int he first place? If you can say "God did this" and point to a Bible scripture, I can do the same. Yes, you can point at a scripture. Then the next step would be to demonstrate its truth. Quote: Spoony wrote on Fri, 19 March 2010 22:46 Secondly, do you quarrel with the idea of sacrificing a child to your god? The bible appears to be in favour of that. Or is it only if it's the right god? Since when is the Bible in favor of it? Only mention I know of is the test that was given to Abram. And the general who asked for victory and in return he'd sacrifice whatever he saw when he got home, which turned out to be his daughter. And numerous commands to the israelites. Quote: Hell existed regardless. There's no seperate place for OT-based people to go. They also had a different set of laws to live under. You didn't answer the question. If Hell was there, why didn't god say anything about it in the old testament? He's very keen on making creatively vicious threats to back up his commandments, so if he's got this fiery torture chamber you'll go to if you aren't careful, why not mention it? Quote: Spoony wrote on Fri, 19 March 2010 22:46 There's no small print about human sacrifice in the instructions for genocide on religious grounds. So that just leaves: "the only other option is to let all the people live and continue their false worship, and we can't have that". Oh dear. Bit of a departure from your position on the previous page. My position? I thought we were discussing what God did and why. Also, what are you trying to say here - that they didn't do sacrifices? You're justifying the murder of innocent children. I think it's up to you to prove their adults carried out sacrifices, and then explain why punishing innocent children is justified even if their parents are criminals. Spoony wrote on Fri, 19 March 2010 22:46 I have yet to see parents raise a child, be subject too all of his/her complaints/disobedience/rudeness/etc, and not punish the child in any way. How is that an analogy? This god of yours gives us no reason at all to think he exists, and his followers tell us we're rude for asking for evidence (you said "hopeless case", remember) and then we're told we'll suffer horrific punishments if we have doubts. You doubt some religious claims too, remember... basically all the ones except your own version of Christianity, so you know what it's like not to believe somebody's religion. Quote: Man was given a paradise with only one rule to obey... one rule. And he broke it. i assume you're talking about adam and eve. even if that was true, what's that got to do with anyone other than adam and eve? Quote: It's all gone downhill from there, what with those taken under God's care constantly complaining and demanding more. complaining? your bible is full of genocide, slavery, the punishment of innocents... and you're condemning complaining? as for "demanding more", i wouldn't ask for anything from a character i thought was fictional. Quote: Or would you rather God not make any rules at all and let humans do as we please, and abolish Heaven and Hell? yes, because his rules are absolutely shit. like i said, this is only to be expected... the men who wrote the bible did so two thousand years ago, and their moral standards were pretty crappy by today's standards. yes, i do want religion to let humans do as we please, some of us do actually like the idea of democracy. Quote: Or the greatest paradise. It all depends on how you look at it, and what facts you bring forth and what facts you bury. Facts? When are they going to turn up? As for whether i like it or not, this is essentially based upon the depiction of your god in the bible... a cruel, merciless, unjust, bloodthirsty tyrant. it probably does depend how you look at it... if you like freedom and democracy and morality, it sucks. if you don't care about those, you might think it's paradise. Quote: I also see the implication that the possibility of any being having greater stature than man is horrible to consider. No, it's not. Quote: There are Bible statements that consist with Astronomy, Paleontology, Meteorology, Biology, Anthropology, Hydrology, Geology, and Physics. Also with Prophecy, Textual Evidence, and Historians. So yeah, there's evidence. Go on? Quote: Yes, because they shouldn't impose their rules on non-belivers. Standing up for what you think is right is one thing, but trying to force someone else to think your way is another. And yet you defend the threatened punishment for thinking the wrong way. Quote: "Get the answer book out of my face and let me solve it myself." Huh? Quote: Why are we born with that caring attitude? Or are you still trying to figure that out as well? I wouldn't necessarily say we were born with it, but the concept of human solidarity, of caring for one's family, has certainly helped us last this long.
Spoony wrote on Sat, 20 March 2010 01:22 Quote: but certainly not all of it is still applicable. So you're deciding which ones are not applicable now? How do you decide that? And how do you reconcile that with Deuteronomy 13:1; Whatever I am now commanding you, you must keep and observe, adding nothing to it, taking nothing away. There's also verses saying why the Old Testament was replaced by the New Testament. Several mention the "new covenant" God was planning on/did make with the people. Another mentioned something like, "If the old system was perfect, it wouldn't need to be replaced." It was an update, per se, since the way of life since then has changed. Spoony wrote on Sat, 20 March 2010 01:22 if you're further told that all Jews are guilty of the murder of Jesus... Where is that said? Spoony wrote on Sat, 20 March 2010 01:22 lol... where's the evidence supporting every assertion made by the bible, please? You thus inply that every scientific theory has supporting evidence, which of course is not true. Spoony wrote on Sat, 20 March 2010 01:22 eh? do you even know what i was talking about? anyone who's read the bible carefully will know which one i mean. along the lines of "if you hear of a town where there are people therein who worship a different god, you must put the entire town to the sword". "The primary reason was punishment for wrongdoing. The populations of the destroyed cities had long histories of grievous sins (Gen 15:16, Dt 25:17-19), which often included sacrificing their children to false gods (Dt 12:29-31). Their consciences should have told these people they were doing wrong. Had they listened and changed their ways, they would not have been destroyed. God has said that if any nation is about to be destroyed as punishment but repents, he will forgive them and not destroy them (Jer 18:7-8). In fact, this occurred in the city of Ninevah (Jonah 3:4-10). In the cities that were given to the Israelites as their inheritance, there was a secondary reason: totally depraved cultures were destroyed so that they would not corrupt the Israelites into committing the same evil acts (Dt 7:1-4, 20:16-18). This did in fact occur: when the Israelites didn't obey God and destroy cities, they too began practicing child sacrifice (Ps 106:34-40). Additionally, the destruction of wicked nations served as an instructive warning to contemporaries (Josh 2:1-11) and future generations (1 Cor 10:1-11)." Spoony wrote on Sat, 20 March 2010 01:22 so you're quite content to allow others to go to hell, when you could save them? You misunderstood me, so let me try again. I will try to teach the word to others because I don't want them to go to Hell. If, however, they hear and then choose not to believe, I will not relentlessly press the issue. Spoony wrote on Sat, 20 March 2010 01:22 they're the splinter group, are they? They're a splinter group, yes. Spoony wrote on Sat, 20 March 2010 01:22 they outright lie about the properties of condoms, saying they not only don't help prevent aids (of course they help) but actually can increase the chances of aids. not only that, but they declare that aids are sinful. Man, that sucks. I don't see how a disease (if that's the right word) is sinful. Certain methods of contacting it are, but not just having it. Spoony wrote on Sat, 20 March 2010 01:22 when millions of people are dying in africa every year and we could easily prevent this through a simple campaign of education, just how evil do you have to be to effectively collaborate with the virus? How do you know that they were aware that condoms did work, or that they really didn't believe condoms were sinful? Spoony wrote on Sat, 20 March 2010 01:22 Quote: Anti-semitism - I see no reason to persecute a race for one historical act. Your god seems to. Like I said, there are plenty of occasions in the bible where he innocent people are punished for the crimes of others. This is no surprise to me, nor does it present a problem for atheists, of course - it was written at a time when humanity's grasp of morality was pretty feeble, so no wonder it's such a shitty source of morals. You still haven't mentioned where the Bible says to persecute an entire race for one sole act. Spoony wrote on Sat, 20 March 2010 01:22 but you can't deny the logic that if someone genuinely did believe in heaven and hell, it would make perfect sense to convert people by force if necessary, and they would be doing their victims the highest of favours. Yes, I can. Converting is a choice, it can't be forced. If I forced you to be baptized and orally declare that you believe the Bible, it wouldn't do jack. You have to mean it. Spoony wrote on Sat, 20 March 2010 01:22 cool, but you don't seem to mind dictatorships per se. If God exists and has all that power that he does, why should we be equal with him? Spoony wrote on Sat, 20 March 2010 01:22 Quote: How'd you come to that conclusion? you said it's based on evidence (giving extremely shaky examples) and then basically said "faith" is required to fill in the gaps. how hopeful you must be that you've filled in the gaps correctly... It'd be hard NOT to. Spoony wrote on Sat, 20 March 2010 01:22 Quote: 1. Each book in the Bible states who wrote it near the beginning or end. "exactly who" "God used men to write down His thoughts much as a businessman uses a secretary. He allowed them to put these thoughts in their own words. But the men themselves said they were inspired. (2 Peter 1:20-21) 20 For YOU know this first, that no prophecy of Scripture springs from any private interpretation. 21 For prophecy was at no time brought by man's will, but men spoke from God as they were borne along by holy spirit. Again Paul's words: (2 Timothy 3:16-17) 16 All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work. Approximately 40 men, from Moses to the Apostle John were Bible writers from 1513 BCE to 98 CE. Many may claim otherwise but an internal study of the Bible will show that it is of Divine origin." Spoony wrote on Sat, 20 March 2010 01:22 Quote: 2. God inspired them to write what they did. They didn't write it by their own intuition alone. How do you know that, and how do you know this was not the case for the numerous gospels that were rejected from your bible because a group of politicians decided they should be rejected? See above. Spoony wrote on Sat, 20 March 2010 01:22 Quote: 3. Why the gospels contradict? Why four seperate people's own written logs of 30 years do not perfectly match up? Not even vaguely, in some cases. ...Mmkay. Spoony wrote on Sat, 20 March 2010 01:22 perhaps you could explain from where you "learned" that the bible was compiled "very soon after jesus' death"? It wasn't something I learned, it was a very poorly placed educated guess. I did some researching into it, which also resulted in the quote above. Spoony wrote on Sat, 20 March 2010 01:22 You didn't answer the question. If Hell was there, why didn't god say anything about it in the old testament? He's very keen on making creatively vicious threats to back up his commandments, so if he's got this fiery torture chamber you'll go to if you aren't careful, why not mention it? It's mentioned. I'm not familiar with the verses myself, yet. Here's one: And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame [and] everlasting contempt. (Daniel 12:2) Spoony wrote on Sat, 20 March 2010 01:22 Spoony wrote on Fri, 19 March 2010 22:46 I have yet to see parents raise a child, be subject too all of his/her complaints/disobedience/rudeness/etc, and not punish the child in any way. How is that an analogy? It's an analogy because God took care of the growing nation of Israel, and they constantly complained. Example (one of many), God gave the Israelites manna for food. It was easy, all they had to do was pick it up, no planting or harvesting. It fed them and gave them the nourishment they needed. Yet they complained about it. hey even went as far as to say, "Why'd you bring us out of Egypt to die? I'd rather be a slave than die out here!" Spoony wrote on Sat, 20 March 2010 01:22 This god of yours gives us no reason at all to think he exists, and his followers tell us we're rude for asking for evidence (you said "hopeless case", remember) and then we're told we'll suffer horrific punishments if we have doubts. Wow, that whole sentence is wrong. "This god of yours gives us no reason at all to think he exists" - he gives a plethora of reasons. If a person doesn't want to believe, OK then... "and his followers tell us we're rude for asking for evidence" - I bet you've never met someone from my denomination. Asking for evidence here doesn't beget rudeness, rather an invitation to study it. "and then we're told we'll suffer horrific punishments if we have doubts." - Not doubts, no. Refusal, yes. Doubt's a middle ground, it means you haven't thrown your lot one way or another. Spoony wrote on Sat, 20 March 2010 01:22 You doubt some religious claims too, remember... True. Spoony wrote on Sat, 20 March 2010 01:22 i assume you're talking about adam and eve. even if that was true, what's that got to do with anyone other than adam and eve? Because Adam and Eve weren't alone. All throughout the Old Testament are numerous examples of people disobeying one of God's commandments, which were given by God's presence. Spoony wrote on Sat, 20 March 2010 01:22 your bible is full of genocide, slavery, the punishment of innocents... and you're condemning complaining? Right, so when God provides me with my physical needs, asking little in return, then complaining about what I've got is totally okay. Spoony wrote on Sat, 20 March 2010 01:22 as for "demanding more", i wouldn't ask for anything from a character i thought was fictional. You could watch all twelve plagues hit Egypt consecutively and still be doubtful? Spoony wrote on Sat, 20 March 2010 01:22 yes, i do want religion to let humans do as we please, some of us do actually like the idea of democracy. I'd be okay with democracy too - y'know, if we were all gods as well... Spoony wrote on Sat, 20 March 2010 01:22 Quote: I also see the implication that the possibility of any being having greater stature than man is horrible to consider. No, it's not. well, you keep mentioning how it's bad to be governed my a higher power... so, why? Spoony wrote on Sat, 20 March 2010 01:22 Quote: There are Bible statements that consist with Astronomy, Paleontology, Meteorology, Biology, Anthropology, Hydrology, Geology, and Physics. Also with Prophecy, Textual Evidence, and Historians. So yeah, there's evidence. Go on? Going On. Spoony wrote on Sat, 20 March 2010 01:22 Quote: Yes, because they shouldn't impose their rules on non-belivers. Standing up for what you think is right is one thing, but trying to force someone else to think your way is another. And yet you defend the threatened punishment for thinking the wrong way. Yes. I said I won't force you to believe what I believe, but that isn't because of a lack of the "right way". Spoony wrote on Sat, 20 March 2010 01:22 Quote: Why are we born with that caring attitude? Or are you still trying to figure that out as well? I wouldn't necessarily say we were born with it, but the concept of human solidarity, of caring for one's family, has certainly helped us last this long. Those concepts had to have come from somewhere, right?
Altzan wrote on Sun, 21 March 2010 15:00 There's also verses saying why the Old Testament was replaced by the New Testament. Several mention the "new covenant" God was planning on/did make with the people. Another mentioned something like, "If the old system was perfect, it wouldn't need to be replaced." It was an update, per se, since the way of life since then has changed. pity not all of the barbarism of the old testament has been "replaced", then, eh? no condemnation of slavery, for example. another example: the story of let he without sin cast the first stone. jesus doesn't say that the old law has been removed, he just says that none of you guys here are capable of enforcing it since you're all sinful. well, that surely means that we can't enforce laws at all, doesn't it? we can't punish adultery? Quote: Spoony wrote on Sat, 20 March 2010 01:22 if you're further told that all Jews are guilty of the murder of Jesus... Where is that said? one of the gospels has the jews at the crucifixion calling for the responsibility of the murder of jesus to fall upon themselves and on all their descendants. any atheist can see that this is ridiculous - it is immoral to hold one person responsible for a crime committed by another - but the bible is absolutely full of this moral bankrupcy. god does it all the time, in the story. Quote: Spoony wrote on Sat, 20 March 2010 01:22 lol... where's the evidence supporting every assertion made by the bible, please? You thus inply that every scientific theory has supporting evidence, which of course is not true. i said no such thing. you said this: "So far, all the scientific theories that contradict the Bible have no more evidence than it does." that's plainly nonsense. the age of the earth, for example... there's an extraordinary amount of evidence supporting the old-earth theory (about four and a half billion years). the bible would put it more like 6-10 thousand, for which there is no evidence at all. another would be evolution. darwin didn't just make it up, he studied the evidence and created his theories accordingly. we're finding new fossils all the time. where's the evidence supporting the account given in genesis? Quote: "The primary reason was punishment for wrongdoing. The populations of the destroyed cities had long histories of grievous sins (Gen 15:16, Dt 25:17-19), which often included sacrificing their children to false gods (Dt 12:29-31). Their consciences should have told these people they were doing wrong. Had they listened and changed their ways, they would not have been destroyed. God has said that if any nation is about to be destroyed as punishment but repents, he will forgive them and not destroy them (Jer 18:7-8). In fact, this occurred in the city of Ninevah (Jonah 3:4-10). perhaps you didn't read my statement very carefully. i was not referring to a specific story of god flattening a city; i was citing the instruction given by god to his followers of what to do if you encounter a city where they worship a different god. firstly it doesn't say that they have to be carrying out human sacrifices to qualify for the punishment, just says they need to be worshipping a different god. that's all it takes. secondly the punishment is the total extermination of the city, including children. Quote: In the cities that were given to the Israelites as their inheritance, there was a secondary reason: totally depraved cultures were destroyed so that they would not corrupt the Israelites into committing the same evil acts (Dt 7:1-4, 20:16-18). This did in fact occur: when the Israelites didn't obey God and destroy cities, they too began practicing child sacrifice (Ps 106:34-40). according to the story, the israelities carried out quite a lot of evil acts, usually at the command of god or moses. Quote: Spoony wrote on Sat, 20 March 2010 01:22 so you're quite content to allow others to go to hell, when you could save them? You misunderstood me, so let me try again. I will try to teach the word to others because I don't want them to go to Hell. If, however, they hear and then choose not to believe, I will not relentlessly press the issue. so you don't mind all that much, is what i was getting at? and you don't actually object to the fact that they will go to hell? Quote: Spoony wrote on Sat, 20 March 2010 01:22 they're the splinter group, are they? They're a splinter group, yes. you misunderstood the question. i was asking: so you're the real christian, and they're the splinter group? on what basis do you say that this is the case, as opposed to them being real christians and you being quite mistaken, or as opposed to both of you being wrong? Quote: Spoony wrote on Sat, 20 March 2010 01:22 they outright lie about the properties of condoms, saying they not only don't help prevent aids (of course they help) but actually can increase the chances of aids. not only that, but they declare that aids are sinful. Man, that sucks. I don't see how a disease (if that's the right word) is sinful. Certain methods of contacting it are, but not just having it. that's a typo, i meant to say condoms are sinful. Quote: How do you know that they were aware that condoms did work, or that they really didn't believe condoms were sinful? Who cares? Quote: You still haven't mentioned where the Bible says to persecute an entire race for one sole act. race? no. religion? yes. Quote: Yes, I can. Converting is a choice, it can't be forced. If I forced you to be baptized and orally declare that you believe the Bible, it wouldn't do jack. You have to mean it. and what about those of us who simply can't bring ourselves to mean it, who've listened to the arguments for christianity's truth and simply don't believe them, or those who find the morality of the religion objectionable by modern standards? Quote: If God exists and has all that power that he does, why should we be equal with him? Might makes right, then? Quote: Spoony wrote on Sat, 20 March 2010 01:22 Quote: 1. Each book in the Bible states who wrote it near the beginning or end. "exactly who" "God used men to write down His thoughts much as a businessman uses a secretary. He allowed them to put these thoughts in their own words. But the men themselves said they were inspired. (2 Peter 1:20-21) 20 For YOU know this first, that no prophecy of Scripture springs from any private interpretation. 21 For prophecy was at no time brought by man's will, but men spoke from God as they were borne along by holy spirit. Again Paul's words: (2 Timothy 3:16-17) 16 All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work. Approximately 40 men, from Moses to the Apostle John were Bible writers from 1513 BCE to 98 CE. Many may claim otherwise but an internal study of the Bible will show that it is of Divine origin." This doesn't answer my question. Who exactly wrote each portion of the bible? Quote: Spoony wrote on Sat, 20 March 2010 01:22 Quote: 2. God inspired them to write what they did. They didn't write it by their own intuition alone. How do you know that, and how do you know this was not the case for the numerous gospels that were rejected from your bible because a group of politicians decided they should be rejected? See above. see above re: not answering the question Quote: Spoony wrote on Sat, 20 March 2010 01:22 You didn't answer the question. If Hell was there, why didn't god say anything about it in the old testament? He's very keen on making creatively vicious threats to back up his commandments, so if he's got this fiery torture chamber you'll go to if you aren't careful, why not mention it? It's mentioned. I'm not familiar with the verses myself, yet. Here's one: And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame [and] everlasting contempt. (Daniel 12:2) That's rather vague, isn't it? Doesn't say: hell's a place where all evil people will go after death to be eternally tortured in fire. There's no mention of why someone would go to one or the other, either as a result of good or bad works or by believing the right thing. Quote: Spoony wrote on Sat, 20 March 2010 01:22 Spoony wrote on Fri, 19 March 2010 22:46 I have yet to see parents raise a child, be subject too all of his/her complaints/disobedience/rudeness/etc, and not punish the child in any way. How is that an analogy? It's an analogy because God took care of the growing nation of Israel, and they constantly complained. Example (one of many), God gave the Israelites manna for food. It was easy, all they had to do was pick it up, no planting or harvesting. It fed them and gave them the nourishment they needed. Yet they complained about it. hey even went as far as to say, "Why'd you bring us out of Egypt to die? I'd rather be a slave than die out here!" Here was my original quote. "I'm saying that there should not be a punishment at all. Disagreeing with him or his rules, or having doubts in his existence, or having doubts that the books which claim to reflect his mind or that the people who claim to speak for him actually do so, is not a crime at all by any sane definition." You still haven't refuted that. Quote: Wow, that whole sentence is wrong. "This god of yours gives us no reason at all to think he exists" - he gives a plethora of reasons. If a person doesn't want to believe, OK then... Where are these reasons? And why can't you pull yourself away from this "doesn't want to believe" bullshit? It's simply a case that many people find your assertions unbelievable. This does not imply a choice on our part; it simply means that your assertions are dodgy. Quote: "and his followers tell us we're rude for asking for evidence" - I bet you've never met someone from my denomination. Asking for evidence here doesn't beget rudeness, rather an invitation to study it. then your denomination is in the extreme minority of those who claim to be Christians. Quote: "and then we're told we'll suffer horrific punishments if we have doubts." - Not doubts, no. Refusal, yes. Doubt's a middle ground, it means you haven't thrown your lot one way or another. again, you're breathtakingly ignorant. Quote: Spoony wrote on Sat, 20 March 2010 01:22 You doubt some religious claims too, remember... True. and what if you're wrong, for example, about the islamic claim that you need to be a muslim otherwise you'll end up in hell? Quote: Because Adam and Eve weren't alone. All throughout the Old Testament are numerous examples of people disobeying one of God's commandments, which were given by God's presence. and all throughout the old testament are numerous examples of god punishing innocent people for the crimes of others... and here you are defending it. Quote: Spoony wrote on Sat, 20 March 2010 01:22 your bible is full of genocide, slavery, the punishment of innocents... and you're condemning complaining? Right, so when God provides me with my physical needs, asking little in return, then complaining about what I've got is totally okay. did you read the statement of mine you just quoted? the one where i talked about the genocide and slavery in your horrific holy book? and you think the problem is someone complaining about your religion? holy shit. Quote: Spoony wrote on Sat, 20 March 2010 01:22 as for "demanding more", i wouldn't ask for anything from a character i thought was fictional. You could watch all twelve plagues hit Egypt consecutively and still be doubtful? i said *i* wouldn't demand more. i wouldn't demand anything from god, since i've never been shown a convincing reason to think he exists at all, let alone cares about me. Quote: Spoony wrote on Sat, 20 March 2010 01:22 yes, i do want religion to let humans do as we please, some of us do actually like the idea of democracy. I'd be okay with democracy too - y'know, if we were all gods as well... so you're saying you do reject the idea of humans determining the way our societies work by means of voting? just want to make sure i'm getting that right. Quote: Spoony wrote on Sat, 20 March 2010 01:22 Quote: I also see the implication that the possibility of any being having greater stature than man is horrible to consider. No, it's not. well, you keep mentioning how it's bad to be governed my a higher power... so, why? excuse me, but the people who have spent thousands and thousands of years trying to tell us what to do are not higher powers. they just say they work for one. Quote: Spoony wrote on Sat, 20 March 2010 01:22 Go on? Going On. is that the best you can do? One Type—The Messianic Prophecies Of these prophecies, the most striking examples are the predictions about an "anointed one" ("Messiah" in Hebrew) who was to arrive in the future. About 4 BC, a miraculous event occurred—a boy named Jesus was born to a virgin named Mary. How do you know Jesus' mother was a virgin? And what would that prove even if it was true? if you and i are arguing, can i just say "you lose this argument". you: "why's that?" me: "because my mother didn't have sex with a man". a few animals can reproduce this way, so it's not totally unthinkable that a human might as a result of some mutation or something... why would it prove that the child had any divine power, and why would it vindicate everything they said? His fulfillment of these prophecies was very spectacular: Jesus gave sight to the blind, made the lame walk, cured those who had leprosy, gave the deaf hearing, and raised people from the dead! These miracles and others were done many times in front of thousands of witnesses for three years. About 30 AD, Jesus was crucified (a prophecy) and died (a prophecy). Three days later he rose from the dead (another prophecy), after which He was seen by over 500 witnesses. How do you know he did any of these things? Secular history supports the Bible. For example, in The Antiquities of the Jews, book 18, chapter 3, paragraph 3 the famous historian Flavius Josephus writes: "Now, there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works—a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day." Josephus was not a contemporary of Jesus. So the very best you can say about him is that he was repeating what he'd heard. That's evidence, is it? here's the only other "secular history supports the bible" statement i see. In 115 AD, P. Cornelius Tacitus wrote the following passage that refers to Jesus (called "Christus," which means "The Messiah") in book 15, chapter 44 of The Annals: "Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired." the only part referring in the bible here is "christus suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of tiberius at the hands of pontius pilatus" - well, so what? there was someone who'd been called the christ (doesn't even name him as Jesus) who was executed? so what? Quote: Spoony wrote on Sat, 20 March 2010 01:22 Quote: Yes, because they shouldn't impose their rules on non-belivers. Standing up for what you think is right is one thing, but trying to force someone else to think your way is another. And yet you defend the threatened punishment for thinking the wrong way. Yes. I said I won't force you to believe what I believe, but that isn't because of a lack of the "right way". How many people are in your "denomination?" Quote: Spoony wrote on Sat, 20 March 2010 01:22 Quote: Why are we born with that caring attitude? Or are you still trying to figure that out as well? I wouldn't necessarily say we were born with it, but the concept of human solidarity, of caring for one's family, has certainly helped us last this long. Those concepts had to have come from somewhere, right? Evolution? We've gradually become more and more intelligent, and most of us have figured out that being good towards the people around us, or at least leaving them alone, is generally more beneficial than being twats towards us. The idea of protecting your family being a good idea is hardly difficult to understand.
That's pretty awful. It's kind of worrying that those are the people that are caring for children. Honestly, I'm pretty terrified at the amount of the power that religious institutions hold all over the world. It is pretty ridiculous, even here..
Spoony wrote on Sun, 21 March 2010 19:37 pity not all of the barbarism of the old testament has been "replaced", then, eh? no condemnation of slavery, for example. another example: the story of let he without sin cast the first stone. jesus doesn't say that the old law has been removed, he just says that none of you guys here are capable of enforcing it since you're all sinful. well, that surely means that we can't enforce laws at all, doesn't it? we can't punish adultery? I have no idea what you mean. Spoony wrote on Sun, 21 March 2010 19:37 Quote: Spoony wrote on Sat, 20 March 2010 01:22 if you're further told that all Jews are guilty of the murder of Jesus... Where is that said? one of the gospels has the jews at the crucifixion calling for the responsibility of the murder of jesus to fall upon themselves and on all their descendants. OK, so how does that translate into a Biblical command to kill Jews? Spoony wrote on Sun, 21 March 2010 19:37 you said this: "So far, all the scientific theories that contradict the Bible have no more evidence than it does." that's plainly nonsense. the age of the earth, for example... there's an extraordinary amount of evidence supporting the old-earth theory (about four and a half billion years). the bible would put it more like 6-10 thousand, for which there is no evidence at all. I wouldn't call it 'extraordinary'. 'Speculative', more like. For example, what about Carbon-14 or helium present in rocks? If they've been around as long as billions of years, they would have disappeared. Yet they still remain. Spoony wrote on Sun, 21 March 2010 19:37 another would be evolution. darwin didn't just make it up, he studied the evidence and created his theories accordingly. we're finding new fossils all the time. where's the evidence supporting the account given in genesis? What about the Second Law of Thermodynamics, or Entropy? Spoony wrote on Sun, 21 March 2010 19:37 perhaps you didn't read my statement very carefully. i was not referring to a specific story of god flattening a city; i was citing the instruction given by god to his followers of what to do if you encounter a city where they worship a different god. firstly it doesn't say that they have to be carrying out human sacrifices to qualify for the punishment, just says they need to be worshipping a different god. that's all it takes. secondly the punishment is the total extermination of the city, including children. Can you cite the specific verse, since you seem so familiar with it? Spoony wrote on Sun, 21 March 2010 19:37 so you don't mind all that much, is what i was getting at? and you don't actually object to the fact that they will go to hell? Yes, I mind. But if someone doesn't want to "hear, believe, and repent", then what am I supposed to do, eh? Pressing the issue won't help, forcing it won't help. Spoony wrote on Sun, 21 March 2010 19:37 you misunderstood the question. i was asking: so you're the real christian, and they're the splinter group? on what basis do you say that this is the case, as opposed to them being real christians and you being quite mistaken, or as opposed to both of you being wrong? I suppose all Christian denominations are splinter groups now, since it would be extremely difcult to prove which particlular one was the stem. The main basis of our belief is the Bible, whereas other groups like Baptists and Catholics aren't following Bible scripture. Spoony wrote on Sun, 21 March 2010 19:37 Quote: How do you know that they were aware that condoms did work, or that they really didn't believe condoms were sinful? Who cares? Apparently you do... If you're going to say that they were spreading lies about condoms, it would be a good idea to know the intention behind the act, right? Spoony wrote on Sun, 21 March 2010 19:37 Quote: You still haven't mentioned where the Bible says to persecute an entire race for one sole act. race? no. religion? yes. Go on... Spoony wrote on Sun, 21 March 2010 19:37 Quote: If God exists and has all that power that he does, why should we be equal with him? Might makes right, then? You didn't answer the question. Spoony wrote on Sun, 21 March 2010 19:37 This doesn't answer my question. Who exactly wrote each portion of the bible? "Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy = Moses - 1400 B.C. Joshua = Joshua - 1350 B.C. Judges, Ruth, 1 Samuel, 2 Samuel = Samuel/Nathan/Gad - 1000 - 900 B.C. 1 Kings, 2 Kings = Jeremiah - 600 B.C. 1 Chronicles, 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah = Ezra - 450 B.C. Esther = Mordecai - 400 B.C. Job = Moses - 1400 B.C. Psalms = several different authors, mostly David - 1000 - 400 B.C. Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon = Solomon - 900 B.C. Isaiah = Isaiah - 700 B.C. Jeremiah, Lamentations = Jeremiah - 600 B.C. Ezekiel = Ezekiel - 550 B.C. Daniel = Daniel - 550 B.C. Hosea = Hosea - 750 B.C. Joel = Joel - 850 B.C. Amos = Amos - 750 B.C. Obadiah = Obadiah - 600 B.C. Jonah = Jonah - 700 B.C. Micah = Micah - 700 B.C. Nahum = Nahum - 650 B.C. Habakkuk = Habakkuk - 600 B.C. Zephaniah = Zephaniah - 650 B.C. Haggai = Haggai - 520 B.C. Zechariah = Zechariah - 500 B.C. Malachi = Malachi - 430 B.C. Matthew = Matthew - A.D. 55 Mark = John Mark - A.D. 50 Luke = Luke - A.D. 60 John = John - A.D. 90 Acts = Luke - A.D. 65 Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon = Paul - A.D. 50-70 Hebrews = unknown, mostly likely Paul, Luke, Barnabas, or Apollos - A.D. 65 James = James - A.D. 45 1 Peter, 2 Peter = Peter - A.D. 60 1 John, 2 John, 3 John = John - A.D. 90 Jude = Jude - A.D. 60 Revelation = John - A.D. 90" Spoony wrote on Sun, 21 March 2010 19:37 How do you know that, and how do you know this was not the case for the numerous gospels that were rejected from your bible because a group of politicians decided they should be rejected? Because the writers themselves said they were inspired by God. Spoony wrote on Sun, 21 March 2010 19:37 Here was my original quote. "I'm saying that there should not be a punishment at all. Disagreeing with him or his rules, or having doubts in his existence, or having doubts that the books which claim to reflect his mind or that the people who claim to speak for him actually do so, is not a crime at all by any sane definition." You still haven't refuted that. I can't refute an opinion, which is all that is. Spoony wrote on Sun, 21 March 2010 19:37 And why can't you pull yourself away from this "doesn't want to believe" bullshit? It's simply a case that many people find your assertions unbelievable. This does not imply a choice on our part; it simply means that your assertions are dodgy. Because it isn't bullshit. If you cannot bring yourself to understand, then you have the choice of pursuing the issue via study. If they're "dodgy", then you can't blame the claim without even putting any more effort into understanding. Spoony wrote on Sun, 21 March 2010 19:37 then your denomination is in the extreme minority of those who claim to be Christians. When we travel, it's certainly very hard to find a church that we can go to. Most of the ones we see are either Baptist or Catholic (which makes sense, they're probably more popular because of their "faith only" belief). Spoony wrote on Sun, 21 March 2010 19:37 and what if you're wrong, for example, about the islamic claim that you need to be a muslim otherwise you'll end up in hell? Then I'm wrong. Your point? Spoony wrote on Sun, 21 March 2010 19:37 did you read the statement of mine you just quoted? the one where i talked about the genocide and slavery in your horrific holy book? and you think the problem is someone complaining about your religion? holy shit. Hitler killed millions of Jews, and all you can complain about is Catholics in your government? You're changing the subject to avoid my original point, even changing my words. Is that the best argument you have? Spoony wrote on Sun, 21 March 2010 19:37 Quote: Because Adam and Eve weren't alone. All throughout the Old Testament are numerous examples of people disobeying one of God's commandments, which were given by God's presence. and all throughout the old testament are numerous examples of god punishing innocent people for the crimes of others... and here you are defending it. Changing the subject again? You sure like to jump to that point a lot, especially when it's irrelevant to my quote. Spoony wrote on Sun, 21 March 2010 19:37 so you're saying you do reject the idea of humans determining the way our societies work by means of voting? just want to make sure i'm getting that right. No, I like the system a lot. But the system only works when everyone involved is of equal status. Spoony wrote on Sun, 21 March 2010 19:37 excuse me, but the people who have spent thousands and thousands of years trying to tell us what to do are not higher powers. they just say they work for one. Hypothetically, if you knew for a fact that there was a higher power, would you or would you not give allegiance to it? Or would you fight it? That's all I'm asking, here. Spoony wrote on Sun, 21 March 2010 19:37 How do you know Jesus' mother was a virgin? And what would that prove even if it was true? if you and i are arguing, can i just say "you lose this argument". you: "why's that?" me: "because my mother didn't have sex with a man". a few animals can reproduce this way, so it's not totally unthinkable that a human might as a result of some mutation or something... why would it prove that the child had any divine power, and why would it vindicate everything they said? Alone, if proves little (despite the fact that there are little to no other evidence of a virgin giving birth before), but the baby grew and performed miracles, which is proof enough. Of course, this visible proof was long ago and only written report remains. Spoony wrote on Sun, 21 March 2010 19:37 His fulfillment of these prophecies was very spectacular: Jesus gave sight to the blind, made the lame walk, cured those who had leprosy, gave the deaf hearing, and raised people from the dead! These miracles and others were done many times in front of thousands of witnesses for three years. About 30 AD, Jesus was crucified (a prophecy) and died (a prophecy). Three days later he rose from the dead (another prophecy), after which He was seen by over 500 witnesses. How do you know he did any of these things? What about all the testimony of people who saw it happen? Or wait, since it was so long ago it can't be valid, right? Spoony wrote on Sun, 21 March 2010 19:37 How many people are in your "denomination?" I don't know for a fact. A good indicator is that we always worship at a "Church of Christ", since that's the only name the Bible supports.
Altzan wrote on Tue, 23 March 2010 22:25 Spoony wrote on Sun, 21 March 2010 19:37 pity not all of the barbarism of the old testament has been "replaced", then, eh? no condemnation of slavery, for example. another example: the story of let he without sin cast the first stone. jesus doesn't say that the old law has been removed, he just says that none of you guys here are capable of enforcing it since you're all sinful. well, that surely means that we can't enforce laws at all, doesn't it? we can't punish adultery? I have no idea what you mean. it's actually very straightforward. the baying religious mob bring a woman who they've caught committing adultery before jesus, and say we need to stone her to death. jesus says: let he without sin cast the first stone. everyone there is sinful (indeed christianity says we're all sinful), so nobody can stone her, and she gets away with it. so that means we can't have and enforce any laws at all, because the only people allowed to punish offenders would have to be entirely sinless, and none of us are, are we? Quote: Spoony wrote on Sun, 21 March 2010 19:37 Quote: Spoony wrote on Sat, 20 March 2010 01:22 if you're further told that all Jews are guilty of the murder of Jesus... Where is that said? one of the gospels has the jews at the crucifixion calling for the responsibility of the murder of jesus to fall upon themselves and on all their descendants. OK, so how does that translate into a Biblical command to kill Jews? it's not exactly much of a jump to get from "all jews are responsible of the murder of our god" to actually doing something nasty to jews, is it? but like i said, you probably aren't taught the bad parts of christianity, how dangerous it used to be to be jewish around easter time. Quote: Spoony wrote on Sun, 21 March 2010 19:37 you said this: "So far, all the scientific theories that contradict the Bible have no more evidence than it does." that's plainly nonsense. the age of the earth, for example... there's an extraordinary amount of evidence supporting the old-earth theory (about four and a half billion years). the bible would put it more like 6-10 thousand, for which there is no evidence at all. I wouldn't call it 'extraordinary'. 'Speculative', more like. For example, what about Carbon-14 or helium present in rocks? If they've been around as long as billions of years, they would have disappeared. Yet they still remain. it's really odd you mention carbon-14 to try to support the young-earth claim. the fact carbon-14 has a halflife and decays over time is such a helpful thing in determining the age of stuff. it doesn't get you as far as billions of years, i think it's only good for about 50,000 or something, but that would still make the 6-10,000 year assertion made by young-earth creationists look a bit stupid. Quote: Spoony wrote on Sun, 21 March 2010 19:37 another would be evolution. darwin didn't just make it up, he studied the evidence and created his theories accordingly. we're finding new fossils all the time. where's the evidence supporting the account given in genesis? What about the Second Law of Thermodynamics, or Entropy? What about it? My question was: where's the evidence supporting the account given in Genesis? So how does this support the account given in Genesis? Quote: Spoony wrote on Sun, 21 March 2010 19:37 perhaps you didn't read my statement very carefully. i was not referring to a specific story of god flattening a city; i was citing the instruction given by god to his followers of what to do if you encounter a city where they worship a different god. firstly it doesn't say that they have to be carrying out human sacrifices to qualify for the punishment, just says they need to be worshipping a different god. that's all it takes. secondly the punishment is the total extermination of the city, including children. Can you cite the specific verse, since you seem so familiar with it? you've seriously never heard of it? i can't match verses to numbers off the top of my head, but i would have thought an avowed christian would at least have read the bible through. Quote: Spoony wrote on Sun, 21 March 2010 19:37 so you don't mind all that much, is what i was getting at? and you don't actually object to the fact that they will go to hell? Yes, I mind. But if someone doesn't want to "hear, believe, and repent", then what am I supposed to do, eh? Pressing the issue won't help, forcing it won't help. what are you supposed to do? for starters, you could ask god to make his "revelation" a little less ridiculous, or you could ask god not to be such a bastard that he feels the need to dish out the worst crime imaginable just for the "crime" of disbelieving in his existence or disagreeing with his religion. Quote: Spoony wrote on Sun, 21 March 2010 19:37 you misunderstood the question. i was asking: so you're the real christian, and they're the splinter group? on what basis do you say that this is the case, as opposed to them being real christians and you being quite mistaken, or as opposed to both of you being wrong? I suppose all Christian denominations are splinter groups now, since it would be extremely difcult to prove which particlular one was the stem. The main basis of our belief is the Bible, whereas other groups like Baptists and Catholics aren't following Bible scripture. You started off that statement so well. It would indeed be difficult to prove that, for example, Jesus said anything that the bible reports him as saying, or did anything that the bible reports him as doing. Since the four gospels wildly contradict each other, this seems like quite an important question... Quote: Spoony wrote on Sun, 21 March 2010 19:37 Quote: How do you know that they were aware that condoms did work, or that they really didn't believe condoms were sinful? Who cares? Apparently you do... If you're going to say that they were spreading lies about condoms, it would be a good idea to know the intention behind the act, right? i'm more concerned with the fact millions of people are dying. Quote: Spoony wrote on Sun, 21 March 2010 19:37 Quote: You still haven't mentioned where the Bible says to persecute an entire race for one sole act. race? no. religion? yes. Go on... we're back to anti-semitism. Quote: Spoony wrote on Sun, 21 March 2010 19:37 Quote: If God exists and has all that power that he does, why should we be equal with him? Might makes right, then? You didn't answer the question. I did, actually, with another question. Might makes right, i.e. whoever is most powerful ought to be in charge and has the moral high ground... by this logic, democracy would be impossible. Barack Obama exists, and has an extraordinary amount of power. (he's already got two up on your god). So why should you get a vote from now on? Quote: Spoony wrote on Sun, 21 March 2010 19:37 This doesn't answer my question. Who exactly wrote each portion of the bible? "Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy = Moses - 1400 B.C. Joshua = Joshua - 1350 B.C. Judges, Ruth, 1 Samuel, 2 Samuel = Samuel/Nathan/Gad - 1000 - 900 B.C. 1 Kings, 2 Kings = Jeremiah - 600 B.C. 1 Chronicles, 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah = Ezra - 450 B.C. Esther = Mordecai - 400 B.C. Job = Moses - 1400 B.C. Psalms = several different authors, mostly David - 1000 - 400 B.C. Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon = Solomon - 900 B.C. Isaiah = Isaiah - 700 B.C. Jeremiah, Lamentations = Jeremiah - 600 B.C. Ezekiel = Ezekiel - 550 B.C. Daniel = Daniel - 550 B.C. Hosea = Hosea - 750 B.C. Joel = Joel - 850 B.C. Amos = Amos - 750 B.C. Obadiah = Obadiah - 600 B.C. Jonah = Jonah - 700 B.C. Micah = Micah - 700 B.C. Nahum = Nahum - 650 B.C. Habakkuk = Habakkuk - 600 B.C. Zephaniah = Zephaniah - 650 B.C. Haggai = Haggai - 520 B.C. Zechariah = Zechariah - 500 B.C. Malachi = Malachi - 430 B.C. Matthew = Matthew - A.D. 55 Mark = John Mark - A.D. 50 Luke = Luke - A.D. 60 John = John - A.D. 90 Acts = Luke - A.D. 65 Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon = Paul - A.D. 50-70 Hebrews = unknown, mostly likely Paul, Luke, Barnabas, or Apollos - A.D. 65 James = James - A.D. 45 1 Peter, 2 Peter = Peter - A.D. 60 1 John, 2 John, 3 John = John - A.D. 90 Jude = Jude - A.D. 60 Revelation = John - A.D. 90" Doesn't answer my question. Who were they? Quote: Spoony wrote on Sun, 21 March 2010 19:37 How do you know that, and how do you know this was not the case for the numerous gospels that were rejected from your bible because a group of politicians decided they should be rejected? Because the writers themselves said they were inspired by God. how do you even know they said that? once you've answered that, how do you know they were correct, as opposed to crazy or lying or just plain wrong? once you've answered that, how do you know this wasn't the case for the rejected gospels? Quote: Spoony wrote on Sun, 21 March 2010 19:37 Here was my original quote. "I'm saying that there should not be a punishment at all. Disagreeing with him or his rules, or having doubts in his existence, or having doubts that the books which claim to reflect his mind or that the people who claim to speak for him actually do so, is not a crime at all by any sane definition." You still haven't refuted that. I can't refute an opinion, which is all that is. it wouldn't be the first time i've made the assertion that it's plain evil to threaten someone with horrific punishment just for the "crime" of disagreeing with you or doubting what you say, would it? i vaguely recall that the last time i tried getting you to understand just what a sick and immoral way this is to behave, you said i had a "binding to science" (????) Quote: Spoony wrote on Sun, 21 March 2010 19:37 And why can't you pull yourself away from this "doesn't want to believe" bullshit? It's simply a case that many people find your assertions unbelievable. This does not imply a choice on our part; it simply means that your assertions are dodgy. Because it isn't bullshit. yes it is, you don't know what you're talking about again. your religion makes incredibly feeble claims, it's had two thousand years to prove them and it hasn't even gotten to square one... stop acting like this extraordinary failure is the fault of everyone else instead of the religion's fault. Quote: Spoony wrote on Sun, 21 March 2010 19:37 and what if you're wrong, for example, about the islamic claim that you need to be a muslim otherwise you'll end up in hell? Then I'm wrong. Your point? You don't mind being spoken to in that tone of voice? Someone tells you you must agree with them or you'll go to hell? There's quite an interesting verse in the islamic scripture (i can't tell you off the top of my head if it's the qur'an or the hadith, but bear with me)... it basically says "these guys who don't believe in allah, well, even if we did prove it to them they still wouldn't believe". I'm paraphrasing of course, but that's the gist. You probably read that and thought the same thing i did... it's either the rantings of a lunatic or it's quite a cunning attempt to cover up a lie. It's from a different religion, so you can probably see that without too much trouble. Quote: Spoony wrote on Sun, 21 March 2010 19:37 did you read the statement of mine you just quoted? the one where i talked about the genocide and slavery in your horrific holy book? and you think the problem is someone complaining about your religion? holy shit. Hitler killed millions of Jews, and all you can complain about is Catholics in your government? uh no, i oppose murder and genocide and slavery and oppression wherever i find it. there's not really much of a need to speak out against the third reich now. Quote: You're changing the subject to avoid my original point, even changing my words. Is that the best argument you have? you'd better back this up. Quote: Spoony wrote on Sun, 21 March 2010 19:37 Quote: Because Adam and Eve weren't alone. All throughout the Old Testament are numerous examples of people disobeying one of God's commandments, which were given by God's presence. and all throughout the old testament are numerous examples of god punishing innocent people for the crimes of others... and here you are defending it. Changing the subject again? You sure like to jump to that point a lot, especially when it's irrelevant to my quote. firstly it's not irrelevant at all, secondly it's quite an important point... the bible continually shows god as willing to punish innocents for crimes committed by somebody else. what a shitty source of morals... no wonder you don't know right from wrong. Quote: Spoony wrote on Sun, 21 March 2010 19:37 so you're saying you do reject the idea of humans determining the way our societies work by means of voting? just want to make sure i'm getting that right. No, I like the system a lot. But the system only works when everyone involved is of equal status. so who's not "of equal status"? Quote: Spoony wrote on Sun, 21 March 2010 19:37 excuse me, but the people who have spent thousands and thousands of years trying to tell us what to do are not higher powers. they just say they work for one. Hypothetically, if you knew for a fact that there was a higher power, would you or would you not give allegiance to it? Or would you fight it? That's all I'm asking, here. if there was a "higher power", i would not think that this justified a dictatorship over us. i'd still be in favour of democracy, human rights, stuff like that. Quote: Spoony wrote on Sun, 21 March 2010 19:37 How do you know Jesus' mother was a virgin? And what would that prove even if it was true? if you and i are arguing, can i just say "you lose this argument". you: "why's that?" me: "because my mother didn't have sex with a man". a few animals can reproduce this way, so it's not totally unthinkable that a human might as a result of some mutation or something... why would it prove that the child had any divine power, and why would it vindicate everything they said? Alone, if proves little (despite the fact that there are little to no other evidence of a virgin giving birth before), but the baby grew and performed miracles, which is proof enough. Of course, this visible proof was long ago and only written report remains. firstly, there's "little to no evidence of a virgin giving birth before"... indeed. that includes mary and jesus. there's the story that it happened... but then there have been countless gods and messiahs who've been reported as being born in a similar way, jesus is only one of them... i wonder how many of the others you think are correct. secondly, even if the virgin birth AND the miracles are true, why would that vindicate everything jesus said? why would that make all his moral teachings valid? Quote: Spoony wrote on Sun, 21 March 2010 19:37 His fulfillment of these prophecies was very spectacular: Jesus gave sight to the blind, made the lame walk, cured those who had leprosy, gave the deaf hearing, and raised people from the dead! These miracles and others were done many times in front of thousands of witnesses for three years. About 30 AD, Jesus was crucified (a prophecy) and died (a prophecy). Three days later he rose from the dead (another prophecy), after which He was seen by over 500 witnesses. How do you know he did any of these things? What about all the testimony of people who saw it happen? Or wait, since it was so long ago it can't be valid, right? What about all the testimony of people who claim to have been abducted by UFOs? What about all the people who are convinced - absolutely convinced - in the truth of other religions? If someone says they saw a miracle, then it's a good idea to consider the odds here. he may be correct, he may be honestly mistaken (the mind plays tricks), he may be downright crazy, he may just be lying to you. what's most likely, do you think? now imagine the whole thing is not first-hand but third-hand. you aren't talking to someone who says he saw it himself... you're reading a book. for starters, you have no way of knowing who it was written by. Quote: Spoony wrote on Sun, 21 March 2010 19:37 How many people are in your "denomination?" I don't know for a fact. A good indicator is that we always worship at a "Church of Christ", since that's the only name the Bible supports. [/quote] you said earlier that it isn't all that numerous, which brings me to the point of the question. so your denomination are the "real" christians, right? (they all say that, but never mind that for now). isn't god a bit of a prick for making his message so ludicrously cryptic that only a small proportion of the population get it right, and punishing everyone who gets it wrong? what a twat.
Spoony wrote on Wed, 24 March 2010 10:14 what a twat.
The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics essentially states: A system will always lose energy to the envrioment (typically as light, heat or sound) because otherwise no energy has changed from one form (such as gravitational potential energy or chemical potential energy) into another, such as light and therefore no work can be done. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2nd_law_of_thermodynamics - explains it better. So, all I have to say is... How on Earth does that back up Genesis?
Spoony wrote on Wed, 24 March 2010 04:14 it's actually very straightforward. the baying religious mob bring a woman who they've caught committing adultery before jesus, and say we need to stone her to death. jesus says: let he without sin cast the first stone. everyone there is sinful (indeed christianity says we're all sinful), so nobody can stone her, and she gets away with it. so that means we can't have and enforce any laws at all, because the only people allowed to punish offenders would have to be entirely sinless, and none of us are, are we? "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." "This is another counterfeiting of the Scriptures many have tried to use to shame us for what we do in his name. "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" is not speaking to judging. Let me explain. Using the KJV this time, in John 8:1 - 11 scribes and Pharisees had caught a woman in the act of adultery (the woman commonly referred to as the prostitute) and told Jesus who was teaching in the temple that the Mosaic Law required she be stoned to death. Trying to make an opportunity of this to trick Jesus that they might accuse Him, they, with stones in hand, asked Jesus what He says about the Law. After Jesus tried to ignore their repeated questioning, He told them "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her." One by one each man dropped his stone and walked away. Jesus was not arguing with the judgment. Nor was Jesus arguing the law nor the woman's guilt. Jesus was arguing with our right to execute the woman. Once all the men had dropped their stones Jesus confronted the woman and asked her if any of the men were still there to condemn her. When she answered "No man, Lord", Jesus told her that neither did He - He forgave her of her sin. He did not excuse the sin of adultery/prostitution, he forgave her of it. All behavior and thought that is sinful before forgiveness is still sinful after forgiveness. Not only was Jesus not afraid to call a sin a sin, He was not afraid to call a sinner a sinner. He even reminded her of the sin of adultery/prostitution by telling her "Go and sin no more." The point? Jesus did not argue the act of judging the chosen behavior of the adulteress/prostitute." Spoony wrote on Wed, 24 March 2010 04:14 it's not exactly much of a jump to get from "all jews are responsible of the murder of our god" to actually doing something nasty to jews, is it? God didn't say it, one man did. One man said that all Jews should be responsible. That doesn't translate to a Biblical command. Spoony wrote on Wed, 24 March 2010 04:14 What about it? My question was: where's the evidence supporting the account given in Genesis? So how does this support the account given in Genesis? I wasn't providing evidence supporting Genesis, I was asking in terms of evolution. Spoony wrote on Wed, 24 March 2010 04:14 i can't match verses to numbers off the top of my head, but i would have thought an avowed christian would at least have read the bible through. How does that make sense? Yes, I study the Bible, but I don't know all of its contents. It would take years to effectively read and study every Bible verse. Spoony wrote on Wed, 24 March 2010 04:14 for starters, you could ask god to make his "revelation" a little less ridiculous, or you could ask god not to be such a bastard that he feels the need to dish out the worst crime imaginable just for the "crime" of disbelieving in his existence or disagreeing with his religion. There are plenty of people who think the revelation was just fine, and don't see how his commandments are ridiculous. So, why should your opinion be any more important than theirs? Spoony wrote on Wed, 24 March 2010 04:14 Quote: Apparently you do... If you're going to say that they were spreading lies about condoms, it would be a good idea to know the intention behind the act, right? i'm more concerned with the fact millions of people are dying. So you only care for the act and not the motive? Isn't that an ignorant viewpoint? Spoony wrote on Wed, 24 March 2010 04:14 how do you even know they said that? once you've answered that, how do you know they were correct, as opposed to crazy or lying or just plain wrong? once you've answered that, how do you know this wasn't the case for the rejected gospels? 1. They said it in the gospels they wrote. 2. I don't "know" that, but as you said, odds - if that many people (the writers) all claimed the same thing, they either are telling the truth or a coordinated lie. 3. I don't, since I haven't read said gospels. Spoony wrote on Wed, 24 March 2010 04:14 it wouldn't be the first time i've made the assertion that it's plain evil to threaten someone with horrific punishment just for the "crime" of disagreeing with you or doubting what you say, would it? No, it wouldn't be. It's your motto, I guess. By that logic, though, you shouldn't punish a child molester because he doesn't agree with the anti-pedophilia law. Spoony wrote on Wed, 24 March 2010 04:14 Quote: You're changing the subject to avoid my original point, even changing my words. Is that the best argument you have? you'd better back this up. I'm referencing to actions made by the people in the Old Testament, and you keep turning it around to "Look what GOD did!" And it wasn't "complaining about your religion" as you quoted me. Spoony wrote on Wed, 24 March 2010 04:14 if there was a "higher power", i would not think that this justified a dictatorship over us. i'd still be in favour of democracy, human rights, stuff like that. I'm in favor of democracy and human rights among humans. I'm suprised that you think that a people completely created by another being by his will alone should have exact and equal rights as that being and should be left to their own devices and be allowed to shun their creator. Spoony wrote on Wed, 24 March 2010 04:14 so your denomination are the "real" christians, right? (they all say that, but never mind that for now). Depends on what you mean by that... we believe what the Bible says, and we don't associate us with those who would change it. Spoony wrote on Wed, 24 March 2010 04:14 isn't god a bit of a prick for making his message so ludicrously cryptic that only a small proportion of the population get it right, and punishing everyone who gets it wrong? Is it really that hard to "decrypt"? The Bible is large and full of complex verses, yes. But the very basic instruction left for us today is very simple, the five-step process. Follow that and you're set. It also is pretty simple to understand what God says is a sin and what is not.
Altzan wrote on Fri, 26 March 2010 10:08 "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." "This is another counterfeiting of the Scriptures many have tried to use to shame us for what we do in his name. "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" is not speaking to judging. Let me explain. Using the KJV this time, in John 8:1 - 11 scribes and Pharisees had caught a woman in the act of adultery (the woman commonly referred to as the prostitute) and told Jesus who was teaching in the temple that the Mosaic Law required she be stoned to death. Trying to make an opportunity of this to trick Jesus that they might accuse Him, they, with stones in hand, asked Jesus what He says about the Law. After Jesus tried to ignore their repeated questioning, He told them "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her." One by one each man dropped his stone and walked away. Jesus was not arguing with the judgment. Nor was Jesus arguing the law nor the woman's guilt. Jesus was arguing with our right to execute the woman. Once all the men had dropped their stones Jesus confronted the woman and asked her if any of the men were still there to condemn her. When she answered "No man, Lord", Jesus told her that neither did He - He forgave her of her sin. He did not excuse the sin of adultery/prostitution, he forgave her of it. All behavior and thought that is sinful before forgiveness is still sinful after forgiveness. Not only was Jesus not afraid to call a sin a sin, He was not afraid to call a sinner a sinner. He even reminded her of the sin of adultery/prostitution by telling her "Go and sin no more." The point? Jesus did not argue the act of judging the chosen behavior of the adulteress/prostitute." i'm not seeing how this refutes my point? the woman gets away with it because sinful people are supposedly not allowed to punish offenders. we're told we're all sinful, so what's the point the law being there if it's unenforcable? Quote: Spoony wrote on Wed, 24 March 2010 04:14 it's not exactly much of a jump to get from "all jews are responsible of the murder of our god" to actually doing something nasty to jews, is it? God didn't say it, one man did. One man said that all Jews should be responsible. That doesn't translate to a Biblical command. and yet throughout the bible we have innumerable cases of god eagerly punishing or threatening to punish innocents for the crimes of others. you've even defended that bullshit yourself. Quote: Spoony wrote on Wed, 24 March 2010 04:14 What about it? My question was: where's the evidence supporting the account given in Genesis? So how does this support the account given in Genesis? I wasn't providing evidence supporting Genesis, I was asking in terms of evolution. firstly, i said: where's the evidence supporting the account given in genesis? you said the second law of thermodynamics/entropy. so if that wasn't intended to provide evidence supporting genesis, what IS your evidence to support that version of events? secondly, i don't give a shit whether you or anyone else is convinced by the theory of evolution or not, and i'm not aware of anyone saying "you MUST believe this or you'll suffer horrific punishments for eternity". but still, i'm not sure exactly why you think the second law of thermodynamics is supposed to be a counter-argument to the theory of evolution? Quote: Spoony wrote on Wed, 24 March 2010 04:14 i can't match verses to numbers off the top of my head, but i would have thought an avowed christian would at least have read the bible through. How does that make sense? Yes, I study the Bible, but I don't know all of its contents. It would take years to effectively read and study every Bible verse. k, then here's the one i was talking about we are. Deuteronomy 13:12-16 If you hear that in one of the towns which Yahweh your God has given you for a home, there are men, scoundrels from your own stock, who have led their fellow citizens astray, saying "Let us go and serve other gods" hitherto unknown to you, it is your duty to look into the matter, examine it, and inquire most carefully. If it is proved and confirmed that such a hateful thing has taken place among you, you must put the inhabitants of that town to the sword, you must lay it under the curse of destruction, the town and everything in it. You must pile up all its loot in the public square and burn the town and all its loot, offering it all to Yahweh your God. It is to be a ruin for all time and never rebuilt. Another noteworthy statement along the same lines: Deuteronomy 13:7-11 If your brother, the son of your father or of your mother, or your son or daughter, or the spouse whom you embrace, or your most intimate friend, tries to secretly seduce you, saying "Let us go and serve other gods" unknown to you or your ancestors before you, gods of the peoples surrounding you, whether near you or far away, anywhere throughout the world, you must not consent, you must not listen to him, you must show him no pity, you must not spare him or conceal his guilt. No, you must kill him, your hand must strike the first blow in putting him to death and the hands of the rest of the people following. You must stone him to death, since he has tried to divert you from Yahweh your God. Spoony wrote on Wed, 24 March 2010 04:14 for starters, you could ask god to make his "revelation" a little less ridiculous, or you could ask god not to be such a bastard that he feels the need to dish out the worst crime imaginable just for the "crime" of disbelieving in his existence or disagreeing with his religion. There are plenty of people who think the revelation was just fine, and don't see how his commandments are ridiculous. So, why should your opinion be any more important than theirs?[/quote] Firstly, there are not quite as many such people as you think. Christians are by no means a majority in this world, and that's even if we count all the sects who claim to be real Christians - many of whom I'm sure you think are not. Secondly, I'm not seeing why someone else thinking that the Christian revelations were crystal clear and think there's nothing immoral about his commandments justifies the horrific punishment threatened to anyone who disagrees with them. Quote: Spoony wrote on Wed, 24 March 2010 04:14 Quote: Apparently you do... If you're going to say that they were spreading lies about condoms, it would be a good idea to know the intention behind the act, right? i'm more concerned with the fact millions of people are dying. So you only care for the act and not the motive? Isn't that an ignorant viewpoint? Not really, the catholic church has had plenty of time up till now to defend its absurd and immoral position on contraception, and it hasn't done so. Quote: Spoony wrote on Wed, 24 March 2010 04:14 how do you even know they said that? once you've answered that, how do you know they were correct, as opposed to crazy or lying or just plain wrong? once you've answered that, how do you know this wasn't the case for the rejected gospels? 1. They said it in the gospels they wrote. 2. I don't "know" that, but as you said, odds - if that many people (the writers) all claimed the same thing, they either are telling the truth or a coordinated lie. 3. I don't, since I haven't read said gospels. 1. you mean the gospel says so - not the same thing at all. how do you know that everything in there is exactly what the writers wanted to say? 2. they didn't all claim the same thing. the gospels contradict each other about almost every major event in jesus' life. 3. ah. i remember you saying you hadn't read the qur'an or hadith either. well, these all claim to be revelations from the god you believe in... don't you think you should at least read them before deciding they're not the real deal? Quote: Spoony wrote on Wed, 24 March 2010 04:14 it wouldn't be the first time i've made the assertion that it's plain evil to threaten someone with horrific punishment just for the "crime" of disagreeing with you or doubting what you say, would it? No, it wouldn't be. It's your motto, I guess. By that logic, though, you shouldn't punish a child molester because he doesn't agree with the anti-pedophilia law. Firstly, you seem to be affirming that you don't think there's anything wrong with threatening someone with horrific punishment for nothing worse than disagreeing with you. Secondly, are you drawing a parallel between 1. disagreeing with someone, and 2. raping a child? we have laws to protect children from paedophiles because raping a child is a genuine crime with potentially severe consequences for the victim, and because basic human decency leads most of us to think vulnerable children need to be protected from predatory adults. i hardly see how this is the same situation as someone who is not convinced that a particular religion is correct or disagrees with its teachings? Quote: I'm referencing to actions made by the people in the Old Testament, and you keep turning it around to "Look what GOD did!" actually a lot of my criticism of the moral evils of the old testament are reported to have been carried out by the god character himself. certainly his followers do a lot of evil things, certainly he ORDERS a lot of evil things, he also DOES a lot of evil things (ordering them can count in this column too) And it wasn't "complaining about your religion" as you quoted me. Quote: I'm in favor of democracy and human rights among humans. I'm suprised that you think that a people completely created by another being by his will alone should have exact and equal rights as that being and should be left to their own devices and be allowed to shun their creator. you misunderstand me. i didn't say humans should have equal rights to 'god'. i don't see any reason why this 'god' should have any rights, since nobody's even managed to demonstrate that it exists at all. secondly, i seem to recall having this argument with you before. apparently we're stuck as slaves to anyone who created us? well, what if you found out that you were created by a mad scientist in a lab, a modern-day dr. frankenstein? would that make you his slave, like it or not? if we were to find out that the origins of life on earth was because some aliens 'seeded' the planet a few million years ago, would that mean we have to be slaves to them? if instead you decide that you were created by your parents in the traditional way, do they rule you for your entire life? Quote: Spoony wrote on Wed, 24 March 2010 04:14 isn't god a bit of a prick for making his message so ludicrously cryptic that only a small proportion of the population get it right, and punishing everyone who gets it wrong? Is it really that hard to "decrypt"? if the only people on this planet who've gotten it right are in your particular denomination, then apparently it is. Quote: It also is pretty simple to understand what God says is a sin and what is not. sure, doesn't mean we need to listen to him, considering how absolutely crap his moral standards seem to be. but that's no surprise; he was, after all, created by bronze-age middle-eastern barbarians.
HoF FTW! I feel the heat from this thread.
Spoony, why does everyone one of your topics have to do with...someone cheating....flame post about someone else....or religious/homo type subjects no disrespect it just seems like...nvm im stop now
maybe when religion stops trying to take over the world there won't be anything to complain about
quick audio summary from pat of everything i've been saying about the catholic church http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKg4HLsu5gE&feature=sub admittedly i'd have mentioned its persecution of homosexuality too but meh
Spoony wrote on Sat, 27 March 2010 11:13 quick audio summary from pat of everything i've been saying about the catholic church http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKg4HLsu5gE&feature=sub admittedly i'd have mentioned its persecution of homosexuality too but meh I thought you were the old man in the vid for a moment.
Spoony wrote on Fri, 26 March 2010 11:53 i'm not seeing how this refutes my point? the woman gets away with it because sinful people are supposedly not allowed to punish offenders. we're told we're all sinful, so what's the point the law being there if it's unenforcable? Perhaps I wasn't trying to refute it? Spoony wrote on Fri, 26 March 2010 11:53 and yet throughout the bible we have innumerable cases of god eagerly punishing or threatening to punish innocents for the crimes of others. you've even defended that bullshit yourself. That doesn't change the fact that the Bible doesn't command us to persecute Jews. Spoony wrote on Fri, 26 March 2010 11:53 firstly, i said: where's the evidence supporting the account given in genesis? you said the second law of thermodynamics/entropy. When I said those two examples, I was NOT giving them as evidence to Genesis, I was bringing it up against evolution, as I already said. Spoony wrote on Fri, 26 March 2010 11:53 secondly, i don't give a shit whether you or anyone else is convinced by the theory of evolution or not, and i'm not aware of anyone saying "you MUST believe this or you'll suffer horrific punishments for eternity". but still, i'm not sure exactly why you think the second law of thermodynamics is supposed to be a counter-argument to the theory of evolution? So you want me to provide evidence and attempt to vindicate Genesis, but you don't think I should make any move against evolution? One-sided, no? Spoony wrote on Fri, 26 March 2010 11:53 k, then here's the one i was talking about we are. Deuteronomy 13:12-16 If thou shalt hear [say] in one of thy cities, which the LORD thy God hath given thee to dwell there, saying, [Certain] men, the children of Belial, are gone out from among you, and have withdrawn the inhabitants of their city, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which ye have not known; Then shalt thou enquire, and make search, and ask diligently; and, behold, [if it be] truth, [and] the thing certain, [that] such abomination is wrought among you; Thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that [is] therein, and the cattle thereof, with the edge of the sword. And thou shalt gather all the spoil of it into the midst of the street thereof, and shalt burn with fire the city, and all the spoil thereof every whit, for the LORD thy God: and it shall be an heap for ever; it shall not be built again. I took the liberty of changing your quoted verses to KJV. Now here's Matthew Henry's commentary which should hopefully answer any question you have provided you read it carefully. Toggle Spoiler "Here the case is put of a city revolting from its allegiance to the God of Israel, and serving other gods. I. The crime is supposed to be committed, 1. By one of the cities of Israel, that lay within the jurisdiction of their courts. The church then judged those only that were within, 1 Co. 5:12, 13. And, even when they were ordered to preserve their religion in the first principles of it by fire and sword to propagate it. Those that are born within the allegiance of a prince, if they take up arms against him, are dealt with as traitors, but foreign invaders are not so. The city that is here supposed to have become idolatrous is one that formerly worshipped the true God, but had now withdrawn to other gods, which intimates how great the crime is, and how sore the punishment will be, of those that, after they have known the way of righteousness, turn aside from it, 2 Pt. 2:21. 2. It is supposed to be committed by the generality of the inhabitants of the city, for we may conclude that, if a considerable number did retain their integrity, those only that were guilty were to be destroyed, and the city was to be spared for the sake of the righteous in it; for will not the Judge of all the earth do right? No doubt he will. 3. They are supposed to be drawn to idolatry by certain men, the children of Belial, men that would endure no yoke (so it signifies), that neither fear God nor regard man, but shake off all restraints of law and conscience, and are perfectly lost to all manner of virtue; these are those that say, "Let us serve other gods,'' that will not only allow, but will countenance and encourage, our immoralities. Belial is put for the devil (2 Co. 6:15), and the children of Belial are his children. These withdraw the inhabitants of the city; for a little of this old leaven, when it is entertained, soon leavens the whole lump. II. The cause is ordered to be tried with a great deal of care (v. 14): Thou shalt enquire and make search. They must not proceed upon common fame, or take the information by hearsay, but must examine the proofs, and not give judgment against them unless the evidence was clear and the charge fully made out. God himself, before he destroyed Sodom, is said to have come down to see whether its crimes were according to the clamour, Gen. 18:21. In judicial processes it is requisite that time, and care, and pains, be taken to find out the truth, and that search be made without any passion, prejudice, or partiality. The Jewish writers say that, though particular persons who were idolaters might be judged by the inferior courts, the defection of a city was to be tried by the great Sanhedrim; and, if it appeared that they were thrust away to idolatry, two learned men were sent to them to admonish and reclaim them. If they repented, all would be well; if not, then all Israel must go up to war against them, to testify their indignation against idolatry and to stop the spreading of the contagion. III. If the crime were proved, and the criminals were incorrigible, the city was to be wholly destroyed. If there were a few righteous men in it, no doubt they would remove themselves and their families out of such a dangerous place, and then all the inhabitants, men, women, and children, must be put to the sword (v. 15), all the spoil of the city, both shop-goods and the furniture of houses, must be brought into the marketplace and burned, and the city itself must be laid in ashes and never built again, v. 16. The soldiers are forbidden, upon pain of death, to convert any of the plunder to their own use, v. 17. It was a devoted thing, and dangerous to meddle with, as we find in the case of Achan. Now, 1. God enjoins this severity of show what a jealous God he is in the matters of his worship, and how great a crime it is to serve other gods. Let men know that God will not give his glory to another, nor his praise to graven images. 2. He expects that magistrates, having their honour and power from him, should be concerned for his honour, and use their power for terror to evil doers, else they bear the sword in vain. 3. The faithful worshippers of the true God must take all occasions to show their just indignation against idolatry, much more against atheism, infidelity, and irreligion. 4. It is here intimated that the best expedient for the turning away of God's anger from a land is to execute justice upon the wicked of the land (v. 17), that the Lord may turn from the fierceness of his anger, which was ready to break out against the whole nation, for the wickedness of that one apostate city. It is promised that, if they would thus root wickedness out of their land, God would multiply them. They might think it impolitic, and against the interest of their nation, to ruin a whole city for a crime relating purely to religion, and that they should be more sparing of the blood of Israelites: "Fear not the'' (says Moses), "God will multiply you the more; the body of your nation will lose nothing by the letting out of this corrupt blood.'' Lastly, Though we do not find this law put in execution in all the history of the Jewish church (Gibeah was destroyed, not for idolatry, but immorality), yet for the neglect of the execution of it upon the inferior cities that served idols God himself, by the army of the Chaldeans, put it in execution upon Jerusalem, the head city, which, for is apostasy from God, was utterly destroyed and laid waste, and lay in ruins seventy years. Though idolaters may escape punishment from men (nor is this law in the letter of it binding now, under the gospel), yet the Lord our God will not suffer them to escape his righteous judgements. The New Testament speaks of communion with idolaters as a sin which, above any other, provokes the Lord to jealousy, and dares him as if we were stronger than he, 1 Co. 10:21, 22." Spoony wrote on Fri, 26 March 2010 11:53 Another noteworthy statement along the same lines: Deuteronomy 13:7-11 [Namely], of the gods of the people which [are] round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the [one] end of the earth even unto the [other] end of the earth; Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage. And all Israel shall hear, and fear, and shall do no more any such wickedness as this is among you. Same as above, here: Toggle Spoiler "Further provision is made by this branch of the statute against receiving the infection of idolatry from those that are near and dear to us. I. It is the policy of the tempter to send his solicitations by the hand of those whom we love, whom we least suspect of any ill design upon us, and whom we are desirous to please and apt to conform ourselves to. The enticement here is supposed to come from a brother or child that are near by nature, from a wife or friend that are near by choice, and are to us as our own souls, v. 6. Satan tempted Adam by Eve and Christ by Peter. We are therefore concerned to stand upon our guard against a bad proposal when the person that makes it can pretend to an interest in us, that we many never sin against God in compliment to the best friend we have in the world. The temptation is supposed to be private: he will entice thee secretly, implying that idolatry is a work of darkness, which dreads the light and covets to be concealed, and in which the sinner promises himself, and the tempter promises him, secrecy and security. Concerning the false gods proposed to be served, 1. The tempter suggests that the worshipping of these gods was the common practice of the world; and, if they limited their adorations to an invisible Deity, they were singular, and like nobody, for these gods were the gods of the people round about them, and indeed of all the nations of the earth, v. 7. This suggestion draws many away from religion and godliness, that it is an unfashionable thing; and they make their court to the world and the flesh because these are the gods of the people that are round about them. 2. Moses suggests, in opposition to this, that it had not been the practice of their ancestors; they are gods which thou hast not known, thou nor thy fathers. Those that are born of godly parents, and have been educated in pious exercises, when they are enticed to a vain, loose, careless way of living should remember that those are ways which they have not known, they nor their fathers. And will they thus degenerate? II. It is our duty to prefer God and religion before the best friends we have in the world. 1. We must not, in complaisance to our friends, break God's law (v. 8): "Thou shalt not consent to him. nor go with him to his idolatrous worship, no, not for company, or curiosity, or to gain a better interest in is affections.'' It is a general rule, If sinners entice thee, consent thou not, Prov. 1:10. 2. We must not, in compassion to our friends, obstruct the course of God's justice. He that attempts such a thing must not only be looked upon as an enemy, or dangerous person, whom one should be afraid of, and swear the peace against, but as a criminal or traitor, whom, in zeal for our sovereign Lord, his crown and dignity, we are bound to inform against, and cannot conceal without incurring the guilt of a great misprision (v. 9): Thou shalt surely kill him. By this law the persons enticed were bound to the seducer, and to give evidence against him before the proper judges, that he might suffer the penalty of the law, and that without delay, which the Jews say is here intended in that phrase, as it is in the Hebrew, killing thou shalt kill him. Neither the prosecution nor the execution must be deferred; and he that was first in the former must be first in the latter, to show that he stood to his testimony: "Thy hand shall be first upon him, to mark him out as an anathema, and then the hands of all the people, to put him away as an accursed thing.'' The death he must die was that which was looked upon among the Jews as the severest of all deaths. He must be stoned: and his accusation written is that he has sought to thrust thee away, by a kind of violence, from the Lord they God, v. 10. Those are certainly our worst enemies that would thrust us from God, our best friend; and whatever draws us to sin, separates between us and God, is a design upon our life, and to be resented accordingly, And, lastly, here is the good effect of this necessary execution (v. 11): All Israel shall hear and fear. They ought to hear and fear; for the punishment of crimes committed is designed in terrorem—to terrify, and so to prevent their repetition. And it is to be hoped they will hear and fear, and by the severity of the punishment, especially when it is at the prosecution of a father, a brother, or a friend, will be made to conceive a horror of the sin, as exceedingly sinful, and to be afraid of incurring the like punishment themselves. Smite the scorner that sins presumptuously, and the simple, that is in danger of sinning carelessly, will beware." Spoony wrote on Fri, 26 March 2010 11:53 I'm not seeing why someone else thinking that the Christian revelations were crystal clear and think there's nothing immoral about his commandments justifies the horrific punishment threatened to anyone who disagrees with them. It doesn't justify, sure, but I'm trying to point out a different opinion since yours is the prominent one here. Spoony wrote on Fri, 26 March 2010 11:53 Not really, the catholic church has had plenty of time up till now to defend its absurd and immoral position on contraception, and it hasn't done so. If the people who physically did those things were still alove and were asked the question, I'm sure they'd answer... but they're not around today, are they? Spoony wrote on Fri, 26 March 2010 11:53 1. you mean the gospel says so - not the same thing at all. how do you know that everything in there is exactly what the writers wanted to say? 2. they didn't all claim the same thing. the gospels contradict each other about almost every major event in jesus' life. 3. ah. i remember you saying you hadn't read the qur'an or hadith either. well, these all claim to be revelations from the god you believe in... don't you think you should at least read them before deciding they're not the real deal? 1. "How do you know" again? Same answer - I don't. How do you know they weren't? You don't. Simple answer - we don't know. Spoony wrote on Fri, 26 March 2010 11:53 Firstly, you seem to be affirming that you don't think there's anything wrong with threatening someone with horrific punishment for nothing worse than disagreeing with you. The played-down part here is "disagreeing with you" - it's a lot more than that, you know. Spoony wrote on Fri, 26 March 2010 11:53 Secondly, are you drawing a parallel between 1. disagreeing with someone, and 2. raping a child? we have laws to protect children from paedophiles because raping a child is a genuine crime with potentially severe consequences for the victim, and because basic human decency leads most of us to think vulnerable children need to be protected from predatory adults. i hardly see how this is the same situation as someone who is not convinced that a particular religion is correct or disagrees with its teachings? I could use ANY exmple here if I wanted. I'm not talking about the act in particular. Let's change it to whatever law then - the lawbreaker disagrees with the law at hand, and doesn't think it's a proper law and should not be enforced. Should we punish him anyway, or should we let him be, since it isn't fair that we punish him for breaking a law he doesn't think is fair or right? Spoony wrote on Fri, 26 March 2010 11:53 Quote: I'm referencing to actions made by the people in the Old Testament, and you keep turning it around to "Look what GOD did!" actually a lot of my criticism of the moral evils of the old testament are reported to have been carried out by the god character himself. certainly his followers do a lot of evil things, certainly he ORDERS a lot of evil things, he also DOES a lot of evil things (ordering them can count in this column too) That's what I said, yeah. You refer to what GOD did, when I was referring to something else. Spoony wrote on Fri, 26 March 2010 11:53 you misunderstand me. i didn't say humans should have equal rights to 'god'. i don't see any reason why this 'god' should have any rights, since nobody's even managed to demonstrate that it exists at all. Stop dragging the hypothetical situation to the real world - IF God did exist (IF), should we have equal rights to him? Spoony wrote on Fri, 26 March 2010 11:53 secondly, i seem to recall having this argument with you before. apparently we're stuck as slaves to anyone who created us? well, what if you found out that you were created by a mad scientist in a lab, a modern-day dr. frankenstein? would that make you his slave, like it or not? That's a completely different situation, eh? Mad scientists would have to work with inventions and materials around him, not create everything out of nothing with pure will. Also, if we were made by a mad scientist, we'd be wherever he was (unless he was completely alone in the universe) and would be subject to his existence as well, so... Spoony wrote on Fri, 26 March 2010 11:53 if we were to find out that the origins of life on earth was because some aliens 'seeded' the planet a few million years ago, would that mean we have to be slaves to them? Again, completely different scenario. Spoony wrote on Fri, 26 March 2010 11:53 if instead you decide that you were created by your parents in the traditional way, do they rule you for your entire life? 'The traditional way'? Spoony wrote on Fri, 26 March 2010 11:53 if the only people on this planet who've gotten it right are in your particular denomination, then apparently it is. Again, we're not. But some (or a lot) groups have changed the scripture to suit themselves. And as the Bible says, let no man add or take away from what is written. Spoony wrote on Fri, 26 March 2010 11:53 Quote: It also is pretty simple to understand what God says is a sin and what is not. sure, doesn't mean we need to listen to him, considering how absolutely crap his moral standards seem to be. but that's no surprise; he was, after all, created by bronze-age middle-eastern barbarians. But they're simple, as you just affirmed. Not cryptic at all.
Altzan wrote on Sun, 28 March 2010 19:16 Perhaps I wasn't trying to refute it? *shrug* then i guess my earlier statement about the overall stupidity of the story can be allowed to stand Quote: Spoony wrote on Fri, 26 March 2010 11:53 and yet throughout the bible we have innumerable cases of god eagerly punishing or threatening to punish innocents for the crimes of others. you've even defended that bullshit yourself. That doesn't change the fact that the Bible doesn't command us to persecute Jews. well, it would be nice if all the christian authorities had said this for the last two thousand years, instead of specifically encouraging the persecution of jews, culminating in the holocaust. and if you're going to take the line that statements of "faith" don't have to be proven, then this is only a problem for your side. Quote: When I said those two examples, I was NOT giving them as evidence to Genesis, I was bringing it up against evolution, as I already said. So you want me to provide evidence and attempt to vindicate Genesis, but you don't think I should make any move against evolution? One-sided, no? firstly, i never said you shouldn't try to refute the theory of evolution. no real scientist would say that, and i'm not even a scientist. evolution is a scientific theory, and since it's scientific it's open to challenges. if the best you can do is mentioning the second law of thermodynamics, then ok. i can't imagine why that's supposed to be a rebuttal to the theory of evolution, so perhaps you can explain that for us. secondly, yes i do want you to prove the account as reported in genesis. thirdly, i'll just repeat my earlier assertion that i don't really care whether you find the theory of evolution convincing or not, and if i ever came across anybody saying that if you don't believe their scientific theory then their boss will inflict horrific punishment upon you for your disbelief! then i'd be the first to say what a deranged and immoral pronouncement that would be. even more so if they never put forth any decent evidence for it in the first place. Quote: I took the liberty of changing your quoted verses to KJV. Now here's Matthew Henry's commentary which should hopefully answer any question you have provided you read it carefully. i have a feeling it's going to raise more questions than it answers, but i'll give it a shot. Quote: "Here the case is put of a city revolting from its allegiance to the God of Israel, and serving other gods. I. The crime is supposed to be committed oh dear. already i've got to stop you. i don't accept that a crime has been committed here. Quote: The crime is supposed to be committed, 1. By one of the cities of Israel, that lay within the jurisdiction of their courts. Ah. I think I see what he's getting at here; it only applies to the Israelites, does it? In that case, then the verse would be totally irrelevant in a modern context. That would certainly be no problem for me; it would only be a problem for anybody who dared to say that God gave them this planet, their property etc. But quite a lot of Christians do say that, don't they? Quote: The church then judged those only that were within, 1 Co. 5:12, 13. And, even when they were ordered to preserve their religion in the first principles of it by fire and sword to propagate it. fun fun fun! Quote: Those that are born within the allegiance of a prince, if they take up arms against him, are dealt with as traitors, but foreign invaders are not so. We're back to my earlier criticism of dictatorship. I do accept that someone who "takes up arms against" a cause they have freely chosen to swear allegiance to is considered a traitor. But there are three problems in this case. 1. The choice to swear allegiance to your god is not free. I've never heard a serious attempt to make the case that it is, either from the barbarism of the Bible or from modern-day Christians who say we're free to believe what we like but we'll go to hell for believing the wrong thing. 2. "Born within the allegiance" negates the concept of a choice at all. 3. I don't accept that simply not worshipping the god and having a different religious viewpoint constitutes "taking up arms against" Quote: The city that is here supposed to have become idolatrous is one that formerly worshipped the true God, but had now withdrawn to other gods, which intimates how great the crime is ...no, no it doesn't. Although, "other gods"... do you think there are (or were) any other gods? Quote: It is supposed to be committed by the generality of the inhabitants of the city, for we may conclude that, if a considerable number did retain their integrity, those only that were guilty were to be destroyed, and the city was to be spared for the sake of the righteous in it; for will not the Judge of all the earth do right? No doubt he will. firstly, there's nothing in the original commandment saying "this punishment is only to be carried out if they're all guilty", nor "innocent bystanders will be spared", and it's rather dishonest to suggest that there is, but then i've never come across any theology that wasn't at some stage based on dishonesty. secondly it's worth noting that the author seems to realise that if god did do this, if he did flatten a city including innocent bystanders just because some other people in the city did something bad (not that i accept that having a different religious opinion is a crime), god would be morally wrong to do it. Quote: They are supposed to be drawn to idolatry by certain men, the children of Belial, men that would endure no yoke (so it signifies), that neither fear God nor regard man, but shake off all restraints of law and conscience, and are perfectly lost to all manner of virtue; these are those that say, "Let us serve other gods,'' He really has lost me here. Why would serving a different god mean someone has no desire to be bound by laws, or any "manner of virtue"? They're just picking a different set, aren't they? Secondly, are non-theists thrown into the same category, I wonder? Quote: The cause is ordered to be tried with a great deal of care (v. 14): Thou shalt enquire and make search. They must not proceed upon common fame, or take the information by hearsay, but must examine the proofs, and not give judgment against them unless the evidence was clear and the charge fully made out. God himself, before he destroyed Sodom, is said to have come down to see whether its crimes were according to the clamour, Gen. 18:21. In judicial processes it is requisite that time, and care, and pains, be taken to find out the truth, and that search be made without any passion, prejudice, or partiality. The Jewish writers say that, though particular persons who were idolaters might be judged by the inferior courts, the defection of a city was to be tried by the great Sanhedrim; and, if it appeared that they were thrust away to idolatry, two learned men were sent to them to admonish and reclaim them. If they repented, all would be well; if not, then all Israel must go up to war against them, to testify their indignation against idolatry and to stop the spreading of the contagion. this part of the commentary is uncharacteristically honest. yes, the original commandment does make it clear that it is to be painstakingly investigated. Quote: III. If the crime were proved, and the criminals were incorrigible, the city was to be wholly destroyed. If there were a few righteous men in it, no doubt they would remove themselves and their families out of such a dangerous place Ah. So it's ok to flatten an entire city if some of its inhabitants commit a crime, because anyone who was innocent would "no doubt" have already left. Quote: and then all the inhabitants, men, women, and children, must be put to the sword (v. 15) I'm going to emphasise a part of this quote, and then I'll throw it out here and we'll see whether you have anything to say about it. "Children must be put to the sword." Quote: all the spoil of the city, both shop-goods and the furniture of houses, must be brought into the marketplace and burned, and the city itself must be laid in ashes and never built again, v. 16. The soldiers are forbidden, upon pain of death, to convert any of the plunder to their own use, v. 17. It was a devoted thing, and dangerous to meddle with, as we find in the case of Achan. well, i think the real crime here is the slaughter of the city's inhabitants, not the ensuing destruction of property. Quote: Now, 1. God enjoins this severity of show what a jealous God he is in the matters of his worship, and how great a crime it is to serve other gods. firstly, he hasn't successfully made the case that serving another god is a crime. secondly, even if he did make that case, this wouldn't make it morally acceptable to punish innocents if someone else was guilty. thirdly, see my earlier question. are there other gods...? Quote: Let men know that God will not give his glory to another, nor his praise to graven images. 2. He expects that magistrates, having their honour and power from him, should be concerned for his honour, and use their power for terror to evil doers, else they bear the sword in vain. And does he still expect that? Quote: The faithful worshippers of the true God must take all occasions to show their just indignation against idolatry, much more against atheism, infidelity, and irreligion. Ah, so that means someone who does not take all occasions to show their just indignation against atheism and idolatry is not a faithful worshipper of the true God? Quote: It is here intimated that the best expedient for the turning away of God's anger from a land is to execute justice upon the wicked of the land (v. 17), that the Lord may turn from the fierceness of his anger, which was ready to break out against the whole nation, for the wickedness of that one apostate city. Here we have another example of what we noticed earlier. Earlier we noticed that the author seems to realise that if god really did flatten a city for the crimes of a few of its inhabitants, it would be an immoral thing for god to do. Now we're seeing that again. What a good thing that God's people are laying waste to this city, he says, because otherwise God was going to destroy the entire country just for what one city did! Quote: It is promised that, if they would thus root wickedness out of their land, God would multiply them. They might think it impolitic, and against the interest of their nation, to ruin a whole city for a crime relating purely to religion, and that they should be more sparing of the blood of Israelites: "Fear not the'' (says Moses), "God will multiply you the more; the body of your nation will lose nothing by the letting out of this corrupt blood.'' Here we have it again! The author is recognising that some people might have had a problem with this commandment! Unfortunately, even though that's a good starting point, he totally fucks it all up by saying "even if you think this is morally wrong, you should do it anyway because there's something in it for you". Oh dear. Quote: Lastly, Though we do not find this law put in execution in all the history of the Jewish church (Gibeah was destroyed, not for idolatry, but immorality) I wasn't sure what was originally meant by Gibeah, so I looked that up. I do recognise the story, though not as 'Gibeah'. The one about the baying mob who want to rape the male visitor, and the decision by the men to throw the young women to the mob to save themselves. So the visitor's woman gets raped to death. That one. It's similar to the Lot story, isn't it? The similarity of the narrative, the almost identical speech reported, and the fact that modern Christians seem to draw some really odd moral lessons from it, i.e. homosexuality is evil, but if you find yourself faced by a mob of rapists, just throw a defenceless young girl at them and save yourself. Quote: yet for the neglect of the execution of it upon the inferior cities that served idols God himself, by the army of the Chaldeans, put it in execution upon Jerusalem, the head city, which, for is apostasy from God, was utterly destroyed and laid waste, and lay in ruins seventy years. What's he saying here? Quote: Though idolaters may escape punishment from men (nor is this law in the letter of it binding now, under the gospel), yet the Lord our God will not suffer them to escape his righteous judgements. The New Testament speaks of communion with idolaters as a sin which, above any other, provokes the Lord to jealousy, and dares him as if we were stronger than he, 1 Co. 10:21, 22." This is quite an odd kettle of fish, isn't it? So, idolatry, serving other gods etc, they're things which absolutely infuriate God. Yes, the old testament makes that clear... and it doesn't exactly work in his favour. There are plenty of evil actions he either doesn't mind or positively recommends - slavery, for example - but if you have a different religious opinion, you'd better watch out. So there must be a law against this "crime" in the Old Testament. But as he says here, in the New Testament, the law is not binding anymore, but it still infuriates God and he'll still punish people who do it? So why repeal the law? Quote: "Further provision is made by this branch of the statute against receiving the infection of idolatry from those that are near and dear to us. I. It is the policy of the tempter to send his solicitations by the hand of those whom we love, whom we least suspect of any ill design upon us, and whom we are desirous to please and apt to conform ourselves to. The enticement here is supposed to come from a brother or child that are near by nature, from a wife or friend that are near by choice, and are to us as our own souls, v. 6. Satan tempted Adam by Eve and Christ by Peter. We are therefore concerned to stand upon our guard against a bad proposal when the person that makes it can pretend to an interest in us, that we many never sin against God in compliment to the best friend we have in the world. The temptation is supposed to be private: he will entice thee secretly, implying that idolatry is a work of darkness, which dreads the light and covets to be concealed, and in which the sinner promises himself, and the tempter promises him, secrecy and security. This all assumes that the person doing the "tempting" has evil intentions... what if they're just someone like you, evangelising? Someone who genuinely believes in their God, and wants to spread the good news? as an aside, do you really believe that the snake in the garden was Satan? Quote: Concerning the false gods proposed to be served Define "false god", please. Quote: 1. The tempter suggests that the worshipping of these gods was the common practice of the world; and, if they limited their adorations to an invisible Deity, they were singular, and like nobody, for these gods were the gods of the people round about them, and indeed of all the nations of the earth, v. 7. makes sense to ask why worship something intangible. Quote: This suggestion draws many away from religion and godliness, that it is an unfashionable thing so far so good Quote: and they make their court to the world and the flesh because these are the gods of the people that are round about them. ?? Quote: Moses suggests, in opposition to this, that it had not been the practice of their ancestors; they are gods which thou hast not known, thou nor thy fathers. Those that are born of godly parents, and have been educated in pious exercises, when they are enticed to a vain, loose, careless way of living should remember that those are ways which they have not known, they nor their fathers. And will they thus degenerate? Ask the Jews who rejected the message of Jesus. Quote: II. It is our duty to prefer God and religion before the best friends we have in the world. Including your children? What would be your response to the Abraham test, do you think? Quote: We must not, in complaisance to our friends, break God's law (v. 8): "Thou shalt not consent to him. nor go with him to his idolatrous worship, no, not for company, or curiosity, or to gain a better interest in is affections.'' It is a general rule, If sinners entice thee, consent thou not, Prov. 1:10. 2. We must not, in compassion to our friends, obstruct the course of God's justice. Again, the author is recognising that people might, unbelievably, have a problem with this commandment. Their compassion might get in the way. I certainly hope so. I wonder why I've never heard a Christian say that compassion was a work of Satan. Quote: He that attempts such a thing must not only be looked upon as an enemy, or dangerous person, whom one should be afraid of, and swear the peace against, but as a criminal or traitor, whom, in zeal for our sovereign Lord, his crown and dignity, we are bound to inform against, and cannot conceal without incurring the guilt of a great misprision (v. 9): Thou shalt surely kill him. By this law the persons enticed were bound to the seducer, and to give evidence against him before the proper judges, that he might suffer the penalty of the law, and that without delay, which the Jews say is here intended in that phrase, as it is in the Hebrew, killing thou shalt kill him. Neither the prosecution nor the execution must be deferred; and he that was first in the former must be first in the latter, to show that he stood to his testimony: "Thy hand shall be first upon him, to mark him out as an anathema, and then the hands of all the people, to put him away as an accursed thing.'' The death he must die was that which was looked upon among the Jews as the severest of all deaths. He must be stoned: and his accusation written is that he has sought to thrust thee away, by a kind of violence, from the Lord they God, v. 10. still hasn't explained where the crime is here Quote: Those are certainly our worst enemies that would thrust us from God, our best friend; and whatever draws us to sin, separates between us and God, is a design upon our life, and to be resented accordingly see above re: intentions not necessarily evil. Suppose I said the following. You, Altzan, are certainly my worst enemy that would thrust me from reason, my best friend. Whatever draws me to religion, separates between myself and my reason, is a design upon my mind, to be resented accordingly. It's not actually so far from the truth, although I wouldn't say this would justify me killing you for trying. Quote: And, lastly, here is the good effect of this necessary execution (v. 11): All Israel shall hear and fear. They ought to hear and fear; for the punishment of crimes committed is designed in terrorem—to terrify, and so to prevent their repetition. And it is to be hoped they will hear and fear, and by the severity of the punishment, especially when it is at the prosecution of a father, a brother, or a friend, will be made to conceive a horror of the sin, as exceedingly sinful, and to be afraid of incurring the like punishment themselves. Smite the scorner that sins presumptuously, and the simple, that is in danger of sinning carelessly, will beware." Well, yes, if you carry out the most horrific of punishments for some "crime", people probably will avoid doing it. That doesn't mean the punishment is just, or that the "crime" is a crime at all. Quote: Spoony wrote on Fri, 26 March 2010 11:53 I'm not seeing why someone else thinking that the Christian revelations were crystal clear and think there's nothing immoral about his commandments justifies the horrific punishment threatened to anyone who disagrees with them. It doesn't justify, sure, but I'm trying to point out a different opinion since yours is the prominent one here. k, but the other opinion is crap, isn't it? saying the christian revelation is crystal clear is plainly absurd; if it is, what's the need for 'faith'? as for thinking there's nothing immoral about his commandments... well, you can even see some objections in matthew henry's commentary if you look closely. Quote: If the people who physically did those things were still alove and were asked the question, I'm sure they'd answer... but they're not around today, are they? the catholic church is still spreading its evil doctrine against contraception even now. Quote: Spoony wrote on Fri, 26 March 2010 11:53 1. you mean the gospel says so - not the same thing at all. how do you know that everything in there is exactly what the writers wanted to say? 2. they didn't all claim the same thing. the gospels contradict each other about almost every major event in jesus' life. 3. ah. i remember you saying you hadn't read the qur'an or hadith either. well, these all claim to be revelations from the god you believe in... don't you think you should at least read them before deciding they're not the real deal? 1. "How do you know" again? Same answer - I don't. Simple answer - we don't know. I will give you credit where credit is due. I think this is the most honest and reasonable thing I've seen you say in these religious debates. It goes a bit wrong from there, though... you ask me how do I know they weren't inspired by god. well, i've been waiting for quite some time for anybody to explain what they even mean by god, and prove his existence, and demonstrate that he's worth listening to. Once they've done that, then I'll be sure to give due consideration to whether a book claiming to be inspired by him actually is. Otherwise I don't really see the point. Quote: Spoony wrote on Fri, 26 March 2010 11:53 Firstly, you seem to be affirming that you don't think there's anything wrong with threatening someone with horrific punishment for nothing worse than disagreeing with you. The played-down part here is "disagreeing with you" - it's a lot more than that, you know. Go on. Quote: I could use ANY exmple here if I wanted. I'm not talking about the act in particular. Let's change it to whatever law then - the lawbreaker disagrees with the law at hand, and doesn't think it's a proper law and should not be enforced. Should we punish him anyway, or should we let him be, since it isn't fair that we punish him for breaking a law he doesn't think is fair or right? The contents of the bible aren't laws at all; nobody's ever demonstrated that they come from any position of authority. That's the legal side. On to the moral side. What if the majority thinks the law is wrong? Can it be changed democratically? Quote: Spoony wrote on Fri, 26 March 2010 11:53 you misunderstand me. i didn't say humans should have equal rights to 'god'. i don't see any reason why this 'god' should have any rights, since nobody's even managed to demonstrate that it exists at all. Stop dragging the hypothetical situation to the real world - IF God did exist (IF), should we have equal rights to him? No. If God did exist and the biblical account of his deeds are true, he should not have equal rights to us. Not after his trial, anyway. Quote: Spoony wrote on Fri, 26 March 2010 11:53 secondly, i seem to recall having this argument with you before. apparently we're stuck as slaves to anyone who created us? well, what if you found out that you were created by a mad scientist in a lab, a modern-day dr. frankenstein? would that make you his slave, like it or not? That's a completely different situation, eh? Mad scientists would have to work with inventions and materials around him, not create everything out of nothing with pure will. Firstly, how do you know how God supposedly made everything? Secondly, why is this an important difference? If God creates stuff out of nothing through pure will, he's just using the tools and abilities available to him. What's the difference? Quote: Also, if we were made by a mad scientist, we'd be wherever he was (unless he was completely alone in the universe) and would be subject to his existence as well, so... you've lost me there. Quote: Spoony wrote on Fri, 26 March 2010 11:53 if we were to find out that the origins of life on earth was because some aliens 'seeded' the planet a few million years ago, would that mean we have to be slaves to them? Again, completely different scenario. the only differences i see is that i find the aliens scenario a little easier to believe, and that nobody's telling me i must believe it and act accordingly. Quote: Spoony wrote on Fri, 26 March 2010 11:53 if instead you decide that you were created by your parents in the traditional way, do they rule you for your entire life? 'The traditional way'? having sex. Quote: Spoony wrote on Fri, 26 March 2010 11:53 if the only people on this planet who've gotten it right are in your particular denomination, then apparently it is. Again, we're not. But some (or a lot) groups have changed the scripture to suit themselves. And as the Bible says, let no man add or take away from what is written. Matthew Henry added quite a bit, and that was only to two brief statements. Secondly, what do you think will happen to the other kinds of Christian after they die? i.e. everyone outside your denomination who says they're a Christian but, in your church's view, are mistaken. Quote: Spoony wrote on Fri, 26 March 2010 11:53 Quote: It also is pretty simple to understand what God says is a sin and what is not. sure, doesn't mean we need to listen to him, considering how absolutely crap his moral standards seem to be. but that's no surprise; he was, after all, created by bronze-age middle-eastern barbarians. But they're simple, as you just affirmed. Not cryptic at all. firstly you don't seem to be challenging my statement that his moral standards are absolutely shit. secondly it really is cryptic, or at least too cryptic for humans, otherwise the vast majority of the world wouldn't have a problem with it.
Science>Religion Proof>Belief Seeing>Wondering Knowing>Assuming Not even going to read the whole topic, but that is my general opinion. I'd rather have actual proof, without having to be convinced and dragged into, rather than assumptions and, what appear to me - are false hopes. I'm not one to judge anyone by their religion, but i do feel as if they may not be aware of some of the actual facts out there....like the fact that there has been, what, hundreds of different religions before us, all believing 100% that THEIR religion, and their gods were what was real. Then every other religion comes and says they are wrong, and that the religion they believe in is right....when there is yet to be facts about any of this. Seems like it's more culture and tradition to believe in one defined religion now-a-days anyway....or just the fear that when you die, you will not be taken care of, or go to hell, if you do not believe. I'd rather not get my hopes about something that appears to me as proven to be false more than true to this point. Tradition, culture, and fear aren't really something i would be willing to trust my life to.....even science would be better.
HaTe wrote on Mon, 29 March 2010 19:46 Science>Religion Proof>Belief Seeing>Wondering Knowing>Assuming Not even going to read the whole topic, but that is my general opinion. I'd rather have actual proof, without having to be convinced and dragged into, rather than assumptions and, what appear to me - are false hopes. I'm not one to judge anyone by their religion, but i do feel as if they may not be aware of some of the actual facts out there....like the fact that there has been, what, hundreds of different religions before us, all believing 100% that THEIR religion, and their gods were what was real. Then every other religion comes and says they are wrong, and that the religion they believe in is right....when there is yet to be facts about any of this. Seems like it's more culture and tradition to believe in one defined religion now-a-days anyway....or just the fear that when you die, you will not be taken care of, or go to hell, if you do not believe. I'd rather not get my hopes about something that appears to me as proven to be false more than true to this point. Tradition, culture, and fear aren't really something i would be willing to trust my life to.....even science would be better. Yea but what does science offer you after you die - a nice little story about the decomposition of your body. What does religion (generally) offer? - A nice little story about living in an unimaginable paradise if you're a good little boy or girl for eternity. Not hard to see why so many people would rather believe in religion, as science promises nothing except knowledge for present use. After you die, what good is it to you? I know what i'd want after I died, yet reality drags the wishful mind back into the real world; and the facts are daunting.
snpr1101 wrote on Tue, 30 March 2010 00:47 HaTe wrote on Mon, 29 March 2010 19:46 Science>Religion Proof>Belief Seeing>Wondering Knowing>Assuming Not even going to read the whole topic, but that is my general opinion. I'd rather have actual proof, without having to be convinced and dragged into, rather than assumptions and, what appear to me - are false hopes. I'm not one to judge anyone by their religion, but i do feel as if they may not be aware of some of the actual facts out there....like the fact that there has been, what, hundreds of different religions before us, all believing 100% that THEIR religion, and their gods were what was real. Then every other religion comes and says they are wrong, and that the religion they believe in is right....when there is yet to be facts about any of this. Seems like it's more culture and tradition to believe in one defined religion now-a-days anyway....or just the fear that when you die, you will not be taken care of, or go to hell, if you do not believe. I'd rather not get my hopes about something that appears to me as proven to be false more than true to this point. Tradition, culture, and fear aren't really something i would be willing to trust my life to.....even science would be better. Yea but what does science offer you after you die - a nice little story about the decomposition of your body. What does religion (generally) offer? - A nice little story about living in an unimaginable paradise if you're a good little boy or girl for eternity. Not hard to see why so many people would rather believe in religion, as science promises nothing except knowledge for present use. After you die, what good is it to you? I know what i'd want after I died, yet reality drags the wishful mind back into the real world; and the facts are daunting. let's not understate of the benefits of science. presumably neither you nor anyone close to you has ever had a potentially life-threatening illness, for example. what use is religion in the field of medicine? according to the holy books, plagues and other natural disasters usually happen because god is punishing someone. that'd be a real help if you had cancer, wouldn't it? "sorry we can't do a damn thing to help you, and what's more, it's your fault anyway" and as for "after you die, what good is it to you"? well, after you die, what more do you need? nobody's ever given a convincing reason to think that there is life after death. on to the promises of paradise. firstly, would you rather be told the unwelcome truth or a comforting lie? seems you'd rather be told what you'd find more comforting, regardless of how much truth there is to it. secondly, many religions say that the way to paradise is more to do with believing the right thing than it is to do with your actions. thirdly, many religions' rules - some of them, at least - are pretty shitty. to take the most obvious example, the 72-virgins business. here's what you said: "What does religion (generally) offer? - A nice little story about living in an unimaginable paradise if you're a good little boy or girl for eternity." well, islam offers a paradise if you die in battle, and islam also says that non-muslims are the perpetual enemy. look at the results.
The christian argument is so weak that only "misinformed" people who fell prey to its "intellectual dishonesty" would even think of upholding and defending the religion. And of course, the majority of christians today are christians because they were raised in a christian home and therefore indoctrinated and thereby lacking the "intellectual bargaining power" to deal with their brainwashing. I want to say something about being "misinformed" and "intellectual dishonesty" and the "intellectual bargaining power". These are the roots of the religious question imo. btw, I am basically talking about myself and my experience here: The first one of being misinformed starts at birth. A christian child is going to be told that Adam was the first human being and that everything began with a "Let there be light" command. For example, the child is not going to told that early humans in those ancient tribal groups first hunted, then foraged, then later grew their own crops in their search for food. The child is not going to be told about exciting things such as continental drift or the science behind earthquakes ("its god's judgment" I heard). If you were in a religious family and you were told this, count yourself very lucky. So moving on, a whole false history of our origin is impressed upon the child while real history and science is ignored. I want to stress here that COMMONSENSE is ignored and dogma is upheld. But children are not easily fooled; fresh off the human production line, they have sharp senses, fresh memory, and a keen sense of curiosity. They begin to ask questions that makes the adults around them look like idiots. For example, in my case when I was kid, I always wondered about the concept of the soul. This was an actual conversation I remember very clearly sometime in the early 90's when I was around 8 years old. Marc: what is the soul grandma? Grandma: its a spirit inside us (how the fuck did she know?) Marc: does everyrone have them? Grandma: yes, dear Marc: do animals have souls? wow birds! do birds have souls? Grandma: no they don't Marc: how do you know they don't grandma Grandma: ... I got a stunned silence on that one. I also had other questions like why grandpa and grandma go to the doctor all the time and take 5 different tablets each night when they could pray and get healed cheaply. This leads me to the next part: intellectual dishonesty. EVERY religious parent have been intellectually dishonest to their children...no exceptions. To be fair, I understand that the blind cannot lead and parents are only going to indoctrinate the kids based on what they themselves were indoctrinated with. But still, we see how this is a huge problem; instead of admitting that she has no idea what the soul is and whether it is even real or not, a silence is maintained or some change-the-subject bs answer is given. And how do the religious counter this awesome force of curiosity and yearning to learn from their children? Prepare to be disgusted: by teaching them about their god and their hell. This is the part religious folks in debates and arguments get wrong: you can be born into any religion and you are taught only that religion. Just look how asinine it is to claim your religion is the right one then! So moving on, oh yes, there is a reason they have 2 seperate services for adults and children. The adults brainwashing is reinforced in the sunday worship service while the children are freshly brainwashed in the sunday school simultaneously. Nice. The idea of hell is introduced to children here. In my case in India, a very horrifc movie about hell was shown to us. Remember we were cute little children who should be taken to stargazing trips but here we were FUCKING SCARED SHITLESS. (The short fictional movie was about a good christian and an "immoral businessman" in a 747 jumbo jet going to Australia; the plane crashes into the Indian ocean and while white constumed angels descend and take away the good man, red costumed demons grab and chain/shackle the businessman and drag him into a black hole in a red cardboard wall...smoke effects and screams and all.) Religious folks love this type of judgmental violence to fall upon "sinners." Along with that, biblical teaching is upheld, bible verses are made to be memorized, and there are short biblical plays and such in sunday school. So the child at this point is basically a christian drone; his internal hard disks filled with obscene religious bullshit with a religious OS installed. The young mind is corrupted at this point dangerously past the point of no return. The doctrine is firmly rooted in, i.e. "God is real, Adam is the first man to walk the earth, hell is real" among many other beliefs. Sadly, this is game over for many children. A vast majority of them never recover from this brainwashing because, surrounded by other drones, no one is able to talk sense to them as they automatically reject anything that is contrary to their doctrine. With their worldview defined thru the teaching of their religions, they are stuck for the rest of their lives. It took me 3 whole years to come out and jettison this shit off my mind (the last 2 years were basically dealing with hell fear...am glad it is a piss in the wind!) Therefore, they lack intellectual bargaining power and repeat the same dogshit over and over. This is where atheists trump em all the time because religious folks never think about the world objectively. They never connect the dots, they never read a REAL history book...for example, they never really give a shit about why there is a molten core in the center of the earth. "Who cares!" they say, "god is going to wipe out this earth on judgment day...he is going to blow it all away!"...atleast that's what the 68 year old pastor told in the church sermon 2 days ago. The religious mind, since it was only given a very carefully selected portion of false history, gets easily overwhelmed and frustrated and even angry when it encounters anything that is even slightly different; even if it is from someone from another religion who themselves have been given a dose of yet another set of false history. This is the absolute root of why religious folks claim their religion is the right one and are so sure of it. Ask a muslim and he will tell you "Islam is the best religion" with a happy beautiful self-content smile (this actually happened with one muslim guy I talked and he did respond that way). So confident and so sure of it! Applies to every religious group. If you have not talked to someone from another religion, you should do so. When I used to live in India, a particular Hindu family next door were best friends. Now these folks were more honest, more helpful, and friendly than any christian I ever known. A few months back during a discussion, my religious nut dad admitted something most christians don't really have the balls to: he was saying how that family, no matter how awesome they are, will go to hell because they do not know Jesus. Needless to say, I felt like vomitting. When a religious nut comes to me and says "Jesus loves you" and tries to give me a tract (and unlike indoctrinated religious folks who are basically pre-programmed to accept the tract or booklet), for me, in an instant, I see how useless it is and refuse. Simple; it does not make sense whatsoever. Images of historical events, the ancient empires, Pharoah's grand temples and claims of being god himself, aztec heart-throbbing sacrifical murders, burning screaming people at the stake, the formation of the earth with the heavy molten lava sweeping in thru the continental cracks to gather in the center, the creation stories from a 100 different religions that came before christianity, the simple coincidences in life which are attributed to answered prayers by religious folks (!), the ridiculous concept of a devil, the purification by water concept. I see images of people praying in mosques, hindu temples and churces...which god is listening...if anyone?! To a religious mind, these thought process don't occur but it does for me and I realize that I am just human #9685849487373 living out a life and that any religion's claims of truth is delusional bullshit. Thinking logically like this rather than emotionally is better. A christian sees Billy Graham and sees a prophet...an atheist sees Billy Graham and sees a delusional religious figure in a line of many. No wonder the religious authority folks hate atheists very much...because we see them as to who they really are (fakester punks) while their followers see them as who they tell them they are. In a nutshell, christianity is like a salesman that is trying to make you put down your cash for a product you get after you die. Just see how ridiculous the concept is. The money here is your very life...the religious establishment wants you to live a "honest" life of slavery while they stay in charge. I wouldn't throw away my life to a lie to liars...better to enjoy each and every day than waste it dreaming about what happens after you die. After I die, I won't be able to do what I was able to do while I was alive. This instantly makes life more precious...something to be lived and protected. For me, travel is very important. I want to be able to say that I saw this and went here and there. I want to die satisfied that there is nothing more to do. Now the religious gang love to deride this. 2 weeks ago at church, the pastor bashed atheists for "living thru their 5 senses" and said they lack "spiritual organs." I felt like making a disruption by shouting "if spiritual organs means self-delusion, then I will pass" but I didn't. lol Lastly, religious folks don't seem to understand what atheism is. We reject your gods because they are silly just as you reject a hundred different gods that you don't like plus the doctrine is ridiculous full of holes and unbelievable at best. Atheism doesn't mean we are going to ditch our clothes and come to work naked. Sadly, this is what they think atheism is. This comes from them thinking morals can only come from a religious source. If anyone is wondering why I go to church, without saying much, its part of a double life. Spoony is right when he said this: Spoony wrote on Thu, 18 March 2010 18:55 well, i could make an outward display of christianity. i could pretend i believed all this, i could probably fool anyone who took the time to wonder what my religious beliefs were, ^ It's so easy to trick em. But on a serious note, it is not funny getting your mind raped everyday. My mind is my own property...please stay off it. HaTe wrote on Mon, 29 March 2010 19:46 Tradition, culture, and fear aren't really something i would be willing to trust my life to...... Couldn't agree more.
Nobody actually knows what happens when we die Spoony....so nobody actually knows what is "good for us" if we die. It may very well be that believing in god your entire life is the key to a happy afterlife, but i very highly doubt it. Like i said, i'm not worried about what will happen when i die, i'll focus on life for now, and take my chances then. I'm not going to live like someone who may or may not exist tells me to live. Quote: My mind is my own property...please stay off it. Exactly. No one wants to have someone else influence their life, or drive their life from birth, yet that is basically what the stories of a christian god are doing...
Spoony wrote on Mon, 29 March 2010 02:41 well, it would be nice if all the christian authorities had said this for the last two thousand years, instead of specifically encouraging the persecution of jews, culminating in the holocaust. Agreed. Spoony wrote on Mon, 29 March 2010 02:41 Quote: "Here the case is put of a city revolting from its allegiance to the God of Israel, and serving other gods. I. The crime is supposed to be committed oh dear. already i've got to stop you. i don't accept that a crime has been committed here. Why should I care? God created all, including the laws. He is the lawmaker. So if he says it's a crime, it is. Spoony wrote on Mon, 29 March 2010 02:41 Quote: The crime is supposed to be committed, 1. By one of the cities of Israel, that lay within the jurisdiction of their courts. Ah. I think I see what he's getting at here; it only applies to the Israelites, does it? In that case, then the verse would be totally irrelevant in a modern context. Yeah. Spoony wrote on Mon, 29 March 2010 02:41 That would certainly be no problem for me; it would only be a problem for anybody who dared to say that God gave them this planet, their property etc. But quite a lot of Christians do say that, don't they? ...What? Spoony wrote on Mon, 29 March 2010 02:41 Quote: The city that is here supposed to have become idolatrous is one that formerly worshipped the true God, but had now withdrawn to other gods, which intimates how great the crime is ...no, no it doesn't. Although, "other gods"... do you think there are (or were) any other gods? ...yes, yes it does. And no, I don't believe there were other gods, although those idolators apparently did. Spoony wrote on Mon, 29 March 2010 02:41 He really has lost me here. Why would serving a different god mean someone has no desire to be bound by laws, or any "manner of virtue"? They're just picking a different set, aren't they? Why would anyone cease serving a God, knowing they would incur his wrath, if they were only changing a few things? If they weren't changing their laws or virtues, they'd be better off staying... Spoony wrote on Mon, 29 March 2010 02:41 Secondly, are non-theists thrown into the same category, I wonder? Since atheists don't believe in a god, I'd say yes. Spoony wrote on Mon, 29 March 2010 02:41 So it's ok to flatten an entire city if some of its inhabitants commit a crime, because anyone who was innocent would "no doubt" have already left. If they knew what was going on in the city and didn't leave, they are at the least tolerating it, which hardly makes them innicent, does it? Spoony wrote on Mon, 29 March 2010 02:41 Quote: Let men know that God will not give his glory to another, nor his praise to graven images. 2. He expects that magistrates, having their honour and power from him, should be concerned for his honour, and use their power for terror to evil doers, else they bear the sword in vain. And does he still expect that? No, because it's no longer necessary today. Spoony wrote on Mon, 29 March 2010 02:41 Quote: The faithful worshippers of the true God must take all occasions to show their just indignation against idolatry, much more against atheism, infidelity, and irreligion. Ah, so that means someone who does not take all occasions to show their just indignation against atheism and idolatry is not a faithful worshipper of the true God? Yes... But how, do you think, is 'indignation' defined here? Spoony wrote on Mon, 29 March 2010 02:41 Quote: Lastly, Though we do not find this law put in execution in all the history of the Jewish church (Gibeah was destroyed, not for idolatry, but immorality) I wasn't sure what was originally meant by Gibeah, so I looked that up. I do recognise the story, though not as 'Gibeah'. The one about the baying mob who want to rape the male visitor, and the decision by the men to throw the young women to the mob to save themselves. So the visitor's woman gets raped to death. That one. It's similar to the Lot story, isn't it? The similarity of the narrative, the almost identical speech reported, and the fact that modern Christians seem to draw some really odd moral lessons from it, i.e. homosexuality is evil, but if you find yourself faced by a mob of rapists, just throw a defenceless young girl at them and save yourself. Are you implying that God OK'd this? From what I read, this incident got the city destroyed by the Israelites shortly after. Spoony wrote on Mon, 29 March 2010 02:41 Quote: yet for the neglect of the execution of it upon the inferior cities that served idols God himself, by the army of the Chaldeans, put it in execution upon Jerusalem, the head city, which, for is apostasy from God, was utterly destroyed and laid waste, and lay in ruins seventy years. What's he saying here? I think he's referencing a real or hypothetical situation where the Israelites didn't destroy a city of idolators, and that city rose up and destroyed the Israelite's Jerusalem. Spoony wrote on Mon, 29 March 2010 02:41 So, idolatry, serving other gods etc, they're things which absolutely infuriate God. Yes, the old testament makes that clear... and it doesn't exactly work in his favour. There are plenty of evil actions he either doesn't mind or positively recommends - slavery, for example - but if you have a different religious opinion, you'd better watch out. So there must be a law against this "crime" in the Old Testament. But as he says here, in the New Testament, the law is not binding anymore, but it still infuriates God and he'll still punish people who do it? So why repeal the law? The 'no idols' law is one of the Ten Commandments, which are in effect today (except Sabbath). Spoony wrote on Mon, 29 March 2010 02:41 This all assumes that the person doing the "tempting" has evil intentions... what if they're just someone like you, evangelising? Someone who genuinely believes in their God, and wants to spread the good news? How does it 'assume evil intentions'? It only warns against those who'd turn you from God, no matter what approach. Spoony wrote on Mon, 29 March 2010 02:41 as an aside, do you really believe that the snake in the garden was Satan? Yes. Spoony wrote on Mon, 29 March 2010 02:41 Quote: Concerning the false gods proposed to be served Define "false god", please. I'm pretty sure you know what it means. Feel free to make a point out of it if you were planning to. Spoony wrote on Mon, 29 March 2010 02:41 Quote: II. It is our duty to prefer God and religion before the best friends we have in the world. Including your children? What would be your response to the Abraham test, do you think? Same as Abraham's. Thankfully, I gave never been commanded to sacrifice a child to God, in fact nobody has (except Abraham of course, but as you said, it was a test.) Spoony wrote on Mon, 29 March 2010 02:41 Again, the author is recognising that people might, unbelievably, have a problem with this commandment. Their compassion might get in the way. I certainly hope so. I wonder why I've never heard a Christian say that compassion was a work of Satan. Because it isn't. Compassion can compel towards sinful action, is the point here. Spoony wrote on Mon, 29 March 2010 02:41 Suppose I said the following. You, Altzan, are certainly my worst enemy that would thrust me from reason, my best friend. Whatever draws me to religion, separates between myself and my reason, is a design upon my mind, to be resented accordingly. Well, if you did say that to me, I'd be saddened by the fact. Spoony wrote on Mon, 29 March 2010 02:41 It's not actually so far from the truth, although I wouldn't say this would justify me killing you for trying. We're agreed then? Spoony wrote on Mon, 29 March 2010 02:41 k, but the other opinion is crap, isn't it? It's no more crap than yours. Opinions are just that, opinions. So naturally you'd think an opposing opinion is crap... heck, it's what I think of yours. Spoony wrote on Mon, 29 March 2010 02:41 the catholic church is still spreading its evil doctrine against contraception even now. Ahh. You've only mentioned it in historical context up to this point, so I assumed it wasn't ongoing. Spoony wrote on Mon, 29 March 2010 02:41 I will give you credit where credit is due. I think this is the most honest and reasonable thing I've seen you say in these religious debates. It goes a bit wrong from there, though... you ask me how do I know they weren't inspired by god. well, i've been waiting for quite some time for anybody to explain what they even mean by god, and prove his existence, and demonstrate that he's worth listening to. Once they've done that, then I'll be sure to give due consideration to whether a book claiming to be inspired by him actually is. Otherwise I don't really see the point. In other words, you won't believe unless you have certain proof. Is this the basis of your earlier argument? That some people simply cannot believe God's word because there's not enough evidence? The vast majority of the human population believe with faith, which shows it's NOT impossible (disregarding whether or not the faith in question is well founded, seeing as how you'd try and make that a counterpoint). If you've told yourself that it's impossible for you to believe in anything without proof, then you're lying to yourself. Simple as that. Spoony wrote on Mon, 29 March 2010 02:41 Quote: I could use ANY exmple here if I wanted. I'm not talking about the act in particular. Let's change it to whatever law then - the lawbreaker disagrees with the law at hand, and doesn't think it's a proper law and should not be enforced. Should we punish him anyway, or should we let him be, since it isn't fair that we punish him for breaking a law he doesn't think is fair or right? The contents of the bible aren't laws at all; nobody's ever demonstrated that they come from any position of authority. Similar to what you said near the beginning of the post. Still, though - "Should we punish him anyway, or should we let him be, since it isn't fair that we punish him for breaking a law he doesn't think is fair or right?" Spoony wrote on Mon, 29 March 2010 02:41 That's the legal side. On to the moral side. What if the majority thinks the law is wrong? Can it be changed democratically? If the majority is a part of the lawmaking process, then yes. Spoony wrote on Mon, 29 March 2010 02:41 Quote: Also, if we were made by a mad scientist, we'd be wherever he was (unless he was completely alone in the universe) and would be subject to his existence as well, so... you've lost me there. A 'mad scientist' would be in a lab, located in a universe where other beings existed with their own laws and morals. Wouldn't the people created by the mad scientist be subject to the laws of that universe? Spoony wrote on Fri, 26 March 2010 11:53 if instead you decide that you were created by your parents in the traditional way, do they rule you for your entire life? No. Although they should take responsibility for your early life to insure survival. Spoony wrote on Mon, 29 March 2010 02:41 what do you think will happen to the other kinds of Christian after they die? i.e. everyone outside your denomination who says they're a Christian but, in your church's view, are mistaken. If they've broken Biblical commandments, the same will happen to them as others who do the same. Spoony wrote on Mon, 29 March 2010 02:41 firstly you don't seem to be challenging my statement that his moral standards are absolutely shit. secondly it really is cryptic, or at least too cryptic for humans, otherwise the vast majority of the world wouldn't have a problem with it. I won't challenge your 'statement' since it's your opinion and that would be pointless. And what's so cryptic about the 5-step plan or what God considers sin?
Spoony wrote on Tue, 30 March 2010 08:34 snpr1101 wrote on Tue, 30 March 2010 00:47 HaTe wrote on Mon, 29 March 2010 19:46 Science>Religion Proof>Belief Seeing>Wondering Knowing>Assuming Not even going to read the whole topic, but that is my general opinion. I'd rather have actual proof, without having to be convinced and dragged into, rather than assumptions and, what appear to me - are false hopes. I'm not one to judge anyone by their religion, but i do feel as if they may not be aware of some of the actual facts out there....like the fact that there has been, what, hundreds of different religions before us, all believing 100% that THEIR religion, and their gods were what was real. Then every other religion comes and says they are wrong, and that the religion they believe in is right....when there is yet to be facts about any of this. Seems like it's more culture and tradition to believe in one defined religion now-a-days anyway....or just the fear that when you die, you will not be taken care of, or go to hell, if you do not believe. I'd rather not get my hopes about something that appears to me as proven to be false more than true to this point. Tradition, culture, and fear aren't really something i would be willing to trust my life to.....even science would be better. Yea but what does science offer you after you die - a nice little story about the decomposition of your body. What does religion (generally) offer? - A nice little story about living in an unimaginable paradise if you're a good little boy or girl for eternity. Not hard to see why so many people would rather believe in religion, as science promises nothing except knowledge for present use. After you die, what good is it to you? I know what i'd want after I died, yet reality drags the wishful mind back into the real world; and the facts are daunting. let's not understate of the benefits of science. presumably neither you nor anyone close to you has ever had a potentially life-threatening illness, for example. what use is religion in the field of medicine? according to the holy books, plagues and other natural disasters usually happen because god is punishing someone. that'd be a real help if you had cancer, wouldn't it? "sorry we can't do a damn thing to help you, and what's more, it's your fault anyway" and as for "after you die, what good is it to you"? well, after you die, what more do you need? nobody's ever given a convincing reason to think that there is life after death. on to the promises of paradise. firstly, would you rather be told the unwelcome truth or a comforting lie? seems you'd rather be told what you'd find more comforting, regardless of how much truth there is to it. secondly, many religions say that the way to paradise is more to do with believing the right thing than it is to do with your actions. thirdly, many religions' rules - some of them, at least - are pretty shitty. to take the most obvious example, the 72-virgins business. here's what you said: "What does religion (generally) offer? - A nice little story about living in an unimaginable paradise if you're a good little boy or girl for eternity." well, islam offers a paradise if you die in battle, and islam also says that non-muslims are the perpetual enemy. look at the results. I don't know to what degree you're challenging what I said, but I wasn't intending to understate the benefits of science, just made a short and sweet message. Yea of course stating - science provides knowledge for the present isn't encompassing all that is science and the benefits it provides. As for the after you die part, I wasn't saying you needed anything after you die, it was simply a comparison between what science "offers" you after death, and what religion "offers" you. Again I wasn't arguing for either side nor did I say anyone had given any convincing reasons. The clear point I was making was that the potential future after death that religion offers is certainly brighter than the one science does. (I use the term religion loosely and I know there are differences between each) Finally, i can't see how you can come to the conclusion that I personally would prefer a comforting lie over truth. I simply made a general observation as to why I thought people believed in the promises made to you by religion after death. And by the way, my granddad had toes and feet amputated. He eventually died of a stroke. My Grandmother suffers from servere parkinsons' disease at present. I myself was very sick as a child, and have come close to death many times. Not trying to turn this into a self pity post or a "who knows more family members who've died or suffered" contest. Just pointing out your assumption was wrong. edit; off topic: i thought Spoony had passed away? Am I mistaken, or are you a friend / family member using his account?
nothing much to quarrel with in starbuzz's posts. Quote: Nobody actually knows what happens when we die Spoony....so nobody actually knows what is "good for us" if we die. It may very well be that believing in god your entire life is the key to a happy afterlife, but i very highly doubt it. Like i said, i'm not worried about what will happen when i die, i'll focus on life for now, and take my chances then. I'm not going to live like someone who may or may not exist tells me to live. I don't claim to know for certain what happens to us after we die; just said it looks to me like that's the end for us in any conscious sense, and for all the people who've asserted otherwise they've never made a convincing case of it. it's like god, really. i don't say there definitely isn't one; i just say nobody's ever made a convincing case that there is. Quote: Spoony wrote on Mon, 29 March 2010 02:41 Quote: "Here the case is put of a city revolting from its allegiance to the God of Israel, and serving other gods. I. The crime is supposed to be committed oh dear. already i've got to stop you. i don't accept that a crime has been committed here. Why should I care? God created all, including the laws. He is the lawmaker. So if he says it's a crime, it is. Let's call this concept what it is; a complete and unchallengeable dictatorship. The argument from authority doesn't fly with me, especially when nobody's even managed to demonstrate that there is any authority at all in this case. But if you're going to take the "god says it, and that's all i need to know" line, then I have a hypothetical question for you. Let's say it was somehow proven that the Islamic revelation was correct. Mohammed claimed to be inspired by the same god you believe in. I expect you don't believe that any more than I do, but let's suppose it was conclusively proven. Would you then abide by the Islamic code of behaviour? Some of them aren't so pretty; there are hundreds of verses in the Islamic scriptures speaking of Allah's (same god, remember) fury and contempt towards non-believers, and quite a few instructions to fight non-Muslims and either convert them to Islam, subjugate them under Islamic rule, or kill them. So if it turned out that Mohammed really was inspired by god, you'd grab a sword and have at it, would you? Quote: Spoony wrote on Mon, 29 March 2010 02:41 Quote: The crime is supposed to be committed, 1. By one of the cities of Israel, that lay within the jurisdiction of their courts. Ah. I think I see what he's getting at here; it only applies to the Israelites, does it? In that case, then the verse would be totally irrelevant in a modern context. Yeah. Spoony wrote on Mon, 29 March 2010 02:41 That would certainly be no problem for me; it would only be a problem for anybody who dared to say that God gave them this planet, their property etc. But quite a lot of Christians do say that, don't they? ...What? well, it doesn't really seem like we can just say that only applies to the israelites. what's the justification? "god's obviously talking to the israelites because they're the people he gave this land to". well, a lot of christians say ad nauseum that god gave them whatever they have. Quote: Spoony wrote on Mon, 29 March 2010 02:41 Quote: The city that is here supposed to have become idolatrous is one that formerly worshipped the true God, but had now withdrawn to other gods, which intimates how great the crime is ...no, no it doesn't. Although, "other gods"... do you think there are (or were) any other gods? ...yes, yes it does. And no, I don't believe there were other gods, although those idolators apparently did. Ah, the argument from authority again. Well, if just saying "god says it's wrong, case closed" is all the moral justification that's necessary, I wonder why Christians ever try going any further than that and explain why certain actions are wrong, what harm could be caused by them. Don't get me wrong, I approve of the moral debate. Quote: Spoony wrote on Mon, 29 March 2010 02:41 He really has lost me here. Why would serving a different god mean someone has no desire to be bound by laws, or any "manner of virtue"? They're just picking a different set, aren't they? Why would anyone cease serving a God, knowing they would incur his wrath, if they were only changing a few things? If they weren't changing their laws or virtues, they'd be better off staying... That's not the original point... the original point was Henry's implication that someone serving a different god must mean the person does not want laws, does not want any virtue in his life. That's obviously nonsense. But as to your question... why would anyone cease serving your God? Two major reasons spring to mind; either because they find it unconvincing or because they object to it on moral grounds. Quote: Spoony wrote on Mon, 29 March 2010 02:41 Secondly, are non-theists thrown into the same category, I wonder? Since atheists don't believe in a god, I'd say yes. so presumably the same commandment would apply if there were some atheists in the city too, i expect? Quote: Spoony wrote on Mon, 29 March 2010 02:41 So it's ok to flatten an entire city if some of its inhabitants commit a crime, because anyone who was innocent would "no doubt" have already left. If they knew what was going on in the city and didn't leave, they are at the least tolerating it, which hardly makes them innicent, does it? Oh, dear. So we're making the assumption that non-belief, or different religious viewpoints are crimes, and we're making the further assumption that everyone in the city is either committing these 'crimes' or knows about them. What you're doing here is drawing a moral equivalence between the two. Both groups are going to get the same punishment, aren't they? Quote: Spoony wrote on Mon, 29 March 2010 02:41 Quote: Let men know that God will not give his glory to another, nor his praise to graven images. 2. He expects that magistrates, having their honour and power from him, should be concerned for his honour, and use their power for terror to evil doers, else they bear the sword in vain. And does he still expect that? No, because it's no longer necessary today. How do you know that? Or, if you prefer I rephrase the question, why do you think that? Quote: Spoony wrote on Mon, 29 March 2010 02:41 Quote: The faithful worshippers of the true God must take all occasions to show their just indignation against idolatry, much more against atheism, infidelity, and irreligion. Ah, so that means someone who does not take all occasions to show their just indignation against atheism and idolatry is not a faithful worshipper of the true God? Yes... But how, do you think, is 'indignation' defined here? Well, the severity of the punishment usually depends on how serious you think the crime is, doesn't it? Quote: Spoony wrote on Mon, 29 March 2010 02:41 Quote: Lastly, Though we do not find this law put in execution in all the history of the Jewish church (Gibeah was destroyed, not for idolatry, but immorality) I wasn't sure what was originally meant by Gibeah, so I looked that up. I do recognise the story, though not as 'Gibeah'. The one about the baying mob who want to rape the male visitor, and the decision by the men to throw the young women to the mob to save themselves. So the visitor's woman gets raped to death. That one. It's similar to the Lot story, isn't it? The similarity of the narrative, the almost identical speech reported, and the fact that modern Christians seem to draw some really odd moral lessons from it, i.e. homosexuality is evil, but if you find yourself faced by a mob of rapists, just throw a defenceless young girl at them and save yourself. Are you implying that God OK'd this? From what I read, this incident got the city destroyed by the Israelites shortly after. am I implying god approved of that? no. however, i couldn't find any condemnation of the actions of the man who threw the defenceless young girls at the rape mob so the men would survive. speaking of rape, i've got a question for christians. what, in your view and in the view of your church, is the worse act of these two: - a man rapes a woman - two men, consenting adults, choose to have a sexual relationship i've got a few questions like this. for example, here's one for catholics, so you needn't answer it though i'd be interested in hearing Muad_Dib's response. what would be the worse of these two hypothetical situations? - condoms became freely available all over the world - one child, just one, is raped by a priest (i'd love to ask the pope that, but i'd also like to see him dragged before an international court) Quote: Spoony wrote on Mon, 29 March 2010 02:41 Quote: yet for the neglect of the execution of it upon the inferior cities that served idols God himself, by the army of the Chaldeans, put it in execution upon Jerusalem, the head city, which, for is apostasy from God, was utterly destroyed and laid waste, and lay in ruins seventy years. What's he saying here? I think he's referencing a real or hypothetical situation where the Israelites didn't destroy a city of idolators, and that city rose up and destroyed the Israelite's Jerusalem. i dunno, it's really unclear to me. Quote: Spoony wrote on Mon, 29 March 2010 02:41 So, idolatry, serving other gods etc, they're things which absolutely infuriate God. Yes, the old testament makes that clear... and it doesn't exactly work in his favour. There are plenty of evil actions he either doesn't mind or positively recommends - slavery, for example - but if you have a different religious opinion, you'd better watch out. So there must be a law against this "crime" in the Old Testament. But as he says here, in the New Testament, the law is not binding anymore, but it still infuriates God and he'll still punish people who do it? So why repeal the law? The 'no idols' law is one of the Ten Commandments, which are in effect today (except Sabbath). So Matthew Henry was wrong, then, to say it is no longer binding according to the gospels? Quote: Spoony wrote on Mon, 29 March 2010 02:41 This all assumes that the person doing the "tempting" has evil intentions... what if they're just someone like you, evangelising? Someone who genuinely believes in their God, and wants to spread the good news? How does it 'assume evil intentions'? It only warns against those who'd turn you from God, no matter what approach. Read the commandment and the commentary; the contempt is very clear. It doesn't attempt to find out why the person is saying this, and doesn't seek to make a distinction if that was known. Quote: Spoony wrote on Mon, 29 March 2010 02:41 as an aside, do you really believe that the snake in the garden was Satan? Yes. and where did you read that? Quote: Spoony wrote on Mon, 29 March 2010 02:41 Quote: Concerning the false gods proposed to be served Define "false god", please. I'm pretty sure you know what it means. Feel free to make a point out of it if you were planning to. I'll just repeat the question. Define a false god, please. It's not clear at all to me whether the god of the old testament knows of the existence of other gods or not. So what's a false god? Some entity that claims to be a god but isn't? Some entity that does have supernatural power but isn't "good"? Some entity that does have supernatural power but didn't create the whole world? I'd really like to know. Quote: Spoony wrote on Mon, 29 March 2010 02:41 Quote: II. It is our duty to prefer God and religion before the best friends we have in the world. Including your children? What would be your response to the Abraham test, do you think? Same as Abraham's. Thankfully, I gave never been commanded to sacrifice a child to God, in fact nobody has (except Abraham of course, but as you said, it was a test.) oh dear. you're the second christian i've asked this question to, and you're the second to give the wrong answer. the right answer is telling god to go to hell, no i won't murder an innocent child for you, you evil, evil fuck. and if you want to punish me for disobedience, then go ahead, you twat, because i'd rather have that than murder an innocent child. if that had been abraham's response, and god had then shone a beam of light down on him and said well done, that was the right answer, you've passed the test... then that would be a moral story i could actually respect. Quote: Spoony wrote on Mon, 29 March 2010 02:41 Again, the author is recognising that people might, unbelievably, have a problem with this commandment. Their compassion might get in the way. I certainly hope so. I wonder why I've never heard a Christian say that compassion was a work of Satan. Because it isn't. Compassion can compel towards sinful action, is the point here. And why would compassion get in the way? Why are some of us wired so that would happen? Quote: Spoony wrote on Mon, 29 March 2010 02:41 Suppose I said the following. You, Altzan, are certainly my worst enemy that would thrust me from reason, my best friend. Whatever draws me to religion, separates between myself and my reason, is a design upon my mind, to be resented accordingly. Well, if you did say that to me, I'd be saddened by the fact. Spoony wrote on Mon, 29 March 2010 02:41 It's not actually so far from the truth, although I wouldn't say this would justify me killing you for trying. We're agreed then? no, because i'm not the one here justifying murder on the grounds of a religious disagreement. Quote: Spoony wrote on Mon, 29 March 2010 02:41 k, but the other opinion is crap, isn't it? It's no more crap than yours. Opinions are just that, opinions. So naturally you'd think an opposing opinion is crap... heck, it's what I think of yours. feel free to explain why, although remember what i said about arguments from authority. Quote: Spoony wrote on Mon, 29 March 2010 02:41 the catholic church is still spreading its evil doctrine against contraception even now. Ahh. You've only mentioned it in historical context up to this point, so I assumed it wasn't ongoing. not at all. anyone can mention the historical evils of the catholic church... the crusades, the inquisition, the forced conversion of indigenous populations, the enthusiastic collaboration with fascism... anyone can do that. but right now it's probably more worthwhile to talk about the evil things it's still doing. the most obvious two would be the systematic coverup of the child rapists, and its position on contraception. Quote: In other words, you won't believe unless you have certain proof. Is this the basis of your earlier argument? That some people simply cannot believe God's word because there's not enough evidence? The vast majority of the human population believe with faith, which shows it's NOT impossible (disregarding whether or not the faith in question is well founded, seeing as how you'd try and make that a counterpoint). This is a point against your side, not mine. It is probably true that the majority of the human population seem to believe religious things on faith. But the proportion of humanity who believe the same things you do are a minority. And that's talking about people who do think faith is a virtue. I've never heard a convincing argument that faith is ever a good thing, but consider those that do think faith is worthwhile. Even most of them don't believe, for example, that Jesus was the son of God. There are some things that are so ridiculous that even "people of faith" don't believe them. No doubt you don't believe for a moment that Mohammed was really inspired by your God, as he claimed to be. No doubt you don't believe that the Emperor Hirohito was a god, as he claimed to be. I could give you a great many more examples, but those two will suffice as religious claims you simply don't believe, so if you stop and think about why you don't believe them, you might begin to understand why someone else might not believe the same stuff as you. Quote: If you've told yourself that it's impossible for you to believe in anything without proof Uh, no, I didn't say that. My friend told me last night about his recent trip to Istanbul. I didn't ask him for proof. Whether I want proof for a claim depends on its believability and its implications. If you just wanted to claim that there was a man called Jesus who had some radical ideas on morality and ended up getting crucified, then fine. I don't need proof of that, I'll be quite happy to read his ideas and judge them on their own merits. If instead you try telling me that he was the son of God, that he rose from the dead, and that if I believe in him I can get everlasting life after death and that if I don't I'm in for an eternity of torture, then that needs proof. Again, when a Muslim tells you that Islam is inspired by God, the God you already believe in, you don't believe that without proof. (although, i wonder if you would even seriously consider any proof that could be shown to you) Quote: Spoony wrote on Mon, 29 March 2010 02:41 Quote: I could use ANY exmple here if I wanted. I'm not talking about the act in particular. Let's change it to whatever law then - the lawbreaker disagrees with the law at hand, and doesn't think it's a proper law and should not be enforced. Should we punish him anyway, or should we let him be, since it isn't fair that we punish him for breaking a law he doesn't think is fair or right? The contents of the bible aren't laws at all; nobody's ever demonstrated that they come from any position of authority. Similar to what you said near the beginning of the post. Well? Here's what needs to happen before anything in the Bible can be seriously considered a 'law'. 1. Prove this god exists. 2. Prove this book is an accurate depiction of his views; i.e. prove he actually said what the bible says he said. 3. Successfully make the case that god is of such extraordinary moral brilliance that a dictatorship under him would be better than a democracy 4. Win the vote to discard our current democratic systems all of the above need to happen, but i think only one of them ever could. Quote: Spoony wrote on Mon, 29 March 2010 02:41 That's the legal side. On to the moral side. What if the majority thinks the law is wrong? Can it be changed democratically? If the majority is a part of the lawmaking process, then yes. So basically no, then? Quote: Spoony wrote on Mon, 29 March 2010 02:41 Quote: Also, if we were made by a mad scientist, we'd be wherever he was (unless he was completely alone in the universe) and would be subject to his existence as well, so... you've lost me there. A 'mad scientist' would be in a lab, located in a universe where other beings existed with their own laws and morals. Wouldn't the people created by the mad scientist be subject to the laws of that universe? ah. it was "his existence" that confused me. well, i'll just repeat my earlier question about how you know the details of the genesis account of creation, and why it makes such a difference anyway. Quote: Spoony wrote on Fri, 26 March 2010 11:53 if instead you decide that you were created by your parents in the traditional way, do they rule you for your entire life? No. Although they should take responsibility for your early life to insure survival. well done. Quote: Spoony wrote on Mon, 29 March 2010 02:41 what do you think will happen to the other kinds of Christian after they die? i.e. everyone outside your denomination who says they're a Christian but, in your church's view, are mistaken. If they've broken Biblical commandments, the same will happen to them as others who do the same. so it's all about actions rather than beliefs, is it? Quote: Spoony wrote on Mon, 29 March 2010 02:41 firstly you don't seem to be challenging my statement that his moral standards are absolutely shit. secondly it really is cryptic, or at least too cryptic for humans, otherwise the vast majority of the world wouldn't have a problem with it. I won't challenge your 'statement' since it's your opinion and that would be pointless. then i wonder why you went to the trouble of trying to answer my earlier criticism by posting the matthew henry crap. Quote: And what's so cryptic about the 5-step plan or what God considers sin? when i said cryptic, i was using the word to encompass all objections people - the majority of the human population - have against christianity. what is the 5-step plan, though? i could look it up, i'm sure, but i may as well hear it from you.
snpr1101 wrote on Wed, 31 March 2010 01:41 I don't know to what degree you're challenging what I said, but I wasn't intending to understate the benefits of science, just made a short and sweet message. Yea of course stating - science provides knowledge for the present isn't encompassing all that is science and the benefits it provides. As for the after you die part, I wasn't saying you needed anything after you die, it was simply a comparison between what science "offers" you after death, and what religion "offers" you. sure. science tries to find out what actually happens to you after death and if it finds out for sure, will tell you based on what the evidence shows. religion simply tells you what it wants to tell you. Quote: Again I wasn't arguing for either side nor did I say anyone had given any convincing reasons. The clear point I was making was that the potential future after death that religion offers is certainly brighter than the one science does. (I use the term religion loosely and I know there are differences between each) i wouldn't say that it's brighter. i don't find it comforting to be told that this life is basically a qualifying period before the afterlife, and i haven't yet heard of a religion whose rules i like. Quote: Finally, i can't see how you can come to the conclusion that I personally would prefer a comforting lie over truth. I simply made a general observation as to why I thought people believed in the promises made to you by religion after death. ok, but it only boils down to wish-thinking in the end, doesn't it? and if i assumed that about you, then it was probably thanks to the "i know what I'd rather want" Quote: And by the way, my granddad had toes and feet amputated. He eventually died of a stroke. My Grandmother suffers from servere parkinsons' disease at present. I myself was very sick as a child, and have come close to death many times. Not trying to turn this into a self pity post or a "who knows more family members who've died or suffered" contest. Just pointing out your assumption was wrong. i'm happy to be corrected in that case, although you do accept my general point, surely? Quote: edit; off topic: i thought Spoony had passed away? Am I mistaken, or are you a friend / family member using his account? I think you are thinking of Spoonplex, a member of the Jelly community who passed away a year or two ago.
Ah ok, I think he may have been called spoony by some as a nickname at some point. Yea that was my bad with the " i know what I'd prefer statement" - sometimes I don't read my own shit properly. It was a loose statement, reinforcing the "brightness" (Yea i know you don't think it's bright. but I couldn't be fucked coming up with another adjective describing the vast contrast between heaven and a rotting corpse in the ground that you'd agree with) or better looking potential future. and to tell you the truth, i can't really say whether I agree with you or not, because those massive quote walls just don't appeal to my eyes. Just browsed over this now and then, and read HaTes statement and found it interesting.
snpr1101 wrote on Wed, 31 March 2010 03:46 Ah ok, I think he may have been called spoony by some as a nickname at some point. That's quite likely to have happened at some point. Quote: Yea that was my bad with the " i know what I'd prefer statement" - sometimes I don't read my own shit properly. It was a loose statement, reinforcing the "brightness" (Yea i know you don't think it's bright. but I couldn't be fucked coming up with another adjective describing the vast contrast between heaven and a rotting corpse in the ground that you'd agree with) or better looking potential future. no problem, but if the best argument is that heaven/hell is supposedly more comforting than the likelihood of death being final, regardless of whether it's true or not, if we're only talking about wish-thinking and not about truth, then let me respond by saying what *I* find comforting. for example, i've never been told by a religious person, never, that i will go to heaven. i've been told many times that i will go to hell. in every single one of these cases, the justification the person used was not "you deserve this because you did such-and-such evil action". in every case, it was "you deserve this because of what you believe or don't believe". well, like i said earlier and like starbuzz illustrated with an account of his own life, i could pretend i believed all this christianity crap. really, i could. i could also pretend i was morally okay with it. what i can't do is just flick a switch inside my mind and actually believe it, or make my moral objections to it go away. so i'm fucked, if it's true. please don't tell me i'm supposed to find this comforting.. the only comforting thing about this is precisely the fact there is no reason to think it's true. i'm a grown man and i can handle being spoken to in this manner, and i don't want anyone telling the religious person that they shouldn't say this to me if it's what they think, but it's plain evil to talk to children this way. you say this wasn't your argument but what you think someone else might say... fine, i responded to it regardless. back to altzan. i'd just like to repeat something so there's no way you can say you missed it. Spoony wrote I'm going to emphasise a part of this quote, and then I'll throw it out here and we'll see whether you have anything to say about it. "Children must be put to the sword." you replied to the post containing this statement, and replied to most else of what i said, but did not seem to have anything to say about that part. let me tell you, if someone else had posted that, that is the part which would provoke the strongest moral objection from me, the part above all else i would absolutely make sure i replied to. so let's just exhaust the possibility that you didn't see me say it.
snpr1101 wrote on Wed, 31 March 2010 03:46 Just browsed over this now and then, and read HaTes statement and found it interesting. What do you mean by "interesting?" As in you have never heard the theory/belief before, or as in you disagree, or only agree with parts of it? Just curious, because where i live, this is actually a more common belief than believing in a god, or being faithful to religion at all really. Even though everyone has their own personal opinion, and believes something very much their own, this is like a common ground for many peoples beliefs, believe it or not. It isn't highly publicized or anything, because, well, the law used to prohibit it in many places, and still does in many places (to teach the theory of evolution, that is).
Spoony wrote on Thu, 01 April 2010 01:40 snpr1101 wrote on Wed, 31 March 2010 03:46 Ah ok, I think he may have been called spoony by some as a nickname at some point. That's quite likely to have happened at some point. Quote: Yea that was my bad with the " i know what I'd prefer statement" - sometimes I don't read my own shit properly. It was a loose statement, reinforcing the "brightness" (Yea i know you don't think it's bright. but I couldn't be fucked coming up with another adjective describing the vast contrast between heaven and a rotting corpse in the ground that you'd agree with) or better looking potential future. no problem, but if the best argument is that heaven/hell is supposedly more comforting than the likelihood of death being final, regardless of whether it's true or not, if we're only talking about wish-thinking and not about truth, then let me respond by saying what *I* find comforting. for example, i've never been told by a religious person, never, that i will go to heaven. i've been told many times that i will go to hell. in every single one of these cases, the justification the person used was not "you deserve this because you did such-and-such evil action". in every case, it was "you deserve this because of what you believe or don't believe". well, like i said earlier and like starbuzz illustrated with an account of his own life, i could pretend i believed all this christianity crap. really, i could. i could also pretend i was morally okay with it. what i can't do is just flick a switch inside my mind and actually believe it, or make my moral objections to it go away. so i'm fucked, if it's true. please don't tell me i'm supposed to find this comforting.. the only comforting thing about this is precisely the fact there is no reason to think it's true. i'm a grown man and i can handle being spoken to in this manner, and i don't want anyone telling the religious person that they shouldn't say this to me if it's what they think, but it's plain evil to talk to children this way. you say this wasn't your argument but what you think someone else might say... fine, i responded to it regardless. back to altzan. i'd just like to repeat something so there's no way you can say you missed it. Spoony wrote I'm going to emphasise a part of this quote, and then I'll throw it out here and we'll see whether you have anything to say about it. "Children must be put to the sword." you replied to the post containing this statement, and replied to most else of what i said, but did not seem to have anything to say about that part. let me tell you, if someone else had posted that, that is the part which would provoke the strongest moral objection from me, the part above all else i would absolutely make sure i replied to. so let's just exhaust the possibility that you didn't see me say it. Hypothetical: Think of it this way, paradise after death, (no religious strings attached)OR nothingness as your corpse rots in the ground. I would presume that you would pick paradise. NO religious criteria applies to this choice. I personally would find it comforting if I knew I could enter such a place after death, and I certainly would chose it over the latter. Just consider your answer with the hypothetical provided, don't challenge it, it doesn't need to be challenged. We're talking about what you'd find more comforting out of the two choices. I know that the promise of paradise does not make sense without religion, but make the choice anyway Edit: @HaTe - I just found it interesting, period. It just sparked some thought and prompted me to add to what you said.
are you saying that you would not need to meet any particular criteria to qualify for the paradise? i.e. done good stuff, avoided doing bad stuff, happened to find certain myths convincing etc i also think i ought to ask what the paradise is actually like...
this is stupid.
Ziggy Sobotka wrote on Thu, 01 April 2010 02:50 this is stupid. If only there was a way to not read it all. Hm, that would be damn useful.
Spoony wrote on Wed, 31 March 2010 02:13 Let's call this concept what it is; a complete and unchallengeable dictatorship. Dictatorship - a form of government where the single leader has sovreignity. So yeah, it's a dictatorship. Too bad that word comes with a negative connotation. Spoony wrote on Wed, 31 March 2010 02:13 The argument from authority doesn't fly with me, especially when nobody's even managed to demonstrate that there is any authority at all in this case. Nobody's managed to prove God exists. We all know that, yet you keep stating it repeatedly... Why? Spoony wrote on Wed, 31 March 2010 02:13 But if you're going to take the "god says it, and that's all i need to know" line, then I have a hypothetical question for you. Let's say it was somehow proven that the Islamic revelation was correct. Mohammed claimed to be inspired by the same god you believe in. I expect you don't believe that any more than I do, but let's suppose it was conclusively proven. Would you then abide by the Islamic code of behaviour? Some of them aren't so pretty; there are hundreds of verses in the Islamic scriptures speaking of Allah's (same god, remember) fury and contempt towards non-believers, and quite a few instructions to fight non-Muslims and either convert them to Islam, subjugate them under Islamic rule, or kill them. So if it turned out that Mohammed really was inspired by god, you'd grab a sword and have at it, would you? If it was proven that Islam's beliefs were fact, then yes, I would obey them. Is that any worse than your statement that you'd challenge an almighty God, if you knew for fact he existed, because you don't like his authority? (In your case, I notice, you mainly rally against Old Testament authority.) Spoony wrote on Wed, 31 March 2010 02:13 well, it doesn't really seem like we can just say that only applies to the israelites. what's the justification? "god's obviously talking to the israelites because they're the people he gave this land to". well, a lot of christians say ad nauseum that god gave them whatever they have. I don't know any Christians myself who claim that. Spoony wrote on Wed, 31 March 2010 02:13 Well, if just saying "god says it's wrong, case closed" is all the moral justification that's necessary, I wonder why Christians ever try going any further than that and explain why certain actions are wrong, what harm could be caused by them. Don't get me wrong, I approve of the moral debate. God didn't make up his moral code for giggles. He has reasons for his moral code. That's why Christians try to explain why - there is a why. Spoony wrote on Wed, 31 March 2010 02:13 That's not the original point... the original point was Henry's implication that someone serving a different god must mean the person does not want laws, does not want any virtue in his life. That's obviously nonsense. Why? As I said, these people wouldn't have served a different God if they didn't have a different idea of laws or virtue; the notion that they would is indeed nonsense. Spoony wrote on Wed, 31 March 2010 02:13 But as to your question... why would anyone cease serving your God? Two major reasons spring to mind; either because they find it unconvincing or because they object to it on moral grounds. Another I can think of is wanting something that God can't give them or that God considers a sin. An addiction, for example... some people can get so attached to what God declares a sin that they decide it's easier to discard belief and keep what action they have... mainly because it's more physical and immediate that their belief. Spoony wrote on Wed, 31 March 2010 02:13 so presumably the same commandment would apply if there were some atheists in the city too, i expect? Yes. Do you think those ought to be spared? Spoony wrote on Wed, 31 March 2010 02:13 Quote: Spoony wrote on Mon, 29 March 2010 02:41 Quote: He expects that magistrates, having their honour and power from him, should be concerned for his honour, and use their power for terror to evil doers, else they bear the sword in vain. And does he still expect that? No, because it's no longer necessary today. How do you know that? Or, if you prefer I rephrase the question, why do you think that? The Israelites had to defend against those who would destroy them, and the faith was small at the time. Nowadays, it would be pretty hard to destroy every Christian and wipe the story off the face of the Earth (not that some wouldn't want to try) so a defense isn't necessary. Spoony wrote on Wed, 31 March 2010 02:13 Well, the severity of the punishment usually depends on how serious you think the crime is, doesn't it? Yes. Go on... Spoony wrote on Wed, 31 March 2010 02:13 am I implying god approved of that? no. however, i couldn't find any condemnation of the actions of the man who threw the defenceless young girls at the rape mob so the men would survive. I don't know for a fact that he was condemned for that action, but if he was caught and his crime known, I'm sure he was. Spoony wrote on Wed, 31 March 2010 02:13 speaking of rape, i've got a question for christians. what, in your view and in the view of your church, is the worse act of these two: - a man rapes a woman - two men, consenting adults, choose to have a sexual relationship No sin is worse than another. Quote: yet for the neglect of the execution of it upon the inferior cities that served idols God himself They didn't exact the punishment upon the idolaters as they were commanded Quote: by the army of the Chaldeans, put it in execution upon Jerusalem The Chaldeans instead were the attackers Quote: the head city, which, for is apostasy from God, was utterly destroyed and laid waste, and lay in ruins seventy years. The head city was destroyed by them alongsides. Note that that's my guess as to what it means, I could be wrong. Spoony wrote on Wed, 31 March 2010 02:13 So Matthew Henry was wrong, then, to say it is no longer binding according to the gospels? I haven't seen him claim that. He says we shouldn't be going around executing idolaters anymore, but idolatry is still a sin. Spoony wrote on Wed, 31 March 2010 02:13 Read the commandment and the commentary; the contempt is very clear. It doesn't attempt to find out why the person is saying this, and doesn't seek to make a distinction if that was known. Reasons are unimportant - it warns against false doctrine, nothing more. If a Catholic advocate tried to convert me, I'd either simply deny or I'd sit down with him and discuss why I don't believe in Catholicism. No violent response is called for. Spoony wrote on Wed, 31 March 2010 02:13 Quote: Spoony wrote on Mon, 29 March 2010 02:41 as an aside, do you really believe that the snake in the garden was Satan? Yes. and where did you read that? Genesis. Spoony wrote on Wed, 31 March 2010 02:13 I'll just repeat the question. Define a false god, please. It's not clear at all to me whether the god of the old testament knows of the existence of other gods or not. So what's a false god? Some entity that claims to be a god but isn't? Some entity that does have supernatural power but isn't "good"? Some entity that does have supernatural power but didn't create the whole world? I'd really like to know. A false god is the god that is behind an idol being worshipped by a person or persons. If a group of Israelites decided to worship images of a God named "Balahama", then that "Balahama" would be a false god. Spoony wrote on Wed, 31 March 2010 02:13 you're the second christian i've asked this question to, and you're the second to give the wrong answer. Who made you the judge of whether this answer was right or wrong? Since when do you have authority? Spoony wrote on Wed, 31 March 2010 02:13 the right answer is telling god to go to hell, no i won't murder an innocent child for you, you evil, evil fuck. and if you want to punish me for disobedience, then go ahead, you twat, because i'd rather have that than murder an innocent child. Then you'd fail the test. TEST being key word. Note that God has never required human sacrifice. Abraham was asked this as a test to see whether he was truly faithful to God. If he had said no, then that meant he wasn't faithful enough to obey. It's not about what he was asked to do, it was about whether or not he would obey. Spoony wrote on Wed, 31 March 2010 02:13 And why would compassion get in the way? Why are some of us wired so that would happen? We're all 'wired' to feel compassion. Unfortunately, compassion can compel us to do something wrong - a temptation. Example - your friend has finally broken his alcohol addiction, but he is miserable as a result, and keeps desiring just 'one more drink'. You might feel pity and wish to fulfill his wish just to make him happy again. After all, it's just one more drink right? And it'd make him feel better! But it would be a sin. Spoony wrote on Wed, 31 March 2010 02:13 no, because i'm not the one here justifying murder on the grounds of a religious disagreement. Good, because i have no desire to murder anyone because they don't share my belief. Spoony wrote on Wed, 31 March 2010 02:13 Quote: Spoony wrote on Mon, 29 March 2010 02:41 k, but the other opinion is crap, isn't it? It's no more crap than yours. Opinions are just that, opinions. So naturally you'd think an opposing opinion is crap... heck, it's what I think of yours. feel free to explain why, although remember what i said about arguments from authority. Why should I explain it? You don't agree with my opinion, I don't agree with yours. Spoony wrote on Wed, 31 March 2010 02:13 those two will suffice as religious claims you simply don't believe, so if you stop and think about why you don't believe them, you might begin to understand why someone else might not believe the same stuff as you. I have, thankfully. Spoony wrote on Wed, 31 March 2010 02:13 Quote: If you've told yourself that it's impossible for you to believe in anything without proof Uh, no, I didn't say that. My friend told me last night about his recent trip to Istanbul. I didn't ask him for proof. I guess I was too literal here. Spoony wrote on Wed, 31 March 2010 02:13 Whether I want proof for a claim depends on its believability and its implications. If you just wanted to claim that there was a man called Jesus who had some radical ideas on morality and ended up getting crucified, then fine. I don't need proof of that, I'll be quite happy to read his ideas and judge them on their own merits. If instead you try telling me that he was the son of God, that he rose from the dead, and that if I believe in him I can get everlasting life after death and that if I don't I'm in for an eternity of torture, then that needs proof. "Oh, dear." Spoony wrote on Wed, 31 March 2010 02:13 Again, when a Muslim tells you that Islam is inspired by God, the God you already believe in, you don't believe that without proof. (although, i wonder if you would even seriously consider any proof that could be shown to you) I don't want conclusive proof to believe their claims. However, I find the Biblical story more convincing than the Qoran's. Spoony wrote on Wed, 31 March 2010 02:13 Here's what needs to happen before anything in the Bible can be seriously considered a 'law'. 1. Prove this god exists. 2. Prove this book is an accurate depiction of his views; i.e. prove he actually said what the bible says he said. 3. Successfully make the case that god is of such extraordinary moral brilliance that a dictatorship under him would be better than a democracy 4. Win the vote to discard our current democratic systems Heh, if 3 was proven then 4 would be unneccessary. Spoony wrote on Wed, 31 March 2010 02:13 Quote: If the majority is a part of the lawmaking process, then yes. So basically no, then? I didn't say no, so what do you mean? Spoony wrote on Wed, 31 March 2010 02:13 Quote: If they've broken Biblical commandments, the same will happen to them as others who do the same. so it's all about actions rather than beliefs, is it? I didn't say that. You can easily break Biblical commandments with both actions and/or beliefs. Stealing - breaks a commandment Believing baptism is unneccesary - breaks a commandment Spoony wrote on Wed, 31 March 2010 02:13 then i wonder why you went to the trouble of trying to answer my earlier criticism by posting the matthew henry crap. You were quoting scripture. That wasn't an opinion of yours, that was a point of yours you tried to back up. That's why i responded. Spoony wrote on Wed, 31 March 2010 02:13 what is the 5-step plan, though? i could look it up, i'm sure, but i may as well hear it from you. Strage, I'd have thought you'd be familiar with it, seeing as you're familiar with other scripture. But OK: 1. Hear the message (Romans 10:17) 2. Believe it (Mark 16:16) 3. Repent of your past sins (Acts 2: 38) 4. State that you believe christ is the son of God (Romans 10:10) 5. Be baptized (Acts 2: 38) Also, there's a sixth step I neglected to include (I really don't know why it isn't commonly called the 6-step plan) 6. Live faithfully until Death (Revelations 2: 10)
Altzan wrote on Thu, 01 April 2010 23:18 Dictatorship - a form of government where the single leader has sovreignity. So yeah, it's a dictatorship. Too bad that word comes with a negative connotation. a negative meaning, not a negative connotation. dictatorship sucks by definition. and yet i don't know of any human dictatorship that managed to become as all-encompassing, unchallengeable and inescapable as the depiction in christianity. Quote: Spoony wrote on Wed, 31 March 2010 02:13 The argument from authority doesn't fly with me, especially when nobody's even managed to demonstrate that there is any authority at all in this case. Nobody's managed to prove God exists. We all know that, yet you keep stating it repeatedly... Why? because until you've gotten past that square one, most of your assertions are at best a waste of time. Quote: If it was proven that Islam's beliefs were fact, then yes, I would obey them. so in a nutshell, the only reason you're not acting in the bloodthirsty, merciless way islam commands its followers to act is because you don't think it really came from God... there's no moral compunction holding you back, and there wouldn't be if it turned out you were wrong? Quote: Is that any worse than your statement that you'd challenge an almighty God, if you knew for fact he existed, because you don't like his authority? yes, it is. i'm objecting to christianity because -a- i don't believe any of it and -b- i don't want a dictatorship and -c- i think his rules are absolutely shit. your only objection to following islam's rules is you don't believe it. well, it's good you've laid out for us what at least two people reading this thread had already guessed... i.e. that you have no morals. Quote: (In your case, I notice, you mainly rally against Old Testament authority.) not really, the most evil thing in the bible is probably the doctrine of hell. Quote: Spoony wrote on Wed, 31 March 2010 02:13 well, it doesn't really seem like we can just say that only applies to the israelites. what's the justification? "god's obviously talking to the israelites because they're the people he gave this land to". well, a lot of christians say ad nauseum that god gave them whatever they have. I don't know any Christians myself who claim that. my word. i hear it all the time. saying that god gave them the world, saying they have god-given rights (such a stupid thing to say, but nvm for now), saying grace before a meal... Quote: Spoony wrote on Wed, 31 March 2010 02:13 Well, if just saying "god says it's wrong, case closed" is all the moral justification that's necessary, I wonder why Christians ever try going any further than that and explain why certain actions are wrong, what harm could be caused by them. Don't get me wrong, I approve of the moral debate. God didn't make up his moral code for giggles. He has reasons for his moral code. That's why Christians try to explain why - there is a why. not a very good one, clearly. Quote: Spoony wrote on Wed, 31 March 2010 02:13 That's not the original point... the original point was Henry's implication that someone serving a different god must mean the person does not want laws, does not want any virtue in his life. That's obviously nonsense. Why? As I said, these people wouldn't have served a different God if they didn't have a different idea of laws or virtue; the notion that they would is indeed nonsense. henry implied that if a person serves a different god, than that means they have NO virtues and wants NO laws. he didn't say it means they have different moral values... he said it means they have NO moral values. Quote: Spoony wrote on Wed, 31 March 2010 02:13 But as to your question... why would anyone cease serving your God? Two major reasons spring to mind; either because they find it unconvincing or because they object to it on moral grounds. Another I can think of is wanting something that God can't give them or that God considers a sin. An addiction, for example... some people can get so attached to what God declares a sin that they decide it's easier to discard belief and keep what action they have... mainly because it's more physical and immediate that their belief. "wanting something god can't give you" sounds like a pretty good reason to turn away from religion; if it can't give you basic human rights, democracy, and intellectual freedom, for example. wanting something god won't give you doesn't put the person at fault instead of the god. nor does wanting to do something god considers a sin. Quote: Spoony wrote on Wed, 31 March 2010 02:13 so presumably the same commandment would apply if there were some atheists in the city too, i expect? Yes. Do you think those ought to be spared? i'm not sure why you felt you needed to ask that, i thought i'd made two things quite clear -1- it's immoral to punish someone for the crime of someone else -2- having a different religious opinion is not even a crime at all it's not really important that i am an atheist; if the intended slaughter victim was a muslim (a religion i find even more repellent than christianity), i'd still be against it. Quote: The Israelites had to defend against those who would destroy them, and the faith was small at the time. Nowadays, it would be pretty hard to destroy every Christian and wipe the story off the face of the Earth (not that some wouldn't want to try) so a defense isn't necessary. odd to use the word "defense" to explain the supposed behaviour of the israelites... Quote: Spoony wrote on Wed, 31 March 2010 02:13 Well, the severity of the punishment usually depends on how serious you think the crime is, doesn't it? Yes. Go on... we were talking about how all truly faithful followers of god must show their "just indignation" to idolators, atheists etc. well, you've said that these things are actually crimes that can justify not only the slaughter of anyone doing it, but the slaughter of anyone in the same city, including children. must be pretty heinous, then, as crimes go. sounds worse than murder; i don't recall there being a story in the bible where god destroys an entire city (or orders his followers to destroy it) because someone in the city was a murderer. Quote: Spoony wrote on Wed, 31 March 2010 02:13 am I implying god approved of that? no. however, i couldn't find any condemnation of the actions of the man who threw the defenceless young girls at the rape mob so the men would survive. I don't know for a fact that he was condemned for that action, but if he was caught and his crime known, I'm sure he was. why are you sure? i didn't find god saying the guy shouldn't have done it. you'd think a book perpetually trumpeted as an ultimate moral authority might have something to say against someone who throws a defenceless girl to a mob of rapists to save himself. but speaking of rape... Quote: Spoony wrote on Wed, 31 March 2010 02:13 speaking of rape, i've got a question for christians. what, in your view and in the view of your church, is the worse act of these two: - a man rapes a woman - two men, consenting adults, choose to have a sexual relationship No sin is worse than another. well, firstly punishments differ. the punishment for homosexual sex is death. the punishment for a man who rapes a woman is that he must marry her and pay her father off. so if one sin has a more severe punishment than another, doesn't that imply that one sin is more grievous than the other? secondly, you don't think there's anything wrong with that rape rule? the man has to marry the woman and pay off her father. doesn't seem like a terribly severe punishment for the man. more to the point, it makes the woman's predicament even worse. she's just been raped, and then she's told she must marry the bastard who attacked and violated her. is it safe to assume you don't know any women who have been raped? who, in a modern civilised country, would seriously hold a moral position as shitty as this if they didn't get it from religion? thirdly, you basically said that an adult man who enters into a consenting sexual relationship with another man is just as bad as a man who rapes a woman. i guess you don't know any gay people either. it really is sad to see someone's moral compass completely destroyed by religion. Quote: Quote: yet for the neglect of the execution of it upon the inferior cities that served idols God himself They didn't exact the punishment upon the idolaters as they were commanded Quote: by the army of the Chaldeans, put it in execution upon Jerusalem The Chaldeans instead were the attackers Quote: the head city, which, for is apostasy from God, was utterly destroyed and laid waste, and lay in ruins seventy years. The head city was destroyed by them alongsides. Note that that's my guess as to what it means, I could be wrong. i think i'm beginning to follow it, it's worded terribly... it seems like because the people of jerusalem didn't carry out the punishment, god punished the people of jerusalem. "God himself, by the army of the Chaldeans, put it in execution upon Jerusalem" fair assessment? or if you prefer we can just leave this passage out, cos it really is incoherent Quote: Spoony wrote on Wed, 31 March 2010 02:13 So Matthew Henry was wrong, then, to say it is no longer binding according to the gospels? I haven't seen him claim that. "Though idolaters may escape punishment from men (nor is this law in the letter of it binding now, under the gospel), yet the Lord our God will not suffer them to escape his righteous judgements." Quote: Spoony wrote on Wed, 31 March 2010 02:13 Read the commandment and the commentary; the contempt is very clear. It doesn't attempt to find out why the person is saying this, and doesn't seek to make a distinction if that was known. Reasons are unimportant - it warns against false doctrine, nothing more. If a Catholic advocate tried to convert me, I'd either simply deny or I'd sit down with him and discuss why I don't believe in Catholicism. No violent response is called for. uh, the bible actually intructs an extremely violent response, and you quoted matthew henry's tripe to try to justify it. Quote: Spoony wrote on Wed, 31 March 2010 02:13 Quote: Spoony wrote on Mon, 29 March 2010 02:41 as an aside, do you really believe that the snake in the garden was Satan? Yes. and where did you read that? Genesis. did you really? perhaps you could quote the verse(s) in Genesis, the first book in the bible, that explain just who this Satan is and make it clear that the snake who tempted eve is indeed this character Satan. Quote: Spoony wrote on Wed, 31 March 2010 02:13 I'll just repeat the question. Define a false god, please. It's not clear at all to me whether the god of the old testament knows of the existence of other gods or not. So what's a false god? Some entity that claims to be a god but isn't? Some entity that does have supernatural power but isn't "good"? Some entity that does have supernatural power but didn't create the whole world? I'd really like to know. A false god is the god that is behind an idol being worshipped by a person or persons. If a group of Israelites decided to worship images of a God named "Balahama", then that "Balahama" would be a false god. doesn't necessarily exist at all, then? Quote: Spoony wrote on Wed, 31 March 2010 02:13 you're the second christian i've asked this question to, and you're the second to give the wrong answer. Who made you the judge of whether this answer was right or wrong? Since when do you have authority? my moral authority is higher than your god's. for starters, you haven't even proven he exists at all, let alone that he is supremely "good". it's also higher than yours. i'll justify that just by reminding everyone that you have -a- justified the slaughter of innocent people for the crimes of others -b- been given two clear opportunities to register any objection to the slaughter of innocent children -c- asserted that a homosexual who has sex with another consenting adult is as bad as a man who forcibly rapes a woman don't get me wrong, i don't claim to be some ultimate moral authority. i will however claim that my morals are better than your god's and better than yours. Quote: Spoony wrote on Wed, 31 March 2010 02:13 the right answer is telling god to go to hell, no i won't murder an innocent child for you, you evil, evil fuck. and if you want to punish me for disobedience, then go ahead, you twat, because i'd rather have that than murder an innocent child. Then you'd fail the test. TEST being key word. Note that God has never required human sacrifice. Abraham was asked this as a test to see whether he was truly faithful to God. If he had said no, then that meant he wasn't faithful enough to obey. It's not about what he was asked to do, it was about whether or not he would obey. oh, if it's a test of whether you will do whatever your boss tells you no matter how evil it is, then sure, abraham passes and i emphatically won't. but like i said, some of us actually have morals. also, "god has never required human sacrifice"? how are you defining "sacrifice"? according to the bible he wipes all huge numbers of innocent people, including children, and also instructs his followers to do the same. Quote: Spoony wrote on Wed, 31 March 2010 02:13 And why would compassion get in the way? Why are some of us wired so that would happen? We're all 'wired' to feel compassion. Unfortunately, compassion can compel us to do something wrong - a temptation. compassion can compel us to do something wrong, like refrain from murdering a close friend or family member who tells us their religious views. three cheers for compassion, i say. Quote: Example - your friend has finally broken his alcohol addiction, but he is miserable as a result, and keeps desiring just 'one more drink'. You might feel pity and wish to fulfill his wish just to make him happy again. After all, it's just one more drink right? And it'd make him feel better! uh no, because moral considerations are based on a little more than just immediate happiness. Quote: Spoony wrote on Wed, 31 March 2010 02:13 no, because i'm not the one here justifying murder on the grounds of a religious disagreement. Good, because i have no desire to murder anyone because they don't share my belief. and yet when i say these particular bible verses are evil, you justify them. Quote: Spoony wrote on Wed, 31 March 2010 02:13 Quote: Spoony wrote on Mon, 29 March 2010 02:41 k, but the other opinion is crap, isn't it? It's no more crap than yours. Opinions are just that, opinions. So naturally you'd think an opposing opinion is crap... heck, it's what I think of yours. feel free to explain why, although remember what i said about arguments from authority. Why should I explain it? You don't agree with my opinion, I don't agree with yours. indeed. anyone reading this thread can see the difference between our moral standards. Quote: Spoony wrote on Wed, 31 March 2010 02:13 Quote: If you've told yourself that it's impossible for you to believe in anything without proof Uh, no, I didn't say that. My friend told me last night about his recent trip to Istanbul. I didn't ask him for proof. I guess I was too literal here. no, i don't think the problem was that you were too literal, i think the problem is that you don't understand how the mind works. remember the first religious debate between you and i? you kept saying that if you won't believe anything without proof, you're a "hopeless case". you said that anyone who finds your religion unconvincing is "desperately trying to find an excuse because they want an easier path". Quote: Spoony wrote on Wed, 31 March 2010 02:13 Whether I want proof for a claim depends on its believability and its implications. If you just wanted to claim that there was a man called Jesus who had some radical ideas on morality and ended up getting crucified, then fine. I don't need proof of that, I'll be quite happy to read his ideas and judge them on their own merits. If instead you try telling me that he was the son of God, that he rose from the dead, and that if I believe in him I can get everlasting life after death and that if I don't I'm in for an eternity of torture, then that needs proof. "Oh, dear." oh dear what? you don't see my point? saying that there was this guy who had these moral ideas, that doesn't need much evidence. the moral ideas can be considered on their own merits, and that could happen even if the entire jesus story was entirely made up and someone just wrote down the story including the moral teachings from their own imagination. but that's not what christians claim, is it? whether proof is required depends upon the believability of the story and the importance of its implications. in the case of christianity we have an absurd story that isn't even internally consistent and whose authorship is dubious, and we have monumentally large implications. with that combination, extraordinary proof is required. we don't even have ordinary proof. however, earlier you said there was... that didn't go very well, did it? Quote: Spoony wrote on Wed, 31 March 2010 02:13 Again, when a Muslim tells you that Islam is inspired by God, the God you already believe in, you don't believe that without proof. (although, i wonder if you would even seriously consider any proof that could be shown to you) I don't want conclusive proof to believe their claims. However, I find the Biblical story more convincing than the Qoran's. so muslims have greater faith than you, basically? Quote: Spoony wrote on Wed, 31 March 2010 02:13 Here's what needs to happen before anything in the Bible can be seriously considered a 'law'. 1. Prove this god exists. 2. Prove this book is an accurate depiction of his views; i.e. prove he actually said what the bible says he said. 3. Successfully make the case that god is of such extraordinary moral brilliance that a dictatorship under him would be better than a democracy 4. Win the vote to discard our current democratic systems Heh, if 3 was proven then 4 would be unneccessary. so you basically think yourself above democratic laws? Quote: Spoony wrote on Wed, 31 March 2010 02:13 Quote: If the majority is a part of the lawmaking process, then yes. So basically no, then? I didn't say no, so what do you mean? my question was: if the majority of us don't want to live under a religious dictatorship, can we change it? you answer: if the majority is part of the lawmaking process, then yes. well, the whole concept of a dictatorship is that what the majority wants is entirely irrelevant. it's what the boss wants that counts. Quote: Spoony wrote on Wed, 31 March 2010 02:13 Quote: If they've broken Biblical commandments, the same will happen to them as others who do the same. so it's all about actions rather than beliefs, is it? I didn't say that. You can easily break Biblical commandments with both actions and/or beliefs. Stealing - breaks a commandment Believing baptism is unneccesary - breaks a commandment blast. i thought you were on the verge of actually improving your morals there. no such luck. Quote: Spoony wrote on Wed, 31 March 2010 02:13 then i wonder why you went to the trouble of trying to answer my earlier criticism by posting the matthew henry crap. You were quoting scripture. That wasn't an opinion of yours, that was a point of yours you tried to back up. That's why i responded. i have absolutely no idea what you're trying to say here. Quote: Spoony wrote on Wed, 31 March 2010 02:13 what is the 5-step plan, though? i could look it up, i'm sure, but i may as well hear it from you. Strage, I'd have thought you'd be familiar with it, seeing as you're familiar with other scripture. We'll put this down to the sheer incompetence and absurdity of the revelation. Quote: But OK: 1. Hear the message (Romans 10:17) 2. Believe it (Mark 16:16) 3. Repent of your past sins (Acts 2: 38) 4. State that you believe christ is the son of God (Romans 10:10) 5. Be baptized (Acts 2: 38) Also, there's a sixth step I neglected to include (I really don't know why it isn't commonly called the 6-step plan) 6. Live faithfully until Death (Revelations 2: 10) hmm. 1. Hear the message (Romans 10:17) So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ. what exactly is the message? 2. Believe it (Mark 16:16) Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. carrot and stick! shame we're talking about thoughtcrime here. see my earlier objections. and shall we be really clear about what is meant by "saved" and by "condemned"? 3. Repent of your past sins (Acts 2: 38) And Peter said to them, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. what if the sins themselves are bullshit? what if i do do something wrong, but i don't accept that god or jesus has any place to forgive me? i'm reminded again of our earlier religious debate. you said that you'd done things which you would deserve to go to hell for if you hadn't "repented". well, that's quite a daring admission, telling us that you'd done something so evil that it would justify the most horrific punishment of all. (unless you're arguing that god and his punishments are unjust, and you've never seemed to think that) well, i couldn't help but ask what those things were. what were these horrific crimes you committed? you wouldn't say. i also asked how you define "repented". you said that it basically means asking for forgiveness in private prayer or in church. interesting, that. if i thought i had done something so appalling evil, so damaging to the world around me that it would justify me receiving the very worst punishment imaginable, i can't imagine how just saying sorry in a church could possibly make up for it. finally... "and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit". what's that then? 4. State that you believe christ is the son of God (Romans 10:10) For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. well, i don't believe that. i do have a question, though. what would you prefer? person A doesn't believe this, and says so honestly. person B says he believes this, and you don't have any way of really knowing whether he's telling the truth or just wants you to shut the fuck up. 5. Be baptized (Acts 2: 38) uh, same as step 3? 6. Live faithfully until Death (Revelations 2: 10) Do not fear what you are about to suffer. Behold, the devil is about to throw some of you into prison, that you may be tested, and for ten days you will have tribulation. Be faithful unto death, and I will give you the crown of life. it's 'Revelation', not 'Revelations.' i'm not usually this pedantic, but it's astonishing how many times christians wrongly use the plural. anyway. is this only addressed to people who are about to be thrown into prison, or about to encounter the devil? or can we ignore the first two sentences and it's the third that applies to everyone at all times? well, "be faithful". define that for me, please. you'd also better explain what "the crown of life" is.
move along
I'll see your ducks and raise you acrocoduck. That one system of belief, no matter how popular, should be able to impose its will on the rest of society... anybody ever heard the phrase "tyranny of the majority?" To say that Christianity is the one true faith simply because it's been a dominant force in the world since Constantine is as silly a notion as the poor little nonexistent critter I just linked you to. Religions rise and fall. So do nations. The only thing that matters is that we treat other human beings like the human beings that they are. There aren't any cases of a child flipping their shit and committing heinous crimes just because they were raised by two mommies or two daddies or six daddies and three mommies or any other combination of consenting adults... so what business does any construct so transient as a church have saying that's not to be permitted? We'd do well to remember that human beings in one form or another have been kicking around on this dirtball for hundreds of thousands of years. None of the major religions in the world today have been around for even the tiniest fraction of our collective history as a species. There's nothing wrong with believing in a higher power, if it helps you put the world in context and treat others with respect and decency, but to use it as justification to deny anything to anyone is utter and complete arrogance.
I'll see your crocoduck and raise you the saddest dog in the world. His sadness shall make you realise how stupid and irrelevant this discussion is. surely anyone with half a brain will agree with homophobia being, you know, bad?
Less image macros please, the last one is making me cry. :'(
k, this one is happier. ps: my derailing is just as pointless as spoonys posts and that guy who opposes him, so I will continue if thats okay with you?
Unfortunately it isn't, sorry. (It's the image macros that are doing it, NukeIt15 has the right idea...)
but... but... just look at that cat and that dog! they're more human than anyone in this fictional tube room! :[
Ziggy Sobotka wrote on Sat, 03 April 2010 05:37 but... but... just look at that cat and that dog! they're more human than anyone in this fictional tube room! :[ i have some news for you: you're not cool you should be sad now
snpr1101 wrote on Sat, 03 April 2010 07:56 Ziggy Sobotka wrote on Sat, 03 April 2010 05:37 but... but... just look at that cat and that dog! they're more human than anyone in this fictional tube room! :[ i have some news for you: you're not cool you should be sad now snpr1101 wrote on Tue, 30 March 2010 01:16 lol, chillax mate. i love being evaluated based on what i write on the internet. and a nice day to you.
ah, do I dare derail the thread further; nah. something on topic - I don't think anybody is going to prove anyone wrong here (Altzan vs Spoony). It's the same old contest. By the looks of it, the only way the original argument about Catholic adoption agencies and homo's will be won will be to prove or disprove God himself.
um, no. a religion is yet again saying they shouldn't have to follow the law. it would take a lot more than just proving there was a god to justify that position. and to refute it, we don't have to prove there isn't a god. as for neither altzan nor myself proving each other wrong, maybe read the entirety of the thread; it would also be worth reading the first debate (him on one side, basically me and dover on the other). for example, on this page he's basically said that two adult guys who love each other and want to have a consenting relationship is every bit as bad as a man who rapes a woman. do you have a comment to make about that? i honestly felt like slapping him twice at that point.
yea it might help if I read it all I guess the general gist I got of it was wrong. ah well, carry on. edit: Yea I can comment on that, it might be wrong but here it is anyway. The disagreement in this case lies within Altzans' belief in God and the Bible; and your apparent lack of belief (I think?). I'd presume it's common knowledge that the bible speaks out against homosexuality, to put it lightly; and obviously against rape too. Now I'm not really sure as to how Altzan came to the conclusion that one is worse than the other (maybe there's some sort of point system in the bible that i missed aka 10 points for rape, yay I win!), but I think in his view, they are both sins. Thus, anything that goes against the teachings, or laws of the bible is either a sin; or something that may impede on the apparent goal of living by the bible, acknowledging Jesus as the Lord and Savior business and getting into heaven. - (I presume that's the gist of it). But on the other hand, your apparent lack of belief in the Bible negates the homosexuality part. Therefore, you see rape as wrong (which it is), and two homosexual men who "love" eachother (prove that exists while your at it) as normal (debatable - disprove God and the Bible and you'll win it) So in conclusion, you can't debate or tell someone that they're wrong about something like that without looking at the root of it. He believes in God, you don't. He believes in the Bible, you don't. The reason Altzans' opinion differs against yours isn't due to just his own sole reasons; they have a strong link to the Bible and to God. Therefore, disprove the Bible and God, and you will win the argument. Now the chances of someone doing that on the Renegade Forums is pretty low (lol); so like Ziggy said, I think this argument while not pointless - is pretty close. I realise I made alot of assumptions in there and I apologise if I mis-represented anyone's views or offended anyone. Without reading the whole thing, that is the gist of what i've got out of it.
The Bible has so much rape and incest in it that it stops being funny by the end of Genesis. It never specifically says "this is ok" as far as I remember, but neither is anyone ever punished for either act- at least not in the canon. Several times, women are handed over by their families to be abused because either the home was under threat or the rapist was a guest in the home- the tradition of hospitality being held as more sacred than the woman. Matter of fact, according to a literal interpretation of the Old Testament, the entire human race would never have existed but for much "begatting" amongst fathers and their daughters- and it's important to note here that the ages at which women became fair play in the ancient world were well below what any first-world nation would today consider statutory rape. I have nothing against the Bible, I really don't- it is not only one of the most influential books ever compiled, but also a stupendously valuable anthropological resource that can grant us great insight into how people thought and worshiped in the ancient Middle East. It is not, however, a very good morality guide for modern society if taken literally- not even the New Testament, which throws out the OT's fire-and-brimstone approach to dealing with sinners. Anyone who chooses to believe is free to do so, but to impress those beliefs on others who don't is no less wrong than any other sort of religious persecution. To codify those beliefs into law or to claim them as outside or above the law is a terrible step backwards for any nation that allows it to happen. Law and religion ought never to mix.